Avatar

Collectivism and the libtard (Public Board)

by Pepe the Programmer @, Süm Fäggöt and Disloyal Actual Retard, Tuesday, September 15, 2020, 18:45 (10 days ago)
edited by Pepe the Programmer, Tuesday, September 15, 2020, 18:52

About this event/non-event: Argument with a leftist light from FB

I had a bit of an epiphany.

What I was trying to do in this instance was break down the walls of communication with a collectivist. Someone who in general wants to believe in the power of collaboration and cooperation, but who goes well beyond that to believing that institutions and groups are virtually always the solution to all problems at all levels.

This same guy used to argue a lot on a defunct message board we both used that employee co-ops were a strong contender for "the" solution to older IT and engineering worker unemployment.

He basically wanted to create his own job (bueno) but he also believed that there is so much inherent power in raw talent that a profitable co-op can be formed from unemployed workers. (No bueno.)

In other words, he believed in magic and alchemy. Put raw elements together that nobody currently places any workplace value on, and the act of assembling all of these laid off IT workers together would transmogrify into a profitable enterprise.

I would continually pose the standard hard questions to him:

- What is the profitable idea everyone is coalescing around? Just having talented people isn't enough. (His answer: "study groups" where everyone brainstorms.)

- A buncha engineers. So who's gonna SELL? WHO will pick up that f***ing phone and pitch products or opportunities? Engineers despise selling. (His answer: none except believing in alchemy and magic that the product would sell itself.)

- If any one of these people were so inherently wonderful they would *already* own their own profitable business. Nobody capable of doing their own profitable product development or profitable consulting work would *need* untested partners. They would most likely either hire talent THEY needed, or they would look for equals who themselves already made independent income. If they wanted to do charity work (donating paying jobs to untested and rusty former IT workers) they would probably just donate to meals, housing, or training programs. (His answer: I'm too pessimistic.)

- Chain of command/chain of authority: I said it was necessary in order to have a coherent operation. But an all volunteer workforce would each want to do their own thing so no chain of authority is present. (His answer: I place too much weight on authority.)

Worth noting is that this guy was always throughout his career a salaryman and never even did job shop contracting. Then he was forcibly retired. He only worked at F500 places. My early career experience in that domain is that everyone is selected from high GPA graduate populations and these IT and engineer groups contain pretty dedicated career engineers. In other words most good F500 businesses (as they used to be) such as HP, IBM, GE, etc. were collectivist in the sense that you worked in and for engineering groups or teams on specific projects that were handed out.

So he never had personal responsibility for anything that anyone else failed to do. He never was screwed out of a contract payment. He never had to feverishly think up the next thing to build or do in order to earn his living.

He was simply assigned work, which he did to the best of his ability (almost Karl Marxian.) Hey, it was good while it lasted.

But he likely considered working in that cloistered environment "entrepreneurial".

My perspective was formed from small companies, and software contracting and freelancing. You're always butting heads with clients. Clients ask for dumb things. Customers never want to select the option their business needs, they tend to ask for vanity features. Projects fail and then people get fired or released from contracts. You do your job and then you get axed and you get badmouthed, even while your product is selling and making your former employer money.

I put up with this because I didn't live and work in a technology belt.

The entire point is:

This retired, 60ish liberal guy has been cloistered in his professional life. He's never faced impossible odds against him in the workplace.

Institutions have never failed him.

I think, in short, he's a naive collectivist.

So he's liberal. A liberal listens to talking heads and then says "look at how many talking heads, therefore they must know something valid and we must pay attention to it."

I'm thinking a lot of the Trump/left schism is based on the likely fact that Trump's ideas and the entire conception of individual liberty resonates the most with anyone who has had to pull up by their bootstraps and who never really breaks through to assured success. In other words: the self employed; the non college educated; small business owners; those who in some way take a lot of risk on in their ventures.

To the collectivist, the entire idea of individual risk sharing sounds unnecessary.

These can be: high school and college students; trust fund kiddies; some divorced women with large settlements; career employees; the very very young; young moms/a wide swath of women. In other words, all of the groups protected their entire lives so far against personal risk.

Conclusion: Collectivists usually have limited experience with unfair adversity and usually have had someone protecting their interests for them. They don't KNOW that the cavalry from HUD or some other government program will never be riding in or that daddie's monthly check won't ever arrive.

--
-----------

I vill trransmit this information to Vladimir.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum