Settle the people on the soil

*THE WORKER*

Brisbane, March 30, 1895.

THE EDITORIAL MILL.

Our Motto: “Socialism in our time.”

“Settle the people on the soil” is a cry that has been much heard of late years. It is mainly raised by those people who have not the slightest intention of doing it themselves, but who hope to induce some of their numerous competitors in the towns to reduce the keen edge of competition some what by departing to the vaunted “rich lands of the colony,” there to raise cheap crops for the remaining townspeople to consume, and for the middleman to reap richer profits by. Of course we are all' except those “whose business is upon the deep waters,” living on the soil somewhere or other. But those who were wont to think that “the whole duty of man is to cover the face of the earth with bricks and mortar” have now unanimously arrived at the conclusion that the clear duty of their neighbours is to engage in tilling the soil, which is what is generally meant by the phrase “settling on the land.”

* * *

Probably the real reason why the majority who talk of it never contemplate doing it themselves is because of the notorious hardships that must be endured by the “settler.” To go out into the wilderness, into the never, never, where a boodle Government throws open arid areas for selection, passing on the way thousands upon thousands of acres of magnificent but unused land, where to raise a living would be easy; out, out, far beyond the reach of society of any kind, to say nothing of inaccessible markets left hopelessly behind, means an isolation so complete and a life of penury, untold hardship, and terrible privation frightful enough to contemplate, but much more awful to endure, that no wonder the town-bred land-hungerer elects a sixteen-perch allotment in view of the city lamplights, with “Government relief” accessible as a last resort, to the known hardships, without the possibility of relief, which is the certain lot of those who start out to “settle upon the land” under present conditions.

* * *

The Co-operative Communities Settlement Act to which many looked as a sure remedy, has done nothing to alter things in this colony, Communities, whether co-operative or otherwise, are essential to “ settlement on the land” if the isolation which is the terror of settlers, and which should never be permitted, is to be prevented. And the drawbacks, of individualism, and the overwhelming advantages of co-operative effort in subduing nature to man's needs are so patent that even a Queensland Government had to admit that individualism, as applied at least to agricultural pursuits, must be a thing of the past. The modern capitalistic methods of production have forever substituted co-operation for individualism in almost all industries. And in “settling on the land” ten men working in co-operation can accomplish far more and with much less toil than the same ten men could each eternally struggling by and for himself. So that co-operative communities are a necessity, and we must and therefore shall have them.

* * *

But sporadic (i.e. intermitted) co-operation must be replaced by universal co-operation, universal at least throughout the state, before the principle can be crowned with the laurels of success. The failure of the co-operative groups in Queensland was undoubtedly intended by the Government, as two-faced Barlow’s conduct disclosed. And the lands and situations selected for the “experiment” foredoomed them in most instances to failure. But given good land and access to markets, and still failure must have been written across most attempts. Why? Simply because the members of most groups understood too faintly the social problem and intended co-operating simply to compete.

Group a number of independent co-operative settlements around a big town, growing crops for its market, just as most of our groups set out to do. They will simply compete with till they ruin each other. Co-operation to be a success in such a case must include the whole. Otherwise the same fate must await the groups that now awaits the individual farmer. And what is that fate?

* * *

The farmer of to-day, wanting decent land somewhere near a railway or market, usually settles upon someone else's land, mortgaging it and his whole future to buy it. Then, without the slightest knowledge as to the requirements of “the market,” he sets himself to work to raise just exactly the same kind of crops which he observes his neighbour to be doing. Like his neighbour's, they flourish. His infinite toil promises to be rewarded with a rich and plenteous harvest. Good seasons curse him and he has a big harvest. With what result? Everyone else favoured in the same way has a big harvest. And crops are thrown on his hands, perhaps never to be to be reaped, but left on the ground to rot, because the price realisable at the market will not cover the cost of freight. This is the almost perennial experience of farmers in most districts, and yet they don't seem to learn. Still they fight and vote against the labour Party, “who want to tax their land,” instead of helping them to substitute organised co-operation for the planless production, the anarchy, of to-day. Only recently at Warwick potatoes were quoted at 8s. per ton. At Guyra, in N.S.W., (also on the main railway line) at 5s. per ton. Left to rot in the ground after all the labour expanded – producing such magnificent crops – and thousands everywhere starving for want of them.

* * *

Still, nevertheless, to settle on the land is the best possible thing for most men to attempt at the present time, and to do it in communities. Given fairly good land – and the Government should be forced to throw some of it open in the most favourable positions remaining instead of holding it back as they have been doing – and there is no reason why such settlement should not succeed in making men independent as no other occupation can do. But instead of wasting energy growing maize, potatoes and pumpkins to supply over-stocked markets, the object should be to first of all supply the actual physical necessities of the group, or family if tackled single-handed. The farmers before referred to in most cases live the hardest of lives. Food, clothing and housing is often of the roughest and most meagre. Whereas, if the time and labour spent in raising surplus crops as every one else has been doing, had been expanded in raising vegetables (which many farmers rarely see), poultry, eggs, bacon, butter, &c., for the family table and in rendering more comfortable and even beautiful the home and its surroundings, the result would have been an immense benefit to the family and would so much alleviate conditions as to make life really endurable if not absolutely enjoyable. The chief object under present social conditions should be to produce on the spot almost everything the little community actually requires (and wants are much reduced in number in the bush). And in the diversity of products thus raised it will go hard if the over plus of some will not be exchangeable for the few articles that must of necessity be imported from outside. Let all idea of profit be abandoned, and production for use be the main, the only object, and “settlement of the people on the soil,” even under present conditions, will, if undertaken in the right spirit, make the people who manfully attempt it as truly independent as it is possible to be until the time arrives when full and complete co-operation by the people is established. Then, the only competition in agriculture will be emulation as to which group can produce the finest crops for the use of the whole community.