Or it requires a software and operational change wherein some percentage of every transaction of stock, sale OR collateralization, goes to an automatic union formed of the employees.
They then come to gain position on the board.
It's a soft form of movement towards a corporate form of Communism.
The protection from "misuse" is that ultimately, it is not a thing that is controlled by committee and allotment of whatever. It's a system which redirects ownership away from "that which I have now is mine forever until I see fit" to "that which I have now, I keep by contributing to, and maintaining."
There is little to abuse in this. In fact, it corrects a great and ancient abuse.
This sort of option has been presented before--and it suffers the problem of buy-in. Either a new worker brings assets equal to the share of the company they will be getting (and where do they get that money??) or they don't (and it's almost certainly not in the worker's interest to hire anyone else as that's giving away their assets.)
The asset the worker brings is their work, time, and effort.
Either the company needs them to be what the company is, or the company does not so need them. If the law is simply that 100% of work in the US yields an equal share of stock transfer dies, there is nothing to buy.
Either they need a worker to do the work, to which they yield their leverage as to themselves when they exert it... or they do not.
There is nothing to buy in. A financial law gets passed, and then this thing starts happening, as a function of all stock trades and collateralization on the market.
Of course, it won't happen. The world is too broken at this point, and it is now too hard to just tear down those who are too powerful to ever slip their grasp.
But in an anarchy, who would enforce any law? A law unenforced would simply be ignored over time.
I'm not talking strict classic anarchy, or even really anarchic at all. That's Sigma's thing.
if you insist that I must be talking about something anarchic, It's a form of anarchic communism where no one central group takes or owns, but rather each holding over time has it's control transferred to the exact people who, in a world with a more reasonable form of ownership, would already own it. As to central control, it's certainly more democratic-anarchic than the current concept of ownership.
It's a different paradigm for what in this system is "anarchic" and "communistic", I guess if you insist that I must be and support directly something that is not.
The community of beneficiaries for this communism is "the people who do work", and if this creates a hard division between "the people who do work" and "everyone else", is that not already the point of capitalism? To goad productivity through competition against starvation and the elements? What better way than to make workers stakeholders, and what better condition to place that stale upon than those who currently "own" applying leverage so as to own more?
Perhaps you approve of asymmetrical leverage behaviors; I do not. They are at the heart of the problems that will probably prove fatal to our species. When leverage is had and exercised for personal gain, it is a currency that must be considered spent so as to watch it dissipate.
Currently, there is no education or even truth to the idea that "leveraging people has a cost". The current system in fact seems designed to hide the fact that it is leveraging "I own it" to have more.
I mean it makes sense. It's definitely a functional power-grab to implement and maintain rules that cement you at the top. And so these rules have been maintained since. It also worked just fine when there was no way for one person or one tribe to control everything. At a certain critical point in the size and power scale of human societies, in fact, such a complexity as "exertion of social leverage exerts loss of it via worker population" is hard to manage anyway.
Certain societies absolutely could; the "rocks are money and are exchanged in Satoshi by ledger" could absolutely host such a system.
Fundamentally, stocks are currencies. Pretend all you want that they are anything else but they are certificates of 'value' associated with an asset that may be traded for that specific value, the value in this case being an abstract measure of "power over the work of others".
Essentially this says "all monies are to be taxed when spent or leveraged, with the beneficiary of that tax being exactly the population which has built the taxable asset's value".
In a national sense, our national "stocks" are dollars. They push all the other stuff through a second layer of abstraction to denature the stocks from their current ownership pools. And tax is this concept organized in a general way to general benefits and common infrastructural concerns.
But really, we miss a whole layer wherein on the corporate level, people are being denied their power of taxation as a community, and that the borders to that community of power transfer exist entirely and completely around the community of people who contribute to that specific work: just as we all pay taxes to have roads and police, each shareholder ought pay these "taxes" to the workers build an infrastructure of metastatic ownership and true investment in work.
At the beginning of such a system, it would be necessary to experiment with the states first to find what percentage effectively decays ownership while allowing just enough selfish "carrot" to dangle in front of "whoever happens to have shares" so as to still make money through their buying and selling but only in a way that actually raises all ships. Later, however, it would be necessary to make the rules uniform federally, as this is more of a "global" change which operates best when consistently applied.
