Evening star., 1937-03-21

ceSstully is meeting this challenge. 1t
has the advantage of a head start. 1t
first applied the particular chain store
methods and became adept at them.
Does so much depend on the man,
after all? There, it seems, is the issue.
In the face that it shows to the
public at large the cooperative is
not vastly different from the chain
store. The difference comes in the
internal organization. Voting in the
chain store corporation is in propor-
| ton to the amount of stock held. The
individual small stockholder has really
no voice in the policies of the COM
pany. In the cooperative organiza-
ton every member, who is also a GUS
toner, has one vote and only one, re-
gardleSs Of how much stock he owns.
Usually, but not necessarily, the
amount any man can own is limited.
| So, also, are the dividends At the
end OF the year the profits Of the
enterprlse-except those applied to
! fixed capital and TO the limited divi-
dendS-are returned 10 the customers
in the form of savings. One advan-
tage Of this is a healthy encourage
ment of thrift, the exponents of CO.
| operatives declare. A family may have
lived from hand-to-mouth all the
! year, but in the end it always has a
| few dollars clear.
Competition Faced Here.
If the consumers cooperative ever
| gets underway in the United States,
the tables Will be turned 1t will have
| to compete with a Well-eStablished,
hlghly-f1nanced chain-store industry.
1t has, from the start, some possible
advantages First, it doesn't pay in
f1ated salaries out of its profits. Sec
/ Ond, there is an emotional drive on
/ the part of its members to make it
a going concern. The cooperative
develops sort of college spirit. No
body will pay 2 cents dozen more
for eggs for the sake of dear old
/ Red Front when a price war happens
+ to be on. But members will. tenn
/ porarily at least, make this enormous
/ sacrifice for the dear old Duckville
Coop.
/ Is the cooperative set-up inherently
:
/ Or is it inherently better than the
straight Socialistic set-up? These
questions hardly can be answered
dogmatically Eventually the fittest
/ for survival will survive.
( Some of the European co-opera tives,
/ the committee found, have achieved
/ remarkable success. They report:
I We sat around a table with a
group Of former English workingmen
who direct the English Cooperative
I Wholesale Society and listened to them
talk calmly in terms of hundreds
/ of millions Of pounds, of great tea
plantations in India, of fleets of boats
and acres of factories which vhittle
down the cost of the English CO.
operators food and clothing. We
heard them talk of another CO.
operative which is so well financed
that it underworld a bond issue fol
the City of Glasgow when the term,
Of the Bank of England seemed toe
onerouS. In Sweden We listened n
stories Of cooperative trust busting;
Of monopolistic Goliaths slain by tn.
sllng-shotS of the cooperative David
We heard co-operators condemn pri.
vate business and private profit: We
saw them sometimes buying stocs
IN private corporations and dis.
tributlng to their own members the
profit made from these investments
We saw amazing cooperative store,
that were setting new standards II
merchandising, others discussing seri.
ously the menace of the chain store
still others that were adopting the
good and the bad from private busi.
ness lndiscriminately From the thing!
We learned and the figures We gathered
could be woven an Aladdin tale o,
cooperative success. From a differ.
ent selection of material would b,
built story of cooperative blunder!
and mistakes and class antagonism.'
Grouped in 10 Classes.
They found the co-operatives grouped
IN 10 broad classes: Farmers pur.
chasing societies. farmers marketing
societies, general purpose farm so.
cleties, workers productive societies
consumers dlStributive societies, hous-
ing societies, utilities, special service
societies, credit and banking societie.
and insurance societies.
All Of these have been tried with
varying success in the United States
Farm marketing societies, actively
encouraged by the government. are
probably the most widespread anc
have met with the greatest success.
Some of them undoubtedly have
cleared up otherwise hopeless agri-
cultural situations. They have often
been combined with successful farm
purchasing societies. Others have
been lamentable failures. Much ha,
depended on management. The CO.
operative apartment house is now
a fixed part of the housing economy
of American cities. Such enterprises
as the Resettlement Administration
Greenbelt are intended to point the
way to great extension of this. They
are, quite frankly, experiments Much
depends on the outcome of the ex-
perimentS. Cooperative hospital
services are gaining great headWay.
Cooperative insurance societies, ex-
emplified by the various fraternal
oAdSio' lldNt NlLCh Ndy dIlu VI IdJb, III
spite of their non-profit features, have
hardly been able to meet the compete
ton CT private insurance companies.
Some of them, in fact, have given up
the effort altogether.
But by and large the principle
European development-the co-opera-
tive store-is unfamiliar in the United
States.
Plan Not Fool-Proof.
The report does not picture the CO.
operative movement as sure road to
economic Utopia. 1t is not fool-proof.
No clear case can be made that it is
superior to private enterprise Nor are
there arguments which would be con-
vincing to an advocate of thorough
going socialism that it is superior to a
frankly socialistic set-up 1t is differ
ent from both the other two. 1t has
certain apparent advantages over