The anarchists of capitalism have dominated the interpretation of that economic theory for a long time, promoting the idea that business should be allowed to operate without any government intervention; that companies should be completely free, autonomous entities that can do whatever they want. But, of course, this is insane; particularly when companies have become so massive and economically powerful, and their footprint on the society is so enormous and deep.
In reality, there is no reason why government cannot impose rules regulating the ownership structure of companies. There is nothing contradictory to capitalism about stipulating that companies should be owned by those who work for them, and that profits should be equitably distributed. Capitalism does not demand the promotion of poverty and exploitation and the unequal distribution of wealth. There is nothing especially “Capitalist” about a CEO earning a salary 20, 50, or 100 times higher than his company’s lowest paid worker.
In a healthy Capitalist economy, more people would have more money, not fewer. Raising the minimum wage is superficial measure in this regard. There is simply no logical, and certainly no humane rationale for why workers should be denied a share of the wealth their labor produces, and no reason why workers should not participate in the decision-making of the companies they work for. Why on earth would this be inferior to the current system in which the wealth produced by the workers flows up to the shareholders who contribute nothing, do no work, and have no interest in the success of the company beyond their dividends? And why does this make less sense than giving those shareholders control over the decisions of the company, while they will not be impacted by those decisions, and they do not live in the communities that will be affected?
No, Capitalism does not require companies to adopt an authoritarian structure.
#Deomcratization_of_Corporate_Influence