this post was submitted on 02 Jan 2025
-3 points (43.5% liked)
Anarchism
2292 readers
3 users here now
Discuss anarchist praxis and philosophy. Don't take yourselves too seriously.
Other anarchist comms
- !anarchism@slrpnk.net
- !anarchism@lemmy.blahaj.zone
- !anarchism@hexbear.net
- !anarchism@lemmy.ml
- !anarchism101@lemmy.ca
- !flippanarchy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
Join the matrix room for some real-time discussion.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
There have been a lot of bad faith lemmy users recently. Thanks for taking my question seriously and explaining why it might be taken otherwise :)
This is very clear!
So in these two examples both companies are relatively small and new and people have different responsibilities and are paid accordingly. For instance the lawyer who wins all the cases and the underwriters (if that is the term). Is it that they should be paid the same, even though their jobs are wildly different, or that they should have collective ownership in the organization? Would the latter then result in the same pay?
Thanks!
So fair ownership of the company is based on who controls it's direction and choices. Got it. How does this compare to companies that give employees stock or shareholders in general? Would one say a basic shareholder is not a worker therefore the same logic doesn't apply? But employees receiving stock would give them a vote in the companies decisions and leadership positions. Or does this capitalist method of dividing the company not apply at all?
The problem with stocks is their disorganisation. Shareholder-workers are simultaneously self-exploiting and extracting value (ie profit) from others, without a social contract or remuneration scheme. Shareholder-workers who become shareholders, that is they stop working there, have unjust power. Stocks can be sold or inherited.
On the other hand, a critical threshold of organised shareholders could change the organisation of the company into a more democratic form.
Thanks! That makes sense