|
|
|
by Dan Coleman 
Some 70 years ago, in a more ambitious era, a debate raged on the left as to whether it was possible to have "socialism in one country." The answer, as Marxist theory predicted and as history confirmed, was a resounding no, especially if that one country was Russia. Today, in a time of narrowed horizons, that question has been transformed into an inquiry into the possibility of "socialism in one store." In the case of food co-ops around the country, the answer is once again a negative. Of course, in the latter case, I use the term ‘socialism’ very loosely, referring to the principles and program of the contemporary left. The current wave of food co-ops emerged out of a heady combination of ‘60s trends that included a New Left commitment to participatory democracy and a countercultural interest in healthy alternatives and experimental structures. Today, 30 years later, concern for health food has gone mainstream while the other elements have become marginalized. Of scores of co-ops around the country, only a few still require member labor which, after all, is at the heart of a co-operative enterprise. Over the past 15 years, while many have complained about rising co-op prices and an increasingly yuppified product mix, the co-op world has gone corporate. This transformation is well-expressed in a recent statement by one co-op manager that "We have a rich history of progressivism, much of it somehow tied to a set of values that really doesn’t have much to do with consumer cooperation. . . . At some point we’ve got to come clean to our members and to our potential members and admit that we’re grocers, enlightened grocers yes, but grocers nonetheless." In the co-op of the ‘90s, growth and efficiency rule the day, with participation and "a rich history of progressivism" increasingly shunted off to the side. The ‘co-op’ in today’s food co-ops no longer refers to a way in which people come together to work cooperatively to meet their needs outside of the dominant corporate system. Today, ‘co-op’ describes a form of investment little different from that of any other corporation. You purchase your share, which entitles you to vote for directors. The only difference is that co-op shareholders get slightly lower prices at the store and a dividend based on patronage rather than profits. As with most corporations, co-op managers strive to increase sales, lower costs, improve the bottom line, and achieve improved efficiencies. While so doing, many co-op managers and workers remain sincere in their commitment to do work that makes a difference. They offer healthful products, care about the community, and try to be responsive to customer needs. But, a lot of the workers at the Whole Foods and Wild Oats natural food chains also think they’re doing important work for society within the corporate framework. As the co-op manager quoted above put it, "We are a retail business and we make and must make compromises like most other retail businesses." Many food co-op members and workers care deeply about their store and its mission statement. If they understand that mission to be one of contributing to the development of an alternative economy, then they will have to start by electing a board of directors who share that perspective. And unfortunately, even if such a board were elected, it would have to overcome great institutional and cultural resistance to meet its goals. In 2000, it is still possible to work effectively toward a new social vision that puts people before profits and ecology before growth. But when it comes to today’s food co-ops, those seeking to do so are rowing against a powerful current. Reprinted with permission from Iowa City Icon. |