Is Matel Stalinist?

[Tyler Durden]

Ken wrote...

"Tyler Durden's"

GET them damn quote marks offa my name, or I'm comin' over there to stomp 
your pasty-white British ass!!!!!

Ahem.

As for Tim May's replies to my original post, he seems to have 
misenterpreted most of the basic gist of it. My basic point was that 
corporate culture (as you say) basically imitates a monarchy (or other very 
'statist' structures) and as a result often prevents them from utilizing 
their resources properly.

It would be nice to think of Borders as a counter-example, and I'd LIKE to 
believe that utilizing their talent-on-the-floor has helped them do so well 
here in the US. (Though these mega-Barnes-and-Nobles may have dented their 
numbers in the last few years...)

-TD


>From: ken <bbrow07 at students.bbk.ac.uk>
>To: cypherpunks at lne.com
>Subject: Re: Is Matel Stalinist?
>Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 09:56:31 +0000
>
>Tim May quoted Tyler Durden who wrote:
>
>>>Well, I wouldn't apply the word "oppressive" across the board to the 
>>>cultures of big companies, but the fact is that modern American coporate 
>>>culture more often than not imitates a top-down, 'statist' culture that 
>>>is so universal we rarely recognize it.
>
>Well, yes. Most big corporations are in effect constitutional monarchies. 
>Decisions are made by bureaucrats  with some oversight or direction 
>provided by the "king" (CEO in some places, significant shareholders in 
>others). When it all goes totally pear-shaped owners (or more likely, the 
>banks) step in.
>
>[...]
>
>>The difference with government is that we do not have "polycentric" 
>>governments. We have a single entity, a single "corporation," which brooks 
>>no competition, which brooks little or no "shareholder dissent."
>
>Yes, but in practice a lot of big companies are just like that. Whatever 
>the paper ownership decisions tend to be made by a few large corporate 
>owners, often banks, insurance companies, pension funds and the like; 
>themselves run by officers and managers who share interests with the 
>managers who run the company they own. The situation is in some ways 
>analogous to "it doesn't matter who you vote for: the government always 
>gets in".   In most large corporations the chain of responsibility back to 
>individual owners is so long and so flexible that there is little real 
>control.
>
>Small business is different of course. You make money or you go broke.  
>Very direct feedback.
>
>>Many here miss this point and focus on the superficial aspect that 
>>corporations typically have a hierarchy and that this hierarchy supposedly 
>>makes them like governments. Yes, in this respect. But the tens of 
>>thousands of corporations, the ability to form new partnerships, new 
>>companies, new corporations, and for some of these entities to become as 
>>large as past corporate giants, is what makes all the difference.
>
>Emotional reactions & gut feelings about this point are one of the things 
>that make people happier with one political camp or another.
>
>The state-socialism that you Americans call "liberal"  tends to be 
>supported by people who feel that their governments are more responsive to 
>their needs or wants than corporations are. Conservatives US-style 
>libertarians are likely to feel happier with corporations than government.  
>The "anti-globalisation" crows and European-style left anarchists & 
>old-style non-Marxist socialists dislike both equally.
>
>If I was cynical, or a Marxist, I'd say that it has a lot to do with having 
>money. People whose wealth makes up a larger share of the whole than their 
>vote does are more likely to feel happy about corporations than  they are 
>about representative government.
>
>OK, it's before noon and I've only had one cup of tea, so I'm cynical.
>
>[...]
>
>>Corporations have sales tracking software out the wazoo. If it sells, they 
>>buy more and sell them. Sounds like they're doing precisely what their 
>>owners want them to do.
>
>Yes, but, it might be that a corporation makes more money for its owners by 
>centralising and systematising and reducing the local autonomy of business 
>units. It's a lot easier to manage a thousand identical stores than a 
>hundred unique ones. So from "Tyler Durden's"'s POV there might be more 
>responsiveness from an independent  store than a chain.
>
>Though like you said, that doesn't seem to apply to books.  Might to food 
>though.

_________________________________________________________________
Winterize your home with tips from MSN House & Home. 
http://special.msn.com/home/warmhome.armx