• Dharma Curious (he/him)@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 month ago

    And depending on the situation, those are also laborers. Management has a role to play in any decently sized firm, regardless of it’s structure or ideology. The argument here has little to nothing to do with management, it has to do with ownership. Should the employees collectively own their workplace, or should a single entity or group of shareholders own the workplace?

    Hell, even the IWW let me sign up as a manager, though they technically have a “no bosses” rule.

    • GladiusB@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      I think self ownership would be awesome. However not everyone saves or invests. And so we are here. Someone had a great idea and traded it for equity and many have done it since.

      • Dharma Curious (he/him)@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        Not everyone would need to save or invest. Each individual employee would not be collecting the full value of what they produce. They would all be collectively collecting the full value of what they produce via the business. Management still exists, money still goes back into business. This isn’t some fantasy scenario, it actually exists successfully in the real world. Mondragon is the most cited example. Just because the enterprise is collectively owned by the workers doesn’t mean that each worker is in full control. It means the firm is run democratically, collectively.