| From your own definition it seems like you admit it doesn't really fit. - all-encompassing ideology Maybe a lot of startups fit this bill, but most jobs people just come, do their work, and go home. They couldn't give two shits about the ideology. Startups are different cause you need people to work really hard / sacrifice and mission helps with that. - a single party you agree this doesn't work - a terroristic police sounds like you agree this is a stretch. HR can be annoying but it isn't really terroristic. - a communications monopoly this isn't even remotely accurate. there are so many backchannels and secret meetings and company gossip is everywhere. especially now that we have slack. - a centrally directed economy most mature organizations have teams run their own P&L. in some places (Amazon) they even compete with each other, and have a market-type internal economy. It's just a bad analogy. There ARE companies that run like totalitarian dictatorships, but I don't think it's the norm and it's not inherent in the model. There are other, and in my opinion much better, critiques of the corporate relationship with employees I'd start with first (I could talk at length about stock based compensation). Edit: I think there's a bigger flaw in your argument though that misses the forest for the trees. You can break things down into their constituent characteristics (or the ones you can see) and try to argue that because they share a lot of traits, those two things are the same, which is kind of what you're doing here. The reality is there is a subjective experience of a thing that is different. If the experience of working in a job doesn't feel like a totalitarian dictatorship, it seems it'd be wrong to tell people "no you actually are living under totalitarian rule, you just don't know it". Unless you think people are so acclimatized to corporate rule like a frog in water that they don't notice (which you might). |