la evoluciÓn de los principios … · opinión, acerca de la naturaleza y beneficios del...

www.cse.coop/lorenzo • [email protected] • 691.323.208 LCL. Principios cooperativos. Historia. Recopilación.docx / página 1

LA EVOLUCIÓN DE LOS PRINCIPIOS COOPERATIVOS

Historia del cooperativismo

LA EVOLUCIÓN DE LOS

PRINCIPIOS COOPERATIVOS Algunos apuntes



ÍNDICE

ÍNDICE ......................................................................................................................................... 2

LOS PRINCIPIOS COOPERATIVOS EN LA ACTUALIDAD ............................................................... 3

Así aparecen en la web de ACI-Américas [12.10.2003] ......................................................... 3

REVISIONES DE LOS PRINCIPIOS Y VALORES COOPERATIVOS .................................................... 7

Rochdale Principles of Co-operation 1937 ............................................................................. 7

Co-operative Principles 1966 ................................................................................................. 7

Statement on the Co-operative Identity 1995 ....................................................................... 8

EVOLUCIÓN DE LOS PRINCIPIOS COOPERATIVOS. CUADRO RESUMEN .................................... 9

(1937) LA APLICACIÓN ACTUAL DE LOS PRINCIPIOS DE COOPERACIÓN DE ROCHDALE ......... 10

Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 10

1. The Principles of Co-operation as practiced by the Rochdale Pioneers .......................... 11

2. Their Present Application ................................................................................................. 13

3. Conclusions and Recommendations ................................................................................ 27

(1966) INFORME DE LA COMISIÓN DE LA ICA SOBRE LOS PRINCIPIOS COOPERATIVOS ......... 30

Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 30

Consideration of Co-operative Principles ............................................................................ 37

Análisis general de la declaración de 1966 .......................................................................... 92

(1966) ANÁLISIS DEL INFORME DE LA COMISIÓN DE LA ICA SOBRE LOS PRINCIPIOS COOPERATIVOS ........................................................................................................................ 62

Análisis de otros principios no incluidos en la declaración de 1966 .................................... 75

(1995) LA DECLARACIÓN DE MANCHESTER ............................................................................. 94



LOS PRINCIPIOS COOPERATIVOS EN LA ACTUALIDAD

Así aparecen en la web de ACI-Américas [12.10.2003]

Los principios y valores son los elementos distintivos de las organizaciones y empresas cooperativas. Ya en 1844, los Pioneros de Rochdale, fundadores de la primera cooperativa de la historia, habían formulado un sistema de principios simple, claro y contundente, que les aseguró la conducción de la organización en beneficio de sus miembros.

La nueva Declaración de Identidad Cooperativa adoptada por la II Asamblea General de la ACI -que se realizara en el mes de setiembre de 1995 en la ciudad de Manchester, en opor-tunidad de la celebración del Centenario de la Alianza- incluye una nueva definición de cooperativa y una revisión de la formulación de los Principios y Valores Cooperativos. La nueva formulación mantiene la esencia de un sistema de principios y valores que demostró ser eficiente en casi 170 años de historia y contribuyó a transformar al cooperativismo en una de las mayores fuerzas sociales y económicas a nivel mundial, a la vez que incorpora nuevos elementos para una mejor interpretación del momento histórico actual.

Definición de cooperativa

Una cooperativa es una asociación autónoma de personas que se han unido voluntariamen-te para hacer frente a sus necesidades y aspiraciones económicas, sociales y culturales co-munes por medio de una empresa de propiedad conjunta y democráticamente controlada.

Valores cooperativos

Las cooperativas se basan en los valores de ayuda mutua, responsabilidad, democracia, igualdad, equidad y solidaridad. Siguiendo la tradición de sus fundadores sus miembros creen en los valores éticos de honestidad, transparencia, responsabilidad social y preocupa-ción por los demás.

Principios cooperativos

[Los principios cooperativos son pautas mediante las cuales las cooperativas ponen en prác-tica sus valores. ]

Primer Principio: Membresía abierta y voluntaria

Las cooperativas son organizaciones voluntarias abiertas para todas aquellas personas dis-puestas a utilizar sus servicios y dispuestas a aceptar las responsabilidades que conlleva la membresía sin discriminación de género, raza, clase social, posición política o religiosa.

Segundo Principio: Control democrático de los miembros

Las cooperativas son organizaciones democráticas controladas por sus miembros quienes participan activamente en la definición de las políticas y en la toma de decisiones.



Los hombres y mujeres elegidos para representar a su cooperativa, responden ante los miembros.

En las cooperativas de base los miembros tienen igual derecho de voto (un miembro, un voto), mientras en las cooperativas de otros niveles también se organizan con procedimien-tos democráticos.

Tercer Principio: Participación económica de los miembros

Los miembros contribuyen de manera equitativa y controlan de manera democrática el capi-tal de la cooperativa. Por lo menos una parte de ese capital es propiedad común de la cooperativa.

Usualmente reciben una compensación limitada, si es que la hay, sobre el capital suscrito como condición de membresía.

Los miembros asignan excedentes para cualquiera de los siguientes propósitos: El desarrollo de la cooperativa mediante la posible creación de reservas, de la cual al menos una parte debe ser indivisible; los beneficios para los miembros en proporción con sus transacciones con la cooperativa; y el apoyo a otras actividades según lo apruebe la membresía.

Cuarto Principio: Autonomía e independencia

Las cooperativas son organizaciones autónomas de ayuda mutua, controladas por sus miembros.

Si entran en acuerdos con otras organizaciones (incluyendo gobiernos) o tienen capital de fuentes externas, lo realizan en términos que aseguren el control democrático por parte de sus miembros y mantengan la autonomía de la cooperativa.

Quinto Principio: Educación, formación e información

Las cooperativas brindan educación y entrenamiento a sus miembros, a sus dirigentes elec-tos, gerentes y empleados, de tal forma que contribuyan eficazmente al desarrollo de sus cooperativas.

Las cooperativas informan al público en general, particularmente a jóvenes y creadores de opinión, acerca de la naturaleza y beneficios del cooperativismo.

Sexto Principio: Cooperación entre cooperativas

Las cooperativas sirven a sus miembros más eficazmente y fortalecen el movimiento coope-rativo trabajando de manera conjunta por medio de estructuras locales, nacionales, regiona-les e internacionales.

Séptimo Principio: Compromiso con la comunidad

La cooperativa trabaja para el desarrollo sostenible de su comunidad por medio de políticas aceptadas por sus miembros.



Valores cooperativos (algunas ideas utilizadas por la UCMTA en sus docu-mentos)

Autoayuda

Se basa en la creencia de que todo el mundo puede y debería esforzarse por controlar su propio destino. Los cooperativistas creen, sin embargo, que el desarrollo individual pleno solamente puede producirse en asociación con los demás. Como individuo, uno está limitado en lo que puede intentar hacer, y en lo que puede conseguir. A través de la acción conjunta y de la responsabilidad mutua, se puede conseguir más, especialmente aumentando la in-fluencia colectiva de uno en el mercado y ante los gobiernos.

Los individuos también se desarrollan como personas mediante la acción cooperativa debido a las habilidades que adquieren al facilitar el crecimiento de su cooperativa, al conocimiento que consiguen de sus consocios, a las nuevas percepciones que alcanzan sobre la sociedad más amplia de la que forman parte. A este respecto, las cooperativas son instituciones que fomentan la educación y desarrollo continuos de todos los implicados.

Autorresponsabilidad

Significa que los socios asumen la responsabilidad de su cooperativa, de su fundación y de su vida continua. Además, los socios son los responsables de promover su cooperativa entre sus familias, amigos y conocidos. Finalmente, la “autorresponsabilidad” significa que los so-cios son los responsables de asegurarse que su cooperativa permanece independiente de otras organizaciones públicas o privadas.

Igualdad

Las cooperativas están basadas en la igualdad. La unidad básica de la cooperativa es el socio, que es un individuo o bien una agrupación de individuos. Esta fundamentación en la persona humana es una de las principales características que distingue a una cooperativa de las em-presas orientadas principalmente en beneficio del capital. Los socios tienen el derecho de participación, el derecho de ser informados, el derecho de ser escuchados y el derecho de estar involucrados en la toma de decisiones. Los socios deberían estar asociados de la forma más igualitaria posible, a veces una tarea difícil en las grandes cooperativas o en federacio-nes de cooperativas. De hecho, la preocupación por conseguir y mantener la igualdad es un reto continuo para todas las cooperativas. En última instancia, se trata tanto de una forma de intentar hacer los negocios como de una pura y simple declaración de principios.

Equidad

Se refiere, primero, a cómo se trata a los socios en una cooperativa. Deberían ser tratados equitativamente en cuanto a la forma de recompensar su participación en la cooperativa, normalmente mediante retornos, asignaciones a reservas de capital en su nombre o reduc-ciones en precios. Desde la perspectiva teórica, la equidad es tan importante para la coope-rativas porque es la forma en la que intentan distribuir ganancias o riqueza en base a la con-tribución y no a la especulación.



Solidaridad

Asegura que la acción cooperativa no es simplemente una forma disfrazada de interés per-sonal limitado. Una cooperativa es más que una asociación de socios; es también una colec-tividad. Los socios tiene la responsabilidad de asegurar que todos ellos son tratados de la forma más justa posible; que el interés general siempre se tiene en cuenta; que hay un es-fuerzo constante para tratar a los empleados de forma justa (sean socios o no), así como a los no socios vinculados con la cooperativa.

La solidaridad es la misma causa y consecuencia de la autoayuda y la ayuda mutua, dos de los conceptos fundamentales en el centro de la filosofía cooperativa.



REVISIONES DE LOS PRINCIPIOS Y VALORES COOPERATIVOS

Descargado de la web de la ICA el 28 de octubre de 2004

ICA has undertaken three reviews of the Co-operative Principles: 1937, 1966 and 1995. The-se reviews modernised the idea of Co-operation, maintained its relevance and proivide an up-to-date test of whether an organisation qualified to call itself a co-operative. The defini-tion of a co-operative as established in the 1995 Co-operative Principles has been included in a number of policy documents including the United Nations Guidelines, the International Labour Organisation Recommendation 193 on the Promotion of Co-operatives, the Europe-an Co-operative Statute and a number of national laws.

Rochdale Principles of Co-operation 1937

1. Open Membership

2. Democratic Control (One Man, One Vote)

3. Distribution of the surplus to the members in proportion to their transactions

4. Limited Interest on Capital

5. Political and Religious Neutrality

6. Cash Trading

7. Promotion of Education

Other features of the Rochdale system were also endorsed, but not given the status of Prin-ciples. These included:

8. trading exclusively with members

9. voluntary membership

10. sale at current market price

Disagreement arose, however, on the question of "inalienable assets", because of different practices in different ICA member organisations. Finally it was agreed to recommend that co-operatives should make regular allocations to inalienable reserves and seek legislative provi-sion for indivisible collective assets.

Co-operative Principles 1966

1. Membership of a co-operative society should be voluntary and available without arti-ficial restriction or any social, political or religious discriminations, to all persons who can make use of its services and are willing to accept the responsibilities of member-ship.

2. Co-operative societies are democratic organisations. Their affairs should be adminis-tered by persons elected or appointed in a manner agreed by the members and ac-countable to them. Members of primary societies should enjoy equal rights of voting



(one member, one vote) and participation in decisions affecting their societies. In other than primary societies the administration should be conducted on a democratic basis in a suitable form.

3. Share capital should only receive a strictly limited rate of interest, if any.

4. Surplus or savings, if any, arising out of the operations of a society belong to the members of that society and should be distributed in such manner as would avoid one member gaining at the expense of others.

This may be done by decision of the members as follows:

a) By provision for development of the business of the Co-operative.

b) By provision of common services; or

c) By distribution among the members in proportion to their transactions with the society.

5. All co-operative societies should make provision for the education of their members, officers, and employees and of the general public, in the principles and techniques of Co-operation, both economic and democratic.

6. All co-operative organisations, in order to best serve the interests of their members and their communities should actively co-operate in every practical way with other co-operatives at local, national and international levels.

Statement on the Co-operative Identity 1995

The current Statement on the Co-operative Identity was adopted at the 1995 Congress and General Assembly of the International Co-operative Alliance, held in Manchester to cele-brate the Alliance's Centenary. Recommended to the Congress by the ICA Board, the State-ment was the product of a lengthy process of consultation involving thousands of co-operators around the world. The process was chaired by Ian MacPherson of Canada, who prepared numerous drafts of the Identity Statement and its Background Paper in an effort to understand the state and needs of the co-operative movement at the end of the twentieth century.



EVOLUCIÓN DE LOS PRINCIPIOS COOPERATIVOS. CUADRO RESUMEN

Rochdale, 1844 Paris, 1937 Viena, 19661 Manchester 1995

Libre ingreso y libre retiro

Control democrático

Neutralidad política, racial y

religiosa

Ventas al contado

Devolución de excedentes

Interés limitado sobre el

capital

Educación continua

Adhesión libre

Control democrático (una

persona, un voto)

Distribución a los asociados

del excedente a prorrata de

sus operaciones

Interés limitado sobre el

capital2

Adhesión libre y voluntaria3

Organizaciones democráticas

(una persona, un voto)

Limitación del interés al capi-

tal

Excedentes para desarrollo

de las actividades de la

cooperativa, servicios comu-

nes, distribución entre los

miembros en proporción a

sus operaciones

Promoción de la educación

Asociación voluntaria y abier-

ta

Control democrático por los

asociados

Participación económica de

los asociados

Autonomía e independencia

Educación, capacitación e

información

Cooperación entre coopera-

tivas

Preocupación por la comu-

nidad Neutralidad política y religio-

sa

Venta al contado

Desarrollo de la educación

Intercooperación

1 Prefirió enunciar con mayor amplitud los principios. 2 Hasta aquí los principios considerados “esenciales”. 3 Incluye el principio de neutralidad política y religiosa.



(1937) LA APLICACIÓN ACTUAL DE LOS PRINCIPIOS DE COOPERACIÓN DE ROCHDALE

Fuente 1: The Present Application of the Rochdale Principles, Studies and Reports, ICA, Lon-don, 1964. Descargado de la web de la ICA el 28 de octubre de 2004. Fuente 2: Kaplán de Drimer, Alicia y Drimer, Bernardo. “Las cooperativas: fundamentos-historia-doctrina”. INTERCOOP, Editora Cooperativa, 1975. Descargado de sitiosocial.com el 25.10.2003

Los miembros de la A.C.I. advirtieron que los principios rochdalianos, si bien perduran en sus aspectos esenciales, no constituirán normas absolutamente inmutables; resultaba preciso estudiar hasta qué punto y en que forma la evolución del medio económico-social habla de-terminado adaptaciones en esos principios; en otros casos, era evidente la necesidad de cla-rificar conceptos o reconocer mayor flexibilidad en la aplicación de normas tradicionalmente admitidas, a fin de que se adecuaran a los distintos tipos de cooperativas.

En 1930, el 13° Congreso de la A. C. I., realizado en Viena (Austria), encomendó a su Comité Central el nombreamiento de un Comité Especial “para examinar las condiciones bajo las cuales son aplicados los principios de Rochdale en diversos países y, si fuera necesario, para definirlos”; este Comité Especial fue integrado por los miembros del Ejecutivo de la A. C. I. (presidido entonces por Väinö TANNER y constituido, entre otros por E. POISSON, V. SERWY A. JOHANSSON y E. LUSTIG, con la secretaría general a cargo de H. J. MAY) y, además, por los siguientes miembros especialmente designados: Dr. A. SUTER de Suiza M. RAPACKI de Polo-nia, Dr. G. NILADENAU de Rumania, Profesor P. SALCIUS de Lituania, J. VENTOSA ROIG de España, Dr. J. P. WARBASSE de EE.UU. y E. de BALOGH de Hungría. El informe de ese Comité consideró en un comienzo sólo la encuesta realizada entre las cooperativas primarias de consumo y fue tratado por el 14° Congreso de la A. C. I. , reunido en Londres en 1934; el in-forme final, que tuvo en cuenta la extensión de la encuesta a otros tipos de cooperativas, se trató en el 15° Congreso de la A. C. I. Realizado en París en 1937.

Introduction

At the London Congress of the ICA in 1934, the Special Committee appointed to enquire into the Present Application of the Rochdale Principles presented their Report on the first part of their task, that is to say, on the enquiry into the historical facts and their present application by Retail Distributive Societies (Consumers' societies). It had been agreed in the early days of the enquiry that this investigation was fundamental, and by reason of the greater extension of consumers' co-operation within the International Co-operative Alliance in comparison with the other forms - viz., Co-operative Wholesale Societies; Workers' Productive Societies; Agricultural Productive Societies; Credit Societies; and Co-operative Banks - constituted at least half of the task of the Special Committee.



Certain of the proposals of the Special Committee having been received with opposition on the part of some of the delegates, the congress eventually decided to adjourn their decision upon the recommendations until the work of the Special Committee had been completed. For this purpose, the Report was remitted to the Special Committee, who took up the en-quiry again and, as a preliminary step, decided the issue of separate Questionnaires to each of the five remaining groups above mentioned. The original Questionnaire being adapted to each group ensured that the main lines of the enquiry were identical in all the types. It must be admitted at the outset that the responses to our enquiries have been disappointingly few, and in many instances too vague to provide the basis of sure conclusions. They have, however, been sufficient to show that considerable variations exist in respect of the practice in different countries, but not sufficient in many to constitute serious abrogations of Co-operative Principles.

The method of the Committee's enquiry and the results obtained from the original Ques-tionnaire addressed to Consumers' societies were set out in the Report to the London Con-gress, and are available both in the Agenda and Report of the Congress proceedings. Similar details concerning the other groups have been submitted to the Special Committee in sever-al reports. It does not, therefore, appear necessary that they should be reproduced here.

We, therefore, propose to submit the results of the combined enquiries under three aspects:

1. The Principles of Co-operation as practiced by the Rochdale Pioneers;

2. Their Present Application; and

3. Conclusions and Recommendations

1. The Principles of Co-operation as practiced by the Rochdale Pio-neers

The Rochdale Society of Equitable Pioneers was registered under the Friendly Societies' Acts of 1829 and 1834, the basis of which was the provision of Mutual Benefits. The creation of Friendly Societies, their organization and control, was provided for in a whole series of legis-lative enactments adopted between 1790 end the present time. The Societies were formed to provide the members with financial aid or `Benefits,' in a word - insurance against sick-ness, old age, infirmity, and death. The Act of 1834 contained the provision that Societies might be formed for the foregoing purpose `or for any other purpose which is not illegal.' The Rochdale Pioneers with native shrewdness and intelligence, sharpened by their conflicts with the regime under which they lived and suffered and by their studies of economic and social solutions, found legal authority and protection for their society in these Acts. The evo-lution of the co-operative legislation which followed fully justified their confidence and acu-men. The Act of 1846 contained a new and enlarged statement of the purposes for which a Society might be formed, including `the frugal investment of the savings of the members for better enabling them to purchase food, firing, clothes or other necessaries....with or without the assistance of charitable donations.' This latter phrase rather suggest that the legislature had not, up to that point, realized even the elementary possibilities of Co-operative Societies as trading concerns.



By 1852, some glimmering of potentialities of Co-operative Societies, or at least the direction of their evolution, had seized the minds of legislators, and the Industrial and Provident Soci-eties' Act of 1852 was introduced and passed into law. This was the first Act of Parliament which specially provided for the formation of Co-operative Societies, taking them henceforth out of the sphere of Friendly Society legislation, or at least giving them separate legislative authority.

Meanwhile, the twenty-eight Weavers had established their Store in Toad Lane, and com-menced their heroic attempt to stem the tide of competition and exploitation that threat-ened to overwhelm them, by the simple process of uniting in the common purpose of effi-ciently doing for themselves, upon a basis of mutuality and self-help, what had hitherto been inefficiently done for them at a cost which impoverished their families but provided wealth for the individual captains of industry and trade.

It will be observed, however, that at the time the Pioneers opened their store in 1844, and, indeed, until 1852, there was no possibility of their Society being registered as a Co- opera-tive Society, as its legal existence was only assured under the authority of a law that provid-ed for mutual benefits. This fact doubtless accounts for the name given to their Society, the reason for which has been the subject of much conjecture on the part of the curious and of students. There is another point in this connection worth noting, especially by those who seek in the `Laws and Objects of the Rochdale Society of Equitable Pioneers' a completed constitution and the expression of the entire philosophy of co-operation. Only eight years after their start was the legislation adopted which gave Co-operation, as an economic sys-tem, legal recognition. The idea of `associated effort' on the part of the working population, whose first co-operative manifestation appeared in Great Britain, as early as the third quar-ter of the Eighteenth Century, was slowly crystallizing, not only in the minds of the workers themselves, but also in those of the politicians, statesmen, and publicists, who were led in this direction by a choice band of enthusiasts who have always been recognized as the liter-ary exponents and animators of the earlier efforts in Co-operation.

It is, therefore, not to be expected that the Weavers of Rochdale should produce their whole policy in a night, or even in a single document. The `Laws and Objects' of the Pioneers con-tained the main part of their plan, but it is necessary to study at least the first ten years of their development to obtain a comprehensive notion of the system which they founded. During that period, modifications and definitions of their plan emerged form their minutes of proceedings; their practice; and the decisions of their general meetings.

In this enquiry, the Committee have taken into account only those things which appeared to them essential and of permanent value. They have disregarded a number of other elements in the early History of the Rochdale Pioneers which seemed to have only a transitory im-portance.

After careful study of the available facts the Special Committee have come to the conclusion that the following seven points may be considered from the historical point of view as the essential Principles of Rochdale and the characteristics of the autonomous system founded by the Pioneers, for each of which justification can be found in the constitution, rules, and practice of the original society, founded at Rochdale in 1844:



i. Open Membership

ii. Democratic Control

iii. Dividend on Purchase

iv. Limited interest on Capital

v. Political and Religious Neutrality

vi. Cash Trading

vii. Promotion of Education.

El 15° Congreso de la Alianza Cooperativa Internacional, reunido en París en 1937, aprobó la siguiente formulación de los principios cooperativos:

i. Adhesión libre.

ii. Control democrático (Una persona, un voto).

iii. Distribución a los asociados del excedente a prorrata de sus operaciones.

iv. Interés limitado sobre el capital.

v. Neutralidad política y religiosa.

vi. Venta al contado.

vii. Desarrollo de la educación.

Conforme a la recomendación del Comité Especial que informó acerca de la aplicación de los principios de Rochdale, la A.C.I. admitió una diferenciación entre estos siete principios; y señaló que la adopción y práctica de los cuatro primeros principios indicados (principios i, ii, iii y iv) deciden el carácter esencialmente cooperativo de una entidad, mientras que los últi-mos tres principios enunciados (principios v, vi y vii) “aun cuando forman parte, sin la menor duda, del sistema rochdaliano y han sido aplicados exitosamente por los movimientos cooperativos de diversos países, no constituyen sin embargo una condición de adhesión a la A.C.I.“.

2. Their Present Application In order to obtain a clear idea of the situation revealed by the enquiry, it would seem desira-ble to present a brief resume on each of the 'Principles'

i. Open membership Consumers' of Retail Distributive Societies - The whole spirit and intention of the legislation to which we have already referred is that the membership rolls of the Societies should be wide open to admit all people of good character into their ranks and to the enjoyment of the benefits of Co-operation. Where, in later years, certain laws give liberty to a Society to limit



the number of its members, it is clearly shown to be an exceptional feature, in some cases involving penalties. The Rochdale Pioneers framed their rules to secure an open door to the admission of every fit and proper person who applied and, according to their standard, a Consumers' or Retail Distributive Society which refused membership to any proper applicant would be an anoma-ly. The attention of the Committee was drawn to instances in which societies, by their rules or periodical resolutions of the members, limit the number of the members of the society. There are also those which fix a high entrance fee or a preliminary period of membership, any of which conditions detracts from the Principle of Òpen Membership.' In the case of Wholesale Societies of Consumers, which is a simple continuation or sequence to the activities of the primary societies, the membership is limited to societies of the same character and constitution, and the Principle of Òpen Membership' is observed in the ad-mission of all Societies that conform to the constitution laid down in the Rules of the Federa-tion. The enquiry shows that this Principle is generally observed by the twenty-three whole-sale societies which have replied to our enquiry. Federations of Producers, only four of which out of sixteen have replied, show no essential deviation from this Principle. The case is different, however, with the primary societies of producers which constitute the Federations. In these, the membership is necessarily re-stricted by the extent of the market the society can command for its production and also by the special training and skill required for the technical efficiency of the society's operations. Agricultural Producers' Societies, reply in the affirmative as to the observance of the Princi-ple, and have no restrictions upon the admission of members, either by law or in their stat-utes. Of the twenty-four Credit Societies addressed, only eight have replied, four of them with a clear affirmative, while the remainder reveal slight modifications. One is a state institution and membership is limited to regional credit societies. The remaining three exclude foreign-ers and/or limit the membership to a given area. This latter condition is imposed by the character of the operations, and is not a derogation of the Principle of Òpen Membership,' which is safeguarded by the freedom to establish other societies in adjoining areas. The Co-operative Banks reply that the membership consists of individuals and corporate bodies, but the Czech and Hungarian Banks state that they are also Joint Stock Companies. The Joint Stock Principle and Voluntary Co-operation are not necessarily irreconcilable, but the fact that shares of Joint Stock Companies may be transferred or sold on the open market involves the risk of changing the co-operative character of the institution. In fact, however, 92 per cent of the shares in the Czech Bank and the majority in Hungarian Bank are in the hands of co-operative societies.



In the aggregate and in relation to the Movement as a whole, the cases in which the Princi-ple and practice of Òpen Membership' are not fully applied may be regarded as exceptional. It is, nevertheless, necessary that they should be noticed here and an endeavour made to secure their conformity with the Rochdale basis.

ii. Democratic Control It is clear from the replies received that, so far as Primary Societies of Consumers or Retail Distributive Societies are concerned, there is little appreciable deviation in practice from the Principle of "One Man, One Vote", without any respect to the amount of shares or other capital interest that any respect to the amount of shares or other capital interest that he may have in the society, and that is the essence of the democratic basis of the movement. The Wholesale Societies of Consumers present a considerable variety of practice. So long as the variation is in relation to the number of members and consists in the delegation of au-thority to vote to selected representative, in their turn freely elected, the democratic princi-ple is maintained. Of the wholesale societies supplying data no fewer than thirteen have modified the voting qualification of the membership, either in relation to share capital or purchases, while only five relate the voting power solely to membership. All the wholesale societies provide opportunities to their membership to exercise their pow-er of voting by the holding of General Meetings of the members, though in the great majori-ty of countries general meetings of the members of the C.W.S. are only held annually; in Norway, biennially, in Great Britain, quarterly. The election of Committees of Management and other administrative officers is secured generally by the members' meetings, either directly or through the Supervisory Councils. The Federations of Workers' Productive Societies follow the practice generally of Òne Man, One Vote'. The information given is very meagre. Agricultural Societies-The replies on this question show that the Principle of `Democratic Control's is carried out in all respects. Credit Societies - Four out of eight state that the basis of their voting is democratic - one on shares, and three on a mixed basis; the general meetings of the members follow the practice of Annual meetings. Co-operative Banks - With the exception of Romania, where the State always holds a num-ber equal to half the vote present at the general meetings, the distribution of the voting tends to limit the concentration of power in the hands of individual shareholders. It is not possible, however, to find the orthodox application of the Principle, Òne Man, One Vote' in any of the banks, though in practically all instances an attempt is made either to limit the number of shares held by any shareholder or to limit the voting power (Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Hungary).



iii. Dividend on Purchase Consumers' or Retail Distributive Societies- Forty organisations reply that the net surpluses of their societies are distributed in cash according to purchases of their members; two say that their distribution is made partly in goods; `Centrosoyus,' that dividend has been abol-ished on the demand of the members. In Yugoslavia, the movement is in the position of be-ing exempt from taxation only if the annual surplus is not distributed. The amount or rate of the dividend appears generally to be governed by local practice and not to conform to any fixed standard. In certain cases, restrictions are imposed by the law, usually with reference to exemption from taxation. The highest rate quoted is 15 per cent, but 3 per cent is nearer the average. Dividend to members only is the practice in the large majority of cases, twenty-eight organi-sations replying in that sense; six others declare that non-members' purchases are recog-nised and half-dividend is paid to them.4 Co-operative Wholesale Societies - Eighteen national wholesales declare their adherence to `Dividend on Purchase,' but one of them, Yugoslavia, only on its own productions. Four soci-eties carry their surpluses to Reserve Funds, Special Depreciations, and/or Social Welfare purposes. The rates of dividend on purchase paid by these societies vary from half percent to 7 percent, which are usually fixed by the general meetings after consideration of the re-sults. Workers' Productive Societies in France are the only societies which apply this principle sole-ly to the workers, and thus in accord with the declared objects of these societies. In Great Britain, the net surplus available for this purpose is usually divided between the workers, the purchasers, and the shareholders, who may or may not be workers in the society. From the reply given by the Chamber Consultative, Paris, it appears that 25 per cent to 30 per cent of the net surplus is allocated to the workers. In Austria and Czechoslovakia, the surplus is usu-ally placed to reserves. Agricultural Societies - The replies are in the affirmative. The Swiss Union, V.O.L.G., states that the dividend in almost all the agricultural societies of Switzerland is stabilised. This has been forced upon them by the Rebate Association of the Private Traders. V.O.L.G. adds that, in this way, the dividend has, to a large extent, lost its true character and the practice no longer agrees with the theory.

4 In the Questionnaires on the following five types of Societies, the question relating to `Dividend on Purchase' was stated in a more gen-

eral form as corresponding more accurately to their constitution and operations. The actual text was : "Does your organisation adhere to the practice of distributing the net surplus of its trading operations to the members as a cash dividend in proportion to their transactions with the organisation?"



Credit Societies - Six credit societies reply that they do not practise `Dividend on Purchase,' and one society uses the surplus to reduce the rate of interest to borrowers and to increase the rate to depositors. Co-operative Banks - The dividends of co-operative banks generally correspond to those of private capitalist enterprise, that is to say, they are distributed in the form of interest on shares. The Rochdale system does not appear to be applicable. There appears to be no serious difference of opinion as to this practice and the necessity of maintaining `dividend on Purchase' as the basic Principle of our Co-operative Economic Sys-tem, and the pivot on which the non-profit making organisation of commerce and industry revolves. The committee, however, desire to draw attention to the widely varying rates of Dividend on Purchase, which obtain in different countries and often between different socie-ties of one country, and also to the fact that in certain societies, both wholesale and retail, no dividend is paid, the whole of the surplus being carried to Reserve Funds. It is suggested that the practice of paying too high a dividend should be avoided. One of the principal aims of co- operative trading is to increase the value of real wages by supplying the wage earner with the necessaries of life at the cheapest possible rates consistent with the maintenance of the business on a sound financial basis and compliance with the general Principles of the Movement. In the practical pursuit of these aims, the making of some sur-plus is inevitable, and it is only such surplus that should be available for Dividend on Pur-chases. One of the greatest services which Co-operation can render to the community is that of a price fixing standard for the production and distribution of commodities. That valuable purpose is modified to the point of non-existence in the degree in which the practice of high dividends is adopted - rather than conformity to prices based upon a reasonable margin above the cost price for expenses, and taking into account the necessities of competition. In this respect, there is a great advantage in uniform methods, at least in each country. It does, however, seem necessary in view of the varied development of co-operative enter-prise at the present time, no less than with regard to the actual membership of the ICA, that a more general interpretation of this Principle should be stated in this report and inserted in the rules of the Alliance. The necessary generalisation of the Principle would seem to be con-tained in a statement that: "The Principle of the distribution of the surplus amongst the members in proportion to their contribution to the operations of the society - whether by purchases, deliveries of produce, or labour."

iv. Limited Interest on Capital Consumers's or Retail Distributive Societies - All organisations that pay interest on shares - of which the returns show thirty -adhere to the practice of paying interest only at a limited rate. Six organisations state that they pay no interest on shares. The rate most generally



adopted is 5 per cent, but a few societies go to 7 or 8 per cent. In recent years, a number of large societies have reduced their interest on shares from 5 to 4 1/2 per cent. Co-operative Wholesale Societies - All organisations, in so far as a share capital exists upon which an interest is paid, adhere to the practice of strictly limiting the rate paid. That rate is usually in the neighbourhood of 5 per cent. Austria is a notable exception in the payment of 10 per cent. In a number of cases, notably in Great Britain, the rate has been lowered during the post-war period and is now about 4 per cent, though the rules of the Scottish C.W.S. provide for a maximum of 6 per cent. Several national wholesales state that they are guided by the current bank rate. Workers' Productive Societies - All the replies received declare adherence to the Principle of `Limited Interest on Capital,' and that they follow the practice of the Co- operative Move-ment of their respective countries. Agricultural Societies - The payment of a Limited Interest on Capital is practised by the Czech Societies: the Swiss Societies have no capital. The information furnished is too meagre to make it possible for form any clear conclusion. Co-operative Banks - In so far as a share capital exists in the co-operative banks, they adhere to the practice of paying only a limited rate of interest. The limits are usually laid down in the rules, but the actual rate is decided by the general meetings. Taking a broad view of the field of operations of our Movement, it must be admitted that the practice of the Pioneers in this respect is being followed with fidelity to the Principle that capital should only receive a strictly limited rate of interest.

v. Political and Religious Neutrality Consumers' or Retail Distributive Societies - The strict observance of this Principle is claimed by forty-one organisations, `Centroyus,' Moscow and one of the Unions of Denmark, Det Kooperative Fallesforbund, state that they are not neutral in policies; and `Konkordia,' Swit-zerland, indicates that it is not neutral in religion. Thirty-nine organisations declare that they have no organic relation with any political party. Of the remaining five, Belgium, Det Kooper-ative, Denmark, acknowledge close relations with the Socialist or Labour parties, while the British Union has organised a political party of its own. `Centrosoyus' answers the question in the negative and explains that the Communist Party only accepts individuals. Co-operative Wholesale Societies - Twenty-one out of the twenty-four societies state that they are neutral in politics and religion; one society is neutral in politics but not in religion; three are neutral in religion but not in politics. These latter act in collaboration with political parties in their respective countries. The Workers' Productive Societies, Agricultural Productive Societies, Credit Societies and Co-operative Banks all declare the observance of the Principle of Neutrality in Politics.



It is worthy of note that none of the subjects included in our Questionnaires has received greater attention than this Principle of Neutrality in Politics and Religion. Few, if any, have been replied to with such definiteness and precision. With the extension of the enquiry to other types than Consumers Retail Societies, the number of national organisations replying has increased from forty-five to ninety. Of this total, no less than eighty-four have declared their adherence in principle and in practice to Neutrality in Politics. In view of the recent developments in the forms of National Government and the interpreta-tion which in some countries is given to the status of nationality, it seems to the Committee that it is necessary to give a wider interpretation to the Principle of Neutrality as applied to the Co-operative Movement, National and International. They, therefore, suggest that in rules and documents setting forth this Principle, it should be clearly stated that Neutrality applies equally to Politics, Religion, Race and Nationality. The Committee desire to emphasize the fact that the Political Neutrality of Co-operation is not a renunciation of the responsibility of Co-operators to defend the legitimate interests of their economic system before the legislature, but rather a strengthening of their defence by reason of its freedom from identification with any particular political group or party, thus enabling the Movement to give the most catholic and representative character to its claims, whether for equitable and just treatment under the law; the reform of the law; or even new legislation. Neutrality further implies the full recognition of the universal appeal of Co-operation to the community on the grounds of economic and social betterment, free from any implication of a political label attaching to the membership of a Co-operative Society.

vi. Cash Trading Consumers' or Retail Distributive Societies - The replies given by forty-five organisations to the questions posed under the heading of `Cash Trading' are far from satisfactory and, in many instances, are vague and even irrelevant. In some cases, the organisations do not ap-pear to have clearly seized the import of the supplementary questions. We, therefore, only give the replies to three out of eight sub-headings of the Questionnaire on this subject, viz: Sales to Members - Twenty-one organisations declare that the Principle of `Cash Trading' is laid down in their rules, while an equal number state that their rules impose no obligation in this matter. Societies' Purchases: Nine organisations say that the purchases of their societies are made for cash. Proportion of Credit Trade: A return of the proportion of the credit trade of these organisa-tions seems very difficult to obtain. About twenty of them give figures or estimates of the position which it is difficult to summarise. They show variations between 5 and 90 per cent



of credit trading. Of the twenty organisations replying to the question as to the amount or percentage of credit trading in their present operations, eleven admit more than 10 per cent. Co-operative Wholesale Societies - The purchases and sales of the Wholesale societies are effected mainly on the basis of 30 days' credit. Only in exceptional cases is the interval of payment extended to 90 days from the delivery of the goods, and then usually in the case of textiles. As a rule, the time allowed to member societies to make payments follows the gen-eral practice of the wholesale trade. Financial credits to members by wholesale societies, as for instance the English C.W.S. Bank, or through the affiliated banks like that of the V.S.K., Switzerland, are secured by mortgages, bills of exchange, or other securities, and in such cases the wholesale societies act as bankers - not as suppliers of goods. Provision of short and long-term credit is, however, an exception and not the rule. Workers' Productive Societies - One organisation replies that it practices Cash Trading and gives the period of delay between purchase and payment as 30 days. The others give the same method of payment, but describe the transaction as credit trading. Agricultural Productive and Supply Societies: - It appears that both the Czech and Swiss Agri-cultural Producers' Societies apply the Principle of `Cash trading' so far as it is possible. As the income of the farmer does not consist of regular monthly and weekly wages, but de-pends upon the disposal of the harvest, the societies are compelled to supply him with artifi-cial fertilisers, feeding stuff, seeds and other agricultural implements on a relatively long-term credit basis, from six to nine months. Credit Societies and Co-operative Banks - The principle of Cash Trading is scarcely applicable to these societies, and the form of the Questionnaire was varied in this respect to comply more nearly with their operations. The following notes summarise the replies to our enquiry on The Scope and Methods of Financial Operations. Credit Societies - The scope and method of financial operations reveal that the credit socie-ties are engaged in a large variety of financial transactions. The Austrian societies grant fi-nancial accommodation in the form of personal credits secured either by wages or by mort-gages. The Czechoslovakian societies grant all forms of credits, including bills, endorsed by two persons. The Korean, Latvian, Palestinian, American and Yugoslavian societies are en-gaged in financing producers, farmers, artisans and grant personal credits. Only the French and Hungarian societies limit their activities to farmers and artisans. The securities offered include practically all financial instruments, including bills of exchange, overdrafts, financial bills. The rates charged vary considerably, being determined to a large extent by the financial conditions prevailing in the respective countries, and, since the data supplied comes mainly from countries with relatively high costs of capital, it is no wonder that rates are rarely be-low 5 1/2 to 6 percent, in some countries rising to 8 1/2 to 9 per cent. It is worth noting that the rates charged to clients are in practically all instances or by government authorities. Only in Yugoslavia and to a certain extent in Latvia are the rates of interest fixed by the board or



supervisory council. This undoubtedly shows that the membership has a considerable influ-ence upon the financial policy of the societies. Co-operative Banks - In the case of the co-operative banks, the analysis of the Rochdale Prin-ciples is closely connected with the enquiry into the Scope and Methods of their financial operations and the structure of their liabilities and assets. The Czechoslovakian bank has a relatively large percentage of its capital invested in financing private persons and private firms, Kc.25 million, in comparison with a total of Kc.144.4 mil-lion. The English C.W.S. Bank has 2.2 million Pound Sterling of credit granted to private per-sons of a total of 86 million pounds, but this figure does not include the investments in Gov-ernment Funds and other gilt-edged securities which indirectly constitute the financing of private business. The Swiss Bank shows that mortgages to private persons and private firms amount to Fr.,18.8 million out of a total of Fr.46.3 million, while the Hungarian Bank shows advances to non-members of Pengo 4.5 million, out of a total of Pengo 8.6 million. It is obvi-ous that the percentage of capital invested in financing private enterprise largely determines the co-operative character of the financial institution. Not less important is the composition of the liabilities. Of the total liabilities of the Czecho-slovakian Bank, amounting to Kc.162.9 million, the deposits of private persons and private firms amount to Kc.44.3 million, or about 27 per cent of the total. In Great Britain, the de-posits of the C.W.S. Bank are composed, as to 70 per cent of the total of investments of Co-operative organisations and individual co- operators, but the amount shown for `other de-positors'- probably consisting of private persons and firms, though there may be also munic-ipalities and public bodies amongst them - amounts to 8.1 million pound sterling, which is, however, considerably less than the amount invested by the Bank itself, directly or indirect-ly, in private enterprises and government securities. Other banks do not give the amount of private deposits, but simply give `other depositors,' which is a too general term and not helpful to our enquiry. The Czechoslovakian Bank gives a complete and clear classification of the composition of its liabilities. The information concerning the scope of financial activities and the structure of the assets and liabilities is, however, too meagre to permit any general conclusion. In reviewing the question of Credit Trading in the light of the further enquiries that have been addressed to the other types of co-operative organisations, no less than of the discus-sions which have taken place on the present application of the Principle, the Committee de-sire to make some observations of a more or less general character. They would remark, in the first place, that it does not seem to be either a practical or a reasonable proposition to arbitrarily define Cash Payment as taking the goods with one hand and offering the cash with the other. The Committee are agreed that the system of Cash Payment, uncompromisingly laid down in the First Laws of the Rochdale Pioneers, was applicable to consumers' or retail distributive societies. The Pioneers in framing their constitution were only concerned with consumers'



societies. The various types which have since been developed, having different constitutions and methods of work, call for special consideration of their needs. At the same time, the Committee would emphasize the fact that the consumers' societies remain the most im-portant and numerous organisations of the Movement and, indeed, must ever remain so in an Association which claims to be based upon the consumers' needs, to defend his interests and, in short, to speak for the community. Nevertheless, the Committee agree that it is necessary to examine more closely than has yet been done the needs of all forms of co-operative enterprise in relation to this Principle. In the case of Wholesale Trading, it is revealed in the answers to our enquiries that the co-operative wholesale societies conform to the usage of wholesale trade throughout Europe. In some of the instances the rudiments of knowledge were taught, it was only to the extent that would render the students receptive of the more specialised instruction which the Pio-neers sought to impart. William Robertson makes detailed reference to this phase of their activities in his chapter on the origin of the News Room and library in the Rochdale Congress Handbook. He says: "One of the objects of the founders of the Store had in view when they formed their plans was to raise the people to a higher level by educating them, and the Committee recognised that the library was the first step in that direction." Again: "About the year 1853, it became necessary that the Rules of the Society should be revised in order that they might avail themselves of the privileges of the industrial and Prov-ident Societies' Act which had just been passed. The Committee, feeling that the necessity of appealing to quarterly meetings for the usual sums of money for the maintenance of the library was an objectional feature, determined to make an alteration. They asked that 2 1/2 per cent of the business profits should be devoted to the educational department." In many cases, the finances of educational work are provided out of the general funds as current expenses, and treated very much in the same way, so far as the accounts are con-cerned, as publicity and advertising. This was at first the method of the Rochdale Society, but as we have shown was superseded by the definite allocation of 2 1/2 per cent, included in the Rules. That percentage is still maintained in many societies in Great Britain, though some limit the amount to 1 1/2 or 2 percent. On the other hand, a new practice is growing up amongst the more progressive societies of basing the allocation to education on a rate per member of the society. This plan yields a greater percentage than 2 1/2 per cent. The replies received from other countries show that in fourteen countries the allocations vary from 1 to 5 percent, while twelve national organisations make no allocation. The conclusion of the Committee is that the Promotion of Education on the broad lines of citizenship was an essential Principle of the Rochdale Pioneers, but that as our research into their records, as well as the present practice of societies show, the exact method and per-



centage of allocation of the necessary funds for this purpose might well vary according to circumstances. The Committee are of the opinion that the maintenance of the Principle is essential, and that regular allocations from the `net surplus' of the societies should provide the means of promoting education in those matters which specially interact co-operators as aids to the realisation of their ideals.

Other Basic Principles of Co-operation not expressly included in the Roch-dale Rules Throughout the course of the enquiry, the Committee have been faced with the necessity of limiting the main lines of their Report to those Co-operative Principles expressly set out in the Rules of the Pioneers. Certain other essential conditions of the constitution and practice of Co-operative Societies have inevitably emerged during the discussions, which it is abso-lutely necessary to include in this Report as representing the Co-operative System, some o~ them to no less a degree than the seven Principles already dealt with which are enshrined in the Rules and practice of the Rochdale Society. In this category are the Principles of `Trading Exclusively with members' and `Voluntary Co-operation,' which are dealt with in the following sections.

Trading exclusively with Members (Non-members' Trade) Two questions were included in our Questionnaire with a view to ascertaining in how many countries the practice was prohibited by the rules and excluded, in fact, from their transac-tions; also to what extent it was practised by those Organisations which recognised it. Eight National Organisations in five countries state that their rules and practice provide for the exclusion of non- members' trade, while thirty-five organisations in thirty countries ad-mit the practice to an extent which varies from 0.2 per cent to 83.7 per cent of the annual business of the societies. It was argued before the Committee that trade with non-members constituted no hindrance to the application of Co-operative Principles if the profits on non-members' trade were allo-cated by the rules either to the inalienable reserves of the Society - even in the case of liqui-dation - or to disinterested enterprises, and that in some countries it was practised as a means of propaganda with a view to hastening the recruiting of new members. The Committee are of opinion that the Principle of dealing exclusively with members cannot depend upon the constitution of the Rochdale Pioneers' Society but is inherent in the co- operative idea. The essence of our system is that it should not make profit, and its greatest contribution to economic life is that it furnishes a new basis of commerce and industry-therefore of society-in which the profit making motive is eliminated. That result can only be realised completely when the trade of the society is exclusively with its own members.



The question that immediately presents itself in the presence of the widespread practice of trading with the public is - How far is it possible to admit the practice and maintain the genu-ine co-operative character of the enterprise? The Committee think an arbitrary interpreta-tion of the Co- operative Principle of trading exclusively with members cannot be sustained, and that the amount of transactions of a society or movement with other than members in the ordinary transactions of primary societies of consumers should be reduced as far as pos-sible. It is suggested that if `Open Membership' and the simple facilities for entrance adopt-ed by the Pioneers were universally adopted, there would be little ground or cause for trade with non-members, have to meet casual and accidental demands. There is also a further type of trading which has been mentioned in the debates, and that is tendering for and fulfilling contracts of the Municipality and the State. The Committee have no hesitation in accepting the contention that in all public contracts for the service of the community, the co-operative movement should take its part and demonstrate the superiori-ty of the co-operative economy. Co-operative Wholesale societies in their operation of production present a less simplified problem. The necessity with every productive enterprise of disposing of its by- products, which may be either altogether unsuitable for, or in excess of, the needs of the co-operative community in whose service the production is carried on, is of very long standing and has passed into the category of things accepted. The sale of the by-products of an industry in the only markets which are open to them, whether co-operative or not, is a necessity of most forms of production. When it comes, however, to the disposal of the basic products of the enterprise, the question needs more careful consideration and even definition. Several forms of this development have been considered by the Committee. Another fact that should be faced in this connection is that non-members' trade is closely connected with the principle of the 'elimination of profit.' In so far as these types of devel-opment succeed, they must detract from the claim that co- operative enterprise eliminates profit. It is doubtful, however, whether co-operation has ever eliminated profit but only the profit-making motive. Still further, it is clear from the replies to our Questionnaire that in certain countries where the national organisations quite freely put their productions in the open market, they also accept the position that they should be taxed in exactly the same manner as private traders.

Voluntary Co-operation The idea of obligatory membership of a Co-operative Society never entered into the concep-tion of the Rochdale Pioneers, neither in planning their society nor in its subsequent devel-opment. The lot of the Weavers was a hard one, and the conditions of their employment, when work was to be had, severe. They suffered from low wages, bad housing conditions, adulteration of food and the system for `truck' which were the evil emanations of the capi-talistic economic system. Politically, however, they enjoyed a free citizenship a little in ad-vance of any other country. They were free as air to risk their savings in an Utopian enter-



prise and to carry with them all their comrades and compatriots. The `voluntary' basis of their society was, therefore, a 'sine qua non'. Any other idea was to them unthinkable. The voluntary participation of individuals in associated effort in any country can only be re-stricted by the State itself, and not by any provision which it is in the power of the Associa-tion to make for itself, and it is, in fact, only in countries where limitations and restrictions are imposed by the State that the `voluntary' character of co-operation or co-operative membership is destroyed. There are also certain instances in which societies are organised to serve the needs of sec-tions of servants or employees of the State. Membership on the part of those eligible is ob-ligatory, and the general public is excluded. The Committee feel, therefore, that they have only to stress the need for the complete recognition of this Principles as fundamental to the Co-operative System. Two other subjects that have been mentioned, neither of which can be said to be essential to any definition of the Rochdale System, are 'Sale at Current or Market Prices' and 'The Dis-posal of Collective Assets,' which are dealt with in brief memoranda.

Sale at Current or Market Price This question impinges closely upon the Principle of `dividend on Purchase,' inasmuch as it affects the genuineness of the surplus and the usefulness of the institution as a price fixing medium. Perhaps, however, its effect upon the purchasing power of the consumer is the aspect which appeals most strongly to the section of the membership which disposes of the least financial resources. Research amongst the achieves of Rochdale for guidance upon this undoubted practice of the Pioneers does not yield much result. It appears evident, however, from contemporary history that the first motive which influenced the Rochdale Co- operators was the all-round convenience of adopting current prices for their business. It has been stated by more than one continental interpreter of the Rochdale System that the practice of the co-operative movement, first adopted by the Rochdale society, of selling goods to their members at the prices current in the market or the sphere of their societies' operations, was a Fundamental Principle of Rochdale, and they have even given it pride of place in their list. We cannot find any justification for this view. It was nothing more than a means for meeting the immediate necessities of their business, a temporary expedient which possessed nothing of that `eternal principle of life' which characterises the true fun-damentals of the Rochdale System. Sale at current prices provided a margin over the cost of the commodity which would cover the cost of management, depreciation, interest on capi-tal, etc., without involving loss to the society as the trading unit. Any downward trend of prices which left out of account these elementary responsibilities of trading would not only



be contrary to co- operative principles but inimical to the financial soundness of the organi-sation. It also blunted the edge of the sharp opposition of private traders which the new system of co-operation provoked, but inasmuch as one of the main purposes of the `Store' was to cheapen the cost of living, selling at market price was a double measure of protection to the growing association, to be abandoned for more drastic but equitable price cutting when the society should reach that stage of stable and efficient organisation which would enable it to give to its members the immediate benefit of their association. There is no reason to think that the Rochdale Pioneers attached any greater importance to this practice than is indicated above. Neither is there any ground for thinking that they re-garded the market price as other than an upward limit, if not an absolute maximum. The practice which obtains in many societies today of charging high prices to produce high divi-dends on the pretext of thrift is opposed.to the spirit of the Pioneers, and is inimical to the interest of the community in general be•ause in results in a general increase in prices in-stead of acting, as co-operative trading should do, as a salutary check upon the exploitation of the consumer. It is interesting to note that where co-operative production is highly developed and distribu-tion efficiently organised, the `current price' of certain commodities tends more and more to be decided by the policy of the co-operative society, and to compel the private trader to conform to its standards. In the view of the Committee, this is the proper function of Co-operation and, taken in con-junction with what has been said elsewhere in this Report concerning the usefulness of co- operative trading as a price fixing standard, they urge that the Movement in every country should direct its administration to achieve control of the markets.

The Disposal of Collective Assets The question of the proper method of the disposal of the Collective Assets of a Co-operative Society was raised at the beginning of the enquiry and, by common consent, a question was added to the original Questionnaire with a view to ascertaining the practice of the Move-ment in each country. The replies received showed that in a considerable number of coun-tries the Principle of the Indivisibility of Reserve Funds and Collective Assets was observed and, in several of them, had the force of law. In others, the provision was contained in the model rules of the National Organisation, or in those of the Societies. In other countries, notably in Great Brita•n, the fund which remains over on the liquidation of a society, after all its obligations have been met, is regarded as the property of the share-holding members of the society at the time of the liquidation, or dissolution, and is divided amongst them in proportion to their shares. The view is held by some members of the com-mittee that this latter course is contrary to the Principles of Co-operation, which provide that the surplus resulting from the operations of the members with the society shall be divided in



proportion to those operations. They content that shares in a co-operative society have no claim upon any part of those surpluses beyond the limited amount of interest that may be accorded by the rules. The Reserves for the Society are accumulated from various sources, and only in part from the operations of the members. On the other hand, that portion of the Collective assets which is derived directly from genuine co-operative activities results largely from the operations of the past members of the society on which the members remaining at the time of the liquidation have no legitimate claim. In modification of that view, it is urged by others that the need for such a provision either in our statement of Principles, or the rules or practice of the societies, is unnecessary in those countries where, as in great Britain, Co- operative Societies are established without definite term to their existence, and, in fact, only liquidate or dissolve by reason of their inability to meet their obligations to their creditors when it is clear no collective assets remain for dis-posal. The supporters of the Principle of Indivisible Reserves urge that the practice of most coun-tries, supported as it is by the law of some, should be regarded as the correct co-operative practice and be recommended for adoption by all. That practic} and law provide that the collective assets of a society, after the settlement of all its just debts, shall be passed over to some other co-operative organisation, such as the National Co- operative Union, to be used for purposes of financing new co- operative enterprises; assisting societies in difficulties; or to works of social welfare, education or public utility. This recommendation is, therefore, submitted by the Special Committee in the hope that it will receive full and favourable con-sideration.

3. Conclusions and Recommendations In concluding their Report the Special Committee desire to express their conviction that The Enquiry into the Present Application of the Principles of Rochdale Co-operation, decided upon by the Congress of Vienna, has confirmed - what the superficial evidence of general observation and knowledge gained from reports and publications of National Movements has always manifested - that the Consumers' Co-operative Movement of the world is gener-ally, but insufficiently and incompletely, based upon the Principles laid down by the Weavers of Rochdale in the statesman-like constitution and subsequent practice of the Rochdale So-ciety of Equitable Pioneers in 1844. It was inevitable that within the spheres of forty national movements, each interpreting standard doctrines according to their mental or racial habi-tudes, and influenced, to however small an extent, by the legislative and commercial cus-toms of their respective countries, there should develop some variations in the application of even such universally applicable Principles as those of Rochdale. Taking a broad view of the whole field of Co-operation as revealed in the replies to the Questionnaires, and with the reserve that in a few instances and in some countries rather acute divergences have been revealed, the Committee feel that there is good ground for satisfaction that the character of mutuality and solidarity of our peculiar economic system has been so fully maintained. It would appear that these Principles contain the essential principle of life which is the highest test of their genuineness. Today the basis of Rochdale exhibits the essential elements of a



new economic system capable of replacing, and we believe destined to replace, the evils of the competitive capitalistic system in civilised society. We have endeavoured to exclude matters that appeared to us extraneous to the subject matter of the enquiry, with the result that the Report deals only with the questions of first importance to co-operation. We have endeavoured to place the ideal basis of society out-lines in the `Law First' of the Rochdale Rules, and also its historic framework, in correct per-spective as secondary to the main Principles, without which the true co-operative basis can-not be assured. The Committee, having now had the fuller opportunity of examining the additional evidence provided by the Wholesale Societies of Consumers, Workers' Productive Societies, Agricul-tural Co-operative Societies, Credit Societies and Co- operative Banks, desire to express their conviction that the seven Principles as set out at the beginning of this Report still represent the essential basis of the Rochdale System, and that nothing in the modern developments of industry and commerce, or changes in economic method, has diminished their integrity. In the course of the survey of these Principles, the Committee have indicated their view as to the necessity of a less rigid interpretation of certain Principles in those types of organisations which, in their constitution and operations, while genuinely co-operative, necessarily differ from the simple form of consumers' societies for whose conduct the Rochdale system was established. They are further of opinion that it is necessary to express the Principle of `Dividend on Pur-chase' in a generalised form more in consonance with the variety of activities to which it is sought to apply it. They, therefore, submit the following as calculated to meet the needs of the case. The Committee are of opinion that there should be some discrimination in the importance to be attached to these seven points in deciding the essential co-operative character of any Society or organisation. They suggest that the observance of co-operative principles depends on the adoption and practice of the first four of the seven Principles,

1. Open Membership, 2. Democratic Control (One Man, One Vote) 3. Distribution of the surplus to the members in proportion to their transactions 4. Limited Interest on Capital.

In the opinion of the Committee, the remaining three Principles,

5. Political and Religious Neutrality 6. Cash Trading 7. Promotion of Education



while undoubtedly part of the Rochdale System, and successfully operated by the Co-operative Movement in the different countries, are, however, not a condition for member-ship of the I.C.A.



(1966) INFORME DE LA COMISIÓN DE LA ICA SOBRE LOS PRINCIPIOS COOPERATIVOS

Fuente 1: Report of ICA Commission on Co-operative Principles in the Report of the 23rd ICA Congress at Vienna, 5-8 September 1966. Descargado de la web de la ICA el 28 de octubre de 2004. Fuente 2: Kaplán de Drimer, Alicia y Drimer, Bernardo. “Las cooperativas: fundamentos-historia-doctrina”. INTERCOOP, Editora Cooperativa, 1975. Descargado de sitiosocial.com el 25.10.2003 En 1963, o sea un cuarto de siglo más tarde, el Congreso de la A. C. I., realizado en Botirne-mouth (Gran Bretaña), encomendó a su Comité Central la designación de una Comisión Es-pecial o “Comisión sobre los Principios Cooperativos” para que formulara “los principios fundamentales de actividad de la cooperación en las condiciones actuales”; esta Comisión Especial fue integrada por el Prof. D. G. KARVE de la India, A. BONNER de Gran Bretaña e Irlanda, H. A. COWDEN de EE.UU., Prof. Dr. R. HENZLER de Alemania Federal y Prof. I. KISTA-NOV de U. R. S. S. (quien, en razón de enfermedad, fue luego reemplazado por su Colega Prof. G. BLANK), secundarios todos ellos por el Director de la A. C. I., W. G. ALEXANDER, y el Directo precedente de la misma institución, W. P. WATKINS. El informe final de esa Comi-sión fue considerado en el 23° Congreso de la A. C. I. realizado en Viena en 1966.

Introduction

Composition, Meetings and Procedure of the Commission

The Commission on Co-operative Principles was set up, at the request of the International Co-operative Congress at Bournemouth, 1963, by a resolution of the ICA Central Committee which met at Belgrade from the 3rd to 5th October, 1964.

On the recommendation of the Executive Committee, the Central Committee appointed five members to serve on the Commission as follows: Mr.A. Bonner Senior Tutor, Co-operative College, Co-operative Union Ltd.,

Great Britain and Ireland Mr. Howard A. Cowden Member, Board of Directors, Co-operative League of the USA Professor Dr. R. Henzler Director, Institute of Co-operation, University of Hamburg,

Germany Professor D.G. Karve Chairman, ICA Advisory Council for South-East Asia Professor I. Kistanov Professor, Economics and Co-operation, Moscow Institute of

People's Economy, USSR

In December 1965, Professor Kistanov, acting on medical advice after a severe illness, did not attempt the journey from Moscow. His colleague, Professor G. Blank, Head of the De-partment of Economics, Moscow Co-operative Institute deputed for him at this and at sub-sequent meetings.



The Commission held its first meeting at the Headquarters of the ICA in London on the 15th and 16th December, 1964. Professor D.G. Karve was elected Chairman, to preside over the meetings and deliberations of the Commission throughout.

Secretarial services, it was decided, should be provided from the Secretariat of the ICA under the direction of the Director Mr. W.G. Alexander, who should enlist the services of a rappor-teur to assist him in the drafting of the Commission's report. Accordingly, Mr. W.P. Watkins, formerly Director of the ICA, was commissioned to undertake this function.

The plan of work of the Commission provided, first, for the collection and analysis of infor-mation relating to the present observance of the Principles of Rochdale as formulated in the report adopted by the ICA Congress at Paris in 1937. It was agreed that this purpose would best be achieved through the issue of a questionnaire to the ICA's affiliated organisations, as well as to selected non-member organisations and individuals well- known for their wide acquaintance with the Co-operative Movement and their acknowledged position as expo-nents of co-operative ideas. On the basis of proposals submitted by members of the Com-mission, a questionnaire was drafted by the Secretariat and, after approval by the Commis-sion, was circulated on 1st June, 1965.

The final date for the receipt of replies by the Secretariat was fixed at 31st August, 1965. Although a large number of replies were received by that date, many others continued to arrive in succeeding months until the total actually exceeded 100. As they were received, replies were copied, translated when necessary, and circulated to the members of the Commission. The information, opinions and fresh suggestions they contained represented a large sample of the ICA's affiliated organisations, a number of which brought their own affili-ates into consultation. This material gave the Commission a useful insight, not only into the extent to which the Rochdale Principles were actually observed at the present day, but also into the reasons why co- operatives of different types considered it impossible or inexpedi-ent in certain cases to apply them in practice.

The Commission held a second series of meetings, partly at Helsinki from the 18th to 22nd September, and partly at Moscow from the 24th to 26th September, 1965. As Helsinki was also the venue of the Central Committee of the ICA, it was possible to arrange a number of interviews at which the commission was able to hear the opinions of leading Co-operators from American, Asian and European Co-operative Movements on questions which ranged over the whole field of its investigation. At Moscow the Commission had the advantage of a meeting with the President and Board of Centrosoyus, and of hearing their explanations of various features of Co-operative activity in the USSR.

The Commission entered upon its own discussion of its approach to the study of Co-operative Principles against the background of contemporary economic and social life and on the significance of the seven principles defined by the Report of 1937. These discussions, begun at Helsinki, were continued in Moscow.

While in Helsinki, a further request was communicated from the central Committee that the Commission should endeavour, by all means, to complete its work in time for its final report to be discussed by the next International Co-operative Congress at Vienna in September



1966. To enable the Commission to fulfil the Central Committee's request, it was agreed to hold meetings in December 1965 and February, 1966.

The analysis of the replies to the questionnaire was completed by the Research Section of the IC_ Secretariat in November 1965 and made available to the members of the Commis-sion before the third series of meetings was held at ICA Headquarters from the 12th to 16th December, 1965., As the Commission had the benefit of studying the originals, summaries and analyses of the replies to the questionnaire, it was in a position to take decisions after dull deliberation regarding the retention, reformulation or rejection of the Principles adopt-ed in 1937, together with any suggestions for additional principles offered for its considera-tion.

The draft report was completed and dispatched to the members before the end of January in time for consideration at its fourth series of meetings in London from the 14th to the 18th February, 1966. At this meeting the final report of the Commission was unanimously adopt-ed.

The Commission would like to place on record its sense of obligation to the large number of co-operative organisations and individual co-operators who readily and unreservedly placed their information and views at its disposal. The trouble which some among them took to respond to our invitation to meet us in Helsinki and Moscow is deeply appreciated by us. In Finland, UK and USSR, the National Co-operative Unions, and some of their affiliated organi-sations, were good enough to offer cordial hospitality which enabled the Commission to broaden its understanding of conditions and views of the respective co- operative move-ments.

Mr. W.P. Watkins, former Director of the ICA, who accepted the Commission's invitation to act as Rapporteur helped the Commission in several ways. The efficiency and the speed with which he prepared drafts of the Report for the Commission's use were indeed very remarka-ble. Without his assistance in this respect, it would have been well nigh impossible to pro-duce the report within the limits of time desired by the Central Committee of the ICA.

Mr. W.G. Alexander, who had been good enough to accept the Commission's invitation to act as its Secretary, in addition to his heavy duties as Director of the ICA, has borne a very heavy burden, administrative as well as deliberative, cheerfully and most fruitfully. The Commission would like to make special mention of Mr. Alexander's contribution towards the timely and satisfactory results of the Commission's work.

Staff and assisting members like Mr. I. Williams, who recorded a verbatim statement of the deliberations, Mr. V. Kondratov, who helped with Russian interpretation and Mr. J.H. Ollman and Mrs. L. Stettner of the ICA Office, along with other members of the ICA staff, have helped in their respective positions very materially towards organising the Commission's work. The Commission's best thanks are due to all these.

Terms of Reference

The objects and scope of the Commission's investigation were first indicated in the resolu-tion adopted by the Bournemouth Congress in the following terms:



"The Congress requests the Central Committee to: constitute an authoritative commission to formulate the fundamental principles of activity of co-operation under modern conditions; empower the Commission to study which of the principles of the Rochdale Pioneers have retained their importance to the present time; which of them should be changed and how, in order to contribute in the best manner to the fulfilment of the tasks of the co-operative movements and, finally, which of them have lost their importance and should be substituted by others; empower the Commission to formulate new principles of co-operative activity; include in the Agenda of the 23rd Congress of the alliance consideration of new principles for the activity of the Co-operative Movement; empower the Executive to request the na-tional co- operative organisations, members of the ICA, to send their proposals on this sub-ject; ask the Central Committee to consider the proposals of the national co-operative or-ganisations and those of the Commission at a meeting preceding the 23rd Congress and to submit its opinion to the Congress; ask the Central Committee to consider the proposals of the national co-operative organisations and those of the Commission at a meeting preceding the 23rd Congress and to submit its opinion to the Congress."

The Central Committee, after considering the request of Congress, adopted a resolution providing for the constitution and administrative arrangements for the Commission and stat-ing its terms of reference in para 4, which runs:

"4. The task of the Commission shall be: To ascertain how far the Principles of Rochdale - as defined by the ICA Congress at Paris in 1937 - are observed today and the reasons for any non-observance; To consider in the light of the results of the foregoing study, whether the Rochdale Principles meet the needs of the Co-operative Movement having regard to the present-day economic, social and political situation or whether any of the Principles should be reformulated in order the better to contribute to the fulfilment of the aims and tasks of the Co-operative Movement in its different branches; if so, to recommend a new text of texts."

The first part of the Commission's task, as will be seen above, was to enquire into the pre-sent-day observance of the Principles of Rochdale and into the reasons for any non- ob-servance disclosed by its enquiries. It was in order to enlist the assistance of interested Co-operative Organisations, especially on this part of the Commission's terms of reference, that the questionnaire already mentioned was framed and circulated. Their answers, summarised and tabulated by the ICA Research Section will become generally available in due course.

The replies to the questionnaire provided only part of the basis for the Commission's find-ings and judgement, which also had to depend largely on the studies and experiences of its members. The whole body of material received from correspondence was contributed en-tirely voluntarily, and a number of organisations brought their own affiliates into consulta-tion before submitting their replies to the Commission. The material thus represented a large sample and its value for purposes of information and illustration was very considerable

Even more valuable was the evidence, given by the replies, of the great extent to which Co-operators all over the world, irrespective of the type of co-operative organisation to which they are attached and its economic and social environment, posses a common co-operative philosophy, from which they derive common sentiments and attitudes to basic problems



greatly outweighing their inevitable diversities of objectives and method. A further result was to reveal the historical continuity which connects the pioneers of Co-operation in the early stages of the Industrial Revolution of the 19th century, even before the Rochdale Pio-neers, with the pioneers of the newly developing regions of the 20th. This made the Com-mission's tasks of answering the question, whether the Principles of Rochdale meet the needs of the Co-operative Movement today, much easier than it might have been. The task proved to be one, not so much of revision, as of clearing up confusion and removing unnec-essary rigidity rooted in unbalanced or over-simplified interpretations, in other words, a pro-cess of re-burnishing which permits the underlying principles to shine with a brighter light.

Historical Background

The Resolution of the Bournemouth Congress which called for the present investigation was adopted by an overwhelming majority. The need for a review of the Principles of Co-operation was recognised from several standpoints. Far-reaching changes had occurred in the political constitution and economic organisation of nations. Under the stress of a revolu-tion in distributive trade many co-operative organisations encountered difficulties in main-taining their traditional practices. In the newly- developing regions of the young co-operative movements had still to reach their full capacity to implement the Movement's principles and apply them in their special economic and social setting.

Compared with the Special Committee of 1930-37, the Commission has been working in greatly altered circumstances. Although the basic problems may appear to be essentially the same, namely, to maintain the Co-operative Movement's autonomy vis-a-vis political parties and governments; to correct tendencies to compromise on principles for the sake of busi-ness advantage; to clarify the essential differences between true co- operatives and other enterprises apparently imitating co- operative methods to stress the vital necessity of keep-ing the Movement's democratic machinery and its educational system up to date, they were posed in different forms and with somewhat less urgency thirty years ago. The general situa-tion was less dynamic than it is today. The main work of that Special Committee was not merely to clarify, but also to reaffirm the principles handled down from the Movement's pioneer days. The International Co- operative Alliance itself was smaller in respect of its total membership and mainly dependent for support on consumers' Co- operative Movements in Europe, a fact which was bound to influence the outlook of the Special Committee and the focus of its interest.

Even during the Second World War the Co-operative Movement played an important part in the economic life of many countries. After the fighting ended and the work of national and international reconstruction began potentialities of co-operative organisations for economic and social reorganisation became more widely recognised in all countries irrespective of their economic and social systems.

Meanwhile important changes have taken place in technology and especially management. The world appears to stand on the threshold of a new industrial revolution even more com-prehensive than the old. The function of Co-operative Organisations, therefore, is more than the defence of group interests; they should be making a positive contribution to the welfare of their participants in an expanding economic system. The needs of co- operatives for large



masses of capital and for trained man-power will therefore grow, though capital used by them will not dominate but only earn its fair interest. Again, in the development over a long period of large-scale business undertakings with many ramifications, an intricate form of organisation is necessary, in which too absolute interpretations of principle are not appro-priate. The Movement cannot remain content for the future. This consideration is as im-portant for the newly-developing countries as for the more advanced, for wrong applications of principle may not only hinder the Movement's progress but produce results with Co-operators do not desire. They must recognise that involvement in public policy and in other sectors of the economy than their own is inevitable, and they would be mistaken to wish it otherwise.

As the awareness of the demands of the new era into which the movement is passing has spread amongst Co-operators, they have reacted at every level - local, national and interna-tional. Structural changes involving far-reaching consolidation, concentration and integration have already been made in a number of national Co-operative Movements; more are con-templated. In the last five years, these changes have been the subject of study and exchange of ideas in the Authorities and the Auxiliary Organisations of the International Co-operative Alliance. But as they carry through their measures of reconstruction many leading Co-operators feel with greater urgency the need for guidance in matters of principle - the need to distinguish what is essential and must be maintained at all costs from what may be varied, discarded or added, according to circumstances. They also feel the need of making firmer the common intellectual and moral ground on which Co-operators of all nations, of all schools of thought, of all branches of the Movement, can unite. The work of the Commission therefore takes into account the structural transformations now in progress and proposed for the future.

The Commission's Analysis and Approach

The Co-operative Movement is world-wide. The International Co-operative Alliance is be-coming steadily more and more representative of it. Although co-operative organisations of many countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America have yet to join it, the Alliance grows in membership from year to year and its membership becomes better balanced because it is more inclusive of the diverse types of co-operative society. Consumers' and agricultural co-operatives still greatly predominate, as is inevitable, but it is significant that a growing num-ber of unions and federations operating in the field of credit, housing, fisheries, etc. are be-ing admitted. Sharp divisions formerly existing between co-operatives of various types can no longer be maintained. In the newly-developing regions especially, multi- purpose socie-ties tend in several cases to replace co-operatives of specialised types which may be too small or otherwise ineffective. More important still is the fact that despite the obvious dif-ferences between the economic and social systems under which co-operatives carry on their work, the Alliance maintains its unity, as the only international organisation dedicated en-tirely and exclusively to the propagation and promotion of Co- operation.

The Commission, in its approach to its tasks has been profoundly influenced by its awareness of these facts. On the one hand, it felt bound to recognise that the practices of co- operative organisations must needs vary, in ways too numerous to mention and with considerable dif-ferences of emphasis, not only according to their purpose and type, but also according to the



environment in which they have to further their members' interests and survive. On the oth-er hand, there must necessarily be common elements from which they derive the resem-blances which prove their membership of the co-operative family. This or that branch of the Co-operative Movement may have specific principles which are of minor importance to oth-ers, but the Commission considered that principles which are of minor importance to others, but the Commission considered that its primary task was to attempt to formulate those gen-eral principles which could and should be observed by co-operatives of all types in all social and economic systems.

it has already been remarked that the ICA Special Committee in its Report of 1937 may have been influenced to a certain degree by the composition of the Alliance at that time. This notwithstanding, the principles it enumerated were intended to apply universally to co-operatives of all kinds at all times and places. The Commission, therefore, took this Report as its starting point, as requested by its terms of reference, and based its discussion on the principles formulated therein. Since experience has shown that too brief or simple a formu-lation can be misleading, the Commission has deliberately chosen, at the risk of being no longer and more qualified in its statements, to bring out the full implications of its thought on any given topic.

Moreover, it has endeavoured at all times to bear in mind the point of view of practical co-operators, emphasising in many cases the spirit rather than the letter of principle. It has pre-ferred to keep in the foreground the consideration that, in varying contexts and historical circumstances, different aspects of Co-operation receive varying degrees of emphasis and that innumerable groups of Co-operators in their own environment have been trying out how best to attain the ultimate goals of the Movement. What the Commission has consid-ered important was not so much the verbal or semantic formulae as the substance of these objectives.

Co-operative Principles and Ideals

It is also in relation to these objectives that the Commission framed its working definition of Co-operative Principles as those practices which are essential, that is absolutely indispensa-ble, to the achievement of Co-operative Movement's purpose. This purpose has been de-scribed in various ways at different stages of the Movement's historic development. The Rochdale Pioneers, like some of the Co-operators who preceded them, declared their aim to be the establishment of communities supporting themselves by their own labour on their own land. For the most part, the Movement did not advance along this line of intensive de-velopment but developed extensively, by spreading out geographically and by breaking into one field of economic activity after another. Its success encouraged many to visualise its ul-timate end and ideal as a Co-operative Commonwealth. At a later stage again, and with broader experience, many Co-operators became content to accept the less ambitious ideal of a Co- operative Sector complementary to, but exercising an influence upon, the public and private sectors of the economy.

The common element at all times has been that Co-operation at its best aims at something beyond promotion of the interests of the individual members who compose a co-operative at any time. Its object is rather to promote the progress and welfare of humanity. It is this



aim that makes a co-operative society something different from an ordinary economic en-terprise and justifies its being tested, not simply from the stand point of its business efficien-cy, but also from the standpoint of its contribution to the moral and social values which ele-vate human life above the merely material and animal.

It follows from the standpoint adopted by the commission that no distinction of degree of validity can be drawn between essential principles. The Commission has not given some principles a higher priority than others. On the contrary, if every principle denotes some-thing essential, all posses equal authority and the essential substance of all must be equally observed to the full extent and in the manner that circumstances permit at any time and place. This qualification is inevitable in the application of theoretical principles which have to be effective in a variety of circumstances. The Commission has done its work in the hope of arriving at formulations of essential values in Co-operation which will supply meaningful in-terpretations and guidance to Co-operators who have to meet the challenge and grasp the opportunities of the modern world.

Consideration of Co-operative Principles

Membership

It has been usual in the past to describe the principle of co-operative membership by such words as `Open' and `Voluntary'. For several reasons the Commission felt that these brief descriptions do not bring out fully the characteristic features of the relationship between a co-operative institution and its individual constituents. One fundamental consideration, which corresponds fairly closely to the facts and normal practice of co-operative societies should and do become its members and, conversely, that the membership of a co-operative consists of persons with needs which its services can and do supply. Another fundamental consideration springs from the very nature of the Co- operative Movement which is at once a social movement seeking to increase the numbers of its adherents and economic organism capable of expanding and occupying wider fields of activity. Its attitude to persons eligible for membership is, therefore, normally to welcome them when they wish to join it and, even more, to encourage and assist them to join societies appropriate to their situation and needs.

Obviously, the whole group of questions involved in membership can and must be studied from two complementary standpoints, that of the individual and that of the co-operative. The freedom of each - the individual and the co-operative - to consult its own interests and act accordingly - needs to be reconciled and blended with that of the other. On the one hand, the individual should be free to join a co-operative and share its economic and social advantages on an equal footing with other members. That implies that he must shoulder this due share of responsibility also. But he should not be coerced into joining, either directly, by legal or administrative compulsion, or indirectly, under social or, possibly, political pressure. His decision to apply for membership should normally be the result of his unfettered appre-ciation of co-operative values and consideration of his economic advantage, including that of his dependants. He should be free also to withdraw from a co- operative when he finds that



he no longer has any need of its services or when the co-operative is unable to supply his needs.

In the nature of things, this freedom can rarely, if at all, be absolute. It can be modified or overridden by other considerations of wider application and greater essential validity. A government which is assisting a farmer to reclaim land on which he is to settle may not un-reasonably impose membership of a supply or marketing co-operative, at least for a limited time, as a condition of its assistance or support, in the interests of the farmer himself. A pro-ducer or group of producers may in effect sabotage the efforts of a voluntary co- operative to improve the marketing position and incomes of producers by refusing to join it and so giving a foothold to opposing, may be reactionary, economic interests. In order to counter-act this government may intervene with legislation compelling all producers to join a co-operative or at least to market their products through it, if a prescribed majority of the pro-ducers vote in favour of such measures. Other examples may be cited, where the refusal of a small minority of individuals, after every effort has been made to persuade them to join a co- operative, say, for managing an irrigation scheme or for providing and using pesticides or adopting a new system of cropping with the prospect of much higher yields, may frustrate the whole plan of action. In such cases, refusal to join the co- operative is essentially anti-social and can be justifiably overridden in the interests of the whole community, provided that all the circumstances of the case are taken into account and safeguards adopted against the abuse of power through the extension of compulsion in circumstances where it is un-necessary or inappropriate.

A co-operative, on the other hand, also needs freedom to modify its welcoming attitude to applicants for membership, even to the point of refusal, as well as to have in reserve powers to terminate membership if the interests of its members as a body so require.

It is a mistake to interpret the rule of `open membership' in the sense that all co-operatives are obliged to enroll all persons who may apply to join them. Open membership has never meant that. The Rochdale Pioneers at no time attempted to apply such a rule, for one very good reason that their society, witness the celebrated `Law First', was conceived as some-thing more than a retail distributive enterprise; it was a community in embryo; its growth and success would depend greatly on internal harmony which might easily turn to discord, as earlier experiments had shown, through the admission of bad characters, irresponsible indi-vidualists or trouble-makers. Nothing is to be gained and much may well be lost by bringing in a person who unsettles the cohesion of the membership. In the same order of ideas, the savings and loan bank or credit union may be justified in refusing to admit an applicant known to be creditworthy. Another kind of limiting condition, imposed for the sake of order-ly and economical working or of avoidance of unhealthy competition, is the exclusion by one society of would-be members from the territory served by another. Several instances of similar obvious limitations on the unfettered admission of members may be cited by exam-ples from all forms of co-operative societies.

It may also be stated as a general proposition that persons or associations who desire to join, or to form, a co-operative for dealing in produce or labour other than their own or of their own members, cannot be said to act in pursuance of the basic co- operative principle -



that of association among persons, considered as human beings with equal status, for mutu-al service.

Taking into account of the preceding limitations, it would seem that `open membership' in a very broad sense can and should be the universal practice of consumers' co-operatives, if only because every man, woman and child must consume to sustain life. In the case of other organisations, however, there are further obvious limitations on the admission of members. For instance, the very specialisation of producers' co-operatives, whether promoted by arti-sans or wage-earners engaged in the same trade or industry or by farmers or cultivators, automatically limits their membership to persons interested in a given product or range of products and excludes others who have no such interest. For example, cultivators not inter-ested in citrus-growing for the market have no place in a citrus-marketing society, but a cit-rus- marketing society would not be acting in a fully co-operative spirit, if it closed its mem-bership against applicants for membership who were citrus-growers. In general terms, the essential consideration is that, if an individual has interests within some specific field of ser-vice for which a co-operative is formed, he should be regarded as eligible for membership and, if he applies, admitted, unless he is personally unacceptable on some obviously justifia-ble grounds similar to those indicated above.

In the case of the workers' productive societies, the members of which find their daily em-ployment in the society, limitation may justifiably be stricter. Not every worker who may seek employment or membership in such a society can or ought to be admitted, because the society's capacity to employ its membership and add to the number of workers who may be applicants to membership is itself limited. Again, a limitation adopted by some of these soci-eties on prudential grounds is the fixing of a probationary period for candidates for member-ship, in order that those who are already members can make sure that the new entrants will possess the necessary degree of technical skill and have sufficient regard for the interests of the society. The fact that these limitations may be capable of abuse by some co- operative associations does not make them unreasonable in themselves, though continued employ-ment of workers to whom membership is being denied would offend against open member-ship.

Another important class of co-operative which may be obliged to limit their membership are the housing societies which are engaged in supplying a commodity which is naturally limited in supply and can therefore only cater for a limited number of persons. They cannot guaran-tee that all who may want to join them will obtain within a reasonable time the house or flat they may desire and the only fair course may therefore be to close their membership regis-ter until vacancies actually occur. In these cases, the essential question has to be posed in the converse way; has the society tenants who have been denied the right to become mem-bers? If the answer is no, the society is not acting in an un-co-operative spirit.

The preceding examples, without being exhaustive, may serve to illustrate the natural limita-tions to which the admission of members to co-operative societies may be subject. These notwithstanding, co-operation can maintain its proper character as a voluntary movement offering to share its benefits with all who need them, only if co-operative societies of every type unreservedly accept their obligation to admit to membership any one who, in return for these benefits will undertake in good faith to fulfil the duties which membership implies.



Regulations, policies and practices which are exclusive in their effects, reserving to a select few what should be open to all, are unacceptable restrictions.

One kind of restriction may be called economic since it consists in the erection of barriers which some people eligible for membership may be unable, for economic or financial rea-sons to surmount. If a society requires new members to pay entrance fees or subscribe a minimum shareholding which are beyond the means of any appreciable number of possible applicants, so that they are deterred from applying for membership, it is acting restrictively. Stating the essential consideration positively, it would be correct to conclude that the en-trance fee (if any) and the value of the minimum shareholding should be fixed at amounts which the poorest prospective member could pay without hardship. The general practice of co-operative societies for generations past has been in the direction of easing the conditions of admission by allowing shares to be paid up in instalments or out of accumulated savings on purchases or sales (patronage refunds) and by abolishing entrance fees, but there are limits set to these facilities by the capital requirements of the societies. Within the last 20 years or so, these limits have tended to be drawn tighter, partly by reason of monetary infla-tion, partly by reason of the greatly increased capital requirements in order to finance busi-ness expansion and structural re-organisation to meet competition of unprecedented severi-ty. Certain national co-operative movements have thus been obliged to raise the nominal value of the share or the number of shares to be held as a minimum, a measure which would appear to be entirely justified, provided that the new figure does not have restrictive effects on the admission of new members. Under conditions of high and stable employment and rising wages the restriction may not be appreciable, but any proposals for raising minima may well be examined from this angle before they are adopted.

A second kind of restriction may be indicated by the term `ideological' for lack of something more comprehensive which would include the most important matters which tend to divide people in society, irrespective of their economic situation and needs. The chief of these are-as of conflict have been in the past and still tend to be in the present, politics and religion. Distinct from but partly overlapping these are race, colour, caste, nationality, culture, lan-guage any of which can provoke intense and sometimes chronic hostility. From the Co-operative Movement's earliest days wise co-operative leadership realised that if a co-operative society was to maximise the economic power of its membership, actual or poten-tial, it would be a mistake to exclude any person of goodwill on account of political opinions or activities, religious creed or lack of creed, race, colour or any other consideration not rel-evant to the economic and social purpose of the co-operative. And with few exceptions, that rule is followed today even by co-operative organisations which may have always had close affiliations with political parties or religious institutions. The important consideration is that the society shall demand from its members no other allegiance or loyalty than what is owed to itself and its own democratic decisions and shall admit all who are prepared in good faith to give their allegiance.

Before passing from the question of admission to other aspects of the relations of co-operative societies with their members, the Commission would point out that the conse-quence of restrictive policies in general is not simply to stunt a society's economic develop-ment, but to risk the deterioration of its character as a co-operative. The normal co-operative practice, as was indicated in a previous paragraph of this section, is that the mem-



bers and the users of the services of any given co-operative society are one and the same body of people. Nevertheless in actual business life, it is extremely unlikely that many socie-ties, especially those trading in highly developed industrial or agricultural areas, can avoid dealing with non- members. A non-member is a potential member. If he uses a society's ser-vices once and is satisfied, he may well do so again. Many far-sighted societies accumulate his patronage refunds for him and when they amount to a minimum share, offer him the opportunity of membership and so of regularising his relations with it. On the other hand, in a society which pursues a policy of restriction, the existing membership tends to form an exclusive and narrowing circle, whose democracy becomes sooner or later suspect and whose business practice tends more and more to resemble that of profit-seeking enterprise. If it be accepted that the co-operative system is one which the motive of mutual service ra-ther than profit is dominant, then the rule of `open' membership, with all the qualifications and modifications in its application already mentioned, provides indispensable safeguards against degeneration into business of the ordinary type. Thanks to open membership, the shares of co-operative societies remain constantly at the nominal value fixed in the society's rules and can be acquired by any new member at that value. Trafficking and speculation in a co-operative shares are therefore rendered profitless and do not arise.

Naturally the salutary effects of open membership are reduced if the distinction between members and non-members becomes blurred. Because they undertake the risks, it is mem-bers and no one else who are fairly entitled to share in the savings which a co-operative makes, but only in so far as these savings result from their own transactions with it. The so-ciety must itself be scrupulous in dealing with any revenue which accrues from dealings with non-members using its regular services; if it is not reserved for individual non-members as an inducement to them to apply for membership, then it should be devoted to some pur-pose of common benefit, preferably for the wider community beyond the society's member-ship. In no case, should it be added to the savings distributed to members, otherwise they would participate in profits in a manner that co-operation expressly abjures. The distinction between members and non-members becomes increasingly difficult to preserve with the necessary clarity under contemporary trading conditions. The stores of the great urban con-sumers' societies of the highly developed countries stand open to the general public and in some countries the national Co-operative Movement claims sale to the public as a right, or, at least, a condition necessary to the movement's growth and its effectiveness as a price-regulator. There is a disposition among a public pampered by advertising to take the benefits offered by the consumer co-operatives but to decline membership since that involves re-sponsibility. Open membership as a means of keeping the door open to the younger genera-tion and becoming effete may nowadays be less effective than formerly, but it still has a cer-tain value, especially where it is supported by the right educational policy - a subject to be discussed under another heading.

If an individual should be free to join a co-operative society, he should be in principle free to withdraw from it. But in doing so he does not or cannot immediately shed the responsibili-ties he undertook when he became a member. He has an obligation to consider the interests of the society and the management of the society has the duty of safeguarding those inter-ests, especially as cessation of membership normally entails a claim to the withdrawal of share capital. In this way the resignation of a single member with a large capital holding or



the simultaneous withdrawal of a number of members may seriously inconvenience a socie-ty or even jeopardise its financial position. Societies' rules therefore rightly include provi-sions governing the termination of membership, the withdrawal or transfer of share capital and sometimes the period of a member's liability after he has left it. No member should be given any excuse for ignorance of the conditions he must fulfil if he leaves. In an earlier stage of the movement's development considerations of financial stability and safety induced Co- operators to prescribe in their societies' rules that members should hold a minimum of transferable as well as withdrawable shares, but in the older and well-established co-operative movements today the tendency is to facilitate the withdrawal of capital because this facility is itself an inducement to members to take out shares above the minimum hold-ing required by rule. The legislation of different countries regulates this situation in different ways, but, in general, while a member leaving a society cannot usually enforce the repay-ment of his share capital as a right, the management of a society, where society's liquidity or financial position are not impaired, would act fully in a co-operative spirit by avoiding the infliction of any hardship through standing strictly on the letter of the rules and in an emer-gency by doing everything possible to afford relief.

Finally, a co-operative society, in the interests of the whole body of its members must have the right and must take power in its rules to terminate an individual's membership, given just cause. This is also a case in which the rules should lay down the conditions under which resort to expulsion is possible and the procedure to be followed before expulsion is finally decided, so that all members can be aware of them. It is not grounded in any specifically co-operative principle but in a natural principle, common to all incorporated associations, which permits them to eject elements acting against their interest or contrary to their objects. If the decision to expel is taken in a democratic manner by the elected authorities of the co-operative, that is to say, either the board of directors or the council of supervision or both, the member affected should have the right of appeal to his fellow-members, either in the general meeting or in a representative assembly, invested with the functions of the general meeting, before expulsion takes effect.

Membership of Co-operative Organisations above the primary may consist of co-operatives or of co-operatives and individuals. With very few exceptions the rules and practice regulat-ing the admission to and withdrawal from these organisations are similar to those of primary societies already discussed and raise no important questions of principle. Whereas however membership of primary societies may occasionally include, without impairing their co-operative character, a small minority of corporate bodies not forming part of the Co-operative Movement, the case of many organisations established for special services needs close examination because the conditions are not necessarily similar. A real possibility exists that co-operative organisations would be in a minority. In this case, they might not be able to assure the observance of co-operative principles by, and the retention of true co-operative characteristics of, such organisations. Where the co-operative membership is not in a position to ensure that co-operative principles will be maintained the organisation is in danger of losing its eligibility for recognition as a co-operative.

The important consideration is not necessarily the legal constitution of the organisation but whether in fact the co- operative principles are observed. The same consideration governs the participation of co-operative societies in non-co-operative associations. Co-operative



societies ought not to participate in and ought to withdraw from, an association if it involves them in practices for which there is no justification in terms of co- operative principle.

In conclusion, the Commission, after reviewing the practice of many types of co-operative societies in varying social environments today, finds that voluntary membership without artificial restriction or discrimination, as this has been interpreted in the preceding discus-sion, should be maintained as a fundamental characteristic of the co-operative system of economic organisation because it is essential to the achievement of its immediate and ulti-mate aims. The individual who seeks to participate, along with his neighbours or fellow-workers, in a co-operative, must do so of his own free-will, not from external pressure or constraint, nor must the co-operative place any artificial or discriminatory obstacle in the way of his entry or impose, as a condition of admission, his adhesion to any organisation or doctrine not relevant to the society's economic and social purpose. The individual should be under no compulsion to remain a member any longer than his own interests dictate, nor should the society be obliged to retain him as a member if he acts in a manner detrimental to its interests and hostile to its aims. The conditions under which individual and society can terminate their association should be clearly laid down in advance and well known to both parties.

Democratic Administration

The primary and dominant purpose of a co-operative society is to promote the interest of its membership. What the members' interests are in any given situation only they can finally determine. A co-operative therefore will not in the long run work well and prosper without agreed and efficient methods of consulting the members as a body and enabling them to express their wishes. Moreover, since it is the members who bring a co- operative into exist-ence and whose constant adhesion and support keep it alive, those who administer its af-fairs and, in particular, conduct its day-to-day business must be chosen directly or indirectly by the members and enjoy their confidence. It follows further that the administrators and managers are accountable to the members for their stewardship, report regularly in a busi-ness-like manner on their activities and submit the results to the members' judgement. If the members are not satisfied, they have the authority and the power to criticise, to object, and in extreme cases, to dismiss and replace their officers and officials.

This is what is meant by saying that co-operatives are administered in a democratic manner. It is significant that amongst all the documentation placed before the Commission, there was not one serious challenge to the claim of democracy to be recognised as an essential ele-ment in Co-operation. What divergences of opinion or disagreement were revealed referred only to the different rules, conventions and practices necessary to achieve effective democ-racy in varying circumstances.

It is not therefore that the principle is in any doubt, but that its implementation becomes more and more complicated with the growing size of Co-operative institutions and the scope of their economic commitments, as well as with the rapid and far- reaching changes now going on in the Movement's economic and social environment. The evolution of industry and of co-operative enterprises in particular makes continual modification inevitable. Refine-



ments in the forms and machinery of administration are not, therefore, to be regarded as a departure from democratic principle.

Development of the co-operative's administrative organs, if they are to embody the demo-cratic principle, must remain anchored to certain fundamental rules and assumptions which the Co- operative Movement has accepted from its very beginnings. The co- operative socie-ty, unlike a joint-stock company, being primarily an association of human beings, the status of all its members should be equal and all should have equal opportunities of participating in decisions and expressing views on policy. There is no way of ensuring this save by giving each member one vote and one only. Further, since the Co-operative Movement exists in order to place the common people in effective control of the mechanism of modern economic life, it must give the individual (only too often reduced to the role of a cog in that mechanism) a chance tao express himself, a voice in the affairs and destinies of his co-operative and scope to exercise his judgement. It is a corollary of the principle of voluntary membership that the individual member should feel that he has a real responsibility for his society's good admin-istration and achievements. Accordingly, there should be no exceptions to the rule of one member, one vote in primary co-operative societies, that is, in associations of individual per-sons.

The right of every member to one vote and one only, enshrined in the rule-books of co-operative societies, is not in itself a guarantee of effective democratic administration, espe-cially in the vast and widely-extended primary co-operatives, notably of the Consumers' Co-operative Movement, of today. Much depends on the circumstances in which members are called on to vote and in which their votes are given. In societies growing rapidly, whether by simple expansion or by amalgamation, the general meeting of members becomes less relia-ble and authoritative as a supreme democratic organ. It is therefore often replaced by a rep-resentative body legally invested with the powers of the general meeting and exercising its functions. The individual members no longer directly elect the administrative board but only the representatives who elect the board. Instead of one general meeting, the members are convened to a number of branch or district meetings, the agenda of which can cover, of course, the whole filed of the society's operations and not simply branch or district affairs. Moreover, personal knowledge of officers and candidates diminishes, giving place to imper-sonal relations between administration and membership, at the same time as the increasing scope and complexity of societies' operations outrun the ability, not merely of the ordinary members, but of their elected representatives also. to keep track of them.

The tendency to evolve towards the creation of ever larger and more closely integrated op-erational units is not only characteristic of the economic world but also inherent in the co- operative form of association. The Co-operative Movement therefore must attempt to match it by a corresponding development of its democratic organs and a judicious balancing of centralisation by decentralisation. The more the affairs of primary societies have to be entrusted to trained and experienced professionals and the greater the extent to which vital decisions have to be taken by an official elite at the centre of their administrative systems, the greater the importance grows of consolidating the societies' local foundations and strengthening their influence on the minds of their members. To counterbalance the officials and their natural leanings towards bureaucracy, their responsibilities as guardians of the members' interests and spokesmen for their wishes. To make this possible the general body



of members must themselves be well informed about the affairs of the society. It is not with-in the Commission's terms of reference to prescribe methods of constitution-building or sys-tems of organisation, all of which are bound to require more or less adjustment to circum-stances which vary from continent to continent, but it would fail in its duty if it did not call attention to the seriousness and urgency of the main problems involved in the preservation of the Co-operative Movement's essential democracy under contemporary economic and social conditions. In a period when precedent is becoming an ever less reliable guide, there is need for constant testing and experiment. In this connection may be cited the efforts be-ing made in several countries to improve the quality and qualifications of elected officers and the attempts to train members of management committees and to devolve upon the members in their localities matters, even the appointment and dismissal of manager, in which the local interest is paramount.

It is necessary at this stage to consider democracy in relation to another important aspect of the evolution towards larger operational units, and that is the enhanced role already played - and promising to be greater in the future - by unions and federations of co-operatives, as well as other secondary, even tertiary, organisations. The secondary organisations which are created by the co-operation of co-operative societies are themselves undoubtedly co-operative organisations, with the same obligation as the primary societies of conforming to the essential co-operative rules. The members of secondary organisations have equal rights. This equality gives them the proper basis for democratic management. It is, therefore, quite consistent to apply the rule of one member, one vote to secondary organisations, as well as primary societies. That, in fact, is what is done in a number of secondary organisations, in-cluding some of national dimensions. it would appear to work satisfactorily in organisations where there is no great disparity in size between their affiliated societies. Another method, which unquestionably pays proper respect to the human factor, is to base voting power up-on the individual membership of societies. This is characteristic of the consumers' co-operative movements in which the national and regional unions may comprise village socie-ties with a few hundred, as well as urban or district societies with scores or even hundreds of thousands of members. A variant of this system is found where voting power may be based on capital contributions which are themselves based on membership. On the other hand, a tendency is observable in some producers' co-operative movements to take account of the different degrees of interest displayed by the affiliated societies in their common organisa-tion, as indicated for example, by their volume of purchases from it or of produce marketed through it. There are, of course, a number of consumers' wholesale federations whose member societies vote in elections and appoint representatives to general assemblies and congresses in proportion to their purchases. It does not appear, however, that these depar-tures from the strict rule of equality of person shave yet led anywhere to a distribution of voting power radically different from that which would have been made on a membership basis, and, from a practical angle and in the light of experience, they may represent a neces-sary or desirable concession for the sake of unit, equity or efficiency or any combination of these. This case may be illustrated with special force by marketing or processing societies, operating without a binding rule that obliges their affiliates to deliver all their produce to them, which feel obliged to draw distinction in favour of those which make constant, com-pared with those which only make intermittent, use of their services.



With hardly any exception however, whatever the basis of differential voting adopted, the largest constituents are not permitted to possess an unlimited number of votes. Normally the rules lay down a graduated scale and impose a ceiling which may not be exceeded, as in the rules of the International Co- operative Alliance. Such a method reduces the likelihood of undemocratic decisions resulting from the power of a small coalition of large organisations to outvote a much greater number of small ones. It is quite possible, however, that, as a re-sult of the amalgamation of local primary societies into regional units, many of the present glaring inequalities of size among the affiliates of national unions will disappear.

The present discussion of co-operative management has proceeded so far on the assump-tion that, given the proper democratic structure and a modicum of education, the members of co-operative organisations can, as a rule, manage their business in their own interests in a competent manner. This assumption agrees fairly well with the facts, otherwise the Co-operative Movements now well-established in the advanced industrial countries would not be able to boast of a century's or half- century's successful development. Nevertheless there are considerable areas of the globe where any such assumption is not justified and may be very much at variance with the facts. This is far from saying that it will not be possible some day to make the assumption and know it to be true. Meanwhile, the fact must be faced that, in a number of the newly-developing countries, people who are just beginning to learn co-operation are not always sufficiently well equipped by themselves to manage their societies successfully without advice and guidance from some friendly outside source. If they do not receive this help, co- operative development may not take place. The possible sources are, generally speaking, two, namely: government, or institutions and individuals in sympathy with co-operative methods and ideals.

It can scarcely be contested that without the support of generous amounts of government finance, the development of co- operation in the newly-liberated countries will be painfully slow and uncertain. But if governments provide or guarantee large loans or take out large holdings of share capital they will insist on checking the use which is made of public money and on satisfying themselves that proper technical advice is being taken and due financial prudence exercised. Government may, therefore, ask that its representatives shall sit on boards of management for a time, not with power of veto, but to make sure that the aid provided is being utilised in the way in which it was originally intended. The important con-sideration is that the government representative shall continue to sit a day longer than is necessary. The more successful a society is, the more likely are the members to conceive the ambition of acquiring independence of government supervision and work to achieve it.

There is no doubt in the minds of the Commission that democracy in the management of co-operative organisations necessarily implies autonomy in the sense of independence of ex-ternal control, apart from the obvious obligation of co- operative societies to bow to the same general laws as all other business undertakings and accept the discipline imposed by the State or the planning authorities. In a fully developed co- operative unit, the manage-ment must rest in the hands of the members and all decisions be taken by the co-operators themselves, with no external interference. Autonomy is therefore a corollary of democracy. At the same time, it must be recognised that, in co-operatives which are themselves at the beginning of their development, their democratic organs also are very probably underdevel-oped and, likewise, the capacity of their members for carrying out democratic procedures



efficiently and for submitting readily to democratic discipline. The important thing is that they shall be continually advancing towards full and effective democracy, as they very well can if they are willing to learn from their experience as they gain it. If they are prepared to reflect on their experience and discuss their good and bad decisions with their fellow-members, they can make the knowledge of their rights and responsibilities the basis of a sound democratic technique. But there is no finality, as the co- operators of the older Co-operative Movements have been forced to realise in the last two decades. In a rapidly changing world democracy and democrats must learn to be dynamic.

Interest on Capital

The Co-operative economic system has broken with the practice of ordinary profit-seeking enterprise, not only through its rules of association and democratic administration, already discussed, but also through the rules which determine the allocation and division of savings and other financial benefits successful co-operatives yield to their members. This has its origin notably in the resentment with which many working people regarding the distribution of property and income in 19th century society, because in their eyes it was both unequal and unjust. While the immediate goal of co-operative effort among them might be to cheap-en the necessaries of life for consumers or to provide a decent living for producers, the ulti-mate aim was to establish a new social order characterised by what they called `Equity' in the distribution of wealth and income. The new industrial techniques, then as today, had an insatiable appetite for capital. People who possessed or commanded money for investment wielded a bargaining power which enabled them to obtain, at the expense of the other fac-tors of production, high dividends and an accretion of capital values representing something much more than interest - the lion's share of the profits of industry as well.

The Rochdale Pioneers realised that, for their immediate plan of opening a store and like-wise for their ultimate plan of establishing a community, capital was indispensable. They recognised the added productivity which the use of capital gave to labour as a reason for remunerating those who supplied it. Their idea, however, was labour working with capital, not labour working for capital or its possessor. They therefore rejected the claim of the owners to any part of whatever surplus remained after the other factors of production had been remunerated at market rates, although admitting their claim to interest at fair rates. Here it is desired to emphasise that co-operative rules regarding interest and the division and use of surplus are the twofold result of a firm resolve to establish and extend a more equitable division of the product of economic organisation than is commonly found in the profit-dominated business world.

The men of Rochdale, poor though some of them were, decided to provide the initial capital for their venture from their own personal savings. As the venture was successful they were able to add co-operative savings, notably in the forms of reserves and depreciation of their society's real property, to their individual contributions of capital. Self-financing by these two methods became customary and widespread among old Co-operative Movements, whether of producers or consumers, because of its obvious advantages of economy and se-curity. Provided that capital is forthcoming in adequate amounts when required, self-financing is an added guarantee, in a competitive economy, of a co- operative society's inde-



pendence and freedom to solve its problems of growth and development through the un-trammelled application of co-operative principles. Moreover, individual savings in the form of share capital are a pledge of the members' support. The fact that their own money is risked gives powerful inducements to exercise prudence and foresight when playing their part in their society's administration. Naturally, self-financing is not so easy in the younger organisations of the newly- developing countries but it can be recognised as a desirable ob-jective to work for and attain in time. Meanwhile the members ought to be obliged, as a matter of principle, to contribute at all times as much capital as they reasonably can, how-ever little. In the old-established Co-operative Movements, with their powerful central insti-tutions for trade, banking and insurance, the rule of self-finance must receive, under con-temporary conditions, a broader formulation. Self-financing tends to become ever harder and may end by becoming impossible for primary societies. The time may even come when, under the stress of competition and the urgent need to extend their structures and renew their equipment, the national movements will be unable ti finance their operations without attracting capital from outside. Cases may even occur when the necessity of competing suc-cessfully for the favour of people with savings to invest against savings banks and the securi-ties dealt in on the stock exchanges may tend to restrict the freedom of co-operative organi-sations to fix their interest rates according to their own principles. All the more reason, therefore, why Co-operators should clearly understand what their own principles require in this connection.

The capital structures of the different national Co- operative Movements are not uniform. Three main categories may be distinguished in most of them, but in proportions which may vary widely from country to country and from one branch of the Movement to another. The-se are: the members' share capital; capital owned by the societies in the form of reserves and special funds on which the individual members have no claim; loan capital, which in-cludes all external borrowings, as may be from banks or governments or other co-operative institutions, as well as all kinds of loans made or savings deposited by members over and above their share-holdings. Of these three categories, no interest is payable by the society on the second, although it may calculate interest for the purposes of internal accounting. On the third, the interest rates are not likely to exceed the rates prevailing in the external mon-ey and capital markets or fixed by authority in a centrally-planned economy for equivalent kinds of investment. Clearly then, it is the first category, the share capital - subscription of which is an attribute of membership and which is closely associated with risk-bearing - which is subject to fixed and limited rates of interest.

Admittedly, Co-operators are by no means unanimous on the question whether any interest should be paid on share capital at all and the practice of different movements varies accord-ingly. The question, however, is not one of principle. There is no co- operative principle which obliges interest to be paid. The principle is that, if interest is paid on the share capital, the rate should be limited and fixed, on the ground that the supplier of capital is not equita-bly entitled to share in savings, surplus or profit, whatever the term employed to denote what remains of the value of the society's output of goods and services, after its costs, in-cluding the remuneration of labour, land and capital, have been met. There appear to be four different situations in which the policy of any co-operative regarding interest on share capital can be tested in the light of this principle. The first is that already mentioned, when



no interest at all is paid on share capital. This practice does not conflict with any essential principle of co-operation. A second situation is that in which interest is paid, but at a figure which is deliberately held below the rate which would regarded as fair at any given time on the ordinary market. A limited rate of interest in this sense is not in conflict with co-operative principles. The third situation is the one in which a limit is applied but only for def-inite periods or raised and lowered in relation to the bank rate of discount or some other rate which is generally regarded as being kept at a fair level in the conditions prevailing on the ordinary market. This limit is equivalent to a fair return on capital regarded as capital and not specifically as share capital. This fair return is not indicated by the frequent and rather wide fluctuations of the short-term money market but by the long-term movements of in-terest rates over years or generations. If co-operative societies adjust the upward limits of their interest rates to the level set by these long- term tendencies once again there would not be any contravention of the true principle.

There is, finally, the fourth situation, already alluded to, when co-operative organisations may feel obliged to include in the interest paid on shares an additional amount which re-sembles a premium to the lender, intended to induce him to invest his money in the co-operative rather than elsewhere. Such a practice is from a co-operative point of view, at least dubious. Nevertheless, it has to be regarded from a practical standpoint and the greatly increased capital needs of those branches of the Movement which have to make headway against capitalist enterprise on the largest scale equipped with every modern technical de-vice. If then Co-operative Organisations have to convince their members that they will not lose appreciably by placing their capital in the co-operative, in preference to a profit-making enterprise from which they can ultimately expect not only dividends but increased capital values in time, it may be necessary to offer higher interest rates in order to ensure the con-tinuance of the practice of self-financing, with all its advantages. The question is whether the additional interest is a tolerable or an excessive price to pay for adherence to a sound tradi-tional method. If the addition is no more than marginal, in these circumstances, the depar-ture from principle may have to be examined as a special case, but if the addition is consid-erable and is not to be explained away by a situation such as has been described above, it will be difficult, perhaps impossible to justify.

The Commission is of the opinion that the limitation of interest should not apply only to the minimum share-holding which most societies' rules oblige members to hold in order to enjoy their full rights, but also to any share capital they subscribe above this minimum.

In concluding this section of the report, the Commission is of the opinion that a word may be appropriately said on methods and machinery adopted for fixing rates of interest on share capital. In the Movement's early years, in an age of greater apparent stability than the pre-sent, when the quality of stability was essential in any co-operative society which intended to endure, rates of interest were often stated in societies' rules and remained constant for relatively long periods. They were thus subject to all the rather cumbrous and roundabout procedures required for the amendment of rules, such as a two-thirds majority vote in a special general meeting convened after so many weeks' notice. The members placed their savings in their society's care for the sake of security, much more than for any additional income in the form interest, and left them with it to accumulate through the automatic transfer to share account of dividends (patronage refunds). Contemporary conditions in the



countries of advanced economic development demand some more elastic system of interest limitation. If the Movement is to be more than a mere camp-follower of the more progres-sive private sector and blaze new trails and lead the entire economic systems, the whole question of capital availability has to be studied in a much more mobile and dynamic manner than was possible in earlier days. This does not imply any departure from the principles hith-erto accepted, only their application in a more flexible manner. If co-operatives adhere to the principle that nothing more than a legitimate rate of interest will be paid, one is no more and no less co-operative than another, whether it fixes its rate for long periods by rule or for short periods by reference to some standard rate prevailing in the market.

Disposal of Surplus (Savings)

The group of problems to be discussed under the above heading is complementary to that considered in the preceding section. After the question of fair remuneration of capital in relation to the other factors of production has been dealt with, there remain the problems involved in the equitable sharing among the members of a co-operative of any surplus or saving resulting from its activities. There are two main questions for solution: first, to find the proper balance between the interests of the individual members and those of the socie-ty as a whole; second, to do justice as between one individual member and another. The discussion of these questions has been much confused in the past through misconceptions springing from analogies mistakenly drawn between the financial benefits derived by mem-bers from their co- operative society and the profits distributed by joint-stock companies to the holders of their ordinary (equity) shares and, as a consequence, through the use of am-biguous terms. The Commission therefore feels obliged, at the risk of traversing what is to many very familiar ground, to clear the air by restating certain fundamentals.

The economic benefits conferred by co-operative societies on their members are of various kinds and become available according to circumstances in a variety of ways. They may take the form of money, goods or services. They may be immediate, short-term or long-term. Some may be enjoyed collectively; others can only be enjoyed individually. In deciding in what forms and in what proportions or amounts the surplus or savings shall be allocated or divided, the members as a body have, and ought to have, absolute discretion.

In reaching their decisions, however, there are two sets of considerations which, if they hope to prosper, they dare not neglect. On the one hand, there are considerations of business prudence; on the other considerations of equity. If they neglect the former, they will run into economic and financial difficulties. If they neglect the latter, they will provoke resentment and disunity in their society. In some countries a conspicuous economic benefit of a pros-perous co-operative is a money payment or patronage refund it makes to its members peri-odically after its accounts have been balanced, audited and approved, along with the pro-posed allocations and divisions, by its general meeting. These payments are frequently called `dividend', and this is the first occasion of confusion, because the same term is used in com-pany practice to denote payments to shareholders from profits. From this confusion arises another, namely, that the payment of a money dividend is an object, even the principal ob-ject, of a co-operative society, just as it is of a company. Despite all that has been done in the past to educate the public and the mass of co-operative members, to say nothing of politi-



cians and tax-collectors, to understand that the sums distributed by co-operatives are yield-ed by a different type of economic organisation and result from a different series of transac-tions from company profits, the errors persist, first, that the principle of `dividend on trans-actions' implies an obligation on a co-operative to make a periodical distribution of its earn-ings, and second, that the rate of dividend is the most reliable index of its efficiency.

The fallacy is exploded by three well-known facts. The first is that co-operative societies can - and many agricultural supply societies, for example, do - adopt a policy of allowing their members to purchase at prices so near to cost that no margin remains large enough to be worth distributing, especially if the second and third facts play a role of any importance. The second fact is that business prudence sometimes counsels a society to place to reserve or capitalise the whole or greater part of its net earnings, notably when its own position is in any degree difficult or the general economic outlook is uncertain or if it is contemplating a new departure requiring all its financial resources. The capitalisation of surpluses, especially by unions and federations, has always been a powerful factor in co- operative commercial and industrial development. The third fact is that societies often devote a portion of their net surplus or savings to the provision of services for the common enjoyment of their mem-bers, as being more useful to them than individuals. The overriding consideration through-out is that whatever is to be done with a society's net surplus or savings is determined by democratic decision by the members according to their judgement of what is just and expe-dient. Moreover, the amount which is subject to their decision is not profit in the ordinary commercial sense.

Here the Commission would recall that the questions whether to divide or not, and, if there is division, what shall be the method, have been constantly present to the minds of Co-operators throughout the Movement's history. Theoretically, in the pre- Rochdale Co-operative Movement of Great Britain, the net savings or surplus of co-operative societies were to be kept indivisible and added to the societies' capital in order to assist their devel-opment into self-supporting communities. Practically, division of net surplus amongst the members was widespread without any uniformity of method. Equal division, division accord-ing to capital contributions, division according to purchases were all practised. The Rochdale Pioneers, when faced by the same question, decided in the light of their experiences and after much reflection and discussion, that there should be division, for the cogent reason that in order to gain the support of any considerable number of members, their society must offer them some immediate or short-term advantages. The British wage- earners' economic position in the "hungry" 1840s needed relief there and then. It would not permit them to make sacrifices for a distant community ideal. The Pioneers' decisions to divide and to divide in proportion to purchases were really dependent on a previous decision as to price policy. They chose to retail goods at current market prices, at this would administratively be easier and simpler than sale at cost prices - costs and expenses were difficult or impossible to fore-cast accurately - and return to the members periodically in proportion to their purchases what they had paid over the counter in excess of the cost of procuring the goods they bought. The experience of over a century proved the practical wisdom of their decision, but it is significant that those who adopted Rochdale methods in several other countries tended to modify them, once again in the direction of conferring an immediate benefit on the mem-



ber, by adopting an "active" price policy of slightly under-selling the market with the further consequence of lower rates of dividend on purchases.

Before passing to the discussion of these questions, it should be noted that a number of cus-toms and conventions have grown up around the dividend system and these have more or less profoundly modified its practical application. One is a tendency to stabilise or even standardise the rate of dividend. On the one hand, the members in time come to reckon with a constant rate for the purpose of their personal or household economy, the managers tend to budget for a constant rate and include it in their calculation of prices, thus in effect turning the system upside down. In either case, the correspondence between the dividend rate and the trading results of a given balancing period may be broken, and the danger arises that a society, in order to maintain the regular rate, will pay a dividend in excess of its earn-ings and draw on reserves or development funds in order to do so. This temptation increases with the pressure of competition, but it is one which should at all times be strenuously re-sisted in the interests of sound management.

Co-operative societies have also to face the reactions of their competitors to the power of dividend to attract custom and buttress the loyalty of members to the co-operative store, whether they are purchasing consumption or production goods. This reaction takes the ob-vious forms of discounts, rebates, premiums, etc., which, if they represent cash or its equiva-lent, may appear more advantageous than a dividend for which the member must wait until the year's or half-year's end. Not seldom co-operatives have felt obliged to make some con-cession to offset these inducements, as, for example, by giving their members the choice of receiving discount at the time of purchasing or waiting for the dividend ultimately declared. No breach of principle is apparent here, if the rate of discount does not exceed the rate of dividend or patronage refund.

The Commission took note of the tendency for the role and importance of dividend in the economy of Co-operation to change with altered economic and social conditions, particularly in the countries of advanced industrial development. In these countries today, where com-petition is fierce, dividend rates display a downward trend, the combined result of diminish-ing trade margins in the branches in which co-operatives traditionally engage and of rising costs due to labour's increasing demands and to inflationary factors. The importance of divi-dend also declines in the estimation of the membership as increased earnings, full employ-ment and state welfare services bring about greater security and higher standards of com-fort, and with that, the power of dividend to induce constant and `loyal' purchasing over the whole range of commodities societies supply. Recent researches tend to confirm that the rate of dividend now exercises less influence on purchases of consumer goods, compared with their quality and presentation. The role of dividend in the self-financing of co-operatives is also liable to change. Members leave their dividends to accumulate in their capital accounts with their societies to a lesser extent than formerly, unless the societies adopt special measures to promote self-financing in new ways, designed to bring in addi-tional cmpital for special new ventures or to enable the society to retain part of members' dividends as capital for long period, e.g. as int he family savings account system of the Swe-dish Consumers' Co-operative. Parallel changes are to be seen in the social, educational and recreational services traditionally provided by co-operatives out of their net earnings, as they are replaced by more comprehensive and effective state welfare and educational sys-



tems. This does not necessarily mean that the advantages of collective over individual ex-penditure are ceasing to be significant in co- operative economy but that the purposes for which allocations are made must change with the times, as new habits and modes of living open up fresh possibilities, notably in the cultural field. Nevertheless, all these differences imply no more than changes in the pattern of disposal of surplus; the elements remain un-changed. They still are: provision for the society's stability and development; provision for collective services; dividend to members according to transactions. In those parts of the globe where free market economies prevail and commodities are bought and sold by co-operatives to and for their members at market prices or prices varying according to market conditions, savings will be made and accounts will show surpluses, if societies are successful. Under these conditions there seems no need to depart from the principle, already observed for over a century as the most equitable and convenient, of distribution on the basis of transactions.

Politics and Religion

The topics discussed in this section may appear at first sight to lie to a large extent on the fringe of the Co-operative Movement's proper concerns. The Movement's action has hither-to been, and, many believe, must always be, centred in the economic and educational spheres. For the better performance of these tasks, prudent co-operative leadership has constantly tried, as far as possible, to concentrate the attention of the Movement on them and avoid the risks of disunity and dissipation of energy incurred when issues of no obvious relevance, on which people are bound sooner or later to disagree, are imported into the consideration of Co-operative affairs. The strong feeling that this treacherous ground must be avoided at all costs found expression in the formula "Political and Religious Neutrality" employed in the Report adopted by the ICA Congress of 1937. The Report not only gives Neutrality the authority of a principle, but also imparts a wider significance to the term by linking it with race and nationality, as well as politics and religion. In the present Report, even where race and nationality are not specifically mentioned, they may be assumed to be covered by politics, for both are capable of erupting into political conflict in more than one region of the globe.

It is the term `Neutrality' itself which is increasingly called in question by Co-operators more or less everywhere. It was never a good term, because it carried overtones of passivity and indifference which did not harmonise with the facts or the practice of Co-operative Organi-sations which were not, and had no intention of being, indifferent or inactive where the in-terests of the Movement were involved. The term is to-day almost completely misleading and its use has been abandoned in favour of `independence' by many Co-operators. But to reject the term is not necessarily to abandon all the underlying ideas, and the Commission will attempt in the paragraphs which follow to bring out, as far as possible in a positive man-ner, certain considerations of significance for the formulation of co- operative policy in re-gard to politics and religion under contemporary conditions.

To begin with, there are considerations which may be called internal, because they concern the relations of a co-operative with its members. They have already been touched upon in this Report under the head of Membership. There should be no discrimination either among



applicants for membership or among actual members, on religious or political grounds. No one should be obliged to subscribe to any doctrinal declaration. This leaves the member en-tirely free to hold whatever belief or opinion he chooses or to adhere to any religious or po-litical organisation which attracts his sympathy and loyalty. On its side, the society will not compromise its freedom to carry out its proper co- operative tasks through subservience to any political party or religious organisation and will abstain from taking up attitudes on pure-ly party-political or religious issues. Such a policy would not appear to involve any great for-mal difficulties in its implementation.

No firm line of demarcation can be drawn between internal and external considerations. They merge into one another. The external considerations are obviously those which spring from the relations of the co-operative unit, or the Co-operative Movement as a whole with the external social and political system. Economic interests and doctrines play an important, often a dominating, role in the shaping of political policy and the choice of its objectives. Co-operation, as a movement with an economic doctrine of its own and representing well-defined economic interests, cannot avoid involvement in affairs of government, which, whether they are or are not the subject of party conflict, are in their nature political. The action developed by the International Co-operative Alliance and a large number of its affili-ated Organisations to promote the greater enlightenment of consumers and more effective protection of their interests include efforts to influence the legislative and administrative measures of governments, as well as the opinions, attitudes and policies of the national Co-operative Movements. Or again, it is inconceivable that at a period when the productivity and prosperity of agriculture are objects of such greater concern to governments, agricultur-al co-operative Movements should deny themselves the privilege, even if they do not regard it as a duty, of expressing the views of their members, giving government the benefit of their experience when it is considering farming policy and rural welfare, warning it against mis-takes and complaining if the results are unsatisfactory.

Much inevitably depends on the manner and methods by which the Co-operative Movement seeks to intervene in a given political situation. On the one hand, Co-operative Organisations need to choose the methods which promise to be most effective. These range from private representations to government departments and deputations to Ministers to lobbying in parliament, agitation among the public or alliances, temporary or permanent, with political parties. On the other hand, they have to consider which methods will secure the maximum of consent and support among their members and entail the minimum risk of division. Those co- operative organisations are not necessarily the most powerful or influential which take part in election campaigns and seek representation in parliament. Those which are content to work on the administrative level and have earned the confidence of government because of the wisdom and objectivity of their advice, may play an even greater role in shaping policy and determining final decisions. From the point of view of keeping the members' loyalty and support, those organisations which adopt a consistent policy of non-partisanship, that is to say, independence of party and entanglements and intervention based exclusively on co- operative interests and co-operative principles, are obviously on safer ground. The overrid-ing consideration is that any weakening of a co-operative's unity impairs its power to act effectively, not merely in the political field, but in all the other fields as well. Yet in these days, it is not always safe to abstain from taking up attitudes or engaging in action on politi-



cal issues which have any bearing on the Movement's interests or prospects. To declare neu-trality, as has been well said, is to express a political point of view in any case. It is incon-sistent with the aims and spirit of the Co-operative Movement that its leaders and members will endeavour to act, in political as in other matters, so as to promote unity and reduce con-flict by seeking at all times the highest common measure of agreement.

This consideration is of the utmost importance if the Co- operative Movement is to make its most effective contribution to the solution of those great human problems, which although they cannot be resolved without governmental and inter-governmental action of more than one kind, transcend politics and even religions. Great world issues - such as the avoidance of war, disarmament and the consolidation of the bases of peace through the extension of in-ternational collaboration in every sphere; the deliverance of the under-privileged half of mankind from hunger, want, squalor and ignorance: the assertion and maintenance of hu-man rights to individual freedom, equal citizenship and personal development - are not questions on which Co-operators can profess neutrality or indifference. The Movement's philosophy and its practice, the whole trend of its growth and extension, are carrying it on-ward towards an era of international integration of which the International Co-operative Alliance is the precursor and, in a sense, the progenitor.

The present generation of Co-operators, moving about the world to a greater extent than the previous one, is learning from its own experience that co-operative brotherhood trans-cends all limitations. It is of the utmost significance that in congress after congress of the International Co-operative Alliance, the delegations of the national movements, whatever their social, economic or political background, will make every possible concession and strain every resource of language and phraseology in order to secure unanimous agreement on resolutions about international peace. In this way the practice of the Alliance illustrates the statement in its rules that Co-operation "is neutral ground on which people holding the most varied opinions and professing the most diverse creeds may meet and act in common". Just as peace is not simply the absence or cessation of war, so the attitude of Co-operators to political questions is not simply the negative one of abstention, but the positive reflection of their resolve to meet and work together on common ground.

It will be clear from the foregoing that the Commission feels that it cannot follow the Report of 1937 in giving the same absolute authority to Neutrality as a principle. Neutrality in cer-tain circumstances is a right and proper policy. There should be freedom at all levels of the co-operative structure for the individual members, primary societies, secondary organisa-tions and international institutions, to take to political questions the attitudes which are necessary or most appropriate to their circumstances at any given time or place. This free-dom includes independence of alliances or engagements which may impair the performance of their basic task in the economic and educational fields. It is also subject to the primary need of promoting at all levels that unity amongst co-operators which is indispensable to the successful fulfillment of the Movement's mission.

Business Practices

Under this heading the Commission considered two important groups of problems which, if not of equal interest to all types of co-operative association, are of special concern to all



those engaged in trade, whether in consumers' or producers' interests. In respect of both the Rochdale Pioneers made strict rules for themselves. They decided to practice cash pay-ments in buying as well as selling. They also decided to deal in goods of the highest stand-ards of purity, and, when selling them, to give full weight and measure. The Report of 1937, while it made no reference to the second rule, declared that the first was a principle to be closely adhered to for both financial and moral reasons. In the judgement of the Commission these rules are applications to particular problems, within a limited field, of considerations which need under present-day conditions to receive a broader formulation and are capable of considerably wider application. Although neither has the universal validity of a principle, they are nevertheless so important as guides to business policy as to require discussion in this report.

To begin with, it should be borne in mind that the term `cash trading' has never meant simp-ly that goods have to be paid for at the moment they are handed over the counter or deliv-ered at store or domicile. General trade practice has always permitted a little latitude. A few days' delay in payment is not held to conflict with the cash rule especially if payments are regularised so as to be conterminous with the receipt of wages or salaries, weekly, fortnight-ly or monthly. And, if consumers' co-operatives find themselves obliged to conform more or less to what is considered sound practice in retail trade in general, the same is also true, say, of agricultural marketing or industrial producers societies, which allow their customers whatever trade terms are usual in a given market. Cash trading and its alternative, credit trading, in one form or another, require to be considered together in the light of what com-mon sense indicates as financially sound. Despite the strictness of the Rochdale rule, it is not possible to say that either is at all times entirely good or entirely bad. Each stands or falls in relation to the whole set of circumstances in which it is employed.

The Rochdale Pioneers had good reasons for adopting their rule of cash payment. Experience of earlier co-operative enterprise had shown them that unregulated, indiscriminate credit to members could be a mortal disease to young co-operatives. So long as their range of com-modities was virtually limited to foodstuffs of daily consumption, in which the turnover was rapid, they could well dispense with credit. Apart from safeguarding the liquidity and finan-cial stability of their society, they desired to help their members to emancipate themselves from debt, mainly to shopkeepers. When wages are low and employment irregular, the re-tailer is the working-class consumer's nearest source of credit after his savings are exhaust-ed. The position of the small agriculturist living on subsistence level or even below, is very similar and leads to similar results chief among them a debt- servitude which may be life-long. The remedy, though applied in different ways and through different forms of organisa-tion, is fundamentally the same, a financial discipline which encourages and assists thrift, while making unregulated and unsecured credit difficult or impossible. People who con-sciously suffered under a burden of debt could be roused to make the effort involved in changing their buying habits, if liberation were brought within their reach by co-operative enterprise.

It would be different with a later generation, born and brought up under more comfortable and easy conditions. Higher earnings, greater spending power, greater family possessions in savings and real property, rising standards of comfort, a rise in the social scale, a widening range of goods and services on which money could be spent - all played their part in creating



among the public a mentality easily accessible to the suggestion of the salesman to buy now and pay later, dividing the total due into periodic installments within the customer's earning capacity. Under these conditions co-operative societies, whether consumers' co-operatives extending their assortment of commodities from food to clothing, ironmongery and furni-ture, or agricultural societies extending their business into, say, machinery, were forced to face the fact that they could not secure or retain their members' custom without providing facilities for payment equal to those offered by their competitors. The traditional rules were breached and the breaches were widened. Even the rule in the agricultural co-operative movement of granting credit for production rather than for consumption was no longer ap-plicable in those newly developing countries in which the cultivator had to receive credit in order to subsist and work until his crops were harvested and marketed. The private mer-chants and producers made him advances on the security of his growing crop; unless a co- operative could do the same it was hardly in business at all.

The crux of the question is how far, if at all, the grant of credit should be combined with the purchase or sale of commodities. Credit is a service which entails costs like any other. Mem-bers of a co-operative society purchasing on credit receive a service which, unless a special charge is made, they obtain at the expense of the cash-paying member. This is inequitable, and the costs may also be difficult to calculate when they are incurred in innumerable tiny transactions. The general practice of consumers' co-operatives is, therefore, to require pur-chases of good and small household articles to be made for cash, all the more because the commodities are, for all practical purposes, consumed immediately. For larger and more durable articles it is possible and usual to make special arrangements, including the payment of an appropriate interest to cover extra costs and risks.

Here again, the question of combining credit with trade arises in another form. Are members of the sales staff competent to judge credit-worthiness and allow credit? The answer must be: not by any means always, unless they undergo special training. The alternative is set up a special credit union or credit department, operating alongside of the selling departments, to take the responsibility of extending credit, and so enabling the trading departments to work to all intents and purposes on a cash basis. It would seem that unless special care is taken to separate credit from trade, societies are li_ble to incur costs of which they may be for a long time unaware. Societies are naturally anxious to increase their volume of trade, but an in-crease obtained by extending credit at too high a cost cannot be regarded as sound business. A further factor is the heavy drain credit, when it is extended for six or eight months, may make on the capital resources of an agricultural trading society. The capital employed for members' credit is not available to the society for its development. It is inevitable therefore that, where no co-operative credit organisation already exists, co- operators think of creat-ing one especially in order to relieve the burden on the trading societies.

When the problem of credit is considered from the standpoint of the members, the out-standing fact is that they are exposed all the time to the blandishments of sales people of all types, offering all kinds of commodities on what are called `easy terms' which may turn out to be impossibly hard. The evil results of yielding to the temptation to overspend and the usurious practices of many credit-selling enterprises are notorious and have been the sub-ject of preventive and restrictive legislation in a number of countries. The problems of Co-operatives which desire to avoid placing themselves and their members at a disadvantage by



not providing credit facilities is to provide credit on fair terms for them without joining in the competition to induce them to spend more than prudent household or farm management would permit at any given time. It may be plausibly argued that, with managed economies less liable to booms and slumps, and with full employment, the practice of splitting large items of expenditure, such as furnishing a home, into monthly installments related to the buyer's present and prospective income, is a much less risky practice than it was, both for the consumer and a co-operative society. It is even argued that such a practice is justified in order that consumers may enjoy the rapid rise in the standard of comfort which modern technical and economic progress has made possible. Nevertheless the fact remains that the system of cash payments has its economic merits and advantages for both co-operators and their societies and that, at times, it is a mistake to forfeit them for the sake of the conven-ience of credit buying. Co-operatives have a responsibility towards themselves and their members to decide carefully when, and in what manner, it would be permissible to rely on credit, especially in regard to articles of consumption.

The important thing is to hold the balance fairly and, for co-operative societies especially, to look at the question of cash or credit policy, not only from the standpoint of their own busi-ness advantage, but also from the standpoint of the true economic and moral interests, short-term and long-term, of their members. Moreover, societies will be failing in their edu-cational duty if they do not take pains to instruct their members in the issues involved, so that they make intelligent decisions which will later justify themselves by their consequenc-es, in terms of both co-operation and good household or farm management.

The reasons why the Rochdale Pioneers found it necessary to emphasise their determination to sell goods which really were what they professed to be and not to cheat in weighing and measuring are well-enough known to economic and social historians. There were adultera-tion of food and other malpractices common in distribution business int he first half of the 19th century in Europe, and by no means unknown to our own time. But the idea underlying the Rochdale rule has to be expressed in a much broader context today and in the future. It is that co-operative institutions, in all their activities especially where they have to deal with the general public, should be characterised by a high sense of moral and social rectitude. When there is scarcely any branch of commercial activity in which co-operatives of one type or another may not now be found, co-operative institutions should be able to justify their existence, not only by the advantages they yield to their members, but also by their sense of responsibility and their high standards of probity in all that they undertake. The temptation to copy the doubtful practices of competitors should be resisted, even when societies ap-pear to suffer financially because of them. Adulteration, said one 19th century publicists, was an aspect of competition. It is to the honour of the Rochdale Pioneers that they began to shift the area of competition from fraud and adulteration to purity and good quality, some years before the state intervened to set minimum standards and to punish those who failed to observe them. More than one co-operator, versed in the economic and social prob-lems of the newly-developing regions, has emphasised that a similar role could be played by the Co- operative Movement in countries where the government has not yet been able to deal effectively with adulteration. Just as consumer co-operatives can set standards of purity in foodstuffs, so it is possible for agricultural societies to counteract dishonest trading by supplying farmers with goods and chemical fertilisers of good quality.



The conferences on the protection and enlightenment of consumers, convened during the past eight years by the International Co-operative Alliance, have given plenty of evidence that governments cannot be relied upon always to give adequate protection to consumers or even effectively to enforce their own legislation. The rise of consumers' secretariat is proof of consumers' suspicion of and discontent with the manner in which they are some-times treated by the manufacturers and sellers of new products or old products, made or preserved by new processes, which do not justify in use the claims made on their packages or by those who advertise or sell them. The relatively slow processes of protective legislation mean that it nearly always lags considerably behind the inventiveness of manufacturers and technical innovators in making new marketable products. There is therefore still need of an organisation like the Co-operative Movement which can, not only agitate and protest, but supply economically practicable alternative products which are genuine and reliable. No less than the Rochdale Pioneers, the Movement today is capable of shifting the ground of the competitive struggle and of leading trade into a newly and socially reputable paths. But if it is to do so, the ethics of co-operative business must be invariably high, higher and never lower than the law requires, and publicly known to be so.

Education

It is no mere coincidence that so many eminent pioneers and leaders of Co-operation have been also great popular educators. The effort to reshape the economic system on the basis of Co- operative principles requires a different discipline from those of either individual or governmental enterprises. Co-operation as a form of mutual aid appeals to other motives than man's selfish or self-regarding impulses or obedience to duly- constituted authority. Collective self-discipline is not a wild or self-propagating but a cultivated growth. Co-operation requires of those who would practise it effectively the acceptance of new ideas, new standards of conduct, new habits of thought and behaviour, based on the superior val-ues of co- operative association. No co-operative institution, therefore, can be indifferent, in its own interest and for its own survival, to the need for educating its members in appropri-ate ways.

For the purposes of Co-operation, however, education needs to be defined in a very broad sense which includes academic education of more than one kind but much besides. It in-cludes both what people learn and how they learn it. Every phase of experience, which adds to people's knowledge, develops their faculties and skill, widens their outlook, trains them to work harmoniously and effectively with their fellows and inspires them to fulfil their respon-sibilities as men or women and citizens, can have educational significance for Co-operation. Less and less in the contemporary world can education be limited to what is learnt in schools and colleges at special periods of people's lives. The Co-operative concept is of education as a life-long process.

All persons engaged in Co-operation need to participate in this process of education and re-education. For the present discussion they can be divided into three groups. There are, first, the members, those in whose interests co-operatives are established and who, because of their democratic constitution, collectively exercise supreme authority over them. There are, in the second place, the office-holders, whether they are members' elected representatives



or professionals employed by the co- operatives. The education which both these groups require consists mainly of knowledge of technical skill, and a training and behaviour. The knowledge must be as accurate, as systematic and as up to date as they have time and ca-pacity to absorb. It will include not only knowledge of the special forms of co- operation in which they are engaged but also knowledge of the economic and social environment in which their societies operate.

In respect of the elected officers it will include a great deal of business knowledge; in respect of the professional employees, it will include all that will make them at least as competent as those engaged on the corresponding levels of the private and public sectors of economy. The employees will also need the best available training in the appropriate techniques, that is obvious. It is not so obvious and therefore needs emphasis, that the democratic processes of co-operation need technical skill quite as much as the economic, and that the members and their representatives need to be trained to use these processes skilfully and effectively to their society's advantage. Without drawing hard and fast lines, it may be said that the educa-tion of the members forms part of adult education and is carried on today in a decentralised manner by methods of discussion and various kinds of group work, whereas the education of employees and officials for careers in the Co-operative Movement is carried on in technical training institutions and universities. The establishment by national co-operative organisa-tions of central co-operative colleges and training schools is today, it is gratifying to note, becoming normal. The number of universities with special institutes or departments for co-operative studies and research is also on the increase.

The third group consists of people who are potentially, rather than actually co-operators - the greater public still outside the Movement's membership. More and more, with the pas-sage of time, the Co-operative Movement will be obliged, if it is to make headway, to keep the public better informed than in the past about its aims, its organisation and methods, its achievements and its plans for the future. Further, when it has a point of view justified by its own experience, which needs to be put in the interests of the whole body of consumers or producers on an issue of public policy, it should speak out with clarity and force. The battle for the acceptance of co-operative ideas has to be fought in the intellectual, as well as the economic field.

In view of the Commission, education of appropriate kinds for the different groups of per-sons who make up all but the very simplest of co-operative societies is a necessary responsi-bility of co-operative institutions. It by no means follows that they all have to provide every kind of education they require. The expansion of national systems of public instruction can and will take some of co-operators' educational burdens off their shoulders. Nevertheless, it will not relieve the Co-operative Movement of the educational responsibility it alone can discharge of educating people in the ideals of co-operation and the proper methods of ap-plying its principles in given circumstances. it cannot devolve this function on any other insti-tution. Of course, the many thousands of small co-operative societies in remote neighbour-hoods have few resources for educational work. It is, therefore, the duty of the secondary organisations, more particularly the unions and federations which undertake promotional and supervisory functions, to provide all kinds of assistance - publications and audio-visual aids as well as technical guidance - which will ensure that there is in every locality a nucleus



of alert, reasonably well-informed co- operators with an outlook extending beyond the area of their primary society.

The Commission would emphasise the fact, of which co- operative educationist have be-come increasingly aware in recent years, that the movement's educational standards must be constantly rising if they are to match those of the outside world. The structural changes which the Movement in many countries is now being obliged to make, with all the concen-tration and construction of larger-scale operating units they entail, demand at the highest level personnel with experience in and training for management and administration equal to the best employed elsewhere. This problem of education is plainly insoluble apart from problems of recruitment, remuneration and promotion, but its emergence is evidence that the time has come, if it is not overdue, when the Co-operative Movement has to regard its educational activity much more seriously than it has often done in the past. It should define its educational problems in much broader and more comprehensive terms and provide in its budget sufficient funds for a well- planned educational programme.

As one example, the Commission would refer to the idea of the co-operation of co-operative organisations discussed in a latter passage of this report. More and more this co-operation will have to be organised and carried on across national frontiers and from continent to con-tinent. It is a fundamental task of the International Co-operative Alliance to promote and assist its extension, while serving itself as an instrument of collaboration for an increasing number of purposes. It should be self-evident that training for this kind of international co- operation is something which will inevitably outrun the capacity of the national co-operative schools to provide. Training for international co-operation must be established on an inter-national basis. The Commission would therefore point out that the idea of setting up, under the auspices of the International Co-operative Alliance and in close association with its Sec-retariat, a co-operative education centre and training institute, is already an old project of which the Authorities of the Alliance have more than once signified their approval. Such an institute, with an international staff recruited from the most eminent co-operative educators of the world, is needed to produce leaders capable of spearheading the accelerated devel-opment of co-operation on the international level now within the Movement's reach. The time has gone by for small beginnings. The Alliance's resources are too small to permit it to undertake this task alone. The national institutions, especially those powerful organisations now operating in the field of trade and finance, should joint together and come to its assis-tance, not least in the interests of their own future development.

The Commission has no hesitation in accepting Education as a Principle of Co-operation - as the principle, in fact, which makes possible the effective observance and application of the rest. For the Principles of Co-operation are more than verbal formulae, more than articles in a rule book, to be literally interpreted. In the last analysis the Principles embody the spirit of Co-operation, which has to be awakened and renewed in every fresh generation that takes over the work of the Movement from its predecessors. That awakening and renewal depend, more than anything, upon the care and assiduity with which each generation keeps the torch of education aflame.



(1966) ANÁLISIS DEL INFORME DE LA COMISIÓN DE LA ICA SOBRE LOS PRINCIPIOS COOPERATIVOS

Fuente: Kaplán de Drimer, Alicia y Drimer, Bernardo. “Las cooperativas: fundamentos-historia-doctrina”. INTERCOOP, Editora Cooperativa, 1975. Descargado de sitiosocial.com el 25.10.2003

A diferencia del Comité Especial que se expidió en 1937, la Comisión Especial de la Alianza Cooperativa Internacional no recomendó en 1966 una formulación breve o simple de los principios cooperativos; afirmó que esa formulación podía resaltar engañosa y prefirió enun-ciar con mayor amplitud su pensamiento en relación con cada uno de los diversos tópicos considerados tampoco reconoció la prioridad de unos principios sobre los otros y afirmó, como ya observamos, que ellos forman un sistema y resultan inseparables.

En su estudio acerca de los principios cooperativos, la Comisión Especial de 1966 incluyó los cuatro primeros principios adoptados por el Comité de 1937, reconoció como principio esencial la promoción de la educación e introdujo en carácter de principio la integración cooperativa (o sea la cooperación de las organizaciones cooperativas con otras cooperativas, a nivel local, nacional e internacional).

En cuanto a aquellos principios cooperativos enunciados en 1937 y no reiterados en 1966 la Comisión advirtió que, si bien no son actualmente de aplicación universal, pueden mantener su vigencia en relación a los movimientos cooperativos más jóvenes o inexpertos; además, si bien la Comisión no dio a la neutralidad política y religiosa el carácter de principio indepen-diente, la enunció en vinculación con el primer principio cooperativo, al pronunciarse en contra de cualquier discriminación política, racial o religiosa que afectase el ingreso de los asociados.

El 23° Congreso de la A. C. I. reunido en Viena en 1966 aprobó recomendaciones y conclu-siones de la citada Comisión, en los siguientes términos:

“1. La adhesión a una sociedad cooperativa debe ser voluntaria y estar al alcance, sin restric-ción artificial ni cualquier discriminación social, política, racial o religiosa, de todas las perso-nas que puedan utilizar sus servicios y estén dispuestas a asumir las responsabilidades inhe-rentes a la calidad de asociado”.

“2. Las sociedades cooperativas son organizaciones democráticas. Sus operaciones deben ser administradas por personas elegidas o nombradas de acuerdo con el procedimiento adoptado por los miembros y responsables ante estos últimos. Los miembros de las socie-dades primarias deben tener los mismos derechos de voto (un miembro, un voto) y de parti-cipación en las decisiones que afecten a su sociedad. En las sociedades que no sean prima-rias, la administración debe realizarse sobre una base democrática en una forma apropiada”.

“3. Si se paga un interés sobre el capital accionarlo, su tasa debe ser estrictamente limitada”.

“4. Los excedentes o economías eventuales que resulten de las operaciones de una socie-dad, pertenecen a los miembros de esa sociedad y deben ser distribuidos de manera que se evite que un miembro gane a expensas de otros.



Esto puede hacerse, de acuerdo con la decisión de los miembros, de la siguiente forma:

(a) aplicación al desarrollo de las actividades de la cooperativa;

(b) aplicación a servicios comunes; o

(e) distribución entre los miembros en proporción a sus operaciones con la sociedad”.

“5. Todas las sociedades cooperativas deben tomar medidas para promover la educación de sus miembros, dirigentes, empleados y público en general, en los principios y métodos de la Cooperación, desde el punto de vista económico y democrático”.

“6. Con el objeto de servir mejor los intereses de sus miembros y de la comunidad, todas las organizaciones cooperativas deben cooperar activamente, de todas las maneras posibles, con otras cooperativas a nivel local, nacional e internacional”.

1. Membership of a co-operative society should be voluntary and available without artificial restriction or any social, political or religious discrimina-tions, to all persons who can make use of its services and are willing to ac-cept the responsibilities of membership.

1. El ingreso y el egreso de los asociados son regidos en las por el principio tradicionalmente designado con la expresión “libre acceso y adhesión voluntaria” ; se trata en realidad de dos normas , como veremos, conceptos diferentes:

a) La norma de acceso libre indica que el ingreso a las cooperativas se halla al alcance de todos cuantos quieran incorporarse a ellas; de ahí la expresión “puerta abierta” que también se aplica habitualmente.

Las condiciones para el ingreso han de constar en el estatuto de las cooperativas; y deben ser mínimas y de carácter general. Basta que los solicitantes puedan utilizar los servicios de las cooperativas (por eso, por ejemplo, se requiere ser productor del campo para ingresar a las cooperativas agrarias), no tengan intereses contrarios a ellas, se comprometan a respetar el estatuto y los reglamentos de las respectivas entidades (o sea a asumir los derechos y de-beres de los asociados) y cumplan las simples formalidades establecidas al efecto.

Las cooperativas no deben exigir derechos de ingreso gravosos ni la integración de un eleva-do monto de acciones, que de hecho excluyan a las personas menos pudientes.

b) La norma de adhesión voluntaria indica que el ingreso y egreso de los asociados debe de-pender de su voluntad, sin que exista imposición legal o de hecho que obligue a cualquier persona a asociarse a las cooperativas o a permanecer dentro de ellas contra su deseo.

Las cooperativas conservan la facultad de expulsar a sus asociados, pero sólo por causas jus-tificadas y con las garantías previstas para asegurar los derechos de estos últimos.

En caso de retiro de los asociados, las disposiciones estatutarias que establecen prioridades, plazos o porcentajes para la devolución de las acciones integradas por aquellos, se justifican sólo en cuanto preservan la estabilidad financiera de las entidades y las defienden contra los riesgos de un retiro masivo o intempestivo de acciones cooperativas.



2. Las normas que estudiamos han servido de fundamento para la adopción, en numerosos países, de disposiciones legales que consagrar la ilimitación en el número de asociados y en el monto del capital social de las cooperativas. Esas normas de libre acceso y adhesión vo-luntaria (y la consiguiente ilimitación en el número de asociados y el capital social hacen que puedan suscribirse por lo general nuevas acciones cooperativas, sin necesidad de que se adquieran las acciones ya emitidas, de manera que estas no alteran su precio por la deman-da ni pueden cotizarse consiguientemente en las bolsas de valores.

Observemos a este respecto que., en otros tipos de entidades, la limitación en el número de socios y en el capital social hace que las parte sociales o acciones ya emitidas tengan un pre-cio variable, que puede o ni cotizarse en las bolsas de valores, pero que cierra las posibilida-des de acceso o, en el mejor de los casos, obliga a las personas que quieres, ingresar a enti-dades prosperas a efectuar erogaciones suplementarias. En las cooperativas, por el contra-rio, aun cuando se trate de entidades muy prosperas y que cuenten con grandes reservas de cualquier naturaleza, las acciones cooperativas no pueden ser acaparadas ni vendidas a un precio superior a su valor nominal, establecido en el respectivo estatuto; de modo que se evita toda maniobra interesada y toda especulación en relación a las acciones cooperativas.

Destaquemos en este punto los siguientes conceptos contenidos en el informe de la Comi-sión sobre los Principios Cooperativos, considerado por la Alianza Cooperativa Internacional en 1966: “Gracias al acceso libre las acciones de las sociedades cooperativas mantienen constantemente el valor nominal fijado en el estatuto de la sociedad y pueden ser adquiridas por cualquier nuevo asociado a ese valor. Por ello, la negociación y la especulación con ac-ciones cooperativas no resultan lucrativas y no se manifiestan”.

Como norma general, pues, los nuevos asociados ingresan a las cooperativas en las mismas condiciones que sus predecesores y a los asociados salientes por cualquier causa (renuncia, exclusión) se les reintegra por sus acciones cooperativas no valor no superior al que hayan aportado.

3. Se verifican en la práctica una serie de restricciones a las normas que estudiamos, algunas de ellas perfectamente justificables, otras criticadas en forma más o menos severa por la doctrina.

a) En lo que se refiere al libre acceso, se justifican indudablemente aquellos requisitos que derivan de la misma naturaleza de las actividades que desarrollan las cooperativas, tales como la referida condición de productor del campo para las cooperativas de colocación de la producción agraria, la condición de obrero, técnico o profesional para las cooperativasde trabajo, etc.

Otros casos resultan más cuestionables. Así, algunas cooperativas de consumo limitan el acceso de asociados a aquellos que forman parte de determinado gremio o habitan en una determinada zona, algunas cooperativas de vivienda, que reducen su objetivo a la adjudica-ción de un único núcleo de casas o de departamentos, limitan el número de asociados estric-tamente al número de esas unidades de vivienda; las cooperativas de trabajo suelen limitar el acceso de asociados de acuerdo con las ocupaciones disponibles o con el volumen calcu-



lado de sus operaciones, pues una ampliación de sus actividades no resulta siempre posible; diversos motivos técnicos o económicos suelen inducir a algunas cooperativas de colocación de la producción a limitar el ingreso de nuevos asociados productores, etc.

b) En cuanto a las restricciones a la norma de adhesión voluntaria, ellas pueden derivar de circunstancias de hecho o de disposiciones legales o estatutarias.

Citemos algunos ejemplos: la circunstancia de que en una zona rural opere una sola coope-rativa de colocación de la producción, puede imponer de hecho la necesidad de que un agri-cultor de la zona se asocie a ella, si no desea afrontar la venta de su producción en inferiori-dad de condiciones la asociación de una municipalidad a una cooperativa constituida con el objeto de proporcionar un servicio esencial (agua potable, energía eléctrica, etc.), puede obligar de hecho a los habitantes de ese municipio a utilizar los servicios de la cooperativa; de acuerdo con las reglamentaciones legales vigentes en diversos países, la venta de primera mano de determinada producción pesquera debe realizarse obligatoriamente a través de cooperativas Y ello implica que los pescadores deban asociarse o al menos utilizar necesa-riamente los servicios de tales cooperativas; numerosas cooperativas de colocación de la producción de electricidad, etc. establecen en sus estatutos que, las personas que volunta-riamente deseen adherirse a ellas, deben permanecer asociadas durante un determinado número de años, para asegurar así una mayor estabilidad y hacer posible la consolidación de importantes realización es cooperativas, etc.

e) En cualquier caso, conviene consultar al respecto la opinión prevaleciente en esta mate-ria, expuesta a través del órgano indiscutiblemente representativo del movimiento coopera-tivo mundial, o sea la Alianza Cooperativa Internacional.

4. Sin embargo, la comprobación de diversas restricciones acceso libre y la adhesión volunta-ria, no debe llevar de ninguna manera a desconocer la trascendencia de estas normas, que han de continuar orientando las actividades de las entidades cooperativas, pues son esencia-les y resultan condición indispensable para la vigencia de otros principios cooperativos.

Tales restricciones sólo deben admitirse en casos fundados y siempre que no impliquen una limitación artificial o una discriminación de cualquier tipo contra determinadas personas. Recordemos a este último respecto que, si bien la Alianza Cooperativa Internacional no man-tuvo en 1966 la neutralidad política y religiosa en carácter de principio independiente, mani-festó con claridad, en el enunciado de este primer principio, su oposición a toda restricción artificial y a cualquier discriminación social, política, racial o religiosa que pudiera limitar el acceso a una entidad cooperativa.

2. Co-operative societies are democratic organisations. Their affairs should be administered by persons elected or appointed in a manner agreed by the members and accountable to them. Members of primary societies should enjoy equal rights of voting (one member, one vote) and participation in



decisions affecting their societies. In other than primary societies the ad-ministration should be conducted on a democratic basis in a suitable form.

El principio de organización democrática es uno de los que más nítidamente destacan los caracteres sociales junto a los económicos, y señalan la importancia que debe asignarse en las entidades cooperativas al elemento humano en relación al capital. También ha sido cali-ficado como el principio que establece el control democrático, la igualdad de todos los aso-ciados y la autonomía de las entidades cooperativas.

1. Cada asociado tiene un solo voto cualquiera sea el número de sus acciones cooperativas. Todos los asociados, reunidos en asamblea general, deciden los asuntos importantes y eligen libremente, entre ellos mismos, a aquellos que han de dirigir la cooperativa. Los dirigentes son responsables de su gestión ante los asociados, a quienes incumbe pues el control de las operaciones.

El presente principio marca una diferencia fundamental entre las cooperativas y otras enti-dades de distinta naturaleza. En estas últimas, la influencia que cada socio tiene en la orien-tación de los asuntos comunes suele depender del capital que posea en ellas; y un socio puede, si dispone del capital necesario, llegar a ejercer al respecto un poder absoluto. En las cooperativas, en cambio, el poder de decisión depende de las personas en sí mismas y no del capital que las apoye.

Es el mismo principio democrático que en materia política consagra a voluntad de la mayoría de los ciudadanos; aquí se trata de la democracia económica, que adquiere plena vigencia dentro de las entidades cooperativas y consagra la voluntad de la mayoría de sus asociados.

Las cooperativas deben ser muy celosas en la defensa del principio de organización demo-crática y rechazar aquellas condiciones vinculadas con el ejercicio del derecho de voto o de elegibilidad que, aunque aparentemente justificadas, puedan llegar a restringir arbitraria-mente tales derechos o a hacerlos efectivos sólo en relación a núcleos determinados de aso-ciados. Desde luego, ello no obsta al reconocimiento de determinadas condiciones lógicas y no discriminatorias, tales como el requisito de un mínimo de antigüedad para el ejercicio del derecho de voto de los asociados (que puede prevenir determinadas maniobras de carácter electoral) y el requisito de idoneidad a fin de ocupar los cargos directivos de la entidad.

Es importante señalar que la regla “una persona - un voto” se aplica indefectiblemente en todas las auténticas cooperativas primarias, o sea en aquéllas constituídas predominante-mente por asociados individuales. En cambio en las uniones, ligas, federaciones o confede-raciones de cooperativas, que se hallan constituidas predominantemente por otras entida-des cooperativas, la regla “una persona - un voto” cede ante diversas consideraciones de carácter práctico (tales como la diferente dimensión de las organizaciones asociadas o la distinta medida en que ellas operan con la entidad federativo); sin embargo, aun en estos casos., la votación y la participación de los asociados en la deliberación general y el control de esas entidades, deben efectuarse sobre bases democráticas y compatibles con el “ espíri-tu cooperativo”. Así lo estableció expresamente la Alianza Cooperativa Internacional cuan-do, al reformular en 1966 los principios cooperativos, determinó que: “En las sociedades que no sean primarias la administración debe realizarse sobre una base democrática en una for-ma apropiada.”



2. En las cooperativas todos los asociados tienen iguales derechos; y esa igualdad se mani-fiesta tanto en el ejercicio del derecho de voto (incluso en la frecuente limitación del voto por poder) como en el derecho a ser elegido para los cargos directivos y en el uso de los ser-vicios que proporciona la cooperativa.

Ni siquiera los iniciadores o fundadores pueden reservarse derechos especiales que se nie-guen a los demás asociados o bien ventajas y privilegios, tales como votos múltiples, mayor participación en los beneficios, etc.

Tampoco las personas elegidas para ocupar cargos directivos tienen derecho por esta cir-cunstancia a recibir un tratamiento privilegiado o ventajas especiales. A los miembros del Consejo de Administración se les reintegran comúnmente los gastos efectuados por ellos en el ejercicio de su cargo; también se les puede remunerar, aunque sólo en la medida de su trabajo personal efectivamente realizado y nunca en relación con los beneficios o exceden-tes del ejercicio.

Demás está aclarar que estos caracteres igualitarios diferencian a las cooperativas de otras entidades, pues en éstas resulta frecuente la concesión de ventajas especiales a los dirigen-tes y de privilegios a los iniciadores o fundadores, a través de una mayor ingerencia en la dirección o una mayor participación en las utilidades.

Puede afirmarse, en consecuencia, que el principio de organización democrática (reforzado por el principio ya referido de acceso libre y adhesión voluntaria y por otros principios cooperativos) consagra el carácter igualitario de la institución cooperativa, para la cual todos los asociados son iguales y tienen los mismos derechos.

3. Por otra parte, el presente principio de organización democrática señala la necesidad de que las cooperativas mantengan su autonomía frente al Estado. Según veremos con mayor detalle en otro capítulo, se le reconocen a este respecto al Estado funciones de reglamenta-ción legal, registro, estadística, fiscalización, etc. de las cooperativas y también funciones de estímulo más o menos intenso, de acuerdo con las necesidades socioeconómicas del medio en que se desarrollan; pero se critica la eventual intervención directa del Estado en las cooperativas, de una manera que torne ilusoria la administración democrática realizada por sus asociados.

Efectivamente, como todas las demás entidades, las cooperativas tienen que desempeñarse dentro del marco legislativo y reglamentario establecido por el Estado y sujetarse a las nor-mas de fiscalización previstas por este para proteger los intereses generales. No obstante, debe evitarse una intromisión oficial directa en la administración de las cooperativas; y la única excepción admisible a este respecto la constituyen aquellos casos en que, como vere-mos más adelante, el Estado participa con carácter transitorio y de alguna manera en la ad-ministración de las entidades promovidas en determinadas zonas, a fin de orientarlas y veri-ficar el empleo de recursos adelantados para apoyarlas, hasta tanto esas entidades pre-cooperativas estén en condiciones de desempeñarse eficazmente por sí solas.



4. Los conceptos antedichos se refieren a las ideas fundamentales contenidas dentro del principio de organización democrática de las cooperativas. Pero faltaría aún aludir a otros conceptos en, relación con la adaptación de este principio tradicional a las condiciones eco-nómico-sociales del mundo moderno; ello no implica necesariamente limitaciones pero de-manda, en muchos casos, una visión más práctica o realista respecto a diversos problemas de actualidad.

El ejercicio directo de la elección y el control democrático de las cooperativas, que resultan más fáciles en las organizaciones de tamaño reducido en donde prevalece el conocimiento personal de los asociados, se van dificultando a medida que crece el tamaño de las entidades o la complejidad de sus operaciones; y esas dificultades se hacen aun más agudas en las grandes entidades de carácter regional o nacional, que se constituyen como consecuencia de los modernos procesos de integración cooperativa.

Los cooperadores han advertido con alarma tales problemas, en particular el posible desin-terés de diversos núcleos de asociados (evidenciado, entre otros hechos, por una disminu-ción en la asistencia de asociados a las asambleas de las grandes cooperativas); y buscan afanosamente nuevos métodos que, sin obstaculizar el progreso y la eficiencia de las entida-des cooperativas, preserven en su seno los caracteres democráticos.

Ello explica, entre otros, los esfuerzos desplegados en las grandes cooperativas para: a) atri-buir mayor importancia a las asambleas locales de asociados que preceden la formación de la asamblea general de delegados; b) conocer la opinión de los asociados mediante la orga-nización de diversos tipos de encuestas o de un apropiado “referéndum” y la realización de consultas a los grupos de estudio existentes; c) dar a los miembros nuevas oportunidades de participar en las actividades comunes a través de la integración de comisiones de asociados que colaboran con la administración general, tales como comités locales o de sección, comi-siones de amas de casa, comisiones de educación, de recreación, etc.

No nos referiremos en detalle a estas cuestiones en el presente punto pues preferimos remi-tirnos, con el objeto de evitar innecesarias reiteraciones, a los conceptos expuestos con gran autoridad por el Comité Especial de la Alianza Cooperativa Internacional en 1966 y resumi-dos por nosotros en el “Apéndice II”, así como a otros puntos de este libro en donde se tra-tan temas análogos.

Sólo aclararemos desde ya que las cuestiones consideradas en aquella fecha por la A. C. I. se refieren, en particular, a los siguientes puntos: a) la frecuente sustitución de la asamblea única de asociados por asambleas de delegados de sector o de distrito y la consiguiente apli-cación de la elección indirecta en las grandes cooperativas; b) los diversos métodos puestos en práctica con el objeto de contrarrestar los peligros del burocratismo y también de la posi-ble actuación discrecional del personal técnico, dentro de las complejas organizaciones cooperativas modernas; y c) la frecuente complementación o sustitución de la regla “una persona - un voto” en las uniones, federaciones o confederaciones de cooperativas, median-te otras normas que responden a consideraciones justificadas y respetan las bases democrá-ticas del sistema.



Para terminar reafirmemos que la organización democrática de las cooperativas exige, desde luego, la aplicación de la regla “una persona - un voto” en las cooperativas primarias u otras reglas apropiadas en las asociaciones de cooperativas, de modo que los dirigentes sean ele-gidos libremente por los asociados y den cuenta del cumplimiento de su mandato; pero ella requiere también, en las condiciones socioeconómicas actuales, el fomento de una efectiva participación de los asociados en las grandes organizaciones cooperativas, sobre todo a tra-vés de una adecuada educación, el empleo de modernos métodos informativos y la práctica de diversos sistemas de consulta y colaboración.

3. Share capital should only receive a strictly limited rate of interest, if any.

1. El presente principio establece que las cooperativas sólo pueden abonar, sobre las accio-nes suscriptas e integradas por sus asociados, un interés de tasa limitada.

Mientras que los dos principios anteriores tratan aspectos preferentemente sociales, el pre-sente principio y el que le sigue consideran aspectos predominantemente económicos. Es-tos se refieren, en efecto, al destino que puede darse a los excedentes que derivan de las operaciones realizadas por las cooperativas; y, dentro de este concepto general, el presente principio establece la retribución que puede asignarse al capital accionarlo aportado por los asociados de las cooperativas.

2. Las cooperativas requieren el empleo de capitales para organizar, ampliar o perfeccionar sus actividades y, cuando se desempeñan dentro de un medio que remunera el aporte de capitales, advierten frecuentemente la conveniencia de retribuir esos capitales con el fin de atraerlos hacia sí en la medida requerida. Además, ellas reconocen la importancia del capital como uno de los factores de la producción y, por lo tanto, admiten que se pague por su uso una compensación adecuada.

Pero las cooperativas procuran una más justa distribución de los beneficios; de ahí que se nieguen a reconocer al capital un papel preponderante o decisivo, tanto en la dirección de las operaciones sociales como en la apropiación de los posibles beneficios o excedentes re-sultantes de sus actividades. Respecto a la dirección de las operaciones sociales, recorde-mos que el principio ya referido de organización democrática reconoce en las cooperativas primarias un solo voto por cada asociado, cualquiera sea el monto de sus acciones coopera-tivas; respecto al destino de los excedentes, el presente principio dispone que el capital ac-cionarlo se retribuya a lo sumo con un interés limitado.

Repitiendo la imagen ya consagrada en esta materia, mientras que en otras entidades el ca-pital es amo absoluto, en las cooperativas sólo reviste la condición de un asalariado en cuan-to se halla sujeto a una retribución limitada.

3. Cabe destacar en vinculación con este principio algunos conceptos a menudo puestos en duda en el pasado, pero actualmente ya definitivamente aclarados:

a) El pago de un interés de tasa limitada se refiere al capital accionario, o sea a las acciones cooperativas aportadas por los asociados para formar el capital social; de manera pues que,



si una cooperativa firma obligaciones o realiza otros tipos de operaciones que no consistan en la suscripción de acciones por sus asociados, podrá pagar por el uso del dinero las corres-pondientes tasas de interés que rijan en el medio económico-social en que se desarrolla (y que pueden o no coincidir con aquella tasa de interés accionarlo).

b) El presente principio de ninguna manera obliga a pagar un interés por el capital accionar-lo, pues admite implícitamente la posibilidad de no abonar interés alguno y sólo establece que, cuando se resuelva pagar interés sobre el capital accionarlo, la tasa de ese interés debe ser estrictamente limitada.

c) Aun en los casos en que se prevén intereses sobre el capital accionarlo, su pago sólo pro-cede cuando el balance de la cooperativa comprueba la realización de beneficios o exceden-tes; no se trata, pues, de intereses sobre prestamos o sobre depósitos, que deben necesa-riamente calcularse y abonarse a manera de gastos, sino de una forma de retribuir los apor-tes accionarlos de los asociados mediante una tasa determinada y en la medida en que se disponga de excedentes.

El término “interés”, en consecuencia, no resulta aquí completamente adecuado, pero ha sido consagrado universalmente y sirve para destacar con claridad la idea de una retribución fija al capital accionarlo; además, las tentativas que se han hecho para reemplazar en esta materia el término “interés” por otro más adecuado, no han arribado todavía a soluciones absolutamente convincentes.

Por otra parte notemos que en algunos países se insiste, a nuestro parecer inapropiadamen-te, en considerar estos intereses sobre las acciones cooperativas a manera de gastos, en lu-gar de abonarlos cuando se producen excedentes.

4. El pago de un interés sobre las acciones cooperativas ha de depender, dentro de la limita-ción que consagra el principio enunciado, no sólo de consideraciones de carácter teórico o idealista, sino también de las circunstancias prácticas que derivan del medio económico-social. Por ello se evitan, por lo general, las fórmulas demasiado estéticas (tales como la fijación de una tasa de interés accionarlo en el estatuto social) y se prefieren, en cambio, aquellos métodos que faciliten una rápida adaptación a las cambiantes condiciones econó-mico-financieras (tales como la adecuación de esa tasa a determinadas tasas bancarias u otras comúnmente aplicadas en el mercado).

Las mismas circunstancias prácticas, y en especial la conveniencia de atraer hacia las coope-rativas mayores aportes accionarios, hacen que algunas entidades cooperativas sólo abonen intereses sobre las acciones suscriptas e integradas por los asociados cuyo monto exceda el mínimo requerido para afiliarse a ellas.

4. Surplus or savings, if any, arising out of the operations of a society belong to the members of that society and should be distributed in such manner as would avoid one member gaining at the expense of others. This may be done by decision of the members as follows: by provision for development of the business of the Co-operative; by provision of common services; or by



distribution among the members in proportion to their transactions with the society.

1. Según va hemos señalado, el presente principio se halla estrechamente vinculado con el principio anterior, ya que ambos se refieren al destino de los excedentes (o beneficios, eco-nomías, etc.) que derivan de las actividades cooperativas.

Las cooperativas constituyen, en efecto, organizaciones socioeconómicas “sui-géneris” en las que, mientras el capital accionarlo sólo tiene derecho a percibir un interés limitado, los ex-cedentes resultantes de sus actividades se destinan a diversas finalidades comunes (desarro-llo de las actividades de la cooperativa, servicios comunes) o bien se distribuyen entre los asociados en proporción a sus respectivas operaciones con la entidad (operaciones de com-pra de artículos y servicios, de entrega de productos o de trabajo).

Aun en relación a un principio de carácter económico como el que nos ocupa, puede pues afirmarse que lo más importante dentro de las cooperativas son las personas y no el capital, ya que la distribución eventual de excedentes entre las personas asociadas no depende del capital integrado por ellas, sino de su participación en las actividades comunes.

2. Tradicionalmente se advirtió que las cooperativas no producían ganancias sino “exceden-tes de percepción” o “excedentes de retención”.

En efecto, las cooperativas de distribución (de consumo, de provisión de electricidad, etc.) suelen tener “excedentes de percepción” que consisten en las diferencias entre los precios que abonan los asociados-compradores por los artículos o servicios que requieren y el costo que tiene para la cooperativa la distribución de esos artículos o servicios (precio de fabrica-ción o compra al por mayor, alquileres, salarios, gastos generales, etc.).

Las cooperativas de colocación de la producción suelen tener “excedentes de retención”, que consisten en las diferencias entre los importes deducidos a los asociados-productores para hacer frente a los gastos ocasionados por los servicios de colocación o venta de su pro-ducen (que pueden incluir asimismo servicios de conservación traslado transformación de productos. etc.) y el costo de esos servicios.

Por su parte, las cooperativas de trabajo también suelen tener "excedentes de retención que consisten en las diferencias entre los importes adelantados (mensual, quincenalmente, etc.) a los trabajadores asociados durante el ejercicio, por su respectivo trabajo, y los benefi-cios o excedentes obtenidos anualmente y evidenciados a través del balance de la respectiva cooperativa de trabajo.

En cualquier caso esos excedentes deben, una vez aprobado el balance correspondiente, destinarse a finalidades comunes y/o distribuir se entre los asociados en proporción a su participación en las operaciones sociales, o sea en proporción a las compras realizadas por los asociados en las cooperativas de distribución, en proporción a los productos entregados por los asociados en las cooperativas de colocación de la producción y en proporción al tra-bajo realizado por los asociados en las cooperativas de trabajo.



3. La distribución de los excedentes entre los asociados en proporción a sus respectivas ope-raciones, constituye un rasgo característico de las cooperativas; y ha sido considerada por diversos autores como la norma fundamental que permitía diferenciarlas de las demás enti-dades. Pero la evolución posterior, sin quitar de ninguna manera validez a esta norma., ha llevado a aclarar algunos puntos y a señalar la posibilidad de que las cooperativas resuelvan fijar para sus excedentes otros destinos comunes, en lugar de distribuirlos entre los asocia-dos.

En efecto, tanto el pago de un interés sobre el capital accionarlo a que se refiere el principio anterior, como la distribución de excedentes entre los miembros de la entidad, no son de carácter obligatorio, sino que dependen de la decisión adoptada por los asociados. Las cooperativas pueden, por ejemplo, realizar operaciones a precios muy aproximados al costo y reducir en consecuencia hasta un límite mínimo el monto de sus excedentes; pueden tam-bién destinar la totalidad o una parte de los excedentes al autofinanciamiento, es decir a consolidar, ampliar o perfeccionar sus actividades; y pueden igualmente destinar una parte más o menos amplia de los excedentes a fines educativos o de bienestar solidaridad o previ-sión.

La Alianza Cooperativa Internacional lo expreso claramente en 1966 al enunciar el cuarto principio cooperativo, cuando señaló que los excedentes o economías eventuales pertene-cen a los miembros de la respectiva cooperativa y, de acuerdo con la decisión que ellos adopten, no sólo pueden distribuirse en proporción a las operaciones de los miembros con la entidad, sino también aplicarse al desarrollo de las actividades de la cooperativa o a servicios comunes.

4. Lo que marca en realidad una diferencia fundamental con otras organizaciones, si bien las cooperativas pueden decidir que no se distribuyan excedentes entre sus asociados, ellas no podrían distribuirlos en base a otro criterio que no fuera la participación proporcionar de los asociados en las operaciones sociales; no podrían, por lo tanto, distribuir excedentes en base al capital accionarlo de sus asociados, en base a su actuación en los cargos directivos, etc.

En lugar de forzar los conceptos doctrinarios para justificar situaciones o experiencias espe-ciales, convengamos en que las normas que se apartan de los conceptos. indicados constitu-yen una excepción. A este respecto es necesario señalar que determinados tipos de coope-rativas, en base a consideraciones muy respetables de orden práctico adoptan en algunos países normas que reconocen una más amplia participación del capital accionarlo en los re-sultados de las operaciones sociales (muchas veces fundamentadas en disposiciones legales o reglamentarias vigentes que así lo autorizan).

5. La importancia que se atribuye a los retornos cooperativos -o sea a la parte de los exce-dentes que se reintegra a los asociados en proporción a sus operaciones- varían según los diversos tipos de cooperativas y, dentro de cada uno de ellos, según las diversas épocas y medios económico-sociales en que se desarrollan.



Las cooperativas de consumo, por ejemplo, subrayaron tradicionalmente la importancia del retorno como forma de: a) reintegrar a los asociados-consumidores la parte que en justicia les corresponde dentro de las actividades comunes; b) destacar que los asociados se desem-peñan, al mismo tiempo, como adquirentes de los artículos o servicios y como socios o due-ños de su cooperativa; c) estimularlos a operar con mayor constancia y a vigilar mejor la ges-tión de las operaciones comunes; d) facilitarles la formación de ahorros personales; e) atraer a nuevos asociados, etc. Otros tipos de cooperativas prefieren acentuar la importancia de los servicios que proporcionan a sus asociados, sin asignar a los retornos la misma atención que las cooperativas de consumo; y aun estas últimas, interesadas en realizar una política activa de rebaja de precios de los artículos y servicios, han asumido contemporáneamente una posición más variada a este respecto.

5. All co-operative societies should make provision for the education of their members, officers, and employees and of the general public, in the principles and techniques of Co-operation, both economic and democratic.

1. Se trata de una norma fundamental que deriva de la naturaleza misma de la institución cooperativa; así lo ha reconocido la Alianza Cooperativa Internacional en la formulación de los principios cooperativos realizada en 1937 y, aún con mayor amplitud, en la reformulación de 1966.

Desde el punto de vista práctico cabe observar que las cooperativas, en su carácter de enti-dades socioeconómicas basadas en el “esfuerzo propio” y la “ayuda mutua” de los asocia-dos, colocan en manos de estos últimos (por sí mismos o a través de los representantes ele-gidos entre ellos) funciones de deliberación general, dirección y control interno de las activi-dades; de modo que los asociados han de adquirir los conocimientos que les permitan llenar acertadamente sus importantes funciones. Pero también desde el punto de vista espiritual, en su carácter de asociaciones de personas que aspiran a regir sus relaciones socioeconómi-cas en base a normas de igualdad, solidaridad, justicia y equidad, las cooperativas necesitan difundir el “espíritu cooperativo” a través de la educación.

Puede afirmarse que así como la democracia política requiere para funcionar correctamente la educación política de los ciudadanos, la democracia económica requiere indispensable-mente la educación económica de los asociados en su doble condiciono de productores y de consumidores.

2. La educación cooperativa debe desarrollarse a distintos niveles abarcar tanto a los miem-bros elegidos para dirigir las cooperativas, como conjunto de asociados, al personal emplea-do y al público en general, captándose en cada caso a las respectivas necesidades.

En términos generales, puede afirmarse que la educación cooperativa debe proporcionar conocimientos acerca de los principios y métodos cooperativos; debe inducir a los asociados a participar activamente en su cooperativa, a deliberar correctamente en las asambleas, a elegir conscientemente a sus autoridades y a controlar su actuación; debe enseñar a los diri-gentes a orientar y expandir adecuadamente las actividades comunes; debe proporcionar al personal empleado los conocimientos técnicos y doctrinarios necesarios para su correcto



desempeño; y debe Comentar también el sentido de solidaridad y de responsabilidad de la población en general. Además, allí donde sea decididamente bajo el nivel cultural de la po-blación, corresponde que las cooperativas procuren difundir entre sus ociados los conoci-mientos fundamentales, sin los cuales se dificulta el ejercicio consciente de la democracia política o económica.

Los métodos y sistemas de enseñanza y difusión de las cooperativas son muy variados; men-cionemos la organización de cursos especiales de distinta duración e intensidad, la edición de libros, diarios, revistas, folletos y otras publicaciones, el funcionamiento de bibliotecas y salas de lectura, la organización de círculos o grupos de estudio, la exhibición de carteles, diapositivas o películas, los programas de radio o televisión y otros medios audiovisuales, las conferencias, foros y paneles, la enseñanza correspondencia, etc. Además, debe propiciarse la inclusión de la enseñanza del cooperativismo en los establecimientos de educación prima-ria, media, superior y universitaria, así como la organización y funcionamiento de cooperati-vas escolares y estudiantiles.

3. La importancia que las cooperativas asignan a la educación plica la intensa actividad desa-rrollada en este sentido, sobre todo por las uniones o federaciones regionales y nacionales de cooperativas, que cuentan frecuentemente con recursos financieros y técnicos más apro-pia, efecto. Los requerimientos son siempre crecientes, pues, a medida q actividades eco-nómicas se hacen más complejas, aumenta el nivel de conocimientos que se requieren para que los asociados en general particular los dirigentes elegidos y el personal empleado, pue-dan desempeñarse adecuadamente.

Por otra parte, la educación cooperativa resulta necesaria tanto países económicamente más desarrollados y de mayor desenvolvió cooperativo como en aquellos que se hallan en vías de desarrollo. En últimos países, el gobierno suele propiciar las actividades cooperati-vas, como forma de elevar el nivel de vida general; y en tales casos, es también frecuente que diversas entidades nacionales y algunos organismos internacionales fomenten la educa-ción cooperativa de la población, en forma paralela o coadyuvante con la acción emprendi-da por las mismas cooperativas y sus uniones o federaciones.

Nos remitimos en este punto a un capítulo posterior, que se dedicará especialmente a la consideración de este trascendente tema de la educación cooperativa. Señalemos, desde ya, que de la seriedad con que emprenda la educación previa e ininterrumpida depende, en gran parte, el éxito de toda acción de promoción cooperativa.

6. All co-operative organisations, in order to best serve the interests of their members and their communities should actively co-operate in every practi-cal way with other co-operatives at local, national and international levels.

1. En su afán por proporcionar más y mejores servicios a un número de asociados, las coope-rativas advirtieron tempranamente la posibilidad de asociarse entre sí a través de entidades de segundo, tercer y cuarto grado o sea de uniones, ligas, federaciones y confederaciones de



cooperativas; también advirtieron la posibilidad de estrechar las relaciones con otras coope-rativas, a través de acuerdos de carácter más o menos amplio o duradero.

Esta tendencia hacia la integración responde a la naturaleza cooperativa, pues se basa en la unidad de esfuerzos (esfuerzo propio) y la colaboración recíproca (ayuda mutua); además, procura decisivas ventajas de diverso orden, sobre todo en cuanto la acción conjunta facilita o perfecciona el funcionamiento y permite extender el campo de acción d entidades coope-rativas. Por ello los cooperadores de todo el mi recibieron jubilosamente la consagración que la Alianza Cooperativa Internacional hizo en 1966 de esta tendencia, al asignarle el ca-rácter de un principio cooperativo.

El principio de integración cooperativa señala, pues, que las cooperativas deben cooperar con otras cooperativas, en todas las formas posibles y tanto a nivel local, como nacional e internacional. En otras palabras ese principio indica la necesidad de que las entidades cooperativas se asocien entre sí y constituyan uniones, ligas, federaciones o confederaciones de cooperativas, con el objeto de realizar en común diversas tareas económicas, técnicas y sociales que interesan a todas ellas (integración cooperativa vertical u organización federati-vo del movimiento cooperativo); y señala, asimismo, la conveniencia de que las cooperativas celebren acuerdos de distinto carácter con otras entidades cooperativas, para facilitar la consecución de sus respectivas finalidades (integración cooperativa horizontal o relaciones intercooperativas).

2. No deseamos dar aquí extensión a la consideración de este tema, que será tratado con detalle en un capítulo posterior dedicado, precisamente, a la integración cooperativa en sus dos aspectos de organización federativo y relaciones intercooperativas.

Sin embargo, queremos destacar especialmente que el proceso de integración cooperativa, si bien supone una efectiva unidad de acción en diversas materias importantes, debe respe-tar la autonomía de las entidades cooperativas de base, su organización democrática y los propósitos de servicio del sistema. Además, no deben afectarse en ningún caso los intereses de los mismos asociados y de la comunidad; así lo ha entendido la A. C. I. cuando expresó, al enunciar el principio de integración cooperativa en 1966 y según el texto transcripto más arriba, que la cooperación con otras cooperativas debía realizarse “con el objeto de servir mejor los intereses de sus miembros y de la comunidad”.

Análisis de otros principios no incluidos en la declaración de 1966

Neutralidad política y religiosa

Determinar si debe atribuirse a la neutralidad política y religiosa el carácter de un principio cooperativo, constituye un tema todavía controvertido; y ello se debe, no sólo al hecho de que esta materia abarque distintos aspectos igualmente importantes, sino también a la di-versidad de sistemas económico-sociales existentes y al apasionamiento con que suelen de-fenderse situaciones o posiciones ya tomadas al respecto.



1. Dentro de los términos neutralidad o independencia social, política, racial y religiosa, se incluyen diversos aspectos sobre los cuales coinciden todos los cooperativistas:

a) No debe existir ningún tipo de discriminación en cuanto al ingreso de los asociados a las cooperativas.

Bajo este aspecto., la neutralidad complementa el principio ya enunciado de acceso libre y adhesión voluntaria, pues ello sólo resulta factible cuando no se imponen diferenciaciones o discriminaciones por motivos de raza, religión, nacionalidad o ideología.

b) Debe rechazarse cualquier discriminación social, política, racial o religiosa en cuanto a la elección de las personas que han de dirigir las cooperativas y al ejercicio de las demás activi-dades de los asociados.

c) Deben evitarse las discusiones por motivos políticos o religiosos en el seno de las coopera-tivas, para eliminar factores importantes de discordia y favorecer la solidaridad de todos los asociados.

d) La vigencia de la neutralidad política y religiosa de ninguna manera se opone a que las cooperativas, actuando en forma coherente y en representación de sus asociados, asuman la defensa del movimiento cooperativo frente a otras empresas o en relación a las autoridades públicas; tampoco se opone a que las cooperativas hagan conocer su opinión en las cuestio-nes que se refieren particularmente a ellas (legislación, tributación, etc.) o en los problemas que interesan a toda la comunidad (aprovisionamiento, servicios públicos, etc.).

Más aún, resulta conveniente que las cooperativas procuren estrechar sus vinculaciones externas e influir sobre el medio circundante, colaboren con el Estado en todos los casos procedentes y propicien soluciones para los problemas generales dentro del espíritu coope-rativo que las anima.

e) Por fin, tampoco se discute la conveniencia de que la Alianza Cooperativa Internacional, como entidad representativa del movimiento cooperativo mundial, mantenga celosamente su neutralidad o independencia frente a las diversas tendencias políticas o religiosas existen-tes y procure aunar a todas las cooperativas del mundo que merecen el nombre de tales.

2. - Pero existen dentro de esta materia otros aspectos que dividen la opinión de los coope-rativistas:

a) Muchos afirman que las cooperativas no deben de ninguna manera embanderarse en de-terminadas doctrinas ajenas al cooperativismo, no deben afiliarse o sostener a los partidos políticos ni declarar su adhesión a ninguna religión determinada. Los asociados podrán par-ticipar de las tendencias sociales, políticas o religiosas que prefieran y desarrollarlas activa-mente fuera de las cooperativas; pero dentro de estas entidades deben, sin renunciar a sus convicciones personales, prescindir de toda manifestación que las exteriorice y limitarse a desarrollar junto a sus asociados actividades específicamente cooperativas.

b) Además, muchos cooperativistas opinan que el concepto de neutralidad o independencia político-religiosa debe aplicarse asimismo a las relaciones de las cooperativas con el Estado y



sostienen, al respecto, que las cooperativas tienen que mantener una posición prescindente o autónoma frente al Estado. Según ellos, no serían verdaderas cooperativas aquellas enti-dades que, en lugar de limitarse a colaborar en distintas formas constructivas con los orga-nismos oficiales, se manifestasen absolutamente identificadas con el régimen político bajo el cual se desenvuelven hasta el punto de convertirse, en algunos casos, en simples engranajes de un sistema económico-social dirigido por el Estado.

3. Se plantean, pues, frente a este tema de la neutralidad política y religiosa posiciones opuestas: por una parte, la posición de aquellos que consagran la neutralidad o independen-cia en toda su amplitud y en todos los aspectos que acabamos de examinar; por otra parte, la posición de aquellos otros que sólo reconocen esa neutralidad bajo los aspectos más limi-tados que se exponen en el punto l., o bien adoptan una actitud ecléctica al respecto.

Se alinean en estas últimas posiciones restrictivas, las cooperativas que funcionan dentro de regímenes autocráticos o donde se verifica una preeminencia casi absoluta de las actividades del Estado, pues difícilmente pueden librarse en esos países de ciertos rasgos o influencias que se manifiestan en la vida político-económica general; además, donde no existen partidos políticos de oposición o las actividades religiosas son muy restringidas, no tiene sentido o resulta redundante bajo esos aspectos el requisito de independencia o neutralidad.

Pero también dentro de regímenes liberales y aun en relación a algunos países de notable desarrollo cooperativo, pueden constatarse situaciones que no condicen con los aspectos más amplios de la neutralidad o independencia política o religiosa; en tales casos, las coope-rativas afirman abiertamente su adhesión a determinada religión o partido político (Bélgica, Italia, etc.) o llegan a constituir un partido político propio (Gran Bretaña).

4. Frente a estas posiciones opuestas, la Alianza Cooperativa Internacional, que había enun-ciado en 1937 el principio de una “neutralidad política y religiosa” separadamente, ha re-suelto en los últimos tiempos adoptar una actitud moderada y tolerante, a fin de contemplar diversas situaciones, no herir susceptibilidades y evitar su desmembramiento como entidad internacional.

Era notoria, en efecto, la insistencia con que diversos movimientos cooperativos nacionales (Bélgica, Gran Bretaña, U. R. S. S., Polonia y muchos otros) defendían su derecho a apartarse de uno u otro de los aspectos implícitos dentro de una concepción amplia del principio de neutralidad.

A ello se debe que, en 1966, la Alianza Cooperativa Internacional haya establecido expresa-mente la norma de neutralidad o independencia sólo en el aspecto relativo a la no discrimi-nación por motivos sociales, políticos, raciales o religiosos de las personas que deseen adhe-rirse a cooperativas (dentro de la formulación del principio l.) y tal vez también implícita-mente, al tratar de la democracia y la igualdad cooperativas (Ver principio 2.). Además, el informe de la “Comisión sobre los Principios Cooperativos 1” ha efectuado interesantes con-sideraciones en cuanto a caracteres y alcances de la norma de neutralidad o independencia, pero evitado pronunciarse en forma definitiva sobre aspectos más comprometedores de esa norma.



5. Como lo reiteraremos más adelante, pensamos que la neutralidad o independencia políti-ca y religiosa (incluso social, racial, etc.) es la que mejor condice con los caracteres coopera-tivos y, en especial, con conceptos de solidaridad, igualdad, justicia, equidad y libertad que constituyen bases espirituales del cooperativismo. De modo, pues, que neutralidad o inde-pendencia debería considerarse una norma fundamental a la que tendrían que sujetarse las nuevas cooperativas y un ideal que habrían de tender las organizaciones que se han aparta-do en mal o menor medida de aquella norma.

Las cooperativas tienen importantes funciones sociales, económicas y educativas que cum-plir en beneficio de sus asociados; y deben resistir toda alianza o compromiso con organis-mos o instituciones que les impongan el pago de aportes pecuniarios, determinen la realiza-ción de tareas de adoctrinamiento o las alejen de cualquier otra manera del cumplimiento de sus actividades específicas.

Permítasenos observar que el ya aludido e incuestionable derecho del movimiento coopera-tivo a expresar su opinión en relación con problemas que afecten a sus asociados o interesen a toda la comunidad, se perfecciona en aquellos casos en que se mantiene la independencia frente a toda tendencia política, racial o religiosa, en particular en cuanto el movimiento presenta entonces mayores garantías de imparcialidad.

Agreguemos que la neutralidad o independencia favorece la ayuda mutua entre personas o entidades que sostienen diversos puntos de vista en relación con otros temas o problemas; además, protege la continuidad de esfuerzos del movimiento cooperativo frente a eventua-les cambios en los partidos o tendencias políticas dominantes.

Venta al contado

De todas las normas aplicadas por los Pioneros de Rochdale y reconocidas en carácter de principios cooperativos por la Alianza Cooperativa Internacional en 1937, la “venta al conta-do” era sin duda la más endeble; resultaba pues previsible la posición adoptada por la A. C. I. en 1966, en cuanto reconoció la importancia de esta norma dentro de ciertas condiciones y circunstancias, pero le negó la validez de un principio.

Ante todo, debe advertirse que la “venta al contado” constituye una norma tradicional apli-cada sólo por determinados tipos de cooperativas, en particular por las cooperativas de con-sumo. Y cabe también señalar que la adopción de esta norma respondió a un determinado nivel de organización económico-social, de manera que la evolución de esa organización impuso cambios en la concepción y alcances de la norma cooperativa.

Sin embargo, la “venta al contado” resulta todavía universalmente aconsejable en relación con algunas actividades cooperativas; además, mantiene decididamente su vigencia en cier-tos ambientes económico-sociales poco evolucionados y por eso semejantes, bajo ciertos aspectos, a aquellos en los cuales surgieron las cooperativas. Todo ello obliga a dedicar a esta norma una atención especial.

1. La adopción de la norma de “venta al contado” sustentó originariamente el propósito de afianzar la situación financiera de las cooperativas, evitando las operaciones a crédito que se



consideraron como una de las principales causas del fracaso de experiencias anteriores; pero esa norma se propuso también independizar a los asociados de la servidumbre a que fre-cuentemente los sometían las compras a crédito de diverso artículos.

En efecto, y siguiendo en gran parte a Charles GIDE que consideró con especial atención este tema, puede observarse que la “venta al contado” presenta las siguientes ventajas morales y económicas:

a) Desde el punto de vista de los asociados:

- Induce a comprar estrictamente lo que se necesita.

- Crea hábitos de orden y de economía en los gastos.

- Permite adquirir los artículos en el lugar y en la forma que más convenga, suprimiendo la necesidad de comprar donde conceden créditos y de tolerar los posibles abusos de los pro-veedores.

b) Desde el punto de vista de la cooperativa:

- Permite disponer de mayores sumas de dinero en efectivo y, en consecuencia, comprar también total o parcialmente al contado, en mejores condiciones de precio y calidad.

- Facilita la reposición rápida de las mercaderías adquiridas por los consumidores asociados.

- Hace posible un funcionamiento eficaz con menor capital. Evita la necesidad de recurrir a préstamos que encarecen los costos.

- Impide que los socios que sean malos pagadores perjudiquen a los demás.

2. De acuerdo con lo expuesto más arriba, la primera limitación a la norma de “venta al con-tado” se verifica en relación a la naturaleza las actividades desarrolladas por las cooperati-vas.

En efecto, esta norma se adapta en especial a las actividades de consumo o sea de distribu-ción a los asociados de artículos o servicios de uso y consumo personal y familiar; pero es de difícil aplicación en el caso de las actividades de provisión a los asociados de elementos ne-cesarios para la producción agraria., pesquera, artesano, etc., debido a que, por general, los productores deben enfrentar períodos de espera más o menos prolongados antes de obte-ner recursos suficientes; y resulta prácticamente inaplicable en las actividades de colocación de la producción y de trabajo, pues es evidente que las operaciones de las cooperativas ne-cesitan acomodarse a las condiciones del mercado.

Aun dentro de las actividades de consumo, la presente norma conservado su validez en rela-ción con los artículos comestibles y otros productos de reducido valor unitario y de utiliza-ción más o menos inmediata (artículos de limpieza, de tocador, etc.); no así en cuanto a los artículos de elevado precio unitario y de uso extendido a lo largo de varios meses o años.

Recordemos, a este último respecto, que la técnica ha creado mecanismos o artefactos de uso doméstico desconocidos en siglos pasados, cuya utilización ha llegado a constituir una necesidad común (lavarropas, enceradoras, aspiradoras, radios, televisores, etc.); y que, tan-to estos nuevos elementos como otros tradicionalmente señalados por su elevado precio y



su durabilidad (muebles, cocinas, cortinados, trajes, etc.), suelen hacerse accesibles a la po-blación mediante determinadas facilidades de pago. De manera que las cooperativas han debido disponer la venta a crédito de estos elementos,, para ponerlos al alcance de la mayor parte de sus asociados.

La prohibición de conceder créditos para el consumo, que frecuentemente establecían las leyes o reglamentaciones aplicables a las cooperativas, ha cedido consecuentemente en su rigidez, para circunscribirse por lo general a los artículos de consumo inmediato.

3. Además de la naturaleza de las actividades, es preciso considerar las diversas circunstan-cias particulares del medio en que las cooperativas se desenvuelven.

Así, según ya hemos observado, los cambios en la organización económico-social suelen qui-tar validez a los argumentos que antes apoyaban la adopción de la norma de “venta al con-tado” mencionemos, en particular, la influencia que al respecto ejerce la elevación del nivel de vida de la población, la acción de la competencia del comercio particular, los mayores controles ejercidos por el Estado, etc. Conviene, pues, advertir que la presente norma resul-ta en la actualidad más aconsejable en los ambientes económico-sociales poco evoluciona-dos.

4. Se reconoce, por otra parte, que la norma de “venta al contado” debe aplicarse en cual-quier caso en forma razonable y atendiendo a determinadas circunstancias específicas, tran-sitorias o de excepción.

Dentro de este orden de ideas, se admite comúnmente que el pago quincenal o mensual de los servicios de electricidad, gas., teléfono, etc. no implica una excepción a la norma de ven-ta al contado, pues la forma de prestación de estos servicios aconseja su facturación periódi-ca. También es frecuente admitir que el pago de diversos artículos en el momento en qué los asociados-compradores perciben sus sueldos o salarios (tal como el conocido “descuento por planilla”), no debe considerarse violatorio de la norma de venta al contado, pues se ajus-ta por lo general a las posibilidades de los asalariados y a las modalidades vigentes.

5. Si bien se evidencia el desarrollo en las cooperativas de diversos sistemas de crédito, se aconseja en cualquier caso independizar cuida. mente las demás operaciones de las opera-ciones crediticias.

Se trata de no afectar la administración general, evitando distraer los recursos financieros o el personal de las cooperativas de su destino u ocupación específicos; y se procura, por el contrario, que las operaciones de crédito sean realizadas por personal especializado y con todos los recaudos que permitan prestar ese servicio en forma eficaz y reducir los riesgos consiguientes.

En particular y según lo veremos más adelante, la separación entre las operaciones de con-sumo y de crédito suele conseguirse mediante la creación de departamentos o secciones independientes dentro de las mismas cooperativas de consumo, o bien orientando a los aso-ciados hacia otras entidades cooperativas que se dedican específicamente al otorgamiento de créditos.



6. Por fin, para no dar excesiva extensión a este punto, limitémonos a reconocer que, mien-tras otras entidades sólo consideran en materia de crédito sus propios intereses económi-cos, las cooperativas tienen la obligación de desarrollar al respecto una labor educativa, es-clarecedora y moralizadora (desanimando los consumos superfluos o las operaciones riesgo-sas, fomentando el uso consciente y racional de los recursos disponibles, etc.).

Tanto las eventuales disposiciones legislativas y reglamentarias aplicables, como las mismas entidades cooperativas en la orientación práctica e inmediata de sus operaciones, deben tener en cuenta los referidos aspectos sociales de la actividad cooperativa y, reiteramos, consultar las condiciones del medio para poder fijar apropiadamente los alcances de la nor-ma que estudiamos.

Pureza y exactitud en el peso y medida de los artículos

Ya hemos observado, al tratar las bases espirituales del cooperativismo, que las cooperativas deben desenvolver sus operaciones de acuerdo con elevadas normas éticas; y una de las manifestaciones de esa preocupación, consiste en los esfuerzos realizados a fin de operar con artículos de buena calidad y asegurar exactitud en su peso y medida.

Tales esfuerzos han tenido especial significación en el pasado, pues abundaban en todas partes las maniobras de adulteración en la calidad y de fraude en el peso y medida de los artículos; por eso a las primeras cooperativas, y en particular a la cooperativa de los Pioneros de Rochdale, se les reconoce el mérito de haber aplicado rigurosamente y contribuido a di-fundir esa norma práctica.

En la actualidad puede advertirse que, en las regiones de mayor desarrollo económico-social, diversos factores tales como el progreso tecnológico, la acción de la competencia y el control del Estado, han conseguido reducir notablemente las maniobras inescrupulosas en torno a la calidad, peso y medida de los artículos; en cambio, en las regiones en vías de desa-rrollo, esas maniobras resaltan todavía muy frecuentes y se mantienen así en plena vigencia los argumentos que avalan la norma que estudiamos.

Sin embargo, aun en las zonas de mayor desarrollo, la acción defensiva de los factores arriba indicados resulta a menudo insuficiente y se revela asimismo la conveniencia de que las cooperativas protejan a sus asociados, especialmente como consumidores de bienes de viso personal o familiar y en la condición de compradores de diversos elementos necesarios para el ejercicio de su respectiva actividad económica.

Por otra parte, la tradicional acción cooperativa de defensa de la calidad, peso y medida de los artículos, debe entenderse en la actualidad en un sentido más amplio, como reacción frente a las maniobras o prácticas competitivas desleales y como esfuerzo común tendiente a afirmar el sentido de responsabilidad moralizar la economía; a tal fin, las cooperativas no sólo pueden asumir una posición de protesta, pues se hallan en condiciones de ejercer la defensa activa de sus asociados mediante la realización de sus propias actividades socioeco-nómicas con propósitos de servicio. Así lo reconoció la Alianza Cooperativa Internacional que, si bien no asignó a la presente norma el carácter de un principio cooperativo, subrayó en estos sentidos su permanente importancia.



Realización de operaciones exclusivamente con los asociados

La vigencia absoluta de la presente norma (que puede anunciarse también como prohibición de realizar operaciones con no asociados o viso de los servicios de la cooperativa sólo por los asociados) es discutible y su aplicación ha variado a través del tiempo; ello hace particular-mente interesante el estudio de los diversos motivos que inducen a apoyarla o rechazarla.

Observemos desde ya que esta norma se refiere, lógicamente, a las operaciones que ligan en forma específica a la cooperativa con sus asociados (tales como las operaciones de distribu-ción a los asociados de artículos de uso personal o familiar en las cooperativas de consumo) y, de ninguna manera, a aquellas operaciones que normalmente vinculan a la cooperativa con el exterior (tales como la venta a terceros de los artículos producidos por las cooperati-vas de trabajo).

Señalemos también que el presente punto se vincula con el problema de la identificación de asociados y usuarios de las cooperativas; pero este último tema resulta más amplio, pues se refiere no sólo a la posible realización de operaciones de las cooperativas con no asociados (usuarios que no son asociados), sino también a la existencia de asociados que no utilizan o sólo utilizan raramente los servicios de su cooperativa (asociados que no son usuarios).

1. Entre los motivos que se alegan para determinar que las cooperativas realicen operacio-nes exclusivamente con los asociados, destaquemos los siguientes:

a) La realización de operaciones con no asociados parece contradecir caracteres fundamen-tales de las cooperativas, en cuanto se trata de entidades integradas por grupos de personas que se asocian con el objeto de atender a sus propias necesidades socioeconómicas y se ba-san en el esfuerzo propio y la ayuda mutua de estas personas.

b) La realización de operaciones con no asociados parece contradecir asimismo el carácter no lucrativo de las cooperativas, pues los asociados podrían eventualmente aprovechar en tales casos, directa o indirectamente, los resultados de las operaciones realizadas con extra-ños.

c) Las exenciones o reducciones impositivas y otras ventajas de distinto orden que en diver-sos países se reconocen a las cooperativas, entre otros motivos porque operan exclusiva-mente con los asociados, perderían parte de su fundamento si estas entidades efectuaran operaciones con terceros no asociados.

d) La realización de operaciones con terceros podría estimular a algunas cooperativas a ce-rrarse en si mismas y a restringir el acceso de asociados.

e) En determinados casos, la posibilidad de los no asociados de operar con las cooperativas, privaría a estas últimas de los aportes materiales y morales (capital accionarlo, participación en la administración común, etc.) que realizarían las personas descosas de operar con esas entidades si asumieran el carácter de asociados.



2. Entre los motivos que se aducen para justificar que las cooperativas efectúen también operaciones con no asociados, señalemos:

a) La realización de operaciones con no asociados permite aumentar el volumen de opera-ciones de las cooperativas; ello facilita a su vez el mejoramiento y diversificación de los ser-vicios proporcionados, disminuye la incidencia de los gastos generales e incremento la pro-ductividad de sus actividades económicas.

b) En relación con el punto anterior, cabe observar que diversos tipos de cooperativas en-cuentran serios escollos en la realización de determinadas actividades económicas, cuando no se hallan autorizadas a operar, en forma permanente o transitoria, con no asociados. Así, en la realización de actividades de producción de pan, vestidos, muebles, etc., las cooperati-vas de consumo necesitan frecuentemente contar con la posibilidad de vender los productos que excedan las necesidades de sus miembros a terceros no asociados, con el fin de que aquellas actividades resulten económicamente viables; y es aconsejable que las cooperativas de colocación de la producción integradas por agricultores, pescadores, etc., cuenten con la posibilidad de transformar o industrializar también la producción de terceros no asociados, cuando las instalaciones excedan momentáneamente sus necesidades y se presenten perio-dos de escasez, sequía u otras dificultades, a fin de superar tales circunstancias y proseguir en forma conveniente sus actividades.

c) Algunos tipos de cooperativas (en particular las que desarrollan actividades de consumo) pueden, cuando se hallan abiertas al público, influir más fácilmente en el mejoramiento de los precios de mercado.

d) Las operaciones con terceros sirven para difundir el sistema y promueven el ingreso de asociados, pues dan oportunidad a los extraños para probar anticipadamente las ventajas de la acción cooperativa.

e) En los medios menos desarrollados, la realización de operaciones con no asociados permi-te a mentido atender las necesidades de diversas personas que, de otro modo, no podrían satisfacer tales necesidades adecuadamente.

3. Por otra parte, para responder a las objeciones que se manifiestan respecto a la realiza-ción por las cooperativas de operaciones con no asociados (ver punto I.) y justificar asimismo una posición más tolerante, puede aducirse que:

a) No se contradicen caracteres fundamentales de las cooperativas (punto I. a) cuando, complementariamente y sin afectar la atención de las necesidades socioeconómicas de sus asociados, estas entidades prestan servicios que protegen o favorecen también a otras per-sonas no asociadas.

b) No se atenta contra el carácter no lucrativo de las cooperativas (punto 1. b), cuando los excedentes obtenidos en las operaciones realizadas con no asociados se destinan (en base a disposiciones legales, reglamentarias o estatutarias) a fondos y reservas comunes de la res-pectiva cooperativa o a otros fines desinteresados o de interés general; más aún, suele aconsejarse que aquellos excedentes no se destinen a la formación de fondos o reservas que



puedan beneficiar indirectamente a los asociados de las cooperativas, sino a obras que be-neficien a toda la comunidad.

Tampoco se atenta contra el carácter no lucrativo de las cooperativas, cuando los exceden-tes obtenidos en las operaciones realizadas con n asociados se destinan a integrar el capital accionarlo de aquellos que, habiendo operado con la cooperativa, deseen ingresar como asociados.

c) En cuanto al argumento relativo a la vigencia de exenciones reducciones impositivas u otras ventajas especiales acordadas a las cooperativas (punto 1. c), cabe observar que tales disposiciones se justifican e razón de la peculiar naturaleza cooperativa y también por moti-vos de orientación político-económica oficial (dada la conveniencia de fomentar este tipo de entidades en base a consideraciones de interés general de la comunidad); de modo que aquellas disposiciones sólo toman en cuenta en forma secundaria el hecho de que las enti-dades cooperativas operen o no con personas no asociadas.

d) Por fin, los riesgos relativos a que algunas cooperativas tiendan restringir el acceso de asociados (punto 1. d) o bien se vean privadas de lo aportes materiales y morales de nuevos asociados (punto 1. e), puede evitarse o atenuarse mediante la adopción de normas legisla-tivas, reglamentarias o estatutarias apropiadas; tales disposiciones establecen determinadas pautas, condiciones o porcentajes adecuados, para asegurar que las operaciones con no asociados representen una parte complementaria nunca fundamental dentro del monto total de operaciones de las cooperativas.

4. - Respecto a la evolución experimentada en el tratamiento doctrinario y en la práctica de la presente norma observemos, sucintamente que:

a) Los Pioneros de Rochdale aplicaron y reconocieron la procedencia de las operaciones con no asociados.

b) El informe considerado por la Alianza Cooperativa Internacional en 1937, asumió una po-sición ecléctica y señaló la gran proporción de cooperativas que realizaban en esa época operaciones con no asociados.

c) El informe considerado en 1966, por su parte, reconoció que la identidad miembro-usuario constituye la práctica cooperativa normal pero advirtió que resulta muy difícil evitar la realización de operaciones con no asociados, sobre todo en las zonas de mayor desarrollo económico.

5. De los conceptos expuestos anteriormente se infiere que, la realización de operaciones exclusivamente con los asociados, no tiene ni ha tenido la validez universal de un principio.

Se trata de una norma cuya aplicación depende, en algunos casos, de las disposiciones lega-les vigentes en el respectivo país y, en otros casos, de las normas estatutarias o reglamenta-rias establecidas por las mismas cooperativas. Su adopción o rechazo resulta del balance de las consideraciones recién expuestas y, sobre todo, de la necesidad de adecuarse al medio económico-social en que las cooperativas se desarrollan.



Por otra parte, la realización de operaciones con no asociados suele resultar más justificable y práctica para ciertos tipos de cooperativas (consumo, provisión, colocación de la produc-ción, etc.) que para los demás.

En cualquier caso, conviene reconocer que la realización por las cooperativas de operaciones con no asociados debe tener un carácter complementario de sus operaciones habituales, pues no podrían considerarse auténticas aquellas cooperativas que realizasen una, gran par-te de sus operaciones con personas no asociadas.

Respecto al caso particular de las cooperativas de trabajo, la realización de operaciones ex-clusivamente con los asociados debe entenderse como fuentes de ocupación exclusivamen-te para los trabajadores asociados y consiguiente prohibición de emplear personal asalariado (salvo durante períodos limitados de prueba y para la realización de tareas transitorias o accidentales). Como ya hemos observado, esta disposición es más celosamente respetada en algunos países (como el nuestro), pero resulta menos rigurosa en otros (Francia, México), donde se constata la actuación de una considerable proporción de personal asalariado en este tipo de cooperativas.

Venta a precio corriente o de mercado

Se trata de una norma aplicable a las cooperativas que desarrollan funciones de distribución de artículos o de servicios.

1. Obviamente las cooperativas no pueden distribuir los artículos o servicios al precio de compra o producción, pues necesitan afrontar mediante el precio de venta, no sólo ese pre-cio de compra o producción, sino también diversos gastos y previsiones vinculados con su distribución (alquiler de local, salarios de empleados, amortización de instalaciones, seguros, etc.). Por otra parte, es muy difícil calcular de antemano la incidencia de estos factores, pues ello depende del volumen general de operaciones, de las pérdidas eventuales, de la varia-ción en el nivel de los salarios, etc.

Resulta entonces necesario, para establecer el precio de venta de los artículos o servicios, agregar a su precio de compra o producción un margen prudencial y, a tal efecto, las coope-rativas pueden adoptar algo de las siguientes modalidades: venta a precio corriente o de merca venta a precio ligeramente inferior al de mercado, aplicación de determinados por-centajes sobre el precio de compra o producción, aplicación de una política activa de pre-cios, etc.

2. Sin entrar en detalles que escapan a los propósitos de capítulo, aclaremos que la venta a precio corriente o de mercado ha la norma técnica o modalidad empleada tradicionalmente por las cooperativas de consumo; ella consiste en la venta al mismo precio que aplica demás empresas del lugar aunque, más exactamente, suele afirmarse consiste en la venta al mismo precio que aplican aquellas empresas lugar que venden más barato (siempre que resulte un precio razonable no artificial o arbitrario, aplicado transitoriamente por otras empresas co-mo recurso publicitario, etc.).



La venta a precio corriente o de mercado presenta las siguientes ventajas: a) da a la coope-rativa un margen amplio de beneficio mediante el cual puede expandir sus actividades, ha-cer frente con tranquilidad a gastos, constituir reservas para prevenir periodos de crisis u otras dificultades y, eventualmente, distribuir entre sus asociados retornos cuados; b) resul-ta cómoda, pues toma un punto de referencia general y; c) hace que la reacción del comer-cio particular sea menos violen inmediata.

La misma modalidad de venta a precio corriente o de mercado presenta, en cambio, algunas desventajas, pues: a) las cooperativas que aplican estrictamente no pueden influir sobre las condiciones del cado, como podrían hacerlo a través de una disminución de precios que be-neficiaría tanto a los asociados como a toda la comunidad; y b) la falta de un aliciente eco-nómico inmediato para los compradores, retarda la afluencia a las cooperativas de nuevos asociados o del público en general.

3. Los Pioneros de Rochdale aplicaron en sus primeros tiempos la norma de venta a precio corriente o de mercado; pero los informes considerados por la Alianza Cooperativa Interna-cional en 1937 y 1966 negaron a esta norma el carácter de un principio cooperativo.

4. Se trata, efectivamente, de una simple directiva, norma técnica o modalidad correspon-diente a las funciones de distribución de artículos y de servicios (cooperativas de consumo, de provisión, etc.), que se adapta a determinadas circunstancias socioeconómicas.

La venta a precio corriente o de mercado continúa siendo recomendable para las cooperati-vas que realizan funciones de distribución dentro de un medio ambiente hostil, o bien son de reciente creación, se hallan poco difundidas, prefieren por motivos especiales brindar a sus asociados retornos considerables o no pueden, por cualquier causa, hacer competir sus pre-cios en el mercado y desean ante todo consolidar su situación financiera.

En cambio, cuando esas cooperativas han alcanzado suficiente desarrollo, estabilidad o efi-ciencia en su organización y, sobre todo, han arribado a la etapa de la propia producción, tienden a realizar una política activa de precios; en tales casos, suelen adoptar precios infe-riores a los corrientes o de mercado, de modo que obligan a las empresas particulares a acomodarse a los precios de las cooperativas y logran de esta manera una elevación en el nivel de vida general. A este último respecto, no puede dejar de citarse el ejemplo de las cooperativas de consumo de Suecia que, contando con un volumen considerable de opera-ciones, una eficiente organización y el apoyo decidido de sus asociados-compradores, han logrado consolidar sus actividades de producción en fábricas propias, vencer las maniobras de diversos monopolios e imponer a su vez rebajas sustanciales en el precio de muchos ar-tículos de consumo popular (lámparas eléctricas, zapatos de goma, harina, margarina, etcé-tera).



Destino desinteresado de.¡ sobrante patrimonial en caso de disolución de la cooperativa

Se trata de la norma que suele también señalarse como “irrepartibilidad de las reservas so-ciales”, “indivisibilidad de las reservas colectivas”, “reservas inalienables”, “inalienabilidad del fondo de reserva y del haber colectivo”, “transmisión desinteresada del activo líquido” o “irrepartibilidad del sobrante patrimonial”.

1. Al tratar el principio cooperativo de libre acceso y adhesión voluntaria, ya hemos observa-do que, como norma general, los asociados ingresan a las cooperativas en las mismas condi-ciones que sus predecesores y, a los miembros salientes por renuncia o exclusión, se les de-vuelve un valor no superior al que hayan aportado. De manera que los nuevos asociados no abonan suma alguna en concepto de compensación por las reservas sociales constituidas; y los asociados salientes no tienen derecho recibir parte de las reservas sociales existentes.

Pues bien, en caso de disolución de las cooperativas, y en un número, considerable de paí-ses, a los asociados también se les devuelve por sus acciones cooperativas integradas una suma no superior a la que hayan aportado, de modo que ellos no tienen derecho individual alguno sobre el sobrante patrimonial que resultara una vez realizado el activo y cubierto el pasivo de la respectiva entidad.

Suele establecerse que, en caso de disolución de las cooperativas, ese sobrante sea destina-do a fines desinteresados, tales como la promoción de nuevas cooperativas o la ayuda a otras cooperativas existentes, la integración de determinados fondos de las federaciones de cooperativas, la educación cooperativa, la educación económica del pueblo, la realización de actividades de bienestar social o utilidad publica, etc. Tales disposiciones resultan en algunos casos impuestas por la legislación, mientras que otras veces son simplemente difun-didas por la práctica general adoptadas en el estatuto de las cooperativas.

2. Es indudable que las normas a que acabamos de aludir se complementan, pues si las per-sonas que ingresan a la cooperativa nada tienen que abonar en razón de las reservas u otros fondos sociales comunes y sólo pueden retirar, cuando egresan por cualquier motivo, un valor no superior al que hayan aportado por sus acciones integradas, es natural que tampo-co puedan repartiese entre ellas el sobrante patrimonial que resulte en caso de liquidación de la cooperativa (una vez cubiertas las deudas sociales y devueltas las acciones cooperati-vas integradas).

De lo contrario, ello conduciría a beneficiar injustificadamente al núcleo de personas asocia-das al momento de disolución de la cooperativa y podría eventualmente inducir a estas últi-mas a provocar tal disolución para aprovechar así individualmente las reservas y otros fon-dos sociales constituidos, no sólo gracias a su propia actividad, sino también a la actividad de asociados ya fallecidos o egresados a lo largo de toda la actuación de la cooperativa.

En vinculación con los conceptos antedichos cabe agregar que, la injusticia del reparto de las reservas sociales entre las personas asociadas al momento de la disolución de las cooperati-vas, se acentúa en el caso de que esas cooperativas cuenten con recursos retenidos o recibi-



dos en carácter de estímulo y a título gratuito o semigratuito (tales como los que emanan, en algunos países, de exenciones impositivas reconocidos o de subsidios y otras liberalidades otorgadas en mérito al carácter cooperativo de tales entidades).

Además, corresponde observar que el peligro de una disolución intencionada de las coope-rativas por los asociados presentes, a fin de usufructuar las reservas comunes, resulta poco temible en la mayor parte de las cooperativas, que aplican con amplitud el acceso libre y los demás principios cooperativos pero ese peligro se agudiza en algunas cooperativas que ab-sorben en más amplio grado las actividades o los intereses económicos de sus miembros, tienen menor número de asociados y pueden presentar cierta tendencia a cerrarse en si mismas.

3. Normalmente, la aplicación de la presente norma implica que, producida la disolución de la cooperativa, se devuelve a los asociados una suma que puede resultar inferior pero nunca superior al monto nominal de sus acciones cooperativas integradas.

El problema que se presenta a ese respecto y que se ha agudizado en los últimos tiempos es también, como en el caso del retiro individual de asociados, el que plantea una acentuada desvalorización monetaria por efectos de un proceso de inflación que puede afectar injusta y desigualmente los intereses de los asociados que se retiran o que formalizan la disolución de las cooperativas en diversas épocas.

Se ha intentado resolver este problema a través de la formación de una reserva especial o de una adecuada revaluación de las acciones cooperativas integradas por los asociados, que no resultaría teóricamente contraria a las normas cooperativas en cuanto tendería a restablecer las condiciones de igualdad entre ellos; según algunas opiniones, esa revaluación podría rea-lizarse, siempre que las circunstancias lo aconsejasen, tomando en cuenta los índices oficia-les u otros ya consagrados sobre la evolución de precios o de costo de vida, de salarlos, etc. del respectivo país.

Sin embargo, los diversos métodos propuestos para hacer frente a la devaluación monetaria son pasibles de fundadas críticas, pueden poner en peligro el funcionamiento de las coope-rativas y dan lugar a muchos otros problemas de distinto orden que resaltan de difícil solu-ción. No debe olvidarse que las entidades cooperativas sufren también los efectos de la in-flación y no pueden en muchos casos asegurar, ni a sí mismas ni a sus asociados, contra los efectos de procesos de devaluación monetaria que se originan fuera de ellas y que afectan a todas las actividades económicas.

4. Es preciso destacar que, en diversos países de larga tradición y amplia difusión cooperati-vas, la presente norma no es impuesta por la legislación ni aplicada habitualmente. Por el contrario, se admite en esos países (anglosajones, escandinavos, etc.) que, en caso de diso-lución y consecuente liquidación de las cooperativas, el sobrante patrimonial se distribuya entre los asociados existentes al momento de la disolución; y suele disponerse que la distri-bución entre los asociados se efectúe, ya sea “per cápita” (por partes iguales), en proporción a las operaciones que hayan realizado con la cooperativa durante los últimos años o, lo que



resulta aún más criticable desde el punto de vista doctrinario, en proporción al respectivo capital accionarlo de los asociados.

En descargo de la posición indicada se arguye que, por lo general, siendo la duración de las cooperativas indefinida o bien tan amplia que resulta prácticamente ilimitada, la norma rela-tiva a la distribución del sobrante patrimonial es aplicada en escasas ocasiones; y que, en caso de producirse una disolución, ella estaría generalmente impuesta por una mala situa-ción financiera y daría difícilmente lugar a la formación de recursos distribuibles por sobre el monto nominal de las acciones cooperativas integradas.

Otros tratadistas apoyan decididamente la distribución de las reservas cooperativas en los casos en que las entidades cooperativas se hallen sujetas al mismo tratamiento impositivo que las demás y, en especial, cuando sus recursos resulten del ahorro o renunciamiento es-forzado y voluntario de los asociados. Aquellos afirman la posibilidad de aplicar sistemas que aseguren a cada asociado la parte del sobrante patrimonial que en justicia le correspon-de; y suelen sostener que son los mismos asociados quienes deben decidir acerca del des-tino del sobrante, en los casos en que la respectiva legislación no lo haya previsto.

5. La norma que consagra el destino desinteresado del sobrante patrimonial en caso de diso-lución de la cooperativa, fue ya propiciada por Philippe Buchez en 1831 para las cooperativas de trabajo (o cooperativas obreras de producción), cuando aconsejó la formación de un fon-do indivisible; y fue también aplicada alrededor de 1848 por Raiffeisen a las cooperativas de crédito, cuando propició la integración de un patrimonio colectivo, que afirmarla la continui-dad del esfuerzo de los cooperadores de una a otra generación.

Los Pioneros de Rochdale la adoptaron expresamente en el artículo 44 de su nuevo estatuto de 1854; pero los informes considerados por la Alianza Cooperativa Internacional en 1937 y 1966, si bien destacaron la importancia de esa norma, no le asignaron el carácter de un prin-cipio cooperativo.

Se trata, en efecto, de una cuestión ampliamente debatida; y las diferentes opiniones exis-tentes al respecto se pusieron en evidencia una vez más entre 1963 y 1966, al discutirse la nueva formulación de los principios cooperativos. En esta oportunidad, se apreció la posi-ción netamente favorable al establecimiento de la irrepartibilidad del sobrante patrimonial de las cooperativas, adoptada por los tratadistas franceses, belgas e italianos, frente a la posición más condescendiente de los tratadistas anglosajones, japoneses y escandinavos.

De cualquier manera, el hecho de que la Alianza Cooperativa Internacional no le haya reco-nocido en 1937 ni en 1966 el carácter de un principio, deriva de razones prácticas impuestas por la diversidad de posiciones existentes; y resulta avalado, sobre todo, por la comproba-ción de que esa norma no es actualmente consagrada por importantes movimientos coope-rativos de distintos países, sin aparente desmedro de los demás rasgos cooperativos esencia-les.

Por nuestra parte, afirmamos modestamente nuestra opinión favorable a la consagración de la presente norma en carácter de principio cooperativo, en base a las consideraciones enun-ciadas más arriba (punto 2.); creemos que esta norma resulta particularmente importante



en los medios socioeconómicos menos evolucionados; y confiamos en que tanto la práctica como la doctrina mundial se inclinen finalmente en el sentido recién indicado.

Expansión constante

Existe, evidentemente y desde sus orígenes, una tendencia en el movimiento cooperativo a intensificar y perfeccionar su acción, así como a ampliar el campo de sus actividades con el objeto de proporcionar nuevos y mejores servicios a un número siempre creciente de aso-ciados; todo ello dentro de una aspiración a solucionar diversos problemas de carácter eco-nómico-social, para procurar la elevación del nivel de vida y el bienestar general.

La constatación de esta tendencia ha hecho que se le atribuyera fundadamente el carácter de una norma o aun de un principio cooperativo; no debe, pues, extrañar que las cooperati-vas de algunos países (entre otras, las cooperativas norteamericanas) la incluyan habitual-mente dentro de la enumeración de sus principios.

Los que sostienen que debe atribuirse a la expansión constante el carácter de un principio, afirman que no son auténticas cooperativas aquéllas que vegetan en una actividad limitada y no se esfuerzan por lograr el constante desarrollo de sus servicios. En cambio son verdade-ras cooperativas, por ejemplo, aquéllas cooperativas de consumo que procuran ampliar sus locales de venta, el número de sus asociados o la variedad de artículos distribuidos y tratan, también, de producir algunos de esos artículos por sí mismas o a través de procesos de inte-gración con otras entidades; aquellas cooperativas de trabajo que se esfuerzan por crear nuevas fuentes de ocupación para los asociados; aquellas cooperativas de colocación de la producción que procuran mejorar la conservación y completar la transformación de los pro-ductos que reciben, para aumentar su valor y favorecer su colocación en el mercado, etc.

Si bien puede concebirse la labor expansivo realizada en forma aislada por diversas coopera-tivas, es indudable que la integración cooperativa (o sea tanto la organización de cooperati-vas de segundo, tercer o cuarto grado como el estrechamiento de las relaciones intercoope-rativas) constituye el método más práctico y más acorde con el “espíritu cooperativo” para realizar o perfeccionar ese proceso de expansión.

Cabe afirmar entonces que la Alianza Cooperativa Internacional, que no incluyó esta norma dentro de los principios cooperativos en 1937, se aproximó a ello en 1966 al consagrar en carácter de principio la cooperación con otras cooperativas ya que, como acabamos de ob-servar, la integración constituye uno de los métodos más apropiados para realizar ese proce-so expansivo. Señalemos que la “Comisión sobre los Principios Cooperativos” manifestó en el informe considerado por la A. C. I. en 1966, al exponer sus conclusiones y luego de enun-ciar los primeros cinco principios: “A éstos hemos pensado que resulta importante agregar un principio de expansión mediante la cooperación mutua entre cooperativas”.

El tiempo revelará si la opinión mundial se decide en el futuro a reiterar la formulación de 1966, o bien a incluir la integración cooperativa dentro de un contexto que se refiera más específicamente a la expansión constante del movimiento cooperativo.



Coincidencia con los intereses generales de la comunidad

Las cooperativas se constituyen y funcionen con el objeto de proporcionar servicios a sus asociados; ello es innegable, como lo es también el hecho de que la mayoría de las personas que ingresan a las cooperativas lo hacen con el fin de defender, a través de ellas, sus legíti-mos intereses socioeconómicos. Pero, uno de los rasgos que distingue netamente a las cooperativas de otras entidades, es que aquéllas deben defender los intereses de sus aso-ciados en la medida en que tales intereses coincidan o, por lo menos, no se opongan a los intereses generales de la comunidad.

Esta condición fundamental es más fácilmente cumplimentada por las cooperativas de con-sumo y otros tipos de cooperativas de distribución, que sirven los intereses generales de la población. Pero podría ser descuidada por otros tipos de cooperativas que atienden los in-tereses de sectores más limitados o específicos; no actuarían en forma verdaderamente cooperativa, por ejemplo, las entidades dedicadas a colocar la producción de sus asociados o a proporcionar fuentes de ocupación cuando, aprovechando situaciones especiales, impusie-ran precios desproporcionados por los productos o servicios de sus asociados o incurrieran en otras maniobras abusivas en detrimento de la masa de consumidores.

De manera pues que, si bien las cooperativas deben defender los intereses legítimos de sus asociados en el carácter de consumidores, productores, profesionales, trabajadores, etc., deben cuidar también, para merecer el nombre de cooperativas, los intereses generales de la comunidad; y para ello han de buscar métodos o asumir posiciones que favorezcan al mismo tiempo a sus asociados y a toda la comunidad, realizando esfuerzos continuos para conciliar los respectivos intereses. Así, el incremento de ingresos de los productores asocia-dos a las cooperativas. debería procurarse a través del aumento de la producción, la dismi-nución de los costos o la supresión de la intermediación innecesaria, en lugar de apelarse a maniobras restrictivas y egoístas tendientes, por ejemplo, a restringir la oferta o a operar exclusivamente con aquellos artículos de precio más elevado.

En todos los Estados modernos, las autoridades se ocupan en alguna medida de prevenir abusos y orientar la economía en el sentido más beneficioso para el conjunto de la pobla-ción; pero a esta acción preventiva y sancionadora del Estado, debe unirse la fuerza moral de las mismas entidades cooperativas, que han de actuar con su sentido de protección a la co-munidad.

La presente norma no fue reconocido en carácter de principio cooperativo por la Alianza Cooperativa Internacional en 1937. En 1966, al consagrar el sexto principio referente a la integración cooperativa, la A. C. I. afirmó que la cooperación activa entre las organizaciones cooperativas tiene que realizarse “con el objeto de servir mejor los intereses de sus miem-bros y de la comunidad”.

Creemos que debe darse a estas palabras toda la importancia que merecen, pues introducen claramente el concepto a que nos referimos más arriba. Se trata de una expresión todavía tímida pero promisoria; ella autoriza a confiar que, en el futuro, la norma que estudiamos será consagrada por la asociación mundial de cooperativas en términos más explícitos y ge-nerales.



Análisis general de la declaración de 1966

La labor de la Comisión Especial ha sido sin duda muy encomiable pero, como toda labor humana, resulta perfectible; nos atrevemos, pues, a expresar al respecto las siguientes du-das y observaciones:

a) Resulta comprensible la posición adoptada por la Comisión Especial, cuando suprimió la enunciación compendiada de los principios cooperativos con el objeto de dar mayor exacti-tud a los conceptos enunciados. Pero corresponde preguntar sí, dado que el cooperativismo es un movimiento de carácter eminentemente popular y puesto que la educación cooperati-va constituye una norma fundamental, no convendría completar esa enunciación detallada y amplia con la adopción de una enunciación compendiada, lo más correcta posible y avalada por la misma A. C. I. , para facilitar la difusión de los principios cooperativos en el grueso de la población.

b) El reconocimiento en 1966 de la neutralidad o independencia sólo en vinculación con el ingreso de los asociados y desprovista, en consecuencia, del carácter de principio general que le asignara la A. C. I. en 1937. responde sin duda a poderosos motivos de conciliación y unidad del movimiento cooperativo. Pero cabe preguntarse si la A. C. I. no ha sacrificado, en este caso y en alguna medida, la pureza de los principios a razones de carácter circunstan-cial; y si no hubiera sido preferible mantener la misma posición consagrada a este respecto por la A. C. I. en 1937 , es decir señalar la neutralidad o independencia como meta o ideal al que deben tender las cooperativas, aunque sin exigirla como condición necesaria para la admisión de las cooperativas en el seno de la Alianza Cooperativa Internacional.

c) Participamos de la opinión de aquellos autores que, apartándose en este punto de la posi-ción adoptada por la A. C. I., atribuyen al destino desinteresado del sobrante patrimonial que puede resultar en caso de disolución de las cooperativas, el carácter y la validez de un prin-cipio.

No obstante, la constatación de que en diversos países de notable desarrollo cooperativo no suele aplicarse esta norma, podría llevar a conclusiones semejantes a las expresadas en rela-ción con el principio de neutralidad o independencia, es decir a considerar aquella norma como una meta o ideal al que deben tender las cooperativas aunque sin exigirá como condi-ción de adhesión a la entidad internacional.

d) Aplaudimos, como todos, el hecho de que la cooperación entre cooperativas haya sido consagrada por la A.C.I. en 1966 con el carácter de un principio. Pero nos preguntamos si no hubiera sido conveniente consagrar el principio más amplio de expansión cooperativa y se-ñalar a la cooperación entre cooperativas como método más apropiado para realizar ese proceso de expansión.

La norma de expansión constante destaca, como ya hemos observado, la necesidad de que las cooperativas se esfuercen de manera perseverante para proporcionar nuevos y mejores servicios a mayor número de asociados. Sin necesidad de fijar por anticipado los limites de la acción cooperativa, el reconocimiento de la expansión constante en carácter de principio equivaldría al reconocimiento de la naturaleza dinámica del movimiento cooperativo.



e) Por fin, aplaudimos la inclusión del concepto de servicio a los intereses de los miembros y de la comunidad, dentro del principio sexto expuesto por la A. C. I. en 1966. Pero corres-ponde preguntar si no hubiera sido preferible una expresión más amplia en el sentido de que, no sólo en relación a la cooperación entre cooperativas sino en todos los casos, las cooperativas deben servir los intereses o aspiraciones de sus asociados en la medida en que tales intereses o aspiraciones coincidan con los intereses generales de la comunidad.



(1995) LA DECLARACIÓN DE MANCHESTER

Algunas fuentes para analizar esta declaración pueden ser:

ICA (1995). Declaración de la Alianza Cooperativa Internacional sobre la identidad cooperativa. COCETA. Madrid, 1996

[Disponible en la biblioteca de CSE (www.cse.coop)]

Kaplan de Drimer, Alicia. (1995) “El XXXI Congreso de la Alianza Cooperati-va Internacional y la nueva formulación de los principios cooperativos.” en Anuario de Estudios Cooperativos, 1995.

La autora realiza un exhaustivo repaso a la última reformulación de principios cooperativos realizada por la Alianza Cooperativa Internacional (ACI) en 1995. Tras señalar los motivos de tal reformulación, analiza la definición de cooperativas, de valores y de principios cooperati-vos, así como la formulación de cada uno de los siete principios que se han establecido, comparando la nueva formulación con la anteriormente en vigor -adoptada en 1966- y aña-diendo además un comentario crítico a cada uno de estos puntos. Por último, y a modo de repaso, establece unas conclusiones generales.

Martínez Charterina, Alejandro (1995). Los valores y principios cooperati-vos. REVESCO: revista de estudios cooperativos, ISSN 1135-6618, 61, 1995; págs. 35-46.

[Se integra a continuación]

Usuario

Cuadro de texto

Los valores y los principios cooperativos Alejandro Martínez Charterina REVESCO: revista de estudios cooperativos, ISSN 1135-6618, Nº. 61, 1995 (Ejemplar dedicado a: La identidad cooperativa), págs. 35-46

la evoluciÓn de los principios … · opinión, acerca de la naturaleza y beneficios del...

Documents