1495
Every day, EVERY - DAY
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 10 Sep 2023
1495 points (96.1% liked)
Memes
45602 readers
1286 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
I think most people (correctly imo) don’t see how a large enough company can operate without some hierarchy, which seems to run up against the idea of being entirely equally employee owned.
There’s always going to be leaders (manager or just someone who others listen to) That person necessarily has more responsibility and control than his peers and is justly compensated more (otherwise nobody would put in extra work, say, to train as an engineer or doctor)
That person has their own interests that don’t always line up with the company and may use their influence to guide the company in a way that benefits them.
Suddenly you have a worker class and a bourgeois-esque class.
Most people (incorrectly imo) think that the “unbiased” checks and balances in government counteract that.
If there’s another option that accounts for hierarchies in large employee owned and operated companies let me know…. please
EDIT: large as in number of employees
Again, people are implicitly strawmanning things. No one except extreme anarchists believe in zero hierarchy. Why does everyone always try these insane notions? I didn't say "abolish hierarchy", yet here you are using it as an argument.
If you think executives that make literally hundreds of times more than the lower workers are actually working hundreds of times harder, you are fucking stupid.
If you think they're taking all the risk, then you are fucking stupid. If the company goes under, EVERYONE has to find a new job. If it's a dangerous job, it's the laborers who are taking basically all of the risk.
Just because you can point at specific companies doing good things DOES NOT adequately defend the status quo.
You didn’t present any ideas or solutions to argue against. There’s no argument happening here.
Nor are there strawmen because there’s no argument being made.
You said that there’s generally a lack of imagination with regards to this stuff and I was just sharing my opinions as to why.
You are strawmanning the concept. I'm saying you are likely misunderstanding what the terms being discussed even mean.