Political, Economic, and Social Theory of Cooperation
* Book: Cooperation: A Political, Economic, and Social Theory. By Bernard E. Harcourt. Columbia University Press, 2024
URL = https://cup.columbia.edu/book/cooperation/9780231209540
Description
"Liberal democracy is in crisis around the world, unable to address pressing problems such as climate change. There is, however, another path—cooperation democracy. From consumer co-ops to credit unions, worker cooperatives to insurance mutuals, nonprofits to mutual aid, countless examples prove that people working together can extend the ideals of participatory democracy and sustainability into every aspect of their lives. These forms of cooperation do not depend on electoral politics. Instead, they harness the longstanding practices and values of cooperatives: self-determination, democratic participation, equity, solidarity, and respect for the environment.
Bernard E. Harcourt develops a transformative theory and practice that builds on worldwide models of successful cooperation. He identifies the most promising forms of cooperative initiatives and then distills their lessons into an integrated framework: Coöperism. This is a political theory grounded on recognition of our interdependence. It is an economic theory that can ensure equitable distribution of wealth. Finally, it is a social theory that replaces the punishment paradigm with a cooperation paradigm."
Review
Bernard Marszalek:
"Harcourt competently introduces this sector to a readership unfamiliar with its extensive reach into the lives of millions in this country. Electric Cooperatives alone serve 42 million people and power 56% of the US landmass1 and there are 4,760 US credit unions in 2022 (a drop of 2,000 in ten years) with over 130 million members.2
The EU Parliamentary Research Service recently tabulated that –
There are 3 million cooperatives worldwide; together, they provide employment for 280 million people, equating to 10 % of the world's employed population. The 300 largest cooperatives and mutuals in the world had a total turnover of US$2.018 trillion in 2016.3
Harcourt’s realization was that this third economic sector has proven the viability of a form of organization that inherently benefits people – that is, the slogan “people before profit” ideally forms the practice of this sector. For Harcourt, there is no need to fantasize an anti-capitalist system, when the embryo of one already exists and has a 275-year history in America based on Benjamin Franklin’s mutual insurance scheme in 1752.4
Of course, the argument against Harcourt’s view is that this sector is simply tolerated by the mega-corporations that dominate the economy. For example, electric utilities exist in rural areas because capitalists can’t make any money providing electricity to those areas. The New Deal rescued rural America from under development by supporting cooperative utilities. And, Credit Unions faced a takeover attack by big banks several years ago, only to beat back that incursion through an alliance between rural Republicans and urban Democrats, but still lost many offices.
Harcourt recognizes the limitations of some cooperative enterprises. He references REI’s opposition to unionization, for example. That opposition has also been evident in food co-ops where the customer-members vote in an anti-union Board. But there are cooperative members that have joined unions for obvious benefits and to ally with the labor movement. Cooperatives do have an inspiring set of principles that, if adhered to, position them in opposition to capitalist enterprises. Harcourt outlines the International Cooperative Alliance’s seven core principles to be followed by all cooperatives thusly:
. . . first, that cooperation must be open to all without discrimination and based on voluntary membership; second, that the cooperative organization should be run democratically by the members themselves and that members should have equal say and an equal vote in the decision-making process; third, that the members should contribute and benefit equitably from the running of the enterprise; fourth, that the cooperation should remain autonomous and self-determining, under control of the members only, fifth, that it must strive to provide training and education for the members; sixth, that there be cooperation among cooperative enterprises; and finally, that the cooperative enterprises strive toward the sustainable development of their environment and communities.5
These principles are reflected in the legal codification of cooperatives around the world, including in US Tax Law.
Harcourt devises a political economy analysis of the cooperative sector. Such an analysis has its origins in the late 16th century, but it was two centuries later that Adam Smith approached economic matters in a wholistic manner. He laid the ground work for an examination of capitalism that was followed in the 19th century by among others, Karl Marx. By approaching cooperatives, in all their diversity, from a political economy perspective, Harcourt moves beyond the usual, narrow view of cooperatives as simply an economic entity. He sees them as institutions that also have social and political aspects. This is significant given the current, limited economic view that co-op developers emphasize when promoting cooperative ventures.
It makes sense, given the context of the avaricious system we are burdened with today, to discuss economic security when promoting worker cooperatives, especially to marginalized workers desperate for a “good job.” But to ignore, or downplay, the social and political aspects of cooperatives hampers the multi-faceted development of the sector which is ultimately anti-capitalist.
Besides offering security – once accepted as a member – the democratic practice in cooperatives, where all have an equal vote, leads to the inherent political foundations of cooperatives. Here we have true democracy and not the faux, representative democracy which amounts to a democratic deficit in everyday life. The 19th century socialists saw this clearly as their prime goal: to move beyond the electoral circus and extend democracy to all workplaces. With economic democracy under their work belt, so to speak, cooperators don’t need mouthpieces to rule over them. Their daily practice of decision-making in their cooperatives provides them with the experience and confidence to make decisions outside their cooperative.
And with the extension of democracy into the economic realm we come to the social aspects of a cooperative society, on the assumption that such a society would gravitate towards egalitarianism. Harcourt refers to the huge cooperative enterprise centered in the Basque city of Mondragon. This multi-billion-dollar firm, named after the city where it was established in the 50s, employs 80,000 in 95 cooperatives and 14 Research and Development Centers throughout Spain. Every year hundreds of cooperators from all over the world tour the sites of the various enterprises situated in and around the town. Invariably these guests of Mondragon comment on the egalitarian social life of the city where ostentatious displays of wealth don’t exist and where conviviality rules.
The qualities of a cooperative society, Harcourt believes, prepares such a society to contend with climate change due to the daily practice of collectivity, which is the greatest argument for promoting the expansion of a democratic economy. It is a pity that Harcourt doesn’t develop this theme further. We’ll return to this concern.
There are other disappointments with Harcourt’s erudite, and promising, exposition of cooperation, which we will cover, but first we need to focus on the most radical element of a cooperative society. While there are cooperative ventures in many areas of a capitalist economy – in agriculture, in banking and insurance, in housing and retail food distribution, and services of all sorts – the most critical sector of a cooperative economy revolves around the formation of worker cooperatives. Control of the work place strikes at the black heart of capitalism.
Harcourt doesn’t explicitly focus on worker cooperatives, since he is adamant in demonstrating the widespread nature of cooperation in all areas of society, but he does note several developments that demonstrate that he appreciates worker control as pivotal to socio-economic transformation. He extolls, for instance, Cooperative Home Care Associates, a Bronx-based worker cooperative with 1,600 members. And he highlights King Arthur Flour, the oldest mill in America, as a successful employee-owned company. Though King Arthur is an Employee Stock Option Plan company not a worker cooperative, he thinks of it as equivalent to a cooperative. And his favorable exposition of Cooperation Jackson also substantiates his worker co-op orientation. Cooperation Jackson consists of a network of worker cooperatives and social justice activists determined to create an economy based on serving people, not profit, in Mississippi. It has an outstanding, and exemplary, mission that corresponds with Harcourt’s vision of a cooperative society.
Given the expansion of cooperative ventures ranging from volunteer mutual aid groups to city-wide co-op development agencies springing up in several cities, Harcourt’s book is a timely intervention. He offers an exposition of the scope and depth of cooperation. However, while his analysis of the economic, political and social aspects of cooperation introduces the facets of this movement to a new audience, his need to trademark these integrated aspects as “coöperism” seems unnecessary. I don’t think more ideology is helpful. I am reminded of Richard Wolff’s “worker self-directed enterprises ((WSDEs)” which he finally abandoned in favor of worker cooperatives.
It is true that today cooperative developers, mainly professionals in non-profit agencies, emphasize the economic aspects of cooperative ventures to appeal to the desire for job security and a modicum of control of one’s work – the so-called ownership approach – this is not, however, the primary focus with Cooperation Jackson. Nor is the economic aspect separated from other concerns in, for example, Cincinnati, Ohio where strong union support amplifies the cooperatives political presence in that city.
Further, for any cooperative enterprise to thrive, the social aspect must be totally integrated into the development of the structure. By this I mean, internally, members learn to overcome the lack of egalitarianism in our society by collaborating as peers with others. We are raised from childhood to be competitive and to quickly learn our place as order-takers not order-givers. To actually function in an institution that is premised upon all having an equal voice requires time to absorb the fine points of articulating a position on an issue and listening to other points of view. Externally, cooperatives emphasize their social values to the wider community, if for no other reason than that it’s smart marketing. It is also the best approach to propagate cooperation by building community solidarity. Food co-ops, for instance, often have funds set aside to donate to local non-profits and activist groups.
Harcourt’s intention to distinguish these three aspects of cooperative structures affords him the opportunity to delve into the complexity and potential of cooperatives to expand their influence and to grow their sector."
(https://geo.coop/articles/review-cooperation-political-economic-and-social-theory)
More information
- Book: Beyond the Corporation: Humanity Working (Random House UK, 2012