Introduction

Is capitalism the only way to organize the economy and production relations? Is profit the only value that can be created by organizations? Taking capitalism and capitalist forms of organizing as the only possibility for an economic and political system limits our vision; we do not see or try to experiment with alternative forms of organizing. In this book our aim is to show that organizations shaped by non-capitalist forms of production relations and value creation orientations and practices do exist. In so doing, we view alternative consumer cooperatives (ACCs) as an alternative, non-capitalist form of organizing. Activists involved in ACCs refuse to accept the prevailing power relations and experiment with a different surplus generation and governance model; their practice is based on the ‘ethics of solidarity’ (Gibson-Graham, 2003); rather than opting for profitability they aim to establish solidaristic, unmediated and trust-based ties between rural petty commodity producers and the urban middle class. Their daily practices are prefigurative; they experiment with what they aim for. They envision direct democracy and organizations devoid of hierarchies and inequalities. These are not fantasies, they are, at least to a certain extent, practised.

During our field study and analysis of the secondary data we have seen that the founders of the ACCs are inspired by the works of diverse economies, alternative organizations and are involved in prefigurative politics. Thus in this chapter, in order to provide a background for the underlying premises and practices of the ACCs, we elaborate on the tradition of diverse economies (Gibson-Graham, 2003, 2006, 2008, 2014; Gibson-Graham et al, 2013) and alternative economic spaces (Parker et al, 2014; Parker, 2017) in order to explain how ACCs experiment with a non-capitalist form of organizing and operate with a non-capitalistic form of work, shaped by the premises of alternative food networks and the values of the food sovereignty movement. Activists involved in the ACCs deliberately search for and experiment with practices that will dislocate hegemonic capitalist relations. Such attempts by the ACCs are prefigurative since activists create ‘new’ within the ‘old’ (Leach, 2013) with the ‘conflation of their ends with their means’ (Maeckelbergh, 2014, p 350).

Introduction

The activists involved in the ACCs are against authoritarianism; they value participation, solidarity and equality. As discussed in Chapter 3, the hegemonic neo-liberal project deliberately excluded some groups (women, the secular middle class and people with a specific political orientation) from economic and social life. As a consequence of the implementation of neo-liberal policies, after 2001 most of the activists became precariat; they deliberately refused the governing principles of investor-owned companies and the managerialism underlying them. Being against authoritarianism, neo-liberal policies and the politically exclusionist attitude of the ruling groups, the activists aimed to develop an alternative governance based on the principles of equality, inclusion and participation.

Experimenting with democratic and dialogic decision-making practices, they decided to get rid of the hierarchical relationship in the newly formed cooperatives. Using a diverse economy approach as a framework (Gibson-Graham 2006; Gibson-Graham et al, 2013) we analysed the work practices of the ACCs that are based on ‘zero-hierarchy’ and ‘consensus-based collective decision-making’. By experimenting with various practices negotiated among their members, activists involved in the ACCs aim to prefigure a post-capitalist society that is just, democratic and egalitarian.

This chapter explains the ‘alternative’ governance model which the ACCs experimented with. In so doing, we examine how various practices of this governance model are developed and how conflicts that arise from this new governance model are handled. The chapter is composed of three parts: performance measures, form of organization and volunteer work.

In search of an alternative governance model

The roots of the ACCs and the prefigurative strand taken by activists can be traced back to the Gezi protests and the underlying values and practices that were developed in the subsequent ‘park forums’ and Occupy houses. Gezi was an occasion where the discontents of the hegemonic neo-liberal project – the white-collar workers, professionals and students, had a chance to experiment with an alternative model shaped by solidarity, direct democracy, participation, mutuality, consensus and cooperation. As stated by a food activist, “Gezi was a ‘call’, where people who were seen as a political, insensitive to societal and ecological issues came together to build a future society that is inclusive, democratic and egalitarian.”

The alternative consumer cooperatives (ACCs) studied in this book strive to transform the prevailing food production and consumption nexus by re-positioning the petty commodity producers and bridging the gap between the urban middle class and the rural areas. In so doing, the ACCs have introduced fundamental changes such as bypassing the middlemen, de-fetishising foodstuff and experimenting with zero-hierarchy and consensus-based decision-making that challenge the capitalist forms of organizing and doing business. They are not driven by the profit motive and growth-pursuing strategies but instead develop and promote solidarity, collective action and mutuality among and within the urban middle class and rural small producers that have been excluded from the economic realm by the authoritarian implementation of neo-liberal policies. The ACCs are transforming the long-established socio-economic rural– urban relations in agriculture and invite other constituencies (municipalities and professional groups like architects, designers, software engineers and actors) to participate in the diffusion of alternative ways of organizing. The actions taken, tools developed and positions taken are important in understanding this transformation process and assessing its future trajectories. Thus, in this study we have tried to understand and describe how and why the ACCs evolved and how they challenge capitalist logic in food provisioning by experimenting and re-organizing their practices as problems are encountered.

The ACCs are grassroot organizations initiated by petty commodity producers, their representative organizations and the urban middle class who are excluded from the economic and social realm by the implementation of neo-liberal policies. As discussed in Chapter 4, the initiation of the ACCs is marked by the collaboration of petty commodity producers and urban middle-class citizens. As small producers, individual producers (for example, İlhan Koçulu and Ali Ünüvar) that had prior experience with producer cooperatives, Kibele (a producer cooperative) and Çiftçi-Sen (Farmers’ Union) were actively involved in the founding of the ACCs. The association Tohum-İzi Derneği (formerly KEÇI– Solidarity Initiative between Urbanites and Farmers) and the academic and administrative staff of Boğaziçi University were the initial representatives of the consumers. The dominant values that inspired and guided these groups were rooted in the premises of La Via Campesina.

Organizing is politics made durable. From cooperatives to corporations, Occupy to Meta, states and NGOs, organizations shape our lives. They shape the possible futures of governance, policy making and social change, and hence are central to understanding how human beings can deal with the challenges that face us, whether that be pandemics, populism or climate change. This book series publishes work that explores how politics happen within and because of organizations and organizing. We want to explore how activism is organized and how activists change organizations. We are also interested in the forms of resistance to activism, in the ways that powerful interests contest and reframe demands for change. These are questions of huge relevance to scholars in sociology, politics, geography, management and beyond, and are becoming ever more important as demands for impact and engagement change the way that academics imagine their work. They are also important to anyone who wants to understand more about the theory and practice of organizing, not just the abstracted ideologies of capitalism taught in business schools.

Our books offer critical examinations of organizations as sites of, or targets for, activism, and we will also assume that our authors – and hopefully our readers – are themselves agents of change. Titles may focus on specific industries or fields, or they may be arranged around particular themes or challenges. Our topics might include the alternative economy; surveillance, whistleblowing and human rights; digital politics; religious groups; social movements; NGOs; feminism and anarchist organization; action research and co-production; activism and the neoliberal university, and any other subjects that are relevant and topical.

Organizations and Activism is also a multidisciplinary series. Contributions from all and any relevant academic fields will be welcomed. The series is international in outlook, and proposals from outside the English-speaking global north are particularly welcome.

There could hardly be a more essential subject to human life than the focus for the fifth book in our series: food. We buy it, cook it, consume it every day. It is essential to survive, and also plays a pivotal role in our overall health and wellbeing. Yet food is more than this. Food is not merely sustenance; it is a source of pleasure, cultural identity and social connection. From birthdays to weddings, holidays to festivals, food takes centre stage in commemorating these important moments in our lives. Food matters.

Introduction

How did alternative consumer cooperatives (ACCs) emerge and how do they function within a context characterized by an exit from democracy, the rise of political Islamism and the populist neo-liberal policies (see, for example, David and Toktamış, 2015; Toktamış and David, 2015; David, 2016; Öktem and Akkoyunlu, 2016; Özden et al., 2017; Çalışkan, 2018; Adaman et al, 2019; Toktamış, 2019; Adaman and Akbulut, 2020)? In a political and economic milieu characterized by the dominance of a strong state tradition and a commitment to the premises of neo-liberal policies, affecting various aspects of social and economic life as well as the daily practices of citizens, how did a non-capitalist form of organizing emerge from those excluded from the political and economic realm? What were the major factors that mobilized the urban middle class to build networks of solidarity with other excluded groups and the petty commodity producers?

Although the neo-liberal turn in Turkey started with the 1980 structural adjustment programme, its full-blown implementation happened in the early 2000s when the ruling party, with the guidance of international organizations, instigated a political project to refashion Turkish society by combining neo-liberal economic policies, democracy and Islam (Çelik, 2015; Tuğal, 2015; David, 2016; Tansel, 2018). The model, usually described as ‘passive revolution’ in Gramscian terms (Tuğal, 2009), was implemented in a top-down fashion by the appointed bureaucrats and elected politicians. This neo-liberal Islamic model was successful in facilitating the inclusion of some groups (pro-government entrepreneurs, journalists, academics, bureaucrats) to the economic and political domains of society. The model also had a neo-liberal populist character in its capacity to include the new urban poor and informal sector workers by addressing their needs for housing and social assistance (Özden and Bekmen, 2015; Batuman, 2019). The government took certain initiatives (gentrification, low interest rates) to solve the informal housing (gecekondu) problems which later gave way to urban exclusion and the occupation of public spaces by mosques and shopping malls (Alonso, 2015). This neo-liberal populist, political Islamist project with its emphasis on the inclusion of the urban poor with the pro-AKP factions was, at the same time, exclusionary (Tuğal, 2015).