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.
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.