Is this the best possible social organization? — Vera Mont

I don't think the social organization is an accurate mirror of the employer/employee distinction. Economic status would be more accurate than employer/employee. There are thousands of millionaires who are employed by large corporations and they are not employers. My personal experience is that the same is true among lawyers and it is likely true among doctors. It just seems to me that the "social organization" resulting from the economic system has more to do with what you earn regardless of whether you are an employer or employee.

Yes, however, contra communism, ludditism, primitivism ...

(A) economic democracy (supplimented by local time-banking networks).

(B) more speculatively: AGI-managed post-scarcity, reputation-based demarchy.

:up: Looks pretty good to me. I'm fairly new to political/.economic thought. Sortition would be fab.

The economic system we have divides all adult citizens into employers and employees. — Vera Mont

There are sole traders of course, self-employed individuals with no employees, but broadly you are right.

Short of a massive rethinking that you are inviting, I think a quick fix to this current capitalism (which seems to be reverting back to a feudalistic system) is a substantial wealth tax coupled with some kind of proportional representation (in the UK and US - many other countries already have it).

If we rephrase this as managers and workers, then I think it probably is closer to optimal than not having managers and workers. Division of labour is a huge part of modern efficiency, and the managers/workers split is part of that division of labour.

I think that if someone were to devise an optimal company, or even an optimal society, it would still have that division, there would still be managers and workers.

One of the marking characteristics of a society evolving into a civilisation is the specialisation of the workforce, aka roles/jobs. It is only in tribal settings (non-civilised societies) where everybody does a little bit of this and a little bit of that.

Can anyone think of alternative arrangements that might work better? — Vera Mont

I work for an employee owned company, where all of the employees benefits from the company doing well. There are a lot of benefits to work being a place where my fellow employees and I are working for each other's well being.

I see that I couched the question in too simplistic terms, inadequate to describe the structure of capitalist economy. I was specifically interested in the necessity of "jobs". This is considered central to social organization: every time there is a discussion of tax reform, environmental protection or trade regulation or technological innovation, somebody cries "But the economy! People would lose their jobs!" Every election, some candidate claims that they will improve the economy through tax cuts for the 'job-creators' and every mogul boasts about the number of jobs he 'provides'. We can clearly see that the worker is enriching the owner, yet continue to credit the owner class with 'giving' people work.

There are sole traders of course, self-employed individuals with no employees, but broadly you are right. — bert1

Yes, and - at least in Canada - they are no better off financially than employees. However, I have some anecdotal and personal indication that they are happier.

I would prefer that as the basic model for work: independent crafters, farmers, builders, cooks, healers, designers, etc. That doesn't mean that a large number of such people can't form up teams for large communal projects, but it would be a voluntary and temporary association.
Of course, in order for functional democracy to prevail, no occupation could be valued and or rewarded more than another.
To me, the CEO who is paid more than 300 times the salary of a productive worker in the same industry, plus bonuses and perks, is obscene.
One workable interim step might be employee ownership.

I think that if someone were to devise an optimal company, or even an optimal society, it would still have that division, there would still be managers and workers. — flannel jesus

Very possibly. But would the managers need to be an upper class over a lower worker class?

I've just been reading about such arrangements in a Forbes article that I linked in my previous post. Sounds very sensible as far as a single enterprise goes, and might even give the participants greater confidence to tackle inequalities on the political front.

But would the managers need to be an upper class over a lower worker class? — Vera Mont

That's a wonderful question, and I think the answer is not necessarily, but possibly in some sense or in some cases.

What if management were a temporary position? Someone with specialized knowledge or experience is elected manager for the duration of a project. Once the project is completed, that manager goes back to his or her normal life as an independent operator.

I think managing is a skill itself, and like any skill it benefits from practice, and not everyone is good at it. If all of that is true, it's probably usually better to have some people be managers all the time, and other people managers almost never.

And I say that with no pretense that I'm in the "manager" group - I actually know pretty explicitly that I'm not a great manager. I have a lot of good organisational and planning skills, and a lot of expertise in my profession, but I'm not a manager. I perform better when I have a manager than as a manager.

From a utopian stance: The main reason that work - or jobs if you will - persist is that energy is expensive. Once we have a virtual free source of energy available, costs will be virtually nothing. Jobs will have to be attractive or nobody would want them.

From a practical stance: competition is what defines us, and drives us as a race to advance technologically. Jobs give us one way to compete. Take that away (competition) and things will fall apart. If you don’t pay the winners obscene amounts of money nobody would compete for those jobs the way they do now.

There is a balance in there somewhere between the 2. The morality of the players won’t chance either way.

I think managing is a skill itself, and like any skill it benefits from practice, and not everyone is good at it. — flannel jesus

That's why I suggested electing a member of the team who is recognized by the others as a good organizer. Such a team leader would have more respect and co-operation from the workers than one who is imposed on them by the bosses. Not all projects require the same skill-set or work experience: in addition to organizational ability, the manager should also be familiar with the tasks each worker needs to perform.

Many employees who have the talent to manage never get the chance because there is already a manager in place, with the paper to prove they went to manager school, who cannot be dislodged, no matter how badly they do. (I've seen a few very poor managers...)

There are a lot of Amish here where I live. The Amish don't have jobs so much as they are community members, although if they are particularly skilled in a certain trade they might spend most of their time doing that. They do set up businesses where they sell to the general public, mostly prepared food, produce, and furniture. IIRC, some around here build barns for people as well, but their prohibitions on modern technology mean they don't do too much else with construction.

The interesting thing is that, despite their not using any modern technology and their scarce use of modern healthcare, they are both wealthier and longer lived than the general public. The health can be chalked up to diet and exercise, but the wealth really comes down to how their communities are organized I think, the way people pool resources and the lack of spurious consumption. All else equal, they should have less wealth because they have much larger families and so inheritances are smaller, but they make up for this. The way in which new households are provided for when the young marry is probably one of the major ways in which such success occurs. It probably helps that household formation also occurs much younger and then rarely ends in divorce and assets being split and costs duplicated.

Contrast this with mainstream US culture where people delay getting married precisely because weddings have become hideously expensive, $30,000+ on average. Instead of being given a house when you marry, you shell out the downpayment on a house lol. Children in such a community also become assets fairly early, in that they can assist with the labor (common in modern farming households too). But given the type of work available in urban areas, and the relative value of teenager's work, children are pretty much solely a drain on wealth for most modern households.

The typical work place or office might still be more like a dictatorship than a democracy. But the role of a contemporary employer/manager is less dictator, more team leader. Especially in fields of work where the employees are more educated or specialized. Also management is a specialization. It changes the relation between employer and employee from what it was in feudal or early industrial societies.

For example, the employee has competence that the employer doesn't have. The employer, on the other hand, has the facilities and social connections that provide the orders and job opportunities. But more people than ever work at home. The possibility to work remotely is also changing the relation between employer and employee. One might as well work as a consultant, self-employed, or join a company that works as an economic democracy.

The Amish, like our Mennonite communities, operate more like a tribe than urbanized modern societies. The Mennonites around here have a flexible system of governance: while sharing basic values, each separate community can determine its level of participation in the surrounding culture, its mode of dress and level of technology avoidance. Some are relatively modern, using trucks and cellphones for doing business with the outside, and some of the young men who contract for construction or other jobs use power tools. Several families regularly take a school bus (I assume they own it) to the nearest city and shop at the supermarkets and hardware stores. I often see women and children in the thrift stores I frequent.
They certainly look like healthy, robust people and of course the community is good at looking after its members and conserving its communal wealth. I don't have to agree with all of their values to recognize the advantages. In fact, I'm convinced that a similar arrangement would work equally well for a community of atheists with personal computers and colourful clothes.

But the role of a contemporary employer/manager is less dictator, more team leader. Especially in fields of work where the employees are more educated or specialized. — jkop

The bad managers (five spring up from distant memory) I mentioned were all in IT. The manager specialized in management (MA) and had not a clue about hardware, programming or design. They would set impossible goals based on the requirements of the sales team or the VP and assign the wrong tasks to the wrong people, without adequate equipment or tech support, and then demand daily progress reports and call time-wasting meetings.

One might as well work as a consultant, self-employed, or join a company that works as an economic democracy. — jkop

I agree wholeheartedly! My SO was constantly frustrated as an employee. Contracting still meant having to deal with inept managers. When we set up an independent business, our household income dropped by 60% and our family wellbeing increased 200%.

In fact, I'm convinced that a similar arrangement would work equally well for a community of atheists with personal computers and colourful clothes.

:rofl: yeah, the grey and black only look seems optional.

I am actually aware of a few "intentional communities" that seem to accomplish something quite similar while still making use of modern technology and some members working at jobs outside the community. My wife's cousin actually belongs to one.

The ones I am aware of are Christian communities, but I see no prima facie reason that such communities couldn't be grounded in some other sort of practice. In practice though, it seems hard to get people to "buy in" to the amount of short-term sacrifice that is required to make such communities work. It requires that those who are initially better off part with much and take a "risk" on the success of the community in providing a group benefit that offsets their sacrifices. Obviously, religious traditions that prioritize either altruism or a lack of concern for worldly goods is helpful here.

I know historically of a number of such communities based on socialist ideology, but I am not aware of any that still exist in the US. The kibbutz in Israel might be a good example of success in a more secular context though. The most successful intentional communities in terms of duration seem to be those that most eschew economic success. E.g., the monastery below Mt. Horeb, built around the supposed "burning bush" that Moses encountered, has been around for about 1,500 years, through myriad wars and changes in political control. I know there are a few Buddhist monasteries in the Himalayas that date to the 900s AD as well. It makes a certain sort of sense that these would be the most stable, because they have the least reason to ever change.

yeah, the grey and black only look seems optional. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I particularly dislike it on small children. Actually, the young women I see usually wear cotton dresses in a floral print, with bonnets that hide their hair and shield their eyes from the sun. The men all have straw boaters.

The ones I am aware of are Christian communities, but I see no prima facie reason that such communities couldn't be grounded in some other sort of practice. — Count Timothy von Icarus

The religious ones are certainly the longest-lived, even if we don't count monastic orders. I suppose a shared faith and ritual practice has a stabilizing effect. However, that may also alienate some of the youth, so that they either need to over-procreate or recruit mature members in order to keep the community going. I suspect modern mainstream people would balk at being denied birth control, and very few women would voluntarily have six or seven kids.

I've been watching some videos and reading some articles about the recent trend toward eco-village or co-operative farm type of communities. Seems that some of these are thriving the world over.

I have observed that intentional communities follow a developmental pattern similar to that of small businesses: many more are imagined and planned than ever start. Of those that do start, about half collapse within two years, with perhaps half the remain-der collapsing before the end of five years. Most small businesses and intentional communities that make it to five years prosper indefinitely.

The whole paper is worth reading, though I skipped over the history part, having read it before in other articles.

Not really. We’re presented with perverse incentives to purchase, but that’s more a matter of individual will.

Sounds very sensible as far as a single enterprise goes, and might even give the participants greater confidence to tackle inequalities on the political front. — Vera Mont

Although I have worked at the same place for 32 years now, I can't say I am in a position to know whether it gives many greater confidence to tackle inequalities.

I'd speculate that I and my long term co-workers might tend to be less empathetic because we don't have experience with dealing with a lot of the crap I hear others talk about.

Also, we do get propagandized with a fair amount of ESOP cheerleading, so I don't have a basis for a very objective opinion.

The interesting thing is that, despite their not using any modern technology and their scarce use of modern healthcare, they are both wealthier and longer lived than the general public. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Interesting. Does your knowledge extend to the issue of the distribution of wealth among the local Amish? And I wonder if the distribution has any significant affect upon the "social organization?"

I was specifically interested in the necessity of "jobs". This is considered central to social organization: — Vera Mont

Thank you. I was looking for some clarification along those lines. In some way, the generation of the need for jobs is more important to some than is meeting the need for jobs.

Can anyone think of alternative arrangements that might work better? — Vera Mont

One line of American leftist theory is "industrial democracy". The idea is that workers own, control, and operate the productive business of society. Industrial democracy was the core idea of Daniel DeLeon, a 19th /20th century Marxist. The Socialist Labor Party promoted DeLeon's work, but (unfortunately) ended up deep in the weeds of bureaucratic despotism. Their core message was taken up by the New Union Party, which gave up the ghost about 15 years ago.

Industrial Democracy does away with owner-management in favor of worker management.

I was specifically interested in the necessity of "jobs". — Vera Mont

Jobs, and work, are necessary because our individual and collective needs do not grow on trees, just waiting to be plucked. Life is quite literally difficult. It's hard to extract food, fiber, and metal from the earth. Our hunter-gatherer forebears were few in number, lived in a moderately abundant environment, and had few requirements beyond food, water, some sort of shelter, a few stone/wood tools, and survival knowledge. They didn't have to spend 12 hours a day, 7 days a week, hoeing corn, picking cotton, tending cattle, and feeding the chickens. They didn't have to mine iron, smelt aluminum, haul coal, and so on, life was comparatively simple for them.

We've been on a 12,000 year project of making life better or worse, depending on your POV. During the last 150 years, the complexity of life increased a lot.

"Jobs" consist of tasks that have to be repeated continuously over a long period of time. A big share of the tasks that need to be done are complicated enough that one has to learn how to do them, practice them, and be rewarded (intrinsically and extrinsically) enough to keep showing up and doing the same thing over and over.

Got milk? If you do, it's because somebody was milking cows twice a day, every day--doing their jobs. Mail arrived? If it did, it's because thousands of people were doing their job. Drive to the store? If you can it's because many, many people were doing their jobs to make cars, build roads, and haul groceries across country, and putting them on the shelf for you to buy.

I knew that.
Of course we need to work in order to have what we need and want. We don't need a whole lot of the things that we make and the want of them is artificially created by people working at emotional manipulation while others are working - very well compensated - at moving money around in ways nobody understands. That's not necessary. Does the necessary work have to produce megprofits for the employers and bare subsistence for so many of the workers?

What we don't need is all the duplication and waste of the present arrangement. Is there any rational reason for shipping American oak planks to China and shipping wooden toilet seats back from China?
We could also benefit from more satisfaction in the work we do and a more sensible allocation of time to work, leisure and rest.

The present economic climate is already changing, much like the external one. And like the external climate, nobody seems to have any idea how direct or control the change. I think it's time to think about what comes next, rather than what's being lost.

The economic system we have divides all adult citizens into employers and employees.
Is this the best possible economic system?
Is this the best possible social organization?
Can anyone think of alternative arrangements that might work better? — Vera Mont

Yes— co-ops. There are plenty of examples, even in the US. The workers own and run the enterprise— they act as their own board of directors.

This is the difference between capitalism and socialism, in my view.

One of the marking characteristics of a society evolving into a civilisation is the specialisation of the workforce, aka roles/jobs. It is only in tribal settings (non-civilised societies) where everybody does a little bit of this and a little bit of that. — Lionino

Does the fact that people live in a tribe necessarily mean that they can be classed as 'uncivilized'? I find this train of thought troubling. I imagine that tribes these days may view modern societies as 'uncivilized'. I fear that, in many ways (and I am not saying all) they may be correct.

nobody seems to have any idea how direct or control the change — Vera Mont

You put your finger on one of our (humanity's) great problems. We have never known how o direct and control change in a way that benefits the largest number of people, only how to benefit our little group of controllers, and not always then.

We could arrange society, and our daily lives, much differently than we now live them. (Not everyone, but) many people would enjoy a simplified life.

The problem in a mass simplification of life is much like the problem of radically reducing CO2, methane, and other emissions in a short period of time: If (somehow) we could cease all the industrial activity going into wasteful production, transportation, and consumption, we could reduce, slow, and eventually reverse global warming. However, too radical a change in economic structure would be catastrophic. Accidental catastrophe is bad enough, and no one wants to deliberately cause a catastrophe.

The only reason the system distinguishes employer from employee is for tax purposes. But really the relationship is a partnership between types of workers, one who is willing to take the necessary risk, to fund both the legal and productive means in order to provide products and services, the other who is willing to help the risk-taker and benefit from the possible dividends.

If the state never meddled in this relationship and profited from it the distinction between the two wouldn’t be so distinct, and one would need the other as much as anyone else in his community. Instead we are left with two competing classes for some reason.