A market system is not the same as a capitalist system. The point here is that with a co-op, the workers benefit, not a rich owner. The owners are the people who actually do the work. A co-op cannot be passed from one rich person to another for the sake of profit. It exists to benefit its workers. Yes, co-ops can exist within capitalism, but the fact there are few shows how difficult it is to have something that goes against the economic interest of the privileged class.
No, the fact that there are few coops shows some inherent problems in the business model. If everyone wanted to purchase exclusively from coops, they would be the dominant business model within capitalism. If everyone wanted to work exclusively for coops, they would be the dominant business model within capitalism.
Do you purchase exclusively from coops? I am sure with the internet and package delivery it would be possible.
If not, then roughly what portion of your spending is at coops?
I don't think it's problems with the business model, but problems with the structuring and incentivizing of the business model. People shouldn't buy things only from cooperatives just because they are cooperatives, they should buy things from cooperatives because they have the best products and the best price. A lot of companies buy from Mondragon for this very reason without caring at all that they are a cooperative.
The problem is the business model itself doesn't exist in many countries, and it certainly isn't incentivized, and there is not enough education about the mode. Most founders don't even consider cooperatives as an option when they are creating or selling a company because they are not mainstream, they don't know about it, and they are difficult to setup. We can change all of these things.
Yes, I largely agree with you, but it appears that coops have a fundamental problem with their business model if they are reliant on progressive-minded founders to bequeath them a business. Other business models do not have that dependency.
One of the key problems that I see is the “unicorn” problem. How to access to capital in the formative stages, which is essential for scaling up a business. This may be a key reason why vast majority of coops are small.
Could Apple or Google or Toyota or Hyundai really have gotten past the initial stages of growth if they were founded as coops? Most very large corporations started as tiny businesses and then grew rapidly due to access to capital. Typically, that meant giving up some of the ownership. Coops cannot really do that (as far as I know).
Yes, Mondragon uses internal VC, but that only works once a coop is huge and diversified. So getting to that stage is extremely difficult, though not impossible.
I am not saying that this dooms coops. Just that coops, like all types of organizations, have certain disadvantages built into their business model.
I hope they succeed, but good will alone will not make it happen.
Coops may always be a niche business model.
Yes "a co-op exists to benefit it's workers." Just like "a business exists to benefit it's shareholders." They are the same thing, only in a co-op the workers are the shareholders.
The reason there are so few co-ops is because the business structure didn't exist (and still doesn't) in many countries. Once we make it easier for them to exist, more of them grow.
There is also a lack of information about the model. Though cooperatives are well known in intimate circles, it's often talked about as an altruistic model rather than what it is: a good business strategy (that happens to be better altruistically). It we talk about it more in business circles, and incentivize the creation of them in business circles, they could grow.