3 ms·
Nothing you couldn't glean with a common sense approach to material interests at play in a workplace. Of course a corporation wants to extract as much wealth wi
by noah_buddy 5y ago
Nothing you couldn't glean with a common sense approach to material interests at play in a workplace. Of course a corporation wants to extract as much wealth with as little overhead as possible. Outside of ineffectual executives, there are few that orient companies towards making less money intentionally. Analyzing every choice made in a work place through this lens is both dead simple and continually enlightening.
Some commentator once noted that those elite with the highest levels of wealth (say top 1%) don't disbelieve Marx's analysis of the world and capital distribution. They understand it quite well, they're just on the opposite side of the field from the proles and they leverage that analysis to keep it that way. The commentator continued that when you think about it this way, business papers and similar sources of info are actually quite useful for a Marxian lens. Those with capital know that capital is biggest driving force, so that's of course what they're going to focus on.
- Aerroon 5y ago>Some commentator once noted that those elite with the highest levels of wealth (say top 1%) don't disbelieve Marx's analysis of the world and capital distribution. Top 1% global income is about $60,000 a year. Many Americans are above this, yet I doubt that they feel strongly about what you mentioned.
- noah_buddy 5y agoPerhaps top 1% contextually would be a better upper bound, though the exact number is an issue of economic statistics and not really the point I'm making. More so that a Marxian view of choices is often a very parsimonious way to understand the world, not to say it's the only way.