Why don't communist movements focus on creating and nurturing employee owned businesses?

Thats more syndicalist in nature, also the very idea is absurd. Why on earth would you willingly play the capitalist game with the capitalist rules when the entire system is rigged against the workers? What can possibly be gained? The way I see it if organizations like the IWW started making co-ops then the FBI would make sure they fail.

Something something they do sometimes

Employee owned businesses are the realization of communism within a capitalist society.
Right, but we want the whole system changed. Coops are inherently at a disadvantage in monopoly capitalism.
- Sorry my ignorance is showing here but I thought coops might be stronger than a company in a way they have more staying power before a company is forced to enshittify. I naively thought people would recognize the better quality of stuff provided from coops because they don’t have to fulfill the shareholders dreams of line must go up. Edit: I see down below the willingness to exploit is a severe disadvantage to coops
- The more we get, the better it becomes. Trying to just change the whole system at once is just an excuse for not making the small changes that move the needle.
  
  Making more co-ops doesn't make them any more competitive against companies that exploit their workers for extra profit.
  If you can make a successful co-op then go for it. But they absolutely aren't a path to any sort of revolution, which communists are all about. Forming a labor union in a critical industry is a much higher priority for communists than starting another co-op.
- What?? Why would an organisation free of parasites, not trounce the "meritocratic" system?

If you're vegan you don't decide to eat chicken just because chickens don't eat meat. They're still chickens.
- Yeah I don't understand the metaphor, either.
  
  What he means is the commulists still want to dominate workers for their own good, when they say "own the means of production" they are not going to let the actual workers do the owning. The commulists will own tge means of production on behalf of the workers instead of the current parasites.
  Cooperatives would put the actual power in the hands of the workers and would stop external forces from directly interfering into their affairs and telling them how to work or what to work on or why.

I think worker cooperatives are sometimes bashed too much but worker cooperatives are fundamentally a lower petty-bourgeois form of organizing. Cooperatives can only be an ally to the movement of the proletariat and not a driving force. That said, they might have minor use.
I have been thinking about how to sublate the lower petty-bourgeoisie into the movement of the proletariat. I think it would be cool for a bunch of workers in a worker's state to make a worker cooperative as a startup, make it big and then sell the cooperative off to the worker's state. As long as the land and the banks are owned by the state anyway, the worker cooperative would be financed and largely owned by the people indirectly anyhow.
But in terms of pre-revolution, worker cooperatives may help educate the workers who are part of it, and cooperatives can help ease the transition of class suicide for petty-bourgeois and labor aristocracy class traitors.
There's a bit of a trouble for educating the workers compared to unions due to the class situation and nature of ownership. But I think it would be less harmful for a small business owner to create a cooperative than to go out of business during an economic bust and with unexpected declassing become a reactionary blaming their debt on minorities.
I think the trouble is where to focus the limited time and effort of the communists. It's not that cooperatives are bad necessarily, it's just that it's more helpful and important to focus elsewhere.
I do think some communists get weird about strata other than the proles proper such as the reserve pool of labor, lower petty bourgeoisie and the labor aristocracy. The foundation of the communist movement should be the proletariat but these other strata are not inherent enemies. There's not a fundamental antagonism of exploiter and exploited here.

The hell of capitalism is the firm itself, not the fact that the firm has a boss.
The forces of the market and of capital do not go away just because the workers own the company. In worker-owned cooperatives, the workers exploit themselves, because the business still needs to grow. They simply carry out the logic of the capitalist themselves on themselves, using their surplus value to expand the business's capital, and paying for their own labour-power reproduction. i.e., the workers all simply become petit-bourgeois.
There are extant organisations (some political parties, some NGOs) that push for more workers' cooperatives, and none of them are communist nor call themselves communist. If you believe in a cooperative-based economy, you are not a communist. I don't mean that as an insult, it's just a fact, the same as if you want, for instance, the current US economic system, you are not a communist. You can advocate for coops but you would fare much better in that political project if you didn't try to put it under the banner of something it's not, and something far more controversial than just "worker coops are good" anyway.
- Why does a worker-owned coop need to grow? Are you presuming they take outside investment / capital?
  
  Capitalism compels firms to grow or die, in order to fight the tendency for the rate of profit to fall. We'd need to move beyond a profit-driven economy to move beyond this issue.
  
  Because they are subjected to market forces. I'm not referring to the decisions an individual worker in a coop might make—an individual may well decide to give away all their money and become homeless, that doesn't mean it's in people's interests to. In a market, you must compete with other businesses, otherwise you will be out-competed and not survive. The "profits" obtained by a coop are still surplus-value; all the laws of capital outlined by Marx are still at play. Marx's critique of political economy did not really hinge upon the specific boss/employee relationship; it's about impersonal domination of the market over people who live in a capitalist mode of production. In Capital Marx spends quite a bit of time talking about how even capitalists are subjected to and dominated by capital; the domination is impersonal, and the domination of (hu)man by (hu)man is only secondary to that impersonal domination.
- I need you to give me a rigorous definition of what a “firm” is. Because I think to a lot of people, “firm” just means “distinct agent participating in an economy” and so the idea that this is something that can or even should be avoided on principle (even if basically all firms organized under capitalism are socially harmful) I think makes people imagine a bunch of hermits that never interact with each.
  
  Do you think that it's not possible to interact with each other outside of a market, outside of capitalism?

You're missing the entire point of government.
The goal of communism is control. It always has been. It always will be.
Why?
Because it is a system of governance designed by and used for controlling humans.
Government owned does NOT mean it is owned by the people. It simply means it's owned by the people who control the government.
- The people who control the government in Capitalism is the Capitalists, the people who control the government in Socialism is the working class, and the people who control the government in Communism is the people. That's the point of Communism.
- You are very close. Government owned does mean its owned by the people who control the government. 100%. But who controls the government? In the west, government is largely controlled by the wealthy (industry lobbying is an easy example). So then how do we have a government that is controlled by the masses?
  This is where the type of government called a socialist government comes in. Communism, on the other hand, is some distant future where humanity no longer has to worry about scarcity, and all ideas of money and state are gone.
  So a communist party is named thusly to say "we wish to work towards that goal, but recognize that there are steps required to get there". For example: increasing the democratic control of a country, both politically and economically, while decreasing the influence of capitalists, whose interests are in contradiction to the interests of those who work for a living (or need to sell their labour to make a living, since labour is the only commodity most of us control).
  
  I think breaking down concentrations of power a returning it directly to those most affected by it on a local basis aligns more with that stated goals. I think utopian communism obscures the attainable and effective ways of morphing the structure of our political reality.
- stateless
  
  There would be what we would consider a "government" in Communism, just not a "state," ie heavily militarized police to resolve class contradictions in the favor of whoever controls the state, the workers or the Capitalists. Anarchists want full horizontalism, Marxists want full public ownership.

This isn't really accurate, from a Marxist perspective. Marx advocated for public ownership, ie equal ownership across all of society, not just worker ownership in small cells. This isn't Communism, but a form of cooperative-based socialism. There are groups that advocate for worker cooperatives, but these groups are not Communist.
Essentially, the reason why cooperatives are not Communist is because cooperatives retain class distinctions. This isn't a growing of Communism. Cooperatives are nice compared to traditional businesses, but they still don't abolish class distinctions. They don't get us to a fully publicly owned and planned economy run for all in the interests of all, but instead create competition among cooperatives with interests that run counter to other cooperatives.
Instead of creating a Communist society run for the collective good, you have a society run still for private interests, and this society still would inevitably erase its own competition and result in monopoly, just like Capitalism does, hence why even in a cooperative socialist society, communist revolution would still be on the table.
- That all makes sense except the class distinctions part. If whole cooperatives share the capital of the organization, how is there a class divide?
  Everything you're saying about competition and private interest makes sense, with my limited understanding. I just don't get the class point you made. Help me understand?
  
  Cooperatives are petite-bourgeois structures. They are small cells of worker-owners that only own their small cell, and exclude its ownership from society as a whole. Since cooperatives exist only in the context of the broader economy, they form small cells of private property aimed at improving their own standing at the expense of others.
  Think of it this way, a worker in coop A has fundamentally different property relations to the Capital owned by coop A than worker B does in coop A. This creates a society of petite bourgeois worker-owners, not a classless society of equal ownership of all amongst all.
- Thank you for the write up. That distinction makes a lot of sense.
  
  No problem!
- If a worker co-op based society erased it's competition and formed a monopoly co-op run for the benefit of workers, is that not just a communist managed economy at that point with the monopoly playing the role of the state before erasing itself?
  
  To even get there in the first place requires making several nearly impossible leaps. If such a thing could happen, it may be able to form something like that, but given that it would be a profit-driven firm it's more likely that it would lose its cooperative character without a proletarian state over it to enforce that. More than likely, it would go the same way the Owenites went, moderate success at first before fizzling out and failing to overcome the Capitalist system.

If successful employee owned businesses are formed and accumulate capital they should be able to perpetuate employee ownership
One issue is, that isn't necessarily the priority the employee owners will have. I followed some news of a successful coop business where I lived, that sold the business because it had become worth so much that the payout was life changing money for all of those people, so they voted to take the money and potentially retire sooner rather than keep going as a coop.
- Ahh fantastic point. There isn't really an incentive for the individuals to maintain/perpetuate the institution.
  
  Let's be real. A company comes in and offer you a life changing, fuck you money that covers the rest of your life.
  Very few people can resist that, me included.

According to the UK's Labour Party's report on worker co-operatives in 2017, the main difficulty is access to credit (capital). It makes sense since the model basically eliminates "outside investors". It has to
Bootstrap with worker's own investment, or
Get investment from credit unions, or
Have (national or local) government to back it up
Even in the above cases, the credit is often not large or cheap enough for the cooperatives to be competitive. (There are examples in the report that serve as exceptions, I highly recommend giving it a read.)
So at least from this, I'd think the appropriation of means of production would be more fundamental rather than being a simple result of some special way of organizing.
- It makes sense that this is a limiting factor. However, I think it's good that outside investors are kept out so that the business can serve the interests of its employees long term. Once the gears are in motion, I think it could work. Also, if these worker cooperatives were formed by people willing to work for basics like food and shelter initially, as well as equity, then they have a better chance.

I think communists and socialists and anarchosts and broadly leftists do argue for cooperatives and workplace democratisation.
The reason they maybe don't do it enough is because those businesses in our present environment will get beaten by exploitation mostly.
Co-operatives by nature will sacrifice profit for employee conditions because they have more stakeholders (and shareholders) to be accountable to. Lower wages through exploitation will tend to reduce costs and allow the capitalist businesses to drop prices, and outcompete opponents and secure more investment capital due to higher market penetration, which will allow them to invest in their business, incl. Marketing and product development, and outcompete the more fair sustainable business, until they corner the market and can jack up.the prices and bleed consumers dry and push for laws/lack thereof to exploit employees and cut costs further.
- Cooperatives tend to be more stable than traditional firms, but they are both harder to start, and aren't Communist. OP is confusing worker-owned private property with the abolition of Private Property, Communists don't focus on worker cooperatives because cooperatives retain petite bourgeois class relations.
  Rather than creating a society run by and for all collectively, cooperatives are a less exploitative but still competition and profit-driven form of private business. Communists wish to move beyond such a format, even if we side with cooperatives over traditional firms when available.
- I don't agree with this. Shareholders extracting value from a company is arguably more of an 'inefficency' than treating employees fairly. Well treated employees provide a benefit to the company while shareholders purely remove resources.
  I have no data to back up my claim, just logic, so I could very well be wrong.
  
  Shareholders extracting value from a company is arguably more of an ‘inefficency’ than treating employees fairly.
  Their pals also owns all media and all economists so they will outright lie to everyone about it. Capitalism at this point in development when even capitalist themselves gets alienated from their own capital loses every advantage and usefulness for developing the productive forces.
  
  You got a point there, and there may be a lot of data to prove that point.
  I am part of a housing cooperative ("Wohnungsgenossenschaft" in German), and these cooperatives are noticeably cheaper because they are owned by the members/renters and don't have to generate any profit, just enough excess money to build new homes. The principle is very convincing if you live in it and save loads of money every month. The cooperatives employees aren't overworking themselves, too.
- I saw it happen with Walmart, Ace Hardware, Pizza Hut, Lowe's/Home Depot. We used to have independent supermarkets too, who set their own prices based on local conditions. I live in an area where the supermarket in a nearby town (it's really a village) often has lower prices on produce and meats. The big national brands cost more, and this store doesn't get bulk discounts like Walmart, HT, and Kroger! The problem is I still have to go a few towns over to get decent coffee because Folgers, Maxwell House and Staryuck isn't it, so when I get a ride, I have to buy extra and freeze it. The local independent store doesn't have as good starting pay or benefits, though, but without their store, many of our older population would be in serious trouble. An elderly man kept me for some time in the meat department of our chain store because he said he was ashamed to be looking at low quality beef at those prices, when he used to farm and hunt his own. Years of farming to feed our country left him with hands that don't work the way they used too. I didn't buy their overpriced products, and felt bad for someone who destroyed their body for people who largely don't even consider that nature gives us her body and blood for us to eat and drink, and from showing, weeding, irrigating, harvesting, processing, packaging, shipping, stocking, dusting, sweeping, waxing, checking, the individuals who suffer and destroy their bodies to get it to the table.
  I was in another independently owned grocery a few towns over by happenstance to pick up a few things while accessible. In less than 15 minutes, because I didn't know where items were and asked, three different employees told me to wait, they'd be right back. I guessed they were asking or making sure. Each returned with the specific item I wanted, to save me steps! Again, every item but one was less expensive than the chains, and I am guessing they can't compete with chain grocery starting pay, either.
  Interestingly enough, the employees do get a small profit sharing incentive.

In my country, the communist party (very watered down version of communism but still) is behind/aligned with most unions and they defend that companies should either be owned by the employees (co-ops) or employees should have a stake and saying on companies governance.
We have another left-wing party that even defends that failing companies should be returned to the employees, with government backed funding (loaned) if necessary to recapitalize the business and relaunch the company under employee governance.

Read Engels - Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, especially the section on Owenism.

Hey OP, there is a reply from a user from lemmygrad.ml which you cannot see as sh.itjust.works has defederated from 'grad. Check out the post on lemmy.ml to see it.
- Thanks, I also can't see it. Discuss.onlinr should really federate lemmygrad
- Oh, I didn't even realize this. Thanks.
  
  Yea... I keep seeing lemmygrads replying to people who can't see them because of defederation. Just because you can see someone, doesn't mean they can see you/your reply, just keep that in mind.

The idea for a lot of communist ideologists is we don't need these hyper competitive corporations. The end goal isn't "higher GDP" (or more salary), it's "better quality of life". I think most unions are like that.
- I understand the sentiment. I'm wondering about the efficacy of the strategies to achieve those end goals.

The overarching goal of communism is for laborers to own the means of production instead of an owning/capitalist class.
No, the overarching goal of communism is to create a stateless, classless and moneyless society.
Employee owned businesses are the realization of communism within a capitalist society.
No. At best, you could say that coops are a proto-socialist element within a capitalist society. Firstly, I am using the term "socialist" as separate from "communist" here, and secondly, a proto-socialist element is a very different thing from an enclave of socialism within a capitalist world.
The simple problem is that capital is capital. A capital is a self-reproducing social relation that competes with other capitals in a sort of evolution by natural/sexual/artificial selection on the markets. The problem is capital itself, and the solution is to destroy capital. Creating a new type of capital that is less destructive, or one that operates under less destructive modes is fine for countries where development has not reached to the point that they can directly gun towards communism. However, for advanced, and especially late-stage capitalist economies, the task is not to pursue further development of market forces, because market forces have already matured. The task is to eliminate market forces (although this may take time).
Coops may give a more equal distribution of wealth amongst the workers, but the aim of the communists is to abolish wealth, because the very meaning of wealth is that a private individual gets to command the labor of others. That is the fundamental social relation that money embodies and facilitates. The only way to remove the power to exploit other people's labor is to remove the ability to command labor. But if you cannot command labor, then money becomes worthless and your ownership of the coop doesn't mean anything.
Are organizations focusing on this and I just don’t know about it?
Yes. A quick google search shows examples such as the international labor organisation
If not, what obstacles are there that would hinder this approach to increasing the share labor collective ownership?
Part of the fundamental problem is just that the bourgeois class is not stupid. They want exploitable workers and profits. If you deprive them of that, prepare to face their wrath as they abandon all pretenses of human rights or fairness or the sanctity of markets.

It's really hard to generalize about leftist groups. The communists that feel this way have formed co-ops, or are cooperating with anarchists to do something like syndicalism (focused on unionizing existing businesses).
But the methods to start and grow businesses in a capitalist country inherently rely on acting like a capitalist. Getting loans requires a business plan that makes profit, acquiring facilities and other businesses requires capital. Local co-ops exist because they can attract members and customers that value their co-opness, but it's very hard to scale that up to compete at a regional level. It's not impossible, but it's hard to view it as an engine for vast change.
Communists that focus on voting are delusional (in my opinion) but like all reformists they view the existing government as the mechanism to make widespread change.
- Communists that focus on voting are delusional (in my opinion) but like all reformists they view the existing government as the mechanism to make widespread change.
  The only state in my country that has a communist party in power has been consistently leading national rankings in education and health, so I guess they're doing something right.
  
  Hey, that's great. I'm not sure it's a way to reach full communism, but good on them.
- Huh. Someone I know is trying to start a business with a longer-term aim of a co-op. Business insurance for themselves is going to run 30-40k minimum per year!
  
  Perfect example. Insurance is an entire industry of blood sucking middle men producing absolutely nothing.
  Good luck to your friend. Sorry they have to support a useless leech corporation instead of, you know, paying that money to actual workers.

I suspect a big part is tax and investment law.
A bunch of poors (like me!) who band together won't have much capital to buy inventory or equipment. I doubt banks and investors would lend to the bunch of poors, since they have a non-standard decision making structure.
That's gonna make it hella hard to get started.
- Hard to get started, and not Communist, either. OP is confusing worker owned private property with the collectivized system of Communism, hence why though Communist orgs support cooperatives as less exploitative than regular firms, neither is the basis of Communism.

There are efforts to build emoloyee owned businesses around the world
The system is pitted towards accumulation through antisocial behavior which is absent in democratic companies, hence they're disadvantaged
Communists and anarchists are revolutuonists, not reformists. The reason is that reform makes the inherently cruel system easier to bear and abolishment less likely.
Some want to go the reformist route to try if it is actually achievable
Most importantly and very evident in the US: 100 yrs of reform can be rolled back in one day. We're seeing that reform is pointless.
- Most importantly and very evident in the US: 100 yrs of reform can be rolled back in one day. We're seeing that reform is pointless.
  It also means swinging the other way takes a day. (Unlikely, but now far more likely than before.)
  
  Absolutely not. Progressive politics arent easy to understand and need vastly more effort to implement than regressive politics. You're arguing completely against history.

You’re proposing socialism.
Communism wants central authority.
- communism is literally the final goal of socialism.
  
  isn't that anarchy?
- Thats so funny because you have it completely backwards. Communism, the end goal, is a moneyless, classless, stateless society in which hierarchy has ceased to exist. State socialism or "the dictatorship of the proletariat" is a interim step on the path to communism that aims to eliminate class and the social structures that perpetuate it.
  
  Hierarchy would exist even in Communism, at least in Marxist conceptions. Class would not exist, but it won't be until an extremely developed, extremely late-stage Communism where all distinctions in the division of labor can genuinely be moved beyond, well after class has been abolished.
- Imagine believing you can defeat capitalism without central authority.
  
  Imagine not recognizing that central authority is the problem.
- Therefore, socialism should be the ultimate aim.
  
  It can't be, really, as Socialism either progresses to Communism or backslides to Capitalism.
  
  I truly believe a mixed economy is the answer.
  
  Socio democracy and I'm onboard.
  Edit: all socialist & communist dictatorship losers can go live in North Korea IMO. Read a history book ffs.
  Edit2: my fault, I didn't see I was on .ml Tank on tankies.

Join the IWW.

In terms of communism, as dreamt up by Marx and Engels, you can only turn a completely capitalist economy into a communist one. This has never been achieved, shortcuts have been taken. All communist states in existence have either turned authoritarian or to dust. So in my view, there aren't many communist movements left in the world. They may use the word but either M&E wouldn't like them or they don't really have a lot of support behind them. No support, no money. Capitalists have a lot of money. People with a lot of money tend to have the ear of their leaders. If an investor is interested it'll be real hard to go for an employee-owned model (excluding models with free publicly traded shares). If investors are not interested, the business may be failing and employee ownership is the last hurrah before the end. Capitalism tends to come up on top.
- This is generally wrong. Marx and Engels believed Capitalism itself prepares the foundations for Socialism, but not that revolution had to wait for Capitalism to fully develop to succeed. Socialist governments can oversee economies and build towards Communism without needing to be fully developed Capitalist states before the revolution. As a result, Marx and Engels would support historical Communist movements like Cuba, the USSR, PRC, etc, especially if they had lived to see Capitalism turn to Imperialism, shifting revolutionary pressure from the most developed countries to the most Imperialized countries.
  
  to mythologise a human.

https://fitsmallbusiness.com/what-is-a-cooperative-co-op/