Democratically, generally.

It doesn’t mean everybody has to decide and approve everything, but you could vote for who does. That’s one method, at least. Some workplaces might find having no management at all better. But the important thing is it’s up to the workers (who are also the owners)

You think there are no large worker co-ops in the US? Embarrassing. You’ve never heard of Bob’s Red Mill or Publix?

And because I’m sure you aren’t happy with two examples, here’s an incomplete list of notable worker co-ops in the US from Wikipedia:

But yeah, dawg, worker co-ops are fake news.

PS: is there some reason you omitted the two sentences before that which make it clear this is one method of organizing worker’s co-ops?

If exercised directly, all members meet regularly to make—and vote on—decisions on how the co-operative is run. Direct workers’ cooperatives sometimes use consensus decision-making to make decisions

Hilarious that you would bring up software engineering considering one of the largest names in PC gaming, Valve, has a flat management structure. Seems like they’re able to manage running the Steam store, game development, and hardware development just fine.

There are many corporations structured this way or in a form closer to it the one with a board of directors and a ceo.

Anyone who can’t see how it’s possible is the same mind as those who couldn’t imagine a country without king and lords.

CEO is the king and the board are the lords. For whatever reason leaders loves to implement this hierarchy and the plebs except it. Probably because the later enabled the former.

It’s always funny when people say this can’t work, when it constantly works better than any current hierarchical structure. All the collectives I’m in work great, and there are tons of worker owned co-ops going strong, one of my activist groups will often go for meals at one after a day of protesting.

Just because you can’t imagine something different doesn’t mean it can’t work. It’s not just a mess of everyone trying to dominate each other, it’s cooperative and there are simple processes to facilitate it. It’s possible to run countries this way.

Hierarchies exist to exploit and abuse.

Worker cooperatives don’t have to have a flat structure. Smaller cooperatives might use a flat structure, but larger companies will delegate business decisions to management. The main difference is that the board of directors represent the workers instead of outside shareholders making it democratic

@politicalmemes

I like how you scrolled past a comment with a huge list of worker co-ops just in the US (there are also multinational ones) to tell someone else that it sounded too theoretical and complicated to work, lmao.

See, I would look at that as the linchpin question for capitalists.

I mean, it is the lynchpin question for capitalists as well, the origination of modern leftist thought was a critique of capitalism. They basically share all of the same questions.

And it is difficult to do, though no more difficult than our current systems. Large scale systems are always hard to manage. But how do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time. We don’t need to completely undo society to start moving towards a more equitable future.

And it is highly theoretical, no doubt about that. That’s how you start to improve anything, you theorize about solutions, impliment the best ones you can, and iterate overtime.

A hierarchical structure may not be ideal, but as with American democracy, it’s the worst thing we can think of besides everything else that has been tried.

That’s not actually true, work has been organized in a multitude of ways throughout history to various levels of effectiveness. And the outcomes of these structures have been largely situational. Saying hierarchical structures are the “least worst” is a broad generalization. Also, as I already pointed out, not all schools of leftist thought do away with hierarchy in the management of work. The only thing leftist schools of thought universally push for is changing the distribution model of value generated from said work.

Though if hierarchical structures are kept, how the hierarchy is determined is obviously usually changed as well. Given that our current model ties these decisions to the “owner” of the business, who’s status as owner would need to be removed or at least reimagined to work within the new value distribution model.

Also, I have to refute your “American Democracy is the worst thing we have tried except all the others”. That is just a thought killing statement meant to prevent discussions of better options.

We know for a fact that capitalism creates an ultra wealthy class that is comprised of a very small percentage of the population while also leaving a significant portion of the population in abject poverty. Even when it has the resources to support it’s entire population, at least at a “base necessities” level, as is the case in America.

You could argue that you don’t agree with the various solutions presented by any and all leftist (though it sounds like you really haven’t bothered to research it either), but understand that it is this inherent and unnecessary cruelty that pushes people to seek out a better system. And from a leftists point of view, every single person in poverty is a failure of the current system, every person who dies from inadequate health care coverage a reason to rework our systems, every extravagant dinner a billionaire eats while a child goes hungry proof that this system is in dire need of change.

Maybe you believe capitalism is somehow the best solution to these problems, and that we could do no better, that we truly have reached the “end of history”, but I doubt it. But if you think we could do more to help people, then you too might be more of a leftist than you realize.

And while most of us on the “far left” would love to see a future where we do away with the capitalist class, most of us would settle for health care and school lunches in the near future for now.