The examiner., 1886-06-19
FIGHTING "MONOPOLY Y AND
 ,SC4BS."

FIGHTING MONOPOLY AND
 SCABS."
 s'It is too bad,'' says unionist, "that organized labor must fight scabs and mo- nopoly.'
 Yes, indeed, it is too bad, and es- pecially when there is no necessity for it, only the necessity created by the stupidity of the average 'unionist' himself. What do we mean? Well, nothing more nor less than that the mere trade unionist is constantly aid ing in sustaining an industrial system which is constantly evolving both the monopolist and the ''scab." He sees the land, the source of all life given away to speculators, yet he will not vote to stop 1t; but let one of our law makers with a heart for the right in- stitute measure for the relief of the homeless and houseless citizen, our good unionist will vote to kill him every time he comesup for reelection,
 providing he doesn't belong to ''the
 party" Yes, it is really to. bad that
 our unionist doesn't know better, and
 that the rules of his union, which ig-
 nores the discussion of politics, does
 not permit him.
 He sees the man who grows fat on
 the monopoly of issuing the peoples
 money, and he is asked to vote for
 candidate who favors a scheme that
 would allow of the issuing of this
 money directly to the people who had security to offer, without the interven-
 ton of bankers; yet he will invarlably vote for the money lender if he only belongs to "the party" and denounce the other as '-lunatic" or ''crank." "
 He sees the railroads of the country } in the hands of such men as Jay : Gould, d,-men whom he will unspar- ingly denounce in all the adjectives of , his limited vocabulary; yet, let one of 7 lay Gould's lieutenants or hirelings 5 be nominated for Governor by the l manipulators of ''the party" in order r to call out the militia if the railroad t slaves should murmur, and our ster !, ling unionist will add to his majority l. every time, while condeming the S socialist or ''communist" who !. would legislate for the Governmenta r control of these great agencies in ths # interest of the whole people.
 y And we might continue in thi '- strain respecting the attitude of th' Is mere trade unionist on every question 'f that has or is being agitated in favo y of the uplifting of down-trodden hu if manity, until the limits of the capaci T. ty of this whole paper were reached 1T but what is the use. Very few of tha 1t class will see it or at least be afecte
 by it, unless it were to denounce U ! for the truth so plainly spoken.
 of Are we opposed to Trades unior v- ism? No, we believe organizatio le essential to the worker 1etaipipl&gs pl&s4 WhGa Ga h posed to this stupidity of eternall
 pulling down with one hand whateve le is being built up by the other. w it are opposed to the suicidal policy of fol n ever voting for class of men inter a9f ested in keeping things as they are It forever running on the high road t Is either miilionareisIn or pauperism IT IT We are opposed to the imbecility 0 ee fighting against the results of tn
 present industrial system while sus s taining the system itself. Organizet Is Labor must be made to realize tha a 1t is impossible for it to build wal F. around itself that can withstand ths - onset of the army of enforced idlenes. ;. outside. As necessity knows no law e so hunger cares for no conventional V ties of etiquette-no creeds of organ ! ization. While the organized work S man Is content with the system thai S engenders ''rats' and 'sscabs' he must ? make up his mind that 'rats" and 5 'fscabs' will be ever present to annoy ? or annihilate him. He acknowledges l that improved machinery is steadily dispensing with the labor of human hands and human brain; how then 8 can there be work for all unless a new system is inaugurated that will , conform to changed and changing r conditions? And fit here is not work for all, of necessity there must be some always outside the circle of ex-
 change which hunger will force to
 break the ranks to get in. Our
 ''unionist" is much mistaken when he
 thinks that he is fighting the monop-
 olist together with the 'tscab.' He is
 only fighting the latter. Were there
 no "scabs" tke monopolist would be
 powerless, for he could not do the
 work himself. And were there wiser
 unionists there would be neither
 "scabs" nor monopolists.
 When the unionist will devote
 more of his time to the study of the
 political aspect of the Labor question,
 and less to points of order, parliamen-
 tary rules, strike funds, boycotts and
 the like in his trade meetings, he will
 then be on a basis of action from
 which more substantial and lasting
 results may be looked for.