nioersittj of a 
 (California 
 
"/ am one of the Unemployed. I want work. I am 
 willing to work. I am able to work. I cannot get work. 
 I want work. I DEMAND work and wages." 
 
 MY RIGHT 
 TO WORK 
 
 FREE TRADE 
 PROTECTION 
 or SOCIALISM? 
 
 By R. B. Suthers 
 
 6 
 
 a. 
 
 net. 
 
 THE CLARION PRESS, 44. Worship Street, B.C. 
 

My Right to Work 
 
 BY 
 
 R. B. SUTHERS 
 
 LONDON : 
 
 THE CLARION PRESS, 44, WORSHIP STREIT, E.G. 
 1907 
 

 Mr. Gerald Balfour, President of the Local Government 
 Board, speaking at a luncheon at Bradford in connection 
 with the opening of a new workhouse hospital, corrected a 
 misconception regarding the Unemployed Workmen's Bill. 
 It was said that the Act was a practical admission of the 
 principle that it was the duty of the state to provide employ- 
 ment for all who were able and willing to work, but who 
 could not find employment elsewhere. He denied that ab- 
 solutely. 
 
 The Act, said Balfour, was never intended to carry 
 with it such a principle, either in the form in which it was 
 introduced or in the form in which it was ultimately passed, 
 and as for the principle itself, he himself repudiated it ab- 
 solutely. He was perfectly convinced that any community 
 which once admitted or adhered to such a principle would 
 be on the road to irretrievable ruin. He himself had never 
 believed or professed that the Act could provide a solution 
 of what was known as the problem of unemployment. 
 Daily Paper. 
 
TO MY 
 EMPLOYERS 
 
 170108 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 PACK 
 
 THE BASIS OF MY CLAIM i 
 
 THE NATION RESPONSIBLE FOR UNEMPLOYMENT . . 6 
 EMPLOYMENT A MATTER OF CHANCE . . . .10 
 
 GOOD TRADE NO REMEDY FOR UNEMPLOYMENT . . 14 
 
 BAD TRADE NO EXCUSE 17 
 
 CHARITY NO USE 21 
 
 RICH AND POOR 26 
 
 TORY EXTRAVAGANCE NOT GUILTY .... 31 
 
 FISCAL FAILURES 36 
 
 How GOOD TRADE CAUSES UNEMPLOYMENT . . 42 
 OTHER CAUSES OF UNEMPLOYMENT . . . .51 
 
 THE QUACK REMEDIES FREE TRADE AND PROTECTION 57 
 
 WHY MR. CHAMBERLAIN'S PLAN is NO REMEDY . 66 
 
 WHY FREE TRADE is NO REMEDY .... 76 
 
 THE ONLY REMEDY 85 
 
 FIRST AID FOR THE INJURED TARIFF REFORM? . 93 
 
 HIGHER WAGES 102 
 
 STEPS TO SOCIALISM 109 
 
 To BE OR NOT TO BE? 115 
 
BY THE SAME AUTHOR. 
 
 MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS : 
 
 The Case for Municipal Management. 
 
 Cloth, 28. 6d. net ; Paper, 6d. net. 
 
 " It is a masterly treatise." The Daily News. 
 
 " ' Mind Your Own Business ' strikes us as almost the 
 best piece of special pleading on the subject. Its only rival 
 is Mr. Bernard Shaw's ' Common Sense of Municipal Trad- 
 ing.' Mr. Suthers, as a literary man, possesses a style and 
 humour not unworthy of mention beside Mr. Shaw's own, 
 and, like Mr. Shaw, he devotes them wholeheartedly to the 
 ideal of the municipalises." 
 
 " Every branch of the subject is here touched upon in a 
 bright and convincing way." Reynolds' News. 
 
 t( Warranted either to convert the anti-municipaliser on 
 the spot or to send him into an apoplectic fit." Manchester 
 City News. 
 
 " Any broad-minded business men who want to know 
 the state of mind of the municipal Socialist will find it pre- 
 sented in this book." Magazine of Commerce. 
 
 " For the working student this is a most useful hand- 
 book, and for the inquirer an introduction to the subject. 
 Lecturers and journalists will find it an armoury of telling 
 facts and statistics." Progress. 
 
 The Citizen and The Council The Principle of Muni- 
 cipal Trading The Failure of Private Enterprise The 
 Success of Municipal Trading Hidden Profits The Depre- 
 ciation Dodge The Municipal Debt Bogey The Awful 
 Burden of High Rates The Risks of Municipal Trading 
 The Limits of Municipal Trading Our Brother the Small 
 Private Trader The Private Trader's Dilemma Municipal 
 Trading and High Wages The Tyranny of Municipal Em- 
 ployees The Purity of Private Enterprise Municipal 
 Socialism and Commercial Morality Trifling Foolish Ob- 
 jections Municipal Socialism and Character A Practical 
 Programme. 
 
 A MAN, A WOMAN, AND A DOG. 
 
 Price 6d. net. 
 
 " ' A Man, A Woman, and A Dog ' is one of the most 
 amusing books that we have ever read. Mr. Robert B. 
 Suthers sees the absurd side of things very keenly. His 
 onslaught on the follies of vegetarianism will make even 
 vegetarians laugh. The humours of matrimony have never 
 been better illustrated than they have in this exceedingly 
 clever book." Westminster Review. 
 
 JACK'S WIFE. 
 
 A companion volume to " A Man, a Woman, and a Dog." 
 Cloth, as. 6d. net, by post, 2s. gd. 
 
HE ' 
 
 { UNIVERSITY ) 
 
 THE BASIS OF MY CLAIM 
 
 I AM one of the unemployed. 
 I want work. I am willing to work. I am 
 able to work. I cannot find work. 
 
 I want work. I demand work and wages. 
 
 Yes, I demand work. I do not beg for work. I 
 demand work. I claim it as my right. 
 
 Do not, I pray you, turn away until you have 
 heard my case. You think it impudent of me, a 
 penniless out-of-work, to demand work. You think, 
 perhaps, it would be more becoming of one in my 
 position to beg, respectfully beg, for work. But I 
 do not beg. I say again, I demand work, as my 
 right. Hear my case, and judge if I make out my 
 claim or no. 
 
 In the first place I demand work because I am a 
 live human being, willing and able to work. 
 
 Here I am, five foot ten of bone, and muscle, and 
 sinew, and flesh and blood. I did not ask to come. 
 I was brought into the world without being con- 
 sulted. Just as you, my fellow countrymen, were 
 brought into the world. / have as much right here 
 as you have. 
 
 Here I am. And planted within me, as in you, 
 is the strongest of all instincts the instinct of self- 
 preservation. I have that instinct, and, with it, the 
 power to satisfy it. 
 
 I have as much right to satisfy that instinct as 
 any other human being. Can anyone deny it ? 
 
 Having that instinct, how shall I satisfy it? 
 There is only one way. All human sustenance 
 comes from our Mother Earth. To the earth, then, 
 I must go for my living. 
 
 B 
 
2 MY RIGHT TO WORK 
 
 But I cannot go to the earth. Barring my path 
 on every side there is this warning : " Trespassers 
 will be prosecuted." 
 
 If I go to the land, if I dig up even a root to 
 appease my hunger, I am sent to prison. The land 
 is not mine, I am told. It belongs to somebody. 
 
 I am sent to prison. I am robbed, not only of my 
 right to work, but of my freedom, too. 
 
 Is this right? 
 
 Who thus steals my freedom and my natural 
 right to satisfy the instinct of self-preservation 
 implanted within me ? 
 
 The British nation it is who does me these wrongs. 
 My fellow countrymen. 
 
 You, my fellow countrymen, are a nation. You 
 have a Government, and you have laws. You, my 
 fellow countrymen, appoint this Government. You 
 choose the men who shall make the laws, and you 
 agree to obey the laws. 
 
 It is you, then, who rob me of my right to work 
 and of my freedom if I exercise my natural instinct 
 of self-preservation by taking sustenance from 
 Mother Nature. 
 
 It is you who made the law which allows our 
 native land to be owned by a small number of your- 
 selves. It is you who give this small number the 
 power to decide who shall or shall not use the land. 
 
 You are the guilty people. You rob me of life and 
 freedom. On what grounds? 
 
 I do not deny that you have the power so to rob 
 me. If you answer that 42,999,999 people are 
 stronger than one man, and by reason of their 
 superior strength have the right to rob the one of the 
 power to exercise his natural instincts, to exclude 
 him from the land, and to imprison him, then I have 
 no more to say. If might is right, if the right to 
 work and live is to be decided by force, then I am 
 done. 
 
 But you will not, you do not, admit that force is 
 to decide the question. If you did what then? 
 
 If I take sustenance from the land, if I help 
 myself to a root growing therein, you tell me I am 
 
THE BASIS OF MY CLAIM 3 
 
 a thief. It is no matter that I take the root unseen 
 by any person. If I announced to the world that 
 I dug up roots from another man's land, you would 
 not admit that I was entitled to the spoil under the 
 laws of might. 
 
 No. You would denounce me as a thief. You 
 would appeal to the moral law. You would imprison 
 me all the same. You would deny the law of might. 
 
 Very well. I also appeal to the moral law. 
 
 I claim the right to work as a natural right arising 
 out of the fact of my being, and I claim the right to 
 work under the moral law, the law arising out of 
 human brotherhood. 
 
 You, my countrymen, and your ancestors, have 
 established the British nation. Every person born 
 in these islands is a member of that nation. I, being 
 native born, am a member of that nation. 
 
 A nation, I understand, is a number of people who 
 agree to live together under a code of laws. It is 
 believed that by such an arrangement life will be 
 easier and better for all. Order and co-operation 
 (more or less) are substituted for anarchy and com- 
 petition. 
 
 Now, if such an arrangement does result in 
 making life easier and better for all, no objection 
 can be made to it. Order is better than anarchy. 
 
 Is life easier for all ? 
 
 In this country, to-day, I assert that, far from life 
 being easier and better for all, life is for myself, and 
 for hundreds of thousands like me, harder and less 
 human. 
 
 In this country, to-day, life for me, and for hun- 
 dreds of thousands like me, is harder to maintain 
 than it would be if we had our natural right of free 
 access to our Mother Earth. 
 
 Society, nationality, civilisation, are for us a 
 failure. 
 
 Without land we cannot live. You, my country- 
 men, have shut us out of the land. Under the laws 
 made by you, we have no right to the land. You 
 have robbed us of the right to life. 
 
 I deny your right to rob us of the right to life. 
 
4 MY RIGHT TO WORK 
 
 I have as much right to life as you have. The same 
 right no more, and no less. 
 
 Unless you admit that the question of my living 
 is to be decided by the law of might, you have done 
 me and many more grievous wrongs. You have 
 broken the moral law. 
 
 You deny the law of might. You profess to 
 be governed by the moral law. You profess to 
 believe that the moral law is divine. 
 
 Whether the moral law be divine, or whether it 
 arise from the fact of human brotherhood, in 
 depriving us of the right to work, and live by our 
 work, you have broken it. 
 
 What does the moral law say? Love your 
 neighbour as yourself. Do unto others as you 
 would be done by. Justice and Love are the 
 moral laws. 
 
 Is it just to deprive a man of life ? 
 
 Is it just to rob a man of his freedom to exercise 
 his instinct of self-preservation? Is it neighbourly 
 to allow your brother to starve ? 
 
 The laws of the British nation, my countrymen, 
 are supposed to be an advance on the no-laws of the 
 savage in a wilderness. But the savage in the 
 middle of Africa can exercise his natural instinct of 
 sel f -preservation. 
 
 I cannot exercise mine. You deprive me of the 
 right. The savage is better off than I am. He is 
 free to live. I am only free to starve. 
 
 Is there not something wrong ? 
 
 A Cabinet Minister has told you that for a State 
 to admit the right to work would mean ruin. 
 
 I am ruined now. Thousands like me are ruined 
 every year. Our wives and children are ruined. 
 Because we have not the right to work. 
 
 Your moral law imposes on you the duty of 
 feeding the hungry. The law of the country enacts 
 that the destitute must be fed. The poor and the 
 unemployed are fed now, in a way. By charity and 
 the Poor Law. 
 
 You admit, half-heartedly, that we have a right 
 to live. 
 
THE BASIS OF MY CLAIM 5 
 
 I demand, then, the right to work for that living. 
 I claim it as a right under the moral law. 
 
 I do not want charity. I Assert that it is immoral 
 for an able man to accent charity. Charity in such 
 a case degrades both the giver and the taker. 
 
 Charity docs not cancel your debt to me under 
 the moral law. Charity does not provide me with 
 the full life that I could obtain oy exerting my 
 powers. Even if I accept your charity, I am still 
 being robbed of my just rights. I am not free. 
 
 I do not want your poor relief, with its degrading 
 conditions. Poor relief does not cancel your debt 
 to me under the moral law. Accepting such relief 
 and such conditions, I am dishonouring my man- 
 hood. I am not free. I am a beggar. 
 
 I will not be a beggar. I wiU not accept your 
 charity. I demand work. 
 
 You, my countrymen, have robbed me of the right 
 to exercise my natural instinct of self-preservation. 
 Your laws have robbed me of the right to work. 
 I ask you, in the name of justice, to restore that 
 right. 
 
 I claim the right to work. Does anyone deny the 
 justice of my demand ? 
 
THE NATION RESPONSIBLE FOR 
 UNEMPLOYMENT 
 
 I AM one of the unemployed. I want work. I am 
 willing to work. I am able to work. I cannot 
 find work. Why cannot I find work ? 
 
 It is too late in the day to tell me that I could 
 find work if I wanted it. I want work. I am willing 
 to work. Even Mr. Balfour, the late Prime Minister, 
 admits that there are thousands in like case. 
 
 Why cannot I find work ? 
 
 The land is closed against me. You, my country- 
 men, have made laws which allow a few individuals 
 to " own " the land. 
 
 I suppose that you and your ancestors thought it 
 a good thing for the nation as a whole that a few 
 people should so own the land. 
 
 All our wealth comes from the land. If, then, you 
 consider it a good thing that a few people should 
 own the land, I presume you think so because work, 
 and a living, can be obtained without each member 
 of the nation owning a piece of land. 
 
 Shut out from the land, what means have I, a poor 
 man, of getting work ? 
 
 I must find an Employer of Labour. 
 
 Every poor man in this country is compelled, if 
 he wishes to live, to find some person to employ him. 
 
 Now if, as I claim, I have a right to work, it 
 follows, that having no land, I have a right to an 
 Employer. 
 
 If, as I claim, the nation has no right to rob me of 
 my right to work, it is the nation's duty to see that 
 there is an Employer for me. 
 
THE NATION RESPONSIBLE FOR UNEMPLOYMENT ? 
 
 I admit the right of the nation to give its land into 
 the control of a few men, or even one man. 
 
 But if in so doing the nation takes away my 
 natural means of life, and gives me no substitute^ 
 then I say the nation has broken the moral law. It 
 is not just, it is not brotherly, to me. 
 
 Has the nation provided a substitute? Is there 
 an Employer for every man willing to work ? 
 
 You know the answer to that question. There are 
 always thousands of men and women out of work. 
 Always. In bad times and in good times. 
 
 You smile at the idea of the unemployed going to 
 the Employers of Labour and demanding work and 
 wages as a right. 
 
 Why is it such a comic idea ? 
 
 I think the idea strikes you as humorous because, 
 my countrymen, you have forgotten your duty 
 towards your neighbour. 
 
 You, and your ancestors, have made the laws. You 
 have allowed a few persons to own the land. Having 
 no right to apply my energy on the land, what sub- 
 stitute have you provided for me ? You tell me to 
 work for an Employer of Labour; and when I ask 
 Employers of Labour for work, I find that you have 
 allowed them to decide for themselves whether or 
 not they shall employ a man. 
 
 Thus my right to work is taken from me. If an 
 Employer of Labour does not want my labour, 
 I must starve. Is that justice, or brotherliness ? 
 You have taken something from me, and you have 
 given me nothing in exchange. You, the nation, have 
 done this thing. 
 
 How is it no employer wants my labour ? I admit 
 the right of the nation to allow individuals to own 
 the capital of the nation and to employ labour 
 that is, to organise labour for the production of 
 wealth. 
 
 When you, my countrymen, and your ancestors 
 permitted these conditions to grow up, I presume you 
 did so because you thought such conditions would 
 be good for the nation as a whole. 
 
 I am a part of the nation. If these conditions 
 
8 MY RIGHT TO WORK 
 
 are not good for me and for thousands more, if 
 these conditions rob me of the right to work and 
 live by my work, then I say the nation is breaking 
 the moral law so long as it allows these conditions 
 to continue. 
 
 The unemployed problem has been with us for 
 generations. Is it not time the nation attempted to 
 solve the problem ? 
 
 It is useless to tell me that I may be out of work 
 for a time only. That may be true. But the un- 
 employed, more or less, are always with us. 
 
 My problem may be solved by a spell of good 
 trade. The nation's problem is permanent. Good 
 trade never solved the national problem of the un- 
 employed. Good trade never will solve it. Good 
 trade cannot solve it. 
 
 Again, what right have you, my countrymen, to 
 condemn me to unemployment and starvation, even 
 for a time ? Is it right that a few should suffer all 
 the misery caused by this bad system of yours ? 
 
 You know that temporary unemployment often 
 ruins a man for life. The poor have to live from 
 hand to mouth. If there is no work, there are no 
 wages. If there are no wages debt. Debt hangs 
 like a millstone round the neck of the " temporarily " 
 unemployed. 
 
 And what of the men and women who are thrown 
 out of work time after time ? Their case is still more 
 bitter. They are robbed of the right to live, but 
 they are not killed as mercifully as you kill your 
 cattle. Let Mr. Balfour speak for them. 
 
 " And then what happens ? The workman first 
 
 foes from a better lodging to a less good lodging, 
 rom a less good lodging to a bad lodging ; then he 
 gradually sells one piece of furniture, one article of 
 clothing one small luxury after another; and 
 finally, if the process be carried sufficiently far, he 
 is reduced to the condition of a pauper, dependent 
 upon poor relief for keeping body and soul together, 
 and with family life shattered and broken up." 
 
 That is how you, my countrymen, treat the unfor- 
 tunate man who cannot " find " work. You rob him 
 
THE NATION RESPONSIBLE FOR UNEMPLOYMENT g 
 
 of the right to work, and then you slowly torture 
 him to death. 
 
 Is it right ? Is it necessary ? 
 
 I maintain that it is not right. I do not think 
 that you, my countrymen, think it is right. 
 
 Moreover, I deny that such conditions are neces- 
 sary. Not only do I claim the right to work : 
 I assert that it is possible for the nation to provide 
 work for every willing person. 
 
 If you admit my claim to the right to work (and 
 I do not see how you can deny it), you will agree 
 that the right ought to be restored to me, and you 
 will ask how it is to be restored. 
 
 I might answer that it is not my business to find a 
 way, but yours. If you are doing a wrong to thou- 
 sands of people, surely it is your duty to study how 
 to right it. Let justice be clone though the heavens 
 fall. 
 
 There are those who say the evil must continue. 
 That unemployment is a law of Nature. That 
 charity is the only palliative. 
 
 I deny all these assertions. I say that if the 
 nation is anxious to find a remedy for the unem- 
 ployed problem the nation will find a way. I say 
 it is the nation's duty to try to find a remedy, and 
 if no better methods are suggested, I submit that the 
 nation ought to try the remedies which I propose 
 to describe. 
 
EMPLOYMENT A MATTER OF CHANCE 
 
 I AM one of the unemployed. I want work. I am 
 willing to work. I cannot find work. 
 
 Why cannot I find work ? How is it no 
 Employer of Labour wants my services? 
 
 Someone said to me : "If no one will employ you, 
 that is a proof there is no demand for your labour. 
 The supply is greater than the demand." 
 
 I said : " Yes. What then ? " 
 
 The answer was : " Well, if there is more labour 
 than employers want, some must go without work. 
 Everyone has had the same chance? 
 
 I did not kill that poor, thoughtless fool. You 
 will notice he did not say : " You cannot get work 
 because you are lazy, or drunken." He knows that 
 I, and thousands more, are steady and sober, able 
 and willing to work. 
 
 He said there is no " demand " for my labour. 
 
 But I say there is a demand for my labour. My 
 stomach demands my labour. My wife and children 
 demand my labour. There is, indeed, a very urgent 
 demand for my labour. 
 
 But no Employer demands my labour? True. 
 Why is that ? 
 
 Because no Employer can make a profit out of 
 me. If an Employer of Labour, say a Boot Manu- 
 facturer, took me into his factory, and set me to 
 making boots, he would have no sale for the boots 
 I made. Why ? 
 
 Because there are already enough boots being 
 made to supply the demand. It is the same in other 
 trades. 
 
 Yet I want boots, my wife and children want 
 boots, and thousands more like me want boots. 
 
EMPLOYMENT A MATTER OF CHANCE 1 1 
 
 There is a tremendous demand for boots. There 
 is a tremendous demand for food, and coal, and 
 clothes, and furniture. I, and thousands like me, 
 want these things. 
 
 Why cannot we get them? Because we have no 
 money. We have no money because we have no 
 work. We cannot get work because there is no 
 " demand " for pur labour. 
 
 It seems a ridiculous sort of puzzle, does it not ? 
 
 Here is an island, Great Britain. 
 
 
 Great Britain. 
 
 
 # 
 
 L 
 
 E 10 W 
 
 i U 
 
 On that island there are : One Landlord, who 
 owns all the land ; one Employer, who owns all the 
 capital ; and ten Workers. There is also one man 
 Unemployed. 
 
 The Landlord is rich, the Employer is rich, the 
 Workers are more or less poor. The Unemployed is 
 starving. There is no demand for his labour. 
 
 There are thousands of acres of land untilled ; but 
 the Landlord will not allow the Unemployed even 
 to walk on his land. 
 
 The rich Employer will not employ the Unem- 
 ployed. " I cannot," he says. " There is no demand 
 for your labour. If I employ you in one of my 
 workshops, or factories, I snail not be able to sell 
 the goods you make. The market is glutted already. 
 If I employ you it simply means that someone else 
 will be thrown out of work to find you a place. I am 
 very sorry, but it's not my fault. Everyone has had 
 the same chance? 
 
 Everyone has had the same chance ? Is that true ? 
 Does everyone have the same chance of getting a 
 living ? 
 
 You know they have not. Has the son of the 
 working man the same chance as the son of the 
 
12 MY RIGHT TO WORK 
 
 Prime Minister? Has the working man's son the 
 same chance as the son of the wealthy merchant ? 
 Has the seamstress' daughter the same chance as 
 the daughter of the duchess ? 
 
 But suppose everyone had the same chance of 
 getting work. Even then the number of unlucky 
 ones would be no less than it is now. 
 
 When people say everyone has had the same 
 chance, they mean that there are only so many 
 places. They mean there is only so much work, and 
 if you don't get work, it is nobody's f ault. t There 
 is not enough work to go round. 
 
 They dorit ask why there is not enough work to 
 go round. 
 
 I am able and willing to work. I have as much 
 right here as you have. You, my countrymen, have 
 made the laws which shut me out from the land. 
 You have made the laws under which work and the 
 production of wealth are carried on. 
 
 I deny your right to leave it to chance whether or 
 not I shall live. 
 
 If the system under which the wealth of the 
 country is produced is a system of chance, I say it is 
 your duty to alter it. 
 
 You have no right to force me to gamble for my 
 life. 
 
 In so doing you have broken the moral law. You 
 have robbed me of the natural right which the 
 savage in Central Africa has, the right to exert my 
 energies on the land, and you have forced me into 
 an unequal and unfair struggle for existence. 
 
 Yes. Not only have you forced me into this 
 desperate race for life, you have not even given me 
 an equal chance with my richer countrymen. You 
 have put the poor man behind scratch. You have 
 loaded him with weights. You have scattered 
 obstacles in his path. You have thrown dust in his 
 eyes. You have bribed the judges. 
 
 Everyone the same chance ? No. It is not true. 
 If it were true, the system would still be rotten. It 
 would not be a system for civilised beings, but for 
 brute beasts. 
 
EMPLOYMENT A MATTER OF CHANCE 13 
 
 Cannot the system be altered? 
 
 I say yes. It can be altered. A savage in Central 
 Africa to-day is more certain of -getting a living 
 than thousands of Britons. Is this a reasonable 
 state of things ? 
 
 Consider the wealth and the power of this great 
 nation. We are the richest nation on earth. Our 
 wealth and our capacity for increasing that wealth 
 advance by leaps and bounds. The labours and 
 inventions of our forefathers have furnished us with 
 a machinery hundreds of times more effective than 
 the bare hands of the savage. He can get a living. 
 I, and thousands like me, heirs to this great inheri- 
 tance equally with you, must starve in the midst of 
 plenty. 
 
 Is such a state of things rational ? Is it just ? Is 
 it sane ? 
 
 I do not think so. I think it disgraceful that with 
 all our wealth, all our power, all our intellect, we do 
 not organise the simple business of getting a living. 
 
 We can do it. If you admit my claim (and I do 
 not see how you can aeny it), if you admit the justice 
 of restoring to me the right to work, you will make 
 an effort to alter the present system. 
 
 In a civilised nation like ours, getting a living 
 should not be a matter of chance. No willing man 
 should lack work. A living should be as certain for 
 him as the succession of night and day. 
 
GOOD TRADE NO REMEDY FOR 
 UNEMPLOYMENT 
 
 I AM one of the unemployed. I want work. I am 
 willing to work. I cannot find work. No 
 Employer of Labour wants my services. 
 
 Someone said to me : " Trade is bad. You'll have 
 a chance when trade revives." 
 
 I might. I might not. 
 
 When trade is at its best, there are always a large 
 number of unemployed. 
 
 But what right have you, my countrymen, to make 
 my living depend on your good trade ? 
 
 Food and clothes and houses and boots are 
 obtained from the land. The land is always there, 
 is it not ? Always. 
 
 Food and clothes and houses and boots are, then 
 always getable. 
 
 I, and thousands like me, cannot get them. You 
 have shut us out from the land to which we have a 
 natural right. 
 
 " Trade " is not a substitute. I cannot eat trade. 
 I cannot clothe myself with trade. Trade does not 
 build me a house. Trade does not make boots for 
 me, or provide me with warmth. 
 
 People talk as if work were something over which 
 man has no control, like rain and sunshine. Trade 
 is good, trade is bad, they say. Bad times are 
 coming. Good times are coming. 
 
 What makes them come? Do they come by 
 chance ? 
 
 People say, "trade's revived." They don't say 
 who or what revived it. Can trade revive itself? 
 Can trade depress itself? 
 
GOOD TRADE NO REMEDY FOR UNEMPLOYMENT 1 5 
 
 Surely such talk is ignorant. Trade is good or 
 trade is bad for certain reasons. Good times and 
 bad times do not come by chance. 
 
 But whether trade be good or bad there are always 
 a large number of unemployed. Good trade never 
 solved the unemployed problem. Good trade never 
 will. Good trade cannot 
 
 People talk as if they believed that some day 
 trade will be so good that there will be work for 
 every willing person. 
 
 Is that possible? If it were true that more trade 
 would solve the unemployed problem, that problem 
 ought to be solved to-day. 
 
 Twenty years ago trade was bad. There were 
 hundreds of thousands of unemployed. 
 
 The people of this country earned then 1,300 mil- 
 lions a year. 
 
 To-day they earn 1,710 millions. Trade is so 
 much greater. 
 
 Is the problem of poverty abolished ? Have the 
 unemployed disappeared ? 
 
 No. There are 12 millions on the verge of starva- 
 tion, and there are half a million unemployed. 
 
 What do these facts show ? Do they not prove 
 that good trade is no remedy ? 
 
 Here is an island, Great Britain. 
 
 
 
 ..... 
 
 L 
 
 E 
 
 10 W i U 
 
 On that island there are : One Landlord, who 
 owns all the land; one Employer, who owns all the 
 capital; and ten Workers. There is also one man 
 Unemployed. 
 
 The income of the Landlord and the Employer 
 and the ten Workers, that is, the value of the wealth 
 produced in one year, is 13,000. The one Unem- 
 ployed has no share of this. 
 
1 6 MY RIGHT TO WORK 
 
 The Landlord will not allow the Unemployed 
 even to walk on his land. The Employer will not 
 employ him. There is no demand for his labour. 
 
 The Landlord and the Employer are famous 
 politicians and statesmen. They make speeches to 
 the Unemployed. They tell him that what is 
 needed to solve his problem and find him work is 
 more trade, new markets. 
 
 Twenty years later the income of the Landlord, 
 the Employer, and ten Workers has increased to 
 I7,IOO. 
 
 The island has prospered. Wealth has increased. 
 The total income is nearly half as much again as 
 before. The population is only 20 per cent, greater. 
 
 And there is still one Unemployed. 
 
 What have good trade and increased prosperity 
 done for him ? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. 
 
 Good trade never did, good trade never will, good 
 trade CANNOT solve the unemployed problem. 
 
 You, my countrymen, have shut me out of the land 
 from which all wealth comes. You have provided 
 me no other way of getting a living. All I have is 
 a " chance," if trade improves. And it is a certainty 
 that trade never does improve enough to employ all 
 willing workers What have you to say to this ? 
 
 Is it a reasonable state of things? Is it a moral 
 state of things ? 
 
 Just think. This is the wealthiest nation on earth. 
 We profess to be the most civilised. And in this 
 great country, a poor man's living depends on 
 " chance " when trade is " good." When trade is 
 " bad," starvation for thousands is a certainty. 
 
 If you admit my claim to the right to work (and 
 I do not see how you can deny it), I think you will 
 agree with me that it is time this system, or want of 
 system, were altered. 
 
X 
 
 A 
 
 UNIVERSITY 
 
 Of 
 
 '! 
 
 BAD TRADE NO EXCUSE 
 
 I AM one of the unemployed. I want work. I am 
 willing to work. I cannot find work. No 
 Employer of Labour wants my services. They 
 tell me trade is bad. 
 
 Trade is bad. Yes. And when trade is bad the 
 number of men and women like me is enormous. 
 
 In the worst times there are seven times as many 
 unemployed as in the best times. 
 
 Up and down we go, now more, now less. But 
 always there are a large number of unemployed. 
 
 In April, 1899, there were 10,000 out of 500,000 of 
 the skilled trade unionists unemployed. In Decem- 
 ber, 1904, there were 43,000 unemployed out of 
 573,000. (See Board of Trade Returns.) 
 
 In that month there must have been more than 
 half a million unemployed in the whole country. 
 Bad trade. What is bad trade? To tell me trade 
 is bad is no answer to my demand for work 
 
 You, my countrymen, have taken from me my 
 natural right to earn my living out of the land. Do 
 you think it just or honest to fob me off with " bad 
 trade " when I ask for the means of getting a living ? 
 
 We are the wealthiest nation in the world. The 
 politicians and the newspapers are always telling 
 me so. 
 
 They tell me that sixty years ago the annual 
 income per head of our population was 28. 
 
 They tell me that to-day the annual income per 
 head is about 45. 
 
 More than half as much again is earned per head, 
 men, women, and children all included. 
 
 Is not that an astonishing fact ? Yet you tell me 
 that I am unemployed because " trade is bad ! " 
 
 c 
 
1 8 MY RIGHT TO WORK 
 
 I think, my countrymen, this is a matter you ought 
 to inquire into. 
 
 I claim the right to live. I have as much right 
 here as you have. How is it I am deprived of my 
 share in the growing wealth of the nation ? 
 
 How is it I have no wealth at all? How is it 
 I have no means of producing any ? 
 
 When I inquire into the question, " Who gets the 
 wealth produced ? " I do not find that every man, 
 woman, and child receives 45 per annum. 
 
 I find that some get much more than 45, and that 
 millions get less than ^45 per family. 
 
 I find that 38,000,000 of our people are poor, that 
 only 3,750,000 are well off, and that 1,250,000 are 
 enormously rich. 
 
 The income of the whole people grows and grows. 
 The nation is rich. But most of the people are poor. 
 
 Trade, then, is good on the whole. But there are 
 always that immense number of poor. There are 
 always the unemployed. 
 
 I submit, then, my countrymen, that bad trade is 
 no answer to my demand for a living. 
 
 // you think it good for the nation that a few men 
 should own all the land, if you think it good for the 
 nation that only Employers of Labour should be 
 allowed to organise the production of wealth, and 
 if these laws and customs of yours deprive me of 
 the means of earning my own living, then I contend 
 that you owe me a share of the wealth produced by 
 others. 
 
 You have taken from me my natural right to earn 
 my living put of the land. Under the moral law 
 you ought in justice to compensate me. 
 
 Can you deny the obligation? 
 
 If your laws and customs deprive me of work, 
 you ought to pay me for not working. That is my 
 claim. 
 
 Do not smile. It is a common thing for a man to 
 be compensated if his property is required by the 
 nation. 
 
 You, the nation, have taken from me my property 
 in my own natural powers. You forbid me to 
 
BAD TRADE NO EXCUSE 1 9 
 
 exercise my energies on the land. You take from me 
 all my means of life for the good of the nation. My 
 claim to compensation is unanswerable. 
 
 You tell me it would be immoral for me to live 
 on the labour of others ? 
 
 Whose fault is that? Not mine. It is yours. 
 The nation's. 
 
 And, my dear countrymen, there are already hun- 
 dreds of thousands of rich people to-day who live 
 on the labour of others, and produce nothing them- 
 selves. Is it moral for them ? 
 
 Who grows their food. Who makes their clothes ? 
 
 Who builds their houses ? Who gets their coal ? 
 Who provides them with books, pictures, furniture, 
 and costly luxuries of all kinds ? Not themselves. 
 
 It is the workers who provide these things. 
 
 It is you, my countrymen, who allow them to use 
 these things. It is under your laws these things are 
 done. You do not seem to think it immoral in their 
 case to live on the labour of others. 
 
 If it be moral and just to compensate a man whose 
 land is required by the nation, if it be moral and 
 just for rich people to live on the labour of others, 
 how much more moral and just that you should com- 
 pensate me, and the thousands like me, whose only 
 property is our brain and muscle. 
 
 Nevertheless, I agree that it would be unwise for 
 you to pay me for doing nothing. Idleness is good 
 for no man. 
 
 If you admit my right to a living (and I do not 
 see how you can deny it), and if you think I ought 
 to do some work for that living, why not allow me 
 to work ? 
 
 The Employers of Labour do not want me. But 
 you, the nation, are supreme. You have the power to 
 provide work. You can become my Employer. 
 
 Here is an island, Great Britain. 
 
 * 
 
 L 
 
 * 
 E 
 
 ***** 
 10 W 
 
 * 
 i U 
 
20 MY RIGHT TO WORK 
 
 On that island there are : One Landlord who 
 owns all the land ; one Employer, who owns all the 
 capital ; ten Workers, who do all the work ; and one 
 Unemployed. 
 
 The Unemployed cannot get work. There is no 
 demand for his labour. The Landlord will not 
 allow him even to walk on his land. 
 
 But the Landlord, the Employer, the ten Workers, 
 and the Unemployed are a nation. 
 
 What is them to stop them as a nation from 
 paying the Unemployed a living wage ? What is 
 there to prevent them from purchasing a piece of 
 land for him to work on ? Nothing. Nothing at all. 
 The nation is supreme. 
 
 They owe the Unemployed a living. If his work 
 on the land does not produce enough to keep him, 
 that is not his fault. It is the nation's fault. The 
 bad trade is due to their bad system. 
 
 Are not the conditions in our country similar ? 
 You, the nation, are rich. You have land and money. 
 You owe us a living. You can afford to pay us. 
 And there are many things that need doing. 
 
 You can, then, grant my right to work, and under 
 the moral law, I submit that it is your duty to do so. 
 
CHARITY NO USE 
 
 I AM one of the unemployed. I want work. I am 
 willing to work. I cannot find work. I have a 
 right to live. I claim to have proved that. You, 
 the nation, owe me a share of the wealth produced 
 under your laws and customs. 
 
 But it is immoral to live without working? 
 Granted. Then give me work. 
 
 " But if we give you work," some one said, " the 
 only result will be to throw another man out of 
 work." 
 
 Would that be so? Let us see. 
 Here is an island. 
 
 
 
 * **** 
 
 
 * 
 
 * 
 
 # * * * * 
 
 * 
 
 L 
 
 E 
 
 10 W 
 
 i U 
 
 On that island there are : One Landlord, who 
 owns all the land ; one Employer, who owns all the 
 capital ; ten Workers, and one Unemployed. 
 
 The Landlord will not allow the Unemployed on 
 his land ; the Employer cannot give him work. 
 There is no demand for his labour. 
 
 But the Landlord and the Employer are rich. 
 Both have more riches than they can spend on them- 
 selves. Both have more money than they can find 
 investments for. Trade is bad. 
 
 The Unemployed asks for work. As he cannot 
 get work, he begs for alms. 
 
 The Landlord is a tender-hearted man. The 
 plight of the Unemployed causes him intense pain. 
 
22 MY RIGHT TO WORK 
 
 He will not stand by and see him starve. He gives 
 the poor fellow a sovereign. 
 
 Does that solve the unemployed problem? 
 
 Before long the voice of the Unemployed is heard 
 again : " I am starving." 
 
 The ten Workers do their best for him out of 
 their little earnings, but they cannot keep the 
 Unemployed for ever. 
 
 The Landlord gives him another sovereign. 
 
 Does that solve the unemployed problem ? 
 
 After a short interval the cry of the Unemployed 
 is raised again : " Give me work. I am starving." 
 
 The Landlord hears him. " Oh, dash it all," he 
 says, " this is becoming chronic. Here you are, 
 but " 
 
 Does that solve the Unemployed problem? 
 
 No. Charity never can solve the unemployed 
 problem. Charity never did. Charity never will. 
 The next time the Unemployed thrust his irritating 
 presence between the wind and his nobility, the 
 Employer stayed the Landlord's reluctant hand and 
 said, " Wait. Do not give the man money. Charity 
 is a mistake. Give me the money, if you like, and 
 I will use it to pay him for work done. I will find 
 the work. Giving money for no work is likely to 
 foster laziness." 
 
 The Landlord agreed. The Employer found work 
 for the Unemployed. 
 
 " Here is a tree that the wind has blown down," he 
 said ; " chop it up into firewood." 
 
 The Unemployed set to work, and when the wood 
 was chopped up he was told to take some to the Em- 
 ployer's house, and some to the Landlord's house, 
 and the rest to the Workers. From the Workers he 
 was to collect the usual price for firewood. 
 
 Now it was part of the work of one of the ten 
 Workers to provide firewood for the community. 
 
 But when he came round as usual with his stock 
 the Landlord and the Employer said, " We don't 
 want any." And the other nine Workers said, " We 
 have bought from the Unemployed. We had to do. 
 We got a hint from the Boss." And the Worker 
 
CHARITY NO USE 23 
 
 said, " This is most unjust. Who is to recompense 
 me for my loss on this firewood ? You are taking 
 the bread out of my mouth." 
 
 And one of the other Workers said, " Charity 
 covers a multitude of sins." 
 
 Did that solve the unemployed problem ? 
 
 No, my countrymen, you cannot solve the unem- 
 ployed problem by taking the bread out of one 
 mouth and putting it into another. 
 
 If you give the unemployed a job in your garden 
 in the winter instead of leaving the work till 
 spring, you rob your regular man of part of his 
 work. 
 
 If you give a shilling to one of the unemployed, 
 and balance it by not going to the theatre, you rob 
 a poor actor of his salary. 
 
 If you " deny " yourself of the pleasure of giving 
 Christmas presents to your friends, and give the 
 money to the unemployed instead, you rob the 
 makers of those Christmas presents, and the sellers 
 of those Christmas presents, of their wages. 
 
 It is not you who " deny " yourself, it is the 
 Christmas present manufacturers and shopkeepers. 
 
 You cannot solve the unemployed -problem by 
 taking a living from one man and giving it to 
 another man. 
 
 It is just the same in the case of public work. 
 
 If the Town Council decide to have the Town 
 Hall painted in December because there are a large 
 number of unemployed, what is the result ? In April, 
 which is the usual month for having the painting 
 done, the painters will have so much less work. 
 Some of them, perhaps, will not get any work. 
 
 If the Town Council decide to do some entirely 
 new work, say the cutting of a road through one of 
 the public parks, what effect will that have? 
 
 How will the money be raised to pay the un- 
 employed ? 
 
 If it is raised from the rates, then all the citizens 
 will pay their share. 
 
 But most of the citizens are poor. 
 
 To make them pay an extra sum in order to find 
 
24 MY RIGHT TO WORK 
 
 wages for the unemployed will mean that they will 
 have to go short of something themselves. 
 
 If they go short of something themselves, they 
 will throw others out of employment. 
 
 If they buy less food, less clothes, less boots, there 
 will not be so much work for the clothiers, the boot- 
 makers, and the grocers and butchers. 
 
 Will that solve the unemployed problem? 
 
 No, my countrymen. These methods are no use. 
 In trying to solve one unemployed problem in this 
 way you create another. 
 
 Here is an island. 
 
 
 
 ***** 
 
 
 * 
 
 * 
 
 ***** 
 
 * 
 
 L 
 
 E 
 
 10 W 
 
 i U 
 
 On that island there are : One Landlord, who 
 owns all the land ; one Employer, who owns all the 
 capital ; ten Workers, and one Unemployed. 
 
 To find work for the Unemployed they decide to 
 let him make a new road. 
 
 " It would only be fair," said the Landlord and 
 the Employer, " to pay his wages out of the rates." 
 
 So they did. 
 
 And when the money was collected, the ten Workers 
 grumbled. " Already," they said, " we were paying 
 as much or more than we could afford. We had no 
 margin for extra expense. Now that we have to pay 
 this new rate, we shall be compelled to go short 
 ourselves. There is something wrong." 
 
 Then one of the Workers had an idea. Said he : 
 " It does not seem right that we who live hard lives, 
 and only just make both ends meet, should be called 
 on to pay any of the wages of the Unemployed. 
 The Landlord, who does no work, takes heavy toll 
 from our produce. The Employer, also, takes much 
 more than he is worth. These two men are rich. 
 They have large sums which they know not how to 
 invest, for trade is bad, and there is no demand for 
 fresh capital or new industries. Now, why should 
 
CHARITY NO USE 25 
 
 these two not pay the whole of the Unemployed's 
 wages out of their superfluity ? All their wants are 
 satisfied. They know not how to spend more. They 
 would not feel a single discomfort if they paid the 
 whole sum." 
 
 The rest of the Workers agreed, but they were 
 afraid of their Landlord and Employer. 
 
 Now, my countrymen, are not the conditions in 
 this country somewhat similar? 
 
 Have we not a majority who cannot afford to be 
 taxed any further in order to keep their unfortunate 
 brethren ? 
 
 Tax them, and they must go short of something 
 to pay the tax. 
 
 If they go short, then the makers of the goods 
 they usually buy will go short of work. 
 
 Yoti cannot help the unemployed by cutting down 
 the customary expenditure of the masses. 
 
 How, then, can money be found to pay wages to 
 the unemployed ? 
 
 If you want to help the unemployed without 
 hurting those now employed, you must spend money 
 which would not otherwise be spent. 
 
 You must go to the " savings " of the rich. 
 
 To take the savings of the poor would be criminal. 
 
 You must take the savings of the rich. You must 
 tap those savings for which the rich can find no 
 investment. They have all the necessaries and more 
 of the luxuries of life than they need. They cannot 
 spend more. 
 
 You, the nation, have the power to tax them, and 
 find a way of spending that money. 
 
 And you have the right. 
 
 Do you say it will be unjust ? I will argue the 
 point with you. 
 
RICH AND POOR 
 
 I AM one of the unemployed. I want work. I am 
 willing to work. I have a right to live. I claim 
 to have proved that. You, the nation, owe me 
 a share of the wealth produced under your laws and 
 customs. 
 
 This nation, my countrymen, is rich enough to pay 
 the unemployed a living wage. 
 
 But the mass of the people are poor. Therefore 
 I say the burden of keeping the unemployed should 
 fall on the too-full pockets of the rich. 
 
 Who says robbery ? 
 
 It would not be robbery, my countrymen, but 
 justice a return of what, under just conditions, 
 would never have been taken from the unemployed. 
 
 If, as I claim, all Britons have a right to live, a 
 right to work, a right to share in the inheritance of 
 wealth and civilisation left by our ancestors; and 
 if, by means of unjust laws and customs, some have 
 a greater share than is their due, while others have 
 a less share than is their due, or none at all : then 
 I assert that it would be right and moral to redress 
 the balance. 
 
 I assert that it would be right for the nation to 
 make laws which would take from those who have 
 more than their fair share of wealth, and give to 
 those who have less than their fair share of wealth, 
 or none at all. 
 
 Is not that the condition of things in this country ? 
 
 Is it not true that the hardest and most disagree- 
 able work is least rewarded, and the pleasantest 
 work most rewarded ? 
 
 Someone sand : " There are plenty of your sort 
 
RICH AND POOR 2? 
 
 to be had. That is why your wages are low. That 
 is why your are unemployed. It is Supply and 
 Demand. If you were clever you'd get more. There's 
 always a demand for brains." 
 
 Neither statement is true. 
 
 The wages of my sort are low, not because we are 
 many, but because you, the nation, have robbed us 
 of our natural right to live on the land. 
 
 There is not always a demand for brains, and 
 people with the best brains do not always get the 
 best pay. 
 
 The wages of my sort are low because of Com- 
 petition. Why is there Competition amongst my 
 sort? 
 
 Because there is not enough work to go round. 
 
 Why is there not enough work to go round ? 
 
 Because you, the nation, have robbed us of our 
 natural right to live on the land. 
 
 If we had the right to go to the land for our 
 living, there would not be competition amongst us 
 for the jobs of the Employer. We should be in- 
 dependent of him. He would have to raise our 
 wages if he wanted us then. 
 
 So our wages are low, not because we have no 
 brains, but because we have no right to live. We 
 are the victims of the nation's laws, which have given 
 the land and the capital into the hands of a few 
 men. 
 
 Tell me, my countrymen, does your moral law say 
 that men must be starved or ill-paid because they are 
 not clever? 
 
 If you employ us to do work where brains 
 " are not required " (and where are they not 
 required ?), does your moral law enjoin you to 
 under-pay us ? 
 
 Does your moral law teach you that it is just to 
 deprive men of work and the right to live a decent 
 life? 
 
 No. Your moral law teaches you none of these 
 things. Your moral law teaches you to be not only 
 just, but generous. It teaches you to love even your 
 enemies. 
 
28 MY RIGHT TO WORK 
 
 Here is an island. 
 
 
 
 ***** 
 
 
 L 
 
 E 
 
 10 W 
 
 i U 
 
 On that island there are : One Landlord, who 
 owns all the land; one Employer, who owns all the 
 capital ; ten Workers, and one Unemployed. 
 
 One of the Workers asks the Employer for a rise 
 of wages. 
 
 " More wages ? Why ? I'm paying you the 
 market price. High profits ? What's that got to do 
 with you ? If you aon't like your job, go. I can 
 get another man to take your place any day." 
 
 Yes. He can get another man any day. There 
 is the Unemployed. 
 
 But suppose the land on that island belonged to 
 the people. Suppose only a portion of it belonged 
 to the people, and that every man had the right to 
 cultivate a certain area for his own use. 
 
 Then the Worker who wanted the rise of wages 
 would get it. Why ? Because, having the right to a 
 piece of land, he would be sure of a living. He need 
 not work for the Employer unless he wanted to do. 
 He could demand fair wages. There would be no 
 Unemployed. 
 
 // is the margin of unemployed labour that causes 
 competition amongst the workers. It is competition 
 amongst the workers that causes low wages. 
 
 It is your laws, my countrymen, which have given 
 the land into the hands of a few men, so causing 
 the unemployed. It is through the competition 
 allowed by your laws that wages are low and that 
 riches have been heaped up in the hands of a few. 
 
 Would the employers and the capitalists be so 
 rich if they had to pay decent wages to all workers ? 
 
 You know they would not. 
 
 Would the landlords wax rich for doing nothing 
 if the land belonged to the whole people ? 
 
 They could not. 
 
RICH AND POOR 2Q 
 
 Consider the present division of the national 
 income earned in this country by all who work. 
 
 The total amount of the incomes of the whole 
 people is 1,710 millions. 
 
 [NOTE. These and the following figures are taken 
 from Mr. L. G. Chiozza-Money's Riches and Poverty. 
 Other experts estimate the national income to be 
 much higher.] 
 
 There are 250,000 persons with incomes of 700 
 and upwards. 
 
 This class, with their families, number 1,250,000. 
 
 They take altogether 585,000,000. 
 
 That is a tremendous slice for so few people, is it not ? 
 
 There are 750,000 persons with incomes of between 
 160 and 700. 
 
 This class, with their families, number 3,750,000. 
 
 They take altogether 245,000,000. 
 
 Three times as many people take less than half 
 as much as the very rich. 
 
 Still, it is a satisfying slice of the national cake, 
 is it not ? 
 
 There are 38,000,000 persons and their families 
 who get less than 160 a year. 
 
 They take altogether 880,000,000. 
 
 THIRTY-EIGHT MILLIONS ARE POOR. Thirty-eight 
 out of forty-three ! 
 
 Is not that an amazing state of things, my 
 countrymen ? Thirty-eight millions poor, in the 
 wealthiest country in the world. In the most 
 civilised country in the world. In the most moral 
 country in the world. 
 
 The Very Rich take 468 per head, the Well-to-do 
 take 65 per head, the poor take 23 per head. 
 
 Do you call that a fair distribution of the fruits 
 of labour ? 
 
 And that is not the worst. Those figures are 
 averages. The poorest and they number 20,000,000 
 do not get more than 10 per head. 
 
 The Poor, who do all the hard, dangerous, dis- 
 agreeable, and absolutely necessary work, get the 
 least; while the Rich and Well-to-do, if they work 
 at all, do the pleasant and agreeable work. 
 
30 MY RIGHT TO WORK 
 
 Do you tell me it would be unjust to take from 
 those few with the enormous incomes, in order to 
 provide wages for the unemployed ? 
 
 You, the nation, are supreme. You have made the 
 laws under which these enormous incomes are taken 
 by the few from the national produce. You have 
 the power and the right to alter your laws so that 
 the distribution of incomes might be more equal. It 
 is your duty to do so. 
 
 In the meantime, there they are. The people with 
 all these riches cannot use them all. They supply 
 all their needs, they have more luxuries than are 
 good for them, and still they have huge balances 
 at the bank which they know not how to spend. 
 Trade is bad. There are no openings for new 
 investments. 
 
 Here, too, are the unemployed. You, the nation, 
 owe them a living. You have taken away their 
 natural right to employ their energies on the land, 
 and have given them nothing in exchange. 
 
 I say it is your duty to restore that right. Give us 
 the right to work. Give us work. You, the nation, 
 can find endless work, work that needs doing badly. 
 
 To take wages for the unemployed from the 
 masses would, as I have shown, only shift the un- 
 employed problem from one class to another. 
 
 If you want to avoid this, you must tap those 
 savings which would not otherwise be spent. You 
 must tax the big incomes. You must find some work 
 for the unemployed which will not throw other men 
 out of work. 
 
 It is the only just and sensible way of dealing 
 with the matter. 
 
 And this action, mv countrymen, would not solve 
 the unemployed problem. If you found work for us 
 all, and paid us all decent wages by taxing the rich 
 incomes, you would not have solved the problem of 
 unemployment. This measure would only be a 
 palliative. To effect a cure you must alter the 
 system. You must organise the production and the 
 distribution of wealth, so that every person able and 
 willing to work may earn a decent living. 
 
TORY EXTRAVAGANCE NOT GUILTY 
 
 I AM one of the unemployed. I want work. I am 
 willing to work. I have a right to live. I claim 
 to have proved that. What are you, the nation, 
 going to do about it ? 
 
 Have your statesmen any remedies for the great 
 problem of unemployment ? Do they recognise the 
 justice of my claim to work and wages ? 
 
 So far as I know, not one of them admits " the 
 right to work." Not one of them has a remedy for 
 unemployment. 
 
 Mr. Balfour asserts that nothing can be done. 
 
 Mr. John Morley says he knows of no remedy. 
 
 Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman says he has no 
 remedy, but he thinks " experiments " might be made 
 in the direction of farm colonies. 
 
 Lord Rosebery has no remedy. 
 
 Mr. Chamberlain has no remedy, but he promises 
 "more employment" if the nation goes in for Pro- 
 tection. 
 
 Practically, the only remedies for unemployment 
 offered by our statesmen are Protection on the one 
 side, and Free Trade on the other. 
 
 The Liberal Free Traders tell us that unemploy- 
 ment is due to the extravagance of the Tory Govern- 
 ment. 
 
 They tell us that unemployment is due to the Boer 
 War. 
 
 The Liberal Free Traders tell us the Tory Govern- 
 ment increased the taxes by forty or fifty millions 
 during their term of office, therefore trade is bad, 
 and there is unemployment. 
 
 They tell us that the country spent 250,000,000 
 
32 MY RIGHT TO WORK 
 
 on the Boer War, therefore trade is bad and there is 
 unemployment 
 
 But the Tory Free Traders don't say these things. 
 
 Let me give you a typical extract from a typical 
 speech by a typical Liberal Free Trader Mr. Lloyd 
 George. 
 
 He said, at Bangor : " Why do you have this 
 depression ? I will tell you. You can't spend 
 250,000,000 on gunpowder and not pay for it. . . . 
 No great industrial concerns are being floated, no 
 additional capital is being required in order to 
 develop concerns already going. Where has the 
 money gone? Gone in lyddite shells, in burning 
 homes in Africa, in blackening the veldt, in 
 slaughtering children. Do you really think that 
 things like this can be done and someone not pay ? 
 That's why unemployment has come." 
 
 That's why unemployment has come. Is it ? 
 
 Now, my countrymen, I don't think anyone can 
 misunderstand this argument of the Liberal Free 
 Traders. They mean to say that the unemployed 
 problem is due (i) to the expenditure on the Boer 
 War; (2) to the additional taxation imposed by the 
 Tory Government during the last ten years. 
 
 Is this argument sound ? 
 
 If the argument is sound, ought we not to find 
 that before the Boer War and before the time of the 
 last Tory Government, there was no unemployment ? 
 
 If war and Tory extravagance are the only causes 
 of unemployment, we ought to find that when there 
 was an economical and peaceful Government in 
 power the unemployed problem did not exist. 
 
 What are the facts ? 
 
 A Liberal Free Trade Government was in office 
 from 1892-1895. 
 
 There was no huge expenditure on war during 
 their term. Consequently there was no call on the 
 capital which would ordinarily go into trade. 
 
 The Government was not an extravagant Govern- 
 ment. At least, they say not. 
 
 When the Liberal Government went out of office 
 in 1895 the taxes were 78,000,000. 
 
TORY EXTRAVAGANCE NOT GUILTY 33 
 
 When the Tory Government went out of office in 
 1905 the taxes were 120,000,000. 
 
 Thus the Tories put on more than 50 per cent in 
 taxes, and they took 250,000,000 out of the national 
 pocket to spend on war. 
 
 " No wonder," say the Liberal Free Traders, 
 " that trade is bad." 
 
 Was trade good under the Liberal Government? 
 Was there no unemployed -problem in 1892-1895 ? 
 
 Let us turn to the Board of Trade statistics of the 
 number of members out of work in the trade unions 
 which make returns. 
 
 The Liberals came into office in 1892. In January 
 of that year the number out of work was 5 per cent. 
 In December the number out of work was 10-2 per cent. 
 
 So that unemployment was twice as bad at the 
 end of the year as at the beginning. 
 
 // Free Trade and Economical Government are 
 the remedies for unemployment ', why was there so 
 much unemployment in 1 892 ? 
 
 Will Mr. Lloyd George and the other Liberal 
 Free Trade statesmen kindly explain ? 
 
 Trade and employment rapidly grew worse after 
 the Liberals came into power in 1892. 
 
 What was the cause ? 
 
 It was not war, it was not Tory extravagance. 
 
 What was the cause ? 
 
 During the whole term of this Liberal, Free Trade, 
 Economical, Peaceful Government, trade was bad, 
 unemployment was terrible. 
 
 // has never been so bad since. 
 
 There has never been 10 per cent, of the trade 
 unionists out of work since 1893. There have been 
 more men out of work, but never the same proportion 
 of the total number of workers. 
 
 .The high-water mark in 1904 was 7-6 per cent. 
 That was under the Tory Government. 
 
 Immediately the Tory Government came into 
 power in 1895 trade rapidly improved, and in 
 December, 1896, the unemployed were only 3 per cent. 
 
 In 1899, the first year of the war, the unemployed 
 were only 2-5 per cent 
 
 D 
 
34 MY RIGHT TO WORK 
 
 In December, 1902, when the war was over, the 
 unemployed were 5-5 per cent, or about the same 
 proportion as when the Liberals took office in 1892. 
 
 Since 1902 the percentage of unemployed has 
 increased, but it has never reached 10 per cent., as 
 it did under the Free Trade, Economical, Peaceful, 
 Liberal Government of 1892-1895. 
 
 Here are the percentages of unemployed in the 
 December of each year during the lives of both 
 Governments : 
 
 LIBERAL. 
 
 1892 IO-2 
 
 1893 7-9 
 
 1894 7-7 
 
 Average 8-6 
 
 TORY. 
 
 1895 4-8 1900 4-0 
 
 1896 3-2 1901 4-6 
 
 1897 5-3 1902 5-5 
 
 1898 2-9 1903 67 
 
 1899 2-5 1904 7-6 
 
 Average 47 
 
 These figures show that the average percentage of 
 unemployment in the trade unions making returns 
 was 8-6 under the Economical, Peaceful, Liberal Free 
 Traders, and only 47 under the Extravagant, War- 
 making Tories. 
 
 Now, my countrymen, I don't want to argue that 
 Tory Governments cause good trade and Liberal 
 Governments bad trade. 
 
 But I wish to point out to you that the facts and 
 figures quoted -prove that the Liberal Free Traders 
 are talking nonsense when they tell the people that 
 the Boer War and the increase in taxation are the 
 causes of unemployment. 
 
 There is unemployment whatever Government is 
 in power, and no Government has yet attempted to 
 grapple with the problem. 
 
 Mr. Balfour, for the late Tory Government, said 
 he knew of no remedy. 
 
TORY EXTRAVAGANCE NOT GUILTY 35 
 
 The Liberal leaders say they know of no remedy ; 
 but some of them say right out, or insinuate, that 
 there would be no unemployment but for Tory 
 extravagance. 
 
 These statements are not trite. 
 
 At the beginning of 1887 there were 10-3 -per cent, 
 unemployed. That was at the end of a course of 
 Free Trade, Economical, Peaceful Liberal Govern- 
 ment. 
 
 What do these facts prove? Is it not plain that 
 unemployment is due to some other cause than Tory 
 extravagance and war expenditure? 
 
 When the Free Traders tell us that unemployment 
 is due to heavy taxation, I say they are talking non- 
 sense. 
 
 Let the Free Traders take off every penny of the 
 taxes, and I say there will be an unemployed problem 
 just the same as to-day. 
 
 Free Trade is no remedy for unemployment. We 
 have had Free Trade for sixty years, and we have 
 had every few years the same intense suffering from 
 unemployment. 
 
 Whatever Government is in power, Liberal or 
 Tory, bad trade comes almost as regularly as 
 Christmas. 
 
 What is the cause? Of the causes of unemploy- 
 ment I have already told you something. What is 
 the remedy ? 
 
 Well, my countrymen, I do not think Free Trade 
 is going to solve the problem. I will tell you why. 
 
FISCAL FAILURES REJECTED 
 
 I AM one of the unemployed. I want work. I am 
 willing to work. I nave a right to live. I claim 
 to have proved that. 
 
 Liberal Free Trade statesmen tell me that un- 
 employment is due to Tory extravagance and war 
 expenditure. 
 
 But I think I have proved that this statement is 
 not true. There is always unemployment. 
 
 Liberal Free Traders have been telling the work- 
 ing classes for years that the remedy for unemploy- 
 ment is " new markets." That was when they were 
 in power. 
 
 " The reason you are unemployed," they said, " is 
 the lack of markets." We capitalists cannot employ 
 you to make things unless we can sell them. But 
 we have supplied the demand. What are we to do ? 
 We must have more markets." 
 
 What they meant was more " foreign markets." 
 They never troubled about making a home market 
 big enough to employ all the people. 
 
 " To capture the new markets/ they used to tell 
 the workers, " it will be necessary for you to work 
 for very low wages, because we have such keen com- 
 petitors, who are after the same markets." 
 
 This game went on for years. We got new 
 markets, and are still getting them. We added mil- 
 lions of square miles and millions of people to the 
 Empire. 
 
 Did the new markets solve the unemployed 
 problem? 
 
 No, and new markets never will do. 
 
FISCAL FAILURES REJECTED 37 
 
 The Protectionists tell us now that unemployment 
 is caused by the tariff walls of foreign countries. 
 
 They tell us that we can't get into foreign markets 
 because of these tariff walls. We cannot sell our 
 goods there because of the taxes, but we allow the 
 foreigners to come into our market free. They come 
 and sell their goods, and thereby displace British 
 labour. 
 
 The Free Trade answer is : "Look how enormously 
 wealthy we have become under Free Trade. Look 
 at our growing imports and exports. Look at our 
 cheap food. Be faithful to Free Trade, and all will 
 be well some day." 
 
 Some day. Some day, if we close our eyes and 
 open our mouths, something may fall into them. 
 
 But we have tried Free Trade for sixty years, and 
 as a remedy for bad trade and unemployment it has 
 proved an absolute failure. 
 
 We, the nation, have become enormously wealthy. 
 We, the nation, have built up a splendid, profitable, 
 foreign trade. We, the nation, have prospered ex- 
 ceedingly under Free Trade principles. 
 
 WE. " 
 
 Who are we ? 
 
 I, and millions like me, are not part of the " we." 
 Who are the " we " who own this enormous wealth ? 
 
 Well, I have already told you how the national 
 cake is divided. A few are very rich, a few are com- 
 fortably off, and 38 millions of our people are poor. 
 
 Is that a state of things to boast about ? Is the 
 system which produces it a system to go into ecstasies 
 about ? 
 
 I think not. I, and thousands like me, refuse any 
 longer to believe that Free Trade and devil-take-the 
 hindmost are the principles by which human society 
 should try to live. 
 
 We refuse any longer to believe that Free Trade 
 will some day provide work and wages for all. 
 
 We know it will not. We know it cannot. 
 
 The Free Traders claim that under this system the 
 whole nation is richer than it would be under a 
 system of Protection. 
 
38 MY RIGHT TO WORK 
 
 But what is that to me and the thousands like me ? 
 
 We are out of work. When we are in work -58 
 millions of us are poor. Many of us could not be 
 worse off under any system. Why, then, should we 
 believe in the Free Trade remedy ? 
 
 We know that the nation has got richer and richer 
 and richer during the sixty years of Free Trade. 
 And we know that Germany, and France, and the 
 United States have got richer and richer and richer 
 under Protection. 
 
 We know also that in all these countries in 
 France, in Germany, in the United States, and in 
 Great Britain there are always a large number of 
 unemployed, and an enormous number of -poor 
 people. 
 
 Free Trade or Protection it is all one. There 
 are always the unemployed. 
 
 That is a fact which you, my countrymen, would 
 do well to ponder. 
 
 I claim the right to live. To live I must work. 
 I have the right to work. You, the nation, have 
 taken that right from me. 
 
 Will more Free Trade or will Protection restore 
 that right to me? 
 
 Neither one nor the other. 
 
 Free Trade cannot. Protection cannot. 
 
 What is the issue between Free Trade and Pro- 
 tection ? 
 
 The Free Traders claim that under their system 
 the nation will be richer. The Protectionists claim 
 that under their system the nation will be richer. 
 
 But what is that to me and the thousands like me ? 
 What is that to the 38 million poor? 
 
 Is not the nation well off now? The Free Traders 
 are never tired of boasting about our prosperity. 
 The Protectionists admit it. 
 
 Yet there are 38 millions poor and half a million 
 unemployed. 
 
 Is it not plain, then, that the question of the 
 nation getting richer or poorer can have no interest 
 for me and the thousands like me? 
 
 Suppose Free Trade is the best fiscal system. 
 
FISCAL FAILURES REJECTED 39 
 
 Suppose that under Free Trade the nation is richer 
 than it would be under Protection. 
 
 Does that guarantee me a living ? 
 
 It does not. The nation's income has risen from 
 1,300 to 1,710 millions in twenty years under Free 
 Trade. Yet the unemployed problem is no nearer 
 solution than it was half a century ago. 
 
 Suppose Protection is the best fiscal system. Sup- 
 pose that under Protection the nation would become 
 richer than under Free Trade. 
 
 Will that guarantee me a living ? 
 
 It will not. We have had Protection in this 
 country, and Mr. Chamberlain says himself that the 
 sufferings of the people under Protection were due 
 not to dear food, out to " want of employment." 
 
 Then there are Germany, France, and the United 
 States. They have Protection, and they have the 
 unemployed. 
 
 The immediate problem is not how to get richer, 
 but how to divide more fairly the riches we are 
 getting now. 
 
 That is the question for me. That is the question 
 for the unemployed and for the poor workers. 
 
 The Free Traders beg and pray of us not to vote 
 for Protection, because protection means dear food. 
 
 Is not that an astonishing argument to advance 
 in the most prosperous country in the world? 
 
 Suppose Protection did mean dearer food. What 
 of it? 
 
 If the policy of Protection could be proved to be 
 a good policy for the British Empire, ought we to 
 hold back because it would cost the nation some- 
 thing ? 
 
 Suppose the policy of Protection cost the nation 
 100 millions a year. Suppose our income was 100 
 millions a year less through the adoption of Pro- 
 tection and Colonial Preference. 
 
 Couldrit the nation afford the sacrifice? 
 
 Decidedly yes. 
 
 What a pitiable spectacle, then, would be the posi- 
 tion of the Free Traders ! 
 
 The Free Traders' position is a pitiable one now. 
 
40 MY RIGHT TO WORK 
 
 For when they call upon the working classes to 
 defend the cheap loaf at all costs, when they tell 
 them to remember " the hungry forties," and to vote 
 for Free Trade, what are their arguments but an 
 admission that the working classes are too -poor 
 under Free Trade to make any sacrifice for any 
 -purpose whatever? 
 
 Your food will cost you more ! What an appeal 
 to make to the citizens of the most prosperous 
 country in the world ! 
 
 And the Free Traders are right. The working 
 classes can't afford to have their food taxed. They 
 can't afford to have their wages reduced. 
 
 Does Mr. Chamberlain's plan offer me any hope ? 
 
 Not the slightest. This great statesman tells the 
 worker that under Protection he will get nine 
 farthings a week more wages. He says there will 
 be " more employment." 
 
 I am one of the unemployed. I have a right to 
 live. I have a right to work. Does Mr. Chamberlain 
 offer to restore that natural right ? 
 
 fore, 
 for 
 
 not going to trouble about your nine farthings a 
 week extra income; I thank you, but I beg of you not 
 to waste your remaining energies in such a herculean 
 task for my benefit. I should feel mean if you 
 succeeded. Your policy might be a good thing for 
 the Empire. It might make the nation richer than 
 the Free Trade policy does. But does your pro- 
 gramme include legislation for restoring to every 
 British citizen the right to work ? Will it insure 
 work and wages, a decent livelihood, for every able 
 and willing worker ? No ? Then I cannot consider 
 it. I contend that there is enough wealth now for 
 all. I contend that the nation has now the means of 
 producing food, fuel, shelter, all the necessaries and 
 luxuries for a healthy life for the whole people. 
 Your plan does not admit that there is anything 
 wrong in the distribution of the present income of 
 the nation. The difference between your policy and 
 
FISCAL FAILURES REJECTED 41 
 
 the Free Trade policy, as it affects me, as it affects 
 the unemployed and the working classes, is the 
 difference between Tweedledum and Tweedledee. 
 It is a difference of nine farthings. I have no use 
 for it" 
 
 Give us work. Give us work and wages. Give us 
 decent houses to live in, give us good food, give us 
 education and leisure, then we shall be able to con- 
 sider the question of Free Trade or Protection 
 impartially. If we found that a change of policy 
 would weld the British people in closer union, if we 
 found that a change of policy would enable us to 
 achieve better our destiny of civilising the world, 
 then, even if the change cost us something, we should 
 make the sacrifice gladly. 
 
 As it is, we cannot make sacrifices. To force us to 
 make sacrifices would be cruel. The starving, the 
 underfed, the unemployed is it statesmanship to 
 attempt to build a great Empire out of these ? No, 
 sirs, your policies are doomed to fail which are not 
 established on a basis of justice and right dealing. 
 
 I have a right to live. I have a right to work. 
 Free Trade and Protection deny that right. Free 
 Trade and Protection stand self -condemned. They 
 have been tried and found wanting. We want a new 
 policy. 
 
 tt&fA 
 
 OF THE 
 
 UNIVERSITY 
 
HOW GOOD TRADE CAUSES UNEMPLOYMENT 
 
 I AM one of the unemployed. I want work. I am 
 willing to work. I have a right to live. How 
 is that right to be assured to every willing man ? 
 
 The champions of Free Trade and the champions 
 of Protection tell me to trust in their remedies. 
 
 But I have shown that under both Free Trade 
 and Protection the unemployed problem remains 
 unsolved, and poverty is not abolisned. 
 
 I have shown that good trade has not abolished 
 unemployment. 
 
 I have shown that Economical Government is no 
 remedy for unemployment, and that even in time of 
 peace there is always a mass of unemployed. 
 
 Someone said to me, " Employment is entirely a 
 question of trade. If we get more trade, we shall be 
 able to employ more people. The only question is, 
 will Free Trade or Protection bring the most trade ?" 
 
 Well, I will try to show that however much trade 
 increases under either system, there is bound to be 
 an unemployed -problem. 
 
 I will show that under either system there never 
 can be enough trade to find employment for every 
 willing worker. 
 
 First let us suppose that this country had no 
 foreign trade at all. 
 
 Suppose that we grew all our own food, and that 
 the land supplied all the raw material for our 
 manufactures. 
 
 Suppose that trade was carried on just in the 
 same way as now, that the land was owned by a 
 few people, and that employment could be obtained 
 only by applying to a capitalist. Would there be 
 an unemployed problem then? 
 
HOW GOOD TRADE CAUSES UNEMPLOYMENT 43 
 
 Undoubtedly. 
 
 So long as we have private ownership of land and 
 capital, and competition in industry, so long will 
 there be an unemployed problem. 
 
 Let us see how this would work out, by means of 
 a simple illustration. 
 
 * * * 
 
 2W U. 
 
 650 100 
 
 Here is an island. On that island there are : One 
 Landlord, who owns all the land and all the capital ; 
 and two Workers, who produce enough wealth for 
 all three. There is also one Unemployed. 
 
 Of this wealth, the Landlord takes 650 thirteen 
 times as much as each of the Workers. The Workers 
 get 50 each. 
 
 Now the Landlord has enough more than enough 
 to supply his wants. Why, then, should he find 
 work for the Unemployed. 
 
 The law does not compel him to do so. To find 
 work would be a bother. It would require thinking 
 about. It is easier to throw alms to the Unemployed 
 occasionally. So the unemployed problem remains 
 unsolved. " When trade is better," the Landlord 
 says, " the Unemployed will have a chance." 
 
 Years pass. Trade has improved. Population has 
 increased. 
 
 * 
 L. 
 
 * * * 
 3 W. 
 
 # 
 U. 
 
 850 150 
 
 The income of the island is now 1,000, an 
 increase of 33 per cent. 
 
 The Landlord takes 850, the Workers take 50 
 a year each. 
 
44 MY RIGHT TO WORK 
 
 They cannot get more, because when they ask for 
 a rise, they are told : "If you don't like your job, 
 go. I can get another man any day." 
 
 There is always the Unemployed, 
 
 And so this state of things might go on for ever. 
 Wealth may increase, trade may improve. But so 
 long as the Workers have no right to the land, so 
 long as the Workers are compelled to go to an Em- 
 ployer for the means of living, so long as the Unem- 
 ployed is held over their heads as a weapon to 
 frighten them into accepting a small share of the 
 wealth they produce, so long will there be an unem- 
 ployed problem. So long will the Workers be poor. 
 
 The condition of things in Great Britain, my 
 countrymen, is not so simple, but it is practically the 
 same. 
 
 It is not considered the duty of the Landlords and 
 the Employers to provide work for every willing 
 worker. 
 
 A man is expected to find work for himself. 
 
 But isn't it absurd to fix this responsibility on the 
 poor landless man ? 
 
 All wealth comes from the land. The poor man 
 has no right to any land. Those who do own the 
 land and the capital own all the means of life. 
 
 It is they, then, who ought to be held responsible 
 for providing work for all. 
 
 But we know, do we not, that Landlords and 
 Employers never think of anything but making 
 profits for themselves ? 
 
 If, in seeking profits, they provide work for some 
 of the poor and landless, they think they have done 
 a marvellous worthy deed ! But they never realise 
 that, as owners of the land and capital, they possess 
 all the means of getting a living, and that the poor 
 and landless are entirely dependent on them. They 
 never suspect that it is their duty to provide work 
 for all. 
 
 Why is this ? 
 
 The reason is that Landlords and Capitalists are 
 fighting one with another for the wealth produced 
 by the workers. 
 
HOW GOOD TRADE CAUSES UNEMPLOYMENT 45 
 
 Just as the workers compete with each other for 
 work, so the Landlords and Capitalists compete with 
 each other for rent and interest and profit. 
 
 The land and the capital do not belong to the 
 same people all the time. Occasionally a poor man 
 becomes a Capitalist and a Landowner. Luck, or 
 cleverness, or cunning often win wealth for a poor 
 man. 
 
 But the mass of the -people are always poor. There 
 are always the unemployed. 
 
 In short, getting riches, like getting a living, is a 
 gamble. For the Landlord and the Capitalist class 
 it is a pleasant, interesting, and exciting game. 
 
 For them it is not a question of life or death. 
 
 For the poor and landless, getting a living is a 
 question of life or death. 
 
 For the Landlord and Capitalist class, trade is 
 simply a question of more riches or less riches. 
 Sometimes the rich man loses all. But generally 
 speaking he is always sure of food, clothing, 
 warmth, and shelter. 
 
 If the poor man loses his employment he must 
 starve. 
 
 In times of bad trade, or strikes and lock-outs, 
 the poor workers suffer terribly, while the Landlord 
 and Employer class do not suffer at all. 
 
 It is only their bank balances that suffer. 
 
 Now, in these two scrambles the scramble 
 amongst the poor for a bare living, and the scramble 
 amongst the Capitalists and Landlords for profit 
 have the poor workers and the unemployed any 
 chance of improving their position ? 
 
 Only to a very small extent. For, although the 
 Landlords and the Employers compete with each 
 other for profits, they fight together as one man 
 against any demand of the workers for a greater 
 share of the wealth produced. 
 
 How, then, can " more trade " solve the unem- 
 ployed problem ? 
 
 People see that more trade brings more employ- 
 ment, so they argue : "If you only get enough trade, 
 there will be employment for all." 
 
46 MY RIGHT TO WORK 
 
 Now, I have shown that although there has been 
 an enormous increase in our trade during the last 
 sixty years, the unemployed problem is just as bad 
 as ever. 
 
 What hope is there of still more trade providing 
 a remedy ? 
 
 None at all. Not the slightest. 
 
 So long as trade is a scramble for -profits, there is 
 bound to be an unemployed -problem. 
 
 The cotton capitalists go into business to make 
 profit. They do not go into business to provide all 
 the people with sufficient cotton goods for their needs. 
 
 The coal capitalists go into business to make 
 profits. They do not go into business to provide 
 coal for all the people. 
 
 The boot capitalists go into business to make 
 profits. They do not go into business to provide all 
 the people with boots. 
 
 Tne farmers go into business to make profits. 
 They do not go into business to provide sufficient 
 food for all the people. 
 
 The cotton capitalists fight each other for the 
 cotton trade, the coal capitalists fight each other for 
 the coal trade, the boot capitalists fight each other 
 for the boot trade, the farmers fight each other for 
 the food trade. 
 
 What is the result ? 
 
 There is always unemployment. 
 
 There is only so much trade to be done. If one 
 factory is sufficient to supply the demand and 
 another factory competes for the trade, one or both 
 must suffer. There must be short time or unemploy- 
 ment. 
 
 A million tons of coal are required and can be 
 produced by one colliery company. If another 
 colliery company competes for the orders, one or 
 both must suffer. There will be short time or un- 
 employment. 
 
 We are told that there are too many boot factories 
 in this country. Yet most of the people are 
 short of boots, and thousands of boot-makers are 
 unemployed. 
 
HOW GOOD TRADE CAUSES UNEMPLOYMENT 47 
 
 We have this wasteful competition in all 
 industries. 
 
 Shopkeepers are continually opening shops that 
 are not required in order to capture the trade from 
 another man. 
 
 How can the people all be employed under such a 
 system ? 
 
 Good trade comes. Work is plentiful. (But it is 
 never plentiful enough for all.) What happens? 
 
 Suppose a boom in the cotton trade. Trade is 
 good. What happens ? 
 
 New mills are built, new machinery is laid down. 
 New capital flows into the industry. Why ? 
 
 Because the capitalists want to make profits. They 
 want to take a hand in the game of grab. Large 
 dividends are being made. 
 
 And the result ? More mills and factories are put 
 up than are needed. There is over-production, fierce 
 competition, then bad trade, short time, and unem- 
 ployment as bad as before. 
 
 What is the use of good trade ? Good trade 
 means that there is more employment, but never 
 enough employment for all. It also means plentiful 
 profits. 
 
 Who gets the plentiful profits ? 
 
 The Landlords and the Employers. 
 
 What follows ? 
 
 They are not able to spend or consume the big 
 share of the wealth they take. They have all the 
 luxuries they want, yet they have still more money 
 to spend. What do they do with it ? 
 
 They invest it. 
 
 What is the result ? 
 
 If they invest their money in new industries they 
 " find employment " for a larger population. 
 
 But if they invest in old-established industries 
 and compete with them for the trade, they cause 
 fierce competition, a fall of prices, short time, strikes, 
 lock-outs, and unemployment. 
 
 Thus it happens that unemployment is caused 
 because there is too much wealth. There is what is 
 called over-production, 
 
48 MY RIGHT TO WORK 
 
 The terrible sufferings of the colliers and the 
 cotton operatives in 1893 were due to the facts that 
 there were too many cotton mills and too many 
 collieries ! There were not enough customers for the 
 cotton and coal produced. 
 
 Yet millions of people were short of clothes and 
 coal. 
 
 How it is that capitalists and speculators can go 
 into a business, and by building more factories or 
 works than are required throw people out of em- 
 ployment ? 
 
 They can do it because they have the money to 
 speculate with ? 
 
 Why have they the money to speculate with ? 
 
 Because Landlords, Capitalists, and Shareholders 
 take such a large share of the wealth produced by 
 the workers. 
 
 Unemployment from this cause frequently happens 
 in this country. 
 
 Thus one cause of unemployment is the LOW 
 WAGES of the workers. 
 
 If the workers had a larger share of the wealth 
 they produce, unemployment would never be so 
 severe as it is. 
 
 * 
 L. 
 
 * * 
 
 2W. 
 
 * 
 
 u. 
 
 650 100 
 
 Here is an island. On that island there are : 
 A Landlord, who owns all the land and capital ; two 
 Workers, wo do all the work; and one Unemployed. 
 
 The Landlord takes as his share of the wealth 
 produced 650. 
 
 This is much more than he requires for his own 
 consumption, so he decides to invest the balance in 
 a new industry. 
 
 He finds that the one Unemployed is an excellent 
 singer, so he employs him to sing for him, and pays 
 him. 
 
HOW GOOD TRADE CAUSES UNEMPLOYMENT 49 
 
 Thus there is no unemployed problem. The 
 Workers and the singer are poor, but all are 
 occupied. 
 
 Now, suppose that instead of investing in a new 
 employment he invests in an old industry. Suppose 
 he starts a new farm, and thus finds work for the 
 Unemployed. 
 
 What would the result be ? 
 
 The two Workers were already producing enough 
 wealth for all. The wealth produced by the new 
 man would consequently be Over-production. There 
 would be Depression in Trade. " I shall have to 
 sack you," says the Landlord to Worker No. i. 
 " There is a glut of farm produce. Trade is 
 bad." 
 
 Result there is again an unemployed problem, 
 caused by the Landlord having surplus money for 
 investment. 
 
 If the Landlord, instead of investing his surplus 
 wealth in industry, had raised the wages of the 
 workers, and shortened their hours, so finding em- 
 ployment for the Unemployed, the whole population 
 of that island would have been prosperous and 
 contented. 
 
 Are not our rich people in a similar position ? 
 
 They have money far beyond the amount neces- 
 sary to supply their needs. What can they do with 
 it? 
 
 Having satisfied all their luxurious tastes and so 
 " found employment " for an army of flunkeys and 
 useless workers at ornamental trades, they have still 
 large balances. These they must " invest." 
 
 Their object in investing is to make more profits, 
 not to find work for the unemployed. Consequently 
 they don't trouble to inquire whether they will be 
 competing with an existing trade or not. If they 
 think there is a chance of getting the trade they take 
 it, and so cause unemployment. 
 
 They also invest a good many millions in foreign 
 countries every year. 
 
 When British workmen are walking the streets 
 starving^ when statesmen and newspapers are deploring 
 
 E 
 
50 MY RIGHT TO WORK 
 
 the state of trade, our rich -people are investing 
 millions in foreign industries. 
 
 Example : WE lent Japan ten millions last year 
 when the distress from unemployment was most 
 severe. 
 
 // is this fund which must be tapped to find work 
 for the unemployed. 
 
 If, as I have shown, more and more trade has little 
 or no effect on the unemployed problem, is it not 
 time we began to look for a solution of the problem 
 by some other method ? 
 
 If, as I have shown, our system of trade is the 
 cause of unemployment, is it not time we mended or 
 ended the system ? 
 
 It is the system that is wrong. It is the scramble 
 that is wrong. 
 
 If you throw six pennies to a crowd of starving 
 kiddies and some of them get none, will they all get 
 a share if you throw twelve instead ? It doesn't 
 follow. 
 
OTHER CAUSES :OF UNEMPLOYMENT 
 
 I AM one of the unemployed. I want work. I am 
 willing to work. I am able to work. I cannot 
 get work. 
 
 The Fiscal experts tell me that employment 
 depends on Free Trade, or on Protection. 
 
 The Free Traders tell me to put my trust in Free 
 Trade, and all will be well some day. 
 
 The Protectionists tell me to put my trust in Pro- 
 tection, and employment will be found for hundreds 
 of thousands more workers. 
 
 Now, before I show how impossible it is that these 
 fiscal fakements can solve the unemployed problem, 
 I wish to refer to some other causes of unemploy- 
 ment under the present system of competition and 
 private ownership of land and capital. 
 
 I have shown that unemployment is bound to take 
 place under competition, because capitalists are 
 always fighting each other for the tracte. 
 
 More mills, more mines, more shops are opened 
 than are necessary to supply the demand. 
 
 The consequence is that some of them go under, 
 and the workers are thrown on the streets. This is 
 happening continually. 
 
 I have also shown that unemployment from this 
 cause is intensified because landlords and capitalists, 
 the very rich, take such an enormous share of the 
 national income that they cannot spend it on them- 
 selves, and consequently have to invest it. 
 
 Anxious to make more riches,, they often rush 
 into new undertakings which are not required. Then 
 there is over-production, followed by unemployment. 
 
 Watch the cotton trade 1905 was a boom year. 
 
 " The profits of spinning companies have been on 
 
52 MY RIGHT TO WORK 
 
 an unexampled scale, and mill building has run 
 riot" says Mr. William Tattersall in his Annual 
 Circular. 
 
 I have shown, too, that the rich cause unemploy- 
 ment at home by investing their wealth in foreign 
 countries. 
 
 WE have 2,000,000,000 invested abroad. 
 
 WE! 
 
 We made it. The workers made that wealth. The 
 rich took it, and sent it abroad to find employment 
 for foreigners. 
 
 Is that patriotism ? 
 
 It may be asked : " What else could the rich do ? 
 You say they would cause unemployment if they 
 invested it at home." 
 
 Just so. If they invested the capital they now 
 send abroad in old home industries, there would be 
 more over-production, causing more unemployment 
 than there is. 
 
 There would be over-production of coal, clothes, 
 houses, boots, and furniture, etc. 
 
 And all the time there would be millions of people 
 in need of these things ! 
 
 Let me try to make it clearer. Here is an island : 
 
 * 
 L. 
 
 * * 
 
 2W. 
 
 * 
 
 u. 
 
 650 100 
 
 On that island there are : One Landlord, who 
 owns all the land and capital ; two Workers, who 
 produce all the wealth ; and one Unemployed. 
 
 The Landlord's income is 650, thirteen times as 
 much as one Worker's. 
 
 He has more than he knows how to use, so he 
 decides to invest his surplus. 
 
 The Workers say, "If you invest your money at 
 home you will throw us out of employment." 
 
 So he invests it abroad. 
 
OTHER CAUSES OF UNEMPLOYMENT 53 
 
 But the Workers are -poor, and there is one Un- 
 employed. 
 
 Now, what is the proper remedy for that state of 
 things ? 
 
 The Landlord ought to take less of the incomes 
 so that the Workers could have more. 
 
 What would follow ? 
 
 The Workers would be so much better off that 
 they could afford to find employment for the one 
 Unemployed. They could pay him to make things 
 they required. 
 
 Do you see? If the workers of this country had 
 a fair share of the wealth they produce, unemploy- 
 ment would never be so bad. 
 
 Why ? Because the workers are in need of so 
 many things better houses, food, clothes, coal, 
 boots, furniture, books, musical instruments, pictures. 
 If they had more money to spend, they would be 
 able to find employment for a much greater number 
 in these trades. 
 
 But the very rich have already more than enough 
 of these things, so that if they invest their money 
 in these industries, there will naturally be over- 
 production. There will be no customers to buy the 
 goods. The poor have no money, and the rich don't 
 want the goods. 
 
 But if they were not so rich, they could not invest 
 in speculative industries, and they could not send 
 capital abroad to find employment for foreigners 
 while their countrymen are starving. 
 
 There are other causes of unemployment. 
 
 There is machinery. 
 
 New inventions in machinery often throw large 
 numbers out of employment. 
 
 Now, my countrymen, I am no enemy of 
 machinery. But I have a right to live, and I deny 
 the right of the inventor, or any man, to take that 
 right from me. 
 
 I am told that it is wrong; to object to 
 machinery because more wealth is produced by 
 machinery, and everybody benefits by the increased 
 wealth. 
 
54 MY RIGHT TO WORK 
 
 I deny that everybody benefits by the increased 
 wealth due to the invention of machinery. 
 
 The workers seldom benefit, and then only to a 
 small extent. 
 
 Who does benefit ? 
 
 It is the owners of the machines, the capitalists, 
 who take the bulk of the increased wealth. 
 
 A new machine is invented which displaces, say, 
 1,000 workers. What is to become of them? 
 
 They are told that they will be able to find em- 
 ployment in some new industry. 
 
 But do new industries spring up at a moment's 
 notice to find employment for the displaced workers ? 
 
 Who starts new industries? Capitalists, do they 
 not? 
 
 Very well. Do we find a capitalist waiting to 
 meet our 1,000 displaced workers and offering them 
 work at their usual wages? 
 
 Not on this planet. The displaced workers have 
 to shift for themselves. Often they suffer severely 
 and never raise their heads again. 
 
 Is this right ? Is this fair ? Does your moral law 
 say that such treatment is just ? 
 
 If it is for the benefit of the whole nation that 
 new inventions should be allowed to displace human 
 workers, then I contend that it is the duty of the 
 nation to make provision for the workers so 
 displaced. 
 
 Work cannot be created by the unemployed, the 
 landless, and moneyless. It is not their fault they 
 are displaced. Somebody benefits by the machinery. 
 It is unjust, then, that the workers should suffer. 
 
 Just as improvements in machinery displace 
 workers, so do improvements in organisation of 
 industries, such as combinations and trusts. 
 
 A number of firms amalgamate, and by so doing 
 are able to close, say, one factory, and to dispense 
 with the services of the " hands " employed there, 
 as well as a number of clerks and travellers. 
 
 Who benefits ? 
 
 Not the displaced workers. They may find 
 employment elsewhere, but there is no certainty 
 
OTHER CAUSES OF UNEMPLOYMENT 55 
 
 about it. New industries do not fall out of the 
 skies. 
 
 Is that right ? Is that just ? 
 
 If improvements which enable landlords and 
 capitalists to make more wealth are introduced, does 
 that justify the starvation of other men and their 
 families ? 
 
 Workers are thrown out of employment in other 
 ways quite outside their control. 
 
 Many workers in season trades suffer severely. 
 Then there are changes of fashion. And there is 
 foreign competition. 
 
 The workers in season and fashion trades 
 suffer largely because the rich have too much 
 money. 
 
 The fashion trades are always fighting amongst 
 themselves for the favour of the rich. Now one gets 
 it, now another. The whim of a " leader of fashion " 
 may mean terrible suffering for a large number of 
 workers, who lose their employment because " the 
 fashion changes." 
 
 Then there is foreign competition. The Free 
 Traders deny that foreign competition causes un- 
 employment. I believe they are wrong. But sup- 
 pose they are right. Suppose foreign competition 
 does not cause unemployment. That does not prove 
 that Free Trade is a remedy for the unemployment 
 which exists. 
 
 The question is : Will Free Trade or Protection 
 remove the causes of unemployment which I have 
 dealt with above? 
 
 Will Free Trade or Protection abolish competi- 
 tion? 
 
 Will Free Trade or Protection abolish the scramble 
 for profits amongst the employers, and the scramble 
 for a living amongst the workers ? 
 
 Will Free Trade or Protection make the over-rich 
 less rich ? Will Free Trade or Protection raise the 
 wages of the workers? 
 
 Will Free Trade or Protection protect the workers 
 against new inventions and new methods of 
 industry ? 
 
56 MY RIGHT TO WORK 
 
 Will Free Trade or Protection regularise em- 
 ployment, so that those employed in season and 
 fashion trades will not suffer from unemployment? 
 
 In short, will Free Trade or Protection restore the 
 right to live? 
 
THE QUACK REMEDIES: FREE TRADE 
 AND PROTECTION 
 
 I AM one of the unemployed. I want work. I am 
 willing to work. I am able to work. I cannot 
 get work. 
 
 Mr. Chamberlain comes forward and says : " Sup- 
 port my plan, and I will guarantee " profitable em- 
 ployment " for thousands more workers. My plan 
 is trie only remedy for unemployment." 
 
 Now, 'my countrymen, when a politician tells us 
 that he has a plan which will solve a social problem 
 like unemployment, we are naturally curious. 
 Politicians have come, and politicians have gone. 
 They have produced plans and schemes innumber- 
 able, but still the problem is with us. 
 
 Mr. Chamberlain said : " The greatest boon that 
 could be conferred upon the working people of this 
 country was such a reform as would ensure to every 
 industrious man full and constant employment at 
 fair wages." 
 
 Mr. Chamberlain is right. Will his plan confer 
 that boon ? 
 
 When I examine the plan what is my first im- 
 pression ? 
 
 It is a sensation of amazement mingled with 
 disgust. I find that this glorious new plan which 
 is to give constant work for every man is a quack 
 medicine which has been tried by every country on 
 the globe and being a quack remedy, has failed to 
 effect a cure. 
 
 Mr. Chamberlain's plan is Protection and Pre- 
 ference. Protection against foreign competitors, and 
 Preference for our Colonies. 
 
58 MY RIGHT TO WORK 
 
 We have had Protection in this country. Under 
 that fiscal system did all our people find profitable 
 employment ? 
 
 Mr. Chamberlain himself argues that it was not 
 dear food, but want of employment that caused the 
 distress in the " hungry forties." 
 
 But we need not go to ancient history for examples 
 to prove that Protection is no remedy for the unem- 
 ployed problem? 
 
 France, Germany, and the United States are Pro- 
 tectionist countries to-day. 
 
 Are there no unemployed in these countries ? 
 
 We know that these countries are confronted with 
 just the same unemployed problem as our Free 
 Trade kingdom. 
 
 The Tariff Reformers tell us that these countries 
 are progressing more rapidly than we are. They 
 tell us that their wealth is increasing, and that wages 
 are rising more rapidly than with us. They tell us 
 that unemployment is less severe, and they claim 
 that these conditions are the result of the fiscal 
 policy of Protection. 
 
 The Free Traders, on the other hand, point to our 
 enormous wealth, our enormous foreign trade, our 
 high wages, and prove to their own satisfaction that 
 these things are the result of Free Trade. 
 
 Now, if Mr. Chamberlain's plan is a cure for un- 
 employment, how is it there are large numbers of 
 unemployed in Germany, France, and the United 
 States ? 
 
 If Free Trade is the cure for unemployment, why 
 is there such a mass of unemployed in this country ? 
 
 Neither of the Fiscal Fakirs answers this question. 
 
 The only answer to that question is that Pro- 
 tection is no remedy, and Free Trade is no remedy. 
 Mr. Chamberlain will not face the question; the 
 Free Traders will not face it. 
 
 They must both be made to face it. If you, my 
 countrymen, sincerely wish to solve the problems of 
 poverty and unemployment, you will face it and 
 grapple with it until the answer is found. 
 
 This is a Free Trade, or a free imports, country. 
 
QUACK REMEDIES 59 
 
 Everyone here knows that foreign trade, and in- 
 creased foreign trade, is no remedy for unemploy- 
 ment. Mr. Chamberlain then puts forward his plan. 
 At first it is rejected, as being worse than the disease. 
 
 But will it always be rejected? 
 
 We know how a man distracted by long-continued 
 pain will fly to any remedy suggested with plausi- 
 bility and confidence. Such a man is not in a con- 
 dition to investigate calmly the credentials of the 
 medicine offered. 
 
 You, my countrymen, are in like case. You are 
 suffering from this disease of poverty and unemploy- 
 ment. You are looking for a remedy, and you have 
 rejected one of the medicines which your grand- 
 fathers tried and found wanting. But you are stick- 
 ing to the other remedy of Free Trade, and you 
 know that also has proved a failure. 
 
 What are you going to do ? If the disease gets 
 worse, if you become temporarily distracted by the 
 pain of it, is there no danger of your flying back to 
 the other quack medicine, Protection, and giving it 
 another trial ? 
 
 I think, my countrymen, there is such a danger. 
 Mr. Chamberlain's next chance depends on circum- 
 stances. If these circumstances happen, and if you 
 are not prepared with a new remedy, you are likely 
 to fall a victim to the plausibilities of Mr. Chamber- 
 lain's plan. 
 
 For Mr. Chamberlain's plan is plausible, and under 
 certain circumstances these plausibilities will, to the 
 sick man, seem like eternal truths. 
 
 Mr. Chamberlain says that our trade is threatened 
 by foreign competition. He says that foreign goods 
 are coming to mis country free of taxes and displac- 
 ing our labour, while our goods cannot get into these 
 foreign countries because they are too heavily taxed. 
 
 Thus, he says, we are hit twice. We buy from 
 foreigners and so throw our own countrymen out of 
 work, and we cannot sell to foreigners because they 
 tax our goods in order to protect their own trades 
 against our competition. 
 
 Now, the Free Traders deny these statements. 
 
6o 
 
 MY RIGHT TO WORK 
 
 They say that foreign goods cannot displace 
 British labour, because every import from a foreign 
 country must be paid for by an export from this 
 country. 
 
 So, they say, if foreign goods come into this 
 country, they must find employment for British 
 labour in making the goods to pay for the imports. 
 
 For example, here are two countries : 
 
 ENGLAND : 
 
 AMERICA : 
 
 Imports 
 
 from 
 
 America : 
 
 Wheat, 
 
 1,000,000. 
 
 Exports 
 
 to 
 England : 
 
 Wheat, 
 1,000,000. 
 
 In America there is a farmer who exports to Eng- 
 land wheat to the value of 1,000,000. 
 
 Now, the American farmer wants paying for his 
 wheat. He does not want gold. He cannot get 
 gold. There is very little gold in England, and 
 never enough to pay for half our imports. 
 
 Consequently, say the Free Traders, he must be 
 paid in goods of some kind, and to make those 
 goods British labour must be employed. Therefore 
 foreign goods give employment to British labour, 
 and ought to be encouraged. 
 
 The man in England who imports the wheat is a 
 cotton manufacturer. To pay for the wheat he sends 
 to the American farmer cotton goods to the value of 
 1,000,000. The account is then square. 
 
 ENGLAND : 
 
 AMERICA : 
 
 Exports : 
 Cotton, 
 1,000,000. 
 
 Imports : 
 
 Cotton, 
 
 1,000,000. 
 
 This argument of the Free Traders seems to be 
 sound. We know a man in business in England will 
 not export goods abroad unless he expects to be paid 
 
QUACK REMEDIES 6 1 
 
 for them. We know that a man in a foreign country 
 will not export goods to England unless ne expects 
 to be paid for them. 
 
 It seems absurd, then, for Mr. Chamberlain to say 
 that foreign goods displace British labour. Every 
 import must be paid for by an export. Trade is 
 barter and must balance. 
 
 For every 1,000 worth of goods you export you 
 require 1,000 worth of goods in exchange, or 
 1,000 in gold or paper money, which will enable 
 you to buy other goods. 
 
 As a matter of fact, foreign trade is no different 
 from home trade. 
 
 Does your butcher ever export beef to your house 
 for nothing? Or does he require an import of 
 money to balance the export of beef ? 
 
 Does the cotton manufacturer in Lancashire export 
 cotton goods to London for nothing ? 
 
 Does your employer ever export wages to you 
 without getting an import of labour in exchange ? 
 
 Imports must balance exports. Foreigners are not 
 so good-natured as to send goods to us without pay- 
 ment. 
 
 If you will get rid of the idea that countries trade 
 with each other, and remember that it is not coun- 
 tries, but individuals in those countries who tracte 
 with each other, you will not easily be misled by the 
 Fiscal Fakirs. 
 
 Trading with a man at the other end of the world 
 is no dffferent from trading with a man in the next 
 street. 
 
 If you sell a pair of boots to Mr. Chamberlain in 
 Birmingham, it is you who sell the boots, not the 
 nation. 
 
 If you sell a million pairs of boots to a German 
 shop, the Fiscal Fakirs talk about the national 
 export of boots. But they are not our exports, they 
 are your exports. 
 
 You want payment from the German house and 
 you get it, just as you get payment for the pair you 
 sell to Mr. Chamberlain. Trade must balance, or it 
 would not be carried on. 
 
62 MY RIGHT TO WORK 
 
 So if you import ;i,ooo worth of meat, it is you 
 who import it, not the nation. It is you who pay 
 for it, not the nation. Does a foreign trader ever 
 export goods to an English trader without pay- 
 ment ? Of course not : exports must balance imports. 
 
 It would seem, then, that when Free Traders claim 
 that imports are always good for the country that 
 they are right, and that Mr. Chamberlain is wrong 
 when he says that imports sometimes displace 
 British labour. 
 
 But Mr. Chamberlain is right, and the Free 
 Traders are wrong. One of the Free Trade cham- 
 pions said, in the Daily News: 
 
 Free Traders cannot too often point out that it 
 is not true that goods brought into a country rob 
 workmen of wages. 
 
 Goods are only brought in for value received, 
 and the only way in which we can pay for imports 
 is by exporting goods or services. 
 
 Notwithstanding which, I say Mr. Chamberlain is 
 right, and the Free Traders are wrong. 
 
 I explained in a former chapter how, in the home 
 trade, one man is continually capturing the trade of 
 another man. 
 
 Thousands of small shopkeepers, for instance, 
 have been driven out of business by the big trusts. 
 
 Consider what happens in a village fifteen miles 
 from London. 
 
 There is a grocer's shop, which supplies grocery to 
 the whole neighbourhood. 
 
 Suddenly, Whiteley, the Universal Provider of 
 London, determines to make daily deliveries by van 
 in that village. 
 
 What is the result ? 
 
 The local grocer loses half his trade. He is 
 ruined by " foreign " competition. 
 
 The Free Trader says, " Foreign goods are a 
 blessing. There is never an import without an 
 export. Whiteley's imports of grocery must be paid 
 for by an export." 
 
QUACK REMEDIES 63 
 
 Yes. Of course. Whiteley's grocery is paid for 
 by an export of the villagers' money. 
 
 But the local grocer is ruined. 
 
 The villagers' money, which used to find employ- 
 ment for the local grocer, now finds employment for 
 the foreigner, Whiteley. The money formerly ex- 
 ported to the local grocer is now exported to London. 
 
 Now if this kind of thing happens in the 
 home trade, why can it not happen in foreign 
 trade ? 
 
 Remember, it is not the nation which trades, but 
 individual men and firms and companies who trade 
 with each other. 
 
 Take another case. Suppose you have a boot shop 
 in London, and every quarter you send an order for 
 1,000 worth of boots to Northampton. 
 
 That 1,000 finds employment for a number of 
 bootmakers. 
 
 An American traveller calls and offers to sell you 
 similar boots at a reduced price. You order from 
 him, an'd give no more orders to Northampton. 
 
 What is the result ? 
 
 Your 1,000, which used to give employment to 
 the Northampton boot trade, now gives employment 
 to the American boot trade. Northampton boot- 
 makers are thrown on the streets, and march to 
 London, bootless themselves, in order to demonstrate 
 the blessings of Free Trade ! 
 
 The Free Traders cannot deny that this kind of 
 thing happens. It is a commonplace of the com- 
 petitive scramble for profits. 
 
 " But," they say, " if the local grocer loses his 
 trade, or if the Northampton bootmakers lose their 
 trade, it is a proof that they are not so well fitted to 
 carry on that trade as Whiteley's and the American 
 boot manufacturers. 
 
 " If," they say, " Whiteley's grocery and American 
 boots are cheaper than local grocery and Northamp- 
 ton boots, it is better for the nation that the local 
 grocer and the Northampton bootmakers should lose 
 their trade. 
 
 "If," they say, "the local grocer is driven out of 
 
64 MY RIGHT TO WORK 
 
 the grocery trade, and the Northampton manufac- 
 turer is driven out of the boot trade, they will 
 employ their labour and capital in some other 
 industry." 
 
 How nice ! But do they ? 
 
 Does the local grocer find it easy to employ 
 his capital in some other industry ? Do the 
 Northampton bootmakers find an employer 
 waiting to give them work when the lose their 
 jobs ? 
 
 Not in this country. The local grocer may lose 
 all his capital before he gives up the struggle with 
 Whiteley's. The Northampton manufacturer may 
 lose all his capital before he gives up the struggle 
 with foreign competition. 
 
 " Ah," says the Free Trader, " but think of the 
 cheaper grocery, and the cheaper boots." 
 
 Yes, let us think of them. 
 
 What good does it do me, my countrymen, one of 
 the unemployed, to think of the wealth of the Roths- 
 childs, or the cheap boots and the cheap bread and 
 the cheap clothes of those who benefit by these 
 things ? 
 
 I am one of the nation. Are these things, that are 
 so good for the nation, good for me ? How can 
 these cheap wares do me any good, who have no 
 money at all? 
 
 The fact is, that Free Trade and chea$ goods are 
 only good for certain individuals. They are good 
 for those who benefit by them. 
 
 Competition is good for certain individuals. It 
 is deadly for those who suffer from it. 
 
 Free Trade with foreign countries is simply a 
 branch of trade in general. It is carried on under 
 the system of competition. And I showed in a pre- 
 vious chapter that competition is the cause of a good 
 deal of our unemployment. 
 
 Just as one home trader grabs the trade of another 
 home trader, so may a foreign trader grab the trade 
 of a home trader. 
 
 In both cases the result for the Briton is loss of 
 capital and unemployment. 
 
QUACK REMEDIES 65 
 
 So that Mr. Chamberlain is right when he says 
 that foreign goods may displace British labour. 
 How far they do displace British labour is a ques- 
 tion of statistics. 
 
 Now, Mr. Chamberlain proposes to stop this 
 foreign competition by protecting our industries by 
 means of a tax on foreign goods. 
 
 Will his plan, by keeping trade at home, solve the 
 unemployed problem ? 
 
WHY MR. CHAMBERLAIN'S PLAN IS NO 
 REMEDY 
 
 I AM one of the unemployed. I want work. I am 
 willing to work. I am able to work. I cannot 
 get work. 
 
 Will Mr. Chamberlain's plan provide profitable 
 employment for every willing worker in this country ? 
 
 Mr. Chamberlain says foreign manufactures are 
 coming into this country which rob the British 
 worker of employment. 
 
 He proposes to remedy this evil by putting a tax 
 of 10 per cent, on foreign manufactures. 
 
 Now, if foreign manufactures are beating home- 
 made goods because they are cheaper, and if a tax 
 of 10 per cent, kept the foreign goods out, what 
 would it mean to the home trade ? 
 
 The 10 per cent, tax on manufactures is estimated 
 to produce 9,000,000 a year; if the foreign goods 
 still continue to come, and the foreigner pays the tax. 
 
 So that 90,000,000 a year more trade would be 
 done at home if the foreign goods did not come 
 at all. 
 
 Now, if the foreigner pays the tax, and the goods 
 still continue to come in, no more work will be found 
 for British labour. 
 
 Mr. Chamberlain evidently thinks the foreigner 
 will pay the tax, because he hopes to use the 
 9,000,000 to reduce other taxes. 
 
 How, then, can this part of the plan help to solve 
 the unemployed problem? 
 
 Suppose the tax were raised high enough to keep 
 out the foreign manufactures altogether, 
 
WHY MR. CHAMBERLAIN'S PLAN IS NO REMEDY 67 
 
 Then we should, according to Mr. Chamberlain, 
 do the 90,000,000 trade at home. 
 
 This would give employment to, let us say, 
 roughly, 600,000 men at 305. a week. 
 
 This looks promising. Work for 600,000 more of 
 our own people ! Marvellous. 
 
 But let us examine the matter more closely. 
 
 We, that is certain British traders, export manu- 
 factures. Last year we exported manufactures to 
 the value of 270,000,000. 
 
 Now if we stop the import of cheap foreign manu- 
 factures by means of a heavy tax, what is likely to 
 happen ? 
 
 The foreigners would want to get their own back. 
 They would raise their taxes against us, and they 
 would fight us still more keenly in neutral markets. 
 We should lose some of our export trade. 
 
 We are losing trade to the foreigners because their 
 goods are cheaper. 
 
 If we shut foreign goods out, we should have to 
 pay more for our own home-made goods, and we 
 should not stand a chance against our foreign com- 
 petitors in neutral markets. 
 
 Result unemployment in our export trades. 
 What has Mr. Chamberlain to say to this ? 
 
 But, in any case, if we decide to shut out foreign 
 goods now coming in, we shall lose an equal amount 
 of export trade. 
 
 The Free Traders tell us that if we shut out 
 90,000,000 worth of foreign goods, we are bound 
 to lose 90,000,000 of export trade. 
 
 They are right so far. Every import made by a 
 trader must be paid for by an export, and if we shut 
 put 90,000,000 worth of foreign goods, we shall 
 inevitably lose 90,000,000 of export trade. 
 
 Remember that foreign trade is done between 
 individuals in the different countries, and not 
 between the nations. 
 
 The makers of the 90,000,000 of foreign manu- 
 factures now coming in receive 90,000,000 of gold 
 or paper money from English traders. Foreign 
 goods are paid for mostly in paper money. 
 
68 MY RIGHT TO WORK 
 
 Now, gold or paper money is no use to anyone 
 unless he can buy goods or services with it. The 
 foreign traders pass this paper money on to other 
 foreign traders. The other traders buy goods or 
 services with it, and eventually this paper money 
 finds its way back to the United Kingdom. 
 
 // must do. Because the foreigners who finally 
 hold the paper money want goods for it. Paper 
 money is no use to them. They want goods. They 
 get goods. Those goods are our exports. 
 
 So, if we stop importing 90,000,000 of foreign 
 goods we shall stop paying 90,000,000 of paper 
 money to foreigners. Foreigners will thus have 
 90,000,000 less to buy British goods with, and we 
 shall lose 90,000,000 export trade. 
 
 But the Free Traders always forget their other 
 argument. If. they say, a man is driven out of one 
 trade, he will find employment for his capital in 
 some other. 
 
 Now, if we shut put 90,000,000 of foreign 
 goods in order to give 90,000,000 of work to 
 our own unemployed, those unemployed will 
 receive the gold or paper money formerly paid 
 to foreigners. 
 
 There will be 90,000,000 less of our money in 
 foreign hands, but there will be 90,000,000 more in 
 British hands. Those who were formerly unem- 
 ployed will have 90,000,000 to spend. Cannot they 
 spend it in employing the exporters who have lost 
 90,000,000 of export trade ? 
 
 Many people boggle at this statement. But it is 
 quite simple. When you see it you cannot under- 
 stand how you ever missed seeing it. 
 
 Let us go over it again. 
 
 Every import in the way of trade is paid for by 
 an export. 
 
 Imports, then, give employment to exporters. 
 
 If you stop an import, the result is to stop the 
 export which paid for it. 
 
 If you stop a foreign import you throw the worker 
 who made the export out of employment. 
 
 Therefore it is a bad thing to stop foreign imports, 
 
WHY MR. CHAMBERLAIN'S PLAN is NO REMEDY 69 
 
 because by so doing you throw exporters out of 
 employment. That is as far as some people get. 
 
 They always forget the unemployed. 
 
 The argument goes on : The problem is how to 
 find work for British workmen. If a foreigner is 
 doing work which could be done by an unemployed 
 Briton, stopping the foreign import need not throw 
 the exporter out of employment. 
 
 To illustrate. Here are two islands. 
 
 ENGLAND. FOREIGN COUNTRY. 
 
 U 
 
 A. 
 Food. 
 
 B. 
 Clothes. 
 
 A grows food, which he exports to B. B makes 
 clothes, which he exports to A. 
 
 Stop the import or clothes into England, and you 
 stop the export of food. A, the exporter, will lose 
 his foreign trade. But why should not U, the un- 
 employed in England, make the clothes required 
 by A? If he did so, A could send to U the food 
 he formerly exported to the Foreign Country, and 
 he would have as much work as beiore. 
 
 Is it clear now ? 
 
 If we stop 90,000,000 worth of foreign goods, we 
 shall lose 90,000,000 of export trade. Foreign 
 trade will show a decrease of 180,000,000. 
 
 But if the shutting out of 90,000,000 of foreign 
 goods gives the same amount of employment to 
 unemployed Britons, then the home trade would 
 increase 180,000,000. 
 
 Instead of 600,000 British workers (in export 
 trades) exchanging goods with 600,000 foreigners, 
 600,000 British workers would exchange goods with 
 600,000 other British workers. 
 
 It is a very simple matter. It is a question of 
 patriotism. Ought we, as a nation, to find employ- 
 ment for our own people, or to prefer foreigners ? 
 
 At present we allow British employers and 
 
70 MY RIGHT TO WORK 
 
 capitalists to do the best for themselves. That is, to 
 make the most money. Many of them find they can 
 make the most money by finding employment for 
 foreigners. Profits, not patriotism, is their motto. 
 
 Individual Britons make money, but hundreds of 
 thousands are unemployed and millions are poor. 
 As a nation, our losses under this system in wealth 
 and health and stamina are terrible. 
 
 Well, if we shut out 90,000,000 of foreign manu- 
 factures and so found 90,000,000 more employment 
 for British labour, that would be a step towards the 
 solution of the unemployed problem. 
 
 It is a pretty picture. But it is not Mr. Chamber- 
 lain *s plan. 
 
 No. According to Mr. Chamberlain, the foreigners 
 will pay the 10 per cent, tax on the 90,000,000 of 
 
 foods they send us, and we shall take 9,000,000 
 rom them to relieve our taxation. 
 
 Mr. Chamberlain evidently counts on the foreign 
 goods still coming in. But if the foreign goods still 
 come in, how can more employment be found for 
 British labour? 
 
 No more employment will be found. This part 
 of the plan, then, is useless as a remedy for un- 
 employment. 
 
 Next, Mr. Chamberlain proposes to tax our foreign 
 food imports. Now, if we pay extra taxes on our 
 food we shall be no better off, even if the foreigner 
 does pay the 9,000,000 on imported manufactures. 
 
 The tax proposed is 5 per cent, on foreign meat 
 and dairy produce, and 2s. per quarter on corn. 
 
 Mr. Chamberlain's object is to encourage trade 
 with our Colonies in preference to encouraging trade 
 with foreign countries. 
 
 If, then, this tax on food stops the import of some 
 foreign food and transfers the trade to the Colonies, 
 what effect will that have on employment in this 
 country ? 
 
 None at all. It will not at any rate provide more 
 employment. 
 
 If certain British traders give their orders in 
 future to traders in Canada or Australia, instead of 
 
WHY MR. CHAMBERLAIN'S PLAN is NO REMEDY 71 
 
 to traders in America or Germany, what difference 
 will that make to the unemployed here? 
 
 None at all. Instead of foreigners being employed 
 by the orders of those British traders, Canadians or 
 Australians will be employed. Our unemployed 
 problem will not be touched. 
 
 But that is not all. In return for our Preference 
 the Colonies are to be induced to purchase manu- 
 factures from us, which they are now buying from 
 foreign countries. 
 
 The Colonies are buying 30,000,000 of foreign 
 manufactures. Mr. Chamberlain thinks they would 
 transfer this trade to us, and so provide wages of 
 15,000,000 a year extra for British labour. 
 
 That is all tnis brilliant plan amounts to. 
 
 Our exports were to be increased by 30,000,000 
 to the Colonies, and our imports were to be increased 
 by 30,000,000 from the Colonies. Extra trade, 
 now being done with foreigners. 
 
 This plan was put forward in 1903, and while Mr. 
 Chamberlain has been talking about it our total 
 ex-port trade has gone up more than 30,000,000. 
 
 Has this great increase in trade solved the un- 
 employed problem ? Has it abolished poverty and 
 low wages ? 
 
 On the contrary, while this great increase in our 
 export trade was taking place thousands of unem- 
 ployed were marching the streets of our large towns, 
 the Prime Minister was besieged by unemployed 
 women, and Parliament was compelled to pretend 
 to deal with the question by passing a useless Un- 
 employed Workmen's Act. 
 
 Now, my countrymen, what is the use of Mr. 
 Chamberlain or anyone else trying to show that an 
 increase of trade, either 30,000,000 or 300,000,000, 
 can solve the unemployed problem in the face of 
 the facts ? 
 
 Good trade never did, good trade never can solve 
 the unemployed problem. 
 
 Mr. Chamberlain complained that our exports 
 were not advancing as rapidly as they ought to do. 
 He talked of getting 30,000,000 extra export trade 
 
72 MY RIGHT TO WORK 
 
 as if jt would be a marvellous achievement and 
 would work wonders in the direction of solving un- 
 employment and poverty. 
 
 Without his help the export trade made a tremen- 
 dous leap last year, and still the unemployed are 
 marching on London, still the workhouses and doss- 
 houses are full, still the 12,000,000 underfed are 
 underfed. 
 
 If you turn to the chapter on the causes of un- 
 employment you will understand why this increase 
 of trade has had so little effect on poverty and un- 
 employment. 
 
 You will remember I said that one cause of un- 
 employment was the low wages of the workers and 
 the large profits of the capitalists. 
 
 The capitalists have more than they can spend, 
 and they do not always invest their surplus in this 
 country because there are no " openings," and because 
 they can get more profits abroad. 
 
 Now, we had a big export boom last year. Trade 
 revived. What is the result ? 
 
 " We are once again in the position of investing 
 capital abroad to a very large extent." 
 
 Those are the words of Mr. Felix Schuster, the 
 Chairman of the Union of London and Smith's 
 Bank, Limited, one of the best-known authorities on 
 finance in the City of London. 
 
 WE are investing capital abroad. 
 
 Who are WE ? 
 
 Not the unemployed, not the 12,000,000 underfed, 
 not the 20,000,000 very poor. I have not invested 
 any capital abroad, my countrymen. 
 
 While our unemployed are starving and asking 
 for work, while millions of our people lack decent 
 houses, decent clothes, and decent furniture, WE, 
 that is, a few rich men, are investing capital abroad 
 TO FIND WORK FOR FOREIGNERS. 
 
 The Free Traders are jubilant about this state 
 of things, but don't you think there is something 
 wrong, my countrymen ? 
 
 Would Mr. Chamberlain's plan stop this export 
 of capital to foreign countries ? 
 
WHY MR. CHAMBERLAIN'S PLAN IS NO REMEDY 73 
 
 Not at all. Mr. Chamberlain does not want to 
 stop the export of capital. 
 
 Protection does not stop the capitalists of America 
 and Germany and France exporting their capital 
 abroad. That is one reason why there are so many 
 unemployed in these protected countries. 
 
 If the export of capital to foreign countries were 
 stopped, that capital would have to be invested in 
 this country. 
 
 That capital could not be invested in this country 
 unless there was a demand for more goods. 
 
 There could not be a demand for more goods 
 unless the people had money to buy them. 
 
 The people could not have the money to -buy them 
 unless their wages were raised. 
 
 The poor workers and the unemployed could find 
 employment for the capital which is now sent 
 abroad, but Mr. Chamberlain's plan does not pretend 
 to reduce the enormous rents and profits of the rich 
 which they invest abroad. Mr. thamberlain says 
 he will fight any such plan. 
 
 Therefore, my countrymen, I reject his plan. 
 
 A plan which could only result in adding 
 15,000,000 to the wages of the workers of this 
 country is a plan to be laughed at. 
 
 Turn to the chapter on the division of the wealth 
 produced in this country. 
 
 You will there find that a small class of 1,250,000 
 persons take 585,000,000 a year, while the rest of 
 our 43,000,000 take only 1,125,000,000. 
 
 You will find that 5,000,000 people take 
 830,000,000, nearly half the national income, while 
 38,000,000 people take only 880,000,000. 
 
 Now, my countrymen, a plan which refuses to 
 consider the injustice and the insanity of such a 
 division of wealth is futile. It cannot possibly be 
 a remedy for unemployment and poverty. 
 
 Most of the wealth taken by the very rich is not 
 earned. Other people make the wealth. The rich 
 enjoy and waste it without giving any service in 
 return. 
 
 Are such conditions just ? Are they good for 
 
74 MY RIGHT TO WORK 
 
 the nation? Does your moral law say they are 
 right ? 
 
 Read Britain for the British^ and consider the 
 facts given in Chapter I. 
 
 We pay 500 or 600 millions a year in rent and 
 interest to idle landlords and shareholders, and Mr. 
 Chamberlain offers, after a great struggle, to find 
 another 1 5,000,000 a year wages ! 
 
 Is not such a plan preposterous and ridiculous ? 
 
 And remember, I have taken the plan at Mr. 
 Chamberlain's valuation. 
 
 The Free Traders tell us that if we tax foreign 
 imports and foreign food, that all our goods will 
 increase in price, that the poor will become poorer, 
 and the rich richer, and that if we shut our foreign 
 goods altogether, great Trusts will arise in this 
 country which will neece the public, and benefit only 
 the capitalist and the landlord. 
 
 All this is true. These things do happen in Pro- 
 tection countries. 
 
 If our home employers had no foreign competition 
 to fear, they would soon find it to their interest to 
 combine to stop competition at home, to form huge 
 Trusts. By these means they could fix the price of 
 their goods and they could nx the wages. 
 
 Mr. Chamberlain talks about wages going up. 
 They might go up, if the workers pushed very hard. 
 But what is the use of wages going up if prices are 
 raised and rents are raised? 
 
 So long as workers compete with each other for 
 work, so long will wages be low. 
 
 So long as capitalist employers own all the capital, 
 so long will workers' lives be at their mercy. 
 
 So long as landlords own all the land and make 
 the workers pay the tax of " rent," so long will much 
 of their wages be filched from them. 
 
 The workers must go to a capitalist employer to 
 earn wages, and when they have got wages the land- 
 lord and the profit-hunter are waiting for them with 
 a gun. 
 
 The capitalist pays the worker too little. The 
 profit-hunter ana the landlord take too much. 
 
WHY MR. CHAMBERLAIN'S PLAN is NO REMEDY 75 
 
 Between the two the worker's pockets are almost 
 emptied. 
 
 Mr. Chamberlain's plan would do nothing to 
 remove these evils. 
 
 No plan which would result only in more trade 
 can solve the unemployed problem. That is all Mr. 
 Chamberlain offers to do. Therefore, I say, his plan 
 is useless. It can deceive no one who understands 
 how competition and the unequal division of wealth 
 are bound to cause unemployment. 
 
 Is Free Trade any more likely to cure the evil ? 
 
WHY FREE TRADE IS NO REMEDY 
 
 I AM one of the unemployed. I want work. I am 
 willing to work. I am able to work. I cannot 
 get work. 
 
 I have shown that Mr. Chamberlain's plan is use- 
 less as a remedy for poverty and unemployment. 
 
 I have a right to work. The laws made by you, 
 my countrymen, have taken that right from me. 
 
 Will Free Trade restore me the right to work ? Do 
 Free Traders admit my right to work ? 
 
 Free Traders do not. We have had Free Trade 
 for sixty years, and the Free Trade party has never 
 made an attempt to solve the unemployed problem. 
 
 The Free Trade party has no remedy for unem- 
 ployment. 
 
 Against Mr. Chamberlain's plan, what is the great 
 argument of the Free Traders ? 
 
 Y our food will cost you more. 
 
 All they can do is to point to the enormous 
 increase in wealth since 1846, and to say: "Your 
 food and other goods will cost you more." 
 
 For the twenty million very poor, for the twelve 
 million underfed, that is their only word of hope. 
 " Beware of Protection. Your food will cost you 
 more." 
 
 Some day. Some day, under Free Trade, there 
 will be so much wealth that everybody will have 
 enough. 
 
 Some day ? But why should I, and the hundreds 
 of thousands like me, be fobbed off with a tale like 
 that ? For sixty years the working classes, the 
 starving, and the unemployed have heard the same 
 story. We have lost hope. We no longer have any 
 
WHY FREE TRADE IS NO REMEDY 77 
 
 faith in Free Trade as a remedy for poverty and 
 unemployment 
 
 Free Trade will not do, my countrymen. In 
 twenty years OUR national income has risen from 
 1,300,000,000 to 1,710,000,000. 
 
 We produce 410,000,000 more a year. The 
 rich were rich twenty years ago. Who gets that 
 4 1 0,000,000 extra ? 
 
 The poor are still poor, and the unemployed are 
 a multitude. Why has not that 410,000,000 extra 
 income solved the unemployed problem ? 
 
 If Free Trade is the system under which the 
 workers benefit most, how is it that extra 
 410,000,000 has not gone into the pockets of 
 the poor and the unemployed ? The rich were rich 
 twenty years ago. 
 
 Suppose, under Free Trade, the national income 
 increases another 400,000,000 a year. Will poverty 
 and unemployment be abolished? Will the extra 
 income go to those who need it most ? 
 
 The answer to these questions is, No. 
 
 As in the past, the idle landlord and the idle 
 shareholder will take the bulk of the wealth. The 
 poor will still be poor. The unemployed problem 
 will not be touched. 
 
 The unemployed may, indeed, become more 
 numerous. When Mr. Chamberlain said that the 
 " nation " might become richer, and at the same time 
 employment might be less, he was right. 
 
 Under Free Trade, it is possible for a foreign 
 trader to take trade away from a British trader. If 
 for any reason we lost an important trade, or several 
 small trades, our unemployed would naturally 
 grow. 
 
 The Free Trade theory that the capital and the 
 labour in the lost trades will find other employment 
 is simply theory. Suppose they didn't. 
 
 The Free Trader has no answer except " Look at 
 OUR enormous wealth." 
 
 My countrymen, looking at another man's wealth 
 does not feed me, clothe me, and house me. 
 
 If you read the chapter on the causes of 
 
/8 MY RIGHT TO WORK 
 
 unemployment, you will understand why Free Trade 
 is no remedy. 
 
 Free Trade is mostly discussed in connection with 
 foreign trade; but foreign trade is only a branch of 
 trade in general, and the same rules as to the dis- 
 tribution of the wages and profits apply to both 
 home and foreign trade. 
 
 The landlord and the capitalist take the bulk of 
 the wealth produced. How, then, can increase of 
 foreign trade solve the unemployed problem ? 
 
 The rich get too much now. If they get still more 
 what can they do with it ? 
 
 They cannot invest it at home, because the workers 
 have not wages enough to buy any more goods. 
 
 The rich must, then, invest their extra riches abroad 
 either in foreign countries or British Colonies. 
 
 If they invest abroad, their capital will find em- 
 ployment for the foreigner (or the Colonist), and 
 the interest on the investments, which comes home 
 in the form of goods (imports), may throw British 
 workmen out of employment. 
 
 We have 2,000,000,000 invested abroad. That is, 
 a few rich people have this sum invested abroad. 
 
 The interest on these investments is estimated to 
 amount to at least 100,000,000 a year. 
 
 This 100,000,000 is paid in the form of goods 
 imports. 
 
 Now, two things may result from this influx of 
 dividends from British capital invested abroad. 
 
 The imports which come as dividends may find 
 employment for unemployed British workmen, or 
 they may compete with existing trades, and throw 
 more British workmen out of work. 
 
 Here is an island. On that island there are two 
 
 * * * * 
 
 E E W U 
 
 5,000 3,000. 
 
 capitalist Employers, a number of Workers, and 
 some Unemployed, 
 
WHY FREE TRADE IS NO REMEDY 79 
 
 One Employer has an income of 5,000, and, 
 having supplied all his wants, has a surplus of 
 2,000. He exports this amount, and invests it in 
 foreign industries. When the dividends begin to 
 come, say, 200 in value, what is he to do with the 
 money ? 
 
 He may find employment for some of the Unem- 
 ployed and pay their wages with it. 
 
 He may invest it in a trade competing with the 
 other Employer. If he captures some of that Em- 
 ployer's trade, he will throw some of that Employer's 
 workmen on the streets. 
 
 He may take his dividend in the form of goods, 
 which he wants to consume. If he does this, he will 
 want less home-made goods. If he wants less home- 
 made goods he will not need to employ so many 
 workers. Result more unemployed. 
 
 Thus the surplus capital of the rich made by the 
 British workers and invested abroad may cause the 
 unemployment of other British workers when the 
 dividends come in. 
 
 Remember the quotation in the last chapter : " We 
 are at present (after the boom in exports) in the posi- 
 tion of investing capital abroad to a large extent." 
 
 Do you ever consider what this means ? It means 
 that British workers are robbing their own country- 
 men of work. 
 
 Foreign competition? We hear a good deal of 
 foreign competition. But how much of this com- 
 petition is the competition of British capital made 
 by British workmen? 
 
 WE have invested abroad a capital of 
 2,000,000,000 or more. 
 
 That sum is about a sixth or seventh of the total 
 wealth of the United Kingdom. It is finding work 
 for Foreigners and Colonials, and the interest on 
 it is a menace to the home trade. 
 
 Well, it is under the glorious system of Free 
 Trade and Competition that this enormous sum has 
 been sent abroad. OUR wealth is so great that WE 
 can afford to invest 2,000,000,000 surplus capital 
 abroad. 
 
80 MY RIGHT TO WORK 
 
 Surplus capital ! In a land where there are some- 
 times a million unemployed, and always twenty 
 million very poor people. 
 
 Free Trade will not do, my countrymen. Under 
 the present system an increase of trade cannot 
 possibly abolish poverty or solve the problem of 
 the unemployed. 
 
 Some one said to me : " Free Trade is, at any 
 rate, better for the workers than Protection." Is it ? 
 Always and everywhere ? Must it be ? 
 
 Suppose it is better. How much better? Is the 
 difference worth fighting and wrangling about for 
 years ? 
 
 I am told by Protectionists that wages are higher 
 in America. On the other hand, Free Traders tell 
 me that poverty and unemployment are as bad, or 
 worse than here. 
 
 I know that I and hundreds of thousands are un- 
 employed. I know that millions, the bulk of the 
 population, in both countries are poor. Why should 
 I waste time in arguing and fighting for one system 
 or the other ? 
 
 Both are bad. 
 
 Neither system is a remedy for poverty and un- 
 employment I say poverty and unemployment 
 need not exist. Why should I waste time with these 
 quack remedies ? 
 
 Your food will cost you more ! ! 
 
 I am to bow down to the idol of cheapness. I, one 
 of the unemployed. What is cheapness to me, who 
 have no money at all ? 
 
 The Free Traders tell me that under their glorious 
 system of free exchange nations naturally occupy 
 themselves in those industries which produce the 
 most wealth. 
 
 Thus, if Great Britain, by employing a million 
 men in growing corn, can produce 50,000,000 a 
 year, while she can produce 51,000,000 by employ- 
 ing the men in getting coal, Great Britain will 
 " naturally " employ those men in getting coal ! 
 
 Sending her coal abroad, Great Britain can get 
 1,000,000 a year more wealth. What a beautiful 
 
WHY FREE TRADE IS NO REMEDY 8 1 
 
 doctrine. Enormous increase in wealth. Foreigners 
 can send us 51,000,000 of corn for our coal, while 
 Great Britain could only grow 50,000,000. Free 
 Trade for ever ! 
 
 It never occurs to the Free Traders to ask : " Is 
 it better to have a million men working in the bowels 
 of the earth, or a million men tilling the surface ? " 
 
 Free Traders say it is wicked to stop the free flow 
 of wealth between nations. 
 
 Northampton bootmakers are making boots for 
 153. a pair. Suddenly comes an American firm, and 
 offers boots at 145. 6u. 
 
 Away with the Northampton boots. Give us cheap 
 American boots. British consumers will now save 
 6d. a pair on their boots. Glorious result of Free 
 Trade Northampton bootmakers are unemployed. 
 
 It never occurs to the Free Traders to ask if it is 
 good that thousands of workers should lose their 
 employment in order to save individuals a paltry 
 sixpence apiece on a pair of boots. 
 
 There is more wealth in the country. Yes. But 
 what about the unemployed bootmakers ? 
 
 If, say the Free Traders, Northampton boots are 
 driven out of the market by foreign boots, it proves 
 that Northampton is not so well fitted as America 
 for the production of boots. The Northampton 
 bootmakers will lose their employment; but the 
 cheap American boots will save the consumers a 
 certain sum, which will flow into other trades, and 
 the Northampton capitalists will find fresh openings 
 for their capital, while the workers will transfer 
 their services to some new employment. 
 
 It is a beautiful picture. But it isn't true. 
 
 When men are thrown out of work, by competition, 
 or depression, or any cause, they do not so easily 
 " transfer their services to some new employment." 
 
 It is easy to make them do so on paper. And 
 when they do get a fresh job, is it always as good 
 as the one lost ? Do they not often lose all their 
 belongings, and get into debt, while looking for that 
 new employment which the Free Traders talk about 
 so glibly ? And do not capitalists often lose a good 
 
 G 
 
82 MY RIGHT TO WORK 
 
 deal of capital before they give up the fight for the 
 trade ? 
 
 Nevertheless, say the Free Traders, WE, the nation, 
 are richer under this system than we should be under 
 Protection. By employing ourselves in those occupa- 
 tions in which we can produce the cheapest article, 
 we earn the most wealth in money value. 
 
 In money value. They do not consider the twenty 
 million very poor, the twelve million underfed, tne 
 hundreds of thousands of unemployed. The nation, 
 WE, are richer. That is the test 
 
 Well, my countrymen, I think it is a damnable 
 doctrine, and its results are damnable. 
 
 Do not imagine that I object to the exchange of 
 goods with foreign nations. Under proper condi- 
 tions, the Free Trade doctrine might be true and 
 good. 
 
 It may be true that more wealth is, or would be, 
 produced under a system of free exchange between 
 all peoples. But I ask : What do you mean by 
 wealth ? 
 
 When is a nation wealthy ? Is our nation wealthy ? 
 
 I will answer the last question first. Our nation 
 is not wealthy. Our nation is a very poor nation, 
 though our exports be the greatest per head of any 
 country in the world. 
 
 We have a number of very rich people. Yes. But 
 five million rich people do not make a nation of 
 forty-three million people wealthy. There are thirty- 
 eight million poor people in this country. Remem- 
 ber that. 
 
 The Free Traders boast of our wealth. Are 
 twenty million very poor people, twelve million 
 underfed, a million starving children, a million 
 paupers, an infantile death-rate of 150 per 1,000 
 are these signs of wealth ? 
 
 How many workers are there who have enough 
 savings to keep them through six months' unemploy- 
 ment ? Only a handful. Only a handful in this 
 enormously wealthy country. 
 
 The question is not " Is the nation wealthy ? " but 
 " Are the people wealthy ? " I want to know, not 
 
WHY FREE TRADE IS NO REMEDY 83 
 
 what is the total wealth of the nation, but how many 
 healthy, happy men and women and children there 
 are? 
 
 Judged by this standard, how poor a nation is 
 this, my countrymen ! 
 
 The Free Traders tell us that we earn more wealth 
 under Free Trade than WE should under Protection ! 
 
 Again I ask : Who are WE ? 
 
 Who gets the wealth ? 
 
 Well, I have told you who gets it, and those facts 
 prove that the system is useless as a remedy for un- 
 employment and poverty. The system is, indeed, 
 one of the chief causes of unemployment and 
 poverty. 
 
 It is under the system of Free Trade that we have 
 come to depend on foreign nations for our food 
 supply. We bought 230,000,000 worth of food 
 abroad last year. 
 
 To pay for those imports, we must export manu- 
 factured goods, and keep up our shipping. 
 
 Suppose we lost a lump of our export trade. Mr. 
 Chamberlain says we are getting benind. That we 
 are not advancing so rapidly in exports as other 
 nations. Suppose the Japanese, Chinese, or 
 Americans capture some of our markets. 
 
 Where should we get pur food ? 
 
 We should be in a nice hole then, WE, this great 
 nation. 
 
 If we could not sell our exports, we could not buy 
 imports of food. We are walking on thin ice, my 
 countrymen. 
 
 And if competition became keener, what would 
 the champions of Free Trade do to meet it ? 
 
 They would say : " We must sell our manufac- 
 tures, or you will get no food. To sell our manufac- 
 tures we must reduce the price. To reduce the price 
 we must reduce the cost of production. To 
 reduce the cost of production we must CUT DOWN 
 WAGES." 
 
 That would be, as always, the argument of the 
 Free Traders. 
 
 The danger is there, my countrymen. It is always 
 
84 MY RIGHT TO WORK 
 
 there. Foreign competition is very alarming. Some 
 day the wolf will really come. 
 
 Do you think it is a good system ? 
 
 Does your moral law say it is right that men 
 should be thrown on the streets to starve because 
 other men in other countries produce goods 2^ per 
 cent, cheaper ? Do you think it wise lor this nation 
 to depend on foreigners for its food supply ? 
 
 A pretty upshot to the greatest-wealth-under-free- 
 exchange theory. What shall it profit a nation if it 
 gain the whole world and lose its independence and 
 the health and stamina of its people? 
 
 But, you will say, these are idle prophecies. We 
 shall always hold our own, as we have done in the 
 past. 
 
 Very well. Let us hold our own. Let us double 
 our foreign trade. As I have proved, even that 
 would not abolish poverty and solve the unemployed 
 problem. 
 
 Free Traders talk about the folly of Protection. 
 But Free Trade itself is a form of Protection. It 
 protects the strong and the cunning against the 
 weaker and the more honest. It protects the greedy 
 against the just. It protects the cheap and nasty 
 against the good. There is no health in it. 
 
 For sixty years we have tried this system. Before 
 that we tried Protection. Under neither system have 
 the people been happy and contented. Neither 
 system has abolished poverty and unemployment. 
 
 Is it not time we found a new remedy, my country- 
 men? 
 
THE ONLY REMEDY 
 
 I AM one of the unemployed. I want work I am 
 willing to work. I cannot get work. 
 
 I have a right to work. The laws made by 
 you, my countrymen, have robbed me of that right. 
 
 Can you deny my claim ? 
 
 I believe that every honest man will admit that 
 right. I believe that every honest man desires to see 
 that right restored. I believe that every honest man 
 will help to restore that right, once he understands 
 how it can be done. 
 
 How can it be done ? 
 
 I have shown, my countrymen, how unemployment 
 is caused. 
 
 I have shown how, as all wealth comes from the 
 land, the ownership of land and capital by a few 
 people who are not compelled to find work for the 
 masses, causes, and must always cause, unemploy- 
 ment. 
 
 I have shown how, being deprived of pur natural 
 right to the land, I and the millions like me, are 
 forced to go to these few rich people to beg for the 
 chance of earning a living. 
 
 I have shown how these few rich people refuse to 
 employ anyone unless they can make a profit out of 
 his labour. 
 
 I have shown how this dependence of the masses 
 on landlords and employers causes competition for 
 employment, thus lowering the rate of wages. 
 
 I have shown how competition for riches amongst 
 these few privileged persons causes, and must always 
 cause, unemployment. 
 
 I have shown how machinery and other improve- 
 ments cause, and must always cause, unemployment. 
 
86 MY RIGHT TO WORK 
 
 I have shown that unemployment is caused by bad 
 trade, and that bad trade is caused by the capitalists 
 investing their money in industries where fresh 
 capital is not needed, thus causing " over-produc- 
 tion," Over-production is, and must be, followed 
 by fierce competition, the closing down of works, 
 and unemployment. 
 
 I have shown how our small rich class export 
 large amounts of surplus capital abroad, thus 
 finding work for foreigners while their own country- 
 men starve. 
 
 I have shown how the rich are able to do these 
 things because they take such an enormous and 
 unfair share of the national income. 
 
 I have shown that the low wages and poverty of 
 the workers prevent them from finding work for the 
 unemployed. 
 
 I have shown that good trade and increased wealth 
 are no remedy for unemployment. The unemployed 
 in bad times are more numerous than ever. 
 
 I have shown that Charity is no remedy, and 
 that Protection and Free Trade are quack remedies 
 which have been long tried and have miserably 
 failed to effect a cure. 
 
 Now, my countrymen, is there a remedy for all 
 these evils ? And if so, what is that remedy ? 
 
 Mr. Chamberlain told us the other day that there 
 were cnly two methods by which more employment 
 for British workmen could be found. His plan, and 
 Socialism. 
 
 Now, I have shown that Mr. Chamberlain's plan, 
 as a remedy for unemployment, is a delusion and 
 a snare. 
 
 I want the right to work. I don't want the right of 
 a chance to get work. I have that now. Look at 
 the United States under Protection. 
 
 I haye no intention of wasting long years 
 in helping to get Tariff Reform. I want the 
 right to work. I am going for the right to 
 work. And the only plan that will ensure my 
 right to work is SOCIALISM. 
 
 Now, my countrymen, do not say " Impossible." 
 
THE ONLY REMEDY 87 
 
 Socialism is not only possible, it is the only possible 
 plan. 
 
 It is Socialism or destruction. This great nation, 
 my countrymen, is going downhill. We cannot keep 
 a front place, we cannot hold our position long, 
 while one-third of us are underfed, starved in body 
 and mind. 
 
 We may increase our home trade and our exports ; 
 but remember that, besides goods, we are exporting 
 men and women, the best of our brain and brawn. 
 We cannot retain our ancient vigour in a population 
 born and bred in the slums of our great towns. We 
 cannot advance in health and strength while a 
 million little children go to school ill-fed and ill- 
 clothed. We cannot breed a race of healthy mothers 
 in our factories and workshops and sweateries. We 
 cannot defend ourselves against external foes with 
 armies of weaklings and epileptics. 
 
 But you know well our evil conditions. Have you 
 any remedy ? Do you know any other remedy 
 than Socialism ? 
 
 I do not, my countrymen. Mr. Chamberlain's plan 
 is mere tinkering, and doubtful tinkering. If suc- 
 cessful, the only result would be some more em- 
 ployment. 
 
 Now, who gains most from an increase in trade ? 
 
 The rich. As I have shown, the idle landlords 
 and capitalists take the bulk of the wealth. 
 
 Very well. These people are too rich now. If 
 they get more, they must invest it at home or 
 abroad. 
 
 If they invest it at home, it will cause unemploy- 
 ment, by competing with existing industries. If 
 they invest it abroad, the interest on it will come in 
 the form of imports, and displace British labour. 
 
 Mr. Chamberlain's plan is a botch. It cannot solve 
 the unemployed problem, it cannot restore the right 
 to work. But it can strengthen the power of the few 
 rich over the many poor. It may, with all its 
 promise of more employment, actually throw more 
 workers into the streets. 
 
 I want the right to work. I have no time to waste 
 
88 MY RIGHT TO WORK 
 
 with quack remedies. While I am helping to bring 
 about Tariff Reform, I am throwing away the oppor- 
 tunity to help forward Socialism, the only possible 
 remedy for unemployment and poverty. 
 
 What would Socialism do ? 
 
 Socialism would abolish the private ownership of 
 land and capital. Tariff Reform does not touch that 
 root evil of unemployment. 
 
 Under Socialism the land and capital would 
 belong to all the people, just as the Crown lands, the 
 arsenals, the Navy, the post offices, schools, gas- 
 works, tramways, docks, waterworks, parks, and 
 libraries belong to all the people. 
 
 Does not all wealth come from the land ? It does. 
 
 Do the few landlords and employers who own the 
 land and the capital which has been taken from the 
 land admit any responsibility of finding work 
 for all ? 
 
 They do not. 
 
 Unemployment, then, must exist while a few 
 people own the land and capital. 
 
 The landlords and capitalists to-day only find 
 employment for people when it pleases them. It 
 does not please them to find employment for all. 
 Consequently there is a scramble for the work that 
 is to be got. 
 
 Under Socialism there would be no scramble. The 
 Government elected by all the people would organise 
 the production of wealth. They would find work 
 for all. 
 
 To-day this country is a poor country. Why ? 
 Because the few rich landlords and employers only 
 allow the workers to produce wealth for their 
 profit. 
 
 If a capitalist, by employing 1,000 people for a 
 year in one way could make 50,000, and by em- 
 ploying 1,000 people for two years in some other 
 way could make only 40,000 for himself, which 
 would he do ? 
 
 Would he consider his own profit, or the welfare 
 of the 1,000 people? 
 
 He would go for that 50,000. What matter to 
 
THE ONLY REMEDY 89 
 
 him if the 1,000 people starved during the second 
 year ? He is not held responsible. 
 
 Now, under Socialism this country would soon 
 become a wealthy country. The land and capital 
 would belong to all the people, and the Government 
 would organise the production of wealth. 
 
 To-day the production of food, coal, clothing, 
 furniture, all the necessaries and luxuries, is simply 
 a wild, unorganised gamble for riches and mere 
 existence. 
 
 Under Socialism, my countrymen, we should 
 become a nation. To-day we are a mob, fighting 
 each other for life. 
 
 Under Socialism we should really be a nation. 
 To-day we only pretend to be a nation. 
 
 What is a nation ? Is it not a number of people 
 living together, working together, dying together if 
 need be, bound together by ties of blood and belief 
 and custom, and common interests of all kinds ? 
 
 Are we a nation ? Is it a nation where a few people 
 force the masses to work for their profit, where the 
 millions are compelled to scramble for the mean 
 scraps left by the rich, where the rich " patriots " 
 invest the wealth made by their own flesh and blood 
 in foreign lands, while their own countrymen starve ? 
 
 Competition and private ownership of land and 
 capital must produce such conditions. But under 
 Socalism wealth would be produced for use. The 
 object of all the people would be to make all the 
 people healthy and happy. 
 
 To live a healthy life man must have food, fuel, 
 clothing, and shelter. To live a healthy, civilised 
 life man must have food for the mind, he must have 
 leisure and recreation. 
 
 Do the few owners of land and capital arrange 
 for the production of these necessaries for all ? 
 
 You know they do not. They arrange for nothing 
 but their own profit. 
 
 But under Socialism, when all the land and capital 
 belonged to the people, the business of the Govern- 
 ment would be to organise the production of these 
 necessaries. 
 
90 MY RIGHT TO WORK 
 
 Don't you think it would be more sensible than 
 the present mad scramble ? 
 
 Good heavens ! We only need to exercise as 
 much common sense as the proprietor of a 
 coffee-stall. 
 
 If they want to feed 100,000 cup-tie spectators at 
 the Crystal Palace, do they allow all kinds of 
 caterers to dump down their foodstuffs in the 
 grounds, or do they give the contract to one man, 
 whose business it is to know what and how much 
 food 100,000 people require? 
 
 If they did the first, what a howl would be raised. 
 There would be too much of this food, too little of 
 that, none at all of something else. There would be 
 enormous loss and waste, and amidst the plenty 
 many would be sent away hungry. 
 
 Now, it is just as easy to organise the production 
 of food for forty millions as for a hundred thou- 
 sand. Just as easy to organise the production 
 of houses, coal, clothes, boots, and all other 
 necessaries. 
 
 Is not the present state of things a shameful 
 muddle ? Is it not insane to say that unemployment 
 is inevitable, when we have unemployed and poor 
 agricultural labourers wanting clothes, and boots, 
 and coal, and houses; unemployed colliers wanting 
 food, and clothes, and houses ; unemployed builders 
 wanting clothes, and coal, and food; unemployed 
 tailors wanting food, and houses, and coal ? 
 
 What is the remedy ? 
 
 Organisation, co-operation, national ownership. 
 Socialism is the remedy. 
 
 Socalism would abolish competition for profits. 
 
 Under Socialism the people would not be so 
 foolish as to allow two or two hundred men to be 
 produce the goods required. The people would not 
 open two draper's shops next door to each other. 
 The people would not have two gas or electric plants 
 where one would be enough. 
 
 Socialism would abolish waste. 
 
 Socialism would abolish competition amongst the 
 workers. 
 
THE ONLY REMEDY pi 
 
 Under Socialism the people would not be so 
 foolish as to allow two or three hundred men to be 
 running after one job. The people would find work 
 for all. 
 
 Under Socialism there would be no starvation 
 wages. We should be so wealthy that every worker 
 would have a living wage. Much more wealthy than 
 we are to-day. 
 
 Under Socialism new inventions would not throw 
 workers on to the streets. Inventions are adopted 
 because they increase wealth. Under Socialism the 
 benefits would be spread over the whole country. 
 If inventions displaced labour, other work would be 
 found, or hours could be reduced. 
 
 Under Socialism an increase of wealth could not 
 cause unemployment or starvation. 
 
 If the people made more wealth than they could 
 consume they could either work shorter hours or 
 export the surplus. They could loan it or give it 
 away to poorer relations abroad or to foreigners. 
 
 Under Socialism foreign competition could not 
 rob our workers of their employment. The people 
 would not allow sweated goods to come into the 
 country. 
 
 If the foreigners could produce goods made under 
 proper conditions cheaper than we could, the people 
 would decide whether they would exchange other 
 goods for them or not. The whole nation would 
 decide, not a few profit-hunters. 
 
 Under Socialism the rich could not cause unem- 
 ployment by investing their surplus earnings in 
 industry. The Government would control industry, 
 and would not need to borrow capital from rich 
 people. If any person had surplus capital the 
 Government might take care of it for him, and 
 charge him for the work. It would be a pleasant 
 change. 
 
 Under Socialism Charity would be practically 
 unnecessary. Every able, willing person would be 
 able to earn his own living. 
 
 Under Socialism Free Trade and Protection could 
 be considered on their merits, as they affect the 
 
Q2 MY RIGHT TO WORK 
 
 welfare of all the people. To-day these questions 
 are of importance only to the landlords and 
 employers. 
 
 Socialism is the remedy for all the evils named. 
 Socialism is the only remedy. 
 
 The only remedy, my countrymen. When are you 
 going to apply it ? 
 
FIRST AID FOR THE INJURED TARIFF REFORM 
 
 I AM one of the unemployed. I want work. I am 
 willing to work. I cannot get work. 
 
 I have a right to work. The laws made by 
 you, my countrymen, have robbed me of that right 
 You, then, can make laws which will restore that 
 right. 
 
 How can it be done ? 
 
 I showed in the last chapter that the only sure 
 remedy for unemployment and poverty is Socialism. 
 Socialism is the only remedy, my countrymen. 
 
 How is Socialism to be established ? 
 
 " We may admit that Socialism is the only 
 remedy," I am told, " but while we are waiting for 
 Socialism men and women are starving. Trade 
 depressions and unemployment come with the regu- 
 larity of the tides. What is to be done now ? " 
 
 Before answering that question let me say that 
 Socialism will not come if we only watt for it. We 
 must work for it. 
 
 What I want you to guard against is the danger 
 of forgetting the cure while you are making the 
 patient easier. 
 
 You may take a pill to carry you through the 
 day's work, but unless you adopt the proper remedy 
 later, your ill-health will remain, perhaps intensified 
 by the effects of the temporary remedy. 
 
 Socialism will effect a lasting cure. 
 
 Socialism, I know, cannot be established in a week. 
 But Socialism will be established all the sooner if 
 your faith in its efficacy, its possibility, and its 
 justice is buttressed by a determination to get it at 
 all hazards. 
 
94 MY RIGHT TO WORK 
 
 Do not be led aside by quack remedies. I am 
 afraid, my countrymen, that many of you imagine 
 a vain thing. Your hearts are touched by the miseries 
 of the poor and the unemployed, and you are in 
 favour of doing " something." 
 
 Something. But not much. Not too much. If. 
 somehow, the poor could have another 5 per cent, 
 added to their wages, if the unemployed in bad 
 times could be fed and kept alive, you would sleep 
 sound at nights, and alt would be better than 
 well. 
 
 So we have schemes for Tariff Reform and 
 schemes for finding work and wages for the unem- 
 ployed, which are to cost the taxpayers nothing! 
 
 My countrymen, these are quack remedies. The 
 thousands like me will not much longer consent to 
 be herded and driven like dumb beasts. 
 
 Labour is awake. Our claim is not now for 
 " work " only, but for life. We do not live to-day. 
 We want the right to live. We claim the right to 
 work, because man cannot live without working, 
 begging, or stealing. And when I say the right to 
 work, I do not mean the right to dishonourable toil 
 for a mean wage, but the right to honourable work 
 for a decent and honourable livelihood. And 
 Socialism is the only remedy. 
 
 Your Unemployed Act will not do. Charity will 
 not do. Mr. Chamberlain's plan will not do. These 
 are the shifts of people who want to retain the 
 present unjust condition of society. We must have 
 Socialism. All of it. 
 
 If you want to know how Socialism is to be 
 established, read Britain for the British. 
 
 You all know what municipal Socialism is. What 
 we have done with the gas, and the trams, and the 
 water, and the electricity of our big cities, that we 
 can do with other industries. 
 
 Read Mind your Own Business, and learn how 
 municipal Socialism pays the community, and then 
 figure out how an extension of the principle would 
 add to the health and wealth of the whole -people. 
 
 Socialism cannot be established in a week. True. 
 
FIRST AID FOR THE INJURED 95 
 
 But it might be established in a fortnight if if 
 there were enough Socialists. 
 
 Meanwhile, what is to be done, my countrymen ? 
 
 I am one of the unemployed. I want food. I am 
 willing to work. What can be done now to prevent 
 starvation and the degradation that follows idleness 
 and poverty ? 
 
 First, I want you to keep in mind the principle 
 which should guide you in adopting measures of 
 relief for the unemployed. 
 
 All schemes for helping the unemployed, should 
 be steps in the direction of Socialism. 
 
 Tried by this test, how does Mr. Chamberlain's 
 plan stand ? 
 
 I am told that as palliatives must be adopted while 
 we are waiting for Socialism, I ought to support Mr. 
 Chamberlain's plan, because it would certainly pro- 
 vide more employment. 
 
 Would it ? I do not think that is proved. I doubt 
 it. I think it possible that his plan would cause less 
 employment. 
 
 We have to look to the future. Mr. Chamberlain 
 starts with a low tariff, but how long would the 
 tariff remain low ? Whatever Mr. Chamberlain 
 means, his Party means Protection. 
 
 Now, Protection, without Socialism, might be more 
 deadly to the workers than the present system. 
 
 Protection means Trusts. We have a few Trusts 
 now. But with foreign competition scotched, Trusts 
 would multiply here as they have done in America. 
 
 Trusts save labour. Trusts abolish competition. 
 Trusts fleece the consumers. Trusts mean riches for 
 the few. 
 
 Just as to-day the few rich would make profits for 
 themselves, and just as to-day they would export 
 their surplus capital to foreign countries, and the 
 British unemployed might go hang. 
 
 I am told that our rich people export their capital 
 abroad because in foreign protected countries they 
 are sure of a market, and so can rely on making 
 profits, and that if our industries were protected 
 against foreign competition in the same way, our 
 
g6 MY RIGHT TO WORK 
 
 rich people would rather invest their capital at home, 
 and so find work for British labour. 
 
 But the bulk of the 2,000,000,000 invested abroad 
 by our rich people, is invested in Foreign and 
 Colonial Government loans, municipal loans, rail- 
 ways, lands, and mines, the safest forms of invest- 
 ment that can be found, not in competitive industries. 
 
 Anyhow, there is not the slightest hope that Mr. 
 Chamberlain's plan would induce the rich to invest 
 their surplus capital at home in preference to sending 
 it abroad. 
 
 And, as I have shown, if they did invest it at 
 home, they would have to invest it in industries 
 where capital is not needed so causing over-pro- 
 duction, followed by unemployment Or the wages 
 of the workers would have to be considerably 
 raised so that they could buy the increased produc- 
 tion of goods. 
 
 Does Mr. Chamberlain's plan provide for this 
 increase of workers' wages ? Does it provide for 
 the organisation of industry, so that over-production 
 in any branch would be avoided ? 
 
 No. It provides practically for nothing but the 
 protection of the profits of the landlord and 
 employer. 
 
 Look at the United States. They have high Pro- 
 tection. And they have Trusts, a few rich people, 
 and a mass of poor and unemployed. 
 
 Mr. R. Hunter, in his book, " Poverty," says of the 
 United States : 
 
 '' There are probably in fairly prosperous years no 
 less than 10,000,000 persons in poverty that is to 
 say, underfed, underclothed, and poorly housed. Of 
 these, about 4,000,000 persons are public paupers. 
 Over 2,000,000 working men are unemployed from 
 four to six months of the year. About 500,000 male 
 immigrants arrive yearly and seek work in the very 
 districts where unemployment is greatest. Nearly 
 half of the families in the country are forced to 
 become wage-earners when they should still be in 
 school. Abour 5,000,000 women find it necessary to 
 work, and about 2,000,000 are employed in factories, 
 
FIRST AID FOR THE INJURED 07 
 
 mills, etc. Probably no less than 1,000,000 workers 
 are injured or killed each year while doing their 
 work, and about 10,000,000 of the persons now living 
 will, if the present ratio is kept up, die of the pre- 
 ventable disease, tuberculosis.' 
 
 If Protection does not cause unemployment, why 
 does this state of things exist in the United States ? 
 Why do not the millionaires find work for the un- 
 employed ? 
 
 The American rich, like ours, are investing abroad, 
 and, according to Mr. John D. Rockefeller, the Oil 
 King, there will be in two years from now a terrible 
 depression in trade, causing the unemployment of 
 ten million men. 
 
 Why ? Because, says Mr. Rockefeller, the pro- 
 ductive capacity of the United States is vastly in 
 excess of the people's power of consumption ! 
 
 Thus, under high Protection, exactly the same 
 poverty, unemployment, and pauperdom exist as 
 under Free Trade. 
 
 The people of the United States are to starve 
 because they can produce more wealth than they 
 can use ! 
 
 Why can't they use it? Because the few rich 
 won't let them. 
 
 Protection, then, without Socialism, is worthless; 
 and that is what Mr. Chamberlain's plan would 
 give us. 
 
 It will not do, my countrymen. How can you be 
 deluded by such manifest quackery ? 
 
 Mr. Chamberlain's plan is a botch. It does not 
 touch the root evils. It does not touch the private 
 ownership of land and capital. It does not touch the 
 question of the unfair distribution of wealth. It 
 does not touch the question of the " unearned " 
 rent and interest now paid to the idle landlord 
 and shareholder. It does not admit the right to 
 work. 
 
 Therefore, I say, Mr. Chamberlain's plan is not a 
 palliative which ought to receive the support of any 
 person who is honestly desirous of finding a remedy 
 for unemployment and poverty. 
 
 H 
 
Q8 MY RIGHT TO WORK 
 
 It may take years to accomplish Mr. Chamberlain's 
 plan, and then you are only laying the foundation 
 for Protection. Why should I waste my time in 
 helping Mr. Chamberlain? 
 
 I do not say that Tariff Reform with proper safe- 
 guards might not prove a useful palliative. 
 
 All I say is that Mr. Chamberlain and those of the 
 men who support him are not to be trusted. They 
 do not mean Socialism. 
 
 Tariff Reform might be made a step towards 
 Socialism. We might, for instance, take off the taxes 
 of 30,000,000 on the food and tobacco of the 
 people, and get the revenue by taxing the luxuries 
 of the rich. 
 
 A Socialist Government might find it necessary to 
 put a high tariff on foreign goods made by sweated 
 labour, so that British workers would not be dis- 
 placed. But Mr. Chamberlain is not a Socialist. 
 His Government will not be a Socialist Government. 
 His plan would protect only the rich. 
 
 The Tariff Reformers can only be prevented from 
 working injury to the country by sending Socialists 
 to Parliament. Then, if Tariff Reform becomes a 
 question of immediate action, the Socialists will be 
 strong enough to see that the evils of Protection are 
 counterbalanced by measures for the protection of 
 the workers. 
 
 If Tariff Reform comes, it must be made a step 
 towards Socialism. 
 
 So I say again, do not be induced to expend all 
 your energies in fighting for Mr. Chamberlain's plan. 
 Fight for Socialism. Socialism is greater than Tariff 
 Reform. Tariff Reform is only a tool. We do not 
 want to sharpen the tool for the rich. Get Socialists 
 into Parliament, and we can use the tool to raise 
 ourselves. 
 
 Get Tariff Reformers into Parliament, and they 
 will use the tool to keep us under. 
 
 To you also, my Free Trade friends, I would utter 
 a similar warning. 
 
 Do not be led away by Free Trade claptrap. Free 
 Trade might be a glorious thing under proper 
 
FIRST AID FOR THE INJURED 99 
 
 conditions. It is not a glorious thing for me, and for 
 millions like me to-day. 
 
 Do you not see that this fiscal fight is a fight 
 between capitalists as to who shall make the profits ? 
 It isn't a fight for the benefit of the " nation. That 
 is what they tell you. 
 
 The capitalist who loses his trade through foreign 
 competition is a Tariff Reformer. He wants Pro- 
 tection. 
 
 The capitalist who depends on cheap foreign 
 imports for raw material is a Free Trader. He 
 doesn't want his prices raised. 
 
 The exporter doesn't want food taxed, because he 
 might have to pay higher wages, so increasing his 
 cost of production. Consequently he is a Free 
 Trader. And so on. 
 
 Lancashire went solid for Free Trade. Cotton is 
 an export trade depending on free imports for cheap 
 raw material. 
 
 Lancashire is prosperous just now. But Lanca- 
 shire may not always be prosperous. There are 
 Japan, India, America, and China in the offing. If 
 they cut into Lancashire trade abroad and at nome, 
 we should find Lancashire squealing for Tariff 
 Reform. 
 
 But, my Lancashire friends, why should you 
 depend on foreign countries to dispose of the bulk 
 of your cotton goods ? 
 
 If the production of goods were organised, as 
 Socialism would organise it, you could find employ- 
 ment in making cotton goods for your own country- 
 men. 
 
 This would be certain employment, not as to-day, 
 depending on your success in beating foreign com- 
 petitors. There would be no short time, no starva- 
 tion, no strikes and lock-outs. 
 
 We have millions of bare backs, millions of people 
 who want cotton goods at home, and this glorious 
 system of Free Trade ordains that you should send 
 70,000,000 worth of cotton goods a year to foreign 
 countries, while the home trade only takes 
 20,000,000 worth ! Isn't it insane ? 
 
100 MY RIGHT TO WORK 
 
 I ask you, too, to look at this question, not as a 
 cotton operative, but as a citizen of the United 
 Kingdom. 
 
 Tariff Reform would, you think, hurt you. Well, 
 Free Trade hurts your brother workmen. What are 
 you going to do about it ? 
 
 Under Free Trade a certain number of workmen 
 in certain trades get fairly regular employment 
 Under Protection another class of workmen would 
 get fairly regular employment. 
 
 But under Socialism all workmen would have 
 regular employment always. 
 
 So I say to you, my Free Trade friends, if you 
 want to do the best for your country, and for your- 
 selves and your children, you will not be content 
 to fight for Free Trade against Tariff Reform. You 
 will fight for Socialism. For Socialism is the only 
 remedy for poverty and unemployment. Read 
 Britain for the British. 
 
 Tell me, what are you going to do if the Tariff 
 Reformers win the day and the prices of your food 
 and other goods are raised ? Or if your foreign 
 competitors capture some more of your trade ? 
 
 The employers will say, " We must reduce wages 
 to meet competition." What will you say ? 
 
 The Socialist can tell you what to say. Read 
 Britain for the British. If we must keep our 
 foreign trade, if the cost of production must be 
 reduced, why should you not cut down the rents and 
 profits of the landowner and idle shareholder ? Why 
 should you not tax royalty owners and stop the 
 shipping rings and the railway companies from 
 fleecing you ? 
 
 That is the Socialists' way out of the dilemma. 
 If, while we are waiting and working for Socialism, 
 we must keep up pur export trade, we can best keep 
 it up by cheapening the cost of production. And 
 we can best cheapen the cost of production by throw- 
 ing off the burden of taxation levied by the idle 
 landlord, the idle shareholder, and the idle royalty 
 owner. 
 
 Send Socialists to Parliament, and they will pass 
 
FIRST AID TO THE INJURED IOI 
 
 measures to effect these reforms. Send Free Traders 
 to Parliament, and they will do nothing to alter the 
 present conditions. 
 
 Free Trade ? Tariff Reform ? Tweedledum and 
 Tweedledee. Neither is any good. Socialism is the 
 only remedy. 
 
 Meanwhile, something must be done to help the 
 unemployed. 
 
HIGHER WAGES 
 
 I AM one of the unemployed. I want work. I am 
 able to work. I am willing to work. I cannot 
 get work. 
 
 You, my countrymen, are, I hope, convinced that 
 I have a right to work, and you are convinced, I also 
 hope, that Socialism is the only remedy for unem- 
 ployment. But, while we are establishing Socialism, 
 what must be done to help the unemployed ? 
 
 I think you will agree that it is unjust and cruel 
 to allow the unemployed and their wives and chil- 
 dren to starve in the richest country in the world. 
 
 Remember, the unemployed are unemployed 
 through no fault of their own. It is you, my country- 
 men, your laws and your system of society, which 
 cause unemployment. Or, rather, we are all 
 responsible. 
 
 Should the few unemployed be punished for the 
 mistakes of the whole people? Surely not. 
 
 I am asked why I have not dealt with drink as 
 the cause of unemployment 
 
 Drink is not the cause of unemployment. The 
 drunkard is dismissed and the sober man is chosen ; 
 but how comes it that there is a sober man ready to 
 take the drunkard's place? Read Britain for the 
 British. 
 
 If you understand the working of the system of 
 competition, and the monopoly of land and capital 
 by the few, you will see that unemployment must be 
 caused, even if alcohol were banished from the 
 country. 
 
 As the unemployed are suffering through the 
 action of the nation, I contend that it is the duty 
 of the nation to relieve them. 
 
HIGHER WAGES 103 
 
 Starvation, and the evils that come through lack 
 of wages, must be prevented. 
 
 Whether the unemployed can or cannot get work, 
 they must not be allowed to starve. 
 
 The nation can afford to pay wages to the 
 unemployed and keep them in idleness. What 
 would it cost to pay 303. a week to every one 
 of them ? 
 
 Taking an average for ten years, there are about 
 400,000 unemployed. 
 
 To pay 400,000 people 305. a week for a year 
 would take over 30,000,000. 
 
 Thirty million pounds ! For an average of thirty 
 million pounds a year we could prevent the misery 
 and degradation now suffered by over a million 
 people ! 
 
 Would it not be a cheap line, my countrymen ? 
 
 But where are the 30,000,000 to come from ? 
 
 Turn to the chapter on " Rich and Poor." You 
 will there find that 250,000 persons take 585,000,000 
 out of the total national income of 1,710,000,000. 
 
 Those 250,000 persons are getting too much, my 
 countrymen. Those are the people who are able to 
 send capital abroad to find work for foreigners. We 
 must dam that stream, and divert the capital into 
 home channels. 
 
 Thirty million pounds ! They would never notice 
 it had gone. It would be no more felt by them than 
 your spending a penny. 
 
 Now, I am not suggesting that we should pay the 
 unemployed 305. a week for doing nothing. I am 
 only pointing out that it is our duty to keep the 
 unemployed, and that we have sufficient wealth to 
 keep them. 
 
 If you reject Socialism, and decide that the pre- 
 sent system is the best possible, even then I contend 
 that your moral law commands you to treat the 
 unemployed justly. 
 
 If you think it good to retain a system which does 
 and must cause, always, more or less unemployment, 
 then I contend it is your duty to provide a living for 
 those unemployed. 
 
104 MY RIGHT TO WORK 
 
 The unemployed are as necessary a part of your 
 system as the employed. Then pay them. 
 
 Just think. You could not have booms in trade 
 unless there were the unemployed waiting to be 
 called up when wanted. The unemployed are as 
 necessary as the employed. 
 
 One year the unemployed are 10 per cent, of the 
 workers. Trade revives. The unemployed fall to 
 2 per cent. But how could trade revive if there were 
 no unemployed ? 
 
 In your cricket and football clubs you pay all the 
 professionals engaged, whether they play in matches 
 or not. The Army and Navy are paid in time of 
 peace as in time of war. Why should hot the indus- 
 trial army be on the same footing? 
 
 You cannot deny the obligation. Your laws pre- 
 vent the unemployed from working. It is your duty 
 to keep them. 
 
 The question is : What work can be found to 
 employ them? To keep them in idleness would be 
 outrageous. Our gorge rises at the sight of an idle 
 man unless he be rich. 
 
 Well, my countrymen, to find work is a very easy 
 task. 
 
 You might pay the unemployed 305. a week, and 
 to salve your conscience, you might employ them in 
 digging holes, and in filling the holes up again. 
 
 That would be work. 
 
 And I say it in all seriousness that method 
 would, perhaps, be the sanest method to adopt, if 
 you are determined to retain the present system of 
 private ownership of land and capital, competition, 
 and Free Trade. 
 
 Because if you set the unemployed doing useful, 
 
 E reductive work, and the rich continue to take the 
 ulk of the new wealth produced, the old evils 
 remain. 
 
 The surplus wealth taken by the rich would be 
 invested in home trade. There would be over- 
 production and more unemployment. Or they 
 would invest it abroad, and the dividends, 
 coming in the form of foreign goods, would 
 
HIGHER WAGES 105 
 
 compete with home-made goods, and displace British 
 labour. 
 
 Now, in digging and filling up holes the unem- 
 ployed would not produce wealth. The rich would 
 not benefit. The least possible harm would be done. 
 
 But what a spectacle for the world we should 
 present. The most civilised and intelligent nation 
 on earth compelled to doom half a million or a 
 million of its population to dig holes and fill them 
 up again. We should die of sname. 
 
 That way, my countrymen, is madness. The only 
 remedy for unemployment is Socialism, and the only 
 sane palliatives are steps towards Socialism. 
 
 Now, the first palliative I shall suggest is a general 
 rise of wages for what are called the working classes. 
 
 The average working-class income is little more 
 than i a week. If, then, this class had an increase 
 of wages, the immediate effect would be a demand 
 for those goods known as necessaries. 
 
 More food would be called for, more and better 
 houses, more boots, more clothes, more furniture, 
 more coal, more books, more pictures, more of every- 
 thing necessary to a healthy and decent livelihood. 
 
 The workers in these industries would be fully 
 employed, and many of the unemployed would be 
 absorbed. The bigger the increase of wages (within 
 limits) the more employment there would be. 
 
 If a nation is continually increasing its wealth, as 
 we are, the people must have higher wages, in order 
 to buy, and use, and consume that wealth. Why 
 should we allow a few people to waste heaps of it, 
 and export other heaps of it to foreign countries ? 
 
 Now, an increase of wages may be obtained in 
 more than one way. 
 
 I may get 55. a week more, or I may pay 55. a week 
 less for the goods I purchase. 
 
 Take the first method. How are the workers to 
 get an increase of money wages ? 
 
 By their own sectional efforts and by legislation. 
 
 The people, through Parliament, ought to at once 
 prohibit sweating. A national minimum living 
 wage should be fixed by Parliament, and no 
 
106 MY RIGHT TO WORK 
 
 employer should be allowed to employ any person at 
 less than the fixed minimum living wage. 
 
 All Government and municipal employees should 
 receive not less than a fixed minimum wage. 
 
 My countrymen, you cannot afford to pay a living 
 wage ! You, who live on the profits and dividends 
 made by these sweated slaves ! Nonsense. You 
 cannot afford to pay less. 
 
 Then the workers, through their trade unions, 
 should insist on having a larger share of the product 
 of their labour. 
 
 Consider the case of the miners. Isn't it monstrous 
 that a few thousand landowners and shareholders 
 should take nearly as much as the 900,000 men who 
 do the work ? 
 
 In 1902-3 the royalty owners and shareholders 
 took as their share of the produce 40,000,000. The 
 900,000 workers at 50 a year each, took only 
 45,000,000 ! 
 
 Another badly-paid class is the railway workers. 
 The idle shareholders actually take more than the 
 half-million railway servants! While the share- 
 holders take 40,000,000 in profits, the workers 
 receive less than 30,000,000, an average of 255. a 
 week. 
 
 Such an unfair distribution of wealth screams for 
 re-adjustment. The workers, not less than the 
 shareholders, are responsible for this state of things. 
 
 Do you know, my fellow-workers, that your 
 apathy, your content in the condition to which 
 " Providence " has called you, is the cause of the un- 
 employment, the misery and starvation of thousands 
 of your countrymen? 
 
 You are content with your paltry 255. a week ! 
 You are content to live in a jerry-built, bathless 
 horror called a house, for which you pay famine 
 prices. You are content to live with gimcrack 
 loathsome furniture. You are content to eat and 
 drink adulterated concoctions misnamed food. You 
 are content to wear cheap and nasty clothing. You 
 are content to ride, packed like garbage, in filthy 
 railway carriages. You are content to be bundled 
 
HIGHER WAGES IO? 
 
 and squeezed into places of " amusement," content 
 if you can only get a glimpse of the well-dressed, 
 spacious few whose seats are bought with your 
 wealth. You are content to let your wives sacrifice 
 their womanliness in a life of monotonous toil and 
 meanness, trying to make both ends meet, because 
 you are afraid of your employers. You are content 
 to see your children ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill-educated 
 nay, you are content to live on their earnings, 
 some of you. You are content if you are graciously 
 permitted to work till you are fifty. You are content 
 to sponge in your old age on your friends, and to 
 drag out the remnants of a miserable existence in 
 disgraceful poverty. And you you won't hear of 
 Chinese slavery ! 
 
 Content ? I say such content is criminal. It is 
 your content that makes me one of the unemployed. 
 Is it not time you began to have a little self-respect, 
 my friends? Is it not time you cultivated a little 
 discontent ? Divine discontent. 
 
 Now to the second method of raising wages. At 
 the present time the working classes pay rates and 
 taxes. 
 
 I would abolish all food taxes and tobacco taxes, 
 etc., paid by the working classes. 
 
 I would also reduce the rates on all houses of less 
 rent than 20 a year. 
 
 I would establish old-age pensions. 
 
 The deficit in the revenue required by the national 
 and local authorities could be obtained from a 
 revised Income Tax, graduated so as to fall heavily 
 on the few big incomes, and by increasing the Death 
 Duties. 
 
 Remember, a mere handful of rich people take 
 585,000,000 a year. A few thousand rich people die 
 every year, and leave behind them 200,000,000. 
 That quarry is hardly touched yet. 
 
 I would establish an eight-hour day. This would 
 absorb thousands of the unemployed. To-day 
 millions are working overtime, while hundreds of 
 thousands are unemployed. 
 
 If you had the right men in Parliament, these 
 
108 MY RIGHT TO WORK 
 
 measures could easily be passed in one session. They 
 would transfer smoothly, and without injustice to 
 any, a respectable sum from the pockets of the rich 
 to the pockets of the poor. They would cause an 
 increase of employment, and they would result in 
 raising the standard of life of millions who now are 
 on the verge of starvation. 
 
 These measures satisfy the principle laid down for 
 our guidance. They would be steps in the direction 
 of Socialism, because they would be steps in the 
 direction of justice. 
 
 But they would not solve the unemployed problem, 
 and they would not be Socialism. The system of 
 Private Ownership and Competition would still pro- 
 duce its periodical trade depressions. The cry of 
 the unemployed would still be heard in the land, and 
 for them some provision must be made. 
 
STEPS TO SOCIALISM 
 
 I AM one of the unemployed. I want work I am 
 able to work. I am willing to work. I cannot 
 get work. 
 
 The measures I have suggested would tend to 
 relieve the pressure of unemployment. But they 
 would not prevent unemployment entirely, and they 
 would not abolish poverty. 
 
 The measures would result in a slightly fairer 
 distribution of the national income. They would 
 also divert industry into more productive cnannels. 
 
 I am told that if we reduce the incomes of the 
 rich, they will not be able to " find employment " for 
 so many people. 
 
 If we reduce the incomes of the rich, they will dis- 
 charge their flunkeys, grooms, motormen, cooks, 
 manicurists, tailors, dressmakers, wine merchants, 
 singers, actors, artists, palmists, and other producers 
 of " luxuries." 
 
 But have I not shown that the rich have more than 
 enough to satisfy all their luxurious desires ? They 
 cannot spend all their wealth. They satisfy all 
 their cravings for luxury, and then they have a 
 surplus to invest. 
 
 The investment of their surplus capital is one of 
 the causes of unemployment. Therefore if we can 
 divert some of it into the pockets of the poor, un- 
 employment will be to some extent prevented. 
 
 The poor will not invest it. They will spend it in 
 necessaries. Things they want to consume. 
 
 Leave a surplus million in the hands of a rich man 
 and he will invest it, at home or abroad. If at home, 
 it will cause unemployment (unless in a new 
 industry). If abroad, it does the poor no good. 
 
IIO MY RIGHT TO WORK 
 
 Give that million to the poor and they will spend 
 it in food, clothes, furniture, coal, and houses, thus 
 finding employment for themselves. 
 
 Again, suppose the proposed taxes did cut into 
 the spending income of the rich, and they were com- 
 pelled to dismiss their flunkeys, grooms, motormen, 
 manicurists, palmists, cooks, needless tailors, dress- 
 makers, decorators, florists, jewellers, and what not, 
 would that be a terrible evil ? 
 
 These people would be unemployed. No doubt. 
 But other people would be employed by the poor 
 whose incomes were raised by the taxes and the 
 other measures. 
 
 Moreover, the latter would be producing wealth, 
 not consuming only. Those employed by the poor 
 would produce food, clothes, furniture, houses, etc., 
 for use. Many of the people employed by the rich 
 produce nothing at all, not even useless ornaments. 
 
 But these useless hangers-on of the rich consume, 
 How do they live ? They don't grow food. They 
 eat food. They don't make boots. They wear boots. 
 They don't build houses. They live in houses. They 
 don't dig coal. They burn coal. How do they get 
 these things ? 
 
 Why, me workers at these industries produce 
 them ! It is they who keep the hangers-on of the 
 rich, just as they keep the rich. 
 
 Are we to stay our reforming hands because the 
 grooms and flunkeys may lose their employment for 
 a time ? 
 
 I think not, my countrymen. They have the right 
 to work, as I have. But they have not the right to 
 live on the producers of wealth. 
 
 If a redistribution of the national income causes 
 a glut of grooms and flunkeys, something must be 
 done for them. I have said that the proposed 
 palliatives will not solve the unemployed problem, 
 and this objection to reform because the rich would 
 not be able to " find employment " for a lot of 
 useless, unproductive parasites emphasises my con- 
 tention that Socialism that is, organisation of 
 industry is the only remedy. 
 
STEPS TO SOCIALISM III 
 
 We must keep the remedy in view all the time. 
 We must have Socialism. All of it. 
 
 In the meantime, what are we to do for the 
 victims of our chaotic competitive system ? 
 
 To begin with, we must admit the Right to Work. 
 
 We must admit the right of every citizen to em- 
 ployment by the State or the Municipality. 
 
 The Right, my countrymen. You have to get out 
 of your heads the idea that for a man to be out of 
 work is a disgraceful condition, deserving the 
 punishment of starvation, the loss of home, the 
 torture of wife and children, and the contempt of all 
 persons who have the luck to be in work. 
 
 The unemployed are the victims of your bad 
 system. You, my countrymen, and your ancestors 
 made that system. Is it not so ? 
 
 Admitting the Right to Work, it will be our duty 
 to find work and wages. 
 
 To provide work is an easy matter, but we must be 
 careful to guard against quack remedies which will 
 cause new unemployment. 
 
 We cannot set the unemployed producing goods 
 which would compete with other industries. 
 
 For instance, we could not to-day set unemployed 
 bootmakers making boots to be sold on the market. 
 
 The market is already overstocked, and those 
 employed are capable of meeting even a heavier 
 demand. 
 
 We cannot start municipal work in December 
 which in the ordinary course would be done in May. 
 The result would simply be to rob one set of workers 
 to find work for another set. 
 
 We cannot allow benevolent people to collect 
 funds from all classes and start wood-chopping or 
 other industries to compete with existing trades. 
 
 What, then, can we 00 ? 
 
 We must find work for the unemployed which 
 would not otherwise be done. We must not imitate 
 the thoughtless rich, and invest our funds in indus- 
 tries where more capital is not needed. We must 
 start new industries. 
 
 For instance, there is re-afforestation, about which 
 
112 MY RIGHT TO WORK 
 
 we have heard so much. The experts tell us that 
 trees could be planted on several million acres of 
 waste land in the United Kingdom. This industry 
 would find employment for thousands of men, and 
 would in time return a handsome profit to the 
 nation. 
 
 How is the capital to be found to start it ? 
 
 By taxing the big incomes, by raising the Death 
 Duties, and by loans. 
 
 If you tax the masses, you will reduce their spend- 
 ing power, and so reduce employment. But if you 
 tax the big incomes, you tap the surplus capital 
 which is used for investment. 
 
 The Government could turn this capital into 
 channels useful and profitable to the nation. In the 
 hands of the rich it is injurious both to themselves 
 and the community. 
 
 There are other national works which could be 
 undertaken in the same way. Reclamation of fore- 
 shores, new roads, sea walls, improvement of the 
 canal system, etc. 
 
 Then there is the housing problem. Most of the 
 working-class houses in the Kingdom ought to be 
 demolished and rebuilt. Isn't it disgraceful that 
 there should be thousands and thousands of builders 
 out of work to-day ? 
 
 The municipalities should be empowered, and 
 compelled where necessary, to bring up the dwellings 
 of the people to a high standard of health and 
 convenience. 
 
 Money ? My countrymen, money ? It is not 
 money which builds houses, it is labour. The lords 
 of money will not allow us to use our labour with- 
 out their permission. Very well. Tax the rich and 
 borrow their money for the time being. If they 
 won't come up to the scratch well, we shall find 
 another way. 
 
 There is municipal work of other kinds which might 
 be put in hand to find work for the unemployed. In 
 the cleaning, painting, and repairing of public 
 property there is ample scope. 
 
 The laying out of new streets and parks, under 
 
STEPS TO SOCIALISM 113 
 
 the housing schemes, would also absorb many of the 
 unemployed. 
 
 There is the land. Along with the re-housing of 
 the people there should be made an attempt to keep 
 the rural population on the land, and induce some 
 of the tov/n dwellers to go back to the land. 
 
 Municipalities should be empowered to purchase 
 compulsorily land for small holdings, and for 
 municipal farms. 
 
 Farm colonies, too, may be useful institutions for 
 restoring habits of industry, and renewing the health 
 of some of the unfortunate victims of our system, 
 but we must not dream of attempting to restore our 
 agriculture, and abolish unemployment, merely by 
 dumping the unemployed on derelict land during 
 times of depression. 
 
 Farm colonies for the unemployed are all very 
 well in their way, but they do not go a long way. 
 They should be used as one of the means of dealing 
 with the unemployed, not as the only means. 
 
 Some people talk as if emigration would solve the 
 problem. Emigration? What have we to do with 
 emigration ? There is enough land in this country 
 to feed three times the population. Let those who 
 want to emigrate emigrate. But we must set our 
 faces against the adoption of emigration as a remedy 
 for the unemployed problem. 
 
 Let us see, now, how far these palliatives would 
 carry us. 
 
 First, there are the measures for increasing the 
 wages of the poor, and for reducing the hours of 
 labour : 
 
 (a) Reform of taxation. 
 
 () Legal minimum wage. 
 
 (<;) Raising trade union standard. 
 
 (d) Old age pensions. 
 
 Second, there is the establishment of national 
 industries : 
 
 (a) Housing schemes. 
 
 (b} Land settlement schemes. 
 
 (c) Re-afforestation, new roads, canals, fore- 
 shores, etc. 
 
 I 
 
114 MY RIGHT TO WORK 
 
 These industries ought to be started, remember, 
 not only because there is an unemployed problem, 
 but because they are urgently needed for the national 
 wel fare. 
 
 Third, there are municipal undertakings, some 
 local, and some branches of national undertakings : 
 
 (a) General sanitary work. 
 
 () Housing schemes, parks, laying out new dis- 
 tricts, etc. 
 
 All these measures would be steps to Socialism. 
 When we had got them into working order we should 
 find ourselves compelled to continue our march. We 
 should be driven by the logic of circumstances to 
 introduce more and more Socialistic methods, 
 because only by such methods can we root out 
 unemployment, and get the best out of ourselves and 
 our country. 
 
 Organisation. That is the remedy. National rail- 
 ways, national mines, national banks, national 
 insurance, national land, municipal bread, milk, boots, 
 clothes, and houses. Production of wealth for the 
 use of the whole people, not for the profit of a few. 
 The leave-things-alone policy has proved a dismal 
 failure. We must have organisation, Socialism. 
 
TO BE OR NOT TO BE? 
 
 I AM one of the unemployed. I want work. I am 
 able to work. I am willing to work. I cannot 
 get work. 
 
 Starting with this text, I have tried to show you, 
 my countrymen, that the unemployed is not a 
 wastrel, a loafer, a shirker, or a fool. To disprove 
 the common opinion that being out of work is a 
 proof of incompetence or laziness, I have put before 
 you an examination of our present system of getting 
 a living, which shows, however incorrect in details 
 it may be, that it is impossible under that system for 
 every willing worker to obtain work. By fact and 
 argument I claim to have proved that unemployment 
 must happen so long as that system exists. 
 
 If my facts are correct, and if my arguments are 
 sound, many of you, my countrymen, must be con- 
 strained to alter your views on these two important 
 questions. You must cease to look with a scornful 
 eye on the Unemployed. You must cease to curl 
 your lip and sniff with self-righteous satisfaction 
 as you turn on a contemptuous heel and tell him who 
 begs for a copper that he could find work if he 
 looked for it. If my facts are correct, and if my 
 arguments are sound, your faith in our glorious 
 system of Private Ownership of Land and Capital, 
 Competition, and Free Trade will have received a 
 rude shock. For my facts and arguments prove that 
 the unemployed is out of work through no fault of 
 
Il6 MY RIGHT TO WORK 
 
 his own, and my facts and arguments show that your 
 much-vaunted system is the cause of that unemploy- 
 ment. 
 
 Have I convinced you ? 
 
 I sincerely hope so. If I have, what follows? 
 First, your attitude to the unemployed problem must 
 be radically altered. If you are convinced of the 
 justice of my case, you will naturally desire to do 
 something for the victims of our ruthless system. 
 No man can consider unmoved the terrible misery 
 now suffered year in and year out by thousands of 
 his fellow-countrymen, their wives and children. N"o 
 man who loves his country, who is proud of her 
 traditions and achievements, but must be troubled 
 by the spectacle of the gaunt and ragged regiments 
 whose cry for work echoes perennially through the 
 land, now falling to a smothered murmur of dis- 
 content, now rising to a strident scream of pain and 
 hunger and hatred. These are not signs of great- 
 ness and prosperity, my countrymen. 
 
 As a man, as a patriot, as a citizen, you, I have no 
 fear, will be anxious to find a remedy for this 
 terrible condition of things. What is that remedy 
 to be? 
 
 Convinced that the unemployed has a right to 
 work, your problem is to find work. All the remedies 
 you have so far tried have been failures. What are 
 you going to try next? All the remedies you have 
 tried before have been failures. But why have they 
 been failures? Because you did not know the root 
 cause of the disease. Now that you understand 
 these things it should be impossible for you to dream 
 of tinkering any more with Free Trade, Tariff 
 Reform, new markets, increased trade, emigration, or 
 charity. These are quack remedies. What are you 
 going to try next ? 
 
 Well, my countrymen, I have suggested a remedy 
 Socialism. Socialism, I think, is the only remedy. 
 Men call us dreamers when we say that. You, then, 
 are awake ? And what is it you wakeful people see ? 
 What is it you do ? What is it you have done ? 
 Why, this you have done this : You have built up 
 
TO BE OR NOT TO BE ? 1 1 7 
 
 a system which condemns the bulk of the population 
 in a rich country to be for ever poor. You have built 
 up a system which condemns a third of the people 
 to live on the verge of starvation. You have built up 
 a system which condemns 400,000 persons to be per- 
 manently unemployed. You have built up a system 
 which condemns women to work at arduous, degrading 
 tasks. You have built up a system which allows men 
 to make profits out of the labour of little children. 
 You have built up a system which slaughters the 
 workers needlessly by thousands in order to keep up 
 the rich man's per cent. You have built up a system 
 which honours greed and cunning before love and 
 co-operation. You have built up a system which has 
 turned putrid, a system which is rotting the nation's 
 heart and brain and soul. That is what you practi- 
 cal, wakeful people have done. Is it not so ? 
 
 You are beginning, I think, to realise how bad that 
 system is. What are you going to do ? A remedy 
 must be found. Is there any other remedy but 
 Socialism ? Is there anything that will relieve us 
 but steps towards Socialism? If so, the plan has 
 yet to oe produced. There is no other remedy in the 
 field, and that being so, I ask you, my countrymen, 
 to consider the case for Socialism with all the care 
 and attention such a serious question deserves. The 
 issue is life or death. 
 
 The problem before us is to find work for the un- 
 employed. But, if you have understood the argu- 
 ments and facts I have put before you, it will be 
 clear that the best way to find work is to prevent 
 unemployment, and the way to prevent unemploy- 
 ment is to take steps to Socialism. 
 
 I have mentioned some items on the Socialist pro- 
 gramme, and all these involve taxation of the rich. 
 Do you say robbery, confiscation, spoliation ? It is 
 nothing of the kind. I might ask, what of to-day ? 
 Who is being despoiled to-day ? Why am I one 
 of the unemployed ? 
 
 All the Socialists propose to do is to make new 
 arrangements. On and after a certain date you, 
 Plutus, Esq., shall employ no man unless you pay 
 
Il8 MY RIGHT TO WORK 
 
 him at least so much. To insist on direct payment 
 in the form of wages would cause disorganisation. 
 It would be simpler to tax your income and return 
 certain sums to the workers by reducing their taxes. 
 Is that spoliation ? Not at all. 
 
 No Socialist has suggested that the rich and 
 mighty shall be pulled down from their seats, and 
 that the poor should take their places, and be exalted 
 to the same bad eminence. That is not Socialism. 
 Socialism is a system under which honours and 
 rewards would be distributed according to the value 
 of a worker's services to the commonwealth. Is that 
 an unjust principle ? Are the practices of to-day 
 fairer ? Is not the Socialist principle more in accord 
 with your moral law, the golden rule ? 
 
 When I hear that word spoliation I wonder if it is 
 we who are asleep, or those who cry thus ? Spolia- 
 tion? My friends, my poor blind friends. Look, 
 look at your country, and your countrymen. 
 
 Socialism is the only remedy. Be convinced of 
 that, and you will laugh at the difficulties in the way. 
 But do not be deluded into thinking that you will 
 try a bit of it, and then stop. That is the old quack 
 way. Steps, my countrymen, not sops. Labour is 
 awake. But Labour must not kick and go to sleep 
 again. Labour must keep awake. Does it startle 
 you, my wakeful friend, to learn that your modesty, 
 your content, your dislike to make a row about it 
 are actually causing the starvation of thousands of 
 your fellow would-be workers ? That is the terrible 
 fact. Are you going to sleep again? I trust not, 
 and if you keep awake the only thing you can do 
 to help your unfortunate brothers is to take steps to 
 Socialism. And does it not startle you, my rich 
 friends, to learn that your wealth, which you invest 
 to make more wealth, is also the cause of unemploy- 
 ment and misery and starvation ? Are you, too, 
 going to remain content ? Is it nothing to you, this 
 terrible suffering ? Is the British Empire nothing 
 to you ? Is manhood nothing to you ? Ah ! You 
 are afraid of Socialism. But are you sure that fear 
 is not the echo of your own reproving conscience ? 
 
TO BE OR NOT TO BE? IIQ 
 
 You fear the greed and tyranny of the down-trodden 
 if they should awake and use their power ? Is it not 
 so ? Tell me, does not that show that too much 
 riches is an evil thing ? For the poor and down- 
 trodden have not yet exhibited those characteristics 
 of tyranny and greed. Why not ? Because they are 
 bred largely by riches. But under Socialism there 
 would be no temptations of this kind. All would 
 be fed and clothed and housed. All would have 
 leisure and pleasure. Socialism is not only the best 
 system for the production of material things. It is 
 the only system for producing a nation of men and 
 women and men and women, my rich friends, do 
 not desire to become rich at the cost of their fellows' 
 misery. 
 
 Socialism is the only remedy. But it would take 
 such a long time to establish ! A long time ? Nay, 
 it is your wakeful people whose remedies take such 
 a long time. Why, you would waste ten years 
 talking about a penny rate to relieve the unem- 
 ployed. And you complain of Socialism taking a 
 long time. 
 
 Give us ten years. Give us ten years hard, and we 
 will put such a different face on this dear old 
 country as will make the very coal measures turn 
 in their beds. Give us ten years and we will abolish 
 starvation out of the land. Give us ten years, and 
 we will lift the dread of poverty from millions of 
 over-burdened men and women. Give us ten years, 
 and you shall not be hurt by the sight of one pinched 
 childish face in all your 20,000 schools. Give us 
 ten years, and we will show you hundreds of thou- 
 sands of happy mothers joying in the presence of 
 children who had else been gorging your ravenous 
 
 fraveyards. Give us ten years, and you shall not 
 nd one willing worker without a job. Give us ten 
 years, give us twenty years, give us a generation, and 
 we will produce to specification one Merrie England, 
 with more full-breathed, happy-hearted men and 
 women to the square mile than any other country 
 on earth. A long time ! Us? Do but give us a 
 chance, and you will live to blush out your old age 
 
120 MY RIGHT TO WORK 
 
 for shame that you refused for " such a long time " 
 to listen to those dreamers, the Socialists. 
 
 I am one of the unemployed. I want work. I am 
 willing to work. I am able to work. I cannot find 
 work. 
 
 I want work. I demand work and wages. 
 
 Can you deny the justice of my claim ? 
 
 ^ 
 
 OF THE 
 
 UNIVERSiT 
 
 OF 
 
 THE CLARION PRESS, 44, Worship Street, London, B.C. 
 
YB 07783 
 
 0108