Is Matel Stalinist?

[ken]

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.