Same under any socialist mode of production. But on top of that, they get to have indirect or direct democratic control of their business, something that is utterly alien in liberal democracies. So utterly alien that most westerns think that the republicanisation of the workplace is totalitarian.
How it is different then (genuine question)? If you are stakeholder you have direct or indirect control.
You can add more restrictions like only people who are still employed can have shares (not sure what English term for this type of ownership).
Or enforce business to always give shares to employees.
Still doesn’t explain how large company will start if it needs large capital.
I know it’s probably covered already but I never got deep into topic.
If workers need capital to start their business, either they bring it with them, or they can borrow money from a bank, or even create a hybrid structure where the State owns shares in the said company (it's very common in China nowadays through State-owned investment firms). There are then plenty of options left!
For very large projects then, like chip-making or space exploration, the State needs to step in; its way too complexe for "casual" workers to start. But then this institution will be very likely under indirect (through parliament) democratic control.
I see. So it’s like capitalism but state is owner and everyone in country is shareholder (at least on paper). As opposed to having smaller subset of shareholders.
This is not uncommon, even in countries that don’t promote themselves as socialist. At least in Russia many companies are state owned. And in recent years even more nationalized to become state owned. And big companies that are not state owned still have a lot of control from state (like media companies).
