Huawei just distributed out $9.65Bn in dividends to its 131K employees, which means that on average folks got $73K. I don't have the median but many folks who joined close to two decades ago are apparently seeing payouts north of a quarter mil. Pretty good for an embattled co.— Rui Ma 马睿 (@ruima) April 4, 2022
Fair enough. Huawei's bonus pool was exceptional in that it was so large. And that even base salary spread between lay workers and executives is far smaller than in a US counterpart.
But the idea of an annual bonus tied to company income isn't a novelty of Huawei. Nor is this a sign of a non-capitalist business model. It is simply an earlier stage of Capitalism.
You can maybe argue that this counts as “labor aristocracy” only if you argue that fairer profit distributive among employees co-op/esop structures of large profitable tech company like Huawei exising makes their employes much better compensated compared to others. But thats not a problem with the structure , its a reason for more and more of China’s and the worlds tech and other companies to be restructured like that.
Luxury cell phones occupy an economic niche that affords the firm high profit margins. I don't think you'd want this model of firm operating your plumbing network or electricity provider or your rail system or your grocery store chain.
That's not to say the co-op model isn't superior to the corporate investor model. But it is still a capitalist form of production, in which the incentives are stacked towards continuous growth and expansion.
Is the implication that it is a stage before the declining rate of profit?
Its the stage during which domestic proles get to reap the benefits while foreigners eat the costs. Raw materials are still part of an extraction industry that's as soulless and merciless as ever.
I’m just asking because dividend payouts to employees does not denote a specific stage of Capitalism to me.
The co-op model of today is very reminiscent of the union model Americans enjoyed 50 years ago. Back then, big company bonuses were normal, too. But both Marx and Lenin predict that this period can't last. Eventually, you enter a market ripe for consolidation (typically recessionary downturn) during which bonuses like this will dry up and layoffs will become normal. Employees will be pitted against one another and investors will demand larger share of profit in exchange for access to liquidity. Then, the next business cycle will yield a smaller share of profit than the last.
Maybe I'm wrong and Huawei will be run differently. But that's been the historical trend.
Early Capitalism is shit like company towns, not employee dividends
Like any pyramid scheme, the folks who got in first get paid out best. I don't think this line
many folks who joined close to two decades ago are apparently seeing payouts north of a quarter mil
can be easily ignored. Its very normal for folks who work at Silicon Valley companies to make bank if they got in at the ground floor. Lots of newly minted Facebook and Google and Amazon Labor Aristocrats running around California today. Many of them have tossed their hats back in and aimed for the big Bourgeois banner by starting their own firms, echoing what guys like Dorsey and Musk and Gates accomplished.
The next generation of Huawei workers are unlikely to see the kind of payouts that this generation enjoys. At least, assuming the Chinese tech sector follows American trend lines.
if the workers actually have control of the means of production
That's the million-dollar question, of course. Do the democratic levers in a co-op connect to anything more than democratic levers in a union did? When times get tough and Huawei Execs have to choose between shareholders and workers, do the laborers have the power to discipline capital or will it be the other way around?
Under capitalism, we know the answer. I'm asserting that Huawei is - ultimately - a capitalist enterprise. And if the managers and shareholders can't extract a greater share of labor value from the workers, I'll gladly admit I was wrong.
Further, the union model in the US during that time was a series of reforms to ease long standing contradictions, not an early stage of Capitalism.
It was a reset following the Great Depression's collapse. And it set up a new era of Imperialism that was more successful than any before.
Fair enough. Huawei's bonus pool was exceptional in that it was so large. And that even base salary spread between lay workers and executives is far smaller than in a US counterpart.
But the idea of an annual bonus tied to company income isn't a novelty of Huawei. Nor is this a sign of a non-capitalist business model. It is simply an earlier stage of Capitalism.
Luxury cell phones occupy an economic niche that affords the firm high profit margins. I don't think you'd want this model of firm operating your plumbing network or electricity provider or your rail system or your grocery store chain.
That's not to say the co-op model isn't superior to the corporate investor model. But it is still a capitalist form of production, in which the incentives are stacked towards continuous growth and expansion.
deleted by creator
Its the stage during which domestic proles get to reap the benefits while foreigners eat the costs. Raw materials are still part of an extraction industry that's as soulless and merciless as ever.
The co-op model of today is very reminiscent of the union model Americans enjoyed 50 years ago. Back then, big company bonuses were normal, too. But both Marx and Lenin predict that this period can't last. Eventually, you enter a market ripe for consolidation (typically recessionary downturn) during which bonuses like this will dry up and layoffs will become normal. Employees will be pitted against one another and investors will demand larger share of profit in exchange for access to liquidity. Then, the next business cycle will yield a smaller share of profit than the last.
Maybe I'm wrong and Huawei will be run differently. But that's been the historical trend.
Like any pyramid scheme, the folks who got in first get paid out best. I don't think this line
can be easily ignored. Its very normal for folks who work at Silicon Valley companies to make bank if they got in at the ground floor. Lots of newly minted Facebook and Google and Amazon Labor Aristocrats running around California today. Many of them have tossed their hats back in and aimed for the big Bourgeois banner by starting their own firms, echoing what guys like Dorsey and Musk and Gates accomplished.
The next generation of Huawei workers are unlikely to see the kind of payouts that this generation enjoys. At least, assuming the Chinese tech sector follows American trend lines.
deleted by creator
That's the million-dollar question, of course. Do the democratic levers in a co-op connect to anything more than democratic levers in a union did? When times get tough and Huawei Execs have to choose between shareholders and workers, do the laborers have the power to discipline capital or will it be the other way around?
Under capitalism, we know the answer. I'm asserting that Huawei is - ultimately - a capitalist enterprise. And if the managers and shareholders can't extract a greater share of labor value from the workers, I'll gladly admit I was wrong.
It was a reset following the Great Depression's collapse. And it set up a new era of Imperialism that was more successful than any before.