If democracy is so great

[leftofthedial]

why aren't corporations run democratically?

why isn't the military run democratically?

[mazzarro]

1. Very good question

The obvious answer will be that the setup for the military is efficiency in archieving the objectives of wining battles and wars. Likewise for corporations - ie being first to market and/or cornering the market thus locking out the competition. That surely seem to contradict the free marketers' claim that absence of all government intervention results in the most efficient use of resources? It seem that the free-market model instead creates a lot of wasteful use of resources before any correction manifests.

[leftofthedial]

6. bingo

the free market has made the worst decision possible for the planet and for our species

[The Magistrate]

2. Several Favorites, Sir....

"Democracy substitutes selection by the incompetent many for appointment by the corrupt few."

"Democracy becomes a government of bullies, tempered by editors."

"Democracy is a system based on belief the people know what they want and ought to get it, good and hard."

[melody]

3. The problem is "ocracy" and "isms" of all kinds

I think we just need to do what works.

[ariel4thou]

4. Theory X and Theory Y

Actually, the answer to this is quite simple.

There are two traditional management forms. In the 80s, we called them "theory x" and "theory y."

One of them is the type that is used by the military and corporations. It is a heirarchical form that is very efficient, and, when decisions need to be made quickly, it is probably the best management model to use. There is no time-consuming consensus building; one person or a small cadre of people make the final decisions and questioning of those decisions is not allowed.

The other management form is the democratic model. Decisions aren't made until all members (or the majority of the members) of the group come to a consensus. It is messy and it is time consuming.

So why would anyone want to use this second management style? For a couple reasons. The militaristic management style is a ball breaker. It works in the short term, but eventually it wears everyone down. It is hard on those required to always make the decisios and it is hard on those who have no say in the outcome of their lives.

The democratic management style will, ultimately, lead to better long-term decisions. There is more deliberation, and the members of a community who are free to discuss a topic at length and listens to each other will be more invested in the success of that community.

Although I hate to quote him, George W. Bush himself said that the United States is heavily invested in establishing democratic governments in nations (including Iraq) that are currently non-democratic, because democratic nations make better decisions for themselves.

There are times when the use of the heirarchical model is crucial, especially in times of crisis. But for the ulitimate health of a community, democratic decisions making works best.

[leftofthedial]

5. so it is a bad idea for corporations

to make better long-term decisions?

[Igel]

9. Communities can survive bad short- and middle-term

decisions to benefit from long-term decisions.

Corporations can't: sometimes waiting 3 weeks is too long for survival.

Personally, I've just about concluded that Americans can no longer make long-term decisions, in either their private or public lives.

[ariel4thou]

14. So why not use BOTH management styles.

Maintain consensus building until there's a crisis, or until some routine short-term issue comes up. Then switch to heirarchical management.

That's what we do in our country. The Congress mixes it up during peace times, then the army (or the executive branch) comes in when crises occur.

[ariel4thou]

13. nope.

Not at all. Actually, the whole "theory x/theory y" labels came about when Japanese corporations were kicking our butts in business .. when their cars were outselling ours, and they were buying all the real estate in the country. In the '80s. Why? Because they were using the consensus building model WITHIN their corporations.

Then their stock market crashed. I don't know why; it was my turn in life to change diapers, instead of paying attention to global business.

[newyawker99]

10. Hi ariel4thou!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[ariel4thou]

15. Thank you!

[snot]

7. true democracy

is pretty great.

Corporations and the military are not run for the benefit of the majority, but for the benefit of a few.

[leftofthedial]

8. but aren't they run for the benefit of the entire organization?

(obviously not in Murka--look at CEO pay)

but, wouldn't it be smarter to build an organization for the long haul?

and wouldn't democratic principles be a better system?

[Bake]

11. Theoretically, corporations are "democratic" (cough cough)

But instead of "one person one vote" it's "one share one vote." Unless, of course, you own non-voting "preferred" shares.

The shareholders meet annually to elect a slate of directors who are charged with maximizing the return on the shareholders' investment. The directors, to that end, hire officers/executives to carry out that mission, and if they fail to do so, those officers are removed (occasionally happens), and if the directors fail, they are not re-elected by the shareholders.

Theoretically.

Pardon me now while I go vomit.

Bake

[Hosnon]

17. Well it's (generally) "one person one vote" only when electing directors

and deciding when the corporation should undertake extraordinary measures (mergers, sales, etc.)

Barring those two situations the board of directors is in control.

They are not meant to be democratic.

[xchrom]

12. don't ask me -- i think democracy is highly overrated.

don't take that to mean i don't vote.

[Hosnon]

16. Because of the different ends that a government, corporation, and military

are striving to achieve.

Governments (we hope) strive for equality.

Corporations strive for profits.

Militaries strive for efficiency.

[Lochloosa]

18. We are not nor have we ever been a democracy!

We are a Representative Republic.

An example of a democracy: (yes this comes from boortz)

Put 19 wolves and 1 lamb in a room and vote on whats for dinner.

A Representative Republic:

One of the chief characteristics of a government which constitutes a Republic is the representative feature, as noted earlier. America made an important contribution to the science of government with regard to development of this feature. Several of The Founders commented upon this great, forward step brought about in their day. Madison, for instance, observed in The Federalist number 14 that:

". . . even in modern Europe, to which we owe the great principle of representation, no example is seen of a government wholly popular, and founded at the same time wholly on that principle. If Europe has the merit of discovering this great mechanical power in government, by the simple agency of which, the will of the largest political body may be concentred, and its force directed to any object, which the public good requires: America can claim the merit of making the discovery the basis of unmixed and extensive republics."

Another member of the Framing Convention, James Wilson, commented on this topic while he was a member of the United States Supreme Courte in one of a series of lectures in 1790-1791, as follows:

"The extension of the theory and practice of representation through all the different departments of the state is another very important acquisition made, by the Americans, in the science of jurisprudence and government. To the ancients, this theory and practice seem to have been altogether unknown. To this moment, the representation of the people is not the sole principle of any government in Europe . . . The American States enjoy the glory and the happiness of diffusing this vital principle throughout all the different divisions and departments of the government."