166 REPORT OF STATE BOARD OF HORTICULTURE. 



It is, of course, not feasible to follow the theory of annihilation of com- 

 petition by substituting' socialism. The practical thought is to subdue 

 individual comjietition within the class that prevents improvement and 

 development, and interferes with the creation of group formations necessary 

 to industrial and social growth. Co-operation diffei's from socialism in that 

 it makes a unit or group of those engaged in a given industry, but leaves 

 this group free to adjust its interests and welfare to other groups and units 

 in society. Socialism would destroy competition and make the state the 

 industrial unit. It is, perhaps, only by contest between these various indus- 

 trial groups that the proper adjustment of society and state will be evolved. 



The monopoly of a group of producers does not mean that no one shall 

 have the right to compete with them in the markets ; it does not mean that 

 law and government must be used to maintain a burden on society. The 

 true monopoly of producers must mean first a maintenance of a fair and 

 just standard of life for the members of the group. It must mean the 

 highest class product produced under the most economical conditions as far 

 as machinery, skill, knowledge aud methods are concerned, but not by 

 means which tend to cheapen man. It must mean such economy and skill 

 in concentrating, handling, and distributing the products as to give society 

 the best sei'vice with the least expenditure of energy. Its success stands 

 upon the basis of giving the public the best product at the lowest cost 

 compatible with maintaining a progressive standard of manhood for the 

 producei". 



A successful co-operation must not hope or exj^ect state aid to maintain a 

 monopoly,. its monopoly must be sustained by its economic force in produc- 

 tion and distribution ; for the primary function of state is to protect the 

 opportunity of all to engage in industrial enterprise, and it is the wise policy 

 of monopoly to maintain such economy and skill in jjroduction and distribu- 

 tion and furnish the public its goods at such prices as makes it possible for 

 competition to enter the field. 



The state must lend its aid bj' means of protection, education, and culti- 

 vation to protect the standard of life to all classes of its citizens, and, to 

 this end, we demand protection against cheap fruits, the product of cheap 

 men. Cheap products, made cheap by making a cheap man, are not in line 

 with pi'ogress in society. Cheap fruit at the expense of mortgages, deteri- 

 oation in value of fruit farms, lowering the quality of the lives of px'O- 

 ducers, are demoralizing to society in general and bring a curse rather than 

 blessing to humanity. 



Association and organization to overcome the evils of individual compe- 

 tition seems to be the only method by which tke welfare of producers can 

 be secured and maintained. 



