In many ways, actually a similar thing.
But with some distinct differences.
When a Capitalist business expands from a single location, it effectively divides into two or more Communes - each run by a different manager co-ordinating a different workforce, like a franchise in the way it is run rather than according to who “owns” each branch. Mostly only matters of ownership/finance are centralised, varying degrees of uniformity in operations can be attempted - though at most, only a limited amount is advisable since each location is responding to a different environment. Things like calculated targets can be relayed down to separate branches, to keep each branch running at a maximum level of efficiency. Representatives can be sent around to check on standards.
- Workers get on with their respective jobs, despite owning nothing other than their labour time. What keeps a worker working when they have no private property invested in the business they work for?
Motivational opportunities can be set up, just as bonuses and promotions - two ways of allowing the worker to sell their labour time for more money. The former without their job description changing, the latter with it changing - typically to something involving a larger scope of co-ordination. Other than such monetary and/or “career” incentives, there is pressure from bosses and targets, competition between workers and also competition with the unemployed or people who want to change jobs - to justify one’s relative contribution, to keep one’s job. Apart from a variable enjoyment of one’s work, this is based on a fear of unemployment: the social shame as well as the financial penalties. Without a job, one cannot keep up with mortgages/rent, bills, food costs, recreation - all the ongoing expenses of everyday life according to the way it currently financially operates.
- Employers invest their capital in areas of business that give the most return on their capital. On the assumption that money mirrors consumer value, the incentive is to invest in markets where demand is still high compared to supply - theoretically filling in gaps where the consumer is not yet sufficiently getting what he/she wants. That is to say, the price mechanism indicates when and where to set up business and when where to employ workers. They need not have any involvement in the business themselves, though the option is there - except if the owner cannot afford enough other workers, in which case they must do all the necessary work that their other workers are not hired to do.
What is the difference between the above and a Commune?
- Workers all have some distribution of ownership of the property where they work. There is no need for this to be quantified with money, which may seem somewhat strange to someone used to Capitalist ownership. The price mechanism quantifies some kind of “amount” of ownership, and the money is backed by law, which is in turn backed by the (usually State) monopoly on physical force. Communes can skip the monetary quantification, having no need for the price mechanism, requiring only the backing of law, which is also backed by physical force. The price mechanism - wherein accountants must interpret monetary figures to figure out what people want - is replaced by democracy - wherein people simply say what they want with much more descriptive words.
And there is no need to remove ownership quantification completely, as one can “earn” a higher fraction of ownership of their Commune (which can only extend to 100% if it is a 1 man commune!) in appropriation with their collectively perceived contribution to it. This optional democratically arranged scheme would leave open personal and socially respected avenues for “advancement”. Reward could even be manifested materially with the extra communal respect for your efforts - directly democratically. This could easily replace the formerly monetarily quantified opportunities of bonuses and promotions in Capitalist business.
Organised targets, more democratically arrived at by the workers themselves, can motivate. So can a democratically elected representative of the commune, perhaps with communal co-ordination responsibilities. Competition between workers would be optional - and plenty of people enjoy competition completely voluntarily. There would also not need to be unemployed people to compete against - any unemployment would be democratically arranged depending on the level of abundance in the commune and elsewhere, related to the commune. The fearful loss aversion toward unemployment under Capitalism, and its accompanying stress would no longer be a factor in discipline: no fear of being socially or financially shamed and encumbered, with a loss of one’s livelihood.
- As for Employers, there would no longer need be any Capitalism for them. As already said, the price mechanism would be replaced by democracy. Monetary ownership would no longer be necessary, and property would be collectively shared between the small commune - where everyone has an immediate, visible social connection with everyone else. Any management would be democratically elected, and subject to immediate unelection. There would be no monetary obligation to pander to employers, who would now just be Human Resources workers - with a democratically arranged ownership i.e. without a disproportionately higher material ownership - just like for everyone else.
So basically, nothing is actually lost in the transition of Capitalist Business to democratically run Communes.
Business can resume in much the same way, with Capitalism-only jobs filtered out and replaced, and jobs that are democratically perceived as superfluous can be eliminated and replaced with more important roles. But more importantly, direct democracy is to be gained without any loss of incentive to work. If anything, there is more incentive to work, with no extra coercive measures required - if anything, less coercion or at least less stress and loss aversion is required to keep people disciplined. And communal spirit and cooperation can finally be what is rewarded and encouraged.
Only material decadence is to be lost for the currently much better off few - in exchange for an overall increase in wealth (to potentially quickly catch up with any lost decadence?), due to much fairer worker conditions helping workers work more efficiently.