Part 2

An immense advantage of such an organised co-operative community (and one that can hardly be over-estimated) is the comparative certainty of returns and independence of adverse seasons that would thus be introduced into agriculture. Much of our hay is now deteriorated by cutting being delayed beyond the period of maximum nutriment, or damaged by not being dried and stacked at the earliest possible opportunity. But with a large and interested population close at hand, ready and willing to assist at an hour’s notice, and with the best machinery and appliances always ready, a single fine day in an otherwise adverse season might enable a hay or corn crop to be secured in good condition which, without this assistance, would be irretrievably ruined. And when everyone would be thus helping to save his _own_ crops--the very “daily bread” that he himself and his family would enjoy during the coming year, the work, however hard, would become a pleasure, and every hour of the long summer’s day (or even of the night as well) would be utilised by relays of workers. We can well imagine with what determination and energy the work would be carried on, and with what enthusiasm and rejoicing would the holiday succeeding such an effort--a true “harvest-home”--be partaken of by all.

Another point may here be usefully dwelt on. Though at the first starting of such colonies it may be advisable to have large common dwellings and meals, it should at an early period be possible for all who wished it to have cottages or houses of their own; and these should first be provided for married couples and their families. These could, however, continue to take their meals (or any meal) at the common table, or in lieu of these could draw rations of food from the stores and cook for themselves. Home-life, so dear to many of us, would thus be rendered possible for all who wished it, while still retaining the economies and securities of co-operative work.

Yet further, keeping in view the one object of the establishment of these co-operative villages--that of enabling the unemployed to work profitably for themselves; if after a few years’ residence any of the workers wished to have the opportunity of trying an independent life on the land, he should not only be permitted to do so, but should be helped to obtain land for a small holding in the immediate vicinity, and, if his record in the colony justified it, have implements and stock provided for him, to be repaid by easy instalments. Thus might be exhibited, side by side, the comparison of men with similar training adopting the methods of co-operation and individualism; and the results, in the degree of comfort and contentment attained by each as years went on, would be exceedingly instructive.

With regard to the chances (or, as I maintain, the _certainty_) of the economic and moral success of colonies or villages organised with _the one end of enabling people to provide by their own labour all the essentials of a secure_, a _happy_, and a _contented life_, it may be well to adduce a few illustrative facts and results.

Between the years 1870 and 1880, workshops and a garden of fourteen acres were started at the Newcastle-on-Tyne Workhouse on which to employ the ordinary able-bodied inmates. In a very short time all the vegetables required for the whole of the paupers was easily grown, with a considerable surplus which was disposed of to local shopkeepers; and at the end of three years this land is stated to have produced a profit of £339 annually. In almost every department of work more goods were produced than the house required, so that a reserve of a two years’ supply of boots and shoes was accumulated, while the whole of the inside fittings of new wings to the workhouse were executed by the inmates.[A]

[A] Mr. Mills quotes this from an article in _Chambers’ Journal_ of January 1st, 1881. Mr. Jas. H. Rodgers, for many years Chairman of the Guardians, has been so good as to inform me that the system of employing paupers in various kinds of productive industry is still in force at Newcastle; but that owing to a change in the class of inmates it is not quite so satisfactory. Over two-thirds of the number are now either chronic invalids, aged, or lunatics, with children who are mostly boarded out. Still, all who can do anything are employed productively, and nearly all the vegetables required by 1,000 to 1,500 inmates are grown on 15 acres of land cultivated by male paupers.

At Ralahine, in Ireland, eighty-one men, women, and children, all ordinary labourers of the lowest class, and with a very bad reputation in the district, farmed 618 acres of land, including bog and waste, under a committee chosen by themselves (Mr. Craig, who kept the accounts and supervised the household, being ignorant of agriculture), and they not only paid the very high rent of £900 a year (in produce estimated at market prices), but in the course of three years brought waste land into cultivation, purchased a reaping-machine, and at the same time increased their capital and lived well and contentedly. Then, the owner, having gambled away his property, suddenly disappeared, while the tenants were evicted and all their property confiscated by the Irish Court of Chancery!

At the Dutch colony of Frederiksoord, a miscellaneous body of “unemployed” have, under wise administration, converted an absolutely barren waste of moorland into what Mr. Mills terms “a paradise in the midst of a wilderness.” Here a large number of “free farmers” have been trained, who now support themselves in comfort and independence, while another body of labourers carry on the ordinary work of the estate (which must be largely educational and unproductive), and yet so nearly support themselves that the Director informed Mr. Mills that he did not use agricultural machinery because it would make it difficult to find work for all, and they would then be less easily managed.

Mr. Edward Atkinson, the great American statistician and advocate of capitalism, has given striking estimates of the productiveness of labour when aided by modern machinery. Two men’s labour for a year in wheat-growing and milling will produce 1,000 barrels of flour, barrels included, which will give bread enough for 1,000 persons. But as _we_ grow more bushels of wheat per acre than is grown in the American wheat fields, we could certainly produce _our_ bread on the spot quite as cheaply, if not much cheaper. Again, he tells us that one man’s labour produces woollen goods for 300 people, or boots and shoes for 1,000. Now, as far as productiveness goes, spinning, knitting, weaving, or shoe-making machines suitable for the employment of a dozen or twenty men or women could, in our co-operative colony, be worked quite as economically as in a great factory where 1,000 hands are employed--perhaps even more so, because no overseeing would be required, and all would be close to their work; while as the hours would be shorter and would alternate with outdoor or household work, the workers would be healthier and their labour more effective.

Again, as every inmate of such a colony would be trained in at least two distinct occupations, one involving mostly outdoor work, a large proportion of these textile fabrics would be made during wet days and long winter evenings, and would thus utilise time that is now often wasted.

Another great economy in such a colony is, that the whole of the middlemen’s and retailer’s profits would be saved, as well as the cost of the various forms of advertising, including commercial travellers and the high rents of retail shops in good situations, and that of railway freights, cartage, and other costs of world-wide or cross-country distribution. The result of all these needless expenses is shown by the well-known fact that, on the average, goods of every kind in common use are _produced_ for about half what they are sold for by the _retailer_; and to this great loss must be added, in the case of the individual producer for sale, the loss of time expended in selling and buying, and the frequent difficulty of finding a purchaser except at a ruinously low price. It is these numerous economics at every step of the process that justify Mr. Mills’ careful estimate of six hours’ daily work being ample to supply _all_ the necessaries of life for a well-organised co-operative population, including the children, the sick, and the aged; while a small farmer works usually ten or twelve hours to secure the same result, and can only succeed in doing so under somewhat favourable conditions, and with much greater risk of failure.

One other point remains to be considered. What would be the initial cost of such colonies as are here suggested, up to the time at which they became self-supporting? Here, too, Mr. Mills has given us the answer. By a careful estimate, founded on ascertained facts, he shows that the _total_ cost, both of the land and of the stock, buildings, and other appliances, together with a half-year’s food, would only equal the amount of two years’ total expenditure for the same number of paupers. The result of this outlay would be that after two or three years the necessity for poor-rates would cease. It would therefore be an enormous saving, even if each union or county _purchased_ the land and stocked it as part of its Poor Law expenditure, and this would be the case even if Mr. Mills’ calculations are found to be too favourable to the extent of even 50 per cent. (which I consider wildly improbable). But I believe that if the scheme was carried out under an Act of Parliament and under the general supervision of the Board of Agriculture, still greater economies might be effected, especially in the matter of land. For power should be given in the Act to take any land required at a valuation based on the net rental now obtained by the owner (or on the valuation in the rate books), for which amount he should receive Government Land Bonds. As soon as the colonies became self-supporting, and had absorbed most of the unemployed, so that pauperism in the ordinary sense was abolished, the respective local authorities would only have to pay the interest and sinking fund on these bonds, which would be a mere trifle as compared with existing poor rates, and would itself disappear in the course of less than two generations.

The farmers and labourers, as well as mechanics or others, who might be living upon the land thus taken over, would have the option of remaining upon it in the capacities for which they were severally fitted, as superintendents, foremen, or labourers; or if they preferred to leave would receive a reasonable “compensation for disturbance.”

* * * * *

There are always people who will not be satisfied with any proposed remedy for a great evil unless it deals with every possible phase and form of it, so as to abolish it completely at once, and for ever. Some of these will be sure to object that the worst of the unemployed--the tramps and the men who will not work under any conditions--will still remain; and they will ask triumphantly: “How will you bring these into your system? They will flock into your colonies in winter to enjoy the good living and do nothing to earn it.” There are two replies to this objection, which is really no valid objection at all. In the first place, it was not for _this_ class of men that the “Unemployed Workmen Bill” was brought into Parliament, or for whom legislation has been promised by the Government. It was not of _these_ unfortunates that either Socialists or Liberals drew such vivid pictures of undeserved misery, but of the genuine workmen, the men or women whose one object in life is to obtain _work_, however hard, however it may injure their own health or shorten their lives, in order that they may _save their families from starvation_, or from the deservedly hated workhouse. The whole of this great and successful agitation has been in behalf of those willing and anxious to work, but to whom by our actual social organisation it is forbidden. It was for them only that the “Right to Work” was demanded--not the right to _food_ while refusing to _work_. It is a sufficient reply to the objectors, therefore, that Mr. Mills’ proposal really solves the problem as regards those very classes of workers for whom the “Right to Work” clause was drawn.

But, secondly, it is certain that the system of co-operative colonies here explained _would_, in the course of a few years, absorb also the so-called unemployable, who are in reality by no means numerous, and have _never yet been offered_ the kindly assistance, the sympathetic treatment, the amount of liberty and the congenial surroundings they would find in these colonies. General Booth’s experience at his Essex colony has shown that a considerable proportion of these men are easily reclaimable, and the system there is far less favourable and less educational than it would be in our proposed co-operative colonies.

* * * * *

Before concluding, I will briefly advert to a few matters of high public importance, involving great cost, much loss of time and energy, widespread physical and moral deterioration, and terrible sacrifice of life, which would all be ameliorated and would ultimately disappear in _proportion as these co-operative colonies spread over the country_.

First and foremost, the cost of Old Age Pensions, which all admit to be absolutely necessary _now_, would steadily diminish with increase of these colonies, and ultimately become unnecessary. Next, the terrible mortality of infants, due to our present competitive manufacturing system, would rapidly disappear when the health and comfort of mothers were thoroughly safeguarded as a primary social duty. What would be the result of such a natural, simple, healthful, yet fully-occupied life as would prevail in these colonies may be judged by the condition of some of the German colonists in Central Brazil. A young friend of mine is now living among them. They subsist almost entirely on the direct produce of their own labour; they have large and healthy families, and his two nearest neighbours have twelve and eight children respectively, mostly grown up, _without having lost a single child_.

Then there is the enormous and ever-increasing system of inspectorship of factories and workshops, to guard against dangers of machinery, unhealthiness, and overwork, all quite unnecessary, and which would never even be thought of where there was no one to profit by such enormities.

Lastly, there is the curse of adulteration, ever increasing, pervading all commercial products, clothing, food, and even drugs, injurious alike to the health and the morality of the nation, and which inspectors and penalties have hardly any effect upon. All this would absolutely disappear when everything now adulterated would be produced in these colonies for home consumption, and _not_ for the profit of capitalists; and this fact would certainly re-act upon the private manufacturers. The safety and healthiness of all the co-operative shops would soon _compel_ private capitalists to improve the conditions of their factories under the penalty of not being able to obtain men or women to work for them.

A collateral but highly beneficial result of the system here advocated is, that just as it extended and flourished, it would, by absorbing all surplus labour, raise the standard of wages over the whole country, and of itself produce that “minimum wage” that we may decree by law, but which, so long as our present system persists unchecked, we can certainly never enforce. The generally higher wages thus caused will almost all be spent on home-made products, and thus more than compensate for any diminution of foreign trade that may occur: for it must always be remembered that foreign trade is mainly carried on for the profit of the capitalist or to supply luxuries for the wealthy, and is little needed when all workers are enabled to produce the necessaries of life, co-operatively, for themselves.

Yet another important economy not yet referred to arises from the essential nature of a co-operative community producing everything for their own consumption, and therefore absolutely free from the faintest suspicion of adulteration. We have seen that Mr. Mills estimated that not more than one-fifth of the total produce would have to be sold in order to purchase articles or materials which the colonists could not produce themselves. Each colony would decide, or rather would find by experience, which articles it would thus produce in larger amounts than it needed--one might sell butter, cheese, and perhaps cream; another woollen fabrics; another shoes, etc., or some combination of these. But it would soon become known that everything made at the colony was genuine. The butter would not be margarine; the cloths and flannels would be wool throughout, the boot-soles would not be of brown paper; and the matches, the china-glazes and the paints would all be made of non-poisonous materials. The certainty that this would be so--everything being made primarily for _use_ and not for _profit_--would ensure a large and constant demand for everything the colonists had to sell. They would thus be saved all the costs of advertising or of taking their goods to market; as was found to be the case with the best of the Communistic Societies in the United States, whose garden and farm seeds, dried and preserved fruits, tubs, washing machines, traps, and chairs, are still widely known and sought after for their purity and good workmanship.

All the goods which the colony had for sale would thus bring the highest market prices with the minimum expenditure of time and labour; so that one fatal circumstance that caused the failure of so many attempts at co-operative workshops--the difficulty or impossibility of _selling_ the produce--would never arise.

The result of this brief, but I believe accurate, examination of the capitalistic and the co-operative systems in their essential conditions and proved results, is to show that the former is inherently _wasteful_ to an enormous degree, and so productive of physical and moral evil as to be incompatible with a true civilisation. In every part of the world it is alike productive of poverty, degradation, and crime for large numbers of the workers, and the latter perhaps in an equal proportion (though in different ways) for the capitalist employers also. Such a system stands condemned at the bar of reason, justice, and common sense.

* * * * *

I think I have now shown that the way to solve this great “Problem of the Unemployed” was clearly pointed out nearly twenty years ago, with precision, fulness of detail, and sufficient basis of fact and experience. But the time had not then come. The few read and appreciated the book, but it was generally ignored, with the usual cry of “Utopian”! Now, however, the _hour_ has arrived, and here is the _Man_ whose long-neglected book shows us clearly the lines on which alone we can successfully overcome the difficulty.

But a proviso has here to be made, which is of the most vital importance and which must always be kept in view. Even if the scheme here advocated is carried out to the letter, so far as its _methods_ are concerned, complete success will only be attained if its organisers are imbued throughout with the human, the philanthropic, the brotherly _spirit_ of the propounder. This will depend almost wholly on the choice of men for directors of the several co-operative colonies. If the head is chosen for his supposed power of managing and governing large bodies of men, in the way our governors of prisons and masters of workhouses have been chosen; and if he enters on his duties with the one idea of compelling all to work alike, from the very first, and with that end draws up an elaborate system of rules, with fines and punishments to be rigidly enforced in the various departments of industry, then failure will be inevitable. Neither is the successful manager of a great factory or large estate more likely to succeed if he is a man who looks upon workers as mere “hands”--as parts of a great productive machine, each to be kept in his proper place, and to have no will of his own.

Our object should be to train up self-supporting, self-respecting, and self-governing men and women; and we should aim at doing this by developing the conceptions of solidarity and brotherhood--that good and honest work is expected from each because he benefits equally with every other worker in the joint result, and that it is therefore his plain duty to do his full share in producing that result. The type of men to be sought after are such as Mr. Craig, who, though a suspected stranger and supposed emissary of the landlords, yet gained the affection of a body of wild Irish labourers, and in a year of sympathetic guidance so changed their lives that, in their own words: “Ralahine used to be a hell; now it is a little heaven;” and Robert Owen, the self-educated Welshman, who in less than twenty years changed a population of over 500 persons, all Scotch mill-workers--who were living in chronic destitution and debt, and in habits of almost continuous drunkenness, dirt, and vice--into a cleanly, well-to-do, contented, and grateful community.

The methods by which these men produced such results should be studied by everyone who would undertake the directorship of one of the proposed co-operative colonies. For those who talk so confidently about human nature being not good enough for any such co-operative life as is here suggested, I would adduce Owen’s work at New Lanark as an unanswerable reply. I know of no more wonderful example in history, of the results to be obtained by appealing to men’s higher feelings rather than to the lower and baser, than Owen’s account, in his story of his own life, of how he stopped almost universal thieving, drunkenness, neglect, and other faults in his great body of workers, by means of his invention of the “silent monitor”--a little record on four sides of a tally, of each worker’s conduct the day before, as indicated by four colours--black, red, yellow, and white, one of which only was displayed. These tallies were attached to each worker’s place every morning, so that as Owen walked through the work-rooms he could see them both collectively and separately. At first the majority were black, while white was rare. But gradually the colours changed, and in a few years yellow and white prevailed. During all this time there were no punishments, either by fine or in any other way, neither did Owen ever scold a man, or even speak harshly to him. He merely, when the colour was black, looked at the man in sorrow; and he tells us, how after a time he could tell a man’s conduct by his very attitude as he passed him, without looking at the tally.