Stephen Marglin, in his article What do Bosses do?

asserts that the hierarchical structure of capitalism is an unnecessary creation that merely works to make the capitalists richer and alienate workers from their own labor. Through the division of labor, capitalists are nothing more than the integrators of these separate operations into a product (70). Thus, capitalists artificially create a position for themselves where they can profit off the exploitation of divided labor. Although Marglin makes the convincing argument that a collectively owned business could function just as if not more efficiently than a business owned by a capitalist, I believe that Marglin underestimates the value of a capable capitalist leading a business. Marglin gives his analysis of the true benefits of the division of labor under the supervision of a capitalist, Rather than providing more output for the same inputs, these innovations in work organization were introduced so that the capitalist got himself a larger share of the pie at the expense of the worker(Marglin 62). Although Marglin concedes that there is a subsequent growth in the size of the [overall] pie (Marglin 62), he does not believe that this justifies the subjugation of the laborers by the capitalists. I believe, however, that a skilled manager of a business can greatly contribute to the overall success of a business, thus growing the pie beyond what any collectively owned business could bake. For example, a manager could work full time to make the businesss product more marketable, either finding more buyers or expanding into new markets. Either of these contributions can greatly increase a businesss overall wealth and thus the income of the workers, undoubtedly a more positive impact than Marglin thought possible. Despite Marglins obvious misevaluation of the importance of capitalists in a business, I do agree that a successful business can be run through collective ownership of the means of production. As Marglin shows in his example of the British coal industry, if workers are skilled enough to fill various roles, allocate responsibility within, and distribute wealth equally, a

business can thrive and, in this case, actually produce 20 percent more coal than the conventional [method](Marglin 76). Marglin fails to point out, however, that this type of collectively owned and run business can only exist on a small scale in which employees are accountable for their productivity. Citing Andrew Ures argument, a proponent of the factory system, that the hierarchical structure of factories is necessary for worker discipline, I would argue that once a collectively owned business grows to the point that workers are no longer immediately accountable to his or her fellow worker, the business will collapse. If the scale of the business is intimate enough, however, that workers are accountable such that the interactions seen in the British coal industry are possible, then a similar non-capitalistic business could arise, but if a business is to expand beyond this point, a hierarchy would need to be established Marglin derides the accumulation of capital as a process that concentrates the wealth of a business in the hands of few, but I believe that Marglins derision is misplaced as the accumulation of capital is ultimately beneficial for the worker. Here, Marglin points out that accumulation of capital among a few individuals who know how to save and invest is extremely important if a business is to ever grow because, as one can see in recent examples, when ordinary individuals are given money, they spend it. Marglin argues that saved capital can then be used to enhance the mode of production, ultimately expanding the business and increasing profits for the capitalist, but Marglin leaves out any residual benefit for the worker. Smith continues along these lines in the Wealth of Nations by arguing similarly that increased savings lead to increased working capital, but he goes on to state, most importantly, that this will also lead to increased wages and ultimately the happy progressive state. Through Smiths argument, the accumulation of money does not seem so much like the capitalistic evil that Marglin makes it out to be, but rather a process that will ultimately benefit both the capitalist and the worker together.