Now, if the London County Council made soap for all London, there would be
1. A saving in cost of rent, plant, and management.
2. A saving of profits by selling at cost price.
3. A saving of the whole cost of advertising.
4. A saving of the wages of the commercial travellers.
Under a system of trade competition all those four items (plus the effects of adulteration) have to be paid for by the consumer, that is to say, by the users of soap.
And what is true of soap is true of most other things.
That is why co-operation for use beats competition for sale and profit.
That is why the Municipal gas, water, and tram services are better and cheaper than the same services under the management of private companies.
That is one reason why Socialism is better than non-Socialism.
As an example of the difference between private and Municipal works, let us take the case of the gas supply in Liverpool and Manchester. These cities are both commercial, both large, both near the coalfields.
The gas service in Liverpool is a private monopoly, for profit; that of Manchester is a co-operative monopoly, for service.
In Liverpool (figures of 1897) the price of gas was 2s. 9d. per thousand feet. In Manchester the price of gas was 2s. 3d.