The Scab
In a competitive society, where men struggle with one another for
food and shelter, what is more natural than that generosity, when it
diminishes the food and shelter of men other than he who is
generous, should be held an accursed thing? Wise old saws to the
contrary, he who takes from a man's purse takes from his existence.
To strike at a man's food and shelter is to strike at his life; and
in a society organized on a tooth-and-nail basis, such an act,
performed though it may be under the guise of generosity, is none
the less menacing and terrible.
It is for this reason that a laborer is so fiercely hostile to
another laborer who offers to work for less pay or longer hours. To
hold his place, (which is to live), he must offset this offer by
another equally liberal, which is equivalent to giving away somewhat
from the food and shelter he enjoys. To sell his day's work for $2,
instead of $2.50, means that he, his wife, and his children will not
have so good a roof over their heads, so warm clothes on their
backs, so substantial food in their stomachs. Meat will be bought
less frequently and it will be tougher and less nutritious, stout
new shoes will go less often on the children's feet, and disease and
death will be more imminent in a cheaper house and neighborhood.
Thus the generous laborer, giving more of a day's work for less
return, (measured in terms of food and shelter), threatens the life
of his less generous brother laborer, and at the best, if he does
not destroy that life, he diminishes it. Whereupon the less
generous laborer looks upon him as an enemy, and, as men are
inclined to do in a tooth-and-nail society, he tries to kill the man
who is trying to kill him.
When a striker kills with a brick the man who has taken his place,
he has no sense of wrong-doing. In the deepest holds of his being,
though he does not reason the impulse, he has an ethical sanction.
He feels dimly that he has justification, just as the home-defending
Boer felt, though more sharply, with each bullet he fired at the
invading English. Behind every brick thrown by a striker is the
selfish will "to live" of himself, and the slightly altruistic will
"to live" of his family. The family group came into the world
before the State group, and society, being still on the primitive
basis of tooth and nail, the will "to live" of the State is not so
compelling to the striker as is the will "to live" of his family and
himself.
In addition to the use of bricks, clubs, and bullets, the selfish
laborer finds it necessary to express his feelings in speech. Just
as the peaceful country-dweller calls the sea-rover a "pirate," and
the stout burgher calls the man who breaks into his strong-box a
"robber," so the selfish laborer applies the opprobrious epithet a
"scab" to the laborer who takes from him food and shelter by being
more generous in the disposal of his labor power. The sentimental
connotation of "scab" is as terrific as that of "traitor" or
"Judas," and a sentimental definition would be as deep and varied as
the human heart. It is far easier to arrive at what may be called a
technical definition, worded in commercial terms, as, for instance,
that A SCAB IS ONE WHO GIVES MORE VALUE FOR THE SAME PRICE THAN
ANOTHER.
The laborer who gives more time or strength or skill for the same
wage than another, or equal time or strength or skill for a less
wage, is a scab. This generousness on his part is hurtful to his
fellow-laborers, for it compels them to an equal generousness which
is not to their liking, and which gives them less of food and
shelter. But a word may be said for the scab. Just as his act
makes his rivals compulsorily generous, so do they, by fortune of
birth and training, make compulsory his act of generousness. He
does not scab because he wants to scab. No whim of the spirit, no
burgeoning of the heart, leads him to give more of his labor power
than they for a certain sum.
It is because he cannot get work on the same terms as they that he
is a scab. There is less work than there are men to do work. This
is patent, else the scab would not loom so large on the labor-market
horizon. Because they are stronger than he, or more skilled, or
more energetic, it is impossible for him to take their places at the
same wage. To take their places he must give more value, must work
longer hours or receive a smaller wage. He does so, and he cannot
help it, for his will "to live" is driving him on as well as they
are being driven on by their will "to live"; and to live he must win
food and shelter, which he can do only by receiving permission to
work from some man who owns a bit of land or a piece of machinery.
And to receive permission from this man, he must make the
transaction profitable for him.
Viewed in this light, the scab, who gives more labor power for a
certain price than his fellows, is not so generous after all. He is
no more generous with his energy than the chattel slave and the
convict laborer, who, by the way, are the almost perfect scabs.
They give their labor power for about the minimum possible price.
But, within limits, they may loaf and malinger, and, as scabs, are
exceeded by the machine, which never loafs and malingers and which
is the ideally perfect scab.
It is not nice to be a scab. Not only is it not in good social
taste and comradeship, but, from the standpoint of food and shelter,
it is bad business policy. Nobody desires to scab, to give most for
least. The ambition of every individual is quite the opposite, to
give least for most; and, as a result, living in a tooth-and-nail
society, battle royal is waged by the ambitious individuals. But in
its most salient aspect, that of the struggle over the division of
the joint product, it is no longer a battle between individuals, but
between groups of individuals. Capital and labor apply themselves
to raw material, make something useful out of it, add to its value,
and then proceed to quarrel over the division of the added value.
Neither cares to give most for least. Each is intent on giving less
than the other and on receiving more.
Labor combines into its unions, capital into partnerships,
associations, corporations, and trusts. A group-struggle is the
result, in which the individuals, as individuals, play no part. The
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners, for instance, serves notice
on the Master Builders' Association that it demands an increase of
the wage of its members from $3.50 a day to $4, and a Saturday half-
holiday without pay. This means that the carpenters are trying to
give less for more. Where they received $21 for six full days, they
are endeavoring to get $22 for five days and a half,--that is, they
will work half a day less each week and receive a dollar more.
Also, they expect the Saturday half-holiday to give work to one
additional man for each eleven previously employed. This last
affords a splendid example of the development of the group idea. In
this particular struggle the individual has no chance at all for
life. The individual carpenter would be crushed like a mote by the
Master Builders' Association, and like a mote the individual master
builder would be crushed by the Brotherhood of Carpenters and
Joiners.
In the group-struggle over the division of the joint product, labor
utilizes the union with its two great weapons, the strike and the
boycott; while capital utilizes the trust and the association, the
weapons of which are the black-list, the lockout, and the scab. The
scab is by far the most formidable weapon of the three. He is the
man who breaks strikes and causes all the trouble. Without him
there would be no trouble, for the strikers are willing to remain
out peacefully and indefinitely so long as other men are not in
their places, and so long as the particular aggregation of capital
with which they are fighting is eating its head off in enforced
idleness.
But both warring groups have reserve weapons. Were it not for the
scab, these weapons would not be brought into play. But the scab
takes the place of the striker, who begins at once to wield a most
powerful weapon, terrorism. The will "to live" of the scab recoils
from the menace of broken bones and violent death. With all due
respect to the labor leaders, who are not to be blamed for volubly
asseverating otherwise, terrorism is a well-defined and eminently
successful policy of the labor unions. It has probably won them
more strikes than all the rest of the weapons in their arsenal.
This terrorism, however, must be clearly understood. It is directed
solely against the scab, placing him in such fear for life and limb
as to drive him out of the contest. But when terrorism gets out of
hand and inoffensive non-combatants are injured, law and order
threatened, and property destroyed, it becomes an edged tool that
cuts both ways. This sort of terrorism is sincerely deplored by the
labor leaders, for it has probably lost them as many strikes as have
been lost by any other single cause.
The scab is powerless under terrorism. As a rule, he is not so good
nor gritty a man as the men he is displacing, and he lacks their
fighting organization. He stands in dire need of stiffening and
backing. His employers, the capitalists, draw their two remaining
weapons, the ownership of which is debatable, but which they for the
time being happen to control. These two weapons may be called the
political and judicial machinery of society. When the scab crumples
up and is ready to go down before the fists, bricks, and bullets of
the labor group, the capitalist group puts the police and soldiers
into the field, and begins a general bombardment of injunctions.
Victory usually follows, for the labor group cannot withstand the
combined assault of gatling guns and injunctions.
But it has been noted that the ownership of the political and
judicial machinery of society is debatable. In the Titanic struggle
over the division of the joint product, each group reaches out for
every available weapon. Nor are they blinded by the smoke of
conflict. They fight their battles as coolly and collectedly as
ever battles were fought on paper. The capitalist group has long
since realized the immense importance of controlling the political
and judicial machinery of society.
Taught by gatlings and injunctions, which have smashed many an
otherwise successful strike, the labor group is beginning to realize
that it all depends upon who is behind and who is before the
gatlings and the injunctions. And he who knows the labor movement
knows that there is slowly growing up and being formulated a clear
and definite policy for the capture of the political and judicial
machinery.
This is the terrible spectre which Mr. John Graham Brooks sees
looming portentously over the twentieth century world. No man may
boast a more intimate knowledge of the labor movement than he; and
he reiterates again and again the dangerous likelihood of the whole
labor group capturing the political machinery of society. As he
says in his recent book: {1} "It is not probable that employers can
destroy unionism in the United States. Adroit and desperate
attempts will, however, be made, if we mean by unionism the
undisciplined and aggressive fact of vigorous and determined
organizations. If capital should prove too strong in this struggle,
the result is easy to predict. The employers have only to convince
organized labor that it cannot hold its own against the capitalist
manager, and the whole energy that now goes to the union will turn
to an aggressive political socialism. It will not be the harmless
sympathy with increased city and state functions which trade unions
already feel; it will become a turbulent political force bent upon
using every weapon of taxation against the rich."
This struggle not to be a scab, to avoid giving more for less and to
succeed in giving less for more, is more vital than it would appear
on the surface. The capitalist and labor groups are locked together
in desperate battle, and neither side is swayed by moral
considerations more than skin-deep. The labor group hires business
agents, lawyers, and organizers, and is beginning to intimidate
legislators by the strength of its solid vote; and more directly, in
the near future, it will attempt to control legislation by capturing
it bodily through the ballot-box. On the other hand, the capitalist
group, numerically weaker, hires newspapers, universities, and
legislatures, and strives to bend to its need all the forces which
go to mould public opinion.
The only honest morality displayed by either side is white-hot
indignation at the iniquities of the other side. The striking
teamster complacently takes a scab driver into an alley, and with an
iron bar breaks his arms, so that he can drive no more, but cries
out to high Heaven for justice when the capitalist breaks his skull
by means of a club in the hands of a policeman. Nay, the members of
a union will declaim in impassioned rhetoric for the God-given right
of an eight-hour day, and at the time be working their own business
agent seventeen hours out of the twenty-four.
A capitalist such as Collis P. Huntington, and his name is Legion,
after a long life spent in buying the aid of countless legislatures,
will wax virtuously wrathful, and condemn in unmeasured terms "the
dangerous tendency of crying out to the Government for aid" in the
way of labor legislation. Without a quiver, a member of the
capitalist group will run tens of thousands of pitiful child-
laborers through his life-destroying cotton factories, and weep
maudlin and constitutional tears over one scab hit in the back with
a brick. He will drive a "compulsory" free contract with an
unorganized laborer on the basis of a starvation wage, saying, "Take
it or leave it," knowing that to leave it means to die of hunger,
and in the next breath, when the organizer entices that laborer into
a union, will storm patriotically about the inalienable right of all
men to work. In short, the chief moral concern of either side is
with the morals of the other side. They are not in the business for
their moral welfare, but to achieve the enviable position of the
non-scab who gets more than he gives.
But there is more to the question than has yet been discussed. The
labor scab is no more detestable to his brother laborers than is the
capitalist scab to his brother capitalists. A capitalist may get
most for least in dealing with his laborers, and in so far be a non-
scab; but at the same time, in his dealings with his fellow-
capitalists, he may give most for least and be the very worst kind
of scab. The most heinous crime an employer of labor can commit is
to scab on his fellow-employers of labor. Just as the individual
laborers have organized into groups to protect themselves from the
peril of the scab laborer, so have the employers organized into
groups to protect themselves from the peril of the scab employer.
The employers' federations, associations, and trusts are nothing
more nor less than unions. They are organized to destroy scabbing
amongst themselves and to encourage scabbing amongst others. For
this reason they pool interests, determine prices, and present an
unbroken and aggressive front to the labor group.
As has been said before, nobody likes to play the compulsorily
generous role of scab. It is a bad business proposition on the face
of it. And it is patent that there would be no capitalist scabs if
there were not more capital than there is work for capital to do.
When there are enough factories in existence to supply, with
occasional stoppages, a certain commodity, the building of new
factories by a rival concern, for the production of that commodity,
is plain advertisement that that capital is out of a job. The first
act of this new aggregation of capital will be to cut prices, to
give more for less,--in short to scab, to strike at the very
existence of the less generous aggregation of capital the work of
which it is trying to do.
No scab capitalist strives to give more for less for any other
reason than that he hopes, by undercutting a competitor and driving
that competitor out of the market, to get that market and its
profits for himself. His ambition is to achieve the day when he
shall stand alone in the field both as buyer and seller,--when he
will be the royal non-scab, buying most for least, selling least for
most, and reducing all about him, the small buyers and sellers, (the
consumers and the laborers), to a general condition of scabdom.
This, for example, has been the history of Mr. Rockefeller and the
Standard Oil Company. Through all the sordid villanies of scabdom
he has passed, until today he is a most regal non-scab. However, to
continue in this enviable position, he must be prepared at a
moment's notice to go scabbing again. And he is prepared. Whenever
a competitor arises, Mr. Rockefeller changes about from giving least
for most and gives most for least with such a vengeance as to drive
the competitor out of existence.
The banded capitalists discriminate against a scab capitalist by
refusing him trade advantages, and by combining against him in most
relentless fashion. The banded laborers, discriminating against a
scab laborer in more primitive fashion, with a club, are no more
merciless than the banded capitalists.
Mr. Casson tells of a New York capitalist who withdrew from the
Sugar Union several years ago and became a scab. He was worth
something like twenty millions of dollars. But the Sugar Union,
standing shoulder to shoulder with the Railroad Union and several
other unions, beat him to his knees till he cried, "Enough." So
frightfully did they beat him that he was obliged to turn over to
his creditors his home, his chickens, and his gold watch. In point
of fact, he was as thoroughly bludgeoned by the Federation of
Capitalist Unions as ever scab workman was bludgeoned by a labor
union. The intent in either case is the same,--to destroy the
scab's producing power. The labor scab with concussion of the brain
is put out of business, and so is the capitalist scab who has lost
all his dollars down to his chickens and his watch.
But the role of scab passes beyond the individual. Just as
individuals scab on other individuals, so do groups scab on other
groups. And the principle involved is precisely the same as in the
case of the simple labor scab. A group, in the nature of its
organization, is often compelled to give most for least, and, so
doing, to strike at the life of another group. At the present
moment all Europe is appalled by that colossal scab, the United
States. And Europe is clamorous with agitation for a Federation of
National Unions to protect her from the United States. It may be
remarked, in passing, that in its prime essentials this agitation in
no wise differs from the trade-union agitation among workmen in any
industry. The trouble is caused by the scab who is giving most for
least. The result of the American scab's nefarious actions will be
to strike at the food and shelter of Europe. The way for Europe to
protect herself is to quit bickering among her parts and to form a
union against the scab. And if the union is formed, armies and
navies may be expected to be brought into play in fashion similar to
the bricks and clubs in ordinary labor struggles.
In this connection, and as one of many walking delegates for the
nations, M. Leroy-Beaulieu, the noted French economist, may well be
quoted. In a letter to the Vienna Tageblatt, he advocates an
economic alliance among the Continental nations for the purpose of
barring out American goods, an economic alliance, in his own
language, "WHICH MAY POSSIBLY AND DESIRABLY DEVELOP INTO A POLITICAL
ALLIANCE."
It will be noted, in the utterances of the Continental walking
delegates, that, one and all, they leave England out of the proposed
union. And in England herself the feeling is growing that her days
are numbered if she cannot unite for offence and defence with the
great American scab. As Andrew Carnegie said some time ago, "The
only course for Great Britain seems to be reunion with her
grandchild or sure decline to a secondary place, and then to
comparative insignificance in the future annals of the English-
speaking race."
Cecil Rhodes, speaking of what would have obtained but for the pig-
headedness of George III, and of what will obtain when England and
the United States are united, said, "NO CANNON WOULD. . . BE FIRED
ON EITHER HEMISPHERE BUT BY PERMISSION OF THE ENGLISH RACE." It
would seem that England, fronted by the hostile Continental Union
and flanked by the great American scab, has nothing left but to join
with the scab and play the historic labor role of armed Pinkerton.
Granting the words of Cecil Rhodes, the United States would be
enabled to scab without let or hindrance on Europe, while England,
as professional strike-breaker and policeman, destroyed the unions
and kept order.
All this may appear fantastic and erroneous, but there is in it a
soul of truth vastly more significant than it may seem.
Civilization may be expressed today in terms of trade-unionism.
Individual struggles have largely passed away, but group-struggles
increase prodigiously. And the things for which the groups struggle
are the same as of old. Shorn of all subtleties and complexities,
the chief struggle of men, and of groups of men, is for food and
shelter. And, as of old they struggled with tooth and nail, so
today they struggle with teeth and nails elongated into armies and
navies, machines, and economic advantages.
Under the definition that a scab is ONE WHO GIVES MORE VALUE FOR THE
SAME PRICE THAN ANOTHER, it would seem that society can be generally
divided into the two classes of the scabs and the non-scabs. But on
closer investigation, however, it will be seen that the non-scab is
a vanishing quantity. In the social jungle, everybody is preying
upon everybody else. As in the case of Mr. Rockefeller, he who was
a scab yesterday is a non-scab today, and tomorrow may be a scab
again.
The woman stenographer or book-keeper who receives forty dollars per
month where a man was receiving seventy-five is a scab. So is the
woman who does a man's work at a weaving-machine, and the child who
goes into the mill or factory. And the father, who is scabbed out
of work by the wives and children of other men, sends his own wife
and children to scab in order to save himself.
When a publisher offers an author better royalties than other
publishers have been paying him, he is scabbing on those other
publishers. The reporter on a newspaper, who feels he should be
receiving a larger salary for his work, says so, and is shown the
door, is replaced by a reporter who is a scab; whereupon, when the
belly-need presses, the displaced reporter goes to another paper and
scabs himself. The minister who hardens his heart to a call, and
waits for a certain congregation to offer him say $500 a year more,
often finds himself scabbed upon by another and more impecunious
minister; and the next time it is HIS turn to scab while a brother
minister is hardening his heart to a call. The scab is everywhere.
The professional strike-breakers, who as a class receive large
wages, will scab on one another, while scab unions are even formed
to prevent scabbing upon scabs.
There are non-scabs, but they are usually born so, and are protected
by the whole might of society in the possession of their food and
shelter. King Edward is such a type, as are all individuals who
receive hereditary food-and-shelter privileges,--such as the present
Duke of Bedford, for instance, who yearly receives $75,000 from the
good people of London because some former king gave some former
ancestor of his the market privileges of Covent Garden. The
irresponsible rich are likewise non-scabs,--and by them is meant
that coupon-clipping class which hires its managers and brains to
invest the money usually left it by its ancestors.
Outside these lucky creatures, all the rest, at one time or another
in their lives, are scabs, at one time or another are engaged in
giving more for a certain price than any one else. The meek
professor in some endowed institution, by his meek suppression of
his convictions, is giving more for his salary than gave the other
and more outspoken professor whose chair he occupies. And when a
political party dangles a full dinner-pail in the eyes of the
toiling masses, it is offering more for a vote than the dubious
dollar of the opposing party. Even a money-lender is not above
taking a slightly lower rate of interest and saying nothing about
it.
Such is the tangle of conflicting interests in a tooth-and-nail
society that people cannot avoid being scabs, are often made so
against their desires, and are often unconsciously made so. When
several trades in a certain locality demand and receive an advance
in wages, they are unwittingly making scabs of their fellow-laborers
in that district who have received no advance in wages. In San
Francisco the barbers, laundry-workers, and milk-wagon drivers
received such an advance in wages. Their employers promptly added
the amount of this advance to the selling price of their wares. The
price of shaves, of washing, and of milk went up. This reduced the
purchasing power of the unorganized laborers, and, in point of fact,
reduced their wages and made them greater scabs.
Because the British laborer is disinclined to scab,--that is,
because he restricts his output in order to give less for the wage
he receives,--it is to a certain extent made possible for the
American capitalist, who receives a less restricted output from his
laborers, to play the scab on the English capitalist. As a result
of this, (of course combined with other causes), the American
capitalist and the American laborer are striking at the food and
shelter of the English capitalist and laborer.
The English laborer is starving today because, among other things,
he is not a scab. He practises the policy of "ca' canny," which may
be defined as "go easy." In order to get most for least, in many
trades he performs but from one-fourth to one-sixth of the labor he
is well able to perform. An instance of this is found in the
building of the Westinghouse Electric Works at Manchester. The
British limit per man was 400 bricks per day. The Westinghouse
Company imported a "driving" American contractor, aided by half a
dozen "driving" American foremen, and the British bricklayer swiftly
attained an average of 1800 bricks per day, with a maximum of 2500
bricks for the plainest work.
But, the British laborer's policy of "ca' canny," which is the very
honorable one of giving least for most, and which is likewise the
policy of the English capitalist, is nevertheless frowned upon by
the English capitalist, whose business existence is threatened by
the great American scab. From the rise of the factory system, the
English capitalist gladly embraced the opportunity, wherever he
found it, of giving least for most. He did it all over the world
whenever he enjoyed a market monopoly, and he did it at home with
the laborers employed in his mills, destroying them like flies till
prevented, within limits, by the passage of the Factory Acts. Some
of the proudest fortunes of England today may trace their origin to
the giving of least for most to the miserable slaves of the factory
towns. But at the present time the English capitalist is outraged
because his laborers are employing against him precisely the same
policy he employed against them, and which he would employ again did
the chance present itself.
Yet "ca' canny" is a disastrous thing to the British laborer. It
has driven ship-building from England to Scotland, bottle-making
from Scotland to Belgium, flint-glass-making from England to
Germany, and today is steadily driving industry after industry to
other countries. A correspondent from Northampton wrote not long
ago: "Factories are working half and third time. . . . There is no
strike, there is no real labor trouble, but the masters and men are
alike suffering from sheer lack of employment. Markets which were
once theirs are now American." It would seem that the unfortunate
British laborer is 'twixt the devil and the deep sea. If he gives
most for least, he faces a frightful slavery such as marked the
beginning of the factory system. If he gives least for most, he
drives industry away to other countries and has no work at all.
But the union laborers of the United States have nothing of which to
boast, while, according to their trade-union ethics, they have a
great deal of which to be ashamed. They passionately preach short
hours and big wages, the shorter the hours and the bigger the wages
the better. Their hatred for a scab is as terrible as the hatred of
a patriot for a traitor, of a Christian for a Judas. And in the
face of all this, they are as colossal scabs as the United States is
a colossal scab. For all of their boasted unions and high labor
ideals, they are about the most thoroughgoing scabs on the planet.
Receiving $4.50 per day, because of his proficiency and immense
working power, the American laborer has been known to scab upon
scabs (so called) who took his place and received only $0.90 per day
for a longer day. In this particular instance, five Chinese
coolies, working longer hours, gave less value for the price
received from their employer than did one American laborer.
It is upon his brother laborers overseas that the American laborer
most outrageously scabs. As Mr. Casson has shown, an English nail-
maker gets $3 per week, while an American nail-maker gets $30. But
the English worker turns out 200 pounds of nails per week, while the
American turns out 5500 pounds. If he were as "fair" as his English
brother, other things being equal, he would be receiving, at the
English worker's rate of pay, $82.50. As it is, he is scabbing upon
his English brother to the tune of $79.50 per week. Dr. Schultze-
Gaevernitz has shown that a German weaver produces 466 yards of
cotton a week at a cost of .303 per yard, while an American weaver
produces 1200 yards at a cost of .02 per yard.
But, it may be objected, a great part of this is due to the more
improved American machinery. Very true, but none the less a great
part is still due to the superior energy, skill, and willingness of
the American laborer. The English laborer is faithful to the policy
of "ca' canny." He refuses point-blank to get the work out of a
machine that the New World scab gets out of a machine. Mr. Maxim,
observing a wasteful hand-labor process in his English factory,
invented a machine which he proved capable of displacing several
men. But workman after workman was put at the machine, and without
exception they turned out neither more nor less than a workman
turned out by hand. They obeyed the mandate of the union and went
easy, while Mr. Maxim gave up in despair. Nor will the British
workman run machines at as high speed as the American, nor will he
run so many. An American workman will "give equal attention
simultaneously to three, four, or six machines or tools, while the
British workman is compelled by his trade union to limit his
attention to one, so that employment may be given to half a dozen
men."
But for scabbing, no blame attaches itself anywhere. With rare
exceptions, all the people in the world are scabs. The strong,
capable workman gets a job and holds it because of his strength and
capacity. And he holds it because out of his strength and capacity
he gives a better value for his wage than does the weaker and less
capable workman. Therefore he is scabbing upon his weaker and less
capable brother workman. He is giving more value for the price paid
by the employer.
The superior workman scabs upon the inferior workman because he is
so constituted and cannot help it. The one, by fortune of birth and
upbringing, is strong and capable; the other, by fortune of birth
and upbringing, is not so strong nor capable. It is for the same
reason that one country scabs upon another. That country which has
the good fortune to possess great natural resources, a finer sun and
soil, unhampering institutions, and a deft and intelligent labor
class and capitalist class is bound to scab upon a country less
fortunately situated. It is the good fortune of the United States
that is making her the colossal scab, just as it is the good fortune
of one man to be born with a straight back while his brother is born
with a hump.
It is not good to give most for least, not good to be a scab. The
word has gained universal opprobrium. On the other hand, to be a
non-scab, to give least for most, is universally branded as stingy,
selfish, and unchristian-like. So all the world, like the British
workman, is 'twixt the devil and the deep sea. It is treason to
one's fellows to scab, it is unchristian-like not to scab.
Since to give least for most, and to give most for least, are
universally bad, what remains? Equity remains, which is to give
like for like, the same for the same, neither more nor less. But
this equity, society, as at present constituted, cannot give. It is
not in the nature of present-day society for men to give like for
like, the same for the same. And so long as men continue to live in
this competitive society, struggling tooth and nail with one another
for food and shelter, (which is to struggle tooth and nail with one
another for life), that long will the scab continue to exist. His
will "to live" will force him to exist. He may be flouted and
jeered by his brothers, he may be beaten with bricks and clubs by
the men who by superior strength and capacity scab upon him as he
scabs upon them by longer hours and smaller wages, but through it
all he will persist, giving a bit more of most for least than they
are giving.
Footnote:
{1} The Social Unrest. Macmillan Company.
-THE END-
Jack London's essay/speech: The Scab (speech)
GO TO TOP OF SCREEN
