3 ms·
Corporations are already propped up by a variety of opaque laws and incentives. There's little natural or intrinsic about the way they tend to be structured. Pe
by archagon 10y ago
Corporations are already propped up by a variety of opaque laws and incentives. There's little natural or intrinsic about the way they tend to be structured. People are malleable and adaptable, and I think new social and economic structures should at least be explored to see what comes out on the other side.
I agree that centralized leadership tends to produce better products, but I don't think a more democratic company would necessarily have to put every decision to vote. Hierarchies could still emerge and responsibility could still be delegated. (Again, see Valve.) But I think distributing power, reward, and responsibility more equally throughout the company would be massively beneficial in terms of "social good".
- stagbeetle 10y ago> But I think distributing power, reward, and responsibility more equally throughout the company would be massively beneficial in terms of "social good". I agree with you, but will the people? History has shown that people just don't care about doing hard things themselves.
- cookiecaper 10y ago>Hierarchies could still emerge and responsibility could still be delegated. (Again, see Valve.) Valve is a very small, very selective company, which rarely produces new products. Despite all the overtures about freedom, there is still a central point of control that can and will put the kibosh on things if they're not going the way they want. People have a psychological need for authorities. If you don't give them any, they will make their own out of the nearest willing "charismatic" person, who will emerge as a de-facto authority. An explicit structure is better than mob rule. I don't think anyone believes wealth inequality is not a problem, but I don't think non-hierarchical structures are going to do anything to solve it.