nemo846

Guess it’s the same everywhere. Downvotes if you disagree.

> lots of money to spare

You can buy stock with just a few hundred dollars ...

You of course won’t have much voting power but you aren’t risking all that much money. If you have little to no money in it ... then you should have little to no say in how they conduct their business - it’s none of your business; Would you want random strangers to get a say in how you spend your time and money?

Regardless, no one buys stock to “have influence”. People buy stock to (ultimately) make money.

If said shareholders and their corporations are doing things that are harmful to society at large ... that’s what the government and the laws they enforce are for.

> has learned to wield its influence to blunt the people's electoral influence over the government.

And how do they do that?

> The people != some random group of people who aren't part of the government. The people should be understood as all the people of the nation. "People," by itself, could be a small (or large) group of oligarchs. Those are very different things.

That’s the thing. Anyone can be a shareholder of a corporation. There is nothing preventing anyone from buying shares. You just have to be willing to risk your money to buy said shares that may or may not yield any returns - i.e. risk throwing away your money.

> Democracies have a lot of experience with representative bodies that can support faster decision-making while still having some accountability to the people. It's a straw-man to to present worker representation as being direct democracy for every decision.

On a separate note, THE people already have democratic control over the most powerful organization in the land, their government.

The government can unilaterally (corporations have no real say) set laws and even break up corporations or even just outright seize them (i.e. nationalization).

> What do you think of that?

We kind of already have that in that democratically elected government officials have the power to unilaterally (without corporations having a say) set laws to constrain the behavior of corporations.

Problem is most of the people don’t elect officials that do so - at least according to some people’s standards.

In the past without online communities, no one is there to egg them on. Most people around them will just see them as crazy and ignore them.

Slowly their radical beliefs peter out and that’s the end of it.

> people control the means of production

Technically speaking, Amazon’s shareholders are people too - they aren’t part of the government.

Should we mandate that workers own 50% of every corporation?

Decision making is going to be much harder as you have to poll the workers to get a majority vote.

What happens if the corporation gets super powerful? It’s still a concentration of power - the executive and the workers of the company.

I.E. it will only deflate from accidental losses.

Deflation brings its own problems.

Unsubstantiated? I even posted links.

So all we are suppose to do is sing his praises on this site?

If they could I believe they would. They rather not be reliant on whoever is providing their speak recognition.

> Its not "fake news" that has elected these forces, it was the failure of the former mid-left/mid-right government parties to listen to their people and they have been voted out of office rightfully.

There has been signs of Russian meddling via propaganda though.

Nevertheless it’s the people who voted.

If said people don’t wake up and realize that they are being played as “useful idiots” to destabilize their own country ...