Asklemmy

48321 readers

428 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 6 years ago

MODERATORS

207

Why don't communist movements focus on creating and nurturing employee owned businesses? (sh.itjust.works)

submitted 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) by Yondoza@sh.itjust.works to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

186 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The overarching goal of communism is for laborers to own the means of production instead of an owning/capitalist class. Employee owned businesses are the realization of communism within a capitalist society.

It seems to me that most communist organizations in capitalist societies focus on reform through government policies. I have not heard of organizations focusing on making this change by leveraging the capitalist framework. Working to create many employee owned businesses would be a tangible way to achieve this on a small but growing scale. If successful employee owned businesses are formed and accumulate capital they should be able to perpetuate employee ownership through direct acquisition or providing venture capital with employee ownership requirements.

So my main questions are:

Are organizations focusing on this and I just don't know about it?
If not, what obstacles are there that would hinder this approach to increasing the share labor collective ownership?

(page 2) 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] sbv@sh.itjust.works 8 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I suspect a big part is tax and investment law.

A bunch of poors (like me!) who band together won't have much capital to buy inventory or equipment. I doubt banks and investors would lend to the bunch of poors, since they have a non-standard decision making structure.

That's gonna make it hella hard to get started.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] verdigris@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 weeks ago

Join the IWW.

[–] deegeese@sopuli.xyz 5 points 2 weeks ago (18 children)

You’re proposing socialism.

Communism wants central authority.

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 weeks ago (14 children)

Imagine believing you can defeat capitalism without central authority.

load more comments (14 replies)

[–] sharkfucker420@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Thats so funny because you have it completely backwards. Communism, the end goal, is a moneyless, classless, stateless society in which hierarchy has ceased to exist. State socialism or "the dictatorship of the proletariat" is a interim step on the path to communism that aims to eliminate class and the social structures that perpetuate it.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Hierarchy would exist even in Communism, at least in Marxist conceptions. Class would not exist, but it won't be until an extremely developed, extremely late-stage Communism where all distinctions in the division of labor can genuinely be moved beyond, well after class has been abolished.

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments (16 replies)

load more comments