First published in Scottish Socialist Voice, No. 317 (23rd November 2007), p. 8
David Cameron, during a speech in Manchester on the 8th of November, was kind enough to outline what he described as his ‘political philosophy’. What surprised may on the left, and I imagine many on the right too, was that among his well-spun words, lay sentiments of ‘social responsibility’, ‘neighbourhoods acting collectively and voluntarily’, and ‘the idea that we’re all in this together, that there is such a thing as society.’ Is this David Cameron really the same David Cameron who is the leader of the Tory Party? The same Tory Party of Margaret Thatcher who proclaimed just the opposite, that society is an illusion?
Apparently, Cameron now recognises the value of not only social unity, but also, as he made clear in Manchester, of co-operative ownership. He used his speech to launch a new Conservative Co-operative Movement, aimed primarily at giving parents democratic control over the schools their children attend. ‘I want to explore how we can create a new generation of co-operative schools in Britain, funded by the taxpayer but owned by local parents and the local community.’ Cameron pointed to similar structural approaches taken by over 100 schools in Sweden and over 600 in Spain.
Unions and the Co-operative Party have hit out at the proposals in Cameron’s speech, arguing that on the one hand, co-operation in education is nothing new, and that on the other, such a stance is wholly unnecessary. General secretary of teachers’ union NASUWT, Chris Keates, said that ‘The majority of parents don’t want to run schools and don’t have the capacity to do so. They want a good local school and there are already plenty of those to go round.’ Peter Hunt, general secretary of the Co-operative party noted that ‘This is really a complete contradiction for the Tories, who are the party of the individual.’ Indeed, in 1978, a similar orginisation to what Cameron is proposing was given life by the Callaghan government and called itself the Co-operative Development Agency. It was Thatcher who in the 80s abolished this movement.
The notion that Hunt alludes to, that this is a contradiction of Conservative philosophy, is something that must be picked up on and examined. Cameron puts forward the argument that, despite co-operative ownership and control falling traditionally within the sphere of left-wing politics, there is no contradiction between capitalism and co-operativism. ‘Conservatives’, he says, ‘have always argued that free enterprise and the co-operative principle are partners, not adversaries.’ He holds up ‘the role of strong independent institutions, run by and for local people’ as centre-right ideals.
However, even a cursory glance at the nature of co-operative enterprise shows that, while many have attempted to harmonise with the capitalist world, they are diametrically opposed to the ideology that drives such a system. Co-operatives do stand in contradiction to the liberal economic philosophy that both the Conservative Party since Thatcher and the Labour Party since Blair have promoted.
In 1995, an accepted definition of a co-operative was drawn up by the International Co-operative Alliance. It was composed of seven elements.
-
voluntary and open membership
-
جمهوري ميمبر ڪنٽرول
-
member economic participation
-
خودمختياري ۽ آزادي
-
education, training, and information
-
co-operation among co-operatives
-
concern for community
In a paper presented at the 8th conference of the European Sociological Association on ‘Conflict, Citizenship and Civil Society’, held in Glasgow in September, Caroline Gijselinckx and Patrick Develtere further elaborate the definition as ‘autonomous economic associations of persons united voluntarily to meet their common economic, social, and cultural needs and aspirations through a jointly-owned and democratically-controlled enterprise.’
In short, a co-operative is built around the twin goals of achieving economic democracy for employees and the wider community, and encouraging concern for social issues. The co-op movements in Britain, which began in Manchester with the Rochdale shop in 1844, and other countries have developed in recent years to include global social concern as well as local responsibility within their remit. Fair-trade, organic produce, and ethical and environmental activism have come to characterise modern co-operative enterprises such as Suma, which aims to provide ethical food to consumers, and the Co-operative Bank, which abstains from investing in the arms trade, unlike many highstreet banks.
This approach stands in contrast to the profit motive that drives capitalist enterprises. The dominant paradigm of free-market capitalism is spelled out nicely by economist Milton Friedman in an often quoted phrase: ‘The one and only responsibility for business is to make as much money as possible for it’s shareholders. Executives who choose social and environmental goals over profits are acting immorally.’ Within a capitalist economy, therefore, where the interests of individuals who possess capital (capitalists) take precedence over the interests of communities or the environment. Noam Chomsky notes, in طاقت ۽ نظريي تي, that under such a system, it is capitalists who ‘command resources, based ultimately on their control of the private economy.’
The type of radical democracy and decentralisation which is found at the heart of co-operative thought, goes completely against the central and, as many including Chomsky have argued, authoritarian rule over economic decision making found within capitalism. Of course the same could be said of state control over the economy and the independence and autonomy of co-operatives is directed at avoiding this as much as it is at avoiding capitalist ownership.
However, it is not obvious, based on this criticism of capitalist and state centralisation, that co-operatives cannot operate within a purely market economy. That is, an economy where the mechanisms of a traditional liberal system are intact but ownership is not confined to the capitalist elite. Namely, supply and demand and competition are upheld. An economy based on small businesses would be one example. This type of structure has been the aim of many of the existing co-operative movements: to tolerate the market and work within it. This is not, however, without its own contradictions.
Any system where co-operatively owned and managed enterprises are competing for profit, precludes the existence of co-operation between those enterprises, and this is central to co-operativism. It is not simply an approach that aims to end one of the ills of free-market capitalism, non-democratic control, but all of them. The notion of co-operation entails human individuals meeting in equality to discuss the best way the economy should progress. Human reason is to triumph over market forces. The democratic process involved in co-operative decision making is supposed to extend over the entire economy, not to be confined within enterprises, which will then go on to compete irrationally as before.
As an economic model, a precedent was set by the anarcho-syndicalist organisation of revolutionary Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War. So when David Cameron asks that ‘the Conservative Party take the lead in applying the co-operative ideal to the challenges of the 21st century’, we must prove him wrong by pointing to the fact that, for the reasons discussed above, co-operativism has its true home within the theoretical territory of the left and the anti-capitalist movement. Cameron is right when he says that ‘profit is not the organising principle of a healthy society.’ And he is also right, contrary to Chris Keats’ words of caution, that ‘centralised control’ of education must end. But he is wrong if he thinks that the Conservative Co-operative Movement will provide the alternative to existing structures of power.
ZNetwork صرف پنهنجي پڙهندڙن جي سخاوت جي ذريعي فنڊ آهي.
موڪليندڙ