5 ms·

From an economic viewpoint, this also means that the brand value of the articles remains with the masthead rather than the individual authors. This commodifies

by Frqy3 10y ago

From an economic viewpoint, this also means that the brand value of the articles remains with the masthead rather than the individual authors. This commodifies the authors and makes then more fungible. Being The Economist, I am sure they are aware of this.

ue_ 10y ago
In a weak sense, the authors are commodified no matter what, just as any other worker is. As a proletarian, he must sell his labour-time (by the hour, week, month, year...) on the market to the bourgeoisie, his labour-time being the only thing he can sell, in order to make enough to survive. The rest of the time when they are not at work, the authors 'recharge' in order to ready for more work and to keep motivation for working. In this way, the worker's entire life during the course of employment 'belongs' to the employer; in fact arguably the time when the worker is most valuable to the employer is when he is maintainig himself, just as the employer must maintain a machine from wear and tear, the worker is able to maintain himself from wear and tear and the employer doesn't have to pay a dime more for it.
- vostok 10y ago
  I don't think that's true for authors who are not anonymous. I used to read Matt Levine when he wrote for Dealbreaker. I now read him on Bloomberg and rarely visit Dealbreaker.
- HappyTypist 10y ago
  Of course, the worker can choose to put a portion of their income into assets that generate income, and build wealth.
  - ue_ 10y ago
    It's good if some workers are fortunate enough to be able to do this while working for wages, though many do not have such an option either by the need to support a family, paying off debt or the wage is not great enough to be able to invest any of it. One's wealth has little relevance to the theory of worker exploitation, alienation and commodity fetishism. You can be a rich worker but still be exploited in the Marxian sense. You can be poor but still be an exploiter. One's wealth has little to do with the relationship to the means of production, unless that wealth comes in the form of private property upon which wage labour can be employed. The fact is that "pulling up by the boostraps" is not an option for many people, and if it were it does little to stop systemic poverty, destitution and the need to sell labour-time very cheaply.
    - HappyTypist 10y ago
      What do you propose to fix this system?
      - nagvx 10y ago
        This is a comment that seems to pop up quite a lot in discussions of the capitalist status-quo. (Often in a more confrontational manner, unfortunately.) I want to point out that having a solution is not a prerequisite to talking about the problem - if that is what you were implying - that is getting things backwards.
        baddox 10y ago
        That's certainly true, although it would be helpful to offer some suggestions or somehow try to convince the audience that there might be political alternatives. If a reader believes that the current system is the best system possible, than these politically-charged complaints sound as futile as politically-charged complaints about being unable to exceed the speed of light.
      - ue_ 10y ago
        Abolishing wage labour, which I believe can only be done via putting the means of production and land capital (i.e in totality private property) in control of and ownership of the workers (i.e all the workers) collectively. The creation of direct democracy councils (with delegates subject to instant recall) each with completely voluntary participation. No council rules over any other council. The workers use the collectively owned machinery and resources, and take home the product. Those who do not work get nothing, unless having prior entered into agreement with a council for charity. Workers may form groups in which each person's products are 'pooled'; the distribution of these is decided democratically, for example workers may agree to give 10% of their product, or the whole surplus product to the elderly or infirm. Though this is just an example. Managerial positions are of course kept (as managers are wage labourers too), the only difference is that there isn't someone at the top to collect surplus labour. This is otherwise known as anarcho-Communism, or some variant of social anarchism. I am reading into communalism too (Bookchin) and the question of how those in service jobs can own their labour is an interesting one, I'm not aware of the current research on that.
- eru 9y ago
  It is somewhat ironic to analyse The Economist's labour relations in Marxists terms.
devoply 10y ago
Not just that, should the author not have the choice as if they wish to remain anonymous, choose a pseudo name, etc. The choice is simply not there. > The main reason for anonymity, however, is a belief that what is written is more important than who writes it. Important for whom? The writers? The readers? The advertisers? The company? The readers could care less. The company probably and maybe the advertisers. It's more or less saying that we speak as one voice rather than many diverse voices. So I guess it also implies very strong editorial control. Which means it's the voice of the owners and its advertisers than voice of a diverse set of writers.
- bardworx 10y ago
  From my understanding, economist is owned by their employees, and a holding company[0]. The holding company has no voting shares and the employees have total editorial freedom. So it's voice is actually of the writers first and foremost. It's really kinda cool considering that they're one of the most successful print meadow companies in an age when most are struggling.[1] [0]http://www.economistgroup.com/results_and_governance/ownership.html http://www.economistgroup.com/results_and_governance/ownersh... [1]http://www.economistgroup.com/results_and_governance/results_at_a_glance.html http://www.economistgroup.com/results_and_governance/results...
  - manquer 10y ago
    It is not clear anywhere how much is actually owned by staff. A share owners include families like Rothschild.. B includes Exor which recently bought from Pearson . Both groups control 7&6 board seats respectively..
- elastic_church 10y ago
  It avoids ad hominem attacks over decent independent research. Maybe you don't want to read Peter Theil's view of how the tech sector will change in America even if it was a spot on analysis
- clamprecht 10y ago
  The choice is in taking the job as a writer for the Economist.
Nokinside 10y ago
The Economist has so good quality that I don't think they consider their writers fungible. The Economist has so good reputation that just being one of the 75 staff journalists creates lasting value for the journalist. Other journals find it important to mention that X.X was previously writing for The Economist. The Economist is just one of the handful magazines worth of subscribing.
- Chathamization 10y ago
  I've never found the quality of articles in The Economist to be particularly good. They're often very broad summaries of a situation lacking any particular depth, combined with a fairly banal analysis that seems to restate the current consensus opinion. The analysis can be pretty wrong, particularly for stories that are less talked about in the West (one where it's harder to simply summarize the current consensus opinion). The do seem to have a fairly wide breadth. But given a particular topic, I'm likely to learn much more from an in depth article from most mainstream sources than from an article in the economist.
  - AJ007 10y ago
    I agree that they summarize the current consensus opinion. Cancelled my subscription years ago and rarely read a few articles once and a while. I prefer reading articles where the author's conflicts of interest are clearly disclosed.
    - FabHK 10y ago
      Not sure what you mean - The Economist is often opinionated, but they lay out their arguments and don't hide their agenda. I find it much more palatable than the "he said, she said" or "opinions diverge on the shape of the earth" type journalism.
  - remarkEon 10y ago
    When I want to wet my finger and stick it up and see which way the wind is blowing, I'll read The Economist for that week. If you go into it with that mindset it's less easy to hate on it, but harder to see why it's held up as a pantheon of Journalism.
gwern 10y ago
On the other hand, there is no such thing as a free lunch (if there was in this case and this policy was so great for the Economist, why don't all publications whatsoever insist on anonymity?), and all journalists who might work for the Economist are well-aware of this editorial policy; so they have to pay the price either in offering higher salaries to compensate for the lack of brand-building, or accept fewer/worse hires. It's a curious policy and highly unusual, so I have to wonder if it's a good idea at all. The usual arguments for anonymity online seem to only questionably apply here. There's a lot to be said for people writing under their own names - accountability, for one thing.
- nabla9 10y ago
  Very few other papers are in the same position as the Economist. They have brand that has exceptionally good reputation.
clamprecht 10y ago
By the same token, the authors were also aware of this before taking their job with the Economist.
heisenbit 10y ago
"There’s only two ways I know of to make money: bundling and unbundling." https://hbr.org/2014/06/how-to-succeed-in-business-by-bundling-and-unbundling https://hbr.org/2014/06/how-to-succeed-in-business-by-bundli... We have seen the great unbundling of content. TV stations, cable channels, publishing houses, newspapers were giving way to blogs, you-tube etc.. Recently I start wondering whether the pendulum is swinging back. Netflix, Medium and in particular the recent discussion of distribution networks for ads which provide funding for the long tail.

by Frqy3 10y ago

ue_ 10y ago

In a weak sense, the authors are commodified no matter what, just as any other worker is. As a proletarian, he must sell his labour-time (by the hour, week, month, year...) on the market to the bourgeoisie, his labour-time being the only thing he can sell, in order to make enough to survive. The rest of the time when they are not at work, the authors 'recharge' in order to ready for more work and to keep motivation for working. In this way, the worker's entire life during the course of employment 'belongs' to the employer; in fact arguably the time when the worker is most valuable to the employer is when he is maintainig himself, just as the employer must maintain a machine from wear and tear, the worker is able to maintain himself from wear and tear and the employer doesn't have to pay a dime more for it.

vostok 10y ago
I don't think that's true for authors who are not anonymous. I used to read Matt Levine when he wrote for Dealbreaker. I now read him on Bloomberg and rarely visit Dealbreaker.
HappyTypist 10y ago
Of course, the worker can choose to put a portion of their income into assets that generate income, and build wealth.
- ue_ 10y ago
  It's good if some workers are fortunate enough to be able to do this while working for wages, though many do not have such an option either by the need to support a family, paying off debt or the wage is not great enough to be able to invest any of it. One's wealth has little relevance to the theory of worker exploitation, alienation and commodity fetishism. You can be a rich worker but still be exploited in the Marxian sense. You can be poor but still be an exploiter. One's wealth has little to do with the relationship to the means of production, unless that wealth comes in the form of private property upon which wage labour can be employed. The fact is that "pulling up by the boostraps" is not an option for many people, and if it were it does little to stop systemic poverty, destitution and the need to sell labour-time very cheaply.
  - HappyTypist 10y ago
    What do you propose to fix this system?
    - nagvx 10y ago
      This is a comment that seems to pop up quite a lot in discussions of the capitalist status-quo. (Often in a more confrontational manner, unfortunately.) I want to point out that having a solution is not a prerequisite to talking about the problem - if that is what you were implying - that is getting things backwards.
      - baddox 10y ago
        That's certainly true, although it would be helpful to offer some suggestions or somehow try to convince the audience that there might be political alternatives. If a reader believes that the current system is the best system possible, than these politically-charged complaints sound as futile as politically-charged complaints about being unable to exceed the speed of light.
    - ue_ 10y ago
      Abolishing wage labour, which I believe can only be done via putting the means of production and land capital (i.e in totality private property) in control of and ownership of the workers (i.e all the workers) collectively. The creation of direct democracy councils (with delegates subject to instant recall) each with completely voluntary participation. No council rules over any other council. The workers use the collectively owned machinery and resources, and take home the product. Those who do not work get nothing, unless having prior entered into agreement with a council for charity. Workers may form groups in which each person's products are 'pooled'; the distribution of these is decided democratically, for example workers may agree to give 10% of their product, or the whole surplus product to the elderly or infirm. Though this is just an example. Managerial positions are of course kept (as managers are wage labourers too), the only difference is that there isn't someone at the top to collect surplus labour. This is otherwise known as anarcho-Communism, or some variant of social anarchism. I am reading into communalism too (Bookchin) and the question of how those in service jobs can own their labour is an interesting one, I'm not aware of the current research on that.
eru 9y ago
It is somewhat ironic to analyse The Economist's labour relations in Marxists terms.

devoply 10y ago

Not just that, should the author not have the choice as if they wish to remain anonymous, choose a pseudo name, etc. The choice is simply not there. > The main reason for anonymity, however, is a belief that what is written is more important than who writes it. Important for whom? The writers? The readers? The advertisers? The company? The readers could care less. The company probably and maybe the advertisers. It's more or less saying that we speak as one voice rather than many diverse voices. So I guess it also implies very strong editorial control. Which means it's the voice of the owners and its advertisers than voice of a diverse set of writers.

bardworx 10y ago
From my understanding, economist is owned by their employees, and a holding company[0]. The holding company has no voting shares and the employees have total editorial freedom. So it's voice is actually of the writers first and foremost. It's really kinda cool considering that they're one of the most successful print meadow companies in an age when most are struggling.[1] [0]http://www.economistgroup.com/results_and_governance/ownership.html http://www.economistgroup.com/results_and_governance/ownersh... [1]http://www.economistgroup.com/results_and_governance/results_at_a_glance.html http://www.economistgroup.com/results_and_governance/results...
- manquer 10y ago
  It is not clear anywhere how much is actually owned by staff. A share owners include families like Rothschild.. B includes Exor which recently bought from Pearson . Both groups control 7&6 board seats respectively..
elastic_church 10y ago
It avoids ad hominem attacks over decent independent research. Maybe you don't want to read Peter Theil's view of how the tech sector will change in America even if it was a spot on analysis
clamprecht 10y ago
The choice is in taking the job as a writer for the Economist.

Nokinside 10y ago

The Economist has so good quality that I don't think they consider their writers fungible. The Economist has so good reputation that just being one of the 75 staff journalists creates lasting value for the journalist. Other journals find it important to mention that X.X was previously writing for The Economist. The Economist is just one of the handful magazines worth of subscribing.

Chathamization 10y ago
I've never found the quality of articles in The Economist to be particularly good. They're often very broad summaries of a situation lacking any particular depth, combined with a fairly banal analysis that seems to restate the current consensus opinion. The analysis can be pretty wrong, particularly for stories that are less talked about in the West (one where it's harder to simply summarize the current consensus opinion). The do seem to have a fairly wide breadth. But given a particular topic, I'm likely to learn much more from an in depth article from most mainstream sources than from an article in the economist.
- AJ007 10y ago
  I agree that they summarize the current consensus opinion. Cancelled my subscription years ago and rarely read a few articles once and a while. I prefer reading articles where the author's conflicts of interest are clearly disclosed.
  - FabHK 10y ago
    Not sure what you mean - The Economist is often opinionated, but they lay out their arguments and don't hide their agenda. I find it much more palatable than the "he said, she said" or "opinions diverge on the shape of the earth" type journalism.
- remarkEon 10y ago
  When I want to wet my finger and stick it up and see which way the wind is blowing, I'll read The Economist for that week. If you go into it with that mindset it's less easy to hate on it, but harder to see why it's held up as a pantheon of Journalism.

gwern 10y ago

On the other hand, there is no such thing as a free lunch (if there was in this case and this policy was so great for the Economist, why don't all publications whatsoever insist on anonymity?), and all journalists who might work for the Economist are well-aware of this editorial policy; so they have to pay the price either in offering higher salaries to compensate for the lack of brand-building, or accept fewer/worse hires. It's a curious policy and highly unusual, so I have to wonder if it's a good idea at all. The usual arguments for anonymity online seem to only questionably apply here. There's a lot to be said for people writing under their own names - accountability, for one thing.

nabla9 10y ago
Very few other papers are in the same position as the Economist. They have brand that has exceptionally good reputation.

clamprecht 10y ago

By the same token, the authors were also aware of this before taking their job with the Economist.

heisenbit 10y ago

"There’s only two ways I know of to make money: bundling and unbundling." https://hbr.org/2014/06/how-to-succeed-in-business-by-bundling-and-unbundling https://hbr.org/2014/06/how-to-succeed-in-business-by-bundli... We have seen the great unbundling of content. TV stations, cable channels, publishing houses, newspapers were giving way to blogs, you-tube etc.. Recently I start wondering whether the pendulum is swinging back. Netflix, Medium and in particular the recent discussion of distribution networks for ads which provide funding for the long tail.