The National Center for Employee Ownership also maintains a list of 100 employee owned businesses in the USA: https://www.nceo.org/research/employee-ownership-100-largest...

Employee ownership is not a silver bullet to every problem. The governance model and governing body of employee-owners has to be well constructed as with anything. As a philosophy generally, it has a lot of potential to avoid certain common problems with more traditional business models.

In this space it's also important to understand the difference between cooperatives and collectives: https://institute.coop/about-worker-co-ops/worker-cooperativ...

Credit Unions tend to be a more commonplace example of member/worker governance, though in my experience it's somewhat rare for the average member to engage much with the governance.

AFAIK, Galois is 100% employee owned: https://www.galois.com/life-at-galois

I know people working both at Galois and Mondragón, and they seem to be relatively similar in spirit.

They might be rare, but they do exist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igalia

Employee stock ownership is a leap forward and studies consistently highlight its economic benefits.

However, Mondragon, and co-ops like it, go further. They are industrial democracies: one worker, one vote.

Well, sort of. Technically speaking, S-Corps by definition pay no federal income tax since they're pass-through entities. If the sole shareholder of an S-Corp was an ESOP, the income is passing through to it. The ESOP has beneficiaries (the employees) whose shares sit in a trust. Income to the ESOP isn't taxed at the moment of filing, it's deferred: when the beneficiaries take distributions according to their shares, they pay ordinary income tax in that year.

How'd that happen if it's one worker, one vote?

Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars Trilogy, especially Green and Blue Mars, provide a nice fictional exploration of this idea. I think Mondragon may even be name dropped.

Capitalism is not simply free markers - it means "control by people with capital." People control society proportionally to how much capital they have, and those who control vast boards of capital are very uninterested in allowing capital to be spread around more equitably.

It is quintessential socialism: collective ownership (of the “means of production”).

It is just embedded in a market system, just as, say, USSR or Cuba was embedded in the global economy.

That doesn’t make it not socialist.

And not all socialism is “bad”. It has to do with whether it is voluntary or not. I am a libertarian, and I fully support communes, housing cooperatives, credit unions and the like. I consider the lack of a superfluous extractive landlord or shareholder class a feature.

It is not a mistaken association. Socialism traditionally meant workers control over production. Work councils in Germany originally pursued direct workers control over respective businesses. Unions in Germany pursued some version of this well into the 1950s. Most socialist movements in Europe understood this to _be_ Socialism until the Soviet counter-revolution swept it all away.

And there is another forgotten truth. Before the Soviet counter-revolution, liberals advocated for this type of Socialism.

    The form of association, however, which if mankind continue to improve, must be expected in the end to predominate, is not that which can exist between a capitalist as chief, and work-people without a voice in the management, but the association of the labourers themselves on terms of equality, collectively owning the capital with which they carry on their operations, and working under managers elected and removable by themselves.

It remains confusing that, after centuries of profiting off capital generally being a much better strategic choice than profiting off labour, workers insist and persist in trying to make labour work.

If the unions had dumped their efforts into co-ops instead of trying to fight their own companies then they might have managed to have a positive impact. They've been at it for long enough for capital accumulation to have kicked in even at pathetic rates of saving.