competition, i.e. by a struggle and the relative ability of each to
secure a large share. Nor do co-operators regard the association
as truly voluntary, though it may depend on contract, if that
contract be one of service only, without an opportunity for all
concerned to share in the ultimate control. Co-operation in
fact is essentially a democratic association. On the other hand,
there is some working together for the production of wealth
which without being competitive, or based on service, is not
strictly voluntary: thus in primitive societies there is much
customary help, combined with customary division of the produce;
and in advanced societies we have state and municipal socialism.
These are indeed sometimes included in co-operation, but at
least they are not voluntary co-operation, since the individual
has no choice but to take part in them; they depend on the
power of the ruler to coerce the ruled, or of the majority to
coerce the minority. In co-operation, meaning voluntary co-operation,
there may also, it is true, be frequent overruling of
the minority by the majority, but only so far as the minority
have, when joining the association, voluntarily agreed to permit,
and subject always to an effective ultimate right of secession.
Thus co-operation occupies the middle ground between competition and state or municipal socialism. In its technical sense, however, it does not cover the whole of this ground: it does not cover associations which are primarily for social, provident, or religious purposes, but only those closely connected with the production of wealth. We speak of co-operative societies for agriculture, for manufacturing, for retail, or wholesale distribution, for building or house-owning, for raising capital and so forth; while the great Friendly Societies (q.v.), though a part of co-operation as a theory of life, are not part of the co-operative movement. The line is somewhat hard to draw, and consequently is drawn somewhat arbitrarily. Thus while a society for building, or for the collective ownership of houses, is counted a co-operative society, a Building Society (as we ordinarily understand the term), though it be purely mutual in its basis, is not so counted in Great Britain, but is in the United States (see Building Societies).
For the early history of the co-operative movement we have to look chiefly to Great Britain, and British co-operation acknowledges as its founder Robert Owen (q.v.). In every age and every country the origins of co-operation may no doubt be traced, where men have helped one another in Robert Owen. the creation of wealth and agreed as brothers as to its division. In England long before the days of Owen there was much co-operation of miners and fishermen which, though scarcely obligatory on the individuals taking part in it, was largely regulated by custom. Coming to more purely voluntary associations, co-operative workshops are recorded, retail co-operation was practised in Scotland from the middle of the 18th century, while in England shops not unlike co-operative stores, but without the democratic element, were in one or two instances set up by benevolent individuals. It does not seem, however, that there was any theory of co-operation until Owen in England, and almost simultaneously Fourier (q.v.) in France, formulated their gospels, not identical, yet having much in common. Of these two Owen and his teaching are by far the more important.
The end of the 18th and the beginning of the 19th centuries were the culminating days of the industrial revolution, when the old organization of domestic industry had given way before the factory system, and the population of the factory districts was suffering a martyrdom, with ruin of body and degradation of character, from unbridled competition, long hours, women’s and children’s labour, pauper apprenticeship, great fluctuations of trade and employment, dearness and adulteration of provisions, the truck system and insanitary homes. Owen, having himself become a great employer of labour, after starting as a draper’s assistant, saw that this was in every sense waste, and that as it paid the manufacturer to have the best machinery and not to overdrive it, but to tend it well and keep it in the best repair, so it would pay him, and abundantly pay the nation, to have the human machines well cared for, not overworked, and kept in the best condition. The popular individualistic philosophy of that day taught that the good of society would be achieved by each individual seeking in his business relations the interest of himself and his family; but Owen maintained that the well-being of the social body could only be served if each individual made that his conscious aim. For this reason he and his disciples were called Socialists. He taught further that a man’s character depended mainly upon the circumstances which influenced his life; he emphasized environment, and all but denied heredity. At New Lanark, from 1799, he carried out these ideas among the workers in the cotton mills of which he was managing partner.[1] “For twenty-nine years,” he wrote, “we did without the necessity for magistrates or lawyers; without a single legal punishment; without any known poors’ rate; without intemperance or religious animosities. We reduced the hours of labour, well educated all the children from infancy, greatly improved the condition of the adults, diminished their daily labour, paid interest on capital, and cleared upwards of £300,000 of profit.” So wonderful were the results upon the population, that New Lanark became a show-place of world-wide renown, and was visited by many of the greatest and most exalted people of the period.
While thus using his own power Owen not only advocated legislation to limit the hours of factory labour, but appealed to the public authorities to establish industrial communities, where the poor might be set to work, and be managed paternally on the principles of New Lanark. So great was his repute, and so influential the royal and other personages who gave him their support, that this appeal might probably have been successful had not Owen, in reply to complaints as to his religious views—which were deistic—and that his system was not founded on religion, made a public attack upon all accepted religions.
Failing to get the required support from the Government and magistrates, he still sought it from wealthy believers in his teaching, and a number of “communities” (see Communism) were founded in England and Scotland, and in the United States. These were intended to be self-supporting, the land and other means of producing wealth being owned in common, and work and education being regulated on Owen’s principles. Owen well knew that most of them lacked the large amount of capital necessary, but his hand was forced by enthusiastic followers, and even the most hopeful of the experiments, that of Queenwood in Hampshire (1839–1844), was made prematurely and failed.
His connexion with New Lanark also came to an end, not from any want of success, but through differences with some of his partners who objected to such matters as dancing, military drill for the children, and the wearing of kilts, but above all feared lest Owen’s “infidelity” should undermine the people’s faith.
Thus it might have seemed that Owen’s life and fortune had been spent in vain, and resulted only in unsuccessful experiments; but this was far from being so. His teaching, and in particular his doctrines of circumstance, and of the conscious seeking after the social good, his belief in self-supporting communities, and his vision of a new moral and industrial world, had powerfully affected the working classes, indeed, all classes. Workmen in many parts of the country had formed groups with the ultimate object of founding self-supporting communities. If the government and the rich would not provide capital enough to start communities, the workers would start them themselves. Thus was the democratic basis given to co-operation. As a means they had been founding co-operative societies, which are sometimes called “union shops” to distinguish them from the later growth of societies of the Rochdale type. The members began by buying provisions wholesale and retailing them to themselves at current prices; the difference became capital, and as soon as possible one member was set to work to make boots and another clothes, and so forth, until ultimately the society should have capital enough to take land and form a community. Education also was prominent among their objects. These co-operative societies reached some 400 or 500 between 1828 and 1834, but the movement then collapsed. As the original enthusiasm died out, or members left the neighbourhood, or capital accumulated in
- ↑ Holyoake, History of Co-operation (1906 edition), i. 34.
