how is "socializing" the ownership of a business not socialist?
The definition of socialism is not, and never has been, "workers owning the means of production."
A coop still meets all the characteristics of capitalist entity:
- privately owned
- for profit, with profits going to shareholders
If you think coops are socialist, then you must also think any company that has more than 1 shareholder is socialist.
If you think private ownership (which coops protect and uphold) is allowed under socialism, then you don't understand what socialism is.
every socialist i know and have read agree that a coop is a socialist organization, and we will keep creating these enterprises as an alternative to capitalism, until one day, ideally, the capitalist corporations won't be able to compete in the job market with the coops, forcing them to socialize their ownership and power structures. despite whether you think it's socialism or not.
here are the 7 cooperative principles. please explain how this is capitalism? https://www.electric.coop/seven-cooperative-principles%E2%80...
> every socialist i know and have read agree that a coop is a socialist organization
Every unicorn I know thinks leprechauns are real.
A coop protects and upholds private ownership and distribution of profits to their shareholders. That's not semantics.
Socialism does not protect private ownership. Socialism does not distribute profits to shareholders (because there are none). That's also not semantics.
If you want to have a non-semantical conversation, the onus is on you.
But best of luck!
If you can explain to me how a co-op, which is a privately owned, and for-profit business structure, is not capitalist, I am all ears.
P.s. Definitions are important. Hand waving them away as "semantics" is a common trick of the ignorant.
and re: strawman, i just met you at your level after you used the logical fallacy: "Every unicorn I know thinks leprechauns are real." it was pretty clear at that point that you weren't going to have a reasonable conversation. i apologize for not pointing that fallacy out directly and instead i said, "well you have no idea what you're talking about". i could've been more graceful with that, or just ignored you.
anyway, thank you for sharing your (wrong) opinion about whether or not a coop is socialist.
You never had an argument beyond "I'm right and you're wrong" lmao.
I asked you to respond to specific questions like: Explaining how a privately owned, for-profit org (a coop) can exist in a socialist world. You ignored it and have now devolved to emotional responses only.
you are just somebody who argues on the internet, a natural contrarian who thinks they are right about everything, while being totally wrong. i call it the hacker news contrarian effect. it's quite amazing to witness. good day, sir.
See how easy it is to make assertions?
> you are just somebody who argues on the internet
Says, the guy arguing on the internet lol.
> a natural contrarian who thinks they are right about everything, while being totally wrong
Says the natural contrarian who thinks they are right about everything, while being totally wrong!