Ha! Take this!

...

COINTELPRO mainly. Cooperative usually require strong union presence.

Also, willfull overproduction to make prices tank and whipe out competition.

Didn't say it was unrelated you idiot. I'm saying the relationship isn't SIMPLE. They aren't DIRECTLY THE SAME. There are other factors you fucking dogmatic shill.

A lot of classical economists actually thought this would happen

- John Stuart Mill, "Principles of Political Economy", 1848

Capitalists don't hire out their capital to labour to recieve a return. That's not how the economy is structured and capitalists are not interested in changing things. Labour could theoretically become the firm but capitalists are accustomed to their contractual role as the firm so they see it as their right, their "ownership of the firm." Capital is the firm because Capital "owns the firm." Any change in Capital's role as the firm would violate "sacred private property rights."

lol

LOL

The success of capitalist business is dependent on capital accumulation, not productivity.

Here's an example.

You have two factories. Factory A has workers that produce 100 units in an hour, and are paid $10 an hour. Factory B has workers that produce 5 units in an hour and are paid $0.05 in an hour.

Though the workers in Factory A are 20 times more productive than the workers in Factory B, the capitalist will accumulate capital 5 times faster from Factory B, and is therefore much more likely to be successful.

I would also like to point out that "efficiency" in bourgeois economics is just another word for "profitability".

Hansatic League

Because workers will never vote to overwork themselves for no extra pay.

If women get paid 70% of what men get paid and do the same job, why don't capitalist companies exclusively hire women?

>business.leeds.ac.uk/about-us/article/research-shows-the-benefits-of-worker-co-operatives/

Interesting question, but the data literally says that worker coops are more efficient.

Mercantilism

Because legal apparatuses define the success of capital, and those dictate the future.

Literally this is an aspect anti-communists always fail to notice. The business class has always waged a massive legal, political, and civic war against the proletariat. Just read any of the historical work.

If there was such a thing as an actually free, unbiased, market, things would work out, but such a thing is impossible.

Free markets are the true "looks good on paper but fails in reality" phenomenon.

I'm going to post this:

People like to claim that employers are generous providers who employees take advantage of because they are less skilled than their bosses. (Owners must be more skilled because they have more wealth, and they’ve earned it. Workers are paid to work by the bosses. So, without the bosses, workers would have nothing.) It’s a pernicious oversimplification.
Does the employer provide MATERIALS? Not really. Materials are resources that are manufactured elsewhere; or, materials are natural and so already available; or, the employees are the materials. Employers purchase materials for their employees to use at work, but the materials are products of labor.
Does the employer provide METHODS? Not really. Employees work with what they are provided, but provisions or resources are not methods. At workplaces, methods are usually the result of years of development of techniques. The assumption that proletarians are usually unskilled labor relies an awful lot on useless stereotypes. Employees develop techniques in cooperation with employers providing a place to work and supplies. Whether or not they are skilled, employees develop techniques on their own and sometimes in cooperation with employers. Methods are the products of labor.
Does the employer provide a WORKPLACE? Not really. Employers provide spaces. Employees work in collaboration with each other and sometimes with employers to create functioning workplaces. As with materials and methods, a workplace is the product of labor.

This. The position of property owner is superfluous to production.
Its only real role is capital accumulation, by which it secures it's own existence, see

if 1+1=4 why don't markets work?

so why is porky still in power?

Vacuous truth. The antecedent is false so the statement is true regardless of the truth value of the consequent.
That is, 1+1=4 simultaneously implies that markets do and do not work.

p // q // p->q
0 // 0 // 1
0 // 1 // 1
1 // 0 // 0
1 // 1 // 1

Anyways just to give a serious response here
economicshelp.org/blog/2412/economics/productive-vs-allocative-efficiency/

Probably because coops don't engage in takeovers. Also,