|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On April 11 2018 18:39 Kickboxer wrote:
Everyone, I have an interesting question. It touches upon what I see as the greatest flaw of Marx, namely not understanding the role played by the capitalist in the labor-capital symbiosis (having since evidently turned out that a planned economy is theoretically impossible, while in capitalism, the products don't simply "sell themselves" nor does the company magically run itself. In addition, many people lack the social and organizational skills to independently operate on the market - or just aren't smart enough, which results in the apparent need for intermediaries and eventually cancer formations like Uber where people bring all the capital to the table but still end up being exploited).
Let's say, today and now, we have two companies. One has 140 workers, the other has 100 workers and 2 "capitalists", meaning theoretically managers, strategists, networkers (lobbyists), people who can move public attention and product.
Which company does better on your average dynamic market across time? If you've identified the second as vastly more efficient, why should a manager not be paid 20 times as much salary as a worker; even if the capital theoretically belonged to everyone? Who is actually creating the added value, and in what ratio?
To me the concept of added value is central to any pragmatic moral discussion. If we want to live well, we require value all around us (this keeps on increasing as our standard goes up), and someone has to be creating it so we can keep consuming. Nothing just happens because hippies and flowers. Here's where Ayn Rand, who I see as one of the most toxic intellectuals of our time, was actually spot on. The capitalist's utility in generating real wealth seems to be completely overlooked by many socio-political pundits.
I think the fundamental flaw with your argument here is that you assume the 140 workers won't include anybody with the skills of those 2 'capitalists'. The point of the Marxist model isn't that there's no structure, but no hierarchy. The workers themselves would arrange it, because they'd own the company. Bruce, Jack and Lenny would point out that Bob is the best leader, the soundest business mind, and say Bob should handle those duties to which he is clearly best suited, while they, being of a stouter sort, would handle the grunt work, which they are clearly better suited for. And so on and so forth.
So if your argument is 'one of my theoretically companies has the talent to run a company and the other doesn't, which is better?' then the one that has the talent will do better. If you argument is 'both companies do but are structured completely differently' then it's very hard to come up with a concrete answer because I don't think there's ever been a time where the two exist in the same market. Usually it's all one or all the other, and you can't make cross-market comparisons due to massive wealth disparities between markets themselves (i.e. comparing a well run company from China with a well-run company from Lithuania isn't going to reveal much if you just look at the bottom line; the Lithuanian company has a much lower profit ceiling than the Chinese one).
|
Canada11605 Posts
Bruce, Jack and Lenny would point out that Bob is the best leader, the soundest business mind, and say Bob should handle those duties to which he is clearly best suited, while they, being of a stouter sort, would handle the grunt work, which they are clearly better suited for.
I don't know if people have better experience with committees, but from what I know, I find this highly unlikely to occur over even a medium length of time. Generally they inflexible and slow, which would lead to lost opportunities, and then it is quite difficult to have maintain a coherent vision compared to one or two capitalists. Death by committee is a thing after all.
|
Yes but in the real world Bob (who has the soundest business mind among 100 people) doesn't work at a company, as a "lowly" worker. He can start his own business and become a capitalist. The ceiling is close enough, and has been for a while, especially in the digital age.
During the .com boom people made billions out of thin air. Marx never saw it coming, and yet his fundamental philosophy (many people use as a tool in arguments) was never adapted.
Then, you're either implying in some kind of fluid constructivist way that any diligent worker can be "retrained" as a talented manager, which I fundamentally disagree with, or that people are terrible at forming cooperatives.
If a proletarian union of 200 come together and each take out a small loan, they can literally start a workers' company. Why is that not going on?
|
On April 11 2018 19:58 Kickboxer wrote:
Yes but in the real world Bob (who has the soundest business mind among 100 people) doesn't work at a company, as a "lowly" worker. He can start his own business and become a capitalist. The ceiling is close enough, and has been for a while, especially in the digital age.
During the .com boom people made billions out of thin air. Marx never saw it coming, and yet his fundamental philosophy (many people use as a tool in arguments) was never adapted.
Then, you're either implying in some kind of fluid constructivist way that any diligent worker can be "retrained" as a talented manager, which I fundamentally disagree with, or that people are terrible at forming cooperatives.
If a proletarian union of 200 come together and each take out a small loan, they can literally start a workers' company. Why is that not going on?
What do you mean "Marx's fundamental theory was never adapted"? What do you think economists have been doing for the last 100 years or so?! Marx didn't have the be-all-end-all socio-economic theory. He had some very valid ideas, many of which have been incorporated into modern governance, and some ideas which didn't work so well, and have been discarded.
@Falling: I don't think Marx ever got into the nitty gritty details of *how* the various jobs should be distributed or the company should be run. He was far more concerned with the distribution of capital (and ownership), and argued that there should not be separate "ownership" ranks in enterprise, but rather ownership is distributed with everybody having a stake in the outcome. He was a bit radical in that, but it's worth remembering that when and where he lived was amongst barons of industry exploiting the proletariat. Many of the socio-economic policies put into place for the last 100 years have been adaptations acknowledging, at least in part, his ideas, even by those who wholly rejected his ideology!
|
On April 11 2018 19:58 Kickboxer wrote:
If a proletarian union of 200 come together and each take out a small loan, they can literally start a workers' company. Why is that not going on?
Because it’s hard to get 5 people to agree on pizza toppings. Or a single person to find someone to marry. Leadership and management skills are a valuable tool, but not worth 200 times the worth of the average worker. And it’s not like the nation is 200 more productive because we pay these CEOs so much. Weath disparity was nowhere near what it is now in the 1960s and the economy was roaring.
|
On April 11 2018 20:07 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2018 19:58 Kickboxer wrote:
Yes but in the real world Bob (who has the soundest business mind among 100 people) doesn't work at a company, as a "lowly" worker. He can start his own business and become a capitalist. The ceiling is close enough, and has been for a while, especially in the digital age.
During the .com boom people made billions out of thin air. Marx never saw it coming, and yet his fundamental philosophy (many people use as a tool in arguments) was never adapted.
Then, you're either implying in some kind of fluid constructivist way that any diligent worker can be "retrained" as a talented manager, which I fundamentally disagree with, or that people are terrible at forming cooperatives.
If a proletarian union of 200 come together and each take out a small loan, they can literally start a workers' company. Why is that not going on? What do you mean "Marx's fundamental theory was never adapted"? What do you think economists have been doing for the last 100 years or so?! Marx didn't have the be-all-end-all socio-economic theory. He had some very valid ideas, many of which have been incorporated into modern governance, and some ideas which didn't work so well, and have been discarded. @Falling: I don't think Marx ever got into the nitty gritty details of *how* the various jobs should be distributed or the company should be run. He was far more concerned with the distribution of capital (and ownership), and argued that there should not be separate "ownership" ranks in enterprise, but rather ownership is distributed with everybody having a stake in the outcome. He was a bit radical in that, but it's worth remembering that when and where he lived was amongst barons of industry exploiting the proletariat. Many of the socio-economic policies put into place for the last 100 years have been adaptations acknowledging, at least in part, his ideas, even by those who wholly rejected his ideology!
As someone who spent a fair amount of uni time reading Marx in the context of critical theory and the genesis of the social sciences, this tracks with my understanding of the material as well.
|
Is the definition of a capitalist a manager, lobbyist, advertiser? They don't (within that company) necessarily own the means of production, or have any capital invested in that company. Just because they're considered skilled individuals within a capitalist economy doesn't (I don't think) make them capitalists.
Though Marx as an economist is definitely where he was at his weakest, his labour theory of value is evidently untrue. It's as a sociologist where he's at his best.
|
When the going get tough, Paul Ryan quits. Only good for opposing a popular democratic president, he now realizes people expected him to accomplish things with his this conservative clownshow of a House.
|
Maybe he'll do something to indicate that he has a spine now that he's something of a lame duck.
|
Removing Nunes would from his chairman seat would be a good start. But not holding my breath.
It should be noted that at the time of his retirement, Ryan is leaving the county with one of the worst deficit projections in decades. Politicians that run on being fiscal never seem to be able to back that up with any but debt.
|
Saw someone saying Ryan is considering running for President one day. Can't imagine that working... I think Trump's base hates him more than Democrats do.
Also, if nothing else happens in Nov, I hope Nunes loses.
|
On April 11 2018 21:58 Plansix wrote:
When the going get tough, Paul Ryan quits. Only good for opposing a popular democratic president, he now realizes people expected him to accomplish things with his this conservative clownshow of a House.
He didn't want the speaker job, they begged him to do it and I seem to remember the Tea Party made a bunch of promises that they likely didn't meet for him to accept.
|
On April 11 2018 22:12 On_Slaught wrote:
Saw someone saying Ryan is considering running for President one day. Can't imagine that working... I think Trump's base hates him more than Democrats do.
Also, if nothing else happens in Nov, I hope Nunes loses.
I think he's too much of a realist for that, it's kinda hard to pull off a presidential run after utterly failing as a VP candidate.
|
On April 11 2018 22:29 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2018 22:12 On_Slaught wrote:
Saw someone saying Ryan is considering running for President one day. Can't imagine that working... I think Trump's base hates him more than Democrats do.
Also, if nothing else happens in Nov, I hope Nunes loses. I think he's too much of a realist for that, it's kinda hard to pull off a presidential run after utterly failing as a VP candidate.
Don't underestimate what a 8 figure check from the Koch brothers and an ego which has had a couple years to inflate back to its previous size can do.
|
Trump had no idea that the Ukrainian was going to donate to his charity. It was all arranged by someone else, without trumps knowledge.
|
So he just does 20 minute video appearances for Ukrainians for free and on demand? Rich people are weird.
|
On April 11 2018 23:47 Plansix wrote:
So he just does 20 minute video appearances for Ukrainians for free and on demand? Rich people are weird.
Until the Shaggy defense stops working why not use it?
|
On April 11 2018 18:39 Kickboxer wrote:
Everyone, I have an interesting question. It touches upon what I see as the greatest flaw of Marx, namely not understanding the role played by the capitalist in the labor-capital symbiosis (having since evidently turned out that a planned economy is theoretically impossible, while in capitalism, the products don't simply "sell themselves" nor does the company magically run itself. In addition, many people lack the social and organizational skills to independently operate on the market - or just aren't smart enough, which results in the apparent need for intermediaries and eventually cancer formations like Uber where people bring all the capital to the table but still end up being exploited).
Let's say, today and now, we have two companies. One has 140 workers, the other has 100 workers and 2 "capitalists", meaning theoretically managers, strategists, networkers (lobbyists), people who can move public attention and product.
Which company does better on your average dynamic market across time? If you've identified the second as vastly more efficient, why should a manager not be paid 20 times as much salary as a worker; even if the capital theoretically belonged to everyone? Who is actually creating the added value, and in what ratio?
To me the concept of added value is central to any pragmatic moral discussion. If we want to live well, we require value all around us (this keeps on increasing as our standard goes up), and someone has to be creating it so we can keep consuming. Nothing just happens because hippies and flowers. Here's where Ayn Rand, who I see as one of the most toxic intellectuals of our time, was actually spot on. The capitalist's utility in generating real wealth seems to be completely overlooked by many socio-political pundits.
A capitalist is someone who owns (and accumulate) capital. Strategists and managers are absolutely not capitalists. Businessmen are.
I don’t think it’s a good idea to make a radical critique of such a complex theory (I tried to read the Capital, it’s an absolute nightmare) without understanding its most basic terminology.
|
On April 11 2018 22:29 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2018 22:12 On_Slaught wrote:
Saw someone saying Ryan is considering running for President one day. Can't imagine that working... I think Trump's base hates him more than Democrats do.
Also, if nothing else happens in Nov, I hope Nunes loses. I think he's too much of a realist for that, it's kinda hard to pull off a presidential run after utterly failing as a VP candidate.
He has a magic aura of the serious, professional conservative, even though he’s a total conman and doesn’t care one bit about even making sense.
That’s a big card to play when your party has gone apeshit stupid and is ran by batman villains.
|
On April 12 2018 00:29 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2018 18:39 Kickboxer wrote:
Everyone, I have an interesting question. It touches upon what I see as the greatest flaw of Marx, namely not understanding the role played by the capitalist in the labor-capital symbiosis (having since evidently turned out that a planned economy is theoretically impossible, while in capitalism, the products don't simply "sell themselves" nor does the company magically run itself. In addition, many people lack the social and organizational skills to independently operate on the market - or just aren't smart enough, which results in the apparent need for intermediaries and eventually cancer formations like Uber where people bring all the capital to the table but still end up being exploited).
Let's say, today and now, we have two companies. One has 140 workers, the other has 100 workers and 2 "capitalists", meaning theoretically managers, strategists, networkers (lobbyists), people who can move public attention and product.
Which company does better on your average dynamic market across time? If you've identified the second as vastly more efficient, why should a manager not be paid 20 times as much salary as a worker; even if the capital theoretically belonged to everyone? Who is actually creating the added value, and in what ratio?
To me the concept of added value is central to any pragmatic moral discussion. If we want to live well, we require value all around us (this keeps on increasing as our standard goes up), and someone has to be creating it so we can keep consuming. Nothing just happens because hippies and flowers. Here's where Ayn Rand, who I see as one of the most toxic intellectuals of our time, was actually spot on. The capitalist's utility in generating real wealth seems to be completely overlooked by many socio-political pundits. A capitalist is someone who owns (and accumulate) capital. Strategists and managers are absolutely not capitalists. Businessmen are. I don’t think it’s a good idea to make a radical critique of such a complex theory (I tried to read the Capital, it’s an absolute nightmare) without understanding its most basic terminology.
Capital is really not so bad.
@kickboxer your questions are ill-posed but to simplify things for you a bit i'll re-pose what i think is your main line of questioning as:
a company with 4 employees and 1 owner-ceo makes $1M a year. without the owner-ceo the whole thing would fall apart and everyone would lose their jobs. without the 4 employees the whole thing would fall apart and everyone would lose their jobs. so how much value does each person bring to the company?
your first question should be: wait what is this "value?" i thought we were talking about money.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
