> Hierarchy is not dictatorship

Sure, the difference if whether the hierarchy is determined from the top or bottom. Top leads to unfair benefits for the top layer. This is called exploitation.

> wide variety of reasons

Can you give me examples?

Same reason we have laws against slavery and indentured servitude.

Are you referring to communism? Because that was all about central control - the exact opposite. It was about as cooperative as countries with "democratic" in name are actually democratic.

Don't let a bad implementation ruin a good idea. Instead, look at what specific ways the implementation fails to learn for next time.

> bad boss

It's not (just) about a bad boss. It's about somebody being in a position of power who captures the entire value you produce (sales, IP, patents) and decided what fraction out of it you deserve.

> But if there's no private ownership, how would the different companies in the market get created and exist?

I don't see the problem. Every company starts with just a few people, maybe some machines, maybe some real estate. The issue starts when these people call themselves "founders" and everybody else becomes an "employee"[0].

Even though they are all doing the same work, employees get paid per unit of work, founders capture the remaining value produced. And then they hire "managers" who should be there to help workers be more productive but instead end up serving their own goals (see the Gervais principle).

And yes:

1) the founders took some risk in starting the business. They should get rewarded based on the amount of risk and their investment. Not in perpetuity.

2) some companies need a large up-front investment. Similarly, the investory should get rewarded based on invested amount and risk, not by owning a large chunk of the company in perpetuity.

Key point: as time goes on, the amount of work done by regular "working class" people completely outstrips the initial investment. The reward should go to people doing the actual work.

[0]: literally meaning "person being used"

Can you expand on that?

One theory I read is that historically states got bigger only up to the limit of their ability to manage the land and force people to pay taxes.

I don't know if it's right or wrong (and to what extent, most natural systems are complex with a multitude of factors influencing them) but I can easily imagine a similar principle applying to companies.

If you wanna expand by starting an office in the next town over, you need a way to communicate with it, otherwise it's just a separate business with a cash injection to start.

So you have a point.

But the core issue stands - the power hire/fire people, determine their salary and also capture their entire economic output leads to a power imbalance.

A dictator deciding that every village needs to produce X amount of steel instead of actually harvesting their crops and them millions of people dying is exactly the opposite of what I described.

RMS said whenever he promoted software freedom in the US, everybody pattern matched on communism and he had to explain the difference between voluntary and compulsory. This is the same problem.

This is related: https://habitatchronicles.com/2004/04/you-cant-tell-people-a...

I wonder if it’s ever been tried and, if so, how those economies and populations are doing as compared to the exploitive systems that Microsoft and FAANG workers are forced to endure.

Did you notice how communism was always about central control with only superficial or absolutely no elections?

Did you notice I specifically said decisions should be made democratically?

Are those two not in direct conflict?

Please, stop pattern matching, and actually consider what I wrote.

I am not from the US but this comment is rude and not constructive.