Thoughts on Intra-Organizational Dynamics: Support for the SCUM Theory

We must remember that there is a point at which that which we deem "business" is really the "State" by another name. Any group of people pretending that what they are doing is of such import and necessity that they need other people to extort money for them in order to continue on, by any other name is still an evil fucking State.

All is but people interacting. They can label themselves whatever they please. If you NEED to violently fleece your fellow man to keep your "business" from failing then you should be left to fail.

Anything else makes your business no different than any so-called State Agency, and thus as much of an extension of the foibles of monopolies, in particular monopolies on force, as the POTUS or SCOTUS.

Let’s take a look at group dynamics.

Under a system like our own, every organization in it that has protection from competition which, here, stems directly from the existence of the State, exhibits a human variant on the trend spoken of in Gresham’s Law. That is, good people are driven out of the group by bad people.

To explain, let me start with two rules:

1) Remember, time and energy are scarce for each individual. You put yours into one task, you lose the opportunity to put it into another. This “opportunity-cost” is continuous. You are always losing opportunities in order to do what you are doing right now…..no, Now…..

2) People, unlike the currency that Gresham bespoke of, adapt. They have this terrible ability to actually assess (albeit imperfectly, and each to a different degree) a situation and adjust their behavior in order to better fit their perception of the environment they find themselves. Thusly, “good people” can become “bad people” and vice versa, depending on the environment.

The term “good people”, in this case, pertains to those who put their time and energy into production and innovation. These people increase the efficiency of organizations they are in. They increase the competitive worth of their organization. There is little difference between their actual value and their productive value, so to speak, within the organization. They also tend to be the ones who actually start new organizations rather than depend solely on finding groups to latch on to. However, the more anti-competition rule

The term “bad people”, in this case, pertains to those who put more, or all, time and energy in sucking-up and kicking-down. They are people-pushers and seek to rise to the top through social subterfuge. Their actual value to the organization is far, far below the perceived value they gain by simply turning people on each other and away from the purpose of the organization.

While the mechanisms are slightly different from what Gresham observed with money, the results are the same.

In a competitive free-market, where those companies that please the consumer the best are the ones that win out, “good people” thrive. They push their companies (groups of individuals) to produce or create the best product they can. If another group of people do a better job that group disperses, or reinvents its own ideas to compete. “Bad people” waste their energy trying to take over companies then having them fail and dissipate right out from under them. Plus, “bad people” tend to inhibit the necessary adaption process to keep a company from going under.

In the free-market the economic time frame is sped up immensely, and they do not have the sheer time or protection to abuse others in groups like they do. It’s just not economically feasible. Production and innovation, wealth are optimum in this social environment. Everyone wins the most. Though “bad people” tend to bitch about it and whisper to themselves how they should be on top (they do in any circumstance, really) because they are _____________(fill in crazy evil excuse here).

Inhibit that competition in production and innovation between groups of people and you create a system like ours today. The State grants favors, dictates at gunpoint and is beholden/responsible to a populace that is either not paying attention or on the receiving end of those favors. Rendering the State beholden to nothing but their eventual collapse (really they’re just a bad, horribly inefficient company that has put off its demise in a time sense while ensuring that when it does occur, blood will flow in rivers rather than a few people lose some money).

In such a system, there is a transformation. This change is in proportion to the depth at which competition is inhibited or even the rate at which it is inhibited. Those companies of people that best suck up to the members of the State “out-compete” the other companies without ever having to improve their company. Often, they succeed at keeping newcomers from ever daring to enter into their market Or having them eaten alive by those who can legitimately use force against others. They are now no longer beholden to a consumer that can take away this directly affects those “bad people” who suck and shove to the top get there and now seem unable to fail. Well they do, but their economic lifespan has been greatly increased which causes the perception that they do not fail. The business has lost incentive to do what it is that business does best, provide services or goods to consumers.

Now we introduce the effects of time!!! As those “good people” fritter their time away they are being out competed within the organization. The organization doesn’t fail from the “bad people” who spend all their time kicking to the top. This is not a process that immediately happens, but like all things over time. It is also aided and abetted by the State.

For example, should an organization be protected from competition and thusly subject by this gradual sifting of “bad people” to the top and “good people” going nowhere fast. With an extra helping of the State, “bad people” can now spend their time suing, snitching, and framing unwary “good people”. There by not only using intraorganization politics to remove competition, but also the tools provided by the State!

Also, harkening back to rule 2, when it is obvious which way the breeze is blowing, people will allocate more of their time into the sectors that benefit them. AKA, once “good people” become “bad people”, or vice versa in a free market. Leaving a very minimal amount of “die-hards” on each side.

In brief conclusion, while I let these ideas rest for a bit. In the end, everyone loses from this (competition inhibiting) paradigm. Everyone, and it can only get progressively worse.

Last note, replace “good people” with “producers of wealth” and “bad people” with “scum-sucking busy-body soul-devouring scraps of cancer”.