i dont think that exploring class conflict and how you think it leads to the necessity of classes being abolished means that "opening a co-op" is "living your principles"

it sounds like you want internet losers to larp more than they do lmao

its like you think that the act of individual ownership is a "moral crime" and that "we all own it" is the solution, when its a criticism of system behaviors

a co-op and a private firm are going to have to engage in essentially the same actions to remain profitable on the market

the criticism of capitalism from any class based view (that's worthy of anything) is not a criticism of "mean guy at the top" its a criticism of the foundational aspects that individual actions within the system can't solve. money, property, market competition, wages themselves

wish i knew where to find it, but there's a good zizek bit on the environment. and how we recycle. and how "sure its good that you separate your cans into the green trash can for it to be recycled, but we're also not solving the problem this way"

not a 1:1, of course. there are far more systems at play here with questions of the "morality" of "renting below market value" (a moment that, in the conversation we're referring to, never got explored outside of "good or bad to be normal or make it cheaper" which is dumb)

to really talk about "The Co-op Question" and whether its "More Moral" we have to talk about what we're criticizing when we criticize private ownership.

worker co-ops can only ever be capitalism, too. what do we mean by this?

worker co-ops have many forms. some have voting mechanisms, others have dividends. usually requiring some level of hierarchical structure, sometimes with wage increases into these "promoted" positions.

but what's happening here remains the same as a private firm.

while in a private firm there is an antithesis between capital(ists) and labor. the owner has the capital to force you (through a broader system through which every capital owner engages) to sell your labour-power to them.

hours of your life, on a schedule, sold.

the owner, through his ownership of the capital, is able to extract from you.

you only have your labor to sell.

he has capital (through property/equipment)

this causes a fundamental antagonism.

you want the most for your labor.

he wants the most from your labor.

he doesn't want the most from your labor out of some innate greed.

he wants the most from your labor because he has to remain profitable. that's the game of capitalism.

other businesses around him (or internationally, depending on the industry) are going to try new ways to become more profitable... to expand, increase their market share, things of that nature.

so while this innate antagonism between individuals is overcome, what co-ops have done still require the same actions, lest they go out of business.

instead of a guy at the top extracting from them, they extract from themselves!

they will have to intensify their labor, they'll have to undercut other businesses, they may have to use worse resources and give a worse product. they might make products designed to break to make you buy more. there's tons of ways to increase profits here.

and they *must* increase profits.

that's the game of capitalism from the perspective of a firm.