Wow, it felt really good to revoke my membership in the past few days
from the VFC, and I am commenting along the way to the board ( fellow
downtown denizens) that I expect the VFC to be supportive of other
co-ops that may form in the area. The vague, virtuous-seeming support
when it's come along, that I've seen (I'm grasping) has been horribly
conservative, and it's a relief not to feel obligated regarding the
success of this present group. But that does not mean a co-op cannot
succeed here; the organizers would optimally be less retaliatory
against dissenters (hours-long telephone harangue about out-of-favor
person(s), anyone?), and more tolerant of the diversity of urban life,
illustrated by the various Portland co-ops, in general.
A lot of the schism I've seen within the VFC is between people who
understand the need (hunger, poverty and other current, present
cancers) from direct experience, and the ones who have been swept up in
the idealistic virtue and saintly nature of the thing. If the idea is
community, and the cooperative principles, that is what the VFC has
been offering, the opportunity to debate. It's gotten unnecessarily
heated, but I might join the VFC again if there is a neutral place to
meet that's our own, and a neutral voice fairly introducing us to the
national co-op scene.
One could model the VFC after a common agricultural-rural consumer
co-op and it might easily parallel a Mormon outpost, or a buyer's club
where the members never get to know each other very well (just like in
the VFC as I've known it). That culture is just not what the VFC
originally advertised. They suggested a tolerance of this particular
downtown area, urban, close to Portland, not insular, not exclusive of
the particularly gritty areas, which I admit are the more challenging
things to deal with in community organizing.