A CRITICAL BIOGRAPHY OF EDWIN JAMES BRADY - Mallacoota ...

Brady also hit out at the men, castigating them as a “ham-fisted crowd that would
have done better under a bucko mate of the sailing-ship type” 1 and above all, made
immoderate statements to the newspaper representative who interviewed him. He was
quoted in the Melbourne Herald 2 and in the Sunday Sun and Guardian as stating that
while he agreed with Upton Sinclair on the desirability of a peaceful solution to all
social problems, he was convinced that Australia’ economic problems could be solved
only by “either Fascist control with machine-guns or Communist control with
machine-guns and rifles”. 3 He pointed out, more moderately, to the Argus that as well
as leaving him with a fine crop of rabbits and blackberries, he had received “another
disappointment to add to my accumulated disillusionments”, 4 especially as only four
men remained on the farm at the end, of the sixteen who had enrolled as members.
He added rather scornfully that none of the men had worked as hade as the voluntary,
isolated Gippsland settlers, meaning probably, himself.
It was well for Brady, on looking back upon the experiment, to write:
I was in the position that the scheme was originally Burch’s not mine. The
Committee in Melbourne looked to him to carry the thing through. All his
letters to me were read at our weekly meetings and the members could form
their own conclusions…
They examined and cross-examined all those who had left where they could
make contact with them. They came before the Committee with varying
statements… 5
But one cannot help feeling that Brady Would have been the first to step in to claim
responsibility if the scheme had been a success and to bask in the plaudits and praise.
It was true that the scheme was originally Burch’s, but Brady helped plan its form; he
had been familiar with similar schemes, including Lane’s, and knew of the pitfalls
they encountered; and he believed in the project as a working, practical expression of
one of his basic ideals. His was the motive power which got the scheme under way;
his were the contacts which ensured for it the limited Government support it had; his
was the land, the equipment, and his was the ultimate risk, not matter how much he
afterwards disclaimed it. There is no reason to suggest that, had Brady personally
taken over the control of the farm instead of directing things from Melbourne, any
greater success would have ensued. It was distinctly possible that Burch was more
practical and lever-headed than Brady would have proved. It was useless, too, for
Brady to complain about the standard and the qualifications of the men, for he helped
the Brighton Unemployment Relief Committee draw up their criteria and carry out the
selection.
In short the experiment failed, but it was still worth trying. Remoteness from cities
was part of the reason for failure, but the human element seems to have been the
prime factor. It is not easy for men of diverse backgrounds to live together in
harmony, nor is it easy for men used to a social system which emphasises personal
ownership and competitive motivations to work within the framework of a collective
and co-operative idealism. Perhaps if it had received more official assistance, with
larger numbers invited to participate, and if it had been given a trained and proven
leader of men, its chances of success might have been enhanced. As it was, it added
one more example to that long list of co-operative experiments which have failed.
1 Ibid
2 19.6.1933
3 18.6.1933
4 17.6.1933
5 Utopias Ltd., Vol. 2, p.39.
81