The Democratic People's™ Republic of Tankiejerk

Cool. Worker coops have this.

That's assuming they operate on a wage model rather than pure dividends. But whatever, you are opposed to currency in general so the specifics don't matter to you in that case. Regardless if there is a wage system its democratically agreed upon and I don't know if I see that as a big deal.

As worker coops have. Especially in a majoritarian “democratic” worker coop model.

I think the alienation you are describing as stemming from being in a "majoritarian" coop is something we'd run into on a fully collectivized society as well. Its just different sizes.

I'm curious if you think syndicalism has the same problem? More or less the in-between. Instead of a market you have a single negotiating table between industries. No market competition but you still would have competing interests.

The firm MUST reinvest SOME of the surplus extracted from their workers, into the operation of the firm, or else it could not continue to operate, this is exploitation, and will lead to imperialism, crisis and alienation.

Do you think a "firm" of one person self exploits? If 99% of an economy is collectivized/communal but then some person decides to do the black market thing and self exploit for personal profit (using resources rather than currency), is that system still capitalism? Who is the immoral one in that case, the self exploiter correct? Are they cheating themselves? or the rest of the population? Both?

No this is gibberish. Exploitation is only meaningfully immoral when its a person or persons exploiting others through coercion and a undemocratic enforced authoritarian hierarchy.

As for imperialism, I don't think imperialism stems from only economic exploitation. Nationalism, racism, and a rampant growth mindset are generally an aspect if not a requirement.

Is imperialism possible under a mutualist economic system? Absolutely. I don't agree that it is inevitable.

Could it be a more resilient capitalism? Sure. A better Capitalism isn’t socialism though.

I define socialism as worker ownership of the means of production. That can look like a lot of things. This is all semantics though and I largely don't care you call me a socialist or social democrat or whatever. Actual social democrats and left liberals would just call mutualists like myself socialists. Not socialist enough for the socialist club or liberal enough for the liberal club.

Also, if you concede that mutualism would be more resilient than capitalism, I'm not sure why you are so concerned about inevitable crisis.

This is what social democrats think. That eventually the market system will “reform” itself to socialism. Capitalism can’t be reformed, it’s inherently flawed.

The mechanism social democrats describe capitalism dissolving into socialism is through a welfare state, not worker coops. If you want to relate those together I think that's just bad faith and perceiving ideological disagreements as a monolithic opposition.