I'm all for coops, but they presuppose the right to exclude. Like you said, Joe Smith can't just walk into the factory and start using it to make his shoes unless the property owners - the coop - are fine with that. I don't like differentiating private and cooperative, because they're not mutually exclusive; private property can be owned and operated cooperatively. All private property does is seek to reduce conflict over resources by assigning use claims. It's something we all do, and it's intuitive.
As long as it's all voluntary, I'm all for it. Consent is king.
I like that: "Consent is king."
Coops are a HUMONGOUS step better.
A democratic workplace that serves your interest versus working for a dictator who exploits you to the legal maximum and may fire you at any time.
Cooperatives aren't violent so far as I know.
A boss who threatens to fire you is not cool.
Maybe if someone came in and started some shit in a coop I suppose they'd call the state in. Communism has a state monopoly on violence just like capitalism. Thug police.
How could you have something that doesn't "exclude."
Would it be possible to fuse coops with voluntaryism? An open-coop?
Also, I wrote a new post:
OSAPAP 003 - Project Concepts And Limitations For The Open Source Anti Propaganda Animation Project
Voluntaryism doesn't preclude private property. Again, the only moral way for people to engage with each other is by consent, which requires the ability to exclude (freedom of association). Coops, so long as they're consensual, are by definition voluntary.
Working for someone isn't inherently bad or unjust; you agree to provide your time and perform tasks in exchange for something that's worth more than your time doing something else. A coop is no more required to employ you or let you use their cooperatively owned resources than a traditional boss is.