5 ms·

> "Instead of better-regulated companies, why shouldn’t the solution be no more companies?" This is a very weird, even quite childish, criticism. There's an o

> "Instead of better-regulated companies, why shouldn’t the solution be no more companies?" This is a very weird, even quite childish, criticism. There's an outside chance that some of the stuff Doctorow wants can be implemented. There's literally zero chance that companies in general are abolished (in favor of what, exactly?) just because a few megacorps, given perverse incentives, have become bad actors. Besides, large firms are, effectively, the most unkillable human-derived things that exist. If you "abolish" them in one place, they'll nevertheless still exist in another, or they'll simply pick up move somewhere else, like high-net-worth individuals. "Headquarters" are often merely a formality.

Eddy_Viscosity2 1y ago
"it is easier to imagine an end to the world than an end to capitalism"
mempko 1y ago
Companies are a legal fiction. They can be abolished as easily as they were created. We just lack any imagination to think of something different. That doesn't mean there isn't a better idea.
- tbrownaw 1y ago
  Companies are an acknowledgement that sometimes groups of people do things together.
  - zelphirkalt 1y ago
    Ideally, maybe. In most cases however, companies feel more like groups of people forced to work together, and often are working against each other.
  - grafmax 1y ago
    You have workers laboring for the profit of owners. It’s more than just people doing things together.
    - SpecialistK 1y ago
      That's part of the balance we (most developed/Global North societies) have fallen into. But it isn't entirely one-sided. A laborer is not legally responsible or liable for the legal or financial decisions a company makes. Their relationship is much clearer: do X work and get Y pay, as agreed (and hopefully labor law gets involved when that agreement is breached or contested. Hopefully.) Meanwhile a (co-)owner is more liable and subject to enforcement than an employee. That owner may (let's be honest, will) make much more profit than a laborer if a company is successful. But will also be much poorer if that company fails. The owners declare bankruptcy while the laborer still has their salary and just looks for a new job. It's the risk-reward balance in action, codified in how we organize our businesses.
      - grafmax 1y ago
        The owner has the privilege of risking capital. The worker has no choice but to work for basic necessities - because they have no capital. The worst case for an owner is that they declare bankruptcy - and are forced to join the working class to make ends meet. It’s hardly an exchange among equals.
        SpecialistK 1y ago
        That's a big (and almost offensive) assumption. Who is to say that the worker does not have their own alternative sources of capital, such as a farm, inheritance, creative outputs, own company, etc? It's also an assumption that the worst case for an owner is to declare bankruptcy. Depending on the jurisdiction, they may be financially responsible for losses and debts; face civil or criminal charges for their role in the downfall; and reputational damage which prevents them from meaningful employment that someone else would get. It's far from ideal, sure. But it also isn't as black-and-white as you assert.
        grafmax 1y ago
        It’s true at an aggregate level. Most workers don’t have capital. And owners dealing with consequences from bankruptcy is still a risk they have the privilege of taking. Jeff Bezos and the Amazon warehouse worker are not equals participating in equal exchange. Owner-worker is an intrinsically unequal relationship, with the deck stacked in favor of the owner.
- respondo2134 1y ago
  I'm sick of people who cry "fire" but then follow up with "but, hey, I'm no fireman". WHAT is the alternative? What are you doing to realize it? We don't need anymore more specialists who focus on pointing out the problems.
  - cmiller1 1y ago
    Yeah, people who aren't firemen shouldn't be allowed to shout "fire!" they should just burn to death.
    - c22 1y ago
      On a charitable reading I think the gist of the comment you're responding to is that we could use some more volunteer firefighters.
  - mempko 1y ago
    Read The Dawn of Everything if you want to see all the possibilities. If there is any fact about human organization it's that there have been and continues to be a huge variety of forms. You just have to be creative enough to see them.
- _mlbt 1y ago
  > That doesn't mean there isn't a better idea. I'm genuinely curious, what better idea are you referring to that would replace the concept of companies?
- SpecialistK 1y ago
  Are they not a "legal fiction" in the way that a marriage, or a state, is legal fiction? Even in the absence of legislation codifying them they will still exist in some form. People will still form long term romantic relationships for the purpose of raising kids, joint decision-making, and ensuring that the other receives your possessions in death. Groups of people who share a language, culture, and geography will still form tribes or clans or some other form of institution even if it isn't strictly Westphalian statehood. Similarly, skilled workers will still find that their labor is more efficient when they work together. And with scale comes the need for sales, administration, and all the other components which make up a company as we know it today. I assume by "we" lacking imagination you mean humanity as a whole, and that just isn't true - we have lots of imaginative people who have attempted lots of different ways to arrange an economy, with varying degrees of success. We've tried flavors of state-run enterprise (from "crown corporations" here in Canada all the way to full collectivization in leftist and fascism in rightist systems) plus voluntary co-ops like kibbutz or communes. Not to mention publicly traded vs privately held corporations. Humanity has the imagination and often has had the pleasure of "experimenting" with various methods.
shirro 1y ago
Companies provide a legal framework for co-operative ventures between people. Companies are people. They are a legal construct that serves a useful purpose in society. They are not inherently evil. People who believe they are evil have been bleating about it for over a century and had multiple opportunities and the support of revolutions and empires to find an alternative and have failed every time. Companies exist within a society and it is up to that society to engage politically for the common good or the bad companies will bribe law makers, buy votes and evade taxes and regulations. People never want to recognize their own culpability. They hate company practices but keep purchasing from them. They hate politicians but refuse to vote for alternatives.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- MengerSponge 1y ago
  Corporations are not inherently evil, but there are evil companies. If you work for an evil company, you're complicit. Even if you're working on a weird corner of open source esoterica. Meta delenda est.
  - shirro 1y ago
    Cultures develop within companies like any other organization. As those cultures develop they tend to push the decent people out and promote more of the same. Some companies are clearly abhorrent. My argument is that its a cultural issue unrelated to the legal framework. You can find similar weirdness in any group of people. Those bad companies exist due to a lack of regulation and transparency. Unfortunately just as companies can amplify the potential of groups of people to do productive things they can shield bad people and become hostile to democracy. If they are attacking us we need to learn to push back. I don't understand why people go from being walked on to wanting to burn stuff down. There is a really good middle ground and too many people have abandoned it.
    - bb88 1y ago
      A company might discover that the most profitable thing is to destroy the social fabric to make money. We call this "engagement". In practice, it's the most controversial opinions that generate clicks. The social media company realizes the controversial opinions generate the most clicks. Generating discord in the populace creates more click -- and therefore more profit. If you work social media company, often you're going to make a literal shit ton of coin. Often, it's enough make you think twice before voicing opinions about the corporate gravy train.
antithesizer 1y ago
Only a child would be so unfamiliar with history as to make a claim like that.
- A_D_E_P_T 1y ago
  Sure, so perhaps you can enlighten me rather than make a cryptic single-sentence post. When have companies as entities of commerce been abolished, and what did the results look like? What's more, has this ever happened in a society when every large "bad actor" company is expressly a multinational concern? Seems to me that whatever might have happened 90-500 years ago is of no modern relevance, for good or ill, and that what the author of the article alludes to is a foolish and indeed childish criticism.
WaltPurvis 1y ago
> There's literally zero chance that companies in general are abolished (in favor of what, exactly?) You have extremely overstated the author's position. He doesn't say anything about abolishing companies in general, and for the handful of companies that he suggests could be abolished, he says very clearly in favor of what. He talks about possibly having public broadband providers instead of just (for example) Comcast, says there could possibly be "a nationalized search engine to compete with Google," and says we "could even have public alternatives to social media networks like Facebook and Twitter." That's it. That's the sum total of the alternative he's proposing. Whatever you think of the merits or likelihood of that alternative, the idea is hardly a "childish" fantasy.

Eddy_Viscosity2 1y ago

"it is easier to imagine an end to the world than an end to capitalism"

mempko 1y ago

Companies are a legal fiction. They can be abolished as easily as they were created. We just lack any imagination to think of something different. That doesn't mean there isn't a better idea.

tbrownaw 1y ago
Companies are an acknowledgement that sometimes groups of people do things together.
- zelphirkalt 1y ago
  Ideally, maybe. In most cases however, companies feel more like groups of people forced to work together, and often are working against each other.
- grafmax 1y ago
  You have workers laboring for the profit of owners. It’s more than just people doing things together.
  - SpecialistK 1y ago
    That's part of the balance we (most developed/Global North societies) have fallen into. But it isn't entirely one-sided. A laborer is not legally responsible or liable for the legal or financial decisions a company makes. Their relationship is much clearer: do X work and get Y pay, as agreed (and hopefully labor law gets involved when that agreement is breached or contested. Hopefully.) Meanwhile a (co-)owner is more liable and subject to enforcement than an employee. That owner may (let's be honest, will) make much more profit than a laborer if a company is successful. But will also be much poorer if that company fails. The owners declare bankruptcy while the laborer still has their salary and just looks for a new job. It's the risk-reward balance in action, codified in how we organize our businesses.
    - grafmax 1y ago
      The owner has the privilege of risking capital. The worker has no choice but to work for basic necessities - because they have no capital. The worst case for an owner is that they declare bankruptcy - and are forced to join the working class to make ends meet. It’s hardly an exchange among equals.
      - SpecialistK 1y ago
        That's a big (and almost offensive) assumption. Who is to say that the worker does not have their own alternative sources of capital, such as a farm, inheritance, creative outputs, own company, etc? It's also an assumption that the worst case for an owner is to declare bankruptcy. Depending on the jurisdiction, they may be financially responsible for losses and debts; face civil or criminal charges for their role in the downfall; and reputational damage which prevents them from meaningful employment that someone else would get. It's far from ideal, sure. But it also isn't as black-and-white as you assert.
        grafmax 1y ago
        It’s true at an aggregate level. Most workers don’t have capital. And owners dealing with consequences from bankruptcy is still a risk they have the privilege of taking. Jeff Bezos and the Amazon warehouse worker are not equals participating in equal exchange. Owner-worker is an intrinsically unequal relationship, with the deck stacked in favor of the owner.
respondo2134 1y ago
I'm sick of people who cry "fire" but then follow up with "but, hey, I'm no fireman". WHAT is the alternative? What are you doing to realize it? We don't need anymore more specialists who focus on pointing out the problems.
- cmiller1 1y ago
  Yeah, people who aren't firemen shouldn't be allowed to shout "fire!" they should just burn to death.
  - c22 1y ago
    On a charitable reading I think the gist of the comment you're responding to is that we could use some more volunteer firefighters.
- mempko 1y ago
  Read The Dawn of Everything if you want to see all the possibilities. If there is any fact about human organization it's that there have been and continues to be a huge variety of forms. You just have to be creative enough to see them.
_mlbt 1y ago
> That doesn't mean there isn't a better idea. I'm genuinely curious, what better idea are you referring to that would replace the concept of companies?
SpecialistK 1y ago
Are they not a "legal fiction" in the way that a marriage, or a state, is legal fiction? Even in the absence of legislation codifying them they will still exist in some form. People will still form long term romantic relationships for the purpose of raising kids, joint decision-making, and ensuring that the other receives your possessions in death. Groups of people who share a language, culture, and geography will still form tribes or clans or some other form of institution even if it isn't strictly Westphalian statehood. Similarly, skilled workers will still find that their labor is more efficient when they work together. And with scale comes the need for sales, administration, and all the other components which make up a company as we know it today. I assume by "we" lacking imagination you mean humanity as a whole, and that just isn't true - we have lots of imaginative people who have attempted lots of different ways to arrange an economy, with varying degrees of success. We've tried flavors of state-run enterprise (from "crown corporations" here in Canada all the way to full collectivization in leftist and fascism in rightist systems) plus voluntary co-ops like kibbutz or communes. Not to mention publicly traded vs privately held corporations. Humanity has the imagination and often has had the pleasure of "experimenting" with various methods.

shirro 1y ago

Companies provide a legal framework for co-operative ventures between people. Companies are people. They are a legal construct that serves a useful purpose in society. They are not inherently evil. People who believe they are evil have been bleating about it for over a century and had multiple opportunities and the support of revolutions and empires to find an alternative and have failed every time. Companies exist within a society and it is up to that society to engage politically for the common good or the bad companies will bribe law makers, buy votes and evade taxes and regulations. People never want to recognize their own culpability. They hate company practices but keep purchasing from them. They hate politicians but refuse to vote for alternatives.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
MengerSponge 1y ago
Corporations are not inherently evil, but there are evil companies. If you work for an evil company, you're complicit. Even if you're working on a weird corner of open source esoterica. Meta delenda est.
- shirro 1y ago
  Cultures develop within companies like any other organization. As those cultures develop they tend to push the decent people out and promote more of the same. Some companies are clearly abhorrent. My argument is that its a cultural issue unrelated to the legal framework. You can find similar weirdness in any group of people. Those bad companies exist due to a lack of regulation and transparency. Unfortunately just as companies can amplify the potential of groups of people to do productive things they can shield bad people and become hostile to democracy. If they are attacking us we need to learn to push back. I don't understand why people go from being walked on to wanting to burn stuff down. There is a really good middle ground and too many people have abandoned it.
  - bb88 1y ago
    A company might discover that the most profitable thing is to destroy the social fabric to make money. We call this "engagement". In practice, it's the most controversial opinions that generate clicks. The social media company realizes the controversial opinions generate the most clicks. Generating discord in the populace creates more click -- and therefore more profit. If you work social media company, often you're going to make a literal shit ton of coin. Often, it's enough make you think twice before voicing opinions about the corporate gravy train.

antithesizer 1y ago

Only a child would be so unfamiliar with history as to make a claim like that.

A_D_E_P_T 1y ago
Sure, so perhaps you can enlighten me rather than make a cryptic single-sentence post. When have companies as entities of commerce been abolished, and what did the results look like? What's more, has this ever happened in a society when every large "bad actor" company is expressly a multinational concern? Seems to me that whatever might have happened 90-500 years ago is of no modern relevance, for good or ill, and that what the author of the article alludes to is a foolish and indeed childish criticism.

WaltPurvis 1y ago

> There's literally zero chance that companies in general are abolished (in favor of what, exactly?) You have extremely overstated the author's position. He doesn't say anything about abolishing companies in general, and for the handful of companies that he suggests could be abolished, he says very clearly in favor of what. He talks about possibly having public broadband providers instead of just (for example) Comcast, says there could possibly be "a nationalized search engine to compete with Google," and says we "could even have public alternatives to social media networks like Facebook and Twitter." That's it. That's the sum total of the alternative he's proposing. Whatever you think of the merits or likelihood of that alternative, the idea is hardly a "childish" fantasy.