I should have more hope of industrial Partnership as elaborately described by Mr Sedley Taylor.This also implies a certain change in the moral nature of the employers,but one not so great as the alternative system would require.It has been adopted in over a hundred Continental workshops,though the experiment of Messrs Briggs in England ended in failure.There is hope of its being more successful in the future,because by promoting the energy of the workmen and diminishing waste,it coincides with the interest of the employer.I think that in some industries it will extend,but that it will not be generally adopted.
There remains the ordinary Communist solution.This has taken various forms;the simplest being a voluntary association of individuals based on the principle of common property,and in which every person works for the community according to fixed rules.There are many successful instances of this,on a small scale,in the United States,but we cannot suppose such a solution to be possible for society as a whole.It has only been tried with picked materials,whereas our object is rather to improve the great mass of the population.The Communism of recent European theorists,of whom the best known is Lassalle,presents a somewhat different aspect.It aims at the appropriation of all instruments of production by the State,which is to take charge of the whole national industry and direct it.But the practical difficulty of such a scheme is obviously overwhelming.The objections to a Communistic solution do not apply to Socialism in a more modified shape.Historically speaking,Socialism has already shown itself in England in the extension of State interference.It has produced the Factory Laws,and it is now beginning to advance further and interfere directly in the division of produce between the workmen and their employers.The Employers'Liability Act recognises that workmen,even when associated in Trades-Unions,cannot without other aid secure full justice,and in the name of justice it has distinctly handed over to the workmen a certain portion of the employers'wealth.The extension of relative interference however,though it is to be expected in one or two directions,is not likely to be of much further importance.With regard to taxation,on the other hand,Socialist principles will probably attain a wide-reaching application,and here we shall see great changes.
The readjustment of taxation would enable the State to supply for the people many things which they cannot supply for themselves.Without assuming the charge of every kind of production,the State might take into its hands such businesses of vital importance as railways,or the supply of gas and water.
And should not the State attempt in the future to grapple with such questions as the housing of the labourers?Municipalities might be empowered to buy ground and let it for building purposes below the full competition market value.I think that such a scheme is practicable without demoralising the people,and it would attack a problem which has hitherto baffled every form of private enterprise;for all the Societies put together,which have been formed in London with this object since 1842,have succeeded in housing only 60,000 persons.And this brings up the whole question of public expenditure for the people.A new form of association,which has become common of late years,is that of a certain number of private individuals combining to provide for some want of the public,such as Coffee Taverns,or Artisans' Dwellings,or cheap music.Such Societies are founded primarily with philanthropic objects,but they also aim at a fair interest on their capital.Might not municipalities seek in a similar way to provide for the poor?In discussing all such schemes,however,we must remember that the real problem is not how to produce some improvement in the condition of the working man -for that has to a certain extent been attained already -but how to secure his complete material independence.
