(Original post by Drapetomanic)
In response to your second point, the fact that firms are worker owned doesn't necessarily mean the direction of the business is determined by each individual worker voting on each individual issue. I imagine people with specialized skills in business management representing the the employees as a whole and directing the business in a similar way to how current directors and managers work.
However, there are two major differences; firstly, the interests of the managers and the other workers are aligned. Unlike in a capitalist system, in which it is in the interests of the capitalists to underpay and overwork the workers. In a worker owned co-op profit is tied to the productivity of the workers (including the managers). Also, managers have no control over the workforce so they can be removed democratically if need be. This means they have an interest in making the business productive, without the need or the ability to exploit the other workers.
Secondly, under a more economically democratic system, managers and other workers receive a more equal share of the profit (the exact divide determined by the workers themselves), resulting in greater worker motivation and thus greater productivity. Such enterprises allow full employment, stable and logical growth, healthy competition, environmental stability and equality.
You ask: "what right do I, a worker at the bottom of the company, have to come along and take the 'profits'". The workers are the ones who create the profit, their labour derives the value of a commodity. It's true that innovating individuals creating businesses are very valuable, but does this mean they (the 1%) deserve 10x the income of the majority? As some upholding utilitarian principles, I'd argue against that. The suffering inflicted on the majority would be vastly reduced if that money was more evenly distributed. Simply taxing rich individuals in a capitalist state doesn't work, which is why I'm advocating this economic revision/revolution.
One other point that I haven't mentioned is that the capital market would have to go. Instead of taxing the private savings of wealthy individuals, a flat rate tax could be imposed on all enterprises. Kind of like a leasing fee, so workers rent societies collective capital. The funds are then allocated either to public banks, the banks could then invest into different enterprises and direct money to local democratically ran councils.