To me they’re like mere servants of the State, like Lenin talked about in “2. What is to Replace the Smashed State Machine?” in his writing “The State and Revolution”

Under Capitalism, they are its privileged knights that try to deflect and control, if not defend directly its image as “the only option”, who have their incentive in doing so, with their class status stake being in their duty to shepherd the means of production and its resulting benefits

However, they don’t own the means of production, as they merely manage it for the landholding, industrialist, and financier capitalists

On the other hand, under Socialism, while its privileges will be probably be done away, the PM class on its own would innovated upon, for their new duty of overseeing, managing, and reporting the collectivized cooperatives and state-owned enterprises…

Until the final stage of Communism arrives, I think they’re pretty handy

I say this, because I hear such disgusted sentiment in Hexbear against them

  • alicirce@lemmygrad.ml
    8·
    6 months ago

    I think you are very narrowly defining manager as a manager of capital (i.e., seeking to maximize profits without care for what products are being made). I think you should read this: https://redsails.org/the-relationships-between-capitalists/

    As Marx later emphasizes, one consequence of the development of management as a distinct category of labor is that the profits still received by owners can no longer be justified as the compensation for organizing the production process. But what about the managers themselves, how should we think about them? Are they really laborers, or capitalists? Well, both — their position is ambiguous. On the one hand, they are performing a social coordination function, that any extended division of labor will require. But on the other hand, they are the representatives of the capitalist class in the coercive, adversarial labor process that is specific to capitalism.

    It is only the last part — the coercive, adversarial role played as representatives of capital — that will become obsolete. The coordination part of management (which includes coaching and motivation and conflict resolution) will remain.

    My experience with organizations, from families to RPG groups to community associations to capitalist enterprises, is that in a management void, some people will take on management responsibilities. Since these roles require skill and entail responsibility for certain tasks, it’s better to formalize it and train people for it. Do you not also see this in the organizations you are part of? Or could you be underestimating the amount of labour others are putting in to managing your community?

    • Ronin_5@lemmygrad.ml
      2·
      6 months ago

      Since these roles require skill and entail responsibility for certain tasks, it’s better to formalize it and train people for it.

      I agree with this. But it’s everyone that’s being trained in the process, not just a select few managers. This is not just my idea, but rather the current dogma.

      While there is one person that is the most outspoken about management, in reality, everyone needs to participate in the process. And to participate effectively, they need to be trained.

      • alicirce@lemmygrad.ml
        4·
        6 months ago

        Of course, we should increase education for everyone. It enables better workplace democracy and efficiency. But as per the article I linked in my last comment, specialization and division of labour (required for efficient production) means some workers will also specialize in management, i.e., become managers.

        I’m curious what “current dogma” you’re thinking about that says managers will become obsolete.

        • Ronin_5@lemmygrad.ml
          11·
          6 months ago

          In modern management, there isn’t really an emphasis on a single manager to solve problems but rather a task group to come together to solve problems. These team dynamics have been well categorized, such that it is formalized as FSNP.

          Furthermore, there’s the concept of including all stakeholders when making decisions; including employees. And these employees are typically included in review of dashboards.

          There is also a key emphasis on employee empowerment, where more authority is given to your employees to make changes.

          We are already transitioning away from a top-down style of management into a system where feedback is received from employees. So it follows that with the removal of capitalist motives, the buffer of management is not necessary either.

          • alicirce@lemmygrad.ml
            4·
            6 months ago

            I’m at a loss for what you think I think management is because it certainly isn’t “a single manager to solve problems” nor “top-down” nor excluding of employees from reporting or decision-making. Perhaps we agree but use language differently:

            These gentlemen think that when they have changed the names of things they have changed the things themselves. This is how these profound thinkers mock at the whole world.

            https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/10/authority.htm