Just what is it that labour is likely to demand at the close
of the war that it is not demanding now and did not demand
before the war? What part of labour has ideas at all in
common with the American Bolsheviki? . . .

It goes without saying that after the war, as now, the
I. W. W. and Socialist Party will be urging their respective
philosophies -- for it is hardly conceivable that these two
groups can demand any more after the war than they are
demanding now. . . .

And also, I feel sure that the real labour movement of the
country, consisting of the American Federation of Labour
and the Railway Brotherhoods . . . will not be demanding
anything different from what it is demanding today, viz:
better wages, shorter hours, more humane working and living
conditions, and the right to organize the workers and be
heard collectively. While it is true that there is a small
percentage, less than 10 per cent. of these trade unionists
who are members of the Socialist and I. W. W. movements,
the 90 per cent. have passed on all the theories of these revo-
lutionary movements and have rejected them. . . .

A joint committee . . . composed of an equal number of
representatives of the American Federation of Labour, repre-
senting 135 national crafts, and of the National Industrial
Conference Board, made up of fifteen national employers' or-
ganization, whose members employ millions of men . . . has
unanimously issued a programme that is in effect a crushing
blow to the Hillquits, the Haywoods, the Bergers, the Emma
Goldmans, the revolutionary preachers and college professors,
the New Republic and the Survey editors, and all other
Arthur Hendersons and Sidney Webbs of this country. . . .

Changes after the war? Yes! A better and higher civi-
lization? Yes! Socialism, I. W. W., Bolshevism, anarchy?
No! That is my firm conviction.

The writer is Mr. Ralph M. Easley, the Chairman
of the Executive Council of the National Civic Fed-
eration, and, consequently an authority of weight,

-37-