Some workers who have soured on the 9-to-5 schedule are interested in trying "microshifting," which may offer greater flexibility and control over their time.
Working for a wage is very capitalist. By that I mean that capitalist owns the capital and rents labor hours for less than what will be made from them.
Wage labor is one of the core tenents of capitalism.
Well, coming from the perspective or justification of trying to maximise efficiency through a market of incentivised actors, is mass multi-level-hierarchy wage labour “optimum/peak capitalism”?
That’s what I was aiming for in saying “anti-capitalist” … in that the opportunity to incentivise was being missed so that an existing power structure could persist.
And, I don’t know, my experience tells me lots of places struggle with the quality of their managerial leadership, some times a lot, while people on the ground keep the place together and have plenty of insight on how to do things better.
There’s only one goal, profit / capital maximization.
Capital maximisation for a small set of individuals (the wealthy) or the economy in total? Where the latter can also achieve the former to some extent.
In the end I think capitalism can be more than one thing, which is something the strident anti socialism reflex of the US has stagnated.
And it’s easy to confuse ends with means and the status quo with its justifications.
Profit definitionally is value extracted from laborers. I own a factory. For every $40 of materials, and $40 dollars of labor, I can sell a product for $100 dollars. I definitionally made profit of $20 simply for owning the property it happens in.
You’ll notice there is an incentive to pay less to labor in order to make more profit. Labor wants to work the least amount of effort for the most amount of money, and capitalists want the most labor for the least amount of money. It’s an adversarial relationship. Any gains to claw back more profits will necessarily be adversarial and technically anti-capitalist.
Any gains to claw back more profits will necessarily be adversarial and technically anti-capitalist.
Hmmm, not sure what you mean by the anti capitalist part here
Otherwise, I think I’m still stuck on how we’re dwelling on profit maximisation as the crux of capitalism. It may be the incentivising factor for the agents operating in the system … but is it the justification for committing to the system?
Where, as far as my ignorant mind goes, maximising the efficiency of the whole economy and/or its total productivity from the assets available … are the obvious justifications.
In which case, embracing a profit maximising ethos is a means to an end. And disrupting a particular profit process for the sake of the economy’s productivity perfectly justifiable as good capitalism.
It’s OK. I’m just describing these systems from a Marxist lens. As in, I’m not being prescriptive, but descriptive of how these processes work and their definitions. Your confusion is normal as there’s a lot of incentive to obfuscate to protect those with wealth and private property. It’s also not exactly simple either.
And to clarify what I meant, it was more anti-“people who own capital / owner” rather than anti-“capitalist system” exactly. The most anti capitalist system would be the workers themselves owning the tools, buildings, property, etc; collectively and with democratic control of the workplace. Obviously the above described where workers collectively bargain is closer in that direction but the capital owner still ultimately remains in control of the company and assets.
Working for a wage is very capitalist. By that I mean that capitalist owns the capital and rents labor hours for less than what will be made from them.
Wage labor is one of the core tenents of capitalism.
Well, coming from the perspective or justification of trying to maximise efficiency through a market of incentivised actors, is mass multi-level-hierarchy wage labour “optimum/peak capitalism”?
That’s what I was aiming for in saying “anti-capitalist” … in that the opportunity to incentivise was being missed so that an existing power structure could persist.
And, I don’t know, my experience tells me lots of places struggle with the quality of their managerial leadership, some times a lot, while people on the ground keep the place together and have plenty of insight on how to do things better.
There’s only one goal, profit / capital maximization. Everything else is secondary or in service of that end, such as efficiency.
A for-profit health insurance industry is deeply inefficient but very profitable for example.
Capital maximisation for a small set of individuals (the wealthy) or the economy in total? Where the latter can also achieve the former to some extent.
In the end I think capitalism can be more than one thing, which is something the strident anti socialism reflex of the US has stagnated.
And it’s easy to confuse ends with means and the status quo with its justifications.
Profit definitionally is value extracted from laborers. I own a factory. For every $40 of materials, and $40 dollars of labor, I can sell a product for $100 dollars. I definitionally made profit of $20 simply for owning the property it happens in.
You’ll notice there is an incentive to pay less to labor in order to make more profit. Labor wants to work the least amount of effort for the most amount of money, and capitalists want the most labor for the least amount of money. It’s an adversarial relationship. Any gains to claw back more profits will necessarily be adversarial and technically anti-capitalist.
Hmmm, not sure what you mean by the anti capitalist part here
Otherwise, I think I’m still stuck on how we’re dwelling on profit maximisation as the crux of capitalism. It may be the incentivising factor for the agents operating in the system … but is it the justification for committing to the system?
Where, as far as my ignorant mind goes, maximising the efficiency of the whole economy and/or its total productivity from the assets available … are the obvious justifications.
In which case, embracing a profit maximising ethos is a means to an end. And disrupting a particular profit process for the sake of the economy’s productivity perfectly justifiable as good capitalism.
It’s OK. I’m just describing these systems from a Marxist lens. As in, I’m not being prescriptive, but descriptive of how these processes work and their definitions. Your confusion is normal as there’s a lot of incentive to obfuscate to protect those with wealth and private property. It’s also not exactly simple either.
And to clarify what I meant, it was more anti-“people who own capital / owner” rather than anti-“capitalist system” exactly. The most anti capitalist system would be the workers themselves owning the tools, buildings, property, etc; collectively and with democratic control of the workplace. Obviously the above described where workers collectively bargain is closer in that direction but the capital owner still ultimately remains in control of the company and assets.
aah … gotchya!
Cheers and thanks for the chat!