• gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    3 months ago

    one thing that bothers me is that these things are never phrased in modern vocabulary

    “the workers should own the means of production” --> “everybody*(?) should own some company shares”

    * who is everybody? citizens? foreigners? children? idk

    • PugJesus@piefed.socialOPM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 months ago

      The thinking, when it’s expressed as shares, is generally “Every employee should own the company’s shares, rather than shares being bought and sold”

      Mondragon Corp largely works like that, to my understanding.

        • PugJesus@piefed.socialOPM
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          3 months ago

          I mean, it is done in practice. Syndicalism used to be a major strain, even, of leftist thought that essentially argued that taking over the economy via the establishment or conversion of firms to socialist principles was how socialism would be established.

          Unfortunately, we’ve come a long way - and not in a good sense - since the heyday of unions in the 1910s and 1920s.

    • Grail@multiverse.soulism.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      Having shares only makes sense if they can be bought and sold. I think we shouldn’t have shares. I think every company in the world should be structured as some form of volunteer organisation or nonprofit. The Aboriginal model has a proven success record spanning 60,000 years, so I think listening to Indigenous Australians is the best starting point we can get.