Workmen's advocate. (New Haven, Conn.) 1883-1891, 1886-10-24
PROFESSOR ELYS NEW BOOK.
THE Labor Movement in America"
SECOND PAPER, ]

The first chapter is only four pages
long. 1t is headed, "A Survey of the
Field" In it another, and yet the same
definition is given of the labor movement
1t is %. b "The effort of men to live the
life of men," Wherein is recognized APP
parently the fact that the labor classes,
for the most part, live the life of the
lower animals. And an interesting side
light is thrown on one of the contentious
Of the Socialist by the phrase THE la
bJr movement is now an effort" In the
well organized society towards which We
move there will be no effort to live.
Living will then be, as it ought to be- no
effort. A mans life then will be us that
Of babe in its freedom from anxiety.
1t will be, like true art, unconscious of
eXerton. They will elect the time care
Iessly, as in the golden age" Take this
from SChlegels translation Of SHAKESPEARE,
AS You Like IT." Act 1,-speech
of LeBeau, think, describing the Dukes
Punishment
In his explanatory addendum to this
renewed definition the author shows the
narrowness of his comprehension of the
actual end, confessed or uncOnfessed, of
the labor movement. 1t is "struggle
to attain primarily -. larger economic
resources OF course, the word "pri-
marily' qualities this. But the next sen
Il. /,
mind, us the secondary end to be attained,
ga richer existence for the toilers and
that with respect to mind, soul and body"
whatever this trinity of a unity may
mean-the serious hlunder is, of course,
in the word "larger." What the labor
class is aiming at, consciously or unc0n-
sciously, is the whole of the economic
resources, not any smaller or larger frac-
ton of these
As a repetition of an earlier and less
important blunder note the addition that
all improvements to be for service to
our 'fellows in Christian civilization.
This attaching to economic questions
matters Of speculative opinion is com
mon mistake. Whether it is done by
a Christian, as in this instance, or by an
atheist, the blunder is equally great.
Next the writer divides the schemes
for betterlng conditions into three sets:
one, Those accepting 1.-The fundamental
positions of our existing order Up. y, E.
! g., trades unions. Two. Those looking to
a change in these Fundamental posi-
tons Up. g., e. q, Socialism. Three, The
| intermediate class of cO-OperatOrs, that
beginning "within the framework of the
present industrial society-propoSes to
transform it gradually and peacefully,
but completely" This is to be done ''by
means of voluntary associations to unite
labor and capital in the same hands-the
hands of the workers. p g..
give these last quotations at length,
since they show the authors confusion
of thought as to our position. Not a
word written here Of cooperation could
not be said of Socialism. wopoints are,
however, missed; First, the Socialist re-
cognzes that this peaceful and ever
gradual change may be, and probably
will be, rendered impossible by the rebel
lious action of the capitalist class. Second,
that cooperative societies to-day are,
almost invariably, protit-sharing societies
and, as such are distinctly capitalistc.
Two other slips in this chapter call for
/ curing men 1.-THE means of enjoyment in
proportion to the service they have rem
! dered to Society @. g. The CAPITALIST
method On theory of rewarding each
man according to the service he renders.
and the capitalist method Gn practice of
rewardlng each man in inverse proper
| ton to the service he renders. will vanish
with the terrible system that gave rise to
such equally bad plans. The measure of
man deserts is mans capacity. He
that does his best, no matter how little or
how great that is, should receive the full
reward. Here surely, the founder of the
religion on which Professor Ely so strong
ly insists, teaches us lesson. ''She hath
done what she could" said he
The second slip is in respect to Com
munism. To say that this seeks Justice
In equality is terribly misleading, es-
| peclally when the intention is to contrast
! Communism and Socialism. If this
means equality in opportunities, it is So
clallsm-if it means equality in receipt of
means of enjoyment for equal effort put
! forth, ii is Socialism. fit means equality
| i'll capacity and aesthetic enjoyment. It
is not Socialism. But neither is it Com.
munsm. This last, in fact, means only
| community of property i'll all the means
| of production, and SO does Socialism. In
a word, we that are Socialists are Com
munlsts; most important point to clear
up, as even so able and fair a writer as
! Prof. Davidson i'll his articles in the Sun
LAY World, is confused as to the meaning
/ Of Communism.
1t is for this COnfusiOns sake that many
use the name Collectivist in preference
I To Communist, But this last is. like the
name Socialist, a good and honorable
! name. and, If W. keen bafore ourseIyao