Comment by leftyted | Hacker News Reader

Comment by leftyted | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

What's really illuminating is that you equate quitting with "running away". Quitting isn't "running away" -- it's the correct course of action if you object to what the company is doing. Sure, make your case first, but when you don't get your way, quit. It's even more remarkable that you make this comparison (quitting = running away) while pushing an anti-corporate message. I can hardly think of anything "more corporate" than equating quitting with running away.

I suspect the actual reason you object to quitting is that it involves sacrifice. It's easy to sign a petition or hold up a billboard but it's hard to quit your job. The problem with this approach is that humans define virtue based on sacrifice. We are deeply suspicious of virtue that doesn't involve sacrifice and we should be because that kind of virtue is indistinguishable from self-aggrandizement.

If you really want to "question corporate power" then don't work for a coporation. Of course the reason people refuse to follow this advice isn't because "they want to change the corporations from the inside" -- it's because they want money and a lifestyle that comes from working for a coporation while also claiming the moral highground.

Yeah yeah we've all read Taleb - no virtue without sacrifice and all that. I basically disagree with your premise that you can only question corporate power while not working for a corporation (strong "yet you participate in society, curious" energy [0]). Let's be clear here: humans banding together to accomplish goals greater than that which they are individually capable is a good thing. Now we just have to decide the governance model. Currently we have the unchallenged shareholder/executive system. Why not create a parallel power structure representing employees?

[0] https://thenib.com/mister-gotcha

My perspective comes from Hannah Arendt and her opinion that goodness demonstrated publicly necessarily becomes corrupted.

> Let's be clear here: humans banding together to accomplish goals greater than that which they are individually capable is a good thing. Now we just have to decide the governance model. Currently we have the unchallenged shareholder/executive system. Why not create a parallel power structure representing employees?

Why are you so sure that you are motivated by a desire to improve the world? I think the correct assumption is that you are deeply selfish and, mostly, what you want is to maintain and bolster your advantageous position. I think your perspective is adequately explained by that assumption.

Even if we assume that you want to improve the world, why are you so convinced that you know how?

Of course it's selfish. I believe myself & my fellow workers should have more of a voice in how companies are run - more power. This is because I, yes, believe we can run the company better for society as a whole. I live in society and wish to live in an even better, more just society.

More power for you is directly linked to making society better. What a fascinating coincidence.

I do believe that putting more power into democratic structures (and thus more power into their constituents) will make society better, yes. Not really a fringe opinion. Not to get too frank but this type of nietzschean-style attack against the presumed underlying motivations of ideological opponents only really works if you're an exceptionally talented writer & study of human behavior.

> Why not create a parallel power structure representing employees?

There already exists a parallel power structure that represents all employees, suppliers, and customers. Its the structure of government.

> My perspective comes from Hannah Arendt and her opinion that goodness demonstrated publicly necessarily becomes corrupted

I checked your profile for info to contact you privately to ask, but there wasn't anything, so my apology for the public request. Could you suggest any of Arendt's writings, especially around this subject? I've seen her referenced in interesting contexts and would love to read more.

The bit about the impossibility of doing good in public is from The Human Condition. She gets it from Machievelli, who dared to "teach men how not to be good".

I'd recommend a collection of three essays called Crises of the Republic. If you like that, then check out The Human Condition.

> If you really want to "question corporate power" then don't work for a coporation.

What should I do if I want to question all power? Become an hermit?

Yes. This is why ascetics are considered saintly.

Ascetics are valorized by the propaganda of those in power (such as the religious organizations that beatify people) because they pose no threat to them.

Yes, lest your questions lead you to become powerful in turn.

> it's because they want money and a lifestyle that comes from working for a coporation while also claiming the moral highground

If you think people work at a corporation for money and lifestyle, then you are living in a bubble. I'm betting most people work at a huge company are doing menial labour and hate it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com