One of the remedies widely suggested for the ills of peasants throughout the world is cooperatives. This is particularly true in the developing areas where social structures are undergoing what appears to be an amalgam of some centuries of change which we are wont to characterize by such labels as “the fall of feudalism,” “the reformation,” “the industrial revolution,” or “the rise of democracy.”
What role do cooperatives play in helping bring about fundamental shifts in power, without which “modernization” may result merely in more effective exploitation by elites that historically have managed affairs for their own benefit? Has participation by the peasants increased? If so, in which elements of their life and work? Has democracy begun to grow and spread to new functional and geographical areas? Or are the cooperatives a cosmetic, or a “band aid,” to help camouflage a system which continues to manipulate the peasants? In short, are reforms being instituted when revolution is what is really needed?
A group of Latin American sociologists have searched for answers to such questions in selected experiences in Venezuela, Ecuador, and Colombia. Five case studies are presented from the standpoint of “sociological activism,” defined in one study in the following words: “Ya no se trataría de hacerse sólo un ‘observador participante’ al estilo clásico, sino hacerse miembro del grupo estudiado y por tanto copartícipe de sus fines e intereses, comprometiéndose con estos hombres en toda acción tendiente a obtener su autonomía, o a romper todo lazo de explotación.”
Generally, the verdict is against the cooperative having played a dynamic role in social change. The “Cooperative of San Antonio . . . constitutes more or less a valve and a self-defense mechanism for the established system.” Criticism of the Catholic Church for organizing cooperatives as a form of “institutionalized charity” is especially vigorous. Political parties, merchants, usurers, and others are also criticized for using cooperatives to manipulate the peasants. The criticisms are detailed and based on residence and participation in each area.
There seems to be only one passing reference to the possible existence of cooperatives which have not failed: “La cooperativa puede, eventualmente, convertirse en elemento dinamizador, como ha ocurrido en otras partes de Colombia.” How and why the particular institutions studied were chosen is not clear.
Given the importance of planned social change throughout the world and the potentialities of the cooperative moment, it is to be hoped that the U.N. Institute for Studies of Social Development will be able to push ahead with its proposed reports in this field. Mexico, for example, where distribution of land to the peasants has a history of over half a century, has both successful and unsuccessful cooperatives.
A prologue by the outstanding Colombian sociologist, Orlando Fals Borda, indicates the approach of the study in terms of social structure and social change; there are brief summaries of each case study in French and English.
