E-text prepared by Donald Cummings, Adrian Mastronardi, and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team (http://www.pgdp.net) from page images
generously made available by Internet Archive/American Libraries
(https://archive.org/details/americana)



Note: Images of the original pages are available through
      Internet Archive/American Libraries. See
      https://archive.org/details/remedyforunemplo00walliala


Transcriber’s note:

      Text enclosed by underscores is in italics (_italics_).





Pass on Pamphlets.      No. 8.
1d.

THE REMEDY FOR UNEMPLOYMENT

ALFRED R. WALLACE







The Clarion Press,
44, Worship Street, London, E.C.


      *      *      *      *      *      *

THE CLARION.

  Edited by ...
  ROBERT BLATCHFORD.

_EVERY FRIDAY._ - - _ONE PENNY._

If you want to keep to understand the Socialism which is creating such
a ferment in the country, you must read the CLARION. Order it from your
newsagent, or send for a free specimen copy.


5 Clarion Pamphlets.

  No. 44--FROM BRUTE TO BROTHER.
                            By DENNIS HIRD, M.A.

  No. 46--JESUS THE SOCIALIST.
                            By DENNIS HIRD, M.A.

  No. 47.--SEVENTEEN SHOTS AT SOCIALISM.
                               By R. B. SUTHERS.
      This is an answer in brief to Seventeen Common Objections to
      Socialism.

  No. 48.--THE CASE FOR SOCIALISM.
                                By F. HENDERSON.
      Deals with the Compensation and Confiscation question.

  No. 49.--THE PERIL OF POVERTY.
                        By Councillor McLACHLAN.

_ONE PENNY EACH_ - - _By Post, 1½d._

THE CLARION PRESS, 44, Worship Street, London, E.C.

      *      *      *      *      *      *


THE REMEDY FOR UNEMPLOYMENT.

BY DR. ALFRED R. WALLACE.


The reason why I wrote the present pamphlet (which first appeared in
the “Socialist Review,” and is now reprinted in a slightly modified
form) was that, although there is a small body of avowed Socialists
in Parliament, not one of them has, so far as I am aware, upheld any
of the fundamental principles of Socialism as a means of dealing with
the greatest of present-day problems--that of chronic unemployment and
starvation all over our land. Let me illustrate what I mean by a few
examples. Perhaps the most fundamental and universally admitted axiom
of Socialism is that all production should be, primarily, _for use and
not for profit_; and the next in importance is that the true or proper
_wages of labour_ is _the whole product of that labour_.

But neither in Parliament nor out of it has a single voice been raised
to show that these principles _must_ be adopted in any permanent
solution of the problem, or to explain how they _can_ be applied far
more easily and economically than any of the suggested alleviations.
All the talk has hitherto been of securing trade union rates of wages
for out-of-works of every kind; and the underlying idea has always been
that of the non-Socialist worker--that the Government provision of
work must _not_ be looked upon as permanent, but only as enabling the
worker to live till the capitalist employer again requires him.

An equally non-Socialist view was put forth by one of the most
respected Socialists in Parliament when he advocated the immediate
construction of light railways all over the country in order that when
labour was brought back to the land the products could be carried
economically to market, implying that the “products” were to be sold,
thus competing in the market with those of other producers, lowering
prices, and altogether ignoring the great Socialist principle of
“production for use.” In the discussion of this question it has been
totally overlooked that by a proper organisation of the labour of
the permanently or temporarily unemployed, as well as of all those
whose employment does not supply them with the means of a thoroughly
sufficient and healthy existence, all the necessaries and comforts of
life can be produced in our own country, just as they were produced
down to a few centuries ago. I will now proceed to the exposition of
the whole subject.

In order that those who have not read the Labour Party’s Unemployed
Workmen Bill may understand why it could not have succeeded, a short
statement of its essential provisions may here be given.

The first clause provides that the “Local Unemployment Authority”
under this Bill shall be the council of every borough or district of
over 20,000 inhabitants, and for the rest of the county the “County
Council.” Clause 3 declares that “it shall be the duty of the Local
Unemployment Authority to provide work for him” (any workman registered
as unemployed) in connection with one or other of the “schemes”
hereinafter provided, “or otherwise,” or failing the provision of work,
“to provide maintenance, should necessity exist, for that person and
for those depending on that person.”

This is the essential part of the clause, with a condition that the
wages are to be “not lower than those that are standard to the work in
the locality.” Then there is to be a Central Unemployment Committee
to “frame schemes,” and generally look after the Local Unemployment
Committees, which are to be established by every local authority,
and are also to “frame schemes”; and the “schemes” of the four or
five hundred local authorities are all to be submitted to the Local
Government Board for revisal or approval. Nowhere is any guide given
to the essential principles which should underlie these hundreds of
schemes, and we can easily imagine the delay, the confusion, the cost,
and the almost certain failure of “schemes” initiated in so haphazard a
manner.

The whole conception of the Bill is, in my opinion, wrong. Unemployment
is not a local phenomenal, but national, and even world-wide. It is a
symptom of disease in our existing civilisation, and must be treated,
if with any chance of success, on broad national lines, and with
national resources. Even the one definite suggestion in the Bill--that
“schemes of national utility” might be undertaken to employ the
out-of-works--however good in itself, was here altogether out of place.
For such schemes--afforestation, reclamation of foreshores, drainage
works, roads, etc.--are all either not reproductive at all, or not
for many years, in the meantime increasing taxation, and thus perhaps
producing further unemployment; while they could only employ a mere
fraction of those in distress (none of the women) and, when completed,
would leave the problem exactly where it was when they were started.

The discussion in Parliament showed a clear recognition of the fact
that it is quite impossible to remedy such chronic and widespread
unemployment as exists now by finding work for the half-starved
population in the hundreds of different occupations at which they have
been engaged; but, strange to say, no one seemed to be aware that it
is by no means impossible--that it is, in fact, comparatively easy--to
enable these same people to _produce for themselves the primary
necessaries of life_ which are their _immediate_ and _permanent_
need. What is required is to organise and combine the whole of the
unemployed into local groups, each group or community being primarily
made up of a due proportion of workers who have been engaged in the
production of some of these _necessaries_, and who will form a nucleus
for the training of others for similar work. These various occupations
are comparatively primitive, and there is every reason to believe that
they will be found among the unemployed in about the same proportions
as in the whole population. The thorough organisation and careful
supervision needed cannot, however, be left to the random, and often
antagonistic, opinions of hundreds of local authorities, but must be
undertaken by the Central Government itself, and that only when the
guiding _principles_ and the practical _procedure_ have been carefully
thought out, clearly defined, and fully discussed in Parliament, before
being embodied in law. It is pre-eminently a work to be devised and
carried out by the Executive Government itself.

I will now endeavour to show in some detail how this can be done, what
will be its results, and what are the various facts and arguments which
render its success a certainty if it is fully and honestly carried out.

The recent discussion of the problem of unemployment, both in
Parliament and in the Press, affords a remarkable proof of how
difficult it is to enforce attention to new methods of dealing with
great social problems, if such proposals are made a little before their
time. Thus only can it be explained that not one Liberal, Labour, or
Socialist Member of Parliament seems to be aware that a thorough and
carefully-worked out scheme for dealing with the unemployed problem was
published about twenty years ago, was re-issued a year or two later in
a cheap edition by a well-known London publisher, was widely read and
greatly admired, and--as was to be expected at _that time_--was very
soon forgotten. I feel sure that this book must be in many public and
private libraries, especially those of Liberal or Radical Clubs, but
neither by Members of Parliament nor by any writers in the reviews have
I once seen it referred to. Yet its title alone should have caused
it to be read at this time, since it so fully and clearly states the
problem which has received so much attention, but no solution, during
the last few years. It is as follows: _Poverty and the State, or Work
for the Unemployed; An Inquiry into the Causes and Extent of Enforced
Idleness, together with a Statement of a Remedy Practicable Here and
Now_. By Herbert V. Mills. London. Kegan, Paul, Trench, and Co. Price
one shilling. 1889.

Now, this book is pre-eminently a practical one, and the bold claim in
its title is fully justified by its contents. Mr. Mills was a Poor Law
Guardian in Liverpool for many years, where there were nearly three
thousand inmates of the workhouse. He thus had unusual opportunities
of becoming acquainted with the poor, and of studying the various
problems of pauperism, such as unemployment, food-supply, the various
occupations of paupers, and other matters. He further obtained
information and advice from experts in agriculture, and in the various
trades and occupations of the men who came under his notice, and has
thus been able to give us detailed estimates and calculations of the
greatest value in formulating practical methods of utilising the labour
of the unemployed to the greatest advantage, for their own benefit.
He also visited and carefully inquired into the detailed working of
the various Dutch Beggar and Labour Colonies, and obtained from them
valuable information as to the methods that tend to success, as well as
of those that either diminish the success or lead to failure.

Having myself encountered many disappointments in books, claiming to
expound new and important ideas both in physical and economic science,
I was fully prepared for another failure here. But I quickly found that
this was really what it claimed to be, and I at once did all I could
to call public attention to it, first in one of my annual addresses
to the Land Nationalisation Society (in 1892), and much more fully
in a chapter I wrote for Edward Carpenter’s _Forecasts of the Coming
Century_, published in 1897. This chapter I republished, with some
important additional facts and arguments, in 1900, in my _Studies,
Scientific and Social_; yet all appears to have been in vain. If the
authors of the “Unemployed Workmen Bill” had drawn it so as to follow
closely Mr. Mills’ scheme, and had fully explained this scheme in their
speeches by means of the facts, illustrations, and methods so well and
concisely given in his book, I feel sure that the result of the debate
would have been very different, and that not only Socialists, but the
whole body of Labour Members, a large majority of Liberals, and even
many Conservatives, would have voted in its favour; in which case the
Government would have been obliged either to adopt it, or to bring in a
Bill of their own on similar lines.

The chief reason why Mr. Mills’ scheme, if embodied in a Bill, should,
and I think would, receive the support of a large majority in the
present House of Commons is, that it utilises and combines in an
admirable manner the most important, and at the same time the least
disputable, methods of both Socialism and Individualism. To illustrate
this I will give a few condensed extracts from his summary of the main
features of his proposals, with some remarks of my own.

(1) In each county or union, tracts of land from 2,000 acres upwards
shall be purchased or taken over by the State or Local Authority, and
be prepared with suitable houses, buildings, tools, machines, etc., for
the accommodation of about 4,000 or 5,000 occupants, men, women, and
children; with skilled foremen and organisers to carry out the various
operations of agriculture, and the trades and manufactures required to
produce food, clothing, and other necessaries for the inhabitants.

(2) It is shown, by the facts and calculations of experts, that the
labour of a properly assorted population, for four hours daily,
will, when in full working order (say after a year), produce _all_
the necessaries of life in abundance. One hour more is added for the
costs of skilled supervision and another hour for the maintenance and
schooling of the children, and for the support of the aged and the sick
as they arise.

(3) In order to effect this the ordinary methods and rules of the best
kinds of industrial work must be adopted; but, after working hours,
all will be as completely free from control by the various industrial
officials as the people of any prosperous and well-ordered town or
village.

(4) That the director of each of the Co-operative estates shall
encourage the workers to make their homes and work-places as healthful,
convenient, and beautiful as possible, giving them _advice_ as to how
this can best be done, and _assistance_ in doing it.

(5) That for work done co-operatively no money wages shall be paid, the
equivalent of such work being the _whole net produce_ of the labour.
This will be--the provision of comfortable homes, abundance of good
food and fuel, with a good supply of clothing, the latter being chosen
by each person from a variety of suitable material and design kept in
the stores. In addition to this, the children would all receive the
best education, and as they grew up would each be trained in accordance
with their faculties or tastes, in two or three useful occupations.

At least four-fifths of all the work on the estate _shall be done for
home consumption, not for sale_.

(6) Every worker will be enabled to employ his spare time for his
own use or profit, so as to obtain any luxuries or pleasures he
might desire. Some would have land on which to raise choice fruits
or vegetables for sale; others a workshop; the young women might
do dressmaking, or open shops for the supply of small luxuries not
produced co-operatively. All they required would be supplied at
wholesale price, to be repaid by instalments out of the profits.

On this subject Mr. Mills well remarks: “I can easily imagine that
for the sake of the retriever, the pigeons, the tobacco, the poultry
or rabbits, the greenhouse, the bicycle, the piano, the library, the
concert, or the theatre, many morning and evening industries would
spring up quickly, without any other stimulus from the director than
that which exists in every human heart. The acquisition of the luxuries
of life might well be left to the ingenuity and activity of private
enterprise.”

I would myself further suggest that the rules and restrictions on these
estates should be as few as possible, and only such as are absolutely
essential for the comfort and well-being of all. Especially should
all healthful amusements and social enjoyments be provided for; while
such serious offences as repeated drunkenness, immorality, or violence
should be punished by absolute dismissal or expulsion.

It should be made quite clear from the first that these estates or
colonies are established for the provision of _permanent and enjoyable
homes_ for all who desired to take advantage of them, _not_ as mere
temporary shelters in times of depression. There would, of course,
be no compulsion to remain, but anyone who was dissatisfied with his
surroundings and left could not again be admitted.

Another point of importance is, that the organisation of the whole
community under an official director, whose rule must necessarily
at first be despotic, is not intended to be permanent. When the
colony became thoroughly self-supporting, and its inhabitants fully
appreciated the benefits they enjoyed under the co-operative system,
and had been gradually trained in the principles and methods essential
to success, the organisation would be steadily modified in the
direction of a self-governing community.

With this end in view, the Director, as well as the several heads of
departments of industry, would, after the first year, each choose a
few of the more intelligent and industrious workers to form small
Consultative Committees. With these he would hold informal weekly
meetings, to talk over the special affairs of their departments, and
consider whether any improvements in organisation were advisable,
either in the interests of the workers themselves or of the whole
community who consumed or utilised the products of the work. Later
on these committees might be added to by the introduction of workers
chosen to represent the rest; or, perhaps better still, by the
admission of those who had been longest in the community, and were
therefore best acquainted with the needs and wishes of all its members.
These would automatically become members after a certain period of
work, the older retiring as the younger entered, and would ultimately
constitute the whole committee. Suggestion-books should also be kept in
the public rooms, in which every member, without exception, could, if
he wished, make proposals or suggestions on any matter affecting the
well-being of the whole community, or any section of it. These books
would be examined by the committees and by the Director, who would
decide upon their merits. Public meetings would also be held monthly or
quarterly, at which the decision as to each of the suggestions would be
announced, and the reasons why some were adopted and others rejected
explained, while occasionally a suggestion would be given a trial and
afterwards the opinion of a general meeting taken upon its adoption.

This plan was, I believe, first tried at Ralahine (in 1832) by Mr.
E. T. Craig, and it has since been adopted by a few great industrial
concerns with excellent results. It is found that useful suggestions
are made by quite ordinary workmen, and even by boys, affecting both
the convenience of the workmen and economy of production. But more
important is its educational and moral value, which would be especially
great in a co-operative association, by giving to every worker a
definite status, and making him feel that he is not only a labourer in
a great organisation, but that he is allowed to express his own views
as to what is essential for the good of all. This feeling, and the
careful attention given to all suggestions, tends to give confidence in
the management, and ensures willing and thoughtful attention to duty.

       *       *       *       *       *

But here some of my readers will no doubt object, how can it be
shown that such estates or colonies could and would produce all the
necessaries of life with such a comparatively small amount of labour?
We know what John Burns told us of the enormous cost of the Labour
Colonies at Hollesley Bay and Laindon; why should not these be equal
failures? The answer is simple. The colonies now being tried, as well
as that of General Booth in Essex, are a kind of rural workhouses, with
no idea of permanency, no home life, no freedom of action, no prospect
of a future. Neither is there any effective grouping of workers,
no sufficient variety of occupations, no attempt at the production
of all the necessaries of life by those who consume them. There is
also, apparently, a large sale of produce in competition with outside
workers, wholly different from the system of _production for use_ which
is the very basis of Mr. Mills’ scheme.

The scope of this scheme and its far-reaching and permanent effects
on unemployment are totally unlike those of our present costly and
temporary Labour Colonies. It would at once absorb the unemployed
workers in scores of different trades and occupations, all being
employed in supplying directly the wants of the community of which
each formed a part. The wheat grown for food would employ millers,
machinists, sack-makers, bakers, etc.; the sheep and cattle, supplying
meat, milk, butter and cheese for all, would also by the intervention
of tanners, curriers, saddlers, shoemakers, etc., supply all the
leather goods; while the dairy outfit would require the work of tinmen
and other skilled mechanics for the pans, pails, churns, presses, etc.
The bones and horns might be used to make handles of domestic cutlery
and for old-fashioned but useful lanthorns; perhaps combs and brushes
might also be made, while the refuse fat would be made into soap for
the use of the community. Wherever suitable clay occurred bricks and
tiles would be made, as well as drain pipes and coarse pottery for
various domestic uses. Even unlimited sugar for a population of 5,000
might be produced from home-grown beet-root with suitable pressing,
boiling, and refining machinery. The wool of the sheep would be
cleaned, spun, and woven into all the chief forms of clothing and
household articles required; while flax grown, prepared, spun, and
woven at home would supply the needful underclothing and linen of
various kinds.

Artificers in wood and iron would be occupied in the supply and repair
of carts, waggons, ploughs, and the simpler agricultural machines;
while water or wind mills (or both) would give the power for the
various kinds of machinery, for electric light and power-transmission,
and probably also for warming and cooking purposes.

All these various industries would require a considerable engineering
plant, and a body of trained workers, while a staff of joiners,
cabinet-makers, plumbers, painters, and paper-makers, and in smaller
numbers, compositors, printers, and book-binders, with store-keepers,
clerks, and porters, would find constant or occasional work; and there
would be comparatively few workers of any kind who would not be able to
learn some one or other of these occupations, even if their own special
skill in some less familiar industry was not called for. And besides
all these, a considerable body of labourers would be wanted; and all
adults as well as the older children would at times of pressure be
called to assist in some of the varied forms of simple farm and garden
work, such as hay-making, fruit-gathering, and harvesting.

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.

It may be said, we have no such men now; but I think that is a mistake.
Mr. Mills himself would probably be one of the first appointed; while
a post as responsible director of 5,000 workers would be congenial
to many of our broad-minded clergy, to the more educated among the
officials of the Salvation Army, and to such sympathetic writers about
the poor as Mr. Whiteing, Mr. Zangwill, and many others. It should
be considered a position of high rank and importance, equal, say, to
that of a judge or a bishop, and none should be appointed who are not
in perfect sympathy with the avowed objects of the “colonies,” and
determined to do all in his power to make the experiment a success.
The salary should not be high; in fact, the lower the better, in some
respects. The office would almost certainly attract the best men, since
it would enable them to initiate and develop one of the greatest social
reforms ever undertaken in a civilised country. They should, of course,
have practically a free hand, and be judged only by _results_. They
must have complete power to change the heads of departments, if they
found them difficult to work with, or of characters unsuited to the
task of rendering the labour of the community at once efficient and
attractive to the workers.

There would, I believe, very soon arise a healthy rivalry between
different colonies, in which every individual, from the Director to the
youngest worker, would bear his part, as to which shall exhibit the
best results in the various industries carried on; in the cleanliness,
comfort, and even elegance of their domestic arrangements and general
surroundings; in their amusements and their studies; and especially in
the general contentment, order, and happiness of the whole community.

To attain such a result would be a truer honour to our country than
all our past and prospective victories, gained at the cost of untold
misery to both victors and vanquished, vast burdens of taxation,
rivers of blood and tears. To attain such a beneficent result seems
now actually within our reach; and my chief hope is that I may live to
see it inaugurated, and that all parties and classes alike shall for
once forget their prejudices and antagonisms, and work together for the
success of some such scheme as is here laid before them.

It is after a considerable acquaintance with the literature of this
subject, from the time of the grand pioneer, Robert Owen, down to
the present day, that I have arrived at the most absolute conviction
that Mr. Mills has pointed out to us the one true road to success,
and that any considerable divergence from it will lead to failure. I
therefore most earnestly call upon all social reformers, and especially
all members of Parliament, whose duty it will be to legislate upon
the subject, to make a careful study of his small volume--but really
_great_ and _illuminating_ work--to read it carefully throughout; to
study it in all its parts; to imbue themselves with its spirit as well
as with its facts, its principles, and its arguments; to familiarise
themselves with the practical results of co-operative undertakings
so far as their opportunities permit; and, by means of the knowledge
they will have gained from Mr. Mills, satisfy themselves as to the
_essential causes_ of failure or success.

Above all these things, let them see that when the time of legislation,
and of giving practical effect to the legislation arrives, the
principle of the whole scheme shall be, in Mr. Mills’ words: “That
within the bounds of the ‘Co-operative Estates’ we shall endeavour to
cultivate able and tender-hearted men, and brave and independent women;
and _not_ to accumulate wealth.”


THE UTOPIA PRESS, _Printers_, Worship St., London, E.C.




Pass On Pamphlets.

Every Friday Fortnight.

One Penny.


These Pamphlets are intended to explain the need for Socialism, to
explain what Socialism is, to answer objections to Socialism, and to
suggest methods for the attainment of Socialism.


_NOW READY._

By R. B. Suthers.

  No. 1.--JOHN BULL AND DOCTOR SOCIALISM.
  No. 2.--JOHN BULL AND DOCTOR FREE TRADE.
  No. 3.--JOHN BULL AND DOCTOR PROTECTION.


By Julia Dawson.

  No. 4.--WHY WOMEN WANT SOCIALISM.


By A. M. Thompson.

  No. 5--SOCIALISM AND INVENTIONS.


By F. H. Rose.

  No. 6.--STOP THE STRIKE.


By R. B. Suthers.

  No. 7.--JOHN BULL’S RENT AND INTEREST.


By Alfred R. Wallace.

  No. 8.--THE REMEDY FOR UNEMPLOYMENT.


By Robert Blatchford.

          A NEW RELIGION.


By F. W. Jowett, M.P.

          WHAT IS THE USE OF PARLIAMENT?


Order them from your Newsagent.

Every Friday Fortnight--One Penny.




MERRIE ENGLAND.

By ROBERT BLATCHFORD. A New Edition.

Paper cover, 3d.; by post 4½d. Cloth, 1/- by post 1/2.

“Merrie England” first appeared as a series of articles in the CLARION
in 1892-3. These articles, with some revisions and additions, were
afterwards produced in volume form at a shilling. The book met with
immediate success, some 25,000 copies being sold.

In October, 1894, the CLARION published the same book, uniform in size
and type with the shilling edition, at the low price of ONE PENNY. As
the book contained 206 pages, and was printed by trade-union labour,
and on British-made paper, it could only be produced at a loss. This
loss was borne by the proprietors of the CLARION.

The sale of the penny edition outran all expectations. No one supposed
that more than 100,000 would be called for, but in a few months over
700,000 had been sold, without a penny being spent in advertisement,
and in face of the tremendous opposition excited by Socialistic
publications in those days.

Later on an edition was published at 3d., and the total sale reached
nearly a million copies.

An American edition is said to have sold equally well, and the book
was translated into Welsh, Dutch, German, Scandinavian, Spanish, and
other languages, on none of which editions, it may be remarked, did the
author receive any royalties.

The British edition has been out of print for some years, and there
has recently been a growing demand for the book’s re-issue. To this
the author at length reluctantly acceded, and the present edition was
announced. That the demand was real may be judged from the fact that
orders for 20,000 copies were placed before the date of publication,
and the new issue promises to sell as well as the first threepenny
edition.


THE CLARION PRESS,
44, WORSHIP STREET, LONDON, E.C.




      *      *      *      *      *      *




Transcriber’s note:

 --Punctuation and spelling inaccuracies were silently corrected.

 --Archaic and variable spelling has been preserved.

 --Variations in hyphenation and compound words have been preserved.