Co-op facts

A recent post on truth-out.org was about the Grange. The article had a number of interesting deviations from what I know and understand, many of which I’ll address in future posts.

The first is the claim that a Grange charter “also enshrined socialist-inspired Rochdale principles”. Having read a great deal of Grange history and beginning my study of cooperatives in high school as part of my FFA experience I am somewhat knowledgeable on these topics.

The definition of socialism according to google is “a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.” This is in direct conflict with the Rochdale principles of cooperation. 

In the 1870’s, the Grange saw the potential of the cooperative movement and after researching it, our organization became one of the first to advocate for the creation of cooperatives (co-ops) to benefit members and non-members alike. Grangers were farmers primarily, and as such, were small businessmen. They saw that by pooling their resources through a co-op they could increase their buying power on items they needed. They could also increase their profit on the sales of their products by selling in larger volume.

Co-ops are owned and managed by the members, not the government. These are the people the co-op primarily benefits. The Grange has been responsible for started many co-ops over the past 147 years, some were marketing co-ops which provided a way to pool products to achieve greater revenue or increased sales. Some were designed to provide products to the members at a reduced cost. Some were created to add value to a product the members were producing. For example, there are cheese producers that are cooperative ventures of the dairymen in a region. 

Those same cooperative principles were then used in the financial world to create credit unions and then to supply electrical power to much of rural America through Public Utility Districts (PUD’s) and Rural Electric Cooperatives.

Co-ops still exist and serve their members. Some co-ops are very small, while others serve members over wide regions of the nation. There are many co-ops that are not agricultural in any way, with REI as just one example.

Co-ops are part of the capitalistic system of America and the Grange is proud to have been an important part of the introduction of these beneficial businesses to our nation. It may have been a radical idea at first, but it has always been a business decision.  From my experience, the last thing any co-op board would want is for the community as a whole, i.e. the government, to be more involved. Benefiting their members and the people living in their communities are the priorities of cooperative principles.

Intellectual Property, business and the Grange

I’ve seen a few emails from members about our press release about the recent Supreme Court decision about Monsanto’s intellectual property rights and thought a few comments to the world in general would be appropriate.

First, the Grange, since its earliest days, has always been in favor of technology being used to improve crops, livestock, and all the associated practices and methods in raising them. While those early members likely never dreamed of the capabilities of science that we enjoy today, our policies have remained consistent in promoting the use of science to advance agriculture.

While GMO’s are a controversial issue for some, the science from our land grant colleges, the USDA, and others continue to show that there is no detectable difference from the food grown from GMO or non-GMO seed.

The Grange continues to support all aspects of agriculture, from a small operation feeding a few families to large farms helping to feed the world. The diversity in agriculture in practices and produce are good for American consumers and the starving in the far corners of the world. We will always advocate that we are good stewards of the soil, water, and air regardless of the size of farm. Science remains a tool to assist all farmers to continue to do a better job of protecting our resources while increasing the food, fiber, and fuel we’ll need in the future.

Second, the Grange has never supported or opposed specific business, or corporations, with the exception of co-operatives which we introduced to America and have continued to support. Our organization advocated for many railroad lines and just as often advocated against some of their monopolistic practices such as unfair rate structures. The end result of our fight with the railroads was the adoption of the idea that monopolies can be regulated for the public good. Even today, we take many policy positions for or against the practices of businesses. This does not mean we support or oppose them, just how they are doing business.

Monsanto is a large business, but it does not meet the definition of a monopoly as there are other large companies competing in the same field and many smaller companies in competition with them. We supported Monsanto’s right to own and protect intellectual property that they developed. While some of their practices may garner our opposition, on this issue, we believe that their rights were being infringed upon.

Third, our policies are the result of many discussions and debates and each are eventually adopted by the delegates of the National Grange. These policies then are advocated for by the officers and staff of the National Grange. The strength of the Grange is this deliberative policy-setting process rather than allowing leadership to create policies based upon their personal views.