• the_inebriati@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Companies can still exist under socialism. They can exist in very similar forms to what we have at the minute. The difference is the ownership.

    I suppose the question I’d put back to you is “Do you think there is an intrinsic benefit in someone (who doesn’t do the work) owning a company vs each of the workers having an ownership stake in the business?”.

    • Mchugho@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Why should somebody who has worked somewhere for 10 minutes get an equal slice of the pie as the person who built the company up with all the risk involved?

      • the_inebriati@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Firstly, if that is your biggest concern, then we agree far more than we disagree and we’re quibbling over details (which I’m happy to do).

        Secondly, who said they do?

        It of course depends on what you mean exactly by a"slice of the pie" but there’s lots of ownership models to choose from. Direct ownership is one. An employee owned trust is another. These are to a large extent solved problems - mutuals and co-operatives walk among us now, after all.

        Thirdly, you mention the risk of setting up a company. If you’re not rich, why do you have to gamble your dignity and livelihood to participate in innovation? Would the world not be a better place if you could invent and create and innovate and fall back on a basic income if it falls on its face?

        Finally, even if we accidentally make things a bit too equal by giving Jim the new starter the same voting rights as Bob the grizzled veteran - is that not better than the system we have at the moment where incomprehensible hoarded wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few?

        • Mchugho@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          The fact that mutuals and co-operatives do walk among us but aren’t ubiquitous tells me a lot about how effective they are.

          Why should I gamble my livelihood to participate in innovation? Well in a collective society you would be gambling the common labour and stock instead indefinitely which is also non ideal. It acts as a filter so that people are only expending time and resources on ideas that will likely take hold and provide value to society.

          • the_inebriati@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            It acts as a filter so that people are only expending time and resources on ideas that will likely take hold and provide value to society.

            Do you actually believe that this filter is working as intended? Or do you think it ought to work like that?

            In a spherical society with no air resistance I can agree with you but it feels like it would be condescending for me to point out how this system that supposedly maximises value to society is in all likelihood going to kill your children’s children.

            • Mchugho@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              So what’s the alternative? Let anybody with any hair brained scheme they believe will be of benefit to others utilise as much labour and physical resource as possible in order to achieve their R&D goals from some central bank of resource?