3 ms·

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 fr

by 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.

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.