Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 6.djvu/370

Rh CO-OPE RATION The law of the Prussian Parliament granting corporate rights to loan and credit associations extends the same privileges to &quot; raw material and store unions,&quot; &quot; unions for the production and sale of finished wares on a common account,&quot; &quot; unions for the purchase of the necessaries of life wholesale and the selling of them retail,&quot; and &quot; unions for providing their members with dwelling-houses.&quot; The history of the co-operative movement in France is much too extensive to be traced here. But it may bo observed that the French co-operators have discovered, at various periods, a strong leaning to the opinion that, while they supply the labour, the state is under obligation to supply in whole or in part the capital and other means of labour; and under this idea co-operation merges very nearly into communism. &quot; L etat ! c est moi,&quot; said Louis XIV., and in the days of democracy the same idea not unnaturally suggests itself to an overwhelming majority of the people. This was precisely the argument which the late M. Lasalle, following the French socialists, used against Schulze and tha economists in Germany. &quot; Society,&quot; he in effect argued, &quot; consists of 95 proletaires and four capitalists. There is the state ! The proletaires have no capital, can save nothing, have nothing to save from. But the state, of which they are 96 out of 100, can come forward, cover the proletaires with its credit, and give a new departure to the production and distribution of wealth. Capital in its personal accumulation is merely the spawn of ages of slavery, craft, and plunder.&quot; The discussion of this question had been exhausted in France more than once. Bistiat and Proudhon had quite recently fought it out botweeii them. But there were also practical experiments and illustrations. On the revolution of February 1848, the French state recognized to some extent its duty to the proletaires, organized national workshops, and voted 3,000,000 francs for the use of fifty-six co-operative societies. Three-fourths of these societies perished after a brief period. The state lost its money, and the members did themselves no good. Only a remnant, by organizing themselves on sounder principles, survived. The &quot; Soci6te&quot; desTourneura en Chaises,&quot; which refused assistance from the state, and declined the principle of equality of wages, is flourishing to this day. The Society of Masons, of Piano-Makers, of
 * Ouvriers Lunettiers,&quot; and others, have established a

strong position, beginning with small capital, and increasing it to large amounts. In Lyons there are the &quot; Socie&quot;te des Tisseurs,&quot; of 1800 members, and others ; at St Etienne the &quot; Association des llubanniers,&quot; of 1200 members, said to have half a million sterling of capital. The &quot;society of production,&quot; of which there are at least forty examples-in Paris alone, is found in nearly all the French provinces, and has proved the capacity of workmen by union to carve out business for themselves and be their own masters, while, in many cases, employing other workmen or auxiliaries at wages, who have no share in the profits. There are also in France more examples, probably, than in any other country, of workmen sharing in the profits of the firms by which they are employed, under arrangements offered and regulated by the employers or capitalists them selves. Of the &quot;society of consumption&quot; there are innumerable examples in the United Kingdom, the chief being the Rochdale, Leeds, and Halifax Societies, embracing nearly the wh jle working population of a large manufacturing district, au 1 carrying out their operations, from the wholesale and retail stores to dairies, flour-mills, and other auxiliary branches, including libraries and newsrooms. The supply associations in London organized by members of the Govern ment civil service have also attained much importance ; but, as these trade with the public, and divide large profits amjng privileged holders of shares, it has been questioned whether they can be properly regarded as co-operative societies. Nearly every town of the kingdom has a &quot; co operative store;&quot; and when these are numerous in a district they usually affiliate, and open a common wholesale depart ment in Liverpool, Glasgow, or some other emporium. The advantages in many cases may not be great, and after a brief existence the societies not unfrequently wind up. But when properly conducted and supported, they secure whole some commodities, encourage among their members ready- money payments, and as the goods are sold at a fair margin of profit, there is every quarter or half year a dividend at the rate of 5 to 10 or more per cent, to the members on their share-capital, and a bonus to non- members on the amount of their purchases. One of the indirect advantages of the co-operative store, when estab lished in a community, is its influence as a formidable rival on private grocers and dealers. The most signal instances of failure of the co-operative principle in the United Kingdom have occurred in the sphere of &quot; production,&quot; where France has given many successful examples. The united coal-m-iners of South Yorkshire purchased the Shirland Collieries in 1874 at a price of 70,000, of which they paid down 31,000, rais ing the remainder of the purchase money in debenture bonds. The working and proprietary company thus formed has never been able to pay the interest due on its bonds, and the collieries have now passed into other hands for 11,000 with the liabilities attaching to them, and the whole capital of the workmen has been lost. The purchase of collieries at a period when the coal trade and wages of mining labour were in a state of inflation, followed sharply by successive collapses, may account for this unfortunate result. The engineering factory at Ouseburn, bought up and worked for a tirae by operatives, is again, after a stoppage, re-established on a co-operative basis. But the failure of co-operative production has been recently illustrated in another form. In 1865 Messrs Briggs & Co., proprietors of the Whitwood and Methley Junction Collieries, entered into a permanent contract with their workmen, whereby the latter were to receive, in addi tion to the current rate of wages, one-half of the profits above 10 per cent, for the redemption of capital invested. As long as there were profits, and the rate of wages presented no difficulty, this answered well enough ; but when the tide turned, and there were no profits, but only loss unless wages were reduced, the situation was wholly altered in the estimate of the workmen, and the compact was broken up in 1874 on the demand of the men them selves, who said they would prefer to be simply members of the &quot; Miners Union.&quot; The numerous cotton factories in Lancashire, on a basis of small joint-stock shares, yielding in some cases large dividends, might almost be considered as great an example of co-operative production as any effort of the kind in France. The operatives have a large stake and much ad vantage in those factories ; but since the spinner or weaver does not necessarily work in the factory of which he has a small proprietary share, these joint-stock establish ments are probably to be regarded more as investments of the savings of the operatives than as co-operative societies. The co-operative idea, as would probably bo held by its most staunch propounders, requires identity of purpose and interest, with community of advantages and risks, though not necessarily absolute equality or uniformity of individual relations, among the co-operators. When the association passes into a mere investment and trading com pany, the idea would seem to be lost. The co-operative system in the United Kingdom has attained such magnitude as well as variety of development that our literature on the subject cannot be deemed so complete as would be desirable.