may warrant the hope that time and experience may give it sanity elsewhere.
This, however, raises an awkward difficulty. Syndicalism is in no way distinguished from other movements by this ideal expression of the coöperative brotherhood. At whatever point its main energies pass into constructive coöperation, it is at one with many other daring hopes and efforts that for two generations have looked toward the "democratizing of life and opportunity by democratizing industry." Let it be said again, there is no proper or final estimate of any new social movement by the ideal end it sets before us. Far more is it to be judged by its practical and intermediate measures. It is these chiefly that set Syndicalism apart from others in the field and by these is it mainly to be judged.
I listened in Seattle to an orator in the street flaying capitalism and trade unions with an impartial lash. When he stepped panting from his perch, I asked him what he was really after in the special strike for which he was pleading. "What are we after? Why, we are after that mill. We have made it and every machine in it. It is a product of our labor and it belongs to us."
As if driving spikes, he had told his audience how this was to be brought about. He made no mystery of "direct action" and sabotage. To and fro among the crowd men passed, selling literature in which these measures were set forth with authoritative detail, quite in the manner of the orator.
To my suggestion that deep behind the mill in question were centuries of socially sanctioned forms of property—that plans, organization, purchase of
