I almost can't believe I need to repeat this, but: the "nice" companies are the *most dangerous* ones.

politics 

@smhoekstra While there are quite a few issues with the concept of "psychopathy" itself, there are pretty strong arguments for companies (in the for-profit sense) being *fundamentally* like that, even.

As in, their entire purpose, their reason for existence, is to function that way where people couldn't/wouldn't get away with that. As a sort of unaccountable decisionmaking machine.

Likewise, capitalism is a fundamentally hierarchical system, for-profit companies are fundamentally designed to be capitalist, and therefore they are fundamentally strongly hierarchical - they *have* to be to fit into that ideology.

That's also why I'm arguing that companies can never be genuine community participants. Their primary priority is always, by design, to act selfishly.

politics 

@joepie91
I agree with you in the most part, but think that’s more applicable to bigger corporations and less applicable to small businesses.
But I agree that the profit drive for corporations is so much misaligned with community objectives that they should not be allowed to lobby in politics.

Follow

re: politics 

@smhoekstra I'd argue that the problem is fundamental to companies of *any* size - just, like in any hierarchy, the ones lower in the hierarchy are not *yet* at a point where they can actually exert their power. But they are certainly vying for it, and it doesn't mean that they can't do a lesser amount of damage in the meantime.

Every big company started as a small company at some point. The problem is structural to the concept of a company itself.

· · Web · 0 · 0 · 0
Sign in to participate in the conversation
Pixietown

Small server part of the pixie.town infrastructure. Registration is closed.