Most CEOs are compensated significantly with stock options, so they’re directly getting benefited with capital. Whereas the laborer either has to buy non-voting stock on the market, or gets a trifle of stock options (definitely non-voting). The CEO’s labor is to implement the will of the owners; being a middle man doesn’t change the fact that they’re acting in favor of capital, not labor.
You are only a capitalist if you are literally the capital. If you aren't literally a pile of gold bars in a safety deposit box then you're just a smol bean worker!
Money can be capital. For example if you take a loan against the gold bars and use that as investment to make more money. From The Long Twentieth Century:
An agency is capitalist in virtue of the fact that its money is endowed with the “power of breeding” (Marx’s expression) systematically and persistently, regardless of the nature of the particular commodities and activities that are incidentally the medium at any given time.
This is revisionism. Real capitalists are people who are one with their state capital. There's only 50 of them worldwide and being a capital of a country doesn't count.
the wise man bowed his head solemnly and spoke: "theres actually zero difference between good & bad things. you imbecile. you fucking moron"
CEOs do not produce surplus value. They are paid with the surplus value that workers create. It's very easy.
We need to markup Marx and Lenin like they do with the bible.
Just drop
Capital 1:35on some douche acting like he found a loophole no communist considered before.
if there's a union contract negotiation with management, which side of the table are you on
There, solved your complex conundrum
The difference is when you kill a worker it's homocide, when you kill a CEO it's terrorism.
This, in a vacuum, isn’t even wrong. But being a well compensated class traitor isn’t exactly a position proletarian causes are/should be sympathetic to. Also, a number of CEOs own the means of production they manage.
Do CEOs tend to get better compensation from their salary or from their capital gains? I’ve tended to think of modern c suite arrangements as a means of laundering bourgeois status.
That’s another issue. If not being the sole/majority owners of a means of production, most CEOs at the very least are compensated in stock options, if not partial ownership.
Due to how the Clinton admin reformed certain aspects of tax law, most C suites (CEOs, CFOs, etc) are paid a fixed salary that tapers off at 1 million. This is because Clinton 'reworked' executive compensation so that execs making more than that 1 million figure of fixed compensation prevents the corporation from being able to deduct that executive pay from the business's taxes.
However, that law ONLY applies to 'fixed pay', not to things such as incentive based pay, either short or long term. So stock options, performance bonuses and the like are completely unaffected, which obviously leads to execs getting paid '1 million' of fixed salary and then however many millions in incentive pay.
It seems obvious what it was going to cause, so much so that I have to believe it was intentional.
It's honestly fucking weird seeing them still play pretend anti-corruption like this, like the theft is so bad that this law does literally nothing except highlight its own impotence, but they're still carrying it like a totem
kinda feels like those laws about not eating ice cream on a horse outdoors on sunday or whatever the fuck, someone put it on the books way back when but it literally doesn't matter ever so it's going to be there forever despite doing nothing
Good point mr bonercelli we should be redacting the board and shareholders
A C-Suite member is:
- Insulated from the actual performance of the company
- Not accountable for their own failures of leadership
- Compensated with large amounts of stock, converting them slowly into the ownership class
- Has incentive structures aligned with the ownership class and is literally paid to keep labor costs suppressed
Solved Problem via our good friends at the IWW, if you can fire people you're out
I find myself thinking a lot about that thing matt said during War is Hell about how we're in a 3rd iteration of a disrupted cosmological/literacy process.
used to be, for the west, the books and the libraries were controlled by the church. you wanted to read something to learn, well it was gonna be in Latin at a monastery. and hey, Latin is the language of our all powerful God so it all jives. God powers from God!
then the moveable type press came along and now there were conflicting stories of what God wanted spreading like fire across a contested Europe. there were multiple posters, arguing each with their own voices of god in different tongues. though they were a tiny minority of a tiny minority (literate), gate kept still behind the already wealthy and powerful.
now there's the internet where we get a hundred million bozos with god-like, unprecedented power to have their every notion be spread around the world at the speed of light saying some of the dumbest shit ever half-farted out of a brain. a hundred million gods all screaming at once.
"The cops who shot up Blair mountain should be considered part of the proletariat."
Of course Bonerello is a fuck, but unpopular opinion in some spaces: the role of CEO is still necessary as an organizing function in a socialist society, just with obligations and interests in line with people. It's what a highly trained commissar needs to do, and that commissar will be a labourer who should be compensated for that labour, and maybe be compensated more insofar as that labour is very specialized and difficult. It seems China still sees that role existing in the foreseeable future.
But in the West now, they are just representatives of capitalist interests and doing useless labour (from any non-capitalist viewpoint) and fuck em
In a socialist society I'd rather call it "elected manager", because they'd likely (ideally) be either chosen directly by the workers of the company itself, or by society as a whole.
Yeah that or something like "accounting secretary." A major portion of a CEO's job communists would want to keep is balancing the books of a large institution. Any time you have an organization with hundreds of people working within it, you're at risk of specific problems due to scale.
Like it's fine if two people accidentally order the same doohickey for the company and one doohickey is redundant. It's not fine if two thousand people accidently order 2,000 doohickies and now the organization is in debt or has nowhere to store the extra 1,999 doodads. And now the organization has to unnecessarily allocate resources and labor figuring out how to get rid of all these thingamajigs.
Right now, though, CEOs are overcompensated for this type of labor they do. They are not 300% more valuable than workers actually making things or providing services.
Hmmm I don't think an "elected commie CEO"'s job would be accounting for the most part. It would be more of a delegation of everyday decision-making. You want workers/society to decide the general direction of the company in a more directly democratic way, but you also possibly want to delegate the specific, everyday decision-making on qualified, revocably elected personnel, as in "we decided we want to increase our production of thingamajigs by 20%, so let's now think of how to organise inputs, labor, capital and investment, in order to achieve the goals that the workers/society have set"
I don't know if this is what CEO's primarily do though? That sounds like work that accountants, project managers, and middle managers do. CEO's are often supposed to think strategically. It's gonna sound like I'm jerking them off, but I do legitimately think we shouldn't discount that capitalism is genuinely incentivizing to organize companies in an efficient way for profit. That includes a strategic decision-making apparatus that is looking at steering an entire organisation years ahead of time and discussing these decisions with the "clients" which are the owners to check their approval and their desires. That role is amazing if it's someone constantly checking with the workers and society as a whole (with the party, in a party society). But we use that role to do the worst shit imaginable as a society
I mean none of this shit is ever gonna happen anyways. I've been alive 34 years and have never witnessed this fine-tuning of terms amounting to anything materially.
I don't understand how this is a response to me? Am I missing something? Edit: what I'm talking about it something that does exist, and has existed since the Soviet union, right? It has a material impact? This is just tangential to what the post is about, not a response or defense. I'm saying among comrades that we need to think seriouslu about the role, because AES is also.
But fuck CEO's in the West. They are bourgeois in interests and in every other meaningful way.
Does the CEO not approve of andndirect policies that please the majority shareholders, of which CEOs are also a part of?
What part of Chief Executive does
elli not understand?I’ll believe CEOs are workers as soon as they start taking pay cuts like every other worker.
