I think your criticisms of capitalism are conveyed well and I think you (and those supporting you) are doing crucially fantastic work.
Having said that, my initial reaction to your proposed solution (worker co-ops) was to dismiss it as too simplistic/naive.
After doing some more research on your views, I changed my mind and realised that you had the "winning ticket" all along.
Just when I was about to ride a wave of newly found optimism and help get your message across (in my own localised way), I came across some criticisms of worker co-ops.
The first from Noam Chomsky and the second from the International Socialist Review.
Both of the criticisms focus on the issue of trying to bring about radical change (via the worker co-ops) from the bottom-up (rather than the top-down) and how it doesn't appear to work because of pressures from the incumbent system.
I agree that the incumbent needs to be changed/replaced/phased-out/etc., but I (and surely many others) don't know with what.
What is your response to these criticisms of trying to grow worker co-ops from the ground-up?
I'm not an economist, but in terms of the general concept of replacing an existing system with a new (and hopefully better) system, I wish to provide my thoughts on.
If you want to replace existing system X, you need a replacement Y.
Yet you also need a strategy/plan for transitioning from X to Y.
Are worker co-ops the "Y" we need and is growing them from the bottom-up (within a resistant incumbent system), an effective strategy/plan for transitioning from X to Y?
My questions are related to Corey Butler's and 's.