Re: Digest for reinventing-business@googlegroups.com - 3 updates in 1 topic
8 views
Skip to first unread message
Frank Gorham-Engard
Dec 8, 2015, 10:11:41 AM12/8/15
to reinventin...@googlegroups.com
How is your approach different from the various forms of communism that have not, yet, shown evidence of prevailing?
I suspect that communism requires that the participants have a certain level of mature understanding of their situation.
The problem is that participants all start out immature and most struggle to reach understanding.
On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 2:57 AM, <reinventin...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
- Salaries - 3 Updates
Jay Scott ANDERSON <tree...@gmail.com>: Dec 07 07:23AM -0800
> The notion that some people (money holders) know what has to be done,
> whereas the vast majority doesn't, has to die.
The Law of Jante comes to mind. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Jante
Particularly: "You're not to think *you* are smarter than *we* are."
Has to do with: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_knowledge
Demonstrated in this phenomena:
http://www.diplomacy.edu/resources/books/reviews/wisdom-crowds-why-many-are-smarter-few
"If one asks a large enough number of people to guess the number of jelly
beans in a jar, the averaged answer is likely to be very close to the
correct number."
Regarding salaries, and I'm not ruling out super-political solutions, but
as far as political solutions go, basic income makes sense to me. I think
that would flip the tables on that work for hire equation. Rather than the
one with the *financial resources* having the advantage, the one with the
*work* would have the advantage, and now the "hire" side of the equation
would have the burden of enticing people who don't need to work to survive
to perform the work they want done. And I think in most cases, if not all,
financial resources would not be the primary enticement. I seem to recall
that's been discussed on this group.
The only thing that money holders (hoarders?...
What makes hoarding financial resources effective? One can hoard things
that are not valuable, like air or clay, or trinkets, but it doesn't give
them an advantage over others. Again, with basic income "money" would not
be valuable, but rather a bookkeeping mechanism to help distribute
resources. If no one needs "money" to survive, then you can't control
people with it.
After all, if one is alive on this earth don't they have a natural right to
survive sharing the resources of the earth with others? Regardless if they
make a meaningful contribution or not? Or at least what *anyone* else
thinks is a meaningful contribution? (I think there's an argument that just
living: breathing, eating, crapping, is making meaningful contribution.)
... If we didn't have to synchronize
> mentally with others, we'd just silently operate out of our hearts and
> do whatever the entire planet, of which we are part, needs done.
That rings true, but maybe better said, if we don't *think* we "have to
synchronize ... with others" to survive. As I implied before, my hope is
there are super-political solutions, but until those are realized, and
while political solutions seem necessary, I think it's possible and
necessary for us to exercise our natural right, in the political arena, to
survive and thrive while we are dwelling in this physical realm. Not a
privilege, to be applied for, but a right, to be claimed.
Jay Scott.
On Sunday, December 6, 2015 at 8:13:27 AM UTC-6, Fabio Cecin wrote:
Slawek Rogulski <slawek....@gmail.com>: Dec 07 11:49PM +0800
So the Finns are contemplating a minimum income
http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2015/12/06/comment-finland-plans-give-every-citizen-basic-income-800-euros-month
--
Sławek
Fabio Cecin <fce...@gmail.com>: Dec 07 04:17PM -0200
On Dec 7, 2015 1:23 PM, "Jay Scott ANDERSON"
> What makes hoarding financial resources effective? One can hoard things
that are not valuable, like air or clay, or trinkets, but it doesn't give
them an advantage over others. Again, with basic income "money" would not
be valuable, but rather a bookkeeping mechanism to help distribute
resources. If no one needs "money" to survive, then you can't control
people with it.
Making it an actual bookkeeping mechanism of some already not-so-great
effectiveness (at least trivial to implement). Instead of a social
chokehold of e.g. 1% over 99% of people (being simplistic.)
> After all, if one is alive on this earth don't they have a natural right
to survive sharing the resources of the earth with others? Regardless if
they make a meaningful contribution or not? Or at least what anyone else
thinks is a meaningful contribution? (I think there's an argument that just
living: breathing, eating, crapping, is making meaningful contribution.)
At an abstract, social story level, absolutely. And lovers of Capitalism
and all isms will claim that's what they are doing with their wonderful
system. Capitalism claims "you can do whatever you want" *because* everyone
has to fight for that something with others, not in spite of.
However *that* strategy only works for deciding what 1,000 unimportant
trinkets get made out of all possible combinations. Salaries make a
competition of activity-whitelisting, which is a VERY BAD idea at the
social level; it only makes sense if underlying society GUARANTEES you
never *need* to fit into an activity-whitelisting industry.
> (...) while political solutions seem necessary, I think it's possible and
necessary for us to exercise our natural right, in the political arena, to
survive and thrive while we are dwelling in this physical realm. Not a
privilege, to be applied for, but a right, to be claimed.
> Jay Scott.
Nobody can quit "this" ("Earthly") game here it seems. Politically fighting
for your biological trap's need to survive/thrive is already a polite
concession to existing societal games and traditions. Salaries and such are
offered both as political humiliation and as a bribe to continue tolerating
such humiliation. People take them as they are, or with some
here-but-not-of-it detachment; in any case, the story (mythology) of the
system remains mostly unchallenged -- nobody says it is a filthy bribe,
though everyone quietly realizes it at some point and to some extent.
Fabio
You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to reinventing-busi...@googlegroups.com.
Fabio Cecin
Dec 8, 2015, 12:29:32 PM12/8/15
to reinventing-business
On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 1:11 PM, Frank Gorham-Engard <frankgor...@gmail.com> wrote:
How is your approach different from the various forms of communism that have not, yet, shown evidence of prevailing?I suspect that communism requires that the participants have a certain level of mature understanding of their situation.The problem is that participants all start out immature and most struggle to reach understanding.
People with a sufficient level of understanding would not engage in any kind of destructive social prison system, be it Capitalism or Communism.
Basic Income is just a subversion of the prison of Capitalism. It chips away at the class concept of that particular prison and in doing so it does not make it into Communism.
At least I hope so. I haven't seen any serious argument anywhere about how Communism (the concrete one, that horrible tragedy, not "Real Communism" that never happened) is emulated in some fashion when you give base citizenship pay to everyone in a Capitalist state. Every evidence I have read points to the contrary direction, both away from Capitalism and Communism.
At least I hope so. I haven't seen any serious argument anywhere about how Communism (the concrete one, that horrible tragedy, not "Real Communism" that never happened) is emulated in some fashion when you give base citizenship pay to everyone in a Capitalist state. Every evidence I have read points to the contrary direction, both away from Capitalism and Communism.
Basic Income dissolves divisions in communities, as it lowers fear. Something similar could happen even inside of a virtual community such as a competitive work community, also called "Companies" in a Capitalist society. It would be a feat, but I believe it could happen.
Fabio
Jay Scott ANDERSON
Dec 9, 2015, 1:48:45 PM12/9/15
to Reinventing-Business
Hi Frank,
It appears to me there's a big difference between political "communism" and the concept communism. So I don't take "communist" countries as an example. But from what little I've looked into basic income there appears to be very positive results from governments that implement it.
It does make sense that the participants need to have a certain level of mature understanding. If one is not mature or does not understand, then they are easily take advantage of. So maybe the solution here is to start with small groups of mature-ish people self-governing and implementing these strategies.
Jay Scott.
It appears to me there's a big difference between political "communism" and the concept communism. So I don't take "communist" countries as an example. But from what little I've looked into basic income there appears to be very positive results from governments that implement it.
It does make sense that the participants need to have a certain level of mature understanding. If one is not mature or does not understand, then they are easily take advantage of. So maybe the solution here is to start with small groups of mature-ish people self-governing and implementing these strategies.
Jay Scott.
On Tuesday, December 8, 2015 at 9:11:41 AM UTC-6, Frank Gorham-Engard wrote:
How is your approach different from the various forms of communism that have not, yet, shown evidence of prevailing?I suspect that communism requires that the participants have a certain level of mature understanding of their situation.The problem is that participants all start out immature and most struggle to reach understanding.
On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 2:57 AM, <reinventin...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to reinventing-business+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
Bolutife Ogunsola
Dec 9, 2015, 1:52:16 PM12/9/15
to reinventin...@googlegroups.com
On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 7:48 PM, Jay Scott ANDERSON <tree...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Frank,
It appears to me there's a big difference between political "communism" and the concept communism. So I don't take "communist" countries as an example.
This seems to me like a 'no true communist' argument.
But from what little I've looked into basic income there appears to be very positive results from governments that implement it.
It does make sense that the participants need to have a certain level of mature understanding. If one is not mature or does not understand, then they are easily take advantage of. So maybe the solution here is to start with small groups of mature-ish people self-governing and implementing these strategies.
Jay Scott.
On Tuesday, December 8, 2015 at 9:11:41 AM UTC-6, Frank Gorham-Engard wrote:
How is your approach different from the various forms of communism that have not, yet, shown evidence of prevailing?I suspect that communism requires that the participants have a certain level of mature understanding of their situation.The problem is that participants all start out immature and most struggle to reach understanding.
On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 2:57 AM, <reinventin...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
--
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to reinventing-busi...@googlegroups.com.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Reinventing-Business" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to reinventing-busi...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Too brief? Here's why! http://emailcharter.org
Ogunsola Bolutife S.
Evan Cofsky
Dec 9, 2015, 2:30:34 PM12/9/15
to reinventin...@googlegroups.com
There are also definite hazards with deciding what "maturity" is, given that it's often applied solely to White Cis Hetero males, while everyone else is "childish" or "dramatic":
Fabio Cecin
Dec 9, 2015, 4:28:55 PM12/9/15
to reinventing-business
On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 5:30 PM, Evan Cofsky <ev...@theunixman.com> wrote:
There are also definite hazards with deciding what "maturity" is, given that it's often applied solely to White Cis Hetero males, while everyone else is "childish" or "dramatic":
In other words, the whole of corporate thinking is inherently obsessed with objectification, classification, ranking of people (man, woman, etc).
All dumb distinctions such as sexism, racism, classism, ableism, etc. and others stem from a pressure to "increase performance" or "efficiency", and then the social code branches with a load of dumb "ifs" that try to squeeze "performance" (trade power) out of distinctions that should never have been made in the first place. Not because there may or may not be so-called "gains" in doing so, but because people are not objects -- a concept that materialism fundamentalists just cannot comprehend.
All wrapped up in a competitive trade society where companies maximize such nonsense, so company with 900 points of optimizations based on nonsense loses to company with 1000 nonsense points. And both produce the exact same redundant thing that people only need to buy to patch themselves up and continue such body-and-mind-destroying, nonsense, redundant, wasteful competition.
To bypass _all_ the nonsense, a business has to refuse to be non-competitive and still survive and thrive. Imagine a non-competitive company, when all you read about in the business world is how to remain "competitive" and "relevant".
Fabio
Evan Cofsky
Dec 9, 2015, 4:33:12 PM12/9/15
to reinventin...@googlegroups.com
What's interesting is that up until the British East India Company and the commercialization of the Slave Trade, racism as we experience it didn't exist. It was only after turning black bodies into commodities that such sharp racial distinctions were created, and exclusively to protect the profits of companies that relied on this trade. Corporatism and Capitalism both have been likened to the modern incarnation of White Male Supremacy.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Reinventing-Business" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to reinventing-busi...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Fabio Cecin
Dec 9, 2015, 6:17:58 PM12/9/15
to reinventing-business
On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 7:33 PM, Evan Cofsky <ev...@theunixman.com> wrote:
> What's interesting is that up until the British East India Company and the
> commercialization of the Slave Trade, racism as we experience it didn't
> exist. It was only after turning black bodies into commodities that such
> sharp racial distinctions were created, and exclusively to protect the
> profits of companies that relied on this trade. Corporatism and Capitalism
> both have been likened to the modern incarnation of White Male Supremacy.
Whenever a person is treated/modelled/understood as material, it's game over.
> What's interesting is that up until the British East India Company and the
> commercialization of the Slave Trade, racism as we experience it didn't
> exist. It was only after turning black bodies into commodities that such
> sharp racial distinctions were created, and exclusively to protect the
> profits of companies that relied on this trade. Corporatism and Capitalism
> both have been likened to the modern incarnation of White Male Supremacy.
...
There was a hugely popular TV show / comedy sitcom thing in Brazil
("Sai de Baixo") where the main character, called by the playing actor
himself a "fascist", was the owner of the house and kept insulting the
maid, calling her fat, "in-game", that is, in the TV show (this is
Brazilian mainstream "comedy"; it's all gross like that). At some
point, the actress that played the maid declared she (the actress) was
tired of being insulted and quit the show.
How "Unprofessional"(TM), right? Typical of "losers", "drama queens" ... right?
"Professionalism" is used routinely to mask abuse. But people (homo
sapiens) feel the (concrete) abuse by computing all the myriad
signals, not just the wording channel. People can feel it if they
aren't already dead inside, or if they aren't randomly selected for
"privilege" (abuse? what abuse? I don't feel anything...)
...
It's the same when people paint social hierarchy as a harmless
"communication device" of some sort. Social hierachy is just baseline,
structural abuse. In fact, Capitalism in general, and Capitalist
Corporations in particular are all founded on psychological abuse.
It's what they run on, so they can't be ever fighting it by
definition.
If one is clinically using hierarchy solely for functional purposes,
as a game, the persons in the "lower" rungs will *feel* if it is
genuinely a virtual artifice, or if people are being abused -- i.e.,
it became a social hierarchy and is radiating stupid notions about
people being intrinsically superior or inferior to others.
Milgram Experiment etc.
Fabio
Frank Gorham-Engard
Dec 11, 2015, 11:10:50 AM12/11/15
to Reinventing-Business
Despite hazards, we already have (stupid) measures of maturity. At 16 you are mature enough to start driving a car, at 18 you can vote, at 21 you can drink.
Would you agree that it is time to use the technology we have to describe and measure more detailed and accurate 'maturities'.
How about: you can vote when you show that you are able to see through all of the hype and state a REASON for your selection. It is not great but it could be a start. At least it would begin to dispel the perception that elections are a popularity contest based on personalities.
It is a whole other topic but I think we could have continuous voting on issues, instead of selecting people, with the technology we have.
On Wednesday, December 9, 2015 at 2:30:34 PM UTC-5, The UNIX Man wrote:
On Wednesday, December 9, 2015 at 2:30:34 PM UTC-5, The UNIX Man wrote:
There are also definite hazards with deciding what "maturity" is,...
Bolutife Ogunsola
Dec 11, 2015, 11:44:27 AM12/11/15
to reinventin...@googlegroups.com
On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 5:10 PM, Frank Gorham-Engard <frankgor...@gmail.com> wrote:
Despite hazards, we already have (stupid) measures of maturity. At 16 you are mature enough to start driving a car, at 18 you can vote, at 21 you can drink.Would you agree that it is time to use the technology we have to describe and measure more detailed and accurate 'maturities'.How about: you can vote when you show that you are able to see through all of the hype and state a REASON for your selection. It is not great but it could be a start. At least it would begin to dispel the perception that elections are a popularity contest based on personalities.It is a whole other topic but I think we could have continuous voting on issues, instead of selecting people, with the technology we have.
One argument against continuous voting that is usually presented is that the 'masses' are fickle. With continuous voting it might be hard to establish long term visions for a country/community.
On Wednesday, December 9, 2015 at 2:30:34 PM UTC-5, The UNIX Man wrote:There are also definite hazards with deciding what "maturity" is,...
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Reinventing-Business" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to reinventing-busi...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Fabio Cecin
Dec 11, 2015, 2:34:09 PM12/11/15
to reinventing-business
On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 2:44 PM, Bolutife Ogunsola
<bostik...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Despite hazards, we already have (stupid) measures of maturity. At 16 you
>> are mature enough to start driving a car, at 18 you can vote, at 21 you can
>> drink.
>> Would you agree that it is time to use the technology we have to describe
>> and measure more detailed and accurate 'maturities'.
>> How about: you can vote when you show that you are able to see through all
>> of the hype and state a REASON for your selection. It is not great but it
>> could be a start. At least it would begin to dispel the perception that
>> elections are a popularity contest based on personalities.
>> It is a whole other topic but I think we could have continuous voting on
>> issues, instead of selecting people, with the technology we have.
>
> One argument against continuous voting that is usually presented is that the
> 'masses' are fickle. With continuous voting it might be hard to establish
> long term visions for a country/community.
You mean like the "long-term vision" of industrialism that has been
<bostik...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Despite hazards, we already have (stupid) measures of maturity. At 16 you
>> are mature enough to start driving a car, at 18 you can vote, at 21 you can
>> drink.
>> Would you agree that it is time to use the technology we have to describe
>> and measure more detailed and accurate 'maturities'.
>> How about: you can vote when you show that you are able to see through all
>> of the hype and state a REASON for your selection. It is not great but it
>> could be a start. At least it would begin to dispel the perception that
>> elections are a popularity contest based on personalities.
>> It is a whole other topic but I think we could have continuous voting on
>> issues, instead of selecting people, with the technology we have.
>
> One argument against continuous voting that is usually presented is that the
> 'masses' are fickle. With continuous voting it might be hard to establish
> long term visions for a country/community.
destroying the planet for the past 100 years and no one can stop it
though everyone scientifically knows it is wrong?
It's a trap. We already know that hierarchical societies destroy
themselves because power-getters rise to power, not "sensible" people.
It may well be that "everyone" having voice (a direct democracy, a
proper one, that reads from everyone directly) fucks up everything,
but at least it's everyone's party.
Proposition: having the "fickle masses" (or "all the workers" --
democratic cooperatives vs. hierarchical celebrity-ladder
corporations) vote, unconditionally (no "show me you're capable of X"
even -- only more unnecessary overhead) not only will yield better
results, all the time, but is what is *supposted to happen* just
because we should all have a voice -- otherwise why bother spawning on
this shithole planet -- to destroy the planet and not even have a say
in HOW it is going to hell?
In other words more relevant to reinventing-business, why work on a
company if you don't have a political voice in it? Just because you
think you know less than other people who have "studied business",
isn't it just *wrong* to not decide anything, to not try out things,
own your part in it?
Sure, the company may be destroyed as a result. You know when that
will happen? When it is *supposed* to die. Because people -- the
entire company, army, whatever -- are in general *not* sociopaths, and
if they have to lose a battle for the good of the whole, which is
their true form, they will know that and do so.
That's the REAL reason we tolerate the sociopaths "at the top" -- so
that they can play dirty and destroy all opposition on our behalf,
because we don't want to be the ones pushing the button! That's what
allows the horrors of corporations, armies and entire nations! We want
to survive, so we pick the tribe *assholes* to make the decisions "for
us", and so we can all run in circles yelling "I'm so
oppressed!!!111!11!" and just "follow orders" and hope that "our"
assholes will destroy the other assholes first.
So yes, the "fickle masses" will waver when they feel something. They
may not even know why they are doing X instead of Y. It's called
having a heart, that runs ahead of your mind and all the (wrong)
cultural rules that mind may have learned beforehand.
Sociopaths, on the other hand, never hesitate. They are always very
confident. We just need one more nuclear power plant, they will say.
Fabio
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages