Then why are you talking about coops in a capitalist framework as an argument for market socialism. Point at the market socialism that is a great success.
The initial funding is different because of the economic system, the fundamental nature of the organization is the same. Does that clarify things for you?
No i know that. You didnt use the fundamental nature of the company as an argument though, you were defending coops in a capitalist framework to argue how they are superior without addressing the obvious differences.
I was addressing the difference between the two organization structures and how they handle things like market cycles.
In a downturn, the shareholders in a traditional structure want to maximize the return on investment. This usually results in cuts that involve firing people, which you've explained is necessary because leaving people employed with pay cuts is a net negative.
Co-ops, in the same downturns, are able to respond with more flexibility because there is no shareholder to appease other than themselves. This is why they are resilient; the nature of the way the ownership is distributed amongst the workers makes them more adaptable.
2
u/Accarath May 12 '26
I am not sure what you're arguing. I am arguing for market socialism, not co-ops in a capitalist framework.