The Cooperative Commonwealth Federation was a political party in Canada that formed during the Great Depression. Most of its support came from the rural cooperative movement among farmers. Cooperative members made up a large part of its voters, and many of its leaders had held elected posts in cooperatives. Organized labor was another important part of its base of support. So, when the CCF took control of the provincial government of Saskatchewan in 1944, it passed legislation to increase the power and membership of the organization that made up its base of support.
The CCF increased the power and number of cooperatives by establishing a Department of Cooperatives. From “Agrarian Socialism: Cooperative Commonwealth Federation In Saskatchewan: A Study in Political Sociology” by Seymour Martin Lipset:
The Saskatchewan government has given enthusiastic support to the growth of the large cooperative movement of the province.
Since the party took office, cooperative organization has increased greatly. The mjor reason is the general prosperity of the rural areas, which enabled farmers to raise share capital for initial investments. There can be little doubt, however that the CCF government of Saskatchewan, by its enthusiastic support of cooperative, has played an important part in the growth of the movement. It established a separate Department of Cooperatives with its own cabinet minister. Almost every new cooperative that I visited during my stay in Saskatchewan had been organized by members or supporters of the CCF. There are now about 500,000 members of cooperatives, an average of four memberships per farmer.
Cooperatives were already a significant base of economic activity in the province and, thanks to the legislative action of the CCF, their role and memberships increased even more. The CCF also greatly increased the power of labor unions through legislation and executive action when it gained power.
At the first session of the legislature after the electoral victory in 1944, the government enacted a Trade Union Act, which was drawn up by the unions and is probably the most pro-union legislation in the democratic capitalist world. The whole trend of government labor action is biased in the direct of supporting trade-union organization and demands. […]
In the four years of CCF government, trade-union memberships increased by 118.5 per cent. In the same period the unions of the entire country increased their membership by only 25 per cent.
The structure of an economy doesn’t just develop spontaneously but is defined by government action and legislation. The CCF passed legislation to support cooperatives and labor unions so they would grow greater. In red states, labor unions are uncommon because of Republican-backed, anti-union “right to work” laws. It is no surprise that in the United States, one of the only common forms of cooperatives, credit unions, are also the only type of cooperative with a federal agency, the National Credit Union Administration, dedicated to them. Health insurance cooperatives, common in many European countries, spread across the United States in the 1930s when they had the support of the Farm Security Administration, but almost disappeared when the FSA stopped actively backing the concept.
Republicans such as George W. Bush have learned this lesson and taken steps to empower their base. Republican administrations have taken action that directly benefits the corporations that traditionally support and finance Republican politics. The Bush Administration was very friendly to the oil companies and used the federal government to help enrich them.
George W. Bush also made sure to use the federal government to empower his base of support among the religious right. He did this through his faith-based initiatives program. It directed federal money to religious organizations that traditionally supported Republicans. Not only did it deliver federal funds to these organizations but helped to increase their importance as social, financial and political networks. By providing needed services, these faith-based organizations became a focal point for communities. They reached out to new people, built up local trust, increased social capital and presumably used that to grow memberships.




10 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL Action
Interesting series.
Have you looked at the Non-Partisan League at all? That was the socialist farmer’s movement in ND and MN that actually had quite a bit of power for awhile. I’m not very well-versed in their history, but it seems they came from the same origins as the CCF.
As I understand it, they formed because they were tired of settling for whatever price the Grain Barons deemed they could have for their crops. They formed coops and in ND, they created the ND State Mill, to have an alternative place to sell their grain and to have control of their own milling operation. They also formed the Bank of ND so they could have an alternative source of financing, controlled by the people.
Both of these entities are still in operation in ND. The mill produces Dakota Maid flour. The bank financed my first attempt at a college education. (It’s in no way their fault that I dropped out.)
Thanks for this, WW!
Yes, the Plains states didn’t have to end up being conservative strongholds. Then again, the Canadian Plains and Rockies provinces wound up that way as well — they provide Tory candidates with their base support.
funny you mention it because I have just completely part four of my NPL series. I like to have the whole thing written before publishing.
An amazing history.
Cooperatives are one form of collective enterprises that seem to go well in many rural areas, especially if they are seen as local self reliant institutions.
*heh* In a side note, having been to Saskatchewan, do they even have 500,000 residents…? ;-)
That is the point many people were members of two or more different cooperatives
Excellent article. This reminds me of how the Democratic Party cooperated with the GOP to pull the rug out from under ACORN. That’s kind of the opposite of growing and strengthening the base, I think.
The large agri-business firms have found their way around small farmers by controlling the prosessing of goods and forced agreements that link seed and fertilizer purchases to whom products can be sold.
The politicians, D+R have done their part to allow any merger,plus GATT and NAFTA.
http://www.counterpunch.org/food.html
This also sounds similar to the Greenback and Populist movements, which started as farmers’ movements (the Grange movement, iirc) and founding things like co-ops, but then eventually turned into more political action and allying with labor.
This? (from http://dfl.org/about/history) The Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party was created on April 15, 1944, after the Minnesota Democrats merged with the Farmer-Labor Party.