Catholic Cooperatives
I have been an advocate for cooperative economics of various kinds for some time, and for many reasons – not the least of which is that I think a culture of life will be more easily built on cooperative rather than individualist foundations in the modern world.
While it is often easy to talk about the idea, to debate its merits and problems, figuring out how to implement it is the difficulty.
I was recently reading up on the history and principles of the Mondragon, the successful group of worker-owned and run cooperatives in the Basque region of Spain, and I was both amazed and inspired at the tenacity of its founders. Starting with very little, they simply “put the word out” that they were looking for loans. In a community with high unemployment they were eventually able to raise what in today’s dollars would be about 2 million dollars.
Might a group of interested Catholics, much like those who founded the Mondragon, be able to accomplish something similar today? We may be in a recession but the conditions can hardly be worse than those faced by Fr. Arizmendiarreta in post-war Spain under Franco.
In the US, there are organizations such as the US Federation of Worker Cooperatives that offer business planning grants and loans, giving priority to cooperatives that are likely to spawn more cooperatives. They are specifically interested in projects that might be shot down by banks or other lenders, because they might involve hiring society’s throwaways or outcasts as workers or some other potentially unprofitable act of faith in our fellow human beings.
There are other similar resources around the Web, and so I won’t list them all here. But I do want to get the ball rolling; having heard the arguments and seen the evidence that cooperatives can work, is it not time for Catholics to seriously consider what it means to be “in” but not “of” the world?
The cooperative model is organically Catholic: greater worker ownership has been called for by several Popes over the last 120 years, the most successful cooperative in the world was founded by a Jesuit priest, cooperatives naturally foster community and a view of each worker as a human being instead of a cog in a machine.
It is possible that one might profit less from a successful cooperative than from a successful autocracy. But the call made by the Church to Catholics is different than that which is made by the world to men. There is nothing intrinsically immoral about a traditionally structured firm, where there are owners at the top, managers, then wage workers. But if there is a better alternative that more directly embodies and further promotes the Catholic vision of man and society, the common good and the universal destination of goods, how long can it be ignored?
Might a group of interested Catholics, much like those who founded the Mondragon, be able to accomplish something similar today?
What would be needed? I think: cheap, plentiful land, low population density, relative ethnic and cultural homogeneity (this is the uncomfortable but absoutely essential aspect), and religiousity, aside from moralistic therapeutic deism, which RD considers here:
http://rossdouthat.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/04/theology_has_consequences.php
The common good in the Catholic understanding is being undone by liberal autonomy, capitalism, big government (a big hinder to organic cooperatives IMO), and large-scale, generally unassimilated immigration and its pressure on low skill wages, as well as the “cultural costs” of “inward” social movement – that is, a decline of social capital – as Robert Putnam has described.
Thanks for the response Johnathan.
I’m not saying I totally reject the list of items you present, but it almost sounds to me that a community based upon them might end up looking like Amish country.
Between rural escapism (and I’m not saying that’s what you call for) and projects such as “Ave Maria” town, which I have problems with for reasons I’ll leave aside for now, we need a different vision.
Another movement I have been interested in is “New Monasticism”, if you want to look up the details on that. One of their tenants is to reclaim abandoned spaces in the cities, the ruined and hollowed out areas of former industrial towns like Detroit or Flint. In other words, urban and at least semi-industrial in nature, though it will probably be easier to be competitive offering services instead of producing goods.
Part of the reason I personally want to go urban is because there is a lot of concentrated suffering that can benefit from our presence.
I do agree completely with your second paragraph.
Good post. In Quadragesimo Anno, Pope Pius XI wrote that workers should “share in the ownership or management or participate in some fashion in the profits received”. More generally, I think we have lost track of the corporatist model he favored in this amazing social encyclical. We have been brainwashed by the laissez-faire assumption that one cannot mess with the free market, while the free market more often than not embodies an unequal power relationship. We need strong unions. We need strong subsidiary mediating institutions. In some European countries, social insurance is actually administered by the union, rather than the state– I’ve always been attracted to such a model.
I’m not saying I totally reject the list of items you present, but it almost sounds to me that a community based upon them might end up looking like Amish country.
Yes, I think you are right about Amish country, which has quite a lot to recommend to it as far as I’m concerned.
Given, however, that we cannot escape our liberal, Enlightenment umbrella, it is necessary to take inspiration from real life models following such sentiment. The best example right now is Cameron’s Tories. Philip Blond explains here:
http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=10608
Captialism is very radical and deserves much criticism as a force of social atomization. However, its critics must not make the same mistake of libertarians – too little consideration of culture and the social world we are born into. It is perfectly right and proper, and very powerful, to favor one’s “own group.” We see this across time and environment (heck, look at the whole continent of Africa. Tribe will never be replaced by ideology or politics, ect.). Now this need not lead to a consideration of “less moral worth,” but rather a recognition and appreciation of this human drive and of our differences.
An organic cooperative MUST have 1) much more ethnic and religious similarity than not 2) an ethos of assimilation, of conformity to norms. For these reasons, I am pessimistic of your call but glad you have made it.
First, let me say welcome to the blog, Joe.
Second, as with anything else, cooperatives have there positive and negative features. Whether the positives outweigh the negatives in any given case is something that can’t be determined a priori, but should be left to the voluntary decisions of the people involved. As Father Arizmendi says: “To build cooperativism is not to do the opposite of capitalism, as if this system did not have any useful features… Cooperativism must surpass it, and for this purpose must assimilate its methods and dynamism.” To the extent that cooperatives actually do this, they will thrive. To the extent they do not, they will not.
Forgot to say welcome aboard. I hope we can have more discussions along these lines.
Part of the reason I personally want to go urban is because there is a lot of concentrated suffering that can benefit from our presence.
A wonderful thought and action, and I wish these projects a lot of success.
But think about why the “suburbs” exist, and why cities like Flint and Detroit are hollowed out. The most obvious reason is industrial decline and job loss, as well as the desire for Bigger Faster Better More. But even here it might be said that society and culture are very large factors given counter examples like Indy, which did not suffer industrial decline. There is, for example, the very, very, very high violent crime rate among African-American males (in the last four decades approaching sixty percent of violent crime convictions from just 6 percent or so of the population, so “instiutional racism” doesn’t go very far).
Difference, this is to say, is a driving force of the breakup of cities and communities. We must confront this openly and honestly, especially as a part of our arguments for the family and the importance of the Catholic understanding of family. See here for a very good consideration:
http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.1601/article_detail.asp
I hope the change outlined by Latzer works for such urban projects.
Joe,
The direction suggested by the subject you bring up has the advantage of not being easily labeled liberal or conservative. “Cooperative” may sound a bit leftish, but we are talking about completely voluntary, non-governmental initiatives, I think, so no problem with conservative or libertarian principle there.
I’ve often thought the Church could do a whole lot more, in more high profile ways, on its own initiative to be a leaven in the world (not to belittle the great good it already does!) and to show the way to better (gospel) alternatives for living together. And we have a great tradition of cooperative living in the history of religious life, which has taken to many fruitful forms over the past 2000 years or so! I would suggest that this history is the quarry where we will find the building blocks to raise up the kinds of new structures you point toward.
You mention the Amish, whom I know something about because my father was raised in that community and almost all of my relatives on that side still live within in it. There may be something to be learned there too. These gentle Christian people (heretics though they may be!) are one of the most successful intentional communities the world has ever seen–the most successful in the U.S. for sure–and I suspect the main ingredient in their successful recipe is simply faith–the same quality that Mother Theresa cited as the secret to the success of her enterprise.
Great post, Joe! Welcome to Vox Nova!
Blackadderiv,
“To build cooperativism is not to do the opposite of capitalism, as if this system did not have any useful features”
I agree. I also agree with David who says that this idea “has the advantage of not being easily labeled liberal or conservative”.
Part of the problem is how we define capitalism. In my reading of the social encyclicals dating back to Rerum Novarum, “capitalism” is generally understood to mean a system where “capital employs labor”. For many others, capitalism has become synonymous with markets – but for the Pontiffs, I believe that totally free markets would be a feature of economic “liberalism”, which they unreservedly condemned.
Under capitalism as we normally think of it, capital and labor are “personified” in owners and workers. In the cooperative model capital and labor are united in the same person, so that the worker is also an owner. Is this still capitalistic?
It is evident, furthermore, that cooperatives could exist in a command economy (as they did in the USSR – not everything was the property of the state), or they could exist in a totally free market. Preferably, though, they would exist in a market regulated by Catholic principles – somewhere between a command economy and anarchy. Would this then be capitalistic?
I’m not really concerned about what people call it. Some people can look to it and see “capitalism” in the voluntarist nature of the project, some can look to it and see “socialism” in the cooperative nature of the project. Cooperative capitalism, voluntary socialism, either of these might be used to describe it, but I usually call it Distributism, following Chesterton and others.
Great post, welcome! Yes, we need to do a post when the rest of the new contributors come on board, so sorry we didn’t get a chance to do it before you posted!
What conditions would be sufficient and.or necessary for cooperative capitalism / voluntary socialism / distributism?
Johnathan,
I think the first condition for any social movement is disciplined cadres. If we want a less martial term, we might say interns or even volunteers.
That means, groups of people, usually but not exclusively young people without too many family obligations, who are completely dedicated to the project. The perfect economic conditions we might find would mean nothing without that.
The second is exhaustive research and planning, which is partially what the cadres are for.
The third is financing, and I indicated one potential source in my post, though even traditional lenders can be sought if our plans can be profitable for them as well. A good plan might be sufficient, but connections make things easier.
Finally we don’t settle for just opening one shop, but we continue to expand. We set aside revenues for community services that people might need, working in conjunction with Catholic charity organizations and other groups. We grow to be something more than an economic model and eventually become a way of life.
Best case scenario, of course.
A familiar face… This will be an interesting, and hopefully positive, experience for the two venues.
I guess my question on your topic would be: Why specifically a cooperative?
I had certainly taken from the social encyclicals that workers should not be treated as mere interchangeable cogs in a machine. Workers should always be treated as having human dignity and creative power, and as such they ought to be not merely ordered about and handed a static wage, but given input into improving their work and conditions, and rewards that are commensurate with their productivity and the company’s overall profitability.
However, there are many ways that a venture can be structured which give workers creative input and allow them to share in profits other than a true cooperative.
What would you see as the major advantage of a fully worker owned cooperative over a investor owned (or privately owned) company which has structures which provide workers with creative input and profit sharing?
Darwin,
I think there are quite a few advantages, and many of them aren’t all that different than those associated with property ownership in general. When people own things, they care for them more.
They become more directly responsible for their own livelihoods, thus there is incentive to do the best possible job.
All kinds of costs are cut – excessive security and surveillance measures, those associated with labor disputes.
During a crisis, and this to me is among the most important, the workers can’t just be kicked aside because they’re also the owners. They have to work together to navigate a crisis, no one becomes expendable and forgotten. I don’t know if that translates into a purely economic advantage, but it certainly is a social one.
However, let me say that it isn’t as if I think there should only be cooperatives. I think the sort of things you suggest are also good. But, I also think that the cooperative model is more than an economic model. I think it is the foundation for a community model as well. The people come together with a real stake in their communities – from ownership of the business, there is then ownership of the community and its problems.
So I think the ultimate advantages in the end are the social ones.
Great post, Joe! Welcome to Vox Nova!
I think the first condition for any social movement is disciplined cadres. If we want a less martial term, we might say interns or even volunteers.
or…dare we say…’community organizer’?
I want to say thanks for all the warm welcomes I’ve received on this post.
Another warm welcome here,Joe (although I am just a regular vistitor to the site).
Joe,
For some reason Policraticus has me on permanent moderation. Could you take me off it so I can comment.
Thanks!
Tito – I’m not sure Michael was the one to put you into moderation, but you are there for a reason. You’re still able to comment, but you will be moderated.
I’ve just been reading a bit about Mondragon myself and they have been argueably the most successful of the cooperative’s out there. Though when it comes to international financing they deviate a bit from it, but you can’t fault them for that since this is a relatively new economic model that hasn’t been implemented in a wide scale to actually determine if it’s feasible or not.
Michael,
Regardless of the reason, you know you guys aren’t on moderation for more than a few days. I’ve been on it for quite a long while now.
I don’t even know the reason to tell you the truth.
Regardless of the reason, you know you guys aren’t on moderation for more than a few days. I’ve been on it for quite a long while now.
I’ve actually been on moderation at your blog for months now I believe. Not that you being in moderation has anything to do with that. You were put in moderation well before I was.
This is the last I will discuss it with you in the comments. If you have further concerns, please email us.
Tito,
I did not put you in moderation. Some one else did, and rightly so. Now, if you can restrain yourself from leaving vicious comments here and at other blogs about our alleged “heterodoxy” and the “harm” we do to the Church, especially without any evidence or argument, then your privileges will be restored. We have given you the benefit of the doubt many times and we end up getting burned. We’ll wait and see how things go before you are released from moderation.
I will not address this with you again. Now, let’s shift back to the topic of Joe’s post.
Actually you’ve recently been on since Easter Sunday. I took you off on Monday, but somebody put you back on Monday night.
Policraticus,
Ahhh, I see.
You’re my spiritual adviser now.
So be it.
You have an excellent writer in Joe by the way. He is a great addition to VN.
Distributism makes all the sense in the world, Joe. Really nice post.
relative ethnic and cultural homogeneity (this is the uncomfortable but absoutely essential aspect)
An organic cooperative MUST have 1) much more ethnic and religious similarity than not
No one seems to be addressing jonathan’s strong racialist assertions here. Can you flesh these out for us, jonathan? Don’t be shy.
No one seems to be addressing jonathan’s strong racialist assertions here. Can you flesh these out for us, jonathan? Don’t be shy.
Offer any criticism or substantive comment free of pejorative, free of the implication of nefarious motivation, and in the spirit of clarification and charity and I am very happy to respond. Don’t be shy.
No pejorative at all. Please clarify what you mean when you assert that, in order for cooperatives to work, there must be “ethnic homogeneity.” You made the assertion; please back it up with something. Anything.
Sure. First, two clarifications from your characterization: 1). “in order for cooperatives to work”…I was addressing cooperatives, obviously, but suggested that in order for there to be high social capital and high levels of trust (a bedrock of social capital), which cooperatives should have and do strive for, ethnic homogeneity is a useful, and perhaps a necessary aspect, given the many examples across time and environment where it is present in high cooperation. 2). “there must be”….not a correct characterization of my statements. I do think it is likely necessary to have high levels of ethnic and religious homogeneity in the abstract and in the vast majority of practice, but am not prepared to make this statement in a “Catholic context” given that a Catholic cooperative will likely feature a subset of the population willing, even eager, to work together across such differences. Even so:
Why do I make these statements? Not because any “other” has less moral worth. But because we are different, because we were created with different aptitudes, interests, and abilities, cultures, social mores, ect., and because humans across many times and environments have shown strong preference for “their own.” A racial group, for example, is an extended family partly inbred. There are powerful evolutionary things at play here. I would also say that religion is second to ethnicity as a means of individual definition toward a group for our rather social species.
This is an empirical question, in many respects. Switzerland is a glaring exception of diverse social trust, and even they “stick to their own” by and large – Italian and German sections, ect. We see this gravitation everywhere: look at the whole continent of Africa. Look at Belgium (which will split relatively soon, I believe). Look at our own cities. Look at Japan. Lebanon. Brazil. The old Soviet satellite -stans. The list goes on and on.
Putnam found that the most diverse places in the U.S. – LA and Chicago and New York, LA first among them – have the lowest social capital as people “hunker down” and seek those like themselves.
You want cooperation? The common good? You must take into account religion and ethnicity, especially ethnicity (that is, shared characteristics, race first among them).
One might at least attempt to refute what Jonathan just said by way of reasoned argument. Then again, it would be much, much easier to simply yell “racist” in his general direction.
I wonder which approach Michael will choose?
Just as I thought, jonathan. I find it interesting that you give little (if any) consideration of what the Church’s calling might be with reference to working across difference and fostering trust and reconciliation. Instead, you dismiss this as the interest of a “subset” of the Catholic population, and instead prefer to normalize (and perhaps even institutionalize?) boundaries between peoples.
And you were the one who used the word “must” (in caps, no less). Not me.
HA, what further need have we of witnesses? jonathan’s views are clearly articulated and public. And from what I understand, this is not the first time.
So, then, a hostile posture and assumption of the “worst.” Not much of a surprise to take this track and implicitly decline a more substantive discussion, nor is it interesting.
Of course I agree with the Church’s call to foster trust and reconciliation. That is not the point of any of my contributions to Joe’s thread here.
On the “must” question:
An organic cooperative MUST have 1) much more ethnic and religious similarity than not 2) an ethos of assimilation, of conformity to norms
is not the same as in order for cooperatives to work, there must be “ethnic homogeneity.”
Although addressed in my last response directly, I would be happy to parcel this out further if/when you change the tone.
Instead, you dismiss this as the interest of a “subset” of the Catholic population, and instead prefer to normalize (and perhaps even institutionalize?) boundaries between peoples.
Incorrect. There was no “dismissal,” nor do I wish to normalize or institutionalize boundaries. (And how about asking instead of accusing?) I stated that I was not prepared to apply my generalizations (for which there is quite a lot of evidence across time and environment, and if you ever wish to address it, or Putnam, please do) to a Catholic cooperative that would, ideally, have as one goal the breakdown of barriers and a greater understanding/appreciation of difference.
The reading in of negative, nefarious motives to other commentators really is tiresome.
Finally, my views are and will continue to be clearly articulated (I hope) and public. If you ever want them: ask. Anytime. And if you want to suggest or accuse of racism, how about gathering your evidence, stating your reasons, and doing so explicitly?
jonathan, I have not been “hostile” with you. That you feel under attack says a lot. Thank you for being direct with us.
OK, then I’ll retract the use of the word and look forward to more substantive responses and clarifications to any point here or elsewhere now or at any time in the future.
Let us be direct together. If not, then pleasant evening.
HA, what further need have we of witnesses? jonathan’s views are clearly articulated and public.
I’m familiar to some extent with Jonathan’s views. It is your contention that they come too close to racism that I think should be more honestly addressed. (And for the record, such a contention is hostile indeed.) But as I noted, claiming someone is racist and therefore anti-Catholic is far easier than validating such a claim by way of reasoned argument, and it is obvious which option you are choosing, so I shall leave you to it. I’d not go so far as to equate Jonathan with Jesus, but I will also note that quoting Caiphas in the way you do is also not the best way to get your point across.
Welcome, Joe! Fascinating post. I think you’re on to something important – how exactly do we begin to work toward the society that Catholic Social Teaching teaches us about?
I will only add that it, like everything else, needs to be rooted in the person of Jesus Christ.
OK, then I’ll retract the use of the word and look forward to more substantive responses and clarifications to any point here or elsewhere now or at any time in the future.
Let us be direct together. If not, then pleasant evening.
And so you’re lecturing me on “tone?” It’s precisely your “tone” that allows you to get away with your appalling views.
Pleasant evening.
Too bad you are either unable or unwilling to articulate specific criticism, resorting instead to accusation and some “offense” of sensibility. But anytime you want to back up your labels like “appalling” with an actual argument and actual reasons, I’m game.
I think it would be useful to think about the general relationship between ethnicity and religion, and exceptions to that relationship. For instance, I know people of different ethnic groups who have been adopted (as infants) into another ethnic group and are basically indistinguishable from their adopted group in terms of anything that could be called ‘social capital’. While I agree that social capital will be necessary for cooperatives, I think that race or ethnicity is only a factor insomuch as it happens to coincide with cultural and religious values. The fact that it does so coincide in the vast majority of cases can make ethnicity look independently important, but it is in fact only coincidentally important.