He's proposing a change in the way that they are governed, such that the employees democratically decide the direction of the company, rather than have that dictactorially imposed by the ruling class^W^Wboard of directors. Giving the workers more control over the direction of a company is certainly something that adherents of "pure" non-state-controlled communism would be aligned with, but using democracy to achieve his ends is something that will confuse many who find it hard to separate political and economic worldviews.

His points about how capitalism /as we currently practice it/ seems to be inherently unstable - 11 significant downturns in the 70-odd years between the Great Depression and our current major crisis - seem valid. Rather than throw capitalism out entirely, he seems to be trying to find a clever hack that would make it less volatile.

FWIW, I don't think his proposal is right. I'm not sure exactly what I think is wrong with it yet, but I think he's got an interesting idea which is worthy of discussion. And his insight into the 180 year history of how and why we got to where we are now is incredibly thought-provoking.

So, I thought, rebut rather than downvote.

(It appears not many other people agree. That's fair enough. Meh.)