There is no fallacy here. Just answer me this, instead of going on a rant tangent: Who does the cleaning? And what do they get for it?

▲

martin-t 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

They get ownership. The rest is determined from that, since owners collectively decide how much everyone gets paid.

(There might need to be further legal restrictions like minimum wage or tying wage to the skill coefficient used to determine rate of gaining ownership - see my other comments.)

▲

auggierose 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

See my other comment. As long as the cleaner cannot fire the CEO, but only the other way around, ownership doesn't mean anything. If you own 0.00001 percent of a company, that gives you about as much power as your vote in a democracy. Probably less so.

▲

martin-t 5 days ago | parent [-]

Why should the collective owners even have a CEO and why should he have the power to fire people? The only way would be if they collectively decided that. There are other ways to structure the company.

> 0.00001

That's a lot of zeros, must be a huge company and/or a very low skill short-time worker. And a small country if one vote is worth more than that.

	▲	auggierose 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		Yes, I like my cleaner example. It will be a lot of zeros. Yes, let's end this discussion, I think your views are quite naive and not well thought out.

▲

5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]

▲

mauzybwy 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

There’s a bit of a chicken and egg problem here bc you’re applying asking how to apply cooperative organization theory to a capitalist organization. Presumably in a largely cooperative economy, the cleaner would be a worker-owner of a cleaning organization that provides cleaning labor to the manufacturing organization in question.