3 ms·

Is that true? Have the Koch/Walton/Rockefeller families ceded control to their management employees? Seems unlikely to me, and unsupported by evidence.

by lucian1900 6y ago

Amezarak 6y ago
Capitalists in the old style (more-or-less) certainly still exist, they just aren't the majority anymore. This is a sociological phenomenon first noticed in the 1940s. The bourgeoisie capitalist class largely turned over the reins to managers and set themselves on other pursuits. Even in large organizations where the owners still do play a semi-active role, most of the day-to-day decision making is (necessarily) is made by the managers. And frequently, even when there is an active disagreement between management and ownership, management wins out. As a suggestive example, who benefits from mergers? Upper management usually becomes much wealthier, but 50-80% of mergers fail to add value to the company. [1] That is, capitalists lose out 50-80% of the time, but they still happen anyway. Consider the increasing complaints about skyrocketing executive management pay divorced from company performance, golden parachutes, or companies being almost seemingly deliberately run into the ground while the people responsible walk off richer and with a new job. The power of the managerial class does not just extend to the corporate world either - government has been largely infiltrated by managerialists. Conservatives talk about the Deep State, liberals talk about the revolving door. Both are talking about the same phenomenon. [1] https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/why-do-so-many-mergers-fail/ https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/why-do-so-many-m...
- lucian1900 6y ago
  You’re describing a superficial side-effect of the monopoly stage of capitalism, otherwise known as imperialism. The bourgeoisie make the bulk of their money from exporting capital at extortionate interest rates to poor countries, not so much from actual production. The fact that they let their managers take a cut doesn’t change the power dynamic. Lenin throughly described this phenomenon a century ago, it’s in no way new https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/ https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/ Nothing is changed by the bourgeoisie holding state power despite the veneer of democracy, that’s also part of how capitalism works. Just because the haute bourgeoisie don’t risk personal involvement doesn’t mean they aren’t in control. Lenin’s slightly less scientific work talks about that too https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/
  - Amezarak 6y ago
    One of the people who extensively documented the features of the managerial revolution was a communist completely familiar with the writings of Lenin, James Burnham. See the book by that name. > The fact that they let their managers take a cut doesn’t change the power dynamic. The managers are not simply taking a cut, they are exerting power over capitalists and winning.
    - lucian1900 6y ago
      The managers are also part of the bourgeoisie, though. It’s not like CEOs are working class, they’re capitalists too. While it’s true that within the bounds of national markets the old haute bourgeoisie is no longer as dominant, imperialist exploitation is the main source of profits for the bourgeoisie as a whole. This American national bourgeoisie (which might be called “managers”) benefit from imperialism too, even though they may not be its primary instigators.

Is that true? Have the Koch/Walton/Rockefeller families ceded control to their management employees? Seems unlikely to me, and unsupported by evidence.

Amezarak 6y ago

Capitalists in the old style (more-or-less) certainly still exist, they just aren't the majority anymore. This is a sociological phenomenon first noticed in the 1940s. The bourgeoisie capitalist class largely turned over the reins to managers and set themselves on other pursuits. Even in large organizations where the owners still do play a semi-active role, most of the day-to-day decision making is (necessarily) is made by the managers. And frequently, even when there is an active disagreement between management and ownership, management wins out. As a suggestive example, who benefits from mergers? Upper management usually becomes much wealthier, but 50-80% of mergers fail to add value to the company. [1] That is, capitalists lose out 50-80% of the time, but they still happen anyway. Consider the increasing complaints about skyrocketing executive management pay divorced from company performance, golden parachutes, or companies being almost seemingly deliberately run into the ground while the people responsible walk off richer and with a new job. The power of the managerial class does not just extend to the corporate world either - government has been largely infiltrated by managerialists. Conservatives talk about the Deep State, liberals talk about the revolving door. Both are talking about the same phenomenon. [1] https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/why-do-so-many-mergers-fail/ https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/why-do-so-many-m...

lucian1900 6y ago
You’re describing a superficial side-effect of the monopoly stage of capitalism, otherwise known as imperialism. The bourgeoisie make the bulk of their money from exporting capital at extortionate interest rates to poor countries, not so much from actual production. The fact that they let their managers take a cut doesn’t change the power dynamic. Lenin throughly described this phenomenon a century ago, it’s in no way new https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/ https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/ Nothing is changed by the bourgeoisie holding state power despite the veneer of democracy, that’s also part of how capitalism works. Just because the haute bourgeoisie don’t risk personal involvement doesn’t mean they aren’t in control. Lenin’s slightly less scientific work talks about that too https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/
- Amezarak 6y ago
  One of the people who extensively documented the features of the managerial revolution was a communist completely familiar with the writings of Lenin, James Burnham. See the book by that name. > The fact that they let their managers take a cut doesn’t change the power dynamic. The managers are not simply taking a cut, they are exerting power over capitalists and winning.
  - lucian1900 6y ago
    The managers are also part of the bourgeoisie, though. It’s not like CEOs are working class, they’re capitalists too. While it’s true that within the bounds of national markets the old haute bourgeoisie is no longer as dominant, imperialist exploitation is the main source of profits for the bourgeoisie as a whole. This American national bourgeoisie (which might be called “managers”) benefit from imperialism too, even though they may not be its primary instigators.