5 ms·

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

by 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.

by 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.