>workers/proles pool together their funds, buy some means

>>3219879
>Democratically run the workplace
I don't think you appreciate how much value proper management adds.

>>3219879
That happened in Argentina, some trots took a industry in the 80s an ran it until today

>>3219879
>has never worked at a corporation
>even the mail worker gets equal vote to smartest financial analyst

>>3219902
That's the crux isn't it? Does management need to exist? The Commies say no, the Capitalists say yes. If management was unnecessary, you'd see it he cut off.

>>3219908
What is this corp?

>>3219908
What's the name of it?

>>3219879
>Why doesn't this happen? Has it happened?
It happens literally all the time. There's three co-ops that I know of in my city alone (Atlanta).

>>3219922
a hotel and a few glass and ceramic factories if I remember right
They had state subsidies though, not really competitive

>>3219902
Proper management doesn't need to have a private owner. In fact, public ownership allows for FAR GREATER management, as the people who hire and fire managers are intimately familiar with the conditions of production.

File: capitalism_wolff2.jpg (304KB, 640x960px) Image search: [Google]

304KB, 640x960px

>>3219879
So this is what commies defend and want?

>>3219925
Why aren't they more powerful? Larger?
Why are they not beating out the other companies?

>>3219914
Management isn't ownership you smoothbrain pseud

>>3219959
I mean "management" in the form of "managers" as a specific job.
Not management in the form of managing as a concept existing.

If you weren't such an aggressive nigger you'd have realized that.

>>3219940
This also gives them incentive to act against the company's interest to secure their own employment if the event of technological improvements, vote against layoffs if the company is going through cash flow issues, and arrange to hire only their own relatives and friends instead of qualified individuals. Experience with production is easy to grasp and a person can become familiar with operations in less than a year tops. You need objective, ruthless, and intelligent overseers if the enterprise is to even break even.

>>3219902
>>3219914
Bruh, in nearly all contemporary corporarions the management is elected by the shareholders, rather than being made up of the shareholders themselves. The only thing that changes is the "shareholders" being the currently-employed workers rather than the owners.

>>3219940
So if these are the superior way of doing things, why are they not more popular? If they're less wasteful, why don't investors put more money in them to make them grow larger?

>>3220005
You can always sell your share as a shareholder.
If I fire an employee, what happens to his shares? Does he still have voting rights and get dividends?

>>3220006
Shareholders rarely offer employees the chance to buy out the entire business

>>3219984
So did I. Most managers are employees themselves, not business owners.

>>3220005
I don't think I said or implied to the contrary...
The management runs the business, the shareholders invest, and the laborers work. If the laborers can also run the business without management, why do the investors not skip the unnecessary management?

>>3220030
Why not?

>>3220036
It's still corporate hierarchy, and by Marxists theory they are parasites.

>>3220039
>If the laborers can also run the business without management, why do the investors not skip the unnecessary management?
And who implied that they were? The thing syndicalists propose isn't the management being unnecessary, it's the workers being shareholders (and thus responsible for hiring the management).

>>3220081
>It's still corporate hierarchy, and by Marxists theory they are parasites.
As employees who do not own the means of production, managers are not conflated with capitalists in marxist theory.