Here you have met class interests and how they relate to our daily struggles. Your sister seems to have bourgeois interests, and like any bourgeois she would be a fool to fund the revolution that will seek to depose her. She may not see it that way – many bourgeois don’t – but ultimately this is what it is: giving money to transition away from capitalism, which would destroy all their privileges in the process. Though with regards to ecology under capitalism specifically (and “green” companies), I believe there capitalists understand that what they do actually contributes to the problem and doesn’t solve anything. I don’t believe for a second that after 5 years as a green startup offering whatever gimmick to solve climate change and seeing no result in the world, that they still believe they can actually do anything about it. But hey, it brings in money. That’s one thing they do well.

Likewise we would be fools, as proletarians, to fund the bourgeoisie that oppresses us. But the difference here is that the bourgeois have the upper hand and are allowed (and even encouraged) to oppress us, whereas we are not allowed to oppress them.

If capitalists will not let us transition away from them, then they will make it so capitalism cannot be reformed away from capitalism either – it’s a system, everything has its place in it. You’ve found yourself against the second hurdle of socialism: the bourgeoisie will not let us play on our terms. Coops are good, but they still exploit labour (not all workers in a coop are partners, they still depend on exploited labour in their chain of production and daily life).

The only solution is revolution. I understand your frustration at not being able to change things right now when they’re plain to see – ending homelessness, ending hunger in your country would be really easy if we took the money from capitalists. And as you said you can see people who have nothing and have to struggle for survival on the daily, while you also see rich pigs for whom life is trivial. But strategically, the best thing you can do is join a revolutionary communist party. Historically speaking this is what has achieved change. For example, many organisations focus on “mutual aid” (which is a term, it seems, many of these organisations use but don’t understand). But mutual aid does not dismantle the systematic causes that create these issues, they only solve the symptoms where they see them. But who has erased child hunger? Food not bombs, or the Bolsheviks?

Communism is illegal in your country, but you should check what exactly is illegal. Communist parties were banned in many countries before and during the Cold War, but in many places also this could be subverted by simply calling the party something else. You may be able to create a communist party, or maybe there is one already under a different name.

I was intending to start an communist organization masked as a normal company (communism is illegal in my country), my first goal to give workers a good working environment, and to pay them as high as I could.

You’re getting a lot of great responses. I also suggest looking at Rosa Luxemburg’s critique of coops.

Co-operatives – especially co-operatives in the field of production constitute a hybrid form in the midst of capitalism. They can be described as small units of socialised production within capitalist exchange.

But in capitalist economy exchanges dominate production. As a result of competition, the complete domination of the process of production by the interests of capital – that is, pitiless exploitation – becomes a condition for the survival of each enterprise. The domination of capital over the process of production expresses itself in the following ways. Labour is intensified. The work day is lengthened or shortened, according to the situation of the market. And, depending on the requirements of the market, labour is either employed or thrown back into the street. In other words, use is made of all methods that enable an enterprise to stand up against its competitors in the market. The workers forming a co-operative in the field of production are thus faced with the contradictory necessity of governing themselves with the utmost absolutism. They are obliged to take toward themselves the role of capitalist entrepreneur – a contradiction that accounts for the usual failure of production co-operatives which either become pure capitalist enterprises or, if the workers’ interests continue to predominate, end by dissolving.

The upshot is that the low pay and bad working conditions are dictated by the market, and any business you create would be forced through market competition to reproduce these conditions.

Business profits are like 10%. You will need some of that to survive. So even if you’re willing to live in poverty, you can at most afford to pay your workers a few percent more or treat them a few percent better, but not both.

Quick answer: no

Longer answer: For the most part, no. A communist organization (which ought to be a communist party, even under conditions of illegality) should not be dependent on the bourgeoisie for funds, even if in rare cases they may receive donations from a bourgeois traitor to their class. However, regular donations from the bourgeoisie cannot be a long-term strategy and the basis for fundraising.

Lemme guess, Ukraine?