The Remedy for Unemployment

by Alfred Russel Wallace

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]

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.”