[jltsiren]

I guess it's because American culture is more focused on property and ownership.

The co-op movement arose as a reaction to industrialization and capitalism, which threatened many workers. You could understand it as capitalism based on membership rather than ownership, or as a third way that's neither capitalism nor socialism. But just like socialism never really took root in the US, other alternatives to capitalism didn't fare that well either.

[jampekka]

Worker co-ops are quite concretely socialist in the sense that the workers control their means of production. Of course when embedded in largely capitalist economy, e.g. banks do still have often de-facto control over them.

[fransje26]

> Worker co-ops are quite concretely socialist

Or you could say that they are co-owner of their means of production. So, as business owners, are they actually the ultimate capitalists in disguise? :-)

[jampekka]

Business owner who doesn't have employees is not really a capitalist, but a self-employed worker. At least if they do some practical labor instead of e.g. investing.

In general, self-employment is quite a different thing from owning of means of production that other people work.

[kwere]

co-ops existed well before industrialization, as guilds of artisans. Guilds were quite protective of their markets and IPs. You had to inherit the menbership or pay a hefty sum to enter the guilds.

[jltsiren]

Guilds were something very different.

They were oligarchic rather than democratic: only masters were full members. They were monopolies rather than competing in the market: you had to be a member of the relevant guild if you wanted to do business. And they were not businesses: each master ran their own business instead of working for the guild.