Let me just point out that you think communism is an "attribute" that a shop could have, like OOP is your guiding philosophy for political structure. My gut tells me you aren't splitting hairs between, say, Marxism and positivism when you're spewing this shit from your mouth.
If the workers live in the town - which is highly likely - they can have (substantial, since the town is small) influence in city council.
City council manages the shop.
You could say, then, that the workers can have substantial influence over the management of this shop.
Note that this influence is much more direct than the worker -> shareholder line. Note that this influence is given as a matter of citizenship, rather than wealth.
Is this communism? Maybe not. After all, the goods that the workers stock aren't produced by them (after all, circles don't exist). Political and economic theory is far from solved. Again, if you think communism is an "attribute", I don't really want to engage in further discussion. Doubly so because of your latent assumption that the most widely used definition is the most correct one.
If the workers live in the town - which is highly likely - they can have (substantial, since the town is small) influence in city council.
City council manages the shop.
You could say, then, that the workers can have substantial influence over the management of this shop.
Note that this influence is much more direct than the worker -> shareholder line. Note that this influence is given as a matter of citizenship, rather than wealth.
Is this communism? Maybe not. After all, the goods that the workers stock aren't produced by them (after all, circles don't exist). Political and economic theory is far from solved. Again, if you think communism is an "attribute", I don't really want to engage in further discussion. Doubly so because of your latent assumption that the most widely used definition is the most correct one.