>>37
I'm sick of people saying capitalism is built on authoritarian relationships. The boss/ worker relationship is not authoritarian. The reason workers don't have a say in the means of production is because that's not what they're paid to do. A blue-collar worker is contracted to work, not to contribute ideas or dictate how the company is run. A boss simply manages, and he trades money for labor, whether that labor be intellectual or physical. You could argue that workers aren't getting a fair trade for their labor, that's OK. Maybe someone's risk is higher than their reward. What you can't argue is that the worker doesn't have enough power. Of course he doesn't have power, it's not his company, he is simply trading his labor for money or other benefits. Simply working somewhere does not entitle you to make decisions on how the company is run. That's left to the people who actually run the company. If you start you're own business, you hire people to work, not to usurp your position. Ultimately, you were the on e who risked your capital, so you should make the executive decision. It's more authoritarian to claim that doing physical labor somehow entitles you the same benefits as the person who created the ideas and invested in it. Capitalism is strictly contractual. If you wish to start a cooperative company where everyone is involved in the decision making, then fine, that's actually legal in capitalism. You can run your company however you wish. But to take a mutual agreement between employer and worker, and claim the worker should have control even though it wasn't in the original contract, is authoritarian.