With “Cooperation,” Professor and critical theorist Bernard E. Harcourt makes the compelling case for total social transformation from the individualist and statist dichotomy the Western world has grown accustomed, to a political, economic, and social theory of “Cooperism.” Cooperism seeks to integrate all forms of cooperative enterprising and organization—worker, consumer, producer, retailer, financial, etc.—into a cohesive and interactive unit that enshrines the democratic, sustainable, and mutual aid-based nature of cooperative organization. This book does a great job detailing why such socioeconomic organization is preferable to the traditional systems revolving around “capitalist” exploitation and profit motive. Ultimately, “cooperism” seeks to create a network of cooperative entities, leading to “compound cooperation,” which in-turn leads to the institutionalization of democratic and sustainable organization (i.e. “cooperative democracy”).
Harcourt does a solid job weaving in numerous examples of successful cooperative organizations, both in history and in contemporary times. In doing so, he explains how Cooperism works as a comprehensive theory of organization, and characterizes its ultimate goal as “concentrating cooperation”—and this democracy—across all levels of social life. Harcourt’s framing of cooperative organization is as compelling and attractive as I have seen, as he does a great job juxtaposing it from other methods of organization (and their underlying theories) that he considers to be unfit.
The case for cooperation is made compellingly clear, but how to actually get there—specifically as it relates to addressing the fundamental nature of American racial capitalist society—is left unaddressed. This is the most frustrating part of the book. It’s easy to say what should be done, but far more difficult (and important) to explain how one can get there. All this talk about the existence of cooperative corporate forms in various imperial cores in Europe and America, but very little was said about restorative justice or decolonization. Cooperative “solidarity economies” within the confines of Euro-American neo-imperialism doesn’t seem very transformative to me. An example of how Harcourt missed the opportunity to address this issue is how he explained (in great detail), then lazily dismissed the agenda of cooperative building as a means of “separatist self-determination.” Harcourt does a great job summarizing W.E.B. Du Bois’ position and political agenda as it relates to cooperative self-determination, only to quickly reject it as not amenable to the overarching goal of all people “working together at the intersection of our identities.” This is odd, considering Du Bois specifically and Black folks more generally wouldn’t pursue Black self-determination if there was any real hope for non-hierarchal multi-racial solidarity within American society. Harcourt makes the mistake of assuming that just because white nationalism is exclusionary and isolationist, so too is Black nationalism (or self-determination).
Despite the above critique, this book is undoubtedly one of the best I’ve read on the mechanics of cooperative socioeconomic organization in America. I hope this field of study continues to blossom and organizers keep leading the way in trying to build a more cohesive, egalitarian society.