8 ms·
OP is looking at people who direct and sustain a capitalist enterprise's internal processes. These people (managers, HR) are hired by the capitalists to optimiz
by Hytosys 11y ago
OP is looking at people who direct and sustain a capitalist enterprise's internal processes. These people (managers, HR) are hired by the capitalists to optimize internally for profit. The only warm & fuzzy side-effects that these positions provide are the ones that don't get in the way of capital increasing.
It's not even about these individuals being evil or not. I'm sure most of them are torn to pieces (before they become numb) when they make decisions against the wellbeing of the workforce. The point is that the managers would not be in these positions if they could not fulfill these roles — they would be replaced. These positions self-select for "evil."
The people who optimize externally for profit focus not on squeezing the workforce, they focus on squeezing the public. These are the lawyers, the salespeople, the accountants, the marketers, the compliance experts. There's no point debating the evilness of the individuals, but their roles are necessarily evil. These roles tend to grow more and more evil as the capitalist enterprise grows. The enemy here, then, is capital, not these poor workers who fill necessary capitalist roles.
- _yosefk 11y agoIt's a good thing that states and state-owned enterprises always optimize for the well-being of their citizens and customers - after all, that's what they're supposed to do! It never happens that, being largely unaccountable, people working for the state and its enterprises act to maximize their own well-being and minimize their own effort at the expense of the citizens and customers. This is why the enemy is capital, not human nature. All you need is employ people in properly-named organizations with properly stated lofty goals (the constitution of Stalin-era USSR is a good source of inspiration), and none of their bad traits will ever rear their ugly heads!
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- ricksplat 11y agoSo towards the end of your post, I began to get the impression the tongue was somewhere in the cheek. But up to that point I was thinking there was some good insight there. The dichotomy of business vs the state. The roles of each: A business to make money; the state to look after her citizens, and the ongoing struggle for dominance between each - firmly skewered by the citation of the USSR, where "it was tried before". Poor businesses fail, whereas a poorly run state will limp along, but at the end of the day it is the businesses that fail into the state, and if a business is badly run it is the state (and her constituents) that have to pick up the pieces.
- erikpukinskis 11y agoThe State is not the only alternative to capital. Another is individuals. Corporations (and the State) are mostly useless now that we have software. We're just in transition while we finish building AIs that usefully model the means of production and the body of available contracts. An individual with a powerful AI partner that can do those two things is no more powerful inside a corporation than out. The AI makes the collaborative structures of public space just as reliable as the collaborative structures within a corporation, so the entire value of the corporation to the worker disappears.
- vezzy-fnord 11y agoAI is a factor of production, therefore it is a capital good. The rest is delusional science fiction. "Ethereum contracts will magically grant every individual land, labor and capital goods for self-sufficient production." No.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- vezzy-fnord 11y agoThe enemy here, then, is capital, not these poor workers who fill necessary capitalist roles. I'm not sure how factors of production (including durable capital goods) can possibly be an "enemy" of anything. That said, your idea that capitalists act as crude profit maximizers is an oversimplification. In fact, most firms don't do any calculation of prices based on marginal revenues and marginal costs. Instead, they usually administer a markup price based more on internal accounting practices and then do not strongly deviate from the markup, choosing to downsize production when profits are low instead of upsetting the stable price signal they've chosen even if it would be more profitable to do otherwise.
- Hytosys 11y ago>I'm not sure how factors of production (including durable capital goods) can possibly be an "enemy" of anything. I'm a Marxist. So in the aforementioned sense, capital is only wealth that grows over time through the process of exchange. I am referring to the process, not the assets. As I mentioned before, I am not interested in analyzing the behaviors of individual employers. I am interested in analyzing the behaviors of the classes. You may call this oversimplification, but I call it cutting through the bullshit.
- vezzy-fnord 11y agoDo you accept the labor theory of value and the tendency for the rate of profit to fall? If so, then any economic argument you make will be on false premises. Firms and markup prices are not at all individual employer behaviors. They're industry-wide behaviors that practically define mixed economies and thus, by your own definition, capital (though I think yours is overly vague).
- Hytosys 11y agoI haven't yet read the last volume of Capital, so I am unprepared to take on the line of discussion in regards to the tendency for the rate of profit to fall. Nonetheless, I fail to see how the simple arguments I initially made are affected by this diversion, and I fail to see how your analysis of price-setting mechanisms refutes the profit motive.