196

All heirarchy is bad

Unless it's democratically elected hierarchy, right?

That’s one I haven’t read yet, I’ll check it out, thanks for the recommendation!

The only reason this happens is that capitalism ties survival to labour. Automation should be liberating us, and yet the structures of capitalism and "protestant work ethic" cause it to do the opposite :/. People would act this way because otherwise the greater efficiency acts as a detriment to their survival ability.

None of what you said is an argument against worker democracy, but an argument against the fundamental models of capitalism and """free""" market ideology ^.^ (or more generally, any system and ideology which gatekeeps access to basic resources behind their perceived ability to provide "value" or perform labour).

If workers benefitted from the profits of their own industry, they would have similar motives as capitalists have to maximize efficiency, if not more so. If turning a profit meant they benefitted, they would attempt to make the more stuff for less work. This would avoid the squeezing of workers to improve efficiency while also giving the workers an incentive to not have too many people in their industry. They would tend towards having as few workers as necessary in order to make them earn a larger cut of the profit. If they have too many workers, people would leave to other industries or companies that have better wages, stabilizing the wage of the original industry or company.

The main issue that would arise would stem more from unions having an effective monopoly on an industry. They would organize like a cartel to lower quality and stifle innovation. Monopoly is what would lead to what you describe, not who has a say in how things are run. Capitalism already tends towards monopoly, and so would an industry wide union.

A strategy that could address those issues would be banning all non worker owned businesses while also enforcing anti trust laws and promoting competitive markets. This would happen at the same time as the government having an exponential progressive wealth tax and income tax. Stocks would be taxed and converted into a national capital stock that would then be distributed evenly to citizens. A certain amount of this national stock would not be taxed, depending on things such as how much capital exists in the country. If a new company wanted capital to fund their business, they'd have to appeal directly to individuals to use their capital, or appeal to a regulated agency that handles other people's capital for certain uses.

Of course, basic human needs would be socialized, including things such as: healthcare, housing, food, water, protection, and other things critical to survival. The more critical the need, the more support it'll get from the government.

Objections to a plan like this such as "people can't be exceptional" are shallow and weak. You can still become famous, rich, or powerful, but not without the support of others. You can control an entire large company, but if you stop serving the interests of the workers or the members of the public that invested their capital in you, then you'll get replaced. You can earn a ton of income from being a valuable worker, but only so much of that income can be horded like a fucking dragon. No single individual could own an overly opulent mansion or superyacht, but they could rent it for some time if they have a high enough income and liquidate some of their capital.