Sure and there are benefits to there being a lack of capitalists around. They don;t, by their absence, take off the profit margin just for the mere allowing of the use of their money.
The downside of worker ownership is the lack of capitalists and their money:
The employee-owned model of John Lewis and Waitrose was fêted by politicians for years as an alternative to capitalist businesses, with ministers rushing to be photographed with its bosses. Now that model is putting the retail brands at a disadvantage to public and privately owned rivals. Unlike the quoted companies that have tapped markets to raise billions of pounds to weather the coronavirus outbreak, John Lewis and Waitrose cannot turn to investors to boost the coffers.
There is nothing wrong – or particularly right – with either ownership model. Each will work better in some circumstances, less well in others. But the point about what it is that capitalists actually do does need to be understood. They provide capital from outside the resources of the workforce.
So, a low capital business like, say, being a lawyer, the capital can come from the group of people who are lawyers. Which is how it works too, they are all partnerships. An employee owned blast furnace is going to be problematic because where are 5,000 workers going to find a $ billion in capital? If they had it they’d not really be workers and if they get it from elsewhere then that’s from the capitalists and it ain’t, any more, worker owned.
Yep, sure, Mondragon. But do note the industries that covers – light industry. Which is, pretty much by definition, capital light as opposed to heavy industry.
The capitalists don;t suck the profits away in the exploitation of the workers when they’re not there, that’s entirely true. But they also don’t supply capital when they’re not there.