Are People Who Insist That Workers Own the Means of Production Be Willing to Open a Business Where Workers Own the Means of Production?

Last 2022, I wrote two articles on the means of production. One article I wrote refutes the idea that workers, not the business owners, own the means of production. Another article discussed whether or not anti-capitalists have no choice because capitalists own the means of production. The other day, I wrote a dare where I want people who insist on #SahodItaasPresyoIbaba economics (higher salaries, lower prices) to open stores that operate on that mindset. I'm afraid that what I wrote was merely the tip of the iceberg. With that in mind, I'd like to ask people who say that the workers own the means of production to open a business, where the workers own the means of production.

What's their reasoning behind the logic that the workers own the means of production? The common logic is that because the workers did all the hard work they own the production. They say that the businessman can die but not the workers. It's because according to these smart alecks--it's because those who are working are the ones at the assembly lines. They say that the business owners have no big paper in the production of their products. The logic is baffling because the business owners are the ones who make the system that the workers follow. Some say that business owners have the "easiest job" in the world because all they do is sign papers. However, what they don't see is that business owners have the hardest job. Workers may spend up to eight hours in the office, pack their staff, and leave. However, the board of directors and the CEO may stay at the office for longer hours to wrap things up. It's because they need to account for the workers and how to handle them properly. They need to meet about long-term solutions such as how to keep workers happy to keep the company alive on a sustainable profit. Also, if the business owners make shoddy decisions, they're the ones who get the most blame--not the workers! The workers can be laid off and still find better employees. However, the bad employer will suffer the most blame and may even rot in jail for his or her bad business decisions.

Now, let's think about these fools who claim that they can do better if they own the means of production. However, to prove their point, they must open a business where the workers own the means of production. This is going to be vastly different from a worker who ends up accumulating money or a group of workers, who eventually become entrepreneurs. One can read the stories that some of the wealthiest people today used to be in the working class. Lucio Tan Sr. used to be a janitor at a tobacco factory, all before he became the owner of Asia Brewery and his other businesses. These people must form their own cooperatives where the workers own the means of production.

These people who make such claims must establish their own organization with that model. That means when they form their businesses--the workers must be the ones who bring their own means of production. They say that the workers own the means of production. In the capitalist model, the company owns the means of production and then entrusts the means of production to the worker. However, for the workers to own the means of production, it will result that the workers must release their own money and bring their own equipment. That would be the way for workers to own the means of production. However, who would want to work in a company where you had to bring out the money to buy the means of production or bring the means of production? Isn't buying the means of production from the basic tools to the types of machinery the responsibility of the business? People would want a job to be paid, not to get out their own money to buy the means of production.

Okay, these people say that they'll do better if they seize the means of production. However, how often are those leading the coup willing to distribute ownership to their subordinates, all before their inclination for greed takes over? History has shown that Communist takeovers have been nothing more than broken promises. After Mao Zedong took over China, he consolidated the power within himself and his followers. However, the common citizens soon ended up suffering in his failed Great Leap Forward program. Some say it was just a famine. However, try telling that to the Chinese who survived it and they'll tell a different tale. Former Chinese citizens who migrated to the USA tell how horrible Mao's Great Leap Forward was. Mao's promise of a better China failed. Also, do they even know the secret of the business' success? The means of production mean nothing if one doesn't know the secret of that business' success. I can go ahead and lead a revolution against a certain business. Let's say that I take over Jollibee in a Communist revolution. However, without the secret recipes and methods, the means of production of Jollibee will soon be misused to the point of disaster. I can always brag I can do it better. However, results may say otherwise. 

The business model will also be infeasible in the long run. Sure, there's such a thing as the employee stakeholder program. However, this is only feasible if the employees given a stake or share of the company, are worthy employees. The employees who own a part of the company through this program must also be willing to take responsibility. However, many of the people who insist that the workers own the means of production, only want the ownership but not the responsibility associated with the ownership. The bigger the power, the bigger the responibility.