Kentucky Law Journal

Volume 8 Issue 1 Article 2

1920

Syndicalism and Socialism and Their Meaning

Frank L. McVey
University of Kentucky

Follow this and additional works at: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/klj

Part of the Labor and Employment Law Commons

Right click to open a feedback form in a new tab to let us know how this document benefits you.

Recommended Citation
McVey, Frank L. (1920) "Syndicalism and Socialism and Their Meaning," Kentucky Law Journal: Vol. 8: Iss.
1, Article 2.
Available at: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/klj/vol8/iss1/2

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UKnowledge. It has been accepted
for inclusion in Kentucky Law Journal by an authorized editor of UKnowledge. For more information, please contact
[email protected].
,iL(ntucky iiaw 5Journ[
VOL. VIII LEXINGTON, KY., JANUARY, 1920 NO. I

SYNDICAL..ISM AND SOCIALISM AND THEIR IR

MEANING.
By Frank L. MeVey, Ph. D., LL. D.-

There took place in August of 1913 two events of more than

usual interest. One of these occurred within the peaceful borders
of the Commonwealth of North Dakota and the other happened in
a country across the seas. Round about the city of MLinot in that
state was gathered at harlest time what appeared to be the usual
group of men waiting to offer their services to farmers needing
help. But as the harvest came on it was evident that a new spirit
actuated them. The whole northwest was awakened by the un-
usual demands made. The refusal of the men to accept employ-
men" under the ordinary conditions, together with threats to de-
stroy property, increased the excitement and irritation. Ib needed
but little more to fan the passions of men, and that little was fur-
nished before a week had passed by the appearance of recruits from
everywhere, as it were, who complicated the situation and forced
upon the officers of the law a difficult problem in maintaining
order. My portrayal of the incident has not brought to light the
association of the men and the direction of strike by the officers
of the Industrial Workers of the World, who evidently had chosen
a time and place for a field trial of their principles. The public
prints reported that a prisoner had stated upon examination that
he "did not believe in the constitution of the state or the United
States;" that he, in fact, repudiated the existing government and
everything upon which it was based. This was a new point not

*President of the University of Kentucky.

KENTUCKY LAW JOURNAL

often emphasized since the days of Herr Most and wholly new to
-the people of an agricultural state.
The other event was the death of August Bebel and the at-
tending funeral services at Zurich. This man was the leader of
the social democratic party of Germany. The organization which
.he had built up was developed out of the poorer classes of the pop-
ulation, maintained without hope of the spoils of office, and in-
creased in numbers in the face of the determined opposition of a
strong government. In the last election this party polled more
than four and a quarter million votes, and they had in the Reich-
stag of the nation not less than 109 representatives. This immense
result was the work of half a century combined with the efforts
of William Leibknecht for a similar period. In attendance upon
the funeral services of this remarkable man were tens of thousands
of persons from all parts of Europe; some that had little faith in
the socialistic idea, some that had little liking for their ways, but
-who nevertheless recognized the greatness of the man and his
importance in the historical pageant.
The two events have been referred to for the purpose of in-
troducing the topics under discussion. The first, hinted at only in
the description of the incident in the city of Minot, was a crude
representation of Syndicalism, while the other, represented in the
work of August Bebel, the founder of the social democratic party
in Germany, brings Socialism to our consideration. Little justifi-
cation exists for the discussion of either of these events were it
not for the fact that they form an introduction to the topic of this
paper and bring to view two social movements now pushing for-
ward with great rapidity.
A few years ago the word Syndicalism was practically un-
]nown as a name. The contrast of it with Socialism and the prob-
lems which have come out of the creation of such parties as the
Industrial Workers of the World in this country and the Confed-
eration Generale du Travail of France, to say nothing of the var-
ious organizations in England and Italy, have brought before the
public mind a clearer vision of the viewpoint of some of the radical
movements of the present day.
Syndicalism and Socialism and their Meaning

Neither Syndicalism nor Socialism accepts the existing social

order. Both, however, emphasize the socialization of industry, al-
though the ends to be obtained and the means of bringing them
about differ. To fight against capital continually, by any method
that may come to hand, is the purpose of Syndicalism. Disap-
pointed in the political reforms of the day, seeing no hope in the
socializing movement of great masses of labor without tools and
without land, the Syndicalists have come to the conclusion that the
only way in which they can get a larger share of benefits for them-
selves is to fight capital continuously, hoping that out of the chaos
will evolve control of industry by the workivrs.
Looking at the struggle from this point of view, the syndica-
lists have accepted the socialists' concept of class strife, and have
adopted the ideals of the anarchist and the weapons of the trade:
union. Syndicalism is, in fact, a form of trade-unionism though re-
fusing to acknowledge in any sense the value of the wage system.
It aims at the abolition of the capitalist class and the replacing
of it by a new social order in which there shall be no exploitation
of labor. This result is to be gained by direct action without the
ordinary political or parliamentary methods practiced at the
present time.
It is essential in the understanding of syndicalism to have
some idea of the meaning of the terms general strike and sabotage.
The hope of the syndicalist is to bring all the workers of the world
to act together at some agreed time so that they can peacefully lay
down their tools and refuse to work, knowing that out of such a
situation will come the great catastrophe of a broken society. The
stopping of all work will mean that nothing will be done until their
demands are met. It is recognized, however, that a general strike
is not a possibility at one time; that it may come first in an indus-
try, second in a community, and third in a nation. Looked at
broadly, when it reaches its highest form it is the great final act
in which the capitalist system is to be overthrown by the simple
process of refusing to work. In support of a view of this kind it
is pointed out by the speakers of syndicalism that great strikes have,
taken place which clearly demonstrate the wisdom of such a move
KENTUCKY LAW JOURNAL

as a weapon in industrial warfare. Attention is called to the Paris

Commune of 1871, to the strike in New Zealand, to the general
strike in Sweden in 1902, and later in the conflicts that took place
on the railroads and in the mines of England in 1911 and in the
demonstrations in France, Holland and Belgium in the last ten
years. It is a question, however, whether any of these -instances
can be looked upon as distinctly successful. The Paris Commune
had involved in it so many elements, and was, from the point of
view of an effort on the part of the mass of the working people to
maintain a government and organization, so unsuccessful, that it
can hardly be pointed to as a demonstration of this policy. The
situation in Stockholm in 1909 showed that under certain condi-
tions the capitalistic system is capable of defending itself against
a general strike. The problem of bringing about a condition of
chaos by a general strike is by no means a simple one In connection
with the policy of the general strike iq the use of sabotage as a means
of irritating and interfering in the field of production. "Interfere in
every way with the profits of the boss," says Delegate Slayton of
the Socialistic party convention in 1912. "Strike, but stay on the
payroll." Injure machinery and product by sly means. That is
sabotage. In fact, what was the policy of soldiering in England be-
came in France, thru theorizing, the policy and propaganda of the
Syndicalist movement.
So much by way of explanation of the movement that has
come into large attention and concerning which there now appears
an increasing literature.
In the minds of many people no difference exists between
socialism and syndicalism. It is true that socialism has many
meanings and many exaggerations of the social principle. It has
a history, an economic concept, a philosophy and a religion. As
syndicalism is in its final analysis an emphasis of the extreme of
individualism, so socialism is the manifestation of the opposition
to industrialism. At its base is a concept of equality, just as at
the heart of every labor movement is a race longing for a society
in which the spirit of equality shall be realized. It is not trade-
unionism; it is not government ownership; it is not cooperation;
Syndicalism and 'oeialism and their Meaning

it is a theory of industrial society. To use the words of Richard

T. Ely: "Socialism is that contemplated system of society which
proposes the abolition of private property in the great material
instruments of production and the substitution therefor of collec-
live property; it advocates the collective management of produc-
tion, together with a distribution of the social income by society
and private property in a large proportion of this social income."
Socialism, therefore, proposes to abolish exploitation through
profits, rent and interest, to set aside the wages system and to
guarantee to every man the realized value of his labor. These pur-
poses are to be accomplished through common ownership, common
management or distribution of income through common authority,
with private property in a comparatively small proportion of the
income.
The philosophy of socialism is gathered around the materialis-
tic conception of history. A society with an economic environ-
ment develops classes which are produced by the economic condi-
tions, and these same forces tend to change and destroy the classes
as the proletariat is increased. So, out of the factory system comes
landless men, who, increasing in their class consciousness, come
into a knowledge of the conflict between the tool-owning capitalists
and the wage-earning laborers.
It is at this point that the two, syndicalism and socialism, di-
verge.
Tired and impatient with the political methods of socialism, the
syndicalist looks to direct action through the medium of the gen-
eral strike and the wearing process of sabotage to bring about the
great revolution, the chaos of existing society. He refuses to ac-
cept the present state, finding in it nothing but a fabric that has
been built up by the capitalists. The socialist hopes through the
process of legislation, through the capture of the existing govern-
ment and the state to bring about the result of common ownership
of the means of production under a collectivist system.
Perhaps a further consideration of these two movements may
be of value in bringing out their difference. It is the hope of the
syndicalists that when the period of revolution comes, through the
KENTUCKY LAW JOURNAL

medium of the general strike, ownership and control of industries

will take place through the workers actially engaged in them.
Thus, the railroads would be owned and controlled by the men who
work in the railroads; the business of the manufacturer would be
owned and controlled by the men who work in the factories. In
some instances this poinb of view is modified by the statement that
the community directly around about the factories shall own and
control the industries. On the other hand, the socialists maintain
that the means of production shall be owned and controlled by the
social democratic organization, that the process of the socializa-
tion of industry shall take place through the medium of the state.
This difference really marks the distinction between the collectivist
and the anarchist, the first admitting the need of an organized
society, and the second looking upon it as unnecessary, unwise and
deteriorating.
If, then, we have in what has been said up to this point a fairly
clear idea of the meaning of these two terms, we may well ask
what is their value, what is their purpose?
The frank desire of the syndicalists as represented in the pur-
pose of the Industrial Workers of the World in this country,--to
destroy property and to interfere with the means of production as
a method of advancing their own interests and of securing a larger
justice for the landless and toolless worker, is sure to lead to the
breakdown of the movement.* Everything that is now represented.

-To discuss socialism without carefu'ly distinguishing between Marxian,

Fabian UTtopian, Communist. Opportunist, Revisionist, Socialist Labor, Syndi-
calist and the double I. W. w. is to give offense
t
to all parties. The article on
"Syndicalism-The Creed of Force," by Ar uro 1M. Giovannitti, in our issue of
October 3, was concerned exclusively with the I. W. W., of which be Is a leader,
and we have since received several letters expressing the wish to have the at-
tention of our readers directed to the existence of anothe- organization having
the same name and ultimate aim but advoenting more peaceable methods. We
outte appreciate the desire of our correspondents to dissociate themselves from
the Hayvood and Giovannitti form of the Industrial Workers of the World and
we quote the letter that expresses the difference between the rival organiza-
tions most clearly and emphatically:
"The I. W. W. was launched in 1905 in Chicago by a body of delegates
called tofether by a manifesto which set fnrth the necessity. of the' workers
organizing as a class on the political and on the economic or industrial field.
One of the faults found with the A. F. of . was that it prevented the workers
from organizing as a class on the political field and striking out for themselves.
"It was at this 1905 convention that the principles of Industrial unionism
had their birth, the elements being the recognition of the value of working
class Political action and of the value and absolute necessity of a union based
on industrial instead of craft lines, with a revolutionary purpqse.
Syndicalism and Socialism and their Meaning

m syndicalism was brought out more forcibly in the labor move-

ment of the early 30's under the direction of Roberb Owen. What
is now being said and done is not new. The story of the breaking
of machines is a story old as industry. "It is the contrast of mass
action with individual action, the very contrast that exists between
socialism and syndicalism." The destruction of property for the
purpose of gaining an end is a naive and a boyish point of view
of the industrial world and of social organization. More than that,
the practice of sabotage weakens the force of class solidarity upon
which the very existence of the movement depends. Instead of

"For three years the I. W. W. went along under these principles without
a serious hitch, although the anarchist element among the adherents of the new
union had expressed dissatisfaction with the recognition given to political ac-
tion.
"The preamble to the constitution adopted in 190 stated: 'Between these
two classes (the capitalist class and the working class) a struggle must go on
until all the toilers come together on the political as well as on the industrial
field, and take and hold that which they produce by their labor .... ,
"It you will read the preamble to the constitution of Mr. Giovannitti's
'I. W. W.' you will see that this clause holds no place therein. why? Be-
cause Mr. Glovannitti's union is not the I. W. W. It is an anarchist offshoot
Which wa given birth to three years after the I. W. W.-it was the result of
a packed and 'stolen' convention of the 1. W. W. which took place in Chicago
in 190R.
"At this convention the anarchist slum element showed itself off to per-
feetfon. Pursuant to their declaration that 'questions of right and wrong do
not concern us' and 'direct action gets the eoods,' the slummists, by arbitrary
seating of delegates friendly to anarchy and unseating of delegates friendly to
political action and socialism, and by intimidation and all-round disorderliness,
'stole' the convention, multilated the preamble to the constitution and raped
the organization.
"What gives the Giovannitti-Haywnod 'I. W. W.' the appearance of be-
Ing genuine is that it was left in full control of the IM convention and of the
national headquarters. The decent delegates, who stood by the original indus-
trial union principles, which discard anarchy in all forms, could not and would
not fight the slummists at that convention with the latter's own weapons. In-
stead they 'reorganized' the I. W. W. at a ronvention in this city a few months
later.
"The genuine I. W. W., which.is based on the principles of political and
economic action, and civilized methods of warfare-the ballot, education and
.,rderly organization-and which refuses to countenance sabotage, slugging and
direct action as weapons that will free labor from wage slavery, now has head-
quarters In Detroit, Michigan. Among persons familiar with the radical labor
movement the I. V. w. is referred to as the Detroit I. W. W. while Haywood's
and Giovannitti's union is called the Chicazo or anarchist I. W. W.
"The Haywood union would dispossess the capitali-t class by physical
force alone-economic action-it places itself outside the pale of the law; in-
deed, of civilization. Its methods are those of barbarism. It represents.re-
action in its worst form, if reaction has a worst form, and the press of the
country is aiding that reaction by holding the anarchist Chicwro 'I. W. W.'
up to the public as the bona fide organization, and maintaining what it is fast
becoming a disreputable silence in regard to the original I. W. W., which has
headquarters in Detroit and which is endorsed by the Socialist Labor Party, the
oldest and most orthodox Marxian Socialist organiz'ition in this country.
"RUSSELL PALMER."
From the Independent of Dec. 4, 1913.
KENTUCKY LAW JOURNAL

giving to it a broad foundation, it places the crucial and critical

events of the struggle in the hands of individuals. The syndicalist
discards and despises all legal methods and advocates insurrection
as a means of gaining his ends. In his "Class War in France,"
Engels, writing in 1895, said: "The time for small nonentities to
place themselves at the head of the ignorant masses and resort to
force in order to bring about revolutions, is gone. A complete
change in the organization of society can be brought about only
by the conscious cooperation of the masses; they must be alive to
the aim and view; they must know what they want." The social-
ist's view does not call for mere injury of employers unless some
benefit is to inure to the workers. "They havz recognized that
the mere destruction of tools and materials is quite as apt to help
the competitor of the capitalist who is injured as it is to materially
injure the capitalist who is worked for."
Looked at broadly, these two movements represent a vast dif-
ference in point of view. The syndicalists are really anarchists.
They do not believe in the state, but accept the idea of groups or
communities owning the means of production and engaging in the
business of producing wealth. The socialists, on the other hand,
accept the state; in many instances they believe in utilizing the
existing state and come to the conclusion that in the long run
political methods will accomplish- larger results than any result
that force can bring about. It has taken one hundred years of
bitter history to install this truth in the minds of many leaders.
That is the reason why syndicalism is more of a menace to the
progress of socialism than it is to existing society.
As one listens to the various discussions of economic problems,
from the function of money to the business of production and dis-
tribution, it appears that many of the fundamentals have been
lost sight of. Wealth is a joint product brought about by the
utilization of the forces of nature and of labor. But there are two
other factors,--capital in the form of existing wealth, and that
peculiar thing known as organizing ability and power,-that are
fundamental and essential in the production of wealth. In an in-
dividualistic society a reward of rent is paid to the land-owner,
Syndicalism and Socialism and their Meaning

wages to the laborer, interest to the capitalist, and profits to the

undertaker. The elimination of any one of these factors means a
failure to appreciate the problem. It may be that private owner-
ship of land should not exist. It may be that there should be some
system other than that of the wage system, but without the power
of management, of organization, and administration, it would be
impossible to bring together any kind of industrial organization.
That society today has defects is known and recognized by all;
but the society of today has not been developed in the course of a
year or of a decade, but through the slow growth of centuries. To
say, therefore, that the process of securing control of modern socie-
ty shall be through the medium of the destruction of wealth is as
naive as to assume that the breaking of glass is good for trade and
justifiable as a business procedure. Moreover, present day society
is vigorous, strong and powerful. The principle of private property
has existed in the social institutions of the Anglo-Saxons for thous-
ands of years. "It runs as strong in the blood of the peasant, of
the laborer, of the farmer, of the clerk, as in that of the captain
of industry." To seek, therefore, for the destruction of wealth in
order that society may be brought to a condition of chaos is a fool-
ish concept of what has been done through the centuries. The
socialist is far nearer the real purpose of society than the syndi-
calist, for lhe recognizes the need of a central organization. The
wisest of the socialists have come to the conelusion that it will take
decades, yes, generations, to bring about the thing that they are
striving for, and that only through the processes of the existing
social machinery and extended education of the masses.
In my own view, society will not proceed either by the lines
of anarchy or the medium of extreme socialism, but along the
middle ground lying between the two. In the main, the basis of
the present social order is undoubtedly found in private property
and the freedom of contract. In its development private property
has been greatly modified and it has not yeb reached its final form.
With this growth of property rights has come an increase in the
mass of what the economists call free goods. These are fopnd in
an enlarged body of knowledge, expired patents, parks, forest
KENTUCKY LAW JOURNAL

lands, enjoyments provided the people by municipalities and na-

tional governments and in the feeling, a more and more intense
one, that private property is a social trust to be administered care-
fully and wisely with some regard to the community in which its
possessor lives. The law, too, has attempted to restrict incomes due
to monopoly profits and by proper classification to provide for the
regulation of inheritances, expecting through these methods to
change the distribution of wealth and consequently to open the
opportunities now held by a few to a much larger group. Every
generation sees a marked change in the movement and ownership
of property. The state, by an easy and natural method, can exert
a great influence upon wealth distribution by establishing wisely
framed inheritance laws. This in itself is sufficient to indicate that
the time for a social revolution has not yet been reached, for it is
possible to materially modify the present system without destroy-
ing its best elements.
The presence of a democracy in a state complicates the problem,
particularly if that state has no restricting monarchical system. In
its earlier history a popular sovereignty may be one in which the
citizens are on an equal material basis and the distinctions between
men largely of an official nature. In time the satisfaction of ma-
terial wants becomes the dominant aspiration and wealth the means
by which power is secured. Power and wealth, then, are synony-
mous, religion loses its hold on men, the sentiment of loyalty so
manifestly strong in a monarchy declines and selfishness becomes
the rule of life as well as the motive for participations in the ac-
tivities of government. Men come to confuse personal ends with
those of the state, regarding the government of the latter as a
means to secure their purpose. There is then brought into the
political life a mercenary spirit that is exceedingly demoralizing
to the morale of citizenship. Public welfare is overlooked and im-
portant problems are constantly met by restrictions and difficul-
ties. The modification of the disturbing elements-private property
and freedom of contract-depends upon the democracy; but if the
democracy is a mercenary one, there is little hope for the altera-
tion of property rights by inheritance laws and adequate taxation,
Syndicalism and Socialism and their Meaning

and as a consequence a social movement, directed by a class spirit

and a definite code of action, appears as a distinct factor in the
life of the state. That social movement is based upon three ele-
ments; first, an existing order of society resting in the main upon
the methods of production and distribution of the material goods
necessary to human existence; second, a class which is discontented
with the existing conditions; and third, an ideal which the discon-
tented hold up and express in programs and demands. All these
elements are present in modern states. The movement forward from
the simplicity of the agricultural stage is marked by greater in-
equalities of material conditions and a hardening of class lines.
It is evident that a forestalling of these difficulties must be met by
wider activity on the part of the state and a reasonable change in
existing conditions and methods of production and distribution, in
order to withstand and prevent anything like a hasty and ill-con-
sidered social movement.
The problem centers about the phrase "Equality of Opportuni-
ty." The desire bound up in it expresses itself in the demand for
social reforms that shall give a new freedom for race development.
"We want," says Mr. Webb, "to bring about the condition in which
every member of society shall have a fair chance to use and de-
velop the gifts with which he happens to be born." A few influ-
ences are now at work in this direction: these are public education,
sanitary laws and their administration, the building of better tene-
ments, the shortening of hours of labor, the prevention of child
labor, establishment of banks, charity organizations and philan-
thropic enterprises. But they are inadequate to withstand the
great industrial forces constantly making for inequality. There
can be no denying that land and property ownership, whatever the
economic grounds of their defense, develop influences working to-
ward inequality in production and distribution. Their tendency is
constantly in the direction of inequality of income, and that in turn
works toward inequality of opportunity and production. One fol-
lows the other.
With the filling of countries by immigration commerce and in-
vention are restricted, because there are then new regions to open
KENTUCKY LAW JOURNAL

up, and an outlet for the ambitious and discontented must be found
in some other way than this traditional one, so long practiced in
commercial lands. The method of satisfying discontents has been
to extend the suffrage to larger and larger numbers of workers
and also to grant more extended privileges through the enlarged
functions of the government. In a democratic state the tendency
is toward wider suffrage, even to universal suffrage, because the
ruling classes find it difficult to carry their policies without a great-
er voting power, but the masses have begun to reflect that this power
of the ballot can be used for their own well-being, through the con-
trol of the governing machinery of the state. The use of such a
power is, however, fraught with a great danger, a danger always
inherent in a democracy, but in this case emphasized by the wider
activities of the state. That danger is the possible loss of individual
liberty and the dominance of incapable and demagogic leaders. To
these are but two possible offsets in a state not yet socialistic, the
maintenance of civil liberty and the submission of the people to
rational guidance.
The wage-earners, and particularly those following the socia-
listic parties, complain constantly of low wages and a small share of
the product created. Here is a problem as important as those of
corporation and monopqly. The option offered is some form of the
wages system (which must always exist under a capitalistic form of
society) or the complete elimination of the wage, system and the
introduction of a form of share which shall depend upon abilities
or needs. If the present society is to continue, the wages system
will be a part of it, but by introducing profit-sharing, gain-shar-
ing or collective bargaining, it is possible to so modify it as to
render greater justice in the division of the product. Whatever may
be said of these methods of determining wage contracts, they give
to the wage-earner an incentive and a larger share of the product.
The development of employing and trade-union groups has placed
special emphasis upon the collective bargaining method of determin-
ing wages. For its final outcome there must be an increased re-
sponsibility on the part of the bargaining groups in their relation
not only to each other, but to the public. With monoply power
Syndicalism and Socialism and their Meaning

limited and restricted by law the wage-earner ought to secure that

portion of the product-which is due to the increased skill of the
worker, because of his power in the group organization to modify
the old wage contract. In times of depression, however, the large
capital organization can dictate terms of employment, but the pos-
sibility of modifying the wages system and the hope of actually
doing so will retain many men in the ranks of the conservatives
long after the more radical have given up the hope of anything bet-
ter under a capitalistic regime. The continuance of the present
system depends upon private property, private capital, labor and
the wages system. The breakdown of any one of these materially
affc. ts it; in fact, so much so that every effort should be made to
modify them so as to make the worker satisfied with his share.
The solution of such difficulties as are presented in the im-
mediate problems referred to in the last paragraphs require some-
attitude on the part of the state. The individualist believes in the
minimum of state interference, justifying it, when necessary, on
the grounds of forcing equal conditions: namely, of giving econo-
mic principles an opportunity to act without restrictions, moral,
ethical or political. He believes that a wide suffrage will place the
government in the hands of the emotional rather than the intellec-
tual. He, therefore, looks to a limited suffrage and an increased
responsibility of officials as the two things necessary for a better-
ment of present conditions. In this view he has much to justify him,
but the regulationist says we must have systematic legislation, for
the institutions of government and. industry are not well enough
formed to give the service and freedom from abuse that a people
have the right to expect. Consequently this group of advocates
present certain legislation of a curative and preventive kind which
they expect will be enforced and carried out by the officers of the
state. They also present a third requirement-the elimination of
political fraud from the conduct of government. Each and all of
these are based upon the notion of a wider interest in the state and
its functions on the part of the people, and further upon the idea,
constantly becoming clearer, that the state is a means to an end.
Still, the advocates of socialism, various as they are, regard the
KENTUCKY LAW JOURNAL

state as a final form of social organization; but in justice it should

be repeated that the form and functions are materially different
from those now devolving upon the state.
In the main, the problems have fallen, so far as their evil ef-
fects are concerned, upon the wage-earners, though here and there
are small producers and merchants who, because of a trust organiza-
xon or the high wages and exactions of trade unions, have lost
-their places in the business and trade of the community. Neverthe-
less, whatever the difficulties or whatever the class upon whom
the burden may have fallen, the fact is that the form of organiza-
tion is largely to blame for the serious complications now so clearly
seen. Industry on its mechanical side has developed faster than
its administration and management, monopoly has grown much
more rapidly than the powers and organization of the state, and
the same may be said of private property, railroads and the other
institutions engaged in producing and distributing commodities. The
,control of these factors is, in the United States and England, where
male suffrage exists, in the hands of the class suffering froPA the
.evils. This is, however, but a nominal control, for the actual so-
:1ution of the problems involved can be attained only under rational
.u jdance, even though the management and direction of the gov-
xernment may be in possession of the wage-earner, for the difficulties
,will appear in but another and more aggravated form if not met
in a scientific and non-partisan way. And if the solution carries
the state into socialism, individual liberty is materially jeopardized
by what must ultimately be an oligarchy of power. More and
more the situation must clear when it is seen that a radical depar-
ture from fundamental principles is impossible; the solution must
be attained by working out from the existing conditions and modi-
fying them.