Talk:Consumers' co-operative/Archive 1

Archive 1

Copyright of 'What Consumer's co-operation does'

Please tag the long extract from Co-operation with a footnote explaining why you think it is public domain. I am concerned it may still be copyright its original author, as it is around 72 years old. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 15:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Most serials and newspapers did not bother to renew copyrights and so many published prior to the 1960s are in the public domain. I've not researched the actual copyright status of Co-operation because it was easier to simply ask the NCBA, which is the Cooperative League's current incarnation, for written permission to offer their early publications online. The content used in the article is only a small portion of the special issue published in May, 1934 and, as its source is identified, should easily fall under fair use regardless of its actual copyright status. Since putting this content online several years ago there has been more work done on compiling databases that make it easier to determine what is and is not in the public domain. I'll see if I can find a definite determination. Bkobres 23:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I see nothing when I click those uga.edu links you post. Maybe I need some special viewer. I think you need to email a copy of the release you got from NCBA to permissions AT wikimedia.org, and paste a copy here, rather than link it. Hope that helps. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

'What Consumer's co-operation does'

Would it be possible to abridge, or summarise the article from Cooperation?? Whilst it is undeniably perceptive, it may be extremely lengthy for some readers. (RM21 01:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC))

Though it would be possible to abridge, or summarize, the article from Cooperation doing so would probably result in further amendments to the point of losing the historical authority of the article. --Bkobres 16:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

POV-section tag

Greeklamb (talk · contribs) tagged this section as extremely biased. --Greeklamb

It is a cited extract from a 1930s promotional pamphlet that is somewhat idealistic. However it is probably reflective of the beliefs of the movement at that time, and also seems to represent the activities of the movement before and since. It presents factually what a consumer coop does, and also has some 1930s polemic against Marxist-Leninism, which is anachronistic for the 21st century (outside Korea and Cuba.) Perhaps an {{expandsection}} banner is more appropriate, or a {{globalize}} one? What specific statements do you object to? What ideas do you have for balancing them with alternative points of view? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 12:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I overlooked that this was a cited article. I reformatted this section so that it visually distinguishes itself from the main article. Does this work for you? Sorry, I'm new at editing. --greek lamb 13:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't be sorry—you found a real problem and fixed it. Thanks! I noticed that with a wide screen or small font, your new table overlaps with the navigation box, instead of flowing round it. (I used Firefox.) Can you fix that? I am still concerned about the copyright of it, however (see above.)

By the way, we don't normally use <nowiki><blockquote></nowiki> tags for talk comments. I removed them --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I changed the width of the table so that it doesn't interfere with the coop template on the right anymore. Let me know if you still have problems. I also put the whole thing in quotes to avoid the copyright issues. I think that should be sufficient, but wouldn't hurt to cite a reference at the bottom.

oh and thanks for teaching me --greek lamb 12:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Economic Democracy

The phrase "economic democracy" has been used in Consumers' Cooperative literature for some time as evidenced by this excerpt from the August, 1922, issue of Co-operation(page 140):

THE BRITISH CONGRESS

Brighton, England, during the first week of June, was the scene of the 54th annual congress of the Co-operative Union, the national educational federation of British co-operative societies. The sixteen hundred delegates present represented a member ship of 4,526,475 Co-operators. Precedents were shattered by the appointment for the first time of a woman to preside over the congress. The new President, Margaret Llewelyn Davies, delivered a noteworthy inaugural address, emphasizing the fundamental character of the Cooperative Movement.

"We are working for no patch work modifications, for no 'reconciliation of capital and labor,' for no 'infusion of a better spirit' into old industrial forms," she said. "We are laying the foundations of a new industrial civilization. The rallying cry for the whole labor world is the replacement of capitalism by an industrial democracy producing for use. It is such a non-capitalist society that Co-operators are actually creating. Our program transfers the power of capitalism into the hands of the people organized democratically as consumers; makes capital the servant of labor; allows for a partnership with the workers; abolishes profit, socializes rent, and will ultimately get rid of the present wages system. It opens the great portals of international trade in such a way that all nations may pass through it fraternally together. It gives real power to our political democracy by the creation of an economic democracy."

(emphasis added) Bkobres 00:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Role of Government Section Rewrite

Some of the content in this section seems to veer more on the side of opinion than fact. I'd like to see this section addressing the interface between a consumers' cooperative and the government as well as the legal status of consumers' cooperatives. I like the second paragraph, though it seems as if it might fit better in another section. Gobonobo 19:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Please Leaven the Article with Specifics

Our article includes, “Because consumers' co-operatives are run democratically they are subject to some of the same problems of democratic government.” That's good, and I want to take this kind of discussion even further, including some good specifics that we can really sink our teeth into. There is, in fact, perhaps even greater problems, as well as greater opportunities, because people have higher expectations. They expect this to finally be a human organization that will really work well. In addition, some people put in a lot of time and would like to be appreciated for this effort, other people participate only sporadically but still would like to be informed prior to decisions, and so on, and so forth. So, can we add sections similar to the following:

‘When my family was living in suburbs of a Texas city in the mid-1970s, my Mother joined a consumers’ coop that bought fresh produce from a farmers’ market. Unfortunately from her perspective, we got too much food all at once, including vegetables we seldom ate. My mother had issues with food wastage and she felt that the organizers could have been a more open to communication. So, after several months she decided it wasn’t worth it.’

That’s what happened to me! However, since you do not know me, I cannot expect you to be as confident as I am. So, can we find published accounts similar to this? Published first-hand experiences, both good and bad, and absolutely include the stunningly positive accounts as well? I think we can. I think we can include lots of meaningful examples. Too often wikipedia is only generalities and theory. I want wikipedia to be bold and to take the approach of let’s just lay it on the table. FriendlyRiverOtter 01:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

There is a great deal of material on the ups and downs of Consumer's Cooperatives over the years available in these searchable resources:

• Consumers' Co-operative Societies, by Charles Gide, 1922
• Co-operation 1921-1947, published monthly by The Co-operative League of America
• The History of Co-operation, by George Jacob Holyoake, 1908
• Cooperative Peace, by James Peter Warbasse, 1950
• Problems Of Cooperation, by James Peter Warbasse, 1941

It would be helpful to include some of the actual historic 'firsts' and other notable achievements made by this form of business since its inception in 1844. BeEverCooperativeFriendlyRiverOtter. :+)= Bkobres 19:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Role of government

I've tagged this section with a POV because it seems to contain very little in the way of factual information. It also seems to be editorializing and advocating for a position. I feel that this section needs to be cut from the article unless it is improved dramatically. Gobonobo ^{T C} 19:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

This form of business began due to adulterated food and falsely measured goods. Cheating the customer (hopefully without the customer detecting it) has long been a method of maximizing pecuniary profits and we are beginning to see this become a serious problem again. There is nothing speculative in the paragraph. Detractors of consumer owned business have often tried to imply that consumer's cooperative businesses are subsidized by government allowed tax breaks but this is actually a dispute about whether surplus payment returns to consumer/owner patrons are considered as being the same as dividends payed to corporate stock holders. Bkobres 21:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

A snippet from the section in question: There is no functional reason why most, if not all, corporate enterprises could not thrive if they were owned and operated as consumers' cooperatives, rather than speculative endeavors designed to provide pecuniary gain for parties who may have no personal involvement in the enterprise beyond monetary profit.

I think that this is speculative. Besides being a run-on sentence that employs a double negative, this sort of statement asserts an opinion as fact. Not that I'm really in disagreement with the statement; to be sure, I couldn't agree more. However, if this article is to be taken seriously, it needs sourced statements that can be backed by facts and not editorializing. Gobonobo ^{T C} 01:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

That sentence is long but it is a proper coherent statement. Simplified it states: There is no reason why most corporate enterprises could not thrive if they were owned and operated as consumers' cooperatives, rather than businesses designed to provide financial gain for stock holders who may have no personal involvement in the enterprise beyond monetary profit.

Additional info:

http://fax.libs.uga.edu/hd2951xc776/co46/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=co46009.djvu CO-OP Magazine January, 1946, page 17 1945 saw co-ops weathering increased attacks by the National Tax "Equality" Association. NTEA continued its attack on co-ops "favorable" tax status and brought the matter to the attention of the House Small Business Committee, where representatives of both NTEA and the National Association of cooperatives testified on the question. Congressmen were also deluged with propaganda from the National Coal Association and the National Hardware Association. Despite large funds at its disposal, NTEA was unable to line up a great many of its natural allies in the field of business. Fortune magazine, after making an intensive study of co-ops, published an article favorable to the co-op's tax position. Victor Emanuel. president of the Aviation Corp., denounced the attack. Gov. Edward J. Thye of Minn. declared he is "absolutely opposed to the NTEA program of taxing the savings of cooperative organizations." Another blow was dealt the NTEA when the Royal Tax Commission in Canada upheld the right of coops to declare patronage refunds exempt from taxation. Other supporters behind co-ops included: Senators Joseph Ball and George Aiken; Eleanor Roosevelt; Secretary of Labor Schwellenbach; Judge Thurman Arnold: Marcia Davenport; Louis Bromfield; Stuart Chase; Congressman Voorhis; Ambassador John Winant. http://fax.libs.uga.edu/hd2951xc776/co47/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=co47102.djvu CO-OP Magazine July, 1947, page 19-20 Why don't cooperatives pay taxes? That question is like "why don't you stop beating your wife?" Co-ops do pay taxes—all the taxes that any other business pays. What are those taxes? Property taxes, stock taxes, excise taxes, social security taxes, sales taxes, vehicle taxes, license fees or franchise taxes unemployment taxes, city and county taxes, school taxes, and income taxes. Cooperatives pay all these, and others, too. Income taxes—paid by co-ops? Sure Midland Cooperative Wholesale in 1946 paid $94,220 in Federal Income Tax. In the same year thousands of other cooperatives paid many hundreds of dollars of income tax to federal and state governments, as the law requires. (Insert here actual amounts of taxes paid by cooperatives near you.) You mean they pay taxes on their profits? No; co-ops do not have profits. They do have a margin over the cost of goods and services, but most of this is returned to the same persons who put it in--in proportion to their purchases. But reserves for various contingencies are set up --just as in any business, and these are taxed because they are an undistributed part of the net margin Likewise are the minor part of the savings that represent casual non-member patrons for whom there is no purchase record these go into the general service funds of the co-op, but they are taxed as income nevertheless. Why not pay income tax on patronage refunds? For the same reason that if a mail order house for instance charges you $13 for a $12 item and then refunds you the $1 they do not pay income tax on the $1. It is not income. What is income? When the margin of money over the cost of goods and handling moves from ownership by one person to ownership by another, that is income to the second person. The ownership of a patronage saving stays with the person who originally deposited it as a temporary over charge. How about the exemption in the tax law for cooperatives? No cooperative is exempt from any tax because it is a cooperative. Certain farm cooperatives (about 50 % of them) that qualify by restricting their membership and service to farmers are exempted from income tax liability because they are farmer organizations--serving a class of people that merits special consideration--just as Chambers of Commerce and colleges (which sell services--and sometimes goods) are exempted for the same reason. We could set up a cooperative college, or a college cooperative, it would be completely income tax exempt as a college, but not as a cooperative. Doesn't cooperative business put an undue tax burden on other business? First, about 75 % of the businesses in this country (the unincorporated proprietors and partnerships) pay no income tax as such. The individuals involved pay personal income tax. The same is true of the members and patrons and employees of cooperatives. Second, the income tax is based on the theory of ability to pay as represented by income or profits, and it might be said that corporations are taxed exorbitantly only to the extent that their profits are exorbitant. Further, every corporation may obtain, not tax exemption, but tax freedom to the extent that it chooses to convert profits to patronage refunds It doesn t even have to become cooperative. The end result would simply be that the individual income tax schedule would have to be readjusted to fit the government's need for funds. Isn't it unfair competition for some businesses to be taxed and others not? It would be if there were not one set of rules under which all business firms have the same choices as to how they will operate. The coop erative members could choose (by changing their by-laws) to return their savings in proportion to capital investments, the net margin would then be profit--and taxable as such. But they choose not to take those profits. On the other hand, the owners of the profit firm can choose to return its net margin to its customers in proportion to their purchases, thus in effect reducing prices. This firm, then, would have no profits--and no profit (income) tax. But it chooses not to distribute its earnings in this way. The income tax is a tax on corporation profits, not the corporation as an institution. Is the profit business world really united against the cooperatives and their tax position? The National Association of Manufacturers, the New York Association of Commerce and Industry, FORTUNE Magazine, Marshall Field, have repudiated the arguments and propaganda of NTEA (National Tax Equality Association), and many prominent business men have praised cooperatives. A surprising number of business leaders are themselves members of cooperatives. Shouldn't cooperatives be required to pay refunds in cash? When savings of a cooperative are distributed --in cash, in certificates of equity in any form such as stock or notes, or in merchandise--it is done so through the authorization of the membership. It is their money, and they have the right to reinvest it in the business if they want to. And everyone of them has as much say about it as any other (one vote); that's better than in many non-cooperative businesses! Isn't it different (or bad!) for co-ops to go into manufacturing without being taxed? Why? The same rules are followed. Is a small co-op bakery all right? What's the difference be tween bread, or grinding sausage in the butcher shop, or processing oil, or making milking machines—or even autos maybe? By the way, the big auto manufacturers have many subsidiary corporations making parts, and these subsidiaries pass their savings back to the parent corporations--and pay no income taxes—because they have no profits. This manufacturing question has something to do with the idea of bigness. Is anything bad--or good--because it's big? Should the cooperative Associated Press pay income taxes on its refunds to member papers simply because it is big? Or just on its profits if it has any? Don't cooperatives get other advantages from government that other business doesn't? Well, there's the REA the Farm Credit Administration and its Banks for Cooperatives and not much else that doesn't serve cooperatives and other business alike. For profit business, without much available for cooperatives there are the Reconstruct on Finance Corporation, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Smaller War Plants Corporation, the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation, the Department of Commerce, the Bureau of Standards, the research services of Land Grant Colleges. And—on December 31 1945—the Banks for Cooperatives had outstanding loans to co-ops of $157,545,000 while the RFC loans to other businesses on the same date totaled 12 times as much--$1,860,762,000.

Bkobres 02:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe I understand the argument that you present. I could see the value of it's inclusion in this article if

• sources are cited that back up the assertion, particularly from economists who share this view
• the style is cleaned up - particularly the double negative
• an alternative view is also presented - one that balances the rather overtly pro-cooperative point of view

In the meantime, I will place a rewrite tag on the section. Gobonobo ^{T C} 21:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Copyedit

Copy-editors correct articles for spelling, grammar, punctuation, and other technical aspects of writing. Correcting POV issues is not within the scope of a copy-edit. This article definitely needs informed authors to present all points of view in a balanced fashion. When a consensus has been reached that it does so, the League of Copy-editors will welcome a request for copy-edit. Good luck with the article. Regards, Unimaginative Username 05:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Long extracts from magazines

I'd like to keep the material pulled from magazines to a minimum in this article. Aside from the copyright issues, the sections are overly long for many readers. Perhaps we can summarize the points that they bring and add outside links to the articles for those who want to read more. Gobonobo ^{T C} 06:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I gave it a shot. Long quotes summarized and cited using <ref> tags. Brianhe (talk) 20:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

New Section

This page needs a section on well known co-ops such as REI. ````

Also some info on taxation of co-ops. Is the taxation on co-ops any lesser than regular limited liability companies, or is it that since most of them are almost non-profit, there isn't much tax to pay.--Fshafique (talk) 08:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Although I've given up on contributing content to Wikipedia due to the recent wave of content removing "editors" you can find some of the information on subjects you mentioned by looking in the history. For instance: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Consumers%27_cooperative&oldid=171467767 Bkobres (talk) 19:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Tax: I just noticed that there is a short piece on taxation in the article, with references, at Consumers' cooperative#Role of government. There is also a lengthy article on the United States taxation position in the Talk page, currently above at Talk:Consumers' cooperative#Role of government

REI: On a global scale, REI is quite small and relatively unknown. However, as the best known consumers' coop brand in the US, it is probably worth a mention.

Bkobres, I think your comment about removing content is hyperbole, as nothing is ever deleted from Wikipedia. However, I quite understand your giving up, as collaboratively editing an article can be quite stressful, especially if you have some pride in your workmanship. Thanks to the GFDL, when you leave Wikipedia, you can always fork an article that you like, putting a copy on a read only website so no-one can vandalize it. I have been tempted to do that now and again. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Purpose of cooperatives

Yesterday, I challenged the sentences in the lead section that refer to the not-for-profit purpose of cooperatives. (I placed {{fact}} tags and rewrote the 3rd sentence.[1]) I don't think they reflected the prevalent purposes in consumer co-operation, in their current form, but I was frustrated because I didn't have the words or citations to fix it. Today I read answers.com,[2] and I think that Marcy Satterwhite puts it perfectly:

The purpose of a cooperative is not to make a profit for itself, but to improve each member's situation. However, members of certain types of cooperatives do make a profit by selling their product and/or service to customers who are not co-op members.(Gale Business Encyclopedia)

I also like Keith Taylor's article in the Oxford Dictionary of Politics:

It is one of the key principles of economic cooperation that net earnings are redistributed directly (usually on an annual basis) to the ‘members’ of the association or undertaking, and do not serve as profit for a separate group of owners or investors.

It would be nice if we could work these concepts into the article, (with appropriate citations, preferably not of other encyclopedias.) It should be noted that not every co-op follows Taylor's principle of redistribution 100%, as many co-operatives now accept interest-bearing investment from non-members (bonds, loan stock or preference shares, for example), so we can and should pick up on such pragmatism in the detail of the article.

Can you help?

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

capitalism and consumers' cooperative business

A consumers' cooperative business is a privately owned enterprise that must at least preserve the initial wealth (capital) used to start the business or it will fail. The consumers' cooperative form of business has been successfully harmed in the past by people with vested interest who propagandized that consumers' cooperative enterprise was a form of communism or state favored business, which it is not. This is in part why James Peter Warbasse began one of his last books as follows:

This book is made necessary by the change now in process from the economic system of profit capitalism to some other form. The chaotic uncertainties which characterize the period are associated with war and threats of war. A struggle between two ideologies exists. One is for free private enterprise; the other is for centralized governmental control of property and of men. The cooperative way, presented here, exemplifies free private enterprise and private ownership of property.

A purpose of this book is to show the cooperative method in action as a way to rectify these conflicts, and therefore as a way to peace

COOPERATIVE PEACE by James Peter Warbasse (Bkobres 16:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC))

Please justify how your wisdom is greater than that of James Peter Warbasse, David Levinson! Bkobres 15:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Why do you feel that you can remove comments from the Talk Page, RM21? The above comment was due to David Levinson's contention that the consumers' cooperative form of business was not a form of capitalism. --Bkobres 12:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Through many revisions, the creator of this article has maintained a version which explains the status of consumer co-operatives as a form of 'free enterprise', a term which is generally understood to mean the freedom of private businesses to operate competitively for profit with minimal government regulation. The term 'free enterprise' is then linked to the Wikipedia article on capitalism. Much of the literature on consumer co-operatives would not adopt this perspective or terminology and, indeed, Warbasse uses 'free enterprise' in the sense of freedom from state control and ownership. In Chapter 15 of the same book cited above he offers a critique of profit capitalism COOPERATIVE PEACE Chapter 15 and positions co-operatives as an alternative to both profit oriented capitalism and the state sector. Since other contributors have previously indicated misgivings with the formulation in this article's introduction, it would seem more appropriate to settle on uncontentious language in the opening paragraph and create a distinct section to reflect different perspectives in the literature about the position of consumer co-operatives. The revised definition would also benefit from encompassing more informal consumer co-operative structures, such as local buying groups. I would like to collaborate with other contributors in evolving the article in this direction and put this up for discussion. Elveeg (talk) 12:35, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Including this graphicthumb|400px|right|1947 co-op magazine poster would help ensure an understanding of the goals and concerns of the consumers' cooperative movement as well as illustrate the contrast between demonstrated outcomes of economic activity tilted toward for-profit vs. for-service enterprise. Bkobres (talk) 18:55, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

General State of this Article

I feel that this article is in rather poor shape. It is overly confusing, it does not seem to flow, and it is missing several key pieces of information that an encyclopedia article on consumer co-ops ought to have. I mean no disrespect to those editors that have come before me, I would simply like to collaborate on making this a better article. I would like to remove the entirety of the "What Consumer's co-operation does" section. Much of this information is outdated and much of it does not apply to most consumer cooperatives. I would like to first create a section for governance and also do some more clean up. I'm open to feedback and other suggestions. Thoughts? Gobonobo ^{T C} 07:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Gobonobo why don't you try reading some of the online material that describes the history of the Consumers' Cooperative business structure before engaging in such aggressive editing. Bkobres 16:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I am quite well versed in the cooperative history and I have read many materials available online and offline about consumers' cooperatives. I agree that a good historical understanding of the consumers' cooperative is necessary to improve this article. A section on the history of consumers' cooperative would be particularly enlightening, considering the impact of the so-called "second wave" cooperatives. I didn't mean to offend by engaging in aggressive edits, but I truly feel that this article could use some help. The links that are currently in the Further Reading section, for instance, are from publications 60-100 years old. While they may be good for understanding the history of consumers' co-ops, they completely miss much of the development that has happened since. A number of my edits corrected sections with serious problems such as this one: Co-Ops can differ greatly in start up and also in how the co-op is run. Some co-ops forgo the idea of mangers and hieratical formations, everyone who puts into the co-op is on the same level and receive the same benefits. Other co-ops seem to resemble worker-owned companies with mangers and a hieratical structure but decisions that affect the co-op are made democratically. Besides the obvious grammatical and spelling errors, this seems to be more about cooperatives in general than consumers' cooperatives. I understand that my edits may seem drastic, but I only want to collaborate and improve this article. I will, however, make my future edits slower and more deliberate. Bkobres, if you could provide me with some specific feedback about which edits you didn't like and why, that would be quite helpful. Gobonobo ^{T C} 19:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the article had become sloppy but I think that piece from the 1934 periodical is important in that it rather succinctly distinguishes consumers' from producers' cooperatives as well as brings out the progressive democratic social values of consumer owned free (not state controlled or run) enterprise. In particular I think that it is important to emphasize that consumers' cooperatives are a form of free enterprise (a term you omitted from the first paragraph). Thanks for the feedback. Bkobres 01:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying, Bkobres. Gobonobo ^{T C} 03:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Going back to the general point about maintaining a clear overall structure, I have made some changes which gather some of the existing introductory content into sections. While these would still benefit from more work, I think a stronger section structure can help coherence and provide for a shorter, more focused introduction. As a bigger job, I'd also like to suggest an 'Advocates' section (or similar) that acknowledges key proponents of consumer co-operatives across different traditions. This could take in the present intro paras on cooperative federalists and neo-capitalists as well as reflect many other voices. Elveeg (talk) 13:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Cooperative dividends and social history

I just found an interesting quote on page 10 of the autobiography of the British comedian Roy Castle (born 1932) who grew up in the village of Scholes near Sheffield (Now and Then, London 1994):

"We had one Co-op store and whatever you spent there was totalled up just before Easter, when they paid out the year` dividend. Enough to buy new clothes, which were often referred to as divi-suits or divi-dresses."

Illuminates well the role of the "divi" in social history...

Robert Schediwy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.59.89.28 (talk) 10:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC) Belated signature --Robert Schediwy (talk) 14:48, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 16 February 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Unopposed request. Number 57 21:49, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

---

Consumer cooperative → Consumers' co-operative – Restore the article title's original use of the possessive grammatical case, which is not superfluous at all, as it indicates the co-operative is owned by consumers. Furthermore, these specific type of co-operatives regularly use the hyphenated spelling, even in North America. PanchoS (talk) 11:50, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Consumers' co-operative. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080520113118/http://fax.libs.uga.edu/HD2965xW37 to http://fax.libs.uga.edu/HD2965xW37/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080520110413/http://fax.libs.uga.edu/HD2951xC776 to http://fax.libs.uga.edu/hd2951xc776/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080520122644/http://fax.libs.uga.edu/HD3271xG453 to http://fax.libs.uga.edu/HD3271xG453/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080520110413/http://fax.libs.uga.edu/HD2951xC776 to http://fax.libs.uga.edu/HD2951xC776/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080520113444/http://fax.libs.uga.edu/HD3486xH7 to http://fax.libs.uga.edu/HD3486xH7/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080520113118/http://fax.libs.uga.edu/HD2965xW37 to http://fax.libs.uga.edu/HD2965xW37/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090320165830/http://www.stoel.com/webfiles/lawofcooperatives.pdf to http://www.stoel.com/webfiles/lawofcooperatives.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:26, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Consumers' co-operative. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120111091547/http://www.usaskstudies.coop/pdf-files/Rochdale.pdf to http://www.usaskstudies.coop/pdf-files/Rochdale.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080520113118/http://fax.libs.uga.edu/HD2965xW37 to http://fax.libs.uga.edu/HD2965xW37/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080520110413/http://fax.libs.uga.edu/HD2951xC776 to http://fax.libs.uga.edu/HD2951xC776/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:33, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Consumers' co-operative. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070319133616/http://www.eastdunbarton.gov.uk/Web%20Site/Live/EDWebLive.nsf/LU-AllContent/PBAD-5UDKEV?OpenDocument to http://www.eastdunbarton.gov.uk/Web+Site/Live/EDWebLive.nsf/LU-AllContent/PBAD-5UDKEV?OpenDocument
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080725065418/http://www.cottontimes.co.uk/co-op02.html to http://www.cottontimes.co.uk/co-op02.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:31, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

fulfilling the needs and aspirations of their members

At best, this is waffly and superfluous. At worst, it's POV. Articles on co-ops tend to be unhelpfully uncritical. Can there be material showing that co-ops bring benefits? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.229.25 (talk) 13:08, 14 May 2018 (UTC)