There is a widespread opinion among social and industrial workers that
the unequal conditions existing in human society are going to be
levelled: that equality of opportunity and the more equitable
distribution of the necessities of life are to be accomplished by a
system of “passing it on.” In this way, the social burden, instead of
resting where it does now, on the lowest stratum of the population, will
be placed on broad shoulders better able to bear the load.
Do not such solutions as employers’ liability, workmen’s compensation,
the minimum wage, reduced hours of employment and better occupational
conditions all mean an increase in the cost of producing the necessaries
of life? Do they not tend to make more grave one of the vital problems
of the hour?
There seems to be a feeling abroad, of which many are possessed, that
there is somewhere a great fund of capital on hand, which only needs
equitable distribution to allow all now engaged in industry to live in
comfort, with only a moderate amount of exertion.
This is the result, probably, of seeing large rows of figures, stated as
the wealth controlled by financial institutions, or in the possession of
individuals. Most of these figures refer to pieces of paper, either
evidences of debt, or titles to ownership of lands, factories or other
tools of trade. Not one of these is available for furnishing the
necessities of life, _without human labor_ applied at the right time and
place under competent direction.
There is produced, by direction, foresight and toil, in any given year,
hardly more of any stated necessity of life than the current needs of
the people. It is probably true also that it is the thrift of the few;
the foresight of the so-called capitalist; the enterprise of the
manufacturer, builder or railroad man, the wise ventures of the merchant
and trader; that keep up the present standard of wages and living—low
though it may be in comparison with our wishes or ideals.
A large number of those engaged in business enterprises fail to succeed
at all. The profit of the more successful, though often imposing,
averages a very small percentage counting both good and bad years. It is
easily turned into a loss, by dull times, trade changes, or careless
management.
To quote Ray Stannard Baker (not writing in behalf of the mill owner) in
his article on the Lawrence strike: “If one were to divide all the
surplus of profit in the textile mills today—figure it out for yourself!
It would increase their wages and improve their living conditions almost
inappreciably.”[3]
Footnote 3:
The Revolutioners Strike. _American Magazine_, May, 1912.
So it is evident that if employment is to continue and a larger share is
to be given to those who perform the manual labor, while at the same
time the conditions under which they work are to be improved, some means
must be devised whereby the present margin of profit can be increased.
Otherwise those who plan and carry on these industrial undertakings will
be discouraged.
Of course many believe that capital, or business enterprise, has had too
much attention already. Now that the capitalist “class” (mostly made up
of men formerly poor) has shown the way to the accumulation of wealth,
they think it is simply necessary for “society” or “the workers” to do
the same thing themselves, and pocket the results. But how this is to be
done has not yet been shown.
How can the employer treat his working force more generously, without
the fear of insolvency staring him in the face, when the books are
balanced for the year?
One of the most hopeful solutions was promised in the new “efficiency”
discoveries. These seemed to indicate that a larger output by the worker
could bring about a greater reward for himself, together with a
corresponding increased profit for the employer.
But, so far, the attitude of “labor” seems to be opposed to anything
like an increase either of efficiency or production. Reduction of hours
and minimum of output, seem to be favored. The false idea is that more
“work” is thereby created, although the amount of the absolute
necessaries of life which their labor produces is thereby curtailed.
Their idea is that they do not get their share of the “wealth” they
already produce; that a constantly increasing mass of it is kept out of
their reach. They wish to seize part of it, not by earning, but by
taking it from the present recipients.
So we are brought back to the original issue. How can it be brought to
pass that the director of enterprise on capitalist, whose brains are the
creating power of the world’s wealth, shall be filled with an altruistic
spirit that he may spare and increase all benefits and comforts with his
manual helpers? And how, on the other hand, can we inspire the worker,
under his direction, with loyal energy to do all in _his_ power to
support and carry on the wealth-producing enterprise, each emulating
each with noble example and worthy sacrifice?
Here should come in the twin forces of education and religion.
Enlightenment will be of no avail without a moral basis. The
fundamentals of the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule must have a
place in our great educational system which should teach men that there
is a higher element in life than the facts of science and material
things.
This new social adjustment, if it is to come peaceably and not through
anarchy, must find new and able leadership which does not resort to loud
protestations of devotion to one class combined with denunciation of
another, or to vague cries of “social justice,” or to illusory schemes
for levelling inequalities that are imbedded in human nature itself.
What is needed is a leadership founded in a love for mankind, wide as
the race, broad-minded, hopeful, strong and sane, to help the new
generation forward in progress that shall also be peace.