Let's say hypothetically that the distribution of stock ownership was more even across the population, and variance was largely (but not completely) due to length of time in the workforce. And further, that the stock owned by workers is a large enough block that they effectively have controlling shares at many companies. Maybe I'm talking about a different universe, but please imagine it for a moment.
Would that hypothetical world be kind of like communism in the sense that the workers own the means of production? If not, why not?
HN is binary. If not laissez-faire capitalism, lets talk about communism.
Let's talk about non-hypothetical real world, like Nordic model or Europe in general. Capitalism produces growth, redistribution (free healthcare, education, etc. spreads the wealth).
The thing is, it began like you described - but most people didnt see the value in it and sold it immediately; thats the reason why you have some oligarch caste, as this mainly got fueled by this process (sure, not the only source of their wealth but the understood back then how to play the game)
It's like communism, but it's not communism, at least it's not the ultimate form of communism. IMHO, the key difference is that in communist theory, the workers own the means of production through a worker-class-ruled society, not as individuals, and it's still within the framework of a market-oriented economic system.
why don't work?
first, when equity dispersion is accompanied by the dispersion of decision-making power, it can lead to excessively high decision-making costs, reduced efficiency, and lack of competitiveness. However, when equity is dispersed but decision-making power is concentrated (i.e., a dual-class share structure), the interested parties with decision-making power tend to skew the benefits towards themselves.
it's not compatitalbe with the market-oriented economic system.
second, "Altruistic collectivization" is entropy-increasing.
For example, if a company does what you said, when a crisis occurs, it's hard for it to survive. Its products may fail to be sold, and the company may go bankrupt. Other companies can also go bankrupt, but their failure is part of the capitalist system. When they fail, the system as a whole doesn't necessarily fail. But when a "communist-style" company fails, it dies, and it won't come back easily.
More importantly, this is a world dominated by capitalism. It's not just an ideology of companies, it's an ideology of states. For example, when the IMF/WHO comes to a country that is suffering from a global capitalist economic crisis, the IMF will kindly offer its help, but with some conditions, such as requiring you to also accept its help in reforming your economic system.
Although there are still some similar commercial entities that are "owned" collectively, most of them are stagnant. They can survive, but they cannot expand.
Let's say hypothetically that the distribution of stock ownership was more even across the population, and variance was largely (but not completely) due to length of time in the workforce. And further, that the stock owned by workers is a large enough block that they effectively have controlling shares at many companies. Maybe I'm talking about a different universe, but please imagine it for a moment.
Would that hypothetical world be kind of like communism in the sense that the workers own the means of production? If not, why not?