Every company should be owned by its employees

Another thing, one related to your original post: it is, of course, good imho to have a working hand-out system so that you don't starve when you are out of a job, or are forced to have to work for really shitty conditions.

This causes another problem, however. It is very easy to get dependant on these hand-outs because the difference in pay between the jobs you are able to do and the size of the hand-out can be very small. Even negative. We have (had) this problem in Sweden for a long time. And it is a problem because when people are less poor, then things cost more money because of it. Cynical, I know. Economics is very very hard.

I know in the US that worker co-operative can be marred by accusations of "communism" and that trade unions will own the business, but it doesn't have to be that way.

In the UK (hardly a hotbed of communism with now close to 50 years of centrist governments), one of the best known and most aspirational brands is the John Lewis Partnership. The "Partnership" in the name refers to the fact it doesn't have "employees" - they're all partners in the business. People working at JLP, and its subsidiary supermarket Waitrose, receive a share of the profits in addition to their salary.

The current CEO is dancing around trying to get private equity in to the business, but they are finding - like most businesses that seek capital investment - that investor interests in eternal rapid growth don't align well with employee interests.

JLP isn't alone in being a partnership. The vast majority of UK professional firms (accountants, law firms, management consultancies and so on), are LLPs, meaning senior partners are the owners and distribute profits between themselves.

Perhaps slightly more radical is the customer-owned co-operative. Started in Rochdale (possibly with the help of some of my ancestors who hail from there), in 1844, shoppers with the Co-Op, effectively get a return of profits based on how much they spend - the original loyalty program.

Mutuals are also structured in this way like Nationwide are the largest mortgage brokers in the country, and if you have even £1 in a savings account or mortgage with them, you have voting rights at AGMs, and own part of the organisation. Credit unions are similar, but typically operate as non-profits.

And this is all healthy. Look at the oldest businesses in the World[1], they're not driven by growth, they're not driven by next quarter's targets, they're about longevity and creating something that lasts. They're typically family owned or owned in a way that means the workers reap the benefits. Many of them change hands in private ownership, sure, but no hedge fund is going to be interested in extracting value from them - they're not intended to scale on purpose.

I've come around in recent years to Cory Doctorow's ideas on capitalism (in the purest sense of that word, not "free markets", but investors making their living by demanding returns on capital), being misaligned with a healthy long-term business, particularly in the tech industry. "Building to scale" has become toxic. Unicorns are destroying our industry. I don't understand - and I know this will be controversial here on HN - why anyone would want to make some billionaire investment fund richer, just so they can have a yacht, making money off adtech.

The next thing I do will likely be an LLP or a co-op (probably employee owned, but a tech firm that is customer-owned co-op would be interesting). The goal will be to build something that outlives me by a long, long time. I'd encourage others to look at alternatives too.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_companies

No need to take my words literally. I you will, favor natural right and yes, put a bit of something on top. But this is not happening clearly. There is a lot of subsidizing and regulation. They are giving, literally, prizes to people that do nothing and punishments to people that kill themselves working. On the way, they have been swapping incentives from working hard to not work.

This in itself is a problem. Currently I see democracies as giant clientele systems. I am not far from the truth at all I think, at least in the case of my country (Spain).

Coops don’t want to beat the competition, they want to be a useful structure for A) their clients and B) their workers.

If they manage to do A+B, they have already won. They don’t need or want to beat out competition.

They don’t play the capitalists game, they play the real game of "in a working society, workers want to be useful and customers wants a good service". There is nothing more to happiness of a society. Everything else is just about making rich people more rich.