I can’t really think of a solution for this conflict. Of course, smaller producers and fairtrade products should be supported, and healthy, natural food should be available for all, regardless of economic standing. But since these goods are bound to be more expensive, it seems to homogenize membership and make the co-ops more exclusive. 

Edda (667994)

Response to Edda

I agree that there appears to be a tradeoff between providing ethical and healthy products on the one hand, and exclusionary prices on the other hand. Again, I also agree that this chasm appears hard to bridge. In a for profit business, there is only so much one can do with regards to pricing internally. The cooperatives might be able to ask for subsidies from wealthier clients and members. Moreover, I recall that there as also the issue that it was mainly white people applying for the jobs. This again makes it difficult to address the employee homogeneity. Although, this could indeed be a consequence of the client base being disproportionately white and upmarket too. From personal experience, many of these health stores can be quite chique and thus unnecessarily overpriced. Perhaps changing the image and spending less money on appearance could make the produce more accessible too. 

Marten 686321

Zoe

Responding to Zoe
The issues with each co-op are around struggling to find the right balance between self-governance, meeting the needs of employees and customers, expanding the business and remaining true to the ethical goals. The fact the membership does not appeal to a more diverse community in a neighbourhood seems to go unexamined or not seen as cause for concern. Rather than aiming for expansion, perhaps they should focus more on helping other co-operatives establish themselves with their own goals, neighbourhood knowledge and connections. A system of nodes in self governance may work more effectively than the expansion by a small number of existing co-ops.

Susie

Responding to Susie

Yes I completely agree, I just didn't articulate it well within my short paragraph! there needs to be a focus on collective action within diverse communities rather than expansion of the coops. The issues within the article regarding the coop such as exclusion and failure to thrive in certain areas need to be addressed in order to achieve success that meets the needs of whole communities which will be challenging as 'one size does not fit all' but overall self-governance and putting money and investing in local communities should be a priority rather than big Walmart chains exploiting workers.Zoe

Response from Karen: As a long time member of a co-op, this really resonated with me, particularly the challenge of expansion. What I've observed is that as the co-op has become more mainstream, demand grew, and they expanded to meet demand, the requirements for management hierarchy and the like have diluted the inclusion and democracy upon which they are founded. My co-op feels more and more like an upscale grocery store everyday. For me a turning point was when they took away the requirement to actually work in the shop (or some other capacity). I believe that for many it became less an investment in social capital but rather one in financial capital.

The tragedy of the commons “is not unhappiness”. ‘It resides in the solemnity of the remorseless working of things”.

The technicalities of the commons: 

“Each man is locked into a system that compels him to increase his herd without limit-in a world that is limited. “

“Ruin is the destination toward which all men rush, each pursuing his own best interest in a society that believes in the freedom of commons.”

“Freedom in a common brings ruin to all.” 

=> The above quotes describe the tragedy of an economic model that is based on competition, surplus and self-interest. The capitalist model is based on growth which will inevitably lead to exponential growth.

 => With that in mind, I think it is important to consider the following technicalities: self-interest, denial, diversity and time. 

 

“Natural selection favours the forces of denial.”

=> Denial is counterproductive, but ultimately, it is a survival instinct within the animal kingdom based on fear and self-protection. This is also intrinsic to humans.

=> self-interest is a survival instinct as well.

diversity:

=> diversity is the principle of life. Competing for survival is therefore inevitable.  

time:

“the morality of an act is a function of the state of the system at the time it is performed”.

=> Morality is a reflection of a certain time and therefore renders morality a technicality itself. What was accepted centuries ago, might be unthinkable in the present.  (Humans do not anticipate the future enough).

To me, the problem lies not so much in “the commons” principle and by that acknowledging technicalities that are inevitable.  

Rather, the problem lies  in a collective cognitive challenge acknowledging responsibility and shifting assemblages that require constant review (for example: a law that applies to all contradicts the principle of diversity). 

=> A challenge that identifies the variables as to how much we have to limit ourselves to grow sustainably, that is morally just across a diverse population, not only at a moment in time, but also anticipating the future.

Humans do have the agency to limit growth. Unlimited growth is therefore not inevitable. It is a conscious decision that overcomes the individual in a balanced way, that allows space to discuss what is “good” and within reason and that involves long-term thinking for the greater good considering the total system. “Mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon by the majority of the people affected.” 

“Education [awareness] can counteract the natural tendency to do the wrong thing.”

“Freedom is the recognition of necessity”. (Anna, 675638)


In Response to Anna

I found your perspective incredibly interesting. Especially where you highlight "Rather, the problem lies  in a collective cognitive challenge acknowledging responsibility". Each time I have discussed the Tragedy of Commons what comes to mind is the "Bystander Effect"-diffusion of responsibility leading to inaction when things go sour.  Then is the lack of motivation to act as one convinces another will figure it out the reason for demise? A different kind of inaction in self-interest. All is well till things turn downside. In which case then leadership and hierarchy based responsibilities are generated? Then can we as a species operate on principles of equality and commons?
-Priyanka (683580)

  Tanita - 685926

Life is based on diversity but because we are all different there is not one solution that everyone can and will live up to. 

We cannot backtrack and we cannot repair the damage quickly enough that the developed countries and Western ideologies have caused. Thus even if some people are moral and conscientious, others are not, or less, or they might not agree with suggested alternative models. And as noted in the text:

“confronted with appeals to limit breeding, some people will undoubtedly respond to the plea more than others. Those who have more children will produce a larger fraction of the next generation than those with more susceptible consciences.” (Anna, 675638)

________________
In response to your last point Anna, I feel like Hardin's argument there ignored the effects of education and wider social change that affects people's choices in life. Of course people who choose to not limit their breeding will produce more children - but those children are not necessarily more likely to have more children themselves. It seems to be an argument based on the idea that morals and values can be passed on biologically.. 

Claire

Different countries' response to Covid-19 and the debate that raged around wearing masks is a good example. 

Hardin calls for abandoning the commons in breeding - essentially restricting people's right to have children and as many as they want or can. This would be in direct violation of the UN's Declaration of Human Right's and yet since Hardin's piece was published some countries did enact policies restricting people's right to breed, notably China's One-Child Policy which received a great amount of criticism around the world. 

Hardin says there are no technical solutions to the issues of over-population - that it is a moral issue. He also argues that the commons can only be justifiable under conditions of low-population. I wonder whether with the invention of mobile technology and the internet and the consequent increase in connections between people across much larger areas he would still argue the same. With such technology, mobilising large amounts of people from a grass-roots level has become much easier and faster. Protests, especially environmental ones are now rarely limited to one space but spread globally through channels such as social media. Can there not be collective action surrounding our commons such as air, oceans, forests etc be affected in the same way without needing for severe population reduction and/or control?

Claire Bate-Roullin

In response to Claire: Lots of great points that you raise. For me, his argument about population was too simplistic. We are also seeing the same argument of overpopulation being used to explain issues around climate change. This ignores the fact that we all have very varied carbon footprints. Highly consumerist, industrialised, Western societies are far more polluting than so-called "less developed" countries. The population argument strives for business as usual rather than real change and concrete responses from governments. (Hannah Abbott 685904)

I think this has become a global reality, but should still be looked at in context, considering economic model and local knowledge. In a global context we have to find solutions that are ecologically efficient, environmentally sustainable and economically viable. In addition to that we have to stress everyone's responsibility in this challenge, nurture empathy, engagement and dialogue to curb alienation. I think with a very heterogenous world population with different aspirations and different cultural background this illustrates a difficult task. Attitudes of society at large will probably only really change when scarcity feels real to everyone and denial will no longer be possible.  

(675638, Anna)

‘That upending of convention must influence the way business is conducted at the co-op.

Again, a co-op, when successful, can serve as a precursor to a more just set of institutional

arrangements. But democracy at work does not have to mean total reliance on consensus and

complete lack of hierarchy.’ Clare W 677349

This reminds me of the anarchist movement in Spain when land and factories were collectivised and controlled by the workers.

I saw an interesting documentary on anarchism years ago and if I remember correctly the independent syndicates that they established worked until the movement died with the victory of Franco. It would have been interesting to see how it had further developed if it had not come to a stop by force. (675638, Anna)

https://distribution.arte.tv/fiche/NI_DIEU_NI_MAITRE

(it is possible to watch it on youtube. I remember that I found the documentary very interesting because it addressed questions of freedom and equality). 

objectives....but with insufficient understanding of ecosystem processes.' The original sentence referred to gov't and land management, but in reality you could insert most actors or issues. Too often there is a desire (fueled by many factors) to enter a situation and change something, without fully understanding what it is you are changing, why it was done that way in the first place, and how it's connected to others systems and processes, and thus what unintended consequences it could have. - Karen

As we have seen in the article, the two examples depicted by the author are slightly different when it comes to their political engagement, with Mariposa food co operative described as more radical, and Weaver’s Way as more liberal. The result of their political leaning is visible when it comes to the profit they produce and to the opportunities they generate both for the community as for their employees. The more liberal co-operative, resembling the neoliberal market model seems to be thriving more, which is proven by its ability to produce more capital and to expand in more areas and offer more satisfactory salaries to its staff (at least to the ones on top of the pyramid, the general managers, department managers and the administrative staff).

Expansion is mostly seen as a positive aspect of business, something that is to be striven for because it enlarges and enriches the company and in this case, the community as well. But many times expansion has been proven problematic, as it requires sacrifices (in this case, relocations to wealthier neighbourhoods) and exploitation (marking up prices) or exaggeration (creating new categories for healthy food such as 'premium' or 'super premium'). It is undoubtedly not easy to operate as a non-capitalist money generating company owned by a large community in a globalized capitalist society, especially if your focus is not profit but providing people with agency in decision making when it comes to their food provision, valuable jobs and a feeling of trust and connection. For these reasons, the efforts of food cooperatives are still admirable, but they leave a lot of the space for improvement when it comes to the overall audience they are targeting and the morality behind some of their choices. In order to make a real change and to help people, it is very important that food cooperatives relocate from gentrified places to more impoverished neighbourhoods, offer one hot/cold (and healthy) meal for cheap or even for free to everyone that needs it (could be cooked on the premises, using seasonal vegetables/fruits) and entertain the idea of community in a more holistic way, which includes everyone's well being and nourishment. And finally, food cooperatives should take a better look at the homogeneity of their staff and audience and seriously consider diversifying whom they target for employment and whom they offer opportunities to. 

677134 (Ioana Illes)