By this I mean, organize around some single person for leadership, or in other contexts focus on a popular figure. Even societies that tend to be described as more collectively-organized/oriented tend to do this.

People are people and are as flawed as one another, so this pervasive tendency to elevate others is odd to me. It can be fun and goofy as a game, but as a more serious organizing or focal principle, it just seems extremely fragile and prone to failure (e.g. numerous groups falling into disarray at the loss of a leader/leader & their family, corruption via nepotism and the like, etc.).

  • Iunnrais@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    Hey, I’m pretty darn leftist (democratic socialist, not tankie) and pretty opposed to the current state of affairs regarding CEOs, so I feel this is targeted at me… and yet totally misrepresents the position.

    CEOs are not useless. CEOs absolutely set the “tone at the top” and create the entire culture for a company. At the same time, CEOs do not work 400 times harder than the average worker, yet that is what they are paid. CEOs are also capable of doing great abuse to those beneath them, and have next to zero accountability for it. CEOs are kings in their little fiefdoms, and I say down with all monarchy. Note that “down with kings” does not mean “down with leaders”, nor does it say or even imply that kings aren’t leaders, or that leadership is useless to have.

    • TheDarkKnight@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yep people complain about CEO salary when they don’t realize that is how much it cost to pay them to leave their current (successful) situation in order to take on that role elsewhere. Not always the case, some come from within and get paid well to stay, too.

      Salaries are definitely too high in a lot of cases, but you’re paid based on what you can command on the market and not a penny less. But yeah it fucking sucks haha.