The Hidden Monarchy, the King's Best Weapon

[davidavisok]

The structure of U.S. companies can be compared to an essential monarchy system, albeit a nonviolent one. Acquisitions of small companies by larger ones can be compared to "Conquering of nations." The CEO can be compared to a “King,” other executives can be thought of as “advisors,” and the workers can be thought of as “peasants” who serve their “king.” Because of these striking similarities, it’s reasonable to view our economy in a quasi-monarchy perspective. This is important to investigate because the evolution of political structures points that democratic societies are more sustainable than monarchies in global political systems (even England has adopted democratic system they coin “Parliament”). Companies nowadays often pass down ownership by inheritance (Ford Motor Co., Miller Beers, etc.) and only every so often can a clever executive engineer the ousting of a CEO (sophisticated assassination?). Because talent is ever becoming the determining factor in keeping companies viable in competitive atmospheres such as the economy, the idea of a democratic restructuring of company bureaucracy is slowly becoming a credible prophesy. A solution to the inefficiently organized and ineffectual labor unions is the most plausible way to bring about a democratic reorganization of U.S. companies and is only waiting to happen in a society that generally hates work.

Our social playground is directed almost solely by our economic structure. In the U.S., where we operate on the stock system, a company can increase or decrease in value quickly. Throughout college campuses nationwide, for example, women are wearing the trendy tiered linen skirts at the ridiculous average retail price of $40. Companies that are able to quickly construct the instruments to manufacture the new trends are able to profit for a margin of time with the new equipment, until a new look becomes more fashionable. Companies whose adaptations to these trends are faint will soon become acquisitions or bankrupt losers. On the other hand, countries not operating on the stock system do not have the desire to cause or conform to these changes. Socially, these countries tend to be more classical in their culture. European companies are usually monumental and their clothes/products are usually fashionable for long periods of time (Gucci, Giorgio Armani, Lamborghini, etc.). The U.S. companies currently cooperate with their “competitors,” or imitate their ideas so to impose an apparently competitive rivalry that really is a collective movement for telling consumers what’s hot and what’s not. One can clearly observe the Atkins phenomenon, where strangely enough a good majority of companies selling bread almost altogether jump on the low-carb bandwagon. Suppose only one company advocates the low-carb idea, really Americans would not pay attention to this. When several large companies come together and advocate the idea, many other companies who do not belong to the conglomerate must adapt, suffer, or be bought by bigger companies. Rarely do major companies attack each other, for then both will suffer major losses. This relationship among companies is no different than how nations related with one another in the monarchy era, like France, England, etc. If France were to attack England, both countries would suffer and countries not involved in the war would thrive. Similarly to acquisitions, weak villages were forced to assimilate into larger neighboring nations so to afford themselves protection.

In a democracy, a political system created by the American Revolution, enterprises were mostly independently run and operated, a luxury granted by the giant surplus of land, and the democracy was preferentially a republic one since people wanted to mind their own businesses. The very fact that George Washington had little power was indicative of the emergence of a democratic government and additionally provided a catalyst needed to evolve factions and then political parties. The surplus of land and large amount of people who wanted some, the desire to defend the country and keep united (from the pestering English), and the inconvenience for England to travel across the Atlantic allowed for a democracy to be possible. Without these factors, the English King would never permit his once citizens to freely become entrepreneurs who are not obliged to him. The democracy allowed for many possibilities to come avail; most importantly it made possible the ability to adapt to changes to accommodate the majority, which in the big picture desired to compete in global markets. Decisions took longer to be made but the decision policy (vote) also made possible the stock market and a novel affluent class, which gave the aristocrats in Europe a run for their money.

Similarly, a “Democratic company” (opposed to “monarchist company”) would need to first overcome the barriers that traditional capitalists set up. These barriers obviously differ from those mentioned above and depend on the type of organization. Of the successful democratic organizations, the American Medical Association and the National Small Business Association, unity has little consequences but participation is lacking and influence on national policy is miniscule compared to the influence of CEO’s and CFO’s. The lack of factions in these organizations also alludes to the apathy or lack of culture the members have since people inevitably have conflicting opinions (also these organizations don’t sense the threat of monarchist companies as much as New Englanders sensed the threat of England). In labor unions, however, unity often implies severe consequences like job losses and hefty fees. Their barriers impede the motivation to organize themselves better, the desire to be more united by increasing membership, and ultimately the policy changes needed to end of the capitalist monarchy system. Members of labor unions suffer the threats without having power to challenge it, for they are disposable and owners know that people need to feed their families. They might be consumed by the allusion that they can climb up the work stratum by promotions, but they should realize that not everybody gets promotions and there is no real accurate way to assess the worthiness of getting a promotion. Only in time will people realize that democratic restructuring of companies is possible and revolt against their true enemy: the monarchists in disguise.

In order to change the organization of our monarchy structured companies, we need to have examples of successful companies that are structurally democratic. These companies must be more successful than the monarchist companies or else they will eventually be bought out or silenced by the greedy capitalist who would plot against his opponent. Employee ownership of stock is a growing option but the sense of company “ownership” is far from real. Ultimately, structurally democratic companies are better suited to the people who work in it and potentially would be better managed since the people have a sense of authority/ownership in the company and therefore care about the company more. The new structure would shrink the gap between rich and poor and would bring job satisfaction to its members. This somewhat Marxist utopia seems unrealistic to anyone who has been too institutionalized by his company or has grown to accept the constraints set by the bureaucrats that govern him, etching a self-fulfilling prophesy that’s almost impossible to reverse. Surely the sociologist can find a structurally democratic system (perhaps in an Indian tribe or by trying to understand what liberals want (the real ones)) and try his/her best to encourage the establishment of the new structure into modern U.S. companies. The ghost of Karl Marx would be redeemed of the shame he’s born seeing his followers destroy their own people.

[donhakman]

1. Yes David

or at least regulations against corporate murder, torture and theft.