Yes, in so far as I have not seen a leftist government do a radical push for co-op's or other forms that would give power directly to the workers. Closest the swedish soc-dems came in 44 years of consecutive power (no, I am not counting the break in the summer of 1936) was a program to grant stock power to the unions, administered by union bosses.

Most what they did accomplish in ways of building movements that were controlled by those working in them, was accomplished while in a harsh opposition role. I think the need and desire to build organisations went away as they began to see state power as the main mean, held by party elite for the benefits of party elite.

Maybe soc-dems and commies were both wrong. The important thing is not wheter state power is conquered by elections or by force, but that state power forms the parties into being another owner instead of a mean to get power of the means of production into the hands of the proletariat.

So what then? Maybe back to the 19th century also-rans anarchists and utopian socialist. Maybe study why some co-ops does not get captured and combine with new organisational models such as those Chris pushes.

But it appears to be a Gordian knot. If the state is conquered by socialists, it eats the socialists. And if the state is not conquered by socialists, it also tends to eat the socialists (back in the 1930ies, when Coop was better functioning and dangerous, they had a thick file at the security service).

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se