966
Which CEOs are actually worth keeping around?
(i.imgur.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 08 Dec 2024
966 points (100.0% liked)
Microblog Memes
6018 readers
1405 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Management is a skill. You can collectivize property relations and keep the positions of Capital Managers. Moreover, in underdeveloped sectors, Markets are a good way to rapidly develop a framework that can then be folded into the public sector and centrally planned by the degree to which it has developed.
Do we need Capital Owners? No, we don't need any. We will still need managers and directors of Capital, even within Communism, ie Central Planners. If the question is how many Capitalists do we need, the answer is 0. If the question is how many Capital managers and planners do we need, the number is much higher than 0.
Of course it is. And production is a skill. Why is one being paid so much more than the other?
Because they have all the power within Capitalism. I'm a Communist, I want to collectivize property, we can have economic planning of public property and those positions would look similar to CEOs without the ownership aspect.
People seem to be misinterpreting my comment as justification for Capitalism, when it's the opposite.