A CEO deserves his rewards if workers can survive off his salary
This thread started from a tangent on an earlier one between me and @StreetlightX. That part of the thread is here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/10310/solutions-for-overpopulation/latest/comment
So this thread is continuing that discussion.. The last couple of posts went something like this:
CEOs/business owners provide incomes, healthcare, and even vacations for their employees. They can move to a new CEO/business owner's domain (business) if they want. What is wrong with this arrangement? Things to consider:
1) The business owner (if a smaller business) gambled his own time, resources, and money (or debt) to generate the capital to start his/her business.
2) The workers are getting market-value salaries that sustain their survival and entertainment, rents/mortgages, food, clothes, HVAC, water, healthcare, car payments, disposable income for goods/services of all kinds.
3) The basis for technology is businesses interacting with other businesses to gather the goods/services to create products that sell and sustain their workers.
What is wrong with this arrangement? To see this in more detail, please read these posts:
schopenhauer1: The CEO of a small tech company gets paid $2 million. The head developer gets paid $300,000. A mid-level developer and R&D personnel $150,000. The tech support gets paid $60-75,000. The sales people range from $70-$200,000. The people in the manufacturing get a range from $45-$85,000 depending on their position. Customer service and related personnel get $50,000. They all get increases every year 5% for inflation. Everyone likes their little hierarchy. In larger companies, the numbers may be more and more room for ladder-climbing. Third world nations that are chiefly exporting and living subsistence want this little hierarchy too. You are trying to take that away with themes of "no property". Rather, the CEO gambled, and put in that effort 30 years ago and deserves the reward of profit-maker and figure head. The developers and mid level people are getting paid enough to live comfortably and do those things mentioned earlier (BBQs, TVs, etc.).. The third world see this and want it exported to their country. So these people would ask you what is your problem? Is it the big guys? The international corporations? The ones that pay the "real bucks" and you can climb much further up the hierarchy? Why would they hate "that"? Hey, you might even get healthcare too! (Bestowed from government or business/fiefdom).
The workers think, "Why should we own the capital.. The owner put that initial gamble and work into the company. It is his profits. He is gracious enough to pay me enough to live. I get to go on vacation soon!".
The only response you will give is some cliched notion of starving Africans who are not a part of this system right? But that is itself a different problem than taking away property. You are confusing development issues and issues surrounding fundamentals of property... But I'll be charitable and assume you are NOT going down that cliched road of third world vs. first world in this justification for no property (in the first world). So if that's the case, what is the need for taking away the capital from those who gambled to create the growth of business (and bestowment of jobs) created from that initial capital? So we will go back to global, mega corporations right? Because they are employing low wage workers in third world companies? So we go back to that... So really it is back to large corporations.. and so you fall into simply "liberal" who wants get rid of multnational corporations that exploit third world countries. That is right in line with "liberal" versions of standard capitalism. Get in line.
What would you say to the people in that small business scenario who are content (enough) with their pay, vacations, and healthcare? To them, the hierarchy sustains. The capitalist class CEO has provided for them.
So this thread is continuing that discussion.. The last couple of posts went something like this:
CEOs/business owners provide incomes, healthcare, and even vacations for their employees. They can move to a new CEO/business owner's domain (business) if they want. What is wrong with this arrangement? Things to consider:
1) The business owner (if a smaller business) gambled his own time, resources, and money (or debt) to generate the capital to start his/her business.
2) The workers are getting market-value salaries that sustain their survival and entertainment, rents/mortgages, food, clothes, HVAC, water, healthcare, car payments, disposable income for goods/services of all kinds.
3) The basis for technology is businesses interacting with other businesses to gather the goods/services to create products that sell and sustain their workers.
What is wrong with this arrangement? To see this in more detail, please read these posts:
schopenhauer1: The CEO of a small tech company gets paid $2 million. The head developer gets paid $300,000. A mid-level developer and R&D personnel $150,000. The tech support gets paid $60-75,000. The sales people range from $70-$200,000. The people in the manufacturing get a range from $45-$85,000 depending on their position. Customer service and related personnel get $50,000. They all get increases every year 5% for inflation. Everyone likes their little hierarchy. In larger companies, the numbers may be more and more room for ladder-climbing. Third world nations that are chiefly exporting and living subsistence want this little hierarchy too. You are trying to take that away with themes of "no property". Rather, the CEO gambled, and put in that effort 30 years ago and deserves the reward of profit-maker and figure head. The developers and mid level people are getting paid enough to live comfortably and do those things mentioned earlier (BBQs, TVs, etc.).. The third world see this and want it exported to their country. So these people would ask you what is your problem? Is it the big guys? The international corporations? The ones that pay the "real bucks" and you can climb much further up the hierarchy? Why would they hate "that"? Hey, you might even get healthcare too! (Bestowed from government or business/fiefdom).
The workers think, "Why should we own the capital.. The owner put that initial gamble and work into the company. It is his profits. He is gracious enough to pay me enough to live. I get to go on vacation soon!".
The only response you will give is some cliched notion of starving Africans who are not a part of this system right? But that is itself a different problem than taking away property. You are confusing development issues and issues surrounding fundamentals of property... But I'll be charitable and assume you are NOT going down that cliched road of third world vs. first world in this justification for no property (in the first world). So if that's the case, what is the need for taking away the capital from those who gambled to create the growth of business (and bestowment of jobs) created from that initial capital? So we will go back to global, mega corporations right? Because they are employing low wage workers in third world companies? So we go back to that... So really it is back to large corporations.. and so you fall into simply "liberal" who wants get rid of multnational corporations that exploit third world countries. That is right in line with "liberal" versions of standard capitalism. Get in line.
What would you say to the people in that small business scenario who are content (enough) with their pay, vacations, and healthcare? To them, the hierarchy sustains. The capitalist class CEO has provided for them.
Comments (138)
Are CEOs the new lords? Is anyone justified in throwing off a hierarchy if the CEO who started the hierarchy put in the effort to gamble their initial capital that allowed the company to grow to a point where they can pay a salary that can support people?
Is surplus theory of value going to convince someone who is able to go on a vacation and BBQ and own a house that the CEO is so bad? The only thing that can be mustered here is the poor third world. But then this just brings in a whole range of arguments from various schools of thought as to how to fix that, that doesn't require the abolition of capital.
I don't understand why you think it is just the 'third world' that is affected by this. One of most palpable effects of offshoring - driven by the relentless search to squeeze profits from wherever possible - is a massive drop in the standards of life and working conditions for those in the developed world:
http://glineq.blogspot.com/2017/12/the-abc-of-globalization.html
Capitalist globalization is simply a global race to the bottom: what starts as the exporting of production overseas washes back as the dragging down of living conditions for those in the global North. This is not something off in the far future. It has already happened as is accelerating as we speak. This isn't some localized issue that affects people far away.
As for your last post, it's not clear that you read any of the link. Marx's point is that the idea that CEOs are rewarded for risk is plain wrong. A CEO is rewarded for profits. Not even capitalists give a shit that you took a risk. They care if you turn a profit, that's it. "Risk" is a retroactive feel good justification meant to inflate egos and nothing more, as well as to placate the stupid who do not take a single moment to think about how capitalism actually functions in practice.
And that's not to mention the fact that, in practice, capitalists are frequently shielded from the the very 'risks' they like to say they take on: though limited liability, massive world historical bails-outs as we have witnessed for the last decade, laws skewed to the almost absolute benefit of speculators like landlords, etc. When the most devastating global crash since the great depression happened in 2008, how many bank CEOs, who were personally responsible for it, got fucked? Not a single one. One single mid-tier French banker got thrown into jail, and that's it, Meanwhile, pensioners and homeowners got utterly rorted while investment funds gleefully bought assets on the cheap to add to their already inflated portfolios. When businesses fail, almost invariably, it isn't CEOs who suffer - it is workers. Capital protects capital.
There is no system capable of fixing this, for such flaws inhabit nearly every human, and in most it requires years of self-study to become aware of and eventually fix them.
Humanity is its own greatest enemy, and the more we project our own imperfections on systems, the more we blind ourselves to the evil that is residing inside us.
The machinery is owned by a new class of landlords ruling the contemporary world. The difference with their illustrious predecessors being that they try to give the servants the impression of freedom, which makes them even more illustrious than they were once.
True, they don't beat the slaves in submission, but the principle is the same.
Granted, but the start of a corporation will say something like the following:
Do you know how to manufacture X? Did you know how to bring together the parts, the people, the skills, to get that product created? Did you know how to market and sell it?
I am not just talking about corrupt banking practices but entrepreneurs of small, medium, and eventually large businesses. They will say, that it is they who did these things.. They will say that if the workers who they exploited were clever enough, they would do the same, but they aren't so must sell the labor for an income..
There is exactly zero link, in capitalism, between "cleverness" and reward, or "risk" and reward for that matter. I'll say it again: capitalism rewards profitiability. Markets are not warm and fuzzy altruists: they don't care, not one single bit, about personal cleverness or risk: the only metric markets reward is profitability. Any capitalist worth their salt will tell you this. Fairy tales about "cleverness" and "risk" are a postiori fairy tales retroactively told by capitalists to justify what the market, utterly indifferent to these dumb human constructs, have already engaged in. If a sack of rocks or a God-guaranteed business scheme would find a way to make people part with money, capitalism would reward it. You need to stop buying into the fairy tales capitalists peddle to dupe idiots into thinking they are worth anything at all, and pay attention the only thing the markets care about - profitability.
The order of causality needs to be reversed: it's not that capitalists are 'clever' or 'hardworking' or 'risktaking', and therefore they are rewarded. They are rewarded, therefore they are subsequently given the title, based on nothing but a tautological appellation, of 'clever', 'hardworking', or 'risk-taking'. Of course, there are plenty of clever, hardworking, and risk-taking people who are not so rewarded, on account of the fact that there is literally no link whatsoever between these things besides sheer after-the-fact contingency. On the contrary, there are a legion of stupid, lazy, risk-averse unremarkables running around with piles of cash. Profitability is not an index of any personal attribute; more likely it is an index of labor costs, monopoly, network effects, government regulation, investment flows, cultural and technical trends, and a whole host of utterly impersonal mechanisms which markets actually give a shit about. Compared to these factors, 'you took a risk' is about as relevant to markets as the color of a CEOs car.
Hell, it would be nice if capitalism did reward hard work and risk and innovation and intelligence. Then maybe the world would not be the crumbling, dying misery machine that it currently is.
CEOs are mostly paid in stocks. Boards do that to incentivize focus on their own earnings, not because CEOs deserve that money
This kind of focus de-incentivizes things that don't affect the stock market like safety nets (healthcare and what not). All that stuff is provided according to the status of the labor market.
In normal times, this format will push labor closer and closer to the edge of doable, with a lot of debt related to healthcare.
Right now there's a labor shortage in the US, so priorities changed.
It may be that no economic system will last long term. A Wall St. focused economy provides a particularly bumpy ride for everyone.
You seriously believe "the workers" think like this, and consider their company's CEOs "gracious" because they pay the workers enough "to live"?
Nothing's wrong with a system in which everyone receives enough to live, I would think. My guess would be there would be less wrong with such a system than one which encourages the equivalent of gluttony and hoarding by a few while others get enough "to live."
You already give away your position with these statements.
CEO pay has hit astronomical levels while real wages have stagnated -- for the last 40 years. Making 300X what an average worker makes is itself ridiculous, to say nothing of the entire employer-employee relationship, which was viewed as another form of slavery not too long ago (and which has been apparently forgotten). The legitimacy of this relationship should by no means be taken for granted.
The second statement is simply another neoliberal talking point. People are "free" to simply pack up and go get another job that's better. It's about as informed and compassionate as "let them eat cake."
Quoting schopenhauer1
Complete nonsense. The basis for much of the technology of today -- including what we're using right now, computers and the internet -- was developed from public funding. It later gets handed off to private hands who then reap the profits.
Don't be fooled by free-market fantasies and corporate myths about innovation.
You're right; there is not much one can say to the man who loves his employment that can convince him he should hate it. I think this is true of all relationships.
Employees are happy or not with the relationship to varying degrees, sometimes loving it sometimes hating it, but there can be nothing wrong with the arrangement so long as it is one of voluntary contract and both parties hold up their end of the bargain. This is why I cringe whenever critics declare that one party to this contract deserves public scorn while the other deserves public protection.
The principle of voluntary cooperation, wherever found, but especially in trade, is morally sound. The involuntary and coercive cooperation produced by the regulatory and legal institutions are not.
:rofl:
Which is why I think they should bring back child labor. The kids did it voluntarily, after all. We'll just ignore the conditions under which these very-morally-sound "contracts" take place.
You have the freedom to be a wage-slave, so it's all good. You can choose not to -- i.e., you can choose to starve to death or be homeless. That's just life.
Always delightful to see such a pathological way of thinking be put on display.
Well, the state can't be all that morally unsound because it always seems to favor the powerful.
@Ciceronianus @frank @Xtrix@Albero @Raymond @praxis, I am actually more in sympathy with you than certainly @NOS4A2 position here. I am not taking my own position at this point but just think of me as the representative of someone who does think that way. I think that line of reasoning has to be contended with and not just sniped at from afar. It is a real position that needs thorough refuting. @NOS4A2 is certainly not the only one who thinks that way. it is pervasive. Two issues that I think their position contends that needs addressing:
1) You are making a caricature of all business owners as shill Wall Street folks. How about a food truck driver that starts a restaurant and then a chain, and then franchises and becomes a multimillionaire? He will say that he used his capital and wits to do this and employs people who voluntarily sell him their labor as a result. You can't hide behind wall street corruption on this type of scenario. This is someone who is not a wall street guy but someone who really did start one restaurant at a time, expanding capital and profits.
The same goes for a small tech firm. They produce a new gadget that is slightly more competative than the next guy. He gets sales and connections and demand.. He even programmed the original code and created the first circuit boards.. He grows the business in his region.. expands to other markets across the world...He's a global company.. Sole proprietor.. no wall street. No secret global cabal. He will say he created something with his smarts and know how.. And he would say that he is offering work for others who will gladly take the salary. He gets to buy more boats and parasails in the Maldives or whatever.. But this is because he grew his company by selling products and making its profits... providing programmers, accountants, HR personnel, regional managers, factory workers, customer support, technical trainers, and the like work along the way.. He has created "worlds" for his worker-folk.. They get rent/mortgages paid, income for food, etc... He would be very confused on this invective that is abstract where his contribution to his people is tangibly getting them the means to subsist and even have leisure time to follow their entertainment pursuits.
2) @NOS4A2 actually presents a good point. Not because he (and his contingent) is right, but simply that many people think like this.. Specifically when he said:
Quoting NOS4A2
Remember the hierarchy? Employees of these middling companies, (and certainly large corporations) see this as fair.. The R&D director is darn tootin' smart and should get paid the six figures. The technical support is not as valuable as the programmer or engineers but valuable enough.. their $60,000 makes sense.. The customer support is an even more generalized skillset and their $50,000 is justified.. You see, it's all a sort of "chain of being" justified by skillset and salary...
Also, very importantly to my personal philosophy, StreetlightX, you are in a similar dilemma as me when it comes to antinatalism.. I know the instant you see that comparison, you will bristle and deride it, but look at this:
The people that accept the hierarchy as "just" and "right" you think are wrong.. That is a large contingent of people (middle class types) that think this way.. Maybe they are wrong.. But as NOS4A2 was saying, how are you going to convince them they are wrong? In a same way, antinatalism is also right, yet people don't see it. They think the current arrangement is "just" and "right" to impose on a new person born into this life. The injustice of it is lost on them. I'm just saying, despite your (assured) protestations, we have similar problems in this regard, even if we disagree.
Finally, I'd like to bring comrade @Bitter Crank into the conversation as he is a battle-worn cold war warrior that would probably add some interesting ideas to the mix.
Quoting schopenhauer1
CEO Schopenhauer is making 6.5 times what the head developer gets; 13 times what the mid-level developer and R&D personnel get; about 30 times what the average tech support gets; the CEO gets 40 times what the customer service people receive, and 23 to 45 times what the production people are making. The boss makes 40 times what customer service makes.
Both workers and stockholders are concerned about absurdly high executive salaries, because they reduce dividends and the wages of ordinary workers alike. Besides, over-paid CEOs do not necessarily perform all that well. Now, we don't know from wage figures alone how well this small tech company is doing. It may be that Schopenhauer is an industrial wizard and is making money hand over fist. It could also be that the company is burning through cash reserves like it was jet fuel. In general, though, everyone (except overpaid CEOs) likes to see reasonable wage levels, top to bottom. That seems to be the case here, though a reduction of... say $500,000 a year would not put our beloved CEO in line for food stamps. (You WILL reduce the caviar and champaign cocktail parties from weekly to bimonthly, however. We all have to make sacrifices).
First, working is not optional. No work, no money; no money, starvation. It's called wage slavery, So a work contract can be terrible but still have takers. BTW, most workers are not even covered by a contract; they are "employed at will" meaning they can be dumped at a moment's notice.
Second, the expectations of the two parties are totally dissimilar. The employer intends to exploit the workers to the maximum, the employees hope to preserve as much of their life force as they can.
Third, very little to no negotiation about the terms of labor are possible when a) there is a line of unemployed people waiting for a job; b) there is no union to give workers some leverage; c) Applying workers are not privy to information which would help them bargain--like, they don't discover what a shit hole a place is until after they are hired.
You, NOS4A2, are free insofar as you obey. Call the number on this card and you will receive instructions.
ln conclusion, let me add one thing:
No war but the class war.
Have I discharged my obligations to this thread now? I'm tired and want to go to bed.
Yes, we need bright ideas. Thank you for your service, but you owe your wealth to us.
You always answer like this. Sad, since I genuinely wanted to see your response in particular. This last post directly answered your notion that only profit matters, not the origin of the risk and I gave you examples of this not being the case (sole proprietors).
You said this.. I gave examples of a single person coming up with an idea and capital and then growing it such as here:
Quoting schopenhauer1
and here
Quoting schopenhauer1
What about those kind of entrepreneurs?
Quoting StreetlightX
But the entrepreneur said I made it happen. I took resources and my know how (and maybe connections) and put it together. Why should I be punished for being able to do this? I am basically talking about the small entrepreneur type that strikes it on his/her own? Let us assume we agree that the larger corporate businesses that are simply shell companies of yet larger businesses don't count.
Why are yo so dismissive? Because I am giving you the other side? Ridiculous. Looks like Bitter Crank did the heavy lifting for you anyways.. Not my fault if you refuse to take the other side's responses into consideration. Live in your bubble where you never have to answer different viewpoints that contradict.
Granted, I'd agree with all of this.. I think maybe my use of CEO was misleading throughout here. Let's pretend it is simply a business owner.. The CEO is just a title, and does not have to be connected to a CEO of a Wall Street firm. I am mainly aiming this to the small business types that started the business either from their own money, a loan, a grant, or a combination. And let's say this company is doing very good to great.. They're making great sales, year over year.
I think what you may be discounting is that the manager and senior level positions may be getting paid disproportionally to the owner, but they are still getting paid well. A regional manager and department head that gets paid $200-300,00 a year isn't going to complain too much. Even further, if they are commissioned to keep the people under them working, producing, and (most importantly) contributing to sales and profits (bottom line), and their larger pay depends on it, they will be quite happily ensure this arrangement is maintained.
As for the positions lower in the chain, they are grateful they are not getting paid minimum wage work. Competition for similar positions has made such that they simply want stable work that pays enough. They aren't stupid. They know their skillset is more generalized. They didn't go to school to learn code. They don't have advanced graphic design skills. They didn't learn electronic engineering. Rather, they can solve some problems moderately well, or they can process forms rather efficiently when they need to (let's say the tech support and customer service people). They are so removed from the business owner's business, that it doesn't really phase them how much they are making in comparison. Their only vision of "justice" here is maybe getting a yearly review where they can ask for a raise. There is no "tear down this hierarchy!" thinking here. It is being thankful for a job that pays above minimum and perhaps benefits. That is it.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Best answer I've seen so far.. Gets right to the heart of it. Can't add much more to this. The main argument for the left side here is that people are born (not of their will) and if they don't want to starve, have to make a living. But here's the thing. What/who are they working for? It seems to me there is a deeper issue of who gives the priorities and orders. In our current Westernized economy, it is the business owners (and their managers) that give the orders. What are the other options? Government? Worker's collectives? Etc. The work-folk will just say that they don't mind the arrangement as long as they are getting paid enough. Governments can fill in any gaps in between if necessary.. And here you have the standard liberal view rather than revolution and tearing down of the system. There is simply inertia created by people's wanting to simply get on with their lives without much thought to the systems that were created before them.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Granted. But how does that relationship work? In the current system, if you have a bright idea, who do you submit it to? The People's Council for Ideas? Rather, they will see the fact that, "Oh, I can try to protect the idea with patents perhaps.. I can try to sell the idea to banks, use my own capital, get loans from friends or other investors, contact the right people to get a prototype, then a line of products, a few key customers set up who have a demand, start marketing to more people, larger customers, etc. and pretty soon grow a workforce to make this happen". How would that change?
I don’t think the concept of wage slavery adequately describes the relationship. The employer has never forced me to work against my will; I have never been bound to conditions without my consent; i am payed for my services; If I don’t like the conditions I can leave. There just isn’t enough slavery involved there to call it that.
Partnerships, cooperatives, not for profit enterprises, charities, etc. that can be found in retail, finance, manufacturing, and service industries. A state which is not totally corrupted should provide a regulatory system that allows such alternatives to compete on that level playing field where the market is always supposed to have its competitive being.
Oh look at that I don't have to eat raw meat and sit staring at a blank wall like a box of merchandise in a warehouse until I'm required. Yay!
Quoting schopenhauer1
Really though, I've always said capitalism is an aggregator of talent and leadership not a muzzle or feedback loop for it. That doesn't mean the system consistently meets its intended purpose 100% of the time, not by far. You can cheat, get ahead as an individual by cutting corners and actually harming the company and its future, which at least for that specific scenario makes said system counterproductive. Of course, if that happens to be the case and the company folds, most CEOs as you say have greater benefits than standard employees and those standard employees can often "just find another job" especially if they have done a great job and have an outstanding record that should and will raise the eyes of potential recruiters and employers. Nobody is really shafted too greatly, at least in an irrecoverable way.
Many of the anti-capitalism arguments seem to involve the whole "daddy's money" ie. inherited wealth/opportunities thing. Someone, regardless as to whether he built his empire from scratch and hard, honest work or not, who has a kid is more than likely to be "very well off" from essentially none of their own doing. This is natural and a very real biological response.
[hide="Reveal"]
(for the record I've been fed cucumbers my whole life, it's only recently I can enjoy a grape or two.)[/hide]
But it's not about the how it's about the why. Just because you happen to be a rich and intelligent, hardworking CEO who made millions out of a few dollars doesn't mean your kid is going to be able to maintain your legacy or even not be abjectly horrible at management. A stranger might simply be better. For the company, your sense of "peace" as you close your eyes and breathe your last breaths in old age (some people need concrete evidence of their longevity to comprehend immortality and thus spirituality, I was like that and in many ways still am so I can't talk down).
Point being, that's why monarchies, societies, and entire civilizations fail. Human genetics are random. Some "legendary fabled leader of olde" has a kid that's just for lack of more adequate words, a complete shite. It can happen. Or a psychopath. Or worse a dumb one. It just didn't work. So with that truth I can say the anti-capitalism argument has plenty of fight left. I'm not convinced personally but the reasons to be are plentiful. To each their own.
Also: I found this draft I pretty much remember typing before the above so just thought I'd include it:
[hide="Reveal"]It's not so much what they get paid it's the inflexibility that reeks of pseudo-monarchy the people take note of. A man born into the same opportunities as you or I, sure perhaps a bit more decent with the education that did slingshot his drive into success and ended up creating something that benefited the lives of millions if not billions deserves at least some tilt of the pot.[/hide]
@Bitter Crank I think you’d know more about but if you take all this:
If I’m not mistaken, is this not what contemporary critical theory and the Frankfurt School sought to uncover? Isn’t the issue of “if things are so bad why don’t westerners revolt” the reason psychoanalysis and psychotherapy and Marxism are (or were) very intertwined?
Schopenhauer1 argues the solution to this problem is antinatalism. I heavily disagree with this. To me the solution is trying to solve the prevailing psychological phenomena of what Mark Fisher called “capitalist realism”. However, to offer my own views here I think we’re along ways off from that because the vast majority of people who live in (to use colonial terms) “western” and “developed” countries aren’t even proletarians. They are either petite bourgeoise, or labour aristocrats who have achieved a comfortable standard of living through the exploitation of Africa and the Global South (myself included really) So Schopenhauer1 is correct to point out that your average person will not see the trouble in their arrangement. They have all understood the Thatcherite slogan that there is simply “no alternative.” That’s why I think debating this stuff with America, Canada, Britain etc in mind is probably a waste of time for now.
Quoting Outlander
I’d like to see how people like @Bitter Crank and@StreetlightX answer this type of response. I think the left tends to disregard this kind of response because it doesn’t t speak to their pint. They rather focus on third world exploitation because it is more stark as to possible exploitive practices or consequences. StreetlightX did mention lowering wages and benefits which I’d like to see a response from Outsider to for valid observations.
The reason is because to me it reveals just how merciless and unsustainable the capitalist system really is. As you said, Mr Monopoly can rake in millions, but maybe stocks will go down, the economy crashes, and Mr Monopoly Jr ends up committing suicide because he’ll leave his kids with nothing. Marx and tons of other left wing theorists have pointed out that this constant cycle of booms and busts is unsustainable for everyone, including the bourgeoise. Hell, contemporary vulgar socialism tends to demonize the bourgeoise as much as they can, but even Marx pointed out how they’re alienated from the world and estranged from labour just as much as a worker is but in differing ways. A core tenant of socialism is that everyone would get what they need and deserve a comfortable life that isn’t constantly threatened by capitalism’s inherent contradictions.
If it isn't, though, we have to consider the worthiness of having a great deal more money and assets than others in a world of limited resources with an increasing population. I think that the very rich are the equivalent of gluttons or hoarders in such a world--in our world--because their conduct is so selfish that they strive to possess and retain much, much more than they could possibly need to live comfortable lives (not just survive) where others merely survive, or live in need and want. Gluttons and hoarders aren't admirable; they aren't moral. We should stop thinking they are.
The only thing I know is that I know nothing. Except what people who are no longer here that I can't ask for an explanation in greater detail say. I know they know something...
It comes down to incentive. Nobody really wants to get out of bed and go to work. That is to say every man would prefer to wake up at the time of his choosing, greeted by beautiful women (or if you're a chick, beautiful men I suppose) being served an elegant and hearty breakfast and various other delights. Then to be waited on hand and foot throughout the day, lunch, chores, errands, arrangements, entertainment, etc. That's normal. Until you realize every person is a person who wants or at least deserves no less than what you desire on a whim. Without degrading this world any further, and acknowledging all it's potential for pleasure and true contentedness, we live in a world of death, rot, plague, and decay which produces a natural response and that response is often greed, indifference, cruelty, and malice. So. What do we do? Lay around all day, perhaps committing acts of unspeakable cruelty to continue this hell or work and try to alleviate these things for ourselves and others? The choice is clear. No matter your preferred economic model.
But the argument isn’t that they’re deserving of rewards for already having money but due to their efforts to initially grow their business, they deserve the rewards.
I think perhaps the point for hardcore socialists is that this economic model would be best to alleviate these things. The indifference, cruelty, and such is from capitalism and its actors and mechanisms.
The terms, "wage slave" and "wage slavery" apply to system, not to individual workers, employers, or supervisors. Marx and Engels were not citing particular cases in the 1844 Communist Manifesto or later. They cite an American example during the period when literal slavery was an important economic factor and the exploitation of 'free labor' could be crude. "If a plantation owner needs his barn roof fixed, he can either hire an Irishman or direct a slave to do the repair. If the slave falls off the roof and dies, the owner is deprived of significant value. If the Irishman falls off the roof and dies, the owner loses nothing."
The way that "wage slavery" works today in a practically non-unionized work force is that employers, whether capitalists, governments, or non-profits have control of the economy and of the workforce. [workers are not unionized for a reason: employers have been waging a continuous war against unions. Put it this way: unionism didn't die out, it was murdered.]
Why aren't workers glad to spend 8 to 10 hours a day at a job? Because the terms of labor tend to be exploitative. In order to efficiently exploit labor, the workplace has to be controlled for as much efficiency and productivity as possible. In the system of capitalism, workers exist to produce profits and to reproduce themselves so that there will be more workers in the future. Workers enjoyment of life is not high on the capitalist to do list.
I'm retired. I spent the usual 40+ years in the work force. Sometimes jobs were fulfilling and enjoyable --maybe 10 years in all. Usually jobs were tolerable, but not great. Sometimes they were awful. It doesn't matter much whether one is a professional or not. What always was the case was that I as a worker had to have a job to live.
I appreciate the breakdown of the metaphor. I just do not see how it accurately describes any of the conditions, relations, or systems we’re talking about. I say this because I am unable to find an oppressive or coercive element that cannot be avoided here. And if we are supposed to be slaves to our own needs, I find it difficult to maintain that each of us are both the master and slave to ourselves.
Though it’s true that there are exploitative employers, the relationship isn’t inherently exploitative. In my own experience, whenever I’ve had to employ someone it was because I needed help with my work load, not because I intended to unfairly take advantage of someone for my own gain. The relationships were beneficial to all parties involved, as far as I’m concerned.
The only oppressive, coercive, and exploitative element in the relationship is the state. This relationship is far closer in character to chattel slavery than wage labor. They exploit mine and my employee’s labor by taking from our income. If we do not give them what they demand they subject us to force and coercion.
If you look at a list of states that self-identify as socialist you’ll find an utterly abysmal track record when it comes to sustainability and mercy.
For the 10% of Americans who make up the prosperous "middle class" (a demographic located between the working class and the 1% of extremely wealthy people) your view is much more understandable. (The wealth requirement for entry into the middle class as I use it here is between $2,000,000 and $20,000,000, after which one is counted among the upper class.). There are about 16,000,000 adults who qualify.
People who have experienced a lot of personal success in their working experience (whether or not they broke $2,000,000 in assets) are much less likely to feel exploited. Many more working class people were able to experience a sense of success before 1973 than after. The post WWII economic boom tended to lift a lot of boats, and the working class experienced low inflation and good wage growth.
After 1973 (and continuing now) working people experienced a combination of inflation and stagnant wage growth which over time has reduced real income by up to 30%. Those most affected have experienced declining income, less steady employment, and more precarious economic circumstances.
Their loss has been a gain for the wealthier segments of society, so yes, if you are poorer it is really very easy to feel exploited and to feel like a wage slave.
Just wondering how would technology and products and services be distributed in your world? Right now it starts with the business owner employing workers. How would insubordination work in this world? In our current one they just get fired.
Socialists don't spend enough time thinking about questions like "how would technology and products and services be distributed". A common cop-out is to say that the workers in the future society will have to decide that. And so they shall, but believable socialism depends on believable plans now.
One way is a combination of market mechanisms and central / decentralized planning. Data workers, for instance would form work groups to conduct the necessary market research.
Basic needs in the various parts of a country can be derived from demographic information; information about:
A rising or falling birthrate
A rising or falling death rate
# of people within each decade of life
% of high school completion by county
% of trade school and college completion by state
# of people in the various skills pools (hospitals, railroads, warehousing, schools, farms, and so on
rate of chronic and acute diseases per county
Information about available physical resources is required: How much electricity, fresh water, natural gas, petroleum, metal ores, lumber, cement, sand, gravel, fiber, rubber, etc. is on hand or can be obtained.
A live inventory of production facilities is critical. For instance, how many canning factories are available; how many foundries; how carpet mills; how many chemical plants; how many steel mills; how many bus and railroad factories, how many clothing factories, how many pharmaceutical plants, how many food plants, etc. are available by county
Consumer research polling can determine what the interests and expectations of the population are in various regions for food, clothing, housing, education, employment, entertainment, medical care, and other preferences.
Once regional assessments of consumer needs and desires have been completed, this information can be distributed to work groups to bid on producing the needed or desired goods and services. Elected boards, assisted by work groups, would award contracts to work groups to produce goods and arrange for efficient distribution.
Needless to say, budgeting mechanisms would be required, along with the means to collect funds to finance work. Oversight needs exist to leadoff production and distribution bottlenecks, organizational failure, and so forth. An elected body of expert workers would be needed to conduct that essential oversight.
Oversight, coordination, planning, and intervention are governing activities, and before the whole process can begin, the citizens of the nation will need to authorize these governmental functions,
Socialism isn't supposed to be an austerity regime caused by ineptitude. It is supposed to deliver to its citizens the benefits produced by their labor. A successful socialist economy will succeed in delivering a fair distribution of goods to everyone. Does that mean that everyone can expect a luxury car, a big house, and expensive gadgetry? No. Needs and wants have to be satisfied within a long-range view of sustainability and fairness (something that ardent capitalists would rather not do).
What people should expect is that their needs for decent food, clothing, and shelter will be met; that they have the tools they need to achieve their aspirations (meaning education in its various forms). New technology must not be the possessions of the privileged; it must be made available on a shared basis fpr everyone. (Needless to say, socialists take a dim view of the existence of any privileged class.).
In a nutshell, start with good information and stay with good information to the end.
Cultural workers do not need permission to form a theatrical troupe, an orchestra, a band, a poetry reading, an art show, a baseball game, or a rodeo. Neither should permission be needed to put on plays, concerts, games, or publishing. Yes, the facilities have to be arranged; maybe built. Large outlays require more community involvement. Building a rodeo in a PETA-strong community would probably be a provocation. Having an outdoor heavy metal concert facility next to a funeral home might not be appropriate (just going by current standards. In the future??? Maybe that will be the rage (shudder).
Inventors do not need permission to invent a really good method of cold fusion. Hey, if you can figure out how to make it work, great. You just invented a new way to fry an egg? Good for you, but just because you invented it, doesn't mean that it has to be produced. We already have 15 ways to fry eggs and we can not afford the production and environmental costs of yet another one.
Leader: After the revolution, there will be strawberries for all.
Peasant: But Leader, I don't like strawberries!
Leader: After the revolution, you will like strawberries ...[or else]
Though there's nepotism, isn't that how we do things now? Those who went school for X (doctor, lawyer, engineer, programmer) get the benefits of Y money? Adept managers grow the company and bad ones get fired? That's not to say there aren't golden parachutes and bad managers that get through, but there are bottom lines and such for many folks who don't cut it.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Isn't that what marketing departments do? Isn't that what people do when they buy Facebook, Google, and other data?
Quoting Bitter Crank
Don't companies and parts of the geographical and land management aspects of the government already do this?
Quoting Bitter Crank
Weren't these started by individuals through investments? Is this meant to take that property from them even though they put in the capital? They would say that is unfair. If that's the case, make your own facilities or something to that effect.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Didn't the Soviet Union try to do this but failed with long bread lines, lack of variety, and unfilled stores?
Quoting Bitter Crank
Won't they just be the new managers? What if people don't like working for the new boss anymore than the old one?
Quoting Bitter Crank
Understood.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Don't they say that market mechanisms fill the demands more efficiently because information is based on price rates where supply meets demand and such?
Quoting Bitter Crank
But that says it all, doesn't it?
Who decides what gets made? Isn't that going right back to politburos and oligarchic dictatorships? 1984 and all that?
I'd like to know, what makes one person able and willing to be an owner, and another only able to work for them? @Bitter Crank, I think this gets to the heart of things here of what NOS's answer is.. We should be white on rice if any answer comes up as "deserves", "is better", or "luck".. all this seems self-serving and/or arbitrary.. We should all be lucky enough to be owners :D.
Data is data. It might be as useful in a socialist economy as in a capitalist one to know how the consumption of dark green leafy vegetables is correlated with miles ridden on a bike per day or hours spent in bars. Using that data, A central planner could, for instance, improve the nutritional status of beer drinkers by ordering a stalk of kale stuffed into an individual's mugs of beer. If you don't eat it, you don't get ore beer.
If, on the other hand, you feel the system is rigged against success despite your doing the same things as those who are successful, the disparities are not acceptable.
I lean toward the first paragraph, although I realize my chances of being a CEO are slim, but I do believe I can, through my choices, live a genuinely happy life.
It's clear that poverty is miserable and that a certain income is necessary for survival and basic happiness, but beyond that, additional wealth provides minimal extra happiness.
It's for that reason I have little concern over what a CEO makes, an NBA player makes, or how much the neighbor makes. I'm all aboard for providing assistance to the needy, and I realize that aid will likely be paid by those with the most to contribute, but as far as having animosity for the rich, they're not on my radar. What's important to them isn't important to me.
Yes, I am just trying to get at, how a socialist regime solves anything different than a capitalist one.. It sounds like you're saying that a socialist one would use it in a way for what's "best" for people rather than for the goals of making companies more profitable.. Some might say those profits translate to more targeted response to the differences and variety in consumer demand.. The socialist one seems to be one "right" way that all must comply with.
Yes, you are pretty much representing this view here:
Quoting schopenhauer1
and here:
Quoting schopenhauer1
There are a number of issues by premising your argument on this arrangement, but I'll cut to the chase. The socialist issue contra Capitalism isn't uniquely derived from problems of distribution, e.g. wages, private healthcare, PTO etc. that the business provides to the wage laborer. The primary issue, as your title implicitly states, is the domineering and exploitative conditions in which the wage laborer finds themselves are systemic. They have no choice but to sell their labor power to the capitalist in order to "sustain their survival...rents/mortgages, food, clothes, healthcare"...in a nutshell, to reproduce themselves daily. Thus, the ability for the wage laborer to reproduce themselves remain conditional and determined by the capitalist class, beyond the (democratic) control by the wage laborers themselves. It is an economic system predicated on vulnerability via the inherent asymmetric relationship of power between the capitalist and individual (key word, individual) worker.
But the capitalist side will just say that the reason the capitalist is the capitalist (barring CEOs that are just figurehead types or inherited wealth (e.g. Trump).. we are talking were in the muck hawking wares from the company's inception as a sole proprietor/worker) because they were able to pull off investing and growing the company from its beginning. The other workers are welcome to try their hand at this.. They don't so they sell their labor to the capitalists who did try it.
Right, so this is where my "a number of issues by premising your argument on this arrangement" comes into play. What you are describing is not veridical to the current conditions of Capitalism. Most wage laborers aren't working in companies where the business owner "grew the company from the beginning" by taking a risk. It's also irrelevant to my point, because the Capitalist, regardless of risk, still finds wage laborers in a condition of precarity.
Small businesses may not necessarily be in the category of Quoting Maw, but are more likely to be than larger ones.. Looks like small businesses (less than 500 employees) make up something like 44% of US economy and represent 2/3 of net new jobs.
Quoting Maw
But again, why is the wage laborers precarity something that is the capitalist's fault for starting something of their own?
yes, they do, but the existing companies and governments won't be in business after the revolution.
Quoting schopenhauer1
They were built with somebody's money -- stockholders', banks', etc. So yes their property will be taken from them--expropriating the expropriators. Socialism does away with private ownership of factories, railroads, warehouses, stores, etc. No, they will not be compensated. No, they will not be taken out and shot. If they have very large and multiple houses, they will lose those too. Yes, they will be free to join work groups like other workers do.
Quoting schopenhauer1
The USSR was handicapped from the get go. There was only a small industrial establishment with highly skilled workers and managers before the Revolution. Then there was a civil war; the Communists tried very hard to catch up, but the cards were stacked against them. There was a drought (in the US and in the USSR) which damaged production. Joseph Stalin was was all around bad news--a paranoid mass murderer. Then there was WWII which devastated the USSR; there were severe population losses. After that, there was a period of recovery then the Cold War race with the US. Parr's of the USSR society was decent, but it was a poorly run state monopoly.
Quoting schopenhauer1
My guess is that many of the old managers of capitalist enterprises would be hired as managers of socialist enterprises. Good management is good management and talent should not be wasted.
Quoting schopenhauer1
We can all rest assured that there will be people who will not like the new system any better than they liked the current system. I might be one of the many bitching and carping pains in the socialist manager's ass.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Market mechanisms are not the problem.
Quoting schopenhauer1
It's an example of socialist self-deprecating humor and a lefty in joke. Being required to like what's on your plate is, of course, wrong.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Essentially, the workers decide, through three mechanisms: 1. responses to data gathering; 2. decision making by manufacturing, distribution, and consumer groups; and 3. market mechanisms.
Understand, though, that maximum production for maximum profit is not the goal. Matching production to human needs and wants is the goal. Just because 1,000,000 people want to take meth doesn't mean that they are going to get it.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Where did you get the idea that the same greedy ruthless bastards would be running socialism? People like that will be sent back to attitude class.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Socialists are not hierarchy-abolishing anarchists. Yes, there will still be some kind of hierarchy -- which is not unique to capitalism. It's a human thing. There's always a hierarchy of some kind. I hope we will build it better.
Quoting schopenhauer1
I'm not advocating a terrorist state. We have had more than enough of those already,
Quoting schopenhauer1
Workers always collectively sort out among themselves what reasonable work performance is.
Quoting schopenhauer1
If you can't abide by the terms of work that your fellow workers have established, whether that be in a factory, a school, a store, or whatever, then one will be encouraged to go work someplace else. Or one will leave on one's own.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Various personal characteristics like drive, greed, ambition, desire for status, compulsion, obsession, determination, delusions of grandeur, etc. I have always lacked the drive ambition compulsion, and determination to make a successful entrepreneur. In addition, I've never had a good business idea in my life.
Capitalist corporations are chartered to make a profit for the shareholders of the corporation. Companies make a profit by exploiting their workers (by taking their entire production and paying them for only a fraction of it) and by charging as high a price for ... whatever ... as the market will bear.
Socialism is designed for workers to keep almost all of the value of their product and to sell goods at the lowest possible price to maintain the operation. High profit margins do not figure into socialism.
Granted that the owner wants to make as much profit as possible, if we go back to the great "chain of being" in his company.. Isn't it fair in a certain sense? Let's look:
The successful regional manager that makes a profit for the company with his management, gets a lot of money.. enough for fancy cars, vacations, and house.
The director of R&D is highly experienced in electronic engineering and programming... He gets enough to live in a large house and buy nice cars and vacations...
The head of other departments have experience and are paid well enough for managing their daily activities.
The technical support is good at answering questions for customers but don't have the technical knowhow of the programmers.. they get paid enough to buy a small house and car..
The customer service has enough to buy maybe a small house, but perhaps just rent in a smaller house or apartment.. they have more generalized knowledge.. .
How would the most educated/experienced get the just rewards in socialism? Simply because people will vote for them in these "Worker's Meetings"..
The capitalist economy already has a way of allocating experience with reward. This incentivizes them to make sure the profits keep rolling in.. and thus work at their job.. How does a socialist system keep people incentivized? Good will towards man?
2/3rds of "net new jobs" means nothing outside of an absolute number of new jobs relative to total jobs and time period, neither of which you offered. According to WSJ, as of 2014, majority of US wage laborers work for a business of more than 100 employees, i.e. "small business". Likewise, if small business represents 44% of the US economy, that means large 56%, a majority, is generated by larger businesses. And according to the paper which I assume you hastily got these numbers from, the proportion is being generated by small businesses is being outpaced by larger businesses. So to rephrase your second sentence, why are conditions for the wage laborer being determined by, according to your own argument, petite bourgeoisie? Why are the systemic conditions of domination and precarity conditional on a contingent of small capitalists whose relationship to obtaining capital remains, in your abstract argument, unknown?
From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs. Karl Marx
Reminds me of a song:
How would a business legitimately form in your opinion? It sounds to me that it would be just as impersonal as today.. Some big thing X (capitalist investor in one, government planning agency in another) decides to do Y.. You are still a worker working for some group of people.. What really changes?
What I can gather from you and @Bitter Crank is that these are possibilities in socialism:
1) People will get paid fairly because there will be no disproportionate wealth distribution between owner classes and worker classes.
But then you forget the great chain of being... Who will want to be a doctor, put in the work for being a programmer or engineer if they get paid as much as the greeter at the front desk? I guess the most "radical" thing in these systems would be that there will be more money spread around but still in a tiered fashion..
2) Decisions and management will be controlled by workers councils.. How would these people run things any better or worse than the current system? Just like other democratic processes.. there will be factions and the people on one side would hate the decisions of people on the other side... Maybe this can be solved by shifting to orgs that have your viewpoints.. but then there's all sorts of problems..
a) Your skillset is not needed in the ones you agree with.. thus stuck at an org with bad views (according to you)
b) Your voice is not heard.. perhaps wherever you go, your view is not represented, it's nothing better or worse than before.
c) I still haven't really seen an answer for insubordination.. I guess move to different councils? But then I am sure your reputation will follow you.. assuming they ask for recommendations and the like.. I see no changes..
So I guess at the end of the day, if what is being proposed is in fact revealed to be nothing much better than the current system, we are kind of stuck.
That seems like a fair analysis. I used to feel that way, too. But I’ve come to find the theory of exploitation risks limiting one’s options, and worse, oneself. If everyone is out to exploit you, how could you morally work or trade with them? If you believe you’re a slave, how does one not think and act like a slave? It’s no surprise to me, at least, that Marx was a foul-smelling deadbeat, getting by on the labor and wealth of others.
I think your best argument here is that individual ideas belong to the community.. but you should back that up with more argumentation because that isn't just apparent by fiat. We are used to the idea that ideas can be protected and doled out by selling rights to companies (or make one's own company) with those ideas. Taking away this individual notion of ideas to a community one, would have to be justified.
Quoting Bitter Crank
So the assessment is that since we are a more advanced capitalist civilization, our large government entity would be able to handle the supply and demand problems of balancing capital and consumer goods?
Quoting Bitter Crank
Damn Bitter Crank, I have to report to the same asshole? Well, fuck...
Quoting Bitter Crank
Gulags? But also, really, what would that look like?
Quoting Bitter Crank
No no, I wasn't saying that the state kills you but nature.. You must do X to survive and not die.. Thus we as humans are thrown into a system of survival...capitalist/communist, hunting-gathering, whatever. As an antinatalist, I am against the injustice of making a new human endure any of the systems.. but that is a larger question.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Do they? I've noticed with coworkers, that people with more charisma, certain personality-types, group-think takes place that marginalizes other workers.. The minority will simply not be heard, yet again...
Quoting Bitter Crank
So we are still in an the existential problem of "Work sets you free.." In other words, work or die you human scum.. and it better be on "our" terms!
Quoting Bitter Crank
But someone who does have a good business idea and somehow cobbles it together would say that he "deserves" the gamble of setting out on his own.. His reward is having his own business, his punishment would be going bankrupt..
At the end of the day, why would your problems with the system not be resolved by simply following through and adopting more liberal programs?
So, the bankrupt business owner gets a lift on his feet again from the government after losing his business.. The unemployed grocery bagger gets subsistence pay until they are employed or something. The government gives large subsidies to fuels that are not fossil fuels, etc..
I think our current system doesn't show the avenues very well for how one can become their own business owner. In the 18th and 19th century, it really was easier to start a cobbler business, a blacksmith, a small peddler, or any number of things.. Because the costs of living were lower (with less expectations), one could very well work for oneself easily... The large explosion of population that came with factories, meant that business became impersonal things that only really clever people who knew the paperwork, connections, and avenues and could sort it out from all the bureaucracy could get done. Now everyone is a salaried and wage worker.. Marx is every bit as relevant today as he was then.. Have you actually read his works? He had sharp analysis and was no charlatan in terms of thought-producer.. He was prolific in his economic and sociological thinking.
There are many scenarios, especially in the cases of small businesses, that are run by families, friends, etc. There are sole proprietorships and partnerships of two or more people, etc. Some are run by decent people who treat others with respect, pay decent wages, etc. But again this ignores something important: the very system of power. There were, after all, very decent slave owners -- but you wouldn't argue, I presume, that this fact justifies the system of slavery?
So if there's a sweeping generalization being made here, I think it's about the very heart of the capitalist system itself, which from my point of view (and others) a particular arrangement of control, dominance and authority -- that is, a relationship of power. It is defined not as lord and vessel, King/Queen and subjects, master and slave -- but of employer and employee.
The "employer" in many cases isn't only one person but a group of people, who maintain their position through laws surrounding ownership and property rights, which is a gift from governments (that create and enforce those laws). So it's a socioeconomic system that is maintained by governments, and isn't at all inevitable. This system is, in fact, deeply undemocratic -- which is plainly obvious for anyone who works in a company with such a "capitalist" structure.
This is excellent. Incredible how often something so plain is overlooked. It's a stupid game, one with no limits -- no cap. People can hoard and hoard to infinity, all under the rationale that "innovation and hard work" would cease if you took away the "incentive" to accumulate endlessly.
Barring corruption (which is its own problem), what is inherently wrong with owning the means to produce products and services if you got it with your own money or a loan? The reward is the profit, the punishment is loss of business. I did mention that it is harder for folks to understand how to start their own business. That is also a different matter that I think needs to be addressed.
It’s easy enough that if the choice were between “wage slavery”, “exploitation”, and starting a business, I’d start a business. Unfortunately it involves work and sacrifice, which frightens a vast segment of society.
Marx was a good writer, but a hypocrite of the highest order. Wherever his doctrines have been employed there has been nothing but moral and systematic failure on a grand scale. So I don’t think he’s relevant.
:100:
If I’m not mistaken any seasoned Marxist will tell you there isn’t anything “wrong” with profit in the moral or normative sense. Rather, using some tricky language Marx is simply saying that profit entails the worker to be exploited insofar as they produce X amount of value but are only compensated a lesser Y amount. Marx isn’t saying “because of this, profit is morally wrong” but rather that workers working for a wage is like going to a dock and getting on a boat with holes in it when right beside it there was a perfectly good boat you had to work a little harder to operate.
Owning the means of production privately and turning a profit is a "problem" in large part because Marx’s analysis also leads him to conclude there's a tendency of the rate of profit to fall with increasing automation-where in the short-term it tends to be in the interest of individual firms to introduce more automation that lowers production costs relative to their competitors. However, in the long term automation decreases the overall rate of profit across the capitalist economy. Marx thinks this will cause the system to become increasingly unstable, among other reasons because it will drive the rate of exploitation to increase, and this will make it more likely that there's a revolution where the workers seize the means of production (this is the sort of thing that Marxists may be referring to when they talk about 'internal contradictions' of capitalism).
So forget the moral language, the whole thing is more of a causal analysis; like a doctor analyzing a disease that will probably spread. Marx is not attempting to change the "natural" course of things by persuading enough people to overthrow capitalism by appealing to their moral sense, though many socialists do this to certain degrees of success
:100:
Not only this, but tons of leftist theorists have pointed out that “mom and pop” small businesses are usually the first people or most prominent to support fascist or reactionary movements. Fascism itself has always been called a “petite bourgeoise pseudo revolutionary movement”. I think the critical theorists were right to point out that independent small businesses that can’t compete with the big ones will turn fascist, because they are basically programmed to go into survival mode when scary leftists want to abolish private property. They’ve been trying to stay afloat for years and right wing populism always tries to appeal to the white American storefront owner
The very idea of ownership and private property is questionable, but my point was that the capitalist relationship of employer/employee is maintained by a system of laws, many based on these "rights." Let's assume there's nothing wrong with ownership and private property -- regardless, how capitalist corporations are organized is fundamentally undemocratic. There are alternatives to this -- co-ops are a good example, worker councils, etc. That, to me, is the heart of the matter. Why should a small group of people -- a few major shareholders, 10-20 board directors, and a handful of executives get all of profits generated by the entire workforce? Furthermore, why should the majority of the workforce have no say whatsoever in determining what to do with those profits? Do you find this to be just way of conducting affairs? Why not some other way?
It may have been OK if the ruling corporate class didn't become so greedy. If, for example, they re-invested in the company infrastructure, workers pay and benefits, community, etc., instead of giving 90%+ of their profits to shareholders in the form of dividends and stock buybacks. It's precisely this way of conducting business -- the neoliberal way -- that has really decimated the society and has led to such anti-capitalist sentiment. Almost nothing can be worse for capitalism than neoliberalism, which is what we're living under currently (and for the last 40 years).
:rofl:
Didn't realize the United States employed Marxist doctrines.
So then we also agree that capitalism, as a system, is also fundamentally illegitimate -- regardless of how well people are treated in some cases.
That's irrelevant to the topic of the OP where there is no mention of socialism or any other economic alternatives to capitalism. We are discussing the conditions and relationship between the capitalist class and wage laborers, i.e. the "arrangement" between capitalists and workers. Considering that you continue to bypass what I'm saying and are pivoting the argument towards theoretical socialist arrangements, seems like you tacitly accept my premise that the social arrangement of Capitalism is unjust.
Communist parties do. I might wonder which communist state, current or otherwise, you’d prefer to live in, but I suspect I know the answer.
So the United States is a communist party? Since it's a moral and systematic failure, it meets those criteria.
China is ruled by a communist party. Do pretty well economically...but then again so does the US.
The United States employs Marxist doctrines and is a communist party? What?
Yes, it turns out you can do pretty well economically if you employ slave labor, suppress free trade, steal innovations from freer countries, and exploit your citizenry.
Yeah man, I consider life and ALL working arrangements unjust. I think the issue lies in a much more fundamental problem with putting more people in a no-win situation of comply or die in the first place. The first real form of exploitation (I know, its not Marx' definition, but in terms of putting someone in a bind, it is). I'm a freakn antinatalist, all sides (capitalists/communists/anarchists, whatever) hate me :lol:.
I think we are confusing corrupt capitalist practices or capitalism with bad loopholes and loose regulation practices, with the concept itself. The same goes for @Xtrix here:
Quoting Xtrix
Understood. So I guess the best means to communism is let capitalism do its thing, cause it will just "get" there one day.
I think @Maw had some good points regarding precarity though. That is to say and here is where @NOS4A2 is unrealistic. If businesses are exploitive, unfair, and miserable, it can be hard to simply pack up and go somewhere else. There is an inertia to being a worker who needs to rely on everything from an organization that is literally your lifeline. Indeed this is a power differential to the wealthy and the not-so-wealthy or downright poor. Agency is had by the wealthy and not so much for the not-wealthy.
Sure, it’s hard to pack up and leave. No one said it was easy. But the unrealistic part is believing one can or should be insulated from such hardship.
This is actually a huge point of debate when it comes to contemporary Marxist academics. Most Marxists today don’t think this anymore, and understand Marx was incorrect about a lot of things like this (that it’ll just get there because dialectics say so). However, the orthodox Marxists do agree with this. If you ask me, the various economic crises that capitalism has successfully overcome like 2008 show that a revolution can’t just “happen”. Nobody could’ve predicted capitalism’s resilience
Absolutely not my position at all. Putting someone else in a situation that experiences hardship is just wrong, period. Hence my antinatalism. I don't believe it makes you more virtuous, etc. It might make you more compassionate or savvy but if you need hardship to do that, then the whole damn system (life) is corrupt and should be stopped immediately.
I mean, it's not that hard to understand to me. Marx didn't predict that the government could be so involved in stop-gaps (think FDR in the Great Depression, Teddy Roosevelt during the early 1900s, think LBJ in the post-war era).. Once that was realized, then truly "revolutionary" change was seen as unnecessary to keeping the system going. Conservatives should thank liberals, as they helped sustain the system, not get rid of it.
My only point was it’s not unrealistic to seek better conditions, as humans have been doing since time immemorial. So in fact it’s not unrealistic to seek better employment.
You already know what I think about your ethical argument for antinatalism. Just like putting someone in a situation that experiences hardship is wrong, so is it wrong to deny someone the experience of love or joy or beauty. If you want to take credit for the former you will also take it for the latter.
This is why I really don’t understand modern day US political discourse from the right side. What’s with people thinking Biden is going to instigate a Marxist plot when it’s guys like him who are more interested in military spending than infrastructure
Not to derail my own thread, but this is wrong because not experiencing joy is not good or bad if no one is around to know. PREVENTING bad when one is able, is always good, period.
Marx thought that the employees of advanced capitalist operations--who actually run the companies--acquired the knowledge to effectively administer operations. Does that mean the janitor knows how to balance the books? No. It means that the employees who work in management know how to manage -- because that is what they do every day.
The owners of large corporations (GM, IBM, Apple, Intel, Toro, Wells Fargo, etc.) do not manage the corporation. They hire people to do that. Where do these people come from? Harvard Business School, Carlson Universities of Iowa, Minnesota, Michigan, Northwestern, et al. Management is layered by ranks into ever finer detail.
There is one group of owners who do manage -- the Board of Directors. They make major decisions like GM will focus on electric vehicles. They don't figure out how to do it.
Where does the Board of Directors get the information that electric vehicles are the future? From the employees of other companies who track trends. And so on and so forth.
All these people working in thousands of companies possess a vast pool of knowledge about how to run things.
Got me. He is doing them a favor.. During COVID, you need exactly someone liberal enough to be a release valve..It's exactly crises like these that are cause for the percolations of a revolution otherwise.
Agreed, but I think this is leaving out something major.. That is to say, small businesses at their early phases are run a lot by the owners (though not always). So what Marx is leaving out is the incubation period of small companies that then make it to behemoths.. It seems like Marxian economic theory always figures the company at its height rather than its birth. What about the very beginnings of small companies, or the companies that really don't grow that much. Think of the hot dog vendor out there everyday slinging 100s of hotdogs daily. He is content with his cart. You can say that he will be left alone, but then you are conceding some form of capitalism, it's just where to draw the line once a business is mature enough to be run by a board of directors and managers.
Management can get away with being total assholes in workplaces that are without organized workers--unions who stand up for the workers. In a socialist economy, with the workers owning and running the operations, the management-line worker antagonism can be minimized.
Socialism will not eliminate assholes, alas. For that you will have to wait for the Kingdom of Heaven or evolution, whichever comes first. Don't hold your breath.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Marx didn't leave it out, I did. I can't represent all of Das Capital here. Full Disclosure: I have not read all of Das Capital. Entrepreneurs are engaged in the act of 'original accumulation': It's the news stand owner who eventual becomes the owner of the New York Times. It's the tailor making clothes for a few minors who eventually becomes LEVIS. It's the garage tinkerers who eventually becomes Microsoft and Apple.
I tend to think that people are more alike than they are different, and that social influences determine a lot of our character. It matters a great deal how one is raised up from childhood.
There isn't any final answer here. Individuals have managed to flourish, and have failed to flourish, under all sorts of arrangements. For instance, I tend to be a loner; I do not like intense complicated social engagement. I am not usually ambitious on a sustained basis. I live fairly simply. Under which economic system would I most effectively flourish? I can imagine being unhappy in a socialist society, and I have certainly been unhappy at times in our capitalist scheme.
People find arbitrary and capricious control very unpleasant. It is also the case that most of us are perfectly capable of being arbitrary and capricious, and cruel in unusual ways. Only one snake was required to ruin paradise.
How do you know he is content with his cart? He may be cruelly forced to sell hotdogs.
Besides, I don't think selling hotdogs or popcorn on the street is particularly capitalistic in nature. If it is, it is a very primitive sort of capitalism. [Homer Simpson asked Apu about the hotdogs turning in a heated display on the counter. Apu discouraged Homer, telling him the hotdogs were there for decorative purposes only (and the same ones had been there for months). Homer ate one anyway.]
It could very well be that the hotdog cart is one of a fleet of hotdog carts owned by the mafia-controlled cart cartel. What looks like individual entrepreneurial activity might actually be an egregiously exploitative form of retail drudgery. I never buy anything a la cart. It's disgusting. Car exhaust falling on the wieners; flies and people buzzing around breathing on the merchandise. Everybody knows pickle relish is made from the pickles that fell on the factory floor. As for then buns, they are ancient rolls loaded with preservatives so they can not mold, however much they might want to. As for wieners-- even Nathan's kosher all beef version -- there's a reason sausage [and laws] aren't made in public.
How so? Look at Chernobyl.. Eek.. Comrade.. do this..Should we? I don't know how? Comarade, do it or else...
Quoting Bitter Crank
Haha very true!
Quoting Bitter Crank
Ok, so what does he say about this? Simply that they are necessary but will be discarded? Again, what about the hot dog seller?
Quoting Bitter Crank
Right, but I guess what would socialism have to do with that? It wouldn't solve it. It's simply interpersonal stuff.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Hehe, but you are evading.. That guy wants to make a buck on his own, that's all. It is primitive capitalism but would the comrade societies really confiscate his cart, crusty buns, and animal byproduct meat? I mean you are implying it is a nebbish industry, but it represents a lot of small sole proprietor industries.. the self-made donut shop, etc. Would he have to give the cart and materials to Hot Dog Comradeship Coop and be doled an income from them instead?
https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/31/business/bernie-sanders-warren-buffett-steelworkers-strike/index.html
Thought this was somewhat relevant.
You know, Marx was a political economist, we'd say. He described how individuals (who are not at first even petite bourgeoisie accumulate wealth. The do this by extracting 'surplus value' from their workforce. A worker may produce $1000 worth of goods in a day, but be paid $300. $700 (less overhead and raw materials) is the surplus value.
The hot dog man might be able to generate a profit above and beyond what it costs him to support himself and buy supplies and pay for the cart. IF (unlikely) he produces a lot of profit, he could finance a second cart and a second hot dog seller who would be paid a modest wage. If the second hot dog cart was profitable, he cold add a third, and so on. He might be able to establish a hot dog monopoly in Gotham, and with the steady income buy and sell real estate, eventually becoming rich.
That, dear Schop, is the :party:AMERICAN :sparkle: DREAM:party:
Many dream it, 99% wake up to live another day working hard to keep a roof over their head and bread on the table. Then they die relatively poor.
If anything is political, it's the interpersonal stuff. A lot of interpersonal static stems from the stresses of life as we know it, under capitalism.
turns out to be the old criminal cart cartel doing business under a new name.
Look, gardeners, hot dog vendors, artisan needle workers, sculptors, weavers, artisan paper makers, occasional cooks and bakers, etc. are no threat to socialism. There would be room for some of those. In a socialist economy accumulation of capital would be difficult--not because a heavy state fist would come down on the wiener wrangler, but because the economy wouldn't support individual capital accumulation above and beyond self-support.
In a humane society, there could/would/should be room for at least some individuals to work by themselves, for their own good and the good of society. I'm probably one of those people. Are you?
Agreed. But sometimes regional management makes the wrong decision. Then what? He can still override. Regional managers can tell people to come into work who can work from home because he has more control. Why does being closer to the workers make them better decision makers? As long as you have compliant workers, it works. Not so much with unions.
Warren Buffet might make the same wrong decision.
Quoting schopenhauer1
I have to go to the grocery store. Suppose they are out of bananas. Then what? What if somebody bought all my favorite flavor of ice cream, Then what? Suppose I get run over by a bus. Then what?
Then life goes on, or it doesn't.
True enough. Alabama made wrong decisions in 1952. Took US government to make right decision in 1964.
Im just surprised you wouldn’t be for a higher authority stepping in with socialist tendencies.
I know— that’s why I said the United States does well.
What is “capitalism”? I told you how I define it, and I think it fundamentally illegitimate. It’s not simply a matter of bad loopholes and loose regulations.
Your higher socialist authority has revealed the future: You will sell vegan hotdogs on stale sugarless gluten free buns with ersatz condiments from a cart at a slaughter house. Yes, of course there will be a 5 year plan for you to follow and a daily quota to keep you on your toes, lest you fall into old fashioned capitalist sloth.
Excellent comrade...
Being able to own the capital to make products to sell.
Worker co-ops do the same thing. Ownership and private property doesn’t define capitalism— that’s existed for millennia. Neither does making profits.
So I reject that definition— it’s not describing what makes capitalism unique. It’s a hierarchical power structure, a system— one which is organized different from, say, feudalism.
How would you define it? Copy paste Wikipedia? It can have many aspects, but a defining one is private CAPITAL.
Every definition is a variation of the same thing. Private ownership, free markets, etc. Just because you have a pet definition, doesn’t change the general one.
:rofl:
Ah yes, please enlighten me on your obviously objective version of a definition that is inherently a whole litany of aspects.. private ownership of capital, profit-oriented, free market exchange, etc.
You're right that "free markets" (notice the quotation marks), private property, capital, profits, etc., play a role in the system we're referring to, given the name "capitalism" (in today's world, state-capitalism). But I was asking you what, in practice, makes this system unique from other socioeconomic systems in history. That's why I mentioned feudalism. Were there markets under feudalism? Of course there were. Ditto with profits, property, etc.
So I mentioned the relationship of employer and employee. I think this is what stands out when we look at how things are arranged today. It's a power structure, like master-slave and lord-serf, but unique in its function. There is a "contract" involved in this relationship, where the worker/employee is hired, by the employer, to use his brains and muscles to produce goods and services. In exchange, he or she receives compensation in the form of a wage or salary. (You're not selling yourself, you're renting yourself.)
If you go further than that, and look at how private capital has organized itself, you arrive at the corporation. Again, in today's terms, that's multinational corporations. These are the most powerful.
How are these corporations organized? The same relationship: owners/employers (in this case the major shareholders, board of directors, and executives) hire workers/employees. The workers generate profits. What happens to those profits? Where do they go? They go to, essentially, the "owners" -- the board of directors, who decide what to do with the money. Since the board directors are chosen by major shareholders, they usually do the bidding of the major shareholders -- and we see that demonstrated today with stock buybacks and dividends, which accounts for 90+% of profit distribution (please see the links I provided earlier, or google it yourself, as this should be a stunning statement).
This is how business functions in the world today. This is capitalism (again, more specifically, a variant of state-capitalism: neoliberalism). It's completely undemocratic, it's exploitative, and I would say fundamentally illegitimate and unjust. But even if one conceded that, one may still argue about its results.
Yet look at the results in today's world. Look at the level of inequality, to take one obvious example. It rivals the time of the Pharaohs. People have dubbed it the "New Gilded Age." So what is left to say about this system? Does what I describe strike you as a just system (assume for a second that my description is accurate, even if you disagree)?
[hide="Reveal"][Footnote: I put "owners" in quotation marks because, despite what is widely believed, shareholders do not own corporations -- corporations own themselves. Corporations are controlled by the board of directors, who are appointed by shareholders -- so saying shareholders own corporations isn't absurd, it's just technically wrong.][/hide]
Ok, so these more-or-less correspond to commanding heights of the economy.. i.e. utilities, raw materials, construction, large technology companies, etc. How about the medium to small businesses? Would you be good with doing away with private ownership of capital heights (the really big corporate guys) and but keeping it for smaller industries (which still make up a significant amount of the economy)? Why or why not? These smaller guys tend to be owned by a single person, a partnership, a family, etc. The company is usually managed directly or through several manager in various regions and/or departments.
I can't win. I mentioned private ownership of capital the first time.. But yes, Xtrix already covered what I think you were going to mention. So I pose the same question.. Would you be for getting rid of the "capital heights of the economy" (large corporate entities run by boards, shareholders, etc.) but still keep the medium and small businesses run by single proprietors that started them? It seems that much of the anger is directed towards the really big, multinational corporate Wall Street guys more than the smaller businesses. But you did mention that there is less scrutiny so often more chances for exploitation, which I can concur does make sense in small business. But, the small businesses, are the incubators for creating the bigger ones which then become almost like public goods by being so ingrained in the lives of everyone. Take for example, air conditioners. I think that was started by the Carrier company.. Before that people didn't realize what they were missing.. they just had fans and other cooling techniques...Then air conditioning became essential in hot climates. The same goes for any of these utilities.. Edison and electrical grids.. didn't know we needed them until we needed them.
Lol
You must be thinking about the era of entrepreneurship -- which has been replaced now by VC and other sources of funding. The incubator outlook is long gone.
Independent sources of capital were always a part of it. It’s still in the early phases before someone gets a return. People need the capital infusion and rarely have their own to grow the business unless already wealthy which is where an unfair advantage does enter into it.
You misunderstand. We're not talking about just any independent sources of capital here.
Quoting schopenhauer1
You are preaching to the choir.
The nature of funding these days has changed. You're still in the old school of entrepreneurship.
Right, but what about these type of things? Not real? : https://www.fundera.com/blog/business-success-stories
The story of electricity is complicated, but a large part of its distribution came from Edison (with Tesla and Westinghouse continuing and improving it). https://www.nps.gov/edis/learn/historyculture/edison-biography.htm
There is the cheap automobile with Ford.. who as a person I really dislike, but he did start with little:
[quote=https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12347/a-ceo-deserves-his-rewards-if-workers-can-survive-off-his-salary/latest/comment]The company was a success from the beginning, but just five weeks after its incorporation the Association of Licensed Automobile Manufacturers threatened to put it out of business because Ford was not a licensed manufacturer. He had been denied a license by this group, which aimed at reserving for its members the profits of what was fast becoming a major industry. The basis of their power was control of a patent granted in 1895 to George Baldwin Selden, a patent lawyer of Rochester, New York. The association claimed that the patent applied to all gasoline-powered automobiles. Along with many rural Midwesterners of his generation, Ford hated industrial combinations and Eastern financial power. Moreover, Ford thought the Selden patent preposterous. All invention was a matter of evolution, he said, yet Selden claimed genesis. He was glad to fight, even though the fight pitted the puny Ford Motor Company against an industry worth millions of dollars. The gathering of evidence and actual court hearings took six years. Ford lost the original case in 1909; he appealed and won in 1911. His victory had wide implications for the industry, and the fight made Ford a popular hero.
“I will build a motor car for the great multitude,” Ford proclaimed in announcing the birth of the Model T in October 1908. In the 19 years of the Model T’s existence, he sold 15,500,000 of the cars in the United States, almost 1,000,000 more in Canada, and 250,000 in Great Britain, a production total amounting to half the auto output of the world. The motor age arrived owing mostly to Ford’s vision of the car as the ordinary man’s utility rather than as the rich man’s luxury. Once only the rich had travelled freely around the country; now millions could go wherever they pleased. The Model T was the chief instrument of one of the greatest and most rapid changes in the lives of the common people in history, and it effected this change in less than two decades. Farmers were no longer isolated on remote farms. The horse disappeared so rapidly that the transfer of acreage from hay to other crops caused an agricultural revolution. The automobile became the main prop of the American economy and a stimulant to urbanization—cities spread outward, creating suburbs and housing developments—and to the building of the finest highway system in the world.[/quote]
The airplane started from humble entrepreneur origins..
[quote=https://www.britannica.com/technology/aerospace-industry/History]In 1909, when the Wright Company was incorporated with a capitalization of $1,000,000, the Wright brothers received $100,000, 40 percent of the stock, and a 10 percent royalty on every plane sold. The company developed extensive financial interests in aviation during those early years but, counter to the recommendations of its financiers, did not establish a tight monopoly.
By 1911, pilots were flying in competitive races over long distances between European cities, and this provided enormous incentives for companies to produce faster and more reliable aircraft. In 1911–12 the Wright Company earned more than $1,000,000, mostly in exhibition fees and prizes rather than in sales. French aircraft emerged as the most advanced and for a time were superior to those of competing countries. All planes built in this early period were similar in construction—wings and fuselage frames were made of wood (usually spruce or fir) and covered with a coated fabric.[/quote]
So that represents the incubator period.. Orville Wright made a lot of money.. But then other companies made their own and created conglomoaretes.. There's your big business height of industry phase...
So Boeing came about from William making money on the timber industry? How did he do that? His dad worked in timber and was able to buy small acres and make a bit of money that way.. William took that idea and expanded it by buying even more lucrative land out in the state of Washington.. Once he had that money he didn't even have to live on premise at Washington but in Michigan. From there he could do side businesses on hobby interests of his, like flight.. those hobby interests turned into profits when he bought small airplane companies and started bringing them under one corporation. But you see, it took him doing all of this.. It didn't just "come about".
Here you confess you know little about Marx.
His vision has never been "employed," only corrupted. The now-meaningless word "communism" - that is to say, state capitalism - the Soviet Union, China, etc - is wholly divorced from Marx's vision - in the same way the loons at the Westboro Baptist Church are wholly divorced from the beatific vision.
Marx was betrayed.
If I was to play the devils advocate, I could argue that a dictator or a leader of a criminal syndicate (or anyone like them) has just as much right to their ill gotten gains as the CEO you are talking about. Just like a CEO the leader of a dictatorship or criminal enterprise has to make sure those underneath them are take care of as well deal with anything or anyone who threatens; and sometimes with violence if necessary which is something that CEOs themselves almost never have to deal with.
Because there are so many parallels between those who run countries, criminal organizations, and those who run corporations, in my humble opinion one could declare there really isn't that much difference at all. In fact, one could argue that the difference the philosophy of corporate capitalism (which is really crony capitalism/plutocracy not real capitalism) and something like pure unfiltered Machiavellianism, is that "capitalism" is merely a form of Machiavellianism where the rich and powerful are supposed to wear kid gloves when resolving issues and not have to resort to violence in order determine who gets to be at the top of the heap.
And if some or most of the workers realizes that the wealthy and powerful are really just using Machiavellian tactics in order to make THEM seem all that important (awhile degrading the value of their workers and the work they produce) then it is up to those workers to work together, organize, and take measure in order for the owners of the companies they work for don't exploit them.
It isn't a matter about the owners being the "good guys" and unionized workers being the "bad guys" or vice versa, it is merely a fact that for companies the bottom line is that they need to do everything they can to make a profit so they can grow, pay dividends to their shareholders, and have some surplus cash to either pay off loans or save for a rainy day; and the easiest way to do this is pay their workers as little as possible while yet trying to squeeze as much blood, sweat, and tears out of them as they possibly can while they are at work. And of course, it is often in the best interest of any worker for the to be measures in place (such as minimum wage, OSHA, the Department of Labor) to make sure if any organization is not in compliance with doing enough for their workers, there will be actions taken against said company.
And I believe it also should be said that in the developed world today, more effort and resources are being expended but corporations, the rich, and the powerful to undermine workers and their rights then to be used to make sure people that work for any company are being treated well and get the compensation they deserve for doing the work they do.
In a way it is kind of silly to talk about the "intrinsic values" that the CEO, those that finance the company, and it's workers give or provide to a company while either creating a product or service for their customers. These values are as real as the values that either a dictator provides for his people or a Mafia boss provides for his henchmen and 'clients'. When a farmer or butcher kills a cow they are not the ones that produced the meat from the cow, it was the cow that created the meat that one gets from it's body. However it is a given that an animal can not be compensated (or that one who killed it would want to do that) for the meat that one gets from it's body after it is killed, nor would it likely want to. While one could argue that the cow and other animals are "compensated" by the fact that we take care of them before they are butchered for meat or other products we produce from them, one would find that such conditions if used on humans would be considered something like slave labor or perhaps even worse.
The same could be said about many other things to exploit either animals, plants, or the environment around us in order to take something from someone (if you can think of an animal as someone) or something in the environment (which is kind of not that different from either stealing from or exploiting someone) and claim that such actions magically "produce" something out of nothing other than the human actions that it to to procure such resource is really a foolish notion. However this cartoon that is taught by those that favor our current form of capitalism and corporate American is believed by almost most Americans.
The people that created the system that is used to exploit the world around us (much like your average consumer might obtains a twinkie, open and eats it, and carelessly discards it's wrapper) merely want the people that live and work in said system to either not know or care to know about what is really going on. The reason for this is if they understand that they have a clear understanding of how the world around them is exploited merely in order to maximize a companies profit potential, they might stop for a moment and wonder "Gee if they are willing to ruthlessly exploit the world around me in order to just make a few bucks are they above using whatever measures available to them as a worker or a consumer to use me as well?" and the answer is more or less "no", those who run corporations as well as those in power are not above exploiting workers, customers, and other people as well in order for them to get what they want.
Again this is not about those that run corporations or those in power being more necessarily "evil" or "good" than the rest of us, it is just about that such people already have the resources and means to make sure their interests are being considered and protected while it is more or less a given that the rest of us don't have such a luxury since we don't have access to said resources and/or connections. In the end, the version capitalism we are taught about in school doesn't really exist, instead that is merely a façade to cover up the political machinery that has been used since the days of colonialism (and even before then) where those with wealth and power use those beneath them for their own ends, much in a way that a famer might use his cattle for his personal gain. The concepts of "human rights", "justice", "etc" only exist for those wealthy enough in the system to afford such luxuries and don't necessarily apply (or at least apply the same way) to those of us who can't afford the resources required to protect and provide for us the same way as those who live in a caste higher than us.
In a way, the system set up in the post-colonial western world is not that much different then the caste system that use to exist in in India, where you have things like priests and kings at the top and peasants, labors, as well as the "untouchables" at the very bottom. Again i could be wrong, but I see a parallel between the caste/class system that exist in the west and the caste system created and used in India. While someone like a spin doctor from a western country might be able to create an almost convincing argument where it sounds like CEOs and corporate owners are being "used" and "under appreciated " by liberal politicians, their cohorts, as well as those who have been brainwashed by the evil powers "socialism" propaganda, as a philosopher/someone who has been taught about critical thinking stop and ask yourself is the social system in the US (and some other countries) not that different then the caste system from India, and if you believe it is ask yourself who is more likely to be exploited in such a system. Do you think it is more likely that the kings and priests who are being used/ under appreciated/ exploited or do you think it is more likely peasants, labors, and/or "untouchables" who are being treated in such a way. Again I could be wrong about such parallels existing between the India and Western caste/class systems, but if you do agree that they do exist I think you can see the fallacies that arise when those on the top of a caste system try to argue that they are the one's being "exploited".
So my whole argument here is a sort of devil's advocate. I started another thread perhaps truer to my own philosophy.. that the fact that we don't understand the technology we use is a sort of alienation on various fronts that allows for exploitation of the keepers of the knowledge.. I am sort of mocking the system whereby people must crawl to another fiefdom of technology-hoarders to dispense little pockets of productive activities for the workers, so that they can consume and make other technology-hoarders (uh, producers), money and so on..
I hear you, I kind of thought you might be trying to make the argument you made even though you really didn't think that way. However in this post cold war world we live it where it is believed that capitalism is the only economic system that can work and where a lot of people think Ayn Rand was a great philosopher/thinker, it is hard to know for sure if you where really being serious with what you said or if you were just playing devil's advocate as you said.
On the old philosophy forum there use to be a member there that was really pro-capitalism there ( I believe his moniker was "Fried Egg" or something like that) and he use to make arguments not that different then the one you tried to make in the opening post, however he was really serious about what he was saying. I think that perhaps the difference between what he argued and what you I believe is that he tried to argue from some kind of scientific/economic theory model and basically didn't think about and/or care about the social issues brought by because of the differences between the have's and those who are disenfranchised because they are unable to be part of that group. I haven't seen him in this forum and I guess I'm only mentioning him to point out that that I have at least seen people try to make somewhat similar pro-capitalism arguments even if they kind of cherry-pick the aspects of the argument they wish to address, so don't blame me too much for thinking that what you said in your OP might be what you believe.
In many ways it is worse that what I argued and you said, the system has always been a bit lopsided toward the rich but it is getting more so each year. Corporations no longer pay the lion share of the taxes through profits (instead it comes from wages), and it seems like the power people have through voting and/or other means hardly makes a difference anymore. i don't have the time right now, but in the next day or so I will research and look through some of my old stuff to find various links and YouTube videos might shed a little more light on this issue then I can by myself.
So I am in alignment with what you are saying, but I guess I am looking at it from a different angle than traditional left politics. So I notice that you mention wealth and taxes and profits. Well, much of these are held up in stocks and such.. so spreading around the wealth would mean a lot of times, spreading around the stocks, which just means more people holding stocks in corporations, etc. However, I am trying to get at it not just as an inequality of wealth (the traditional model), but an inequality of information. So this definitely is more in line with Marx' idea of controlling means of production, but it emphasizes not just some sort of public "ownership" but public knowledge of how things work. In other words, we are alienated from the technologies that make our stuff, and we are rendered helpless consumers because of this. We are literally doled out only the portion of knowledge necessary to keep the corporate/business owner interests going. We can read up on stuff sure, but we will never actually have any technological efficacy because we lack access to the actual technology. We can maybe make do with hobby projects like using a Raspberry Pi or something like that, but this is not the same.. It is a simulation of that technology and makes little impact on how people live in the world. I am not sure if this is making sense.
There's two separate points I'm making.
#1. Capitalism itself, based on the definition I prefer and explained, should be dismantled. I don't think the system is legitimate.
#2. Given that we're most likely a long way out from dismantling this system, something should be done in the meantime. This means dismantling neoliberalism and, perhaps, returning to the era of "regimented capitalism" -- strong unions, high growth, more egalitarian distribution of wealth, etc. The kind we saw in the 50s and 60s. This seems more within reach and a good stepping stone to phasing out capitalism altogether in the long run.
So to answer your question: I'm not against business. Many businesses are small, yes. But just because they aren't multinational corporations doesn't negate the fundamentally exploitative relationship at the heart of them, if indeed they are capitalist -- meaning they (owners, employers) pay their workers a wage for their labor. Again, this would be as inconsistent as arguing that because there were very kind slaveowners, who treated their slaves well, that we should overlook the illegitimate nature of the system of chattel slavery.
But that's not the only way businesses can organize. You can still have profits and markets. What you can do is make it democratic -- i.e., organize the workplace democratically. I mentioned worker co-ops as model. This would mean that the workers decide how to run the business -- what to produce, how to produce it, what to do with the profits, how everyone gets paid, etc. Mondragon is often used as an example -- a very successful, large corporation. Happens to a be a cooperative.
When you say "private ownership," it's not so simple. I'm not against private ownership in the case of the co-op, where the workers own the business. I'm against a handful of people (or even one person) owning the business and making all the decisions, while hundreds, thousands, or millions of workers -- who are the majority of the company and who generate the profits -- are completely shut out of all decision making. In other words, I'm against totalitarianism and tyranny.
Modern capitalist corporations are private tyrannies. Those who want to rail against government, which is at least partly democratic, while ignoring the corporation, where there is no democracy, have simply fallen prey to the sophisticated (and not so sophisticated) capitalist apologetics that have been bought from so-called intellectuals through the decades. All under the guise of "freedom" -- free enterprise, free markets, free trade, etc. All complete nonsense.
One thing I guess I should point out is that I don't really believe that "socialism" is good and capitalism is "bad", but more along the lines that a mixture of both might be better than a system that is too reliant on one or the other. To be honest I'm not sure exactly what that would look like other than the fact that before the cold war ended it seemed that the US was more willing to do things like have strong unions, more social programs for the poor, etc. then what currently exist. Today in many circles it ludicrous to even suggest that anything even close to socialism might be a good idea or work such as universal minimal income or more and/or stronger unions. Also I believe that the people running the government decades ago were more watchful and/or of those who run huge corporations in order that their power couldn't overwhelm either the market or the government itself, however I think that is no longer the case since it is more or less a given that the richest families in America (such as the Koch brothers) control it and it is very difficult or next to impossible for the powers that be to keep such groups in check.
I'm not exactly sure if this inequality of access to information is as much a problem as you say it is unless you are talking about the difference between those that live in the developed world and those that do not or perhaps those that have access to the internet. I guess this is a debatable subject and would likely require a thread all by itself, but for me it seems like those of us who barely survive by living hand to mouth (which is more or less true of your humble narrator) who are still able to access the internet and most of the information that other people do are more overwhelmed by their lack of access to other resources (such as food, a car to get around in, proper medicine, etc.) than their lack of not knowing what is going on in the world. I guess one could argue that there is a large gap between those that struggle to survive because they have less time and energy to invest in knowing what is going on around them and the fact that those with money and power have the ability to do things like push out propaganda that suits their needs, donate/bribe politicians, and buy media outlets to control access to what the masses are able to know; however all of this has been going on since around the beginning of the industrial age so I believe it is more of an underlining or ongoing problem that something "new".
Below are a few videos and links that talk about some of the issues I have been trying to address in either the post in this thread or perhaps posts on similar issues in other threads. In reality such information is merely scratching the surface of the problem but I believe if either you (and/or anyone else reading this post) watch the videos and read the articles in the links than you will have a better understanding of what I'm talking about.
It’s the Inequality, Stupid - Eleven charts that explain what’s wrong with America.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph/
America’s Wealth Gap Is Much More Obscene Than You Had Imagined - And it’s a problem for everyone.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2021/04/americas-wealth-gap-is-much-more-obscene-than-you-had-imagined/
Rich people more unethical, likely to cheat and steal, study finds
https://theworld.org/stories/2012-02-28/rich-people-more-unethical-likely-cheat-and-steal-study-finds
CNN - Are rich people more unethical?
https://www.cnn.com/2012/02/27/health/rich-more-unethical/index.html
So, I'm not talking about access to political information or even general knowledge on how technology works. But literally be able to make and produce items. Can you design and produce a transmission, for example? Nope, that would rely on the expertise of other people who know far more and are probably paid quite handsomely for it.. You would need to be involved in a whole litany of supply chain networks that you have no access to. It is to be distributed and doled out to the consumer and to their workers by the gods of car distribution (aka boards and owners of car companies).
I could be wrong but that really isn't about access to information but more about one's access to resources and/or people that manage such a thing. If one has enough money (or knows the right people) one could start a company or corporation that designs transmissions without hardly any knowledge on how a transmission works.
Two examples of this are Stanley Tools and the Edison Electric company. In the case of Stanley tools in the early years of American construction there where many handymen that invented tools that made their work easier but after inventing such a tool they would either not make any money on it or would go bankrupt trying to make and sell it. The founder of Stanley likely didn't really have the knowledge to invent such things but instead would go around and buy the patents from those that did invent such things. And since he had enough money to buy the patents, create an assembly line, and create the logistics to move such products to the market he was much more successful making and selling such items where the inventors of such items where not. One of the things one should know about the process of designing/inventing new products is that when it comes to making new products where there is little to market already for them is that more often than not is that even if one has access to the resources to create, build, and distribute such items (or any item for that matter) more often than not they will NOT make profit off any given product but instead will make a profit if they come up with several new products and one of those products IS successful and off the profits off that one item they will make up for the failures of the ones that produce no profits and/or those that cause a lose when they try and sell them.
With Thomas Edison although we are often told in history lessons he was a very successful inventor/businessman, the truth is that he probably couldn't invent anything even if his life depended on it and instead hired an small army of scientists and engineers who instead did about 99.9% of the leg work required in inventing and creating any of the products that his company made. Edison merely had access to the money (as well those that were willing to fund him) and the business savvy to produce and sell to his consumers and clients. I also believe that he was so ruthless that he gave little credit for those who came up with the inventions for his company nor really would compensate them for their hard work so much like the Stanley Tools story, the actual inventors of various products sold by the company really didn't see much profit for their hard work.
In the real world of businesses and corporations, one's about to know how something works and the ability to invent a product often isn't a real profitable one unless one is able to come up with a product that is relatively inexpensive to make and ship, can be sold for an amount that is a lot more than whatever cost it is to make and ship (or whatever costs it takes to get to a consumer), and that there is a large enough demand for them to keep on making and selling it to the consumer year in and year out. In the end it is really about who has the money, resources, and the knowledge to support such operations and not about who has the knowledge on how to invent and create such products since if a company that invents such a product is successful they can either be bought out or simply crushed by a bigger company such as Netscape was crushed by Microsoft when Microsoft started including Internet Explorer for free with their Windows operating system, when at the time one would have to pay in order to use the Netscape browser (and it was Netscape who really first came up with the idea of the commercial browser that people use today).
In a way, what it really boils down to is a saying I was often told when I worked at the casino, "In the end, it is almost always a given that it is the BIG money that wins". What that basically means is for gamblers is if all other things are equal (such as skill, etc.), the player at the table with the most money will win in the end will be able to keep on playing while the other players who have less money will have to at some point walk away because they will no longer be able to keep on playing and will have to walk away from the game.
I don't know if you agree with all of this but I think my argument is a pretty sound one where it is more about how one knows how do things like run a business/corporation, logistics/operations, and either have lots of money and/or have access to it through banks or people to fund them then it has anything to do with one's ability to know how something works and invent a product in the first place. After all the world is full of corporations who rely on products that where invented by other people or companies, but in the end they merely created a similar product and were more successful in selling and making a profit from it. Since one's ability to invent things isn't really a ticket to becoming wealthy, I can't see it being a reason to argue as it being the major sticking point that you are suggesting it to be.
I could have quoted any of this, but this part summarized it well. Yeah, I think you make a good point. You have to have money to make money. This on top of sourcing connections.. You have to know the the people that start the manufacturing process. You need to know the people to source the capital resources to create the end product. This takes money and supply connections. That's how the capital overlords become the overlords in the first place. Usually they do indeed have a prototype or an idea, but that is usually for a first product line that quickly gets improved or scratched and remade with more expert input.. Now the overlord has the time to get the financing, sourcing, and accounting the materials. Then they simply become about big picture ideas: marketing strategies, acquisitions, stockholder information, etc.
I still think there is a point to be made that we are often the passive recipients of technology. Either way, I think there is tremendous amount of inertia to change this system you and I have written about.
I think I more or less agree with everything you said in this post. :grin: