Contents: — The errors of the present movement. Illustra- 
tions: Padiham, Bradford, &c. A better spirit: Bingley, 
Bury—The true plan of co-operation—A _ contrast 
between the two. 

The priest, if you inveigh against his priestcraft, says you are an 
enemy of christianity itself. So does the co-operator, if you inveigh 
against that kind of so-called co-operation, which, in reality, is 
profitmongering, say you are an enemy of co-operation itself. But 
the reverse is the case. As the true christian tries to rescue christianity 
from priestcraft, so does the real friendof co-operation endeavour to 
rescue that from the pernicious tendencies into which it is being 
launched. 

In No. 2 of this publication it has been shown how the present 
erroneous system of co-operation leads, in reality, to competition, 
and through that to monopoly. I will not recapitulate the arguments 
here, to weary by repetition those readers who have already seen that 
article—but most earnestly do I invite for it the attention of others. 

On the present occasion, I will dwell on the actual working of some 
of the co-operative efforts, on what they are, and then, on what, as it 
appears to me, they ought to be. 

The plan on which co-operative attempts are now conducted, is to 
buy cheap in the wholesale market—and to sell dearer. 

The sale takes place, in some few instances, only to the 
shareholders themselves—in most, however, to the general public. 

Where the sale takes place to the shareholders, the profit goes 
partly to pay the working expenses, and the remainder of the profit 
is divided among the shareholders at the end of the year. What is the 

real meaning of this?—it means that the shareholders buy in the 
wholesale market, that they then are charged so much more for the 
retailing than they ought to be, and that, having lost the use of the 
money for an entire year, they receive back that out of which they 

have been robbed, at the end of twelve months. Can there be greater 
folly than this? People deliberately charge themselves too much, and 
pay themselves back at the end of the year, having lost the use of 
their money during all the intermediate time! The excuse for this is, 
that they must charge more than the wholesale price, to cover the 
working expenses, and that they cannot know beforehand what the 
working charges will be. In the first place, this might be known 
within a very narrow margin of allowance,—but the fact is this, that 
they want none, or scarcely any of these working charges. If twenty 
people club together to form a co-operative store, and then get the 
articles they want retailed to them at second hand by their own 
agents, they might just as well send one of their number to the 
wholesale market, buy at first-hand, and divide the goods in the 
proportionate shares required, among themselves, without any 
working charges, or any other expenses, except the one journey (if 
such were required) and the one transit of the goods. For instance, if 
twenty families agree together to buy their groceries wholesale, in 
the mass,—each says how much he wants,—he lays by so much per 
week, and keeps it at home, or pays it into the hands of any one who 
may be appointed to act as banker for the rest (instead of, as now, 
subscribing it to a store), and at given periods one or more of this 
little domestic league goes into the wholesale market, buys the 
groceries, divided there or afterwards into such portions as each of | 
the members has given an order for,—the individual members 
receive their several shares as ordered—and there the transaction is 
complete. This is done every day by rich families of the middle-class. 
Two or three club together to get their coals or potatoes, &c., 
wholesale; one of them buys the lot,—they get them at the wholesale 
price—save all the retailing charges, and then divide the articles 
among themselves. 

This could be done by twenty or thirty, as well as by two or three. 
Here you have all the advantages of a co-operative store, without any 
of its expenses and difficulties. You require no payment of rent, 
taxes and rates; no feeing of officers; no fittings and counters; no 
advertising and placarding; no payments to lawyers; no registering, en- 
rolling, or certifying; no profitmongering whatever, under the plea 
of covering working charges;—the whole thing is merely a domestic 
arrangement of a few families among each other—and there you 
have all that is required: you keep your money in your own pockets; 
you do not clash with the law if unenrolled, or become slaves to it if 
enrolled—every member has the usual legal security against the 
other,—for the purposes of buying wholesale and selling to the 
shareholders, a co-operative store is utterly unnecessary—it is 

plundering yourselves—it is doing at second-hand that which you 
can do with a large saving of money at first-hand! Can anything be 
more comical, than men saying we'll buy at first-hand, but we won't 
take our goods home, we’ll let them stop half way, we’ll charge 
ourselves too much, we’ll pay for an expensive machinery in order 
that we may be overcharged, and then, at the end of the year, we’ll 
pay ourselves back a portion of what is left after payment of the 
working charges, that is, of the charges that are necessary for the 
process of enabling us to cheat ourselves! 

Such is the real working of co-operative stores that profess to sell 
to the shareholders alone. But of such there are but few—for most 
profess to sell to the general public. The former are imperatively 
harmless, for a man may cheat himself, if he is fool enough to do so, 
without inflicting much injury on others. 

But, if a man has a right to cheat himself, he has no right to cheat 
another. And this is done in the other modes of so-called 
co-operation, as existent at the present day. 

The next order of co-operation is that in which the goods are sold 
not only to the shareholders, but to the public at large. In the former 
kind, we have seen that it is an absurd waste of time, trouble, and 
money, for an object that could be much better achieved without any 
co-operative store at all. But in the case now before us, the whole 
system of profitmongering, leading to competition and monopoly, is 
attempted over again, under the soothing name of co-operation 
itself. 

Here the profit is taken direct from the purchaser, and no return 
made at all. The “co-operator” buys in the cheapest market, and he sells 
as dear as he can, coolly telling us that he is doing this with a view to 
the destruction of that horrid profitmongering of the shopocracy. 
The poor customer pays him the “profit’—and that he divides at 
the end of the year between himself and his brother co-operators. 
Then they boast, that they have made £2,000 net in one year! What 
did these £2,000 consist of? Of the difference between the wholesale 
price (the price at which they bought) and the retail price (the price 
at which they sold) over and above the working charges. Every farthing 
of this £2,000 is profitmongering of the most odious description, 
because it is done under the name of co-operation; every farthing of 
this £2,000 is as much direct plunder taken from the public. 

Now, since during the last few months an exposure has been made 
of this new system of profitmongering, all the so-called “co-operators” 
have disclaimed violently against the charge, and have tried to slip 
unscathed through the imputation, by tacking some supposed 
“saving-clause” to their rules. For instance, the London tailors 

gravely tell us that they see the full force and justice of the resolution 
passed by the National Convention, for nationalising the tendency of 
co-operation, and therefore they intend to set five per cent of their 
net profits aside for a national fund. Five per cent! Then they are to 
pocket ninety-five per cent of clear profit! Every fraction of that 95 per 
cent 1s a deliberate robbery upon their customers! For, no man has a 
right to take more from society than the value of what he gives to it. 
All beyond that is robbery. The London tailors, therefore, have a 
right to a fair remuneration for their labour, and no more. A fair 
remuneration for labour is, supposing that the labourer gives his full 
strength to society, as much as will enable that labourer to live in comfort. 

Therefore, every farthing of those net profits after the working 
charges are paid (a portion of the working charges being a fair 
remuneration for the work performed), is an imposition and a cheat 
upon society. 

Some societies, however, try to evade the charge of profitmonger- 
ing by a more roundabout, but equally transparent, trick. I will 
illustrate this by the Bradford Co-operative Store. This store professes 
to divide only half the profits among its members. Let us analyse 
the scheme. 

Rule 1 says: The object of the Association is “to furnish its 
members with provision and clothing at prime cost.” 

Rule 6 says: “All goods shall be sold at reasonable market prices, for 
ready money only, and the whole surplus profits, after deducting 
working expenses, and five per cent interest on shares, shall be 
divided half-yearly among the members according to the amount of 
purchases made by each; but no member to receive interest on part 
shares.” 

Now, in the first place, if the goods are to be sold at “prime cost,” 
there could be no “surplus profits.” But the “members” only get 
them at “prime cost,” the “surplus profits” are to come from the 
public. 

Pretty well this! In the first place, the members get their goods at 
prime cost. They are not even to bear their proportion of the work- 
ing charges—the poor, good-natured “public” are to pay for this. 

In the second place, the members are to receive “five per cent 
interest on their shares.” Pretty well again! 

Rule 3 provides that members may have as many shares as they like 
(though only one vote). A snug investment that! Five per cent! 
Elsewhere they could get only 3'/s. Here they are to get five! Firstly, 
they get what they want at prime cost; secondly, they get five per cent 
on their investment. The poor, good-natured public are expected to 
pay for this too! 

In the third place, “the surplus profit shall be divided half-yearly 
among the members, according to the amount of purchases made by 
each.” Pretty well once more! So these lucky members are to get their 
goods at prime cost, to get five per cent. for their money, and besides 
all this, to get “surplus profits,’ and divide them every half-year 
among themselves. And the poor, good-natured public are expected 
to pay for all this as well! 

Pretty well in the profitmongering line. This is worse than the 
shopkeepers. You catch us with a threefold gripe—and tell us all the 
while you are our benefactors. 

In Rochdale and Padiham, “Co-operation” has assumed a form 
more injurious still to the best interests of humanity and progression. 
At the latter place, a “co-operative” factory has been built, by shares 
of £25 each payable in 5s. calls. This is a workingman’s factory with a 
vengeance! —and here, as in almost all the co-operative attempts in 
England, all the profits are to be divided among the share- 
holders—the amount of profit to be extorted from the public, being 
left to the consciences of the profitmongers themselves. 

Workingmen! Democrats! Can you for a moment tolerate or 
sanction such a system? 

The least objectionable stores I know of, are those at Bingley and 
Bury. 

So much of the true metal rings at these places, that they have not 
been as deeply tainted with the rust of profitmongering, as Padiham, 
Rochdale, Bradford, London, and most other places. 

At Bingley they have raised, in two pound shares, a grocer’s and 
draper’s shop. In this, Rule 1 says—“One-half of the clear profits to 
be divided annually among its members, the other half to be given to 
the society, and never to be divided, but to go to extend its operations 
to other branches of business.” 

There is some recognition of principle in this, but, in reality, there 
is only a distinction without a difference. Though the members 
receive only half the profits direct, yet, as the other half goes to 
extend the business of the association, it, in reality, goes to extend 
their profits, or by enlarging the concern, it enlarges the “half” 
which they are to divide among themselves. 

At Bury, if I understood them rightly, they adopt the rule, that any 
one of the general public, who chooses to deal at their store, and 
subscribe one penny weekly towards it, shall be entitled to a share of 
the profits proportionate to the amount of his purchase. This is a 
great advance on every attempt at “co-operation” that has hitherto 
been made. 

Let us now glance at what co-operation ought to be. I believe the 

principle of co-operation is but very imperfectly understood in this 
country. People imagine if a few individuals co-operate together to 
start a trading concern and make as much money as they can, that 
this means co-operation in the real sense of emancipated and 
associated labour. 

Nothing of the sort! If that were so, every railway, banking, or 
shipping company would realise the true principles of co-opera- 
tion. 

By co-operation, a very inadequate word, by the way, we mean the 
abolition of profitmongering and wages-slavery, by the development 
of independent and associated labour. But this can be established 
only on the basis of the following principle already laid down in this 
article: 

No man has a right to take more from society, than the value of that which 
he confers upon it. 

Consequently, associated labour has no right to take more from its 
customers, than will pay for the prime cost of production, and enable 
the man to live adequately, who devotes all his time to the production 
or the distribution of wealth. 

To meet this position, associated labour has two alternatives: to 
char ge merely thus much additional between the prime cost and the 
retail price, as will cover the expenses of retailing; or to charge more, 
but devote every fraction of that overcharge to a national purpose, 
such as the purchase of land, machinery, &c., whereon to set the 
present wages-slave at employment in self-remunerating labour. 

Considering the present circumstances by which society 1s 
surrounded, I prefer the latter, as being the best calculated to 
further labour’s emancipation. 

Let us see how this would work. A co-operative association is 
formed; after payment of its working charges (including labour in 
production or distribution), it finds itself at the end of the year with a 
surplus in hand; instead of dividing this surplus among the 
members, it employs it to purchase land or machinery, which it lets 
out to other bodies of workingmen, on the associative principle. The 
rent paid for the land or the machinery, and the surplus of each 
concern beyond the working charges, is again to be applied to the 
further purchase of machinery and land, on the same terms, and under 
the same conditions; and so on, continually extending the power, 
strength, and resources of association. This is co-operation. It is 
co-operation, because it establishes a community of interest—the 
success of each “branch” furthers the success of every other, and of 
the whole collectively. There can be no conflicting interests—no 
rivalry—no competition—for the greater the success of each 

undertaking, the more the stability and permanency of the whole is 
ensured. It makes it the interest of each and of all to see co-operative 
associations spread and multiply. This, I repeat emphatically, this is 
real co-operation. 

But what is the present isolated system? It is based on individual 
and antagonistic interests. It makes the vital interest of the 
“co-operator” to prevent others from co-operating—to hinder the 
spread of the associative principle. And it does it in this way: a 
co-operative trading concern is started on the present isolated plan; 
that is, the concern forming a “close borough,” — admitting no more 
within its pale—making what profits it can, and pocketing them 
among the same few individuals. What now becomes the interest of 
these individuals? To prevent another co-operative concern from 
being started in their immediate neighbourhood—to prevent 
another body of workingmen from deriving the advantages of 
co-operation. Because, if the original concern flourishes, it absorbs 
all the trade of the locality (if one don’t, two or more do, it becomes 
merely a question of numbers—of how many customers there are in 
a place); if another independent concern is started, it must have a 
portion of that custom, or it cannot exist. Consequently it becomes a 
rival of the other association; it begins to compete; there not being 
customers enough for all, the one concern too many must try to draw 
away customers from those already established. To do this, it must 
undersell—it must buy still cheaper, and pay still cheaper for its 
labour, in order that it may undersell; the other concerns must do 
the same in self-defence; and there you have the old system of 
competition, with its necessary consequences, wages-slavery, plunder, 
ruin on the one hand, and monopoly on the other, added to that 
profitmongering on which the present plan, as already shown, is 
altogether based! 

Therefore, the present plan is not true co-operation; it is 
essentially hostile to the spread of associated labour; instead of 
ending profitmongering, it renews it; instead of abolishing competi- 
tion, it recreates it; instead of abrogating monopoly, it re-establishes 
it, and is the death-blow to the hopes of labour’s emancipation. 

Now, my friends, let me implore of you to weigh these remarks, 
and those previously given in this work, without prejudice or anger. 
I write with a sincere conviction of the truth, and of the paramount 
duty of combating a pernicious fallacy. I am not the enemy of 
co-operation, but its friend—its true friend—I do not oppose 
co-operation, but wish to rescue it from that course, in which it is 
digging its own grave. I trust those who have supported 
operation” on its present plan, will not be offended by these 

observations. They are made in all friendliness of spirit and sincerity 
of heart. I believe the advocates of the present system to be generally 
true, honest, and well-meaning—but may I escape the charge of 
presumption if I also state my belief that they are quite blind as to the 
nature and the consequences of what they are advocating with such 
zeal? Believe me! you are digging the grave of co-operation, while 
you think you are fashioning its cradle. Compare your plan with that 
which I have here proposed—and judge dispassionately. 

I know self-interest would dictate that I should write in favour of 
the present movement, and not against it. I know this very article 
may injure the circulation of these “Notes”. But sooner write not at 
all, than be such a slave as not to dare write truth. Then, sink or swim, the 
truth shall be written. I launch this little article on the troubled tides 
of controversy, and commend it to the good sense and honest feeling 
of my readers.