“I believe I understand the principle and purpose of co-operation. Having been excluded from usefulness in my own trade by the introduction of labor-saving devices, I realize that an injustice has been done me. I should have had the benefit of the labor-saving device, but instead of that I am simply supplanted by an automaton. The machine which excluded me from my place and has kept me comparatively idle ever since does the work which it formerly took five men to do. If the same results were accomplished, as it ultimately will be, in all departments four-fifths of the labor of human beings would be thrown aside and four-fifths of the laborers would starve. This would curtail the consumption of products of such machinery, and a portion of those who operate them would then be discharged on the plea of hard times, limited demand and overproduction.
“The industrial system now in operation throughout the Christian world was devised for an ignorant and barbarous people. Invention, learning, industry and progress are showing its entire inefficiency. Learning must be limited to a few if that system is to live. Under it, if industry produces enough for all, stagnation results, because that system makes no provision for wise and equitable distribution. Progress is impossible because it strains society to a point of revolution and destruction follows. The co-operative system, on the contrary, deems labor-saving machinery a blessing, and its adoption simply increases production and is a relief and benefit to the laborer. It does not diminish his share of the product, but reduces his hours of labor. You cannot have too much education and learning in the co-operative system because all are educated, and yet each is required to submit to his share of labor and drudging. This tends to destroy false pride, and prevent vanity. Moreover, men come to realize their true relation to one another.
“Industry can never cause overproduction in the co-operative system. If too much is produced for the members to consume they do not therefore find it necessary to starve a portion of their number. Such a condition is hurtful to none. The co-operative system demands progress. Every step forward brings a reward and does not suggest a danger. Every advance is a blessing not to a few, but to all. A system which is large enough, just enough and expansive enough to admit of the unfoldment of all the powers and virtues of the race cannot be less than Christian.”
The manner of the applicant as he expressed himself was that of a polished and educated gentleman. It was not customary for us to encourage lengthy speeches on the part of applicants, during the year 1903 nor the years following, but once in a while a man of commanding will and intellect would challenge our attention and we would listen to him as I did to Mr. Richardson. He was a sufferer from one cause, and understood the cause and its only cure far better than a philosopher who only observes and could not feel the condition it imposed on him.
“It is claimed that the individual is weakened and made dependent by our system, Mr. Richardson,” said I. “The claim is also made that the man who escapes the perils of the industrial system comes out with a stronger character and a more independent manhood than if such perils had not been encountered. Have you a different opinion?”
“I do not know,” was the reply, “how great a manhood your system will develop. It teaches, however, the lesson of brotherhood, and gives me protection for my wife and babies by furnishing me an opportunity to be industrious. The competitive system might not be objectionable if it would do the same. But it does not permit fair competition. It demands that a man be industrious, but gives him no chance to work. It permits a few to monopolize land, water, power, money and all the sources, means and machinery of production, and then asks the disinherited and landless ones to compete when competition is impossible.
“The system called competitive is not competitive. It is a system whereby a favored few are permitted to rob the many. As for the perils of that system developing character, I admit they do. The most remarkable character and those most admired in it are the modern Shylocks. If that sort of character is desirable, then the system is a success, but I do not covet its benefits. It seems to me the perils of savagery are much more effective to bring out strong traits of character and build up a manhood more courageous, self-reliant, and even heroic, certainly not more brutal, than the trading, cozening, cheating, gambling, sordid methods which make up this so-called ‘Competitive System.’”
It was not possible for me in the press of business to continue the conversation further that day. Indeed, the arguments offered by the applicant were not new to me, and it was only because of the strong individuality of the man that I stopped to converse with him at all. It was, however, a part of my business to investigate the qualifications of applicants and when they had been accepted to enroll them in the proper department. Each department had its enrolling clerk present, who received the signature of the new member in the department to which he was assigned. A few formal questions more were put to Mr. Richardson and I assigned him to the Messenger and Publishing department, where a vacancy had occurred within a week by the death of a trusted member.
He of course entered as a mere printer, being compelled to earn promotion by the efficiency of his work.
The examination and acceptance of applicants went on with great rapidity after this, and no incident occurred worthy of note until after the noon lunch. A woman about thirty-six years old presented her application. After the usual formal questions I asked: