> A long list? A handful out of the zillions of companies in the bay area. It's statistical significance is zero.

You are moving the goal posts. You said "they all failed" but this is false. I was pointing out your error.

> Compare your list of a few communes with what's in the Yellow Pages for the area for the answer.

I believe from the above two quotes you are saying that co-ops have failed as a concept on their own merits. I.E. we can observe their relative popularity compared to hierarchical corporations and conclude that co-ops as an idea are a failure.

But of course, as you seem to be a libertarian capitalist, you must also believe in the correctness of ideas which have so far failed to gain traction. In fact there are many philosophical ideas throughout history which were superior to the status quo but had not gained traction. For example take democracy versus monarchy. Would you have looked at Europe 1000 years ago and concluded that democracy had failed in the marketplace of ideas? Certainly not. In the same way, cooperatively owned businesses are part of a broader labor movement which was systematically attacked by those in power to dismantle its strength.

One notable example is the Taft–Hartley act of 1947, which placed significant limitations on the legal right to strike or boycott. I am not an expert on the labor movement in the USA but without going in to an entire debate on the subject, you can understand how the existence of unions and cooperatives (which I lump together as part of a common labor movement) may not have failed purely on its own merits, but may have failed due to attacks from organized special interests. So without proving or disproving that claim, you can see how a simple examination of the state of the labor movement today is insufficient to conclude the merits of those ideas as they relate to the average person. Just as you could not look at Europe in 1000AD and conclude that democracy was an unworkable ideal, and that monarchy was obviously superior.

> I understand very well that they are suffering. They are suffering as the result of leftist government policies, not capitalism.

You mean the leftist government which placed significant limitations on the power of labor organizations? The leftist government which funds the largest war machine in human history? The leftist government that remains the only major country in the world without some form of universal health care? Sorry Walter, but only in the wild fantasies of FOX News commentators looking to get re-hired and Republican politicians trying to scare their base to secure their election is the USA a leftist government. Though to be clear, I am a libertarian communist and I want the US government to stay out of my way. This is why I advocate for cooperative ownership of the means of production and not government control of industry.

I appreciate that you finally chose to engage with what I was saying instead of dropping the same tired arguments I have heard and disproved so many times before. But of course I still disagree with your position. My issue with capitalism is not free markets. My issue with capitalism is direct control of our economy by an elite few who have class interests that run counter to the interests of the average person. The mismatch in interests between those in control (who seek power and profit) and the other 99% of the world population is what creates poverty and strife. And only when the people have control over the machinery that provides for their survival can we truly be free.