In message AJDUk.1538$o15.781@edtnps83 "Chom Noamsky"
was claimed to have wrote:

That's fine if the financial involvement is voluntary. Mandatory investment
by workers is essentially socializing ownership - the same principles as
Marxism.

Is a bail-out not equally socialist?

100% employee-owned businesses generally do well. That is because as
owners, if they want to exploit and mismanage the company, they are only
exploiting and mismanaging themselves.

People still want to exploit and mismanage the company to their own
benefit. What going employee-owned does is put into action the best
feature of capitalism, self-interest.

Not every employee can exploit the company at the same time, there
simply isn't enough company to go around and if you try everyone loses.

Rather then just exploiting "the company" that everyone hates, you're
exploiting your coworkers directly, which means each and every coworker
has an incentive to say "Is 'x' good for the company?"

There is a direct realtionship for
financial reward, such as performing well, rather than getting rewarded
whether the company is failing or succeeding (the norm for today's
executives).

Yeah, this one needs to be fixed in general. Executives pay should be
solely driven by the profit a company generates, just like that of the
owners. Forcing executives to be owners helps.

However, even if employees flocked together to buy some of GM, as a class
they would still be in a minority position. Why would anyone allow a
minority shareholder to call the shots? It just doesn't work that way.

Even if they're ultimately a minority, if the union as a class becomes
the single largest shareholder then they have a ton of voting power.