https://youtu.be/GmI1CmUecPc?t=3119

I don't talk about workers being inherently virtuous, I talk about the
structure of private ownership of capitalism being inherently exploitative.
If we removed this sytem, and not just replaced the actors and swapped who's
in charge, that we would no longer have a system which incentivizes greed,
myopic profit-seeking, and destructive sociopathic behavior.

Let's say, for example, that a corporation could make more money if they
illegally dump chemicals into a lake. Now, with the EPA being largely
defunded and pretty toothless, let's say they could get away with this with
pretty much no risk of government oversight catching them and fining them $10
or however much the EPA thinks is appropriate for destroying a piece of the
environment. If a CEO wants to do this, or if a collection of people under the
CEO want to do this, the reason this structure incentivizes that behavior,
which I will term anti-social, is because the hierachical structure of the
workplace means that people have a fiduciary responsibility to meet the
interests of those above them. A CEO is going to make that call fairly often
because a CEO has a fiduciary responsibility to maximize the wealth of his or
her shareholders. What's more, maximizing the wealth of his or her shareholders
is going to incentivize a bonus given to him. And, what's more, because this
is not a democratic system with not set of counterbalances and pressure is
coming from the top down rather than the bottom up, I think it's pretty easy
to imagine how one person sitting alone at their penthouse glass desk
considering how they can maximize profit for their shareholders, might be able
to make that decision. Well what about a democratically owned workplace? Well
now there's not one person at the top and there are certainly no shareholders
to whom you have a fiduciary responsibility to maximize output and profit.
Instead, you have a democratic council of people elected by worker
representatives and all major decisions made by the company are filtered
through a democratic process.

So what's more likely? One, single, CEO, wealthy and disillusioned to the
interests not only of his workers but of his community, with no checks or
balances, making an executive decision to worsen the environment for personal
gain, or, in my system, a democratic commune of democratically-elected
representatives making a collective decision which has to be vetted by the
representatives and workers of the company and discussed publically, making
the same decision to personally benefit each of them by a comparably much
smaller amount, with no fiduciary responsibility, and an inherent workplace
transparency that makes involvement from the EPA and other regulatory
industries much more likely.