I apologize if this post is not well structured.
I recently went down memory lane and saw some Gabe Newell clips. He seems like a decent guy (which is not an argument btw it’s just me pointing it out) and Valve seems like a decent place to work for (also not an argument).
Valve is a private company, with no stock to trade (no shareholders etc) and for most of its time existing it’s worked as a “company with no hierarchy” in the words of employes, as in you could work in a project this week and another project the next, without any upper management telling you what to do (although from what I could gather there’s still organization, just not in the way you’d expect).
While I do understand that private businesses are inherently exploitative and as a communist I seek to abolish such structures in favor of communal structures, am I wrong or misled to see companies like Valve Software as a major step up in comparison to others like Microsoft, Apple and the like? Of course it’d be amazing if it was a worker cooperative, for example, but Valve offers amazing services and products for customers all while not destroying its workers, even though it’s basically a monopoly in the PC market at this point. I also think most of this is due to Gabe Newell’s visions as well as employee feedback, but I have no evidence to back this.
Also, the biggest socialist experiment of the 21st century is China, and some similar company structures formed (like Huawei, for example, although it’s not 100% the same). At least in my naïve view this is a big step up from the big multinational corps, like Nestle, Coca Cola, Microsoft etc.
Anyways: I could always be wrong. Please share your thoughts on this.
Thank you for taking your time to read this and cheers from Brazil!


Not entirely wrong. For sake of argument I won’t address the actual shortcomings of Valve in practice as others already have here. I’ll take it that for some reason Valve is actually a great company, Gabe is some great man with a progressive vision, etc, etc for the sake of argument.
There have always been within capitalism elements, even capitalists who have done progressive things or gone against the worst impulses of capitalism in their time for various reasons including genuine personal belief and conviction as well as marketing and carving out a niche. The problem is such sentiment is never widespread, often has some sort of contradiction or caveat to it (something bad they do despite overall being so much better than anyone around them by contrast), and rarely lasts much beyond the lifetime and/or control of the particular people pushing it (Gabe and others at Valve who work there but have significant control of what they and the company do).
So to be even a liberal capitalist who thinks that the Gabe/Valve way is the way to some form of ethical capitalism is to ignore history. It is to wishfully say well we just need more ethical, progressive people leading companies when the system itself disincentivizes this at any scale and indeed when it is as hardened and calcified as capitalism with as many old money types who have so much capital and so much push in the system of capitalism that while you can stand out of their way and do your thing up to a certain size you can’t push them around, dislodge them, or dislodge how they’re engineering the overall structure and you remain a fluke.
Capitalism is the way it is for a reason. It inevitably moves in this given direction and you can’t stop it. It is its nature.
You mention China. China is different because they control the larger apparatus, they have a dictatorship over the capitalists and can use coercion and violence against them (and understand violence here doesn’t just mean beating them with a truncheon it also means the violence of the state, they can harass them legally, intimidate them, make their lives uncomfortable and unpleasant in ways that involve no physical blows) if they step too far out of line and the capitalists know and are constrained by this though some still push (Jack Ma) and have to be checked and put back in their place.
I wasn’t thinking that having more companies would make capitalism better or anything, I was just entertaining the thought of Valve being less of a ghoulish company than others. Like others said: Valve does some pretty cool things, but at the same time promotes lootboxes in counter strike and such.
Also you’re completely right in the China part. I used companies like Huawei as something akin to, albeit a bit different to Valve and the like. It’s not to be taken too seriously, my apologies.
Thank you for taking the time to write a reply, comrade.