A question for Communists

[Imran Siddiqui]

Shiny things, eh?



BAD COMMIE! BAD!

[Agathon]

Now, the background: I'm taking a class on "Nietzsche, Buddha, and Marx."

Sorry, but this sounds like a joke course.

[Vince278]

The fallacy of communism is self evident.

[chequita guevara]

Re: A question for Communists

Originally posted by Elok
So: in today's class, I raised a question concerning our readings on Marx and his view of Capitalists, just for variety.

Are you reading Marx, or someone's interpretation of Marx? If the former, which works? If the latter, whom?

I opined that, while CEOs and such can be exploitative and cruel, management positions are quite simply essential for the completion of any task involving more than a few people.

This was Marx's view, actually. Marx saw the capitalist as fulfilling several necessary roles in capitalist society. The capitalist gathered and organized capital (money, land, buildings, machinery, etc.), he directed labor, he handled aspects of distribution, etc.

Marx seemed to be making them out to be hobgoblins who did nothing but cackle and take finished goods from the workers in order to mark said goods up and take the profit.

While Marx certainly had no love for capitalists as people, the rest of your description is rather inaccurate. Marx argues that the capitalist expropriates the surplus value of labor not because he is greedy (though an individual capitalist may be greedy), but because he is driven to do so by the needs of the market. The capitalist must always seek to increase production and lower costs in order to stay competitive, because if he doesn't, his rivals will, and will drive him out of business.

As an aside, Marx argued against the notion that profit was something tacked on to the value of a thing. Were that the case, every capitalist would try and tack on extra profit, in which case there would be no profit, only inflation. Rather, profit is the extra value that workers create during their working hours above and beyond the amount that pays for all produtions costs (including the cost of labor).

The prof just said we had to bear in mind that Marx was extremely bitter against capitalism at the point in his life we were studying

That's an insignificant fact. Marx didn't come up with his ideas because he didn't like capitalism. He didn't like capitalism because of his ideas.

--but the rest of the class chipped in that, really, if everyone's committed to doing the job and doing it well, you don't need some guy handing out orders. People can organize themselves and stuff.

That's a very anarchistic reading of both Marx and reality. As we both know, projects need organization, and having someone to keep track of that organization is much more efficient than leaving everyone to their own devices, even if they are sufficiently motivated, etc. The forms that organzation may very, but it is necessary.

[Urban Ranger]

Re: Re: A question for Communists

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
That's a very anarchistic reading of both Marx and reality. As we both know, projects need organization, and having someone to keep track of that organization is much more efficient than leaving everyone to their own devices, even if they are sufficiently motivated, etc. The forms that organzation may very, but it is necessary.

Though a manager is a bit more (quite a bit more, in fact) than some person who organises things.

[chequita guevara]

It depends. I'm going for the most general definition, so it could encapsulate everyone from a shop floor manager all the way up to the CEO.

[Urban Ranger]

We'll see what Thumtum has to say about this. Speaking of the man he hasn't been around for awhile.

[Jon Miller]

Thumtum?

JM

[Barnabas]

I have another question to communists

What was the name of that chinese communist who married a russian woman, moved to russia and never returned to china after the sino soviet split?

[techumseh]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
what he was doing writing about economics is beyond me.

Really? Along with Adam Smith and David Ricardo, Karl Marx is considered one of the classical economists by most economists. While many disagree with some of his concepts, few knowledgable ecomomists discount his contribution to the field.

[techumseh]

Whether managers are necessary or not is not the question. They are. As Che says, to argue otherwise is really Anarchism, not Marxism. It's who's interests the managers are working for that's important.

[Urban Ranger]

It depends on the role of the manager. If he merely acts as a plan organiser and coordinator, surely nobody would dispute his importance. However, if you throw in things such as maximising the bottom line by squeezing the workers, you start seeing different opinions.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Agathon

Now, the background: I'm taking a class on "Nietzsche, Buddha, and Marx."

Sorry, but this sounds like a joke course.

Nietzsche, Buddha, and Marx are all interconnected in social and economic relationships

[Agathon]

Originally posted by BeBro

Nietzsche, Buddha, and Marx are all interconnected in social and economic relationships

I don't think it makes for a good philosophy course. That kind of focus on social philosophy tends to degenerate into speculation.

All these people are worth reading, but not unless you have a good background in Analytical Philosophy. If people don't, then effective criticism (from a philosophical perspective) is usually a casualty.

Analytic Philosophy may be somewhat boring and nitpicky, but it is a necessity if you are going to be an effective critic or defender of people with synoptic views, like Marx.

[Pekka]

How about this one;

Supercitizen, Jam and Toasters.

I'm sure they are interconnected more than just one way..