I’ve been thinking a lot about the relationship of politics and economics and spirituality, as inspired by Mark Fisher’s “Capitalist Realism.” For this to work, we really need a phase shift in human consciousness. Shifting away from burnout mentality and status and consumerism, and more towards altruism. It sounds corny but people being content with a less glamorous material lifestyle and seeking more gratification in helping others is really how we can even start getting socialism into the public consciousness.
But this is a good breakdown. Gotta start hammering away at “democratizing the workplace.” Weird how people fear an autocratic government, but are either oblivious to or don’t care if it comes from corporate monopolies or their day-to-day workplaces.
That's really well said! I completely agree: A lot of what I'm advocating for here won't work unless we shift our mindset from the puritan, work-hard-all-day-everyday to one in which our happiness and livelihoods are the primary concern.
I think we realize it on some level, but we have a long way to go. What gives me hope is that other countries (Spain, France, etc.) are much more focused on individual happiness than work output.
I’ve been a part of political focus groups and I think most people have an intuitive sense of being screwed but lack the framework and language to understand it coherently and express it
This feels a lot like Elizabeth Anderson’s argument.
One question I have been wondering about is if the stakeholder democratized corporate system can coexist with capitalism or does it have to do away with capital goods ownership entirely. An investor invest in the company for profit. When the company is operated by stockholders, it maximized profit, which makes the company an attractive investment.
If a company is operated by stakeholders, the objective is not to maximize profit but to maximize working conditions, wages and etc. That makes the company less profitable and a less attractive investment option. I am guessing this is the reason such corporations don’t emerge spontaneously in a capitalist world.
In stockholder controlled entities (Capitalist), investors give money in exchange for a claim on profits and some degree of control.
Ideally, in stakeholder entities (Socialist), investments could come with a promise of positive returns, but would not surrender control of the business. Think of it like taking a bank loan. If you took a bank loan to start a small business, you wouldn't give the bank decision making over the day to day operations. Rather, you would be required to repay the loan and interest at a certain time. That is how I would like to see stakeholder control operate.
If you and I formed a worker cooperative with a $10k investment from Mark Cuban, we would be required to repay that loan plus the agreed interest. But I see no reason why Mark Cuban should have PERMANENT say in the business control, even after his loan has been repaid.
I guess that makes sense. So would you support banning or imposing harsh constraints on the traditional capitalist stockholder-controlled model? Because an investor would probably prefer the stockholder model than a stakeholder model.
My ideal goal would be to build class consciousness to the point workers see giving control of their company as entirely out of the question. Similar to if an investor nowadays said "I'll give you $10k, but I get to decide what your child's 3rd birthday party will be." Workers would see that as grossly inappropriate. I aim to get workers to realize their workplace is THEIR dominion, and shouldn't be controlled by others.
That said, I'm not sure I would support "banning" any investment practices, as who am I to tell the workers what to do with their property? If 10 worker-owners at a cooperative decide to give someone a vote in the company direction in exchange for funding, I don't think its my place to tell them they can't. After all, the company is theirs, not mine.
I’ve been thinking a lot about the relationship of politics and economics and spirituality, as inspired by Mark Fisher’s “Capitalist Realism.” For this to work, we really need a phase shift in human consciousness. Shifting away from burnout mentality and status and consumerism, and more towards altruism. It sounds corny but people being content with a less glamorous material lifestyle and seeking more gratification in helping others is really how we can even start getting socialism into the public consciousness.
But this is a good breakdown. Gotta start hammering away at “democratizing the workplace.” Weird how people fear an autocratic government, but are either oblivious to or don’t care if it comes from corporate monopolies or their day-to-day workplaces.
That's really well said! I completely agree: A lot of what I'm advocating for here won't work unless we shift our mindset from the puritan, work-hard-all-day-everyday to one in which our happiness and livelihoods are the primary concern.
I think we realize it on some level, but we have a long way to go. What gives me hope is that other countries (Spain, France, etc.) are much more focused on individual happiness than work output.
I’ve been a part of political focus groups and I think most people have an intuitive sense of being screwed but lack the framework and language to understand it coherently and express it
Well hopefully I can take that "feeling" and show people how we can actualize it through policy and mass movements!
This feels a lot like Elizabeth Anderson’s argument.
One question I have been wondering about is if the stakeholder democratized corporate system can coexist with capitalism or does it have to do away with capital goods ownership entirely. An investor invest in the company for profit. When the company is operated by stockholders, it maximized profit, which makes the company an attractive investment.
If a company is operated by stakeholders, the objective is not to maximize profit but to maximize working conditions, wages and etc. That makes the company less profitable and a less attractive investment option. I am guessing this is the reason such corporations don’t emerge spontaneously in a capitalist world.
This is a great question!
In stockholder controlled entities (Capitalist), investors give money in exchange for a claim on profits and some degree of control.
Ideally, in stakeholder entities (Socialist), investments could come with a promise of positive returns, but would not surrender control of the business. Think of it like taking a bank loan. If you took a bank loan to start a small business, you wouldn't give the bank decision making over the day to day operations. Rather, you would be required to repay the loan and interest at a certain time. That is how I would like to see stakeholder control operate.
If you and I formed a worker cooperative with a $10k investment from Mark Cuban, we would be required to repay that loan plus the agreed interest. But I see no reason why Mark Cuban should have PERMANENT say in the business control, even after his loan has been repaid.
I guess that makes sense. So would you support banning or imposing harsh constraints on the traditional capitalist stockholder-controlled model? Because an investor would probably prefer the stockholder model than a stakeholder model.
My ideal goal would be to build class consciousness to the point workers see giving control of their company as entirely out of the question. Similar to if an investor nowadays said "I'll give you $10k, but I get to decide what your child's 3rd birthday party will be." Workers would see that as grossly inappropriate. I aim to get workers to realize their workplace is THEIR dominion, and shouldn't be controlled by others.
That said, I'm not sure I would support "banning" any investment practices, as who am I to tell the workers what to do with their property? If 10 worker-owners at a cooperative decide to give someone a vote in the company direction in exchange for funding, I don't think its my place to tell them they can't. After all, the company is theirs, not mine.