COMMUNISM has one big advantage over capitalism and that is the fact that communism is both a political and an economic ideology.
Capitalism, on the other hand, only has the economic component, and it is hardly even an ideology in the strict sense of the word.
It could be said that democracy is the political ideology behind capitalism but that could be stretching it too far because these two are not welded together in the sense that communism welds together its political and economic aspects.
If I sound like I do not know what I am talking about, that is probably because nobody seems to have written on this subject before, at least locally.
It seems that everyone has taken for granted that capitalism and democracy have really nothing to do with each other, except for the fact that both of them are on one side of the fence, opposite the other side where communism is.
Of course, everyone already knows that democracy breeds capitalism, or I should say that democracy provides the environment for capitalism to prosper. However, I should also say that big capital runs counter to the principles of democracy, because it does not provide access for small investors to participate in their money making opportunities.
Perhaps it could be argued that small investors could invest in publicly listed corporations, but more often than not, the stock offerings of these corporations are beyond the reach of small investors.
No matter how much detached democracy is to capitalism, being just strange bedfellows, there is still a chance that these two elements could be fused together, in much the same way that the political and economic components of communism are fused together.
No, I am not talking about socialism that would nationalize some industries. I am talking instead about democratic capitalism, a hybrid approach that could possibly emerge out of the cooperative movement.
I have looked everywhere as many times as I could, and I could not find any other movement that could possibly give the chance for small investors to invest in big business, other than the cooperative movement.
Yes, it is possible for cooperatives to engage in big business, and as proof of that, the combined assets of all coops could possibly even surpass the combined assets of some big conglomerates. And to add to that, all coops are wide open for investment by any small investors, unlike many big corporations that are closed to most outsiders.
Even if the contributions of coop members are relatively smaller compared to the required investments in the big corporations, these are still big monies when pooled together, and it is still capitalism, albeit in a much more open form.
By comparison however, the coops have more than just financial capital, because they have social capital that the big corporations do not have. Both the coops and the big corporations could claim to have human capital, but the coops have the edge in this regard, because they have more sense of belonging among their members.
Some might say that the coop movement has many problems, and that includes poor management, corruption and too much politics. I would agree with that, and I would even add that the movement is sick with social cancer. The fact is, the movement is merely a microcosm if our bigger society that is also sick with a much more severe social cancer.
Having said that however, I would also say on the other hand that the movement is not hopeless in the same way that our country is not hopeless, and both could be cured, just like the many cancer survivors.
At the risk of being accused of too much generalization, I would still say that the lack of law enforcement is the cause of the social cancer of the movement, and that also seems to be the cause of the social cancer of our country.
To be more specific, I am referring to the law that requires coops to hire only professional managers, the same law that requires them to invest in the continuing education of their directors, managers and members. It seems that these training funds are not being spent as they are supposed to be spent.
Instead of hiring professional managers, many of the coops are hiring their own relatives and friends instead, and that is why many of these coops are poorly run, and are losing money as a matter of fact.
In some cases, the training funds may be used for the benefit of these non-professional managers, but it is like throwing good money after bad, and just like trying to squeeze blood out of turnips. The only cure to this problem is to enforce the law by hiring professional managers only, and conversely, by banning the hiring of relatives and friends.
There are about two hundred State Universities and Colleges (SUCs) all over the country, and they could all be tapped to conduct professional management training for the entire cooperative movement. The academic content for these training programs are already available, and so are the means of the online delivery of these courses.
My idea however, is to combine the online and the onsite means of delivery, perhaps with a 50/50 combination.
Aside from business management in general, the training should include courses in marketing management, with a focus on product development, packaging, labeling, branding, advertising, promotions and electronic commerce. The latter is most important nowadays, because the potential of global e-commerce is very much bigger than local retail sales.
On the technology side, there is no shortage of software for business to business (B2B) e-commerce and business to consumer (B2C) e-commerce, among others. There is also no shortage of affordable computing and retailing solutions, including Point of Sale (POS) machines that could be acquired on a per use basis (fee based only). The bottom line is the willingness of the coops to grow./PN
