We probably need to rethink how companies are structured - there are (many) companies with revenues greater than most countries but are (in theory) dictatorships with no official ability to change course if the one guy who owns the shares does not want to.
Who is the ‘demos’ in a company? Who gets a vote ? Will voting really slow things down?
> here are (many) companies with revenues greater than most countries
IS that true? What do you define as the revenue of a country? Tax revenues? That is just the government. GDP/GNP/GNI? That comparison for that should be profit, and only a handful of really big companies (Saudi Aramco, Apple, that sort of size) have a profit as large as the GDP of mid-size middle income countries (e.g. Sri Lanka) or small rich countries (e.g. Luxembourg). There is a long tail of small or poor countries so most countries by number, but most people live in a country with a GDP that is an order of magnitude or two greater than any company's profit.
Why would GDP be the proxy for a country's profit? If I pay someone to build a house and another person to tear that house down, both activities contribute to GDP while producing nothing of tangible value.
As long as the companies in question aren't monopolies on violence, it's a complete non-issue. So with that in mind, why would any sane person want to impose such an inefficient mechanism to allocate resources and make decisions within a company or corporation?
The only good thing about democracy in the context of a state, after all, is that every other alternative is worse. But that is strictly because of the fundamentally violent nature of the concept of a state, which does not apply to companies or corporations.
Violence is not always physical. The likes of Meta have subjected the world to unfathomable violence, but we give them a pass because we can't see the scars with our eyes.
Huh? Violence is defined as the use of physical force so as to injure, abuse, damage, or destroy. If you mean "harm", please use that word instead of wrongly using another.
The guy who whispers in the king’s ear also has an effective monopoly on violence.
What we’ve learned over the last half century is that extreme wealth disparities lead to extreme power disparities. Coercion doesn’t just emanate from the state.
You should educate yourself about corporate violence both inside and outside the US - the use of intimidation and murder for strike breaking, the role the Pinkerton agency, the original meaning of "banana republic."
It's tragic - but not accidental - there's no mention of any of this in schools or any public memory of it.
Illegal things happen all the time. The current president has committed many crimes and suffered no punishment. Elon Musk is an illegal immigrant. Uber was completely illegal but they did it anyway. The law isn't actually the law - the real law is what gets enforced.
A company is quite literally the one of most violent environments you could find yourself in (especially when talking about the united states). Violence isn't just physical: a single person having the right to decide whether you live or die (because finding a new job isn't always easy, because they don't care if it's a tough time in your life, etc), whether you thrive or you're being miserable. A single person having the ability to make 8+ hours of your day hell, able to turn it into the most alienating thing you've ever done in your life.
You speak from a position of privilege, where you could reasonably expect to find a job quickly should anything happen. That's not the case for the vast, vast majority of people.
>But that is strictly because of the fundamentally violent nature of the concept of a state, which does not apply to companies or corporations.
Putting aside the fact that we've established you're wrong about companies: no, absolutely not ? Democracy isn't better because state violent. Would democracy be unneeded in a completely pacific, disarmed state ? Would democracy be the best political system if suddenly the majority decided that beating up brown people in the street is legal again ?
I'd encourage you to read a little bit more about political theory and how societies have formed. Your reading is that of a stereotypical tech bro, and that's just not good for anyone.
violence is defined specifically as the use of physical force, and I expect the other commentator you're replying to specifically chose that word for a reason.
No, it isn't. Every single definition of violence includes forms other than just physical.
The World Health Organization (WHO) defines violence as "the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, which either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation
Theres a whole swath of positive regulatory structure that would both improve the company and its employees, but capitalism is stuck in the delusion that self interest is the only yardstick we need to concern ourselves with.
Why? Because being poor isnt a structural problem, but a moral or ethical or laziness.
Its fascinating watching business culture basically align with prosperity gospel in that if you can grift it, it _must_ be good/just/right.
Who is the ‘demos’ in a company? Who gets a vote ? Will voting really slow things down?