Comment on Capitalism is all about using state power to protect capital by force
FlyingCircus@lemmy.world 4 days agoI mean, we have the technology to make direct democracy work, but even with representative democracy, there’s no need for a single leader. There are many examples of functioning anarchic organizations. I’m not really imagining one ideal way to organize enterprises, there are many ways to do it. Hell, you could even do it with a single elected leader, but it wouldn’t be functionally the same as a CEO. In a socialist workplace, the leader wouldn’t have absolute authority nor be payed an outrageously unequal wage. The workers would elect them and be able to recall them.
TheKingBombOmbKiller@lemmy.zip 4 days ago
The last option you are describing is a CEO. The employee who among the officers, charged by the board to execute their decisions, is chief among them. That’s what makes them a CEO. Their mandate, authority and wages are decided by the board. And in the companies where the workers have a controlling majority, the CEO is unlikely to have either absolute majority nor an disproportional wage.
You have described how a workplace owned and managed by the workers can be compatible with the role of a chief executive officer.
FlyingCircus@lemmy.world 3 days ago
Sure, I guess by technical definition. But popularly, if you describe a role that has no power except to communicate decisions of the board and who is not paid excessively, most people are not going to think “CEO.”