6 ms·
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,
by drewmcarthur 2y ago
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 2y agoI 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.