• ZMoney@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    There is a simpler way to do this, and it’s a worker cooperative. Workers own the business and they democratically decide what the business does. There is no separation between the leadership and the workforce. Maintaining that separation will always result in conflict because the interests of the owners will never be the same as those of the workers.

    • StoneyDcrew@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      How is that simpler?

      It sounds way more complex to logistically set up a system like that. Best case is a lot of regulation needed, worse case is a complete overhaul of the economy.

      • ZMoney@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        It already exists. See for example Mondragon

        The major issue is that it has to compete on a global market that’s exploitative.

        • StoneyDcrew@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          100% agree with the exploitative global market.

          Also, that was an interesting read and a great example of an ideal company’s practice.

          Though it was a bit vague on where the start up funding came from. Which is what I was most curious about (and my main reason I consider the practice complex to implement)

          Mondragon seems to be founded by a generous man that created the company from the ground up with these principles in mind, but unfortunately most people with the resources to this kind of business do not have such great ideals (and for the most part, they have these resources because they don’t have them and thus exploited workers)

          How would a business take off the ground in this scenario without a selfless benefactor?

          Also it’s a much different beast to convert an already established company like amazon and convert that to the same system. Mainly in that the owners and shareholders do not want to give up their investment for nothing.

          What are the options then? Steal the company from the amazon investors in spite of the capital they invested to the company? Or pay them off?(would be expensive if going by market value)

          Stealing would still be dystopian. I have no love for amazon investors, but imagine a lovely small family-owned business that invested all their life savings into it, before being taken from them because they hired some teenagers to help them for the summer.

          It’s complex, and not likely compatible with the current economy (unless the rich bastard’s hearts grow 3 sizes large), but it would be nice if this business type was more widespread.

          I consider the tax rate suggestion a good way to integrate the employee vote with capitalism. it still “survival of the fittest” but the “fittest” would be a profitable company that looks after it’s employees.

          • ZMoney@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 months ago

            Yeah, it’s not an easy problem to solve. As someone who is mainly versed in the socialist tradition I view class conflict as the primary impedement to social progress. And any system that incorporates competition will, in my view, generate class conflict. It’s all or nothing: you can’t have a cooperative structure operating within a competetive framework.

            In practical terms, this has meant a lot of different things over the past few centuries. Nobody has found the correct answer. In the present system, the first step is unionization and increasing class consciousness among the labor force. The second step is coordinated action via targeted mass action (think cross-industry work stoppages that disrupt production and logistics). Essentially you cripple the owner class at large by disrupting their profits and force them to make concessions. You could have a gradual move towards cooperative ownership by forcing down the ratio of CEO to average worker pay. You could force the passage of the types of tax reform that you are arguing for. You could force the passage of social welfare reform.

            But ultimately this movement would have to be worker-led, because the ruling class will always invent new ways to entrench themselves in power. John Maynard Keynes referred to the “euthenasia of the rentier class”. In other words, they would humanely pass into the dust bin of history because they would no longer exist as a class, because the workers would not tolerate them.