So, no corporations and no individual wealth? Who owns a factory or a datacenter? These are fantastically expensive things. A chip foundry cannot exist under these conditions.
It could be owned by, like, multiple people? Also, a lot of companies in the world, and especially the ones managing costly infrastructure assets, are owned by states (which are a form of “multiple people”).
So a company whose ownership is open to the public, with that ownership divided into “shares”. And all the “share” holders can cooperate to decide the direction of the company…what would one call this novel form of organizing a venture…a “cooperation”?
Ok so. Shares of ownership are open only to employees. How does this company get external investment? I suppose outside entities are allowed to invest with an expectation of a return on investment?
Do you think shareholders want their money going to extravagent buildings, Italian desks, and billions in hoarded cash?
Your view of “shareholders” is that they are just cash cows to be milked and not financial participants. As a shareholder I gained fourteen cents this year; how much did the CEO gain?
In those situations what do the workers that have no interest in owning the means of production do? Like, if you just want to do your job and go home, is there still room for you under that system? Or does it require active participation from every worker?
Do you think Capitalist owners can’t just do their job and go home? Do you even think Capitalist Owners work?
If Workers share ownership, they can hold electoral councils, elect a manager, or do any other form of decision making without requiring constant input.
Do you actively participate in every company you own in your S&P 500 ETF?
No, I’m not. I was genuinely asking questions here, I was not intending on being confrontational. I’m not even who you originally replied to.
Even if you personally don’t own stock, do you imagine everyone who owns a share of VOO makes decisions for every company in the S&P 500? That’s my point, ownership isn’t necessarily management, just entitlement to control and profit.
If Workers collectively own a factory, they may choose to vote on how to produce, or vote on a manager. The point is leaving it to the Workers to decide, rather than a dictatorial owner, ie a Capitalist.
Yes I noticed, which makes it even weirder that you are asking about my knowledge about capitalist systems and my personal opinions, which have zero relevance to the question.
do you imagine everyone who owns a share of VOO makes decisions for every company in the S&P 500?
I still have no idea what this has to do with a system where the workers own the means of production.
It is entirely relevant. By asking what a worker would do if they don’t want to contribute to actively managing a company, you are demonstrating a lack of understanding how Capitalist systems function. You’re implying Capitalist owners actively contribute and manage the companies they own. Owning stocks and thus a portion of companies doesn’t mean you’re an active manager, it just entitles you to voting power proportional to your ownership.
If workers owned the Means of Production, then they collectively have voting power, but a worker that does not wish to use said voting power would act just as any other Capitalist that does not wish to exert their power would do: Collect profit and maintain their current power.
So, no corporations and no individual wealth? Who owns a factory or a datacenter? These are fantastically expensive things. A chip foundry cannot exist under these conditions.
I don’t think you have a strong enough concept of large numbers to be able to hold a respectable opinion here.
Lmao brutal, but -1 for ad hominem.
That’s fair. I chose violence.
deleted by creator
You didn’t answer the question though.
It could be owned by, like, multiple people? Also, a lot of companies in the world, and especially the ones managing costly infrastructure assets, are owned by states (which are a form of “multiple people”).
Multiple people working together with 1 goal? Like a … Company?
Yes, a company which shares the results of it’s efforts between all involved and not one person or family.
So a company whose ownership is open to the public, with that ownership divided into “shares”. And all the “share” holders can cooperate to decide the direction of the company…what would one call this novel form of organizing a venture…a “cooperation”?
Not open to the public. Open to those who actually contribute to it’s operations.
And in none of your objections can you justify the CEO pay and the political power they weild. 40x the lowest paid worker, and no more.
Ok so. Shares of ownership are open only to employees. How does this company get external investment? I suppose outside entities are allowed to invest with an expectation of a return on investment?
And also, btw: abolish corporations.
Leftist version of “I hate Obamacare, but don’t touch my ACA!” rofl
Fcking lol
Only open to the Workers, not the public, and it’s a Worker Co-operative. An existing Socialist organizational structure, not new.
Do you think shareholders want their money going to extravagent buildings, Italian desks, and billions in hoarded cash?
Your view of “shareholders” is that they are just cash cows to be milked and not financial participants. As a shareholder I gained fourteen cents this year; how much did the CEO gain?
Workers own the factory. Collectively. Through democratic process of any variety.
In those situations what do the workers that have no interest in owning the means of production do? Like, if you just want to do your job and go home, is there still room for you under that system? Or does it require active participation from every worker?
Do you think Capitalist owners can’t just do their job and go home? Do you even think Capitalist Owners work?
If Workers share ownership, they can hold electoral councils, elect a manager, or do any other form of decision making without requiring constant input.
Do you actively participate in every company you own in your S&P 500 ETF?
Ooooooookaaaaayyyyy. You are more interested in feeling attacked and defending your ego than discussing praxis. I’m not interested in that.
Also lmao thinking I own stock.
No, I’m not. I was genuinely asking questions here, I was not intending on being confrontational. I’m not even who you originally replied to.
Even if you personally don’t own stock, do you imagine everyone who owns a share of VOO makes decisions for every company in the S&P 500? That’s my point, ownership isn’t necessarily management, just entitlement to control and profit.
If Workers collectively own a factory, they may choose to vote on how to produce, or vote on a manager. The point is leaving it to the Workers to decide, rather than a dictatorial owner, ie a Capitalist.
Yes I noticed, which makes it even weirder that you are asking about my knowledge about capitalist systems and my personal opinions, which have zero relevance to the question.
I still have no idea what this has to do with a system where the workers own the means of production.
It is entirely relevant. By asking what a worker would do if they don’t want to contribute to actively managing a company, you are demonstrating a lack of understanding how Capitalist systems function. You’re implying Capitalist owners actively contribute and manage the companies they own. Owning stocks and thus a portion of companies doesn’t mean you’re an active manager, it just entitles you to voting power proportional to your ownership.
If workers owned the Means of Production, then they collectively have voting power, but a worker that does not wish to use said voting power would act just as any other Capitalist that does not wish to exert their power would do: Collect profit and maintain their current power.
XD my man… I knew you could do it! You just had to stop attacking your assumptions for 2 seconds!
They get a part of the company’s gains regardless because they are workers.
Simple. That sounds really good.