Re: Re: Binary scheme of democracy and centrali sm

[Bill Lear <rael@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wednesday, April 17, 2002 at 07:55:31 (-0700) Devine, James writes:
>...
>Bill Lear writes: ...
>
>>One striking omission in all of this discussion so far is that we are
>using the polite word "hierarchy" rather than the more descriptive
>"totalitarianism" when describing firms' organizational structure.
>Hierarchy's are not necessarily totalitarian.  Every firm that I have
>seen is essentially totalitarian in practice.<
>
>I don't like the word "totalitarian." The word is associated with a big
>bunch of books and articles (distilled in literary form by Orwell's 1984)
>that assumed that "totalitarianism" was an adequate term for describing both
>Nazi Germany and Stalin's USSR. Crucial was the idea that such societies
>would never change without external attack by the "non-totalitarian" free
>world. This is just wrong, since both of these two (very different)
>societies had severe internal contradictions. Further, the word
>"totalitarian" has been used to justify the worst foreign policies by the
>US. Jeanne Kirkpatrick, a Reaganoid, once said that we should support
>"authoritarian" countries (i.e., pro-capitalist and pro-US military
>despotisms) against "totalitarian" ones (i.e., non-capitalist countries that
>wouldn't follow the US line).
>
>One crucial thing that differentiates a corporate hierarchy (bureaucracy)
>from the common image of totalitarianism is that you can always quit. It's
>typically costly, but you can always quit. On the other hand, in the old
>USSR [the standard-bearer of "totalitarianism" in the Cold War lexicon], you
>could quit, but you still ended up working for the state. (Even so, the
>system was much too inefficient -- riddled with internal contradictions --
>to be called totalitarian.)
>
>I think the word "totalitarian" should be dropped.

I disagree.  Your uncharacteristically spotty argument above actually
seems to support what I said.  Several items in your definition are
important:

    1) It is claimed that totalitarian systems will not change without
       external attack, but

    2) the system had severe internal contradictions.

    3) Though costly, you can always quit a corporate hierarchy,
       whereas in a totalitarian society you can also quit, but work for
       the state.

Let's take number 3 first.  I'm surprised that you have offered this
as a distinction (a "crucial" one, at that) as you muddle both sides
of the fence and end up offering no difference at all.  On the one
side, that of the capitalist hierarchy side, you claim that you can
"quit" --- but of course, you cannot "quit" the system, you can only
quit a particular firm, and even this is not at all a viable option
for everyone or even very many people to exercise at once.  You then
that say on the other side, that of the totalitarian state, you can
also quit, but would end up working for the state.  Indeed, on both
sides of the fence, quitting the system is not a viable option at all.

As for number 1, this is too specialized a definition on which to base
one's usage of the term, and would depend upon the particular society
in question --- is China really any less totalitarian today than it
used to be?  If so, has it changed for internal or external reasons?

Number 2 is of course true of both types of systems.  The waste and
fraud of Enron is multiplied throughout corporate America and class
contradictions have manifested themselves for ages.

The unabridged dictionary that I use points out that the word
totalitarian means "of or relating to centralized control by an
autocratic leader or hierarchy", synonyms for which include
"authoritarian" and "dictatorial".  That Gene Kirkpatrick should have
made an attempt to distinguish what are two clearly idential forms of
government, save for whom the ultimate master is, should tell us
something, I think.

As I said, I think the distinction between the terms "hierarchy" and
"totalitarian" is important.  You can have a democratic hierarchy with
those in "higher" positions, for example, being contact points for
information flows, and serving for only a very limited time after
which they rotate back "below" others.  This is not so possible in
corporate America, aside from perhaps instances that are simply at the
level of statistical error.  Orders come from above, as they do in
totalitarian states.  As with any system, there is always a certain
amount of principle/agent problem to be dealt with.  In a totalitarian
society, sometimes people are asked their opinion, sometimes they get
to help run things, but they never rule.  Same thing in a corporate
hierarchy.  One other thing worth mentioning is that corporations are
not merely separate entities interacting through a market.  They are
quite typically diverse, with interlocking directorates.  Furthermore,
they dominate state policy, which has resulted in a profound level of
violence (a "contradiction" if ever there was one).  Ditto for
totalitarian states.

As you point out, the term "authoritarian" has gained a certain
credibility --- something vaguely necessary, that only tough-minded
realists can recognize.

Totalitarian, by contrast, remains a repugnant and accurate term to
describe the character of modern corporate America.  And so, that's
the one I choose.


Bill