From the previous article on economics "Introduction to Economics", we've learnt what profit is, and how it is generated. Now we'll take a closer look at Alternative Company Models.
For an employee the goal is to maximize salary, while the goal of a capitalist (GM / Company owner) is to maximize profit and thus minimize salaries for his employees. Obviously salaries have to be on at least a level that doesn't make the worker starve. Starvation hits the skill/wellness levels of the worker and the productivity of the company. As an owner you don't want productivity to decrease. Observe that there are two opposite interests here. The one of the owners, and the one of the employees.
Is this whole system of workers generating profits for the owners in the interest of the workers? One might argue that the company owners provide jobs, and they do, but are there no alternative companies models that aren't based on what we call capitalist exploitation? Are capitalists needed for companies to exist? As we saw in the previous article, the answer is no.
Practical Considerations of Collective Ownership
All employees own the company through an SO. This means that the values of what you produce end up in your pockets according to the amount you've produced. All income go back to the workers and does not end up in the private hands of a single owner who doesn't work himself.
This kind of SO can be created in the forum. The costs of starting a company in itself can be financed by many workers getting together donating the amount 40Gold/#workers per worker to the SO. In a socialist state, the workers would be able to request state funding or loans for this purpose through a state SO bank like "Nordbanken". Today we have a liberal state, at least in Sweden.
In this country there is at least one self-managed workers' company. It's called MSAP Solidaritetsmat. A food producer.
Depending on the goals of the state, i.e. depending on what interests it represents (the owners in the financial elite or the workers, non-socialist or socialist), the state will create state-owned companies in various production sectors. If the state is a worker-state there will be state ownership in all of these. Profits won't end up in private hands like in the standard capitalist ownership model, but in the hands of society. Workers (as they are in power) will be able to decide how big this profit is through their ruling party or labour union, and how much they get to keep. Profits in one sector could fund and subsidize other sectors like housing, hospitals, guns and so forth. Houses could be made affordable for all and thus improving the overall wellness and productivity of the country making it stronger. This instead of having all profits end up in private hands and fund a great deal of houses for a few.
This country can be made very successful,if these kind of things aren't left to the individual or the market who usually can't afford or coordinate the improvement of the situation all by itself.
Like in the workers self management case, there would be need for SO's. Preferably one such to balance losses and subsidies among the companies according to need. We can call it "Staten" ("The State"). An SO like Staten would guarantee the possibility to plan the economy to make it rational and more successful. It would guarantee hospitals, work and housing for all. That is unique in the world.
An example of the success of state ownership is the one of hospitals in Sweden. The hospital-market collapsed and wasn't affordable enough. Eventually no hospitals were produced. The state went in and socialized the sector. Now we have the worlds highest amount and quality of hospitals. No other country or market has managed this.