> Marxism is pure utopia.

You're conflating Soviet style socialism for all forms of socialism (though it's hard to blame you as the Soviet Union didn't really care to make that distinction either) much like some critics of capitalism are conflating utopian anarcho-capitalism or extreme laissez-faire capitalism for all forms of capitalism (which is how you get political pundits fluctuating between calling social market economies in Europe "socialist" or "capitalist" within the same sentence depending on whether they talk about aspects they like or not). Worker democracy is actually closer to anarchism (which for most Westerners sadly evokes images of angsty teenagers in black hoodies throwing molotovs or spray painting buildings, rather than community organizing and radical democracy).

Soviet style socialism was heavily based on a fixed hierarchy (the infamous communist bureaucracy) and centralization. Especially near its decline (i.e. 1980s) it was heavily plagued with corruption and shortages of "non-essential" goods because of structural issues but also the dual stresses of trying to compete with capitalist economies through production for exports and trying to compete with capitalist militaries through production for weapons and supplies for strategic partners. All this while also starting from the disadvantage of not only having been an agricultural economy until fairly recently but also having suffered massive losses in a world war while still recovering from their own civil war.

Ironically, the Soviets were actually a bad example of organizing around "soviets" (worker councils) and the Bolshevist revolution involved disempowering and purging a lot of worker democracies and trade unions as "counter-revolutionary" because the founders thought they had to lay the groundwork for socialism from the top down (ironically often using pre-existing capitalist structures and stakeholders) rather than build from the ground up.

There are many thinkers outside the Marxist-Leninist and Marxist-Leninist-Maoist spheres like Bakunin, Bookchin, Kropotkin or Malatesta. The reason these names tend to be less familiar is not only that the Soviet and Maoist traditions tended to heavily suppress anarchism but also that anarchism by its nature puts less emphasis on individuals than ideas so you rarely find self-identifying "Bookchinists" or "Malatestaists".

> Most people want to be told what to do, get paid for it and go home.

Voter turnout in many country has been as low as less than 50%. One could say that in those countries "most people" want to be told what to do and not bother with politics. Would you argue this means they should therefore not be allowed to vote?

You can participate in a worker democracy led company without participating in elections or any of the decision-making processes. The important point is that if you do care or an issue arises that affects you more strongly, you can. Under a hierarchical company the best you can hope for unless you have a union is to raise the issue with HR or management and hope doing so will not affect you negatively.

I have no idea why you are thinking I want to disallow anything. I merely point out that most of the people is not proactive enough to form cooperative.

To add some background I'm running sizable division in a company hiring about 100 people. We're very flat and open to suggestions no matter what is your title. Some people actually use that opportunity, but it's maybe a half. And we're actually targeting for that when hiring! More than that - over the years we had some people left us, because they wanted narrower responsibility, without bothering them with bigger picture.

As for the discussion about "true Marxism" - sorry. Hard pass.

> I have no idea why you are thinking I want to disallow anything.

Because if we wanted our governments to work like businesses, we'd have to ban elections. Businesses deciding to offer some leeway towards employees in their decision making process doesn't turn them into democracies the same way as a dictatorship doing opinion polls wouldn't be a democracy.

> As for the discussion about "true Marxism" - sorry. Hard pass.

Nobody said anything about "true Marxism". Marx neither invented the ideas of socialism, nor do I care for his opinion on it in particular.

If anything my point is that the Soviets (and their related states) tried to sell their actions as "real socialism" but that this is like calling America's actions "real capitalism" despite other forms like social market economies (e.g. half of Europe) existing.

I don't care if anarchism is any truer of a Scotsman than Bolshevism, I only care that anarchism is more communal and less oppressive.

>Because if we wanted our governments to work like businesses, we'd have to ban elections. Businesses deciding to offer some leeway towards employees in their decision making process doesn't turn them into democracies the same way as a dictatorship doing opinion polls wouldn't be a democracy.

This statement has no connection to my comments. I am not expressing any opinion how I want business or government to operate. I'm just sharing my observations, about why people do not form cooperatives.