4 ms·

Two things: 1) The people who own a publicly-traded company no longer own the social consequences of what that company does. Neither do the people who run that

Two things: 1) The people who own a publicly-traded company no longer own the social consequences of what that company does. Neither do the people who run that company. Neither do the people who actually control it. 2) The people who actually control a publicly-traded company, the board and large institutional investors, really representatives of investing as an institution, have one incentive structure, the stock price, which is driven by a balance sheet, which cares not a whit for your social consequences. Say what you will about the bourgeois capitalism of Ford and Carnegie, they were men who invested in their country and their communities, and in their workers as well. Their ruthlessness was the ruthlessness of the powerful, but the managerial capitalism which replaced it carries the ruthlessness of the inhuman.

Atlas667 5y ago
You're making a fetishizing an era of capitalism. There are chapters in Marx's Capital where he thoroughly studies early capitalism in England by official govt reports and it was absolutely horrible. The govt was forced to implement social welfare programs in order to preserve some social wellness, like obligatory school for the youth because of overwork, which were immediately curbed by the capitalists. This is the development of all of society. With capitalists controlling a countries production, society does not get better with the interests of the majority in mind. It fits capitals interests. That was true in 1870s as well as 2022.
- Gollapalli 5y ago
  You're not wrong about early capitalism, but you need to read people after Marx. Try Burnham. >With ̶c̶a̶p̶i̶t̶a̶l̶i̶s̶t̶s̶ elites controlling a countries production, society does not get better with the interests of the majority in mind. It fits ̶c̶a̶p̶i̶t̶a̶l̶s̶ the ruling elite class's interests. The rule of elite classes is an iron law in history. It long predates the development of banking in renaissance Italy. It will exist in whatever system you naively presuppose to overthrow it.

Atlas667 5y ago

You're making a fetishizing an era of capitalism. There are chapters in Marx's Capital where he thoroughly studies early capitalism in England by official govt reports and it was absolutely horrible. The govt was forced to implement social welfare programs in order to preserve some social wellness, like obligatory school for the youth because of overwork, which were immediately curbed by the capitalists. This is the development of all of society. With capitalists controlling a countries production, society does not get better with the interests of the majority in mind. It fits capitals interests. That was true in 1870s as well as 2022.

Gollapalli 5y ago
You're not wrong about early capitalism, but you need to read people after Marx. Try Burnham. >With ̶c̶a̶p̶i̶t̶a̶l̶i̶s̶t̶s̶ elites controlling a countries production, society does not get better with the interests of the majority in mind. It fits ̶c̶a̶p̶i̶t̶a̶l̶s̶ the ruling elite class's interests. The rule of elite classes is an iron law in history. It long predates the development of banking in renaissance Italy. It will exist in whatever system you naively presuppose to overthrow it.