Letters to LIFE
reprinted with permission
On worker run co-ops and Guaranteed Livable Income
by Russ Christianson - April 2005
[After an email enquiry from LIFE prompted by a viewing of the documentary "The Take", Russ Christianson wrote back and shared his knowledge of co-ops in Canada.]
Over the years, I have often thought about, and read many articles about
guaranteed incomes. Our current political and economic systems are clearly out of balance - in
almost every way, using any measurement. And, your argument re. providing
the physiological basics required for life (including sustaining the natural
resources that all life here on earth is supported by) is the starting
point. So, providing a livable income to all is a basic way to
re-distribute wealth and begin closing the ever-widening gap between rich
and poor.
However, I will
comment on your two main questions: 1. Are worker co-ops "the answer to
poverty?", and 2. How would a "guaranteed income" change the dynamic of
worker co-ops?
1. I don't think there are any single answers to poverty. And worker
co-ops are often relegated to the margins in the North American economy.
There are a few successful models of worker co-ops that have (against all
odds, and with little support) become sustainable businesses that provide
living wages, but there are also many that have failed to do so. I think it
is a dangerous message to state that co-operatives (worker, consumer,
housing, producer, etc.) are a solution for poor people. For co-operatives
to be successful, they have to find a way to capitalize themselves. This is
often done through "sweat equity" (often a form of self-exploitation), and
has sometimes been done with limited (in $ amount and duration) government
support. It is simply unrealistic to expect poor people to organize
themselves and somehow gain access (through "lawful and peaceful" means) to
the resources (intellectual, emotional, and economic) required to
successfully develop something as complex as a well-functioning co-operative
organization while they are dealing with basic survival issues every day.
Society has a shared responsibility to find creative ways to care for people
who are having trouble (for whatever reasons) taking care of themselves. We
cannot simply leave it up to individuals to "pull themselves up by the
bootstraps."
So, there is a web of solutions that must be applied to share the wealth
that our planet provides to all living creatures. From a human society
point of view, this would include significant changes to many systems,
including: the tax system (that is quickly growing the wealth gap - and is
one of the keys to creating a "livable income" for all); the education
system (that currently pushes the idea of competition as the natural way of
being to absurd extremes); the economic system - the measures of success
need to be significantly redefined - moving away from Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles and GDP to something like Daly and Cobb's "Genuine
Progress Indicator" - a system that takes into account all the unpaid
important work, as well as the natural environment.
2. From my point of view, a guaranteed wage would allow people to follow
their passions and purpose in life. This may include their art, work,
taking care of children and others unable to care for themselves, growing
and making good food, etc. etc. It would also allow people to co-operate in
many ways (including worker co-ops) as the mythology of competition for
scarce resources was slowly broken down. It would likely lead to new,
innovative organizational models (beyond the current co-operative models)
that would encourage responsible co-operation - i.e. there have to be ways
to ensure each person is making a meaningful contribution to the work of the
group, without the creation of undue hierarchy, rewards and punishments,
etc. People would need to be encouraged to find and continually nurture
their internal motivation, something that would be more possible if they
didn't have to worry about where their next meal or rental/mortgage payment
was going to come from. Ideally, all people would find a way to express
their unique gifts, and make a positive contribution to the group and
society through a web of self-reliance and community.
This is a utopian vision for a co-operative society, and of course many
people would argue that it is completely unrealistic. Well, so what?! I
would rather work towards this positive vision than become buried
(prematurely) by our current, highly stratified economic and social system -
something that people used to call a "class system".
A quick reality check - co-operatives, individuals, and groups all have
their problems, challenges, and dysfunctions. For example, consumer co-ops
have a built in, structural, or inherent conflict between capital (consumer
provided) and labour - thereby often resulting in poor labour practices.
Individual self-interest (from whatever motivation or social/psychological
determinants) can, has and will de-rail co-operative efforts. The questions is, do and can co-operatives and co-operation help ameliorate
destructive social, economic and environmental interactions over the long
term more effectively than individual and global competition? I think the
answer is yes. Otherwise, I wouldn't be wasting my time trying to develop
them.
Russ Christianson
Over the past twenty years, Russ Christianson has helped launch over thirty
co-operatives in a wide variety of sectors, including travel, housing,
retail, distribution, food processing, energy, health, construction,
forestry, and manufacturing. In 2003, he was given the "Outstanding
Contribution to the Ontario Co-operative Association Award" for his
dedicated service to the co-operative movement.