The following chapter report raises important questions concerning specifically the value of our work in co-ops and, more generally, the potential of working in alternative institutions with the goal of raising socialist issues and consciousness. The report does not raise two key questions which we feel particularly relevant to groups workinK in the area of producion and/or distribution of food.

First, how can the power of agribusiness and the supermarkets over food quality and prices be challenged? Can this be done through simple expansion of the co-op movement? And second, can food co-ops challenge the sexual division of labor within the family? Specifically, can and do food co-ops define women as other than consumers and men as other than providers? We are interested in farther explorations of these and the questions raised in the chapter report.

Several members of the West Side Chapter of NAM (New York City) have been active in a large food co-op, in order to explore some of the political possibilities of this co-op in particular and of food co-ops in general. The questions we face in trying to do socialist political work in the food co-ops are several. This report represents our first thoughts on these questions:

1) Are food co-ops, by nature, socialist? Is there something inherently progressive about co-operativism? The notion that food co-ops are inherently progressive is often raised by those who see counter-community as an intermediate goal to be struggled for. These people argue that food co-ops spread the idea that collective effort works, that community established through co-ops encourages socially progressive values, promotes barter economics and generally provides an avenue of escape from part of the dog-eat-dog world of capitalist relations. They see the food co-op as a step in the creation of an alternative economy.

We do not share this view. It seems to us that the primary bond between co-op members is simply the search for cheaper food. Further, our experience has been that the actual management of the food co-op is not collectively shared, but rather monopolized by people who enjoy the work. The hard work of a few devotees attracts a large number of people who, contributing a little work and shouldering less responsibility, obtain substantially cheaper food.

A study of the history of the co-op movement in this country might help us to avoid obvious pitfalls. The Consumer Cooperatives (the Twin Pines movement), which operates food stores, credit unions, furniture stores and apartment houses throughout the country, is a perfect example of the transformation of a co-op into a bureaucratized consumer service. Of course, not all co-ops must develop this way, but it does seem to indicate that some conscious and overt political work may be needed if co-ops are to be useful for OUR purposes.

In any case, the operating assumption of the NAM members in the food co-op is that the co-op presents simply an opportunity to raise political issues and to broaden our struggle for socialism ONLY as WE raise issues and broaden the struggle. We are wprking on the theory that the co-op is a neutral activity. In and of itself, we think, it is not enough.

1) What kinds of people are and can be involved in food co-ops?

The co-op we are in (the Broadway Local Food Association) is over a year old. Over 250 families belong and the co-op does about $2,000 per week in trade. It operates out of an abandoned storefront on the west side of Manhattan. This co-op is older, has more members and does a larger volume of business than most of those we’ve investigated.

The 250 families are divided into ten blocs which vary in size from fifteen to thirty member families. Generally the co-op includes two dominant social groups. There is a large minority of young people who stand in various relationships to the means of production: worker, professional, entrepreneur. They are long-haired, recently out of college or graduate school. They are not settled down yet, often express overt left and socialist sympathies, and are almost all white.

The majority of the co-op members arc also white, but they are predominantly middle and upper class. They are older, more settled, have families, careers, etc. They have liberal, sometimes socialist, attitudes as well. Although few are active in electoral or left politics, many ARE active in community work: PTA, school board, planning board, neighborhood councils, health councils, etc.

Our bloc of the co-op is a little different, as the area in which we work has a heavy population of older Irish and Italian people. Again, there is a large minority of young freaks and we have recruited only three Third World families into the co-op. The majority of the members are working class Irish dnd Italians, and a few retired people all long-time residents of the area. The failure of our bloc (and of the rest of the co-op) to recruit black and Latin peoples is the subject of much discussion, and is only partially explained by the practice of holding meetings in En3lish.

The time and energy requirements of the food co-op make it virtually impossible for working people other than housewives and retired people to be active. Those who work during the day can’t help with the food distribution, and those who work at night can’t attend the meetings. One of the mainstays of the co-op SHOULD be retired people. They need the service and they have the time to be active. Our bloc has just begun to attract them in significant numbers. We are at present exploring this area with two of the local senior citizens clubs, because it seems to us that recruitment of these people to the co-op could significantly broaden its base –and eventually broaden the base of NAM.

1) Can the people in the food co-ops be organized into broader and more “political” kinds of activites? How?

We have initiated a range of activities staffed by NAM members recruited from the food co-op. These include a weekly newsletter for co-op members which attempts to raise questions about socialism; preliminary organizing for a People’s Price Control Panel and a tax campaign; and research on local health needs and health insurance coverage for working and poor people in the city.

Young people have been the most eager to participate in these projects, and the People’s Price Control Panel seems to be generating the most interest. But exactly how to raise socialist demands within it is still not clear to us.

1) Can food co-ops be used as a recruiting base for NAM? Will doing so broaden the social base uf NAM or will it solidify it?

We feel that broadening NAM’s social base cannot be done through the food co-op as presently constituted. Unless the base of the co-op itself is broadened to include more working and Third World people, the co-op will not be the arena in which NAM transcends its social origins. We ourselves don’t know if this co-op broadening is possible. On the other hand, the co-op does seem to be a good ground for solidifying the social base of NAM. That is, we’ve been able to recruit young people and professionals through the co-op. We are, of course, in need of guidance on all of the questions raised in this report and would like to hear from you and especially to hear reports on similar experiences that people have had. If you are in-terested in a more detailed account of the co-op mechanisms, write to us. We have prepared a pamphlet which explains most of the working parts, and although it is keyed to New York City, it may be handy in other high population density communities.

Dan Millstone West Side Chapter NAM Plentarium Station, POB 452 New York, NY