Thread: Workers as Share-Holders

Originally Posted by Alric

Walmart does that, I think they like match any shares the employee buys to some limit. They also give bonuses to people at stores that do really well. It doesn't seem to be very effective however, since most people at wal-mart still don't seem to like their jobs very much, and as I understand it, things like that are meant to be motivators.

They don't do what I'm talking about. Giving stock options to employees is a different style than basing the ownership of a company around the workforce.

Originally Posted by Supernova

Surely you're not this dumb. You mean to refer to Stalinism. Russia had true communism for all of about 2 months. Marx would have been one of the last people to advocate totalitarian anything.

Aside from that, I think this is a very interesting idea, and this is the kind of discussion that needs to be going on on a large scale right now.

I agree but most considerations of communism have been manipulated to consider it the same as a Fascist Government Monopoly on industry. What I was trying to say was imagine communism without a centralized power structure (in b4 cmind says then its not communism), but rather that businesses remained independent (aside from regulation to protect the environment and stuff) but also adopted a model where the workers owned the companies they work for.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

imagine communism without a centralized power structure

In other words, communism.

Originally Posted by Supernova

In other words, communism.

I am distinguishing between actual communism and the practice of communism/misconceptions of communism. Forgive me for not ignoring the commonly held (but misconstrued) definition of the philosophy.

Anyways, this hybrid form you guys are talking about isn't exactly what I had in mind because it's too easy to cheat the workers or, as someone pointed out, make them think they're getting paid in stock when they really just want a paycheck.

I'm thinking, since Walmart was brought up, that the Walton's should only own as much stock as would be due a manager, which should not be too much more than what the average worker gets. I think industry is the root of power and therefore democracy can only work when it starts within industry, with the employees electing their overseers, and deciding the direction of their company, rather than being subject to this antiquated system.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

I am distinguishing between actual communism and the practice of communism/misconceptions of communism. Forgive me for not ignoring the commonly held (but misconstrued) definition of the philosophy.

Anyways, this hybrid form you guys are talking about isn't exactly what I had in mind because it's too easy to cheat the workers or, as someone pointed out, make them think they're getting paid in stock when they really just want a paycheck.

I'm thinking, since Walmart was brought up, that the Walton's should only own as much stock as would be due a manager, which should not be too much more than what the average worker gets. I think industry is the root of power and therefore democracy can only work when it starts within industry, with the employees electing their overseers, and deciding the direction of their company, rather than being subject to this antiquated system.

So basially, one could speak of it as a mixed economy, but rather than mixed capitalism/soialism, mixed capitalism/communism. It's a very interesting proposal, one that I think deserves further examination (though to actually achieve it would not be easy because the companies, especially the most significant ones, are currently owned by the high upper class, and I'm sure you've noticed they don't often like to share willingly).