my studies had never been directed to questions of national economy. i had never thought of comparing the merits of competition with those of communism. when dr. leete had explained in his positive and still fascinating manner the new order of things i had hardly noticed that it was based on communistic principles. i thought humanity had reached at last the millennium, and when dr. leete stated that his easy and even luxurious way of living represented the average style of the people of the twentieth century, i had no doubt that everybody was satisfied with the new order of things.

my cool reception by the students and my conversation with mr. forest had convinced me, that not every inhabitant of the united states in the 2000th year of our lord considered the present order of things the millennium and i must say that i noticed the dissatisfaction with sincere sorrow. for a sweet peace, a tranquillity never felt before, had filled my heart, when dr. leete spoke of the absolute happiness of the men of the twentieth century.

my new profession imposed upon me the duty of studying national economy. of course i could have pictured simply the social and political circumstances, in which the people of the united states had29 lived 113 years ago, but this would not have satisfied me. i desired to learn, how the civilizations of the two centuries, if impartially judged, would compare. therefore i cultivated my acquaintance with mr. forest, to hear from him the arguments against the theories set forth by dr. leete, although a feeling of discomfort always overwhelmed me, whenever the thought came to me, that forest’s ideas might prove victorious over the principles advanced by dr. leete. for a victory won by forest could mean nothing else but a return to a state of affairs, which i thoroughly disliked, and which i knew to be full of cares and discomforts.

i confined my next lecture to an accurate description of the state of the labor market of boston in 1887. avoiding carefully all exaggerations, i drew only indisputable conclusions from the facts given, showing how capital and labor had lost equally by the numerous strikes in those days and complimenting the present order of things, for making such irrational economical conflicts impossible.

after my lectures i always conversed with mr. forest, who was quite as willing to discuss the new order of society as dr. leete.

“the friends of the administration are calling me a fault-finder”, said mr. forest, “and they are right, although they might express their opinion with more civility, if they said, that i am critically disposed. i would criticise every administration under which it chanced to be my destiny to live, however good or30 bad that administration might be. i do not harbor any animosity against the men, who rule the united states to-day. i even admit that they exercise a little more wisdom, energy and tolerance, than did the members of the government, which ruled twelve years ago. but the fundamental principle of their system is decidedly wrong and so the consequences must be bad;—whatever the members of the administration may do to patch up the shortcomings of their system”.

“so you think that the present system is absolutely wrong?” i queried.

“can you entertain any doubts?” answered forest. “look around! is the leading principle in creation equality or variety? you find sometimes similitude but never conformity. botanists have carefully compared thousands of leaves, which looked exactly alike at the first glance, but which after close examination were found to possess striking dissimilarities. inequality is the law of nature and the attempt to establish equality is therefore unnatural and absurd. where-ever such experiments have been made, they have ended in unqualified failure. even some of the first christians, moved by brotherly love and charity, failed in their efforts to establish communism permanently. and the lamented procrustes used two bedsteads in which he placed his victims. he could not get along with one size for everybody. we may just as well try to make every man six feet long, forty-two inches around his chest, with a grecian nose, blue31 eyes, light hair and a lyric tenor voice, as to attempt to equalize all lives and reduce them to a communistic state.—now consider, in connection with the difference in the mental and physical powers of men, their different inclinations and tastes, the variety of their occupations, and then say, whether the establishment of society on the basis of communism, of absolute equality, is possible.”

“if i have formed a just appreciation of the organization of your society, you have recognized the right of all men to a living by giving everybody an equal share of the products of labor”, i objected; “but at the same time you give everybody the chance to select the profession or trade most to his taste and you have graded the men, belonging to a guild, thus inciting the ambition of the worker, to reach a higher grade, and creating a diversity of positions, adapted to that dissimilarity of men, you were just speaking of”.

“yes”, said forest, “we first established the principle of equality and then proceeded to arrange our system upon a basis of inequality, thus avoiding an open avowal that the new organization of society was a failure in both theory and practice. the question before us is a very plain one: “are we all alike”? if we are, then communism is the proper form of society and everybody should have an equal share of the products of labor. if we are not alike, if we differ in mental power and in physical ability, if the results of the labor of men are different, then there is no reason, why the wealth of the nation should be32 equally divided. but we first proclaim equality and pretend that we divide the products of labor equally among all;—and then we divide the “workers into first, second and third grades, according to ability, and these grades are subdivided into first and second classes.”[6] here we see the workers subdivided into six classes for the reason, expressly stated, that their ability differs. that their diligence also differs is not admitted, but it is nevertheless the fact. the inequality of men is thus distinctly recognized, but the products of labor are equally divided in the name of equality! now, everybody has a natural right to the products of his activity, but we are taking a large share of the results of the labor of a clever worker of class a of the first grade to give it to a lazy fellow of class b of the third grade. this is downright robbery, not even hidden beneath the shabby cloak of the leading principle governing all the acts of the administration; and all those who can not admire this stealing, are denounced as enemies of the best organization of society, ever known in the history of mankind”.

[6] page 125.

“you are to a certain extent an admirer of the civilization of the nineteenth century”, i answered; “and yet in our times the employers were accused by some of the labor agitators of “stealing” a large amount of the products of work by reaping very large profits and paying small wages. i would rather favor an equal division of all properties than a33 system, by which a comparatively small number of employers can enrich themselves at the expense of the masses of the laboring people.”

“i am not an admirer of the civilization of the nineteenth century, mr. west,” forest exclaimed. “i simply maintain, that the principles of competition under which society worked a hundred years ago was far superior to the communism, under which we are laboring. the unjust profits of the employers, of which you complain, could have been easily done away with, if your workmen had organized themselves into co-partnerships or associations. there was no law a hundred years ago to prevent a dozen shoemakers renting a loft with steam power, purchasing a few sewing and other machines and making boots and shoes at their own risk. there was no law to prevent all the other workingmen buying their boots and shoes at the shop of the co-operative association, thus securing for the members of the latter the profits of the manufacturer, wholesaler, retailer and workman. the laborers of all the different trades had a perfect right to organize such co-operative societies and thus secure all the profit that was in their labor. if the workmen preferred not to make use of this chance, if they did not care to assume the cares and risks of conducting a business for themselves, if they would rather work for an employer, leaving the cares and risks of the managements entirely to him, they had certainly no reason to complain of the profit of34 the employer. and if they were not satisfied with their treatment they could at any time seek other employment;—a thing that the workmen of our days can not do, for there is only one employer, the national administration.—the principle, that a man has a right to what he produces, was not questioned under your form of production. but we have in the name of equality and justice established the “right” to rob an industrious man of a part of the product of his labor and give this booty to his lazy comrade. if the workingmen of the nineteenth century, instead of sacrificing enormous sums in strikes, had organized one trade after another into co-operative associations, they would have solved what they styled the social questions with comparatively little trouble. and they would have saved us from the present outrageous form of society.”

“the strikes were an effect merely of the concentration of capital in greater masses, than had ever been known before”, i said, repeating the views of dr. leete on this question. “before this concentration began ... the individual workman was relatively important and independent in his relations to his employers. moreover, when a little capital or a new idea was enough to start a man in business for himself, workingmen were constantly becoming employers and there was no hard or fast line between the two classes. labor unions were needless then and general strikes out of the question”.[7]

[7] page 52.

35

“in your place, mr. west, i would not endorse those sentences of dr. leete”, said forest with a smile, “for the doctor has had frequent occasions to change his mind on this subject and persists in repeating his erroneous statements, although i and others have disproved them until further repetitions of our arguments became tedious. strikes are not, as dr. leete pretends to believe, comparatively late appearances on the battle fields of national economy. one of the biggest strikes that ever occurred, the “secessio in montem sacrum”, took place in rome as early as 494 before christ, and, during the centuries of the middle ages, strikes for higher wages frequently occurred, although in those days labor was much better organized (in trades unions, guilds and “zuenfte”) and more powerful than capital. and as for the impossibility of laborers ever becoming employers, i can show you in the college library a copy of the german paper, the “freie presse”, published in the city of chicago anno 1888, where the editor, in contradicting similar statements of the communists of those days, points to the fact, that in 1888 there were 12,000 german house owners, manufacturers and well to do or rich business men in chicago, who all had come to the city poor. when these germans came to chicago only a very few of them spoke english, still they were able to accumulate fortunes. this disproves the statement, that the people at the end of the last century were in the clutches of capital and unable to free themselves.—it is the easiest36 thing in the world to make wild statements, but it is sometimes difficult to substantiate them. and dr. leete is an adapt at making statements”.

“but are you not getting along in good style?” i asked, hoping to stop forest’s complaints, by pointing to an undisputable fact. “are you not enjoying an unprecedented prosperity and is not this general result, the definite annihilation of poverty, an achievement worth small sacrifices?”

“we are not getting along in good style. we are not enjoying an unprecedented prosperity. you will discover very soon, that you are overestimating the character and the fruits of our civilization. and so far as the annihilation of poverty is concerned, it amounts practically to nothing but the enrichment of the awkward, stupid and lazy people, with the proceeds of the work of the clever and industrious women and men. you could have done that 113 years ago, but you were not foolish and unjust enough to commit such a robbery.”

“if the people don’t like the present organization of society, why do they not change it?” i asked. “from your remarks, i have drawn the conclusion, that you have no opposition party worth speaking of, for you said, there are only a few opposition papers published in the country. this seems to prove that the people are satisfied with the present state of affairs”.

forest looked very severe as he answered: “you are of course under the impression, that we are acting37 with the same liberty you were enjoying 113 years ago. but everything in political life has changed since those days. with the exception of a limited number of government officials and a few contractors, your citizens were perfectly independent of the administration; to-day the administration rules everything, and everybody is more or less dependent upon the good will of our rulers. whoever dares to openly oppose the ruling spirits may be sure that all the wrath and all the unpleasantness at the command of the administration, will be piled upon him and his relatives and friends. therefore the number of men who are daring enough to challenge the ire of the government is very small, although a great many are discontented with the present state of affairs.”

“but why don’t people elect men to congress, who would pass laws, that would change a state of things, so unsatisfactory to the masses?” i asked, satisfied, that forest in his fault-finding mood, was using his dark paint altogether to freely.

“congress has very little influence nowadays”, forest answered. “the power rests almost entirely with the president and the chiefs of the ten great departments. they have well nigh absolute power and resemble somewhat the council of ten in venice, when that aristocratic republic was at the height of its power. as it lies within their discretion to assign each and every person to a good or a poor position for twenty-four years and even to order a draft from the ranks of the men over forty-five years38 of age, thus being able to get disliked men back under the direct discipline of the industrial army, they have a power over all the people that no tyrant of your times ever dreamed of establishing”.

“you know of course”, mr. forest continued, “that all recruits belong for the first three years of their service to the class of unskilled or common laborers. it is not until after this period, during which he is assignable to any work at the discretion of his superiors, that the young man is allowed to select a special avocation”.[8] you can readily see that the young man is during these three years at the absolute mercy of his superiors. they may assign him to easy and clean work, or they may send him to do a dirty and unhealthy job. he has to obey orders. for “a man able to do duty and persistently refusing, is sentenced to solitary imprisonment on bread and water until he consents”.[9]

[8] page 70.

[9] page 128.

“you know furthermore, that “individual records are kept and that excellence receives distinction, corresponding with the penalties that negligence incurs.” dr. leete has undoubtedly told you this and furthermore “that it is not policy with us to permit youthful recklessness or indiscretion, when not deeply culpable, to handicap the future careers of young men and that all who have passed the unclassified grade without serious disgrace, have an equal opportunity to choose the life employment they have the39 most liking for.... now not only are the individual records of these apprentices for ability and industry strictly kept and excellency distinguished by suitable distinctions, but upon the average of his record during his apprenticeship the standing given the apprentice among the full workmen depends....[10] while the internal organizations of the various industries, mechanical and agricultural, differ according to their peculiar conditions, they agree in a general division of their workers into first, second and third grades, according to ability, and these grades are in many cases subdivided, into first and second classes. according to his standing as an apprentice, a young man is assigned his place as a first, second or third grade worker. regradings take place in each industry at intervals, corresponding with the length of the apprenticeship.... one of the notable advantages of a high grading, is the privilege it gives the worker to select which of the various branches or processes of his industry he will follow as his specialty”[11].... dr. leete has of course further informed you, “that so far as possible, the preferences of the poorest workman are considered in assigning him his line of work.... while however the wish of the lower grade man is consulted so far as the exigencies of the service permit, he is considered only after the upper grade men are provided for, and often he has to put up with second or third choice or even40 with an arbitrary assignment when help is needed. this privilege of selection attends every regrading, and when a man loses his grade, he also risks having to exchange the sort of work he likes best for some other less to his taste.... high places in the nation are open only to the highest class men.”[12]

[10] page 124.

[11] page 125.

[12] pages 125 and 126.

“these regulations bear out what i just said in regard to the power of the administration. the lieutenants, captains and colonels, are appointed by the generals of the guild, who in turn are under the command of the ten chiefs of the ten great departments. these officers may give their young friends, who enter the industrial army as apprentices, easy jobs and good records and enable their friends on the strength of their records, as soon as they have passed the first three years of service, to enter the first class of the first grade of a trade. and such a favorite, who, backed by influential friends, has passed an easy time as an apprentice and who has received at once the first class of the first grade of his trade is immediately appointable to a lieutenantship and he can run up to the higher honors in a few years.—you can not deny, mr. west, that our regulations permit such a favoritism.”

i had to admit that such things were possible.

mr. forest continued: “on the other hand, the young men, who are not the sons and friends of our leaders, are fortunate if they can secure a second grade position, with a record, that does not exclude41 all hopes of further promotion. relatives of outspoken opponents of the administration, can be placed in the second class of the third grade of their trade, and their record can be so kept, that they can never hope to secure a higher position. and such a favoritism is not only possible, but it absolutely does exist. the sons and relatives of men, who are known as opponents of the administration, have practically to live worse than slaves, and are sometimes treated like foot balls”.

“is there no court of appeals?” i asked.

“yes, such an abused man or woman can go to a judge”, mr. forest answered. “but, the minor judges are merely men who have passed the 45th year of age and have been appointed to such a position for five years by the president. they—as dr. leete of course told you—adjudicate all cases where a member of the industrial army makes a complaint of unfairness against an officer. all such questions are heard and settled without appeal by a single judge, three judges being required only in graver cases. the efficiency of industry requires the strictest discipline in the army of labor[13]—the men appointed by the president are of course trustworthy friends of the administration and not expected to decide in such cases against the officers of the government and in favor of the “kickers”. and as such cases are settled without appeal, the ill-used member of the industrial army has to go back to his old position,42 where the superior, whom he has accused, will certainly not treat him better than before. on the contrary, such an officer has a first-class chance to “get even” with his dissatisfied subordinate, especially at the next regrading, when he can put him into the last class and grade, if the unfortunate fellow is not already there. if such is the case, the offended officer can at least assign the “kicker” to the most objectionable work”.

[13] page 206.

the picture, thus drawn by mr. forest, appeared so dreadful, especially when compared by me with the descriptions of dr. leete, that i could not collect myself sufficiently to try an argument against the conclusions of my predecessor in the professorship of the history of the nineteenth century.

after a short pause the present janitor continued: “now consider in connection with all the facts and institutions that i have mentioned, that “the workers have no suffrage to exercise or anything to say about the choice” of their superiors.[14]—“the general of the guild appoints to the ranks under him, but he himself is not appointed, but chosen by suffrage among the superintendents by vote of the honorary members of the guilds, that is by those who have served their time in the guild and received their discharge”[15].—so my dear mr. west, the members of the industrial army are twenty-four years absolutely at the mercy of their superiors. if they desire to43 have a good time they must blindly obey orders and seek favor by all means in their power. they must influence their friends who have votes not only to stand by the administration, but to do it in a demonstrative manner. occasional presents of wines and cigars may secure the friendship of some of the officers. otherwise the member of the industrial army may lead for twenty-four years a life, compared with which the lot of a plantation slave or of the poorest coal digger 150 years ago would be called an enviable fate. for a plantation slave was considered a valuable piece of property and not recklessly destroyed, while the poorest coal digger could leave his job and go to some other place, until he found more suitable employment. a member of our industrial army, who has drawn down upon himself the ire of the officers of the administration or who is placed on the list of the enemies of society on account of the opposition of his voting relatives, leads a life that may be termed as “twenty four years of hell on earth”! i have demonstrated to you now, mr. west, why congress has no influence. the vast majority of its members are continually trying to please the administration, for the purpose of securing favors for themselves, their relatives and their friends,” said mr. forest in conclusion. “and this is the equality of the best organization society ever had; this is what dr. leete calls the millennium”.