Might A Follower Of The Cooperative Movement Side With The USSR?

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

As I understand it, fans of the Cooperative Movement tended to feel friendly towards the Soviet Union until they recognized just how bad Stain was. But American Coopers, as nobody calls them, would also realize how bad capitalism was, as practiced in by United States. And with the Great Satan on the rise as the One True Emperor of the world, a Cooper of the 1950's might still favor the Soviet Union, which at least in its ideology, expresses some regard for egalitarianism, while the Great Satan is an economic elitist to its core. It's like modern American politics. Both parties are assholes, but if one candidate pretends to care and the other doesn't, then the former might seem more appealing.

So, Kooks and Nutters, not that I expect any responses, is it credible that an American "Cooper" of the 1940's and 1950's might decide that working for the Soviet Union better serves his political ideals than helping the Great Satan to enslave the entire planet? I think it's credible.

[Alan Johnstone]

The tradition of cooperatives in the USA is a prominent one and their role does not conflict with the capitalist economy with many co-ops operating in the conservative rural communities.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cooperatives#United_States

UK Prime Minister David Cameron explained once that, "The co-operative principle captures precisely the vision of social progress that we on the centre-right believe in - the idea of social responsibility, that we're all in this together, that there is such a thing as society, it's just not the same thing as the state," he said.

Similarly, his statement that the movement will campaign for "public ownership of public services and public facilities", does not mean he believes in state ownership of those services."

A co-op does not cease being a capitalist enterprise simply because votes are taken on how its assets are used within a society of generalised commodity production and wage labour. The imperative to accumulate with all the drive to minimise the labour time taken to do a task this requires remains even in a co-op. Thus cooperatives are under the same pressure to seek to maximise profit as a condition for surviving as an economic institution embodying capital. It is just that in their case the trustees – the functionaries of capital – are different: worker-elected boards.

[Steven Galbraith]

In Tom Mallon's book on Ruth Paine, "Mrs. Paine's Garages", he discusses how Paine's parents (Bill and Carol Hyde) were at one time members of a cooperative but that the attempts by communists to take it over and use it for their ends angered them greatly.
Mallon: "Ruth, who was taken to a Norman Thomas rally at the age of eight, can recall those conversations even today - "They *hated* the communists...oh boy!"
As you pointed out: cooperatives in the US still believed in private property. They just believed that profits of the enterprise should be evenly distributed. And many were religiously affiliated; I would guess that the Soviet oppression of churches was not something they would overlook.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

What you say it true, but it ignores the point I was persuing of an individual who is motivated by egalitarianism. Clearly, the Cooperative Movement was not aligned with the Soviet Union in the 1940's and 1950's, and I never said it was. What you are doing, as response to my post, is a snow job, which is a routine Nutter procedure.