From: gerald_a_levy (gerald_a_levy@msn.com)
Date: Mon Dec 23 2002 - 09:42:09 EST
Re Michael E's [8227]: > I wouldn't call entrepreneurial ability a 'factor of production' because > the specific _dynamis meta logou_, i.e. ability guided by insight, > which the entrepreneur exercises is the ability to see opportunities > for profit and to skilfully organize how these opportunities can be > exploited. This goes beyond "production". It is a leadership role > which involves employing and controlling employees, and getting > hold of the necessary land, money-capital (investment capital, > venture capital), means of production for the venture. I think this is an increasingly archaic view of entrepreneurship that was a better description of 19th Century entrepreneurship than 21st Century entrepreneurship. A consequence of the increasing concentration and centralization of capital is that many of the functions which were previously done by 'entrepreneurs' (capitalists) are increasingly delegated to a managerial layer which exercises control even where it doesn't have ownership. Within this hierarchy, 'entrepreneurship' is increasingly limited to only ownership: thus all that is required to become an 'entrepreneur' within the context of an existing corporation is money-capital with which to purchase stocks. This hardly requires "leadership" or what you go on to call "human ingenuity". Of course, in _smaller_ firms there is often more direct involvement by the entrepreneur in other functions including supervision (i.e. extracting work from workers), distribution, marketing, accounting, etc. > There is a phenomenon which can be called human ingenuity. All of us have > it to some degree, say, when we improvise a do-it-yourself repair. > The phenomenon is that things reveal themselves to human being in their > usefulness for something or other. That is the being of practical things > (_pragmata_) in the broadest sense. A successful entrepreneur is often > someone who sees a usefulness and also has the skill to bring it to market, > i.e. to get the value of this new, ingenious use-value acknowledged > abstractly by others through the market. Examples abound in capitalism, > no matter whether one regards the invention of, say, Tupperware or > microwave ovens or standardized motel chains or the LP > record as a happy invention for humankind or not. The test lies in the > marketplace, where the value of an invention is either recognized or > fails to gain value-recognition in money. Within the context of increasingly oligopolistic markets, firms tend to be risk-averters. Indeed, the whole trend towards diversification could be seen in part as an attempt to 'spread-out', and thereby diminish, risk. Examples abound in late capitalism of risk-aversion. (Indeed it even enters the political sphere: e.g. corporations who donate funds to the political campaigns of opposing candidates.) > (snip, JL) perhaps we disagree about wherein this "exploitation" consists. Do you agree that exploitation is part of the 'essence' of capitalism? If so, where do you think we disagree? In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Dec 31 2002 - 00:00:01 EST