UNIVERSITY OE ILLINOIS LIBRARY AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN bookstacks Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2016 https://archive.org/details/cooperationvsoci00cham_5 •: BEii, A KEBOlU BETWEEN Mr. H. H. CHAMPION, OF THE SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC FEDERATION, ANI) Mr. BENJAMIN JONES, OF THE CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BOARD, AT TOYNBEE HALL, COMMERCIAL STREET, WHITECHAPEL, E., On JANUARY nth, 1887. Mr. LEONARD COURTNEY, M.P., IN TIIE CHAIR. \ ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BOARD, 14, CITY BUILDINGS, CORPORATION STREET, MANCHESTER. r L/ tt/V g td5"B / PREFACE. I A note is perhaps needed to account for the form and 1 substance of the following Debate. In the Autumn of 1886 there Avas a generally expressed desire that an opportunity should be afforded to Representative Socialists and Co-operators to make clear their differ- ences in principle and method, their identity of aim being generally admitted. The Rev. S. A. Barnett and the President of Toynbee Hall accordingly invited Mr. PI. PI. Champion, of the Social Democratic Feder- ation, and Mr. Benjamin Jones, of the Central Co- operative Board, to discuss publicly the points at issue between them. Mr. Leonard Courtney, Chairman of Committees of the House of Commons, kindly undertook to preside. The invitations to be present were distri- buted indiscriminately between Socialists and Co- operators, and efforts rvere made to secure (as far as possible) a fair representation of both parties. A general knowledge of the points at issue was pre- supposed, and at the end of the Debate an opportunity Avas given to the audience to ask cpiestions on particular points. Although the audience Avere mainly partisans, their eagerness and earnestness shoAved a common care for national Avell-being Avhich (as Avas remarked at the time) boded well for national progress. 3 3 V C T> r o (o a m CO-OPERATION versus SOCIALISM. TV /T R. COURTNEY, in opening the proceedings, IV JL said his task was an extremely simple one, and he hoped it would he as easy and agreeable as it was simple. lie should not take any part in the discussion himself, his efforts would he directed, if necessary — probably they would not be necessary — to keep the disputants to the points of the subject under discussion, and to restrain, if necessary — he hoped it would not be — any undue ardour likely to interfere with the suavity and agreeableness of the discussion. Two gentlemen were going to appear before them, each much impressed with the defects in the con- stitution and organisation of society as it existed, each deeply concerned with the drawbacks which affected so many of our fellow-beings, and each believing that he saw some way by which these defects could be remedied, if not removed, and the condition of our fellow-creatures improved, perhaps indefinitely. But their plans were not the same. Not only was each convinced of the excellence and perfection of his own plan, but each hail a great distrust of those of the other. (Laughter.) The purpose of each was to prove what he advanced, and to disprove those advanced by his antagonist. Each undertook to show them an excellent way by which human society could be regenerated. That was to be accomplished under very strict conditions, and he (Mr. Courtney) was afraid the task might be found a little onerous, for both had undertook, in the short space of fifteen minutes, to explain his own excellences and his antagonist's ' 6 CO-OPERATION V. SOCIALISM. defects. Considering the length of time that human society had been constituted, and its extreme perplexity, he confessed that he thought it a little bold to under- take in a quarter of an hour to demonstrate how every- thing could be set right, and, at the same time, how the opposite side was entirely wrong. (Laughter.) But that only showed the courage, and he was sure, the sincerity also, of their friends. It had been arranged that Mr. Champion should begin, and that Mr. Jones should follow. Mr. Jones was an advocate of what they understood as Co-operation, by which he believed he could cure most of our social defects. Mr. Champion was not satisfied that that would bring about the end desired, and he would reply with something which was called Socialism, which he (Mr. Courtney) would leave him to define in the observations he was about to make. He called upon Mr. Champion to open the debate. Mr. Champion, who on rising was received with cheering, said that he had that evening to advocate the merits of Socialism as against those of Co-opera- tion ; to try and show them that the merits of Socialism were superior to those of Co-operation as a remedy for the evils of society which probably everyone in that room deplored. He would commence by saying that it was hardly fair to entitle the discussion “ Socialism versus Co-operation,” because the principles of the two things were in some degree similar; Mr. Jones was an advocate, and a well-known one, ot a system of Co- operation by individuals for the purpose of carrying on retail trade and manufacturing industry. He would be able to show them that that had been done, with a good deal of success, by many thousands of people prior to the last two generations, in this country, and there he was entirely with him. He could say that individuals who had co-operated had benefited their CO-OPERATION V. SOCIALISM. 7 own condition a good deal, but when Mr. Jones went on to say that an indefinite extension of that scheme would put an end to the social evils which now afflicted society he could not agree with him, feeling, as he did, that he (Mr. Jones) was wrong. He did not object to the Co-operation of individuals, but he did not think it sufficient, and lie would try and show why. Mr. Jones, and the Co-operative Societies with which he was connected, were performing one piece of social reorganisation very effectively — eliminating middlemen and other unproductive classes of society — but they were also at the same time taking away the .property and business of a large and respectable class of the community, the shopkeepers and retail dealers, and Avould do so more and more every year. Supposing the process were carried on indefinitely, and all retail trade and all industry carried on by representatives of Co-operative Societies of that kind, it would be for Mr. Jones to show why the effects of competition between these Co-operative Societies should not be quite as bad as the effects of competition between individuals. He thought it would. Mr. Jones’s reply probably would be that there was no reason why you should not have a Federation of Co-operative Societies. His (Mr. Champion’s) reply would be that that was exactly what he was striving to bring about. They would then have society organised as Socialists wished to see it organised, but for t lie fact that they would be paying part of the proceeds of labour to two entirely unnecessary classes of society ; that was to say, those to whom the rent of the ground on which the shops stood was paid, and those who drew their interest. Ilis object was to get rid of all the idle and useless classes in society. lie contended it was not an efficient remedy, because it would still leave a large ~ 8 CO-OPERATION V. SOCIALISM. number of persons wbo would be mere paiasites of the community, as he believed they were now. They would be doing nothing, and would be appropriat- ing the profits of other people's labour. Mr. Jones ) objected to the taking away of other people s piopeity, to the nationalisation of the land or nationalisation of i property, and to the taking of the land by the State, j He (Mr. Champion) would say unless they did so they might reorganise society to some extent, but the worker would not get the full benefit of his work. That was his first objection to mere Co-operation. It was not a complete answer to the Social Question. lie would further say that the scheme of Co-operation only bene- fited the higher class of workmen, and, as a matter of fact, it hardly touched those for whom he had the most sympathy — those who were the most helpless. It would be very possible for the population of a mining village, or for factory hands, to combine in that way and carry . -on the business. It would be very easy for them ; and '" as to the lessons of combination and co-operation, they were very good indeed, but the evils affecting the poorest and most ignorant classes Co-operation could not touch, until, at any rate, they were raised to a higher level than they were at present. He contended that it would be useless for Mr. Jones to go out into the streets and preach the gospel of Co-operation until Socialism had procured shorter hours, better food, better houses, and a clearer understanding of this question. He did not think Mr. Jones and the Co- operators appealed to a very high sentiment in their Co-operative work./ Anyone who had read the last few lines of Mr. Jones's pamphlet would see that the purposes for which Co-operators combined was not to raise their fellow-creatures who were below them in the social scale, while the foremost point in the mind of the CO-O PE RATION V. SOCIALISM. 9 Socialist was the raising of those who were lowest in the social scale. That was practically all the objections he had to urge. He would endeavour to show them, in a very few minutes, how the Socialists on the contrary proposed to benefit, by another form of Co- operation, just those very classes which somehow would have to be raised before they would be able to govern themselves, or to secure for themselves the profits which were now being taken out of their labour by other people. Many of them knew what was the general idea of Socialism. They knew that society was divided into two classes — those who lived on property, and those who lived by labour. Seeing that the class which lived on property had the control of the whole political and industrial machine, seeing that they worked that machine in their own interests, and seeing that those interests were directly opposed to those of the class which lived by labour, he would say they could not have a really satisfactory state of society until the distinctions between these two classes were abolished. Fuse them into one, one working-class bulk together. These individuals, these classes who lived without doing useful work, took away from society without putting into it, and consumed without pro- ducing. Socialists wanted to get rid of that distinction •of class, and they said that could only be done In- putting the whole of the control of the legislative machinery into the hands of a purely Democratic State, and by that Democratic .State using its power for expropriating the middlemen, landlords, and capitalists. Then industry should be as quickly as possible re- organised on a collective basis under the control of that Democratic State. He did not think it could be done very rapidly. lie wanted Mr. Jones to show how his plan of co-operation could affect the IO CO-OPERATION V. SOCIALISM. political application of social theories to immediate legislation. In the Globe newspaper of the previous Saturday was to he found a list of the Board Schools, and the number of children who came to them insuffi- ciently shod, clothed, and fed. He took the trouble of calculating the proportions, and found that the pro- portion of children who came without sufficient boots was 33 per cent, with insufficient clothing 30 per cent, insufficiently fed 34 per cent. I le wanted to know how Co-operation was going to give those children all they needed before they grew up to be citizens capable of providing for themselves. He came to the question of houses. It was admitted by every one that private enterprise in that department had absolutely broken down; that the State or the municipality must inter- fere, must undertake the erection of houses because private enterprise would not provide adequate or whole- some house-room for the masses of workers in great centres of industry. Co-operation would not touch that even if carried out to its ultimate result imme- diately. He would say that it laid with Mr. Jones to^ try and show them if his plan of Co-operation was an efficient remedy for these things, how, where, and when, it could be applied at once, for he was an impatient man; he was not content to go on waiting in the hope that in three or four generations time these evils would be put a stop to. He did not say that they could be put a stop to at once, but he did say they might begin at once, and he wanted to see a beginning. If Mr. Jones differed from him in principle he must also object to those departments in which the State had already interfered. If he objected to the theory of Socialism and its application to the practical politics of to-morrow, he must object to the practical politics of yesterday, such as the intervention of the State for limiting the CO-OPERATION V. SOCIALISM. 1 1 of hours of labour m factories, and in theSrtatter elementary education, in regard to the employment of women and children in mines. Would he or would lie not be prepared to defend the State compulsory shorten- ing of hours of the tram-men in the Metropolis? They could not co-operate to free themselves. They could not combine in trade unions. If they were to strike, their posts would be soon filled by the unem- ployed. He wished Mr. Jones to understand that he ' considered the co-operators were doing good work, but when they said that their scheme was an efficient remedy for all the evils from which society was at present suffering, then it was that lie disagreed with them. Mr. Jones would say, probably, the points to which he most objected were those of expropriating the persons who now hold property. Ilis (Mr. Champion’s) answer was that though he might advocate expropriation, did not Mr. Jones confiscate property by taking away the trade and the living of shopkeepers, as was being done by the Co-operative .Societies? If they did not believe him they had only to ask any shopkeeper who had been competed against by Co-operative Stores. (Laughter.) Mr. Jones would probably object to compulsion. He (Mr. Champion) would say that the power of persuasion was perfectly useless — it was inadequate to teach persons who were so degraded and so much brutalised, as many of our people unfortunately were, and therefore they had to be subjected to a certain amount of paternal legislation. The poorest even knew what they wanted. They wanted more of the physical enjoyments of life, more material comforts, more ease, more rest, but owing to their surroundings and their circumstances they were quite unable to get them for themselves. It was rather by beginning at the other end that all those men who ■ CO-OPERATION V. SOCIALISM. I 2 sympathised with the claims of labour should combine for the purpose of using political power to wrest industry from the people who now hold it. They (the Socialists) would begin at one end, Co-operators would begin at the other. Mr. Jones, in his reply, commenced by stating that he and Mr. Champion had each agreed to distribute to the meeting pamphlets representing their respective views. These pamphlets formed the basis of the dis- cussion that night, not, as the chairman had stated, to try and solve all the difficulties and defects in the constitution of society, but simply to try and ascertain clearly and definitely what the difference was between Co-operation and Socialism, and whether Socialism would do more than what Co-operation professed and tried to do. lie and Mr. Champion had had two hours’ conversation the previous Wednesday night, for the express purpose of trying to arrive at the points of difference between Socialists and Co-operators. lie wished those present to bear that in mind, and, the first thing they had now to do was to settle where they were. In this preliminary conversation, Mr. Champion said he represented his own views, which might or might not be the views of other Socialists — he repre- sented himself alone. When Mr. Champion had expressed a doubt as to whether the pamphlet, “What is Meant by Co-operation,”* really represented the views of co-operators generally, he (Mr. Jones) told him that his attendance there on this occasion had been officially approved by the Central Co-operative Board — the representative organisation of the co- operators ; and that if Mr. Champion were to send * “ What is Meant by Co-operation.” To be had gratuitously, from the Central Co-operative Board, City Buildings, Corporation Street, Manchester. CO-OPERATION V. SOCIALISM. 13 that tract into any city, town, or village, and have it read to an assembly of co-operators, he would not find five per cent out of their nine hundred thousand members who would disagree with it. They then settled the points of difference between Co-operation and Socialism. As Mr. Champion had told them, he did not object to co-operation, and he disagreed with and strongly disapproved of those Socialists who went about London and the country trying to persuade people not to become co-operators. Further, Mr. Champion only objected to co-operation on the distinct grounds (as he believed Mr. Champion told him) that it was not sufficiently effective, that it would not do its work fast enough, and that Socialism would do it much faster. Now, Mr. Champion had not proved that that night. (Applause.) Further, Mr. Champion had said that by Socialism he meant not only co-operation as the}'' understood it, but two things which he mentioned that evening ; first, expropriation, or confiscation of all property, except what could be devoted to personal use, or personal enjoyment ; secondly, the organisation of all production and commerce ; from the building of ships to the. slaughtering of horses and the boiling of cat s meat ; and from the control of vast commercial operations, to the selling of penny novelties in their streets; all these operations should be under the control of Central Boards, elected by the people. Thirdly, Mr. Champion believed in physical force to hasten the day when those Socialistic plans could be put into operation. That last was a point Mr. Champion had left out of sight that evening, but he (Mr. Jones) was not going to leave it out. Only in that day’s Times they had one Socialist saying — “ For five years we have been looking for bread, and given ' 14 CO-OPERATION V. SOCIALISM. stones ; might they not get brickbats in return ?" They had another Socialistic saying— “We will oppose the truncheons of the police with revolvers and chemical preparations.” Well, they knew that Socialists had tried force against force. Socialists had been in prison, and he believed some were in prison at the present time. That was one of the ways in which Mr. Champion hoped to hasten the day. Mr. Champion was of opinion that physical force must be met by physical force; and he went to the extent of saying— “I reserve the right to hang my opponents, if I get the opportunity, and I fully admit their right to hang me." There was a full and definite statement. (Laughter.) Now, they should look at the question in this light They had had their unscrupulous “bloated aristo- cracy,' as Socialists would say, retarding step by step the progress of people to something like a state of equity. At length opponents of progress had come to the conclusion that it was no use offering direct resistance any longer. But, although they had got apparently something like a democracy, the democracy was not yet in the saddle. Although they had nominally the power as a democracy, the aristocracy still retained the power. He would therefore put it Supposing any one of them were a member of that “bloated aristocracy,” and he saw his privileges dis- appeating one by one, while something like equity was being iestoied to the nation, would he not set his wits to work to see how he could prevent it? If he saw direct resistance was no longer available, would he not try indirect resistance ? It had been done times out of number in history. These opponents would try to increase the velocity of democratic progress, in the hope that the people might be carried past the path of equity, and be pushed over a precipice to as low a CO- OPERATION V. SOCIALISM. x 5 point as they had started from ; or, as a friend of his had said, “ from the heaven of anticipation to the hell of realisation.” Now physical force was a two-edged sword, and if those who wanted to get what was right advocated the use of physical force, and admitted, as Mr. Champion did, that it might be used against them, how could they, a minority, a disorganised and unarmed minority compete successfully against a majority, well organised, well armed, and with all the sinews of war with which to resist that unarmed minority ? There- fore, if the well armed majority could have only a plausible excuse for saying that force should be em- ployed, had not the)' then the right to say “They shall take who have the power, and they shall keep who can.” “We will put you into chains of servitude again, and we will take care that you, the democracy, shall no longer have any power ?” lie would put it to them whether that was not a possible state of things which might come out of this Socialistic agitation for physical force ? The Social Democratic Federation said that all these Socialistic states of things should be managed by means of elected bodies. Of course, Democracy meant the government of the people by the people. Now, if they had elected bodies, the majority must rule; so that supposing the Socialists were by some stratagem able to get supreme power to-day, then, by their Democratic principles, they must, to-morrow, resign that power into the hands of the peojde. How, then, could they make the majority act in the way the minority wished ? (Cheers.) Did they not see that Mr. Champion was on the horns of a dilemma ? (Cries of “ No, no.”) He (Mr. Jones) would then repeat it. The minority could only get over the majority, and make it conlorm to its views against its will by force. ' 1 6 CO-OPERATION V. SOCIALISM. Now, anybody would admit that. Then, the majority must be kept down by the minority. But in a Demo- cratic state of society the majority exercises its power according to its own inclination, and the minority has to give way. Did they admit that? Therefore, cither the Social Democratic Federation must strike out the word “Democratic” from its title, and substitute “Despotic;” either Socialists miist do away with the freedom of election, and substitute a benevolent autocracy, “ paternal government,” as Mr. Champion injudiciously termed it, or they must make up their minds that they could not consistently or effectually use physical force. If Mr. Champion was deprived of his weapon of physical force, which the}' would see was altogether inconsistent with another article of the Socialist’s Democratic Creed, how was he going to hasten on that state of things which Co-operators said could only be brought about bj' raising the standard of equity, and under it carrying on the work of voluntary association. He and Mr. Champion agreed upon one thing — the value of education ; and if Mr. Champion admitted that they must take the people step by step of their own free will, he (Mr. Champion) admitted everything that co-operators claimed, and which they were trying to carry out. He would now take State expropriation of property. Mr. Champion did not advocate that state of Socialism which Mr. John Burns advocated. Mr. Champion was not going in for that state in which a man could not have a guinea orchid in his buttonhole. Mr. John Burns objected to these things, but Mr. Champion did not. Mr. Champion would expropriate all interest and profits, and admit the State? as the sole receiver. Mr. Champion would not prevent the action of supply and demand on the rates of Wages, only with the slight CO-OPERATION V. SOCIALISM. 17 exception of what trade-unionists did already. lie would have a minimum of wages, and a maximum of hours. No man should work for more than a certain number of hours. Mr. Champion would not interfere one iota with the high salaries which were being paid, for instance, to the officials on their railways. If lie understood Mr. Champion aright, Sir Edward Watkin could continue to be chairman of his three or four railway companies. He could have his houses, his pleasure grounds, his park, his horses, his groom, his butler, and his domestic servants. No hindrance would be placed on these by Mr. Champion, so they could see what a mild Socialist he was. A man with a family of two, and another with a family of ten, would each receive the same wages according to Mr. Champion’s proposals. If that were Socialism, co-operators were far ahead. They began at the beginning. They believed that the standard of equity must be raised, that they must teach prudence and forethought ; and teach people to consider what would be the results of their actions. The Chairman here announced that each speaker would now be allowed three quarters of an hour in which to question his opponent. He called upon Mr. Champion to put the first question to Mr. Jones. Mr. Champion said he would like Mr. Jones to reply to his statement that even if Co-operation were carried out universally, those who did the work would have to keep those who did no work — living on the rent of land or interest on shares — and provide them with the means of living. Mr. Jones, in reply, said Co-operators stated distinctly that capital had a right to remuneration, for capital was stored-up labour ; but when Mr. Champion and his friends went to the unemployed and said, “ all the “ 1 , ft iS CO-OPERATION V. SOCIALISM. stored-up capital of this country has been produced by their labour,” then they were wrong. A large propor- tion of the stored-up labour of the country had been produced by invention. lie agreed witli the Soctalists that it had got to a large extent into wrong hands ; but two blacks did not make a white. Co-operators said that every Co-operator ought to be possessed of a certain amount of capital, and they showed how he could get it. They also showed how it could be made fruitful. They could lend it on such terms as to be remunerative to those who borrowed it. The)' clearly foresaw a state of things which would make even Mr. Champion quite satisfied. People would some day be glad to lend their capital for nothing, on condition that those who borrowed it took care of it and returned it when wanted. (Laughter.) In 1862 their Co-operative members numbered 90,0:10; in 1887 the)’ had 900,000. In the twen-ty-five years their num- bers had been increased tenfold, and this, he thought, was good work. In the same period they had multi- plied their trade fifteen times, their capital seventeen times, and their profits twenty-two times. And yet Mr. Burns said that Socialists for five years had been asking for bread and got only a stone. He (Mr. Jones) would reply that Co-operators had worked for twenty- five years, they were drawing £$, 000, 000 per annum of profits and interest, and were likely to get more. They did not believe in separating themselves from the people. They believed in the principle of “ a little leaven leavening the whole lump.” If only the wealthy classes would stretch out a helping hand, and be content with an interest of 4 per cent for their money, thev could build houses for the working classes in London, and, at the existing rentals, present them with the free- hold in less than twenty-five years from the present time. CO-OI’E RATION V. SOCIALISM. IQ Mr. Jones then asked Mr. Champion the following question: — “If, as I believe, I have shown that he cannot hasten the Socialistic work by physical force, and cannot hasten it by compulsion, but must depend upon voluntary effort like Co-operators, does not he then thoroughly approve of the Co-operative pro- gramme ? ” Mr. Champion said the matter of physical force seemed to excite Mr. Jones's ire a good deal. Mr. Jones seemed to think that he (Mr. Champion) was concealing it from those present, fie believed that its discussion would have a salutary effect upon those who were too easy in circumstances to believe that there was a spirit of revolt in those who were suffering. There was a better social feeling springing up between the upper and lower classes, but there were a great many people who were very selfish whom it did good to know that there was a spirit of revolt among the people who were oppressed by them. lie would say any cause which was worth arguing for was worth fighting for in the last resort. If Mr. Jones had 900,000 Co-operators, why did they not come forward and say something for the men who were out of work? They surely ought to have a natural sympathy for those people. Mr. Jones and his friends were not appealing to as high an emotion as the Socialists were. What Socialists wanted was State compulsion —backed up by batons and bayonets for the matter of that. It had become absolutely necessary in other departments, and should be put in force. Mr. Jones believed in force being used to put down one dishonest action, and why not the other. Equity compelled them to imprison the thief and the pickpocket, equity also should compel them to punish the man who took away their labour and did not give them a fair reward for their work. II 20 CO-OPERATION V. SOCIALISM. Mr. Jones had said he believed the time would come when people would lend the Co-operative Societies money for nothing; “the bloated aristocracy” who held the land of this country he did not think would lend money without interest. Mr. Champion then asked Mr. Jones whether Co-operators approved of State interference on Socialistic lines? Mr. Jones replied that Mr. Champion had not defined what he meant by Socialistic lines. There was no doubt whatever that all laws were Socialistic in a certain sense. If Mr. Champion meant did he approve of compulsory expropriation of land, of buildings and money, &c., he answered No. The Chairman said he thought what Mr. Champion meant was, did Mr. Jones approve of what had been done by the State in limiting the hours of labour of women and children and in other directions, and, if he did, did he approve of a further limitation ? Mr. Jones said he approved of the Ten Hours Factory Act, he approved of the Shop Hours Bill, and he approved of similar measures. He would use com- pulsory means to enforce equity, unless he clearly saw that compulsion would produce greater evils than the evils which the compulsion was infant to remedy. He would say the Socialistic methods would produce greater evils than it proposed to remedy. Mr. Jones went on to say that when a co-operator was asked how he would apply his principles in a certain case he could always do it. Assuming that Socialists would try to do the same, he would ask Mr. Champion how he would allow a man who had worked compulsorily eight hours per day to use his leisure time ? Might he make anything for sale or exchange, or anything at all ? Mr. Champion said, in answer, that he should have no objection to his making anything so long as he did CO-OPERATION V. SOCIALISM. 2 T not put it on the market and compete with the factories. He should object to his doing anything which would tend to lower the working man’s standard of living. Mr. Champion asked Mr. Jones, in view of the awful suffering that existed, how much suffering he wished to see before admitting that it was justifiable to resort to physical force ? Mr. Jones replied, “ I wish to see none.” Mr. Jones asked Mr. Champion whether a man who had made anything for his own household use should be at liberty to dispose of it at any time to anyone else ? Mr. Champion made reply that anyone present would see that one individual might make a sofa for himscif, and his selling it would not have much effect upon the market or disorganise industry. (“Oh!”) He would ask Mr. Jones what was his opinion of State organisa- tion lor unemployed labour? Mr. Jones replied that he would prefer voluntary Co-operative organisation of unemployed labour. He thought it was quite possible to organise them on co- operative lines and to devote them to useful work. If he had more leisure at his command he could devise schemes for giving employment to the unemployed of this city, and carry them out successfully. Mr. Champion would allow a man to make a sofa or a chair, or as many as he liked, and exchange them, so long as they were for his own use in the first instance. Millions, of course, might do the same. Where would Mr. Champion draw the line ? Mr. Champion replied that he would use compulsion to prevent the exchange where it was found not to be beneficial. He thought it might be left to the common- sense of the people. He was in favour of industry being put under collective control, and he would ■ 22 CO- OP HR AT ION V. SOCIALISM. increase that control as far as possible. Mr. Jones had said he was in favour of co-operative organisation of the unemployed. Was not State action the highest form of co-operative action ? Mr. Jonhs said lie did not deny that the State was a form of Co-operation, but it was too rigid, and not sufficiently flexible to adapt itself to all the purposes of society. State control was like a rod of Iron ; voluntary co-operation was like a fluid (water). A rod of iron placed along an uneven piece of ground left cavities, but water filled every cavity and nook ; and the advantage of voluntary co-operation was that it would adapt itself to every exigency of life ; while State Co-operation would do nothing of the kind. Mr. Jones said he would like to ask Mr. Champion whether he considered it justice to allow the present owners of 5,000 acres of land, and of a half-dozen mansions in different parts of the country, to retain that property for their own personal use and enjoy- ment, while any poor, miserable wretch who only rented two rooms would have to pay a rent to the State for the use of them ? Mr. Champion replied that what they, as Socialists, objected to was not so much the possession of the land by the individual, but the use of it for the purpose of squeezing labour out of the working man. They would not interfere with those who held land or houses for their own use. The Duke of Buccleuch would be allowed to remain in possession of his 2,000,000 acres of land, if he could show that he wanted them for his own use, and not for making profit from others. Property used for the purpose of making a profit would be the first to be taken away. Mr. Jones had stated that State Co-operation was like a rod of iron, whilst voluntary Co-operation was like water. He quite CO-OPERATION V. SOCIALISM. 2 3 agreed that State control was very inflexible ; the only difference was that he was able to show from what the State had done in the housing of the poor, giving work to the unemployed, &c., that let its action be as inflexible as it may, it would do away with their evils for a time. He wanted Mr. Jones to show how his flexible Co-operation would deal with these very practical questions. Though they might not press upon these 900,000 persons who voted for the Liberals and Radicals, they did press very hardly upon the persons with whom he sympathised. Mr. Jones said Mr. Champion could not . get his Stale Socialism at once if these lives were endangered ; but these lives were not in danger. Poor-law relief and private charity prevented their lives being in danger, except in very rare cases. Us effect upon society could not be disputed. They might hiss at the words “poor-law relief” and “private charity,” but poor-law relief, if they cared to do so, could be increased without State Socialism in the sense in which Mr. Champion advocated it. If Mr. Champion could do anything to stir up private charity so as to lessen the amount of human miser}', he would be doing good work. If Mr. Champion could increase poor law relief, without doing a great deal more harm, lie would be doing good work. State Socialism did not save lives ; but Co-operation found employment for and raised men up, and was doing its share to promote general prosperity. A number of questions were now sent up on slips of paper, and put to the debaters, to whom they were addressed, by the Chairman. Mr. Champion was asked how did he think force would help ? To which he replied, that it would help when arguments were found to be of no avail. If a , 24 CO-OPERATION V. SOCIALISM. man was found kicking his wife, force was the only means likely to avail, and it was in this way they would use it. Mr. Jones was asked how could the unemployed co-operate for their own benefit if they had no capital? To this he made answer, that he had never said they could. What he said was that they could be organised into Co-operative Societies for their benefit. He quite agreed they must have help. By co-operating, a man was put to that employment for which he was fitted and best qualified to do. Mr. Jones was asked, if Co-operation was instituted for the unemployed, what hours would they be required to work, and what wages would they receive? He said, judicious organisation enabled them to have a margin that could be devoted to a large extent for the benefit of the workers. They could therefore afford to work them shorter hours and to give them more wages than could be got in the trade. It was the operation of the natural laws of supply and demand. As Co- operation extended so would shorter hours and increased remuneration ; and this would compel private employers to follow them. The Co-operators forty years ago started a half-day’s holiday per week for their shop employes. This had been kept up, and had led to the earlier closing of nearly all other shopkeepers. Mr. Champion was asked if he included in Socialism the feeding of children at school, and, if so, what would be its effect on the family life ? Mr. Champion did not regard the question as any definite part of Socialism. He expressed himself, however, in favour of giving free meals at school to children ill-fed. As to its effect on family life, he was, he said, fed at a public school away from home, and it never damaged his family life very much. (Laughter.) CO-OPERATION V. SOCIALISM. 25 Mr. Jones was asked if corporations should be per- mitted to erect gasworks, waterworks, tramways, Ac. ? If so, were these not forms of Socialism ? To this Mr. Jones replied, that he had already said that he approved of certain things being done by corporations, by munici- palities, by government, and it was with Co-operators a question as to which was best, looking at it all round. If it were better for a corporation to do a certain thing rather than a private Co-operative Association, lie would say by all means let the corporation do it. It was a question of degree. They would find invariably Co-operators advocating the erecting of gasworks, waterworks, and tree libraries by the municipality, and having a public rate to pay for the free libraries. (Hear, hear.) Mr. Champion was asked if Socialism would do any good, or could its objects be in any way realised until the people understood the population question ? Mr. Champion replied that so far as he knew anything about the relative increase of population to that of wealth, he would say that their powers of producing wealth were increasing much more rapidly than the increase of population. He thought this opinion was shared by a good many others. He had no fear of population outgrowing wealth for 300 or 400 years at anyrate. (Laughter.) Mr. Jones was asked to explain his plan of housing the poor by Co-operation. Mr. Jones replied that he could not have had a pleasanter question. He agreed in denouncing men who set themselves up as philan- thropists, but who were simply erecting dwellings for their own profit. Sir Sydney Waterlow was a gentle- man for whom he felt great respect until he studied his balance sheets, and found that his Industrial Dwellings Company had been producing 8 per cent per annum - 26 CO-OPERATION V. SOCIALISM. on the shareholders’ capital. He (Mr. Jones) at once set to work to see what could be done, and lie came to the conclusion that there were plenty of people in London who were ready to lend their money on good security at 4 per cent. If these people would come forward and start an improved Industrial Dwellings Company, this was what could he done: — They could charge ordinary rents for their dwellings; they could take 4 per cent for themselves and divide the remainder of the profits (in the same way as they did with their co-operative stores) in proportion to the amount of rent paid. But they would not let tenants withdraw their profits immediately. Instead of that, they would be made capitalists, by the accumulation of the profits, in spi te of themselves, and in less than 25 years, according to actual facts and figures, every tenant would be possessed of the exact capital value of the dwelling he was living in. (Applause.) If the wealthy men of London would not come and help to do this, the work- ing-men co-operators of London would do it as soon as they got the capital. They would soon have more money than they knew what to do with, and they would, he thought, come forward and help their brethren to solve the dwellings difficulty. Mr. Champion was asked if he allowed one man to make in his leisure time at home say a suit of clothes for himself, would not that interfere with the comfort and convenience of those who earned their living by making clothes? Mr. Champion replied that the person who put that question must be under the delusion that he was doing a kindness by allowing another man to work for him. He (Mr. Champion) would not be doing him a kindness by allowing him to make his coat. He did not see how, if the profit system were abolished, that he would be doing any CO-OPERATION V. SOCIALISM. 27 harm to other persons if he made his own coat. He thought it would be better for society that he should supply his own wants, or render an equivalent in labour to those who supplied them. Mr. Jones was asked was not the present Co-opera- tive Production a sham, inasmuch as it did not give the workmen employed a share in the profits which they' were instrumental in earning? Mr. Jones replied that that question was partly based on a wrong state- ment. There was Co-operative Production where workers did share in the profits of the concern — more, in fact, than there were concerns where they did not. There was no difference between Co-operative Pro- duction without profit-sharing and State Socialism advo- cated by the Socialist, as far as the division of the profit was concerned. While lie had always been a strong advocate for profit-sharing, he had carefully explained the views which were conscientiously held by Co-operators who differed from him on that point. Mr. Champion was asked to state the exact number of Socialists in the United Kingdom? He had implied that the Duke of Buccleuch would be allowed free- hold land for his private houses, while a working man would have to pay duty to the State. Mr. Champion said he had not the least idea of the number of declared Socialists, but there was a very' large number who went with the Socialists. As to the other matter, he would repeat what he had already said that he was of opinion that the land which should be first taken away should be that used for agricultural purposes, for building purposes, or the like — any land used for purposes of making profit by the commercial process of getting something for nothing out of olhei people. Mr. Jones stated, in answer to a question, that he I 28 CO-OPERATION V. SOCIALISM. did not believe the number of people who did not work for their living to be greater than those who did. He thought the number of people who did not work at all to be very small indeed. Mr. Jones's attention was called to a statement of a ’bus conductor that he had to work fifteen hours a day for forty-two days, and was only allowed one Sunday in seven. How, it was asked, would Co-operation help that ? Mr. Jones replied that two years ago, at the Indus - r trial Remuneration Conference, he put forward a calculation based on the London and North-Western Railway balance sheets, that that railway could afford to give an eight-hours’ day to all its employes without reducing their wages, if the capitalists would be content to have their dividends reduced by £ per cent per annum. Some Co-operators, who had more capital than they could find any immediate profitable use for, invested their money in railway' companies. A few weeks ago, one railway company prohibited its servants being officers of Co-operative Societies. Now they (the Co-operators) went further than the law of England. The law of England said, “ Man shall not be a slave.” They went a step further, and said, “ A working man has a right to his leisure hours, and his employer has no right to dictate to him how these hours shall be employed.” They sent one of their number to speak quietly to that railway company. They went again, and said, “ We now come for the last time. You are doing wrong. We do not mean to put up with it, and we have no end of means for putting an end to this persecution.” Now that powerful railway company was so convinced of the power of Co-operators that they withdrew the prohibition. (Laughter.) They' would improve the conditions of the railway workers CO- OPERATION V. SOCIALISM. 2Q in this way. They were saying to them, “ Save your money." “ If you arc railway workers, guards, and engine drivers, put your money into the railway company. Use your capital to become shareholders, not only for the sake of the dividend, but for the power it gives you to enable you to go to the boaid and insist on equity to the workers, and do not rest until you have a share in the management.” They who knew anything of the political state of the country, would know that, what with this financial power, and with their political power, when the time came for workmen to say they wanted eight hours per day and no reduc- tion of wages, they would be sure to get it. Mr. Champion being asked to give his definition of labour, replied, “Human labour applied to the raw material in this world in such a way as to render that raw material subservient to human needs. Mr. Jones was asked in reference to a former question whether that could possibly be tine co-opeia- tion where the employers did not co-opeiate? lie replied, “ Certainly not.” Mr. Champion expressed his opinion that under his system of State Organisation work would be better done, and, owing to more effective organisation, there would be fewer officials than were now under private enterprise doing a given amount of work. Mr. Jones was asked if he could form a co-operative railway? He said, certainly lie could, and in a Paper read at the Industrial Remuneration Conference he had sketched one out. His idea of a co-operative railway was where the public and the employes had both a right to elect a part of the management as well as the capitalists, then there would be less necessity for State Control, for all interests would be adequately represented. ' ~ 3 ° CO-OPERATION V. SOCIALISM. Mi. Champion was asked whether lie, as a Socialist, contemplated the entire isolation of England among nations, if not, how Socialistic organisation would deal iwth respect to imported duties without individual enterprise, and the management usually considered indispensable? He replied that he did not look for- ward to England being cut off from the rest of the world. He was sorry to think that his country was so much behind. Socialism, to be permanently success- ful, must, ultimately, be International. Mr. Jones was asked on what kind of labour he would put the unemployed, when already there was no demand for manufactured goods ? He replied that so long as men were without food, without clothing, with- out boots and shoes, there must be a demand. The only thing was to furnish those people with the means of getting supplies, and they did that by finding them work to do in supplying one another. Here came in co-operation to organise them equitably. After most men had been put to their trades, there would be found a certain residuum who were fit for nothing, and who would not work. To these last,' they must apply Mr. Champion’s own remedy, and let them starve. (Laughter.) Mi. Champion being asked “Who is going to pay for ideas?” replied, “I really do not know. You are having mine for nothing. I am not quite sure that I would give that gentleman any more for his.” (Laughter.) ^ Mr. Jones was asked if he did not think that Co-operation should be accompanied by various forms of Semi-Socialistic, action in the direction of State Education, &c., and was it not, therefore, misleading to leave the action of the State out of account in any exposition of Co-operation ? CO-OPERATION V. SOCIALISM. 31 Mr. Jones said they did not leave it out. The State was one of the highest forms of Co-operation. Co- operators would not be content until in its organisation and administration it approached very near indeed to perfect equity ; and they would all agree that that was not so at the present time. Mr. Champion was asked what he would suggest doing with the truncheons and bayonets of the Slate, if the tables of present Society were turned and con- trolled by Socialists ? He replied, that one of the things put forward in the Social Democratic Federation was the abolition of a standing army, therefore there would be no mercenary bayonets at the back of a Socialistic Government. He would suggest using the police to detect those people who took away things which did not belong to them. Mr. Jones was appealed to as follows : — “ Land being a primary source of wealth necessary to human life, is it not right of Society to sweep away systems which prevent the production of wealth ; and, if it cannot be done by argument, may not force be used ?” Mr. Jones replied, that he quite agreed that any- thing which prevented the equitable production and exchange of wealth ought to be swept away ; but lie contended that it could be swept away by argument. The State should not confiscate land, because, while he thought that theoretically the State had a right to it without payment, the State had in the past com- mitted itself so deeply to the interests of private property in lands and unearned increment, and the whole thing had got so mixed up, that he thought it would be much more just and much more expedient to purchase it than to appropriate it. The State ought, however, to get future increments in value, if possible. 32 CO-OPERATION V. SOCIALISM. The Chairman said there were some other questions on the table, but they were arrived at the time when the proceedings were to be brought to a close. The programme required that he should say something which would sum up the general result of the debate. He was afraid he must honestly say that he found that a difficulty which he would not be able to surmount, and indeed he should not attempt it. Perhaps he might put before them one or two faults which had occurred to him with reference to the plans which had been put before them. Mr. Champion began by un- folding what he believed would be a great method of reforming, reconstituting, and revivifying society by (Mr. Courtney thought) abolishing altogether private property, but as lie understood now,', he (Mr. Champion) did not wish to abolish private property,/ but only that which was being lent to others for the purpose of pro- ducing wealth., It struck him that that was a position which he would find upon serious thought very diffi- cult to maintain. Private property was to be per- mitted, if occupied for the use and enjoyment of a man, but if that man, instead of employing it for his own use and enjoyment, lets it to another, in order to turn it to account for popular benefit, it was then to be taken away from him ; so that it would pay him better to be selfish than an active capitalist. He con- fessed that if he were going in for the Socialist scheme — which was not without its- attractions — he would abolish private property altogether,..) He would make the nationalisation of land complete. There would be a little difficult}', no doubt. There were notions which had been entertained for a long time which would have to be got rid of, and it would be a question whether you should resort to force, or wait for con- viction, in order to make the transformation. Now, it CO -OPERATION V. SOCIALISM. 33 was conceivable — at all events, on a small scale-that a society might exist without private property at all. They could conceive a community on a small !j&ale, like that in Pitcairn Island, subsisting in some fashion or other — but not in a very high form— without individual property, and of course the conception of a great society living in that form of development was a very alluring one, and if it could be described as a practical one they ought not to despair of the time when the owners of private property would renounce their possessions and hand them over to the common stock, in order that the whole condition of mankind might be benefited by the change. But there would be, unless they resorted to force, a great conversion necessary before that was done, and if force was icsoited to there would be several things which they regarded as morality which would have to be overcome. He would exhort Mr. Champion, quite as sympathising with his spirit, not to be weak-minded about private property but to go the whole hog. (Laughter.) I hcie was a difficulty which he (Mr. Courtney) felt which Mr. Champion did not touch, and which he had never found dealt with in any Socialistic book, and he had read a good many written by Socialists who lived before the present day. Socialism was a good many thousand years old. All the Socialists he had ever heard failed in that particular. They were like the estimable Brahmin who, being asked what the world rested upon, replied that it rested upon an elephant. And what does the elephant rest upon ? A tortoise. And what does the tortoise rest upon ? Nothing. Let them conceive they had got the whole thing into play, and society organised without individual property, and everybody working under the direction of the State— how was it to determine the people who 34 CO-OPERATION V. SOCIALISM. should be put to one occupation and who to another ? How was the State to decide who were to be legislators and who scavengers ; who should be managers and who workmen ? How was the State to determin/r what railway should be made and what not ? How was the State to regulate the rate of living P How would they arrange communication with the continent ? All these problems were to be faced, because if the State undertook the control of the production of wealth it must also look to its distribution. Socialists there were who had schemes for the State regulation of one or two industries, but he never knew one who had so much appreciated the magnitude of the idea of com- pletely organising the whole of society. They had got in their mind the way to organise one or two forms of industry, which was comparatively simple. They had organised the industry of the post-office. They might organise the industry of the railway. There were other forms which might be comparatively simple. He had never found the man who either had the idea or appreciated the want of it. He thought it was im- possible to carry out such a project, and to that difficulty Mr. Champion had not addressed himself. As for Co-operation, after all it was only a species of Socialism. But Mr. Jones’s Socialism differed from Mr. Champion's in that it was a voluntary Socialism. An individual who joined one of the Societies knew well whar he was doing, and knew the terms of membership ; and there was no element of com- pulsion, for he could leave when he liked. Moreover, he was afraid that he had overstated the case in his opening remarks when he said that Co-operation was meant to be a means of reorganising society. ^It was a means merely of ameliorating the condition , of society, and could not possibly be employed as a CO-OPERATION V. SOCIALISM. 35 means of.recasting.it. For if co-operation weie extended step by step until, instead of having 900,000 members, it had the whole working population of the l| kingdom, then we should have reached by a voluntary process the state .Socialism advocated by M. Champion. But before that state of things occur led, we should find the whole thing break down, because co-operation required to keep it safe and sound, and in a natural condition, the concurrence of individual el o . If we had not that, the State of itself would be unable to afford the means of testing the relative value o different species of labour, which was essential to the working population — it could not decide when to start or when to abandon different branches of mdustiy. Much as he delighted to contemplate the growth o co-operation, and believing as he did that it would go on extending its operations, it could not replace and displace entirely individual effort, which mus a ) be found working beside it, each helping the other and each helping on the ameliorating of the condition of the human race. He did not share Mr. Champion s impatience or Mr. Jones’s hopes, but he be heved that we had done and were still doing a grea t deal , and those who thought that this generation had fallen be hik other generations, and that the condition of the lowest classes even in this metropolis was worse than it had been in the past, had forgotten to examine facts I hey did not know what past history had been, and lion. d what we had risen; and even now, when the ragged ft edge of our society was so thoroughly deplorable, that ragged edge was better off than it had been 1.1 former l generations. It would require much conversion yet to [get Mr. Champion’s views adopted ; but we had made 1 great advances. But still it would be impossible to I make such advances as we should look upon as satis- "V' ORATION V. SOCIALISM. — V • ‘ : s ;* • ->\ v ■ ’>• (a , v ■ . • \.v.: 36 . CO-OPF.I v y 1 -*.- 1 factory without the conversion of individual members of Society, by bringing home to each their duties to themselves, to their children, to their families, and fellow-labourers, and to the c Y.,.,A jl , By that, and by that alone, should we be el to really elevate human life. Something must ne found which would make it as sacred and solemn as' the obligations of ' religion to look after one’s own future, selfish as it , might appear to be, and the future of one’s dependents and those among whom one moved. If that could be carried home to the people of this country we should then, without any machinery of Socialism, without"nny turbulence or force, be able to really re-create the society in which we were born. (Cheers.) The Bishop of Bedford said he rose to ask those present to pass a vote of thanks to the two debaters. No one could have listened to their words without being conscious that both of them were animated by a most earnest desire for the bettering of their fellow- men. He, in the work which he was doing in the East End, most naturally sympathised with all his heart with that desire. Of course his work led him to approach and to see in every way the blessedness of Christian brotherhood. His Lordship concluded by thanking the debaters for the clear way in which they had put their case, for their courtesy, and for the * interest of what they had said, and he was sure he might call upon those present to vote them a unanimous vote of thanks for what they had done. A vote of thanks was unanimously accorded to the speakers, as was also a vote of thanks to the Chairman for presiding. Co-operative Printing Society Limited, 92, Corporation Street, Manchester.