|
It's like communism, but it's not communism, at least it's not the ultimate form of communism. IMHO, the key difference is that in communist theory, the workers own the means of production through a worker-class-ruled society, not as individuals, and it's still within the framework of a market-oriented economic system. why don't work? first, when equity dispersion is accompanied by the dispersion of decision-making power, it can lead to excessively high decision-making costs, reduced efficiency, and lack of competitiveness. However, when equity is dispersed but decision-making power is concentrated (i.e., a dual-class share structure), the interested parties with decision-making power tend to skew the benefits towards themselves. it's not compatitalbe with the market-oriented economic system. second, "Altruistic collectivization" is entropy-increasing. For example, if a company does what you said, when a crisis occurs, it's hard for it to survive. Its products may fail to be sold, and the company may go bankrupt. Other companies can also go bankrupt, but their failure is part of the capitalist system. When they fail, the system as a whole doesn't necessarily fail. But when a "communist-style" company fails, it dies, and it won't come back easily. More importantly, this is a world dominated by capitalism. It's not just an ideology of companies, it's an ideology of states. For example, when the IMF/WHO comes to a country that is suffering from a global capitalist economic crisis, the IMF will kindly offer its help, but with some conditions, such as requiring you to also accept its help in reforming your economic system. Although there are still some similar commercial entities that are "owned" collectively, most of them are stagnant. They can survive, but they cannot expand. |