3 ms·
Granted. But just because we can't realize the final solution to the capitalist bourgeoise swine isn't a reason against an ownership structure that promotes mor
by ethbro 11y ago
Granted. But just because we can't realize the final solution to the capitalist bourgeoise swine isn't a reason against an ownership structure that promotes more employee equity. ;)
The honest argument is probably access to capital. When you boil it down, why would a capital owner trust a structure that was fairly antithetical to him or her and their pals? It's starting off with a fairly big black mark.
And then of course there's the "too many leaders, not enough followers" issue. I'd love any links that pointed to whether anyone has come up with a good solution to the tension between the efficiencies of centralized control and the equality of diffuse control in a general manner.
I thought Kim Stanley Robinson's Red Mars idea of a truly randomly elected legislative body was interesting. Jury duty for legislature, in essence. Albeit you'd probably need a separate body to develop professionalism.
- crdoconnor 11y agoI'm not against it, I'm just pointing out that even with an equitable ownership of a business the value of your labor is still being leeched upon via your factors of production.