[flagged]
How exactly does that work?
Every company with more than 100 workers, must have 80% of its ownership by those same workers. The difference between the ownership stake of the top worker and the bottom worker must be no more than a 5x.
The people with 10 million € would rather keep the system as it is. After all, what if it fails and you become a "peasant"?
In the new system there won't be any capitalist-owned enterprises that will burn capital in the short-term, and exploit their own workers to to kill their more ethical competitors.
Also, all workers don't have to manage their company, only some of them. Workers at large just need to be able to kick out any management that decides to exploit their labor. In our current system it is the shareholders decide how much exploitation should be done, and their opinion is "as much as will keep profits high".
Corporate politics are already bad as it is, and this is going to make it worse.
I have so many more questions..
> Also, when a hiring spree is needed, are current shareholder shares diluted?
Yes. But I imagine, that it would useful to have a vesting period for new employees, of, say a, year before they get their share of the company. And particularly companies will have to think about whether hiring a new person will increase profits more than their salary.
> If a company lays off or fires a chunk of workforce, do the shares get evenly distributed to the remaining employees?
Ultimately yes. Firing might or might not work the same as hiring, because the fruits of your labor continue to bear profits for a little time after you leave at some jobs at least.
Please note that the answers to your question make much more sense once you understand the philosophy a lot more. Practical answers might not make sense if you continue to interpret them within the philosophical underpinnings and your inbuilt intuitions of the current capitalist system.
If it's not equal ownership, how does it get decided how ownership is doled out? Is it democratic? If so, how do you account for those with the most specialized skillsets likely having a minority voice in the voting? Also, how do you account for unequal distributions if you do have unequal ownership levels? Doesn't this create a "special class" of privileged who end up with more control?
If it is equal ownership, then how do you incentivize people to acquire the specializations needed to manage the more complex tasks? Just spit balling here, not a huge fan of the current system but these are pretty big questions to leave unanswered.
Note that there are distinctions between the base salary someone is paid, the share of the profits they get (on top of the salary), and their voting rights. So people with specialized skillsets would likely get extra compensated in salary, maybe in some profits. Otherwise, they can switch to some other firm that compensates them better. Note that the only thing that is being banned is for capital to wholly own the profits emerging from the labor of others. Most other features of the market economy will continue to exist.
I don't expect any society that implements an anarcho-syndicalism to be free of "human" problems. Firms will continue to have drama, and politics, and likely people will band together to screw over other bands of people in the same or other firms. These are not visions of a utopia. The attempt is only to create an economic system that has significantly less fundamental problems than existing capitalism.
Sorry, I don't have better answers.
But people are so obsessed with capitalism and the socialists so obsessed with a non functioning solution that nothing gets done.
Before you ask why these two policies end capitalism, you must understand that in capitalism there is a profit expectation that is completely independent of market conditions, if you "believe" in markets this permanent profit expectation is irrational but because money and land are effectively monopolies they allow coercive extraction of economic rents and any real business must compete and pay even higher returns just to be allowed to function. As capitalism progresses and growth stops people put more money into extractive monopolies which then paradoxically despite all the wealth makes people poorer rather than richer. This is why capitalism requires the axiom of permanent scarcity as it means people have unfilled needs and would rather spend their money on consumption than monopolies, something that is only true for the poorest in the economy, middle class citizens spend most of their income on a mortgage aka on land which is a monopoly.