That is puzzling me for some time as well. Why don't unions and assorted progressives form corporations that work for the benefit of poor and working class people? Such entities could be successful in several areas, so far dominated by two-bit entrepreneurs - which means that they are not very capital-intentsive:
1. Temporary work agencies (Kelley is a single largest employer in the US) 2. Domestic/janitorial service agencies (described by Barbara Ehrenreich _Nickel and dimed_) 3. Community credit unions, especially in areas served by predatory "check cashing" joints that legally rob the poorest of the poor 4. Housing cooperatives 6. Retail cooperatives (to compete with Wal-Marts) 7. Legal clinics and coops (I think NLG can do a better job in this area than a referral service to private lawyers) 8. Recreational facilities
All such organizations already exist on a small scale, so thera are no major institutional obstacles to their formation and expansion - except perhaps that most US-ers tend to think that they will eventually strike it rich as individuals, and thus have an aversion to any collective action.
Wojtek