I simply disagree that capitalism is in any way compatible with this model - if it ever became a serious alternative to capitalist orthodoxy, then capitalists would shut it down - buy it out and close it down. It's best seen as a ready-made alternative for when the transition occurs.
Anarcho-capitalism is just a silly term for a silly thing that wouldn't interest me in the least. I've argued with such an-caps before and they have literally nothing. Their arguments are not even arguments but overwrought cowboy fantasies.
Being "post ideological" is a choice, but it's really quite illusory because political ideologies are not simply words in a book which you can somehow live without, or agree to differ on, they are active schemes to organise society.
I think the salient point here is that employee-owned companies are perfectly compatible with a capitalist society, both legally and in practice (as we can see with Mondragon and all the other existing companies that are similar).
Modern western societies legally see companies as their own entities and don't really care how the ownership is distributed internally, which is also why for example autocratically run companies are perfectly compatible with democratic society (which if observed from the outside could be seen as a weird combination).
This is a big difference from for example communism, which dictates how companies should be owned and controlled (by the state), and as such explicitly disallow employee ownership.
Yes, exactly. Not much of our current system has to change to emphasize employee ownership and cooperatives.
Please see my comment above to Michael Magoon as to why I think this is not the case.
Your comment that you refer to does not address his point or my point either. You seem to view coops as primarily about ideology. Coops are businesses. They will only flourish if individuals choose to establish, work with and buy from coops. Sure government policies can help, but without people wanting to voluntarily join, then coops will collapse.
Thousands of coops exist within the capitalist nations, so by definition they are compatible with capitalism. I also listed out a half dozen characteristics that coops share with corporations within capitalism.
If you actually support coops and want to build a political coalition in favor of them, saying that they are inherently socialist and coops are completely incompatible with capitalism is the best way to undermine political support.
Your time is better served convincing socialists that coops are better than any form of socialism and are proven to better within capitalist economies.
Regarding, “ Capitalists, centrist and right-wingers, will only ever be opponents and therefore whatever nice noises they make about a co-op project, will only ever seek to close it down.”
Give me one example withn the last 10 years of a large coop being forced to close down by capitalists and right-wingers…
An enormous case of such closure came at the end of the Spanish Civil War, where around 1.8 million people worked in the co-operative sector and all were forced to privatize with the victory of Franco.
es.wikipedia.org › Revolución social española de 1936
There have been other cases I know of in Spain, Dominican Republic and Ecuador (or maybe Bolivia) but I don't have those details to hand right now. Banks, agricultural co-ops and retail organizations have been bought out in this way.
On a morte personal note, since you don't know a single thing about how I spend my time, I find it curious that you feel qualified to tell me how it's best served. Frankly, it might be considered a bit arrogant to tell other adults what to do with their time.
As for what I do with this precious time of mine, I already convince socialists to take on board co-operative systems whenever I can, but in fact I'm much more a learner than a teacher in that respect, so I find myself listening more than explaining when it comes to meetings or discussions on the subject.
Right now I have been engaged in trying to convince Americans not to be so afraid of either the word or the concept of socialism, and not to be so attached to the concept of capitalism, a socioeconomic system which has effectively ruined their country's future, if not the whole world's. This effort is indeed a waste of time for most of those over 50, but is a lot more succesful with younger people, many of whom have seen that the existing system offers them no secure employment, no home and no prospect of raising a family. Since older people are unlikely to change their minds abourt anything, this is fine.
I feel that there isn't much more to be said on this issue, so thanks for the discussion and try not to be too overbearing with suggestions about other people's time and aims in future.
I think cooperatives are clearly within the idea of capitalism. They still have private ownership, free-floating prices, voluntary paid labor, voluntary investment, and voluntary customers. I would also assume that they can raise capital from corporate bonds and potentially raise capital from the owners.
The only real difference that I see is that the owners and the employees are the same people. If some people want to call it a type of “socialism” then I have no objections, particularly if they are willing to go with all the other capitalistic characteristics that I listed above.
It really is more a pragmatic question of knowing what you're doing long-term and therefore who your allies are going to be. If you're involved in a socialist project, which co-op businesses certainly are, then your natural allies are community groups, unions, labour organisers and left-leaning political groups and donors. Capitalists, centrist and right-wingers, will only ever be opponents and therefore whatever nice noises they make about a co-op project, will only ever seek to close it down. This applies to all business leaders, entrepreneurs and established political parties. They can only exist as adversaries of this type of project, not because they're nasty people or something, but because it's a structural thing - capitalism and co-operative movements simply don't mix if the aim is to scale the latter up beyond a fringe hobbyist scale.
I would dispute your previous assertion that co-ops are within the scope of capitalism on theoretical grounds, but there's really no point, it really is as I say a structural and pragmatic issue. If you're interested in promoting co-ops and worker democracy, the left is your ally and the centre to right is your opponent,