to organize or not to organize?

This entire experience feels like the culmination in my studies of culture, of travel, of history, and particularly of democratic theory. Of worldviews, and histories, and personal experience, of the multitude of ways that people are and want to be in the world.
What does it mean to have a strong civil society? What does it mean to be organized? Why do it? What does it offer? All of these questions, and their answers (individual for different people), are part of the subconscious and conscious actions of the people in these communities.
Yesterday I attended a cooperative meeting of 28 women who for the last five years have held monthly meetings, started a group savings account, sent their children to school, increased their knowledge of coffee and other crops they cultivate, and held workshops on everything from accounting to self-esteem, cooperative law to the history of mother’s day. They have, in their own words, “organized themselves”. The benefits for them seem to be clear. They have become more informed, have gained title to some of their property, can sell their coffee themselves, get loans and credit, put their children in a scholarship program, and help each other. They can utilize a greater number of resources, be they each other, the Union of Agricultural Cooperatives credit office, home remodeling (meaning the addition of running water, electricity, or an outhouse) program, or CECOCAFEN’s technical advisors and youth scholarship program. Through all of these programs and capacitations, they see themselves bettering their lives, the prospects of their children, and strengthening their communities.
Today, I talked to another señor, whose take on cooperative organization was very different. “Those in the office,” he stated matter of factly, “are in it only to get rich themselves”. He cited the fact that the cooperative doesn’t always pay what the market does, that people in the cooperatives are of one political persuasion, and that the Union of Agricultural Cooperatives (UCA) comes with their fancy vans to pick up only the coffee of its members, leaving others to figure out how to move their product themselves. The loans he said, one must also repay at high interest rates, and attend meetings that, if missed, can cause one expulsion from the cooperative. He was in one, but chose to get out, after all, those from the UCA are only in it for themselves.
What could lead to these vastly different readings of the situation and purpose of cooperatives, of what they do? Individual experience of course, but in my opinion, also a worldview (and please comment any and all if you think I’m way off here). For the women in El Privilegio, the mere act of organizing themselves has meant increased empowerment, it has meant a better life by making oneself more involved and more dependent on others. Through that integration and that dependence, they have increased their support network and therefore their options. For this, they pay the price of a few córdobas (local currency) a month and a commitment to actively participate in deciding cooperative business. In return, they receive a stable price for their products, and everything else that was mentioned above.
The other señor on the other hand, views the organization and the commitment of money and time, as too much. He prefers to work independently, and on his own, find the person or business that will pay him most for his café. With this, he has succeeded in building a lovely family, home and farm. With coffee at its current price, all is well and he has no need to be organized, to ask for a loan he can repay in coffee, anything like that. He and his family take care of themselves, and live happily and wonderfully from their hard work. For him, the benefits of cooperative membership do not outweigh the inconvenience of paying a monthly fee, attending meetings, and arguing out issues in the democratic process required by the cooperative rules.
Neither of these people are wrong. For the women of El Privilegio, being in a cooperative had made all the difference in their ability to demand knowledge and money from their husbands, to access social programs, and to thereby improve their positions. Those with whom I have spoken view the required commitments as benefits, not costs. The señor on the other hand, has not needed the cooperative organization to shape his life as he wants to. He has preferred to go it alone.
So it seems that here, a everywhere, and in this issue, as in every issue, there is no right thing for all people, only right things for individual people. Cooperatives can work for some people, and not for others, as they will work for development in some places, and in some areas of production, better than they will in others. Maybe this was part of the problem of the sandinistas, not everyone wished to follow their model. And if the model that one makes is too strict, too inflexible, it works for fewer and fewer people. Some people here as everywhere, are political animals, enjoy working dependently with others, and view their lives as enriched by these aspects. Others do not. Both are right.
So tonight, I am left with an understanding broadened by my liberal arts education. There is not just one way, no simple right and wrong, only different models that work well and not well in different ways. I’m not sure what to do with that, other than to remind myself that its okay to know that there are multiple answers to every question, and that I want to increase my knowledge about both the good and not so good things that come to small scale coffee farmers who “organize themselves”.