but compel. Therefore let us be cheerful and honest about it. Let

us be as stringent as we please with our police regulations, but for
goodness' sake let us refrain from telling the tramp to go to work.

Not only is it unkind, but it is untrue and hypocritical. We know
there is no work for him. As the scapegoat to our economic and

industrial sinning, or to the plan of things, if you will, we should
give him credit. Let us be just. He is so made. Society made him.

He did not make himself.
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 fiercelyhostile 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 equallyliberal, 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 generouslaborer, 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

generouslaborer 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 selfishlaborer 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 sentimentaldefinition 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 formidableweapon 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 definitely" target="_blank" title="ad.模糊地；无限期地">indefinitely so long as other men are not in