Industrial freedom. [volume] (Edison, Wash.) 1898-1???, 1898-10-15

as for each of us to claim a separate
life from the grand self.
And if there is only one self and
that in us all, then the right way to
be selfish is to recognize this self in
all and act with the good of all as
basic principle.
1t requires no great effort to under
stand that the best way to promote
the best interests of all individuals is
by collective effort. This is indubita-
BILE proof that we have a common
self and therefore a common interest.
And any theory of conduct, whether
personal, political or industrial, that
disregards this fundamental truth, is
setting itself against the cOsmic or
der, and will eventually have to be
abandoned.
The good of the individual is, like
happiness, to be pursued Indirectly.
The principle of altruism is seen to
be rule of plenty as we'll as har-
hinger of peace. Cooperation, in so
far as it has yet been intelligently at
tempted, has proved its immense SUI
periority over competition or in
dividualism. Acting together. men
not only get the advantage of their
separate man power in the same d.
rection but it is an occult law that
where manv units act in harmony,
their combined force is far greater
than their individual force multiplied
by the number of units. For instance,
not to go at all into a psychological
study of this part of the question,
which no doubt would be interesting,
just think of the crudeness of the
work we may be expected to under
take separately.
| One hundred men chopping and
splitting rails in a forest will, of
course, only do 100 times as much
work as one man could do with the
same tools in the same time. But it
is possible to invent tools so large and
efficient as to require large number
of men to operate them, and by the
use of which they can enormously
multiply their output per man.
A single worker or a few workers
can manipulate simple tools, but
progress in improvement of machin-
cry absolutely requires large num-
bers of workers. hence altruism or
working together must, if the cos
mic law be obeyed, gradually take the
place of individual effort. When the
race was in its early stages of devel-
opment, the individualistic theory
worked very well in nearly all depart
ments of life.
think this can be clearly seen if
we consider that all undertakings
were of simple character and con-
sequentlv did not involve the people
one with another.
Each man owned the tools of his
trade and did all parts of piece of
work himself. He exchanged products
directly with the workers of other
trades. To a far greater extent than
now, each was a self-supporting indi-
vidual. But as men became expert
at some certain parts of trade their
skill in that direction would make a
new trade out of part of an old
one.
For instance, carpentry at first in
Guided ship building, cabinet making,
stairbuilding. doors and windows,
etc. Today a carpenter only builds
houses-nay, only a fractional part of
house.
The law of differentiation made
hundreds of different sets of workers,
each dependent on all the others as
well as dependent on the doctor, the
merchant. the farmer, and so on.
Now. a moments consideration will
suffice to convince anyone that these
two radically different states of So
cietv cannot be success fully govern
ed by the same ethics. Or at any rate
what will do for the simple will GER
tainly fall snort for the complex.
Where primitive worker supplies
his own necessities from his own sep
arate exertion it is obvious that nei-
Their he nor his fellows who do like
wise need concern themselves about
any ethical law of the distribution of
the products of their labor. Each
makes all he uses and as a matter of
Justice, instantly conceded, gets all he
produces.
But what weighty problems of an
equitable distribution begin to in
sinuate themselves before the atten-
ton of any people who oo-labor.
A watch factory employing a thou
sand workers. presents the amazing
spectacle OF hundreds Of men, skilled