The Systems Problem (mainly for Siggy) by FREMDFIRMA

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

The Systems Problem (mainly for Siggy)

POSTED BY: FREMDFIRMA
UPDATED: Monday, November 4, 2013 15:41
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1048
PAGE 1 of 1

Saturday, November 2, 2013 7:03 PM

This one is pretty thought provoking, especially as it involves Mondragon, and my ire at some of the things they've done which they shouldn't have, and what you and I have for some time discussed back and forth when we weren't throwing daggers at each other.

What then when a System gets too big and slips the leash ?

Mondragón and the System Problem
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/19704-mondragon-and-the-system-prob
lem

My opinion is that they should have split it, or spun off daughter co-ops like the Hutterites do long before it got this large, cause the problems of scale and system come in when the monkeysphere is breached.

Would love to hear your input on this, Siggy.
(Or anyone else, if you have any bright ideas)

-Frem

ETA: For them not present for previous discussions, Terminology.
Monkeysphere
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number

Hutterites (I buy honey for making mead from these people)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutterites

Mondragon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondrag%C3%B3n_Cooperative_Corporation

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 2, 2013 9:50 PM

BYTEMITE

Aw, that's too bad. For a while there they were a good example of a cooperative system that DOES work.

But whenever power structure becomes too large, some part of it becomes entrenched and consolidates, and then you have the same problems you originally set out to eliminate.

So yeah, I'd say shoulda split off too. In fact, the moment any one group noticed another group consolidating power, they shoulda left in protest.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 3, 2013 8:33 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

The most telling statement for me was in the comments section of the article.

"But for this to work, a whole lot of people would have to share certain values and be strongly committed to them. (For instance, we've heard that teaching is revered in Finland more highly than almost any other profession. This shared value is tied to the birth and life of a terrific education system.)"

This is the issue you have with any (relatively) non-coercive system, be it communitarianism or any other (libertarianism comes to mind).

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 3, 2013 10:48 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I don't see the problem being related to being "big" (ie moving beyond a monkey-sphere) or failing to adhere to a fully cooperative system, altho they did both. Their most immediate critical flaw was borrowing from a non-cooperative financial system. Look at the list of their creditors: the Basque government, banks and others.

I find this strange, because I thought that the reason why Mondragon was particularly successful is because they had their own cooperative bank, so why borrow elsewhere? I know by direct observation that it's very difficult for cooperatives ANYwhere to obtain financing; even those with solid business plans won't get small business loans from US and Canadian banks (and I imagine UK banks as well) because capitalist banks are ideologically opposed to cooperatives.

In any case, the cause immediately behind not being able to pay off their creditors is simply that they are a cooperative system embedded in a capitalist one. As long as they are vying in the marketplace for shares of consumers, they'll wind up competing with the Chinese (they use Polish, Moroccan, and Chinese labor) and other low-cost manufacturers, and when the market for their product goes bust.... as it was bound to do during the larger economic meltdown... the business goes bust as well. It's very simple. The article says that as well:

Quote:
Mondragón's primary emphasis has been on effective and efficient competition. But what do you do when you are up against a global economic recession, on the one hand, or radical cost challenges from Chinese and other low-cost producers, on the other?

Do you recall my diatribe against the concept of efficiency? Well, I have another diatribe against the concept of competition all warmed up, if you want to hear it.

The same problem can be seen in Kerala, a state in India that is (was?) partially socialist. The pressures of being embedded in a corrupt, poverty-stricken nation eventually eroded the operations of Kerala's cooperatives to the point where they are hybrids of cooperatives and "contract" laborers, as is Mondragon.

The answer is to form as near a complete production and consumption cycle as you can with an ecology of cooperatives.... everything from farming, clothing, housing, and energy production to transportation, accounting, technology, and finance. This requires thoughtful, planned development, not ad-hoc, adventitious, or opportunistic investment. That way you can insulate this ecology of cooperatives from the roiling of the larger capitalist economic sphere (of which I include China) as much as possible, and retain capital flow within this ecology. It would be better if you could create your own medium of exchange... I have a concept all warmed up for that one, too: the Nonbank International Credit Exchange (NICE).

I'm sure the rest of the article says the same; I didn't read it all the way thru, the problems and the answers seem obvious to me.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 3, 2013 12:23 PM

BYTEMITE

Quote:
This is the issue you have with any (relatively) non-coercive system, be it communitarianism or any other (libertarianism comes to mind).

That's why you need people to be free to split off and develop their own systems and allow coexistence between them all.

Anything else by nature and definition is actually coercive.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 3, 2013 12:30 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Eh, not really.

What you NEED is a system that provides for all of the needs and at least some of the wants of its participants, otherwise that system will collapse. I doubt that you will find willing participants in a system that doesn't even offer subsistence. While I grant that people need a fundamental paradigm shift in order to engage in a different system, paradigm shift by itself isn't going to work. (Necessary but not sufficient.)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 3, 2013 1:07 PM

BYTEMITE

Most systems can easily provide for the needs of all the participants, the problem is when some systems allow individuals to put obstacles in the way of others meeting subsistence needs in order to force them into slavery.

It's a power structure problem.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 3, 2013 1:18 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

The needs of the participants are prolly beyond what you imagine. I know at one time you said that your family could scratch out enough food from a relatively small plot of land (If I mis-remember your point, I apologize and please correct me), and we got into the issue of building houses and making clothes... but, can you make your own nails and axes? Can you make your own glass? Can you make your own cloth? Your own antibiotics? The smaller the organization, the closer you will be to primitivism.

At this point, people in Spain, Greece, and Ireland might be willing to trade some physical labor for more reliable food and housing, but I doubt they (or anyone) would be willing to give up antibiotics and birth control. There needs to be a logical and acceptable way step backward, out of this large-scale forced economic integration (We're all part of the borg now) into something that is more autonomous and decentralized, but you need to keep some essential goods and services.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 3, 2013 2:40 PM

BYTEMITE

Quote:
but, can you make your own nails and axes? Can you make your own glass? Can you make your own cloth? Your own antibiotics? The smaller the organization, the closer you will be to primitivism.

Yes to all of these - though pottery containers and ceramics are much easer than glass, but that's also doable. It might require some scavenging trash material in the case of metals, or use of my geology training, but do it yourself biology is very much a thing, fibers to make clothing is simply plants or sheep wool, and once you have the resources the other considerations to producing basic necessities become minor.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 3, 2013 5:29 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Thanks Siggy, yeah that was pretty close to my assessment as well.

And a closed-cycle, or as much of one as possible is also as effective a solution as spreading out or spinning off, maybe more of one cause unlimited growth is a poor plan in the extreme longterm, unless you're the Borg.

Another workaround on the financial aspect would have been making alliance with a (relatively) friendly middle-eastern nation which could provide access to Islamic Banking, but I suspect issues of nationalism and ideology got in the way there.

The problem of medium of exchange is that some governments, particularly this one, go completely apeshit about it, most recently going after Bitcoins via the Silkroad mess and really tearing the guts out of TOR in the process (which they of course saw as a bonus) - which was the entire POINT regardless of what their lameass excuses were.

Spain, because of their history is a little more tolerant of Anarchism given the horrors Franco visited upon them, which in addition to the passing of time and nostalgia glossing over the often equally horrible conduct of those who opposed him, at the time put Mondragon in something of a "Sweet Spot" allowing them to build a solid foundation - you tried that NOW in Spain though they'd smash you flat before you even got started, alas.

But a foundation of itself isn't enough, you need a plan, and well, mentioning Anarchists and "Plan" in the same sentence is itself hilarious - it does occasionally happen though (as much by accident as intent!).

The education and mentality part is a bit trickier, what with most of the larger systems of that firmly in the hands of folks who use them to crush the victi... err, students, into the mold of corpo climbers and consumers, which requires IMHO some seriously abusive psychological manipulation given what the default instincts of a human happen to be - this *is* shifting a bit, but not on any scale enough to be of use any time soon.

I still favor my overlapping spheres concept though, I think it's workable.
Family->Clan->Tribe->Culture... so forth and so on.

Speakin of, you ever read Ian M Banks "Culture" novels, Siggy ?
I think you might find them interesting, although of course they don't offer any "answers" cause they're a post-scarcity society with no explaination of how they got there from here... but it's an interesting concept they got going.

Far as self-sufficiency and automation goes, I think we're onto something with 3D printing, and someone sent me a bit about scientists who may have (very) temporarily created "hard light" or something thereof... a bit above my head that was, but seems like we're not quite THAT far from replication tech.
(Oh, and I've seen/heard of 3D 'printed' drugs, too)

Sheeeit, gimme a spaceship with sufficient life support and a goddamn replicator, and I'd be off this rock and out to the black in a heartbeat - having somewhere to GO would be nice though, I'm still way curious about Gliese 581d.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 3, 2013 7:21 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

BYTE

Quote:
Yes to all of these - though pottery containers and ceramics are much easer than glass, but that's also doable. It might require some scavenging trash material in the case of metals, or use of my geology training, but do it yourself biology is very much a thing, fibers to make clothing is simply plants or sheep wool, and once you have the resources the other considerations to producing basic necessities become minor.

Huh???? Have you ever tried... I mean, really tried... to spin wool? Have you tried to weave cloth??? Knit? Heck, I just started learning to sew (factory-made cloth, using a machine) and it's not easy!

And, you kind of miss the point. Maybe you can make glass, spin wool, grow and preserve food, build a house, or forge metal, but can you do ALL of them enough to live on? This is where division of labor offers a significant advantage. That is why we use non-human energy. That is why larger organizations, or intentional collections of smaller ones, can provide a higher standard of living for less work. The idea that you can go it alone, or with just a few people, is unworkable. You'll need at least 100 working adults each with a variety of skills in order to live at the feudal level.

FREM
No, I haven't read the books but if you think they're interesting I'll look into it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 3, 2013 9:23 PM

BYTEMITE

Quote:
Huh???? Have you ever tried... I mean, really tried... to spin wool?

I know what it entails. It would be hell to do it by hand, but in a pinch I know how. There ARE simple machines that are easily constructed that could also be employed for the task.

Quote:
Have you tried to weave cloth??? Knit?

Yes and yes.

Quote:
but can you do ALL of them enough to live on?

Yes.

Quote:
You'll need at least 100 working adults each with a variety of skills in order to live at the feudal level.

You lack faith in technology and science - and you do not anticipate the possibly that either one may progress beyond our current capabilities.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 3, 2013 10:31 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Eh, not really.

What you NEED is a system that provides for all of the needs and at least some of the wants of its participants, otherwise that system will collapse. I doubt that you will find willing participants in a system that doesn't even offer subsistence. While I grant that people need a fundamental paradigm shift in order to engage in a different system, paradigm shift by itself isn't going to work. (Necessary but not sufficient.)

Interesting. This is pretty much what I said about Libertarianism - that you need not only folks who want it, but a system that will work for them. You didn't seem to think this was possible. Then why would it work for communitarianism?

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 3, 2013 11:39 PM

BYTEMITE

It would work for both - provided they can coexist, and provided the participants of each system choose it. Sig might question whether they can coexist though, and perhaps not without precedence, but I like to think such problems can be overcome by design and science.

I'm big on the people choosing their system because otherwise I feel it's coercive and inhumane. There's various systematic problems in capitalism, but if every person really did have equal chance and agreed to be part of that system, might not be so bad. But then you get into questions about whether hierarchy and employee/employer models are an intrinsic part of that system.

But if we had alternative systems coexisting, they could be the safety net that a solely libertarian system might otherwise eschew.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 4, 2013 2:23 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

GEEZER

Quote:
Interesting. This is pretty much what I said about Libertarianism - that you need not only folks who want it, but a system that will work for them. You didn't seem to think this was possible. Then why would it work for communitarianism?

Because your version of libertarianism won't work for people any better than corporatism does.

BYTE
How do you feel about people freely choosing slavery? Or fascism?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 4, 2013 7:36 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
GEEZER
Quote:
Interesting. This is pretty much what I said about Libertarianism - that you need not only folks who want it, but a system that will work for them. You didn't seem to think this was possible. Then why would it work for communitarianism?
Because your version of libertarianism won't work for people any better than corporatism does.

Okay. Communitarianism won't work either. Guess we're done here.

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 4, 2013 11:08 AM

BYTEMITE

Quote:
How do you feel about people freely choosing slavery? Or fascism?

I've never seen a slave who "CHOSE" slavery. It usually involves some form of either trickery or use of force. I have heard of the concept of indentured servitude, but that tended to prey on the downtrodden and so was pretty much coercive as well. Have you observed differently?

As for your question about fascism, no, I don't like it, but if the population chose that particular arrangement, then that's their choice. Hitler was democratically elected, if you recall - the other nations hated that, but were only able to act once Nazi Germany started attacking other nations and ethnic groups. Although there is some question about whether that was rigged, which is another reason why choice is so important.

I tend to believe that certain forms of governance are inherently doomed to failure as a result of their leadership inevitably shooting themselves in the foot. Fascism and Imperialism both lend themselves to a sort of irrational arrogance that the situation is under control when it is not and can never be.

The results will work themselves out. All I care about is the existence of choice.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 4, 2013 3:41 PM

BYTEMITE

I would also like to post this as a fascinating and perhaps relevant read.

http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/science/2013/09/3000-years-of-human-hi
story-described-in-one-set-of-mathematical-equations/?utm_source=smithsoniantopic&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20130929-Weekender

This suggests that communities are kept together by the presence of outside threats or competition for resources. I would offer that collapse occurs when internal problems such as cancer like corruption and power consolidation exceed or take priority over external concerns.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE