ment for the shingles by putting his bill for them through his bank, the shingles not being delivered until payment is provided for. Thus the working capital is that amount necessary for the purchase of the cedar logs, the payment of labor, and incidental expenses. The turnover is quick and the amount of working capital is reduced to a minimum. These conditions are lacking in many industries, for instance, in the steel industry, where it is said that a million dollars is the minimum capitalization needed.

The coöperative shingle mills have, however, required some banking accommodation and this has often been flatly refused them at their local bank. One explanation of the refusal of credit by the local bank is that some of its stockholders are interested in regular capitalistic mills and do not wish the coöperative movement to succeed. Another explanation is that the bank directors believe that the coöperative mill is but a temporary experiment. In some instances, where several cooperative societies have pooled their buying of logs and have gone to a large city bank for a short time loan, they have been told that they should apply to their local bank, it being the rule of the city bank not to cross the territory of the local bank in the matter of small loans. Be this matter as it may, the coöperative mills have continued in

business, and as they have grown older, have built up a line of credit for themselves. A coöperative labor bank, such as those now being established in other parts of the country, may be an answer to this question of credit.

A noticeable change is found in some members of these coöperative societies in that they come to look at things from the point of view of an employer and thus shift from their former views as laborers. The tendency in some coöperative societies is for a retiring member to sell his share to the remaining members, and this may continue until all the ownership and control is in the hands of a few who admit no new members and hire additional laborers needed at regular wages, thus making the business an ordinary commercial one. To prevent this, some societies provide that all workers shall be shareholders. But the fewer the members, the larger will be each one's share of the profits, and human nature being as it is, there is an inevitable tendency to become capitalistic and to divide the profits among a few. At least this is the rock on which similar coöperative enterprises have gone down, the capitalistic point of view having prevailed. This tendency to become capitalistic has been accompanied by a lukewarmness toward trade unionism or even by an entire severance of relationship with the unions.

One writer, in commenting on the success of coöperation among the shingle weavers, uses it as an argument in favor of control of industry by the workers in all trades, and asserts that shop organization in the hands of labor as in the shingle mills may achieve the control of national economic life. The answer to this is that no one method is a panacea for the labor question; practically there is no one solution for such a complex problem. The Iron Molders, the Coopers, and the Knights of Labor tried coöperative production for a time, and their coöperative plants either failed or became frankly capitalistic by being owned by a few. After the failure of these experiments the workers turned to collective bargaining and trade unionism.

In conclusion, it may be stated that coöperative production among the shingle weavers has been a success, that it is a step in the direction of selfhelp, that aside from the additional financial return it affords an invaluable education to the workers in business administration and responsibility, and that its future will be watched with interest.

I

X

THE SOCIAL VIEWPOINT

SHALL begin, like the college professor in

announcing a new course, by saying that the purpose of this paper is to make clear the truth that there are others. In philosophy I am neither a pessimist nor an optimist but a meliorist; in thought neither a radical nor a standpatter but a middle-of-the-road man; and in intellectual belief neither an extreme individualist nor an ardent collectivist but one who endeavors to hold to the best points of both. In brief, I am like the colored brother, neither an "optimus" nor a "pessimus" but a "possimus." The paper, then, may satisfy nobody, but then its purpose is not one of propaganda, although I may seem to be dogmatic in places to an extent, which may liken me to the old lady of Aroostook, who said she was open to argument but that she would like to see the man able

to convince her! Speaking frankly, the reader may disagree with the conclusions of the paper, but if he gains from its perusal an increased appreciation of the idea that there are other people in the world besides himself, I shall be satisfied.

My subject is divided into two parts, being devoted to an examination in turn of social philosophy and of economic conditions.

1. SOCIAL PHILOSOPHY

Social historians tell us that only the group survived in the early days of human development. The strength of the wolf is the pack, for the lone wolf perishes. The beginnings of social organization appear among animals lower in the scale of existence than man. Human society rests on a physical basis, and as man has developed from a lower animal form, the fact of association among animals is of interest. Birds fly in flocks, develop a community life, hold assemblages, mix out of pure sociability, and have the family instinct. Herds of antelopes live together and have leaders who give warning of danger to the group. Elephants have been seen in herds numbering from five to a hundred and fifty, and these groups are based on family relationships. Other illustrations of this group tendency may be seen in the herds of buffaloes which once covered the plains of the