Would this model be viable in anarchy?
What is it? Please describe it to us.
Also, I would like to know if you would consider this similar to syndicalism?
who can fire an associate? can they fire Bill Gore? can Bill Gore effectively order an associate about?
Couldn’t find any answers to these questions.
Here’s another link, although it doesn’t really clear up much.
unfortunately without such answers this thread can’t reasonably proceed. we could make up some hypothetical answers and think about what that would mean…
Why do those questions matter? (Not a challenge, genuinely curious)
if there is private ownership, with the private owner(s) of the company’s physical property at the apex of the corporate hierarchy (however ‘flat’ it is on lower levels), then its eminently compatible with anarchy.
I’m assuming it’s a two-tier system, but who knows? Maybe Gore is subject to the meritocracy system all of the other associate are subject to, but the name “W.L. Gore and Associates” seems to imply a distinction.
If Gore wasn’t part of the picture, if it was just Associates, would the model still seem viable?
if by viability you mean profitability the appropriate test is the market test. so long as instantiating the model would not be equivalent to abolishing the market then instances of the model could be tested by entrepreneurs and capitalists willing to bear the risk of so testing.
That’s a good point.
I like it.
In a normal company, you get to choose a capitalist or group of capitalists who you never meet, and then you have to deal with whatever assholes they decide to work with also.
His system internalizes freedom of association. Just because you work for Gore does not mean you have to work with Gore’s men (to a certain extent). He isn’t treating his employee’s like they are retarded, which probably leads them to not acting retardedly.
This is definitely not Anarcho-Syndicalism though. There is still man or group of men who control capital above others.
I am skeptical of anything involving voting. How do we know that people will vote based on merit? I am sure there are incentives put down to insure that within the company.
If Gore did not exist I am not sure how that would be any different than classical syndicalism. Can you elaborate on the question?
Is this different, as it is a voluntary association?
That was all I was curious about.
I would say it is different. H. L. Mencken said "Elections are futures markets on stolen property’. This isn’t the case as the people voting are voting with people they know, and they can’t steal anything with it. So yeah.
Its still capitalism. If Gore did not own it, and everyone else did in shares, it would still be capitalism. I am not really sure how collectivist property is supposed to work. So idk.
So it would be collectivist on the microscale, and laissez-faire on the macro… Me likey.
How 'bout you hardcore economist wonks? Any opinions?