Many large corporations are just structured on modern feudalism with minor changes. They have a privileged nobility, an internal belief system (with attached clergy to match), and by definition a large majority "working the land".
If you're talking about a small company, to some extent this makes sense. I mean, if Alice or Bob starts a company, they're risking more than you are; of course they get to decide. When you're talking about a multi-national corporation with an employee count similar to that of a medium sized city in Europe, I'd argue that logic breaks down, because most people in positions of power are just men-at-arms brought in by the bureaucracy.
The CEOs are no longer the "founders", they're just exotic strangers from far-off lands that happen to know other CEOs and marry other CEOs. They dress differently, they talk differently, they act differently, and finally, just like the nobility, they often have personal agendas that may or may not align with the interest of the "company" (I'm referring here to the employees, not the shareholders).
There's a quote I really like said by a frenchman (can't remember the name, so sources are welcome) that goes something like: "You cannot manifest the republic in society as long as monarchy reigns in the factory". And sure, I realize for many readers this is just commie gobbledygook, but I'd encourage everyone to at least think about the area inbetween extremes, and alternate ways we could structure "work", because the older I get the more absurd this culture becomes, which is weird because I was kind of expecting my political skepticism to start wearing off with age.
Disagree strongly. Modern work dynamics are vastly better than feudalism. You are focused on the hierarchical structure within (some) companies but the key feature of modern capitalism is the fierce competition between companies. There is now a highly competitive labor market; employees have extreme flexibility to move to a new employer at the drop of a hat or start a competing business if they believe that any other company would possibly treat them better.
It is the intense competition between companies (for the same customers, the same employees) that puts constant pressure on companies to develop better products, treat employees well and pay them well.
The main problem with feudalism was that nobles had family titles to the land, and serfs were effectively their property. Therefore competitive pressure to treat people well was entirely absent, and peasants were completely exploited. There is really no analogy to modern companies that compete with each other to shower perks on their employees.
If you're talking about a small company, to some extent this makes sense. I mean, if Alice or Bob starts a company, they're risking more than you are; of course they get to decide. When you're talking about a multi-national corporation with an employee count similar to that of a medium sized city in Europe, I'd argue that logic breaks down, because most people in positions of power are just men-at-arms brought in by the bureaucracy.
The CEOs are no longer the "founders", they're just exotic strangers from far-off lands that happen to know other CEOs and marry other CEOs. They dress differently, they talk differently, they act differently, and finally, just like the nobility, they often have personal agendas that may or may not align with the interest of the "company" (I'm referring here to the employees, not the shareholders).
There's a quote I really like said by a frenchman (can't remember the name, so sources are welcome) that goes something like: "You cannot manifest the republic in society as long as monarchy reigns in the factory". And sure, I realize for many readers this is just commie gobbledygook, but I'd encourage everyone to at least think about the area inbetween extremes, and alternate ways we could structure "work", because the older I get the more absurd this culture becomes, which is weird because I was kind of expecting my political skepticism to start wearing off with age.