Kansas agitator. [volume] (Garnett, Kan.) 1890-1905, 1899-09-08

In the Public, Louis f. Post dis
cusses present industrial conditions
and the industrial pressure that is
forcing masses of people deeper into
q condition of helpless dependence,
where squalid poverty and carking
fear Of poverty in the midst Of luxury
make life bitter and unwholesome.
Economic adjustment always must
offer for adoption two, and only two,
possible forms-the monopolistic and
the cooperative. Monopoly implies
compulsion, and is the opposite Of CO.
operation. 1t does, indeed, resemble
cooperation, for 1t Is form of united
industrial effort. But slave systems
resemble cooperation In that sense.
All production is through union of in
dustrial effort; but compulsory union
Is radically different thing from vol
untary union. What distinguishes mo-
nopoly from cooperation, and puts
them at opposite poles, is the compul-
sorry character Of the one and the vol
untary character of the other.
Monopoly Is form of economic adj
justment which is to be avoided wher-
ever and whenever possible. For COM
pulsion is abhorrent to democratic
principles. To empower any man to
compel others to serve or to put them
at disadvantage in contracting to
serve, is to establish the principle of
slavery. Monopoly is, indeed, q species
of human slavery. Nor would 1t be
any the less slavery il government in
stead of individuals or corporations
were the master.
With the development of industry,
some kinds Of service become natural
ly mOnopolistic. The water supply OF
city is an illustration. Cities cannot
be supplied with water except through
monopolistic methods. In all such In
stances there is no choice between mo-
nopoly and no monopoly; the choice Is
only between monopolists. And when
that is the case there can be no rea-
sonable question that as between gov
eminent and private individuals or
corporations, government is the pref
cradle monopolist But so long as an
occupation is not necessarily and es-
sentially monopolistic, free men will
justly revolt at the thought Of turn
ing 1t into monopoly under either
private or public control.
To cooperation, then, as distin-
guished from monopoly, the demo-
cratic mind must turn for Industrial
development and industrial Justice,
barring only the exceptional occupa-
lions which have become necessarily
monopolies. But cooperation must
mean something different from what
Is usually understood by socialism.
That is enforced cooperation, and
therefore monopoly under another
name. It would be infected with COM
pulsion, which Is the distinguishing
characteristic of monopoly. Co-opera-
ton must also comprehend more than
is implied by the organizers Of profit
sharing societies and schemes, who
have OF late years appropriated the
word. 1t must be taken to signify that
worldwide combination of effort in
production which is effected by the
voluntary interchange of labor.
But in the interests Of justice, how
Is this worldwide interchange Of labor
to be regulated? Who shall work?
How much shall the workers do?
What shall they do? For whom shall
they do it? How much shall they re-
ceive? And who shall decide? Under
a monopolistic regime those questions
would be decided more or less arbi
trarily for every one by superior au-
thority--by trusts, If the regime were
one of private and corporate monop-
oily; by governments IL the monopoly
we're public or socialistic. But in both
there would be arbitrary compuision,
which is to be avoided If possible. Co.
operation avoids Incorporation, that
ia, in the fullest and broadcast sense of
the term, and as distinguished from
monopoly-by making every man free
to decide the question for himself.
Under regime Of cooperation each
would work If he wished; each would
work as much or as little as he wished
and receive in proportion; each would
work at what he preferred; and each
would work for whom he chose, sub
iect only to that persons correspond
ing right of choice. BY what method
cooperation would effect this result is
the next point of inquiry.