Hacker News Reader

Comment by wyager | Hacker News Reader

> we need a democratic economy

Ah, excellent idea. Put the same people who elected Clinton and Trump in charge of the most complicated emergent system in the world. What could go wrong?

> a democratic workforce

"We voted for you to work on this cotton plantation, so get to it! We also have a democratic economy, so you don't need to worry about getting payed anymore!"

> if you believe democracy is a failure, you're saying that your ability to control your own life is a failure.

That's interesting, because last time I checked I didn't control my life via a democracy.

Based on the fact that you're using a very new account, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume this is some sort of incoherent troll bait. If not, this is a strong contender for the dumbest comment I've ever seen on HN; just slap the word "democratic" on random topics and pitch it as an alternative economic system, no further details required.

View on HN

>Ah, excellent idea. Put the same people who elected Clinton and Trump in charge of the most complicated emergent system in the world. What could go wrong?

The people that placed them on the frontstage already are in charge of it? If you think the people decided on these two I'd say you misunderstand the process by which these two reached the forefront. A very small minority selected Clinton and stacked the odds in her favor for selection, as to the rise of Trump, I'd say that's perfectly representative of the type of misdirected anger that rises out of repeated failings of the system. Remember the individuals Trump was running against? Trumps a protest vote, and a terribly dangerous one at that. Choosing between three different people put on your plate by people you don't trust isn't a failing of democracy, it's a failing of the underlying system.

>"We voted for you to work on this cotton plantation, so get to it! We also have a democratic economy, so you don't need to worry about getting payed anymore!"

You fundamentally misunderstand what I'm saying here. I'm not proposing elected slavery, and truly fail to see how you reached that conclusion. I don't know what part of my pro-democracy comment implied I believe in forced labor, but I'm interested in hearing what process you went through in your mind to reach that point.

>That's interesting, because last time I checked I didn't control my life via a democracy.

I'd say your ability to vote, and decide mutually with other people the form society takes is your life being controlled by democracy.

> You fundamentally misunderstand what I'm saying here. I'm not proposing elected slavery, and truly fail to see how you reached that conclusion. I don't know what part of my pro-democracy comment implied I believe in forced labor, but I'm interested in hearing what process you went through in your mind to reach that point.

This is an unproductive comment. If you say something and you aren't understood, the better response would be to explain.

(I, for one, also have no idea what you might mean by a "democratic economy".)

A democratic economy is one where the workers control it through cooperation across industries, the form this takes is up to the workers in this theoretical system. An anarcho-syndicalist approach may work, a participatory economic approach may work, a socialist market system is possible (mutualism). Unfortunately I can't really explain more without getting into the nitty gritty which requires an understanding of socialism.

>(I, for one, also have no idea what you might mean by a "democratic economy".)

One in which we workers are rid of all absentee bosses and run enterprises ourselves, democratically. Hence "democratic economy".

You understand that you are allowed to create such companies now, and they do exist? They don't appear to work much better, if at all better, than a traditional company. But you're free to join or start one if you think you'll like it better.

So... cooperatives?

Among other things, yes.

Would you care to elaborate on that?

Commons trusts would be another major pillar, and democratic confederations of localities. There are many non-capitalist types of institutions ready to use.

> non-capitalist types of institutions

Common trusts and co-ops are both "capitalist institutions". They both rely on private ownership and voluntary transactions. Not sure what you mean by "democratic confederations of localities".

To be fair, he means "capitalist" in a different sense than you do. If you take what he said but use a different interpretation of the words, of course nonsense will result.

But I do think that despite the above your underlying point is fundamentally correct here; both commons trusts and co-ops work perfectly well under existing rules. It sounds like, aside from the democratic confederations thing, what eli_gottlieb wants is not a different system of rules, but rather to kick the existing system into a different equlibrium. (It really seems like these socialist types tend not to distinguish between these...)

> It sounds like, aside from the democratic confederations thing, what eli_gottlieb wants is not a different system of rules, but rather to kick the existing system into a different equlibrium. (It really seems like these socialist types tend not to distinguish between these...)

Well, I'd love to know where you draw the conceptual boundaries between systems. Lemme guess: it's only not-capitalism when the state controls everything?

So, I'm a little confused here. You're listing individual points of what would be different, and what the overall intended effect would be (democratic control by workers), but I'm not seeing how this all fits together into a coherent system.

> I, for one, also have no idea what you might mean by a "democratic economy".

Co-ops, probably.

> The people that placed them on the frontstage already are in charge of it?

First off, there's no secret cabal of billionaires that's "in charge" of the economy. Let's dispense with the conspiracy theories.

Second, the group of people that has a disproportionate amount of economic influence (i.e. bankers and the extremely wealthy) generally supported Clinton and rallied extremely hard against Trump. I don't blame them; Trump's policies are bad for trade. But let's not pretend that they're both some sort of globalist illuminati puppets or something.

> I'd say that's perfectly representative of the type of misdirected anger that rises out of repeated failings of the system

You mean the sort of misdirected anger and other irrational motivations that would completely dictate the behavior of a "democratic economy"? Don't put your money where your mouth is; put someone else's money where your mouth is, and vote!

> I'm not proposing elected slavery,

Interesting, because that's the only meaningful interpretation of "democratic economy".

> I'd say your ability to vote, and decide mutually with other people the form society takes is your life being controlled by democracy.

Besides this statement being more or less incoherent, it also doesn't have anything to do with your earlier statement that

> if you believe democracy is a failure, you're saying that your ability to control your own life is a failure.

There is no connection between the decisions I make for myself and the decisions imposed on me by the whims of a political majority.

>First off, there's no secret cabal of billionaires that's "in charge" of the economy. Let's dispense with the conspiracy theories.

Not at all what I'm trying to say, I don't think there's a shady room where rich people come to smoke cigars and plan out the election, in fact you actually agree with what I'm saying in the very next sentence:

    "Second, the group of people that has a disproportionate amount of economic influence (i.e. bankers and the extremely wealthy) generally supported Clinton"

>I don't blame them; Trump's policies are bad for trade. But let's not pretend that they're both some sort of globalist illuminati puppets or something.

I agree, which is why I said Trump was a protest vote, a naive attempt at hitting back at the system whilst still completely supporting it. I don't know how you think I'm sitting here talking about illumaniti when you demonstrably agree with me about capitalist influence on the election?

>You mean the sort of misdirected anger and other irrational motivations that would completely dictate the behavior of a "democratic economy"? Don't put your money where your mouth is; put someone else's money where your mouth is, and vote!

I don't think you know enough about a democratic economy to be attacking the idea, evidently since you're still believing that I think a democratic economy can exist in a capitalist system.

>Interesting, because that's the only meaningful interpretation of "democratic economy".

Then I think you're very poor at reasoning, can I suggest "The Conquest of Bread" it's a great book that might help you on your journey to understand what I'm saying.

Can you not type so much. Just define "democratic economy" in 1-2 sentences without using more undefined words (buzzwords).

A worker controlled economy. I don't really know what you consider buzzwords and not.

Undefined: A worker controlled economy.

It's really not definable in 2 sentences, there are so many different forms this can take. In essence it's where rather than a capitalist system of a small minority directing the production based off the market, it's the workers directing the production based off of mutual cooperation across industries (note this doesn't mean no market, there are market socialist economies e.g. mutualism). That's it in very broad strokes but by no means an all encompassing definition, especially as the form this co-operation takes is left out of this discussion, and that is a very big part of it.

> In essence it's where rather than a capitalist system of a small minority directing the production based off the market

False premise. This is simply not true in any way, shape, or form. The bottom 90% of people have drastically more control over production than the top 10%. That's why the single richest company in the world, Apple, is a consumer products company.

> it's the workers directing the production

There's a very obvious conflict of interest there, because the workers aren't the only ones who have things that need to be produced. "You know, Ivan, making bread is really tedious; let's go back to making AK-47s instead." This is why if you go on Ebay and type "soviet surplus", you can still buy crates of Mosin Nagants and Nixie Tubes to this very day.

Planned economies are terrible at producing what needs to be produced, and excellent at overproducing things that don't. Whether you think market economies are impersonal or not, they are undoubtedly extremely efficient at meeting people's needs; no more, no less. Deviating from optimum production levels costs companies money.

Why does anyone (minority/majority) have to control anyone ? Do you any problem with live and let live.

> Politicians are bought and sold, and we see an undemocratic group of very powerful individuals influencing legislation and pushing around politicians and manipulating public opinion.

The problem is not minority. The problem is overreaching government. Keep government specific and small.

But your vindictive like attitude is what makes government overly powerful. Your "union-infested economy" solution is worse than what we are facing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com