Should the boss get payed more because he takes risks, pays for the company/factory?

[Jace Isham]

When I defend dictatorship of the proletariat, the objection comes up that the boss deserves higher pay and control over the factory because he maybe started the business, takes risks, pays for everything, and so on. How would you respond to this objection and why is dictatorship of the proletariat better?

Thank you!

(I've only recently become a communist so I am still learning)

[Fourth Internationalist]

When you say dictatorship of the proletariat, do you mean communism?

[Ocean Seal]

When I defend dictatorship of the proletariat, the objection comes up that the boss deserves higher pay and control over the factory because he maybe started the business, takes risks, pays for everything, and so on. How would you respond to this objection and why is dictatorship of the proletariat better?

Thank you!

(I've only recently become a communist so I am still learning)
Word up, welcome to the brotherhood. Anyway an argument against this. Our position is not a moral one, we aren't caring for the boss. He took a risk, it paid off, now we slave away because he got lucky and he owns the shit. Our argument is who cares, and you should join us, if you are in the category of people called proletarians and enforce *ahem* the dictatorship of your class.

[Fourth Internationalist]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/isnt-communism-little-t177537/index.html?t=177537

Here's a thread that I think may answer your question (hopefully you can tell who the communists are and who the capitalist is :D)

[Regicollis]

The boss is essentially unnecessary in production. While production certainly needs capital in the form of machinery, real estate etc. there is no need for that capital to be owned and controlled by a capitalist. The boss is an expensive middle-man between the workers and the fruits of their labour.

The boss might have founded the company but why should he have the right to decide what should be produced where? Wouldn't it provide the best result for most people if such decisions were democratic and founded in the real needs and wishes of the community?

The notion that risk should be rewarded is a flawed one. There are thousands of situations where people take risks and don't receive a reward. I wouldn't expect to be rewarded for walking blindfolded across a highway. Furthermore the capitalist only take economic risks - all he risks loosing is money, often money that he has so much of that a bankruptcy here or there would not affect his standard of living the slightest. On the contrary workers risk loosing life and limb on the factory floor. If the capitalist system really rewarded risk Bangladeshi child labourers would be riding limousines.

Communism is not based on moral outrage against the capitalist class. On the contrary it is based on the straightforward rational idea that if we are to build a society that gives common people the best conditions then that society is to be ruled by the common people (i.e. the proletariat) themselves. It is that simple.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Thought this thread was gonna be about me. ;)1

The boss doesn't physically produce anything, so according to Marxism unless he participates in the production process then there's no space for him to be paid, unless it is out of the surplus, which is what happens under capitalism.

In an economy run democratically, everyone could participate, job share, job rotate and decide amongst them what direction the production centre should go in, in consultation with consumers/those who demand goods/services for consumption.

[Blake's Baby]

The boss doesn't take risks, because it's the banks/investors who supply the capital, and the workers who supply the work. All the boss does is convince the banks he can turn labour power into profit, and convince the workers they need to work for him.

[Prof. Oblivion]

Thought this thread was gonna be about me. ;)1

The boss doesn't physically produce anything, so according to Marxism unless he participates in the production process then there's no space for him to be paid, unless it is out of the surplus, which is what happens under capitalism.

In an economy run democratically, everyone could participate, job share, job rotate and decide amongst them what direction the production centre should go in, in consultation with consumers/those who demand goods/services for consumption.

What about workers in the distribution chain who don't participate in the production?

[Blake's Baby]

Distribution is part of valorisation. Production doesn't matter for shit if it's in a big heap a thousand miles from the market. There is no exploitation of surplus labour if the stuff is never sold, just slaves working for a fool.

[Jesus Saves Gretzky Scores]

It's clear they don't do that much, and that running the company doesn't cost that much if they're still so much richer than the workers.

[Blake's Baby]

The existence of worker co-ops proves 'workers' don't need 'bosses', even in capitalism. However, there was never a boss who had no workers.

[Questionable]

Let's look at it this way; which is essential to production, the boss or the workers?

You can get a finished product with or without a boss, but with no workers you're out of business.

[RedAtheist]

When I defend dictatorship of the proletariat, the objection comes up that the boss deserves higher pay and control over the factory because he maybe started the business, takes risks, pays for everything, and so on. How would you respond to this objection and why is dictatorship of the proletariat better?

Thank you!

(I've only recently become a communist so I am still learning)

Gamblers take risks all the time yet nobody is suggesting that they need to be rewarded simply because they took risks, in fact they just wind up getting poorer and poorer over time. Skydivers, people who go on camping trips and people who cross busy roads also take risks, but nobody is suggesting that they should be paid to do those things.

If anything capitalists are even less deserving than the people I listed, because the people I listed risk only their own welfare (and the welfare of their close friends and family) while capitalists risk the welfare of everyone they employ. If a capitalist take a huge risk and the company goes bankrupt as a result, all the workers lose their jobs and the economy more generally is damaged, thus people who had nothing to do with the risky decision in the first place wind up suffering.

People who make decisions which have the potential to effect large amounts of people need to be elected by and held accountable to the people who will be effected by their decisions. If you're going to have a leadership role in the realm of production (which is what capitalists currently have) you need to be elected by the people carrying out the production (i.e. the workers) and be held accountable to society as a whole.

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

All that's needed to debunk any notion of a Boss 'deserving' higher pay etc, is a screening of Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room.

[cyu]

Reminds me of http://cjyu.wordpress.com/article/reconciling-property-rights-with-gcybcajus7dp-9/

Ownership Through Conquest is Justified

This view claims that conquest is justified because the conqueror risked his life (or at least risked the lives of his minions) in battle, and thus has earned the right to control.

However, these pro-capitalists are opposed to the concept of an anti-capitalist revolution, claiming that would be a violation of their property rights. If employees “conquer” their places of work by escorting their boss off company premises, these pro-capitalists do not see that as a “legitimate” form of conquest.

[o well this is ok I guess]

the boss risks money; the worker risks limbs.
Pretty obv who risks more here.

[Jace Isham]

the boss risks money; the worker risks limbs.
Pretty obv who risks more here.
All the replies to my post were helpful, but that one may just say it all.

[Prof. Oblivion]

Distribution is part of valorisation. Production doesn't matter for shit if it's in a big heap a thousand miles from the market. There is no exploitation of surplus labour if the stuff is never sold, just slaves working for a fool.

Well, this generalization could be used for pretty much anyone involved.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

Well, this generalization could be used for pretty much anyone involved.
Everyone from the wage-laboring miner of raw materials to the salesperson at Wal-Mart functions as a limb of the production process, with surplus value being extracted at each point.

[Blake's Baby]

Well, this generalization could be used for pretty much anyone involved.

Where does profit come from? From the exploitation of the labour-power of the working class. How is it realised? Through the sale of the commodity.

It's not just production where this happens - how do capitalists pay for advertising and distribution and packaging except through profits? Profits are derived through the market. It's only through selling the commodities that the capitalist turns his money into commodities and back into more money.

A firm can produce a million widgets but if it can only sell 1,000 then it's going to go bankrupt - because the point of a commodity is production for the market - so if the firm (ie, the capitalist/s) can employ a marketing firm (and a sales team and transport/logistics company and a packaging division) to increase sales to a million, then that obviously all comes from the exploited labour power of whole working class, whether that means the production workers per se, or all the parts of the supply chain.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Where does profit come from? From the exploitation of the labour-power of the working class. How is it realised? Through the sale of the commodity.

It's not just production where this happens - how do capitalists pay for advertising and distribution and packaging except through profits? Profits are derived through the market. It's only through selling the commodities that the capitalist turns his money into commodities and back into more money.

A firm can produce a million widgets but if it can only sell 1,000 then it's going to go bankrupt - because the point of a commodity is production for the market - so if the firm (ie, the capitalist/s) can employ a marketing firm (and a sales team and transport/logistics company and a packaging division) to increase sales to a million, then that obviously all comes from the exploited labour power of whole working class, whether that means the production workers per se, or all the parts of the supply chain.

Indeed, the point of commodity production is production for the market, but this is not unique solely to capitalism. In the feudal mode of production there was also trade and early commodity production for the market.

Rather, it's that production is organised in a way unique to capitalism - capital employed waged labour, the latter of which comes around under no social/political/legal duress - that makes your point correct, not that production is for the market since, as i've said, that's not unique to capitalism.

[Thirsty Crow]

Rather, it's that production is organised in a way unique to capitalism - capital employed waged labour, the latter of which comes around under no social/political/legal duress - that makes your point correct, not that production is for the market since, as i've said, that's not unique to capitalism.
Could it be argued, in this strict sense, that the extent of human activities which are commodified is another thing what is unique to capitalism? (this would somewhat approach the so called Brenner thesis - that once agriculture is capitalized and serfs transformed either into free priprietors or wage labourers, we can talk about capitalism)

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Could it be argued, in this strict sense, that the extent of human activities which are commodified is another thing what is unique to capitalism? (this would somewhat approach the so called Brenner thesis - that once agriculture is capitalized and serfs transformed either into free priprietors or wage labourers, we can talk about capitalism)

It could certainly be argued, as Brenner has (i'm not all too familiar with his thesis beyond the broadest of terms, though), though the social differentiation of the peasantry is by no means mutual to trade and production for the market. Trade existed whilst the peasants were all still mostly serfs, bonded to the lord's land.

What is interesting from my research is that yes, perhaps social differentiation, in particular the strata of the peasantry that became so wealthy that they were practically minor gentry, did end up selling their surpluses to the market, hence 'early commodity production'.

[Prof. Oblivion]

Where does profit come from? From the exploitation of the labour-power of the working class. How is it realised? Through the sale of the commodity.

It's not just production where this happens - how do capitalists pay for advertising and distribution and packaging except through profits? Profits are derived through the market. It's only through selling the commodities that the capitalist turns his money into commodities and back into more money.

A firm can produce a million widgets but if it can only sell 1,000 then it's going to go bankrupt - because the point of a commodity is production for the market - so if the firm (ie, the capitalist/s) can employ a marketing firm (and a sales team and transport/logistics company and a packaging division) to increase sales to a million, then that obviously all comes from the exploited labour power of whole working class, whether that means the production workers per se, or all the parts of the supply chain.

Do marketers add value then? Are they productive labor? I'm genuinely curious; this is something I never understood.

[Comrade #138672]

Bosses take risks with the labor of the workers (remember that all capital is derived from labor), so they should get paid more? That doesn't make any sense, when you look at it from that perspective.

Liberals happily ignore the social character of labor and capital, leaving out the most important part that everything is done by the workers. Their whole world perspective is based on atomizing every single part of reality and separating it from the whole, so that you are forced to think on an indvidual level. Only then can the exploitation be ignored. This is how individualism came to be.

[Thirsty Crow]

Do marketers add value then? Are they productive labor? I'm genuinely curious; this is something I never understood.
Marketers (you mean, marketing?)? I don't think so, unless you would introduce a theoretical innovation which would claim that the social prestige associated with certain commodities adds value as socially necessary labour time which "enhances" the commodity from a simple useful object that is bought to a...I don't know, a proxy of status.

[Comrade #138672]

Do marketers add value then? Are they productive labor? I'm genuinely curious; this is something I never understood.No. I think not. They only make it possible to realize its full value on the market. They do not add any value themselves.

[Blake's Baby]

As commodities 'reveal their commodity form' in the market, it's through the sale of the commodity that the surplus value that has been used to create them is realised. Without sale (remember, Marx says that commodities must embody use valies, ie there must be a an end-user, ie there must be a market to realise them) the product is not, after all, a commodity.

So, that labour which allows the product to realise its commodity-form is adding value, isn't it? That would include transportation and sales and marketing (it's not just about prestige, it's also about convincing peoplethey need widgets).

[Conscript]

All the talk about 'I take risks' and 'I founded this company' is just a rehashed version of right of conquest.

[cyu]

Do marketers add value then? Are they productive labor?

Do prostitutes and executioners perform productive labor? Do torturers and people who run pawn shops perform productive labor? Well, they all have value to someone, or else nobody would be paying them. But I presume what you're asking is, do they do things that benefit society at large?

Depends what we're describing. Someone with the title "marketer" might do many different things in their day. The top two off the top of my head are (1) consumer research (2) advertising.

I would say consumer research is useful - but how useful may be up to debate. There is at least some value in finding out what the people of a society want or need, in order to guide production and economic output.

Most advertising I would say is not useful in the grand scheme of things. Getting people to want things so they'll work harder to get things, and then you'll have to work harder to produce for them? Seems like a waste of time and energy for both sides. However, like hitmen, in the short term and local scope, advertising does have value for the producer since it helps them recoup costs that went into the production of what may have been useless things - so advertisers are paid like hitmen are paid.

[Blake's Baby]

I think Bill Cosby was asking 'in marxist economic thought, do marketers add "value", as a category that Marx used in his critique of political economy?' - because i'd contend the answer is 'yes'.

Not 'is marketing, as a subset of capitalist behaviour, a useful thing for humanity?' - I'd say the answer to that is 'no'.

[Blake's Baby]

All the talk about 'I take risks' and 'I founded this company' is just a rehashed version of right of conquest.

Very much so - as the Kings and Generals weren't often the ones on the front line getting shot at. In fat, there's a bit of a hoo-har at the moment in England - I think it's permissable to say 'England' here, regarding Richard III, the last English king who died in battle. That was 528 years ago.

So... the peasants/workers do the hard stuff, and the kings/bosses get the glory.

[Let's Get Free]

The idea that risk per se should be rewarded seems strange. When I risk my money betting on the horses I dont demand repayment when my horse comes in last. Besides, ever since the institution of limited liability was introduced, capitalists have been considerably cushioned from the adverse consequences of their faulty guesswork; if anything, it is is the workers themselves who bear the main burden of such consequences.

Bakunin had a good quote on this

"The risks of the worker are infinitely greater. After all, if the establishment in which he is employed goes bankrupt, he must go several months and sometimes several years without work, and for him it is more than ruin, it is death; because he eats everyday what he earns.

The capitalist is not threatened with hunger when he comes to the market; he knows very well that if he does not find today the workers for whom he is looking, he will still have enough to eat for quite a long time, owing to the capital of which he is the happy possessor."

[skitty]

All the talk about 'I take risks' and 'I founded this company' is just a rehashed version of right of conquest."The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."-John Kenneth Galbraith

[Rafiq]

The bourgeoisie do not own property because they pursuaded everyone it was "just", so, why must we, when revoking it, be forced to make moralist excuses for it? They took it because they could, because they were the champions of social contradiction, of history. The proletariat will make oceans of the blood of it's class enemy, it will dominate society with its pervasive and total dictatorship, and we will be silent. There will be no moralism. It will be done not because it is just, not because it is necessary to "save humanity", but because there is only one thing for a slave to do, and it is to emancipate himself. The beauty of Spartacus was his ruthless ambition, the ambition of the slaves like a merciless tide of emancipatory terror blew through the waves of soldiers without justification, without romanticising their condition and without appealing to the enemy.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[cyu]

If the poor try to take "my" property, I shoot them with guns or put them in jail. Then it's me that puts so much of "my" wealth at risk when I hire the poor at minimal wages. I think the poor would be happy to shoulder the risk by taking the wealth from them :grin: