3 ms·

There's no point in getting defensive, that's not my favorite book and nobody expects you or anyone to actually read it, let alone before replying. It's just a

There's no point in getting defensive, that's not my favorite book and nobody expects you or anyone to actually read it, let alone before replying. It's just a reference to the ideas I mentioned, put in a more academic format. > maybe you genuinely think that working at Google and living in Egypt under President Mubarak is a good comparison Nice way of picking two extremes to make a point. Also, not sure what you're comparing here. Nobody is gonna kill you at Google. You can get fired though (which is more or less like some sort of corporate execution or something) and if you're at the wrong end of a recession you're gonna have a bad time. Fine then, it seems I struck a nerve here. How about authoritarian? Is that better? And maybe Russia instead of Egypt. Would that be more palatable? I did live under a totalitarian government myself. And to be honest, I see a lot of the behaviors I grew up with, in the current corporate culture (at least in the US). Do I live a better life? Sure, of course, there's no doubt about it. But that's solely because I submit to that culture. But I will be kicked off the gravy train at the first sign of dissent (same as under said dictatorship).

kareemsabri 4y ago
Fair enough. My defensiveness is based on the assumption prevalent in these sorts of discussions that if you don't share a viewpoint you are just suffering from insufficient education on it. I'm picking extremes because the OP made a blanket statement about life in workplaces. They didn't say, life as an Amazon warehouse worker is exploitative for example. The statement was extreme to begin with. There are lots of different types of workplaces in America. You didn't really strike a nerve beyond I guess that I'm not a huge fan of hyperbole / sloppy language. I don't really think you'll get kicked off the gravy train if you dissent at all. There's a good bit of anti-capitalism, "tear down the system" type talk in tech. That said, I agree with you that corporations are not democratic organizations. My first corporate job was as a cashier at a grocery store. Yes, if I refused to wear the uniform, or ring up customers when they stood in my line, I'd probably be written up and after 3 write ups, fired. I guess you could call that authoritarian. I don't see how it gets you much though.
AnimalMuppet 4y ago
> Nice way of picking two extremes to make a point. Also, not sure what you're comparing here. Nobody is gonna kill you at Google. You can get fired though (which is more or less like some sort of corporate execution or something) and if you're at the wrong end of a recession you're gonna have a bad time. You're the one claiming "totalitarian". But when someone brings in real totalitarian, you say "hey, that's too extreme". Um, yeah, that's the point. Your claim of "totalitarian" is a bogus over-the-top rhetorical flourish, and you have now pretty much agreed that it is.
- decebalus1 4y ago
  > You're the one claiming "totalitarian". But when someone brings in real totalitarian, you say "hey, that's too extreme". I was referring to the comparison itself to be extreme. There's a difference. Can you define your view on what totalitarianism means? And please don't use countries as examples. I think there's a disconnect here and people are arguing semantics and language accuracy while missing the original point, which still stands.
  - AnimalMuppet 4y ago
    Nope. You chose the word; you made the claim. It's your definition we're arguing about; mine is irrelevant. So if you've got a definition where your claim makes sense, state it. Then we can argue about whether your definition is reasonable. My definition is a distraction. (I don't know whether you were trying for a distraction or not, but my definition isn't the point.)
    - decebalus1 4y ago
      Fair enough. Based on Zbigniew Brzezinski and Carl Friedrich, totalitarianism has 6 characteristics which makes it a particular extreme form of authoritarianism. The definitions relate to state level politics, so I agree it's a bit of a stretch to extrapolate it to how a modern corporation is run, but here we go: - all-encompassing ideology I think this pretty much rolls up to a core mission (which everyone needs to work on pushing forward. You also don't get to pick the core mission, it is a top-down approach) and what people call 'culture'. Some companies are more hardcore when it comes to enforcing and maintaining the culture and mission by hiring based on 'culture fit' and by weeding out renegades. This is also something often brought up during conflicts: 'what is our mission? what are we working towards?' and used in contexts when it's less appropriate. For example a company using stack ranking for employee performance, using the same philosophy when dealing with external vendors. I will not bring up other divisive aspects of corporate ideologies which cross boundaries into wedge politics. The ideology has a great way of self-enforcing, but having people police each other. - a single party Well, there are no parties per se in megacorp. Maybe factions? This doesn't really fit well here as there's no direct correspondence so I agree this would be a total stretch. - a terroristic police Well, not really. But the oppression is still there and you'd know if you ever crossed the line when it comes to compliance. Nobody is waking you up in the middle of the night to push you inside a black Volga car and execute you in a back alley. But someone can schedule a random meeting out of the blue to tell you that your services are no longer needed. The company will always put on a friendly face until shit hits the fan. I remember once I got an email from a department I didn't even knew existed that I'll be terminated by the end of the day if I didn't provide a photocopy of some document. This is a very successful approach as most people during regular work don't even know it exists. Also, hands up anyone who's been walked out with security after getting fired. I think it's also fair to remind everyone of how Facebook handles whistleblowers or how Amazon handles union efforts (they're even hiring Pinkertons. Pinkertons!!). - a communications monopoly Again, it's not like you're not free to read news. But I bet all company news discussed OFFICIALLY at work comes from one source and one source only. And with current events (say the company is going through something bad) you'll be notified about exactly what to say going forward relative to the events. - a weapons monopoly This doesn't really apply as weapons are off-topic when it comes to workplaces. BUT let's extrapolate it to trade tools/software/equipment. Except for when I was a contractor (and even then I had limits), I always had a list of 'approved' tools or list of stuff I was never ever supposed to use on premise (usually stuff from the competition). - a centrally directed economy This one is obvious. Nobody can deny that most companies use some form of central planning. Now of course, there is a spectrum here. It's never binary and some states are taking it further to the extreme. For example dissidents can be just ousted from positions of power but still be able to live a normal life all the way to getting shot in the back of the head. That's why fascist Italy is different than Putin's Russia or North Korea under Jong-il or under Jong-un. Not all aspects of totalitarianism are enforced using violence. Some are enforced by social norms or by people explicitly drinking the kool-aid to have a better life. Believe it or not, some people actually want totalitarianism. This is why I'm saying that some comparisons may be more extreme. I know and understand that 'totalitarianism' sends people directly into the violent oppression mindset. But oppression is not always violent and most of the times it doesn't even feel like oppression. Is there something I'm missing? I think we don't have to go over authoritarianism as I see people agree on that and most had a problem with 'totalitarianism' as a term.

kareemsabri 4y ago

Fair enough. My defensiveness is based on the assumption prevalent in these sorts of discussions that if you don't share a viewpoint you are just suffering from insufficient education on it. I'm picking extremes because the OP made a blanket statement about life in workplaces. They didn't say, life as an Amazon warehouse worker is exploitative for example. The statement was extreme to begin with. There are lots of different types of workplaces in America. You didn't really strike a nerve beyond I guess that I'm not a huge fan of hyperbole / sloppy language. I don't really think you'll get kicked off the gravy train if you dissent at all. There's a good bit of anti-capitalism, "tear down the system" type talk in tech. That said, I agree with you that corporations are not democratic organizations. My first corporate job was as a cashier at a grocery store. Yes, if I refused to wear the uniform, or ring up customers when they stood in my line, I'd probably be written up and after 3 write ups, fired. I guess you could call that authoritarian. I don't see how it gets you much though.

AnimalMuppet 4y ago

> Nice way of picking two extremes to make a point. Also, not sure what you're comparing here. Nobody is gonna kill you at Google. You can get fired though (which is more or less like some sort of corporate execution or something) and if you're at the wrong end of a recession you're gonna have a bad time. You're the one claiming "totalitarian". But when someone brings in real totalitarian, you say "hey, that's too extreme". Um, yeah, that's the point. Your claim of "totalitarian" is a bogus over-the-top rhetorical flourish, and you have now pretty much agreed that it is.

decebalus1 4y ago
> You're the one claiming "totalitarian". But when someone brings in real totalitarian, you say "hey, that's too extreme". I was referring to the comparison itself to be extreme. There's a difference. Can you define your view on what totalitarianism means? And please don't use countries as examples. I think there's a disconnect here and people are arguing semantics and language accuracy while missing the original point, which still stands.
- AnimalMuppet 4y ago
  Nope. You chose the word; you made the claim. It's your definition we're arguing about; mine is irrelevant. So if you've got a definition where your claim makes sense, state it. Then we can argue about whether your definition is reasonable. My definition is a distraction. (I don't know whether you were trying for a distraction or not, but my definition isn't the point.)
  - decebalus1 4y ago
    Fair enough. Based on Zbigniew Brzezinski and Carl Friedrich, totalitarianism has 6 characteristics which makes it a particular extreme form of authoritarianism. The definitions relate to state level politics, so I agree it's a bit of a stretch to extrapolate it to how a modern corporation is run, but here we go: - all-encompassing ideology I think this pretty much rolls up to a core mission (which everyone needs to work on pushing forward. You also don't get to pick the core mission, it is a top-down approach) and what people call 'culture'. Some companies are more hardcore when it comes to enforcing and maintaining the culture and mission by hiring based on 'culture fit' and by weeding out renegades. This is also something often brought up during conflicts: 'what is our mission? what are we working towards?' and used in contexts when it's less appropriate. For example a company using stack ranking for employee performance, using the same philosophy when dealing with external vendors. I will not bring up other divisive aspects of corporate ideologies which cross boundaries into wedge politics. The ideology has a great way of self-enforcing, but having people police each other. - a single party Well, there are no parties per se in megacorp. Maybe factions? This doesn't really fit well here as there's no direct correspondence so I agree this would be a total stretch. - a terroristic police Well, not really. But the oppression is still there and you'd know if you ever crossed the line when it comes to compliance. Nobody is waking you up in the middle of the night to push you inside a black Volga car and execute you in a back alley. But someone can schedule a random meeting out of the blue to tell you that your services are no longer needed. The company will always put on a friendly face until shit hits the fan. I remember once I got an email from a department I didn't even knew existed that I'll be terminated by the end of the day if I didn't provide a photocopy of some document. This is a very successful approach as most people during regular work don't even know it exists. Also, hands up anyone who's been walked out with security after getting fired. I think it's also fair to remind everyone of how Facebook handles whistleblowers or how Amazon handles union efforts (they're even hiring Pinkertons. Pinkertons!!). - a communications monopoly Again, it's not like you're not free to read news. But I bet all company news discussed OFFICIALLY at work comes from one source and one source only. And with current events (say the company is going through something bad) you'll be notified about exactly what to say going forward relative to the events. - a weapons monopoly This doesn't really apply as weapons are off-topic when it comes to workplaces. BUT let's extrapolate it to trade tools/software/equipment. Except for when I was a contractor (and even then I had limits), I always had a list of 'approved' tools or list of stuff I was never ever supposed to use on premise (usually stuff from the competition). - a centrally directed economy This one is obvious. Nobody can deny that most companies use some form of central planning. Now of course, there is a spectrum here. It's never binary and some states are taking it further to the extreme. For example dissidents can be just ousted from positions of power but still be able to live a normal life all the way to getting shot in the back of the head. That's why fascist Italy is different than Putin's Russia or North Korea under Jong-il or under Jong-un. Not all aspects of totalitarianism are enforced using violence. Some are enforced by social norms or by people explicitly drinking the kool-aid to have a better life. Believe it or not, some people actually want totalitarianism. This is why I'm saying that some comparisons may be more extreme. I know and understand that 'totalitarianism' sends people directly into the violent oppression mindset. But oppression is not always violent and most of the times it doesn't even feel like oppression. Is there something I'm missing? I think we don't have to go over authoritarianism as I see people agree on that and most had a problem with 'totalitarianism' as a term.