The herald., 1895-04-22
Cooperation vs.. Competition

article on Socialism in The Her
aid of the 18th inst, | am asked to
explain why those who favor cooperation
do not cooperate; or. if cooperation is
expected to be effected by force. To the
fist question my answer is, Ihey 90.
Certainly the communism of capital is
very much in evidence. Every corpora
ton, trust, combine or syndicate for the
production or ribution OF wealth Is an
application of the Co operative principle.
The trust, the latest phase of our econo-
mic DEVELOPMENT, is socialism In action,
with this difference, tina the great adj
vantage in economy of production effec-
ted by the large system of industry in
ures exclusively to the capitalistic stock
holder The socialist objection TO the
trust is that it is not large enough. When
it expands until it takes in all the actual
producers we will have the ideal OF social
ism realized. Under our present system
we have. co-opertalon in production OF
wealth, but an individualistic dlstrlbu-
ton of it, Our ideal is cooperation both
in production and distribution.
The question why those who favor CO.
operation do not cooperate is often ac-
companied by the cheerful suggestion
that the way to cooperate is to co-ope-
rate There is generally an intended IN
tination that the idea is utopian and I'M
practicable. This is a mistake. We have
already made considerable progress III
national, state and municipal co-opera.
tim. Our national school system, OF
which we are justly proud, is n4tional CO.
operation in education. Our postal sys-
TEN is national cooperation in the dlstrl-
button uf the mail-a form of 'paternal-
ISM which with all its imperfectlons few
would be willing to relegate to the tender
meIcies of the capitalists. IL is amusing
to hear many editors oppose measures on
the ground that they partake too much OF
the idea of socialism or paternallsm.
while at the same. tine they are the bene-
ticiaries of paternal postofhce depart
nrent that distributes their papers at an
annual loss of several millions IN reVe-
nue.. Indeed. l have frequently seen tins
annual deficit in revenue urged as an ar
gument against government management
of public business. This sort OF paternal-
ism is justified on the ground OF pubhc
advantage; that the dissemination OF the
news and of literature is a national bene-
hit and should be encouraged. quite true
And so also is the production and dis
tribution OF wealth necessity. Chaun-
cey NJ. Depew declared some time ago
that fifty men in this country could.
within period or thirty days. completely
stop all the wheels of industry. Tins
was no idle boast. Is it not the mereSt
idocy that seventy millions OF people
should place themselves at the mercy OF q
handful OF greedy capitalists?
Railroads are built not for the purpose
of carrying passengers or freight. but Tor
the purpose of producing the owners a
profit The result is that in this state
return ticket to San Francisco costs S25.
while in New South Wales. where the
people own their own railroads. the same
distance could be traversed for S.. and in
Hungary for about $4. Everywhere col
lective ownership has been tried OF pub
lie utilities it is a success. There Is no
instance within the past fifty years where
the people have assumed control of any
public business that they have ever relln-
pushed it to the control OF private CAPT
tai. Many OF our cities have adopted
the cooperative principle IN the dlstrl-
button OF water. gas and electric lighting.
Their success in reducing cost and IN in
creasing efficiency is invulnerable; there
appears to be no exception. If govern
ment owned its own ship yards and lion
works. is it likely we would armor our
navy with plates full of blow holes? II
the government assumed control of our
coal mining industry, is it likely that
thousands of miners would be continually
on the verge of starvation, or on strike
against reduction of their always miser
able and insufficient pay? Who ever
heard of government employee starving
to death or going on a strike? If we
owned our own railroads would we con-
sent to the killing and manning of so. 900
employees annually? ii we owned our
own sleeping cars would the Pullman hor
ror have been possibility? Ii Brooklyn
owned its own municipal transit system,
would the strike of a month ago. with its
enormous public expense and loss. have |
occurred? Which is prefera Bile. that the |
government (the people) should furnish |
coal oil or gasoline at cost, or that the |
Standard Oil company should rob us an |
nually of 500, 900. 700? Is there indeed, |
any industry that could not be carried on
under collective control at from one-half |
to one tenth OF the cost charged by pr |
vate capital? A late nun Der of Engineer |
ing News declares that many street car
lines pay annually in dividends the total !
cash of their construction and equipment. |
Fifteen years ago Jay Gould gave Com |
modore Garrison his check for So. 600 900 |
for his controlling interest in the Missouri |
Pacific railroad. Within two yeas the |
stock of the road was increased TO $50 =
900, 900. two-thirds water. and to enable |
the road to pay per cent on this capital |
the wages OF employees were reduced and /
the Southwestern strike was the result.
Our whole industrial history is one of
rapacity greed and eXtortion. A few in |
dustrial pirates and fIeebooters have taken |
poss sSlon OF every avenue of industry |
and like the robber barons of old they |
demands toll from their ignorant dupes. |
everything above bare living t. those |
who are the producers OF the national |
wealth In the midst of unbounded !
wealth, the actual producers OF 1t starJe |
or are IN continual dread of starvation. |
The worker has by an enormous economic |
revolution from the old system of individ- !
ual ownership of the tools of production |
to the modern and costly Instruments OF |
production. become completely divorced |
from the means OF obtaining an ndepend- |
ent living. and we cannot go back to |
the old individual hand tool. and isolat- !
ed production, it is evident that we must |
adopt common ownership. Every cloth |
weaver cannot own factory, but every |
weaver can own an interest in one and |
be free man. 1t is either private owner |
ship of che means OF production. with its |
BILE result-enOrmous concentration |
of wealth in the hands of a continually |
diminishing class of capitalists and the |
consequent poverty and degradation of the |
great mass of the people, or common |
ownership. and universal peace, plenty |
and happiness to all. TO effect this pur- |
pose we appeal to the intelligence and !
humanity of every lover of his country |
and race. 1t must be accomplished by !
peaceful means. Only ideas conquer |
Force is the refuge of knaves and fools
W. II. STEWART.
Single Takers Asked to Explain