They have increased the comforts of the middle classes. But they
\nhave not yet begun to effect those great changes in human destiny,
\nwhich it is in their nature and in their futurity to accomplish. Only
\nwhen, in addition to just institutions, the increase of mankind shall
\nbe under the deliberate guidance of judicious foresight, can the conquests made from the powers of nature by the intellect and energy of
\nscientific discoverers become the common property of the species,
\nand the means of improving and elevating the universal lot.
\nBook IV, Chapter VII
\nOn the Probable Futurity of the Labouring Classes
\n1. . . . When I speak, either in this place or elsewhere, of \u201cthe labouring classes,\u201d or of labourers as a \u201cclass,\u201d I use those phrases in compliance with custom, and as descriptive of an existing, but by no
\nmeans a necessary or permanent, state of social relations. I do not
\nrecognize as either just or salutary, a state of society in which there is
\nany \u201cclass\u201d which is not labouring; any human beings exempt from
\nbearing their share of the necessary labours of human life, except
\nthose unable to labour, or who have fairly earned rest by previous toil.
\nSo long, however, as the great social evil exists of a non-labouring
\nclass, labourers also constitute a class, and may be spoken of, though
\nonly provisionally, in that character.
\nConsidered in its moral and social aspect, the state of the labouring people has latterly been a subject of much more speculation and
\ndiscussion than formerly; and the opinion that it is not now what it
\nought to be has become very general. The suggestions which have
\nbeen promulgated, and the controversies which have been excited,
\non detached points rather than on the foundations of the subject,
\nhave put in evidence the existence of two conflicting theories,
\nrespecting the social position desirable for manual labourers. The
\none may be called the theory of dependence and protection, the
\nother that of self-dependence.
\nAccording to the former theory, the lot of the poor, in all things
\nwhich affect them collectively, should be regulated for them, not by
\nthem. They should not be required or encouraged to think for themselves, or give to their own reflection or forecast an influential voice
\nin the determination of their destiny. It is supposed to be the duty of
\nthe higher classes to think for them, and to take the responsibility of
\ntheir lot, as the commander and officers of an army take that of the
\n192 Book IV, Chapter VII
\nsoldiers composing it. . . . The relation between rich and poor,
\naccording to this theory (a theory also applied to the relation between
\nmen and women), should be only partly authoritative; it should be
\namiable, moral, and sentimental: affectionate tutelage on the one
\nside, respectful and grateful deference on the other. The rich should
\nbe in loco parentis to the poor, guiding and restraining them like children. Of spontaneous action on their part, there should be no need.
\nThey should be called on for nothing but to do their day\u2019s work, and
\nto be moral and religious. Their morality and religion should be provided for them by their superiors, who should see them properly
\ntaught it, and should do all that is necessary to ensure their being, in
\nreturn for labour and attachment, properly fed, clothed, housed, spiritually edified, and innocently amused.
\nThis is the ideal of the future, in the minds of those whose dissatisfaction with the Present assumes the form of affection and regret
\ntowards the Past. Like other ideals, it exercises an unconscious influence on the opinions and sentiments of numbers who never consciously guide themselves by any ideal. It has also this in common
\nwith other ideals, that it has never been historically realized. It makes
\nits appeal to our imaginative sympathies in the character of a restoration of the good times of our forefathers. But no times can be pointed out in which the higher classes of this or any other country performed a part even distantly resembling the one assigned to them in
\nthis theory. It is an idealization, grounded on the conduct and character of here and there an individual. All privileged and powerful
\nclasses, as such, have used their power in the interest of their own selfishness, and have indulged their self-importance in despising, and
\nnot in lovingly caring for, those who were, in their estimation, degraded by being under the necessity of working for their benefit. I do not
\naffirm that what has always been must always be, or that human
\nimprovement has no tendency to correct the intensely selfish fillings
\nengendered by power; but though the evil may be lessened, it cannot
\nbe eradicated until the power itself is withdrawn. This, at least, seems
\nto me undeniable, that long before the superior classes could be sufficiently improved to govern in the tutelary manner supposed, the
\ninferior classes would be too much improved to be so governed.
\nI am quite sensible of all that is seductive in the picture of society which this theory presents. . . . As the idea is essentially repulsive
\nof a society only held together by the relations and feelings arising
\nout of pecuniary interests, so there is something naturally attractive
\nin a form of society abounding in strong personal attachments and
\ndisinterested self-devotion. Of such feelings, it must be admitted that
\nOn the Probable Futurity of the Labouring Classes 193
\nthe relation of protector and protected has hitherto been the richest
\nsource. The strongest attachments of human beings in general are
\ntowards the things or the persons that stand between them and some
\ndreaded evil. Hence, in an age of lawless violence and insecurity,
\nand general hardness and roughness of manners, in which life is
\nbeset with dangers and sufferings at every step . . . a generous giving
\nof protection, and a grateful receiving of it, are the strongest ties
\nwhich connect human beings; the feelings arising from that relation
\nare their warmest feelings; all the enthusiasm and tenderness of the
\nmost sensitive natures gather round it; loyalty on the one part and
\nchivalry on the other are principles exalted into passions. I do not
\ndesire to depreciate these qualities. The error lies in not perceiving
\nthat these virtues and sentiments . . . can no longer have this beautiful and endearing character where there are no longer any serious
\ndangers from which to protect. What is there in the present state of
\nsociety to make it natural that human beings, of ordinary strength
\nand courage, should glow with the warmest gratitude and devotion
\nin return for protection? The laws protect them, wherever the laws
\ndo not criminally fail in their duty. To be under the power of someone, instead of being, as formerly, the sole condition of safety, is now,
\nspeaking generally, the only situation which exposes to grievous
\nwrong. The so-called protectors are now the only persons against
\nwhom, in any ordinary circumstances, protection is needed. The
\nbrutality and tyranny with which every police report is filled are
\nthose of husbands to wives, of parents to children. That the law does
\nnot prevent these atrocities, that it is only now making a first timid
\nattempt to repress and punish them, is no matter of necessity, but the
\ndeep disgrace of those by whom the laws are made and administered.
\nNo man or woman who either possesses or is able to earn an independent livelihood, requires any other protection than that which
\nthe law could and ought to give. This being the case, it argues great
\nignorance of human nature to continue taking for granted that relations founded on protection must always subsist, and not to see that
\nthe assumption of the part of protector, and of the power which
\nbelongs to it, without any of the necessities which justify it, must
\nengender feelings opposite to loyalty.
\nOf the working men, at least in the more advanced countries of
\nEurope, it may be pronounced certain that the patriarchal or paternal system of government is one to which they will not again be subject. That question was decided when they were taught to read, and
\nallowed access to newspapers and political tracts; when dissenting
\npreachers were suffered to go among them, and appeal to their facul194 Book IV, Chapter VII
\nties and feelings in opposition to the creeds professed and countenanced by their superiors; when they were brought together in numbers, to work socially under the same roof; when railways enabled
\nthem to shift from place to place, and change their patrons and
\nemployers as easily as their coats; when they were encouraged to seek
\na share in the government, by means of the electoral franchise. The
\nworking classes have taken their interests into their own hands, and
\nare perpetually showing that they think the interests of their employers not identical with their own, but opposite to them. . . .
\n2. . . . The poor have come out of leading-strings, and cannot any
\nlonger be governed or treated like children. To their own qualities
\nmust now be commended the care of their destiny. Modern nations
\nwill have to learn the lesson that the well-being of a people must exist
\nby means of the justice and self-government . . . of the individual citizens. . . . Whatever advice, exhortation, or guidance is held out to the
\nlabouring classes, must henceforth be tendered to them as equals, and
\naccepted by them with their eyes open. The prospect of the future
\ndepends on the degree in which they can be made rational beings.
\nThere is no reason to believe that prospect other than hopeful.
\nThe progress indeed has hitherto been, and still is, slow. But there is
\na spontaneous education going on in the minds of the multitude. . . .
\nThe instruction obtained from newspapers and political tracts may
\nnot be the most solid kind of instruction, but it is an immense
\nimprovement upon none at all. . . . [T]here is reason to hope that
\ngreat improvements . . . in . . . school education will be effected by
\nthe exertions either of government or of individuals, and that the
\nprogress of the mass of the people in mental cultivation, and in the
\nvirtues which are dependent on it, will take place more rapidly. . . .
\nFrom this increase of intelligence, several effects may be confidently anticipated. First: that they will become even less willing than
\nat present to be led and governed, and directed into the way they
\nshould go, by the mere authority and prestige of superiors. If they
\nhave not now, still less will they have hereafter, any deferential awe
\nor religious principle of obedience, holding them in mental subjection to a class above them. The theory of dependence and protection
\nwill be more and more intolerable to them, and they will require that
\ntheir conduct and condition shall be essentially self-governed. It is, at
\nthe same time, quite possible that they may demand, in many cases,
\nthe intervention of the legislature in their affairs, and the regulation
\nby law of various things which concern them, often under very mistaken ideas of their interest. Still, it is their own will, their own ideas
\nand suggestions, to which they will demand that effect should be
\nOn the Probable Futurity of the Labouring Classes 195
\ngiven, and not rules laid down for them by other people. It is quite
\nconsistent with this that they should feel respect for superiority of
\nintellect and knowledge, and defer much to the opinions, on any subject, of those whom they think well acquainted with it. Such deference is deeply grounded in human nature; but they will judge for
\nthemselves of the persons who are and are not entitled to it.
\n3. It appears to me impossible but that the increase of intelligence,
\nof education, and of the love of independence among the working
\nclasses, must be attended with a corresponding growth of the good
\nsense which manifests itself in provident habits of conduct; and that
\npopulation, therefore, will bear a gradually diminishing ratio to capital and employment. This most desirable result would be much
\naccelerated by another change, which lies in the direct line of the
\nbest tendencies of the time; the opening of industrial occupations
\nfreely to both sexes. The same reasons which make it no longer necessary that the poor should depend on the rich, make it equally
\nunnecessary that women should depend on men; and the least which
\njustice requires is that law and custom should not enforce dependence (when the correlative protection has become superfluous) by
\nordaining that a woman, who does not happen to have a provision by
\ninheritance, shall have scarcely any means open to her of gaining a
\nlivelihood, except as a wife and mother. Let women who prefer that
\noccupation adopt it; but that there should be no option, no other carri\u00e8re possible for the great majority of women, except in the humbler
\ndepartments of life, is a flagrant social injustice. The ideas and institutions by which the accident of sex is made the groundwork of an
\ninequality of legal rights, and a forced dissimilarity of social functions, must ere long be recognized as the greatest hindrance to moral,
\nsocial, and even intellectual improvement. On the present occasion,
\nI shall only indicate, among the probable consequences of the industrial and social independence of women, a great diminution of the
\nevil of over-population. It is by devoting one-half of the human
\nspecies to that exclusive function, by making it fill the entire life of
\none sex and interweave itself with almost all the objects of the other,
\nthat the animal instinct in question is nursed into the disproportionate preponderance which it has hitherto exercised in human life.
\n4. . . . In the present stage of human progress, when ideas of
\nequality are daily spreading more widely among the poorer classes,
\nand can no longer be checked by anything short of the entire suppression of printed discussion and even of freedom of speech, it is
\nnot to be expected that the division of the human race into two
\nhereditary classes, employers and employed, can be permanently
\n196 Book IV, Chapter VII
\nmaintained. The relation is nearly as unsatisfactory to the payer of
\nwages as to the receiver. If the rich regard the poor as, by a kind of
\nnatural law, their servants and dependents, the rich, in their turn, are
\nregarded as a mere prey and pasture for the poor; the subject of
\ndemands and expectations wholly indefinite, increasing in extent
\nwith every concession made to them. The total absence of regard for
\njustice or fairness in the relations between the two, is as marked on
\nthe side of the employed as on that of the employers. We look in vain
\namong the working classes in general for the just pride which will
\nchoose to give good work for good wages; for the most part, their sole
\nendeavour is to receive as much, and return as little in the shape of
\nservice, as possible. It will sooner or later become insupportable to
\nthe employing classes, to live in close and hourly contact with persons whose interests and feelings are in hostility to them. Capitalists
\nare almost as much interested as labourers in placing the operations
\nof industry on such a footing, that those who labour for them may
\nfeel the same interest in the work, which is felt by those who labour
\non their own account.
\nThe opinion expressed in a former part of this treatise, respecting
\nsmall landed properties and peasant proprietors, may have made the
\nreader anticipate that a wide diffusion of property in land is the
\nresource on which I rely for exempting at least the agricultural
\nlabourers from exclusive dependence on labour for hire. Such, however, is not my opinion. . . .
\n[A] people who have once adopted the large system of production,
\neither in manufactures or in agriculture, are not likely to recede from
\nit; and when population is kept in due proportion to the means of
\nsupport, it is not desirable that they should. Labour is unquestionably
\nmore productive on the system of large industrial enterprises; the produce, if not greater absolutely, is greater in proportion to the labour
\nemployed: the same number of persons can be supported equally
\nwell with less toil and greater leisure; which will be wholly an advantage, as soon as civilization and improvement have so far advanced
\nthat what is a benefit to the whole shall be a benefit to each individual composing it. And in the moral aspect of the question, which is
\nstill more important than the economical, something better should
\nbe aimed at as the goal of industrial improvement, than to disperse
\nmankind over the earth in single families, each ruled internally, as
\nfamilies now are, by a patriarchal despot, and having scarcely any
\ncommunity of interest, or necessary mental communion, with other
\nhuman beings. The domination of the head of the family over the
\nother members, in this state of things, is absolute; while the effect on
\nOn the Probable Futurity of the Labouring Classes 197
\nhis own mind tends towards concentration of all interests in the family, considered as an expansion of self, and absorption of all passions
\nin that of exclusive possession, of all cares in those of preservation
\nand acquisition. As a step out of the merely animal state into the
\nhuman, out of reckless abandonment to brute instincts into prudential foresight and self-government, this moral condition may be seen
\nwithout displeasure. But if public spirit, generous sentiments, or true
\njustice and equality are desired, association, not isolation, of interests,
\nis the school in which these excellences are nurtured. The aim of
\nimprovement should be not solely to place human beings in a condition in which they will be able to do without one another, but to
\nenable them to work with or for one another in relations not involving dependence. Hitherto there has been no alternative for those
\nwho lived by their labour, but that of labouring either each for himself alone, or for a master. But the civilizing and improving influences of association, and the efficiency and economy of production
\non a large scale, may be obtained without dividing the producers into
\ntwo parties with hostile interests and feelings, the many who do the
\nwork being mere servants under the command of the one who supplies the funds, and having no interest of their own in the enterprise
\nexcept to earn their wages with as little labour as possible. The speculations and discussions of the last fifty years, and the events of the
\nlast thirty, are abundantly conclusive on this point. . . . [T]he relation
\nof masters and work-people will be gradually superseded by partnership, in one of two forms: in some cases, association of the labourers
\nwith the capitalist; in others, and perhaps finally in all, association of
\nlabourers among themselves.
\n5. The first of these forms of association has long been practiced,
\nnot indeed as a rule, but as an exception. In several departments of
\nindustry, there are already cases in which everyone who contributes
\nto the work, either by labour or by pecuniary resources, has a partner\u2019s interest in it, proportional to the value of his contribution. It is
\nalready a common practice to remunerate those in whom peculiar
\ntrust is reposed, by means of a percentage on the profits; and cases
\nexist in which the principle is, with excellent success, carried down
\nto the class of mere manual labourers. . . .
\nMr. Babbage,2 who also gives an account of this system, observes
\nthat the payment to the crews of whaling ships is governed by a sim198 Book IV, Chapter VII
\n2 [Mill cites Babbage\u2019s Economy of Machinery and Manufactures, 3rd ed., chapter 26.]
\nilar principle; and that \u201cthe profits arising from fishing with nets on
\nthe south coast of England are thus divided: one-half the produce
\nbelongs to the owner of the boat and net; the other half is divided in
\nequal portions between the persons using it, who are also bound to
\nHelp in repairing the net when required.\u201d Mr. Babbage has the great
\nmerit of having pointed out the practicability, and the advantage, of
\nextending the principle to manufacturing industry generally. . . .
\n6. The form of association, however, which if mankind continues
\nto improve, must be expected in the end to predominate, is not that
\nwhich can exist between a capitalist as chief and work-people without a voice in the management, but the association of the labourers
\nthemselves on terms of equality, collectively owning the capital with
\nwhich they carry on their operations, and working under managers
\nelected and removable by themselves. So long as this idea remained
\nin a state of theory, in the writings of Owen or of Louis Blanc, it may
\nhave appeared, to the common modes of judgment, incapable of
\nbeing realized, and not likely to be tried, unless by seizing on the
\nexisting capital and confiscating it for the benefit of the labourers;
\nwhich is even now imagined by many persons, and pretended by
\nmore, both in England and on the Continent, to be the meaning and
\npurpose of Socialism. But there is a capacity of exertion and selfdenial in the masses of mankind, which is never known but on the
\nrare occasions on which it is appealed to in the name of some great
\nidea or elevated sentiment. Such an appeal was made by the French
\nRevolution of 1848. For the first time, it then seemed to the intelligent and generous of the working classes of a great nation, that they
\nhad obtained a government who sincerely desired the freedom and
\ndignity of the many, and who did not look upon it as their natural and
\nlegitimate state to be instruments of production, worked for the benefit of the possessors of capital. Under this encouragement, the ideas
\nsown by Socialist writers of an emancipation of labour to be effected
\nby means of association, throve and fructified; and many working
\npeople came to the resolution, not only that they would work for one
\nanother, instead of working for a master tradesman or manufacturer,
\nbut that they would also free themselves, at whatever cost of labour
\nor privation, from the necessity of paying, out of the produce of their
\nindustry, a heavy tribute for the use of capital; that they would extinguish this tax, not by robbing the capitalists of what they or their
\npredecessors had acquired by labour and preserved by economy, but
\nby honestly acquiring capital for themselves. If only a few operatives
\nhad attempted this arduous task, or if, while many attempted it, a few
\nonly had succeeded, their success might have been deemed to furOn the Probable Futurity of the Labouring Classes 199
\nnish no argument for their system as a permanent mode of industrial organization. But, excluding all the instances of failure, there exist,
\nor existed a short time ago, upwards of a hundred successful, and
\nmany eminently prosperous, associations of operatives in Paris alone,
\nbesides a considerable number in the departments. . . .
\nThe capital of most of the associations was originally confined to
\nthe few tools belonging to the founders, and the small sums which
\ncould be collected from their savings, or which were lent to them by
\nother workpeople as poor as themselves. In some cases, however,
\nloans of capital were made to them by the republican government;
\nbut the associations which obtained these advances, or at least which
\nobtained them before they had already achieved success, are, it
\nappears, in general by no means the most prosperous. The most striking instances of prosperity are in the case of those who have had nothing to rely on but their own slender means and the small loans of fellow workmen, and who lived on bread and water while they devoted
\nthe whole surplus of their gains to the formation of a capital. . . .
\nThe same admirable qualities by which the associations were carried through their early struggles, maintained them in their increasing prosperity. Their rules of discipline, instead of being more lax, are
\nstricter than those of ordinary workshops; but being rules selfimposed, for the manifest good of the community, and not for the
\nconvenience of an employer regarded as having an opposite interest,
\nthey are far more scrupulously obeyed, and the voluntary obedience
\ncarries with it a sense of personal worth and dignity. With wonderful
\nrapidity, the associated workpeople have learnt to correct those of the
\nideas they set out with which are in opposition to the teaching of reason and experience. Almost all the associations, at first, excluded
\npiece-work, and gave equal wages whether the work done was more
\nor less. Almost all have abandoned this system, and after allowing to
\neveryone a fixed minimum, sufficient for subsistence, they apportion
\nall further remuneration according to the work done: most of them
\neven dividing the profits at the end of the year, in the same proportion as the earnings.
\nIt is the declared principle of most of these associations that they
\ndo not exist for the mere private benefit of the individual members,
\nbut for the promotion of the co-operative cause. With every extension, therefore, of their business, they take in additional members, not
\n(when they remain faithful to their original plan) to receive wages
\nfrom them as hired labourers, but to enter at once into the full benefits of the association, without being required to bring anything in
\nexcept their labour: the only condition imposed is that of receiving,
\n200 Book IV, Chapter VII
\nduring a few years, a smaller share in the annual division of profits, as
\nsome equivalent for the sacrifices of the founders. When members
\nquit the association, which they are always at liberty to do, they carry
\nnone of the capital with them: it remains an indivisible property, of
\nwhich the members, for the time being, have the use, but not the
\narbitrary disposal; by the stipulations of most of the contracts, even if
\nthe association breaks up, the capital cannot be divided, but must be
\ndevoted entire to some work of beneficence or of public utility. A
\nfixed, and generally a considerable, proportion of the annual profits is
\nnot shared among the members, but added to the capital of the association, or devoted to the repayment of advances previously made to
\nit; another portion is set aside to provide for the sick and disabled, and
\nanother to form a fund for extending the practice of association, or
\naiding other associations in their need. The managers are paid, like
\nother members, for the time which is occupied in management, usually at the rate of the highest paid labour; but the rule is adhered to,
\nthat the exercise of power shall never be an occasion of profit. . . .
\nThe vitality of these associations must indeed be great, to have
\nenabled about twenty of them to survive not only the anti-socialist
\nreaction, which for the time discredited all attempts to enable
\nworkpeople to be their own employers\u2014not only the tracasseries of
\nthe police, and the hostile policy of the government since the usurpation\u2014but in addition to these obstacles, all the difficulties arising
\nfrom the trying condition of financial and commercial affairs from
\n1854 to 1858. Of the prosperity attained by some of them even while
\npassing through this difficult period, I have given examples which
\nmust be conclusive to all minds as to the brilliant future reserved for
\nthe principle of co-operation. . . .
\nIt is hardly possible to take any but a hopeful view of the
\nprospects of mankind when, in two leading countries of the world,
\nthe obscure depths of society contain simple working men whose
\nintegrity, good sense, self-command, and honourable confidence in
\none another, have enabled them to carry these noble experiments to
\nthe triumphant issue which the facts recorded in the preceding
\npages attest.3
\nFrom the progressive advance of the co-operative movement, a
\ngreat increase may be looked for even in the aggregate productiveness of industry. . . .
\nOn the Probable Futurity of the Labouring Classes 201
\n3 [Ed.\u2014I have omitted the many specific examples described by Mill.]
\n[C]o-operation tends . . . to increase the productiveness of labour
\n. . . by placing the labourers, as a mass, in a relation to their work
\nwhich would make it their principle and their interest\u2014at present it
\nis neither\u2014to do the utmost, instead of the least possible, in
\nexchange for their remuneration. It is scarcely possible to rate too
\nhighly this material benefit, which yet is as nothing compared with
\nthe moral revolution in society that would accompany it: the healing
\nof the standing feud between capital and labour; the transformation
\nof human life, from a conflict of classes struggling for opposite interests, to a friendly rivalry in the pursuit of a good common to all; the
\nelevation of the dignity of labour; a new sense of security and independence in the labouring class; and the conversion of each human
\nbeing\u2019s daily occupation into a school of the social sympathies and
\nthe practical intelligence.
\nSuch is the noble idea which the promoters of Co-operation
\nshould have before them. But to attain, in any degree, these objects,
\nit is indispensable that all, and not some only, of those who do the
\nwork should be identified in interest with the prosperity of the undertaking. . . .
\nUnder the most favourable supposition, it will be desirable, and
\nperhaps for a considerable length of time, that individual capitalists,
\nassociating their work-people in the profits, should coexist with even
\nthose co-operative societies which are faithful to the co-operative
\nprinciple. Unity of authority makes many things possible, which
\ncould not or would not be undertaken subject to the chance of divided councils or changes in the management. A private capitalist,
\nexempt from the control of a body, if he is a person of capacity, is considerably more likely than almost any association to run judicious
\nrisks, and originate costly improvements. Co-operative societies may
\nbe depended on for adopting improvements after they have been tested by success, but individuals are more likely to commence things
\npreviously untried. Even in ordinary business, the competition of
\ncapable persons who, in the event of failure, are to have all the loss,
\nand in the case of success, the greater part of the gain, will be very
\nuseful in keeping the managers of co-operative societies up to the
\ndue pitch of activity and vigilance.
\nWhen, however, co-operative societies shall have sufficiently multiplied, it is not probable that any but the least valuable work-people
\nwill any longer consent to work all their lives for wages merely; both
\nprivate capitalists and associations will gradually find it necessary to
\nmake the entire body of labourers participants in profits. Eventually,
\nand in perhaps a less remote future than may be supposed, we may,
\n202 Book IV, Chapter VII
\nthrough the co-operative principle, see our way to a change in society, which would combine the freedom and independence of the individual with the moral, intellectual, and economical advantages of
\naggregate production; and which, without violence or spoliation, or
\neven any sudden disturbance of existing habits and expectations,
\nwould realize, at least in the industrial department, the best aspirations of the democratic spirit, by putting an end to the division of
\nsociety into the industrious and the idle, and effacing all social distinctions but those fairly earned by personal services and exertions.
\nAssociations like those which we have described, by the very process
\nof their success, are a course of education in those moral and active
\nqualities by which alone success can be either deserved or attained.
\nAs associations multiplied, they would tend more and more to absorb
\nall work-people, except those who have too little understanding, or
\ntoo little virtue, to be capable of learning to act on any other system
\nthan that of narrow selfishness. As this change proceeded, owners of
\ncapital would gradually find it to their advantage, instead of maintaining the struggle of the old system with work-people of only the
\nworst description, to lend their capital to the associations; to do this
\nat a diminishing rate of interest, and at last, perhaps, even to
\nexchange their capital for terminable annuities. In this or some such
\nmode, the existing accumulations of capital might honestly, and by a
\nkind of spontaneous process, become in the end the joint property of
\nall who participate in their productive employment: a transformation
\nwhich, thus effected, (and assuming, of course, that both sexes participate equally in the rights and in the government of the association)
\nwould be the nearest approach to social justice, and the most beneficial ordering of industrial affairs for the universal good, which it is
\npossible at present to foresee.
\n7. I agree, then, with the Socialist writers in their conception of
\nthe form which industrial operations tend to assume in the advance
\nof improvement; and I entirely share their opinion that the time is
\nripe for commencing this transformation, and that it should, by all
\njust and effectual means, be aided and encouraged. But while I agree
\nand sympathize with Socialists in this practical portion of their aims,
\nI utterly dissent from the most conspicuous and vehement part of
\ntheir teaching, their declamations against competition. . . . They forget that wherever competition is not, monopoly is; and that monopoly, in all its forms, is the taxation of the industrious for the support
\nof indolence, if not of plunder. They forget, too, that with the exception of competition among labourers, all other competition is for the
\nbenefit of the labourers, by cheapening the articles they consume;
\nOn the Probable Futurity of the Labouring Classes 203
\nthat competition even in the labour market is a source not of low but
\nof high wages, wherever the competition for labour exceeds the competition of labour, as in America, in the colonies, and in the skilled
\ntrades; and never could be a cause of low wages, save by the overstocking of the labour market through the too great numbers of the
\nlabourers\u2019 families; while, if the supply of labourers is excessive, not
\neven Socialism can prevent their remuneration from being low.
\nBesides, if association were universal, there would be no competition
\nbetween labourer and labourer; and that between association and
\nassociation would be for the benefit of the consumers\u2014that is, of the
\nassociations; of the industrious classes generally.
\nI do not pretend that there are no inconveniences in competition,
\nor that the moral objections urged against it by Socialist writers, as a
\nsource of jealousy and hostility among those engaged in the same
\noccupation, are altogether groundless. But if competition has its
\nevils, it prevents greater evils. . . . It is the common error of Socialists
\nto overlook the natural indolence of mankind; their tendency to be
\npassive, to be the slaves of habit, to persist indefinitely in a course
\nonce chosen. Let them once attain any state of existence which they
\nconsider tolerable, and the danger to be apprehended is that they will
\nthenceforth stagnate; will not exert themselves to improve, and by letting their faculties rust, will lose even the energy required to preserve
\nthem from deterioration. Competition may not be the best conceivable stimulus, but it is at present a necessary one, and no one can
\nforesee the time when it will not be indispensable to progress. . . .
\n204 Book IV, Chapter VII<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
They have increased the comforts of the middle classes. But they have not yet begun to effect those great changes in human destiny, which it\u2026<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[7316,7318,7317,7315,7319,7321],"tags":[642,618,8825,576,116,631,19,643,473,633,630,628,450,597,594,626,635,574,622,624,620,621,619,623,617,625,627,634,629,632,644,645,42,66],"class_list":["post-113135","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-best-dissertation-writers-uk","category-british-dissertation-writers","category-dissertation-help-online","category-dissertation-writing-services-uk","category-help-with-dissertation-writing","category-uk-dissertation-help","tag-apps-that-write-essays-for-you-free","tag-assignment-writing-services-in-usa","tag-bes","tag-best-dissertation-writing-services","tag-best-essay-writing-service","tag-best-paper-writing-services","tag-best-research-paper-writing-services-in-usa","tag-best-website-to-write-my-essay","tag-cheap-essay-writing-service","tag-cheap-research-paper-writing-service","tag-college-paper-writing-service","tag-dissertation-help-online","tag-dissertation-writing-services","tag-dissertation-writing-services-illegal","tag-dissertation-writing-services-near-me","tag-dissertation-writing-services-usa","tag-essay-writing-service","tag-free-dissertation-writing-services","tag-homework-essay-writer","tag-homework-essay-writer-free","tag-homework-help-global","tag-homework-help-services","tag-homework-help-usa","tag-homework-writing-help","tag-homework-writing-service","tag-legit-research-paper-writing-services","tag-legitimate-dissertation-writing-services","tag-research-paper-writer-online-free","tag-research-paper-writing-services-online","tag-research-paper-writing-websites","tag-write-my-essay-for-me-cheap","tag-write-my-essay-for-me-tik-tok","tag-write-my-essay-free","tag-write-my-paper"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/113135","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=113135"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/113135\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=113135"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=113135"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=113135"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}