Discusion of Co-ops

Cooperatives:Good or Bad for America?

The Greenbelt Consumer Services have come under fire from a variety of people and organizations which believe cooperatives, and more specifically GCS, to be undemocratic and a threat to the American way of life. In 1939, J.B. Mathews released a report claiming that communists were working through consumer organizations to eliminate the capitalist system (3). He felt that by advertising and advocating cooperative groups these cooperatives were expressing American dissatisfaction with the profit system. Other opposition focuses more on monopolies of businesses by co-ops. A group of cooperative burial associations were formed in Minnesota to ensure membership large enough to keep the businesses alive (no pun intended). Private undertakers soon brought suit questioning whether such an arrangement was legal, on the grounds that cooperatives were not the "ultimate consumers" of the service. The case was eventually decided in favor of the cooperatives (4). In 1947, a small group of local citizens backed by members of the House Small Business Committee argued that the GCS was a "monopolistic" organization and asked for its lease to be revoked (1). The town elections in 1947 were divided along the proco-op and antico-op points of view. The opposition in Greenbelt formed a newspaper called the "Greenbelt Independent" which sought to "further the principle of the American way of life here in Greenbelt" by opening it to free enterprise (1). Soon the paper disassembled and GCS kept its monopoly for a few years until it voluntarily gave it up.

Though there are those who believe that cooperative groups destroy the American way of life there is a good argument that co-ops support democracy. Democracy can be defined as a method of governance or decision making in which the members participate, either directly or through an elected representative, in the decision making process (5). A co-op clearly fits this form if not epitomizes it. The policy of one member- one vote ensures a decision arrived at by the group as a whole. No member can amass more influence than another except by sheer strength of argument. Much of the opposition focuses on the non-capitalistic, socialist nature of the co-ops. Yes the co-ops organize in a socialist manner, but are they really non-capitalist? George A. Warner suggests that cooperatives "make capitalists of all their members (3)." Indeed, cooperatives might possibly be said to even spread capitalism. Now is a good time to define what we mean by capitalism. The New College Edition of the American Heritage Dictionary gives the following definition for capitalism: "An economic system characterized by freedom of the market with increasing concentration of private and corporate ownership of production and distribution means, proportionate to increasing accumulation and reinvestment of profits." So where does a co-operative fit into this, our capitalistic economy? Right under the part about the corporation. A co-op can be looked at as a corporation of individuals who want to band together in a business adventure. The people are interested in profit. They profit from the dividends they receive from their stock and from the services they receive as patrons of their own establishment. If co-ops were unconstitutional or detrimental to this country, they would have been outlawed long ago. On the contrary, "almost without exception the right of the cooperative associations to operate... has been sustained by the courts." (4) The cooperatives have helped to counterbalance some of the unequal distribution of wealth and business that the profit system has helped to create.

Cooperatives have played an important role in allowing common people to take control of their economy. Greenbelt was an excellent setting for cooperative organizations to flourish. I believe that the GCS did a great service for Greenbelters by providing inexpensive convenient services. However, I think that co-ops should have to compete with independent businesses in the area in order to ensure equal opportunity for all. GCS should not have held the monopoly over Greenbelt. That was an unfair business advantage. I believe with the constant support of its members and citizens the GCS could have survive even with independent competition.

History Page
A look at links to Greenbelt.
Bibliography
Back to the introduction.

Back to my homepage.