• masquenox
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    or the state might own it

    In other words… the workers don’t own squat.

    • Asafum@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      There would generally be mandatory meetings for workers to attend that would allow for debates on the trajectory of the company. The state would “own” it but the workers would still direct it.

      In a very very small way, it is like what Germany does with large corporations. They require a percentage of the board of directors be actual workers so it’s not just a bunch of capitalist parasites making decisions that would hurt workers just to boost their own portfolios/profits.

      • whataboutshutup@discuss.online
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        The word ‘union’ kind of brings more ring to the “workers’ ownership” in that case. ‘State’ sounds spooky.

        Your example is unheard to me tho. Kinda interesting how it works out.

      • masquenox
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        The state would “own” it

        In other words, the state owns it, and the workers doesn’t. In yet more words, it’s something only tankies, fascists and capitalists would call “socialism” - but not actual socialists.

      • masquenox
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Depends to what extent the state can be said to truly represent the workers.

        The extent is zero. If the state owns it, the workers doesn’t - that’s it.