Comment on Capitalism is all about using state power to protect capital by force

• realitaetsverlust@piefed.zip ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  Cool in concept, not feasible in real life.

  source

  • FlyingCircus@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    lol what? Even setting aside worker-owned socialist societies, worker-owned businesses exist and prosper in the United States today. It is obviously feasible.

    source

    • adjectivenoun@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      Which would suggest workers owning the means of production is compatible with market capitalism. Just heavily incentive coops and other collective ownership schemes.

      source
• TheKingBombOmbKiller@lemmy.zip ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  What makes a workplace owned and managed by the workers incompatible with the role of a chief executive officer?

  source

  • FlyingCircus@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    CEOs exist to siphon surplus value to shareholders instead of letting the people who produce it retain it. It’s more that the CEO role is unnecessary in worker owned businesses than incompatible.

    source

    • TheKingBombOmbKiller@lemmy.zip ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      CEOs exist to execute the decisions of the board. In a capitalist system the decisions can often be boiled down to “siphon surplus value to shareholders instead of letting the people who produce it to retain it.”

      In a socialist system where the workers have a controlling majority of the board, you still need someone to execute the decisions of the board. Or are you suggesting that a worker owned company doesn’t need any top leader beyond the board?

      source

      • FlyingCircus@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        Why should it? If the workers themselves are on the board, then they know what the board decides. No need for a middleman CEO.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
• Tiger666@lemmy.ca ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  Finally real democracy!

  source

  • FlyingCircus@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    For sure. Can’t have democracy without democracy in the workplace.

    source