One big shift in #coops is that in the first half of the last century, they were mostly set up by working class people who believed them to be more effective.
In the second half, it shifted to middle class people who set them up because they believed them to be more ethical.
First wave seems to be more successful. Early retail coops that sought to provide cheap and good quality goods are market leaders in many countries. Food coops set up to provide ethical and organic food are tiny.
/1
This is a simplication, and in no way a value judgement.
It's great that people want to buy ethical goods. More people who should do that.
There are more people with white collar jobs and college education than before. The class society of early 20th century doesn't exist anymore.
We can't replicate the early 20th century cooperative organising.
But I think this shift from "coops are good because they are more effective" to "coops are good because they are more ethical" is important.
/2
@LeoSammallahti "The class society of early 20th century doesn't exist anymore." I have to strongly disagree with this statement. White collar and education don't define wealth disparity. I know a lot of college educated restaurant workers, and white collar jobs don't guarantee a middle to upper middle class income. (Maybe not even lower middle.)
I've been reading Toni Gilpin's book, "The Long Deep Grudge", and descriptions of income inequality in the 1920s sound like today.
@lwriemen
Income inequality exists but the class society of the 19th century doesn't exist anymore.
Marx analysis of protelatarians, petit-bourgeouise and capitalists made sense at the time but no longer.
A doctor or a software developer working for a big corporation do not own their means of production, unlike a self-employed plumber or a construction worker. Yet according to Marxist taxonomy the first group would be proletarian and the latter petit-bourgeouise.