[pixl97]

I mean, I don't think corporations should be a democracy.

This said, I don't think they should have any political power whatsoever. A corporation that operates as a fascist entity will demand fascist lobbying and laws and thereby lessen the democratic county it is operating in.

[drewmcarthur]

i agree companies shouldn’t have political sway, but why shouldn’t the place you spend so much time and effort for be democratically governed? what’s the argument that government should be, but industry shouldn’t?

that’s the whole basis of Elizabeth Anderson’s “Private Government”

[JumpCrisscross]

> why shouldn’t the place you spend so much time and effort for be democratically governed?

It’s inefficient [1].

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_the_firm

[malcolmgreaves]

Nothing is more _inefficient_ than top-down governance from people who are so many layers removed from the folks who have built up real expertise from doing the work that makes the company's revenue.

[JumpCrisscross]

> Nothing is more _inefficient_ than top-down governance from people who are so many layers removed

Correct. Those are the information-transaction costs Coase describes in his “Nobel” prize winning write-up [1].

[1] https://www.jstor.org/stable/2626876

[drewmcarthur]

good point. why did all these countries become democracies in the first place? we should revert to autocracy /s

[remarkEon]

The point is valid. Direct Democracies are extremely inefficient, and oscillate policies based on, essentially, vibes. That's why democratic countries abstract decision-making through various structures like layers of representation. Maybe that's what is being implied in this thread, that companies should be run in a republican (small r) model, where employees vote for their managers and directors, who have policies they set and argue for, and so on.

If I'm being honest that sounds absolutely insane, because nothing would ever get done (just look at Congress). Then again, if I have no faith in that model working in a corporation, I'm struggling to articulate why I still have faith in it working in an actual government.

[drewmcarthur]

I appreciate this reply - you’re right direct democracy is inefficient, and that our governments aren’t exactly a model of efficiency either.

that being said, and I think you agree this is important when it comes to government, I think we deserve to have a say in decisions that affect us. Whether that’s direct democracy or a republic, not my point, although an important discussion to be had.

First step though, is pointing out that I don’t want to live in a top-down autocratic country, nor do I want to work for a top-down, autocratic company. Then we can talk about how a democratic workplace might work!

[remarkEon]

I think the difference is that I don't think I deserve, necessarily, a say in the decisions that affect the company. Maybe after a certain point, and under certain conditions I would feel as if I "deserved" a say. Or if it was my own company, or a company I co-founded. But that is an earned privilege. Incidentally I feel similarly about government, albeit the bar is an order of magnitude lower.

Anyway, the whole idea to me is strange since the joint-stock corporation has been around since the 17th century (arguably much earlier if you include economies outside of Europe, and your definition of "joint" and "stock"), so surely if having a "democratic" company was a better way to operate that would be the norm instead.