The ongoing saga of the Co-operative Bank's financial trouble is sad for everyone. It is also a threat, since, in the sad way of the world, the failure of one example can tarnish a whole branch of thought (Peston, 2013).
The immediate danger is that, while its fragilities are revealed, the chance will not be taken to improve the co-operative economic model. That the opportunity for progress and improvement will be missed in the desperate scramble to create a profitable now.
But there is something further to be considered. When parts of the co-operative and mutual models are tarnished, it risks also damaging the image of anything else connected to it. In particular the ideas of a democratic workplace - ideas that offer a real possibility of solving the corporate corruption and distorted distributions of wealth that created the financial crisis - depend very much an avoiding traps such as this.
It is an odd form of contradiction that western nations have fought wars in the name of democracy, and yet should be so reluctant to extend democracy beyond the very limited choices that people have in political settings. The workplace has proven to be the area into which western society has been most reluctant to accept democracy. Trade unions and the labour movement have been heavily suppressed in many countries, and the rights of workers to protest, and how they can protest, their working conditions is still a heavily debated topic (Hope, 2013).
Recently, amongst the main parties, it has been the Liberal Democrats who have been the most vocal in arguing for co-operative values. Their party leader Mr Nick Clegg has called for a movement towards a John Lewis economy (Clegg, 2012), and the popular former-deputy leader Mr Vince Cable stated his belief that co-operatives might be a way to address the major failings of the banking world that played such central role in the financial crisis (Co-operatives UK, 2009).
This is an important step in the pursuit of self direction and personal autonomy, which are central to personal growth. It is also an important step for Liberal Democrats. For that party, untrusted amongst left-wing voters for years thanks to their attachment to capitalistic market economics, a move in the direction of mutualism will certainly help them to forge their own position. It offers them a chance to differentiate themselves from the small-state capitalist Tories, and the big-state social democratic Labour. Furthermore, the preamble to the Liberal Democrats' party constitution is very compatible with these ideas (Donaldson, 2013):
'We will foster a strong and sustainable economy which encourages the necessary wealth creating processes, develops and uses the skills of the people and works to the benefit of all, with a just distribution of the rewards of success. We want to see democracy, participation and the co-operative principle in industry and commerce within a competitive environment in which the state allows the market to operate freely where possible but intervenes where necessary.'
For democratic states to be able to claim any kind of kudos for being democratic, democracy will need to be a general rule, rather than an exception consigned to the political arena. Democratising the economy, democratising the workplace, is the only way to end the ideological inconsistencies of western society, and it is a direction that comes with benefits.
'Every man must be left quite free to choose his own work. No form of compulsion must he exercised over him. If there is, his work will not be good for him, will not be good in itself, and will not be good for others.' (Wilde, 1891)
By working for themselves, to aims that they hold dear, with the freedom to choose, individuals have the potential to become so much more. In fact, the right to choose and be self-directed is at the core of our development into beings of greater comprehension, understanding and reasoned action.
'The worth of a State, in the long run, is the worth of the individuals composing it; and a State which postpones the interests of their mental expansion and elevation, to a little more of administrative skill or that semblance of it which practice gives, in the details of business; a State, which dwarfs its men, in order that they may be more docile instruments in its hands even for beneficial purposes, will find that with small men no great thing can really be accomplished; and that the perfection of machinery to which it has sacrificed everything, will in the end avail it nothing, for want of the vital power which, in order that the machine might work more smoothly, it has preferred to banish.' (Mill, 1859)
Unless competition serves to enhance these purposes, it is no more than a distraction; at best a holding pattern, a check on greed and corruption, a novelty; and at its worst is intensely divisive, turning people against themselves and their own interests.
Liberals are arguing, from within the Liberal Democrat party, that co-operatives and the democratic workplace present a solution to the economic and political crises we currently face. It is to be hoped that when the dust settles on the Co-operative Bank saga, sense and progress will have prevailed. That the ideas liberals are supporting will not be tarnished by the failure of one bank. That what comes out of this exposure of weakness is a better, stronger, and more refined solution for tomorrow.
==========
References:
==========
+ Robert Peston's 'Co-op pays for past sins'; BBC; 29 August 2013.
and Robert Peston's 'Nationwide: 'Don't call us Co-op''; 15 November 2013.
+ Christopher Hope's 'Boris Johnson: I give up trying to persuade Coalition to bring in anti-strike laws'; in The Telegraph; 22 May 2013.
+ 'Nick Clegg calls for a 'John Lewis economy'' on the BBC; 16 January 2012.
+ Cooperatives UK's 'Vince Cable calls for co-operative solutions to the economic crisis'; 2009.
+ Iain Donaldson's 'Opinion: Liberal Democrats have a unique position on co-operatives. We should use it.'; on Lib Dem Voice; 22 September 2013.
+ Oscar Wilde's 'The Soul of Man under Socialism'; London, 1891.
+ John Stuart Mill's 'On Liberty'; 1859.
No comments:
Post a Comment