Then make your own company, or failing that, start to think critically about why every company is structured in the way it is. Maybe others have tried it your way and it didn't work?
> That's like telling somebody living in a monarchy that if they want influence over their lives, they just have to marry into the royal family.
Luckily, because of the freedom this country offers us, the solution is instead to (per the metaphor) go to another of the million monarchies, create your own monarchy, or, yes, work your way up in the monarchy. If you decide to start causing chaos and sowing discontent in your current kingdom, then you may be kicked out of it.
it's not surprising that efforts are being made today to decentralize power within the private sphere and create broader rights and democratic management of capital. it's the place people feel most pressure in their lives today, feel the most helpless, and unable to act in their own interests or make their own way.
and of course people who are invested in the current system of management will make arguments that it is perfectly rational and any other system cannot work.
maybe everyone trying this will get kicked out. but i don't think that will discourage or prevent groups like this, because that doesn't kill the motivation. it's simply selection pressure for tactics that are more decentralized, more direct, popular, faster, and harder to shut down.
So does Joe the plumber whom you hired to fix the sink now have rights to determine how your household is run? Does he and Jimmy the electrician (who wired up the place) get to vote on who can live in your house or what the household budget should be spent on?
if he and Jimmy and the thousand other dudes that apparently come to my house every day all have feelings about something, it might end up looking like a democratic process
but it would be really silly to run a huge business like that out of my home. good thing Joe and Jimmy only come by once in a while and don't give a fuck what i do here.
anyway, strawmen like yours or mine are irrelevant, materially it's clear that workers in large companies are seeking to reform governance processes of those companies and gain more control. they will probably continue to try regardless of anyone else's opinion of it, they are systemically incentivized, because more control would benefit them.
That’s probably the best euphemism I’ve heard since “enhanced interrogation techniques”
I mean I’m fine with a democracy on the board of a company, I just don’t think it is wise to have everyone be on the board.
> I mean I’m fine with a democracy on the board of a company, I just don’t think it is wise to have everyone be on the board.
Some companies are co-ops and have made it work. It depends, and is perhaps worth trying more.
i don't think anyone would disagree that currently widespread models of management don't involve democratic processes.
a lot of the activism internal to large companies today is in direct response to perceived failures of management, and seeks to demonstrate broad internal support for specific actions. they would be satisfied if they had an institutional remedy instead of just petitions to the "king"
You are right. It's hardly surprising. Most revolutions fail. Yet as outsiders we can appreciate the try, cheer on, or maybe even help (like the French did?) Maybe one day that help will be returned.
What if you found every other company were the same way?
> Or I’d just work into leadership and make executive decisions.
There are much fewer leadership positions than people in those companies. It can't be the general recommendation that if you want to make your workplace better you have to compete for one of a handful of positions.
That's like telling somebody living in a monarchy that if they want influence over their lives, they just have to marry into the royal family.