CO-OPERATION IN THE UNITED STATES. It is strange how many persons know nothing of the co-operative movement, that economic dynamite so close to us; that force almost great enough to blow up the existing order, and which, working with organized labor and the socialist movement, will, doubtless, sooner or later reconstruct society. If few are familiar with co-operation in its technical sense, still fewer distinguish between the industrial, the agricultural and the consumers' forms of the movement, or guess at the superior value of the latter. Even government officials, engaged in fostering agricultural co-operation, not only do not make these distinctions, but do not distinguish between a democratically managed co-operative store, based on open membership and equal voting to all, and a joint stock company, voting by shares, but calling itself Co-operative Building and Loan Associations. It is true, credit associations, fire and life insurance associations are known commonly, but unsuspected of any revolutionary taint. Twenty years ago, however, the concept of co-operation was much discussed by economists and sociologists, though it is now relegated to the dust of the last century by these students. Radicals, when interested, cling obstinately to industrial-productive co-operation, a sort of colorless syndicalism, sanctioned in theory but practically discarded by all. If Labor also shakes its head with a sigh, it is not to be thought that Labor has given the subject no attention. On the contrary, in no country has Labor given more persistent effort to strengthen itself by this means. Moreover, immigrants bring from Europe an understanding of the movement. Since 1830 Labor has tried repeatedly to arm itself with this weapon; and even now there are indications that it has begun again to brood over the idea of co-operation. The Inter-collegiate Socialist Society has received letters from numbers of Labor officials expressing deep interest in the subject and from several Labor organizations which have appointed committees to investigate its possibilities. There is no more moving bit of Industrial history than the expressions of joy and renewed courage recorded by labor organizations as they again and again endorse the idea of co-operation: "We hail with delight the organization of co-operative stores and workshops and would urge their formation in every section of the country and in every branch of business"; and yet the student knows well that all this enthusiasm and self-sacrifice had to end as it did, in loss, failure and discouragement. Many Failures. While the history of the movement in this country is both interesting and accessible, the present status of the movement is obscure, and few facts and statistics can be stated with any degree of accuracy. In general it can be said that there is no unified workingmen's co-operation in America, though there are a number of sporadic co-operative organizations, and groups of these. There is, of course, a large agrarian movement in co-operation, estimated by the Agricultural Department at 7,000 co-operatives; or, including credit, life and fire-insurance, telephone, and building-andloan associations, at 85,000 co-operatives. There are practically no industrial-productives in co-operation; a few bakeries, mills and laundries; and a very few factories which are probably not strictly co-operative. There may be 500 stores. Kansas, the old seat of an active consumers co-operative movement, is reported through a letter to have 200 stores. J. H. Walker, president of the Illinois Federation of Labor, estimates 100 stores in that state. There were several fairly authentic estimates made in different states in 1913 and 1914, not to be relied upon now.. For 1914 and 1915 were fatal years for store co-operatives. The very lively New Jersey movement lost most of its stores about this time. The Pennsylvania state movement, vigorous in 1909, was disrupted and many of its stores lost by 1915. One hundred and forty stores listed a few years ago by the Right Relationship League of Minnesota, have apparently been failing, and before 1916 they had lost their organ, their wholesale, and their newly instituted chain-store venture. So also, many of the ninety stores in Wisconsin, estimated by Prof. Weld, have returned to the Co-operative League of America unopened letters marked "out of business" and "unclaimed." From the fifty-eight stores mentioned in Prof. Ford's book in 1913, twenty-two have returned letters unopened and mostly marked "out of business." Even the most highly organized of all, the California movement, recently abandoned its wholesale department but decline had already set in by 1905 and its figures had fallen from about one hundred to forty stores in 1911, as reported by Ira B. Cross. The latter day failure of co-operative stores has not yet been accounted for. Indeed the whole subject cries for investigation. The thing has been attempted from time to time; by Albert Shaw and others in 1888 (Johns Hopkins University Studies in Political and Social Science); by Bemis in 1896 (Bulletin No. 6, U. S. Dept. of Labor); by Cross in 1905 (Wisconsin Bureau of Labor Statistics); by Sinclair (Wisconsin State Board of Public Affairs) and a recent most thorough investigation of the New England States by Prof. Ford of Harvard University. Signs of Revival. Then, certain external forces are stimulating the movement. The Agricultural Department, in its work of fostering productive co-operation, has organized a movement which has here and there been observed to exploit certain consumers' co-operatives; and which, it has been predicted, must eventually clash horns with the consumers' movement; yet, it must be granted, the Department has done much to re-awaken the idea of co-operation; and the agrarians are procuring laws in about thirty states that experience has proven are necessary to the stability and expansion of cooperation. Moreover, it is significant, that although the number of such stores may not be increasing, there is a widespread attempt at union. The following are some of the most important: 1914 Conference of sixty stores belonging to Washington State Federation; Conference of Consumers Co-operative Union, New York, 16 stores represented; National Conference in Chicago to federate all consumers' bodies, formed National Committee on Co-operative Federation; Conference of 12 stores and 1 mill in Chicago-formed the American Co-operative Organization Bureau; Conference in Madison, Wis. 1915-Conference of 60 stores in Iowa to federate, and another of 22 stores in 1916; First National Conference of Producers and Consumers, Minneapolis Union of Farmers & Labor Union Co-operatives; A union of Farmers union stores in Texas, organizing stores and mills on the "O'Brien plan." And 1916 in Texas, a conference of Socialists, grangers, Labor unions and others to federate co-operative stores. And finally and most important: First annual convention of the local co-operative stores of Illinois and the Co-operative Society of Illinois. Thirty miners' stores have been federated with seventeen farmers' stores and six others-fifty-three in all, affiliated with, but not financed by, the Illinois Federation of Labor and Executive Board of the United Mine Workers of Illinois. This group holds a conference July 29, 1916, when it hopes to launch a wholesale. Were it not for this active and rapidly expanding Illinois movement, led by John Walker and Duncan McĎonald, and for the Finnish federation of about sixty stores and a wholesale at Duluth, we should have reason for discouragement. Right and Wrong Methods. But students of foreign co-operation believe that the movement here is bound to grow in spite of the requiescat pronounced over its remains by our sociologists. Upon the logical necessity for such a development the Co-operative League of America, initiated by Albert Sonnichsen, William Kraus and James P. Warbasse, has organized a propaganda campaign, and, hoping for the support of the Consumers' Co-operative Union of New York and that of other societies, it is actively working for the union of all Consumers' Cooperatives. Should such a federation be effected an incalculable advance would result. The basis for a workingmen's movement still survives, but, to compete with a highly developed capitalism, co-operation must start from a certain degree of organization. If we could once form a national union in touch with the stores in all parts of the country and own our wholesales, the trick would be done. How are we to get this initial organization? Labor has been patient, but has it been scientific? We must carefully analyze the situation and difficulties: large area, heterogeneous and fluid population, thriftless habits of workers, etc. These are difficulties, but nothing more. Extent of area and heterogeneity of population merely demand elaboration of organization. Thrift is not a necessary factor could we substitute another stimulus to co-operators: e. g., class-consciousness. Before those hindrances should be labelled insuperable obstacles, we should further carefully examine our history and methods. Has not our work been empirical, for the most part? A matter of trial and error? Have we studied and applied the successful foreign methods of co-operation? In the first place, for decades the co-operative movement in America was organically united with the labor unions. Experience in most other countries has shown that this union is apt to increase the difficulties. And organized labor in America has had to fight to keep its head above water. Several times when it was temporarily submerged a promising co-operative beginning was dragged under with it. Secondly, for a long time our methods were not scientific; we neglected to study either the English or German methods. We did not sell at market price; our capital stock was not paid in; we paid high dividends; we gave credit; we did not allow for depreciation of stock, etc. Indeed, several of our early movements were merely club-or commission buying on a large scale. Even now, strictly democratic management and Rochdale methods are exceed ingly rare. Nor do the stores protect themselves against exploitation by money-seekers within their ranks. Thirdly, we have not pushed a vigorous campaign to obtain protective laws. In many states, stores must, to get limited liability, incorporate under corporation laws and, therefore, members have a voice in the management proportionate to the numbers of shares owned, instead of an equal voice, as in a true co-operative. To evade this, in some regions-Illinois, for instance, the stores limit to one the number of shares owned by one person. There are also legal difficulties in forbidding the transfer of stock-a prohibition necessary to the protection of a co-operative; and difficulties in the way of one society owning stock in another-an essential feature in the organization of a co-operative wholesale. One reads how government persecution in Germany stimulated co-operation. But this suppression of co-operation by laisser faire methods is quite another thing. The English movement floundered like ours until protective laws were obtained; and then astonishing strides were made. Fourthly, we have no energetic propaganda. Enlightened men and women still think of co-operation as a middleclass, shop-keeping affair; a bourgeois, penny-saving device. It would be easy to convince them that only the penniless will use a penny-saving device. And that it is not middleclass because it bases itself upon the consumer and is therefore open to all. It is indeed only available to those who can conceive and practice a democratic form of government; by its nature, therefore excluding the undemocratic and commercial.. Agricultural co-operation may or may not be commercial; and here and there some subsidiary idea, such as "pure food," may support a middle-class consumer's society; but, as a matter of fact, not more than two or three middleclass consumers' societies have ever been recorded, aside from the co-operatives which are seldom true co-operatives. A middle class consumers' co-operative has no raison d'etre. The necessity which drives to the conception of a co-operative, the zeal, loyalty and sacrifice necessary to maintain one, are products of a working class, and the more class-conscious the co-operative, the more successful it is. Finally, industrial productive co-operation has ever been the dream of American Labor. It has been tried even more faithfully and futilely, than distributive co-operation. But have we closely studied in the history of other countries the theory and practice of the different modes of co-operation? In Italy, alone, has the co-operative factory been able to keep a footing. Fostered by the government and zealously begun in France, the workshops are not fulfilling the hopes of their founders. The goal of co-operation is, truly, control of the |