So we have at one and the same time, and in one and the same trade, and, often enough, in one and the same town, some men working overtime and other men out of work.

We have at one time the cotton mills making more goods than they can sell, and at another time we have them unable to fulfil their orders.

We have in one street a dozen small shops all selling the same kind of goods, and so spending in rent, in fittings, in wages of servants, and other ways, about four times as much as would be spent if all the work were done in one big shop.

We have one contractor sending men and tools and bricks and wood from north London to build a house in south London, and another contractor in south London going to the same trouble and expense to build a house in north London.

We have in Ess.e.x and other parts of England thousands of acres of good land lying idle because it does not _pay_ to till it, and at the same time we have thousands of labourers out of work who would be only too glad to till it.

So in one part of a city you may see hundreds of houses standing empty, and in another part of the same city you may see hard-working people living three and four families in a small cottage.

Then, under compet.i.tion, where there are many firms in the same trade, and where each firm wants to get as much trade as it can, a great deal of money is spent by these firms in trying to get the trade from each other.

Thus all the cost of advertis.e.m.e.nts, of travellers' wages, and a lot of the cost of book-keeping, arise from the fact that there are many firms all trying to s.n.a.t.c.h the trade from each other.

Non-Socialists claim that this clumsy and costly way of going to work is really the best way there is. They say that compet.i.tion gets the work done by the best men and at the lowest rate.

Perhaps some of them believe this; but it is not true. The mistake is caused by the fact that _compet.i.tion_ is better than _monopoly_.

That is to say, if there is only one tram company in a town the fares will be higher than if there are two; because when there are two one tries to undersell the other.

But take a town where there are two tram companies undercutting and working against each other, and hand the trams over to the Corporation, and you will find that the work is done better, is done cheaper, and the men are better paid than under compet.i.tion.

This is because the Corporation is at less cost, has less waste, and does not want _profits_.

Well, under _Socialism_ all the work of the nation would be managed by the nation--or perhaps I had better say by "the people," for some of the work would be _local_ and some would be _national_. I will show you what I mean.

It might be better for each town to manage its own gas and water, to bake its own bread and brew its own beer. But it would be better for the post office to be managed by the nation, because that has to do with _all_ the towns.

So we should find that some kinds of work were best done locally--that is, by each town or county--and that some were best done nationally, that is, by a body of officials acting for the nation.

For instance, tramways would be local and railways national; gas and water would be local and collieries national; police would be local and the army and navy national.

The kind of _Socialism_ I am advocating here is Collectivism, or _Practical Socialism_. Motto: Britain for the British, the land and all the instruments of production, distribution, and exchange to be the property of the nation, and to be managed _by_ the nation _for_ the nation.

The land and railways, collieries, etc., to be _bought_ from the present owners, but not at fancy prices.

Wages to be paid, and goods to be sold.

Thus, you see, Collectivism is really an extension of the _principles_, or ideas, of local government, and of the various corporation and civil services.

And now I tell you that is Socialism, and I ask you what is there in it to prevent any man from being a Christian, or from attending a place of worship, or from marrying, or being faithful to his wife, or from keeping and bringing up his children at home?

There is nothing in it to destroy religion, and there is nothing in it to destroy the home, and there is nothing in it to foster vice.

But there _is_ something in it to kill ignorance and to destroy vice.

There is something in it to shut up the gaols, to do away with prost.i.tution, to reduce crime and drunkenness, and wipe out for ever the sweater and the slums, the beggars and the idle rich, the useless fine ladies and lords, and to make it possible for sober and willing workers to live healthy and happy and honourable lives.

For Socialism would teach and train all children wisely; it would foster genius and devotion to the common good; it would kill scamping and loafing and jerrymandering; it would give us better health, better homes, better work, better food, better lives, and better men and women.

CHAPTER IX

COMPEt.i.tION _v._ CO-OPERATION

A comparison of compet.i.tion with co-operation is a comparison of non-Socialism with Socialism.

For the principle of non-Socialism is compet.i.tion, and the principle of Socialism is co-operation.

Non-Socialists tell us that compet.i.tion is to the general advantage, because it lowers prices in favour of the consumer.

But compet.i.tion in trade only seems desirable when we contrast it with private monopoly.

When we compare the effects of trade compet.i.tion with the effects of State or Munic.i.p.al co-operation, we find that compet.i.tion is badly beaten.

Let us try to find the reasons of this.

The claim for the superior cheapness of compet.i.tion rests on the theory that where two sellers compete against each other for trade each tries to undersell the other.

This sounds plausible, but, like many other plausible things, it is untrue. It is a theory, but the theory is incomplete.

If business men were fools the theory would work with mathematical precision, to the great joy and profit of the consumer; but business men are not built on those lines.

The seller of any article does not trade for trading's sake; he trades for profit.

It is a mistake to suppose that undercutting each other's prices is the only method of competing between rival firms in trade. There are other ways.

A trader, in order to defeat a rival, may

1. Give better quality at the same price, which is equal to giving more for the money, and is therefore a form of underselling; or

2. He may give the same quant.i.ty and quality at a lower price; or

3. He may balance the lowering of his price by resorting to adulteration or the use of inferior workmanship or material; or

4. He may try to overreach his rival by employing more travellers or by advertising more extensively.

As to underselling. This is not carried on to such extremes as the theorists would have us believe.

The object of a trader is to make money. He only desires increased trade if it brings more money.

Brown and Jones make soap for sale. Each desires to get as much of the trade as he can, consistently with profits.