ter. But a word may be
said for the scab. Just as his act makes his rivals compulsorily
generous, so do they, by fortune of birth and training, make compulsory
his act of generousness. He does not scab because he wants to scab. No
whim of the spirit, no burgeoning of the heart, leads him to give more of
his labor power than they for a certain sum.

It is because he cannot get work on the same terms as they that he is a
scab. There is less work than there are men to do work. This is patent,
else the scab would not loom so large on the labor-market horizon.
Because they are stronger than he, or more skilled, or more energetic, it
is impossible for him to take their places at the same wage. To take
their places he must give more value, must work longer hours or receive a
smaller wage. He does so, and he cannot help it, for his will "to live"
is driving him on as well as they are being driven on by their will "to
live"; and to live he must win food and shelter, which he can do only by
receiving permission to work from some man who owns a bit of land or a
piece of machinery. And to receive permission from this man, he must
make the transaction profitable for him.

Viewed in this light, the scab, who gives more labor power for a certain
price than his fellows, is not so generous after all. He is no more
generous with his energy than the chattel slave and the convict laborer,
who, by the way, are the almost perfect scabs. They give their labor
power for about the minimum possible price. But, within limits, they may
loaf and malinger, and, as scabs, are exceeded by the machine, which
never loafs and malingers and which is the ideally perfect scab.

It is not nice to be a scab. Not only is it not in good social taste and
comradeship, but, from the standpoint of food and shelter, it is bad
business policy. Nobody desires to scab, to give most for least. The
ambition of every individual is quite the opposite, to give least for
most; and, as a result, living in a tooth-and-nail society, battle royal
is waged by the ambitious individuals. But in its most salient aspect,
that of the struggle over the division of the joint product, it is no
longer a battle between individuals, but between groups of individuals.
Capital and labor apply themselves to raw material, make something useful
out of it, add to its value, and then proceed to quarrel over the
division of the added value. Neither cares to give most for least. E