Binary scheme of democracy and centralism by Bill Lear 17 April 2002 15:49 UTC
-clip- As I said, I think the distinction between the terms "hierarchy" and "totalitarian" is important. You can have a democratic hierarchy with those in "higher" positions, for example, being contact points for information flows, and serving for only a very limited time after which they rotate back "below" others. This is not so possible in corporate America, aside from perhaps instances that are simply at the level of statistical error. Orders come from above, as they do in totalitarian states. As with any system, there is always a certain amount of principle/agent problem to be dealt with. In a totalitarian society, sometimes people are asked their opinion, sometimes they get to help run things, but they never rule. Same thing in a corporate hierarchy. One other thing worth mentioning is that corporations are not merely separate entities interacting through a market. They are quite typically diverse, with interlocking directorates. Furthermore, they dominate state policy, which has resulted in a profound level of violence (a "contradiction" if ever there was one). Ditto for totalitarian states. ^^^^^^^^ CB: In using your model, I would say that even though there is a partially democratic hierarchy in the U.S. governments, the totalitarian corporate system rules the U.S. governments substantially, such that the U.S. system should be termed totalitarian too. If we use the totalitarian model, we should include the U.S. as totalitarian, otherwise there is too much of an implication of democracy in the U.S.system. Alternatively it might be termed a bourgeois dictatorship.
