There is a feeling that the working class will use its power with less moderation than the capitalist class. It is doubtful whether this feeling is well founded. There is no force in mere numbers unless they act together, and there is little reason to suppose that the working class is any more nearly united than the capitalists in our politics. The demands of working people sometimes appear more brazen than those of capitalists, but this is an element of weakness rather than strength. So long as the political activities of any faction are not insidious, society has little to fear.
There is a good deal of dissension in the ranks of labor. Dissimilarity rather than similarity of interest between trades is the basis of trade-unionism. The downfall of the Knights of Labor is commonly attributed to disregarding this basis. By admitting workmen of different trades into its local organizations, the seed of dissolution was sown. Many workingmen, such as those in the building trades and the railway trainmen, have more in common with their employers than they have with the great mass of unskilled labor. The railway trainmen are not affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, and the latter is on unfriendly terms with the Industrial Workers of the World. The political or parliamentary socialists in turn differ with the I. W. W. on the important matter of tactics. Moreover, socialism as a political movement is divided into the orthodox followers of Marx and the reformists or possibilists, a line of cleavage destined to become much more marked the moment socialism captures the reins of power.
Men's economic interests are rarely single; in the complexity of modern industrial society their relations are not confined to a single group; they can not be classified solely from one viewpoint. The strata are many, the cross-sections innumerable. Geographical division, occupational interest, color and racial differences cut athwart the symmetrical lines of the class-struggle theorist. Not merely do the interests of workmen and employer diverge, so far as the sharing of the product goes, but the German agrarian struggles against the manufacturer, the small shopkeeper against the great department store, the independent manufacturer against the trust, the white bricklayer or fireman against the negro, the American trade unionist against the immigrant, carpenters' against woodworkers' union in jurisdictional disputes. Employers and employed unite in a closed shop, closed-masters' agreement to prey on the consuming public; trade unions back trusts' demands for more room at the tariff trough.[1]
It is only fair to say, however, that certain aspects of the labor movement can not but excite the apprehension of the disinterested observer. For one thing, there is serious ground for regret that the different classes of labor are advancing at such unequal rates. On the one hand, there is an aristocracy of organized labor that revels in prosperity. On the other hand, there is much unskilled labor that gets less than a living wage. There are labor monopolies which by threatening to strike
- ↑ O. D. Skelton, "Socialism, a Critical Analysis," pp. 112-113.
