The Remedy for Unemployment — Story, Setting & Ideas

Axioms vs. Alleviations

Wallace structures his argument by contrasting socialist fundamentals with the piecemeal proposals of his day. He writes that “all the talk has hitherto been of securing trade union rates of wages for out-of-works of every kind,” with the underlying assumption that government work is temporary. Against this, he sets the principle that production should be “primarily, for use and not for profit.” The pamphlet’s opening thus establishes a clear polemical framework: the problem is not a lack of work but a social organisation that forbids willing workers from obtaining it. Wallace’s voice is direct and impatient, dismissing non-socialist views even when they come from respected parliamentary Socialists.

The Co-operative Colony Proposal

The core of Wallace’s remedy is a system of co-operative colonies, which he argues would solve the problem for the “genuine workmen” who desire work above all else. He anticipates objections—that tramps and the unwilling will flock to the colonies—and counters with two replies. First, the agitation was never for such men but for those who “save their families from starvation, or from the deservedly hated workhouse.” Second, he claims that even the so-called unemployable would be absorbed through “kindly assistance” and “sympathetic treatment,” citing General Booth’s Essex colony as evidence that a considerable proportion are reclaimable. The proposal is presented as both practical and humane, grounded in existing experiments.

Broader Social Evils Addressed

Wallace extends his argument beyond unemployment to list several “matters of high public importance” that co-operative colonies would ameliorate. These include the cost of Old Age Pensions, infant mortality due to the competitive manufacturing system, the need for factory inspectors, and the curse of adulteration. He illustrates with a striking example: German colonists in Central Brazil, who subsist on their own labour, have large families “without having lost a single child.” This anecdote serves as a concrete vision of the healthful, simple life he advocates. The list is cumulative, suggesting that a single structural change—the colony system—would ripple outward to solve multiple social ills.

A Rhetoric of Certainty

Throughout the pamphlet, Wallace employs a confident, almost axiomatic tone. He speaks of principles that “must be adopted” and consequences that “would absolutely disappear.” The excerpts show little hedging: the remedy is presented as complete and final, abolishing the evil “at once, and for ever.” This rhetorical stance is consistent with the pamphlet’s origin as a political intervention, likely aimed at persuading readers already sympathetic to socialism. Wallace does not entertain counterarguments at length; instead, he dismisses them as “no valid objection at all.” The effect is a text that feels more like a manifesto than a policy paper, driven by moral conviction as much as economic reasoning.

Wallace’s pamphlet is best read as a period document of Edwardian socialist thought, notable for its specific proposals and its author’s dual identity as a naturalist and social reformer. Readers should note that the excerpts are incomplete; the full text may develop the colony scheme in greater detail or address further objections. The pamphlet’s brevity—around 12,000 words—makes it a quick but dense read, rewarding attention to its logical structure and the concrete examples Wallace marshals.

There’s something touching about Wallace, in 1908, believing co-operative colonies could heal unemployment—a faith in hands and land working together. It reminded me of another pamphlet from that same hopeful era, Good housing that pays — Story, Setting & Ideas, which quietly insists decent homes needn’t lose money. Two old dreams, side by side on my shelf, each asking what people deserve.