I mean yeah once you're an owner, the we'd take your money. You don't get to keep the surplus value of your workers.
The factory would be owned by the company and the company would be owned by the workers. You could be a factory "owner" in the sense of the highest manager. But you likely wouldn't own the building. You would get a cut for what you help produce, but it wouldn't be a CEO amount of money. Bill Gates probably doesn't own the main Microsoft building, it belongs to Microsoft. MS is a corporate entity that has legal powers to own property like a human. And then MS is owned by Bill Gates and shareholders. Under socialism, all the workers would be the majority shareholders. No one person owns the building. A lot of basic socialism doesn't function differently than capitalism. The only real thing that changes is who's ultimately in charge and who gets the surplus value of labor.
Like all human categories, not everything fits exactly. It may be possible to have some system where private owners retain property but also workers have as much/more say than them about their property. It doesn't seem likely. It seems like you would need to abolish private property (not personal property!) or have the state just own all the factories and still let people own private homes and stuff.
But if the factory owner owns the building, and tries to rent it out, it's in his financial interest to keep capitalism intact. He wouldn't be able to make as much money under socialism. So that's why it's unlikely that owners would just be cool with letting workers take most of the money and do what they want with the buildings. But we are entering an age where new forms of organization is possible through technology. So idk. The likely thing would be that we transition and the relationship between owner/worker is abstracted even more than under capitalism.
I mean yeah once you're an owner, the we'd take your money. You don't get to keep the surplus value of your workers.
The factory would be owned by the company and the company would be owned by the workers. You could be a factory "owner" in the sense of the highest manager. But you likely wouldn't own the building. You would get a cut for what you help produce, but it wouldn't be a CEO amount of money. Bill Gates probably doesn't own the main Microsoft building, it belongs to Microsoft. MS is a corporate entity that has legal powers to own property like a human. And then MS is owned by Bill Gates and shareholders. Under socialism, all the workers would be the majority shareholders. No one person owns the building. A lot of basic socialism doesn't function differently than capitalism. The only real thing that changes is who's ultimately in charge and who gets the surplus value of labor.
Like all human categories, not everything fits exactly. It may be possible to have some system where private owners retain property but also workers have as much/more say than them about their property. It doesn't seem likely. It seems like you would need to abolish private property (not personal property!) or have the state just own all the factories and still let people own private homes and stuff.
But if the factory owner owns the building, and tries to rent it out, it's in his financial interest to keep capitalism intact. He wouldn't be able to make as much money under socialism. So that's why it's unlikely that owners would just be cool with letting workers take most of the money and do what they want with the buildings. But we are entering an age where new forms of organization is possible through technology. So idk. The likely thing would be that we transition and the relationship between owner/worker is abstracted even more than under capitalism.