organization of the master class was equally imperfect, these craft unions were able to secure small concessions for themselves. The theory that skill is a property led easily to the effort to monopolize that property and many were the dodges and subterfuges adopted to make the monopoly effective. Limitation of apprenticeships, high initiation fees and dues, difficult and technical examinations for membership, gentlemen's agreements with the employers and closed books in closed shop cities and towns, were a part of the protective and exclusive measures adopted, but beyond this property idea the craftsmen apparently could not go. The hand tool limited their vision to the mere thing they hold in their hands—they could not see the great world of industry growing up around them, nor catch the inspiring message of the machines to the struggling masses.
The American Federation of Labor, the Australian Workers Union, the Amalgamated Societies of the English workers and other nationalistic organizations of their kind seem never to have come to a realizing sense of the great fact that production is now a social process and that the organizations of the workers must take on an all inclusive or universal character in order to conform to that fact. Their protestations of industrial vision and purposes are mere hollow phrases belied by their persistent separation of the workers into craft or district organizations that render them helpless and futile in the vast industrial sea in which they are submerged. Without doubt, they continue to accept the wage system as a finality and seek only to maintain themselves as integral parts of that system. While they struggle and fight for a larger wage, there is no apparent knowledge that the wage is merely a portion of the worker's production and not a reward for services rendered—their cry is "a fair day's wage for a fair day's work," the only question being "what is fair"?
Collective bargaining is a principle with the crafts-
