▲ 562 ▼ Amerikkka land of the jailed (But China is defo AuThOrITarIAn!!) (lemmy.ml) submitted 1 year ago by Smackyroon@lemmy.ml to c/memes@lemmy.ml 207 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 15 points 1 year ago (8 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] chaos@beehaw.org -2 points 1 year ago (7 children) But it's also a ban on other socialist parties, not just capitalist ones, and it plays directly into the talking point that socialism is an authoritarian system that is imposed on people, not chosen on its merits. If the CCP really has enjoyed resounding, unwavering support from the proletariat for 75 years straight, why appear so weak by never allowing any competition whatsoever? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] ZeroHora@lemmy.ml 18 points 1 year ago (1 child) There are 8 other minor parties in China. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] chaos@beehaw.org 4 points 1 year ago Oh, c'mon. The PRC is officially organized under what the CCP terms a "system of multi-party cooperation and political consultation under the leadership of the CCP," in which the minor parties must accept the leadership of the CCP. permalink fedilink source parent [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 14 points 1 year ago (5 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [+] chaos@beehaw.org -7 points 1 year ago (4 children) Yeah, those don't count, if they're required to align with the party then they're just subcommittees or something, not actual political parties. I promise I'm keeping my mind open, but all of these answers seem indistinguishable from authoritarian rule, which was kinda my original point. The same organization has to rule in perpetuity because foreign influence would subvert the interests of the country if there were other options, quite lucky that they locked in the right one. Practically all one billion people are aligned on this and agree that this system is working for them, but no, they will not be allowing that to be tested at the ballot box or in a media environment where people can speak their mind, it might all fall apart despite how unified they are. It's a party controlled by the workers and acting for their interests, with total control of the levers of power, they just felt like keeping some ultra-rich and ultra-powerful folks around for a laugh, not because they're the ones who actually have the power. Honestly, shit's so bad in the west that I'm kinda open to the idea that maybe a totalitarian government that recognizes it needs to keep workers decently happy to allow them to rule is, in fact, better than what we've got going on now, but it's really hard to go as far as saying that it's an active, ongoing, consensual choice by the workers to never give themselves a choice. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago (4 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] chaos@beehaw.org 0 points 1 year ago (3 children) I'm trying to get to how it's democratic and worker-controlled in your eyes because it's hard to see for me, as people don't seem to get to choose much in the system as designed. What's the mechanism for average people to change a government policy that they disagree with? If the party does start to lose touch with what the workers need or start working against their interests, how do the workers course-correct it? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago (3 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] chaos@beehaw.org -1 points 1 year ago (2 children) But this doesn't answer my question, the only mechanism for people's input seems to be elections and polling, and it conspicuously omits the fact that elections only allow party-approved candidates. Maybe the powers-that-be have a great track record of listening and respecting the will of the people, and are beloved by all as a result, but that doesn't actually put the people in control, it just means the ones actually in control are being nice. When the government and the people have a fundamental disagreement about the path forward, what piece am I missing that makes the government the one to back down? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] chaos@beehaw.org 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) Right, that's a good example of it going the way you describe, and I'm curious what would've happened if the government hadn't folded. If the people really are making the decisions, they would get their way eventually, what does that look like? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] chaos@beehaw.org 1 point 1 year ago Ah, I didn't see that edit, apologies, had the page loaded for a while before replying. Isn't that the same leverage that the earliest labor unions used because it was all they had? It seems to fit very well, actually. There's a smaller but more powerful group in charge of them, workers get little to no direct say in company policy or who they are managed by and have to hope they're listened to when asked how things are going. There certainly isn't a second C-suite waiting in the wings to be put into power if the first one disappoints, the current powers-that-be would be insane to allow something as chaotic as that. If the CEO's got a good track record of listening, the pay's pretty good and satisfaction is high, and they're kept in line with picket lines when it's necessary, is this company an extension of the working class like China's government is? I'm comparing and contrasting quite a bit with my new job, which fits much more closely with what my idea of something worker-controlled would be. It's fully employee owned, so profits go either back into the business or into our pockets as bonuses. There's as little hierarchy as possible, the closest thing to a manager isn't ever going to "put" you on a project, you're free to find one that you like and wants you to join. Company decisions involve everyone equally, and there's freedom to loudly speak your mind about policies and procedures if you disagree with them. That's closer to the country I'd want to live in, not the one where my influence is akin to answering corporate surveys and getting to choose which of 3 approved managers I want to work under, or go on strike if I'm really not happy. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies)
[–] chaos@beehaw.org -2 points 1 year ago (7 children) But it's also a ban on other socialist parties, not just capitalist ones, and it plays directly into the talking point that socialism is an authoritarian system that is imposed on people, not chosen on its merits. If the CCP really has enjoyed resounding, unwavering support from the proletariat for 75 years straight, why appear so weak by never allowing any competition whatsoever? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] ZeroHora@lemmy.ml 18 points 1 year ago (1 child) There are 8 other minor parties in China. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] chaos@beehaw.org 4 points 1 year ago Oh, c'mon. The PRC is officially organized under what the CCP terms a "system of multi-party cooperation and political consultation under the leadership of the CCP," in which the minor parties must accept the leadership of the CCP. permalink fedilink source parent [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 14 points 1 year ago (5 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [+] chaos@beehaw.org -7 points 1 year ago (4 children) Yeah, those don't count, if they're required to align with the party then they're just subcommittees or something, not actual political parties. I promise I'm keeping my mind open, but all of these answers seem indistinguishable from authoritarian rule, which was kinda my original point. The same organization has to rule in perpetuity because foreign influence would subvert the interests of the country if there were other options, quite lucky that they locked in the right one. Practically all one billion people are aligned on this and agree that this system is working for them, but no, they will not be allowing that to be tested at the ballot box or in a media environment where people can speak their mind, it might all fall apart despite how unified they are. It's a party controlled by the workers and acting for their interests, with total control of the levers of power, they just felt like keeping some ultra-rich and ultra-powerful folks around for a laugh, not because they're the ones who actually have the power. Honestly, shit's so bad in the west that I'm kinda open to the idea that maybe a totalitarian government that recognizes it needs to keep workers decently happy to allow them to rule is, in fact, better than what we've got going on now, but it's really hard to go as far as saying that it's an active, ongoing, consensual choice by the workers to never give themselves a choice. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago (4 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] chaos@beehaw.org 0 points 1 year ago (3 children) I'm trying to get to how it's democratic and worker-controlled in your eyes because it's hard to see for me, as people don't seem to get to choose much in the system as designed. What's the mechanism for average people to change a government policy that they disagree with? If the party does start to lose touch with what the workers need or start working against their interests, how do the workers course-correct it? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago (3 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] chaos@beehaw.org -1 points 1 year ago (2 children) But this doesn't answer my question, the only mechanism for people's input seems to be elections and polling, and it conspicuously omits the fact that elections only allow party-approved candidates. Maybe the powers-that-be have a great track record of listening and respecting the will of the people, and are beloved by all as a result, but that doesn't actually put the people in control, it just means the ones actually in control are being nice. When the government and the people have a fundamental disagreement about the path forward, what piece am I missing that makes the government the one to back down? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] chaos@beehaw.org 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) Right, that's a good example of it going the way you describe, and I'm curious what would've happened if the government hadn't folded. If the people really are making the decisions, they would get their way eventually, what does that look like? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] chaos@beehaw.org 1 point 1 year ago Ah, I didn't see that edit, apologies, had the page loaded for a while before replying. Isn't that the same leverage that the earliest labor unions used because it was all they had? It seems to fit very well, actually. There's a smaller but more powerful group in charge of them, workers get little to no direct say in company policy or who they are managed by and have to hope they're listened to when asked how things are going. There certainly isn't a second C-suite waiting in the wings to be put into power if the first one disappoints, the current powers-that-be would be insane to allow something as chaotic as that. If the CEO's got a good track record of listening, the pay's pretty good and satisfaction is high, and they're kept in line with picket lines when it's necessary, is this company an extension of the working class like China's government is? I'm comparing and contrasting quite a bit with my new job, which fits much more closely with what my idea of something worker-controlled would be. It's fully employee owned, so profits go either back into the business or into our pockets as bonuses. There's as little hierarchy as possible, the closest thing to a manager isn't ever going to "put" you on a project, you're free to find one that you like and wants you to join. Company decisions involve everyone equally, and there's freedom to loudly speak your mind about policies and procedures if you disagree with them. That's closer to the country I'd want to live in, not the one where my influence is akin to answering corporate surveys and getting to choose which of 3 approved managers I want to work under, or go on strike if I'm really not happy. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies)
[–] ZeroHora@lemmy.ml 18 points 1 year ago (1 child) There are 8 other minor parties in China. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] chaos@beehaw.org 4 points 1 year ago Oh, c'mon. The PRC is officially organized under what the CCP terms a "system of multi-party cooperation and political consultation under the leadership of the CCP," in which the minor parties must accept the leadership of the CCP. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] chaos@beehaw.org 4 points 1 year ago Oh, c'mon. The PRC is officially organized under what the CCP terms a "system of multi-party cooperation and political consultation under the leadership of the CCP," in which the minor parties must accept the leadership of the CCP. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 14 points 1 year ago (5 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [+] chaos@beehaw.org -7 points 1 year ago (4 children) Yeah, those don't count, if they're required to align with the party then they're just subcommittees or something, not actual political parties. I promise I'm keeping my mind open, but all of these answers seem indistinguishable from authoritarian rule, which was kinda my original point. The same organization has to rule in perpetuity because foreign influence would subvert the interests of the country if there were other options, quite lucky that they locked in the right one. Practically all one billion people are aligned on this and agree that this system is working for them, but no, they will not be allowing that to be tested at the ballot box or in a media environment where people can speak their mind, it might all fall apart despite how unified they are. It's a party controlled by the workers and acting for their interests, with total control of the levers of power, they just felt like keeping some ultra-rich and ultra-powerful folks around for a laugh, not because they're the ones who actually have the power. Honestly, shit's so bad in the west that I'm kinda open to the idea that maybe a totalitarian government that recognizes it needs to keep workers decently happy to allow them to rule is, in fact, better than what we've got going on now, but it's really hard to go as far as saying that it's an active, ongoing, consensual choice by the workers to never give themselves a choice. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago (4 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] chaos@beehaw.org 0 points 1 year ago (3 children) I'm trying to get to how it's democratic and worker-controlled in your eyes because it's hard to see for me, as people don't seem to get to choose much in the system as designed. What's the mechanism for average people to change a government policy that they disagree with? If the party does start to lose touch with what the workers need or start working against their interests, how do the workers course-correct it? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago (3 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] chaos@beehaw.org -1 points 1 year ago (2 children) But this doesn't answer my question, the only mechanism for people's input seems to be elections and polling, and it conspicuously omits the fact that elections only allow party-approved candidates. Maybe the powers-that-be have a great track record of listening and respecting the will of the people, and are beloved by all as a result, but that doesn't actually put the people in control, it just means the ones actually in control are being nice. When the government and the people have a fundamental disagreement about the path forward, what piece am I missing that makes the government the one to back down? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] chaos@beehaw.org 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) Right, that's a good example of it going the way you describe, and I'm curious what would've happened if the government hadn't folded. If the people really are making the decisions, they would get their way eventually, what does that look like? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] chaos@beehaw.org 1 point 1 year ago Ah, I didn't see that edit, apologies, had the page loaded for a while before replying. Isn't that the same leverage that the earliest labor unions used because it was all they had? It seems to fit very well, actually. There's a smaller but more powerful group in charge of them, workers get little to no direct say in company policy or who they are managed by and have to hope they're listened to when asked how things are going. There certainly isn't a second C-suite waiting in the wings to be put into power if the first one disappoints, the current powers-that-be would be insane to allow something as chaotic as that. If the CEO's got a good track record of listening, the pay's pretty good and satisfaction is high, and they're kept in line with picket lines when it's necessary, is this company an extension of the working class like China's government is? I'm comparing and contrasting quite a bit with my new job, which fits much more closely with what my idea of something worker-controlled would be. It's fully employee owned, so profits go either back into the business or into our pockets as bonuses. There's as little hierarchy as possible, the closest thing to a manager isn't ever going to "put" you on a project, you're free to find one that you like and wants you to join. Company decisions involve everyone equally, and there's freedom to loudly speak your mind about policies and procedures if you disagree with them. That's closer to the country I'd want to live in, not the one where my influence is akin to answering corporate surveys and getting to choose which of 3 approved managers I want to work under, or go on strike if I'm really not happy. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies)
[+] chaos@beehaw.org -7 points 1 year ago (4 children) Yeah, those don't count, if they're required to align with the party then they're just subcommittees or something, not actual political parties. I promise I'm keeping my mind open, but all of these answers seem indistinguishable from authoritarian rule, which was kinda my original point. The same organization has to rule in perpetuity because foreign influence would subvert the interests of the country if there were other options, quite lucky that they locked in the right one. Practically all one billion people are aligned on this and agree that this system is working for them, but no, they will not be allowing that to be tested at the ballot box or in a media environment where people can speak their mind, it might all fall apart despite how unified they are. It's a party controlled by the workers and acting for their interests, with total control of the levers of power, they just felt like keeping some ultra-rich and ultra-powerful folks around for a laugh, not because they're the ones who actually have the power. Honestly, shit's so bad in the west that I'm kinda open to the idea that maybe a totalitarian government that recognizes it needs to keep workers decently happy to allow them to rule is, in fact, better than what we've got going on now, but it's really hard to go as far as saying that it's an active, ongoing, consensual choice by the workers to never give themselves a choice. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago (4 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] chaos@beehaw.org 0 points 1 year ago (3 children) I'm trying to get to how it's democratic and worker-controlled in your eyes because it's hard to see for me, as people don't seem to get to choose much in the system as designed. What's the mechanism for average people to change a government policy that they disagree with? If the party does start to lose touch with what the workers need or start working against their interests, how do the workers course-correct it? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago (3 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] chaos@beehaw.org -1 points 1 year ago (2 children) But this doesn't answer my question, the only mechanism for people's input seems to be elections and polling, and it conspicuously omits the fact that elections only allow party-approved candidates. Maybe the powers-that-be have a great track record of listening and respecting the will of the people, and are beloved by all as a result, but that doesn't actually put the people in control, it just means the ones actually in control are being nice. When the government and the people have a fundamental disagreement about the path forward, what piece am I missing that makes the government the one to back down? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] chaos@beehaw.org 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) Right, that's a good example of it going the way you describe, and I'm curious what would've happened if the government hadn't folded. If the people really are making the decisions, they would get their way eventually, what does that look like? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] chaos@beehaw.org 1 point 1 year ago Ah, I didn't see that edit, apologies, had the page loaded for a while before replying. Isn't that the same leverage that the earliest labor unions used because it was all they had? It seems to fit very well, actually. There's a smaller but more powerful group in charge of them, workers get little to no direct say in company policy or who they are managed by and have to hope they're listened to when asked how things are going. There certainly isn't a second C-suite waiting in the wings to be put into power if the first one disappoints, the current powers-that-be would be insane to allow something as chaotic as that. If the CEO's got a good track record of listening, the pay's pretty good and satisfaction is high, and they're kept in line with picket lines when it's necessary, is this company an extension of the working class like China's government is? I'm comparing and contrasting quite a bit with my new job, which fits much more closely with what my idea of something worker-controlled would be. It's fully employee owned, so profits go either back into the business or into our pockets as bonuses. There's as little hierarchy as possible, the closest thing to a manager isn't ever going to "put" you on a project, you're free to find one that you like and wants you to join. Company decisions involve everyone equally, and there's freedom to loudly speak your mind about policies and procedures if you disagree with them. That's closer to the country I'd want to live in, not the one where my influence is akin to answering corporate surveys and getting to choose which of 3 approved managers I want to work under, or go on strike if I'm really not happy. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies)
[+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago (4 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] chaos@beehaw.org 0 points 1 year ago (3 children) I'm trying to get to how it's democratic and worker-controlled in your eyes because it's hard to see for me, as people don't seem to get to choose much in the system as designed. What's the mechanism for average people to change a government policy that they disagree with? If the party does start to lose touch with what the workers need or start working against their interests, how do the workers course-correct it? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago (3 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] chaos@beehaw.org -1 points 1 year ago (2 children) But this doesn't answer my question, the only mechanism for people's input seems to be elections and polling, and it conspicuously omits the fact that elections only allow party-approved candidates. Maybe the powers-that-be have a great track record of listening and respecting the will of the people, and are beloved by all as a result, but that doesn't actually put the people in control, it just means the ones actually in control are being nice. When the government and the people have a fundamental disagreement about the path forward, what piece am I missing that makes the government the one to back down? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] chaos@beehaw.org 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) Right, that's a good example of it going the way you describe, and I'm curious what would've happened if the government hadn't folded. If the people really are making the decisions, they would get their way eventually, what does that look like? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] chaos@beehaw.org 1 point 1 year ago Ah, I didn't see that edit, apologies, had the page loaded for a while before replying. Isn't that the same leverage that the earliest labor unions used because it was all they had? It seems to fit very well, actually. There's a smaller but more powerful group in charge of them, workers get little to no direct say in company policy or who they are managed by and have to hope they're listened to when asked how things are going. There certainly isn't a second C-suite waiting in the wings to be put into power if the first one disappoints, the current powers-that-be would be insane to allow something as chaotic as that. If the CEO's got a good track record of listening, the pay's pretty good and satisfaction is high, and they're kept in line with picket lines when it's necessary, is this company an extension of the working class like China's government is? I'm comparing and contrasting quite a bit with my new job, which fits much more closely with what my idea of something worker-controlled would be. It's fully employee owned, so profits go either back into the business or into our pockets as bonuses. There's as little hierarchy as possible, the closest thing to a manager isn't ever going to "put" you on a project, you're free to find one that you like and wants you to join. Company decisions involve everyone equally, and there's freedom to loudly speak your mind about policies and procedures if you disagree with them. That's closer to the country I'd want to live in, not the one where my influence is akin to answering corporate surveys and getting to choose which of 3 approved managers I want to work under, or go on strike if I'm really not happy. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies)
[–] chaos@beehaw.org 0 points 1 year ago (3 children) I'm trying to get to how it's democratic and worker-controlled in your eyes because it's hard to see for me, as people don't seem to get to choose much in the system as designed. What's the mechanism for average people to change a government policy that they disagree with? If the party does start to lose touch with what the workers need or start working against their interests, how do the workers course-correct it? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago (3 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] chaos@beehaw.org -1 points 1 year ago (2 children) But this doesn't answer my question, the only mechanism for people's input seems to be elections and polling, and it conspicuously omits the fact that elections only allow party-approved candidates. Maybe the powers-that-be have a great track record of listening and respecting the will of the people, and are beloved by all as a result, but that doesn't actually put the people in control, it just means the ones actually in control are being nice. When the government and the people have a fundamental disagreement about the path forward, what piece am I missing that makes the government the one to back down? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] chaos@beehaw.org 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) Right, that's a good example of it going the way you describe, and I'm curious what would've happened if the government hadn't folded. If the people really are making the decisions, they would get their way eventually, what does that look like? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] chaos@beehaw.org 1 point 1 year ago Ah, I didn't see that edit, apologies, had the page loaded for a while before replying. Isn't that the same leverage that the earliest labor unions used because it was all they had? It seems to fit very well, actually. There's a smaller but more powerful group in charge of them, workers get little to no direct say in company policy or who they are managed by and have to hope they're listened to when asked how things are going. There certainly isn't a second C-suite waiting in the wings to be put into power if the first one disappoints, the current powers-that-be would be insane to allow something as chaotic as that. If the CEO's got a good track record of listening, the pay's pretty good and satisfaction is high, and they're kept in line with picket lines when it's necessary, is this company an extension of the working class like China's government is? I'm comparing and contrasting quite a bit with my new job, which fits much more closely with what my idea of something worker-controlled would be. It's fully employee owned, so profits go either back into the business or into our pockets as bonuses. There's as little hierarchy as possible, the closest thing to a manager isn't ever going to "put" you on a project, you're free to find one that you like and wants you to join. Company decisions involve everyone equally, and there's freedom to loudly speak your mind about policies and procedures if you disagree with them. That's closer to the country I'd want to live in, not the one where my influence is akin to answering corporate surveys and getting to choose which of 3 approved managers I want to work under, or go on strike if I'm really not happy. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies)
[+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago (3 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] chaos@beehaw.org -1 points 1 year ago (2 children) But this doesn't answer my question, the only mechanism for people's input seems to be elections and polling, and it conspicuously omits the fact that elections only allow party-approved candidates. Maybe the powers-that-be have a great track record of listening and respecting the will of the people, and are beloved by all as a result, but that doesn't actually put the people in control, it just means the ones actually in control are being nice. When the government and the people have a fundamental disagreement about the path forward, what piece am I missing that makes the government the one to back down? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] chaos@beehaw.org 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) Right, that's a good example of it going the way you describe, and I'm curious what would've happened if the government hadn't folded. If the people really are making the decisions, they would get their way eventually, what does that look like? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] chaos@beehaw.org 1 point 1 year ago Ah, I didn't see that edit, apologies, had the page loaded for a while before replying. Isn't that the same leverage that the earliest labor unions used because it was all they had? It seems to fit very well, actually. There's a smaller but more powerful group in charge of them, workers get little to no direct say in company policy or who they are managed by and have to hope they're listened to when asked how things are going. There certainly isn't a second C-suite waiting in the wings to be put into power if the first one disappoints, the current powers-that-be would be insane to allow something as chaotic as that. If the CEO's got a good track record of listening, the pay's pretty good and satisfaction is high, and they're kept in line with picket lines when it's necessary, is this company an extension of the working class like China's government is? I'm comparing and contrasting quite a bit with my new job, which fits much more closely with what my idea of something worker-controlled would be. It's fully employee owned, so profits go either back into the business or into our pockets as bonuses. There's as little hierarchy as possible, the closest thing to a manager isn't ever going to "put" you on a project, you're free to find one that you like and wants you to join. Company decisions involve everyone equally, and there's freedom to loudly speak your mind about policies and procedures if you disagree with them. That's closer to the country I'd want to live in, not the one where my influence is akin to answering corporate surveys and getting to choose which of 3 approved managers I want to work under, or go on strike if I'm really not happy. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies)
[–] chaos@beehaw.org -1 points 1 year ago (2 children) But this doesn't answer my question, the only mechanism for people's input seems to be elections and polling, and it conspicuously omits the fact that elections only allow party-approved candidates. Maybe the powers-that-be have a great track record of listening and respecting the will of the people, and are beloved by all as a result, but that doesn't actually put the people in control, it just means the ones actually in control are being nice. When the government and the people have a fundamental disagreement about the path forward, what piece am I missing that makes the government the one to back down? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] chaos@beehaw.org 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) Right, that's a good example of it going the way you describe, and I'm curious what would've happened if the government hadn't folded. If the people really are making the decisions, they would get their way eventually, what does that look like? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] chaos@beehaw.org 1 point 1 year ago Ah, I didn't see that edit, apologies, had the page loaded for a while before replying. Isn't that the same leverage that the earliest labor unions used because it was all they had? It seems to fit very well, actually. There's a smaller but more powerful group in charge of them, workers get little to no direct say in company policy or who they are managed by and have to hope they're listened to when asked how things are going. There certainly isn't a second C-suite waiting in the wings to be put into power if the first one disappoints, the current powers-that-be would be insane to allow something as chaotic as that. If the CEO's got a good track record of listening, the pay's pretty good and satisfaction is high, and they're kept in line with picket lines when it's necessary, is this company an extension of the working class like China's government is? I'm comparing and contrasting quite a bit with my new job, which fits much more closely with what my idea of something worker-controlled would be. It's fully employee owned, so profits go either back into the business or into our pockets as bonuses. There's as little hierarchy as possible, the closest thing to a manager isn't ever going to "put" you on a project, you're free to find one that you like and wants you to join. Company decisions involve everyone equally, and there's freedom to loudly speak your mind about policies and procedures if you disagree with them. That's closer to the country I'd want to live in, not the one where my influence is akin to answering corporate surveys and getting to choose which of 3 approved managers I want to work under, or go on strike if I'm really not happy. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies)
[+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] chaos@beehaw.org 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) Right, that's a good example of it going the way you describe, and I'm curious what would've happened if the government hadn't folded. If the people really are making the decisions, they would get their way eventually, what does that look like? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] chaos@beehaw.org 1 point 1 year ago Ah, I didn't see that edit, apologies, had the page loaded for a while before replying. Isn't that the same leverage that the earliest labor unions used because it was all they had? It seems to fit very well, actually. There's a smaller but more powerful group in charge of them, workers get little to no direct say in company policy or who they are managed by and have to hope they're listened to when asked how things are going. There certainly isn't a second C-suite waiting in the wings to be put into power if the first one disappoints, the current powers-that-be would be insane to allow something as chaotic as that. If the CEO's got a good track record of listening, the pay's pretty good and satisfaction is high, and they're kept in line with picket lines when it's necessary, is this company an extension of the working class like China's government is? I'm comparing and contrasting quite a bit with my new job, which fits much more closely with what my idea of something worker-controlled would be. It's fully employee owned, so profits go either back into the business or into our pockets as bonuses. There's as little hierarchy as possible, the closest thing to a manager isn't ever going to "put" you on a project, you're free to find one that you like and wants you to join. Company decisions involve everyone equally, and there's freedom to loudly speak your mind about policies and procedures if you disagree with them. That's closer to the country I'd want to live in, not the one where my influence is akin to answering corporate surveys and getting to choose which of 3 approved managers I want to work under, or go on strike if I'm really not happy. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies)
[–] chaos@beehaw.org 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) Right, that's a good example of it going the way you describe, and I'm curious what would've happened if the government hadn't folded. If the people really are making the decisions, they would get their way eventually, what does that look like? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] chaos@beehaw.org 1 point 1 year ago Ah, I didn't see that edit, apologies, had the page loaded for a while before replying. Isn't that the same leverage that the earliest labor unions used because it was all they had? It seems to fit very well, actually. There's a smaller but more powerful group in charge of them, workers get little to no direct say in company policy or who they are managed by and have to hope they're listened to when asked how things are going. There certainly isn't a second C-suite waiting in the wings to be put into power if the first one disappoints, the current powers-that-be would be insane to allow something as chaotic as that. If the CEO's got a good track record of listening, the pay's pretty good and satisfaction is high, and they're kept in line with picket lines when it's necessary, is this company an extension of the working class like China's government is? I'm comparing and contrasting quite a bit with my new job, which fits much more closely with what my idea of something worker-controlled would be. It's fully employee owned, so profits go either back into the business or into our pockets as bonuses. There's as little hierarchy as possible, the closest thing to a manager isn't ever going to "put" you on a project, you're free to find one that you like and wants you to join. Company decisions involve everyone equally, and there's freedom to loudly speak your mind about policies and procedures if you disagree with them. That's closer to the country I'd want to live in, not the one where my influence is akin to answering corporate surveys and getting to choose which of 3 approved managers I want to work under, or go on strike if I'm really not happy. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies)
[+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] chaos@beehaw.org 1 point 1 year ago Ah, I didn't see that edit, apologies, had the page loaded for a while before replying. Isn't that the same leverage that the earliest labor unions used because it was all they had? It seems to fit very well, actually. There's a smaller but more powerful group in charge of them, workers get little to no direct say in company policy or who they are managed by and have to hope they're listened to when asked how things are going. There certainly isn't a second C-suite waiting in the wings to be put into power if the first one disappoints, the current powers-that-be would be insane to allow something as chaotic as that. If the CEO's got a good track record of listening, the pay's pretty good and satisfaction is high, and they're kept in line with picket lines when it's necessary, is this company an extension of the working class like China's government is? I'm comparing and contrasting quite a bit with my new job, which fits much more closely with what my idea of something worker-controlled would be. It's fully employee owned, so profits go either back into the business or into our pockets as bonuses. There's as little hierarchy as possible, the closest thing to a manager isn't ever going to "put" you on a project, you're free to find one that you like and wants you to join. Company decisions involve everyone equally, and there's freedom to loudly speak your mind about policies and procedures if you disagree with them. That's closer to the country I'd want to live in, not the one where my influence is akin to answering corporate surveys and getting to choose which of 3 approved managers I want to work under, or go on strike if I'm really not happy. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] chaos@beehaw.org 1 point 1 year ago Ah, I didn't see that edit, apologies, had the page loaded for a while before replying. Isn't that the same leverage that the earliest labor unions used because it was all they had? It seems to fit very well, actually. There's a smaller but more powerful group in charge of them, workers get little to no direct say in company policy or who they are managed by and have to hope they're listened to when asked how things are going. There certainly isn't a second C-suite waiting in the wings to be put into power if the first one disappoints, the current powers-that-be would be insane to allow something as chaotic as that. If the CEO's got a good track record of listening, the pay's pretty good and satisfaction is high, and they're kept in line with picket lines when it's necessary, is this company an extension of the working class like China's government is? I'm comparing and contrasting quite a bit with my new job, which fits much more closely with what my idea of something worker-controlled would be. It's fully employee owned, so profits go either back into the business or into our pockets as bonuses. There's as little hierarchy as possible, the closest thing to a manager isn't ever going to "put" you on a project, you're free to find one that you like and wants you to join. Company decisions involve everyone equally, and there's freedom to loudly speak your mind about policies and procedures if you disagree with them. That's closer to the country I'd want to live in, not the one where my influence is akin to answering corporate surveys and getting to choose which of 3 approved managers I want to work under, or go on strike if I'm really not happy. permalink fedilink source parent