“working people run society from top to bottom”
- This topic has 10 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 6 years, 11 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Do they, though?
This is an important question raised by Paula Donnelly over on the SPGB FB page. I understand this claim is made on the GE video and has become a bit of a cliche in SPGB circles but I think it needs to be reformulated in a way that better expresses what comrades have in mind – that workers do all the useful work in society. But we certainly dont run society "from the top"
The kind of people who run society from the top are for instance CEOs of large corporations, They are hardly working people but would be more accurately classified as belonging to the lower rungs of the capitalist class
According to the American trade union AFL/CIO website, median compensation for CEO's in all industries in early 2010 was $3.9 million; $10.6 million for companies listed in Standard and Poor's 500, and a staggering $19.8 million for the companies listed in the Dow-Jones index (http://www.aflcio.org/corporatewatch/paywatch/pay/index.cfm). In fact, the ratio of CEO pay to factory worker pay, according to G. William Domhoff "rose from 42:1 in 1960 to as high as 531:1 in 2000, at the height of the stock market bubble, when CEOs were cashing in big stock options" though it has moderated somewhat since then and, in the case of some corporations in receipt of state assistance during the recent recession has, for the first time, become subject to government scrutiny and oversight
Ownership is really ultimate control and ultimate control is the same thing as ownership. Those at the very top almost by definition, exercise ultimate control This is the point we make about the soviet union and the state capitalist class there, They exercised ultimate control and made all the important economic decisions and this is what constituted them as a de facto owning class who collectively as a class controlled and therefore owned the means of wealth production via their control of the state machine
Saying that workers "run society from top to bottom " undermines this analysis and does not really accord with the facts. Which is why I think the expression should be avoided …
As with all generalisations, there can be some exceptions. With every statement we present in the case for socialism, there are caveats and nuancesThe point that some CEO are rewarded far in excess of a wage or salary via share options and perks and pensions has been a point made in the past. (btw, how i hate the term compensation – just what sacrifice or injury is being made by them) Ultimately the owners in the vast majority of businesses are the share-holders but again, the majority of those are institutional such as pension funds. We witness the difficulty they have in controlling CEOs and the Board and success is seldom and always deserving of a FT report of a stock-holder "rebellion" at some AGM or other. But when we say workers run society from bottom to the top, it means without our contribution and consent, nothing – absolutely nothing – can be accomplished by the owners of capital. We create the wealth and we carry out the process of wealth-creation, albeit under the orders of the CEO and the enterprise owners who have the authority but do not have the requisite knowledge often to do so themselves. How many are trained accountants or actuaries? These are employees highly paid for their professional and technical advice. The Chairman is simply the punter in the bookie shop determining his bet from the odds, the tipsters and those who publish the form. Without that necessary info, how many would be winners, certainly none of the hedge-fund managers.Nothing wrong with being exact in our language, but with words as always, people have their own understanding. Sometimes they are wrong, sometimes they are right. I think the meaning of "working people run society from top to bottom" is clear enough, just as "workers create all wealth" is a truism.
alanjjohnstone wrote:Nothing wrong with being exact in our language, but with words as always, people have their own understanding. Sometimes they are wrong, sometimes they are right. I think the meaning of "working people run society from top to bottom" is clear enough, just as "workers create all wealth" is a truism.Hmmm Not too sure these things amount to saying the same thing. Alan. "Running society" means more than just creating the wealth of society. It also denotes social control and the process of overseeing the extraction of surplus value. The top CEOs who carry out these functions are defintely not working people. But their input is decisive in running a capitalist society. They make the important economic decisions albeit to satisfy the interests of shareholders. My major concern with this expression is that it undercuts our class analysis of state capitalist regimes like the ex-Soviet Union, You could argue that if "working people run society from top to bottom" then the parasitic apparatchiks running soviet society at the top were "working people" which would be quite untrue. People who work are not necessarily "working people". Billl Gates "works" but it is not the fact that he works that matters but rather his relationship to the means of wealth production that qualifies hims as a capitalist
I tend to use this in arguments online when the notion of workers capability of running the new society is trivialised, to mean 'in all aspects', but with a qualification 'even though it is not in their 'collective intersts as workers'.. Since winning the franchise workers can even be elected into the government apparatus also. Another example I use was the collapse of Barings Bank when the company owners had no idea just what was going on and an 'admittedly highly paid' underling, was able to move massive trades about. It is a generalisation but an effective one in specific debating circumstances. I shall have to reconsider this anew.
robbo203 wrote:My major concern with this expression is that it undercuts our class analysis of state capitalist regimes like the ex-Soviet Union, You could argue that if "working people run society from top to bottom" then the parasitic apparatchiks running soviet society at the top were "working people" which would be quite untrue. People who work are not necessarily "working people". Billl Gates "works" but it is not the fact that he works that matters but rather his relationship to the means of wealth production that qualifies hims as a capitalistThe simple, indisputable fact remains that the overwhelming majority of people in all manifestations of capitalism are members of the working class and so, without their collective and socially cohesive day-to-day activities, the system would cease to operate/function/work/run.
gnome wrote:robbo203 wrote:My major concern with this expression is that it undercuts our class analysis of state capitalist regimes like the ex-Soviet Union, You could argue that if "working people run society from top to bottom" then the parasitic apparatchiks running soviet society at the top were "working people" which would be quite untrue. People who work are not necessarily "working people". Billl Gates "works" but it is not the fact that he works that matters but rather his relationship to the means of wealth production that qualifies hims as a capitalistThe simple, indisputable fact remains that the overwhelming majority of people in all manifestations of capitalism are members of the working class and so, without their collective and socially cohesive day-to-day activities, the system would cease to operate/function/work/run.
That's true enough Dave but there is a difference between enabling the system to run and running the system. My point is we shouldnt overlook that it is actual capitalists that run the system at the very top level of decisionmaking but saying "working people run society from top to bottom" rather conceals this crucial point I know what you are saying but is there a form of words that might better communicate what you are saying in the same pithy fashion?
Well a qualification may be in order. The working class collectively enable the system to run from top to bottom in the interests of a parasitic elite owning class. I am comfortable with most of the usage as it is generally just shorthand, rather than a slogan say, preceeding or accompanied by explanatory supporting text, moving on to ownership and control, the designs of which prevents the full application of available resources to tackle human needs.
CEOs have PAs, workers are there at the top. Below them are senior executives, not all of whom are on bonus and share scemes (depending on the size of the firm). Senior civil servants are employees…
Young Master Smeet wrote:CEOs have PAs, workers are there at the top. Below them are senior executives, not all of whom are on bonus and share scemes (depending on the size of the firm). Senior civil servants are employees…The Soviet capitalist class were also technically "employees" of the state. Some CEOs have compensation packages well in excess of 20m dollars pa I wouldnt call them working class by any stretch of the imagination
Yes, and there is a question how much of their feathered nest they could carry away with them if they lost their jobs,a nd there were privately wealthy people too. The point is that some CEOs and bureaucrats are capitalists, but not all, and not by simple means of being a CEO/bureaucrat.
Young Master Smeet wrote:Yes, and there is a question how much of their feathered nest they could carry away with them if they lost their jobs,a nd there were privately wealthy people too. The point is that some CEOs and bureaucrats are capitalists, but not all, and not by simple means of being a CEO/bureaucrat.Agreed. There is a grey area here as in most things where "working class" shades into "capitalist class". Some CEOs definitely have a foot on the lower rungs of the capitalist class but, as you say, not all. The CEOs of many small businesses would hardly qualify as capitalists but its a different matter with large corporations. As I mentioned earlier, the average compensation figure of $19.8 million pa for a CEO for the companies listed in the Dow-Jones index is serious money and I dont think there is any doubt that such an individual would qualify as a capitalist. Regarding the soviet capitalist class – the elite nomenklatura – although they owned the means of production in de facto terms collectively rather than as individuals, via their control of the state machine , as individuals they could, and did, amass considerable wealth by various means – multiple incomes, payments in kind, backhanders from black economy, etc . A sizeable proportion of Eastern Europes' modern day oligarchs were previously highly placed officials in the pseudo communist parties. In Russia I think the figure is about 40-50%. These Red capitalists simply used their power and connections to morph onto more conventional capitalists
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.