THE CRUX OF CO-OPERATION. TA ORD ROSEBERY'S speech to the Co-operators
at Glasgow on Saturday last, was more remarkable for its omissions than for what it included. As to much that was of interest in regard to the progress of the cause, he was communicative enough, but on the crucial point connected with the development of Co-operation, he remained mute as an oracle. All the difficulties overcome in the past, all the satisfactory symptoms of the present situation, and all the good omens for the future, he described in glowing colours ; but when he came to the chief problem at issue, he held his tongue. To dwell upon the pleasant side of things and to avoid the disagree- able is so characteristic of Lord Rosebery, that it is perhaps unreasonable to expect anything different in his speeches. Still, we cannot help wishing that he had for once broken through what has been described as his steadfast de- termination to see everything " couleur-de-Rosebery," and had faced the question : " Can Co-operation be applied to the work of production ? " and if it can, " why has the Union failed so completely to apply it ? " In endeavouring to force the consideration of this problem both upon the public at large and upon the Co- operators, we have not the slightest desire to accuse the latter of conduct inconsistent with their professions, or to suggest that, even if they have failed in bringing about productive co-operation, they have no right to proclaim themselves as benefactors to the nation. Their success in the work of distribution, and the encouragement they have given to thrift and prudence, call for the warmest possible praise. It is not, then, because we have any feeling other than that of sympathy for the Union, or because we want to show that they have not justified their aspirations, that we desire to see the question of Co-opera- tion as applied to production thoroughly discussed. Our one and only wish is for more light. In spite of the fact that Congress has repeatedly passed resolutions committing the various Associations to the principle of profit-sharing among the workmen employed by them in the work of dis- tribution and manufacture, very little seems to have been done to put it into practice. After the Ipswich Congress in 1889, when profit-sharing was once more adopted in the abstract, a committee appointed to ascertain the practice of the Societies composing the Union issued with this view 1,503 circulars. To these only 488 answers were returned,-180 Societies engaged in production assenting to the principle, and 308 dissenting. That is, out of 1,503 Societies, only 180 could be found to have adopted the principle in practice ; for it may be taken for granted, we think, that those which did not answer were all non-profit-sharing concerns. Any Society acting on the principle -would have been only too proud to boast its good deeds. In other words, the attempt to apply Co-operation to the work of production has hitherto failed. How unfortunate is this result, may be realised by remembering the high hopes that were, and indeed still are, entertained in regard to the application of Co-operation to production. Were it possible for the men who weave, or who are engaged in any other of the thousand different forms of commercial industry, to divide among themselves a fair share of the profits accruing from their work, the labour problem would be well-nigh solved, and we should hear no more bitter complaints as to the idle capitalist growing rich while the workers starved, and of men toiling all their lives without ever enjoying the fruits of their industry. Co-operative production would put an end, too, to strikes and lock-outs, and would reconcile the otherwise antagonistic interests of employer and em- ployed, or rather, do away with the division these words suggest by identifying the interests of the men with those of their overseers and the capitalists who lend them capital. Is it necessary to abandon this comfortable hope, and must we accept it as proved that "profits to the purchaser "- the principle which has given the Union its million members and its £37,000,000 worth of sales per annum— is the only one that can be made successful ? What is the answer to this question, we cannot presume to say. That is a matter for the Co-operators, and not for us. All we desire to urge is the importance of making one more effort in the direction of true co-operative production. There are plenty of men who believe that the case is by no means hopeless, and that a resolute attempt to overcome the difficulties in the path would be crowned with success. It certainly behoves the present Co-operators to attempt the task. They boast, and doubtless sincerely, that their aims are not merely personal and commercial, and that they are anxious to confer benefits upon the nation at large. In no way can they prove this better than by endeavouring to make co-operative production a reality. Could they succeed in the attempt, they would have done far more to benefit mankind than if they got 90 per cent. of the working classes to deal regularly at their stores.
The application of the principle " profits to purchasers," though useful enough in encouraging thrift and in securing the buyer the profits of distribution, is, comparatively speaking, a small matter. Economically considered, it abolishes the middleman, and lowers prices ; while socially and politically, it teaches valuable lessons of organisation and self-help. Further than this, however, it does not go. At present the position of the Co-operators is as follows :- They are a body of consumers who say, " Let us band together to buy at wholesale prices, in order that we may resell to ourselves at cheaper rates than those charged by the shops." No doubt the process is in appearance a little different, the Co-operators preferring to take their cheap prices in the form of a dividend of profits ; but that does not alter the economic fact. But from buying wholesale to actually engaging in the work of production is only a step. Accordingly, the Society which we are supposing easily falls into the practice of manufacturing the articles it is going to sell, and so into saving two profits for its members, that of the producer as well as that of the distributor. But this fact does not make it a society of co-operative producers. It remains an association of purchasers who directly employ persons to produce for them,—that is, who sweep away the middle- man, and deal straight with the operatives. But naturally enough, when A, B, C, and D hire people to produce for them, they will only pay the market wage, for cheap pro- duction is their object. Possibly this end would often be best accomplished by some system of wages depending on profits ; but that is a side question. Their *main aim is profits for the purchasers—i.e., for themselves—and this will not be secured if a fancy price is paid for labour. What we want is the reciprocal form of this process. We want to see a body of producers band together to secure the employers' profits, not for the purchasers, but for them- selves ; but this, we take it, is what up till now has seldom, if ever, been achieved. Whether it is possible, as we have said above, remains to be seen. If A, B, C, and D want a certain article, the process by which they obtain it, reduced to its simplest expression, is this : They set E, F, G, and H at work to make it at weekly wages. Between those who order and those who execute exists, however, in practice, a complicated set of machinery. We have seen that this machinery can be simplified in the interests of the purchaser. Can it be also simplified in the interests of the producer ? That is the question which the Co-operators have got to consider.
Previous page
