> Hypothesis - the formation of a citizens corporation, formed for the
> purpose of delivering services that the gov is unwilling to provide.
> (single payer health care, public education, social security)
>
> Would the benefits that seem to accrue to large corps in commerce be
> available to a citizens corp?
>
> Martin
Of course you know that people on this list will view the question from many perspectives.
I seriously doubt that there is any organization on the left (even defining it most broadly to include liberal groups such as the ADA) has the money to provide "single payer health" or universal education or to supplement social security.
Even far more modest attempts, while doing a great deal of good are overwhelmed. Free clinics cannot treat every patient for every serious illness. Food banks must deal with more hungry people than they can feed. I would hate to see either disappear; but they can't substitute for lack of state intervention.
In general there is an idea some people have of "building the new within the shell of old". If this means setting up co-ops and citizens corps and expecting them to replace existing capitalist institutions including government services - I don't think it is a viable tactic.
Co-ops and such at their best can serve two main purposes. They can provide aspirin for some of the ills of capitalism. (I use aspirin rather than Band-Aid, because aspirin is both a pain reliever and a life-saving drug.) And they can serve as form of propaganda - a refutation of TINA (There Is No Alternative) an affirmation that another world is possible. They sometimes can contribute resources as well; but this tends to be marginal; co-ops consume resources as often as they generate them.
But even this role does not happen to the greatest extent if you make them a primary means of organizing. Co-ops have been most successful when affiliated with political parties, trade unions or other forms of mass movement that are powerful independent of the co-ops.