Exchange Theory and Social Cooperatives: Budarin

Implied in much of the previous discussion is the philosophical position of “Exchange Theory”. I would summarize the major premises of “Exchange Theory” as being that

1. people, whether by choice or necessity, engage in social interaction;
2. social interaction of any kind involves a conscious or unconscious calculation of benefits and costs, or expected benefits and costs;
3. the benefits and costs being calculated include the material, such as money and imprisonment, and the non-material, such as honor and dishonor; and
4. the objective of this conscious or unconscious calculation is to manage benefits and costs so that benefits outweigh costs to the greatest extent possible.
   

As mentioned in the previous post, the social cooperative is created to provide benefits, and logic demands that the social cooperative function in a way that creates and maintains the benefits for which it was founded. Therein lies the need for pragmatic management.

It must be remembered, first, that people are constantly assessing and reassessing the benefits and costs of their associations, often in the light of potential alternative associations. Second, the social cooperative must attract and keep members in order to create and maintain the desired benefits. So how does a rational social cooperative do this? Through judicious distribution of benefits and costs [“carrots” and “sticks”, if you prefer], and by keeping an eye on the common good. The social cooperative must offer more benefits than costs to its members, especially in comparison with other potential associations available to them.

The U.S. as a social cooperative has been particularly appealing for generations because of the many benefits it has given its members, such as many personal freedoms, relative economic wealth, and several forms of member support, such as Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment benefits, and minimum wage requirements. At the same time, its costs have been relatively lower than in most other places, in terms of taxes, social unrest, and physical danger. That is not to say that its benefits and costs have been equally distributed. It has been one objective of democratic policy to correct this, and it makes both logical and moral sense to do so.

But the U.S. social cooperative will always be subject to competition with other social cooperatives, and always subject to threats to its existence, whether those threats are physical or economic in nature. In this regard, I note that Conservatives have long tried to diminish member support as immoral and wasteful, and Authoritarians have written off entire groups of people as less deserving of benefits and support. It is my contention that, in order to compete with other social cooperatives of similar status, the U.S. social cooperative must maintain the highest level of benefits and member support possible without jeopardizing its economic security, and ensure that these benefits are as widely distributed among members as possible, in order to ensure its continued existence.