According to Peter Drucker, Post-Capitalist Society (1993) [Lustig], the communist analysis on the capitalistic system consists in concentration on the thesis that wage-laborers are being subjugated by wealth holders and in return obtain only part of the profits of their labor; and with the accumulation of capital the dissimilarity of earnings between laboring poor and non-laboring rich tends to boost. The Marxist resolution in this case suggest confiscate the capitalists’ property and expose them to the same situation as wage-laborers, so that everybody can turn to an employed person and get paid according to his skills. The general work performance is valued in terms of payment on this principle [Lustig].
Marx’s core error is that the model of socialism cannot be applied to communal business of the post-capitalist’s society, but only to specie’s work performance. Marx’s model lacks the objective that professionals determine semi-public companies and cooperatives. Marx’s political principles cannot be applied to the political affairs of the American Revolution that offers solution on how to get support without becoming dependent on support. However, while Marx is mistaken about collectivism as a possible model of a desired by him classless society, Bakunin proves the truthfulness the Marxism accusation of the existing professional exploitation. We have to consider that we use the latter term in the zenith of American Expertise era and question its validity when comparing the factors of the Roosevelt Revolution in the face of the WWII, and to observe how the specific national class systems develop during the Cold War and the gaining speed gradual invasion of Scientific-Technological Revolution and education as forced privilege in the systems of the First and Second World Countries [Lustig].
The new political economies (Hodges&Lustig, 2002) [Lustig] reveal that overdeveloped individual proficiency is not answer to the existing problem. Bookkeeping schemes need to be applied on “surface establishment” as opposed to “depth anti-establishment)”, because those two turn out to be controversial in its essences. It is important for companies to be able to calculate whether there are unjustified incomes, in order to compensate appropriately to what extent the company renummerates workers’ efforts and prevents them from potentially being exploited. The “rational-choice theory” proved in-depth to be implausible, because the system is based on individuals with irrational deep-level consciousness motivations of various character (Polachek&Siebert) [Lustig].
For the moment, it is a common fact within the working professionals’ circles “that the vast majority of higher-paid jobs are also more pleasant” (Samuelson) [Lustig]. It is important to know two things about the unfair professional wages: to what they are ascribed (Nietsche; Hobbes) [Lustig] and to distinguish the discrepancy between the worth and “the edge crucial for defining the “unearned portion” of the professional’s pay packet – the standard salary in the form of “brass tacks and professional paychecks” [Lustig]. The representative finances have an essential theory that has found two large groups of both defenders and opponents. Human beings have often been seen as laboring machines working with their heads. However, we fail to observe the facts that it is the human being that works, not an abstract machine and that is why the whole being needs to be taken in consideration when calculation of wage takes place.
Human beings have astonishing inborn capacities that are left unpaid for, due to the inability of the system to measure them in the evaluation of the personal work performance. The productivity of skillfulness cannot be reduced to the measurement of the “fertility of land,” [Lustig] while a material object’s productivity is calculable unlike the human soft and many other skills. There are criteria like collaboration and solidarity in the course of work. Even if we see personal skills as a fertile land, we have to apply the model of “profit and return for the ownership of capital.” In this case the “privileged pay for the application of expertise.” (Castoriadis) [Lustig].
The Statistical Abstract of the United States (1996) confirms Hodges/ Lustig’s thesis [Lustig] that the US has entered the new area of a post-capitalist professional social order. According to them, the shift from capitalist to professional society comprises a revolt with or without a front line party. Further, it represents a higher form, or transformation of the preexisting capitalism resulting from both the defense and opposition to the human capital theory above. The new utilizing group in the face of the professionals made up of “a homogenous body” without any mediating class equivalent to the “petit bourgeois under capitalism” [Lustig].
Of course, there is the group of those disregarding the option that work might be exploited under professionalism. Names like Adolf Bertle, Jr., James Burnham, Joseph Schumpeter, Alfred Chandler, Robert Reich, Lester Thurow, Thomas Stewart, John Kenneth Galbraith, and Theodore Schulz count on the positive sides of the current popular teaching of “human capital” and disregard any term closer to exploitation [Lustig] . The counterpoint rises in the face of the group defending the thesis of professional misuse. They are sounding the alarm of possible exploitation of human skills under the dominion of professionalism overrunning capitalism. Names like Waclaw Machajski, Max Nomad, Bruno Rizzi, Cornelius Castoriadis, Milovan Djilas, David Bazelon, Alvin Goudner, Peter Drucker, and James Galbraith are opponents of Marxist biased model, but in fact they are more or less authorized by it. They claim that if professionalism is distinct strictly in terms of know-how (brainpower), then professional exploitation and excess earnings are to be adjusted to the reality. The need for professional expertise is a clear indicator “to look behind the market to the forces determining public opinion and the people who manipulate it, namely, the educated.” (Babeuf) [Lustig].
There is a conflict in the activities of highest level of the political life. One should not underestimate the place of power and scam in the professional milieu. There are authority aspects over efficiency influencing the measurement of professional payments. We have to consider the function of salary definition among “administrators, job evaluators, executives compensation specialists” and many others [Lustig]. Professional price-fixers are exists firmly since WWII. The leading code of employees supervision executives defining job forecasters in “equitable compensation” are “equal pay for equal services” on the principle that professional services are essentially more expensive than other services. There is always confrontation of interests and the same is in the business level expertise. The spheres of influence among professionals are just as real war zones of interests as the “Vietnam War, Korean War or Nazi-Soviet confrontation in WWII” for example [Lustig].
The Brain, even though not a subject of property ownership, is the “key to access to the modern elite.” (Darity) [Lustig]. The question is whether professionals that practically constitute the contemporary ruling class have indeed share in the big win. Objections are to use “average wage as base line measure of pelf” or take “minimum wage (vs. average wage) as index of the cost of expertise” or to downplay the “importance of opportunity and incentive costs” [Lustig].
CONCLUSION
The standard salary is a helpful determinant of existing financial strategies evaluating presentation of professional skills. It represents abyss of dissimilarity between leaky and intense working hours, when clock-hours are the normative bias for salary calculation. Hodges and Lustig use minimum wage instead of poverty line as a norm of price that renders concession a common misconception in terms of calculation ineffectiveness of humans. Professionals are not prompt to be shaped within the normative system of a “free society” [Lustig]. The Professional-Capitalist Partnership is a positive model, but it remains unclear who is the superior associate. The question remains as to what happened to the left-wing American professional. It is doubtful to talk about professional affability when we expect to deal with double standards.
Modern and already older theories of the 18th century both contribute to this notion. The general notion leads to defining old system of feudalism in new terms where professionalism takes to role of the leading class and major exploitation of human beings.
Works Cited:
“G. Babeuf (1760-1797) and the Conspiracy of the Equals (1796).” Marxists. 2005. Web. 15
Dec. 2011
Castoriadis, The Professional Rip-Off. Scribd. Web. 15 Dec. 2011.
Creveld, M. v. (1991). The Transformation of War. New York: Free Press/ Simon&Schuster.
Darity, W. A. (1981). “The Simple Analytics of Neo-Ricardian Growth and Distribution.”
American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 71(5), p. 978-
93.
Djillas, M. (1958). A Land Without Justice. New York: Harvest/ HBJ Book. Print.
Drucker, P. F. (1993). Post Capitalist Society. New York, NY: HarperCollins. Print.
George, H. (1879). Progress and Poverty. Henry George Org. 1995-2011. Web. 15 Dec.
2011.
Heilborner, R. (1974). An Inquiry into the Human Prospect. New York: W. W. Norton &
Company. Print.
“Hobbes's Moral and Political Philosophy.” Standford Encyclopedia Philosophy. 23 Aug.
2008. Web. 15 Dec. 2011.
Hodges, D. C., Lustig, L. (2002). “Bourgeoisie out, Expertoisie in: the New Political
Economies at Loggerheads. (Radical Criticisms and Reflections).” The American Journal of Economics and Sociology, January 1, 2002. Highbeam Doc. Web. 15 Dec. 2011.
Lacqueur, W. (1999). The New Terrorism: Fanaticism and the Arms of Mass Destruction.
New York: Oxford Uni Press.
Lustig, L. “Enter Professionalism.” UMUC-Asia. PHIL 100. USFK Sites. AY 2011-12. Lecture.
Mandeville, B. D. (1714). Fable of the Bees. Britannica Online. Web. 15 Dec. 2011.
“Nietsche, Friedrich.” Standford Encyclopedia Philosophy. 29 Apr. 2011. Web. 15 Dec. 2011.
Polachek, S. W., Siebert, W. S. (1993). The Economics of Earnings. Victoria: Cambridge
University Press.
Samuelson, P. A. Biography. Nobelprize Org. 15 Dec. 2011. Web. 15 Dec. 2011.
Smith, A (1776). Wealth of Nations. Geolib. Web. 15 Dec. 2011.
Spengler, O. (1934). The Hour of Decision. Archive Org. Web. 15 Dec. 2011.
The Statistical Abstract of the United States (1996). 116th Edition. Print.
Stoddard, L. (1922). The Revolt Against Civilization: The Menace of the Under Man. Users
Mo Net. Web. 15 Dec. 2011.
