By JAMES FORD. Introduction by Francis G. Peabody. Russell Sage
Foundation Publication, Survey Associates, Inc. 300 pp. Price
$1.50, postpaid.
Individualism is generally assigned as the primary cause of the
failure of co-operation to gain a more extensive foothold on American
soil. But to the student of the subject this off-hand explanation is
far from conclusive. For not only have Americans been the leading
exponents of political, social and religious co-operation, but they
have likewise shown marked aptitude for economic co-operation.
Our very national life is purely co-operative. Our big business
is, though not in a strict sense, in a large sense co-operative.
Furthermore, were the traditional American individualism the sole or
even the main cause, why has co-operation in this country met with no
wider acceptance or greater success among the immigrants coming from
countries where co-operation is practiced to a very high degree? We
must therefore look for other reasons to account for the bankruptcy
of co-operative effort in this country. These are set forth by Dr.
James Ford in his book Co-operation in New England.
The first co-operative movement in the New England States, the New
England Protective Union stores, began in 1845 and ended in 1857. The
second movement, the Sovereigns of Industry, which was launched in
1874, had an equally brief history. The first had at one time as many
as 700 stores, of which but two remain; while five are left of the
280 of which the latter movement once boasted. At the present time
urban co-operation is practically confined to immigrants, largely
non-English speaking. Their efforts have not met with much greater
success than those of New England’s native sons. All told, there
are about sixty co-operative stores throughout New England. Most of
them are too young, too small, and too isolated to be dignified as a
movement.
The meagre results of distributive co-operation are only exceeded by
those of co-operation in manufacture. All effort in that direction
has been abortive, and “true co-operative production does not exist
in New England.”
The author finds greater cause for encouragement in rural
co-operation. “The farmers’ movement,” he says, “which is much more
influential in the industrial world, not only penetrates, by means
of co-operative creameries, almost every township of western New
England, but through association for co-operative sale extends to
many other large territories.” Co-operation among farmers consists
of co-operative buying of supplies, co-operative marketing of
products, and co-operative production in the way of butter and
cheese making. He estimates the number of more or less co-operative
creameries throughout New England at 125, although probably not more
than twenty-five of these are purely co-operative. “There are many
indications today,” continues the author, “that rural New England has
reached a point not only desirable but increasingly practicable.”
With a large American commission now abroad for the special purpose
of studying agricultural co-operation, it is to be hoped that this
movement will be accelerated.
The really important part of Dr. Ford’s hook is his discussion
of general co-operative principles. The economic conditions for
successful co-operation are wanting in this country. People will
co-operate either because they are driven to it by necessity, as is
the case in Europe, or because they see in it special inducement to
make it worth their while. Unfortunately, or rather fortunately,
these conditions do not exist in the United States so far. In a
country where every workingman carries the baton of a captain of
industry in his dinner pail, it is not surprising that he will not
set aside the opportunities of individual effort in favor of the
uncertain, remote, and, at best, meagre returns of co-operative
endeavor. All other reasons, such as the mobility of our population,
our improvidence, and our lack of co-operative spirit must give way
before this one fundamental reason.
The conditions that are responsible for the heavy mortality of
co-operative enterprises in this country are rapidly changing.
The obstacles in the way of co-operative success are gradually
disappearing. Once the point is reached in New England as it has been
abroad, at which societies of like interest federate for educational
and trade advantage, these smaller federations “will in turn unite in
a general co-operative union with common funds to sustain societies
that are weak, and promote development on lines of common importance,
an immense force will be set at work for the moralization of trade,
the reduction of the cost of living, and the socialization of the
people.”
As the title indicates, the book deals only with co-operation in
the New England states. The author further limits his research
to “associations for the production and distribution of the
immediate necessities of life.” Notwithstanding this limiting of
the inquiry both in scope and extent the book should prove of value
to the student of co-operation in this country. The facts have
been painstakingly collected. The author’s insight is keen and
penetrating, his deductions are clear and logical, and his hopeful
tone is most invigorating.