Jim Devine writes:
But decentralized
democracy (worker co-ops, community co-ops, etc.) have been
central to alternatives to social-democratic and Marxist-Leninist
statism.
Comment: Social democratic governments surely are strongly in favor
of co-ops. Indeed, provinces such as Manitoba and Saskatchewan when they have
had CCF or NDP governments (both social-democratic) have had a dept. of
co-operative development and often a minister of co-op development. I do not
know what you mean by community co-ops. Are these sixties-type volunteer
service co-ops or what? In provinces such as Saskatchewan if you go into any
small or medium-sized town the co-op will be the grocery store and usually the
bulk petroleum dealer and often the service station as well. The financial
institution will be a credit union. The elevator will often be a Co-op or Pool
elevator. All wheat is collectively marketed by the Canadian Wheat Board as are
some other grains. Social democratic govts. have pushed these developments
because that is what their constituency has wanted. THere are also huge
producer co-ops, including a giant Dairy producers co-op that is now
interprovincial. THere is another huge one in Quebec. These are large
organisations run bureaucratically just like their private competitors.
The consumer co-ops have their own oil refinery. There are few worker co-ops
however, but you can buy brew from a worker-owned brewery thank goodness!
None of these developments evolved into anything like socialism. Social
democratic governments are not socialist at all. While in the early stages
of their development social democratic movements such as the CCF (Co-operative
Commonwealth Federation ) had a manifesto (the Regina Manifesto)
that explicitly has as its goal
the abolition of capitalism and its replacement by the Co-operative
Commonwealth, the programme was continually watered down both in theory and in
practice so that a mixed economy private and public was accepted. The
co-operative movement tended to become less radical and just part of the
prairie status quo. Labor relations in co-ops are sometimes poor. Members
of the co-op get higher patronage refunds if there are lower costs. Many of the
members are farmers and many are not all that sympathetic to labor.
Credit Unions are certainly better than banks in that surplus is
distributed to members on the basis of usage rather than number of shares owned
and as with co-ops, one member has only one vote.
Co-ops and credit unions and marketing boards, etc. operate in the
interest of their members and within a market structure that limits their
freedom. They must watch the bottom line just as much as a private bank or
store. Often too, members are passive unless there is a crisis. They do not
want to be democractically participating they want to get on with their farm
work etc. and let managers run the businesses.
While co-ops etc. have a role in a socialist society I think that the
left's downplaying of the role of public ownership is a huge mistake. Publicly
owned companies can operate at a loss and serve social ends that no co-op
or private company could possibly do in the marketplace. Alternatively, they
may produce a surplus that can be used for social expenditure. Finally, if they
operate on a break-even basis, ceteris paribus, will provide services cheaper
cheaper than a private firm--since private firms (on the whole) must generate
profits. I agree that there must be great public and worker input into the
operation of publicly owned corporations. Control by communist planners
without any checks and balances was the real problem with public ownership in
the USSR and elsewhere. Another difficulty with co-ops is that the interests of
co-ops in poorer areas e.g. with agriculture co-ops and those that happen to
be located in rich areas may conflict. Unless you have some strong state
redistribution how does co-operative ownership solve that sort of problem?
I don't see how formal democratic structures lead to socialism although
they may be a necessary condition of any acceptable form of socialism.
Formal democracy has not led to public control of government, and when
elements of formal democratic control are introduced through co-ops etc.
it is often not the membership but management that exerts control. As long
as the co-op grocery store gives good service, choice, and reasonable
prices with a decent patronage refund members are content to let a small group
of volunteers serve on the board. Often it may be a problem to find a new board
member when one dies or steps down.
CHeers, Ken Hanly
