What makes a workplace owned and managed by the workers incompatible with the role of a chief executive officer?
Comment on Capitalism is all about using state power to protect capital by force
FlyingCircus@lemmy.world 3 weeks agoCEOs shouldn’t exist. Workplaces should be managed by the workers.
TheKingBombOmbKiller@lemmy.zip 3 weeks ago
FlyingCircus@lemmy.world 3 weeks 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.
TheKingBombOmbKiller@lemmy.zip 3 weeks 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?
FlyingCircus@lemmy.world 3 weeks 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.
Tiger666@lemmy.ca 3 weeks ago
Finally real democracy!
FlyingCircus@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
For sure. Can’t have democracy without democracy in the workplace.
realitaetsverlust@piefed.zip 3 weeks ago
Cool in concept, not feasible in real life.
FlyingCircus@lemmy.world 3 weeks 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.
adjectivenoun@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Which would suggest workers owning the means of production is compatible with market capitalism. Just heavily incentive coops and other collective ownership schemes.