CHAPTER XXIV.CHARLIE WOODBERRY ASKS QUESTIONS.
We were seated on the veranda of my house on Salem Avenue. It was a summer evening after tea in 1912. My wife sat by my side and her brother, Charlie Woodberry, a young man about twenty-two, sat with us. My little daughter and a number of children about her own age played upon the lawn in front of the house.
The day had been an exceedingly hot one—such a day as the farmers say is excellent for corn—but the evening was cool and delightful, as all the evenings are in Idaho.
We were engaged in watching the children as they played and listening to their merry laughter. As the evening wore on and the dusk deepened into darkness, when the little girl, tired of play, came and sat in her little chair on the veranda, our conversation took a more serious turn.
Charlie was a visitor from Fall River, Massachusetts, and in that city was employed in the office of a large factory in the capacity of bookkeeper. I think his salary was at that time about eighty dollars per month. He was spending his three weeks’ vacation with us.
“Mr. Braden,” said he, “I learned to-day that your book ‘Co-operative Economy’ is probably responsible for your being Governor of Idaho and President of the Association. I have never read it, but my two days’ visit in Co-opolis makes me anxious to read it.”
“Yes,” I replied. “Probably the book did have more to do with my selection than anything else. I certainly hope you will read it, because I have endeavored in that book to explain the whole co-operative system as industrially applied in this state, and, while you will hardly read it for pleasure, you will understand our system better if you study it.”
The term of President Henderson of Co-opolis had expired the year before and I had been selected to succeed him both as President of the Association and Governor of Idaho. I had also completed the latter part of 1910 my work referred to by Charlie Woodberry. Whatever may be said of the book, it was a success from the outset.
It was adopted as a text-book in all the co-operative schools in Idaho, Washington, Oregon, Utah, California, Colorado, Nebraska and the two Dakotas, and in many other states and territories, and was read extensively by the more intelligent of the general public. Most economic works were, up to the time “Co-operative Economy” made its appearance, devoted to analysis and explanation of the competitive system. My work discussed Co-operation as it was and as it ought to be. In our schools such a work was needed, as co-operation was the chief study pursued in conjunction with all useful branches. I suppose it must be admitted that this work gives me more satisfaction at this time than anything I have ever done, because, although the Publishing department was successful under my administration, it was not due to my sole efforts. “Co-operative Economy” was my own thought and was produced outside of the work which the Association assigned me.
“Mr. Braden,” said Charlie, “I would be glad to ask you a few questions about co-operation and the Co-opolitan Association if you would kindly answer them. I have a general idea of the system, but its features are not clear to my mind. If I could get in a nutshell a few truths—or what you claim to be truths—I believe I could read your books with much more interest.”
“Ask me any question you please, Charlie. If I cannot answer them your sister there will,” I replied.
“Charlie and I have already had some correspondence and talks on the subject,” said Caroline. “He does not think the system attractive.”
“I will not say it is not attractive,” returned Charlie, shaking his head. “I simply say it is not attractive as I understand it. Now, take, for instance, the feature whichmakes the Association own everything. That is very distasteful to me. Nobody can ever own his own home, even.”
“Well, Charlie,” said I, “that is the way you have been educated. If you had been taught to believe that personal ownership of property was a burden, and had a tendency to diminish your personal security, you would view the case in a different light. Think a minute. Take a Mongolian when an infant, transfer him to London, rear him as a Christian and an Englishman and he will despise the system and religion of China. But take an English baby and let him be reared in Pekin as a Chinaman and he will doubtless hold London and Christianity in abhorrence.
“We talk of the peculiarities of the Chinese mind, and doubtless there are many which have been formed by the education and environments of centuries of time; but the Chinese education is more responsible for the Chinese mind than nature is.
“You have been taught that it is desirable to have property stand in your name. In the competitive system to own property makes you the object of attack. It is dangerous. You are always fearful that somebody will rob you. If you own none, in the competitive system, you are despised, no matter what your personal merits may be.
“Yet you can only use what you own and you can do no more with what you borrow.
“Why should you wish to own it, then, if you only get the use of it in any event? In the co-operative system it has been found convenient to have individuals own certain things. They own their own furniture, their clothes, wall pictures and small ornaments. In short, they own whatever in the house is severable from it, including tools which they employ for private use and what they can lightly carry about their person.
“They do not own house or grounds. They simply have the use of them. But they are entitled to the use of house, grounds and all the conveniences connected with them as long as they wish. Their children after them are entitled to that use. In the competitive system you cannot get more.Co-operation also assumes the cares of the Co-operators as far as material things are concerned. You do not have to worry about the ownership of that which has no other than use value. In competition you have to own your property, care for it personally, protect it and pay taxes. This diverts your mind from thought and fills it with worry, and in addition to that people overlook your merit and inquire, not what you are, but what you have, and woe betide you, whatever your merit, if you have nothing.”
“But does not common ownership and the inability of the occupant to own his home render him careless and wasteful? Does he take such an interest in his home as he would if he could call it his?”
“The ownership of the home in the competitive system does not make the owner so careful to avoid waste as our system makes the tenant. As I have said, the occupant, be he owner or tenant, can enjoy only the use of his house during his life.
“In the competitive system how many owners waste their houses? Some are drunkards and mortgage them and waste their value in drink. Some are gamblers, and lose the value at the gaming table. Some insure them and burn them to get the insurance money. Some go into business, mortgage the home for money or credit, fail and lose the property. Thousands of houses stand idle and go to waste in every competitive state, while thousands of homeless people walk the streets in every large city or tramp the country roads. In our system the state cares for every home and make a home for every man. The man knows his home is permanent. It cannot be taken from him without his consent.”
“But he cannot convey it to his children,” said Charlie.
“No. He cannot compel his children to take it whether they will or not. But if the children desire it, when the occupant dies or departs, they may have it on the same terms if they are members of the Industrial Army that their parents did. Let me say, however, that when the children marry they generally present a design of a house which suitsthem better than the old homestead and the Association builds them a house to suit them. Is not that better?”
“So much for the home,” remarked Charlie. “I am almost satisfied with your explanation. It at least gives me the cue so that I can study the subject fully. Now, I have long felt that you were asking a man to be a slave and give up his personal liberty by entering the Industrial Army. Why is not that true?”
“Charlie, are you a slave to-day?” I asked.
“No, indeed!” exclaimed Charlie, almost indignant.
“Is a government official a slave?”
“Of course not.”
“How about a soldier in the regular army?”
“Why, he is certainly not a slave.”
“How about a clerk in the postoffice department, for instance? Is he not in the same position as a member of the Industrial Army?”
“No. It is a similar service, but he serves his government and country.”
“What is your business, Charlie?”
“Accountant for the Waumkeag Cotton Manufacturing Company.”
“What are your wages?”
“Eighty dollars per month.”
“How many hours a day do you work?”
“Ten hours.”
“Is it slavery to work ten hours a day for a private corporation, for eighty dollars per month, and not own any interest in the corporation? Remember that the Co-opolitan Association pays one hundred dollars per month and requires only seven hours’ work per day at the most. Then every minute’s work in the competitive system is for private persons, while in the co-operative system it is for the public good.”
“Well. But suppose I should want to leave the service of the Association after I had worked for it ten years or less. Could I withdraw my part of the accumulated wealth and take it away?”
“You could withdraw your wages and no more. You could go where you please with the wages.”
“But the accumulated capital. Would it not be unjust not to let me have my part of that?”
“Charlie! I forgive you, of course, but you are brilliantly stupid. How long have you been at work for the corporation which now employs you?”
“Three years.”
“If you should work for that corporation fifty years would you get any more than your wages if you should withdraw?”
“No.”
“Who would get the benefit of your work?”
“Why, the stockholders.”
“Yes, or perhaps the bondholders! You could invest your wages in stock in that corporation if you chose. You cannot invest them in the Association. But after investing in the cotton company you are liable to be frozen out by the big holders. Now, frankly, do you not see that you may work forty years for your company and then in old age have not enough to sustain life from day to day? This could not occur in our system. We exact now twenty-five years’ work of each member and then he is free. After he has given us twenty-five years’ work he becomes entitled to his dividend for the rest of his life just the same as if he worked.”
“That sounds well, Mr. Braden. But have you any such retired members yet?”
“You must not call them retired members. We believe that those who earn freedom by twenty-five years’ work will be among our most useful members. They will still be interested in our work. They will still participate in our elections. They will take a personal interest in maintaining and guarding the Association whence they draw their income. Our Association is now only fifteen years old. In ten years more three hundred of us will be entitled to release from systematic labor. It is possible that the Association will give us earlier release, as our co-operative wealthis so great at present, and is increasing so rapidly, that we are considering the propriety of diminishing the number of hours of labor per day to six and the number of years to twenty. We have many persons who have earned long furloughs. In every such instance the member during his or her furlough is a useful member. If he travels he brings home to us the best of information. If he seeks pleasure he studies that very important pursuit and we learn from him how to make life enjoyable.”
“You certainly are able to make pertinent and seemingly complete answers, Mr. Braden. I shall ask my questions now, not to puzzle but to elicit information. Suppose a member becomes sick. Does that stop his income or dividend?”
“If a member becomes sick he is turned over to the Health department. As long as he is in the charge of the Health department his income continues.”
“Who pays for his treatment by physicians?”
“He pays for it himself out of his income from the Association.”
“Suppose he should wish to change his climate in order to recover? How shall he make a change?”
“If the Health department reports such a remedy for any sick member of the Industrial Army leave of absence is granted and he is permitted to go to such climate as is recommended.”
“Suppose a man dies leaving a wife and family after five years’ employment. What does the Association do for the family?”
“The funeral expenses are paid and the family receives the deceased member’s income until the youngest child becomes of age, provided the child remains in the Educational department. If the widow is healthy and able to work she is received into the Industrial Army.”
“When a man enters the Army does he become entitled to the full income of a member in good standing at once?”
“He does not. The first year he or she receives only one-third of the income of a member. The second year andall years after he receives as much as anyone. Members are on probation the first year. The three years members are entitled to promotion to higher grades and the members during the first three years are required to do the drudgery of the Association. We have made exceptions to this rule when we have offered inducements to skilled laborers, but otherwise all who enlist, especially from the Department of Education, must pass through the three years course.”
“One more question, Mr. Braden, and I will ask no more until I have read some chapters of ‘Co-operative Economy.’ Do not your members regard a new volunteer as an intruder? Do they not consider that he is suddenly admitted to share what they have produced without making an equal contribution? You have, say, three million dollars’ worth of wealth in Idaho. Why should one who never assisted in producing it be admitted to participate in its benefits without paying a large membership fee?”
“He does pay a fee of one hundred dollars and he gives the first year’s labor for one-third the income of one member for that time. If he has not one hundred dollars we do not always exclude him. We simply take it out of his income. But you must remember that the Association is a great corporation, in which the shares are not transferable and one member can only own one share. The Association keeps all the machinery and sources of production in its exclusive control. Every person who enters to-day agrees to furnish twenty-five years’ labor. No person can receive the benefit of such a membership unless he so agrees. The Association, therefore, has as many twenty-five-year contracts as there are members of the Industrial Army. Let us suppose that one member has worked for twenty-four years when a new member is admitted. The latter is now to work twenty-five years and the former one. The latter is to give twenty-five years’ work to the former, who one year later must depend upon the labor of the latter to support him. Tell me which of these men is getting the advantage, the man whose twenty-five years of labor in the past has provided the machinery and improved the sourceof production or the man whose twenty-five years of the future will operate the machine and render the source of production fruitful. Is it not a fair bargain after all? If a man forty-six retires from labor and a man twenty-one takes his place and supports him will the former object?”
This closed the economic discussion. My wife did not take part except as a listener, but she was deeply interested. Our little girl had fallen asleep in her arms and she now softly arose and carried her into the sleeping apartment. Charlie and I still continued on the veranda a little longer enjoying the pure and cool atmosphere, and pursued our conversation on lighter subjects.