@jpreisendoerfer @airun @happy @marqle

To see why I make the point, let me first sketch the two generic cooperative modells which are subsumed under the roof of the #InternationalCooperativeAlliance (#ICA).

The two generic modells covered by ICA's #GuidanceNotes on the #CooperativePrinciples are the membership-fee modell and the membership-shares modell.

In the membership-fees modell, members of the respective cooperative usually contribute a recurring #membership #fee.

The membership fee basically fills the gap between operational #costs and operational #revenues of the cooperative.

In the membership-share modell, members of the respective cooperative own a share in the cooperative, similar to #shares in a joint-stock company.

A single share need not necessarily have a large nominal value. Some cooperatives emit shares with a nominal value of just € 10.

The cooperative shares can not be traded freely. In this respect, they are similar to vinculated registered shares of a joint-stock company which is not listed on a stock exchange.

In this modell, members usually don't pay membership fees, but rather receive some yearly #dividend on their share(s).

However, different from joint-stock companies, cooperatives in the membership-share modell follow the ›one-person, one-vote‹ rule. That is, members do not receive an increased weight-of-vote when they buy additional shares of the #coop.

Both cooperative modells can be mixed. This results in some type of monetary #reallocation between members, depending on the relationship the respective cooperative has set up between operational #turnover, membership fees, non-member #business, and so forth.

As an example, almost all cooperatives in #FRG follow the membership-share modell. Cooperatives which collect a membership-fee do exist in FRG, but they are rare.

On the other hand, most cooperatives in #Switzerland collect a membership-fee.

Recently, the first cooperative #railway society was established in #France. This coop uses the membership-share modell.

Also, not every coop under the roof of ICA uses the legal form of a cooperative.

Again as an example from FRG:

It is entirely possible to establish a business which is conceptually a coop by ICA's standards, but legally is a joint-stock company.

This requires to emit vinculated registered shares and writing the ›one-person, one-vote‹ rule into the #statues of the joint-stock company.

In particular in FRG, it's also reasonable to follow this path, because the cooperative law of this jurisdiction still contains regulation from #Nazi era, when no #parliamentary #legislator existed.

With regard to the question if a cooperative should be #nonProfit or #forProfit:

In the membership-fee modell, the fees collected from members serve the same purpose as #donations to a cooperative. As I layed out above, membership fees and donations fill the gap between operational costs and operational revenues of the cooperative.

Obviously, members must be able to afford the membership fee.

Maybe the cooperative has some reduced membership fees for people who can not easily afford the fee. In that case, said people have to come out to the cooperative as being poor.

For many poor people, being poor is a big #stigma, and they shy away from identifying themselves with that stigma. So the membership fee in fact poses a high social #barrier.

On the other hand, in the membership-share modell, a poor person which buys a cooperative share does not have to pay a recurring membership fee and therefore doesn't have to identify with the stigma of being poor with respect to the cooperative.

A cooperative in the membership-share modell will have to create larger revenues, but not necessarily a #surplus. (The term ›surplus‹ is used in coop lingo instead of #profit.)

When it does indeed create a surplus, then it can grow its undivisable reserve and can pay some dividend on the cooperative shares.

For the reasons I layed out above, I consider the membership-fee modell of cooperatives as presenting a considerable amount of #Classism, and I decided not to contribute resources to such cooperatives (at least not after a start-up phase, where membership-fees only contribute to the costs of getting the cooperative going):

In essence, membership-fee or non-profit cooperatives #socialise the costs of their operation, rather than the revenues of their operation (or, to be more precise, the surplus of their operation).

An issue that I have with a publication like ›Relationship-to-Profit: A Theory of Business, Markets, and Profit for Social Ecological Economics‹ by Jennifer Hinton is that it considers ›the pursuit of unlimited financial gain‹ as if this is what happens in a cooperative which creates a surplus (or profit).

I think that this is an unjustifiably, severely #classist misconception of the operation of a membership-share cooperative.

In the central-european cooperative tradition, as marked by Raiffeisen and Schultze-Delitzsch, fostering the financial situation of members of cooperatives is not just a side-effect, but a core aim.

🌺

🏷️ #donation #donor

@datatitian @jpreisendoerfer I am not familiar with the jurisdiction of Washington state, and only vaguely with the #jurisdiction on federal level in the US, but in general, #cooperative societies can in fact have owners, due to the various cooperative modells which are subsumed under the roof of the #InternationalCooperativeAlliance (#ICA).

The two generic modells covered by ICA's #GuidanceNotes on the #CooperativePrinciples are the membership-fee modell and the membership-shares modell.

In the membership-fees modell, members of the respective cooperative usually contribute a recurring #membership #fee.

The membership fee basically fills the gap between operational #costs and operational #revenues of the cooperative.

In the membership-share modell, members of the respective cooperative own a share in the cooperative, similar to #shares in a joint-stock company.

In this modell, members usually don't pay membership fees, but rather receive some yearly #dividend on their share(s).

However, different from joint-stock companies, cooperatives in the membership-share modell follow the ›one-person, one-vote‹ rule. That is, members do not receive an increased weight-of-vote when they buy additional shares of the #coop.

Both cooperative modells can be mixed. This results in some type of monetary #reallocation between members, depending on the relationship the respective cooperative has set up between operational #turnover, membership fees, non-member #business, and so forth.

As an example, almost all cooperatives in #FRG follow the membership-share modell. Cooperatives which collect a membership-fee do exist in FRG, but they are rare.

On the other hand, most cooperatives in #Switzerland collect a membership-fee.

Recently, the first cooperative #railway society was established in #France. This coop uses the membership-share modell.

In essence, the guy you are refering to in your posting need not necessarily be wrong in stating that he is (some, an) owner of the cooperative, as long as #Washington state allows the membership-share modell of cooperatives.

Also, not every coop under the roof of ICA uses the legal form of a cooperative.

Again as an example from FRG:

It is entirely possible to establish a business which is conceptually a coop by ICA's standards, but legally is a joint-stock company.

This requires to emit vinculated registered shares and writing the ›one-person, one-vote‹ rule into the #statues of the joint-stock company.

In particular in FRG, it's also reasonable to follow this path, because the cooperative law of this jurisdiction still contains regulation from #Nazi era, when no #parliamentary #legislator existed.

HTH!

🌺