• J Lou@mastodon.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    1/5

    Worker coops can have managers. Managers’ interests can be aligned with the long term interests of the firm by giving them non-voting preferred shares as part of their compensation. Managers will make sure workers they are managing perform. The difference is that these managers are ultimately accountable to the entire body of workers and are thus their delegates.

    Profits/wages don’t have to be divided equally among workers.

    I’m going to use multiple toots since I’m on Mastodon

    • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      Managers’ interests can be aligned with the long term interests of the firm by giving them non-voting preferred shares as part of their compensation.

      It really depends on the specific form of socialism. If we look at the most influential forms (say, USSR or China), the decision makers are politicians, so they’re more motivated by power and influence than the good of the whole.

      IMO, socialism can work if it’s practiced by smaller orgs and not as a government structure. So unions and co-ops, not planned economies.

      • J Lou@mastodon.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        I’m not a socialist because I think markets are useful and haven’t seen a planned economy proposal that seemed plausible. Worker co-ops and unions aren’t socialism in 20th century sense because they are technically compatible with markets and private property.

        An economic democracy is a market economy where all firms are worker co-ops, so I was speaking about managers in a worker co-op

        @technology