SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the promote-them-to-where-they-can-do-the-least-damage dept.
Geert Hofstede's "Culture's Consequences" is one of the most influential management books of the 20th century. With well over 80,000 citations, Hofstede argues that 50 percent of managers' differences in their reactions to various situations are explained by cultural differences. Now, a researcher at the University of Missouri has determined that culture plays little or no part in leaders' management of their employees; this finding could impact how managers are trained and evaluated globally.
"We all want a higher quality of life, a desirable workplace environment and meaningful work -- no matter our home country," said Arthur Jago, professor of management in the Robert J. Trulaske College of Business at MU. "In management theory, we focus more on leaders' differences rather than their similarities. By analyzing the data in a new way, I found that managers across country borders and across cultures are more alike than different."
Crud. Does this mean you can't get away from PHB's no matter where you go?
(Score: 0, Troll) by khallow on Friday December 23 2016, @02:10PM
Then there's the cognitive dissonance such as insisting that labor continues to "own" the products of its labor long after labor has sold them away. Even if we ignore the raw terribleness of the idea of permanent, irrevocable ownership (which has let us note been used, sometimes successfully, by both businesses and government to claim ownership over a lot of things), it still means that by that idea, I don't own my labor well enough that I can sell the output of it to someone else without creating permanent entanglements. Thus, the Marxist version of labor ownership is actually a weakening of the ownership of labor while the opposite is claimed.
Another spectacular example of this happened in Das Kapital where Marx backs up his claim that the "capitalist" doesn't add value via his labor by proof via heavy sarcasm and nonsense story where the capital's stooges are smirking as the capitalist makes these claims.
Another such happened when you equated value with ownership. Just because someone thinks something is valuable doesn't mean that they own it.
There's the broken ways of looking at the world such as obsessing over the conflict of interest between workers and everyone else, or using dialectic materialism as a starting point for any sort of reasoning - when you can get the same results, even the same broken fallacies, for less effort, by not doing that.
Then there's the parts of Marxism that just have no connection to reality at all, like claiming that there's some unalienable ownership of the products of labor, asserting stuff which doesn't work that way in the real world (like insisting the added value of capital is zero, even though it painfully is not), or asserting an asymptotic march of human society to a particular flavor of utopia by a process that never has to work in reality, much less do that particular march.
When confronted with these sorts of problems, I notice the rebuttal always ends up that the flaw is with me not with this incredibly broken reasoning. This is typical religious evangelism. You disagree merely because you're not listening to God. The fault is always with the skeptic not the kool aid drinker.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by aristarchus on Friday December 23 2016, @10:02PM
When confronted with these sorts of problems, I notice the rebuttal always ends up that the flaw is with me not with this incredibly broken reasoning.
This must happen to you quite a lot! You know, if something like this happens consistently, it just might be that the common factor is the cause. Not saying that correlation is causation or anything, but there is an obvious rebuttal, you know. And like I said, I can wait.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday December 24 2016, @06:02AM
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Saturday December 24 2016, @06:06AM
Still waiting. . .
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday December 24 2016, @06:45AM
(Score: 3, Funny) by aristarchus on Saturday December 24 2016, @08:23AM
But I have hope for you, khallow! Faith in your fellow thinking creatures is not insanity. So, I'll keep waiting. After the holidays is fine. But just keep this in mind: pride in craftsmanship, a signed original, "I built that". Non-transferable property rights.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday December 24 2016, @09:13AM
But just keep this in mind: pride in craftsmanship, a signed original, "I built that". Non-transferable property rights.
A "property right" that only exists in the imagination of some crafters, can't be exercised, and has no relevance to the real world. Quite the solid foundation for Marxism, isn't it? Maybe I'll invent my own imaginary sky god to watch over you. He'll be patient too.
You're shooting blanks. Your naked emperor has truly gone fishing.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Monday December 26 2016, @03:49AM
Oh, you silly libertarian! Here, I want to sell you a Picasso, except that it was not painted by Picasso. Or I want a drop point hunting knife, handcrafted by Bob Loveless! What? Produced by some factory in f-+*ing China? Well, not the same thing, then, is it? The labor of the craftsman matters, unless you are going to go all generic. Generic Bespoke Custom KHallow, that is what I got for Christmas.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday December 26 2016, @09:22AM
Look, I don't know what your actual opinion on these matters is. But if this is your real opinion, then you need to get a better one. This whole thread has been a chain of obvious rebuttals to your bizarre and unfounded claims and meanderings. But since you've relied on Karl Marx, how could it be different? Sorry, the dude had some interesting ideas, but wish fulfillment had higher priority than rational argument or things that actually work, and his whole edifice is a dull, wandering morality play which makes for lousy philosophy.