we allow the original owner to have the same piece he had before

so there is still inequality generated by successful entrepreneurship

but its capped

it doeswent work like that

yea so then debunk it bud

owner has 100% of the shares

now you give the company to the people

but he still has the same amount of shares?

does not compute

no omfg

GG @Green Syndicalism, you just advanced to level 2!

okay let me make it clearer

say you hold 100 shares

and your net revenues are say $100

each share is worth about $1 in net revenue

if $100 was the mutualisation or nationalisation mark

we hand everyone in the company 1 share each, but each share is divided amongst the net profits *above the $100 in net revenue*

so the owner's shares are fundamentally worth a different amount to the newly issued shares

and they are left untouched

you know how in capitalism we have different classes of shares?

preference shares

class A shares

class B shares

similar concept

so your practice still doesent change anything. People have nothing to gain

no they do

the owner still gets 1 share of the new class

so he still gets a piece of all future profits

but regardless, the point is that beyond a certain business value, the business itself is more than just 1 person providing the bulk of the value

its about the workers to a larger degree

you do know that lower class stocks have no voting power?

yes

so the head of the company would still run it.

so?

that whole concept could just be trashed by 1 very simple idea

no dude

JUST BUY THE FUCKING STOCKS WHEN IT IPO-s

everybody already does it

when the shares are issued to the workers, they will get voting rights. now they can vote to keep the original owner in charge if theyre happy with his management

if theyre not happy

then fuck the cunt