For instance, tramways would be local and railways national; gas and water would be local and collieries national; police would be local and the army and navy national. The kind of _Socialism_ I am advocating here is Collectivism, or _Practical Socialism_. Motto: Britain for the British, the land and all the instruments of production, distribution, and exchange to be the property of the nation, and to be managed _by_ the nation _for_ the nation. The land and railways, collieries, etc., to be _bought_ from the present owners, but not at fancy prices. Wages to be paid, and goods to be sold. Thus, you see, Collectivism is really an extension of the _principles_, or ideas, of local government, and of the various corporation and civil services. And now I tell you that is Socialism, and I ask you what is there in it to prevent any man from being a Christian, or from attending a place of worship, or from marrying, or being faithful to his wife, or from keeping and bringing up his children at home? There is nothing in it to destroy religion, and there is nothing in it to destroy the home, and there is nothing in it to foster vice. But there _is_ something in it to kill ignorance and to destroy vice. There is something in it to shut up the gaols, to do away with prostitution, to reduce crime and drunkenness, and wipe out for ever the sweater and the slums, the beggars and the idle rich, the useless fine ladies and lords, and to make it possible for sober and willing workers to live healthy and happy and honourable lives. For Socialism would teach and train all children wisely; it would foster genius and devotion to the common good; it would kill scamping and loafing and jerrymandering; it would give us better health, better homes, better work, better food, better lives, and better men and women. CHAPTER IX COMPETITION _v._ CO-OPERATION A comparison of competition with co-operation is a comparison of non-Socialism with Socialism. For the principle of non-Socialism is competition, and the principle of Socialism is co-operation. Non-Socialists tell us that competition is to the general advantage, because it lowers prices in favour of the consumer. But competition in trade only seems desirable when we contrast it with private monopoly. When we compare the effects of trade competition with the effects of State or Municipal co-operation, we find that competition is badly beaten. Let us try to find the reasons of this. The claim for the superior cheapness of competition rests on the theory that where two sellers compete against each other for trade each tries to undersell the other. This sounds plausible, but, like many other plausible things, it is untrue. It is a theory, but the theory is incomplete. If business men were fools the theory would work with mathematical precision, to the great joy and profit of the consumer; but business men are not built on those lines.