In anarchist theory, co-ops neither private property nor personal property, but collective property.
In Marxism, it is a more ethically justified subset of private property.
Some anarchist movements (syndicalism, collectivism) consider complete collectivization of what is currently private or state property to be the end-goal of revolution. They envision a world economy which is a free association of co-operatives, or something similar.
Marxist movements have a more nuanced view of collective property, specifically it is envisioned as an ethical improvement over single-owner private property, and a useful stepping stone towards communism, but not an end-goal. Co-ops still allow for unfair inequality (e.g. members of one co-op can be much more well-off than members of another co-op, even if they produce the same value) and share some characteristics with private property. As such, what you are describing is once again an edge-case. Co-ops were generally glorified in USSR, especially during NEP:
Let’s all give a vow
To not let the merchants plunder
Buy in a co-op
Not a cent for the black market
During later periods, in most industries co-ops were usually overtaken by the corresponding state ministries or departments, sometimes with shares returned to the members, sometimes not. The members usually became regular employees of a state-owned enterprise. Co-ops did linger in some sectors, like consumer goods distribution in rural areas (сельпо - rural consumer association, basically a grocery store owned collectively by the village inhabitants), rarely agricultural production (колхоз - collective farm, a farm owned by everyone who works there), etc. But again, mostly they were expropriated by the state for the purposes of building a socialist planned economy. If you wanted to start a co-op during those times, if it was at all successful it would soon be overtaken by the state.
As usual, Perestroyka started with some great ideas in this area. It had the goal of returning some state property to co-ops so that employees became memebers and had more incentive to be efficient in their work, and have some agency to decide how to run the enterprise. It was supposed to complement the socialist planned economy (which would be responsible for strategic goods, like heavy industry and military) with a democratic, but more decentralized co-op economy (which would be responsible for consumer goods). As usual, it all went to shit soon after, because directors of co-ops became de-facto single owners and ran them like private businesses.
I’m just trying to understand the logistics of how this works.
Logistically speaking, co-op members did have an exclusive right over their collective property. That included locking the doors and such. But again, if your co-op was successful during the advances socialist economy stage of USSR, it would be taken over by the state.
In anarchist theory, co-ops neither private property nor personal property, but collective property.
In Marxism, it is a more ethically justified subset of private property.
Some anarchist movements (syndicalism, collectivism) consider complete collectivization of what is currently private or state property to be the end-goal of revolution. They envision a world economy which is a free association of co-operatives, or something similar.
Marxist movements have a more nuanced view of collective property, specifically it is envisioned as an ethical improvement over single-owner private property, and a useful stepping stone towards communism, but not an end-goal. Co-ops still allow for unfair inequality (e.g. members of one co-op can be much more well-off than members of another co-op, even if they produce the same value) and share some characteristics with private property. As such, what you are describing is once again an edge-case. Co-ops were generally glorified in USSR, especially during NEP:
During later periods, in most industries co-ops were usually overtaken by the corresponding state ministries or departments, sometimes with shares returned to the members, sometimes not. The members usually became regular employees of a state-owned enterprise. Co-ops did linger in some sectors, like consumer goods distribution in rural areas (сельпо - rural consumer association, basically a grocery store owned collectively by the village inhabitants), rarely agricultural production (колхоз - collective farm, a farm owned by everyone who works there), etc. But again, mostly they were expropriated by the state for the purposes of building a socialist planned economy. If you wanted to start a co-op during those times, if it was at all successful it would soon be overtaken by the state.
As usual, Perestroyka started with some great ideas in this area. It had the goal of returning some state property to co-ops so that employees became memebers and had more incentive to be efficient in their work, and have some agency to decide how to run the enterprise. It was supposed to complement the socialist planned economy (which would be responsible for strategic goods, like heavy industry and military) with a democratic, but more decentralized co-op economy (which would be responsible for consumer goods). As usual, it all went to shit soon after, because directors of co-ops became de-facto single owners and ran them like private businesses.
Logistically speaking, co-op members did have an exclusive right over their collective property. That included locking the doors and such. But again, if your co-op was successful during the advances socialist economy stage of USSR, it would be taken over by the state.
Interesting. Thanks for the explanation and history.