the adjustment of relations between its component parts. Remove this ability to fight by compelling peace while the issue is submitted to a tribunal, and that tribunal will inevitably and unconsciously be swayed by adherence to the old away from digression into the new. It must ever be kept in mind that the struggle of labor for betterment is not merely a question of here and now. It is eternally a question of the future, and not to be a combatant, at least potentially, would be for labor to turn its face backward.

There is a conspicuous illustration of these facts, which are facts of human nature, in the outcome of the anthracite coal strike. That was a struggle that in time came to affect the public convenience, comfort and health as vitally as could the paralysis of any public service corporation. That struggle was brought to an end through adjudication by a tribunal of inquiry. Very well, but be it observed that the battle preceded the inquiry. Had there been in existence a tribunal empowered to pronounce a verdict upon the issues between the mine workers and the operators, it never would have made an award so favorable to the advance of civilization among the mass of inhabitants of the anthracite region as was made by the anthracite strike commission, for the reason that there never would have been made the demonstration by the workers that they were so terribly in earnest in their conviction that their demands were just, that they were willing to go hungry and even to see their wives and children suffer, rather than work upon oppressive terms. There has existed for generations in Russia an office holding class whose function was that of an industrial judiciary. Against industrial adjustment by this bureaucracy, it was a crime for workers to organize for appeal. The result was the evolution of industrial conditions so shocking as to be incredible to Occidental minds and to cause a revolt in demand of rights that our civilization has grown to treat as axiomatic and to take for granted. Establish in the midst of our civilization such an industrial tribunal as proposed and retrogression would ensue, perhaps slowly, but surely, toward the suppression of the toilers whose hands are tied.

MONOPOLY AND THE STRUGGLE OF CLASSES.

BY JOHN BATES CLARK.

[John Bates Clark; born Providence, R. I., Jan. 26, 1847; educated in public schools; spent two years at Brown university, and graduated from Amherst college in 1872; took special studies in economics and history for two years at the University of Heidelberg, and a half year at University of Zurich; has been professor political economy at Carleton college, Smith college, Amherst college, and lecturer at Johns Hopkins, professor of political economy at Columbia since July, 1895. Author: The Philosophy of Wealth; The Distribution of Wealth; The Control of Trusts, etc.] Copyright 1903 by The Editors of the Political Science Quarterly

A certain clerical socialist used to preface his public addresses with the statement, "Society is under conviction of sin." It certainly is under an indictment, and is inclined to plead guilty on some of the counts. It is not perfect, and it owns the fact. The socialist's theological term, however, implies that society is conscious of being in a state of total depravity, and confesses by implication that it needs to be destroyed and made over. Its very principle of action is, in this view, so bad that nothing can save the organism but a new creation.

In this sense the accusation does not seem to many people to be true, and the revolutionary change that the socialist calls for does not seem to be impending. What we must admit, however, is that the principle of monopoly is a bad one, and that in the business world it is becoming too nearly dominant. Trusts are seeking to create monopolies of products, and trade unions are trying to establish monopolies of labor. Does this movement really tend towards the absorption of all industry by the state? Appearances favor the side of those who believe in the permanence of private business.

Many are ready to say offhand that we have already given ourselves over to private monopoly, which stands for oppression and all evil, and that the only possible escape from impending disaster is socialism. Business is anything but free, when, in many a department, a single corporation has the field so nearly to itself that its few surviving competitors are at its mercy. The multimillionaire who controls such a corporation is the modern counterpart of the great baron of

feudal times. The field of his operation is industry, and the trust furnishes his particular domain. One of the most effective criticisms of society as it now is, bears the title, Our Benevolent Feudalism, and it makes much of the analogy between Europe under barons and America under industrial magnates.

With this seeming disappearance of competition, there has come a willingness on all sides to admit that while it lasted it was a power for good. When the enemies of the present order gleefully remark the departure of competition, they in reality pay to it a posthumous tribute. Now that it has gone, they say, the social state is becoming too bad to be endured. Ergo socialism. There is now little disposition to deny that the neck and neck rivalry of producers who are striving to undersell each other has cheapened production, which is the same thing as making labor fruitful. It has brought about a dazzling series of mechanical inventions whereby, in many a department, the product of a day's work has been multiplied by ten, and again by ten. It has worked, moreover, with a certain rude honesty-though not every one will admit this since it has tended to give to each laborer what he is personally worth; and where it has not actually given it, the reason has been that the natural tendency has been thwarted by adverse influences. A good system may always be made to give an imperfect result, if the natural movement of it is here and there disturbed and obstructed. Competition has never worked in a perfectly free and unhindered way; but so far as it has worked, it has tended towards wealth, progress, and a rude approach to honesty in the sharing of the fruits of progress.

For monopoly there is no such thing to be said. He would be a bold attorney who would take a brief for it at all, and an infatuated one who would expect to defend it successfully before the great jury, the people. At the bar of public opinion it is condemned and outlawed, but unfortunately it is not actually banished. In spite of a universal protest, it is grimly asserting its power, and the issue of to-day, in which all others merge, is whether we shall rule it, or whether it shall rule us. For if we cannot rule it except by taking monopolized indus

tries into the hands of the government, we shall in the end do even that. The logic of socialism is unimpeachable, if you grant its minor premise; for its major premise is one in which we are all agreed-the statement, namely, that a system of business founded on private monopoly is intolerable. Add, now, the proposition that the present system is thus founded, and you prove that this system is one which must, at all costs, be swept away; and if there is only one way to do thisthrough governmental absorption of our industries and their management in the name of the people-that way must be accepted. On the face the situation makes a strong plea for such a change, and wins thousands of converts. When we look a little deeper, we shall see that the action of monopoly in another sphere creates a practical barrier against a radical change of this kind. The trade union may seem friendly to socialism, but in principle it is opposed to it.

Are we, or are we not, given over to a régime of private monopolies in business? There is another syllogism which is here applicable, though in this case there is not a general agreement as to the truth of the minor premise, which is that a complete system of industries conducted by a democratic state would have results that would be intolerable. The major premise here is that the American people will never accept an intolerable situation, and the conclusion is that they must and will avoid the necessity for such a great public monopoly by curbing the power of private ones. Critics will declare that the people cannot do this, and the question whether they can and will do it is the one that is superseding all others in marshaling parties and giving shape to the struggles of classes. As between submitting to what is intolerable and doing what is impossible, an energetic people will do the impossible. They will make a way to do to-morrow what they cannot do to-day; and this probably means that they will fight it out on the line of regulation though it take many summers.

The whole attitude of classes towards each other has been transformed by the advent of the great monopolies. Socialism has gained supporters for the moderate parts of its program. It has itself learned to become evolutionary and Fabian, and to try to gain one point at a time. Whatever may be its

Vol. 8-9

ulterior views, the battles in which it can hope to have practical success are fought with the aid of men who have little sympathy with its ultimate aims. There is rapidly coming into the field a big auxiliary force which will fight effectively for a few things and then stop, leaving the pronounced socialist to continue his fight unaided.

Socialism began its career by hitching its wagon to a star, -by holding before the eyes of its followers the vision of a transformed and perfected universe in which wrongs should be done away with and equality and fraternity should rule. The early philosophers of the school included in the picture a transformed man as well as a renovated society, since they perceived that evil must be taken out of human nature itself if the full results of the new system were to be realized; and there are those at present who will accept nothing less than this. They dread and repudiate the tendency to make small gains, and wait for the great ones. They denounce whatever is Fabian and opportunist, and insist upon everything or nothing. A few of them, the more consistent and less practical ones, decry trade unionism itself, since it involves making terms with employers and sharing gains with them-a policy which gives to the wages system a license to continue. Logically these men are the truest socialists, and yet it is clear that without the help of the trade unionists they can accomplish nothing. If the great mass of those who favor bringing the state into the industrial field were reduced to this radical and consistent nucleus, it would become what has been called a nice little, tight little party, much too small to count in a political election.

Now the action of different classes and the character of their struggles with each other will be governed, in the near future, by their attitude towards the immediate issues created by monopoly. The main effort of a powerful body will be expended in trying to realize the preliminary part of a socialistic program, and here will be seen that mingling of regulars and auxiliaries which makes this army formidable. It contains many who never think of abolishing private capital, and who will surely draw back when the line of contention moves forward and the changes demanded become radical. There