this post was submitted on 22 Feb 2025
24 points (87.5% liked)

Ask Lemmy

187 readers
58 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
BomberMan9865@sh.itjust.works
csm10495@sh.itjust.works
24
Why are many businesses in democratic nations largely undemocratic? (lemm.ee)
submitted 14 hours ago by ALostInquirer@lemm.ee to c/asklemmy@sh.itjust.works
22 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 22 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] RowRowRowYourBot@sh.itjust.works 4 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

There isn’t an inherent value to making all businesses democratic because very often most workers have no idea how the larger company works as a whole.

I work for an import company. My union warehouse steward is constantly judging the financial health of the company based on the volume of boxes he is shipping. The problem is he has no idea the relative value of those boxes so while he’s bemoaning we sent out 1/4 of the number of boxes on Tuesday that we sent out on Monday he’s missing that the total value of Monday’s sales were 3x Tuesdays. In 5 years of working with the guy he has never wrapped his brain around this. Our company would be much worse off if he had a say in how it works because he simply cannot see the larger picture as those skills were never developed. This is not uncommon and I myself have been the guy who cant see that larger picture in other roles.

Should the janitorial staff have equal says as to the executives in how funds should be allocated? Do we recognize that not everyone has the same skill set and level of skill as others?

[–] Disaster@sh.itjust.works 4 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Should the janitorial staff have equal says as to the executives in how funds should be allocated?

Given their propensity for allocating the funds to themselves, probably.

[–] RowRowRowYourBot@sh.itjust.works -1 points 4 hours ago

Yeah that's not as common as people who have never run or managed a company or budget think.

The reality is your maintenance staff isn't going to have the skill set to make rational judgements outside their expertise.

[–] sharkfucker420@lemmy.ml 14 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago) (1 children)

Because as of yet the means of production aren't been public property. So the people who own them get to decide the structure of production and they decided we don't get a say in how they are used.

[–] RowRowRowYourBot@sh.itjust.works 0 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Do they need to be public property or do they need to be in the hands of those working there? I’d be more inclined towards the latter as in most cases the public as a whole is not going to have an informed or educated perspective on how specific jobs/roles/companies should behave.

[–] Muaddib@sopuli.xyz 1 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Those are so similar to each other in comparison with capitalism that at this stage, we mostly use the same words to describe both.

[–] RowRowRowYourBot@sh.itjust.works 0 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

No, they are not. The USSR and China (only in theory) had/has public ownership and it is quite different than the workers comtrooling their business.

When the public owns the means of production you open up the likelihood of the state directly oppressing the workers as happened in the USSR and China.

[–] sharkfucker420@lemmy.ml 1 points 24 minutes ago

All states oppress people, thats the point of a state. The goal of a socialist state is to oppress the bourgeois

[–] Maiq@lemy.lol 16 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

Capitalism is antithetical to democracy. Capitalism left unchecked will eventually lead to fascism.

[–] RowRowRowYourBot@sh.itjust.works 0 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

The first sentence is not true. The second sentence is absolutely true. It is funny how that works.

[–] Muaddib@sopuli.xyz 2 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

The first one is true.

In democracy, the people rule society

In capitalism, the rich rule the economy

The economy always rules society

In a capitalist democracy, society serves two masters. Both opposites. It's inherently unstable because it's self contradicting.

[–] RowRowRowYourBot@sh.itjust.works 0 points 3 hours ago

Economic systems are not viewed in terms of who "rules" unless we are taking a Marxist perspective.

The first sentence of the post is and will always be completely untrue.

[–] nahostdeutschland@feddit.org 7 points 12 hours 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
[–] ALostInquirer@lemm.ee 2 points 1 hour ago

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.

[–] rockerface@lemm.ee 3 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

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

[–] Scipitie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours 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.

[–] rockerface@lemm.ee 3 points 4 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.

[–] ArchRecord@lemm.ee 2 points 13 hours ago (2 children)

Well, there's nothing inherent about democracy. Nothing about reality inherently forces society towards a democracy.

Our democracies are just as socially constructed as our workplace structures. One of them (society) we've managed to make democratic. The other (businesses) are much smaller, and larger in number, and thus harder to influence overall as a system, thus it's taking us much longer to push them towards democratic structures as well.

[–] ALostInquirer@lemm.ee 2 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

You get where I was going with this! It's exactly that constructed form, and the supposed favoring of it, that led to my asking this.

If a society claims to embrace democracy, but doesn't extend this to the organization of its businesses, how much do they embrace democratic values?

[–] ArchRecord@lemm.ee 2 points 1 hour ago

how much do they embrace democratic values?

Not as much as we'd like, unfortunately. A lot of people are DINOs. (Democracy In Name Only)

[–] turtlepower@lemm.ee 0 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

Violence tends to speed things along.

Just sayin.

[–] RowRowRowYourBot@sh.itjust.works 1 points 7 hours ago

Not in this case it does not.