Philosophical Background of Cooperation
During the economic and political transitions caused by the Industrial
Revolution in early nineteenth century Great Britain, people motivated
their responses to these changes
based upon the predominant theories of their age.
Hence an understanding of the philosophical background of this period
is essential to comprehending why early cooperative efforts faced
resistance from many fronts. A brief review of some of the key
players in this ``war of words'' is given below.
The Status Quo
The dominant philosophical theories of early nineteenth century Great
Britain were anti-cooperative in many ways. The religious sentiment
of the times emphasized sinfulness of human nature and the
responsibility of the individual to seek personal salvation. Poverty
was commonly considered to be a punishment for sinfulness and,
therefore, something that people should not try to
change [1]. The economic theories of the day also
provided a pessimistic view towards improvements in the conditions of
the working class. Adam Smith's laissez-faire economics, as outlined
in The Wealth of Nations, suggested that a person in a
capitalist society is ``led by an invisible hand to promote an end
which was no part of his intention,'' and this was interpreted to mean
that self-interest would lead to the public
good [2]. Moreover, he believed that the government
should not interfere with decisions of the
marketplace [3]. Thomas Malthus's economic models
implied that food production could never keep with exponential
population growth, and hence famine and population decline were
inevitable. Moreover, even if more food could be produced in the
short term, population growth would simply accelerate and shorten the
time before famine would occur [4]. In response to
this problem, Malthus concluded that relief should only be given to
the poor if it did not encourage them to breed [5].
All of these ideas suggested that any efforts by workers to improve
their lot were doomed to fail.
Robert Owen
 |
| Robert Owen [I1] |
The first major attempt to overcome these ideas was made by Robert
Owen, a Welshman who made his fortune in the cotton trade. His core
belief was that ``human character was not formed by people as they
wrestled with `original sin' but formed for the people, out
of the environment in which they had to live'' [6].
He built a model community for his workers at New Lanark in Scotland
(and later with others at Orbiston in Scotland and New Harmony in the
U.S.A.) in an attempt to put this idea into practice, but these
communities failed due to a lack of capital and a lack of careful
selection of community members [7]. Although he
took little interest in the formation of the early cooperative
businesses, he is generally considered the ``father of cooperation'' for
several reasons. First, through his publication and efforts Owen
promoted a fundamental shift in deep moral values including
``kindliness, toleration, co-operation, respect for youth, the creation
of a noncompetitive environment in which civilised behavior would grow
up naturally'' [8]. Secondly, although Owen's own
practical schemes for implementing these ideas were impractical and
uncompromising, they inspired other more practical people like
Dr. William King and George J. Holyoke who later became key contributors
to the cooperative movement.
Dr. William King
 |
| Dr. William King [I2] |
Dr. William King is generally given credit for publicizing and
popularizing Owen's basic ideas. However, he focused less on the the
grand schemes of massive social change and more on the practical
aspects of a cooperative business (although he too believed that this
should be the ultimate result of the cooperative movement). He began
a monthly periodical called
The Co-operator in 1828 which
eventually reached a circulation of 12,000 copies and effectively
became a kind of textbook for the new movement [9].
He rejected Smith's views that the growth of landlords and masters was
inevitable and that in the market society the worker will only get a
fraction of the value from his or her work. King argued that the way
out of this condition was for workers to recognize that capital
without labor is nothing. Hence if workers could just get enough
capital, they could do without the capitalist altogether. The problem
is that each individual worker could not take this path since the
amount of capital necessary is too large and the risk of jeopardizing
one's everyday survival too great. However, by joining capital
together with other workers, the goal of independence from capitalists
could be ultimately attained [10]. King also
rejected Malthus's arguments of inevitable and disastrous
overpopulation, countering that
It is possible there may be an over-population of servants,
managing people, head men, stewards, bailiffs, double and triple
establishments-but of producers, of working men, there cannot, in
the nature of things be an over-population for ages to
come [11].
He argued that the efficiency and greed of industrial production
results in the overproduction of goods which then cause unemployment
when the extra goods cannot be sold. The industrialist class then
resents having keep members of the unemployed (``overpopulated'')
working class alive in between these dips in their profit margins. To
solve this problem, King proposed that the workers should control how
much is produced so that it matches the amount that needs to be
consumed. Instead of working overtime to produce goods that will just
be wasted, they can work more reasonable hours, use their resources
more efficiently, and even have time left over for leisure and
education [12].
King went on to outline many of the principles that were later adopted
by the Rochdale Pioneers, including voluntary participation and a
strong commitment to education (both in business and in morals). He
also asserted that some cooperation is better than none at
all and urged workers to band together to form their own shop because,
"We must go to a shop every day to buy food and necessaries-why then
should we not go to our own shop?" [13]. He put forth
practical business tips for the new shopkeepers: do not give credit,
appoint three people as trustees, perform weekly audits, etc. Many
attempts were made to start cooperative shops based on King's
principles, but all failed to survive for more than a few years,
primarily because of internal weaknesses in the structures of the
co-ops including no legal status, a lack of member loyalty, a general
lack of commercial experience, and cash flow problems due to goods on
credit [14]. Many of these problems were later
resolved by the Rochdale Pioneers.
Conclusion
Thus, while the ultimate success of the cooperative
movement depended upon sound business practices, the idea that
a cooperative business could even exist depended critically
on a reexamination of the predominant philosophical theories of the day.
Starting from the views of visionaries like Owen and King, the principles of
cooperation evolved gradually and were (painfully) tested by trial and error.
The results of this evolution are many of the principles
that cooperatives follow even today.
References
- [1]
-
Johnston Birchall, Co-op: The People's Business
(Manchester University Press, Manchester, UK, 1994), p. 16.
- [2]
-
Birchall, p. 17.
- [3]
-
Birchall, p. 17.
- [4]
-
Birchall, p. 17.
- [5]
-
Birchall, p. 18.
- [6]
-
Birchall, p. 19 [italics in original].
- [7]
-
Birchall, p. 22.
- [8]
-
M. Cole, Robert Owen of New Lanark (Batchworth Press, London,
1953), p.244 [as quoted in Birchall, p. 23].
- [9]
-
Birchall, p. 23-25.
- [10]
-
Birchall, p. 25.
- [11]
-
T. W. Mercer, Co-operation's Prophet-Life and Letters of
Dr. William King (Co-operative Union, Manchester, UK, 1947), p. 116
[as quoted in Birchall, p. 25].
- [12]
-
Birchall, p. 27.
- [13]
-
quoted in Birchall, p. 28.
- [14]
-
Birchall, p. 31.
Image References
- [I1]
-
Birchall, p. 18.
- [I2]
-
Birchall, p. 7.
Copyright 1999 by Ronald Kumon
Laurel House Co-op & Laurel Net Cooperative /
Austin, Texas, USA /
Created 11 Mar 1999 / Updated 02 May 1999
This page is published by Laurel Net Cooperative, a registered student
organization. This page is not an official publication of The
University of Texas at Austin and does not represent the views of The
University or its officers.