Catalonia was under the control of a state which was ruled by bourgeois parties and the CNT, while Catalonia was certainly undergoing a revolution during the civil war, they definitely did not abolish capitalism and therefore there wasn't any kind of socialism present in revolutionary Catalonia. Rojava

Orwell's Homage to Catalonia perfectly describes the conditions during the revolution. The army and most industry were worker owned, which is why it's hailed as an example of class consciousness developing social conditions needed for socialism.

Nothing about the economy of Rojava implies socialism, the state most definitely exists and classes are obviously present. The co-operatives in Rojava, if anything, prove that they are essentially nothing more than capitalist businesses even in a society which you consider to be 'revolutionary'.

They work under worker cooperatives and communes that provide for the community based on their input, it also practices one of the largest democracies on the planet that isn't a western representative democracy.

Another thing to point out is that Rojova is basically stateless, there is no state. It's run entirely by a bottom-up model with local governments representing the people in the most direct fashion to higher positions that affect larger areas. It's well regarded by anarchists as stateless.

This is a bad definition and leads to a lot of confusion, as you've proven. Socialism is better defined as the abolition of capitalism and the abolition of private property is part of it.

You might be a bit confused here, abolition of private property is the abolition of capitalism. Markets are not included in this since market socialism is a thing (despite the fact that we agree with it or not). Socialism isn't what everyone on this sub wants to be as their perfect definition. I don't want to get into the different types of socialists here but the basic defining feature of socialism is the abolition of private property and replacing it with cooperative property.

You then proceed to claim that traditional businesses produce more wealth than co-ops and that you support co-ops because they have a more fair distribution of wealth. Firstly, the reason why capitalism produces more wealth is becaused it is based on profit, as opposed to socialism which is based on need. Furthermore, n your comment, you contradict yourself by saying that you criticise capitalism for wage labour yet you, in the same paragraph, claim to support co-operatives which, you admit, would not end wage labour but only make it more fair.

A couple misconceptions I want to address here:

• Capitalism produces more wealth because it's much easier to have one man or a group of shareholders to own and direct an enterprise. Think of the Great Pyramids, one of the largest structures built in only 20 years because of slavery. Now think about mass production in factories, it's much faster and easier when labor is expendable and ordered to do certain things in exchange for wage labor.

If you read Marx, you'd also see that his conclusions are the same.

• If we were talking about a market economy, that would be a different discussion as to whether market socialists are right or not. It doesn't change the fact, however, that socialism seeks to eliminate private ownership which leads to things like wage labor and alienation from production.

• Of course cooperatives end wage labor. The very concept of wage labor is based on an owner giving you a wage in exchange for producing goods/services. Cooperative property is democratically decided shares of profit, which isn't a wage.

I highly advise reading into Marx or a basic wikipedia article. This argument is running on misconceptions.