In your book Democracy At Work, you describe at length why the surplus should be controlled by the workers and not a capitalist individual or board of directors. I agree completely, but I was left confused by your insistence that surpluses be handled directly by the productive workers specifically. All other decisions could include the enabler workers, except specifically the surplus. This is confusing because 1) the reason is not explicitly spelled out as to why this discernment should even be made and 2) where the line should be drawn. I'll provide an example. I will soon establish a farm (a WSDE, per your book's description), whose workers will compose an intentional community. The farmer and his assistants will certainly be productive workers. The salesman who will go to restaurants and grocery stores to vend the crops will be an enabler, by your description in the book. However, the sale would not be made at all without the salesman. Ergo, no monetary surplus would be achieved, and the uneaten product will rot. How is it fair, or even necessary, to discern between the farmer and the salesman as to who deserves to handle the surplus? It appears that we are all in this together, and we all deserve a vote on how the money is handled. Could you elaborate why a company would want to make this discernment? Thank you, Patrick R.
Surplus: Why only the productive workers, but not also the enablers?
Do you like this suggestion?