My studies had never been directed to questions of national economy.
I had never thought of comparing the merits of competition with those
of communism. When Dr. Leete had explained in his positive and still
fascinating manner the new order of things I had hardly noticed that it
was based on communistic principles. I thought humanity had reached at
last the millennium, and when Dr. Leete stated that his easy and even
luxurious way of living represented the average style of the people of
the twentieth century, I had no doubt that everybody was satisfied with
the new order of things.
My cool reception by the students and my conversation with Mr. Forest
had convinced me, that not every inhabitant of the United States in
the 2000th year of our Lord considered the present order of things
the millennium and I must say that I noticed the dissatisfaction with
sincere sorrow. For a sweet peace, a tranquillity never felt before,
had filled my heart, when Dr. Leete spoke of the absolute happiness of
the men of the twentieth century.
My new profession imposed upon me the duty of studying national
economy. Of course I could have pictured simply the social and
political circumstances, in which the people of the United States had
lived 113 years ago, but this would not have satisfied me. I desired
to learn, how the civilizations of the two centuries, if impartially
judged, would compare. Therefore I cultivated my acquaintance with Mr.
Forest, to hear from him the arguments against the theories set forth
by Dr. Leete, although a feeling of discomfort always overwhelmed
me, whenever the thought came to me, that Forest’s ideas might prove
victorious over the principles advanced by Dr. Leete. For a victory won
by Forest could mean nothing else but a return to a state of affairs,
which I thoroughly disliked, and which I knew to be full of cares and
discomforts.
I confined my next lecture to an accurate description of the state
of the labor market of Boston in 1887. Avoiding carefully all
exaggerations, I drew only indisputable conclusions from the facts
given, showing how capital and labor had lost equally by the numerous
strikes in those days and complimenting the present order of things,
for making such irrational economical conflicts impossible.
After my lectures I always conversed with Mr. Forest, who was quite as
willing to discuss the new order of society as Dr. Leete.
“The friends of the administration are calling me a fault-finder”,
said Mr. Forest, “and they are right, although they might express
their opinion with more civility, if they said, that I am critically
disposed. I would criticise every administration under which it chanced
to be my destiny to live, however good or bad that administration
might be. I do not harbor any animosity against the men, who rule
the United States to-day. I even admit that they exercise a little
more wisdom, energy and tolerance, than did the members of the
government, which ruled twelve years ago. But the fundamental principle
of their system is decidedly wrong and so the consequences must be
bad;--whatever the members of the administration may do to patch up the
shortcomings of their system”.
“So you think that the present system is absolutely wrong?” I queried.
“Can you entertain any doubts?” answered Forest. “Look around! Is the
leading principle in creation equality or variety? You find sometimes
similitude but never conformity. Botanists have carefully compared
thousands of leaves, which looked exactly alike at the first glance,
but which after close examination were found to possess striking
dissimilarities. Inequality is the law of nature and the attempt to
establish equality is therefore unnatural and absurd. Where-ever such
experiments have been made, they have ended in unqualified failure.
Even some of the first Christians, moved by brotherly love and charity,
failed in their efforts to establish communism permanently. And the
lamented Procrustes used two bedsteads in which he placed his victims.
He could not get along with one size for everybody. We may just as
well try to make every man six feet long, forty-two inches around
his chest, with a Grecian nose, blue eyes, light hair and a lyric
tenor voice, as to attempt to equalize all lives and reduce them to a
communistic state.--Now consider, in connection with the difference in
the mental and physical powers of men, their different inclinations
and tastes, the variety of their occupations, and then say, whether
the establishment of society on the basis of communism, of absolute
equality, is possible.”
“If I have formed a just appreciation of the organization of your
society, you have recognized the right of all men to a living by giving
everybody an equal share of the products of labor”, I objected; “but at
the same time you give everybody the chance to select the profession
or trade most to his taste and you have graded the men, belonging
to a guild, thus inciting the ambition of the worker, to reach a
higher grade, and creating a diversity of positions, adapted to that
dissimilarity of men, you were just speaking of”.
“Yes”, said Forest, “we first established the principle of equality
and then proceeded to arrange our system upon a basis of inequality,
thus avoiding an open avowal that the new organization of society was
a failure in both theory and practice. The question before us is a
very plain one: “_Are we all alike_”? If we are, then communism is
the proper form of society and everybody should have an equal share
of the products of labor. If we are not alike, if we differ in mental
power and in physical ability, if the results of the labor of men are
different, then there is no reason, why the wealth of the nation should
be equally divided. But we first proclaim equality and pretend that
we divide the products of labor equally among all;--and then we divide
the “workers into _first_, _second_ and _third grades_, according to
_ability_, and these grades are _subdivided_ into _first_ and _second
classes_.”[6] Here we see the workers subdivided into six classes for
the reason, expressly stated, that their ability _differs_. That their
diligence also differs is not admitted, but it is nevertheless the
fact. The _inequality_ of men is thus _distinctly recognized_, but the
products of labor are _equally_ divided in the name of _equality_! Now,
everybody has a natural right to the products of his activity, but we
are taking a large share of the results of the labor of a clever worker
of class A of the first grade to give it to a lazy fellow of class B
of the third grade. This is downright robbery, not even hidden beneath
the shabby cloak of the leading principle governing all the acts of the
administration; and all those who can not admire this stealing, are
denounced as enemies of the best organization of society, ever known in
the history of mankind”.
[6] Page 125.
“You are to a certain extent an admirer of the civilization of the
nineteenth century”, I answered; “and yet in our times the employers
were accused by some of the labor agitators of “stealing” a large
amount of the products of work by reaping very large profits and paying
small wages. I would rather favor an equal division of all properties
than a system, by which a comparatively small number of employers can
enrich themselves at the expense of the masses of the laboring people.”
“I am not an admirer of the civilization of the nineteenth century,
Mr. West,” Forest exclaimed. “I simply maintain, that the principles
of _competition_ under which society worked a hundred years ago was
far _superior_ to the _communism_, under which we are laboring. The
unjust profits of the employers, of which you complain, could have
been easily done away with, if your workmen had organized themselves
into co-partnerships or associations. There was no law a hundred
years ago to prevent a dozen shoemakers renting a loft with steam
power, purchasing a few sewing and other machines and making boots and
shoes at their own risk. There was no law to prevent all the other
workingmen buying their boots and shoes at the shop of the co-operative
association, thus securing for the members of the latter the profits
of the manufacturer, wholesaler, retailer and workman. The laborers
of all the different trades had a perfect right to organize such
co-operative societies and thus secure all the profit that was in
their labor. If the workmen preferred not to make use of this chance,
if they did not care to assume the cares and risks of conducting a
business for themselves, if they would rather work for an employer,
leaving the cares and risks of the managements entirely to him, they
had certainly no reason to complain of the profit of the employer. And
if they were not satisfied with their treatment they could at any time
seek other employment;--a thing that the workmen of our days _can not
do_, for there is only one employer, the national administration.--The
principle, that a man has a right to what he produces, was not
questioned under your form of production. But we have in the name of
equality and justice established the “right” to rob an industrious
man of a part of the product of his labor and give this booty to his
lazy comrade. If the workingmen of the nineteenth century, instead of
sacrificing enormous sums in strikes, had organized one trade after
another into co-operative associations, they would have solved what
they styled the social questions with comparatively little trouble. And
they would have saved us from the present outrageous form of society.”
“The strikes were an effect merely of the concentration of capital in
greater masses, than had ever been known before”, I said, repeating the
views of Dr. Leete on this question. “Before this concentration began
... the individual workman was relatively important and independent in
his relations to his employers. Moreover, when a little capital or a
new idea was enough to start a man in business for himself, workingmen
were constantly becoming employers and there was no hard or fast line
between the two classes. Labor unions were needless then and general
strikes out of the question”.[7]
[7] Page 52.
“In your place, Mr. West, I would not endorse those sentences of Dr.
Leete”, said Forest with a smile, “for the Doctor has had frequent
occasions to change his mind on this subject and persists in repeating
his erroneous statements, although I and others have disproved them
until further repetitions of our arguments became tedious. Strikes are
not, as Dr. Leete pretends to believe, comparatively late appearances
on the battle fields of national economy. One of the biggest strikes
that ever occurred, the “secessio in montem sacrum”, took place in Rome
as early as 494 before Christ, and, during the centuries of the middle
ages, strikes for higher wages frequently occurred, although in those
days labor was much better organized (in trades unions, guilds and
“Zuenfte”) and more powerful than capital. And as for the impossibility
of laborers ever becoming employers, I can show you in the college
library a copy of the German paper, the “Freie Presse”, published in
the city of Chicago anno 1888, where the editor, in contradicting
similar statements of the communists of those days, points to the fact,
that in 1888 there were 12,000 German house owners, manufacturers
and well to do or rich business men in Chicago, who all had come to
the city poor. When these Germans came to Chicago only a very few of
them spoke English, still they were able to accumulate fortunes. This
disproves the statement, that the people at the end of the last century
were in the clutches of capital and unable to free themselves.--It is
the easiest thing in the world to make wild statements, but it is
sometimes difficult to substantiate them. And Dr. Leete is an adapt at
making statements”.
“But are you not getting along in good style?” I asked, hoping to stop
Forest’s complaints, by pointing to an undisputable fact. “Are you not
enjoying an unprecedented prosperity and is not this general result,
the definite annihilation of poverty, an achievement worth small
sacrifices?”
“We are not getting along in good style. We are not enjoying an
unprecedented prosperity. You will discover very soon, that you are
overestimating the character and the fruits of our civilization. And so
far as the annihilation of poverty is concerned, it amounts practically
to nothing but the enrichment of the awkward, stupid and lazy people,
with the proceeds of the work of the clever and industrious women and
men. You could have done that 113 years ago, but you were not foolish
and unjust enough to commit such a robbery.”
“If the people don’t like the present organization of society, why do
they not change it?” I asked. “From your remarks, I have drawn the
conclusion, that you have no opposition party worth speaking of, for
you said, there are only a few opposition papers published in the
country. This seems to prove that the people are satisfied with the
present state of affairs”.
Forest looked very severe as he answered: “You are of course under the
impression, that we are acting with the same liberty you were enjoying
113 years ago. But everything in political life has changed since those
days. With the exception of a limited number of government officials
and a few contractors, your citizens were perfectly independent of
the administration; to-day the administration rules everything,
and everybody is more or less dependent upon the good will of our
rulers. Whoever dares to openly oppose the ruling spirits may be sure
that all the wrath and all the unpleasantness at the command of the
administration, will be piled upon him and his relatives and friends.
Therefore the number of men who are daring enough to challenge the ire
of the government is very small, although a great many are discontented
with the present state of affairs.”
“But why don’t people elect men to congress, who would pass laws, that
would change a state of things, so unsatisfactory to the masses?” I
asked, satisfied, that Forest in his fault-finding mood, was using his
dark paint altogether to freely.
“Congress has very little influence nowadays”, Forest answered. “The
power rests almost entirely with the president and the chiefs of the
ten great departments. They have well nigh absolute power and resemble
somewhat the council of ten in Venice, when that aristocratic Republic
was at the height of its power. As it lies within their discretion
to assign each and every person to a good or a poor position for
twenty-four years and even to order a draft from the ranks of the men
over forty-five years of age, thus being able to get disliked men
back under the direct discipline of the industrial army, they have a
power over all the people that no tyrant of your times ever dreamed of
establishing”.
“You know of course”, Mr. Forest continued, “that all recruits belong
for the first three years of their service to the class of unskilled
or common laborers. It is not until after this period, during which he
is _assignable_ to _any work_ at the _discretion of his superiors_,
that the young man is allowed to select a special avocation”.[8] You
can readily see that the young man is during these three years at the
absolute mercy of his superiors. They may assign him to easy and clean
work, or they may send him to do a dirty and unhealthy job. He has to
obey orders. For “a man able to do duty and persistently refusing,
is sentenced to solitary imprisonment on bread and water until he
consents”.[9]
[8] Page 70.
[9] Page 128.
“You know furthermore, that “individual _records are kept_ and that
excellence receives distinction, corresponding with the penalties
that negligence incurs.” Dr. Leete has undoubtedly told you this
and furthermore “that it is not policy with us to permit youthful
recklessness or indiscretion, when not deeply culpable, to handicap
the future careers of young men and that all who have passed the
unclassified grade without serious disgrace, have an equal opportunity
to choose the life employment they have the most liking for....
Now not only are the individual records of these apprentices for
ability and industry strictly kept and excellency distinguished by
suitable distinctions, but upon the average of his record during
his apprenticeship the standing given the apprentice among the full
workmen depends....[10] While the internal organizations of the
various industries, mechanical and agricultural, differ according to
their peculiar conditions, they agree in a general division of their
workers into first, second and third grades, according to ability,
and these grades are in many cases subdivided, into first and second
classes. According to his _standing_ as an _apprentice_, a young man is
_assigned_ his place as a _first_, _second_ or _third grade worker_.
_Regradings take place_ in each industry at intervals, corresponding
with the length of the apprenticeship.... One of the notable advantages
of a high grading, is the _privilege_ it gives the worker to select
which of the various branches or processes of his industry he will
follow as his specialty”[11].... Dr. Leete has of course further
informed you, “that so far as possible, the preferences of the poorest
workman are considered in assigning him his line of work.... While
however the wish of the lower grade man is consulted so far as the
exigencies of the service permit, he is considered only after the upper
grade men are provided for, and often he has to put up with second
or third choice or even with an _arbitrary assignment_ when help is
needed. This privilege of selection attends every _regrading_, and when
a man loses his grade, he also risks having to exchange the sort of
work he likes best for some other less to his taste.... High places in
the nation are open only to the highest class men.”[12]
[10] Page 124.
[11] Page 125.
[12] Pages 125 and 126.
“These regulations bear out what I just said in regard to the power
of the administration. The lieutenants, captains and colonels, are
appointed by the generals of the guild, who in turn are under the
command of the ten chiefs of the ten great departments. These officers
may give their young friends, who enter the industrial army as
apprentices, easy jobs and good records and enable their friends on
the strength of their records, as soon as they have passed the first
three years of service, to enter the first class of the first grade of
a trade. And such a favorite, who, backed by influential friends, has
passed an easy time as an apprentice and who has received at once the
first class of the first grade of his trade is immediately appointable
to a lieutenantship and he can run up to the higher honors in a few
years.--You can not deny, Mr. West, that our regulations permit such a
favoritism.”
I had to admit that such things were possible.
Mr. Forest continued: “On the other hand, the young men, who are not
the sons and friends of our leaders, are fortunate if they can secure
a second grade position, with a record, that does not exclude all
hopes of further promotion. Relatives of outspoken opponents of the
administration, can be placed in the second class of the third grade
of their trade, and their record can be so kept, that they can never
hope to secure a higher position. And such a favoritism is not only
possible, but it absolutely does exist. The sons and relatives of men,
who are known as opponents of the administration, have practically to
live worse than slaves, and are sometimes treated like foot balls”.
“Is there no court of appeals?” I asked.
“Yes, such an abused man or woman can go to a Judge”, Mr. Forest
answered. “But, the minor Judges are merely men who have passed
the 45th year of age and have been appointed to such a position
for five years by the President. They--as Dr. Leete of course told
you--adjudicate all cases where a member of the industrial army makes
a complaint of unfairness against an officer. All such questions are
_heard and settled without appeal by a single Judge_, three Judges
being required only in graver cases. The efficiency of industry
requires the _strictest discipline_ in the army of labor[13]--The men
appointed by the President are of course trustworthy friends of the
administration and not expected to decide in such cases against the
officers of the government and in favor of the “Kickers”. And as such
cases are settled without appeal, the ill-used member of the industrial
army has to go back to his old position, where the superior, whom he
has accused, will certainly not treat him better than before. On the
contrary, such an officer has a first-class chance to “get even” with
his dissatisfied subordinate, especially at the next regrading, when he
can put him into the last class and grade, if the unfortunate fellow
is not already there. If such is the case, the offended officer can at
least assign the “Kicker” to the most objectionable work”.
[13] Page 206.
The picture, thus drawn by Mr. Forest, appeared so dreadful, especially
when compared by me with the descriptions of Dr. Leete, that I could
not collect myself sufficiently to try an argument against the
conclusions of my predecessor in the professorship of the history of
the nineteenth century.
After a short pause the present janitor continued: “Now consider in
connection with all the facts and institutions that I have mentioned,
that “_the workers have no suffrage to exercise or anything to say
about the choice” of their superiors_.[14]--“The general of the guild
appoints to the ranks under him, but he himself is not appointed, but
chosen by suffrage among the superintendents by vote of the honorary
members of the guilds, that is by those who have served their time in
the guild and received their discharge”[15].--So my dear Mr. West, the
members of the industrial army are twenty-four years absolutely at the
mercy of their superiors. If they desire to have a good time they
must blindly obey orders and seek favor by all means in their power.
They must influence their friends who have votes not only to stand by
the administration, but to do it in a demonstrative manner. Occasional
presents of wines and cigars may secure the friendship of some of the
officers. Otherwise the member of the industrial army may lead for
twenty-four years a life, compared with which the lot of a plantation
slave or of the poorest coal digger 150 years ago would be called an
enviable fate. For a plantation slave was considered a valuable piece
of property and not recklessly destroyed, while the poorest coal digger
could leave his job and go to some other place, until he found more
suitable employment. A member of our industrial army, who has drawn
down upon himself the ire of the officers of the administration or
who is placed on the list of the enemies of society on account of the
opposition of his voting relatives, leads a life that may be termed
as “twenty four years of hell on earth”! I have demonstrated to you
now, Mr. West, why congress has no influence. The vast majority of its
members are continually trying to please the administration, for the
purpose of securing favors for themselves, their relatives and their
friends,” said Mr. Forest in conclusion. “And this is the equality of
the best organization society ever had; this is what Dr. Leete calls
the millennium”.
[14] Page 277.
[15] Page 189.