Page:American Journal of Sociology Volume 4.djvu/815

 PROFIT-SHARING AND COOPERATION 795

justly due him in addition to his stipulated normal wage In the sense of the entrepreneur, who takes all the risks and guar- antees to both capital and labor a fixed return, and in return reaps a variable profit, there is no " profits." For the entrepre- neur, as under any system of cooperation, becomes merely the manager of the first rank, employed on a fixed wage. And that which under the existing system is profits, and under a system of productive cooperation goes as the raison d'etre of such a system to the laborers engaged in the enterprise, under a system of cooperative distribution exists just the same, whatever name may be appropriate. Avoiding the dilemma, so far as it exists in theory, by a dividend on purchases, or by an increased wage charged to the cost of production, is an elimination of the terms, but not of the logical possibility of the plan. The same merits that are claimed for profit-sharing in the normal capital- istic system of industry are applicable, both in theory and prac- tice, to cooperative distribution and the production carried on under such a regime.

The results of experience justify the statement as to prac- tice. The results in such enterprises have not been any more discouraging to the adherents of a profit-sharing system than have the results in competitive enterprises.

The Individualist Cooperators hold that cooperation, as a solution of the present industrial difficulties, demands that the labor have (i) a share in the profits of the industry, not neces- sarily the whole of the profits, especially where the industry is carried on by a body of cooperative consumers; (2) a share in the control of the business, not necessarily the whole, as under the above circumstances. They hold this to be true, whether the enterprise is started by outsiders for the benefit of the work- men, by distributive cooperative societies for the benefit of the consumer, or by a group of workmen for their own benefit. And, in truth, as much difficulty has arisen in the latter case as in the former ones. The tendency is for such an organization to become a small joint-stock concern, and for the holders of stock to exclude other workmen from participating in the profits. This does not, then, differ from ordinary business enterprises. The