💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › freedom-press-ed-a-practical-solution.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 10:15:47. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

View Raw

More Information

➡️ Next capture (2024-07-09)

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Title: A Practical Solution
Author: Freedom Press
Date: November, 1887
Language: en
Topics: Freedom Press, UK, Freedom: A Journal of Anarchist Socialism
Source: Freedom: A Journal of Anarchist Socialism, Vol. 2, No. 14, online source http://www.revoltlib.com/?id=3096, retrieved on May 1, 2020.
Notes: Freedom Press (ed.)

Freedom Press

A Practical Solution

A HUNDRED and thirty thousand unemployed, in this city alone--such is

the result of the parliamentary and private inquiries. Ninety-one

thousand paupers; six hundred thousand at least of men, women, and

children, out of the 4 1/2 million inhabitants of London in want of

food, shelter, and clothes. Such is the result of aristocracy and

middle-class rule. Our masters say that we must keep them, and provide

them a rich living, because they alone are capable of organizing our

industries and trade. And that is the way in which they have organized

them. Plenty of luxury for themselves; sheer misery for the masses.

One hundred and thirty thousand men, ready to work, but prevented from

working; ready co till the fields and to grow for themselves the food

they want, ready to build for themselves decent houses to lodge in, to

extract coal for themselves to warm their modest homes, to weave and to

sew for themselves the clothes to wear. But--prevented from tilling and

growing, from building and weaving, by the landowner, the money-lender,

the owner of the manufactory and the shopkeeper.

All kinds of means are proposed every day for finding useful employment

for those who are now unemployed. Some of the schemes might be a boon

for humanity--not a sheer useless waste of human efforts and a new

source of evils. But none of the good means can be put into practice,

because everywhere the landlord, the banker, the capitalist stand in the

way.

Suppose that any organized body of Socialists, who obviously enjoy the

confidence of the workers, should distribute tickets in each house in

London, and ask every unemployed person to write on his ticket what he

is able and willing to do. Everyone would answer that he is ready to do

some kind of useful work. The answers would be: "I am ready to work on a

farm" or "Ready to work in a cotton mill," or at brick-laying, or at a

cutlery, or boot, or cloth, or glass manufactory, and so on. In short,

everybody would state his willingness to do something necessary for

humanity.

By the way, if like tickets were distributed among those rich people who

treat the unemployed as loafers and idlers, what would be their answers?

"I am ready to preach patience to the workers, provided I have dined

well myself"; "Ready to write leaders in newspapers, and to pronounce

speeches, in order to prove that myself and my friends are the only

people who can save England from an outbreak of the laborers "; " Ready

to spend five afternoons in shopping and the sixth in visiting the poor

"; " Ready to play the piano for two hours a-day and to dance till

daylight." Such would be the answers we should get from the West-end.

While the East-end would testify its willingness to work, the West-end

would testify its willingness to squander the produce of the East-end's

labor.

Suppose, further, that a summons be issued to all the unemployed of

London; that all those who are willing to work but have no work be

invited to gather on a given day at some of the rich clubs which adorn

the region of Piccadilly and Pall Mall: those who are ready to till the

soil, at the Carlton and Constitutional Clubs; the bricklayers at the

Reform Club; the carpenters at the National Liberal Club and so on. (Let

us hope, of course, that the very democratic Tories and the very radical

Liberals will be happy to receive the unemployed in their marble halls.)

And suppose, further, that each of the trades agree together to start

for themselves some useful work. Suppose that the laborers have sent

their delegation to Sussex, and that their delegation reports that there

are, on the estates of Lord Do-Nothing some three hundred acres of land,

rented to London gentlemen for pheasant-shooting, or kept by the noble

lord for the same noble purpose; which acres, if properly cleared,

drained, and tilled, would, with proper instruments, yield (at forty

bushels the acre) the food for no less than 1,200 persons, and the

double of that if some of them were cultivated according to the rules of

the scientific culture of modern gardeners. Suppose they agree also with

their neighbors of the Reform Club-- the bricklayers and carpenters--as

to the building, close by to said land, of two hundred cottages to

shelter the human inhabitants who may choose to tale the place of the

noble lord's pheasants and deer, and make up their minds to prove what

England can produce, without compelling the Hindus to sell their wheat

for nothing and to starve themselves.

Immediately the noble lord would exclaim: "This land is mine! If you

will till it you must buy it, and pay me a hundred pounds or more the

acre." The owners of the Middlesex clay-fields would exclaim: "This clay

is ours, and unless you pay so much for it we shan't permit you to make

bricks of it." And the agricultural implement maker would say: "You may

be right in saying that this spade has coat only sixpence paid in wages,

since the iron ore was extracted from the earth until it took the shape

of a spade. You may speak the truth, or even go beyond the mark; but I

have paid so much in royalties, and so much to my money-lender, and I

must have so much benefit for myself to teach my lade how to rule you,

and my lasses how to dance and receive high-born ladies at our next

dinner party." And finally, although there is within London itself

plenty of food to feed all Londoners during at least eighteen months, it

all belongs to somebody; and the future agricultural colony may promise

and swear to the corn-dealers, and grocers, and all the merchants of

Mincing Lane and the butchers of Smithfield that they will repay within

a year the whole amount of the food advanced to them, they will have no

food advanced by the said dealers and merchants unless they undertake

also the obligations of providing the families of at least two or three

scores of corn-merchants and butchers with pretty carriages, fine

horses, Persian carpets, Lyons silks, Brussels lace, French and Spanish

wines, --plenty of those wines, because the corn-merchants and butchers

are not drunkards of the same sort as the hungry woman condemned the

other day to fourteen days' hard labor for refusing to go to the

work-house: they never drink twopenny-worth of gin at a public-house.

Take one after the other any of the relief schemes proposed during the

last fortnight, and everywhere you will find the same: the landlord

refuses the land; the manufacturer refuses the implements of labor, the

coal-pit owner, access to the mine, the City merchant, the food. And

nothing remains for the unemployed but to starve--unless they take

possession of the land, the mine, the manufactories, and the food which

all belong to them, because all that is due to the labor of the whole of

the nation, not to the few land and capital-owners.

No relief works can relieve the present misery unless the work done is

some useful reproductive work. Of course, some vestry may set some of

the unemployed to build a bridge across the canal, but 130,000

unemployed will not find employment in building a bridge. The Board of

Works and the War Office may erect fortifications around London; but

they know perfectly well that those fortifications, useless against the

foreigner, will be intended only to bombard London itself on the day

when its workers shall overthrow their present rulers and try to start a

new society without land grabbers and capitalist loafers. They can do

so, because they know that such relief works will not cost them a penny

from their own pockets, and will be paid for by those who only can pay

for anything--namely, the workers who produce anything not those who

live themselves on the workman's labor.

But whatever may be the useful work that may be proposed for the

unemployed, everywhere the landowner, the usurer, the capitalist, and

the merchant will stand in the way. If we propose to increase the crops

of this country by cultivating the parks of the idlers, we are told that

we should thus reduce the incomes of the farmers; and if we venture to

say that there would be no harm in that because the landlords would be

compelled to reduce their rents, we are told that these poor creatures

are already almost ruined, and would be so completely if their incomes

were reduced from ten thousand pounds a year to only two thousand.

If we propose to raise coal for those who have none in their cold black

dens of Chelsea and Whitechapel, we are told that the incomes of the

coal-owners are already so low that they would be compelled to abandon

the extraction of coal. And if we add that that would be precisely what

we want, because then the miners would take possession of the mines, and

work them for the benefit of the nation, we are treated as

revolutionists, and reminded that our comrade Mowbray has made

acquaintance with the inside of a jail precisely for having indulged in

such language.

If we finally point out that in the laborer's dwelling there is a

positive want of clothes and furniture--not to speak of anything that

might bring a gleam of light and cheerfulness into his home--and if we

propose to start workshops for supplying the laborer with cheap

furniture and clothes, cheap reading and the like, we are told that the

poor furniture kings, one of whom died the other day leaving two million

pounds to his widow and children, would be ruined, that the woolen cloth

manufacturers would be compelled to abandon their manufactures and

emigrate to better countries, like India, where they first starve the

people and then make them work for four pence a day. And if we say again

that to relieve us of their presence would be the very best thing they

could do, and that the workmen taking possession of the manufactories

would manage them much better, and produce precisely what their fellows

are in want of, we are dryly answered, "Perish your unemployed, we don't

care a brass farthing for them. We care for the furniture kings and the

cotton lords."

And so, again and again, wherever we try to find an issue from the

present conditions, we come to this. The workers must take possession of

the land, the mines, and the machinery and must make use of them

themselves for the benefit of all society. That means, of course, a

revolution, but every day proves with new facts and new arguments the

necessity, the advisability, of such a revolution.

We are often told that the English are too businesslike a people for

revolutions. But we think, on the contrary, that precisely because they

are a business people they can indulge no longer in mere talk, in

fallacious schemes of relief, and in measures which bring no relief at

all and merely render the situation worse. Because the English are a

business people they will take the bull by the horns, they will suggest

practical measures. But as soon as they consider any measure really

practical, and consider it under its really practical aspects, they find

the landlord and the capitalist standing in the way and preventing

society from taking any practical measure at all, and precisely because

they are business-like and practical they are brought to the necessity

of getting rid of them. We come to the necessity of a revolution, but

instead of making it for the mere words of Equality, Liberty, and

Fraternity--however grand these words are--the English will approach it

in a business-like fashion, by discussing how to provide work for 50,000

laborers, for 10,000 miners, for 10,000 workers thrown out of the

factories, and so on. And they will conduct it in a business like

fashion--not by merely nominating a few men to do their business, but by

trying to do it themselves for themselves.