@HeavenlyPossum @arrrg @breadandcircuses The difference is that I'm extricating the ownership model of a firm from its operational model, which reflects my observations and, I think, the theory. If a workers can expel owners and still operate the factory, then ownership is severable from, and essentially unrelated to, operation. Implicit hierarchy in ownership is therefore not implicit hierarchy in operation.

Hierarchies in firms are common, just not necessary or universal.

@HeavenlyPossum @arrrg @breadandcircuses I agree, they definitely are not equal! A manager has a ton of power over an employee, but the most effective power is implicit, just as the most effective employee needs no management. A manager who needs to wield explicit power has already failed.

The ideal system is one in which everyone just does the best thing all the time, and all structures of organization are compromises on the fact that they don't reliably do that.

I don't think that I agree about the point of firms. The goal of the capitalist firm is to create/accumulate/extract wealth, not specifically to create hierarchies. They tend to, for the same practical reasons that they emerge elsewhere, but no more is an office there to produce memos, even if one might be excused to think so.

@HeavenlyPossum @breadandcircuses @arrrg

I think you're mostly going after good, not natural, as many natural things are bad, as are many good, so I'll answer against that framework.

Rent can exist without private property: property taxes are effectively rent against the land, and they're a reasonable way for someone to stake a claim that they intend to be productive with some property: they expect to exceed the rent with their productivity.

In an entirely classless system, administration is still labor. "Hiring" people to work just means that someone is executing on a plan and needs some people to do so. Financial exchange is a way to do so, but not the only one.

I interview people for management positions in the corporate world, and the third question you ask is very poignant: potential managers who imply strong hierarchy or possession regarding those that report to them get a Do Not Hire from me (and most people I know in that world). Treating employees as unequal is toxic and usually ineffective.

Corporate political lobbying is generally bad. I hope I didn't imply an endorsement.

The narrative that I'm trying to promote above is that the supposed bagel shop can exist, and that it is positive that it does so, regardless of the economic system that underpins the mechanisms of its economic action. We live under capitalism, so the capitalist mechanisms are the most available, but the story is fairly consistent regardless.

@HeavenlyPossum @breadandcircuses @arrrg because general corporations are really easy for the state to administer, and in most cases are fine (someone wants to rent a place, hire two people, and sell bagels: this is fine and the public good is implicit). Obviously when it matters, the ship has already sailed, and wealthy companies are effective lobbyists. They also are deeply integrated into the lives of constituents, and requiring a restructure retrospectively is difficult.

There are reasons why the idea of a general for-profit company has been so dominant, but it is a legal construct, and the organ that administers the law is actually capable of managing that construct.