: Assuming the workers don't know what to do, if they don't know what to do, they aren't workers, because by definition labour is only that which has teh necessary skills. Labour can create value without management, management cannot create value without labour.
What I was saying is that the management function is a vital part of the wealth creation process. We, I think, are agreeing.
: Indeed, but I'm not, like say Class War, anti-management, they are for the most part workers too- I am anti a tiny number who don't work at all, but who gain from *everyone's* work- and I'd have thought you would depreciate such indolent parascites too.
I believe I do, except I think we are perceiving different 'parasites' in dynanic and different in number. For instance, I would not place a strategic manager as a parasite simply because of his 'high' level in an organisation. I might place a rich heir (especially a landed gentry) as a parasite, but I do not perceive them to be as dangerous or damaging as you do. Nor can I see how 'bringing down' rich heirs would lend society stability (consider how this would change the behaviour of parents wishing to leacve their children a helpful foot up)
: No, because investment does not imply organisation, I invest in a firm, I do not care what it makes, nor how it makes it, I invest only if I can make a profit from it- my sole skill is to find firms that will make me profitable, It has no relationship to resource allocation.
Except that the profitable firm will be one that is successful in fulfilling consumer demands - allocating resource to where those able to participate in the market (i would not pretend that some are excluded) want it. Hardly a sweatyy job, but it is one that requires skill, or you buy the skill via an agent as you would buy a mechanics skill.
: But surely they are exchanging their produce with the capitalist, and as I've noted, they are paid the value of their skills- a small boy who does a very vital peice of work on some gold jewelry, but which is unskilled work, will only get teh value of his skill, not the value of his produce.
They are, assuming the 'vital piece of work' is something requiring no skill then the same work can be offered to any.
: Such as a voluntarily retired person?
Someone who has been saving in a private pension and decides to retire and live of the returns, giving him/her the opportunity to pursue other interests.
: But you do beleive in unearned wealth? Curious, seems against you protestant(esque) values...
I do think rich heirs got a lucky start, but I dont fidnt hem gulty of being rich, just a little pathetic in their conduct and application of said wealth on occasion - but that can only be my opinion.
: Indeed, but such small investors only can invest if they sell their labour power first, and almost all their investments can be easilly wiped out by a bit of an economic crisis- but such people are not Capitalists, the million and billionaires who recive almost solely through owning the firms vast quantities of money and privellege without earning it. the number of 'capital owners' would be a minority of the populatoin anyhow, but the real capitalists make up an even tinier number.
I would be interesting what point a small investor would become suitable for the title of 'capitalist', at what worth it cuts in if the principle intent of the millionaire and thousandaire investor are the same. When does a poor small garage owner who becomes gradually more succesful become a capitalist? Even if his 'employees' are all self employed contractors for instance.
That large amounts of inherited wealth can be traced to nasty happenings cannot lay responsibility upon the current generation of inheritors without invoking original sin, nor can money earned honestly by trading value for value and saved over generations be practically seperated as being morally 'ok', even though it is.