771
modifications, be said of the philosophical anarchist. To assure the toiler the full product of his labors, says this radical reformer, you must abolish all monopoly and all special privilege you must establish absolutely free competition and equality of oppor- tunity. Rent, interest, and profits, according to the philosophical anarchist, are results, not of private control of capital, but of state-conferred and state-protected monopoly in land, currency supply, trade, etc. Since the trade-unionist, qua trade-unionist, has no quarrel with rent, interest, and profit, the philosophical anarchist, like the collectivist, sadly smiles at his fruitless effort and misdirected energy. And when the anarchist sees or reads of strikers' violence and disorder, he says "accidents of war," and passes by.
At the trial of the case of the anthracite mine operators vs. their striking employees the attorneys for the miners frankly referred to "the state of war" existing between capital and labor, and told the Gray Commission that the rioting, intimidation, coer- cion, and assaults which had attended the contest should be stoic- ally viewed as the natural concomitants of war. These observa- tions puzzled and astonished many of our editors. They did not know that the miners' attorneys were social radicals, and that their statements were commonplaces of the literature of radical reform. It is but fair to add that counsel appeared not to realize that this excuse implied an abandonment of the conservative position they were supposed to occupy in favor of one which the miners and their leaders would have repudiated.
And this parenthetical remark brings us to the leading point of this discussion. How do the trade-unionists themselves justify and excusethe excesses andabuses of this movement ? 7^/are neither socialists nor anarchists, neither single-taxers nor communists. They would indignantly disclaim any intention to overthrow the present industrial order. They do not assert the existence of a state of war between capitalism and labor. They are as conser- vative, theoretically, as the great majority of the employers. They accept the existing politico-economic system, with all that necessarily flows therefrom. They do not seek to deprive the capitalist of interest and profits. They merely demand a larger
