4 ms·
Have you looked at sports federations (especially in Europe, not in US). They're primarily funded by membership fees, some survived over century, and while they
by divan 10mo ago
Have you looked at sports federations (especially in Europe, not in US). They're primarily funded by membership fees, some survived over century, and while they have some governance issues (like conflict of interest due to wearing two hats – regulatory function and event organiszing one), it would be a strong claim to say that they're corrupted by their roots/nature.
- AndrewKemendo 10mo agoIn fact one of my close friends is a co-owner of the Kraken Sports teams and leagues are primarily owned by billionaires - like the amount of discussion around who is the owner is a significant portion of sports reporting The only exception I know off the top of my head I believe is the Packers are community owned but even then I would be skeptical as to how the power dynamics play out in practice
- azemetre 10mo agoWhat do you think about the idea of workplace democracy? [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workplace_democracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workplace_democracy
- AndrewKemendo 10mo agoI think it’s a weak form of a mutual cooperative - which unfortunately doesn’t have the ability to defeat a state-billionaire backed corporation in the market.
- azemetre 10mo agoI guess I don't know what you prefer, I'm guessing anarchy in the academic sense? But I want to add, that workplace democracy would be turning the billionaire owned companies into democracies themselves. That is the goal of economic democracy at least, changing the fiefdoms into democracies can't be a worse system.
- AndrewKemendo 10mo agoI don’t prefer anything At the most basic biological level the human species can’t organize action larger than a few hundred people in any kind of coherent way. There are no coherent organizations that are larger than a few hundred people. It is a biological impossibility for the human species to maintain long lasting (thousands of years) groups that can have social structures that last long enough to encode genetic fitness changes at the rate of environmental change., We do not have the ability to comfortably maintain coherent heirarchies, and subordinated structures, around a coherent epistemological grounding. Humans are not eusocial. I just fundamentally don’t see any future for the species level organization whatsoever
- ep103 10mo agoI have always been in favor of changing the definition if incorporation to ensure that over time ownership transfers slowly but increasingly to the employees of the corporate entity. How that would work, though, would require detailed thought by experts more knowledgeable than i :)
- azemetre 10mo agoYou should look up something called the "Rehn–Meidner model:" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rehn%E2%80%93Meidner_model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rehn%E2%80%93Meidner_model Sounds similar to what you're asking for.
- divan 10mo ago> Sports teams and leagues are primarily owned by billionaires My question was about sports federations, and not about leagues and commercial clubs (and definitely not in US). Take FIS (International Ski and Snowboard Federation) for example, or smaller European national and regional federations.
- AndrewKemendo 10mo agoYou could point to any organization smaller than 1000 people is being reasonably coherent I don’t think that this is relevant for the context we were discussing the Amish also doing a pretty good job and maintaining stable community but they are irrelevant
- divan 10mo agoWhat context are you discussing? Parent comment talks about "all organisations". You know what, forget it. I thought you have some interesting/insightful framework and thoughts about power/structures in organisations and happy to share it.
- AndrewKemendo 10mo agoThe insight is that there is no possible stable structure for human society that’s what you should take away there is no solution there’s no answer the insight is that you should stop working on the problem because it’s intractable