"No society can work without the workers, but any society can work without the bosses."
However, some bosses get in the way. Board of Directors, for instance.
Interestingly when you look at socialist countries, there's always a "boss" running the show.
Nice try, wrong. Someone will rise to prevent confusion.
Name one without management? Aka for boss.
I'm pretty sure those worker cooperatives have management.
Only some, and theyre elected not hired
Ok but the question was whether companies needed management at all, not if they were elected or hired. Also even in a capitalist corporation the board is elected by the shareholders.
When you look at the boss-employee relationship through the framework of class, rather than simply position within the corporate structure, one can see that a management which is closely monitored by the workers, elected, and recallable at any instant, these so-called bosses lose most of the features we attribute to bosses. The bosses are no longer a different class, hired by the bourgeoisie, but accountable to the proletariat, and truly representative of their interests.
How do they manage any business with a lot of people. Do they take turns at being the leader. Most of the co-op are more like mom and Pop shops. But you questions say a society. These co-ops represent a smidgen of any countries society. Business requires different roles based on skill, knowledge, intelligence. Everybody is a worker. Some with brains and some with brawn. Their will always be a boss telling a worker what needs to be done.
"Do they take turns at being the leader." That's one model, but there are several. No, having a boss-employee division of labor as we have nowadays is not necessary.
Doc- so why would anybody want to be a manager? Would it pay more or provide some kind of extra perks? And if it did pay more, wouldn't that create a new bourgeoisie?
Incentives can vary from workplace to workplace, whatever the workers prefer. And no, it wouldn't create a new bourgeoisie because class isn't the same as wealth. The bourgeoisie are the ones who privately own the means of production. Bosses don't usually own that.
When GM was collapsing I was surprised the Union didn't offer to take over the business to be a workers car manufacturer.
Sounds like a model for a countries military. The an old saying about peer in charge. It like the blind leading the blind.
I wish,but unions hardly represent the needs of workers these days.
I give you credit. A lest you have ideals and goals. Kudo's brother.
Tell it like it is. I'd respect people sticking to their convictions no matter what their belief.
I totally get that, nice perspective
No bosses = no work.
That's why bosses are called workers, right?
There has to be a boss. I'm not saying the boss needs to be paid more than the others, but people need direction. Without it, everyone does their own thing and nothing gets accomplished.
At the very least, the boss should be accountable to the workers, rather than coercive.
True, unbelievable in servant leadership to a point, but many people can think for themselves and need direction
Are you implying that any society that attempted to get rid of bosses was successful?
I recognize that some societies would need further social change in order to be successful, but yeah that's roughly what I'm saying.
Could you provide some examples of these successful societies?
Any socialist country
So let me get this straight...you're saying every socialist country has been a successful one?
That's a cool link with no relevance to this discussion. Doctor was talking about countries. He specifically said "Any socialist country." So if you don't mind, I'll wait for his response to my last question.
I know it wasnt relevent to that, I'm not gonna say every socialist country is successful because a lot of them use it as a cover for totalitarianism. But, worker coops are a better example of the polls premise.
Any legitimately socialist country, yes. But I include the qualifier because for example, after Mao the government became very capitalist, just as what happened in the USSR sometime after Lenin or Stalin (a question I'm doing lots of research to evaluate), etc, etc.
Raging: I disagree. I think many socialist/communist countries simply devolve into totalitarianism. Not all, but definitely not none. Which I think speaks to the flaws in the ideology.
Doctor: So no true socialist country would be unsuccessful, is what you're saying?
That's essentially what I'm saying, and socialist countries with failures I think are largely the result of other influences, like residual bourgeoisie or foreign intervention
Interesting. And I'm curious, which countries you believe to be "truly socialist." Because I'm sure any countries that I mention like North Korea or the Soviet Union (countries that claim/claimed to be socialistic), you would claim to not fit your definition of socialism.
I don't know enough about North Korea to give you a real answer. I've seen conflicting reports about the reality there, so I'll have to investigate that, once I finish with this question about the USSR. Russia/Soviet Union was socialist in the beginning. And the historical question I've been investigating for the last few weeks is when did it become revisionist, and why? Some say it was when Stalin came to power. Others say it was Khrushchev, or that it never became revisionist. I think Cuba in the beginning was legitimately socialist, but also became revisionist, mostly thanks to the Parliament. (Contrary to popular opinion, Castro was not a dictator.) And there are several examples.
Currently, the only country that could be reasonably considered socialist, in my view, is maybe Venezuela. Chavez was great, but I don't know much about Maduro.
And you think Venezuela is a successful country?
I apologize for all of the questions, but it keeps me from jumping to conclusions.
Also I find it very interesting how there is a pattern of countries starting off socialist and becoming totalitarian.
And as a follow-up to your statement sticks, I agree, thats why I'm generally opposed to traditional, state governed socialism
I don't think Venezuela is particularly successful in this moment, evidently. But the current economic crisis is much more attributable to the sharp decline in the price of oil, which has until now been the center of the Venezuelan economy. The policies of the state are little to blame. Add on to that numerous attempts by the US to disrupt their own national self determination, success is difficult.
The supposed trend of socialist countries becoming totalitarian is on the one hand, a largely propagandistic understanding of what constitutes totalitarianism and what constitutes socialism. For our purposes, I prefer to call it revisionism, because it's a deviation from orthodox Marxism. After a successful overthrow of a previous established order, the greatest threat in my view of history comes from within the revolution itself. Revolutionary models all have flaws, and the best model is one that can successfully combat revisionism. Revisionism is most dreadfully evident in current China.
China is a mega capitalist economic powerhouse at this point, ever since Mao's death. The revisionism of the Chinese 'Communist' Party is particularly striking because of their complete 180 on the economic platform. The reason socialism looks like totalitarianism when it is subject to revisionism is because revisionists take the power away from the proletariat (the people) and return it into the hands of a powerful minority.
I appreciate you asking questions instead of jumping to conclusions. It's a lesson everyone, myself included, should learn.
Bosses dont do anything worth several thousand workers salaries
They invest the money, they start the business from scratch. Who makes decisions if there isn't a boss? You can't run a company with everyone voting on what to do, because not everyone knows what to do... you think having management in a company is a bad thing? Try running a company.
Worker democracy. They're the ones that do whatever the decision is, it makes sense they would have a say
Having a say is different than running a company. I agree workers should have some say, not only because it's heir life but because lower level employees can still have good ideas. But there's a reason everyone isn't starting businesses and that's cause most people don't know how to start and effectively run one. The people that survive start up years and make a profitable business which provides jobs for employees are the ones who have the sense to run the company and the ones who will continue to make it profitable and long lasting.
If bosses weren't worth their salaries, why do owners pay them? Don't you think that the owners want to maximize their profits?