Seth - Thank You for your concise description. I visited because I really liked your "seed" presentation for Applied Anthroposophy last Wednesday showing an historical need for threefold societal contributions all the way from the caste system of India to the Middle Ages and disrupted by the division of labor in the Industrial Revolution.
But I found myself in disagreement with your basic premise in this article that saw the contract of work between employees and employers as mostly an adversarial and hostile relationship. You see Robber Barons exploiting everyone without acknowledging their role also as Captains of Industry whose entrepreneurial risks create the jobs and products that many of us need and want. Most people are risk aversive. They want the security of someone else's vision and be paid. They don't want the risk of "losing it all."
And using examples and quotes from the early 1900's like the Lawrence Mill strike just reinforces the sense you are fighting old tired cliches. Yes, you acknowledge the Labor Movement's accomplishments. But we have come light years since the textile mill strikes. Capitalism has done more to lift people out of poverty than any other economic system. Can it evolve and improve? Yes.
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your underlying principles, but your language does not aid your cause as it seems dated and reminiscent of a dialectical adversarial system. I lived in a truly Marxist economy for three years in a volunteer intentional community and loved it. It was one of the best phases of my younger life. It was called Camphill Copake. I look forward to reading more of your posts since you are a thinker and that is a rare breed.
Thank You, Jerome Kocher
PS When you mentioned Joel as a companion on the path, did you mean Joel Morrow from Great Barrington. He was a friend of mine. Thanks again!
Thanks for your thoughtful response, Jerome. I'm glad you appreciated the seed presentation last week.
Looking back over the article, I don't think I paint the employer-employee relationship as too hostile and adverse. I describe a "clear power differential," that "employees are dependent upon employers" which I describe as a leash. That basic dynamic hasn't changed since the Lawrence Textile Strike, though working conditions, pay, etc, have all improved. And I think that basic dynamic is the most problematic aspect of work. I think we could be experiencing far greater "poverty," but actually be far happier if our fundamental dignity wasn't being offended by the very nature of the relationship.
I definitely don't think employers are bad people. I've worked for plenty, and still do, and have wonderful relationships with them. And yet the dynamic still needs to change. It's a systemic issue. We need to separate work and income. (That said, I'm currently not a big fan of Universal Basic Income because I think it's too much of a band-aid. I think we have to address questions around motivation for work and access to capital, amongst others, at the same time. We need a more holistic approach.) Anyways, I'll be writing about these other issues in coming months. Would be interested in your thoughts on them. All the best - Seth
(And I did mean Joel Morrow. I never actually met him, though. I'm good friends with Gary Lamb so I've heard plenty about him over the years.)
Seth- Thanks for your prompt response and thoughtful comments. I do look forward to looking at other posts.
As for the current labor shortage, I do agree that in the lockdown people were forced into a “year long retreat” that the majority would never sign up for. But it had the same result as those who seek a quiet period of silence: it broke the cords of attachment, as you so aptly described as “a leash.” This causes people to question their habitual choices. But equally as strong is the unintended consequence of not only extending unemployment benefits but paying people an additional bonus above that, resulting in many getting paid more to stay home than what they’d receive from working. A huge dis-incentive with unintended consequence. I’ve heard many anecdotal stories from people for whom that is true. Not a scientific sampling, but enough to indicate a trend.
Thank you again for spurring on the conversation. In a time when people have stopped talking to each other, that’s the first step back . . .
Seth - Thank You for your concise description. I visited because I really liked your "seed" presentation for Applied Anthroposophy last Wednesday showing an historical need for threefold societal contributions all the way from the caste system of India to the Middle Ages and disrupted by the division of labor in the Industrial Revolution.
But I found myself in disagreement with your basic premise in this article that saw the contract of work between employees and employers as mostly an adversarial and hostile relationship. You see Robber Barons exploiting everyone without acknowledging their role also as Captains of Industry whose entrepreneurial risks create the jobs and products that many of us need and want. Most people are risk aversive. They want the security of someone else's vision and be paid. They don't want the risk of "losing it all."
And using examples and quotes from the early 1900's like the Lawrence Mill strike just reinforces the sense you are fighting old tired cliches. Yes, you acknowledge the Labor Movement's accomplishments. But we have come light years since the textile mill strikes. Capitalism has done more to lift people out of poverty than any other economic system. Can it evolve and improve? Yes.
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your underlying principles, but your language does not aid your cause as it seems dated and reminiscent of a dialectical adversarial system. I lived in a truly Marxist economy for three years in a volunteer intentional community and loved it. It was one of the best phases of my younger life. It was called Camphill Copake. I look forward to reading more of your posts since you are a thinker and that is a rare breed.
Thank You, Jerome Kocher
PS When you mentioned Joel as a companion on the path, did you mean Joel Morrow from Great Barrington. He was a friend of mine. Thanks again!
Thanks for your thoughtful response, Jerome. I'm glad you appreciated the seed presentation last week.
Looking back over the article, I don't think I paint the employer-employee relationship as too hostile and adverse. I describe a "clear power differential," that "employees are dependent upon employers" which I describe as a leash. That basic dynamic hasn't changed since the Lawrence Textile Strike, though working conditions, pay, etc, have all improved. And I think that basic dynamic is the most problematic aspect of work. I think we could be experiencing far greater "poverty," but actually be far happier if our fundamental dignity wasn't being offended by the very nature of the relationship.
I definitely don't think employers are bad people. I've worked for plenty, and still do, and have wonderful relationships with them. And yet the dynamic still needs to change. It's a systemic issue. We need to separate work and income. (That said, I'm currently not a big fan of Universal Basic Income because I think it's too much of a band-aid. I think we have to address questions around motivation for work and access to capital, amongst others, at the same time. We need a more holistic approach.) Anyways, I'll be writing about these other issues in coming months. Would be interested in your thoughts on them. All the best - Seth
(And I did mean Joel Morrow. I never actually met him, though. I'm good friends with Gary Lamb so I've heard plenty about him over the years.)
Seth- Thanks for your prompt response and thoughtful comments. I do look forward to looking at other posts.
As for the current labor shortage, I do agree that in the lockdown people were forced into a “year long retreat” that the majority would never sign up for. But it had the same result as those who seek a quiet period of silence: it broke the cords of attachment, as you so aptly described as “a leash.” This causes people to question their habitual choices. But equally as strong is the unintended consequence of not only extending unemployment benefits but paying people an additional bonus above that, resulting in many getting paid more to stay home than what they’d receive from working. A huge dis-incentive with unintended consequence. I’ve heard many anecdotal stories from people for whom that is true. Not a scientific sampling, but enough to indicate a trend.
Thank you again for spurring on the conversation. In a time when people have stopped talking to each other, that’s the first step back . . .
Thank You, Jerome