5 ms·

> Democracy is cool, until we look at companies. Then it's dictatorships as the norm. Democracy is a horribly inefficient system of government. Its only redeem

• mempko 7y ago
  Democracy is also a system that produces BETTER decisions. Sure tyranny can make decisions "efficiently" but that's not that great when those decisions are terrible. Democracy: Fewer macro, more micro, better decisions Command-Control: More macro, fewer micro, terrible decisions. EDIT: Another way to think of democracy is "distributed decision making" vs command-control which is "centralized decision making". When I talk about democracy, I mean distributed decision making.
  • cameronbrown 7y ago
    It also makes the orgs much slower moving, much less able to adapt quickly. Market conditions change while these companies are still debating decisions from months ago. TL;DR: It works for some (and we should have more of them imo!) but not all or even most.
  • NhanH 7y ago
    Non action is a decision. In general, I don't think there is even a possibility to ever make less decisions. A situation happens, and a decision needs to be made to resolved it, non-action is also just one of the possible decision. I don't think I have ever heard, study or read about the claim of democracy making better decision (at the least, the common refrain about tyranny of the majority comes to mind), so I will have to ask for justifications of that statement.
    • mempko 7y ago
      First, most people misunderstand democracy. Democracy is that people have a say over in proportion to how much a decision affects them. Command-control hierarchies don't have this property. I like to call democracy 'distributed' decision making vs centralized like command-control. Have you read studies that command-control hierarchies make better decisions?
    • evunveot 7y ago
      "Wisdom of the crowd" was also a common refrain for a time. Somewhat trendy in the years before Twitter and Facebook blew up. I think it's widely regarded as naive nowadays, though. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisdom_of_the_crowd#Problems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisdom_of_the_crowd#Problems
  • sonofhans 7y ago
    I expect you're being downvoted because your statement is so obviously wrong. Democracies have consistently made horrifying decisions. Take a read through https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority
    • ilikehurdles 7y ago
      As have monarchies and dictatorships. So where does that leave us? The conclusions that all forms of government make horrifying decisions?
      • 49para 7y ago
        Democracy is the worst form of government ... Except for all others.
      • chillacy 7y ago
        I like to think that a democracy and good decision making are not particularly correlated. But democracy is technology for preventing violent revolution because power change is built into the system.
    • mempko 7y ago
      It's not obviously wrong. What has Democracy to do with "majority based decision making". Another way to think of democracy is "distributed decision making". So why would "distributed decision making" be obviously worse than "command and control" like the way a corporation or tyrannical government is run?
  • rafaelvasco 7y ago
    Not necessarily. Democracy could only work effectively if most of the population is very well educated. Which is not the case, specially in under developed countries; Most of the time, the ignorance and lack of a more developed consciousness in a country citizens benefits those that are in power, as ignorant people are much easier to manipulate so that it stays that way;
    • frenchyatwork 7y ago
      > Democracy could only work effectively if most of the population is very well educated. Certainly if you're looking at tech jobs, the "population" is reasonably well educated.
      • rafaelvasco 7y ago
        I'm talking about education in a much bigger scope. Not referring to the Kickstarter situation at all; Tech education is not enough. I'm talking about political, social, emotional, economical etc, education; This level of education is a life long pursue. Schools are not enough. Internet is not enough;
      • pathseeker 7y ago
        For business decisions, no. You'd be surprised at how many employees at Google don't really understand the process of how Google makes money. They offer little internal seminars so they can learn how. The last thing you want is a bunch of smart engineers voting on business decisions they don't have the background to fully grok.
        • xkemp 7y ago
          So I guess we should take the overwhelming majority in this threat rejecting the idea of democratizing private companies, and the at least skeptical attitude towards unions as indication that both are likely to be good ideas.
    • evunveot 7y ago
      > Democracy could only work effectively if most of the population is very well educated ... as ignorant people are much easier to manipulate I don't think that's true. In order to manipulate lots of little people you have to manipulate a few big people first. Look at the elite levels of nearly any group that comes with some kind of social status (e.g. celebrities, political parties, university faculties, media organizations) and you'll probably see remarkable levels of groupthink and political monoculture. I don't think that's because all the individuals in the elite group are more educated and enlightened and therefore all naturally came to the same correct conclusions about everything. Seems far more likely that most of the individuals are unconsciously or consciously (if they're Machiavellian, which many of them are) trying to "fit in" with whatever they perceive to be the dominant or "correct" ideas and behavior of the elite, so as not to be expelled from their number, and further that outsiders who wish (consciously or unconsciously) to join the elite group will tend to do the same. The groupthink in itself might be resilient against attempts to manipulate the elite group's culture, and it definitely is when it comes to fast and/or drastic pushes, but you could reasonably hypothesize that groupthink is weak against gradual manipulation because it's ultimately based on consensus rather than any core principle or truth. And elite groups are, by definition, smaller than the overall population, so if your goal is merely to influence the culture of an elite group, there are fewer people you need to target. Vanishingly few, in fact, if you can identify the subset who are actually influential and not just following along. So in a democracy, especially one with mass media and/or widespread social media, if you can influence the social status elites enough to change their perception of the correct way to "fit in" with each other, votes will tend to flow in the same direction simply because humans are naturally attracted to and desire social status. Another way to look at "fitting in" is "wanting the right things." Get the elites to want what you want and the broader population will tend to follow. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9_Girard#Mimetic_desire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9_Girard#Mimetic_desir... The countervailing force is that some people, either by nature or circumstantially, hold a default skepticism of elites and authority. Controlling a democracy (assuming you can't just flip votes) therefore requires two parallel efforts: you have to influence as many elite groups as possible (gradually, so they don't notice [assuming you can't just buy them off]) while simultaneously exalting them as noble and trustworthy to increase their visibility and tamp down skepticism. You have to buttress the overall system of social status hierarchy. Buy-in from the mass media helps, but luckily they're already fully convinced of their own importance. The side effect is that you end up creating room for malevolent actors within the elite groups to commit heinous acts with impunity, often using gatekeeping as a coercion tactic, but if you're convinced that your ultimate goal is just, you'll probably still be able to sleep at night. (And maybe a Ronan Farrow will come along every now and then to help with that.) The counter strategy is to undermine faith in the elites and/or the overall social status class system, e.g. through mockery, which happens to be both more persuasive and easier (and, arguably, true, in that many people occupying elite social strata are indeed ridiculous). But that damages the control mechanism and is thus unacceptable. Point being: democracy doesn't really work as intended, not because of lack of education in the electorate, but because everyone, top to bottom, is prone to envy.
• jrochkind1 7y ago
  Some have experienced egregious tyranny and abuse of power in the workplace, and might think it is worth deterring there too.
  • umvi 7y ago
    IMO with companies, the stakes are not so high that democracies (i.e. unions) need to be implemented right from inception. If a company demonstrates repeated abuse of employees, then sure, retrofit it with a union to keep future abuses in check. But unions have several significant downsides too, and for companies with a clean record, strong leaders with a vision, good pay and benefits, high morale, etc. I don't see any benefit to encumbering such with a union.
    • jrochkind1 7y ago
      If you haven't been in a position where workplace tyranny and abuse of power don't seem so high stakes, you are fortunate, but your experience is not universal or necessarily typical.
      • umvi 7y ago
        Not high stakes as in you won't be killed, your family won't be shipped off to a labor camp, etc. if the company president turns out to be a malevolent dictator. You really think it's worth it to encumber all companies with unions because of a few bad eggs?
        • Apocryphon 7y ago
          In the U.S., healthcare is tied to employer. That, coupled with low amount of savings most Americans have, does make it into a life and death situation.
        • jrochkind1 7y ago
          No, at worst you might just might end up living on the street, without healthcare. Or just humiliated and broken down daily. Sure I do. What's the downside, someone might tell you not to plug in your own computer? You think it's worth it to have people spending the majority of their life in an environment of tyranny, abuse of power, humilation and degradation, no democracy in the environment you spend most of your waking hours in -- because some unions might tell you not to plug in your own computer?
• geofft 7y ago
  Linus and Guido a) do not control anyone's paycheck b) cannot control who decides they're interested in working on Linux and Python. The benevolent dictatorship model works great when people can vote with their feet (or their keyboards, as the case may be) whether they support the dictator in the first place. The contributors to Linux and Python have more influence over the projects than the dictators do - they continually decide whether to endorse the dictator's vision. A dictatorship of a company is much more like an actual dictatorship of a country, where you control people's lives and decide who gets to join and leave. It's more efficient, yes - but it is both less just and less incentivized to point that ruthless efficiency in the right direction. By all means, run technical projects at work like Linux and Python are run - but give people the freedom to vote no confidence in these projects without endangering their housing and their health insurance.
  • technotony 7y ago
    You don't get to decide who leaves. If people don't like a companies dictator then they are free to go join another company. It's this competition in the free market for labor that helps prevent the abuses of tyranny.
    • xiler 7y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_Litigation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_L... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopsony https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopsony
    • lexs 7y ago
      That is a terribly naive perspective on the "free market for labor"
      • pathseeker 7y ago
        Not in software.
        • 7y ago
• Mangalor 7y ago
  Maybe what would improve these companies is not pure democracy, but rather a bill of rights for workers. This can include a mutual contract over pay and benefits, depending on how well the company is doing, with a legitimate appeals process for both sides.
• carapace 7y ago
  [In]efficient at what? You've got to think carefully about your metrics when it comes to government. Look it's widely understood that, if the dictator or tyrant is good at his (or, very occasionally, her) job then things usually go well. The old women of Bhutan cried when the King decreed democracy. It's getting rid of the bad ones that's the big problem, and so: democracy. "The worst form of government except for all the others." Edit to add: the ultimate government is "full consensus", but it's incredibly expensive in terms of the time it takes to get everybody's input and consensus. However, once full consensus is reached it's the most efficient at execution: everyone works together in harmony to achieve the ends of the group in the mutually-agreed fashion. Needless to say, this form of government is very very rare on Earth, but hardly unknown. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus
  • TeMPOraL 7y ago
    Democracy is efficient at getting shit done. As uncareful as this metric is defined. But I would say even more importantly, democracy is very efficient at limiting internal bloodshed. It provides a well-defined, peaceful process for people to grab power. The power is limited, but you don't have to kill people to gain it, and in turn you don't risk getting killed yourself by the next upstart.
    • carapace 7y ago
      I agree. One of the most important and successful aspects is the relatively peaceful transfer of power. Personally I'm more concerned that the government remains responsive and, for lack of a better word, humble. (That's part of why the Kingdom of Bhutan is so amazing: the don't measure GNP, they have a measure called Gross National Happiness that they take pretty seriously. Heh. They really seem to have their kit together. It's a Third-World country you can't emigrate to.)
• mrlala 7y ago
  >Its only redeeming quality is that it seems effective at (so far) deterring tyranny and abuse of power. =/