Britain For The British Part 28

There is such a thing as locked-out labour, but there is no such thing in this country as useless labour. While we have land lying idle, and while we have to import our food, how can we be so foolish as to call a man who is excluded from the land superfluous? He is one of the factors of wealth, and land is the other. Set the man on the land and he will produce wealth. At present he is out of work and the land out of use.

But are either of them superfluous? No; we need both.

CHAPTER XVI

IS SOCIALISM POSSIBLE, AND WILL IT PAY?

Non-Socialists a.s.sert with the utmost confidence that Socialism is impossible. Let us consider this statement in a practical way.

We are told that Socialism is impossible. That means that the people have not the ability to manage their own affairs, and must, perforce, give nearly all the wealth they produce to the superior persons who at present are kind enough to own, to govern, and to manage Britain for the British.

A bold statement! The people _cannot_ manage their own business: it is _impossible_. They cannot farm the land, and build the factories, and weave the cloth, and feed and clothe and house themselves; they are not able to do it. They must have landlords and masters to do it for them.

But the joke is that these landlords and masters do _not_ do it for the people. The people do it for the landlords and masters; and the latter gentlemen make the people pay them for allowing the people to work.

But the people can only produce wealth under supervision; they must have superior persons to direct them. So the non-Socialist declares.

Another bold a.s.sertion, which is not true. For nearly all those things which the non-Socialist tells us are impossible _are being done_. Nearly all those matters of management, of which the people are said to be incapable, are being accomplished by the people _now_.

For if the nation can build warships, why can they not build cargo ships? If they can make rifles, why not sewing machines or ploughs? If they can build forts, why not houses? If they can make policemen's boots and soldiers' coats, why not make ladies' hats and mechanics'

trousers? If they can pickle beef for the navy, why should they not make jam for the household? If they can run a railway across the African desert, why should they not run one from London to York?

Look at the Co-operative Societies. They own and run cargo ships. They import and export goods. They make boots and foods. They build their own shops and factories. They buy and sell vast quant.i.ties of useful things.

Well, these places were started by working men, and are owned by working men.

Look at the post office. If the nation can carry its own letters, why not its own coals? If it can manage its telegraphs, why not its railways, its trams, its cabs, its factories?

Look at the London County Council and the Glasgow and Manchester Corporations. If these bodies of public servants can build dwelling-houses, make roads, tunnels, and sewers, carry water from Thirlmere to Manchester, manage the Ship Ca.n.a.l, make and supply gas, own and work tramways, and take charge of art galleries, baths, wash-houses, and technical schools, what is there that landlords or masters do, or get done, which the cities and towns cannot do better and more cheaply for themselves?

What sense is there in pretending that the colliers could not get coal unless they paid rent to a lord, or that the railways could not carry coal unless they paid dividends to a company, or that the weaver could not make shirtings, nor the milliners bonnets, nor the cutlers blades, just as well for the nation as for Mr. Bounderby or my Lord Tomnoddy?

"But," the "Impossibles" will say, "you have not got the capital."

Do not believe them. You _have_ got the capital. Where? In your brains and in your arms, where _all_ the capital comes from.

Why, if what the "Impossibles" tell us be true--if the people are not able to do anything for themselves as well as the private dealers or makers can do it for them--the gas and water companies ought to have no fear of being cut out in price and quality by any County Council or Corporation.

But the "Impossibles" know very well that, directly the people set up on their own account, the private trader or maker is beaten. Let one district of London begin to make its own gas, and see what will happen in the other districts.

Twenty years ago this cry of "Impossible" was not so easy to dispose of, but to-day it can be silenced by the logic of accomplished facts. For within the last score of years the Munic.i.p.alities of London, Glasgow, Liverpool, Manchester, Bradford, Birmingham, Bolton, Leicester, and other large towns have _proved_ that the Munic.i.p.alities can manage large and small enterprises efficiently, and that in all cases it is to the advantage of the ratepayers, of the consumers, and of the workers that private management should be displaced by management under the Munic.i.p.ality.

Impossible? Why, the capital already invested in munic.i.p.al works amounts to nearly 100,000,000. And the money is well invested, and all the work is prosperous.

Munic.i.p.alities own and manage waterworks, gasworks, tramways, telephones, electric lighting, markets, baths, piers, docks, parks, farms, dwelling-houses, abattoirs, cemeteries, crematoriums, libraries, schools, art galleries, hotels, dairies, colleges, and technical schools. Many of the Munic.i.p.alities also provide concerts, open-air music, science cla.s.ses, and lectures; and quite recently the Alexandra Palace has been munic.i.p.alised, and is now being successfully run by the people and for the people.

How, then, can _Socialism_ be called impossible? As a matter of fact _Socialism_ is only a method of extending State management, as in the Post Office, and Munic.i.p.al management, as in the cases above named, until State and Munic.i.p.al management becomes universal all through the kingdom.

Where is the impossibility of that? If a Corporation can manage trams, gas, and water, why can it not manage bread, milk, meat, and beer supplies?

If Bradford can manage one hotel, why not more than one? If Bradford can manage more than one hotel, why cannot London, Glasgow, Leeds, and Portsmouth do the same?

If the German, Austrian, French, Italian, Belgian, and other Governments can manage the railway systems of their countries, why cannot the British Government manage theirs?

If the Government can manage a fleet of war vessels, why not fleets of liners and traders? If the Government can manage post and telegraph services, why not telephones and coalmines?

The answer to all these questions is that the Government and the Munic.i.p.alities have proved that they can manage vast and intricate businesses, and can manage them more cheaply, more efficiently, and more to the advantage and satisfaction of the public than the same cla.s.s of business has ever been managed by private firms.

How can it be maintained, then, that _Socialism_ is impossible?

But, will it _pay_? What! _Will_ it pay? It _does_ pay. Read _To-Day's Work_, by George Haw, Clarion Press, 2s. 6d., and _Does Munic.i.p.al Management Pay_? by R. B. Suthers, Clarion Press, 6d., and you will be surprised to find how well these large and numerous Munic.i.p.al experiments in _Socialism_ do pay.

From the book on Munic.i.p.al Management, by R. B. Suthers, above mentioned, I will quote a few comparisons between Munic.i.p.al and private tram and water services.

WATER

"In Glasgow they devote all profits to making the services cheaper and to paying off capital borrowed.

"Thus, since the Glasgow Munic.i.p.ality took control of the water supply, forty years ago, they have reduced the price of water from 1s. 2d. in the pound rental to 5d. in the pound rental for domestic supply.

"Compare that with the price paid by the London consumer under private enterprise.

"On a 30 house in Glasgow the water rate amounts to 12s. 6d.

"On a 30 house in Chelsea the water rate amounts to 30s.

"On a 30 house in Lambeth the water rate is 2, 16s.

"On a 30 house in Southwark the water rate is 32s.

"And so on. The London consumer pays from two to five times as much as the Glasgow consumer. He does not get as much water, he does not get as good water, and a large part of the money he pays goes into the pockets of the water lords.

"Last year the water companies took just over a million in profits from the intelligent electors of the Metropolis.

"In Glasgow a part of the 5d. in the pound goes to paying off the capital borrowed to provide the waterworks. 2,350,000 has been so spent, and over one million of this has been paid back.

"_Does_ Munic.i.p.al management pay?

"Look at Liverpool. The private companies did not give an adequate supply, so the Munic.i.p.ality took the matter in hand. What is the result?

"The charge for water in Liverpool is a fixed rate of 3d. in the pound and a water rate of 7d. in the pound.

"For this comparatively small amount the citizen of Liverpool, as Sir Thomas Hughes said, "can have as many baths and as many water closets as he likes, and the same with regard to water for his garden."