That’s not true, think of all the small to medium businesses there are. All of them got “CEOs” or whatever you want to call them and in many cases they do regular work besides leading the company.
I know a quite a few people who are very happy in their respective companies. Heck, I’m employed in the perfect template of a bureaucratic, capitalist megacorp and our CEOs shield us from a lot of bullshit of the group we belong to.
I think “CEOs = bad” is oversimplifying a lot. We just don’t hear about the good ones, because ragebait sells and capitalist media is something actually fucked up at this point
It’s 100% true. Just because I may be using terms you may not be quite familiar with doesn’t make me incorrect.
CEO is a job. It’s a managerial position. Usually, it is tied to some form of ownership, but not always. Choosing to take an active role in managing the company as a business owner does not mean your power does not come from ownership, nor does it mean you must take an active role.
Capitalists are necessarily exploitative and entirely unnecessary for running a company. You can have a CEO that owns a company just as much as the Janitor does, which entirely changes the source of the power and removes the ability to exploit the laborers. As an individual owner, a CEO can act in some manners that help workers, but will nevertheless be ruthlessly exploiting them in other manners.
If the CEO owns the business, then that’s a Capitalist CEO. If the CEO earns a salary paid by the owner of the business, then he can be considered Proletarian, though the wage is likely high enough to be closer to petite bourgeoisie. The power dynamic changes entirely.
In Communism, there could not be a Capitalist CEO, for example.
Lemmy tends to have inherent hatred for CEOs because Lemmy is a leftist platform, in structure and userbase. Leftists tend to hate Capitalists.
You can be a CEO even in a communism. It’s literally just a job.
Yes, but most are referring to Capitalist CEOs, rather than Proletarian CEOs, of which there are incredibly few.
That’s not true, think of all the small to medium businesses there are. All of them got “CEOs” or whatever you want to call them and in many cases they do regular work besides leading the company.
I know a quite a few people who are very happy in their respective companies. Heck, I’m employed in the perfect template of a bureaucratic, capitalist megacorp and our CEOs shield us from a lot of bullshit of the group we belong to.
I think “CEOs = bad” is oversimplifying a lot. We just don’t hear about the good ones, because ragebait sells and capitalist media is something actually fucked up at this point
It’s 100% true. Just because I may be using terms you may not be quite familiar with doesn’t make me incorrect.
CEO is a job. It’s a managerial position. Usually, it is tied to some form of ownership, but not always. Choosing to take an active role in managing the company as a business owner does not mean your power does not come from ownership, nor does it mean you must take an active role.
Capitalists are necessarily exploitative and entirely unnecessary for running a company. You can have a CEO that owns a company just as much as the Janitor does, which entirely changes the source of the power and removes the ability to exploit the laborers. As an individual owner, a CEO can act in some manners that help workers, but will nevertheless be ruthlessly exploiting them in other manners.
I think reading theory might help you a lot.
Wtf is a capitalist or proletarian CEO? A CEO is a CEO. The person running the organization is the chief executive officer.
If the CEO owns the business, then that’s a Capitalist CEO. If the CEO earns a salary paid by the owner of the business, then he can be considered Proletarian, though the wage is likely high enough to be closer to petite bourgeoisie. The power dynamic changes entirely.
In Communism, there could not be a Capitalist CEO, for example.