this post was submitted on 22 Feb 2025
58 points (88.2% liked)

Ask Lemmy

191 readers
54 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 week ago (9 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] 7 points 1 week ago (2 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week 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] 5 points 1 week 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.

load more comments (6 replies)