and the relative power of endurance of both parties. They do not, I
think, take into account the immense power in the hands of those who
uphold the present system. Those who might be expected to strike are
not--at least in Ireland--a majority of the population. They would have
far fewer material resources to fall back on than those others whose
interests would lead them to preserve the present social order. It is
clear, too, when we analyze the forces at the command of labor and
capital, that the latter has attached to itself by the bonds of self-
interest the scientific men--engineers, inventors, chemists,
bacteriologists, designers, organizers, all the intellect of industry--
without which, in alliance with itself, revolting labor would be unable
to continue production as before. Labor so revolting might indeed for a
time bring the work of the nation to a standstill; but unless it could
by some means attract to itself men of the class described, it would not
be able to take the helm of the ship of industry and guide it with
knowledge as the holders of economic power have done in the past. A
policy of emancipation should provide labor with a means of attracting
to itself that kind of knowledge which is gained in universities,
laboratories, colleges of science, and, above all, in the actual
guidance of great industrial enterprises. In any trial of endurance
those who start with the greatest intellectual, moral, and material
resources will win.

I do not deny that the strike is a powerful weapon in the hand of labor,
but it is one with which it is difficult to imagine labor dealing a
knock-out blow to the present social order. I believe in an orderly
evolution of society, at least in Ireland, and doubt whether by
revolution people can be raised to an intelligence, a humanity, or a
nobility of nature greater than they formerly possessed. Nobody can
remain standing on tiptoe. After a little time disorder subsides and