Also, I think Corbyn’s much too advanced policy of enforcing a right to purchase by the workers was blatantly anti-capital, which was what made them recoil. I think it was a good policy, but he had to win to get it. Even knowing how co-ops can be weaponized against them, Capital has little problem with supporting the production of new ventures in the coop form because it doesn’t directly touch their property rights. They only recoiled at Corbyn’s policy because it directly abridged their property rights. So there can be kind of dual political angles towards co-ops. The more radical candidates can continue advocating for Corbyn-esque policies that attempt to basically softly reappropriate capital to the workers of the existing firms, but if they lose it doesn’t heighten capital’s aversion to coops as a business form because that isn’t what they’re afraid of. They don’t think coops are a threat by themselves, they just don’t want the state to take their property. But mediated through the market for capital, coops are a long term threat if they can succeed, because they shrink access to capital and cash flows for the bourgeoisie. It’s just unclear if they can get to that size on their own. It would have been very beneficial if an Amazon or Google or Facebook had been a co-op. The most immediate goal should be to amass as much capital to hit growth industries as soon as possible. That would also destabilize the stock market more quickly, as new growth companies having their equity locked up in cooperatives would foreclose on new profit streams immediately.