> The autocracy of a top-down corporate structure is more effective than a democratic collective.
If that was the case then Soviet Union's central planning would be more efficient than Liberal democracy's market capitalism. The efficiency of corporations stems from unfair advantages states gives them like intellectual property rights or from socialising their losses and privatising their gains from public budget.
Elaborate on this please, after all even in "autocratic" corporations we have internal power struggles etc. So are they democratic too? Suddenly everything is like democracy?
USSR, with the exception of the elections, wasn't much different from what we recognize as democracies.
i.e. a local bureaucrat notices something, he contacts his bureaucrat supervisor, let's call him the city manager, who then decide to command the bureaucrat to investigate further or ignore the issue.
Once it is established that the issue actually exists, the local bureaucrat supervisor contacts his bureaucrat supervisor, let's call him the area manager who once again analyzes the report, or more probably gives it to his subordinates to analyze it, because he has a lot of more important work to do, he's a manager!, and then decides what to do next.
Once it is established that the issue actually exists, the area manager contacts his supervisor, let's call him the regional manager, who once again analyzes the report, or more probably give it to his subordinates to analyze it, because he has a lot of more important work to do, he's a manager of managers for god's sake!, and then decides what to do next.
Rinse and repeat a dozen times in a system deeply nested (full employment was a primary goal in USSR, meaning that the machine was slow and inefficient but provided job security to almost everybody) and it is clear that what Stalin said or commanded was the result of an information gathering process that wasn't so swift and to deploy the solutions that the central committee deliberated they had to face some slowdown and a lot of friction.
To understand how fragile the system was, imagine that the fall of the Berlin wall was caused by a trivial communication mistake made by Guenter Schabowski during a momentary inability to contact the bureaucrat who knew the correct answer to the journalists questions.
Democracy simply means that we vote and have many different parties to chose from (not so many in the US, for example), a parliament made by one, two or more "houses" where elected representatives discuss matters, etc. etc., but what we call "the machinery of government" it's not very different from system to system.
Take China for example, yes, they have only one party, but the CCP ha almost 100 million members, with many different political currents, that constantly discuss different point of views and try to find a compromise, making it one of the largest, if not the largest, political institution in the World and in human history.
We do not call it a democracy, but it is still humans discussing politics that have real life impact on over a billion people that form their community.
Not sure this a good counterexample. In fact we have plenty of proof that loose collectives dont perform well under rapid change conditions.
There is no reason why the ubers and bookings etc should not have been actually platforms developed and owned by the respective sectors using more or less the same technologies. In fact there are some examples.
The lag in responding to a risk of opportunity is intrinsic to a consensus system. The long term fitness is an entirely different matter.
If that was the case then Soviet Union's central planning would be more efficient than Liberal democracy's market capitalism. The efficiency of corporations stems from unfair advantages states gives them like intellectual property rights or from socialising their losses and privatising their gains from public budget.