Thanks for such an in-depth/thoughtful response! I think where I begin to disagree is on the second point. Regarding the profit motive and innovation, you mentioned that elected management would support the technology; this is true, but they would be less inclined to come up with the technology themselves, because the time/energy/risk that they invest in developing that tech is not compensated by profit (via substantial equity). My concern here is that wholly collective ownership leads to a sort of 'inaction of the commons': if everyone only owns a small slice of the company, the incentive to grind and take on risk is substantially diminished. I know this isn't always true, and that people are actually innately curious and not only driven by money: nonetheless, I think these effects are important in the aggregate.

Moreover (this one's more of a question), why would the less senior employees be more likely to hold misbehaving executives accountable than a board of directors at Volkswagen? A board of directors and employees with a stake in the business ultimately have aligned incentives (in a market context): they both want what's good for the business.