Ask Lemmy

186 readers

95 users here now

Ask Lemmy community on sh.itjust.works. Ask us anything you feel like asking, just make sure it's respectful of others and follows the instance rules.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Why are many businesses in democratic nations largely undemocratic? (lemm.ee)

submitted 1 day ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

52 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Because you are not paying enough attention:

a Joint-stock-company is by definition democratic. The shareholders are meeting reguarly and voting who get's to sit on the board, can fire the CEO and so. That doesn't apply to the workers, yes, but between the owners it kind of is democratic.
Yes, I know that many tech companies have this strange divide between "voting stock" and "non-voting stock" and founders, who still are in control without owning the majority of the stock, but that is an american thing and not legal in many parts of the world
there are also many ways to ensure democratic collaboration within a company. Look up the german "Betriebsräte" f.e.
there are also many cooperatives around there who are owned by their workers
and there are many state-owned companies around in democratic nations

[–] [email protected] 3 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

Because you are not paying enough attention:

I appreciate the examples provided but disagree with your opening, and would suggest the same of you. I specifically said "many businesses" and "largely undemocratic" as I was aware of most of the examples you gave beforehand.

In particular I don't view the joint-stock model as sufficiently democratic due to what you already acknowledge, i.e. limited to owners/shareholders.

Regardless, appreciate you bringing to light "Betriebsräte", as I'll have to look into that.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 hours ago

Democracy is "owned" by stakeholders, and those stakeholders are the people. So it makes sense for them to have a say in how government works.

A company is owned by shareholders, and they take all of the risk for the company. An employee shows up and gets paid, with none of the downside risk (their paycheck won't go negative), so the employee isn't a stakeholder. Therefore, shareholders make the decisions, not employees.

In some structures, employees are the share holders and thus help make the decisions.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

"kind of democratic between the owners" is just oligarchy. still not democratic.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

That's like saying the foreigners not having a vote is being not democratic though. Because 100% of the owners have voting rights not only a few.

I think what you intend to criticize is the fact that owners and "employees" can be separated, right? If yes then I'm with you.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 21 hours ago

Well, yeah, I'm criticizing the fact that owners under the current capitalistic system are only a handful of people who usually aren't workers. If "employees" had a say in how a company is run, then it would be democratic.