I am missing something here, and I am genuinely curious what it is I'm missing.
If a capitalist starts a manufacturing business with the goal of making money, and if he then discovers that the business would run much more effectively by letting the skilled workers make the decisions than by hiring a layer of management ... then why wouldn't the capitalist go with the more effective approach?
TL;DR rephrase -- why would a business owner maintain a layer of management if that was truly a less effective way to go?
Is Chomsky (or Noble) claiming there's something like a "conspiracy" amongst the "managerial class" to create fake jobs for managers, merely to maintain class power? (Or, if not, what am I missing from his argument?)
> then why wouldn't the capitalist go with the more effective approach?
"Making money for me" and "making money for everyone" are not the same thing.
For example, if your business has 1MM in profits, and you own half, then you get 500k. If you ran that as a cooperative, you made 2MM in profits the next year, but you own 10%, you made $200k. Worse for you, better for everyone else and the group overall.
OK, that makes sense but doesn't connect all the dots for me.
I am starting with the assumption that no one gets an ownership stake for free. You can start a business if you want, and you can either bootstrap it or take investment. Either way, the owners are not handed their ownership ... they "buy" it with what they put in.
Is this Chomsky/Noble point of view arguing that workers should be granted a degree of ownership by virtue of the work they do?
The basic tenet of socialism is that democracy is good: the traditional corporate model is dictatorship, and it should be reformed into democracy instead.
> the owners are not handed their ownership ... they "buy" it with what they put in.
Sure, but then they have it, and that's great. Being rewarded for your work is good. Problem is, they have to do nothing to maintain it. After an initial period of work, they have it forever. Whereas a worker who comes in afterward has no access, and even though they also put in a lot of work, they won't get any ownership. Those people are not being rewarded for the work that they do, which we all agree is bad.
> workers should be granted a degree of ownership by virtue of the work they do?
Basically, yes. People should be in control of themselves, and their situations. Ownership == control.
Please note that I'm painting in _very_, _very_ broad strokes here. There is a ton of space under this tent.
Huh? The traditional corporate model is representative democracy. Shareholders elect a board of directors who then elect upper management, who then appoint lower level positions.
Whereas a worker who comes in afterward has no access, and even though they also put in a lot of work, they won't get any ownership.
This is false for any publicly traded corporation. Any worker can open up an ETrade account and trade their salary for part of the corporation.
As far as I know, most workers choose not to. Why do you feel these workers (myself included) are making the wrong choice?
Please see my statement about broad strokes. That said....
> Shareholders elect
There's your error. Shareholders elect. Not workers. Maybe "oligarchy" is a better word than dictatorship, but as I said, trying to keep it simple to get the concept across.
Workers do not have a vote. Traditional corporate structures are not a democracy.
> This is false for any publicly traded corporation. Any worker can open up an ETrade account and trade their salary for part of the corporation.
Only if that company is publicly traded. Even then, if it is, acquiring ownership comes through spending capital, not by virtue of having control over yourself and what you do.
> As far as I know, most workers choose not to. Why do you feel these workers (myself included) are making the wrong choice?
Most people do not have the ability to work in a place that's run cooperatively because there aren't enough places that are cooperative. Even GitHub and Valve are socialist in social structure only: Both are private companies, but I'm pretty sure that everyone does not own a portion of the company. I could be wrong on this.
Secondly, post-Cold War, 'socialism' became such a scare term that people would shy away from it even if it were a rationally better choice for them. The notion of 'ideology' is useful here.
You don't need the word socialism to make me skeptical, I'm skeptical that democracy would produce better results in a business context. Also, I have a hard time believing you've read any Marx. You're not doing his work very much justice.
I don't even trust democracy in politics all that much, my state (California) is a complete and utter failure as an exercise in democracy.
Also, I have a hard time believing you've read any Marx. You're not doing his work very much justice.
I call foul. That's personal, and it's unsubstantiated, which makes it unfair not only to the GP but to the rest of us reading the thread. If you're going to make a comment like this, instead of being mean why don't you share with us some of what you've learned about (in this case) Marx? I for one would be interested to hear it.
As for Marx and democracy, while trolling, your parent does make a point: What I'm talking about in this thread is not very Marxist/Leninist. What they misunderstood is that I was not trying to be Marxist/Leninist. ;)
In Marxism/Leninism, the current situation is referred to as "the dictatorship of the bourgeoise." Revolution would lead to the institution of "the dictatorship of the proletariat." Contrary to its name, the DotP would be a democratically run organization: however, since 'all history is the history of class struggle,' it _would_ have a dictatorship role in the sense of the two classes: whereas today, the bourgeoise call all the shots, in the DotP, the proletariat would.
This is what my sibling comment refers to. However, they misunderstand about half the things that are said in both of those quotes by Engels.
>And the victorious party” (in a revolution) “must maintain its rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionaries. Would the Paris Commune have lasted more than a day if it had not used the authority of the armed people against the bourgeoisie? Cannot we, on the contrary, blame it for having made too little use of that authority?. - Engels
>As, therefore, the state is only a transitional institution which is used in the struggle, in the revolution, to hold down one’s adversaries by force, it is sheer nonsense to talk of a ‘free people’s state’; so long as the proletariat still needs the state, it does not need it in the interests of freedom but in order to hold down its adversaries, and as soon as it becomes possible to speak of freedom the state as such ceases to exist - Engels
Democracy is a threat to the midwife State and the final state of what Marxism aims to achieve.
So what was Marx's end goal? Some sort of utopian paradox in the vein of John's Galt, where each person is free to realize his own potential? The last quote from Engel seems to suggest that Marx was actually pushing for something much closer to Anarcho-Libertarianism.
> I have a hard time believing you've read any Marx. You're not doing his work very much justice.
First of all, socialism is bigger than Marx. You are absolutely correct in that Marx/Lennin would not think that business operating as socialist within a capitalist context would lead to revolution or communism. Luckily, I wasn't talking about that.
Secondarily, Marx never actually used the world 'socialism,' he did make a few passing references to 'lower communism' and 'lesser communism.' He _did_ critique the utopian socialists of his day for not being realistic enough.
Lower communism is formally known as socialism among Marxist scholars. To say that Marx never spoke of socialism when the academic understanding has been that the terminology maps over is very misleading.
Marx & Engels criticized utopian socialism that was utopian for simply lacking a vision of bringing itself about. That's what made it utopian. Marx and Engels critiqued utopianism, market socialism, and liberal democracy, not socialism itself. To say that their critiques of dreamy, ungrounded utopianism were somehow a critique of one of the utopian hobby-horses (socialism) is...a severe misunderstanding of Marx.
They themselves saw the revolutionary state that would midwife the ushering in of Communism as being socialist by necessity. The Paris Commune would later serve to change Marx's attitude about the midwife state a bit though.
You're just compounding your misunderstandings and further propagating misinformation about Marx. Please stop. This isn't even about the original conversation for me anymore, I just want you to stop spreading untruths.
> To say that Marx never spoke of socialism when the academic understanding has been that the terminology maps over is very misleading.
What I was trying to communicate is that Marxism involves socialism, but socialism does not involve Marxism.
> Marx & Engels criticized utopian socialism that was utopian for simply lacking a vision of bringing itself about.
This is what I said. "not being realistic enough."
> They themselves saw the revolutionary state that would midwife the ushering in of Communism as being socialist by necessity. The Paris Commune would later serve to change Marx's attitude about the midwife state a bit though.
I agree 100%.
I really think we have a failure to communicate here, not an actual disagreement in understanding, now. Both me misunderstanding you and you misunderstanding me. You can understand why I'm naturally skeptical of anyone invoking Marx in this place. My apologies.
Only if that company is publicly traded. Even then, if it is, acquiring ownership comes through spending capital, not by virtue of having control over yourself and what you do.
Would you prefer it if instead workers were paid in equity, and needed to use the public markets if they want to convert equity to cash?
(The difference between this scenario and the current status quo is only $8/trade and a few mouse clicks, so I'd love to hear why you think this distinction matters.)
> Would you prefer it if instead workers were paid in equity, and needed to use the public markets if they want to convert equity to cash?
No, I would not.
> The difference between this scenario and the current status quo is only $8/trade and a few mouse clicks,
No, it is not. Again, not all companies are publicly owned.
> so I'd love to hear why you think this distinction matters.
Cash does not equal control. Equity equals control. Seriously, we're on Hacker News: how much discussion goes into equity splits between founders? Why do you never give your initial employees very much equity? Why do we discuss term sheets so much?
You're being silly, you comment here way too much not to know this.
(oh, and for an answer: I prefer that the workers are paid however the workers want to be paid. For me, personally, cash as well as an equity stake of some kind. As one real-life example, please see http://www.redandblackcafe.com/the-red-black-cafe-is-hiring/ which lays out one possible situation and has been going for the last 12 years. Also, of course, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation which has 14b euro in revenue and employs 84,000 people.)
If workers were paid in equity, they would have say in the company proportional to the value of their contribution to the company (modulo politics, etc).
But what if some workers are willing to give up "say" in the in return for cash? Should they be prevented from doing so? Should employees be paid in restricted stock, receiving cash only when their company issues dividends?
Note that as an employee of a public company who doesn't buy any shares, I've revealed that I prefer cash to voice. Why do you feel you know better about how I should handle my finances and working arrangements?
>Why do you feel you know better about how I should handle my finances and working arrangements?
I don't say that I know better objectively. I'm merely stating my preference, which might, or might not be better than your preference.
And it could even be better than letting everyone have it his own way (just as it could also be worse). I guess it remains to be proved.
Sometimes, you see, one specific idea is better overall than just letting each person decide. For example, with respect to theft we don't let each person have their preference about it: we deem it illegal, and that's it.
So, this "the individual above everything else" thing. I don't care much for it. And a lot of societies don't, e.g in Europe. Some people, and some societies prefer the "benefit of society above all".
Which might, or might not, coincide with the maximum benefit of a specific individual. That's what politics is about.
>>>"Sure, but then they have it, and that's great. Being rewarded for your work is good. Problem is, they have to do nothing to maintain it. After an initial period of work, they have it forever. Whereas a worker who comes in afterward has no access, and even though they also put in a lot of work, they won't get any ownership."
I agree with the point that it is "too bad" the worker will work 30 years and never gain ownership.
But ... if the worker doesn't like it, why doesn't he start a business?
And ... is it right for government to forcibly take a piece of ownership away and give it to the worker? Is that the proposed solution?
Gosh, when you look at this discussion, you ask yourself, "Why on earth would anyone sign up to be a perpetual worker?"
BUT -- there's a lot more to a business than just the skilled work. There's marketing, capitalization decisions, strategy, etc. Seems the businesses who are best at that will outcompete the others. I guess that then makes the argument for "professional management" (I promise I did not set out towards that goal ... I stumbled there by "thinking out loud").
> But ... if the worker doesn't like it, why doesn't he start a business?
Starting a business is not a possibility for many people. This requires initial capital, for example. Most people do not have capital.
> And ... is it right for government to forcibly take a piece of ownership away and give it to the worker? Is that the proposed solution?
Chomsky is an anarchist, so no, he would not suggest that. it's actually the opposite: the ability of the owner to retain ownership is due to contractual agreements that the state upholds under threat of violence. Without the state, corporations (and capitalism) are not possible.
> Gosh, when you look at this discussion, you ask yourself, "Why on earth would anyone sign up to be a perpetual worker?"
:) An observation that Marx made was that because the worker sells their labor-power (ie, capacity to labor), they do not get to retain the advantages of increased productivity: the capitalist does. When we become more productive, we have two choices: work less, or work the same and get even more. The ones with the power make those decisions, and since they're not the ones doing the work, guess which they choose? The movement from the 12 hour day to the 10 hour day to the 80 hour day to the 40 hour week was not due to productivity gains: it was due to socialist and other worker-led movements.
> (I promise I did not set out towards that goal ... I stumbled there by "thinking out loud").
No worries :) I'd say that you're confusing correlation and causation: there are many, many more traditionally structured businesses than socialist ones. There are many success stories on the other side: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation
> Without the state, corporations (and capitalism) are not possible.
A state is not necessary for enforcing contracts - that could be done by private parties, as in anarcho-capitalism. Also: Cooperatives can exist within a capitalist system, but the converse is not true. So I guess it comes down to whether or not all property as defined by the status quo should be redistributed or reallocated, presumably by force; if that were not the case, there wouldn't really be any disagreement between left-anarchists and anarcho-capitalists, right?
I should have been clearer: I'm not advocating anarcho-capitalism, just having an academic discussion. My point was that a state isn't necessary to enforce contracts, although the competing entities that would theoretically replace the state are quite state-like in many ways as you point out. The Icelandic Commonwealth was anarcho-capitalistic though, wasn't it (anarchy + property rights)? Worked okay for a few hundred years.
I do see your point that anarcho-capitalism isn't really anarchism, though. The societies they envision are radically different.
Fair enough. Sorry, dealing with an endless stream of ancaps who demand that yes, they are 'the real' anarchists and yes, their vision of the future would lead to grand utopia.
> The Icelandic Commonwealth was anarcho-capitalistic though, wasn't it (anarchy + property rights)? Worked okay for a few hundred years.
I do know that Iceland is discussed in these circles, and I only know that both sides go "yes it is no it isn't." I haven't studied it enough to make my own call. Primarily, as far as I'm concerned, if it takes a state form, it's just as bad, so I haven't spent any time in this area."
I know you're trolling, but for the benefit of everyone else, anarchism actually existed in real-world Catalonia, the Ukraine, and arguably in Paris, in the real world, for multiple years. You are factually incorrect.
I don't have a ton of interest in repeating left-anarchist/anarcho-capitalist arguments with you though. It's clear you have the left-anarchist bullet points down.
I chalk up my anarchist period to indiscretions of youth. Nowadays I am more concerned about choice and innovation in government than in abolishing government.
> Sure, but then they have it, and that's great. Being rewarded for your work is good. Problem is, they have to do nothing to maintain it. After an initial period of work, they have it forever. Whereas a worker who comes in afterward has no access, and even though they also put in a lot of work, they won't get any ownership.
It sounds like you are talking about the labor theory of value in Marxian economics. I'm no expert, so I'm probably oversimplifying, but I think the labor theory of value would consider exploitation to begin the instant a property owner accrued more value from rent payments than the labor it took to build the hous being rented.
Yes, although under its preferred system of ownership, the idea of owning a house you don't life in doesn't make any sense, since it's based on usufruct or use, not title.
But under capitalism, no, my initial thought would be that that is not exploitation, since there's no surplus value.
Chomsky may have a more ductile view on ownership, when it applies to means of production. And you can't assume the rationality of the capitalist, many psychological and cultural factor play the game when choosing to empower workers or management.
>>> "And you can't assume the rationality of the capitalist"
That's definitely true.
But, his business incentives are aligned with whatever is most effective. If he wins the business competition, he makes a lot of money.
So at the macro scale, business owners would be inclined to do whatever works best ... as opposed to hiring a management layer they don't really need (and incurring costs) to adopt a less effective approach.
But I don't think there's a huge gap between "what is most effective" and "what is most effective at making him money."
Well ... OK ... I can think of examples when that gap is huge, so scratch that.
The point is ... in the example of choosing between (a) hiring managers even though it costs more and is less effective, or (b) not hiring managers, saving that money, and being more productive too -- why would the capitalist choose to maintain a management layer?
Because it's difficult to have aligned interests among all the people working in an enterprise. Having sufficiently and appropriately aligned interests is the starting point for a non-hierarchical structure. People coming into jobs don't have this mindset. For reasons good and evil, people consider themselves fungible wrt to their employment, so a layered structure with managers, etc., accommodates that.
And, in practice, you see an approximation. Promoting developers to become developer-managers, developer-managers to become product-managers, etc., is (aside from structural needs) a way of recognizing that people have shown that they do have significant aligned interests and an increase in salary and rank is the quid pro quo.
However, that appears to support the premise that having a management structure actually is more effective.
Imagine how hard it would be to run a company if 200 people had to agree on every little decision. Ever been on any kind of committee? If everything had to go through committee, very few businesses could prosper.
So having a management layer lets the owner select, over time, those people that he wants to share in the decision making. And that seems like a solid benefit of maintaining a management layer.
Whereas Chomsky/Noble seemed to be saying (if I understood them correctly) that the management layer was actually a detriment, but that business owners chose it to maintain class separation.
This is a concern that's very often raised. I get the point, but there are two things to keep in mind:
Having aligned interests makes this tractable. When someone raises this concern they typically posit participants who don't have aligned interests.
Secondly, we aren't very good at seeing our day-to-day experience that suggests this is doable. We don't credit our participation in consensus-based groups, nor do we recognize instances of compromising or actions that are not self-interested.
> why would the capitalist choose to maintain a management layer?
Humans are pattern recognition machines. Many successful companies have tons of managers: why try out this weird alternate strategy I have no experience with when so many companies work hierarchically? Starting a startup has so much risk involved, and risk needs managed. New management strategies are incredibly risky.
I don't think the cooperative model being possible even enters into most people's minds.
Because in general, the people with experience in the sectors he talks about will want a position of power, and aren't interested in working with their hands. Business owners want to hire these people (I won't place a judgement on the decision itself) and therefore need to have the open positions.
Things are changing though, at least in the tech sector.
If a capitalist starts a manufacturing business with the goal of making money, and if he then discovers that the business would run much more effectively by letting the skilled workers make the decisions than by hiring a layer of management ... then why wouldn't the capitalist go with the more effective approach?
TL;DR rephrase -- why would a business owner maintain a layer of management if that was truly a less effective way to go?
Is Chomsky (or Noble) claiming there's something like a "conspiracy" amongst the "managerial class" to create fake jobs for managers, merely to maintain class power? (Or, if not, what am I missing from his argument?)