| > Wrong. Company ownership is perfectly democratic. It's not because a lot of shares end up owned by one of the few large ETF/pension plan administrators: in 88% of the S&P 500 companies [1], Vanguard/BlackRock/State Street together own the majority of the shares, and at least the passive ETF-held parts usually do not participate in voting which means that tiny "activist" investors now have a lot more vote percentage than they should. Not to mention corporates with different share classes where the ones with voting rights are to a large degree privately held and the ones traded publicly do not have vote rights, such as Tesla [2]. > Every single time communism has been tried, it inevitably ends up that ultimate power rests in the hands of a few. So where's the difference to the current situation, where those with the "ultimate powers" in society are effectively under control of their party donors? At least in communism, everyone had a right to a home to live in and to a decent employment matching his skill (see e.g. Art 24 sec. 1 of the Constitution of the former GDR [3]). [1]: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/business-and-politic... [2]: https://www.thestreet.com/investing/stocks/how-elon-musk-con... [3]: https://www.kas.de/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=9c5c691c... |
Also, non-public companies exist.