Originally posted by Winder This is a private, profit seeking enterprise. It has socialistic attributes, but : An important strength of a cooperative for the farmer is that they retain the governance of the association, thereby ensuring they have ultimate ownership and control. one of the key elements of socialism is control by the larger body.
Control does not have to exist through physical possession. Governments have found that they are pretty incompetent at direct control. The current trend is control through regulation and taxation. It is like slavery in that regard. You don't have to physically "own" people to control them. You can enslave them financially.
I totally disagree, you're arguing from a prior definition and not taking analogy or scale into account. If you can't envision something, you can't see it.
Just because something is private and profit seeking does not disqualify it from being an organization with organizational goals. Is there much difference between a country run for the private, profit seeking benefit of its rulers and a co-op, save the amount of coercion and conformity demanded?
A farmer joining the coop has to abide by its rules, and is 'coerced' into behaving accordingly. Of course this feels 'voluntary'... but the basic character is there, just the reasons and motivations are different. As they should be, to stand as an example of something not coercive yet socialistic.
Control doesn't only exist through physical... nor only through financial... the strongest control exists through ideology and belief.