2 ms·
There is a CEO on top who has the power to fire anyone. There are department heads and middle managers. There is an org hierarchy. There are performance targets
by paxys 3y ago
There is a CEO on top who has the power to fire anyone. There are department heads and middle managers. There is an org hierarchy. There are performance targets and reviews. Nothing about it is "voluntary cooperation". This is how every large company runs.
- pyrale 3y agoOn the other hand, this is FT's interpretation. Obviously they're going to have a slightly different take on what "anarchist" and "commune" means.
- mistrial9 3y agono - fifty percent of managers control their employees through fear.. transparency and the magnitude of compensation and awards are different.. means of advancement are different.. overall "culture" is different..
- queuebert 3y agoEspecially this given how selective they are in hiring. There are likely hundreds of people salivating at the chance to replace you.
- CooCooCaCha 3y agoI hate, so much, when people refer to jobs as voluntary cooperation. Maybe at the very top when you have more money than you’ll ever need, but for the vast majority of people jobs aren’t truly voluntary.
- tasuki 3y agoYou won't enjoy my comment then :) Yes, jobs are voluntary. The vast majority of people could choose not to have a job and not to entertain certain luxuries in life like having a roof over one's head or food on the table. Some even (voluntarily!) choose not to have a roof over their head because they don't like the idea of having a job.
- lovich 3y agoFood is not a luxury. Defining things necessary for continued existence as luxuries is ridiculously reductive and is why defining jobs as “voluntary” in a world where access to those things is gated by having a job for most people is disingenuous. Taking job A over job B could be described as voluntary but saying that you could just be homeless and scrounge food, especially in locations where the local government makes this illegal, so working is voluntary is just wrong
- tasuki 3y agoYou are of course right that food is not a luxury, that was supposed to be slightly tongue in cheek. One can still choose to disobey the local government and be homeless. I'm not saying it's an easy choice, nor am I saying it's easy to be homeless. I'm just saying it's a choice.
- CooCooCaCha 3y agoYou’re right, I don’t like your comment. It always amazes me how heartless you libertarian types can be. Food and a roof are basics, not a luxury. The fact that a significant number of people in this world don’t have those things speaks more to our failure to provide. Do better.
- tasuki 3y agoI'm actually not a libertarian. I guess I'm your standard European socialist: I'm all good taxing (us) rich and providing for the poor. It still is a choice whether one chooses to work, as evidenced by those who chose not to. Edit: the "luxuries" was slightly tongue in cheek and perhaps didn't land well. Anyway, you're free to move to the wilderness, hunt/grow your own food, build your own shelter, and do without the socio-economic system altogether.
- CooCooCaCha 3y agoYou could have fooled me because that is the same immature definition of voluntary and choice that libertarians espouse. Voluntary is not binary. If someone put a gun to your head and told you to eat shit you technically have a choice but it's not much of choice is it?