INDUSTRIAL RECONSTRUCTION
OUR modern industrial evils are so grave and so deep-rooted that it
is highly questionable whether the pressure of public opinion, piecemeal
legislation, and the development of codes of honor can strike deep
enough to eradicate them. Is not, perhaps, the whole system morally
wrong? Instead of these endless attempts to cure the natural results
of the system, is there not need of a radical reconstruction? Various
attempts have been made, divers proposals are offered, in the hope
of curing the causes of present maladies and devising a juster system.
Many of these are doubtless impracticable, or tend to work more
hardship than amelioration. But each proposal, of any plausibility,
has a right to a hearing if it offers to end the great wrongs of
contemporary industry; we must be very confident that it will not work
before we reject it. For some way must be found to right these wrongs,
or our whole industrial order will go to smash. We must not condemn
too hastily a method which has not had a thorough trial, or whose defects
time and experience might remedy. For mistaken experiments can be
discontinued; and great as is the danger in incautious radicalism,
the danger in "standing pat" is greater.
Ought the trusts to be broken up or regulated?
The greatest sinners are, certainly, to speak generally, the great
corporations that we call trusts-though the word "distrust" would
better express contemporary feeling! So great has popular hostility
to them become that the Democratic party platform of July, 1912, declared
that "a private monopoly is indefensible and intolerable," and demanded
"the enactment of such additional legislation as may be necessary
to make it impossible for a private monopoly to exist in the United
States," i.e., "the control by any one corporation of so large a
proportion of any industry as to make it a menace to competitive
conditions." But is it necessary to destroy this splendidly
efficient concentration of industry in order to avoid its evils? The
proposal to revert to the older competitive plan is reminiscent of
the outcry against machine production a century earlier, and the earnest
pleas then made to return to the hand-tool method. "Big business"
constitutes one of the greatest advances in human industry, and
therefore has surely come to stay. From the era of individual workers
owning their tools, mankind advanced to the age of competition between
small concerns using machines; no less marked an advance is that to
the age of large-scale production and unified industry. Its advantages
may be briefly summarized:
(1) The competitive system involves needless duplications of plant,
machinery, and workers; clerks stand idly in rival stores, waiting
for trade, drummers spend their time in getting trade away from one
another, great sums have to be spent on advertising. Monopoly means
a saving of all this wasted time, labor, and money.
(2) The competitive system means great fluctuations in industry,
constant anxiety, forced cut prices, and frequent failures, with their
financial ruin and heartbreak to employers and loss of work to
employees. Monopoly means stability, comparative freedom from anxiety,
and a saving of the economic confusion and loss of bankruptcies.
(3) The great scale of monopolistic production tends to still further
economies. Raw ported in larger quantities, and so at lower cost; less
need be kept on hand at a given time. The utilization of by-products,
made feasible by large-scale production, has proved, in many cases,
a striking addition to human wealth.
(4) Monopolistic production means that more money can be put into
improved processes, into plant and machinery, into making factories
sanitary, and working conditions pleasant. The conspicuousness of the
plant makes it more open to public criticism and more likely to awaken
a sense of pride in the owners. Conditions are seldom tolerated in
the big concerns that go unheeded in the little shops.
Surely our attempt, then, must be to retain "big business," and cure
its evils, rather than to turn the hands of the clock backward by
reverting to the wasteful competitive system. If this proves possible,
we should work for the organizing of the as yet unorganized industries.
Half of human effort is still wasted, through lack of such
organization. If the innumerable butcher shops, grocery stores,
apothecary shops, dry goods stores, etc, throughout the country, were
consolidated locally, and then for some considerable section of the
country, we could have greatly reduced prices and greatly improved
shops. Mr. Woolworth's chain of five- and ten-cent stores offers a
familiar contemporary example of the efficiency and saving to the
consumer of such consolidation.
What are the ethics of the following schemes:
I. TRADE UNIONS AND STRIKES? We must, then, consider what methods of
regulating, without destroying, monopoly are efficient and morally
defensible; and, first, the method into which the working classes have
put most of their effort and enthusiasm. The labor-unions have, as
a matter of fact, actually effected certain results, which we may rapidly
review:-
(1) Their chief accomplishment, and indeed effort, has been the raising
of wages and shortening of hours for labor. Their success, however,
has fallen far short of their hopes; and it is impossible to say how
much more they have accomplished in this direction than would have
been effected by other causes without their efforts. As a whole, the
employing class disbelieves in the unions and is strenuously
disinclined to yield to their desires. And at present the employers
are usually stronger than their employees, unless public opinion or
legislation forces them to surrender their position.
(2) To some slight extent, but only to a slight extent, they have
effected amelioration in other matters have freed labor from the
tyranny of company stores, decreased child labor, secured the
installation of safety appliances, sanitary conditions, and other
needed improvements.
(3) Their social effect has been greatest. They have amalgamated our
stream of heterogeneous immigrants and fired them with common
understanding and purpose; they have taught the ignorant to cooperate,
made them think, frowned to some degree upon vice, insured their
members to. some extent against illness and death, and promoted general
friendliness among the laboring classes.
On the other hand, their methods have been productive of much harm:
(1) The economic loss due to strikes has been enormous; the employers
have suffered heavily, the public has suffered heavily; the laborers
have suffered most of all. Social amelioration certainly ought not
to have to come about through such wasteful methods and such bitter
privation.
(2) The inconvenience caused the public by strikes has often been very
great, especially where the coalmines or railways have been affected.
Only a few years ago a veritable tragedy was barely averted, when
President Roosevelt succeeded, after the most strenuous efforts, in
ending the general coal strike in the winter season. A strike of
locomotive engineers means obviously a great peril to the traveling
public.
(3) The antagonisms and class hatreds engendered by this sort of
industrial warfare do infinite moral harm, and retard heavily the
peaceful solution of the problems. The class organs always denounce
in bitterest terms the opposing class, and lawlessness always lurks
in the background.
(4) Apart from their conduct of strikes, the labor unions must answer
to many serious indictments. They have endeavored to restrict output,
in order to raise prices. They have sought to restrict the number of
apprentices in a trade, and have opposed trade schools, in order to
keep down the competition for positions. They have insisted on a
uniform wage without regard to efficiency. They have opposed scientific
management and the increase of efficiency in various industries, in
order to retain more workers therein. They have insisted upon the
retention of incompetent employees, thereby directly causing railway
accidents and other evils. They have often antagonized such other
ameliorative methods as profit sharing and government regulation, and
have rejected overtures from employers, because these-to quote from
a union pamphlet-"remove the scope and field of trade-unionism." They
have at times been run in the interests of selfish leaders and seemed
chiefly a moneymaking scheme of a few grafters.
There can be no question, on a dispassionate consideration, that the
militant methods of the trade unions are an unfortunate and temporary
expedient. The grievances which they have sought to remedy are very
real and very bitter; and perhaps, on the whole, the unions have done
more good than harm, and accomplished results that would not so soon
have been effected in any other way. But they have been rather
strikingly unsuccessful. After fifty years of propaganda, seventy per
cent of all industrial workers remain non-unionized; and there has
been a relative loss in their numbers during the past decade. They
have never succeeded in cornering the labor market, and there seems
to be no prospect of their succeeding. In all events, for a permanent
and thoroughgoing solution of labor troubles we must turn to some other
method.
II. PROFIT SHARING, COOPERATION, AND CONSUMERS' LEAGUES?
(1) The usual method of profit-sharing is for the employer to set aside
voluntarily a certain proportion of the profits of successful years,
to be distributed among the employees in addition to their regular
wages, the distribution being made proportionate to the amount of each
man's wages. It is thus properly called a dividend to wages, and is
equivalent to a small ownership of the stock of the business by each
worker. The advantage lies not only in the fairer distribution of the
profits of a business, but in the interest, contentment, and increased
efficiency of the employees. The self-interest of the laborers is
enlisted to prevent strikes, and a feeling of good will tends to
prevail. Not a few employers are giving a degree of profit sharing
as a mere business proposition; and the results have been generally
successful. But the method is only a sop. It touches only one of the
evils above mentioned, that of underpayment of workers. And, for that
matter, it is oftenest introduced where the workers are already well
paid. It is possible only in successful and firmly established
industries; and even in them, bad years may necessitate a temporary
cessation of dividends to wages, and generate resentment in the minds
of the laborers, who do not know the precise status of the business.
Moreover, since the workers cannot be expected to reverse the procedure
in lean years and contribute to the maintenance of the business, it
is necessary, in most industries, to reserve a considerable sum from
the profits of fat years to tide over possible periods of lean years.
It might be possible to enforce by law the accumulation of such a reserve
fund, and then the distribution of a fixed percentage of the net
profits of the business to labor-instead of permitting all the profits
to go into the pockets of owners or stockholders. But such a plan will
probably be superseded by or incorporated into some more comprehensive
solution for industrial evils, a scheme that can remedy other wrongs
besides that of inadequate wages.
(2) Cooperation in production involves democratic management of a
business as well as a more radical sharing of its profits. The workers
themselves contribute the capital, elect the managers, and divide the
profits. By their votes they can determine hours of work, and arrange
conditions to suit themselves, so far as their capital allows.
Cooperation-when fully carried out-is socialism on a small scale
introduced into the midst of a capitalistic regime. Its defects are,
first, that it is difficult while that regime lasts to find capital
enough-since those who have capital to invest usually prefer to manage
the business themselves or to entrust their money to a business
conducted on ordinary lines; secondly, that failure means the loss
of the hard-earned savings of workingmen; thirdly, that it is difficult
to retain skillful managers, since such men usually prefer the
opportunities which individualistic business offers of making a larger
income; and fourthly, that it is difficult for a democratically managed
concern to compete successfully with autocratic business. Political
democracies are at a disadvantage in a struggle with tyrannies, if
the latter are governed by able men. A one- man policy is more stable,
permits of quicker action and a more consistent policy than is possible
to a democracy. Exactly so in business, our dictatorial captains of
industry have an advantage over their usually less skilled and always
less powerful heads, and their smaller capital. The millionaire can
cut prices and stand losses which would ruin a cooperative body of
workingmen. So that cooperative production has not generally proved
successful. In any case, there seems to be no probability of societies
of producers being able to supplant the capitalistic concerns; we must
turn elsewhere for the solution of our problems.
(3) Consumers' cooperation has been more widely successful. On this
plan a number of people contribute the capital of a business in equal
small amounts and share the profits in proportion to their purchases.
The possibility of excessive profits to a single owner or a small group
of owners is thus abolished. But the other evils of autocratic industry
remain; laborers are hired for current wages, as by the capitalists,
and the temptations to unfair treatment of employees and of competitors
remain.
(4) "Consumers' Leagues," so called, have made a business of
ascertaining the conditions under which goods are produced, and
exhorting their members to purchase only those which have involved
fair treatment to the workers. The undertaking is praiseworthy, and
has accomplished some good. But its effects are limited by obvious
causes. It is extremely difficult in many cases for the consumer to
discover the conditions of production of what he wishes to buy. It
is a nuisance to have to burden himself with such perplexing
considerations. And it is impossible to maintain public allegiance
to a white list in face of the temptation of bargain sales. Evils must
be attacked at their source; they cannot be effectively controlled
from the consumer's end. III. Government regulation of prices, profits,
and wages? There are two proposals that promise thoroughgoing cure
for industrial evils government regulation of business, leaving it
upon its present capitalistic basis, and socialism, the complete
democratizing of industry. It seems that one or the other alternative
must ultimately be accepted. According to the former, and less radical,
plan, publicity of accounts would be required in every industry; and
state or national commissions would have full power to supervise the
conditions of production, to set a minimum standard below which wages
must not fall, to fix maximum prices above which the products must
not be sold, to prevent stock- watering, to enforce standards of honesty
and good workmanship in goods, to see to it that all competition is
carried on fairly, and to forbid excessive salaries to managers. Equal
standards would be exacted throughout an industry, and any increased
cost of production would result in the raising of prices (except where
profits had previously been exorbitant); thus there would be no real
hardship upon employers. The minimum wage should not, of course, be
set above the actual productive power of labor; and the inefficient
laborers who would be thrown out of employment as not worth the standard
wage must be looked after by the provision of free vocational education
and state employment. Apprentices, cripples, defectives, and persons
giving only part time, would be permitted to receive partial wages;
and above the minimum wage, differences in stipend would still exist,
as now, to stimulate industry and skill. With such provision for safe-
guarding the rights of labor, of competitors, and of the public, profits
would not be directly regulated; if they became excessive, they would
be clipped by the requirement of a lower price for the product, or
of more sanitary or safer conditions of production. But the initiative
and energy of the owners would be retained by permitting a sliding
scale of profits; the higher the wages paid, or the lower the price
set upon products, the greater the profits they could be allowed. Thus
a premium would still be set upon efficiency. Under this plan monopoly
could be carried to any extent; strikes could be absolutely forbidden,
and all dissatisfaction settled by the arbitration of the impartial
government commission. Monopoly might even be legally maintained by
a refusal of charters to would-be competitors, thus insuring to the
public the advantages of a completely organized business without
leaving the public at its mercy. The natural monopolies, such as
railways, telephones, lighting-service, from which private fortunes
have often been made at public expense, can easily be regulated by
carefully considered and short-term franchises.
Up to date, the partial and tentative trials of this plan have been
encouragingly successful. But there are obvious defects in it, which
we must notice:
(1) The danger of failures in business would still exist. Some factors
would tend to lessen this danger as, the prevention of stock-
watering, misappropriation of funds, excessive salaries, and the unfair
competition of rivals. But failures could no longer be averted by
squeezing wages, neglecting conditions of production, or lowering the
quality of goods. The employers may well ask, in bitterness, what right
the Government has to close their chances of high profits when it
leaves the chance of total loss. Private ownership of business, still
retained on the plan we are considering, must involve risk of
bankruptcy, with its economic waste and its suffering.
(2) The plant, capital, and management of a business would still be
entirely at the disposal of the owner, and handed down in his family
or to partners voluntarily taken in. The son of a capitalist, who
inherits the business, may be by no means the most deserving or efficient
person to carry it on. Industry is not democratic under this plan;
justice is attained as a compromise between the interests of capitalists
and laborers. Class antagonisms are still fostered; distrust of the
impartiality of the government commission would continually be present,
and might at any time lead to actual rebellion and violence.
(3) The temptations to corruption would be enormous. The capitalists,
with their reserve funds, would be in a position to bribe or unfairly
influence any susceptible members of the commissions; and with the
danger of bankruptcy on the one hand, and the great prizes to be won
on the other, there would inevitably result in the present state
of the average human conscience-a great deal of foul play.
Commissioners would have an unlimited opportunity of blackmailing
employers. Labor members would pull in one direction, and upper-class
members in another. The strain upon public morality would be severe.
IV. SOCIALISM? Socialism promises, according to its adherents, to
accomplish all the good results of government regulation, while
obviating its defects. It behooves us, then, to give it careful and
unbiased attention. The movement toward it is, at least, one of the
most significant and widespread movements of our times, evoking on
the one hand extraordinary enthusiasm and loyalty, so that to millions
of men it is almost a religion, and on the other hand deep distrust,
impatient contempt, or bitter hostility. Moreover, the movement is
steadily growing; we must recognize that it is not a fad, but a deep
current, an international brotherhood that numbers in its ranks many
able and intellectual men. We may here disregard the inadequate
economic theories that have hampered its earlier years, and the Utopian
dreams that have been published under its name, and consider it only
as a practical program for remedying our acknowledged and serious
industrial evils.
The gist of the socialist proposal is that all industry shall be made
democratic, as government is now becoming democratic all over the
earth. All plants and all capital are to be owned by the State, and
all business run as the Post-Office is run, or as the Panama Canal
was built. The managers of each industry are to be chosen from the
ranks, according to their fitness, for proved efficiency and knowledge
of the business. Everybody will be upon a salary, and the opportunity
of increasing personal profits by lowering wages, cheating the public,
neglecting evil conditions of production, or damaging rivals, will
be absent. Thus, instead of trying by an elaborate system of checks
to keep within due bounds the greed of man, the possibility of satisfying
that greed is definitely removed, and all earnings made proportionate
to industriousness and skill. We proceed to summarize the advantages
that, it is urged, would follow the inauguration of this industrial
democracy:
(1) All industries could be organized and centralized. A vast amount
of human effort could be saved, and waste eliminated. Business would
no longer, as so often now, be hampered for lack of funds to carry
out plans. A special staff could be retained to invent and apply new
ideas. In short, just as the trusts now are much more efficient and
economical than the small concerns they have superseded, so the
completely organized industries of a socialistic regime would be, we
are told, in a position to double human efficiency. If the postal
business were open to competition, there can be no doubt that we should
be paying higher rates today for a much less efficient service. If
it were a private monopoly, some one would probably be getting enormous
profits out of it profits which now go back into extending the service.
The labor saved by industrial unification would be available for a
thousand other undertakings that cry to be carried out.
(2) All the industrial wrongs enumerated in the preceding chapter
could, it is asserted, be remedied, and all problems adjusted, with
comparatively little friction, because it would be to no one's
particular advantage to retard such betterment. Those in control of
every business, being upon a fixed salary, and having nothing to gain
by squeezing laborers or public, would be amenable to a sense of pride
in the honesty, cleanliness, and efficiency of their business, and
the contentment of their employees. If they were too lazy or stupid
to respond to such motives, they could quickly be superseded in office
by men who were more ambitious for the fair showing of their branch
of the public service.
(3) Opportunity to rise to the control of a business would be open
to every laborer in it. The sons of rich men could no longer step easily
into the soft berths, whether they were deserving or not. Proved
efficiency, plus popularity, would be the road to success. With the
higher wages paid to labor (made possible partly by the economic saving
through organization, and partly by cutting out the private fortunes
now made out of industry), every boy would be able to get a thorough
vocational education, and be in a position to strive, if he is
ambitious, for leadership. Industrial power would be conferred,
directly or indirectly, by popular vote; business would be recognized
as a public affair, and nepotism and hereditary advantage banished
from it as they have been from politics.
(4) The risk of bankruptcies, with all their attendant evils, would
be done away with entirely. Business would have a stability unknown
to our present individualistic industry, and businessmen would be freed
from that anxiety that drives so many today to a premature grave.
(5) All speculation in stocks would be likewise eliminated. The
necessary capital for any new undertaking would be provided by the
industrial State, and the undeserved gains and losses of our present
system of private investment would come to an end.
(6) Morally, there would be a probable gain in several ways. The
elimination of private profit from business would give freer room for
the development of a social spirit which is now choked out by the
temptation that each owner of a business is under to grab all that
he can for himself. There would be no motive, and no fortunes available,
for, at least, the most striking forms of that corruption of the press
which is such a grave problem today. Municipal theaters would be under
no temptation to produce nasty plays. All this exploitation of human
weakness and passion is done because it PAYS; if the men at the top
were on a salary there would be no such inducement to cater to vicious
instincts. The economic pressure that now pushes so many girls in the
direction of prostitution would be relieved. The people generally would
be dignified and educated by their participation in industrial, as
now in political decisions. If some of the tougher strains of character,
grit, push, endurance, etc. would be less fostered, the gentler and
more social aspects of character would find better soil.
Whether all these advantages would actually accrue, in the degree hoped
for, it is, of course, impossible to know. There are, however, at least
two grave dangers in socialism which must be squarely faced:
(1) A certain degree of slackness and consequent inefficiency would
almost inevitably result from the relaxing of the pressure of
competition and the removal of the opportunity for unlimited personal
profit. Employees and managers of state and municipal undertakings
are apt to take things easily; and there have been usually waste and
inertia and extravagance in such enterprises. The probable loss in
grit, push, and endurance, mentioned above, might prove serious.
We must admit that, on the whole, private business has been managed
much better than public business, both in this country and abroad. To a
considerable extent, however, the inefficiency of municipal and state
undertakings has been due to the clumsiness and corruption of political
systems, and can be cured by political reform. That public affairs
can be managed as successfully as private business has been
demonstrated on many occasions. The parcel post offers a much
more economical service than the express companies ever gave.
The most efficient and successful engineering undertaking ever
accomplished by man the construction of the Panama Canal was
a thoroughgoing socialistic achievement. Moreover, in our criticism
of public undertakings, we are apt to forget how slack and inefficient
the great bulk of private business has been; our attention is caught
by the few concerns that have made a striking success, and we
overlook the vast numbers that have failed or barely kept alive.
Looking at the matter psychologically, observation does not
altogether confirm the statement that men need an unlimited
possibility of financial reward to work hard. The vast majority of
workers today are on salary; and on the whole they probably work
as faithfully as the few at the top (continually becoming fewer) who
have the spur of private profit.[Footnote: 1 Cf. this testimony in regard
to former owners of stores in Minnesota and Wisconsin who have been
bought out and retained as managers by cooperative societies: "they
work for moderate salaries, and in almost all cases are working
as ardently for success as they ever did for their own gain." N. O.
Nelson, in Outlook, vol. 89, p. 527.] Not all capitalists are hard
workers; much of the real work is done for them by salaried managers.
It is very questionable if doctors and lawyers, who work for profits,
give any more loyal service to the community than teachers, ministers,
or nurses, who work on salary. There would still be the need of earning
one's living, and the incentive of rising to positions of higher salary,
greater authority, and wider interest. And, after all, most of the really
good work of the world is done on honor, from the normal human
pleasure in doing things well, and pride in being known to do
things well. When freed from the private greed and antisocial class
feelings which now inhibit it, this zest in efficient work and loyal
service might receive a new impetus. A socialistic regime would surely
make a business of inculcating in its public schools the conception
of all work as public service; and the pressure of public opinion would
bear more heavily upon workers-as there is today much freer criticism
of public than of private undertakings. But even if there should be
a considerable increase in slackness and a decrease in PER
CAPITA production, that economic loss might be more than
made up by the saving of labor through organization. And if
not, it is true that efficiency is not the only good. Considerations
of humanity should weigh with us as well as considerations of
moneymaking; if socialism can cure the intolerable evils in our
present selfish and chaotic system, a certain decrease in
production might not be too great a price to pay.
(2) The running of the complicated socialistic machine would involve
a great deal of friction, with consequent dissatisfaction and dissension.
Problems would arise on all hands: On what basis should the wage-rate
in this industry and in that be determined? How much of the public
moneys should be put into this and how much into that undertaking?
Was this department head fair in discharging this man and promoting
that man? Suspicion of bribery and graft would continually recur. Bad
seasons would be encountered, blunders would be made, overproduction
would occur, men would be thrown out of employment in the work they
had chosen, floods, fires, plagues, and other disasters would sweep
away profits; the adjustment of these losses would be an enormously
delicate matter. At present, the poor are apt to feel that prosperity
for them is hopeless; under a socialistic regime they would expect
it, and be loath to see their incomes diminished when things went
wrong. Socialism would require a great deal of good temper and
willingness to submit to decisions which seemed unwise or unfair.
It is highly doubtful if human nature is yet good enough to fit the
system.
(3) A third objection to socialism, that corruption would be increased,
is a much-debated point. There would be, as now, opportunity for
falsification of accounts and embezzlement. Individual promotions
would too often hinge upon personal friendship or favors received.
The enormous administrative machinery would open up all sorts of new
avenues to personal gain at the expense of others, which unprincipled
men would be quick to take advantage of. But, on the other hand, no
great private fortunes or wealthy corporations would exist to bribe,
and no such money-prizes would exist to be won by bribery as are
common in our present system. There would be no temptation to adulterate
goods, and less of a temptation to award contracts or franchises to
friends -since there would be no private profit in it. What supports
our political rings today is, above all, the existence of the
"interests" wealthy corporations that are making profits enough to
spare large sums for "influencing" legislation; these "interests" would
no longer exist. On the whole, then, the amount and direction of
corruption under socialism is unpredictable; but its possibility should
give us pause. The other general objections to socialism are probably
less serious; some of them complete misapprehensions. It is certainly
not anti-Christian; on the contrary, there are those who believe that
it is the necessary the Christian spirit.[Footnote: Cf, for example,
W. Rauschenbusch, Christianity and the Social Crisis.] It is not
"materialistic" any more than any industrial system must necessarily
be. It would not necessarily destroy private property or lessen human
freedom, except in the one matter that it would prevent private
ownership of the instruments of industrial production and destroy the
freedom to conduct business to private advantage. But it is clear that
it would involve us in all sorts of complicated and delicate problems
of detail which would require generations for satisfactory solution
and which might never be satisfactorily solved. And it might, of course,
lead to other difficulties now unforeseen, graver and more difficult
to meet than we now realize. Surely, then, it is not to be lightly
undertaken, and not to be undertaken as a mere revolt of the lower
classes against their industrial masters. It must be worked out in
great detail, and contrasted with every possible alternative, before
cautious statesmen will consent to its adoption. For it would mean
a revolutionary change of enormous proportions; and it would not be
easy to revert to the earlier order. Our political machinery, under
which the vast industrial system would come, must first be reconstructed
and made efficient. Religion and public education must be strengthened
to meet the new demands upon character and intelligence. It is earnestly
to be hoped that if socialism comes, it will come not by revolution,
as the result of a class struggle, but by evolution and a general
consent, the result of long and careful public discussion. In the
writer's opinion, present steps must be along the line of government
regulation, with socialism as the possible, but as yet by no means
certain, eventual outcome. In any case, there is no simple and sweeping
panacea for our industrial ills; the patient thought and experimentation
and effort of generations will be required before a satisfactory and
stable equilibrium is attained.
Competition VS. concentration: C. R. Van Hise, CONCENTRATION AND
CONTROL, chap. I. J. W. Jenks, THE TRUST PROBLEM. E. von Halle,
TRUSTS AND INDUSTRIAL COMBINATIONS. F. C. McVey, MODERN
INDUSTRIALISM. S. C. T. Dodd, COMBINATIONS, THEIR USE AND
ABUSE. R. T. Ely, MONOPOLIES AND TRUSTS. C. N. Fay, BIG
BUSINESS AND GOVERNMENT. Edmond Kelly, TWENTIETH CENTURY
SOCIALISM, book II, chap, II; book III, chap. I. A. J. Eddy, THE NEW
COMPETITION. Atlantic Monthly, vol. 79, p. 377. FORUM, vol. 8, p. 61.
JOURNAL OF POLITICAL ECONOMY, vol. 20, p. 358. Labor unions and
strikes: J. R. Commons, TRADE-UNIONISM AND LABOR PROBLEMS.
Carlton, HISTORY AND PROBLEMS OF ORGANIZED LABOR. S. and
B. Webb, INDUSTRIAL DEMOCRACY; HISTORY OF TRADE
UNIONISM. J. Mitchell, ORGANIZED LABOR. C. R. Henderson, SOCIAL
SPIRIT IN AMERICA, chap. ix. Jane Addams, NEWER IDEALS OF
PEACE, chap. v. ATLANTIC MONTHLY, vol. 109, p. 758. H. R. Seager, I
NTRODUCTION TO ECONOMICS, chap. xxi. F. W. Taussig, PRINCIPLES
OF ECONOMICS, chap. 55. Profit sharing: W. H. Tolman, SOCIAL
ENGINEERING, chap. vii. Seager, OP. CIT, chap, xxvi, sec. 281. Adams
and Sumner, LABOR PROBLEMS, chap. X. N. P. Gilman, PROFIT
SHARING; A DIVIDEND TO LABOR. Outlook, vol. 106, p. 627.
QUARTERLY REVIEW, vol. 219, p. 509. Cooperation: G. J. Holyoake,
HISTORY OF COOPERATION. C. R. Fay, COOPERATION AT HOME
AND ABROAD. Adams and Sumner, LABOR PROBLEMS, chap. x.
ARENA, vol. 36, p. 200; vol. 40, p. 632. H. R. Seager, OP. CIT, sec.
282. F. W. Taussig, OP. CIT, chap. 59. Consumers' leagues: Publications
of the National Consumers' League (106 East Nineteenth Street, New
York City). Government regulation: J. W. Jenks, OP. CIT, Appendices.
C. R. Van Hise, OP. CIT, chaps, iii-v. F. W. Taussig, OP. CIT, chaps.
62,63. H. R. Seager, OP. CIT, chap. xxv. C. L. King, REGULATION
OF MUNICIPAL UTILITIES. J. B. and J. M. Clark, CONTROL OF THE
TRUSTS. E. M. Phelps, FEDERAL CONTROL OF INTERSTATE
CORPORATIONS. ATLANTIC MONTHLY, vol. iii, p. 433. OUTLOOK,
vol. 99, p. 649; vol. 100, pp. 574, 690; vol. 101, p. 353; vol. 103,
p. 476. NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW, vol. 197, pp. 62, 222, 350.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ETHICS, vol. 23, p. 158. JOURNAL
OF POLITICAL ECONOMY, vol. 20, pp. 309, 574. Socialism:
Edmond Kelly, TWENTIETH CENTURY SOCIALISM. H. G. Wells,
NEW WORLDS FOR OLD. J. Spargo, SOCIALISM. M. Hillquit,
SOCIALISM IN THEORY AND PRACTICE. A. Schaffle, THE
QUINTESSENCE OF SOCIALISM. F. W. Taussig, OP. CIT, chaps.
64, 65. J. Rae, the roman numerals are both upper and lower case
did not standardize PORARY SOCIALISM. R. T. Ely, SOCIALISM.
W. G. Towler, SOCIALISM IN LOCAL GOIVERNEMNT. H. R. SEAGER,
OP. CIT, sec. 282. N. P. Gilman, SOCIALISM AND THE AMERICAN
SPIRIT. R. Hunter, SOCIALISTS AT WORK. JOURNAL OF POLITICAL
ECONOMY, vol. 14, p. 257. OUTLOOK, vol. 91, pp. 618, 662; vol. 95,
pp. 831, 876.