Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

A Market Without Capitalists

By Frances Moore Lappe, AlterNet. Posted June 23, 2006.


In a region of northern Italy, the author of 'Diet For a Small Planet' discovered a cooperative approach to living that actually enhances human dignity.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

More stories by Frances Moore Lappe

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

A market economy and capitalism are synonymous --- or at least joined at the hip. That's what most Americans grow up assuming. But it is not necessarily so. Capitalism -- control by those supplying the capital in order to return wealth to shareholders -- is only one way to drive a market.

Granted, it is hard to imagine another possibility for how an economy could work in the abstract. It helps to have a real-life example.

And now I do.

In May I spent five days in Emilia Romagna, a region of four million people in northern central Italy. There, over the last 150 years, a network of consumer, farmer and worker-driven cooperatives has come to generate 30 percent to 40 percent of the region's GDP. Two of every three people in Emilia Romagna are members of co-ops.

The region, whose hub city is Bologna, is home to 8,000 co-ops, producing everything from ceramics to fashion to specialty cheese. Their industriousness is woven into networks based on what cooperative leaders like to call "reciprocity." All co-ops return 3 percent of profits to a national fund for cooperative development, and the movement supports centers providing help in finance, marketing, research and technical expertise.

The presumption is that by aiding each other, all gain. And they have. Per person income is 50 percent higher in Emilia Romagna than the national average.

The roots of Emilia Romagna's co-op movement are deep -- and varied.

Here in the United States, many assume that Catholicism and socialism are irreconcilable. In Italy, it's different. Socialist theorist Antonio Gramsci's critiques of capitalism were a major influence on Italy's post-war Left. Although he was imprisoned by Mussolini in 1926 and died still under guard 11 years later at age 46, Gramsci's ideas took hold. Simultaneously, the Church came to appreciate the role of cooperatives in strengthening family and community -- as spelled out by Pope John XXIII's 1961 encyclical.

The shared values of the two traditions -- honoring labor, fairness and cooperation -- made them partners in standing up for co-op friendly public policies and in creating co-op support services.

Of the three main national cooperative alliances, the two largest in Emilia Romagna are the Left's Legacoop, with a million members, and Confcooperative, the Catholic alliance with more than a quarter of a million members.

During the 1920s, the fascists destroyed both the cooperative and the union movements. But after World War II, the movements regrouped to rebuild war-torn Italy. Farmer and worker cooperatives put people back to work. Retail cooperatives helped consumers and housing co-ops build new dwellings. Since 1945, the housing cooperatives affiliated with Legacoop alone have built 50,000 units in Emilia Romagna.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

Frances Moore Lappé's latest book is "Democracy's Edge: Choosing to Save Our Country By Bringing Democracy to Life." For more information, visit smallplanetinstitute.org.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Burritovision
Posted by: Burritovision on Jun 23, 2006 2:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I invite you to view the works of Better Godliness Through Chemistry. It may be able to help you refine your thesis about meaningful effective human symbiosis and living to please God.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Burritovision Posted by: LMNOP
Call it what it is!
Posted by: redstarwraith on Jun 23, 2006 3:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why does the author need to "defend" capitalism when what he lauds sounds much more like socialism? Is it because too many Americans still have that ol' knee-jerk paranoia of socialism that one must present socialism as some "new form" of capitalism??? Yes, for crying out loud, the world would indeed be better off if countries ran like the cooperatives in this piece. . .

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Call it what it is! Posted by: mandiwrite
» RE: Call it what it is! Posted by: brunowe
» RE: Call it what it is! Posted by: drone
» RE: Call it what it is! Posted by: KPelley
» RE: Call it what it is! Posted by: Wacre
» RE: Call it what it is! Posted by: drone
» RE: Call it what it is! Posted by: sea4to
Like socialism like capitalism
Posted by: maxpayne on Jun 23, 2006 5:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
History has and still shows that both can be put to good use or abused. Each has its strengths and weaknesses but I do applaud the author for trying to rescue capitalism from the bad rap it has gained under the ideology of economic libertarians and social "conservatives".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» amen Posted by: sheeplepeeple
» RE: amen Posted by: maxpayne
clarification
Posted by: ellie on Jun 23, 2006 5:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
let's clarify a few things first. the reference to Antonio Gramsci's concept of praxis between Marxism and practice made a huge turn at religion. in these communities visited by the author, religion is the glue that allows this type of co op to exist. second, socialism is not communism or Communism. please review Marx 'Das Kapital'.

in the US, small co ops do exist with the glue being alternatives to 'big box' consumerism. the problem is that once they get large enough to be seen on corporate radar, they are co opted or forced to disband as a threat to corporations.

this is why farmer's markets, home gardens, wholesalers who will sell small quantities of goods and respect for the supplier being treated as a valuable contributor to the system works.

value what you can do yourself and as the saying goes, 'buy local'

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: clarification Posted by: drone
» RE: clarification Posted by: ellie
» RE: clarification Posted by: drone
» RE: clarification Posted by: ellie
» RE: clarification Posted by: drone
There is a future
Posted by: solrev on Jun 23, 2006 5:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I would argue that a capitalist dictatorship exists in the US. The sole purpose of the government is not to provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare. The government stacked the deck in favor of capitalists. Provide for the common defense and promote the capitalist welfare. The free market economy became less free. As Darwin might say, the government unnaturally selected markets. The unnatural selection by the government may have been a real good idea at the time. However, the capitalist dictatorship falls into the same trap as socialist dictatorships. No one is smart enough to foretell the future. Socialist dictatorships became so tightly structured; they were doomed to stagnation. Capitalist dictatorships retain the ability to change (democracy). Capitalist dictators can select new markets to favor (switch grass vs. oil). While change is possible it remains difficult, old selections do not readily give up their position. In and industrializing nation with almost unlimited resources capitalism works well, demonstrated by early twentieth century US. China is in such a position now and is importing capitalists and their technology as fast as they can. The Chinese dictatorship still appears to retain the socialist dictatorship philosophy. If the Chinese socialist dictatorship (social responsibility) with the importation of the capitalist market flexibility morphs into a combination of the two. There is great hope for the future survival of the planet. The US with its democracy is able to morph into the same thing if it overcomes the past propaganda with reason. What does inalienable rights mean? It means entitlements. That scares the hell out of the capitalists in the US. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness equal the general welfare. Is life an entitlement or is it subject to the market decisions of capitalism. If life is an entitlement, then healthcare is an entitlement that can not be subject to the market decisions of a capitalist dictatorship. Until the American people are able to change their way of thinking, the capitalist dictatorship will own us.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: There is a future Posted by: sea4to
I don't like that religion has to be part of this
Posted by: sln70 on Jun 23, 2006 6:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
who the hell cares if Catholicism and socialism don't mix, anyway? I doubt any non-Cathlics even realized that that was the case. Probably a lot of Catholics don't realize that that is the case. And clearly, the author has proven that that, in fact, is *not* the case at all.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A short course in political philosophy is in order, folks.
Posted by: fool-on-the-hill on Jun 23, 2006 8:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Some of the postings on this blog might be more coherent if the writers would first check the actual MEANINGS for words like "socialism", "liberal", "conservative", etc. (Yes, boys and girls, these words DO have meanings that are NOT merely a matter of opinion.)

A good place to start is the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, available free at http://www.iep.utm.edu/. Click on "p" and select Political Philosophy. See how easy it is?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Cooperation is its own thing, thank you!
Posted by: elizacoop on Jun 23, 2006 9:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why is the cooperative model constantly defined in terms of either socialism or capitalism? Can people only think in dualistic terms?

The cooperative model developed independently and Brother Karl dismissed it as having no power to transform society. He was clearly wrong, as the Italian experience shows. There are other models of cooperation such as the Mondragon Basque region, the Swedish model, Canadian models...

Cooperation is economic democracy, development on a human scale that keeps economic power in the hands of the members. In the US too many co-ops fail, in part because ideologues insist that to be "real co-ops" they must stay small and marginal, and then work to be sure they stay that way. Co-ops attract too many people who want to argue about political science and impose rigid rules instead of organizing communities and building connections.

The natural food co-op network in this country can become a platform to develop an independent food distribution system that serves local and regional farmers, for example. Less argument and more rolling up the sleeves and getting to work finding out what needs are not being met would go a long way. It is interesting to consider that Communism, which has its roots in an academic argument, resulted in untold millions of murders. Cooperation, the result of decades of experiments by people working to better their own lives, hasn't yielded one tyranical dictatorship. Hmmm.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

JAA
Posted by: jajemian on Jun 23, 2006 9:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The largest, most successful cooperative in the world is the Mondragon Cooperative Corp in northeastern Spain created by the Basques initially right under Franco's nose in the early 1940's. It's not capitalist, socialist or communist, i.e., they don't define themselves ideologically. Empahsis is on decentralization, localization, with each business expected to contribute to community cohesion through a variety of ways. Their businesses are very profitable, but all under local control and integrated within each community. It is a worldwide model. There is much literature describing their system. A starter is Roy Morrison's book "We Build the Road as we Travel"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This article stinks
Posted by: Kaboutit on Jun 23, 2006 9:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Don't get me wrong. I love alternet and I love the idea of co-operatives and i love this this type of news. But this article says nothing about how these co-ops work or how they are differnt from good old fasion wage labor. How is profit sharing delt with? How are decisions made (from the top down or collectivly)? How much are these emploies making? Benifits?

I dont see any of that in this story and its frankly disapointing

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: This article stinks Posted by: drone
» This article is lovely Posted by: vespasian01
Race to the bottom
Posted by: antiapathy on Jun 23, 2006 9:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I sincerely believe that capitalizm, as practiced in the united states, is leading us down a spiral of decreasing prices, wages, and quality. As long as quarterly profits are up and consumers are more or less satisfied with being able to buy more plastic mirth this cycle will continue. But at some point either fuel costs will get too high to sustain it, or consumers might realize how bad they are getting screwed and actually decide to do something about it, and the system will collapse. I am very eager to see what lies at the bottom.

My prediction, mostly driven by hope, is that after some period of violence and unrest, corporations as we know them will no longer be viable. And local co-ops will take their place in providing the goods and services we need to survive. So to see how these organizations actually work in Italy or Argentina is very fascinating. The fact that they are already providing a viable alternative to corporate capitalizm gives me faith that society will be able to restructure itself economically after the race finally reaches the bottom.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: ace to the bottom Posted by: EncinoM
Socialism I GREAT Until The Bodies Start Piling Up
Posted by: ClassicLib on Jun 23, 2006 11:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So let's suppos I work at this Co-op and one day I come up with an idea for a new cheese. I make it at home in my own kitchen and it tastes fabulous. I go into work the next day and quit. Then I open my own cheese factory that is not part of the Co-op. I start kicking the co-op's ass and stealing their customers. How long before the men-in-black show up on my door.

Socialism is great until the bodies start piling up.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Community? how quaint. Posted by: antiapathy
» I'm A Convert Posted by: ClassicLib
» talent and motivation Posted by: antiapathy
» RE: talent and motivation Posted by: ClassicLib
The orchard is poisoned.
Posted by: LMNOP on Jun 25, 2006 5:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I would say that anyone interested in participating in cooperatives like those in foreign countries cited above should consider trying to get to them by emigrating rather than trying to build them from the ground up here in America where you'll have to contend with the anchor of a hostile, corporate dominated government.

Why should anyone half to pay such a high premium to try to do the right thing? This country's laws and regulations are all about keeping smaller, independent enterprises from competing effectively with the entrenched corporate aristocracy, and its people are a million light years away from realizing it or having any concept that they should do anything about it.

You don't need the government's help, nor are you likely to get it. But you sure don't need its interference either, and if a phenomenon such as the cooperative begins to catch on in any significant way, a few bucks will change hands between a few lobbyists and a few corrupt politicians, and guess what? You're out of compliance with something. As you grow and build something worthwhile, you feel the foul presence of the corporatocracy putting you on a progressively more uneven playing field until you slide off of it altogether.

Once America was a great country that much of the time stood for real principles, and that provided economic and social opportunity for most of its industrious citizens. Today, America is neither of those things. The wealth is for the aristocracy only now, and America stands for nothing except self-indulgent greed.

Today, America is just big, not great. It's not even good. It is a malignant presence on the planet interfering with both the rest of the world's efforts protect the environment (Kyoto accords) and to get along peacefully (Geneva convention abuses, abuse of the UN, aggressive use of military).

Good ideas don't stand a chance here if they don't profit the corporatocracy and the hyper-wealthy elitists. There's a reason why the exemplary models are foreign and not American. America doesn't lack the will or the talent as people like you exemplify. It lacks a receptive environment for them.

Consider relocating to a more reasonable place and you won't have to endure the hardship and the delay of waiting for the present regime in America to finish going through its death throes and getting out of your way. (I foresee at least twenty to forty years of unrest and violent struggle in toppling the status quo before that happens.) Is it so special here that it is worth enduring that? Your freedom, democracy and opportunities are all disappearing rapidly. And your vision is antithetical to the powers that be.

You can't grow healthy fruit in a poisoned orchard.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The orchard is poisoned. Posted by: AvalonSeeker
Jeez, not THAT Francis Moore Lappe!
Posted by: Pat Kittle on Jun 25, 2006 2:21 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Unfortunately, Francis Moore Lappe and her good intentions have had an effect similiar to "Mother" Theresa with hers.

Namely, they passionately ridiculed any direct attempt to stop population growth as evil, or at best misguided.

"If everyone on Earth behaved like saints, we'd be just fine" goes their fairytale storyline. Unfortunately, people aren't saints and show no signs of being any closer to sainthood (leftist, Catholic, or otherwise) than they ever were.

Meanwhile, since "Frankie" first mocked population control, billions more people have been added to our numbers, most of them in misery, with billions more on the way.

Way to go, Frankie!

Even after all that, we are steered away from any direct effort to stop human overbreeding.

"Too coercive!" sayeth the PC hierarchy. ("Sinful!" sayeth the Pope... "Bad for business!" sayeth Wall Steet.)

Rather they mindlessly pursue their fool's errand, ever striving to accommodate endless population growth -- even as the horrific Malthusian consequences they long scorned are coming to pass.

Pathetic!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Learn a little about co-ops, folks
Posted by: elizacoop on Jun 26, 2006 9:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Co-ops, being neither socialist nor Catholic, are businesses that are owned by the people they serve. They run according to a set of internationally recognized principles, the first of which is Voluntary and Open Membership. The next is Member Democratic Control (each member gets one vote no matter how may shares s/he accumulates over the years). Member Economic Participation mandates that benefits are owned by the members and are tied to their use of the co-op in a proportional manner.

To review, co-ops are voluntary and democratic. They exist for the good of all the members and also recognize that the members exist in a larger community, so concern for community well-being is an important component of business decisions. The Italian co-ops described in the articles have decided for themselves to organize in the ways described. No government coercion involved. In fact, automony and indepence is the 4th co-op principle.

It is inconceivable that some comments suggest just giving up and leaving. We should desert everyone? Don't give in to despair- that helps no one.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is not capitalism, it is called socialism
Posted by: vescalant on Jul 20, 2006 3:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What the author describes as "capitalism without capitalists" in that place of Italy is actually considered SOCIALISM in all other parts of the world. The coop system was an experimental feature tried in almost every socialist country in and out of the Soviet block at some point in time. It's still in use in some parts of Cuba. And Gramsci was a communist. No wonder why Americans have no clue when it comes to telling the difference between fascism and democracy. Well, at least read some background material before writing this kind of articles, please.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]