, 1921-11-28
WHO SHOULD OWN THE BUSINESS.

Careful analysis will readily convince the intelli-
gent and fair-minded person of the fallaciousness of
the bolshevistic theory that workers should own the
business. Crafty and dishonest agitators, have, how
ever misled honest-minded men by Eophistry, and have
actually made converts to their teachings. These non
producing breeders of discomfort, posing as the friends
Of workers, would, if their teachings gained any gen.
eral acceptance, prove to be actual enemies and de-
ceivers of all workers.
Application of vague theories to concrete cases will
soon test their soundness. For example, one of the
largest shoe manufacturers in the United States-per-
haps the one best known to the public-began his ca
reer pegging shoes for wages in a small shop. He
saved his earnings and started a one-man shop of his
own. He worked early and late, made good shoes.
paid his bills, treated his customers courteously. and
saved his profits and built up trade which enabled
him to enlarge his shop, hire assistants, and gradual
ly increase his output until he now has an immense es-
Enlistment giving employment to thousands of work
men and supplying shoes to all sections of the United
States.
That establishment is typical Of thousands of others
great and small. In such a business as that, who owns
or should own the concern? The workmen at the
benches or the man who gradually built up the indus
try by initiative, ability, thrift and integrity?
The answer Is clear. There were undoubtedly ten
thousand other shoemakers' apprentices who had ex-
aetly the same opportunity as this man. Some of them
had equal integrity but lacked the skill. Some had
poth integrity and craftsmanship but lacked the bust
ness sagacity necessary to build and manage a large
ana complicated enterprise. Some of them NAV have
mad the skill and organizing ability but lacked thrift
and never could save enough to enlarge their bust
ness. Others had ability, and thrift but yielded to the
w hAhC AAANAAai pTOuIS AT the SaCrlnCR
OF honesty, and they never built up a reputation that
would sell their goods. For one reason or another, the
vast majority continued as wage earners or small
operators while the few became proprjetors of large
factories, giving profitable employment to large num-
bers of men.
The Development of such a manufacturing estab-
hsnmens with cost of production reduced to a mini
mum because of quantity of production would have
oeen impossible under any scheme of ownership by the
workers. No organization of workers would have ac-
eamutated the savings needed to build the plant and
nuT machinery-profit would have been distributed
u monthly dividends. No organization of workers
"ouid nave built a reputation for quality of goods and
hnaneiai dependability. No organization of workers
"ouio nave oeen able to buy raw materials at just the
r.sht tine and in the best markets or to discover the
beat markets for sale of goods. No organization of
WORKERS would have been able to borrow huge sums
necessary to tide the concern over a bad year or bad
Avs :ssrs. Neither could any organization of work
es nfe e manager who would do for them what a
Elanaser asa for hinrelf under the Inspiration of de-
sirs Tor reward and pride of accomplishment Such
n ests9i'h7eni. turaed ever 20 N organization Of
"0TseH ~ reriset operating condition. would be