to the ground on the chance of building up a better one in its place.  A reshuffling of the cards, which a revolution means, might conceivably yield him a better card, but then again it might make the entire stack worthless by destroying the stakes for which the game is played.  But the revolution might not even succeed in the first round; then the ensuing reaction would probably destroy the trade union and with it would go the chance of a recovery of the original ground, modest though that may have been.  In practice, therefore, the trade union movements in nearly all nations[111] have served as brakes upon the respective national socialist movements; and, from the standpoint of society interested in its own preservation against catastrophic change, have played and are playing a role of society’s policemen and watch-dogs over the more revolutionary groups in the wage-earning class.  These are largely the unorganized and ill-favored groups rendered reckless because, having little to lose from a revolution, whatever the outcome might be, they fear none.

In America, too, there is a revolutionary class which, unlike the striking textile workers in 1911-1913, owes its origin neither to chance nor to neglect by trade union leaders.  This is the movement of native American or Americanized workers in the outlying districts of the West or South—­the typical I.W.W., the migratory workers, the industrial rebels, and the actors in many labor riots and lumber-field strikes.  This type of worker has truly broken with America’s spiritual past.  He has become a revolutionist either because his personal character and habits unfit him for success under the exacting capitalistic system; or because, starting out with the ambitions and rosy expectations of the early pioneer, he found his hopes thwarted by a capitalistic preemptor of the bounty of nature, who dooms to a wage-earner’s position all who came too late.  In either case he is animated by a genuine passion for revolution, a passion which admits no compromise.  Yet his numbers are too few to threaten the existing order.

In conclusion, American trade unionism, no matter whether the American Federation of Labor keeps its old leaders or replaces them by “progressives” or socialists, seems in a fair way to continue its conservative function—­so long as no overpowering open-shop movement or “trustification” will break up the trade unions or render them sterile.  The hope of American Bolshevism will, therefore, continue to rest with the will of employers to rule as autocrats.

FOOTNOTES: