[kareemsabri]

I don't.

I wouldn't consider most workplaces I've been in totalitarian - though maybe you've lived in some pretty nice totalitarian countries I'm not aware of. But I also don't see why customers shouldn't demand what they care about from companies.

[thundergolfer]

Check out Philosopher Elizabeth Anderson and her work on workplace democracy for more on how modern corporations are like dictatorships and at least certainly anti-democratic. Her New Yorker profile is very good, for an intro.

[kareemsabri]

I don't think they're all that democratic. But there's a world of difference between democratic, which itself has degrees, and being totalitarian.

[nemothekid]

>I wouldn't consider most workplaces I've been in totalitarian

Where did you work where you could vote for the CEO?

[ben_w]

Ironically, I think one could argue that the military of any democratic nation would pass that test despite being a lot closer to totalitarian states[0] than almost all modern companies.

[0] Not a judgement call, I think that is necessary given what they do and the risks they have to be ready to face the moment they are ordered to do so

[multiplegeorges]

Not voting for the CEO doesn't make something totalitarian.

[kareemsabri]

I don't think that's what totalitarian means.

[decebalus1]

Do you have any say in employee compensation?

Do you have any say in employee perks/benefits? I mean a real say, not preferences which are allowed by some benevolent analyst from HR.

If the CEO goes rogue and the company is private, can rank-and-file employees oust them?

Can you vote out your manager or your manager's manager? Is there even a process in place to do that?

Do you follow orders from management? What happens if you don't?

What happens if you disobey your manager in a public setting?

Can you get fired without notice? How about laid off?

Can you get fired because you said something?

Do you have a dresscode? What would happen to your employment if you dressed like a clown in customer meetings?

Do you risk getting fired if you start talking about unionizing?

Do you get fired if you sue the company?

Can you bring a gun to work?

Does your employee handbook say something about how your run your personal life? Does your employer have rights over IP created outside of working hours? Can you get fired over a DUI outside of company hours? Can you get fired for smoking cigarettes in your free time?

etc..

Some literature for you: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/32889465-private-governm...

[kareemsabri]

I've listened to enough Richard Wolfe debates to know the talking points. Dropping a book link isn't really helpful in the context of this discussion, I'm not going to go read your favorite book before I reply to you.

Yes I'm aware that corporations set up a legal hierarchy in which management has more power than labor within the corporation. I'm not going to go through your specific questions one by one, since they're largely rhetorical, though some of them don't have the answer you hope for. Some people seem to interpret the lack of formal, democratic processes with a totalitarian dictatorship. I've personally witnessed the firing of C-suite execs in response to employee revolts.

A totalitarian system requires complete subservience. Depending on your position in the labor market, your leverage may vary. My objection isn't to the notion that the employer-employee power balance is lopsided in many cases, to the point where some sectors of the economy are exploitative, but rather that an office by it's nature is akin to a totalitarian dictatorship. Maybe you're just using that phrase for effect, or maybe you genuinely think that working at Google and living in Egypt under President Mubarak is a good comparison. To me it comes off as a bit out of touch.

[decebalus1]

There's no point in getting defensive, that's not my favorite book and nobody expects you or anyone to actually read it, let alone before replying. It's just a reference to the ideas I mentioned, put in a more academic format.

> maybe you genuinely think that working at Google and living in Egypt under President Mubarak is a good comparison

Nice way of picking two extremes to make a point. Also, not sure what you're comparing here. Nobody is gonna kill you at Google. You can get fired though (which is more or less like some sort of corporate execution or something) and if you're at the wrong end of a recession you're gonna have a bad time.

Fine then, it seems I struck a nerve here. How about authoritarian? Is that better? And maybe Russia instead of Egypt. Would that be more palatable?

I did live under a totalitarian government myself. And to be honest, I see a lot of the behaviors I grew up with, in the current corporate culture (at least in the US). Do I live a better life? Sure, of course, there's no doubt about it. But that's solely because I submit to that culture. But I will be kicked off the gravy train at the first sign of dissent (same as under said dictatorship).

[AnimalMuppet]

> Nice way of picking two extremes to make a point. Also, not sure what you're comparing here. Nobody is gonna kill you at Google. You can get fired though (which is more or less like some sort of corporate execution or something) and if you're at the wrong end of a recession you're gonna have a bad time.

You're the one claiming "totalitarian". But when someone brings in real totalitarian, you say "hey, that's too extreme". Um, yeah, that's the point. Your claim of "totalitarian" is a bogus over-the-top rhetorical flourish, and you have now pretty much agreed that it is.

[decebalus1]

> You're the one claiming "totalitarian". But when someone brings in real totalitarian, you say "hey, that's too extreme".

I was referring to the comparison itself to be extreme. There's a difference.

Can you define your view on what totalitarianism means? And please don't use countries as examples. I think there's a disconnect here and people are arguing semantics and language accuracy while missing the original point, which still stands.

[AnimalMuppet]

Nope. You chose the word; you made the claim. It's your definition we're arguing about; mine is irrelevant.

So if you've got a definition where your claim makes sense, state it. Then we can argue about whether your definition is reasonable. My definition is a distraction. (I don't know whether you were trying for a distraction or not, but my definition isn't the point.)

[kareemsabri]

Fair enough. My defensiveness is based on the assumption prevalent in these sorts of discussions that if you don't share a viewpoint you are just suffering from insufficient education on it.

I'm picking extremes because the OP made a blanket statement about life in workplaces. They didn't say, life as an Amazon warehouse worker is exploitative for example. The statement was extreme to begin with. There are lots of different types of workplaces in America. You didn't really strike a nerve beyond I guess that I'm not a huge fan of hyperbole / sloppy language.

I don't really think you'll get kicked off the gravy train if you dissent at all. There's a good bit of anti-capitalism, "tear down the system" type talk in tech. That said, I agree with you that corporations are not democratic organizations.

My first corporate job was as a cashier at a grocery store. Yes, if I refused to wear the uniform, or ring up customers when they stood in my line, I'd probably be written up and after 3 write ups, fired. I guess you could call that authoritarian. I don't see how it gets you much though.

[tqi]

You're just describing any structure with a formal hierarchy.