Socialism and management theory - a quick business school qu

[Supermodel]

Is basic management theory the same under a socialist run operation compared to a capitalist organization?

I'm talking about being the boss here. The boss gets appointed in an organization based not only on experience doing the work, but on leadership and motivational skills.

The "boss" in a large corporation forms several layers, commonly in a pyramid structure but more recently in a matrix or cross-cutting reponsibilities.

Bosses make more than the people they manage. This is because they take on responsibility for getting the people who work for them to get their work done, as well as the boss doing her own work.

In military terms, this structure is also the means used to manage the armed forces.

The aim of the organization is not simply to provide for the people who work there, but to improve society as a whole. Under socialism, the distribution of the returns of the entity are handled differently that under capitalism where the government takes half and the owners take half.

So is management theory the same under socialism and capitalism? Is the only difference the distribution of returns (profits)?

[vox]

"The aim of the organization is not simply to provide for the people who work there, but to improve society as a whole."

Sez who?

Also, with the ownership of the means of production entirely different in a socialist society, just how could management theory be the same?

vox

[Supermodel]

I should have clarified. I was trying to state what the aim of a company in socialist society is. Like a soviet power plant, or a clothing manufacturer. I was just clarifying that very few organizations, although there are some like credit unions, exist solely for their own employees' benefit under any economic model.

I am really just curious how, if a manager of a Soviet power plant suddenly found herself in a Western power plant, how would the place be run differently. I don't mean better working conditions or different profit distribution, but from a pure internal management point of view.

Of course the larger issue is that the "boss" concept is not a bad thing in any political environment, someone has to be in charge. Schools have to have principals, websites have to have moderators. Therefore the "boss' is not anathema to socialist theory. And as you may have guessed I am a boss. And very bossy, too.

[vox]

"I don't mean better working conditions or different profit distribution, but from a pure internal management point of view."

What I'm still not sure of is how you can speak of internal management without an eye to profit or profit distribution, which, I'm assuming, would be largely out of your hands.

Do you mean people management? If so, I think I have a response for you, but I'm not sure that's what you mean.

vox (see? he has his polite shoes on)

[Supermodel]

Sorry, vox, I don't think I can understand my own point here.

I'm still struggling with how a person with socialist beliefs can still rise through western society under the "structure" most organizations, including the military, use, which is often a pyramid of management and a resulting increase in rewards for those higher up the pyramid because they have more responsibility.

Do you think there is a case for a large entity where all the employees make the same amount of money, management and lower teirs? Is it capitalist to move up the ranks, get an MBA, work overtime, get ahead?

I just don't like the idea of political ideology holding someone back because they think the righteous place to be is at the bottom rung. Or a sole proprietorship, i.e., the only way they can reconcile themselves to socialism under a capitalist society is to work only for themselves with no employees. I guess a partnership would work too.

Ah well, enough, I know some folks from the former USSR, I'll ask them how management worked at the larger entites and get back to you all.

[vox]

SM wrote:

"Do you think there is a case for a large entity where all the employees make the same amount of money, management and lower teirs? Is it capitalist to move up the ranks, get an MBA, work overtime, get ahead?"

No serious Marxist talks about everyone making the same amount of money. At the same time, no serious Marxist would allow a future society in which one had to talk about the "lower tiers." You're very socio-economic prejudice taints anything you envision as reasonable.

This is unfortunate and very common.

It's only when you stop thinking in terms of "lower," which means that someone must be "uppue," that you can appreciate equality.

vox

[Supermodel]

No, I purposely do not refer to upper and lower management teirs. Working in a big corporation, I am very sensitive to referring to folks that way.
In any event that seems like a semantic argument. Call them whatever you wish.

So if pay scales, titles and priveleges exist in management and the military under capitalism and socialism, the only corporate difference is the distribution of profits and the underlying ownership.

I'm just still trying to reconcile "lifestyle" with "political philosophy".

[peaccenicked]

The problem here is that wage differentials are not the primary concern of socialism. What socialist wish is to usurp all capital from the ruling class.
In the conditions of transition their will be wage differentials but the wider goal of communism is to abolish the distiniction between mental and manual labour. We have no desire to enforce equality on skilled workers but to raise all workers to the position of a skilled worker. This proccess is accompanied by the a super abundance of wealth, in which man economic needs will be satisified to the extent that wage differentiation is seen as the archaic product of a society, that merely pretends equal opportunities and does not give them.

[Supermodel]

Thanks, peace, but in a dynamic situation, if you think about it, where a worker (whether manual or mental) begins to earn more money, then the dynamics will be in place for that worker to eventually put some of that money aside, for example for a comfortable retirement, a hedge against future austerity, or simply because of rationing etc. the person is not able to spend and consume all that she earns.

Saving, by my definition of savings and investments, therefore leads to the worker having capital and the ability to translate that capital into higher earning power again by purchasing the means of production (a better vehicle, more space, better tools, more books or software).

So under true socialism, does the worker avoid purchasing these trappings of success with her higher earnings or savings because by acquiring them she would become a capitalist?

Does the elite prevent her and any other private citizen from holding such means of production, thereby discouraging any investment in them?

Or under true Marxism, would the worker be paid not according to her skills but according to her needs, such that no individual would ever be in the situation to have excess earnings other than for subsistence?

[peaccenicked]

The nature of the workers State is that has majority support. It will democratically decide what are reasonable differentials.
One of Marx's criticism of Capitalism is that leaves workers at the level of subsistence. The idea of needs within socialism is not based on minimum needs but the absolute abolition of scarcity in every sphere for all
from the highest to the most basic need.
Investment itself is merely initial capital, Workers make it the Law gives it to the capitalist gratis.
If you go back to primitive times, even back to the
Red Indians in the USA. They had no concept of buying land. They had no concept of ownership of land. It was a given.
We wish to reestablish this concept at a higher level,
personal ownership is not a problem. The idea is to increase the lot of all but the idea of owning a community venture such as a factory, is an infringement on human liberty because it posits economic control.
As to saving.
Why save when you have everything you need at your disposal. When we say we want to abolish poverty we mean it. People stop becomimg narrowly defined as consumers and earners or customers. They become
freely associated citizens in a world they can truly call their own: planning and creating the needs of society as they themselves determine.
The transitional stage will be wrought with difficulties but we know what we want. Our problem will be the regulation of scarcity but already there is enough produced to feed, cloth, shelter, and educate the whole world's population, and without the fetters of capitalism we can unleash this mighty force.


(Edited by peaccenicked at 4:14 pm on Mar. 15, 2002)

[Michael De Panama]

I see it as a system managed like a very very large workers union.

[Goldfinger]

While some people want a one party system to get work done quickly, I think it would be best to not have any parties at all, but instead control everything with voting.

[suffianr]

Voting? Sounds like democracy...

[Stormin Norman]

I read your question, Supermodel. It is a good one. I will have to come back later and read the rest of the thread.

The point I wanted to make is that peacenicked could learn a thing or two from supermodel about business operation.

I will give you a quick answer for now. Yes business management operates differently in socialist, communist, and capitalist economies for reasons I will explain later.

For now getting laid and finishing a report is of more importance than a detailed answer to your question.

TTFN.

[antieverything]

awww...he has a boyfriend!

That question will get different answers from different people. I believe that workplaces should be run with elected, recallable representatives from each area of the workplace.

[GUTB]

This issue of workplace middle-management is no different than the issue related to the head managment. This would be, naturally, determined by democracy.

Let's say, a factory, needs someone to organize finances, paperwork, make phone-calls, and oil the machinery of the orginization. That's what middle-managment does in Capitalism, and that's what middle-managment will do in Socialism. However, in Capitalism, middle-management are, often, careerists cronies of the higher managers. In every workplace, you can find some lazy careerist who was brought in by managment because they were pals in some school, buddies in some previous embezlment scam, or what have you. These people sit above the slavery of the workers, never sharing in the sweat and long hours the plebs have to pull. And when it comes time to fire workers, the cronies are somehow exempt from it, protected as they are by their toadying.

If these people were elected by a democratic process by the workers, not as buddies or toadies to the higher-ups, the conditions of the workplace would improve, because the ones who are elected are a part of the workplace, and will continue to be a part of the workplace during and after their elected term in managment.

The main difference between what a manager is in regards to class relation is that in Socialism, the manager is a member of the proletariat who put him or herslef forward to take up the burden of managing the details of the workplace the other workers are too busy working and living their lives to bother with. In Capatalism, the manager is appointed by the higher managment by autocracy, for higher managment politcial concerns as a higher class above the common proletariat to help in the exploitation of the same.

[Goldfinger]

Quote: from suffianr on 9:02 pm on Sep. 28, 2002
Voting? Sounds like democracy...


Yeah, what's wrong with that? The state is for the people, not vice versa