3 ms·

This is true for corporations too. C-suite suits effectively collude to benefit themselves the most. The only difference is the interpretive frame we decorate t

This is true for corporations too. C-suite suits effectively collude to benefit themselves the most. The only difference is the interpretive frame we decorate their behaviors with. In the case of unions and government, it's bad, but the same actions taken in the corporate world are inevitable and good. "Of course they would do that! That's how it works!"

codekansas 4y ago
The difference is that you have a choice about whether or not to engage with a corporation, but not for your union or government. If you don't want to engage with a corrupt corporation then you can switch jobs or start a new company, but if you don't want to engage with a corrupt union then you basically have to switch industries.
- Apocryphon 4y ago
  On the flip side, there can be industry-wide practices that are only avoidable if you switch professions. Prior to the pandemic, unless you were lucky to already WFH you were basically guaranteed to work in an open office as a SWE in tech, not even a cubicle.
- kelseyfrog 4y ago
  I'm glad you brought this up. It allows me to get to my point which is that choice between corrupt corporations isn't really a choice at all. It highlights the absurdity of choice under markets, namely that markets frame choices in a way that constrains thinking. Markets don't provide for choices beyond their horizon while making people think that they have all the choice in the world. These are in fact the same thing. It's just as absurd to say, "why don't you create your own government if you don't like this one?" as it is to say "why don't you just not engage with corrupt corporations?" The question itself is ill-posed and assumes its own conclusion. This very mechanism is addressed in Žižek's summation, "I would prefer not to," and in the topic of choosing among the least corrupt corporations, I too would like to affirm the non-predicate. I would prefer not to.

codekansas 4y ago

The difference is that you have a choice about whether or not to engage with a corporation, but not for your union or government. If you don't want to engage with a corrupt corporation then you can switch jobs or start a new company, but if you don't want to engage with a corrupt union then you basically have to switch industries.

Apocryphon 4y ago
On the flip side, there can be industry-wide practices that are only avoidable if you switch professions. Prior to the pandemic, unless you were lucky to already WFH you were basically guaranteed to work in an open office as a SWE in tech, not even a cubicle.
kelseyfrog 4y ago
I'm glad you brought this up. It allows me to get to my point which is that choice between corrupt corporations isn't really a choice at all. It highlights the absurdity of choice under markets, namely that markets frame choices in a way that constrains thinking. Markets don't provide for choices beyond their horizon while making people think that they have all the choice in the world. These are in fact the same thing. It's just as absurd to say, "why don't you create your own government if you don't like this one?" as it is to say "why don't you just not engage with corrupt corporations?" The question itself is ill-posed and assumes its own conclusion. This very mechanism is addressed in Žižek's summation, "I would prefer not to," and in the topic of choosing among the least corrupt corporations, I too would like to affirm the non-predicate. I would prefer not to.