Page:American Journal of Sociology Volume 8.djvu/80

 68 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY

foisted on them was mysterious, suspicious, and peculiar. Pub- licity did not prevent the United States Steel Corporation from voting to convert $200,000,000 preferred shares into bonds and from voting a $10,000,000 commission to a syndicate for the ser- vice of guaranteeing the operation, without a word of explanation to the minority, which did not see any necessity for, and ques- tioned the wisdom of, this heavy increase of the corporation's debt and fixed charges. Other facts might be cited, but it is really quite plain that publicity of accounts, while desirable for other reasons, would not protect consumers against the aggressive tend- encies of monopoly. It is interesting to note that Professor Richard T. Ely, in his valuable little book on Monopolies and Trusts, sets no store by publicity. Faith in that alleged remedy has declined greatly since the national trust conference held in Chicago in the fall of 1899. The right of the state to impose publicity as one of the conditions of incorporation is questioned by few, but the inadequacy of this remedy is now widely recog- nized.

Such suggestions as taxation of trusts, government regulation of prices and output, may be passed over as too radical for the conservatives and insufficient from the radical point of view. They fall between two stools, and are not compromises. On the other hand, general reforms like just taxation of general prop- erty, the acquisition by the government of patents that are made the basis of monopoly, the prohibition of " stock -watering," etc., may likewise be left on one side as measures whose effect on trusts would be indirect and uncertain. These proposals must be judged on their own merits ; they would be advanced and urged if trusts had never made their appearance.

The socialist view of trusts need not detain us long. It is really summed up in the old phrase, "the worse, the better." This idea is implicit in the position of the "orthodox" Marx- ites, the "catastrophic" socialists, who believe in revolution and class struggle for political supremacy. Contemporary socialism, not only in Great Britain, but also in France and Germany, is parliamentary and opportunist. It is Fabian, though many of the continental leaders would warmly repudiate the characteri-