[quote=@Quetzalcoatl]
[@Dinh AaronMk]

Sweet, I'll fiddle with things a bit given the suggestions.

As for banks, I honestly don't know enough about them and their operation to reorganize them. I imagine they'd be nationalized and subjected to regulation, but would otherwise operate much as they would in a normal market. While personal investment coops would be powerful enough to promote new business, I doubt they could finance large business endeavors. Banks holding accounts, charging interest, and offering loans seems necessary. The government would be the primary profiteer from interest on loans.

That said, the debt of a company or coop would be the responsibility of its workers in such a system. Perhaps if a debt is untenable interest could be set to zero?

Banks are the hard part. I'll probably think on it a bit more and work on the sheet. In any case there's going to be a staunchly market socialist Netherlands out and about. 
[/quote]

The basic notion behind banks as far as Proudhon is concerned, or as much as I know about what he suggested per them are pretty much today's credit unions: member owned and operated financial institutions holding the money of those depositing into it and offering savings interests based on loans, like normal banks. Except the credit union is restricted from operating in the stocks and bonds market. They do offer loan programs at generally low interest rates. They're not supposed to act as aggressive as normal banks because credit unions aren't supposed to go about the work of gambling with their members' money, or their member-owners don't tend to want them to.

In a capitalist setting this is limiting because you may not be able to get the large loans needed to open new plants and what not; though Proudhon has the whole notion of ownership of use I guess to offset that; you don't own it if you're not using it. But I doubt the state would want to go that anarchist.

The alternative is a state-held bank everyone pays into as a portion of their taxes and from whence the state could operate more traditional banking roles, allowing them to dish out larger loans to finance grandiose projects to the "private" sector (in quotes, because I don't even know what a private sector in this case would look like under such a revolution). But in the long term it may again endanger the entire country to the dangers of economic collapse if the central bank fucks up and all of a sudden looses all its money and can't issue loans, effectively freezing the economy if not killing it. But it could be said in politics most people don't have that much foresight, so it could be implemented originally as a temporary fix but over time became more and more permanent as each successive generation of politicians since the revolution grew comfortable with its existence.

I also want to add as a bit of an aside since I'm in the same track of thinking: cooperatives like this as far as I've read and gathered actually work pretty well, on par in some ways to the traditional top-down model. The only thing running against them comes down to loans and financing options where it's legally harder to get the financing and business loans from banks so when they're tried they end up very small. But then [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._L._Gore_and_Associates]when they do they tend to get pretty good[/url].