COST OF LIVING AND THE COOPERATIVE MOVEMENT.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume L, Issue 175, 3 November 1917, Page 3

COST OF LIVING AND THE COOPERATIVE MOVEMENT.

(To th» Editor.)

[ Sir, —I must apologise for the delay ; in answering- the questions contained in your leading column recently on the aooye subject, but circumstances have not permitted of my writing "before. You ask for a definition of the words "Capitalist 1 "' and " Wa.ge-earneT." A capitalist is a person, company, business, etc., who through the economic system generating capitalism, receives enougfl 61 money, in excess., of his or Her or their immediate requirements of living a standard' life. A wage-earner is one who for work done, receives money in proportion, and through tho economic system, this amount is determined not so much by the value of the labour given, as by the value recognised "by capitalism to foster capitalism. You also ask where the figures quoted originated. By turning to pages 378 and 379, "Flursheim's clue to the Economic (Labyrinth," we read : "The New Zealand Year BtfCTc of 1899 gives the wages spent in manufactures and works (including meat freezing "and boiling down, fellmongering and wool scouring works), for 1895 at £1,907,592, and the total approximate of the produce at £9,549,360; so that the wages form 20 per cent, of the turnover at manufacturers' prices. If we keep below the mark, and add to the manufacturers' price only 50 per cent, for all middlemen, which is only 33 1-3 from retail price, we obtain in -round numbers £14.300,000. Of this, the amount paid for wages would form 13 per cent., which comes very near the American estimate of 13£ per cent. The saving which could be effected in distribution under a rational system would: therefore permit a- trebling of wages, without increasing the price of goods at retail one sincrle penny." The figure? quoted for 1910 were deduced from the above bv the economic law, in relation to. the figures quoted in the New Zealand Year Book. From your remarks you appear to advocate "State control. " I do not deem it necessary to touch oru thisi matter, as in the absence of an— movement to bring it about small sections' of the public must go their own ways to reduce the cost of living. 'But, for co-operation ae-ainst State conand private enterprise, take for argument ten post offices run by the State or by private enterprise for profit. The public (the pav the profit at present. Under private enterprise they -would probably pay 10 to 15 per cent more, but under co-operation a dividend in the £1 would be paid. As the case suits one may not be in favour of private enterprise in controlling Post Offices, but he may be in favour of private enterprise in the production of people's foodstuffs, because it suits hie pocket, and vice versa. The co-operative movement aims qt. uniting the consumers into one society for the production and distribution of the necessities of life, and against the middleman who does not add anything to the value of the goods he handles. The consumers by dealing direct with the producer, become their own middlemen. If a private person has a right to open a shop, then one hundred persons have one hundred times more right to start a co-operative society and open their own shop. By opening their own shop the men mentioned in your leading article such as railwaymen, policemen-. carters, etc., etc., would still be employed, but these men's wages would be of more value to them. Suppose a person draws £3 per week in wages, he spends £2 at a co-operative store where his dividend amounts to 2s in the £, his £2 then becomes of the value of £2 4s. When the various cooperative societies form a co-operative union and run their own "wholesale house and productive works, then wages will increase still more in purchasing power. By State co-operation and the elimination of capitalism, wages would automatically balance the cost of living, because the control of prices would be in the hands of the people themselves. It would be impossible to give details here of the spirit of co-operation, as the subject is too lengthy, but works on co-operation, such as "Lives of Great Men and Women" and "Industrial Co-operation," both by Catherine Webb, "The Co-op-erative Movement in Great Britain," by Miss B. Potter, "Co-operative Production," by B. Jones, and others, will give any information required. I do not wish to enter into a newspaper controversy on the subject, and with this letter I conclude my remarks. My reason in writing in,the first place was to draw public attention to the fact that co-operation would reduce the cost of living, and not the value of cooperation against any other system. To students of "Economics" co-opera-tion is the solution of the cost'of living, and this is also emphasised by> the Select .Parliamentary Committee on the Cost of Living, who advocate the formation of co-operative stores. Of course it is left to the public to carry the system into operation, and they have only themselves to blame if they do not do so. In a small town a cooperative store "was started a few weeks ago with less than £SO capital, and members are already saving 2s 6d in the £. Thanking you, Sir, for your valuable space, I am, etc.,