I’ve been working in and with stuff around co-operation since about 1986. What I’ve learned in that time is that co-operation is a process, not a structure or a place. By practicing co-operation we change ourselves and the people we co-operate with. Given that we are talking about a process, a journey if you like, then it is fair to assume that other people are engaged in different parts of that journey, and will therefore have a different view of the world and indeed of the journey itself.
Seeking to impose an overt political mission or vision on what is essentially a bottom-up mutual self-help process will almost by definition exclude or alienate a large chunk of your constituency, and you become immediately a niche interest.
For me the beauty of the co-operative model is its elegance, its subtlety, its ability to be appear both totally conventional and deeply radical at one and the same time. Through this it is possible to engage much more broadly, right across the spectrum of society, and bring people together on that journey, through the process of co-operation. Of course, co-operatives are not perfect, but they can be very powerful tools for social transformation, as the folks at Co-operation Jackson so eloquently explain.
I’ve yet to come across a better approach. I’m not convinced that they are inherently disadvantaged in a capitalist economy. I am convinced that far too few people have a really solid understanding of how to do co-operation, and therefore lots of co-operatives tend be CINOs (Co-ops In Name Only). Effective education is key (P5), effective federation is critical (P6). The political vision then becomes an emergent property of the process of co-operation as those engaged in the process educate themselves and each other.
What’s the BSA?