What do you mean by “do”?
What do you mean by “you”?
What do you mean by “believe”?
What do you mean by “democracy”?
He is so insufferable.
He’s a moron’s smart person
I’ll never forget some journo’s book review where he basically says “I didn’t understand what I was reading so it must be genius” and, as someone who did understand, I knew it was because both Peterson and I owned a thesaurus.
What do you mean by “what”?
What do you mean by “do”?
What do you mean by “you”?
What do you mean by “mean”?
What do you mean by “by”?
Democracy fan =/= capitalist
I think that’s the point of this meme. You can’t be a fan of democracy and support the continued existence of capitalism, because capitalism at its core is undemocratic. In a democracy you elect a leader to represent you and your interest. Your leader is supposed to serve you. If you work in a capitalist company you do not get to elect a CEO because the CEO isn’t there to serve you. You’re supposed to serve the CEO.
In a democracy your leader serves you, in a capitalist company you serve the leader. They’re completely opposite power structures. How can you be “democracy for everyone, except for the workers because they need to serve their corporate overlords”? It’s contradictory.
This is not a contradiction pointed out in schools. You’re expected to just double think your way through it. We believe in freedom, but also your boss has much control over when you eat, sleep, wear, and shit.
That’s not what democracy means…
Tell them that.
Tell them what you made up about them doesn’t make sense based on the definitions of words you choose?
Who do I even tell?
You’re sounding red faced about a workplace democratization meme
I don’t think the people in the meme are fans of democracy…
Democracy used to mean a form of government in which the citizens made the decisions. In opposition to aristocracy, rule of an elite, or a bunch of bastards owning and deciding everything. The meaning of a word can drift and change over time.
Also, the “citizens” were a small number of wealthy men who owned slaves and they could hold votes in a room.
Not exactly. Citizenship, in this context of ancient Athens, did exclude women and slaves, but wasn’t related to wealth or land ownership. Basically, it was tied to the obligation of military service.
That’s not what you’ve been told, by your boss, what democracy means.
That it can mean something else in a different circumstance, you know, like how most words work, never enters your tiny little thoughts by their design.
And you’ve done nothing to try to clarify.
I have no problem with people wanting to own part of the company they work for. I have a problem with forcing people to own a part of the company they work for. Or expecting ownership with 0 investment.
This is already solved In capitalism by publicly traded companies. Which have the benefit of allowing workers to own parts of companies they dont work for which protects them from inequality of job opportunity.
Whew, good thing capitalism already addressed all of its problems.
More than other economic systems
It also allows them to exploit people who don’t have a say in the company due to not owning a part of it or having the capital to obtain some. (Not to mention people need to be trading the shares in the first place)
I really don’t see the problem with being given partial control of the company by performing labour for it. Your requirement of investment should already be fulfilled.
I’d rather earn 50k a year than 40k and get a 15k worth of ownership in my company. The problem with workers being forced to invest in their workplace is that not all workplaces are a good investment. Its not fair to have blockbuster employees lose a significant portion of their wealth solely because they got a job there instead of pizzahut. It creates a massive wealth gap and it becomes harder for new business to get off the ground because anyone who would work for them is being forced to take on significant risk.
The better version allows employees to invest in any array of companies to better protect their individual wealth against market fluctuations and have it grow proportional to the economy. When every citizen holds their wealth in the snp500 they all get richer when the economy grows. Its why we see a lot of government programs doing whatever they can to get people to invest. But still people choose not to.
As for exploitation people have very different definitions so its best left to government policy not the economic systems. If you dont want 12hr shifts in the mines the government should step in and legislate. Theoretically capitalism could solve this if consumers were less apathetic and engaged with the companies business practices more but they aren’t and thats probably a huge waste of peoples time so we differ the responsibility to government.
In my opinion a lot of problems happening in western countries are due to the erosion of government and the average person not caring how their country is governed and hating “big government”.
The practical examples of cooperatives (which tend to follow the principle of worker owned businesses) don’t use stocks as some kind of speculative tools. Stocks serve primarily two purpose. First is to act a voting slip where any amount of stocks you own gives you equal voting rights with other stock holders. And the second is dividend payout which usually is proportional to the amount of stocks you hold.
I’d rather earn 50k a year than 40k and get a 15k worth of ownership in my company. The problem with workers being forced to invest in their workplace is that not all workplaces are a good investment. Its not fair to have blockbuster employees lose a significant portion of their wealth solely because they got a job there instead of pizzahut.
Fair enough, but that has nothing to do with democratization of the workplace. If you don’t want to invest you don’t get a voting right and you don’t get dividends, you just get paid for the labor you do.
It creates a massive wealth gap and it becomes harder for new business to get off the ground because anyone who would work for them is being forced to take on significant risk.
If by massive wealth gaps you mean successful companies get to pay their workers more than not successful companies then that’s almost how capitalism works, except workers don’t get paid more, only the stock holders get paid more. So really capitalism is doing far worse in creating massive wealth gaps.
The better version allows employees to invest in any array of companies to better protect their individual wealth against market fluctuations and have it grow proportional to the economy. When every citizen holds their wealth in the snp500 they all get richer when the economy grows. Its why we see a lot of government programs doing whatever they can to get people to invest. But still people choose not to.
The better version is where the stock market doesn’t exist in the first place because to participate in the stock market you have to have extra money you can spend on stocks and most people do not have that kind of money.
As for exploitation people have very different definitions so its best left to government policy not the economic systems. If you dont want 12hr shifts in the mines the government should step in and legislate.
So where exactly is that legislation? Because almost 200 years ago economists imagined the increased productivity from technological advances would have us working 24 hours a week? Instead we’re working 40 hours a week which most of the western world has been stuck at for over a century.
Theoretically capitalism could solve this if consumers were less apathetic and engaged with the companies business practices more but they aren’t and thats probably a huge waste of peoples time so we differ the responsibility to government.
This is so detached from reality I can’t even be bothered to fully explain how this thinking is completely wrong. Do you have the money to buy a car that doesn’t use gas? and then clothes that are not made by children? and then electronics that don’t depend on exploiting the third world for cheap raw materials? And then all the food stuff that is made by companies who don’t use plastic wrapping? Or produce that doesn’t come from exploited animals? Or crops that aren’t showered with pesticides? Or fish that’s not caught by overfishing? If you’re a laborer you most likely can’t afford all of those things because you too are being exploited and you have to buy what you can afford and not what would be conscious consumer choice. And that’s assuming that you’re even aware the shitty things companies are doing so you could be a conscious consumer.
