3 ms·

> Also raises deep concerns on governance structure. It's so strange to hear this regarding a CEO, a single person, effectively going rogue against a company's

by bmitc 3y ago

> Also raises deep concerns on governance structure. It's so strange to hear this regarding a CEO, a single person, effectively going rogue against a company's charter, but then layoffs of tens, hundreds, and thousands of workers, on the basis of zero fault of their own, by these CEOs and boards are considered good governance.

btbuildem 3y ago
Companies are by and large communist dictatorships - usually there is a Great Leader (CEO), at best there's the Central Committee (board of directors). Effectively, nobody else decides the direction of the company, or makes any impactful decisions. The rank-and-file serfs don't matter, they're expendable and interchangeable. When Dear Leadership is shaken up, it's newsworthy. When ten thousand labourers are let go, it's just a statistic.
- junofan 3y ago
  I have to downvote. I don’t think this kind of agitprop belongs on this site.
  - PhasmaFelis 3y ago
    Do you feel the comparison is unfair to corporations, or to communism?
    - junofan 3y ago
      Neither. Unnecessarily politically combative language doesn’t contribute to the discussion here.
      - asmithmd1 3y ago
        Tell me you have never worked in a publicly traded without saying it. This is EXACTLY what late stage "political" companies are like. There is no rational way to decide who gets the window office vs. the internal office. Everything is "political"
  - rqtwteye 3y ago
    It's totally true. I travelled around East Germany in the 80s and it looked like a bigger and less functional version of a lot of corporations. Motivational posters everywhere, mission statements like "we believe (meaning you, the workers, not us leaders) in A, B ,C", five year plans, leadership living in a world completely detached from the reality on the ground.
  - shkkmo 3y ago
    I don't think "agitprop" is at all a fair comparison. It might be considered troll bait, but personally I view it as pointed quasi-satire. Corporations do tend to be authority based top down structures. There is a tendency to assume stuff must be entirely top down (authoritarian, communist, etc) or bottom up (markets, capitalism, voting, etc). In reality, both types of structures have different failure modes and it works well to have layers of each type of system. Pointing out that modern capitalism is comprised of actors that have large structural similarities to failed communist government seems like more valuable comment than your shallow and dismissive response.
  - btbuildem 3y ago
    "Agitprop" usually refers to praise of the state, embedded into various cultural works -- I don't think this is that. I'll try to expand on my previous comment without using the "C" word itself, prior programming seems to have triggered an emotional reaction there. Here are some qualities that many (if not most) corporations seem to share: - centralized power - collective goals (Team A has an 18 month plan to deliver V18) - top-down approach - bureaucratic hierarchy - collectivist ideology (down to "we're a family, we're all in it together, do it for the company") - controlled expression (approved list of questions for the all-hands meeting, anyone?) - resistance to change - top-down reforms (vc / top brass reorgs) - limited transparency Does that sound like traits characteristic of capitalism, or more like spooky ivan papa bear, sickle and hammer stuff? Where the similarities end is around ownership. In an (idealized) communist system, people own the means of production; in a corporate setting, everything is owned by the organization. Of course this is a key, essential, and critical difference, and it goes all the way back to maybe the 1600's when chartered corporations first appeared; but the roots of that reach even earlier, to the aristocracy disempowered by the rise of the merchant class in the middle ages. The idea of parasitic Majority Shareholders siphoning off any benefits created by the collective efforts of individually irrelevant and easily replaceable Individual Contributors has been with us ever since. That the corporate structures would adopt the social organization aspects of a system that was created in direct response to their relentless exploitation, well, that's just irony of the highest caliber.
- tdeck 3y ago
  I'd say it's more the other way around - dictatorships like the Soviet Union operated like one big company. This form of critique typically uses the term "state capitalism".
istinetz 3y ago
The primary purpose of a company is not to take care of employees. It is to make money by providing valuable services to society. Yes, it is good governance to cut unproductive jobs.
- no_wizard 3y ago
  It’s also good governance to cut dead weight executives. There is no problem here then, is there
- pydry 3y ago
  >The primary purpose of a company is not to take care of employees. It definitely used to be considered as such. There has been a cultural shift over the last 40 years.
- M2Ys4U 3y ago
  The primary purpose of a company, absent any other overriding objects in its constitution, is to act in the interests of its members (~shareholders, although not all members are always shareholders). That usually means making money, but it's not a certainty that's what the primary purpose will be.
  - cyanydeez 3y ago
    this business was a complicated nonprofit.
- janalsncm 3y ago
  > by providing valuable services to society If cigarette companies could cause 5% less cancer by selling 5% fewer packs of cigarettes (resulting in 5% lower profits) do you believe they would do it? You might say that companies have strayed from the Platonic ideal of a corporation and that cigarette companies have strayed from their “purpose” but the reality is that purely prosocial companies have never been the norm. You might also suggest that the very fact that people are purchasing cigarettes demonstrates that they are providing “valuable” goods/services but this is to water down the definition of value to the point of meaninglessness. The truth is that a corporation is a sort of alien entity that almost entirely operates to maximize profits. I say “almost” entirely because it is possible in extreme cases for their leadership to face personal responsibility, but it’s pretty rare.

by bmitc 3y ago

btbuildem 3y ago

Companies are by and large communist dictatorships - usually there is a Great Leader (CEO), at best there's the Central Committee (board of directors). Effectively, nobody else decides the direction of the company, or makes any impactful decisions. The rank-and-file serfs don't matter, they're expendable and interchangeable. When Dear Leadership is shaken up, it's newsworthy. When ten thousand labourers are let go, it's just a statistic.

junofan 3y ago
I have to downvote. I don’t think this kind of agitprop belongs on this site.
- PhasmaFelis 3y ago
  Do you feel the comparison is unfair to corporations, or to communism?
  - junofan 3y ago
    Neither. Unnecessarily politically combative language doesn’t contribute to the discussion here.
    - asmithmd1 3y ago
      Tell me you have never worked in a publicly traded without saying it. This is EXACTLY what late stage "political" companies are like. There is no rational way to decide who gets the window office vs. the internal office. Everything is "political"
- rqtwteye 3y ago
  It's totally true. I travelled around East Germany in the 80s and it looked like a bigger and less functional version of a lot of corporations. Motivational posters everywhere, mission statements like "we believe (meaning you, the workers, not us leaders) in A, B ,C", five year plans, leadership living in a world completely detached from the reality on the ground.
- shkkmo 3y ago
  I don't think "agitprop" is at all a fair comparison. It might be considered troll bait, but personally I view it as pointed quasi-satire. Corporations do tend to be authority based top down structures. There is a tendency to assume stuff must be entirely top down (authoritarian, communist, etc) or bottom up (markets, capitalism, voting, etc). In reality, both types of structures have different failure modes and it works well to have layers of each type of system. Pointing out that modern capitalism is comprised of actors that have large structural similarities to failed communist government seems like more valuable comment than your shallow and dismissive response.
- btbuildem 3y ago
  "Agitprop" usually refers to praise of the state, embedded into various cultural works -- I don't think this is that. I'll try to expand on my previous comment without using the "C" word itself, prior programming seems to have triggered an emotional reaction there. Here are some qualities that many (if not most) corporations seem to share: - centralized power - collective goals (Team A has an 18 month plan to deliver V18) - top-down approach - bureaucratic hierarchy - collectivist ideology (down to "we're a family, we're all in it together, do it for the company") - controlled expression (approved list of questions for the all-hands meeting, anyone?) - resistance to change - top-down reforms (vc / top brass reorgs) - limited transparency Does that sound like traits characteristic of capitalism, or more like spooky ivan papa bear, sickle and hammer stuff? Where the similarities end is around ownership. In an (idealized) communist system, people own the means of production; in a corporate setting, everything is owned by the organization. Of course this is a key, essential, and critical difference, and it goes all the way back to maybe the 1600's when chartered corporations first appeared; but the roots of that reach even earlier, to the aristocracy disempowered by the rise of the merchant class in the middle ages. The idea of parasitic Majority Shareholders siphoning off any benefits created by the collective efforts of individually irrelevant and easily replaceable Individual Contributors has been with us ever since. That the corporate structures would adopt the social organization aspects of a system that was created in direct response to their relentless exploitation, well, that's just irony of the highest caliber.
tdeck 3y ago
I'd say it's more the other way around - dictatorships like the Soviet Union operated like one big company. This form of critique typically uses the term "state capitalism".

istinetz 3y ago

The primary purpose of a company is not to take care of employees. It is to make money by providing valuable services to society. Yes, it is good governance to cut unproductive jobs.

no_wizard 3y ago
It’s also good governance to cut dead weight executives. There is no problem here then, is there
pydry 3y ago
>The primary purpose of a company is not to take care of employees. It definitely used to be considered as such. There has been a cultural shift over the last 40 years.
M2Ys4U 3y ago
The primary purpose of a company, absent any other overriding objects in its constitution, is to act in the interests of its members (~shareholders, although not all members are always shareholders). That usually means making money, but it's not a certainty that's what the primary purpose will be.
- cyanydeez 3y ago
  this business was a complicated nonprofit.
janalsncm 3y ago
> by providing valuable services to society If cigarette companies could cause 5% less cancer by selling 5% fewer packs of cigarettes (resulting in 5% lower profits) do you believe they would do it? You might say that companies have strayed from the Platonic ideal of a corporation and that cigarette companies have strayed from their “purpose” but the reality is that purely prosocial companies have never been the norm. You might also suggest that the very fact that people are purchasing cigarettes demonstrates that they are providing “valuable” goods/services but this is to water down the definition of value to the point of meaninglessness. The truth is that a corporation is a sort of alien entity that almost entirely operates to maximize profits. I say “almost” entirely because it is possible in extreme cases for their leadership to face personal responsibility, but it’s pretty rare.