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.
Reveal
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). — Outlander
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)
honestly to me these types of replies only seem to reinforce my socialist views: — Albero
There's no basis for the belief that a person is virtuous, or admirable, or worthy, or good in any moral sense because they make or have a great deal of money, unless making or having a great deal of money is considered to be morally virtuous, admirable, worthy or good by definition. — Ciceronianus
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. — Outlander
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. — NOS4A2
honestly to me these types of replies only seem to reinforce my socialist views:
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.
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. — Bitter Crank
In a socialist economy, selecting managers, coordinators, inspectors, and so on would have the approximate gravity of electing a government. It seems like a system of merit would be better than a system of popular election. — Bitter Crank
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. — Bitter Crank
nformation 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. — Bitter Crank
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 — Bitter Crank
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. — Bitter Crank
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. — Bitter Crank
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). — Bitter Crank
n a nutshell, start with good information and stay with good information to the end. — Bitter Crank
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] — Bitter Crank
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. — Bitter Crank
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. — NOS4A2
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.
— Bitter Crank
Isn't that what marketing departments do? Isn't that what people do when they buy Facebook, Google, and other data? — schopenhauer1
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. — Bitter Crank
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. — Hanover
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!". — schopenhauer1
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. — schopenhauer1
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? — schopenhauer1
The primary issue is, as your title explicitly states, 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. — Maw
But the capitalist side will just say that the reason the capitalist is the capitalist (barring CEOs that are just figurehead types.. 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 of investing and growing the company from its beginning. The other workers are welcome to try their hand at this.. — schopenhauer1
, 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."grew the company from the beginning" — Maw
It's also irrelevant to my point, because the Capitalist, regardless of risk, still finds wage laborers in a condition of precarity. — Maw
Don't companies and parts of the geographical and land management aspects of the government already do this? — schopenhauer1
Weren't these started by individuals through investments? Is this meant to take that property from them — schopenhauer1
Didn't the Soviet Union try to do this but failed with long bread lines, lack of variety, and unfilled stores? — schopenhauer1
Won't they just be the new managers? What if people don't like working for the new boss anymore than the old one? — schopenhauer1
What if people don't like working for the new boss anymore than the old one? — schopenhauer1
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? — schopenhauer1
But that says it all, doesn't it? — schopenhauer1
Who decides what gets made? Isn't that going right back to politburos and oligarchic dictatorships? 1984 and all that? — schopenhauer1
in a socialist world, it seems that because it is run by the same human personality-types — schopenhauer1
There is still a hierarchy. — schopenhauer1
there will be consequences (they die) — schopenhauer1
How do people decide how much to do, when to do it, and the like? — schopenhauer1
What does it look like for insubordination under this socialist regime? — schopenhauer1
'd like to know, what makes one person able and willing to be an owner, and anotheronlyable to work for them? — schopenhauer1
Yes, I am just trying to get at, how a socialist regime solves anything different than a capitalist one — schopenhauer1
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. — Bitter Crank
but are more likely to be.. Looks like something like 44% of US economy and represent 2/3 of net new jobs. But again, why is the wage laborers precarity something that is the capitalist's fault for starting something of their own? — schopenhauer1
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.