initial commit of ebook 24340HEADmain

11 files changed, 18952 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/.gitattributes b/.gitattributes
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..6833f05
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.gitattributes
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+* text=auto
+*.txt text
+*.md text
diff --git a/24340-8.txt b/24340-8.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..6f20be6
--- /dev/null
+++ b/24340-8.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,6089 @@
+The Project Gutenberg EBook of The Common Sense of Socialism, by John Spargo
+
+This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
+almost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or
+re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
+with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org
+
+
+Title: The Common Sense of Socialism
+       A Series of Letters Addressed to Jonathan Edwards, of Pittsburg
+
+Author: John Spargo
+
+Release Date: January 17, 2008 [EBook #24340]
+
+Language: English
+
+Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1
+
+*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE COMMON SENSE OF SOCIALISM ***
+
+
+
+
+Produced by Audrey Longhurst, Jeannie Howse and the Online
+Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net
+
+
+
+
+
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+    +-----------------------------------------------------------+
+    | Transcriber's Note:                                       |
+    |                                                           |
+    | Inconsistent hyphenation in the original document has     |
+    | been preserved.                                           |
+    |                                                           |
+    | Obvious typographical errors have been corrected. For     |
+    | a complete list, please see the end of this document.     |
+    |                                                           |
+    +-----------------------------------------------------------+
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+
+
+
+THE COMMON SENSE
+OF SOCIALISM
+
+
+A SERIES OF LETTERS ADDRESSED TO
+JONATHAN EDWARDS, OF PITTSBURG
+
+
+BY
+
+JOHN SPARGO
+
+Author of "The Bitter Cry of the Children," "Socialism: A
+Summary and Interpretation of Socialist Principles,"
+"The Socialists: Who They Are and What They
+Stand For," "Capitalist and Laborer,"
+Etc., Etc., Etc.
+
+
+CHICAGO
+CHARLES H. KERR & COMPANY
+1911
+
+
+
+
+Copyright 1909
+BY CHARLES H. KERR & COMPANY
+
+
+
+
+TO
+
+GEORGE H. STROBELL
+
+AS
+A TOKEN OF FRIENDSHIP AND LOVE
+THIS LITTLE BOOK IS AFFECTIONATELY INSCRIBED
+
+
+
+
+CONTENTS
+
+
+CHAPTER                                PAGE
+
+I BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION                                        1
+
+II WHAT'S THE MATTER WITH AMERICA?                              4
+
+III THE TWO CLASSES IN THE NATION                              12
+
+IV HOW WEALTH IS PRODUCED AND HOW IT IS DISTRIBUTED            26
+
+V THE DRONES AND THE BEES                                      44
+
+VI THE ROOT OF THE EVIL                                        68
+
+VII FROM COMPETITION TO MONOPOLY                               81
+
+VIII WHAT SOCIALISM IS AND WHAT IT IS NOT                      94
+
+IX WHAT SOCIALISM IS AND WHAT IT IS NOT--_Continued_          118
+
+X THE OBJECTIONS TO SOCIALISM ANSWERED                        136
+
+XI WHAT SHALL WE DO, THEN?                                    170
+
+
+APPENDICES:
+
+I A SUGGESTED COURSE OF READING ON SOCIALISM                  175
+
+II HOW SOCIALIST BOOKS ARE PUBLISHED                          179
+
+
+
+
+THE COMMON SENSE OF SOCIALISM
+
+
+I
+
+BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION
+
+    Socialism is undoubtedly spreading. It is, therefore, right
+    and expedient that its teachings, its claims, its tendencies,
+    its accusations and promises, should be honestly and seriously
+    examined.--_Prof. Flint._
+
+
+_My Dear Mr. Edwards_: I count it good fortune to receive such letters
+of inquiry as that which you have written me. You could not easily
+have conferred greater pleasure upon me than you have by the charming
+candor and vigor of your letter. It is said that when President
+Lincoln saw Walt Whitman, "the good, Gray Poet," for the first time he
+exclaimed, "Well, he looks like a man!" and in like spirit, when I
+read your letter I could not help exclaiming, "Well, he writes like a
+man!"
+
+There was no need, Mr. Edwards, for you to apologize for your letter:
+for its faulty grammar, its lack of "style" and "polish." I am not
+insensible to these, being a literary man, but, even at their highest
+valuation, grammar and literary style are by no means the most
+important elements of a letter. They are, after all, only like the
+clothes men wear. A knave or a fool may be dressed in the most perfect
+manner, while a good man or a sage may be poorly dressed, or even
+clad in rags. Scoundrels in broadcloth are not uncommon; gentlemen in
+fustian are sometimes met with.
+
+He would be a very unwise man, you will admit, who tried to judge a
+man by his coat. President Lincoln was uncouth and ill-dressed, but he
+was a wise man and a gentleman in the highest and best sense of that
+much misused word. On the other hand, Mr. Blank, who represents
+railway interests in the United States Senate, is sleek, polished and
+well-dressed, but he is neither very wise nor very good. He is a
+gentleman only in the conventional, false sense of that word.
+
+Lots of men could write a more brilliant letter than the one you have
+written to me, but there are not many men, even among professional
+writers, who could write a better one. What I like is the spirit of
+earnestness and the simple directness of it. You say that you have
+"Read lots of things in the papers about the Socialists' ideas and
+listened to some Socialist speakers, but never could get a very clear
+notion of what it was all about." And then you add "Whether Socialism
+is good or bad, wise or foolish, _I want to know_."
+
+I wish, my friend, that there were more working men like you; that
+there were millions of American men and women crying out: "Whether
+Socialism is good or bad, wise or foolish, _I want to know_." For that
+is the beginning of wisdom: back of all the intellectual progress of
+the race is the cry, _I want to know_! It is a cry that belongs to
+wise hearts, such as Mr. Ruskin meant when he said, "A little group of
+wise hearts is better than a wilderness full of fools." There are lots
+of fools, both educated and uneducated, who say concerning Socialism,
+which is the greatest movement of our time, "I don't know anything
+about it and I don't want to know anything about it." Compared with
+the most learned man alive who takes that position, the least educated
+laborer in the land who says "I want to know!" is a philosopher
+compared with a fool.
+
+When I first read your letter and saw the long list of your objections
+and questions I confess that I was somewhat frightened. Most of the
+questions are fair questions, many of them are wise ones and all of
+them merit consideration. If you will bear with me, Mr. Edwards, and
+let me answer them in my own way, I propose to answer them all. And in
+answering them I shall be as honest and frank with you as I am with my
+own soul. Whether you believe in Socialism or not is to me a matter of
+less importance than whether you understand it or not.
+
+You complain that in some of the books written about Socialism there
+are lots of hard, technical words and phrases which you cannot
+properly understand, even when you have looked in the dictionary for
+their meaning, and that is a very just complaint. It is true that most
+of the books on Socialism and other important subjects are written by
+students for students, but I shall try to avoid that difficulty and
+write as a plain, average man of fair sense to another plain, average
+man of fair sense.
+
+All your other questions and objections, about "stirring up class
+hatred," about "dividing-up the wealth with the lazy and shiftless,"
+trying to "destroy religion," advocating "free love" and "attacking
+the family," all these and the many other matters contained in your
+letter, I shall try to answer fairly and with absolute honesty.
+
+I want to convert you to Socialism if I can, Mr. Edwards, but I am
+more anxious to have you _understand_ Socialism.
+
+
+
+
+II
+
+WHAT'S THE MATTER WITH AMERICA?
+
+    It seems to me that people are not enough aware of the
+    monstrous state of society, absolutely without a parallel in
+    the history of the world, with a population poor, miserable
+    and degraded in body and mind, as if they were slaves, and yet
+    called freemen. The hopes entertained by many of the effects
+    to be wrought by new churches and schools, while the social
+    evils of their conditions are left uncorrected, appear to me
+    utterly wild.--_Dr. Arnold, of Rugby._
+
+    The working-classes are entitled to claim that the whole field
+    of social institutions should be re-examined, and every
+    question considered as if it now arose for the first time,
+    with the idea constantly in view that the persons who are to
+    be convinced are not those who owe their ease and importance
+    to the present system, but persons who have no other interest
+    in the matter than abstract justice and the general good of
+    the community.--_John Stuart Mill._
+
+
+I presume, Mr. Edwards, that you are not one of those persons who
+believe that there is nothing the matter with America; that you are
+not wholly content with existing conditions. You would scarcely be
+interested in Socialism unless you were convinced that in our existing
+social system there are many evils for which some remedy ought to be
+found if possible. Your interest in Socialism arises from the fact
+that its advocates claim that it is a remedy for the social evils
+which distress you--is it not so?
+
+I need not harrow your feelings, therefore, by drawing for you
+pictures of dismal misery, poverty, vice, crime and squalor. As a
+workingman, living in Pittsburg, you are unhappily familiar with the
+evils of our present system. It doesn't require a professor of
+political economy to understand that something is wrong in our
+American life today.
+
+As an industrial city Pittsburg is a notable example of the defective
+working of our present social and industrial system. In Pittsburg, as
+in every other modern city, there are the extremes of wealth and
+poverty. There are beautiful residences on the one hand and miserable,
+crowded tenement hovels upon the other hand. There are people who are
+so rich, whose incomes are so great, that their lives are made
+miserable and unhappy. There are other people so poor, with incomes so
+small, that they are compelled to live miserable and unhappy lives.
+Young men and women, inheritors of vast fortunes, living lives of
+idleness, uselessness and vanity at one end of the social scale are
+driven to dissipation and debauchery and crime. At the other end of
+the social scale there are young men and women, poor, overburdened
+with toil, crushed by poverty and want, also driven to dissipation and
+debauchery and crime.
+
+You are a workingman. All your life you have known the conditions
+which surround the lives of working people like yourself. You know how
+hard it is for the most careful and industrious workman to properly
+care for his family. If he is fortunate enough never to be sick, or
+out of work, or on strike, or to be involved in an accident, or to
+have sickness in his family, he may become the owner of a cheap home,
+or, by dint of much sacrifice, his children may be educated and
+enabled to enter one of the professions. Or, given all the conditions
+stated, he may be enabled to save enough to provide for himself and
+wife a pittance sufficient to keep them from pauperism and beggary in
+their old age.
+
+That is the best the workingman can hope for as a result of his own
+labor under the very best conditions. To attain that level of comfort
+and decency he must deny himself and his wife and children of many
+things which they ought to enjoy. It is not too much to say that none
+of your fellow-workmen in Pittsburg, men known to you, your neighbors
+and comrades in labor, have been able to attain such a condition of
+comparative comfort and security except by dint of much hardship
+imposed upon themselves, their wives and children. They have had to
+forego many innocent pleasures; to live in poor streets, greatly to
+the disadvantage of the children's health and morals; to concentrate
+their energies to the narrow and sordid aim of saving money; to
+cultivate the instincts and feelings of the miser.
+
+The wives of such men have had to endure privations and wrongs such as
+only the wives of the workers in civilized society ever know.
+Miserably housed, cruelly overworked, toiling incessantly from morn
+till night, in sickness as well as in health, never knowing the joys
+of a real vacation, cooking, scrubbing, washing, mending, nursing and
+pitifully saving, the wife of such a worker is in truth the slave of a
+slave.
+
+At the very best, then, the lot of the workingman excludes him and his
+wife and children from most of the comforts which belong to modern
+civilization. A well-fitted home in a good neighborhood--to say
+nothing of a home beautiful in itself and its surroundings--is out of
+the question; foreign travel, the opportunity to enjoy the rest and
+educative advantages of occasional journeys to other lands, is
+likewise out of the question. Even though civic enterprise provides
+public libraries and art galleries, museums, lectures, concerts, and
+other opportunities of recreation and education, there is not the
+leisure for their enjoyment to any extent. For our model workman, with
+all his exceptional advantages, after a day's toil has little time
+left for such things, and little strength or desire, while his wife
+has even less time and even less desire.
+
+You know that this is not an exaggerated account. It may be questioned
+by the writers of learned treatises who know the life of the workers
+only from descriptions of it written by people who know very little
+about it, but you will not question it. As a workman you know it is
+true. And I know it is true, for I have lived it. The best that the
+most industrious, thrifty, persevering and fortunate workingman can
+hope for is to be decently housed, decently fed, decently clothed.
+That he and his family may always be certain of these things, so that
+they go down to their graves at last without having experienced the
+pangs of hunger and want, the worker must be exceptionally fortunate.
+_And yet, my friend, the horses in the stables of the rich men of this
+country, and the dogs in their kennels, have all these things, and
+more!_ For they are protected against such overwork and such anxiety
+as the workingman and the workingman's wife must endure. Greater care
+is taken of the health of many horses and dogs than the most favored
+workingman can possibly take of the health of his boys and girls.
+
+At its best and brightest, then, the lot of the workingman in our
+present social system is not an enviable one. The utmost good fortune
+of the laboring classes is, properly considered, a scathing
+condemnation of modern society. There is very little poetry, beauty,
+joy or glory in the life of the workingman when taken at its very
+best.
+
+But you know very well that not one workingman in a hundred, nay, not
+one in a thousand, is fortunate enough never to be sick, or out of
+work, or on strike, or to be involved in an accident, or to have
+sickness in his family. Not one worker in a thousand lives to old age
+and goes down to his grave without having known the pangs of hunger
+and want, both for himself and those dependent upon him. On the
+contrary, dull, helpless, poverty is the lot of millions of workers
+whose lines are cast in less pleasant places.
+
+Mr. Frederic Harrison the well-known conservative English publicist,
+some years ago gave a graphic description of the lot of the working
+class of England, a description which applies to the working class of
+America with equal force. He said:
+
+    "Ninety per cent of the actual producers of wealth have no
+    home that they can call their own beyond the end of a week,
+    have no bit of soil, or so much as a room that belongs to
+    them; have nothing of value of any kind except as much as will
+    go in a cart; have the precarious chance of weekly wages which
+    barely suffice to keep them in health; are housed for the most
+    part in places that no man thinks fit for his horse; are
+    separated by so narrow a margin from destruction that a month
+    of bad trade, sickness or unexpected loss brings them face to
+    face with hunger and pauperism."[1]
+
+I am perfectly willing, of course, to admit that, upon the whole,
+conditions are worse in England than in this country, but I am still
+certain that Mr. Harrison's description is fairly applicable to the
+United States of America, in this year of Grace, nineteen hundred and
+eight.
+
+At present we are passing through a period of industrial depression.
+Everywhere there are large numbers of unemployed workers. Poverty is
+rampant. Notwithstanding all that is being done to ease their misery,
+all the doles of the charitable and compassionate, there are still
+many thousands of men, women and children who are hungry and
+miserable. You see them every day in Pittsburg, as I see them in New
+York, Philadelphia, Boston, Cleveland, Chicago, and elsewhere. It is
+easy to see in times like the present that there is some great, vital
+defect in our social economy.
+
+Later on, if you will give me your attention, Jonathan, I want you to
+consider the causes of such cycles of depression as this that we are
+so patiently enduring. But at present I am interested in getting you
+to realize the terrible shortcomings of our industrial system at its
+best, in normal times. I want to have you consider the state of
+affairs in times that are called "prosperous" by the politicians, the
+preachers, the economists, the statisticians and the editors of our
+newspapers. I am not concerned, here and now, with the _exceptional_
+distress of such periods as the present, but with the ordinary,
+normal, chronic misery and distress; the poverty that is always so
+terribly prevalent.
+
+Do you remember the talk about the "great and unexampled prosperity"
+in which you indulged during the latter part of 1904 and the following
+year? Of course you do. Everybody was talking about prosperity, and a
+stranger visiting the United States might have concluded that we were
+a nation of congenital optimists. Yet, it was precisely at that time,
+in the very midst of our loud boasting about prosperity, that Robert
+Hunter challenged the national brain and conscience with the
+statement that there were at lease ten million persons in poverty in
+the United States. If you have not read Mr. Hunter's book, Jonathan, I
+advise you to get it and read it. You will find in it plenty of food
+for serious thought. It is called _Poverty_, and you can get a copy at
+the public library. From time to time I am going to suggest that you
+read various books which I believe you will find useful. "Reading
+maketh a full man," provided that the reading is seriously and wisely
+done. Good books relating to the problems you have to face as a worker
+are far better for reading than the yellow newspapers or the sporting
+prints, my friend.
+
+When they first read Mr. Hunter's startling statement that there were
+ten million persons in the United States in poverty, many people
+thought that he must be a sensationalist of the worst type. It could
+not be true, they thought. But when they read the startling array of
+facts upon which that estimate was based they modified their opinion.
+It is significant, I think, that there has been no very serious
+criticism of the estimate made by any reputable authority.
+
+Do you know, Jonathan, that in New York of all the persons who die one
+in every ten dies a pauper and is buried in Potter's Field? It is a
+pity that we have not statistics upon this point covering most of our
+cities, including your own city of Pittsburg. If we had, I should ask
+you to try an experiment. I should ask you to give up one of your
+Saturday afternoons, or any day when you might be idle, and to take
+your stand at the busiest corner in the city. There, I would have you
+count the people as they pass by, hurrying to and fro, and every tenth
+person you counted I would have you note by making a little cross on a
+piece of paper. Think what an awful tally it would be, Jonathan. How
+sick and weary at heart you would be if you stood all day counting,
+saying as every tenth person passed, "There goes another marked for a
+pauper's grave!" And it might happen, you know, that the fateful count
+of ten would mark your own boy, or your own wife.
+
+We are a practical, hard-headed people. That is our national boast.
+You are a Yankee of the good old Massachusetts stock, I understand,
+proud of the fact that you can trace your descent right back to the
+Pilgrim Fathers. But with all our hard-headed practicality, Jonathan,
+there is still some sentiment left in us. Most of us dread the thought
+of a pauper's grave for ourselves or friends, and struggle against
+such fate as we struggle against death itself. It is a foolish
+sentiment perhaps, for when the soul leaves the body a mere handful of
+clod and marl, the spark of divinity forever quenched, it really does
+not matter what happens to the body, nor where it crumbles into dust.
+But we cherish the sentiment, nevertheless, and dread having to fill
+pauper graves. And when ten per cent, of those who die in the richest
+city of the richest nation on earth are laid at last in pauper graves
+and given pauper burial there is something radically and cruelly
+wrong.
+
+And you and I, with our fellows, must try to find out just what the
+wrong is, and just how we can set it right. Anything less than that
+seems to me uncommonly like treason to the republic, treason of the
+worst kind. Alas! Alas! such treason is very common, friend
+Jonathan--there are many who are heedless of the wrongs that sap the
+life of the republic and careless of whether or no they are righted.
+
+FOOTNOTES:
+
+[1] Report of the Industrial Remuneration Conference, 1886, p. 429.
+
+
+
+
+III
+
+THE TWO CLASSES IN THE NATION
+
+    Mankind are divided into two great classes--the shearers and
+    the shorn. You should always side with the former against the
+    latter.--_Talleyrand._
+
+    All men having the same origin are of equal antiquity; nature
+    has made no difference in their formation. Strip the nobles
+    naked and you are as well as they; dress them in your rags,
+    and you in their robes, and you will doubtless be the nobles.
+    Poverty and riches only discriminate betwixt
+    you.--_Machiavelli._
+
+    Thou shalt not steal. _Thou shalt not be stolen from._--_Thomas
+    Carlyle._
+
+
+I want you to consider, friend Jonathan, the fact that in this and
+every other civilized country there are two classes. There are, as it
+were, two nations in every nation, two cities in every city. There is
+a class that lives in luxury and a class that lives in poverty. A
+class constantly engaged in producing wealth but owning little or none
+of the wealth produced and a class that enjoys most of the wealth
+without the trouble and pain of producing it.
+
+If I go into any city in America I can find beautiful and costly
+mansions in one part of the city, and miserable, squalid tenement
+hovels in another part. And I never have to ask where the workers
+live. I know that the people who live in the mansions don't produce
+anything; that the wealth producers alone are poor and miserably
+housed.
+
+Republican and Democratic politicians never ask you to consider such
+things. They expect you to let _them_ do all the thinking, and to
+content yourself with shouting and voting for them. As a Socialist, I
+want you to do some thinking for yourself. Not being a politician, but
+a simple fellow-citizen, I am not interested in having you vote for
+anything you do not understand. If you should offer to vote for
+Socialism without understanding it, I should beg you not to do it. I
+want you to vote for Socialism, of course, but not unless you know
+what it means, why you want it and how you expect to get it. You see,
+friend Jonathan, I am perfectly frank with you, as I promised to be.
+
+You will remember, I hope, that in your letter to me you made the
+objection that the Socialists are constantly stirring up class hatred,
+setting class against class. I want to show you now that this is _not
+true_, though you doubtless believed that it was true when you wrote
+it. I propose to show you that in this great land of ours there are
+two great classes, the "shearers and the shorn," to adopt Talleyrand's
+phrase. And I want you to side with the _shorn_ instead of with the
+_shearers_, because, if I am not sadly mistaken, my friend, _you are
+one of the shorn_. Your natural interests are with the workers, and
+all the workers are shorn and robbed, as I shall try to show you.
+
+You work in one of the great steel foundries of Pittsburg, I
+understand. You are paid wages for your work, but you have no other
+interest in the establishment. There are lots of other men working in
+the same place under similar conditions. Above you, having the
+authority to discharge you if they see fit, if you displease them or
+your work does not suit them, are foremen and bosses. They are paid
+wages like yourself and your fellow workmen. True, they get a little
+more wages, and they live in consequence in a little better homes
+than most of you, but they do not own the plant. They, too, may be
+discharged by other bosses above them. There are a few of the workmen
+who own a small number of shares of stock in the company, but not
+enough of them to have any kind of influence in its management. They
+are just as likely to be turned out of employment as any of you.
+
+Above all the workers and bosses of one kind and another there is a
+general manager. Wonderful stories are told of the enormous salary he
+gets. They say that he gets more for one week than you or any of your
+fellow workmen get for a whole year. You used to know him well when
+you were boys together. You went to the same school; played "hookey"
+together; bathed in the creek together. You used to call him "Richard"
+and he always used to call you "Jon'thun." You lived close to each
+other on the same street.
+
+But you don't speak to each other nowadays. When he passes through the
+works each morning you bend to your work and he does not notice you.
+Sometimes you wonder if he has forgotten all about the old days, about
+the games you used to play up on "the lots," the "hookey" and the
+swimming in the creek. Perhaps he has not forgotten: perhaps he
+remembers well enough, for he is just a plain human being like
+yourself Jonathan; but if he remembers he gives no sign.
+
+Now, I want to ask you a few plain questions, or, rather, I want you
+to ask yourself a few plain questions. Do you and your old friend
+Richard still live on the same street, in the same kind of houses like
+you used to? Do you both wear the same kind of clothes, like you used
+to? Do you and he both go to the same places, mingle with the same
+company, like you used to in the old days? Does _your_ wife wear the
+same kind of clothes than _his_ wife does? Does _his_ wife work as
+hard as _your_ wife does? Do they both belong to the same social "set"
+or does the name of Richard's wife appear in the Social Chronicle in
+the daily papers while your wife's does not? When you go to the
+theater, or the opera, do you and your family occupy as good seats as
+Richard and his family in the same way that you and he used to occupy
+"quarter seats" in the gallery? Are your children and Richard's
+children dressed equally well? Your fourteen-year-old girl is working
+as a cash-girl in a store and your fifteen-year-old boy is working in
+a factory. What about Richard's children? They are about the same age
+you know: is his girl working in a store, his boy in a factory?
+Richard's youngest child has a nurse to take care of her. You saw her
+the other day, you remember: how about your youngest child--has she a
+nurse to care for her?
+
+Ah, Jonathan! I know very well how you must answer these questions as
+they flash before your mind in rapid succession. You and Richard are
+no longer chums; your wives don't know each other; your children don't
+play together, but are strangers to one another; you have no friends
+in common now. Richard lives in a mansion, while you live in a hovel;
+Richard's wife is a fine "lady" in silks and satins, attended by
+flunkeys, while your wife is a poor, sickly, anĉmic, overworked
+drudge. You still live in the same city, yet not in the same world.
+You would not know how to act in Richard's home, before all the
+servants; you would be embarrassed if you sat down at his dinner
+table. Your children would be awkward and shy in the presence of his
+children, while they would scorn to introduce your children to their
+friends.
+
+You have drifted far apart, you two, my friend. Somehow there yawns
+between you a great, impassable gulf. You are as far apart in your
+lives as prince and pauper, lord and serf, king and peasant ever were
+in the world's history. It is wonderful, this chasm that yawns between
+you. As Shakespeare has it:
+
+            Strange it is that bloods
+    Alike of colour, weight and heat, pour'd out together,
+    Would quite confound distinction, yet stand off
+    In differences so mighty.
+
+I am not going to say anything against your one-time friend who is now
+a stranger to you and the lord of your life. I have not one word to
+say against him. But I want you to consider very seriously if the
+changes we have noted are the only changes that have taken place in
+him since the days when you were chums together. Have you forgotten
+the Great Strike, when you and your fellow workers went out on strike,
+demanding better conditions of labor and higher wages? Of course you
+have not forgotten it, for that was when your scanty savings were all
+used up, and you had to stand, humiliated and sorrowful, at the relief
+station, or in the "Bread Line," to get food for your little family.
+
+Those were the dark days when your dream of a little cottage in the
+country, with hollyhocks and morning-glories and larkspurs growing
+around it, melted away like the mists of the morning. It was the dream
+of your young manhood and of your wife's young womanhood; it was the
+dream of your earliest years together, and you both worked and saved
+for that little cottage in the suburbs where you would spend the
+sunset hours of life together. The Great Strike killed your beautiful
+dream; it killed your wife's hopes. You have no dream now and no hope
+for the sunset hours. When you think of them you become bitter and
+try to banish the thought. I know all about that faded dream,
+Jonathan.
+
+Why did you stay out on strike and suffer? Why did you not remain at
+work, or at least go back as soon as you saw how hard the fight was
+going to be? "What! desert my comrades, and be a traitor to my
+brothers in the fight?" you say. But I thought you did not believe in
+classes! I thought you were opposed to the Socialists because they set
+class to fight class! You were fighting the company then, weren't you;
+trying to force them to give you decent conditions? You called it a
+fight, Jonathan, and the newspapers, you remember, had great headlines
+every day about the "Great Labor War."
+
+It wasn't the Socialists who urged you to go out on strike, Jonathan.
+You had never heard of Socialism then, except once you read something
+in the papers about some Socialists who were shot down by the Czar's
+Cossacks in the streets of Warsaw. You got an idea then that a
+Socialist was a desperado with a firebrand in one hand and a bomb in
+the other, madly seeking to burn palaces and destroy the lives of rich
+men and rulers. No, it was not due to Socialist agitation that you
+went out on strike.
+
+You went out on strike because you had grown desperate on account of
+the wanton, wicked, needless waste of human life that went on under
+your very eyes, day after day. You saw man after man maimed, man after
+man killed, through defects in the machinery, and the company, through
+your old chum and playmate, refused to make the changes necessary.
+They said that it would "cost too much money," though you all knew
+that the shareholders were reaping enormous profits. Added to that,
+and the fact that you went hourly in dread of similar fate befalling
+you, your wife had a hard time to make both ends meet. There was a
+time when you could save something every week, but for some time
+before the strike there was no saving. Your wife complained; your
+comrades said that their wives complained. Finally you all agreed that
+you could stand it no longer; that you would send a committee to
+interview the manager and tell him that, unless you got better wages
+and unless something was done to make your lives safer you would go
+out on strike.
+
+When you and the manager were chums together he was a kind,
+good-hearted, generous fellow, and you felt certain that when the
+Committee explained things it would be all right. But you were
+mistaken. He cursed at them as though they were dogs, and you could
+scarcely believe your own ears. Do you remember how you spoke to your
+wife about it, about "the change in Dick"?
+
+You went out on strike. The manager scoured the country for men to
+take your places. Ruffianly men came from all parts of the country;
+insolent, strife-provoking thugs. More than once you saw your
+fellow-workmen attacked and beaten by thugs, and then the police were
+ordered to club and arrest--not the aggressors but your comrades. Then
+the manager asked the mayor to send for the troops, and the mayor did
+as he was bidden do. What else could he do when the leading
+stockholders in the company owned and controlled the Republican
+machine? So the Republican mayor wired to the Republican Governor for
+soldiers and the soldiers came to intimidate you and break the strike.
+One day you heard a rifle's sharp crack, followed by a tumult and they
+told you that one of your old friends, who used to go swimming with
+you and Richard, the manager, had been shot by a drunken sentry,
+though he was doing no harm.
+
+You were a Democrat. Your father had been a Democrat and you "just
+naturally growed up to be one." As a Democrat you were very bitter
+against the Republican mayor and the Republican Governor. You honestly
+thought that if there had been a good Democrat in each of those
+offices there would have been no soldiers sent into the city; that
+your comrade would not have been murdered. You spoke of little else to
+your fellows. You nursed the hope that at the next election they would
+turn out the Republicans and put the Democrats in.
+
+But that delusion was shattered like all the rest, Jonathan, when,
+soon after, the Democratic President you were so proud of, to whom you
+looked up as to a modern Moses, sent federal troops into Illinois,
+over the protest of the Governor of that Commonwealth, in defiance of
+the laws of the land, in violation of the sacred Constitution he had
+sworn to protect and obey. Your faith in the Democratic Party was
+shattered. Henceforth you could not trust either the Republican Party
+or the Democratic Party.
+
+I don't want to discuss the strike further. That is all ancient
+history to you now. I have already gone a good deal farther afield
+than I wanted to do, or than I intended to do when I began this
+letter. I want to go back--back to our discussion of the great gulf
+that divides you and your former chum, Richard.
+
+I want you to ask yourself, with perfect candor and good faith,
+whether you believe that Richard has been so much better than you,
+either as workman, citizen, husband or father, that his present
+position can be regarded as a just reward for his virtue and ability?
+I'll put it another way for you, Jonathan: in your own heart do you
+believe that you are so much inferior to him as a worker or as a
+citizen, so much inferior in mentality and in character that you
+deserve the hard fate which has come to you, the ill-fortune compared
+to his good fortune? Are you and your family being punished for your
+sins, while he and his family are being rewarded for his virtues? In
+other words, Jonathan, to put the matter very plainly, do you believe
+that God has ordained your respective states in accordance with your
+just deserts?
+
+You know that is not the case, Jonathan. You know very well that both
+Richard and yourself share the frailties and weaknesses of our kind.
+Infinite mischief has been done by those who have given the struggle
+between the capitalists and the workers the aspect of a conflict
+between "goodness" on the one side and "wickedness" upon the other.
+Many things which the capitalists do appear very wicked to the
+workers, and many things which the workers do, and think perfectly
+proper and right, the capitalists honestly regard as improper and
+wrong.
+
+I do not deny that there are some capitalists whose conduct deserves
+our contempt and condemnation, just as there are some workingmen of
+whom the same is true. Still less would I deny that there is a very
+real ethical measure of life; that some conduct is anti-social while
+other conduct is social. I simply want you to catch my point that we
+are creatures of our environment, Jonathan; that if the workers and
+the capitalists could change places, there would be a corresponding
+change in their views of many things. I refuse to flatter the workers,
+my friend: they have been flattered too much already.
+
+Politicians seeking votes always tell the workers how greatly they
+admire them for their intelligence and for their moral excellencies.
+But you know and I know that they are insincere; that, for the most
+part, their praise is lying hypocrisy. They practice what you call
+"the art of jollying the people" because that is an important part of
+their business. The way they talk _to_ the working class is very
+different from the way they talk _of_ the working class among
+themselves. I've heard them, my friend, and I know how most of them
+despise the workers.
+
+The working men and women of this country have many faults and
+failings. Many of them are ignorant, though that is not quite their
+own fault. Many a workingman starves and pinches his wife and little
+ones to gamble, squandering his money, yes, and the lives of his
+family, upon horse races, prize-fights, and other brutal and senseless
+things called "sport." It is all wrong, Jonathan, and we know it. Many
+of our fellow workmen drink, wasting the children's bread-money and
+making beasts of themselves in saloons, and that is wrong, too, though
+I do not wonder at it when I think of the hells they work in, the
+hovels they live in and the dull, soul-deadening grind of their daily
+lives. But we have got to struggle against it, got to conquer the
+bestial curse, before we can get better conditions. Men who soak their
+brains in alcohol, or who gamble their children's bread, will never be
+able to make the world a fit place to live in, a place fit for little
+children to grow in.
+
+But the worst of all the failings of the working class, in my humble
+judgment, is its indifference to the great problems of life. Why is
+it, Jonathan, that I can get tens of thousands of workingmen in
+Pittsburg or any large city excited and wrought to feverish enthusiasm
+over a brutal and bloody prize-fight in San Francisco, or about a
+baseball game, and only a man here and there interested in any degree
+about Child Labor, about the suffering of little babies? Why is it
+that the workers, in Pittsburg and every other city in America, are
+less interested in getting just conditions than in baseball games from
+which all elements of honest, manly sport have been taken away; brutal
+slugging matches between professional pugilists; horseraces conducted
+by gamblers for gamblers; the sickening, details of the latest scandal
+among the profligate, idle rich?
+
+I could get fifty thousand workingmen in Pittsburg to read long,
+disgusting accounts of bestiality and vice more easily than I could
+get five hundred to read a pamphlet on the Labor Problem, on the
+wrongfulness of things as they are and how they might be made better.
+The masters are wiser, Jonathan. They watch and guard their own
+interests better than the workers do.
+
+If you owned the tools with which you work, my friend, and whatever
+you could produce belonged to you, either to use or to exchange for
+the products of other workers, there would be some reason in your
+Fourth of July boasting about this
+
+            Blest land of Liberty.
+
+But you don't. You, and all other wage-earners, depend upon the
+goodwill and the good judgment of the men who own the land, the mines,
+the factories, the railways, and practically all other means of
+producing wealth for the right to live. You don't own the raw
+material, the machinery or the railways; you don't control your own
+jobs. Most of you don't even own your own miserable homes. These
+things are owned by a small class of, people when their number is
+compared with the total population. The workers produce the wealth of
+this and every other country, but they do not own it. They get just
+enough to keep them alive and in a condition to go on producing
+wealth--as long as the master class sees fit to have them do it.
+
+Most of the capitalists do not, _as capitalists_, contribute in any
+manner to the production of wealth. Some of them do render services of
+one kind and another in the management of the industries they are
+connected with. Some of them are directors, for example, _but they are
+always paid for their services before there is any distribution of
+profits_. Even when their "work" is quite perfunctory and useless,
+mere make-believe, like the games of little children, they get paid
+far more than the actual workers. But there are many people who own
+stock in the company you work for, Jonathan, who never saw the
+foundries, who were never in the city of Pittsburg in their lives,
+whose knowledge of the affairs of the company is limited to the stock
+quotations in the financial columns of the morning papers.
+
+Think of it: when you work and produce a dollar's worth of wealth by
+your labor, it is divided up. You get only a very small fraction. The
+rest is divided between the landlords and the capitalists. This
+happens in the case of every man among the thousands employed by the
+company. Only a small share goes to the workers, a third, or a fourth,
+perhaps, the remainder being divided among people who have done none
+of the work. It may happen, does happen in fact, that, an old
+profligate whose delight is the seduction of young girls, a wanton
+woman whose life would shame the harlot of the streets, a lunatic in
+an asylum, or a baby in the cradle, will get more than any of the
+workers who toil before the glaring furnaces day after day.
+
+These are terrible assertions, Jonathan, and I do not blame you if you
+doubt them. I shall _prove_ them for you in a later letter.
+
+At present, I want you to get hold of the fact that the wealth
+produced by the workers is so distributed that the idle and useless
+classes get most of it. People will tell you, Jonathan, that "there
+are no classes in America," and that the Socialists lie when they say
+so. They point out to you that your old chum, Richard, who is now a
+millionaire, was a poor boy like yourself. They say he rose to his
+present position because he had keener brains than his fellows, but
+you know lots of workmen in the employ of the company who know a great
+deal more about the work than he does, lots of men who are cleverer
+than he is. Or they tell you that he rose to his present position
+because of his superior character, but you know that he is, to say the
+least, no better than the average man who works under him.
+
+The fact is, Jonathan, the idle capitalists must have some men to
+carry on the work for them, to direct it and see that the workers are
+exploited properly. They must have some men to manage things for them;
+to see that elections are bought, that laws in their interests are
+passed and not laws in the interests of the people. They must have
+somebody to do the things they are too "respectable" to do--or too
+lazy. They take such men from the ranks of the workers and pay them
+enormous salaries, thereby making them members of their own class.
+Such men are really doing useful and necessary work in managing the
+business (though not in corrupting legislators or devising swindling
+schemes) and are to that extent producers. But their interests are
+with the capitalists. They live in palaces, like the idlers; they
+mingle in the same social sets; they enjoy the same luxuries. And,
+above all, they can invest part of their large incomes in other
+concerns and draw enormous profits from the labors of other toilers,
+sometimes even in other lands. They are capitalists and their whole
+influence is on the side of the capitalists against the workers.
+
+I want you to think over these things, friend Jonathan. Don't be
+afraid to do your own thinking! If you have time, go to the library
+and get some good books on the subject and read them carefully, doing
+your own thinking no matter what the authors of the books may say. I
+suggest that you get W.J. Ghent's _Mass and Class_ to begin with.
+Then, when you have read that, I shall be glad to have you read
+Chapter VI of a book called _Socialism: A Summary and Interpretation
+of Socialist Principles_. It is not very hard reading, for I wrote the
+book myself to meet the needs of just such earnest, hard-working men
+as yourself.
+
+I think both books will be found in the public library. At any rate,
+they ought to be. But if not, it would be worth your while to save the
+price of a few whiskies and to buy them for yourself. You see,
+Jonathan, I want you to study.
+
+
+
+
+IV
+
+HOW WEALTH IS PRODUCED AND HOW IT IS DISTRIBUTED
+
+    It is easy to persuade the masses that the good things of this
+    world are unjustly divided--especially when it happens to be
+    the exact truth.--_J.A. Froude._
+
+    The growth of wealth and of luxury, wicked, wasteful and
+    wanton, as before God I declare that luxury to be, has been
+    matched step by step by a deepening and deadening poverty,
+    which has left whole neighborhoods of people practically
+    without hope and without aspiration.--_Bishop Potter._
+
+    At present, all the wealth of Society goes first into the
+    possession of the Capitalist.... He pays the landowner his
+    rent, the labourer his wages, the tax and tithe-gatherer their
+    claims, and keeps a large, indeed, the largest, and a
+    constantly augmenting share of the annual produce of labour
+    for himself. The Capitalist may now be said to be the first
+    owner of all the wealth of the community, though no law has
+    conferred on him the right of this property.... This change
+    has been effected by the taking of interest on Capital ... and
+    it is not a little curious that all the lawgivers of Europe
+    endeavoured to prevent this by Statutes--viz., Statutes
+    against usury.--_Rights of Natural and Artificial Property
+    Contrasted_ (_An Anonymous work, published in London, in
+    1832_).--_Th. Hodgskin._
+
+
+You are not a political economist, Jonathan, nor a statistician. Most
+books on political economy, and most books filled with statistics,
+seem to you quite unintelligible. Your education never included the
+study of such books and they are, therefore, almost if not quite
+worthless to you.
+
+But every working man ought to know something about political economy
+and be familiar with some statistics relating to social conditions.
+So I am going to ask you to study a few figures and a little political
+economy. Only just a very little, mind you, just to get you used to
+thinking about social problems in a scientific way. I think I can set
+the fundamental principles of political economy before you in very
+simple language, and I will try to make the statistics interesting.
+
+But I want to warn you again, Jonathan, that you must use your own
+commonsense. Don't trust too much to theories and figures--especially
+figures. Somebody has said that you can divide the liars of the world
+into three classes--liars, damned liars and statisticians. Some people
+are paid big salaries for juggling with figures to fool the American
+people into believing what is not true, Jonathan. I want you to
+consider the laws of political economy and all the statistics I put
+before you in the light of your own commonsense and your own practical
+experience.
+
+Political economy is the name which somebody long ago gave to the
+formal study of the production and distribution of wealth. Carlyle
+called it "the dismal science," and most books on the subject are
+dismal enough to justify the term. Upon my library shelves there are
+some hundreds of volumes dealing with political economy, and I don't
+mind confessing to you that some of them I never have been able to
+understand, though I have put no little effort and conscience into the
+attempt. I have a suspicion that the authors of these books could not
+understand them themselves. That the reason why they could not write
+so that a man of fair intelligence and education could understand them
+was the fact that they had no clear ideas to convey.
+
+Now, in the first place, what do we mean by _Wealth_? Why, you say,
+wealth is money and money is wealth. But that is only half true,
+Jonathan. Suppose, for example, that an American millionaire crossing
+the ocean be shipwrecked and find himself cast upon some desert
+island, like another Robinson Crusoe, without food or means of
+obtaining any. Suppose him naked, without tool or weapon of any kind,
+his one sole possession being a bag containing ten thousand dollars in
+gold and banknotes to the value of as many millions. With that money,
+in New York, or any other city in the world, he would be counted a
+rich man, and he would have no difficulty in getting food and
+clothing.
+
+But alone upon that desert island, what could he do with the money? He
+could not eat it, he could not keep himself warm with it? He would be
+poorer than the poorest savage in Africa whose only possessions were a
+bow and arrow and an assegai, or spear, wouldn't he? The poor kaffir
+who never heard of money, but who had the simple weapons with which to
+hunt for food, would be the richer man of the two, wouldn't he?
+
+I think you will find it useful, Jonathan, to read a little book by
+John Ruskin, called _Unto This Last_. It is a very small book, written
+in very simple and beautiful language. Mr. Ruskin was a somewhat
+whimsical writer, and there are some things in the book which I do not
+wholly agree with, but upon the whole it is sane, strong and eternally
+true. He shows very clearly, according to my notion, that the mere
+possession of things, or of money, is not wealth, but that _wealth
+consists in the possession of things useful to us_. That is why the
+possession of heaps of gold by a man living alone upon a desert island
+does not make him wealthy, and why Robinson Crusoe, with weapons,
+tools and an abundant food supply, was really a wealthy man, though he
+had not a dollar.
+
+In a primitive state of society, then, he is poor who has not enough
+of the things useful to him, and he who has them in abundance is rich,
+or wealthy.
+
+Note that I say this of "A primitive state of society," Jonathan, for
+that is most important. _It is not true of our present capitalist
+state of society._ This may seem a strange proposition to you at
+first, but a little careful thought will convince you that it is true.
+
+Consider a moment: Mr. Carnegie is a wealthy man and Mr. Rockefeller
+is a wealthy man. They are, each of them, richer than most of the
+princes and kings whose wealth astonished the ancient world. Mr.
+Carnegie owns shares in many companies, steelmaking companies, railway
+companies, and so on. Mr. Rockefeller, owns shares in the Standard Oil
+Company, in railways, coal mines, and so on. But Mr. Carnegie does not
+personally use any of the steel ingots made in the works in which he
+owns shares. He uses practically no steel at all, except a knife or
+two. Mr. Rockefeller does not use the oil-wells he owns, nor a
+hundred-millionth part of the coal his shares in coal-mines represent.
+
+If one could get Mr. Carnegie into one of the works in which he is
+interested and stand with him in front of one of the great furnaces as
+it poured forth its stream of molten metal, he might say: "See! that
+is partly mine. It is part of my wealth!" Then, if one were to ask
+"But what are you going to do with that steel, Mr. Carnegie--is it
+useful to you?" Mr. Carnegie would laugh at the thought. He would
+probably reply, "No, bless your life! The steel is useless to _me_. I
+don't want it. But somebody else does. _It is useful to other
+people._"
+
+Ask Mr. Rockefeller, "Is this oil refinery your property, Mr.
+Rockefeller?" and he would reply: "It is partly mine. I own a big
+share in it and it represents part of my wealth." Ask him next: "But,
+Mr. Rockefeller, what are _you_ going to do with all that oil? Surely,
+you cannot need so much oil for your own use?" and he, like Mr.
+Carnegie, would reply: "No! The oil is useless to me. I don't want it.
+But somebody else does. _It is useful to other people._"
+
+To be rich in our present social state, Jonathan, you must not only
+own an abundance of things useful to you, but also things useful only
+to others, which you can sell to them at a profit. Wealth, in our
+present society, then consists in the possession of things having an
+exchange value--things which other people will buy from you. So endeth
+our first lesson in political economy.
+
+And here beginneth our second lesson, Jonathan. We must now consider
+how wealth is produced.
+
+The Socialists say that all wealth is produced by labor applied to
+natural resources. That is a very simple answer, which you can easily
+remember. But I want you to examine it well. Think it over: ask
+yourself whether anything in your experience as a workingman confirms
+or disproves it. Do you produce wealth? Do your fellow workers produce
+wealth? Do you know of any other way in which wealth can be produced
+than by labor applied to natural resources? Don't be fooled, Jonathan.
+Think for yourself!
+
+The wealth of a fisherman consists in an abundance of fish for which
+there is a good market. But suppose there is a big demand for fish in
+the cities and that, at the same time, there are millions of fish in
+the sea, ready to be caught. So long as they are in the sea, the fish
+are not wealth. Even if the sea belonged to a private individual, as
+the oil-wells belong to Mr. Rockefeller and a few other individuals,
+nobody would be any the better off. Fish in the sea are not wealth,
+but fish in the market-places are. Why, because labor has been
+expended in catching them and bringing them to market.
+
+There are millions of tons of coal in Pennsylvania. President Baer
+said, you will remember, that God had appointed him and a few other
+gentlemen to look after that coal, to act as His trustees. And Mr.
+Baer wasn't joking, either. That is the funny part of the story: he
+was actually serious when he uttered that foolish blasphemy! There are
+also millions of people who want coal, whose very lives depend upon
+it. People who will pay almost any price for it rather than go without
+it.
+
+The coal is there, millions of tons of it. But suppose that nobody
+digs for it; that the coal is left where Nature produced it, or where
+God placed it, whichever description you prefer? Do you think it would
+do anybody any good lying there, just as it lay untouched when the
+Indian roved through the forests ignorant of its presence? Would
+anybody be wealthier on account of the coal being there? Of course
+not. It only becomes wealth when somebody's labor makes it available.
+Every dollar of the wealth of our coal-mining industry, as of the
+fishing industries, represents human labor.
+
+I need not go through the list of all our industries, Jonathan, to
+make this truth clear to you. If it pleases you to do so, you can
+easily do that for yourself. I simply wanted to make it clear that the
+Socialists are stating a great universal truth when they say that
+labor applied to natural resources is the true source of all wealth.
+As Sir William Petty said long ago: "Labor is the father and land is
+the mother of all wealth."
+
+But you must be careful, Jonathan, not to misuse that word "labor."
+Socialists don't mean the labor of the hands only, when they speak of
+labor. Take the case of the coal-mines again, just for a moment:
+There are men who dig the coal, called miners. But before they can
+work there must be other men to make tools and machinery for them. And
+before there can be machinery made and fixed in its proper place there
+must be surveyors and engineers, men with a special education and
+capacity, to draw the plans, and so on. Then there must be some men to
+organize the business, to take orders for the coal, to see that it is
+shipped, to collect the payment agreed upon, so that the workers can
+be paid, and so on through a long list of things requiring _mental
+labor_.
+
+Both kinds of labor are equally necessary, and no one but a fool would
+ever think otherwise. No Socialist writer or lecturer ever said that
+wealth was produced by _manual labor_ alone applied to natural
+resources. And yet, I hardly ever pick up a book or newspaper article
+written against Socialism in which that is not charged against the
+Socialists! The opponents of Socialism all seem to be lineal
+descendants of Ananias, Jonathan!
+
+For your special, personal benefit I want to cite just one instance of
+this misrepresentation. You have heard, I have no doubt, of the
+English gentleman, Mr. W.H. Mallock, who came to this country last
+year to lecture against Socialism. He is a very pleasant fellow,
+personally--as pleasant a fellow as a confirmed aristocrat who does
+not like to ride in the street cars with "common people" can be. Mr.
+Mallock was hired by the Civic Federation and paid out of funds which
+Mr. August Belmont contributed to that body, funds which did not
+belong to Mr. Belmont, as the investigation of the affairs of the New
+York Traction Companies conducted later by the Hon. W.M. Ivins,
+showed. He was hired to lecture against Socialism in our great
+universities and colleges, in the interests of people like Mr.
+Belmont. And there was not one of those universities or colleges fair
+enough to say: "We want to hear the Socialist side of the argument!" I
+don't think the word "fairplay," about which we used to boast as one
+of the glories of our language, is very much liked or used in American
+universities, Jonathan. And I am very sorry. It ought not to be so.
+
+I should have been very glad to answer Mr. Mallock's silly and unjust
+attacks; to say to the professors and students in the universities and
+colleges: "I want you to listen to our side of the argument and then
+make up your minds whether we are right or whether truth is on the
+side of Mr. Mallock." That would have been fair and honest and manly,
+wouldn't it? There were several other Socialist lecturers, the equals
+of Mr. Mallock in education and as public speakers, who would have
+been ready to do the same thing. And not one of us would have wanted a
+cent of anybody's money, let alone money contributed by Mr. August
+Belmont.
+
+Mr. Mallock said that the Socialists make the claim that manual labor
+alone creates wealth when applied to natural objects. _That statement
+is not true._ He even dared say that a great and profound thinker like
+Karl Marx believed and taught that silly notion. The newspapers of
+America hailed Mr. Mallock as the long-looked-for conqueror of Marx
+and his followers. They thought he had demolished Socialism. But did
+they know that they were resting their case upon a _lie_, I wonder?
+That Marx never for a moment believed such a thing; that he went out
+of his way to explain that he did not?
+
+I don't want you to try to read the works of Marx, my friend--at
+least, not yet: _Capital_, his greatest work, is a very difficult
+book, in three large volumes. But if you will go into the public
+library and get the first volume in English translation, and turn to
+page 145, you will read the following words:
+
+"By labor power or capacity for labor is to be understood the
+aggregate of those _mental and physical_ capabilities existing in a
+human being, which he exercises when he produces a use-value of any
+description."[2]
+
+I think you will agree, Jonathan, that that statement fully justifies
+all that I have said concerning Mr. Mallock. I think you will agree,
+too, that it is a very clear and intelligible definition, which any
+man of fair sense can understand. Now, by way of contrast, I want you
+to read one of Mr. Mallock's definitions. Please bear in mind that Mr.
+Mallock is an English "scholar," by many regarded as a very clear
+thinker. This is how he defines labor:
+
+"_Labor means the faculties of the individual applied to his own
+labor._"
+
+I have never yet been able to find anybody who could make sense out of
+that definition, Jonathan, though I have submitted it to a good many
+people, among them several college professors. It does not mean
+anything. The fifty-seven letters contained in that sentence would
+mean just as much if you put them in a bag, shook them up, and then
+put them on paper just as they happened to fall out of the bag. Mr.
+Mallock's English, his veracity and his logic are all equally weak and
+defective.
+
+I don't think that Mr. Mallock is worthy of your consideration,
+Jonathan, but if you are interested in reading what he said about
+Socialism in the lectures I have been referring to, they are published
+in a volume entitled, _A Critical Examination of Socialism_. You can
+get the book in the library: they will be sure to have it there,
+because it is against Socialism. But I want you to buy a little book
+by Morris Hillquit, called _Mr. Mallock's "Ability,"_ and read it
+carefully. It costs only ten cents--and you will get more amusement
+reading the careful and scholarly dissection of Mallock than you could
+get in a dime show anywhere. If you will read my own reply to Mr.
+Mallock, in my little book _Capitalist and Laborer_, I shall not think
+the worse of you for doing so.
+
+Now, let us look at the division of the wealth. It is all produced by
+labor of manual workers and brain workers applied to natural objects
+which no man made. I am not going to weary you with figures, Jonathan,
+because you are not a statistician. I am going to take the statistics
+and make them as simple as I can for you--and tell you where you can
+find the statistics if you ever feel inclined to try your hand upon
+them.
+
+But first of all I want you to read a passage from the writings of a
+very great man, who was not a "wicked Socialist agitator" like your
+humble servant. Archdeacon Paley, the great English theologian, was
+not like many of our modern clergymen, afraid to tell the truth about
+social conditions; he was not forgetful of the social aspects of
+Christ's teaching. Among many profoundly wise utterances about social
+conditions which that great and good teacher made more than a century
+ago was the passage I now want you to read and ponder over. You might
+do much worse than to commit the whole passage to memory. It reads:
+
+    "If you should see a flock of pigeons in a field of corn, and
+    if (instead of each picking where and what it liked, taking
+    just as much as it wanted, and no more) you should see
+    ninety-nine of them gathering all they got into a heap,
+    reserving nothing for themselves but the chaff and the refuse,
+    keeping this heap for one, and that the weakest, perhaps
+    worst, pigeon of the flock, sitting round and looking on, all
+    the winter, whilst this one was devouring, throwing about and
+    wasting it; and if a pigeon, more hardy or hungry than the
+    rest, touched a grain of the hoard, all the others instantly
+    flying upon it, and tearing it to pieces; if you should see
+    this, you would see nothing more than what is every day
+    practised and established among men.
+
+    "Among men you see the ninety-and-nine toiling and scraping
+    together a heap of superfluities for one (and this one, too,
+    oftentimes the feeblest and worst of the set, a child, a
+    woman, a madman or a fool), getting nothing for themselves,
+    all the while, but a little of the coarsest of the provision
+    which their own industry produces; looking quietly on, while
+    they see the fruits of all their labor spent or spoiled; and
+    if one of their number take or touch a particle of the hoard,
+    the others joining against him, and hanging him for theft."
+
+If there were many men like Dr. Paley in our American churches to-day,
+preaching the truth in that fearless fashion, there would be something
+like a revolution, Jonathan. The churches would no longer be empty
+almost; preachers would not be wondering why workingmen don't go to
+church. There would probably be less show and pride in the churches;
+less preachers paid big salaries, less fashionable choirs. But the
+churches would be much nearer to the spirit and standard of Jesus than
+most of them are to-day. There is nothing in connection with modern
+religious life quite so glaring as the infidelity of the Christian
+ministry to the teachings of Christ.
+
+A lady once addressed Thomas Carlyle concerning Jesus in this fashion:
+"How delighted we should all be to throw open our doors to him and
+listen to his divine precepts! Don't you think so, Mr. Carlyle?" The
+bluff old puritan sage answered: "No, madam, I don't. I think if he
+had come fashionably dressed, with plenty of money, and preaching
+doctrines palatable to the higher orders, I might have had the honor
+of receiving from you a card of invitation, on the back of which would
+be written, 'To meet our Saviour.' But if he came uttering his sublime
+precepts, and denouncing the pharisees, and associating with publicans
+and the lower orders, as he did, you would have treated him as the
+Jews did, and cried out, 'Take him to Newgate and hang him.'"
+
+I sometimes wonder, Jonathan, what really _would_ happen if the
+Carpenter-preacher of Gallilee could and did visit some of our
+American churches. Would he be able to stand the vulgar show? Would he
+be able to listen in silence to the miserable perversion of his
+teachings by hired apologists of social wrong? Would he want to drive
+out the moneychangers and the Masters of Bread, to hurl at them his
+terrible thunderbolts of wrath and scorn? Would he be welcomed by the
+churches bearing his name? Would they want to listen to his gospel?
+Frankly, Jonathan, I doubt it. A few Socialists would be found in
+nearly every church ready to receive him and to call him "Comrade,"
+but the majority of church-goers would shun him and pass him by.
+
+I should not be surprised, Jonathan, if the President of the United
+States called him an "undesirable citizen," as he surely would call
+Archdeacon Paley if he were alive.
+
+I wanted you to read Paley's illustration of the pigeons before going
+into the unequal distribution of wealth. It will help you to
+understand another illustration. Suppose that from a shipwreck one
+hundred men are fortunate enough to save themselves and to make their
+way to an island, where, making the best of conditions, they establish
+a little community, which they elect to call "Capitalia." Luckily,
+they have all got food and clothing enough to last them for a little
+while, and they are fortunate enough to find on the island a supply of
+tools, evidently abandoned by some former occupants of the island.
+
+They set to work, cultivating the ground, building huts for
+themselves, hunting for game, and so on. They start out to face the
+primeval struggle with the sullen forces of Nature as our ancestors
+did in the time long past. Their efforts prosper, every one of the
+hundred men being a worker, every man working with equal will, equal
+strength and vigor. Now, then, suppose that one day, they decide to
+divide up the wealth produced by their labor, to institute individual
+property in place of common property, competition in place of
+co-operation. What would you think if two or three of the strongest
+members said, "We will do the dividing, we will distribute the wealth
+according to our ideas of justice and right," and then proceeded to
+give 55 per cent. of the wealth to one man, to the next eleven men 32
+per cent. and to the remaining eighty-eight men only 13 per cent.
+between them?
+
+I will put it in another way, Jonathan, since you are not accustomed
+to thinking in percentages. Suppose that there were a hundred cows to
+be divided among the members of the community. According to the scheme
+of division just described, this is how the division would work out:
+
+     1 Man would get    55 Cows for himself
+    11 Men would get    32 Cows among them
+    88 Men would get    13 Cows among them
+
+When they had divided the cows in this manner they would proceed to
+divide the wheat, the potato crops, the land, and everything else
+owned by the community in the same unequal way. I ask you again,
+Jonathan, what would you think of such a division?
+
+Of course, being a fair-minded man, endowed with ordinary intelligence
+at least, you will admit that there would be no sense and no justice
+in such a plan of division, and you doubt if intelligent human beings
+would submit to it. But, my friend, that is not quite so bad as the
+distribution of wealth in America to-day is. Suppose that instead of
+all the members of the little island community being workers, all
+working equally hard, fairly sharing the work of the community, one
+man absolutely refused to do anything at all, saying, "I was the first
+one to get ashore. The land really belongs to me. I am the landlord. I
+won't work, but you must work for me." And suppose that eleven other
+men said in like manner. "We won't work. We found the tools, we
+brought the seeds and the food out of the boats when we came. We are
+the capitalists and you must do the work in the fields. We will
+superintend you, give you orders where to dig, and when, and where to
+stop. You eighty-eight common fellows are the laborers who must do the
+hard work while we use our brains." And suppose that they actually
+carried out that plan and _then_ divided the wealth in the way I have
+described, that would be a pretty good illustration of how the wealth
+produced in America under our existing social system is divided.
+
+_And I ask you what you think of that, Jonathan Edwards. How do you
+like it?_
+
+These are not my figures. They are not the figures of any rabid
+Socialist making frenzied guesses. They are taken from a book called
+_The Present Distribution of Wealth in the United States_, by the late
+Dr. Charles B. Spahr, a book that is used in most of our colleges and
+universities. No serious criticism of the figures has ever been
+attempted and most economists, even the conservative ones, base their
+own estimates upon Spahr's work. It would be worth your while to get
+the book from the library, Jonathan, and to read it carefully.
+
+In the meantime, look over the following table which sets forth the
+results of Dr. Spahr's investigation, Jonathan, and remember that the
+condition of things has not improved since 1895, when the book was
+written, but that they have, on the contrary, very much worsened.
+
+SPAHR'S TABLE OF THE DISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH IN THE UNITED STATES
+
+==========+============+=======+==========+=================+=======
+          |     No. of |   Per |  Average |       Aggregate |   Per
+Class     |   Families |  Cent |   Wealth |          Wealth |  Cent
+----------+------------+-------+----------+-----------------+-------
+Rich      |    125,000 |   1.0 | $263,040 |  32,880,000,000 |  54.8
+Middle    |  1,362,500 |  10.9 |   14,180 |  29,320,000,000 |  32.2
+Poor      |  4,762,500 |  38.1 |    1,639 |   7,800,000,000 |  13.0
+Very Poor |  6,250,000 |  50.0 |          |                 |
+----------+------------+-------+----------+-----------------+-------
+Total     | 13,500,000 | 100.0 |   $4,800 | $60,000,000,000 | 100.0
+----------+------------+-------+----------+-----------------+-------
+
+Now, Jonathan, although I have taken a good deal of trouble to lay
+these figures before you, I really don't care very much for them.
+Statistics don't impress me as they do some people, and I would far
+rather rely upon your commonsense than upon any figures. I have not
+quoted these figures because they were published by a very able
+scholar in a very wise book, nor because scientific men, professors of
+political economy and others, have accepted them as a fair estimate. I
+have used them because I believe them to be _true and reliable_.
+
+But don't you rest your whole faith upon them, Jonathan. If some fine
+day a Republican spellbinder, or a Democratic scribbler, tries to
+upset you and prove that Socialists are all liars and false prophets,
+just tell him the figures are quite unimportant to you, that you don't
+care to know just exactly how much of the wealth the richest one per
+cent. gets and how little of it the poorest fifty per cent. gets. A
+few millions more or less don't trouble you. Pin him down to the one
+fact which your own commonsense teaches you, that the wealth of the
+country _is_ unequally distributed. Tell him that you _know_,
+regardless of figures, that there are many idlers who are enormously
+rich and many honest, industrious workers who are miserably poor. He
+won't be able to deny these things. He _dare_ not, because they are
+_true_.
+
+Ask any such apologist for capitalism what he would think of the
+father or mother who took his or her eight children and said: "Here
+are eight cakes, as many cakes as there are boys and girls. I am going
+to distribute the cakes. Here, Walter, are seven of the cakes for you.
+The other cake the rest of you can divide among yourselves as best you
+can." If the capitalist defender is a fair-minded man, if he is
+neither fool nor liar nor monster, he will agree that such a parent
+would be brutally unjust.
+
+Yet, Jonathan, that is exactly how our national wealth is divided up.
+One-eighth of the families in the United States do get seven-eights of
+the wealth, and, being, I hope, neither fool, liar nor monster, I
+denounce the system as brutally unjust. There is no sense and no
+morality in mincing matters and being afraid to call spades spades.
+
+It is because of this unjust distribution of the wealth of modern
+society that we have so much social unrest. That is the heart of the
+whole problem. Why are workingmen organized into unions to fight the
+capitalists, and the capitalists on their side organized to fight the
+workers? Why, simply because the capitalists want to continue
+exploiting the workers, to exploit them still more if possible, while
+the workers want to be exploited less, want to get more of what they
+produce.
+
+Why is it that eminently respectable members of society combine to
+bribe legislators--_to buy laws from the lawmakers!_--and to corrupt
+the republic, a form of treason worse than Benedict Arnold's? Why, for
+the same reason: they want to continue the spoliation of the people.
+That is why the heads of a great life insurance company illegally used
+the funds belonging to widows and orphans to contribute to the
+campaign fund of the Republican Party in 1904. That is why, also, Mr.
+Belmont used the funds of the traction company of which he is
+president to support the Civic Federation, which is an organization
+specially designed to fool and mislead the wage-earners of America.
+That is why every investigation of American political or business life
+that is honestly made by able and fearless men reveals so much
+chicanery and fraud.
+
+You belong to a union, Jonathan, because you want to put a check upon
+the greed of the employers. But you never can expect through the union
+to get all that rightfully belongs to you. It is impossible to expect
+that the union will ever do away with the terrible inequalities in the
+distribution of wealth. The union is a good thing, and the workers
+ought to be much more thoroughly organized into unions than they are.
+Socialists are always on the side of the union when it is engaged in
+an honest fight against the exploiters of labor.
+
+Later on, I shall take up the question of unionism and discuss it with
+you, Jonathan. Meanwhile, I want to impress upon your mind that _a
+wise union man votes as he strikes_. There is not the least bit of
+sense in belonging to a union if you are to become a "scab" when you
+go to the ballot-box. _And a vote for a capitalist party is a scab
+vote, Jonathan._
+
+FOOTNOTES:
+
+[2] Note: In the American edition, published by Kerr, the page is
+186.
+
+
+
+
+V
+
+THE DRONES AND THE BEES
+
+    Hitherto it is questionable if all the mechanical inventions
+    yet made have lightened the day's toil of any human being.
+    They have enabled a greater population to live the same life
+    of drudgery and imprisonment, and an increased number of
+    manufactures, and others, to make large fortunes.--_John
+    Stuart Mill._
+
+    Most people imagine that the rich are in heaven, but as a rule
+    it is only a gilded hell. There is not a man in the city of
+    New York with brains enough to own five millions of dollars.
+    Why? The money will own him. He becomes the key to a safe.
+    That money will get him up at daylight; that money will
+    separate him from his friends; that money will fill his heart
+    with fear; that money will rob his days of sunshine and his
+    nights of pleasant dreams. He becomes the property of that
+    money. And he goes right on making more. What for? He does not
+    know. It becomes a kind of insanity.--_R.G. Ingersoll._
+
+    Is it well that, while we range with Science, glorying in the time,
+    City children soak and blacken soul and sense in City slime?
+    There, among the gloomy alleys, Progress halts on palsied feet,
+    Crime and Hunger cast our maidens by the thousand on the street.
+    There the master scrimps his haggard seamstress of her daily bread,
+    There a single sordid attic holds the living and the dead;
+    There the smouldering fire of fever creeps across the rotted floor,
+    In the crowded couch of incest, in the warrens of the poor.
+                                           --_Tennyson._
+
+
+When you and I were boys going to school, friend Jonathan, we were
+constantly admonished to study with admiration the social economy of
+the bees. We learned to almost reverence the little winged creatures
+for the manner in which they
+
+    Improve each shining hour,
+    And gather honey all the day
+    From every opening flower.
+
+We were taught, you remember, to honor the bees for their hatred of
+drones. It was the great virtue of the bees that they always drove the
+drones from the hive. For my part, I learned the lesson so well that I
+really became a sort of bee-worshipper. But since I have grown to
+mature years I have come to the conclusion that those old lessons were
+not honestly meant, Jonathan. For if anybody proposes to-day that we
+should drive out the drones from the _human_ hive, he is at once
+denounced as an Anarchist and an "undesirable citizen."
+
+It is all very well for bees to insist that there must be no idle
+parasites, that the drones must go, but for human beings such a policy
+won't do! It savors too much of Socialism, my friend, and is
+unpleasantly like Paul's foolish saying that "If any man among you
+will not work, neither shall he eat." That is a text which is out of
+date and unsuited to the twentieth century!
+
+    "Allah! Allah!" cried the stranger,
+    "Wondrous sights the traveller sees;
+    But the greatest is the latest,
+    Where the drones control the bees!"
+
+Every modern civilized nation rewards its drones better than it
+rewards its bees, and in every land the drones control the bees.
+
+I want you to consider, friend Jonathan, the lives of the people. How
+the workers live and how the shirkers live; now the bees live and how
+the drones live, if you like that better. You can study the matter for
+yourself, right in Pittsburg, much better than you can from books, for
+God knows that in Pittsburg there are the extremes of wealth and
+poverty, just as there are in New York, Chicago, St. Louis or San
+Francisco. There are gilded hells where rich drones live and squalid
+hells where poor bees live, and the number of truly happy people is
+sadly, terribly, small.
+
+_Ten millions in poverty!_ Don't you think that is a cry so terrible
+that it ought to shame a great nation like this, a nation more
+bounteously endowed by Nature than any other nation in the world's
+history? Men, women and children, poor and miserable, with not enough
+to eat, nor clothes to keep them warm in the cold winter nights; with
+places for homes that are unfit for dogs, and these not their own;
+knowing not if to-morrow may bring upon them the last crushing blow.
+All these conditions, and conditions infinitely worse than these, are
+contained in the poverty of those millions, Jonathan.
+
+If people were poor because the land was poor, because the country was
+barren, because Nature dealt with us in niggardly fashion, so that all
+men had to struggle against famine; if, in a word, there was democracy
+in our poverty, so that none were idle and rich while the rest toiled
+in poverty, it would be our supreme glory to bear it with cheerful
+courage. But that is not the case. While babies perish for want of
+food and care in dank and unhealthy hovels, there are pampered poodles
+in palaces, bejeweled and cared for by liveried flunkies and waiting
+maids. While men and women want bread, and beg crusts or stand
+shivering in the "bread lines" of our great cities, there are monkeys
+being banqueted at costly banquets by the profligate degenerates of
+riches. It's all wrong, Jonathan, cruelly, shamefully, hellishly
+wrong! And I for one, refuse to call such a brutalized system, or the
+nation tolerating it, _civilized_.
+
+Good old Thomas Carlyle would say "Amen!" to that, Jonathan. Lots of
+people wont. They will tell you that the poverty of the millions is
+very sad, of course, and that the poor are to be pitied. But they will
+remind you that Jesus said something about the poor always being with
+us. They won't read you what he did say, but you can read it for
+yourself. Here it is: "For ye have the poor always with you, and
+_whensoever ye will ye can do them good_."[3] And now, I want you to
+read a quotation from Carlyle:
+
+    "It is not to die, or even to die of hunger, that makes a man
+    wretched; many men have died; all men must die,--the last exit
+    of us all is in a Fire-Chariot of Pain. But it is to live
+    miserable we know not why; to work sore and yet gain nothing;
+    to be heart-worn, weary, yet isolated, unrelated, girt-in with
+    a cold universal Laissezfaire: it is to die slowly all our
+    life long, imprisoned in a deaf, dead, Infinite Injustice, as
+    in the accursed iron belly of a Phalaris' Bull! This is and
+    remains forever intolerable to all men whom God has made."
+
+"Miserable we know not why"--"to die slowly all our life
+long"--"Imprisoned in a deaf, dead, Infinite Injustice"--Don't these
+phrases describe exactly the poverty you have known, brother Jonathan?
+
+Did you ever stop to think, my friend, that poverty is the lot of the
+_average_ worker, the reward of the producers of wealth, and that only
+the producers of wealth are poor? Do you know that, because we die
+slowly all our lives long, the death-rate among the working-class is
+far higher than among other classes by reason of overwork, anxiety,
+poor food, lack of pleasure, bad housing, and all the other ills
+comprehended in the lot of the wage-worker? In Chicago, for example,
+in the wards where the well-to-do reside the death-rate is not more
+than 12 per thousand, while it is 37 in the tenement districts.
+
+Scientists who have gone into the matter tell us that of ten million
+persons belonging to the well-to-do classes the annual deaths do not
+number more than 100,000, while among the very best paid workers the
+number is not less than 150,000 and among the very poorest paid
+workers at least 350,000. To show you just what those proportions are,
+I have represented the matter in a little diagram, which you can
+understand at a glance:
+
+    [Illustration: DIAGRAM
+    Showing Relative Death-Rate Among Persons of Different Social
+    Classes.]
+
+There are some diseases, notably the Great White Plague. Consumption,
+which we call "diseases of the working-classes" on account of the fact
+that they prey most upon the wearied, ill-nourished bodies of the
+workers. Not that they are confined to the workers entirely, but
+because the workers are most afflicted by them. Because the workers
+live in crowded tenement hovels, work in factories laden with dust and
+disease germs, are overworked and badly fed, this and other of the
+great scourges of the human race find them ready victims.
+
+Here is another diagram for you, Jonathan, showing the comparative
+mortality from Consumption among the workers engaged in six different
+industrial occupations and the members of six groups of professional
+workers.
+
+    [Illustration: DIAGRAM
+    Showing Relative Mortality From Tuberculosis.
+
+    Deaths per 100,000 living in the same occupation
+
+    Marble and stone cutters.                             540
+    Cigar makers and tobacco workers.                     476
+    Compositors, printers, pressmen.                      435
+    Barbers and hairdressers.                             334
+    Masons (brick and stone).                             294
+    Iron and steel workers.                               236
+    Physicians and Surgeons.                              168
+    Engineers and Surveyors.                              145
+    School teachers.                                      144
+    Lawyers.                                              140
+    Clergymen.                                            123
+    Bankers, brokers, officials of companies, etc.         92]
+
+I want you to study this diagram and the figures by which it is
+accompanied, Jonathan. You will observe that the death rate from
+Consumption among marble and stone cutters is six times greater than
+among bankers and brokers and directors of companies. Among cigar
+makers and tobacco workers it is more than five times as great. Iron
+and steel workers do not suffer so much from the plague as some other
+workers, according to the death-rates. One reason is that only fairly
+robust men enter the trade to begin with. Another reason is that a
+great many, finding they cannot stand the strain, after they have
+become infected, leave the trade for lighter occupations. I think
+there can be no doubt that the _true_ mortality from Consumption among
+iron and steel workers is much higher than the figures show. But,
+taking the figures as they are, confident that they understate the
+extent of the ravages of the disease in these occupations, we find
+that the mortality is more than two and a half times greater than
+among capitalists.
+
+Now, these are very serious figures, Jonathan. Why is the mortality so
+much less among the capitalists? It is because they have better homes,
+are not so overworked to physical exhaustion, are better fed and
+clothed, and can have better care and attention, far better chances of
+being cured, if they are attacked. They can get these things only from
+the labor of the workers, Jonathan.
+
+_In other words, they buy their lives with ours. Workers are killed to
+keep capitalists alive._
+
+It used to be frequently charged that drink was the chief cause of the
+poverty of the workers; that they were poor because they were drunken
+and thriftless. But we hear less of that silly nonsense than we used
+to, though now and then a Prohibitionist advocate still repeats the
+old and long exploded myth. It never was true, Jonathan, and it is
+less true to-day than ever before. Drunkenness is an evil and the
+working class suffers from it to a lamentable degree, but it is not
+the sole cause of poverty, it is not the chief cause of poverty, it is
+not even a very important cause of poverty at all.
+
+It is true that intemperance causes poverty in some cases, it is also
+true that drunkenness is very frequently caused by poverty. They act
+and react upon each other, but it is not doubted by any student of our
+social conditions whose opinion carries any weight that intemperance
+is far more often the result of poverty and bad conditions of life and
+labor than the cause of them.
+
+The International Socialist Congress which met at Stuttgart last
+summer very rightly decided that Socialists everywhere should do all
+in their power to combat alcoholism, to end the ravages of
+intemperance among the working classes of all nations. For drunken
+voters are not very likely to be either wise or free voters: we need
+sober, earnest, clear-thinking men to bring about better conditions,
+Jonathan. But the Socialists, while they adopt this position, do not
+mistake results for causes. They know from actual experience that
+Solomon was right when he attributed intemperance to ill conditions.
+Hunt out your Bible and turn to the Book of Proverbs, chapter 31,
+verse 7. There you will read: "Let him drink and forget his poverty,
+and remember his misery no more."
+
+That is not very good advice to give a workingman, but it is exactly
+what many workingmen do. There was a wise English bishop who said a
+few years ago that if he lived in the slums of any of the great
+cities, under conditions similar to those in which most of the workers
+live, he would probably be a drunkard, and when I see the conditions
+under which millions of men are working and living I wonder that we
+have not more drunkenness than we have.
+
+A good many years ago, "General" Booth, head of the Salvation Army,
+declared that "nine-tenths" of the poverty of the people was due to
+intemperance. Later on, "Commissioner" Cadman, one of the "General's"
+most trusted aides, made an investigation of the causes of poverty
+among all those who passed through the Army shelters for destitute men
+and women. He found that among the very lowest class, the "submerged
+tenth," where the ravages of drink are most sadly evident, depression
+in trade counted for much more than drink as a cause of poverty. The
+figures were:
+
+    Depression in trade            55.8 per cent.
+    Drink _and Gambling_           26.6 per cent.
+    Ill-health                     11.6 per cent.
+    Old Age                         5.8 per cent.
+
+Even among the very lowest class of the social wrecks of our great
+cities, who have long since abandoned hope, depression in trade was
+found to count for more than twice as much as drink and gambling
+combined as a producer of poverty.
+
+That is in keeping with all the investigations that have ever been
+made in a scientific spirit. Professor Amos Warner, in his valuable
+study of the subject, published in his book, _American Charities_,
+shows how false the notion that nearly all the poverty of the people
+is due to their intemperance proves to be when an intelligent
+investigation of the facts is made.
+
+Dr. Edward T. Devine, of Columbia University, editor of _Charities and
+the Commons_, is probably as competent an authority upon this question
+as any man living. He is not likely to be called a Socialist by
+anybody. Yet I find him writing in his magazine, at the end of
+November, 1907: "The tradition which many hold that the condition of
+poverty is ordinarily and as a matter of course to be explained by
+personal faults of the poor themselves is no longer tenable. Strong
+drink and vice are abnormal, unnatural and essentially unattractive
+ways of spending surplus income." Dr. Devine very frankly and bravely
+admits that poverty is an unnecessary evil, "a shocking, loathsome
+excrescence on the body politic, an intolerable evil which should come
+to an end." What else, indeed, could a sane man think of it?
+
+As a conservative man, I say without reservation that accidents
+incurred in the course of employment, and sickness brought on by
+industrial conditions, such as overwork accompanied by under
+nourishment, exposure to extremes of temperature, unsanitary workshops
+and factories and the inhalation of contaminated atmosphere, are far
+more important causes of poverty among the workers than intemperance.
+Every investigation ever made goes to prove this true. I wish that
+every one who seeks to blame the poverty of the poor upon the victims
+themselves would study a few facts, which I am going to ask you to
+study, without prejudice or passion. They would readily see then how
+false the belief is.
+
+Last year there was a Committee of very expert investigators in New
+York which made a careful inquiry into the relation of wages to the
+standard of living. They were not Socialists, these gentlemen, or I
+should not submit their testimony. I am anxious to base my case
+against our present social system upon evidence that is not in any way
+biased in favor of Socialism. Dr. Lee K. Frankel was Chairman of the
+Committee. He is Director of the United Hebrew Charities of New York
+City, an able and sincere man, but not a Socialist. Dr. Devine,
+another able and sincere man who is by no means a Socialist, was a
+member of the Committee. Among the other members were also such
+persons as Bishop Greer, of New York, Reverend Adolph Guttman,
+president of the Hebrew Relief Society, Syracuse, New York, Mrs.
+William Einstein, president of Emanu El Sisterhood, New York; Mr.
+Homer Folks, Secretary State Charities Aid Association and Reverend
+William J. White, of Brooklyn, Supervisor of Catholic Charities. The
+Committee was deputed to make the investigation by the New York State
+Conference of Charities and Corrections, and made its report in
+November, 1907, at Albany, N.Y.
+
+I think you will agree, Jonathan, that it would be very hard to
+imagine a more conservative body, less inoculated with the virus of
+Socialism than that. From their report to the Conference I note that
+the Committee reported that as a result of their work, after going
+carefully into the expenditure of some 322 families, they had come to
+the conclusion that the lowest amount upon which a family of five
+could be supported in decency and health in New York City was about
+eight hundred dollars a year. I am quite sure, Jonathan, that there is
+not one of the members of that Committee who would think that even
+that sum would be enough to keep _their_ families in health and
+decency; not one who would want to see their children living under the
+best conditions which that sum made possible. They were
+philanthropists you see, Jonathan, "figuring out" how much the "Poor"
+ought to be able to live on. And to help them out they got Professor
+Chapin, of Beloit College and Professor Underhill, of Yale. Professor
+Underhill being an expert physiological chemist, could advise them as
+to the sufficiency of the expenditures upon food among the families
+reported.
+
+But the total income of thousands of families falls very short of
+eight hundred dollars a year. There are many thousands of families in
+which the breadwinner does not earn more than ten dollars a week at
+best. Making allowance for time lost through sickness, holidays, and
+so on, it is evident that the total income of such families would not
+exceed four hundred and fifty dollars a year at best. Even the worker
+with twenty dollars a week, if there is a brief period of sickness or
+unemployment, will find himself, despite his best efforts, on the
+wrong side of the line, compelled either to see his family suffer want
+or to become dependent on "that cold thing called Charity." And Dr.
+Devine, writing in _Charities and the Commons_, admits that the
+charitable societies cannot hope to make up the deficit, to add to the
+wages of the workers enough to raise their standards of living to the
+point of efficiency. He admits that "such a policy would tend to
+financial bankruptcy."
+
+Taking the unskilled workers in New York City, the vast army of
+laborers, it is certain that they do not average $400 a year, so that
+they are, as a class, hopelessly, miserably poor. It is true that many
+of them spend part of their miserable wages on drink, but if they did
+not, they would still be poor; if every cent went to buy the
+necessities of existence, they would still be hopelessly, miserably
+poor.
+
+The Massachusetts Bureau of Statistics showed a few years ago, when
+the cost of living was less than now, that a family of five could not
+live decently and in health upon less than $754 a year, but more than
+half of the unskilled workers in the shoe-making industry of that
+State got less than $300 a year. Of course, some were single and not a
+few were women, but the figures go far to show that the New York
+conditions are prevalent in New England also. Mr. John Mitchell said
+that in the anthracite district of Pennsylvania it was impossible to
+maintain a family of five in decency on less than $600 a year, but
+according to Dr. Peter Roberts, who is one of the most conservative of
+living authorities upon the conditions of industry in the coal mines
+of Pennsylvania, the _average_ wage in the anthracite district is
+less than $500 and that about 60 per cent. receive less than $450 a
+year.
+
+I am not going to bother you with more statistics, Jonathan, for I
+know you do not like them, and they are hard to remember. What I want
+you to see is that, for many thousands of workers, poverty is an
+inevitable condition. If they do not spend a cent on drink; never give
+a cent to the Church or for charity; never buy a newspaper; never see
+a play or hear a concert; never lose a day's wages through sickness or
+accident; never make a present of a ribbon to their wives or a toy to
+their children--in a word, if they live as galley slaves, working
+without a single break in the monotony and drudgery of their lives,
+they must still be poor and endure hunger, unless they can get other
+sources of income. The mother must go out to work and neglect her baby
+to help out; the little boys and girls must go to work in the days
+when they ought to be in school or in the fields at play, to help out
+the beggars' pittance which is their portion. The greatest cause of
+poverty is low wages.
+
+Then think of the accidents which occur to the wage-earners, making
+them incapable of earning anything for long periods, or even
+permanently. At the same meeting of the New York State Conference of
+Charities and Corrections as that already referred to, there were
+reports presented by many of the charitable organizations of the state
+which showed that this cause of poverty is a very serious one, and one
+that is constantly increasing. In only about twenty per cent. of the
+accidents of a serious nature investigated was there any settlement
+made by the employers, and from a list that is of immense interest I
+take just a few cases as showing how little the life of the average
+workingman is valued at:
+
+  _Nature of Injury._              _Settlement_
+
+  Spine injured                    $ 20 and doctor
+  Legs broken                       300
+  Death                             100
+  Death                              65
+  Two ribs broken                    20
+  Paralysis                          12
+  Brain affected                     60
+  Fingers amputated                  50
+
+The reports showed that about half of the accidents occurred to men
+under forty years of age, in the very prime of life. The wages were
+determined in 241 cases and it was shown that about 25 per cent. were
+earning less than $10 a week and 60 per cent. were earning less than
+$15 a week. Even without the accidents occurring to them these workers
+and their families must be miserably poor, the accidents only plunging
+them deeper into the frightful abyss of despair, of wasting life and
+torturous struggle.
+
+No, my friend, it is not true that the poverty of the poor is due to
+their sins, thriftlessness and intemperance. I want you to remember
+that it is not the wicked Socialist agitators only who say this. I
+could fill a book for you with the conclusions of very conservative
+men, all of them opposed to Socialism, whose studies have forced them
+to this conclusion.
+
+There was a Royal Commission appointed in England some years ago to
+consider the problem of the Aged Poor and how to deal with it. Of that
+Royal Commission Lord Aberdare was chairman--and he was a most
+implacable enemy of Socialism. The Commission reported in 1895: "We
+are confirmed in our view by the evidence we have received that ... as
+regards the great bulk of the working classes, during their lives,
+they are fairly provident, fairly thrifty, fairly industrious and
+fairly temperate." But they could not add that, as a result of these
+virtues, they were also fairly well-to-do! The Right Honorable Joseph
+Chamberlain, another enemy of Socialism, signed with several others a
+Minority Report, but they agreed "that the imputation that old age
+pauperism is mainly due to drink, idleness, improvidence, and the like
+abuses applies to but a very small proportion of the working
+population."
+
+Very similar was the report of a Select Committee of the House of
+Commons, appointed to consider the best means of improving the
+condition of the "aged and deserving poor." The report read: "Cases
+are too often found in which poor and aged people, whose conduct and
+whose whole career has been blameless, industrious and deserving, find
+themselves from no fault of their own, at the end of a long and
+meritorious life, with nothing but the workhouse or inadequate outdoor
+relief as the refuge for their declining years."
+
+And what is true of England in this respect is equally true of
+America.
+
+Let me repeat here that I am not defending intemperance. I believe
+with all my heart that we must fight intemperance as a deadly enemy of
+the working class. I want to see the workers sober; sober enough to
+think clearly, sober enough to act wisely. Before we can get rid of
+the evils from which we suffer we must get sober minds, friend
+Jonathan. That is why the Socialists of Europe are fighting the drink
+evil; that is why, too, the Prussian Government put a stop to the
+"Anti-Alcohol" campaign of the workers, led by Dr. Frolich, of Vienna.
+Dr. Frolich was not advocating Socialism. He was simply appealing to
+the workers to stop making beasts of themselves, to become sober so
+that they could think clearly with brains unmuddled by alcohol. And
+the Prussian Government did not want that: they knew very well that
+clear thinking and sober judgment would lead the workers to the ballot
+boxes under Socialist banners.
+
+I care most of all for the suffering of the innocent little ones. When
+I see that under our present system it is necessary for the mother to
+leave her baby's cradle to go into a factory, regardless of whether
+the baby lives or dies when it is fed on nasty and dangerous
+artificial foods or poor, polluted milk, I am stirred to my soul's
+depths. When I think of the tens of thousands of little babies that
+die every year as a result of these conditions I have described; of
+the millions of children who go to school every day underfed and
+neglected, and of the little child toilers in shops, factories and
+mines, as well as upon the farms, though their lot is less tragic than
+that of the little prisoners of the factories and mines--I cannot find
+words to express my hatred of the ghoulish system.
+
+I should like you to read, Jonathan, a little pamphlet on _Underfed
+School Children_, which costs ten cents, and a bigger book, _The
+Bitter Cry of the Children_, which you can get at the public library.
+I wrote these to lay before thinking men and women some of the
+terrible evils from which our children suffer. _I know_ that the
+things written are true. Every line of them was written with the
+single purpose of telling the truth as I had seen it.
+
+I made the terrible assertions that more than eighty thousand babies
+are slain by poverty in America each year; that some "2,000,000
+children of school age in the United States are the victims of poverty
+which denies them common necessities, particularly adequate
+nourishment"; that there were at least 1,750,000 children at work in
+this country. These statements, and the evidence given in support of
+them, attracted widespread attention, both in this country and in
+Europe. They were cited in the U.S. Senate and in Europe parliaments.
+They were preached about from thousands of pulpits and discussed from
+a thousand platforms by politicians, social reformers and others.
+
+A committee was formed in New York City to promote the physical
+welfare of school children. Although one of the first to take the
+matter up, I was not asked to serve on that committee, on account of
+the fact, as I was afterwards told, of my being a Socialist. Well,
+that Committee, composed entirely of non-Socialists, and including
+some very bitter opponents of Socialism, made an investigation of the
+health of school children in New York City. They examined, medically,
+some 1,400 children of various ages, living in different parts of the
+city and belonging to various social classes. If the results they
+discovered are common to the whole of the United States, the
+conditions are in every way worse than I had declared them to be.
+
+_If the conditions found by the medical investigators for this
+committee are representative of the whole of the United States, then
+we have not less than twelve million school children in the United
+States suffering from physical defects more or less serious, and not
+less than 1,248,000 suffering from malnutrition--from insufficient
+nourishment, generally due to poverty, though not always--to such an
+extent that they need medical attention._[4]
+
+Do you think a nation with such conditions existing at its very heart
+ought to be called a civilized nation? I don't. I say that it is a
+_brutalized_ nation, Jonathan!
+
+And now I want you to look over a list of another kind of shameful
+social conditions--a list of some of the vast fortunes possessed by
+men who are not victims of poverty, but of shameful wealth. I take the
+list from the dryasdust pages of _The Congressional Record_, December
+12, 1907, from a speech by the Hon. Jeff Davis, United States Senator
+from Arkansas. I cannot find in the pages of _The Congressional
+Record_ that it made any impression upon the minds of the honorable
+senators, but I hope it will make some impression upon your mind, my
+friend. It is a good deal easier to get a human idea into the head of
+an honest workingman than into the head of an honorable senator!
+
+Don't be frightened by a few figures. Read them. They are full of
+human interest. I have put before you some facts relating to the
+shameful poverty of the workers and their pitiable condition, and now
+I want to put before you some facts relating to the pitiable condition
+of the non-workers. I want you to feel some pity for the millionaires!
+
+
+THE RICHEST FIFTY-ONE IN THE UNITED STATES.
+
+"When the average present-day millionaire is bluntly asked to name the
+value of his earthly possessions, he finds it difficult to answer the
+question correctly. It may be that he is not willing to take the
+questioner into his confidence. It is doubtful whether he really
+knows.
+
+"If this is true of the millionaire himself, it follows that when
+others attempt the task of estimating the amount of his wealth the
+results must be conflicting. Still, excellent authorities are not
+lacking on this subject, and the list of the richest fifty-one persons
+in the United States has been satisfactorily compiled.
+
+"The following list is taken from Munsey's Scrap Book of June, 1906,
+and is a fair presentation of the property owned by fifty-one of the
+very richest men of the United States.
+
+ =====+=======================+================+================
+ Rank | Name.                 | How Made.      | Total Fortune.
+ -----+-----------------------+----------------+----------------
+   1  | John D. Rockefeller   | Oil            |   $600,000,000
+   2  | Andrew Carnegie       | Steel          |    300,000,000
+   3  | W.W. Astor            | Real Estate    |    300,000,000
+   4  | J. Pierpont Morgan    | Finance        |    150,000,000
+   5  | William Rockefeller   | Oil            |    100,000,000
+   6  | H.H. Rogers           |     do         |    100,000,000
+   7  | W.K. Vanderbilt       | Railroads      |    100,000,000
+   8  | Senator Clark         | Copper         |    100,000,000
+   9  | John Jacob Astor      | Real Estate    |    100,000,000
+  10  | Russell Sage          | Finance        |     80,000,000
+  11  | H.C. Frick, Jr.       | Steel and Coke |     80,000,000
+  12  | D.O. Mills            | Banker         |     75,000,000
+  13  | Marshall Field, Jr.   | Inherited      |     75,000,000
+  14  | Henry M. Flagler      | Oil            |     60,000,000
+  15  | J.J. Hill             | Railroads      |     60,000,000
+  16  | John D. Archbold      | Oil            |     50,000,000
+  17  | Oliver Payne          |     do         |     50,000,000
+  18  | J.B. Haggin           | Gold           |     50,000,000
+  19  | Harry Field           | Inherited      |     50,000,000
+  20  | James Henry Smith     |     do         |     40,000,000
+  21  | Henry Phipps          | Steel          |     40,000,000
+  22  | Alfred G. Vanderbilt  | Railroads      |     40,000,000
+  23  | H.O. Havemeyer        | Sugar          |     40,000,000
+  24  | Mrs. Hetty Green      | Finance        |     40,000,000
+  25  | Thomas F. Ryan        |     do         |     40,000,000
+  26  | Mrs. W. Walker        | Inherited      |     35,000,000
+  27  | George Gould          | Railroads      |     35,000,000
+  28  | J. Ogden Armour       | Meat           |     30,000,000
+  29  | E.T. Gerry            | Inherited      |     30,000,000
+  30  | Robert W. Goelet      | Real Estate    |     30,000,000
+  31  | J.H. Flager           | Finance        |     30,000,000
+  32  | Claus Spreckels       | Sugar          |     30,000,000
+  33  | W.F. Havemeyer        |     do         |     30,000,000
+  34  | Jacob H. Schiff       | Banker         |     25,000,000
+  35  | P.A.B. Widener        | Street Cars    |     25,000,000
+  36  | George F. Baker       | Banker         |     25,000,000
+  37  | August Belmont        | Finance        |     20,000,000
+  38  | James Stillman        | Banker         |     20,000,000
+  39  | John W. Gates         | Finance        |     20,000,000
+  40  | Norman B. Ream        |     do         |     20,000,000
+  41  | Joseph Pulitzer       | Journalist     |     20,000,000
+  42  | James G. Bennett      | Journalist     |     20,000,000
+  43  | John G. Moore         | Finance        |     20,000,000
+  44  | D.G. Reid             | Steel          |     20,000,000
+  45  | Frederick Pabst       | Brewer         |     20,000,000
+  46  | William D. Sloane     | Inherited      |     20,000,000
+  47  | William B. Leeds      | Railroads      |     20,000,000
+  48  | James P. Duke         | Tobacco        |     20,000,000
+  49  | Anthony N. Brady      | Finance        |     20,000,000
+  50  | George W. Vanderbilt  | Railroads      |     20,000,000
+  51  | Fred W. Vanderbilt    |     do         |     20,000,000
+      |                       |                +----------------
+      |      Total            |                | $3,295,000,000
+ -----+-----------------------+----------------+----------------
+
+"It will thus be seen that fifty-one persons in the United States,
+with a population of nearly 90,000,000 people, own approximately one
+thirty-fifth of the entire wealth of the United States. The
+Statistical Abstract of the United States, 29th number, 1906, prepared
+under the direction of the Secretary of Commerce and Labor of the
+United States, gives the estimated true value of all property in the
+United States for that year at $107,104,211,917.
+
+"Each of the favored fifty-one owns a wealth of somewhat more than
+$64,600,000, while each of the remaining 89,999,950 people get $1,100.
+No one of these fifty-one owns less than $20,000,000, and no one on
+the average owns less than $64,600,000. Men owning from $1,000,000 to
+$20,000,000 are no longer called rich men. There are approximately
+4,000 millionaires in the United States, but the aggregate of their
+holdings is difficult to obtain. If all their holdings be deducted
+from the total true value of all the property in the United States,
+the average share of each of the other 89,995,000 people would be less
+than $500.
+
+"John Jacob Astor is reputed to have been the first American
+millionaire, although this is a matter impossible to decide. It is
+also claimed that Nicholas Longworth, of Cincinnati, the great
+grandfather of Congressman Longworth, was the first man west of the
+Allegheny Mountains to amass a million. It is difficult to prove
+either one of these propositions, but they prove that the age of the
+millionaire in the United States is a comparatively recent thing. In
+1870 to own a single million was to be a very rich man; in 1890 it
+required at least $10,000,000, while to-day a man with a single
+million or even ten millions is not in the swim. To be enumerated as
+one of the world's richest men you must own not less than
+$20,000,000."
+
+I am perfectly serious when I suggest that the slaves of riches are
+just as much to be pitied as the slaves of poverty. No man need envy
+Mr. Rockefeller, for example, because he has something like six
+hundred millions of dollars, an annual income of about seventy-two
+millions. He does not own those millions, Jonathan, but they own him.
+He is a slave to his possessions. If he owns a score of automobiles he
+can only use one at a time; if he spends millions in building palatial
+residences for himself he cannot get greater comfort than the man of
+modest fortune. He cannot buy health nor a single touch of love for
+money.
+
+Many of our great modern princes of industry and commerce are good
+men. It is a wild mistake to imagine that they are all terrible ogres
+and monsters of iniquity. But they are victims of an unjust system.
+Millions roll into their coffers while they sleep, and they are
+oppressed by the burden of responsibilities. If they give money away
+at a rate calculated to ease them of the burdens beneath which they
+stagger they can only do more harm than good. Mr. Carnegie gives
+public libraries with the lavishness with which travellers in Italy
+sometimes throw small copper coins to the beggars on the streets, but
+he is only pauperising cities wholesale and hindering the progress of
+real culture by taking away from civic life the spirit of
+self-reliance. If the people of a small town came together and said:
+"We ought to have a library in our town for our common advantage: let
+us unite and subscribe funds for a hundred books to begin with," that
+would be an expression of true culture.
+
+But when a city accepts a library at Mr. Carnegie's hands, there is an
+inevitable loss of self-respect and independence. Mr. Carnegie's
+motives may be good and pure, but the harm done to the community is
+none the less great.
+
+Mr. Rockefeller may give money to endow colleges and universities from
+the very highest motives, but he cannot prevent the endowments from
+influencing the teaching given in them, even if he should try to do
+so. Thus the gifts of our millionaires are an insidious poison flowing
+into the fountains of learning.
+
+Mind you, this is not the claim of a prejudiced Socialist agitator.
+President Hadley, of Yale University, is not a Socialist agitator, but
+he admits the truth of this claim. He says: "Modern University
+teaching costs more money per capita than it ever did before, because
+the public wishes a university to maintain places of scientific
+research, and scientific research is extremely expensive. _A
+university is more likely to obtain this money if it gives the
+property owners reason to believe that vested rights will not be
+interfered with._ If we recognize vested rights in order to secure the
+means of progress in physical science, is there not danger that we
+shall stifle the spirit of independence which is equally important as
+a means of progress in moral science?"
+
+Professor Bascom is not a Socialist agitator, either, but he also
+recognizes the danger of corrupting our university teaching in this
+manner. After calling attention to the "wrongful and unflinching way"
+in which the wealth of the Standard Oil magnate has been amassed, he
+asks: "Is a college at liberty to accept money gained in a manner so
+hostile to the public welfare? Is it at liberty, when the Government
+is being put to its wits' end to check this aggression, to rank itself
+with those who fight it?"
+
+And the effect of riches upon the rich themselves is as bad as
+anything in modern life. While it is true that there are among the
+rich many very good citizens, it is also perfectly plain to any honest
+observer of conditions that great riches are producing moral havoc and
+disaster among the princes of wealth in this country. Mr. Carnegie has
+said that a man who dies rich dies disgraced, but there is even
+greater reason to believe that to be born rich is to be born damned.
+The inheritance of vast fortunes is always demoralizing.
+
+What must the mind and soul of a woman be like who takes her toy
+spaniel in state to the opera to hear Caruso sing, while, in the same
+city, there are babies dying for lack of food? What are we to think of
+the dog-dinners, the monkey-dinners and the other unspeakably foolish
+and unspeakably vile orgies constantly reported from Newport and other
+places where the drones of our social system disport themselves? What
+shall we say of the shocking state of affairs disclosed by the
+disgusting reports of our "Society Scandals," except that unearned
+riches corrode and destroy all human virtues?
+
+The wise King, Solomon, knew what he was talking about when he cried
+out: "Give me neither poverty nor riches." Unnatural poverty is bad,
+blighting the soul of man; and unnatural riches are likewise bad,
+equally blighting the soul of man. Our social system is bad for both
+classes, Jonathan, and a change to better and juster conditions, while
+it will be resisted by the rich, the drones, with all their might,
+will be for the common good of all. For it is well to remember that in
+trying to get rid of the rule of the drones, the working class is not
+trying to become the ruling class, to rule others as they have been
+ruled. We are aiming to do away with classes altogether; to make a
+united and free social state.
+
+FOOTNOTES:
+
+[3] Mark 14:7.
+
+[4] Quar. Pub. American Statistical Association, June 1907.
+
+
+
+
+VI
+
+THE ROOT OF THE EVIL
+
+    All for ourselves and nothing for other people seems in all
+    ages to have been the vile maxim of the masters of
+    mankind.--_Adam Smith._
+
+    Hither, ye blind, from your futile banding!
+      Know the rights and the rights are won.
+    Wrong shall die with the understanding,
+      One truth clear, and the work is done.--_John Boyle O'Reilly._
+
+    The great ones of the world have taken this earth of ours to
+    themselves; they live in the midst of splendour and
+    superfluity. The smallest nook of the land is already a
+    possession; none may touch it or meddle with it.--_Goethe._
+
+
+I have by no means exhausted the evils of the system under which we
+live in the brief catalogue I have made for you, my friend. If it were
+necessary, I could compile an immense volume of authentic evidence to
+overwhelm you with a sense of the awful failure of our civilization to
+produce a free, united, healthy, happy and virtuous people, which I
+conceive to be the goal toward which all good and wise men should
+aspire. But it is dreary and unpleasant work recounting evil
+conditions; constantly looking at the sores of society is a morbid and
+soul-destroying task.
+
+I want you now to consider the cause of industrial misery and social
+inequality, to ask yourself why these conditions exist. For we can
+never hope to remove the evils, Jonathan, until we have discovered the
+underlying causes. How does it happen that some people are thrifty and
+virtuous and yet miserably poor and that others are thriftless and
+sinful and yet so rich that their riches weigh them down and make them
+as miserable as the very poorest? Why, in the name of all that is fair
+and good, have we got such a stupid, wasteful, unjust and unlovely
+social system after all the long centuries of human experience and
+toil? When you can answer these questions, my friend, you will know
+whither to look for deliverance.
+
+You said in your letter to me the other day, Jonathan, that you
+thought things were bad because of the wickedness of man's nature.
+Lots of people believe that. The churches have taught that doctrine
+for ages, but I do not believe that it is true. It is a doctrine which
+earnest men who have been baffled in trying to find a satisfactory
+explanation for the evils have accepted in desperation. It is the
+doctrine of pessimism, despair and wild unfaith in man. If it were
+true that things were so bad as they are just because men were wicked
+and because there never were good men enough to make them better, we
+should not have any ground for hope for the future.
+
+I propose to try and show you that the wickedness of our poor human
+nature is not responsible for the terrible social conditions, so that
+you will not have to depend for your hope of a better society upon the
+very slender thread of the chance of getting enough good men to make
+conditions better. Bad conditions make bad lives, Jonathan, and will
+continue to do so. Instead of depending upon getting good men first to
+make conditions good, we must make conditions good so that good lives
+may flourish and grow in them naturally.
+
+You have read a little history, I daresay, and you know that there is
+no truth in the old cry that "As things are now things always have
+been and always will be." You know that things are always changing. If
+George Washington could come back to earth again he would be amazed at
+the changes which have taken place in the United States. Going further
+back, Christopher Columbus would not recognize the country he
+discovered. And if we could go back millions of years and bring to
+life one of our earliest ancestors, one of the primitive
+cave-dwellers, and set him down in one of our great cities, the mighty
+houses, streets railways, telephones, telegraphs, wireless telegraphy,
+electric vehicles on the streets and the ships out on the river would
+terrify him far more than an angry tiger would. Can you think how
+astonished and alarmed such a primitive cave-man would be to be taken
+into one of your great Pittsburg mills or down into a coal mine?
+
+No. The world has grown, Jonathan. Man has enlarged his kingdom, his
+power in the universe. Step by step in the evolution of the race, man
+has wrested from Nature her secrets. He has gone down into the deep
+caverns and found mineral treasuries there; he has made the angry
+waves of the ocean bear great, heavy burdens from shore to shore for
+his benefit; he has harnessed the tides and the winds that blow and
+caught the lightning currents, making them all his servants. Between
+the _lowest_ man in the modern tenement and the cave-man there is a
+greater gulf than ever existed between the beast in the forest and the
+_highest_ man dwelling in a cave in that far-off period.
+
+Things are not as they are to-day because a group of clever but
+desperately wicked men came together and invented a scheme of society
+in which the many must work for the few; in which some must have more
+than they can use, so that they rot of excess while others have too
+little and rot of hunger; in which little children must toil in
+factories so that big strong men may loaf in clubs and dens of vice;
+in which some women sell themselves body and soul for bread while
+other women spend the sustenance of thousands upon jewels for pet
+dogs. No. It was no such fiendish ingenuity which devised the
+capitalistic system and imposed it upon mankind. It has _grown_ up
+through the ages, Jonathan, and is still growing. We have grown from
+savagery and barbarism through various stages to our present
+commercial system, and the process of growth is still going on. I
+believe we are growing into Socialism.
+
+There have been many forces urging mankind onward in this long
+evolution. Religion has played a part. Love of country has played a
+part. Climate and the nature of the soil have been factors. Man's ever
+growing curiosity, his desire to know more of the life around him, has
+had much to do with it. I have put the ideals of religion and
+patriotism first, Jonathan, because I wanted you to see that they were
+by no means overlooked or forgotten, but in truth they ought not to be
+placed first. It is the verdict of all who have made a study of social
+evolution that, while these factors have exerted an important
+influence, back of them have been the material economic conditions.
+
+In philosophy this is the basis of a very profound theory upon which
+many learned volumes have been written. It is generally called "The
+Materialistic Conception of History," but sometimes it is called
+"Economic Determinism" or "The Economic Interpretation of History."
+The first man to set forth the theory in a very clear and connected
+manner was Karl Marx, upon whose teachings the Socialists of the
+world have placed a great deal of reliance. I don't expect you to read
+all the heavy and learned books written upon this subject, for many of
+them require that a man must be specially trained in philosophy in
+order to understand them. For the present I shall be quite satisfied
+if you will read a ten-cent pamphlet called _The Communist Manifesto_,
+by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels and, along with that, the fourth,
+fifth and sixth chapters of my book, _Socialism_, about a hundred
+pages altogether. These will give you a fairly clear notion of the
+matter. I shall not mention the hard, scientific name of this
+philosophy again. I don't like big words if little ones will serve.
+
+If you enjoy reading a good story, a novel that is full of romance and
+adventure, I would advise you to read _Before Adam_, by Jack London, a
+Socialist writer. It is a novel, but it is also a work of science. He
+gives an account of the life of the first men and shows how their
+whole existence depended upon the crude weapons and tools, sticks
+picked up in the forests, which they used. They couldn't live
+differently than they did, because they had no other means of getting
+a living. How a people make their living determines how they live.
+
+For many thousands of years, the scientists tell us, men lived in the
+world without owning any private property. That came into existence
+when men saw that one man could produce more out of the soil than he
+needed to eat himself. Then, when they went out to war with other
+tribes, the members of a tribe instead of trying to kill their
+enemies, made them captives and used them as slaves. They did not
+cease killing their foes from humane motives, because they had grown
+better men, but because it was more profitable.
+
+From our point of view, slavery is a bad thing, but when it first
+came into existence it was a step upward and onward. If we take the
+history of slave societies and nations we shall soon find that their
+laws, their customs and their institutions were based upon the mode of
+producing wealth through the labor of slaves. There were two classes
+into which society was divided, a class of masters and a class of
+slaves.
+
+When slavery broke down and gave way to feudalism there were new ways
+of producing wealth. The laws of feudal societies, their customs and
+institutions, changed to meet the needs brought about through the new
+methods of making things. Under slavery, the slaves made wealth for
+their masters and were doled out food enough to keep them alive. The
+slave had no rights. Under feudalism, the serfs produced wealth for
+the lords parts of the time, working for themselves the rest of the
+time. They had some rights. The bounds of freedom were widened. Under
+neither of these systems was there a regular system of paying wages in
+money, such as we have to-day. The slave gave up all his product and
+took what the master was pleased to give him in the way of food,
+clothing and shelter. The serf divided his time between producing for
+the owner of the soil and producing for his family. The slave produced
+what his owner wanted; the serf produced what either he himself or his
+lord wanted.
+
+There came a time, about three hundred years ago, when the feudal
+system broke down before the beginnings of capitalism, the system
+which we are living under to-day, and which we Socialists think is
+breaking down as all other social systems have broken down before it.
+Under this system men have worked for wages and not because they
+wanted the things they were producing, nor because the men who
+employed them wanted the things, _but simply because the things could
+be sold and a profit made in the sale_.
+
+You will remember, Jonathan, that in a former letter I dealt with the
+nature of wealth. We saw then that wealth in our modern society
+consists of an abundance of things which can be sold. At bottom, we do
+not make things because it is well that they should be made, because
+the makers need them, but simply because the capitalists see
+possibilities of selling the things at a profit.
+
+I want you to consider just a moment how this works out: Here is a
+workingman in Springfield, Massachusetts, making deadly weapons with
+which other workingmen in other lands are to be killed. We go up to
+him as he works and inquire where the rifles are to be sent, and he
+very politely tells us that they are for some foreign government, say
+the Japanese, to be used in all probability against Russian soldiers.
+Suppose we ask him next what interest he has in helping the Japanese
+government to kill the Russian troops, how he comes to have an active
+hatred of the Russian soldiers. He will reply at once that he has no
+such feelings against the Russians; that he is not interested in
+having the Japanese slaughter them. Why, then, is he making the guns?
+He answers at once that he is only interested in getting his wages;
+that it is all the same to him whether he makes guns for Christians or
+Infidels, for Russians or Japs or Turks. His only interest is to get
+his wages. He would as soon be making coffins as guns, or shoes as
+coffins, so long as he got his wages.
+
+Perhaps, then, the company for which he is employed has an interest in
+helping Japan defeat the troops of Russia. Possibly the shareholders
+in the company are Japanese or sympathizers with Japan. Otherwise,
+why should they be bothering themselves getting workpeople to make
+guns for Japanese soldiers to kill Russian soldiers with? So we go to
+the manager and ask him to explain the matter. He very politely tells
+us that, like the man at the bench, he has no interest in the matter
+at all, and that the shareholders are in the same position of being
+quite indifferent to the quarrel of the two nations. "Why, we are also
+making guns for Russia in our factory," he says, and when we ask him
+to explain why he tells us that "There is profit to be made and the
+firm cares for nothing else."
+
+All our system revolves around that central sun of profit-making,
+Jonathan. Here is a factory in which a great many people are making
+shoddy clothing. You can tell at a glance that it is shoddy and quite
+unfit for wearing. But why are the people making shoddy goods--why
+don't they make decent clothing, since they can do it quite as well?
+Why, because there is a profit for somebody in making shoddy. Here a
+group of men are building a house. They are making it of the poorest
+materials, making dingy little rooms; the building is badly
+constructed and it can never be other than a barracks. Why this
+"jerry-building?" There is no reason under the sun why poor houses
+should be built except that somebody hopes to make profit out of them.
+
+Goods are adulterated and debased, even the food of the nation is
+poisoned, for profit. Legislatures are corrupted and courts of justice
+are polluted by the presence of the bribe-giver and the bribe-taker
+for profit. Nations are embroiled in quarrels and armies slaughter
+armies over questions which are, always, ultimately questions of
+profit. Here are children toiling in sweatshops, factories and mines
+while men are idle and seeking work. Why? Do we need the labor of the
+little ones in order to produce enough to maintain the life of the
+nation? No. But there are some people who are going to make a profit
+out of the labors which sap the strength of those little ones. Here
+are thousands of people hungry, clamoring for food and perishing for
+lack of it. They are willing to work, there are resources for them to
+work upon; they could easily maintain themselves in comfort and
+gladness if they set to work. Then why don't they set to work? Oh,
+Jonathan, the torment of this monotonous answer is unbearable--because
+no one can make a profit out of their labor they must be idle and
+starve, or drag out a miserable existence aided by the crumbs of cold
+charity!
+
+If our social economy were such that we produced things for use,
+because they were useful and beautiful, we should go on producing with
+a good will until everybody had a plentiful supply. If we found
+ourselves producing too rapidly, faster than we could consume the
+things, we could easily slacken our pace. We could spend more time
+beautifying our cities and our homes, more time cultivating our minds
+and hearts by social intercourse and in the companionship of the great
+spirits of all ages, through the masterpieces of literature, music,
+painting and sculpture. But instead, we produce for sale and profit.
+When the workers have produced more than the master class can use and
+they themselves buy back out of their meagre wages, there is a glut in
+the markets of the world, unless a new market can be opened up by
+making war upon some defenseless, undeveloped nation.
+
+When there is a glut in the market, Jonathan, you know what happens.
+Shops and factories are shut down, the number of workers employed is
+reduced, the army of the unemployed grows and there is a rise in the
+tide of poverty and misery. Yet why should it be so? Why, simply
+because there is a superabundance of wealth, should people be made
+poorer? Why should little children go without shoes just because there
+are loads of shoes stacked away in stores and warehouses? Why should
+people go without clothing simply because the warehouses are bursting
+with clothes? The answer is that these things must be so because we
+produce for profit instead of for use. All these stores of wealth
+belong to the class of profit-takers, the capitalist class, and they
+must sell and make profit.
+
+So you see, friend Jonathan, so long as this system lasts, _people
+must have too little because they have produced too much_. So long as
+this system lasts, there must be periods when we say that society
+_cannot afford to have men and women work to maintain themselves
+decently_! But under any sane system it will surely be considered the
+maddest kind of folly to keep men in idleness while saying that it
+does not pay to keep them working. Is there any more expensive way of
+keeping either an ass or a man than in idleness?
+
+The root of evil, the taproot from which the evils of modern society
+develop, is the profit idea. Life is subordinated to the making of
+profit. If it were only possible to embody that idea in human shape,
+what a monster ogre it would be! And how we should arraign it at the
+bar of human reason! Should we not call up images of the million of
+babes who have been needlessly and wantonly slaughtered by the Monster
+Idea; the images of all the maimed and wounded and killed in the wars
+for markets; the millions of others who have been bruised and broken
+in the industrial arena to secure somebody's profit, because it was
+too expensive to guard life and limb; the numberless victims of
+adulterated food and drink, of cheap tenements and shoddy clothes?
+Should we not call up the wretched women of our streets; the bribers
+and the vendors of privilege? We should surely parade in pitiable
+procession the dwarfed and stunted bodies of the millions born to
+hardship and suffering, but we could not, alas! parade the dwarfed and
+stunted souls, the sordid spirits for which the Monster Idea is
+responsible.
+
+I ask you, Jonathan Edwards, what you really think of this "buy cheap
+and sell dear" idea, which is the heart and soul of our capitalistic
+system. Are you satisfied that it should continue?
+
+Yet, my friend, bad as it is in its full development, and terrible as
+are its fruits, this idea once stood for progress. The system was a
+step in the liberation of man. It was an advance upon feudalism which
+bound the laborer to the soil. Capitalism has not been all bad; it has
+another, brighter side. Capitalism had to have laborers who were free
+to move from one place to another, even to other lands, and that need
+broke down the last vestiges of the old physical slavery. That was a
+step gained. Capitalism had to have intelligent workers and many
+educated ones. That put into the hands of the common people the key to
+the sealed treasuries of knowledge. It had to have a legal system to
+meet its requirements and that has resulted in the development of
+representative government, of something approaching political
+democracy; even where kings nominally rule to-day, their power is but
+a shadow of what it once was. Every step taken by the capitalist class
+for the advancement of its own interests has become in its turn a
+stepping-stone upon which the working-class has raised itself.
+
+Karl Marx once said that the capitalist system provides its own
+gravediggers. I have cited two or three things which will illustrate
+his meaning. Later on, I must try and explain to you how the great
+"trusts" about which you complain so loudly, and which seem to be the
+very perfection of the capitalist ideal, lead toward Socialism at a
+pace which nothing can very seriously hinder, though it may be
+quickened by wise action on the part of the workers.
+
+For the present I shall be satisfied, friend Jonathan, if you get it
+thoroughly into your mind that the source of terrible social evils, of
+the poverty and squalor, of the helpless misery of the great mass of
+the people, of most of the crime and vice and much of the disease, is
+the "buy cheap and sell dear" idea. The fact that we produce things
+for sale for the profit of a few, instead of for use and the enjoyment
+of all.
+
+Get that into your mind above everything else, my friend. And try to
+grasp the fact, also, that the system we are now trying to change was
+a natural outgrowth of other conditions. It was not a wicked
+invention, nor was it a foolish blunder. It was a necessary and a
+right step in human evolution. But now it has in turn become
+unsuitable to the needs of the people and it must give place to
+something else. When a man suffers from such a disease as
+appendicitis, he does not talk about the "wickedness" of the vermiform
+appendix. He realizes, if he is a sensible man, that long ago, that
+was an organ which served a useful purpose in the human system.
+Gradually, perhaps in the course of many centuries, it has ceased to
+be of any use. It has lost its original functions and become a menace
+to the body.
+
+Capitalism, Jonathan, is the vermiform appendix of the social
+organism. It has served its purpose. The profit idea has served an
+important function in society, but it is now useless and a menace to
+the body social. Our troubles are due to a kind of social
+appendicitis. And the remedy is to remove the useless and offending
+member.
+
+
+
+
+VII
+
+FROM COMPETITION TO MONOPOLY
+
+    It may be fairly said, I think, that not merely competition,
+    but competition that was proving ruinous to many
+    establishments, was the cause of the combinations.--_Prof.
+    J.W. Jenks._
+
+    The day of the capitalist has come, and he has made full use
+    of it. To-morrow will be the day of the laborer, provided he
+    has the strength and the wisdom to use his opportunities.--_H.
+    De. B. Gibbins._
+
+    Monopoly expands, ever expands, till it ends by
+    bursting.--_P.J. Proudhon._
+
+    For this is the close of an era; we have political freedom;
+    next and right away is to come social
+    enfranchisement.--_Benjamin Kidd._
+
+
+I think you realize, friend Jonathan, that the bottom principle of the
+present capitalist system is that there must be one class owning the
+land, mines, factories, railways, and other agencies of production,
+but not using them; and another class, using the land and other means
+of production, but not owning them.
+
+Only those things are produced which there is a reasonable hope of
+selling at a profit. Upon no other conditions will the owners of the
+means of production consent to their being used. The worker who does
+not own the things necessary to produce wealth must work upon the
+terms imposed by the other fellow in most cases. The coal miner, not
+owning the coal mine, must agree to work for wages. So must the
+mechanic in the workshop and the mill-worker.
+
+As a practical, sensible workingman, Jonathan, you know very well that
+if anybody says the interests of these two classes are the same it is
+a foolish and lying statement. You are a workingman, a wage-earner,
+and you know that it is to your interest to get as much wages as
+possible for the smallest amount of work. If you work by the day and
+get, let us say, two dollars for ten hours' work, it would be a great
+advantage to you if you could get your wages increased to three
+dollars and your hours of labor to eight per day, wouldn't it? And if
+you thought that you could get these benefits for the asking you would
+ask for them, wouldn't you? Of course you would, being a sensible,
+hard-headed American workingman.
+
+Now, if giving these things would be quite as much to the advantage of
+the company as to you, the company would be just as glad to give them
+as you would be to receive them, wouldn't it? I am assuming, of
+course, that the company knows its own interests just as well as you
+and your fellow workmen know yours. But if you went to the officials
+of the company and asked them to give you a dollar more for the two
+hours' less work, they would not give it--unless, of course, you were
+strong enough to fight and compel them to accept your terms. But they
+would resist and you would have to fight, because your interests
+clashed.
+
+That is why trade unions are formed on the one side and employers'
+associations upon the other. Society is divided by antagonistic
+interests; into exploiters and exploited.
+
+Politicians and preachers may cry out that there are no classes in
+America, and they may even be foolish enough to believe it--for there
+are lots of _very_ foolish politicians and preachers in the world! You
+may even hear a short-sighted labor leader say the same thing, but you
+know very well, my friend, that they are wrong. You may not be able to
+confute them in debate, not having their skill in wordy warfare; but
+your experience, your common sense, convince you that they are wrong.
+And all the greatest political economists are on your side. I could
+fill a volume with quotations from the writings of the most learned
+political economists of all times in support of your position, but I
+shall only give one quotation. It is from Adam Smith's great work,
+_The Wealth of Nations_, and I quote it partly because no better
+statement of the principle has ever been made by any writer, and
+partly also because no one can accuse Adam Smith of being a "wicked
+Socialist trying to set class against class." He says:
+
+    "The workmen desire to get as much, the masters to give as
+    little as possible. The former are disposed to combine in
+    order to raise, the latter in order to lower the wages of
+    labor.... Masters are always and everywhere in a sort of
+    tacit, but constant and uniform, combination, not to raise the
+    wages of labor above their actual rate. To violate this
+    combination is everywhere a most unpopular action, and a sort
+    of a reproach to a master among his neighbors and equals....
+    Masters too sometimes enter into particular combinations to
+    sink the wages of labor.... These are always conducted with
+    the utmost silence and secrecy, till the moment of execution."
+
+That is very plainly put, Jonathan. Adam Smith was a great thinker and
+an honest one. He was not afraid to tell the truth. I am going to
+quote a little further what he says about the combinations of
+workingmen to increase their wages:
+
+    "Such combinations, [i.e., to lower wages] however, are
+    frequently resisted by a contrary defensive combination of the
+    workmen; who sometimes too, without any provocation of this
+    kind, combine of their own accord to raise the price of labor.
+    Their usual pretenses are, sometimes the high price of
+    provisions; sometimes the great profit which their masters
+    make by their work. But whether these combinations be
+    offensive or defensive, they are always abundantly heard of.
+    In order to bring the point to a speedy decision, they have
+    always recourse to the loudest clamour, and sometimes to the
+    most shocking violence and outrage. They are desperate, and
+    act with the extravagance and folly of desperate men, who must
+    either starve, or frighten their masters into an immediate
+    compliance with their demands. The masters upon these
+    occasions are just as clamorous upon the other side, and never
+    cease to call aloud for the assistance of the civil
+    magistrate, and the rigorous execution of those laws which
+    have been enacted with so much severity against the
+    combinations of servants, laborers, and journeymen.
+
+    "But though in disputes with their workmen, masters must
+    generally have the advantage, there is however a certain rate,
+    below which it seems impossible to reduce, for any
+    considerable time, the ordinary wages even of the lowest
+    species of labor.
+
+    "A man must always live by his work, and his wages must at
+    least be sufficient to maintain him. They must even upon most
+    occasions be somewhat more; otherwise it would be impossible
+    for him to bring up a family, and the race of such workmen
+    could not last beyond the first generation."
+
+Now, my friend, I know that some of your pretended friends, especially
+politicians, will tell you that Adam Smith wrote at the time of the
+American Revolution; that his words applied to England in that day,
+but not to the United States to-day. I want you to be honest with
+yourself, to consider candidly whether in your experience as a workman
+you have found conditions to be, on the whole, just as Adam Smith's
+words describe them. I trust your own good sense in this and
+everything. Don't let the politicians frighten you with a show of
+book learning: do your own thinking.
+
+Capitalism began when a class of property owners employed other men to
+work for wages. The tendency was for wages to keep at a level just
+sufficient to enable the workers to maintain themselves and families.
+They had to get enough for families, you see, in order to reproduce
+their kind--to keep up the supply of laborers.
+
+Competition was the law of life in the first period of capitalism.
+Capitalists competed with each other for markets. They were engaged in
+a mad scramble for profits. Foreign countries were attacked and new
+markets opened up; new inventions were rapidly introduced. And while
+the workers found that in normal conditions the employers were in what
+Adam Smith calls "a tacit combination" to keep wages down to the
+lowest level, and were obliged to combine into unions, there were
+times when, owing to the fierce competition among the employers, and
+the demand for labor being greatly in excess of the supply, wages went
+up without a struggle owing to the fact that one employer would try to
+outbid another. In other words, temporarily, the natural, "tacit
+combination" of the employers, to keep down wages, sometimes broke
+down.
+
+Competition was called "the life of trade" in those days, and in a
+sense it was so. Under its mighty urge, new continents were explored
+and developed and brought within the circle of civilization. Sometimes
+this was done by means of brutal and bloody wars, for capitalism is
+never particular about the methods it adopts. To get profits is its
+only concern, and though its shekels "sweat blood and dirt," to adapt
+a celebrated phrase of Karl Marx, nobody cares. Under stress of
+competition, also, the development of mechanical production went on
+at a terrific pace; navigation was developed, so that the ocean became
+as a common highway.
+
+In short, Jonathan, it is no wonder that men sang the praises of
+competition, that some of the greatest thinkers of the time looked
+upon competition as something sacred. Even the workers, seeing that
+they got higher wages when the keen and fierce competition created an
+excessive demand for labor, joined in the adoration of competition as
+a principle--but among themselves, in their struggles for better
+conditions, they avoided competition as much as possible and combined.
+Their instincts as wage-earners made them keen to see the folly of
+division and competition among themselves.
+
+So competition, considered in connection with the evolution of
+society, had many good features. The competitive period was just as
+"good" as any other period in history and no more "wicked" than any
+other period.
+
+But there was another side to the shield. As the competitive struggle
+among individual capitalists went on the weakest were crushed to the
+wall and fell down into the ranks of the wage workers. There was no
+system in production. Word came to the commercial world that there was
+a great market for certain manufactures in a foreign land and at once
+hundreds and even thousands of factories were worked to their utmost
+limit to meet that demand. The result was that in a little while the
+thing was overdone: there was a glut in the market, often attended by
+panic, stagnation and disaster. Rathbone Greg summed up the evils of
+competition in the following words:
+
+"Competition gluts our markets, enables the rich to take advantage of
+the necessity of the poor, makes each man snatch the bread out of his
+neighbor's mouth, converts a nation of brethren into a mass of
+hostile units, and finally involves capitalists and laborers in one
+common ruin."
+
+The crises due to this unregulated production, and the costliness of
+the struggles, led to the formation of joint-stock companies.
+Competition was giving way before a stronger force, the force of
+co-operation. There was still competition, but it was more and more
+between giants. To adopt a very homely simile, the bigger fish ate up
+the little ones so long as there were any, and then turned to a
+struggle among themselves.
+
+Another thing that forced the development of industry and commerce
+away from competitive methods was the increasing costliness of the
+machinery of production. The new inventions, first of steam-power and
+later of electricity, involved an immense outlay, so that many persons
+had to combine their capitals in one common fund.
+
+This process of eliminating competition has gone on with remarkable
+swiftness, so that we have now the great Trust Problem. Everyone
+recognizes to-day that the trusts practically control the life of the
+nation. It is the supreme issue in our politics and a challenge to the
+heart and brain of the nation.
+
+Fifty years ago Karl Marx, the great Socialist economist, made the
+remarkable prophecy that this condition would arise. He lived in the
+heyday of competition, when it seemed utter folly to talk about the
+end of competition. He analyzed the situation, pointed to the process
+of big capitalists crushing out the little capitalists, the union of
+big capitalists, and the inevitable drift toward monopoly. He
+predicted that the process would continue until the whole industry,
+the main agencies of production and distribution at any rate, would be
+centralized in a few great monopolies, controlled by a very small
+handful of men. He showed with wonderful clearness that capitalism,
+the Great Idea of buy cheap and sell dear, carried within itself the
+germs of its own destruction.
+
+And, of course, the wiseacres laughed. The learned ignorance of the
+wiseacre always compels him to laugh at the man with an idea that is
+new. Didn't the wiseacres imprison Galileo? Haven't they persecuted
+the pioneers in all ages? But Time has a habit of vindicating the
+pioneers while consigning the scoffing wiseacres to oblivion. Fifty
+years is a short time in human evolution but it has sufficed to
+establish the right of Marx to an honored place among the pioneers.
+
+More than twenty-five years after Marx made his great prediction,
+there came to this country on a visit Mr. H.M. Hyndman, an English
+economist who is also known as one of the foremost living exponents of
+Socialism. The intensity of the competitive struggle was most marked,
+but he looked below the surface and saw a subtle current, a drift
+toward monopoly, which had gone unnoticed. He predicted the coming of
+the era of great trusts and combines. Again the wiseacres in their
+learned ignorance laughed and derided. The amiable gentleman who plays
+the part of flunkey at the Court of St. James, in London, wearing
+plush knee breeches, silver-buckled shoes and powdered wig, a
+marionette in the tinseled show of King Edward's court, was one of the
+wiseacres. He was then editor of the _New York Tribune_, and he
+declared that Mr. Hyndman was a "fool traveler" for making such a
+prediction. But in the very next year the Standard Oil Company was
+formed!
+
+So we have the trust problem with us. Out of the bitter competitive
+struggle there has come a new condition, a new form of industrial
+ownership and enterprise. From the cradle to the grave we are
+encompassed by the trust.
+
+Now, friend Jonathan, I need not tell you that the trusts have got the
+nation by the throat. You know it. But there is a passage, a question,
+in the letter you wrote me the other day from which I gather that you
+have not given the matter very close attention. You ask "How will the
+Socialists destroy the trusts which are hurting the people?"
+
+I suppose that comes from your old associations with the Democratic
+Party. You think that it is possible to destroy the trusts, to undo
+the chain of social evolution, to go back twenty or fifty years to
+competitive conditions. You would restore competition. I have
+purposely gone into the historical development of the trust in order
+to show you how useless it would be to destroy the trusts and
+introduce competition again, even if that were possible. Now that you
+have mentally traced the origin of monopoly to its causes in
+competition, don't you see that if we could destroy the monopoly
+to-morrow and start fresh upon a basis of competition, the process of
+"big fish eat little fish" would begin again at once--_for that is
+competition_? And if the big ones eat the little ones up, then fight
+among themselves, won't the result be as before--that either one will
+crush the other, leaving a monopoly, or the competitors will join
+hands and agree not to fight, leaving monopoly again?
+
+And, Jonathan, if there should be a return to the old-fashioned,
+free-for-all scramble for markets, would it be any better for the
+workers? Would there not be the same old struggle between the
+capitalists and the workers? Would not the workers still have to give
+much for little; to wear their lives away grinding out profits for the
+masters of their bread, of their very lives? Would there not be gluts
+as before, with panics, misery, unemployed armies sullenly parading
+the streets; idlers in mansions and toilers in hovels? You know very
+well that there would be all these, my friend, and I know that you are
+too sensible a fellow to think any longer about destroying the trusts.
+It cannot be done, Jonathan, and it would not be a good thing if it
+could be done.
+
+I think, my friend, that you will see upon reflection that there are
+many excellent features about the trust which it would be criminal and
+foolish to destroy had we the power. Competition means waste, foolish
+and unnecessary waste. Trusts have been organized expressly to do away
+with the waste of men and natural resources. They represent economical
+production. When Mr. Perkins, of the New York Life Insurance Company,
+was testifying before the insurance investigating committee he gave
+expression to the philosophy of the trust movement by saying that, in
+the modern view, competition is the law of death and that co-operation
+and organization represent life and progress.
+
+While the wage-workers are probably in many respects better off as a
+result of the trustification of industry, it would be idle to deny
+that there are many evils connected with it. No one who views the
+situation calmly can deny that the trusts exert an enormous power over
+the government of the country, that they are, in fact, the real
+government of the country, exercising far more control over the lives
+of the common people than the regularly constituted, constitutional
+government of the country does. It is also true that they can
+arbitrarily fix prices in many instances, so that the natural law of
+value is set aside and the workers are exploited as consumers, as
+purchasers of the things necessary to life, just as they are exploited
+as producers.
+
+Of course, friend Jonathan, wages must meet the cost of living. If
+prices rise considerably, wages must sooner or later follow, and if
+prices fall wages likewise will fall sooner or later. But it is
+important to remember that when prices fall wages are _quick_ to
+follow, while when prices soar higher and higher wages are very _slow_
+to follow. That is why it wouldn't do us any good to have a law
+regulating prices, supposing that a law forcing down prices could be
+enacted and enforced. Wages would follow prices downward with
+wonderful swiftness. And that is why, also, we do need to become the
+masters of the wealth we produce. For wages climb upward with leaden
+feet, my friend, when prices soar with eagle wings. It is always the
+workers who are at a disadvantage in a system where one class controls
+the means of producing and distributing wealth.
+
+But, friend Jonathan, that is due to the fact that the advantages of
+the trust form of industry are not used as well as they might be. They
+are all grasped by the master class. The trouble with the trust is
+simply this: the people as a whole do not share the benefits. We
+continue the same old wage system under the new forms of industry: we
+have not changed our mode of distributing the wealth produced so as to
+conform to the new modes of producing it. The heart of the economic
+conflict is right there.
+
+We must find a remedy for this, Jonathan. Labor unionism is a good
+thing, but it is no remedy for this condition. It is a valuable weapon
+with, which to fight for better wages and shorter hours, and every
+workingman ought to belong to the union of his trade or calling. But
+unionism does not and cannot do away with the profit system; it cannot
+break the power of the trusts to extort monopoly prices from the
+people. To do these things we must bring into play the forces of
+government: we must vote a new status for the trust. The union is for
+the economic struggle of groups of workers day by day against the
+master class so long as the present class division exists. But that is
+not a solution of the problem. What we need to do is to vote the class
+divisions out of existence. _We need to own the trusts, Jonathan!_
+
+This is the Socialist position. What is needed now is the harmonizing
+of our social relations with the new forms of production. When private
+property came into the primitive world in the form of slavery, social
+relations were changed and from a rude communism society passed into a
+system of individualism and class rule. When, later on, slave labor
+gave way before serf labor, the social relations were again modified
+to correspond. When capitalism came, with wage-paid labor as its
+basis, all the laws and institutions which stood in the way of the
+free development of the new principle were swept away; new social
+relations were established, new laws and institutions introduced to
+meet its needs.
+
+To-day, in America, we are suffering because our social relations are
+not in harmony with the changed methods of producing wealth. We have
+got the laws and institutions which were designed to meet the needs of
+competitive industry. They suited those old conditions fairly well,
+but they do not suit the new.
+
+In a former letter, you will remember, I likened our present suffering
+to a case of appendicitis, that society suffers from the trouble set
+up within by an organ which has lost its function and needs to be cut
+out. Perhaps I might better liken society to a woman in the travail of
+childbirth, suffering the pangs of labor incidental to the deliverance
+of the new life within her womb. The trust marks the highest
+development of capitalist society: it can go no further.
+
+          The Old Order changeth, yielding place to new.
+
+And the new order, waiting now for deliverance from the womb of the
+old, is Socialism, the fraternal state. Whether the birth of the new
+order is to be peaceful or violent and painful, whether it will be
+ushered in with glad shouts of triumphant men and women, or with the
+noise of civil strife, depends, my good friend, upon the manner in
+which you and all other workers discharge your responsibilities as
+citizens. That is why I am so anxious to set the claims of Socialism
+clearly before you: I want you to work for the peaceful revolution of
+society, Jonathan.
+
+For the present, I am only going to ask you to read a little five cent
+pamphlet, by Gaylord Wilshire, called _The Significance of the Trust_,
+and a little book by Frederick Engels, called _Socialism, Utopian and
+Scientific_. Later on, when I have had a chance to explain Socialism
+in a general way, and must then leave you to your own resources, I
+intend to make for you a list of books, which I hope you will be able
+to read.
+
+You see, Jonathan, I remember always that you wrote me: "Whether
+Socialism is good or bad, wise or foolish, _I want to know_." The best
+way to know is to study the question for yourself.
+
+
+
+
+VIII
+
+WHAT SOCIALISM IS AND WHAT IT IS NOT
+
+    Socialism is industrial democracy. It would put an end to the
+    irresponsible control of economic interests, and substitute
+    popular self-government in the industrial as in the political
+    world.--_Charles H. Vail._
+
+    Socialism says that man, machinery and land must be brought
+    together; that the toll gates of capitalism must be torn down,
+    and that every human being's opportunity to produce the means
+    with which to sustain life shall be considered as sacred as
+    his right to live.--_Allan L. Benson._
+
+    Socialism means that all those things upon which the people in
+    common depend shall by the people in common be owned and
+    administered. It means that the tools of employment shall
+    belong to their creators and users; that all production shall
+    be for the direct use of the producers; that the making of
+    goods for profit shall come to an end; that we shall all be
+    workers together; and that all opportunities shall be open and
+    equal to all men.--_National Platform of the Socialist Party,
+    1904._
+
+    Socialism does not consist in violently seizing upon the
+    property of the rich and sharing it out amongst the poor.
+
+    Socialism is not a wild dream of a happy land where the apples
+    will drop off the trees into our open mouths, the fish come
+    out of the rivers and fry themselves for dinner, and the looms
+    turn out ready-made suits of velvet with golden buttons
+    without the trouble of coaling the engine. Neither is it a
+    dream of a nation of stained-glass angels, who never say damn,
+    who always love their neighbors better than themselves, and
+    who never need to work unless they wish to.--_Robert
+    Blatchford._
+
+
+By this time, friend Jonathan, you have, I hope, got rid of the notion
+that Socialism is a ready-made scheme of society which a few wise men
+have planned, and which their followers are trying to get adopted. I
+have spent some time and effort trying to make it perfectly plain to
+you that great social changes are not brought about in that fashion.
+
+Socialism then, is a philosophy of human progress, a theory of social
+evolution, the main outlines of which I have already sketched for you.
+Because the subject is treated at much greater length in some of the
+books I have asked you to read, it is not necessary for me to
+elaborate the theory. It will be sufficient, probably, for me to
+restate, in a very few words, the main principles of that theory:
+
+The present social system throughout the civilized world is not the
+result of deliberately copying some plan devised by wise men. It is
+the result of long centuries of growth and development. From our
+present position we look back over the blood-blotted pages of history,
+back to the ages before men began to write their history and their
+thoughts, through the centuries of which there is only faint
+tradition; we go even further back, to the very beginning of human
+existence, to the men-apes and the ape-men whose existence science has
+made clear to us, and we see the race engaged in a long struggle to
+
+    Move upward, working out the beast
+    And let the ape and tiger die.
+
+We look for the means whereby the progress of man has been made, and
+find that his tools have been, so to say, the ladder upon which he has
+risen in the age-long climb from bondage toward brotherhood, from
+being a brute armed with a club to the sovereign of the universe,
+controlling tides, harnessing winds, gathering the lightning in his
+hands and reaching to the farthest star.
+
+We find in every epoch of that long evolution the means of producing
+wealth as the center of all, transforming government, laws,
+institutions and moral codes to meet their limitations and their
+needs. Nothing has ever been strong enough to restrain the economic
+forces in social evolution. When laws and customs have stood in the
+way of the economic forces they have been burst asunder as by some
+mighty leaven, or hurled aside in the cyclonic sweep of revolutions.
+
+Have you ever gone into the country, Jonathan, and noticed an immense
+rock split and shattered by the roots of a tree, or perhaps by the
+might of an insignificant looking fungus? I have, many times, and I
+never see such a rock without thinking of its aptness as an
+illustration of this Socialist philosophy. A tiny acorn tossed by the
+wind finds lodgment in some small crevice of a rock which has stood
+for thousands of years, a rock so big and strong that men choose it as
+an emblem of the Everlasting. Soon the warm caresses of the sun and
+the rain wake the latent life in the acorn; the shell breaks and a
+frail little shoot of vegetable life appears, so small that an infant
+could crush it. Yet that weak and puny thing grows on unobserved,
+striking its rootlets farther into the crevice of the rock. And when
+there is no more room for it to grow, _it does not die, but makes room
+for itself by shattering the rock_.
+
+Economic forces are like that, my friend, they _must_ expand and grow.
+Nothing can long restrain them. A new method of producing wealth broke
+up the primitive communism of prehistoric man; another change in the
+methods of production hurled the feudal barons from power and forced
+the establishment of a new social system. And now, we are on the eve
+of another great change--nay, we are in the very midst of the change.
+Capitalism is doomed! Not because men think it is wicked, but because
+the development of the great industrial trusts compels a new political
+and social system to meet the needs of the new mode of production.
+
+Something has got to give way to the irresistible growing force! A
+change is inevitable. And the change must be to Socialism. That is the
+belief of the Socialists, Jonathan, which I am trying to make you
+understand. Mind, I do not say that the coming change will be the
+_last_ change in human evolution, that there will be no further
+development after Socialism. I do not know what lies beyond, nor to
+what heights humanity may attain in future years. It may be that
+thousands or millions of years from now the race will have attained to
+such a state of growth and power that the poorest and weakest man then
+alive will be so much superior to the greatest men alive to-day, our
+best scholars, poets, artists, inventors and statesmen, as these are
+superior to the cave-man. It may be. I do not know. Only a fool would
+seek to set mete and bound to man's possibilities.
+
+We are concerned only with the change that is imminent, the change
+that is now going on before our eyes. We say that the outcome of
+society's struggle with the trust problem must be the control of the
+trust by society. That the outcome of the struggle between the master
+class and the slave class, between the _wealth makers_ and the _wealth
+takers_, must be the victory of the makers.
+
+Throughout all history, ever since the first appearance of private
+property--of slavery and land ownership--there have been class
+struggles. Slave and slave-owner, serf and baron, wage-slave and
+capitalist--so the classes have struggled. And what has been the
+issue, thus far? Chattel slavery gave way to serfdom, in which the
+oppression was lighter and the oppressed gained some measure of human
+recognition. Serfdom, in its turn, gave way to the wages system, in
+which, despite many evils, the oppressed class lives upon a far higher
+plane than the slave and serf classes from whence it sprang. Now, with
+the capitalists unable to hold and manage the great machinery of
+production which has been developed, with the workers awakened to
+their power, armed with knowledge, with education, and, above all,
+with the power to make the laws, the government, what they will, can
+anybody doubt what the outcome will be?
+
+It is impossible to believe that we shall continue to leave the things
+upon which all depend in the hands of a few members of society. Now
+that production has been so organized that it can be readily
+controlled and directed from a few centers, it is possible for the
+first time in the history of civilization for men to live together in
+peace and plenty, owning in common the things which must be used in
+common, which are needed in common; leaving to private ownership the
+things which can be privately owned without injury to society. _And
+that is Socialism._
+
+I have explained the philosophy of social evolution upon which modern
+Socialism is based as clearly as I could do in the space at my
+disposal. I want you to think it out for yourself, Jonathan. I want
+you to get the enthusiasm and the inspiration which come from a
+realization of the fact that progress is the law of Nature; that
+mankind is ever marching upward and onward; that Socialism is the
+certain inheritor of all the ages of struggle, suffering and
+accumulation.
+
+And above all, I want you to realize the position of your class, my
+friend, and your duty to stand with your class, not only as a union
+man, but as a voter and a citizen.
+
+As a system of political economy I need say little of Socialism,
+beyond recounting some of the things we have already considered. A
+great many learned ignorant men, like Mr. Mallock, for instance, are
+fond of telling the workers that the economic teachings of Socialism
+are unsound; that Karl Marx was really a very superficial thinker
+whose ideas have been entirely discredited.
+
+Now, Karl Marx has been dead twenty-five years, Jonathan. His great
+work was done a generation ago. Being just a human being, like the
+rest of us, it is not to be supposed that he was infallible. There are
+some things in his writings which cannot be accepted without
+modification. But what does that matter, so long as the essential
+principles are sound and true? When we think of a great man like
+Lincoln we do not trouble about the little things--the trivial
+mistakes he made; we consider only the big things, the noble things,
+the true things, he said and did.
+
+But there are lots of little-minded, little-souled people in the world
+who have eyes only for the little flaws and none at all for the big,
+strong and enduring things in a man's work. I never think of these
+critics of Marx without calling to mind an incident I witnessed two or
+three years ago at an art exhibition in New York. There was placed on
+exhibition a famous Greek marble, a statue of Aphrodite. Many people
+went to see it and on several occasions when I saw it I observed that
+some people had been enough stirred to place little bunches of flowers
+at the feet of the statue as a tender tribute to its beauty. But one
+day I was greatly annoyed by the presence of a critical woman who had
+discovered a little flaw in the statue, where a bit had been broken
+off. She chattered about it like an excited magpie. Poor soul, she had
+no eyes for the beauty of the thing, the mystery which shrouded its
+past stirred no emotions in her breast. _She was only just big enough
+in mind and soul to see the flaw._ I pitied her, Jonathan, as I pity
+many of the critics who write learned books to prove that the economic
+principles of Socialism are wrong. I cannot read such a book but a
+vision rises before my mind's eye of that woman and the statue.
+
+I believe that the great fundamental principles laid down by Karl Marx
+cannot be refuted, because they are true. But it is just as well to
+bear in mind that Socialism does not depend upon Karl Marx. If all his
+works could be destroyed and his name forgotten there would still be a
+Socialist movement to contend with. The question is: Are the economic
+principles of Socialism as it is taught to-day true or false?
+
+_The first principle is that wealth in modern society consists in an
+abundance of things which can be sold for profit._
+
+So far as I know, there is no economist of note who makes any
+objection to that statement. I know that sometimes political
+economists confuse their readers and themselves by a loose use of the
+term wealth, including in it many things which have nothing at all to
+do with economics. Good health and cheerful spirits, for example, are
+often spoken of as wealth and there is a certain primal sense in which
+that word is rightly applied to them. You remember the poem by Charles
+Mackay--
+
+    Cleon hath a million acres, ne'er a one have I;
+    Cleon dwelleth in a palace, in a cottage I;
+    Cleon hath a dozen fortunes, not a penny I;
+    Yet the poorer of the twain is Cleon, and not I.
+
+In a great moral sense that is all true, Jonathan, but from the point
+of view of political economy, Cleon of the million acres, the palace
+and the dozen fortunes must be regarded as the richer of the two.
+
+_The second principle is that wealth is produced by labor applied to
+natural resources._
+
+The only objections to this, the only attempts ever made to deny its
+truth, have been based upon a misunderstanding of the meaning of the
+word "labor." If a man came to you in the mill one day, and said: "See
+that great machine with all its levers and springs and wheels working
+in such beautiful harmony. It was made entirely by manual workers,
+such as moulders, blacksmiths and machinists; no brain workers had
+anything to do with it," you would suspect that man of being a fool,
+Jonathan. You know, even though you are no economist, that the labor
+of the inventor and of the men who drew the plans of the various parts
+was just as necessary as the labor of the manual workers. I have
+already shown you, when discussing the case of Mr. Mallock, that
+Socialists have never claimed that wealth was produced by manual labor
+alone, and that brain labor is always unproductive. All the great
+political economists have included both mental and manual labor in
+their use of the term, that being, indeed, the only sensible use of
+the word known to our language.
+
+It is very easy work, my friend, for a clever juggler of words to
+erect a straw man, label the dummy "Socialism" and then pull it to
+pieces. But it is not very useful work, nor is it an honest
+intellectual occupation. I say to you, friend Jonathan, that when
+writers like Mr. Mallock contend that "ability," as distinguished from
+labor, must be considered as a principal factor in production, they
+must be regarded as being either mentally weak or deliberate
+perverters of the truth. You know, and every man of fair sense knows,
+that ability in the abstract never could produce anything at all.
+
+Take Mr. Edison, for example. He is a man of wonderful ability--one of
+the greatest men of this or any other age. Suppose Mr. Edison were to
+say: "I know I have a great deal of _ability_; I think that I will
+just sit down with folded hands and depend upon the mere possession of
+my ability to make a living for me"--what do you think would happen?
+If Mr. Edison were to go to some lonely spot, without tools or food,
+making up his mind that he need not work; that he could safely depend
+upon his ability to produce food for him while he sat idle or slept,
+he would starve. Ability is like a machine, Jonathan. If you have the
+finest machine in the world and keep it in a garret it will produce
+nothing at all. You might as well have a pile of stones there as the
+machine.
+
+But connect the machine with the motor and place a competent man in
+charge of it, and the machine at once becomes a means of production.
+Ability is likewise useless and impotent unless it is expressed in the
+form of either manual or mental labor. And when it is so embodied in
+labor, it is quite useless and foolish to talk of ability as separate
+from the labor in which it is embodied.
+
+_The third principle of Socialist economics is that the value of
+things produced for sale is, under normal conditions, determined by
+the amount of labor socially necessary, on an average, for their
+production. This is called the labor theory of value._
+
+Many people have attacked this theory, Jonathan, and it has been
+"refuted," "upset," "smashed" and "destroyed" by nearly every hack
+writer on economics living. But, for some reason, the number of people
+who accept it is constantly increasing in spite of the number of
+times it has been "exposed" and "refuted." It is worth our while to
+consider it briefly.
+
+You will observe that I have made two important qualifications in the
+above statement of the theory: first, that the law applies only to
+things produced for sale, and second, that it is only under normal
+conditions that it holds true. Many very clever men try to prove this
+law of value wrong by citing the fact that articles are sometimes sold
+for enormous prices, out of all proportion to the amount of labor it
+took to produce them in the first instance. For example, it took
+Shakespeare only a few minutes to write a letter, we may suppose, but
+if a genuine letter in the poet's handwriting were offered for sale in
+one of the auction rooms where such things are sold it would fetch an
+enormous price; perhaps more than the yearly salary of the President
+of the United States.
+
+The value of the letter would not be due to the amount of labor
+Shakespeare devoted to the writing of it, but to its _rarity_. It
+would have what the economists call a "scarcity value." The same is
+true of a great many other things, such as historical relics, great
+works of art, and so on. These things are in a class by themselves.
+But they constitute no important part of the business of modern
+society. We are not concerned with them, but with the ordinary, every
+day production of goods for sale. The truth of this law of value is
+not to be determined by considering these special objects of rarity,
+but the great mass of things produced in our workshops and factories.
+
+Now, note the second qualification. I say that the value of things
+produced for sale _under normal conditions_ is determined by the
+amount of labor _socially necessary_, on an average, for their
+production. Some of the clever, learnedly-ignorant writers on
+Socialism think that they have completely destroyed this theory of
+value when they have only misrepresented it and crushed the image of
+their own creating.
+
+It does not mean that if a quick, efficient workman, with good tools,
+takes a day to make a coat, while another workman, who is slow, clumsy
+and inefficient, and has only poor tools, takes six days to make a
+table that the table will be worth six coats upon the market. That
+would be a foolish proposition, Jonathan. It would mean that if one
+workman made a coat in one day, while another workman took two days to
+make exactly the same kind of coat, that the one made by the slow,
+inefficient workman would bring twice as much as the other, even
+though they were so much alike that they could not be distinguished
+one from the other.
+
+Only an ignoramus could believe that. No Socialist writer ever made
+such a foolish claim, yet all the attacks upon the economic principles
+of Socialism are based upon that idea!
+
+Now that I have told you what it does _not_ mean, let me try to make
+plain just what it _does_ mean. I shall use a very simple illustration
+which you can readily apply to the whole of industry for yourself. If
+it ordinarily takes a day to make a coat, if that is the average time
+taken, and it also takes on an average a day to make a table, then,
+also on an average, one coat will be worth just as much as one table.
+But I must explain that it is not possible to bring the production of
+coats and tables down to the simple measurement. When the tailor takes
+the piece of cloth to cut out the coat, he has in that material
+something that already embodies human labor. Somebody had to weave
+that cloth upon a loom. Before that somebody had to make the loom.
+And before that loom could make cloth somebody had to raise sheep and
+shear them to get the wool. And before the carpenter could make the
+table, somebody had to go into the forest and fell a tree, after which
+somebody had to bring that tree, cut up into planks or logs, to the
+carpenter. And before he could use the lumber somebody had to make the
+tools with which he worked.
+
+I think you will understand now why I placed emphasis on the words
+"socially necessary." It is not possible for the individual buyer to
+ascertain just how much social labor is contained in a coat or a
+table, but their values are fixed by the competition and higgling
+which is the law of capitalism. "It jest works out so," as an old
+negro preacher said to me once.
+
+I have said that competition is the law of capitalism. All political
+economists recognize that as true. But we have, as I have explained in
+a former letter, come to a point where capitalism has broken away from
+competition in many industries. We have a state of affairs under which
+the economic laws of competitive society do not apply. Monopoly prices
+have always been regarded as exceptions to economic law.
+
+If this technical economic discussion seems a little bit difficult, I
+beg you nevertheless to try and master it, Jonathan. It will do you
+good to think out these questions. Perhaps I can explain more clearly
+what is meant by monopoly conditions being exceptional. All through
+the Middle Ages it was the custom for governments to grant monopolies
+to favored subjects, or to sell them in order to raise ready money.
+Queen Elizabeth, for instance, granted and sold many such monopolies.
+
+A man who had a monopoly of something which nearly everybody had to
+use could fix his own price, the only limit being the people's
+patience or their ability to pay. The same thing is true of patented
+articles and of monopolies granted to public service corporations.
+Generally, it is true, in the franchises of these corporations,
+nowadays, there is a price limit fixed beyond which they must not go,
+but it is still true that the normal competitive economic law has been
+set aside by the creation of monopoly.
+
+When a trust is formed, or when there is a price agreement, or what is
+politely called "an understanding among gentlemen" to that effect, a
+similar thing happens. We have monopoly prices.
+
+This is an important thing for the working class, though it is
+sometimes forgotten. How much your wages will secure in the way of
+necessities is just as important to you as the amount of wages you
+get. In other words, the amount you can get in comforts and
+commodities for use is just as important as the amount you can get in
+dollars and cents. Sometimes money wages increase while real wages
+decrease. I could fill a book with statistics to show this, but I will
+only quote one example. Professor Rauschenbusch cites it in his
+excellent book, _Christianity and the Social Crisis_, a book I should
+like you to read, Jonathan. He quotes _Dun's Review_, a standard
+financial authority, to the effect that what $724 would buy in 1897 it
+took $1013 to buy in 1901.
+
+I know that I could make your wife see the importance of this, my
+friend. She would tell you that when from time to time you have
+announced that your wages were to be increased five or ten per cent.
+she has made plans for spending the money upon little home
+improvements, or perhaps for laying it aside for the dreaded "rainy
+day." Perhaps she thought of getting a new rug, or a new sideboard for
+the dining-room; or perhaps it was a piano for your daughter, who is
+musical, she had set her heart on getting. The ten per cent. increase
+seemed to make it all so easy and certain! But after a little while
+she found that somehow the ten per cent. did not bring the coveted
+things; that, although she was just as careful as could be, she
+couldn't save, nor get the things she hoped to get.
+
+Often you and I have heard the cry of trouble: "I don't know how or
+why it is, but though I get ten per cent. more wages I am no better
+off than before."
+
+The Socialist theory of value is all right, my friend, and has not
+been disturbed by the assaults made upon it by a host of little
+critics. But Socialists have always known that the laws of competitive
+society do not apply to monopoly, and that the monopolist has an
+increased power to exploit and oppress the worker. That is one of the
+chief reasons why we demand that the great monopolies be transformed
+into common, or social, property.
+
+_The fourth principle of Socialist economics is that the wages of the
+workers represent only a part of the value of their labor product. The
+remainder is divided among the non-producers in rent, interest and
+profit. The fortunes of the rich idlers come from the unpaid-for labor
+of the working class. This is the great theory of "surplus value,"
+which economists are so fond of attacking._
+
+I am not going to say much about the controversy concerning this
+theory, Jonathan. In the first place, you are not an economist, and
+there is a great deal in the discussion which is wholly irrelevant and
+unprofitable; and, in the second place, you can study the question for
+yourself. There are excellent chapters upon the subject in _Vail's
+Principles of Scientific Socialism_, Boudin's _The Theoretical System
+of Karl Marx_, and Hyndman's _Economics of Socialism_. You will also
+find a simple exposition of the subject in my _Socialism, A Summary
+and Interpretation of Socialist Principles_. It will also be well to
+read _Wage-Labor and Capital_, a five cent booklet by Karl Marx.
+
+But you do not need to be an economist to understand the essential
+principles of this theory of surplus value and to judge of its truth.
+I have never flattered you, Jonathan, as you know; I am in earnest
+when I say that I am content to leave the matter to your own judgment.
+I attach more importance to your decision, based upon a plain,
+matter-of-fact observation of actual life, than to the opinion of many
+a very learned economist cloistered away from the real world in a
+musty atmosphere of books and mental abstractions. So think it out for
+yourself, my friend.
+
+You know that when a man takes a job as a wage-worker, he enters into
+a contract to give something in return for a certain amount of money.
+What is it that he thus sells? Not his actual labor, but his power and
+will to labor. In other words, he undertakes to exert himself in a
+manner desired by the capitalist who employs him for so much an hour,
+so much a day, or so much a week as the case may be.
+
+Now, how are the wages fixed? What determines the amount a man gets
+for his labor? There are several factors. Let us consider them one by
+one:
+
+First, the man must have enough to keep himself alive and able to
+work. If he does not get that much he will die, or be unfit to work.
+Second, in order that the race may be maintained, and that there may
+be a constant supply of labor, it is necessary that men as a rule
+should have families. So, as we saw in a quotation from Adam Smith in
+an earlier letter, the wages must, on an average, be enough to keep,
+not only the man himself but those dependent upon him. These are the
+bottom requirements of wages.
+
+Now, the tendency is for wages to keep somewhere near this bottom
+level. If nothing else interfered they would always tend to that
+level. First of all, there is no scientific organization of the labor
+force of the world. Sometimes the demand for labor in a particular
+trade exceeds the supply, and then wages rise. Sometimes the supply is
+greater than the demand, and then wages drop toward the bottom level.
+If the man looking for a job is so fortunate as to know that there are
+many places open to him, he will not accept low wages; on the other
+hand, if the employer knows that there are ten men for every job, he
+will not pay high wages. So, as with the prices of things in general,
+supply and demand enter into the question of the price of labor in any
+given time or place.
+
+Then, also, by combination workingmen can sometimes raise their wages.
+They can bring about a sort of monopoly-price for their labor-power.
+It is not an absolute monopoly-price, however, for the reason that,
+almost invariably, there are men outside of the unions, whose
+competition has to be withstood. Also, the means of production and the
+accumulated surplus belong to the capitalists so that they can
+generally starve the workers into submission, or at least compromise,
+in any struggle aiming at the establishment of monopoly-prices for
+labor-power.
+
+But there is one thing the workers can never do, except by destroying
+capitalism: _they cannot get wages equal to the full value of their
+product_. That would destroy the capitalist system, which is based
+upon profit-making. All the luxury and wealth of the non-producers is
+wrung from the labor of the producers. You can see that for yourself,
+Jonathan, and I need not argue it further.
+
+I do not care very much whether you call the part of the wealth which
+goes to the non-producers "surplus value," or whether you call it
+something else. The _name_ is not of great importance to us. We care
+only for the reality. But I do want you to get firm hold of the simple
+fact that when an idler gets a dollar he has not earned, some worker
+must get a dollar less than he has earned.
+
+Don't be buncoed by the word-jugglers who tell you that the profits of
+the capitalists are the "fruits of abstinence," or the "reward of
+managing ability," sometimes also called the "wages of superintendence."
+
+These and other attempted explanations of capitalists' profits are
+simply old wives' fables, Jonathan. Let us look for a minute at the
+first of these absurd attempts to explain away the fact that profit is
+only another name for unpaid-for labor. You know very well that
+abstinence never yet produced anything. If I have a dollar in my
+pocket and I say to myself, "I will not spend this dollar: I will
+abstain from using it," the dollar does not increase in any way. It
+remains just a dollar and no more. If I have a loaf of bread or a
+bottle of wine and say to myself, "I will not use this bread, or this
+wine, but will keep it in the cup-board," you know very well that I
+shall not get any increase as a result of my abstinence. I do not get
+anything more than I actually save.
+
+Now, I am perfectly willing that any man shall have all that he can
+save out of his own earnings. If no man had more there would be no
+need of talking about "legislation to limit fortunes," no need of
+protest against "swollen fortunes."
+
+But now suppose, friend Jonathan, that while I have the dollar,
+representing my "abstinence," in my pocket, a man who has not a dollar
+comes to me and says, "I really must have a dollar to get food for my
+wife and baby, or they will die. Lend me a dollar until next week and
+I will pay you back two dollars." If I lend him the dollar and next
+week take his two dollars, that is what is called the reward of my
+abstinence. But in truth it is something quite different. It is usury.
+Just because I happen to have something the other fellow has not got,
+and which he must have, he is compelled to pay me interest. If he also
+had a dollar in his pocket, I could get no interest from him.
+
+It would be just the same if I had not abstained from anything. If,
+for example, I had found the dollar which some other careful fellow
+had lost, I could still get interest upon it. Or if I had inherited
+money from my father, it might happen that, so far from being
+abstemious and thrifty, I had been most extravagant, while the fellow
+who came to borrow had been very thrifty and abstemious, but still
+unable to provide for his family. Yet I should make him pay me
+interest.
+
+As a matter of fact, my friend, the rich have not abstained from
+anything. They have not accumulated riches out of their savings,
+through abstaining from buying things. On the contrary, they have
+bought and enjoyed the costliest things. They have lived in fine
+houses, worn costly clothing, eaten the choicest food, sent their sons
+and daughters to the most expensive schools and colleges.
+
+From all of these things the workers have abstained, Jonathan. They
+have abstained from living in fine houses and lived in poor houses;
+they have abstained from wearing costly clothes and worn the cheapest
+and poorest clothes; they have abstained from choice food and eaten
+only food that is coarse and cheap; they have abstained from sending
+their sons and daughters to expensive schools and colleges and sent
+them only to the lower grades of the public schools. If abstinence
+were a source of wealth, the working people of every country would be
+rich, for they have abstained from nearly everything that is worth
+while.
+
+There is one thing the rich have abstained from, however, which the
+poor have indulged in freely--and that is _work_. I never heard of a
+man getting rich through his own labor.
+
+Even the inventor does not get rich by means of his own labor. To
+begin with, there is no invention which is purely an individual
+undertaking. I was talking the other day with one of the world's great
+inventors upon this subject. He was explaining to me how he came to
+invent a certain machine which has made his name famous. He explained
+that for many years men had been facing a great difficulty and other
+inventors had been trying to devise some means of meeting it. He had,
+therefore, to begin with, the experience of thousands of men during
+many years to give him a clear idea of what was required. And that was
+a great thing to start with, Jonathan.
+
+Secondly, he had the experiments of all the numerous other inventors
+to guide him: he could profit by their failures. Not only did he know
+what to avoid, because that great fund of others' experience, but he
+also got many useful ideas from the work of some of the men who were
+on the right line without knowing it. "I could not have invented it
+if it were not for the men who went before me," he said.
+
+Another point, Jonathan: In the wonderful machine the inventor was
+discussing there are wheels and levers and springs. Somebody had to
+invent the wheel, the lever and the spring before there could be a
+machine at all. Who was it, I wonder! Do you know who made the first
+wheel, or the first lever? Of course you don't! Nobody does. These
+things were invented thousands of years ago, when the race still lived
+in barbarism. Each age has simply extended their usefulness and
+efficiency. So it is wrong to speak of any invention as the work of
+one man. Into every great invention go the experience and experiments
+of countless others.
+
+So much for that side of the question. Now, let us look at another
+side of the question which is sometimes lost sight of. A man invents a
+machine: as I have shown you, it is as much the product of other men's
+brains as of his own. It is really a social product. He gets a patent
+upon the machine for a certain number of years, and that patent gives
+him the right to say to the world "No one can use this machine unless
+he pays me a royalty." He does not use the machine himself and keep
+what he can make in competition with others' means of production. If
+no one chooses to use his machine, then, no matter how good a thing it
+may be, he gets nothing from his invention. So that even the inventor
+is no exception to my statement that no man ever gets rich by his own
+labor.
+
+The inventor is not the real inventor of the machine: he only carries
+on the work which others began thousands of years ago. He takes the
+results of other people's inventive genius and adds his quota. But he
+claims the whole. And when he has done his work and added his
+contribution to the age-long development of mechanical modes of
+production, he must depend again upon society, upon the labor of
+others.
+
+To return to the question of abstinence: I would not attempt to deny
+that some men have saved part of their income and by investing it
+secured the beginnings of great fortunes. I know that is so. But the
+fortunes came out of the labor of other people. Somebody had to
+produce the wealth, that is quite evident. And if the person who got
+it was not that somebody, the producer, it is as clear as noonday that
+the producer must have produced something he did not get.
+
+No, my friend, the notion that profits are the reward of abstinence
+and thrift is stupid in the extreme. The people who enjoy the
+profit-incomes of the world, are, with few exceptions, people who have
+not been either abstemious or thrifty.
+
+But perhaps you will say that, while this may be true of the people
+who to-day are getting enormous incomes from rent, interest or profit,
+we must go further back; that we must go back to the beginning of
+things when their fathers or their grandfathers began by investing
+their savings.
+
+To that I have no objection whatever, provided only that you are
+willing to go back, not merely to the beginning of the individual
+fortune, but to the beginning of the system. If your grandfather, or
+great-grandfather, had been what is termed a thrifty and industrious
+man, working hard, living poor, working his wife and little ones in
+one long grind, all in order to save money to invest in business, you
+might now be a rich man; that is, supposing you were heir to their
+possessions.
+
+That is not at all certain, for it is a fact that most of the men who
+have hoarded their individual savings and then invested them have been
+ruined and fooled. In the case of our railroads, for example, the
+great majority of the early investors of savings went bankrupt. They
+were swallowed up by the bigger fish, Jonathan. But assume it
+otherwise, assume that the grandfather of some rich man of the present
+day laid the foundation of the family fortune in the manner described,
+don't you see that the system of robbing the worker of his product was
+already established; that you must go back to the beginning of the
+_system_?
+
+And when you trace capital back to its origin, my friend, you will
+always come to war or robbery. You can trace it back to the forcible
+taking of the land away from the people. When the machine came,
+bringing with it an industrial revolution, it was by the wealthy and
+the ruthless that the machine was owned, not by the poor toilers. In
+other words, my friends, there was simply a continuance of the old
+rule of a class of overlords, under another name.
+
+If the abstinence theory is foolish, even more foolish is the notion
+that profits are the reward of managing ability, the wages of
+superintendence. Under primitive capitalism there was some
+justification for this view.
+
+It was impossible to deny that the owner of a factory did manage it,
+that he was the superintendent, entitled as such to some reward. It
+was easy enough to say that he got a disproportionate share, but who
+was to decide just what his fair share would be?
+
+But when capitalism developed and became impersonal that idea of the
+nature of profits was killed. When companies were organized they
+employed salaried managers, _whose salaries were paid before profits
+were reckoned at all_. To-day I can own shares in China and Australia
+while living all the time in the United States. Even though I have
+never been to those countries, nor seen the property I am a
+shareholder in, I shall get my profits just the same. A lunatic may
+own shares in a thousand companies and, though he is confined in a
+madhouse, his shares of stock will still bring a profit to his
+guardians in his name.
+
+When Mr. Rockefeller was summoned to court in Chicago last year, he
+stated on oath that he could not tell anything about the business of
+the Standard Oil Company, not having had anything to do with the
+business for several years past. But he gets his profits just the
+same, showing how foolish it is to talk of profits as being the reward
+of managing ability and the wages of superintendence.
+
+Now, Jonathan, I have explained to you pretty fully what Socialism is
+when considered as a philosophy of social evolution. I have also
+explained to you what Socialism is when considered as a system of
+economy. I could sum up both very briefly by saying that Socialism is
+a philosophy of social evolution which teaches that the great force
+which has impelled the race onward, determining the rate and direction
+of social progress, has come from man's tools and the mode of
+production in general: that we are now living in a period of
+transition, from capitalism to Socialism, motived by the economic
+forces of our time. Socialism is a system of economics, also. Its
+substance may be summed up in a sentence as follows: Labor applied to
+natural resources is the source of the wealth of capitalistic society,
+but the greatest part of the wealth produced goes to non-producers,
+the producers getting only a part, in the form of wages--hence the
+paradox of wealthy non-producers and penurious producers.
+
+I have explained to you also that Socialism is not a scheme. There
+remains still to be explained, however, another aspect of Socialism,
+of more immediate interest and importance and interest. I must try to
+explain Socialism as an ideal, as a forecast of the future. You want
+to know, having traced the evolution of society to a point where
+everything seems to be in transition, where a change seems imminent,
+just what the nature of that change will be.
+
+I must leave that for another letter, friend Jonathan, for this is
+over-long already. I shall not try to paint a picture of the future
+for you, to tell you in detail what that future will be like. I do not
+know: no man can know. He who pretends to know is either a fool or a
+knave, my friend. But there are some things which, I believe, we may
+premise with reasonable certainty These things I want to discuss in my
+next letter. Meantime, there are lots of things in this letter to
+think about.
+
+_And I want you to think, Jonathan Edwards!_
+
+
+
+
+IX
+
+WHAT SOCIALISM IS AND WHAT IT IS NOT
+
+(_Continued_)
+
+    And the wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall
+    lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the
+    fattling together; and a little child shall lead them. And the
+    cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down
+    together; and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. And the
+    suckling child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the
+    weaned child shall put his hand on the basilisk's den. They
+    shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the
+    earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the
+    waters cover the sea.--_Isaiah._
+
+    But we are not going to attain Socialism at one bound. The
+    transition is going on all the time, and the important thing
+    for us, in this explanation, is not to paint a picture of the
+    future--which in any case would be useless labor--but to
+    forecast a practical programme for the intermediate period, to
+    formulate and justify measures that shall be applicable at
+    once, and that will serve as aids to the new Socialist
+    birth.--_W. Liebknecht._
+
+
+At the head of this letter I have copied two passages to which I want
+you to give particular attention, Jonathan. The first consists of a
+part of a very beautiful word-picture, in which the splendid old
+Hebrew prophet described his vision of a perfect social state. In his
+Utopia it would no longer be true to speak of Nature as being red of
+tooth and claw. Even the lion would eat straw like the ox, so that
+there might not be suffering caused by one animal preying upon
+another. Whenever I read that chapter, Jonathan, I sit watching the
+smoke-wreaths curl out of my pipe and float away, and they seem to
+bear me with them to a land of seductive beauty. I should like to live
+in a land where there was never a cry of pain, where never drop of
+blood stained the ground.
+
+There have been lots of Utopias besides that of the old Hebrew
+prophet. Plato, the great philosopher, wrote _The Republic_ to give
+form to his dream of an ideal society. Sir Thomas More, the great
+English statesman and martyr, outlined his ideal of social relations
+in a book called _Utopia_. Mr. Bellamy, in our own day, has given us
+his picture of social perfection in _Looking Backward_. There have
+been many others who, not content with writing down their ideas of
+what society ought to be like, have tried to establish ideal
+conditions. They have established colonies, communities, sects and
+brotherhoods, all in the earnest hope of being able to attain the
+perfect social state.
+
+The greatest of these experimental Utopians, Robert Owen, tried to
+carry out his ideas in this country. It would be well worth your while
+to read the account of his life and work in George Browning Lockwood's
+book, _The New Harmony Communities_. Owen tried to get Congress to
+adopt his plans for social regeneration. He addressed the members of
+both houses, taking with him models, plans, diagrams and statistics,
+showing exactly how things would be, according to his idea, in the
+ideal world. In Europe he went round to all the reigning sovereigns
+begging them to adopt his plans.
+
+He wanted common ownership of everything with equal distribution;
+money would be abolished; the marriage system would be done away with
+and "free love" established; children would belong to and be reared
+by the community. Our concern with him at this point is that he
+called himself a Socialist and was, I believe, the first to use that
+word.
+
+But the Socialists of to-day have nothing in common with such Utopian
+ideas as those I have described. We all recognize that Robert Owen was
+a beautiful spirit, one of the world's greatest humanitarians. He was,
+like the prophet Isaiah, a dreamer, a visionary. He had no idea of the
+philosophy of social evolution upon which modern Socialism rests; no
+idea of its system of economics. He saw the evils of private ownership
+and competition in the fiercest period of competitive industry, and
+wanted to replace them with co-operation and public ownership. But his
+point of view was that he had been inspired with a great idea, thanks
+to which he could save the world from all its misery. He did not
+realize that social changes are produced by slow evolution.
+
+One of the principal reasons why I have dwelt at this length upon Owen
+is that he is a splendid representative of the great Utopia builders.
+The fact that he was probably the first man to use the word Socialism
+adds an element of interest to his personality also. I wanted to put
+Utopian Socialism before you so clearly that you would be able to
+contrast it at once with modern, scientific Socialism--the Socialism
+of Marx and Engels, upon which the great Socialist parties of the
+world are based; the Socialism that is alive in the world to-day. They
+are as opposite as the poles. It is important that you should grasp
+this fact very clearly, for many of the criticisms of Socialism made
+to-day apply only to the old utopian ideals and do not touch modern
+Socialism at all. In the letter you wrote me at the beginning of this
+discussion there are many questions which you could not have asked
+had you not conceived of Socialism as a scheme to be adopted.
+
+People are constantly attacking Socialism upon these false grounds.
+They remind me of a story I heard in Wales many years ago. In one of
+the mountain districts a miner returned from his work one afternoon
+and found that his wife had bought a picture of the crucifixion of
+Jesus and hung it against the wall. He had never heard of Jesus, so
+the story goes, and his wife had to explain the meaning of the
+picture. She told the story in her simple way, laying much stress upon
+the fact that "the wicked Jews" had killed Jesus. But she forgot to
+say that it all happened about two thousand years ago.
+
+Now, it happened not long after that the miner saw a Jew peddler come
+to the door of his cottage. The thought of the awful suffering of
+Jesus and his own Welsh hatred of oppression sufficed to fill him with
+resentment toward the poor peddler. He at once began to beat the
+unfortunate fellow in a terribly savage manner. When the peddler,
+between gasps, demanded to know why he had been so ill-treated, the
+miner dragged him into his kitchen and pointed to the picture of the
+crucifixion. "See what you did to that poor man, our Lord!" he
+thundered. To which the Jew very naturally responded: "But, my friend,
+that was not me. That was two thousand years ago!" The reply seemed to
+daze the miner for a moment. Then he said: "Two thousand years! Two
+thousand years! Why, I only heard of it last week!"
+
+It is just as silly to attack the Socialism of to-day for the ideas
+held by the earlier utopian Socialists as beating that poor Jew
+peddler was.
+
+Now then, friend Jonathan, turn back and read the second of the
+passages I have placed at the head of this letter. It is from the
+writings of one of the greatest of modern Socialists, the man who was
+the great political leader of the Socialist movement in Germany,
+Wilhelm Liebknecht.
+
+You will notice that he says the transition to Socialism is going on
+all the time; that we are not to attain Socialism at one bound; that
+it is useless to attempt to paint pictures of the future; that we can
+forecast an immediate programme and aid the Socialist birth. These
+statements are quite in harmony with the outline of the Socialist
+philosophy of the evolution of society contained in my last letter.
+
+So, if you ask me to tell you just what the world will be like when
+all people call themselves Socialists except a few reformers and
+"fanatics," earnest pioneers of further changes, I must answer you
+that I do not know. How they will dress, what sort of pictures artists
+will paint, what sort of poems poets will write, or what sort of
+novels men and women will read, I do not know. What the income of each
+family will be I cannot tell you, any more than I can tell you whether
+there will be any intercommunication between the inhabitants of this
+planet and of Mars; whether there will be an ambassador from Mars at
+the national capital.
+
+I do not expect that the lion will eat straw like the ox; I do not
+expect that people will be perfect. I do not suppose that men and
+women will have become so angelic that there will never be any crime,
+suffering, anger, pain or sorrow; I do not expect disease to be
+forever banished from life in the Socialist regime. Still less do I
+expect that mechanical genius will have been so perfected that human
+labor will be no longer necessary; that perpetual motion will have
+been harnessed to great indestructible machines and work become a
+thing of the past. That dream of the German dreamer, Etzler, will
+never be realized, I hope.
+
+I suppose that, under Socialism, there will be some men and women far
+wiser than others. There may be a few fools left! I suppose that some
+will be far juster and kinder than others. There may be some selfish
+brutes left with a good deal of hoggishness in their nature! I suppose
+that some will have to make great mistakes and endure the tragedies
+which men and women have endured through all the ages. The love of
+some men will die out, breaking the hearts of some women, I suppose,
+and there will be women whose love will bring them to ruin and death.
+I should not like to think of jails and brothels existing under
+Socialism, Jonathan, but for all I know they may exist. Whether there
+will be churches and paid ministers under Socialism, I do not know. I
+do not pretend to know.
+
+I suppose that, under Socialism, there will be some people who will be
+dissatisfied. I hope so! Men and women will want to move to a higher
+plane of life, I hope. What they will call that plane I do not know;
+what it will be like I do not know. I suppose they will be opposed and
+persecuted; that they will be mocked and derided, called "fanatics"
+and "dreamers" and lots of other ugly and unpleasant names. Lots of
+people will want to stay just as they are, and violently oppose the
+men who say, "Let us move on." But I don't believe that any sane
+person will want to go back to the old conditions--back to our
+conditions of to-day.
+
+You see, I have killed lots of your objections already, my friend!
+
+Now let me tell you briefly what Socialists want, and what they
+believe will take place--_must_ take place. In the first place, there
+must be political changes to make complete our political democracy.
+You may be surprised at this, Jonathan. Perhaps you are accustomed to
+think of our political system as being the perfect expression of
+political democracy. Let us see.
+
+Compared with some other countries, like Russia, Germany and Spain,
+for example, this is a free country, politically; a model of
+democracy. We have adult suffrage--_for the men_! In only a few states
+are our mothers, wives, sisters and daughters allowed to vote. In most
+of the states the best women, and the most intelligent, are placed on
+the political level of the criminal and the maniac. They must obey the
+laws, their interests in the well-being and good government of the
+nation are as vital as those of our sex. But they are denied
+representation in the councils of the nation, denied a voice in the
+affairs of the nation. They are not citizens. We have a class below
+that of the citizens in this country, a class based upon sex
+distinctions.
+
+To make our political system thoroughly representative and democratic,
+we must extend political power to the women of the nation. Further
+than that, we must bring all the means of government more directly
+under the people's will.
+
+In our industrial system we must bring the great trusts under the rule
+of the people. They must be owned and controlled by all for all. I say
+that we "must" do this, because there is no other way by which the
+present evils may be remedied. Everybody who is not blinded to the
+real situation by vested interest must recognize that the present
+conditions are intolerable--and becoming worse and more intolerable
+every day. A handful of men have the nation's destiny in their greedy
+fingers and they gamble with it for their own profit. Something must
+be done.
+
+But what? We cannot go back if we would. I have shown you pretty
+clearly, I think, that if it were possible to undo the chain of
+evolution and to go back to primitive capitalism, with its competitive
+spirit, the development to monopoly would begin all over again. It is
+an inexorable law that competition breeds monopoly. So we cannot go
+back.
+
+What, then, is the outlook, the forward view? So far as I know,
+Jonathan, there are only two propositions for meeting the evil
+conditions of monopoly, other than the perfectly silly one of "going
+back to competition." They are (1) Regulation of the trusts; (2)
+Socialization of the trusts.
+
+Now, the first means that we should leave these great monopolies in
+the hands of their present owners and directors, but enact various
+laws curtailing their powers to exploit the people. Laws are to be
+passed limiting the capital they may employ, the amount of profits
+they may make, and so on. But nobody explains how they expect to get
+the laws obeyed. There are plenty of laws now aiming at regulation of
+the trusts, but they are quite futile and inoperative. First we spend
+an enormous amount of money and energy getting laws passed; then we
+spend much more money and energy trying to get them enforced--and fail
+after all!
+
+I submit to your good judgment, Jonathan, that so long as we have a
+relatively small class in the nation owning these great monopolies
+through corporations there can be no peace. It will be to the interest
+of the corporations to look after their profits, to prevent the
+enactment of legislation aimed to restrict them and to evade the law
+as much as possible. They will naturally use their influence to secure
+laws favorable to themselves, with the inevitable result of corruption
+in the legislative branches of the government. Legislators will be
+bought like mackerel in the market, as Mr. Lawson so bluntly expresses
+it. Efforts will be made to corrupt the judiciary also and the power
+of the entire capitalist class will be directed to the capture of our
+whole system of government. Even more than to-day, we will have the
+government of the people by a privileged part of the people in the
+interests of the privileged part.
+
+You must not forget, my friend, that the corruption of the government
+about which we hear so much from time to time is always in the
+interests of private capitalism. If there is graft in some public
+department, there is an outcry that graft and public business go
+together. As a matter of fact the graft is in the interests of private
+capitalism.
+
+When legislators sell their votes it is never for public enterprises.
+I have never heard of a city which was seeking the power to establish
+any public service raising a "yellow dog fund" with which to bribe
+legislators. On the other hand, I never yet heard of a private company
+seeking a franchise without doing so more or less openly. Regulation
+of the trusts will still leave the few masters of the many, and
+corruption still gnawing at the vitals of the nation.
+
+We must _own_ the trusts, Jonathan, and transform the monopolies by
+which the few exploit and oppress the many into social monopolies for
+the good of all. Sooner or later, either by violent or peaceful means,
+this will be done. It is for the working-class to say whether it shall
+be sooner or later, whether it shall be accomplished through the
+strife and bitterness of war or by the peaceful methods of political
+conquest.
+
+We have seen that the root of the evil in modern society is the profit
+motive. Socialism means the production of things for use instead of
+for profit. Not at one stroke, perhaps, but patiently, wisely and
+surely, all the things upon which people in common depend will be made
+common property.
+
+Take notice of that last paragraph, Jonathan. I don't say that _all_
+property must be owned in common, but only the things upon which
+people in common depend; the things which all must use if they are to
+live as they ought, and as they have a right to live. We have a
+splendid illustration of social property in our public streets. These
+are necessary to all. It would be intolerable if one man should own
+the streets of a city and charge all other citizens for the use of
+them. So streets are built out of the common funds, maintained out of
+the common funds, freely used by all in common, and the poorest man
+has as much right to use them as the richest man. In the nutshell this
+states the argument of Socialism.
+
+People sometimes ask how it would be possible for the government under
+Socialism to decide which children should be educated to be writers,
+musicians and artists and which to be street cleaners and laborers;
+how it would be possible to have a government own everything, deciding
+what people should wear, what food should be produced, and so on.
+
+The answer to all such questions is that Socialism would not need to
+do anything of the kind. There would be no need for the government to
+attempt such an impossible task. When people raise such questions they
+are thinking of the old and dead utopianism, of the schemes which
+once went under the name of Socialism. But modern Socialism is a
+principle, not a scheme. The Socialist movement of to-day is not
+interested in carrying out a great design, but in seeing society get
+rid of its drones and making it impossible for one class to exploit
+another class.
+
+Under Socialism, then, it would not be at all necessary for the
+government to own everything; for private property to be destroyed.
+For instance, the State could have no possible interest in denying the
+right of a man to own his home and to make that home as beautiful as
+he pleased. It is perfectly absurd to suppose that it would be
+necessary to "take away the poor man's cottage," about which some
+opponents of Socialism shriek. It would not be necessary to take away
+_anybody's_ home.
+
+On the contrary, Socialism would most likely enable all who so desired
+to own their own homes. At present only thirty-one per cent. of the
+families of America live in homes which they own outright. More than
+half of the people live in rented homes. They are obliged to give up
+practically a fourth part of their total income for mere shelter.
+
+Socialism would not prevent a man from owning a horse and wagon, since
+it would be possible for him to use that horse and wagon without
+compelling the citizens to pay tribute to him. On the other hand,
+private ownership of a railway would be impossible, because railways
+could not be indefinitely and easily multiplied, and the owners of
+such a railway would necessarily have to run it for profit.
+
+Under Socialism such public services as the transportation and
+delivery of parcels would be in the hands of the people, and not in
+the hands of monopolists as at present. The aim would be to serve the
+people to the best possible advantage, and not to make profit for the
+few. But if any citizen objected and wanted to carry his own parcel
+from New York to Boston, for example, it is not to be supposed for an
+instant that the State would try to prevent him.
+
+Under Socialism the great factories would belong to the people; the
+trusts would be socialized. But this would not stop a man from working
+for himself in a small workshop if he wanted to; it would not prevent
+a number of workers from forming a co-operative workshop and sharing
+the products of their labor. By reason of the fact that the great
+productive and distributive agencies which are entirely social were
+socially owned and controlled--railways, mines, telephones,
+telegraphs, express service, and the great factories of various
+kinds--the Socialist State would be able to set the standards of wages
+and industrial conditions for all the rest remaining in private hands.
+
+Let me explain what I mean, Jonathan: Under Socialism, let us suppose,
+the State undertakes the production of shoes by socializing the shoe
+trust. It takes over the great factories and runs them. Its object is
+not to make shoes for profit, however, but for use. To make shoes as
+good as possible, as cheaply as good shoes can be made, and to see
+that the people making the shoes get the best possible conditions of
+labor and the highest possible wages--as near as possible to the net
+value of their product, that is.
+
+Some people, however, object to wearing factory-made shoes; they want
+shoes of a special kind, to suit their individual fancy. There are
+also, we will suppose, some shoemakers who do not like to work in the
+State factories, preferring to make shoes by hand to suit individual
+tastes. Now, if the people who want the handmade shoes are willing to
+pay the shoemakers as much as they could earn in the socialized
+factories no reasonable objection could be urged against it. If they
+would not pay that amount, or near it, the shoemakers, it is
+reasonable to suppose, would not want to work for them. It would
+adjust itself.
+
+Under Socialism the land would belong to the people. By this I do not
+mean that the private _use_ of land would be forbidden, because that
+would be impossible. There would be no object in taking away the small
+farms from their owners. On the contrary, the number of such farms
+might be greatly increased. There are many people to-day who would
+like to have small farms if they could only get a fair chance, if the
+railroads and trusts of one kind and another were not always sucking
+all the juice from the orange. Socialism would make it possible for
+the farmer to get what he could produce, without having to divide up
+with the railroad companies, the owners of grain elevators,
+money-lenders, and a host of other parasites.
+
+I have no doubt, Jonathan, that under Socialism there would be many
+privately-worked farms. Nor have I any doubt whatever that the farmers
+would be much better off than under existing conditions. For to-day
+the farmer is not the happy, independent man he is sometimes supposed
+to be. Very often his lot is worse than that of the city wage-earner.
+At any rate, the money return for his labor is often less. You know
+that a great many farmers do not own their farms: they are mortgaged
+and the farmer has to pay an average interest of six per cent. upon
+the mortgage.
+
+Now, let us look for a moment at such a farmer's conditions, as shown
+by the census statistics. According to the census of 1900, there were
+in the United States 5,737,372 farms, each averaging about 146 acres.
+The total value of farm products in 1899 was $4,717,069,973. Now then,
+if we divide the value of the products by the number of farms, we can
+get the average annual product of each farm--about $770.
+
+Out of that $770 the farmer has to pay a hired laborer for at least
+six months in the year, let us say. At twenty-five dollars a month,
+with an added eight dollars a month for his board, this costs the
+farmer $198, so that his income now stands at $572. Next, he must pay
+interest upon his mortgage at six per cent. per annum. Now, the
+average value of the farms in 1899 was $3,562 and six per cent. on
+that amount would be about $213. Subtract that sum from the $572 which
+the farmer has after paying his hired man and you have left about
+$356. But as the farms are, not mortgaged to their full value, suppose
+we reduce the interest one half--the farmer's income remains now $464.
+
+Now, as a general thing, the farmer and his wife have to work equally
+hard, and they must work every day in the year. The hired laborer gets
+$150 and his board for six months, at the rate of $300 and board per
+year. The farmer and his wife get only $232 a year each and _part_ of
+their board, for what is not produced on the farm they must _buy_.
+
+Under Socialism the farmer could own his own farm to all intents and
+purposes. While the final title might be vested in the government, the
+farmer would have a title to the use of the farm which no one could
+dispute or take from him. If he had to borrow money he would do it
+from the government and would not be charged extortionate rates of
+interest as he is now. He would not have to pay railroad companies'
+profits, since the railways being owned by all for all and not run
+for profit, would be operated upon a basis of the cost of service.
+The farmer would not be exploited by the packers and middlemen, these
+functions being assumed by the people through their government, upon
+the same basis of service to all, things being done for the use and
+welfare of all instead of for the profit of the few. Under Socialism,
+moreover, the farmer could get his machinery from the government
+factories at a price which included no profits for idle shareholders.
+
+I am told, Jonathan, that at the present time it costs about $24 to
+make a reaper which the farmer must pay $120 for. It costs $40 to sell
+the machine which was made for $24, the expense being incurred by
+wasteful and useless advertising, salesmen's commissions, travelling
+expenses, and so on. The other $54 which the farmer must pay goes to
+the idlers in the form of rent, interest and profit.
+
+Socialism, then, could very well leave the farmer in full possession
+of his farm and improve his position by making it possible for him to
+get the full value of his labor-products without having to divide up
+with a host of idlers and non-producers. Socialism would not deny any
+man the use of the land, but it would take away the right of non-users
+to reap the fruits of the toil of users. It would deny the right of
+the Astor family to levy a tax upon the people of New York, amounting
+to millions of dollars annually, for the privilege of living there.
+The Astors have such a vast business collecting this tax that they
+have to employ an agent whose salary is equal to that of the President
+of the United States and a large army of employees.
+
+Socialism would deny the right of the English Duke of Rutland and Lord
+Beresford to hold millions of acres of land in Texas, and to levy a
+tax upon Americans for its use. It would deny the right of the
+British Land Company to tax Kansans for the use of the 300,000 acres
+owned by the company; the right of the Duke of Sutherland and Sir
+Edward Reid to tax Americans for the use of the millions of acres they
+own in Florida; of Lady Gordon and the Marquis of Dalhousie to any
+right to tax people in Mississippi. The idea that a few people can own
+the land upon which all people must live in any country is a relic of
+slavery, friend Jonathan.
+
+So you see, my friend, Socialism does not mean that everything is to
+be divided up equally among the people every little while. That is
+either a fool's notion or the wilful misrepresentation of a liar.
+Socialism does not mean that there is to be a great bureaucratic
+government owning everything and controlling everybody. It does not
+mean doing away with private initiative and making of humanity a great
+herd, everybody wearing the same kind of clothes, eating the same kind
+and quantities of food, and having no personal liberties. It simply
+means that all men and women should have equal opportunities; to make
+it impossible for one man to exploit another, except at that other's
+free will. It does not mean doing away with individual liberty and
+reducing all to a dead level. That is what is at present happening to
+the great majority of people, and Socialism comes to unbind the soul
+of man--to make mankind free.
+
+I think, Jonathan, that you ought to have a fairly clear notion now of
+what Socialism is and what it is not. You ought to be able now to
+distinguish between the social properties which Socialism would
+establish and the private properties it could have no object in taking
+away, which it would rather foster and protect. I have tried simply to
+illustrate the principle for you, so that you can think the matter
+out for yourself. It will be a very good thing for you to commit this
+rule to memory.--
+
+_Under Socialism, the State would own and control only those things
+which could not be owned and controlled by individuals without giving
+them an undue advantage over the community, by enabling them to
+extract profits from the labor of others._
+
+But be sure that you do not make the common mistake of confusing
+government ownership with Socialism, friend Jonathan, as so many
+people are in the habit of doing. In Prussia the government owns the
+railways. But the government does not represent the interests of all
+the people. It is the government of a nation by a class. That is not
+the same thing as the socialization of the railways, as you will see.
+In Russia the government owns some of the railways and has a monopoly
+of the liquor traffic. But these things are not democratically owned
+and managed in the common interest. Russia is an autocracy. Everything
+is run for the benefit of the governing class, the Czar and a host of
+bureaucrats. That is not Socialism. In this country we have a nearer
+approach to democracy in our government, and our post-office system,
+for example, is a much nearer approach to the realization of the
+Socialist principle.
+
+But even in this country, government ownership and Socialism are not
+the same thing. For our government is a class government too. There is
+the same inequality of wages and conditions as under capitalist
+ownership: many of the letter carriers and other employees are
+miserably underpaid, and the service is notoriously handicapped by
+private interests. Whether it is in Russia under the Czar and his
+bureaucrats, Germany with its monarchial system cumbered with the
+remnants of feudalism, or the United States with its manhood suffrage
+foolishly used to elect the interests of the capitalist class,
+government ownership can only be at best a framework for Socialism. It
+must wait for the Socialist spirit to be infused into it.
+
+Socialists want government ownership, Jonathan, but they don't want it
+unless the people are to own the government. When the government
+represents the interests of all the people it will use the things it
+owns and controls for the common good. _And that will be Socialism in
+practice, my friend._
+
+
+
+
+X
+
+OBJECTIONS TO SOCIALISM CONSIDERED
+
+    I feel sure that the time will come when people will find it
+    difficult to believe that a rich community such as our's,
+    having such command over external nature, could have submitted
+    to live such a mean, shabby, dirty life as we do.--_William
+    Morris._
+
+    Morality and political economy unite in repelling the
+    individual who consumes without producing.--_Balzac._
+
+    The restraints of Communism would be freedom in comparison
+    with the present condition of the majority of the human
+    race.--_John Stuart Mill._
+
+
+I promised at the beginning of this discussion, friend Jonathan, that
+I would try to answer the numerous objections to Socialism which you
+set forth in your letter, and I cannot close the discussion without
+fulfilling that promise.
+
+Many of the objections I have already disposed of and need not,
+therefore, take further notice of them here. The remaining ones I
+propose to answer--except where I can show you that an answer is
+unnecessary. For you have answered some of the objections yourself, my
+friend, though you were not aware of the fact. I find in looking over
+the long list of your objections that one excludes another very often.
+You seem, like a great many other people, to have set down all the
+objections you had ever heard, or could think of at the time,
+regardless of the fact that they could not by any possibility be all
+well founded; that if some were wise and weighty others must be
+foolish and empty. Without altering the form of your objections,
+simply rearranging their order, I propose to set forth a few of the
+contradictions in your objections. That is fair logic, Jonathan.
+
+First you say that you object to Socialism because it is "the clamor
+of envious men to take by force what does not belong to them." That is
+a very serious objection, if true. But you say a little further on in
+your letter that "Socialism is a noble and beautiful dream which human
+beings are not perfect enough to realize in actual life." Either one
+of the objections _may_ be valid, Jonathan, but both of them cannot
+be. Socialism cannot be both a noble and a beautiful dream, too
+sublime for human realization, and at the same time a sordid envy--can
+it?
+
+You say that "Socialists are opposed to law and order and want to do
+away with all government," and then you say in another objection that
+"Socialists want to make us all slaves to the government by putting
+everything and everybody under government control." It happens that
+you are wrong in both assertions, but you can see for yourself that
+you couldn't possibly be right in both of them--can't you?
+
+You object that under Socialism "all would be reduced to the same dead
+level." That is a very serious objection, too, but it cannot be well
+founded unless your other objection, that "under Socialism a few
+politicians would get all the power and most of the wealth, making all
+the people their slaves" is without foundation. Both objections cannot
+hold--can they?
+
+You say that "Socialists are visionaries with cut and dried schemes
+that look well on paper, but the world has never paid any attention
+to schemes for reorganizing society," and then you object that "the
+Socialists have no definite plans for what they propose to do, and how
+they mean to do it; that they indulge in vague principles only." And I
+ask you again, friend Jonathan, do you think that both these
+objections can be sound?
+
+You object that "Socialism is as old as the world; has been tried many
+times and always failed." If that were true it would be a very serious
+objection to Socialism, of course. But is it true? In another place
+you object that "Socialism has never been tried and we don't know how
+it would work." You see, my friend, you can make either objection you
+choose, but not both. Either one _may_ be right, but _both_ cannot be.
+
+Now, these are only a few of the long list of your objections which
+are directly contradictory and mutually exclusive, my friend. Some of
+them I have already answered directly, the others I have answered
+indirectly. Therefore, I shall do no more here and now than briefly
+summarize the Socialist answer to them.
+
+Socialists do propose that society as a whole should take and use for
+the common good some things which a few now own, things which "belong"
+to them by virtue of laws which set the interests of the few above the
+common good. But that is a very different thing from "the clamor of
+envious men to take what does not belong to them." It is no more to be
+so described than taxation, for example is. Socialism is a beautiful
+dream in one sense. Men who see the misery and despair produced by
+capitalism think with joy of the days to come when the misery and
+despair are replaced by gladsomeness and hope. That _is_ a dream, but
+no Socialist rests upon the dream merely: the hope of the Socialist is
+in the very material fact of the economic development from
+competition to monopoly; in the breakdown of capitalism itself.
+
+You have probably learned by this time that Socialism does not mean
+either doing away with all government or making the government master
+of everything. Later, I want to return to the subject, and to the
+charge that it would reduce all to a dull level. I shall not waste
+time answering the objections that it is a scheme and that it is not a
+scheme, further than I have already answered them. And I am not going
+to waste your time arguing at length the folly of saying that
+Socialism has been tried and proved a failure. The Socialism of to-day
+has nothing to do with the thousands of Utopian schemes which men have
+tried. Before the modern Socialist movement came into existence,
+during hundreds of years, men and women tried to realize social
+equality by forming communities and withdrawing from the ordinary life
+of the world. Some of these communities, mostly of a religious nature,
+such as the Shakers and the Perfectionists, attained some measure of
+success and lasted a number of years, but most of them lasted only a
+short time. It is folly to say that Socialism has ever been tried
+anywhere at any time.
+
+And now, friend Jonathan, I want to consider some of the more vital
+and important objections to Socialism made in your letter. You object
+to Socialism
+
+  Because its advocates use violent speech
+  Because it is "the same as Anarchism"
+  Because it aims to destroy the family and the home
+  Because it is opposed to religion
+  Because it would do away with personal liberty
+  Because it would reduce all to one dull level
+  Because it would destroy the incentive to progress
+  Because it is impossible unless we can change human nature.
+
+These are all your objections, Jonathan, and I am going to try to
+suggest answers to them.
+
+(1) It is true that Socialists sometimes use very violent language.
+Like all earnest and enthusiastic men who are possessed by a great and
+overwhelming sense of wrong and needless suffering, they sometimes use
+language that is terrible in its vehemence; their speech is sometimes
+full of bitter scorn and burning indignation. It is also true that
+their speech is sometimes rough and uncultured, shocking the sensitive
+ear, but I am sure you will agree with me that the working man or
+woman who, never having had the advantage of education and refined
+environment, feels the burden of the days that are or the inspiration
+of better days to come, is entitled to be heard. So I am not going to
+apologize for the rough and uncultured speech.
+
+And I am not going to apologize for the violent speech. It would be
+better, of course, if all the advocates of Socialism could master the
+difficult art of stating their case strongly and without compromise,
+but without bitterness and without unnecessary offense to others. But
+it is not easy to measure speech in the denunciation of immeasurable
+wrong, and some of the greatest utterances in history have been hard,
+bitter, vehement words torn from agonized hearts. It is true that
+Socialists now and then use violent language, but no Socialist--unless
+he is so overwrought as to be momentarily irresponsible--_advocates
+violence_. The great urge and passion of Socialism is for the peaceful
+transformation of society.
+
+I have heard a few overwrought Socialists, all of them gentle and
+generous comrades, incapable of doing harm to any living creature, in
+bursts of tempestuous indignation use language which seemed to incite
+their hearers to violence, but those who heard them understood that
+they were borne away by their feelings. I have never heard Socialists
+advocate violence toward any human beings in cold-blooded
+deliberation. But I _have_ heard capitalists and the defenders of
+capitalism advocate violence toward Socialists in cold-blooded
+deliberation. I have seen in Socialist papers upon a few occasions
+violent utterances which I deplored, but never such advocacy of
+violence as I have read in newspapers opposed to Socialism. Here, for
+example, are some extracts from an editorial which appeared January,
+1908, in the columns of the _Gossip_, of Goldfield, Nevada:
+
+    "A cheaper and more satisfactory method of dealing with this
+    labor trouble in Goldfield last spring would have been to have
+    taken half a dozen of the Socialist leaders in the Miners'
+    Union and hanged them all to telegraph poles.
+
+    "SPEAKING DISPASSIONATELY, AND WITHOUT ANIMUS, it seems clear
+    to us after many months of reflection, that YOU COULDN'T MAKE
+    A MISTAKE IN HANGING A SOCIALIST.
+
+    "HE IS ALWAYS BETTER DEAD.
+
+    "He, breathing peace, breathing order, breathing goodwill,
+    fairness to all and moderation, is always the man with the
+    dynamite. He is the trouble-maker, and the trouble-breeder.
+
+    "To fully appreciate him you must live where he abounds.
+
+    "In the Western Federation of Miners he is that plentiful
+    legacy left us from the teachings of Eugene V. Debs, hero of
+    the Chicago Haymarket Riots.
+
+    "ALWAYS HANG A SOCIALIST. NOT BECAUSE HE'S A DEEP THINKER, BUT
+    BECAUSE HE'S A BAD ACTOR."
+
+I could fill many pages with extracts almost as bad as the above, all
+taken from capitalist papers, Jonathan. But for our purpose one is as
+good as a thousand. I want you to read the papers carefully with an
+eye to their class character. When the Goldfield paper printed the
+foregoing open incitement to murder, the community was already
+disturbed by a great strike and the President of the United States had
+sent federal troops to Goldfield in the interest of the master class.
+Suppose that under similar circumstances a Socialist paper had come
+out and said in big type that people "couldn't make a mistake in
+hanging a capitalist," that capitalists are "always better dead."
+Suppose that any Socialist paper urged the murder of Republicans and
+Democrats in the same way, do you think the paper would have been
+tolerated? That the editor would have escaped jail? Don't you know
+that if such a statement had been published by any Socialist paper the
+whole country would have been roused, that press and pulpit would have
+denounced it?
+
+Socialists are opposed to violence. They appeal to brains and not to
+bludgeons; they trust in ballots and not in bullets. The violence of
+speech with which they are charged is not the advocacy of violence,
+but unmeasured and impassioned denunciation of a cruel and brutal
+system. Not long ago I heard a clergyman denouncing Socialists for
+their "violent language." Poor fellow! He was quite unconscious that
+he was more bitter in his invective than the men he attacked. Of
+course Socialists use bitter and burning language--but not more bitter
+than was used by the great Hebrew prophets in their stern
+denunciations; not more bitter than was used by Jesus and his
+disciples; not more bitter than was used by Martin Luther and other
+great leaders of the Reformation; not more bitter than was used by
+Garrison and the other Abolitionists. Men with vital messages cannot
+always use soft words, Jonathan.
+
+(2) Socialism is not "the same as Anarchism," my friend, but its very
+opposite. The only connection between them is that they are agreed
+upon certain criticisms of present society. In all else they are as
+opposite as the poles. The difference lies not merely in the fact that
+most Anarchists have advocated physical violence, for there are some
+Anarchists who are as much opposed to physical violence as you or I,
+Jonathan, and it is only fair and just that we should recognize the
+fact. It has always seemed to me that Anarchism logically leads to
+physical force by individuals against individuals, but, logical or no,
+there are many Anarchists who are gentle spirits, holding all life
+sacred and abhorring violence and assassination. When there are so
+many ready to be unjust to them, we can afford to be just to the
+Anarchists, even if we do not agree with them, Jonathan.
+
+Sometimes an attempt is made by Socialists to explain the difference
+between themselves and Anarchists by saying that Anarchists want to
+destroy all government, while Socialists want to extend government and
+bring everything under its control; that Anarchists want no laws,
+while Socialists want more laws. But that is not an intelligent
+statement of the difference. We Socialists don't particularly desire
+to extend the functions of government; we are not so enamoured of laws
+that we want more of them. Quite the contrary is true, in fact. If we
+had a Socialist government to-morrow in this country, one of the first
+and most important of its tasks would be to repeal a great many of the
+existing laws.
+
+Then there are some Socialists who try to explain the difference
+between Socialism and Anarchism by saying that the Anarchists are
+simply Socialists of a very advanced type; that society must first
+pass through a period of Socialism, in which laws will be necessary,
+before it can enter upon Anarchism, a state in which every man will be
+so pure and so good that he can be a law unto himself, no other form
+of law being necessary. But that does not settle the difficulty. I
+think you will see, friend Jonathan, that in order to have such a
+society in which without laws or penal codes, or government of any
+kind, men and women lived happily together, it would be necessary for
+every member to cultivate a social sense, a sense of responsibility to
+society as a whole. Each member of society would have to become so
+thoroughly socialized as to make the interests of society as a whole
+his chief concern in life. And such a society would be simply a
+Socialist society perfectly developed, not an Anarchist society. It
+would be a Socialist society simply because it would be dominated by
+the essential principle of Socialism--the idea of solidarity, of
+common interest.
+
+The basis of Anarchism is utopian individualism. Just as the old
+utopian dreamers who tried to "establish" Socialism through the medium
+of numerous "Colonies," took the abstract idea of equality and made it
+their ideal, so the Anarchist sets up the abstract idea of individual
+liberty. The true difference between Socialism and Anarchism is that
+the Socialist sets the social interest, the good of society, above all
+other interests, while the Anarchist sets the interest of the
+individual above everything else. You could express the difference
+thus:
+
+  Socialism means _We_ -ism
+  Anarchism means _Me_ -ism
+
+The Anarchist says: "The world is made up of individuals. What is
+called "society" is only a lot of individuals. Therefore the
+individual is the only real being and society a mere abstraction, a
+name. As an individual I know myself, but I know nothing of society; I
+know my own interests, but I know nothing of what you call the
+interests of society." On the other hand, the Socialist says that "no
+man liveth unto himself," to use a biblical phrase. He points out that
+in modern society no individual life, apart from the social life, is
+possible.
+
+If this seems a somewhat abstract way of putting it, Jonathan, just
+try to put it in a concrete form yourself by means of a simple
+experiment. When you sit down to your breakfast to-morrow morning take
+time to think where your breakfast came from and how it was produced.
+Think of the coffee plantations in far-off countries drawn on for your
+breakfast; of the farms, perhaps thousands of miles away, from which
+came your bacon and your bread; of the coal miners toiling that your
+breakfast might be cooked; of the men in the engine-rooms of great
+ships and on the tenders of mighty locomotives, bringing your
+breakfast supplies across sea and land. Then think of your clothing in
+the same way, article by article, trying to realize how much you are
+dependent upon others than yourself. Throughout the day apply the same
+principle as you move about. Apply it to the streets as you go to
+work; to the street cars as you ride; apply it to the provisions which
+are made to safeguard your health against devastating plague, the
+elaborate system of drainage, the carefully guarded water-supply, and
+so on. Then, when you have done that for a day as far as possible, ask
+yourself whether the Anarchist idea that every individual is a
+distinct and separate whole, an independent being, unrelated to the
+other individuals who make up society, is a true one; or whether the
+Socialist idea that all individuals are inter-dependent upon each
+other, bound to each other by so many ties that they cannot be
+considered apart, is the true idea. Judge by your experience,
+Jonathan!
+
+So the Socialist says that "we are all members one of another," to use
+another familiar biblical phrase. He is not less interested in
+personal freedom than the Anarchist, not less desirous of giving to
+each individual unit in society the largest possible freedom
+compatible with the like freedom of all the other units. But, while
+the Anarchist says that the best judge of that is the individual, the
+Socialist says that society is the best judge. The Anarchist position
+is that, in the event of a conflict of interests, the will of the
+individual must rule at all costs; the Socialist says that, in the
+event of such a conflict of interests, the will of the individual must
+give way. That is the real philosophical difference between the two.
+
+Anarchism is not important enough in America, friend Jonathan, to
+justify our devoting so much time and space to the discussion of its
+philosophy as opposed to the philosophy of Socialism, except for the
+bearing it has upon the political movement of the working class. I
+want you to see just how Anarchism works out when the test of
+practical application is resorted to.
+
+Just as the Anarchist sets up an abstract idea of individual liberty
+as his ideal, so he sets up an abstract idea of tyranny. To him Law,
+the will of society, is the essence of tyranny. Laws are limitations
+of individual liberty set by society and therefore they are
+tyrannical. No matter what the law may be, all laws are wrong. There
+cannot be such a thing as a good law, according to this view. To
+illustrate just where this leads us, let me tell of a recent
+experience: I was lecturing in a New England town, and after the
+lecture an Anarchist rose to ask some questions. He wanted to know if
+it was not a fact that all laws were oppressive and bad, to which, of
+course, I replied that I thought not.
+
+I asked him whether the law forbidding murder and providing for its
+punishment, oppressed _him_; whether _he_ felt it a hardship not to be
+allowed to murder at will, and he replied that he did not. I cited
+many other laws, such as the laws relating to arson, burglary,
+criminal assault, and so on, with the same result. His outcry about
+the oppression of law, as such, proved to be just an empty cry about
+an abstraction; a bogey of his imagination. Of course, he could cite
+bad laws, unjust laws, as I could have done; but that would simply
+show that some laws are not right--a proposition upon which most
+people will agree. My Anarchist friend quoted Herbert Spencer in
+support of his contention. He referred to Spencer's well-known summary
+of the social legislation of England. So I asked my friend if he
+thought the Factory Acts were oppressive and tyrannical, and he
+replied that, from an Anarchist viewpoint, they were.
+
+Think of that, Jonathan! Little boys and girls, five and six years
+old, were taken out of their beds crying and begging to be allowed to
+sleep, and carried to the factory gates. Then they were driven to work
+by brutal overseers armed with leather whips. Sometimes they fell
+asleep at their tasks and then they were beaten and kicked and cursed
+at like dogs. Little boys and girls from orphan asylums were sent to
+work thus, and died like flies in summer--their bodies being secretly
+buried at night for fear of an outcry. You can find the terrible story
+told in _The Industrial History of England_, by H. de B. Gibbins,
+which ought to be in your public library.
+
+Humane men set up a protest at last and there was a movement through
+the country demanding protection for the children. Once a member of
+parliament held up in the House of Commons a whip of leather thongs
+attached to an oak handle, telling his colleagues that a few days
+before it had been used to flog little children who were mere babies.
+The demand was made for legislation to stop this barbarous treatment
+of children, to protect their childhood. The factory owners opposed
+the passing of such laws on the ground that it would be an
+interference with their individual liberties, their right to do as
+they pleased. _And the Anarchist comes always and inevitably to the
+same conclusion._ Factory laws, public health laws, education
+laws--all denounced as "interferences with individual liberty."
+Extremes meet: the Anarchist in the name of individual liberty, like
+the capitalist, would prevent society from putting a stop to the
+exploitation of its little ones.
+
+The real danger in Anarchism is not that _some_ Anarchists believe in
+violence, and that from time to time there are cowardly assassinations
+which are as futile as they are cowardly. The real danger lies first
+in the reactionary principle that the interests of society must be
+subordinated to the interests of the individual, and, second, in
+holding out a hope to the working class that its freedom from
+oppression and exploitation may be brought about by other than
+political, legislative means. And it is this second objection which is
+of extreme importance to the working class of America at this time.
+
+From time to time, in all working class movements, there is an outcry
+against political action, an outcry raised by impetuous men-in-a-hurry
+who want twelve o'clock at eleven. They cry out that the ballot is too
+slow; they want some more "direct" action than the ballot-box allows.
+But you will find, Jonathan, that the men who raise this cry have
+nothing to propose except riot to take the place of political action.
+Either they would have the workers give up all struggle and depend
+upon moral suasion, or they would have them riot. And we Socialists
+say that ballots are better weapons than bullets for the workers. You
+may depend upon it that any agitation among the workers against the
+use of political weapons leads to Anarchism--and to riot. I hope you
+will find time to read Plechanoff's _Anarchism and Socialism_,
+Jonathan. It will well repay your careful study.
+
+No, Socialism is not related to Anarchism, but it is, on the contrary,
+the one great active force in the world to-day that is combating
+Anarchism. There is a close affinity between Anarchism and the idea of
+capitalism, for both place the individual above society. The Socialist
+believes that the highest good of the individual will be realized
+through the highest good of society.
+
+(3) Socialism involves no attack upon the family and the home. Those
+who raise this objection against Socialism charge that it is one of
+the aims of the Socialist movement to do away with the monogamic
+marriage and to replace it with what is called "Free Love." By this
+term they do not really mean free _love_ at all. For love is always
+_free_, Jonathan. Not all the wealth of a Rockefeller could buy one
+single touch of love. Love is always free; it cannot be bought and it
+cannot be bound. No one can love for a price, or in obedience to laws
+or threats. The term "Free Love" is therefore a misnomer.
+
+What the opponents of Socialism have in mind when they use the term is
+rather lust than love. They charge us Socialists with trying to do
+away with the monogamic marriage relation--the marriage of one man to
+one woman--and the family life resulting therefrom. They say that we
+want promiscuous sex relations, communal life instead of family life
+and the turning over of all parental functions to the community, the
+State. And to charge that these things are involved in Socialism is at
+once absurd and untrue. I venture to say, Jonathan, that the
+percentage of Socialists who believe in such things is not greater
+than the percentage of Christians believing in them, or the percentage
+of Republicans or Democrats. They have nothing to do with Socialism.
+
+Let us see upon what sort of evidence the charge is based: On the one
+hand, finding nothing in the programmes of the Socialist parties of
+the world to support the charge, we find them going back to the
+utopian schemes with communistic features. They go back to Plato,
+even! Because Plato in his _Republic_, which was a wholly imaginary
+description of the ideal society he conceived in his mind, advocated
+community of sex relations as well as community of goods, therefore
+the Socialists, who do not advocate community of goods or community of
+wives, must be charged with Plato's principles! In like manner, the
+fact that many other communistic experiments included either communism
+of sex relations, as, for example, the Adamites, during the Hussite
+wars, in Germany, and the Perfectionists, of Oneida, with their
+"community marriage," all the male members of a community being
+married to all the female members; or enforced celibacy, as did the
+Shakers and the Harmonists, among many other similar groups, is urged
+against Socialism.
+
+I need not argue the injustice and the stupidity of this sort of
+criticism, Jonathan. What have the Socialists of twentieth century
+America to do with Plato? His utopian ideal is not their ideal; they
+are neither aiming at community of goods nor at community of wives.
+And when we put aside Plato and the Platonic communities, the first
+fact to challenge attention is that the communities which established
+laws relating to sex relations which were opposed to the monogamic
+family, whether promiscuity, so-called free love; plural marriage, as
+in Mormonism, or celibacy, as in Harmonism and Shakerism, were all
+_religious_ communities. In a word, all these experiments which
+antagonized the monogamic family relation were the result of various
+interpretations of the Bible and the efforts of those who accepted
+those interpretations to rule their lives in accordance therewith. In
+every case communism was only a means to an end, a way of realizing
+what they considered to be the true religious life. In other words, my
+friend, most of the so-called free love experiments made in these
+communities have been offshoots of Christianity rather than of
+Socialism.
+
+_And I ask you, Jonathan Edwards, as a fair-minded American, what you
+would think of it if the Socialists charged Christianity with being
+opposed to the family and the home? It would not be true of
+Christianity and it is not true of Socialism._
+
+But there is another form of argument which is sometimes resorted to.
+The history of the movement is searched for examples of what is called
+free love. That is to say that because from time to time there have
+been individual Socialists who have refused to recognize the
+ceremonial and legal aspects of marriage, believing love to be the
+only real marriage bond, notwithstanding that the vast majority of
+Socialists have recognized the legal and ceremonial aspects of
+marriage, they have been accused of trying to do away with marriage.
+Our opponents have even stooped so low as to seize upon every case
+where Socialists have sought divorce as a means of undoing terrible
+wrong, and then married other husbands and wives, and proclaimed it as
+a fresh proof that Socialism is opposed to marriage and the family.
+When I have read some of these cruel and dishonest attacks, often
+written by men who know better, my soul has been sickened at the
+thought of the cowardice and dishonesty to which the opponents of
+Socialism resort.
+
+Suppose that every time a prominent Christian becomes divorced, and
+then remarries, the Socialists of the country were to attack the
+Christian religion and the Christian churches, upon the ground that
+they are opposed to marriage and the family, does anybody think that
+_that_ would be fair and just? But it is the very thing which happens
+whenever Socialists are divorced. It happened, not so very long ago,
+that a case of the kind was made the occasion of hundreds of
+editorials against Socialism and hundreds of sermons. The facts were
+these: A man and his wife, both Socialists, had for a long time
+realized that their marriage was an unhappy one. Failing to realize
+the happiness they sought, it was mutually agreed that the wife should
+apply for a divorce. They had been legally married and desired to be
+legally separated. Meantime the man had come to believe that his
+happiness depended upon his wedding another woman. The divorce was to
+be procured as speedily as possible to enable the legal marriage of
+the man and the woman he had grown to love.
+
+Those were the facts as they appeared in the press, the facts upon
+which so many hundreds of attacks were made upon Socialism and the
+Socialist movement. Two or three weeks later, an Episcopal clergyman,
+not a Socialist, left the wife he had ceased to love and with whom he
+had presumably not been happy. He had legally married his wife, but
+he did not bother about getting a legal separation. He just left his
+wife; just ran away. He not only did not bother about getting a legal
+separation, but he ran away with a young girl, whom he had grown to
+love. They lived together as man and wife, without legal marriage, for
+if they went through any marriage form at all it was not a legal
+marriage and the man was guilty of bigamy. Was there any attack upon
+the Episcopal Church in consequence? Were hundreds of sermons preached
+and editorials written to denounce the church to which he belonged,
+accusing it of aiming to do away with the monogamic marriage relation,
+to break up the family and the home?
+
+Not a bit of it, Jonathan. There were some criticisms of the man, but
+there were more attempts to find excuses for him. There were thousands
+of expressions of sympathy with his church. But there were no attacks
+such as were aimed at Socialism in the other case, notwithstanding
+that the Socialist strictly obeyed the law whereas the clergyman broke
+the law and defied it. I think that was a fair way to treat the case,
+but I ask the same fair treatment of Socialism.
+
+So far, Jonathan, I have been taking a defensive attitude, just
+replying to the charge that Socialism is an attack upon the family and
+the home. Now, I want to go a step further: I want to take an
+affirmative position and to say that Socialism comes as the defender
+of the home and the family; that capitalism from the very first has
+been attacking the home. I am going to turn the tables, Jonathan.
+
+When capitalism began, when it came with its steam engine and its
+power-loom, what was the first thing it did? Why, it entered the home
+and took the child from the mother and made it a part of a great
+system of wheels and levers and springs, all driven for one end--the
+grinding of profit. It began its career by breaking down the bonds
+between mother and child. Then it took another step. It took the
+mother away from the baby in the cradle in order that she too might
+become part of the great profit-grinding system. Her breasts might be
+full to overflowing with the food wonderfully provided for the child
+by Nature; the baby in the cradle might cry for the very food that was
+bursting from its mother's breasts, but Capital did not care. The
+mother was taken away from the child and the child was left to get on
+as best it might upon a miserable substitute for its mother's milk.
+Hundreds of thousands of babies die each year for no other reason than
+this.
+
+There will never be safety for the home and the family so long as
+babies are robbed of their mothers' care; so long as little children
+are made to do the work of men; so long as the girls who are to be the
+wives and mothers are sent into wifehood and motherhood unprepared,
+simply because the years of maidenhood are spent in factories that
+ought to be spent in preparation for wifehood and motherhood. Here is
+capitalism cutting at the very heart of the home, with Socialism as
+the only defender of the home it is charged with attacking. For
+Socialism would give the child its right to childhood; it would give
+the mother her freedom to nourish her babe; it would give to the
+fathers and mothers of the future the opportunities for preparation
+they cannot now enjoy.
+
+I ask you, friend Jonathan, to think of the tens and thousands of
+women who marry to-day, not because they love and are loved in return,
+but for the sake of getting a home. Socialism would put an end to that
+condition by making woman economically and politically free. Think of
+the tens of thousands of young men in our land who do not, dare not,
+marry because they have no certainty of earning a living adequate to
+the maintenance of wives and families; of the hundreds of thousands of
+prostitutes in our country, the vast majority of whom have been driven
+to that terrible fate by economic causes outside of their control.
+Socialism would at least remove the economic pressure which forces so
+many of these women down into the terrible hell of prostitution. I ask
+you, Jonathan, to think also of the thousands of wives who are
+deserted every year. So far as the investigations of the charity
+organizations into this serious matter have gone, it has been shown
+that poverty is responsible for by far the greatest number of these
+desertions. Socialism would not only destroy the poverty, but it would
+set woman economically free, thus removing the main causes of the
+evil.
+
+Oh, Jonathan Edwards, hard-headed, practical Jonathan, do you think
+that the existence of the family depends upon keeping women in the
+position of an inferior class, politically and economically? Do you
+think that when women are politically and economically the equals of
+men, so that they no longer have to marry for homes, or to stand
+brutal treatment because they have no other homes than the men afford;
+so that no woman is forced to sell her body--I ask you, when women are
+thus free do you believe that the marriage system will be endangered
+thereby? For that is what the contention of the opponents of Socialism
+comes to in the last analysis, my friend. Socialism will only affect
+the marriage system in so far as it raises the standards of society as
+a whole and makes woman man's political and economic equal. Are you
+afraid of _that_, Jonathan?
+
+(4) Socialism is not opposed to religion. It is perfectly true that
+some Socialists oppose religion, but Socialism itself has nothing to
+do with matters of religion. In the Socialist movement to-day there
+are men and women of all creeds and all shades of religious belief. By
+all the Socialist parties of the world religion is declared to be a
+private matter--and the declaration is honestly meant; it is not a
+tactical utterance, used as bait to the unwary, which the Socialists
+secretly repudiate. In the Socialist movement of America to-day there
+are Jews and Christians, Catholics and Protestants, Spiritualists and
+Christian Scientists, Unitarians and Trinitarians, Methodists and
+Baptists, Atheists and Agnostics, all united in one great comradeship.
+
+This was not always the case. When the scientific Socialist movement
+began in the second half of the last century, Science was engaged in a
+great intellectual encounter with Dogma. All the younger men were
+drawn into the scientific current of the time. It was natural, then,
+that the most radical movement of the time should partake of the
+universal scientific spirit and temper. The Christians of that day
+thought that the work of Darwin and his school would destroy religion.
+They made the very natural mistake of supposing that dogma and
+religion were the same thing, a mistake which their critics fully
+shared.
+
+You know what happened, Jonathan. The Christians gradually came to
+realize that no religion could oppose the truth and continue to be a
+power. Gradually they accepted the position of the Darwinian critics,
+until to-day there is no longer the great vital controversy upon
+matters of theology which our fathers knew. In a very similar manner,
+the present generation of Socialists have nothing to do with the
+attacks upon religion which the Socialists of fifty years ago indulged
+in. The position of all the Socialist parties of the world to-day is
+that they have nothing to do with matters of religious belief; that
+these belong to the individual alone.
+
+There is a sense in which Socialism becomes the handmaiden of
+religion: not of creeds and theological beliefs, but of religion in
+its broadest sense. When you examine the great religions of the world,
+Jonathan, you will find that in addition to certain supernatural
+beliefs there are always great ethical principles which constitute the
+most vital elements in religion. Putting aside the theological beliefs
+about God and the immortality of the soul, what was it that gave
+Judaism its power? Was it not the ethical teaching of its great
+prophets, such as Isaiah, Joel, Amos and Ezekiel--the stern rebuke of
+the oppressors of the poor and downtrodden, the scathing denunciation
+of the despoilers of the people, the great vision of a unified world
+in which there should be peace, when war should no more blight the
+world and when the weapons of war should be forged into plowshares and
+pruning hooks? Leaving matters of theology aside, are not these the
+principles which make Judaism a living religion to-day for so many?
+And I say to you, Jonathan, that Socialism is not only not opposed to
+these things, but they can only be realized under Socialism.
+
+So with Christianity. In its broadest sense, leaving aside all matters
+of a supernatural character, concerning ourselves only with the
+relation of the religion to life, to its material problems, we find in
+Christianity the same great faith in the coming of universal peace and
+brotherhood, the same defense of the poor and the oppressed, the same
+scathing rebuke of the oppressor, that we find in Judaism. There is
+the same relentless scourge of the despoilers, of those who devour
+widows houses. And again I say that Socialism is not only not opposed
+to the great social ideals of Christianity, but it is the only means
+whereby they may be realized. And the same thing is true of the
+teachings of Confucius; Buddha and Mahomet. The great social ideals
+common to all the world's religions can never be attained under
+capitalism. Not till the Socialist state is reached will the Golden
+Rule, common to all the great religions, be possible as a rule of
+life. No ethical life is possible except as the outgrowing of just and
+harmonic economic relations; until it is rooted in proper economic
+soil.
+
+No, Jonathan, it is not true that Socialism is antagonistic to
+religion. With beliefs and speculations concerning the origin of the
+universe it has nothing to do. It has nothing to do with speculations
+concerning the existence of man after physical death, with belief in
+the immortality of the soul. These are for the individual. Socialism
+concerns itself with man's material life and his relation to his
+fellow man. And there is nothing in the philosophy of Socialism, or
+the platform of the political Socialist movement, antagonistic to the
+social aspects of any religion.
+
+(5) I have already had a good deal to say in the course of this
+discussion concerning the subject of personal freedom. The common idea
+of Socialism as a great bureaucratic government owning and controlling
+everything, deciding what every man and woman must do, is wholly
+wrong. The aim and purpose of the Socialist movement is to make life
+more free for the individual, and not to make it less free. Socialism
+means equality of opportunity for every child born into the world; it
+means doing away with class privilege; it means doing away with the
+ownership by the few of the things upon which the lives of the many
+depend, through which the many are exploited by the few. Do you see
+how individuals are to be enslaved through the destruction of the
+power of a few over many, Jonathan? Think it out!
+
+It is in the private ownership of social resources, and the private
+control of social opportunities, that the essence of tyranny lies. Let
+me ask you, my friend, whether you feel yourself robbed of any part of
+your personal liberty when you go to a public library and take out a
+book to read, or into one of our public art galleries to look upon
+great pictures which you could never otherwise see? Is it not rather a
+fact that your life is thereby enriched and broadened; that instead of
+taking anything from you these things add to your enjoyment and to
+your power? Do you feel that you are robbed of any element of your
+personal freedom through the action of the city government in making
+parks for your recreation, providing hospitals to care for you in case
+of accident or illness, maintaining a fire department to protect you
+against the ravages of fire? Do you feel that in maintaining schools,
+baths, hospitals, parks, museums, public lighting service, water,
+streets and street cleaning service, the city government is taking
+away your personal liberties? I ask these questions, Jonathan, for the
+reason that all these things contain the elements of Socialism.
+
+When you go into a government post-office and pay two cents for the
+service of having a letter carried right across the country, knowing
+that every person must pay the same as you and can enjoy the same
+right as you, do you feel that you are less free than when you go into
+an express company's office and pay the price they demand for taking
+your package? Does it really help you to enjoy yourself, to feel
+yourself more free, to know that in the case of the express company's
+service only part of your money will be used to pay the cost of
+carrying the package; that the larger part will go to bribe
+legislators, to corrupt public officials and to build up huge fortunes
+for a few investors? The post-office is not a perfect example of
+Socialism: there are too many private grafters battening upon the
+postal system, the railway companies plunder it and the great mass of
+the clerks and carriers are underpaid. But so far as the principles of
+social organization and equal charges for everybody go they are
+socialistic. The government does not try to compel you to write
+letters any more than the private company tries to compel you to send
+packages. If you said that, rather than use the postal system, you
+would carry your own letter across the continent, even if you decided
+to walk all the way, the government would not try to stop you, any
+more than the express company would try to stop you from carrying your
+trunk on your shoulder across the country. But in the case of the
+express company you must pay tribute to men who have been shrewd
+enough to exploit a social necessity for their private gain.
+
+Do you really imagine, Jonathan, that in those cities where the street
+railways, for example, are in the hands of the people there is a loss
+of personal liberty as a result; that because the people who use the
+street railways do not have to pay tribute to a corporation they are
+less free than they would otherwise be? So far as these things are
+owned by the people and democratically managed in the interests of
+all, they are socialistic and an appeal to such concrete facts as
+these is far better than any amount of abstract reasoning. You are not
+a closet philosopher, interested in fine-spun theories, but a
+practical man, graduated from the great school of hard experience. For
+you, if I am not mistaken, Garfield's aphorism, that "An ounce of
+fact is worth many tons of theory," is true.
+
+So I want to ask you finally concerning this question of personal
+liberty whether you think you would be less free than you are to-day
+if your Pittsburg foundries and mills, instead of belonging to
+corporations organized for the purpose of making profit, belonged to
+the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and if they were operated for the
+common good instead of as now to serve the interests of a few. Would
+you be less free if, instead of a corporation trying to make the
+workers toil as many hours as possible for as little pay as possible,
+naturally and consistently avoiding as far as possible the expenditure
+of time and money upon safety appliances and other means of protecting
+the health and lives of the workers, the mills were operated upon the
+principle of guarding the health and lives of the workers as much as
+possible, reducing the hours of labor to a minimum and paying them for
+their work as much as possible? Is it a sensible fear, my friend, that
+the people of any country will be less free as they acquire more power
+over their own lives? You see, Jonathan, I want you to take a
+practical view of the matter.
+
+(6) The cry that Socialism would reduce all men and women to one dull
+level is another bogey which frightens a great many good and wise
+people. It has been answered thousands of times by Socialist writers
+and you will find it discussed in most of the popular books and
+pamphlets published in the interest of the Socialist propaganda. I
+shall therefore dismiss it very briefly.
+
+Like many other objections, this rests upon an entire misapprehension
+of what Socialism really means. The people who make it have got firmly
+into their minds the idea that Socialism aims to make all men equal;
+to devise some plan for removing the inequalities with which they are
+endowed by nature. They fear that, in order to realize this ideal of
+equality, the strong will be held down to the level of the weak, the
+daring to the level of the timid, the wisest to the level of the least
+wise. That is their conception of the equality of which Socialists
+talk. And I am free to say, Jonathan, that I do not wonder that
+sensible men should oppose such equality as that.
+
+Even if it were possible, through the adoption of some system of
+stirpiculture, to breed all human beings to a common type, so that
+they would all be tall or short, fat or thin, light or dark, according
+to choice, it would not be a very desirable ideal, would it? And if we
+could get everybody to think exactly the same thoughts, to admire
+exactly the same things, to have exactly the same mental powers and
+exactly the same measure of moral strength and weakness, I do not
+think _that_ would be a very desirable ideal. The world of human
+beings would then be just as dull and uninspiring as a waxwork show.
+Imagine yourself in a city where every house was exactly like every
+other house in all particulars, even to its furnishings; imagine all
+the people being exactly the same height and weight, looking exactly
+alike, dressed exactly alike, eating exactly alike, going to bed and
+rising at the same time, thinking exactly alike and feeling exactly
+alike--how would you like to live in such a city, Jonathan? The city
+or state of Absolute Equality is only a fool's dream.
+
+No sane man or woman wants absolute equality, friend Jonathan, for it
+is as undesirable as it is unimaginable. What Socialism wants is
+equality of opportunity merely. No Socialist wants to pull down the
+strong to the level of the weak, the wise to the level of the less
+wise. Socialism does not imply pulling anybody down. It does not
+imply a great plain of humanity with no mountain peaks of genius or
+character. It is not opposed to natural inequalities, but only to
+man-made inequalities. Its only protest is against these artificial
+inequalities, products of man's ignorance and greed. It does not aim
+to pull down the highest, but to lift up the lowest; it does not want
+to put a load of disadvantage upon the strong and gifted, but it wants
+to take off the heavy burdens of disadvantage which keep others from
+rising. In a word, Socialism implies nothing more than giving every
+child born into the world equal opportunities, so that only the
+inequalities of Nature remain. Don't you believe in _that_, my friend?
+
+Here are two babies, just born into the world. Wee, helpless seedlings
+of humanity, they are wonderfully alike in their helplessness. One
+lies in a tenement upon a mean bed, the other in a mansion upon a bed
+of wonderful richness. But if they were both removed to the same
+surroundings it would be impossible to tell one from the other. It has
+happened, you know, that babies have been mixed up in this way, the
+child of a poor servant girl taking the place of the child of a
+countess. Scientists tell us that Nature is wonderfully democratic,
+and that, at the moment of birth, there is no physical difference
+between the babies of the richest and the babies of the poorest. It is
+only afterward that man-made inequalities of conditions and
+opportunities make such a wide difference between them.
+
+Look at our two babies a moment: no man can tell what infinite
+possibilities lie behind those mystery-laden eyes. It may be that we
+are looking upon a future Newton and another Savonarola, or upon a
+greater than Edison and a greater than Lincoln. No man knows what
+infinitude of good or ill is germinating back of those little puckered
+brows, nor which of the cries may develop into a voice that will set
+the hearts of men aflame and stir them to glorious deeds. Or it may be
+that both are of the common clay, that neither will be more than an
+average man, representing the common level in physical and mental
+equipment.
+
+But I ask you, friend Jonathan, is it less than justice to demand
+equal opportunities for both? Is it fair that one child shall be
+carefully nurtured amid healthful surroundings, and given a chance to
+develop all that is in him, and that the other shall be cradled in
+poverty, neglected, poorly nurtured in a poor hovel where pestilence
+lingers, and denied an opportunity to develop physically, mentally and
+morally? Is it right to watch and tend one of the human seedlings and
+to neglect the other? If, by chance of Nature's inscrutable working,
+the babe of the tenement came into the world endowed with the greater
+possibilities of the two, if the tenement mother upon her mean bed
+bore into the world in her agony a spark of divine fire of genius, the
+soul of an artist like Leonardo da Vinci, or of a poet like Keats, is
+it less than a calamity that it should die--choked by conditions which
+only ignorance and greed have produced?
+
+Give all the children of men equal opportunities, leaving only the
+inequalities of Nature to manifest themselves, and there will be no
+need to fear a dull level of humanity. There will be hewers of wood
+and drawers of water content to do the work they can; there will be
+scientists and inventors, forever enlarging man's kingdom in the
+universe; there will be makers of songs and dreamers of dreams, to
+inspire the world. Socialism wants to unbind the souls of men, setting
+them free for the highest and best that is in them.
+
+Do you know the story of Prometheus, friend Jonathan? It is, of
+course, a myth, but it serves as an illustration of my present point.
+Prometheus, for ridiculing the gods, was bound to a rock upon Mount
+Caucasus, by order of Jupiter, where daily for thirty years a vulture
+came and tore at his liver, feeding upon it. Then there came to his
+aid Hercules, who unbound the tortured victim and set him free. Like
+another Prometheus, the soul of man to-day is bound to a rock--the
+rock of capitalism. The vulture of Greed tears the victim,
+remorselessly and unceasingly. And now, to break the chains, to set
+the soul of man free, Hercules comes in the form of the Socialist
+movement. It is nothing less than this; my friend. In the last
+analysis, it is the bondage of the soul which counts for most in our
+indictment of capitalism and the liberation of the soul is the goal
+toward which we are striving.
+
+It is to-day, under capitalism, that men are reduced to a dull level.
+The great mass of the people live dull, sordid lives, their
+individuality relentlessly crushed out. The modern workman has no
+chance to express any individuality in his work, for he is part of a
+great machine, as much so as any one of the many levers and cogs.
+Capitalism makes humanity appear as a great plain with a few peaks
+immense distances apart--a dull level of mental and moral attainment
+with a few giants. I say to you in all seriousness, Jonathan, that if
+nothing better were possible I should want to pray with the poet
+Browning,--
+
+    Make no more giants, God--
+    But elevate the race at once!
+
+But I don't believe that. I am satisfied that when we destroy man-made
+inequalities, leaving only the inequalities of Nature's making, there
+will be no need to fear the dull level of life. When all the chains of
+ignorance and greed have been struck from the Prometheus-like human
+soul, then, and not till then, will the soul of man be free to soar
+upward.
+
+(7) For the reasons already indicated, Socialism would not destroy the
+incentive to progress. It is possible that a stagnation would result
+from any attempt to establish absolute equality such as I have already
+described. If it were the aim of Socialism to stamp out all
+individuality, this objection would be well founded, it seems to me.
+But that is not the aim of Socialism.
+
+The people who make this objection seem to think that the only
+incentive to progress comes from a few men and their hope and desire
+to be masters of the lives of others, but that is not true. Greed is
+certainly a powerful incentive to some kinds of progress, but the
+history of the world shows that there are other and nobler incentives.
+The hope of getting somebody else's property is a powerful incentive
+to the burglar and has led to the invention of all kinds of tools and
+ingenious methods, but we do not hesitate to take away that incentive
+to that kind of "progress." The hope of getting power to exploit the
+people acts as a powerful incentive to great corporations to devise
+schemes to defeat the laws of the nation, to corrupt legislators and
+judges, and otherwise assail the liberties of the people. That, also,
+is "progress" of a kind, but we do not hesitate to try to take away
+that incentive.
+
+Even to-day, Jonathan, Greed is not the most powerful incentive in the
+world. The greatest statesmanship in the world is not inspired by
+greed, but by love of country, the desire for the approbation and
+confidence of others, and numerous other motives. Greed never inspired
+a great teacher, a great artist, a great scientist, a great inventor,
+a great soldier, a great writer, a great poet, a great physician, a
+great scholar or a great statesman. Love of country, love of fame,
+love of beauty, love of doing, love of humanity--all these have meant
+infinitely more than greed in the progress of the world.
+
+(8) Finally, Jonathan, I want to consider your objection that
+Socialism is impossible until human nature is changed. It is an old
+objection which crops up in every discussion of Socialism. People talk
+about "human nature" as though it were something fixed and definite;
+as if there were certain quantities of various qualities and instincts
+in every human being, and that these never changed from age to age.
+The primitive savage in many lands went out to seek a wife armed with
+a club. He hunted the woman of his choice as he would hunt a beast,
+capturing and clubbing her into submission. _That_ was human nature,
+Jonathan. The modern man in civilized countries, when he goes seeking
+a wife, hunts the woman of his choice with flattery, bon-bons,
+flowers, opera tickets and honeyed words. Instead of a brute clubbing
+a woman almost to death, we see the pleading lover, cautiously and
+earnestly wooing his bride. And that, too, is human nature. The
+African savages suffering from the dread "Sleeping Sickness" and the
+poor Indian ryots suffering from Bubonic Plague see their fellows
+dying by thousands and think angry gods are punishing them. All they
+can hope to do is to appease the gods by gifts or by mutilating their
+own poor bodies. That is human nature, my friend. But a great
+scientist like Dr. Koch, of Berlin, goes into the African centres of
+pestilence and death, seeks the germ of the disease, drains swamps,
+purifies water, isolates the infected cases and proves himself more
+powerful than the poor natives' gods. And that is human nature.
+Outside the gates of the Chicago stockyards, I have seen crowds of men
+fighting for work as hungry dogs fight over a bone. That was human
+nature. I have seen a man run down in the streets and at once there
+was a crowd ready to lift him up and to do anything for him that they
+could. It was the very opposite spirit to that shown by the brutish,
+snarling, cursing, fighting men at the stockyards, but it was just as
+much human nature.
+
+The great law of human development, that which expresses itself in
+what is so vaguely termed human nature, is that man is a creature of
+his environment, that self-preservation is a fundamental instinct in
+human beings. Socialism is not an idealistic attempt to substitute
+some other law of life for that of self-preservation. On the contrary,
+it rests entirely upon that instinct of self-preservation. Here are
+two classes opposed to each other in modern society. One class is
+small but exceedingly powerful, so that, despite its disadvantage in
+size, it is the ruling class, controlling the larger class and
+exploiting it. When we ask ourselves how that is possible, how it
+happens that the smaller class rules the larger, we soon find that the
+members of the smaller class have become conscious of their interests
+and the fact that these can be best promoted through organization and
+association. Thus conscious of their class interests, and acting
+together by a class instinct, they have been able to rule the world.
+But the workers, the class that is much stronger numerically, have
+been slower to recognize their class interests. Inevitably, however,
+they are developing a similar class sense, or instinct. Uniting in the
+economic struggle at first, and then, in the political struggle in
+order that they may further their economic interests through the
+channels of government, it is easy to see that only one outcome of
+the struggle is possible. By sheer force of numbers, the workers must
+win, Jonathan.
+
+The Socialist movement, then, is not something foreign to human
+nature, but it is an inevitable part of the development of human
+society. The fundamental instinct of the human species makes the
+Socialist movement inevitable and irresistible. Socialism does not
+require a change in human nature, but human nature does require a
+change in society. And that change is Socialism. It is perhaps the
+deepest and profoundest instinct in human beings that they are forever
+striving to secure the largest possible material comfort, forever
+striving to secure more of good in return for less of ill. And in that
+lies the great hope of the future, Jonathan. The great Demos is
+learning that poverty is unnecessary, that there is plenty for all;
+that none need suffer want; that it is possible to suffer less and to
+live more; to have more of good while suffering less of ill. The face
+of Demos is turned toward the future, toward the dawning of
+Socialism.
+
+
+
+
+XI
+
+WHAT TO DO
+
+    Are you in earnest? Seize this very minute.
+    What you can do, or dream you can, begin it!
+    Boldness has genius, power and magic in it.
+    Only engage and then the mind grows heated;
+    Begin, and then the work will be completed.--_Goethe._
+
+    Apart from those convulsive upheavals that escape all forecast
+    and are sometimes the final supreme resource of history
+    brought to bay, there is only one sovereign method for
+    Socialism--the conquest of a legal majority.--_Jean Jaurès._
+
+
+When one is convinced of the justice and wisdom of the Socialist idea,
+when its inspiration has begun to quicken the pulse and to stir the
+soul, it is natural that one should desire to do something to express
+one's convictions and to add something, however little, to the
+movement. Not only that, but the first impulse is to seek the
+comradeship of other Socialists and to work with them for the
+realization of the Socialist ideal.
+
+Of course, the first duty of every sincere believer in Socialism is to
+vote for it. No matter how hopeless the contest may seem, nor how far
+distant the electoral triumph, the first duty is to vote for
+Socialism. If you believe in Socialism, my friend, even though your
+vote should be the only Socialist vote in your city, you could not be
+true to yourself and to your faith and vote any other ticket. I know
+that it requires courage to do this sometimes. I know that there are
+many who will deride the action and say that you are "wasting your
+vote," but no vote is ever wasted when it is cast for a principle,
+Jonathan. For, after all, what is a vote? Is it not an expression of
+the citizen's conviction concerning the sort of government he desires?
+How, then can his vote be thrown away if it really expresses his
+conviction? He is entitled to a single voice, and provided that he
+avails himself of his right to declare through the ballot box his
+conviction, no matter whether he stands alone or with ten thousand,
+his vote is not thrown away.
+
+The only vote that is wasted is the vote that is cast for something
+other than the voter's earnest conviction, the vote of cowardice and
+compromise. The man who votes for what he fully believes in, even if
+he is the only one so voting, does not lose his vote, waste it or use
+it unwisely. The only use of a vote is to declare the kind of
+government the voter believes in. But the man who votes for something
+he does not want, for something less than his convictions, that man
+loses his vote or throws it away, even though he votes on the winning
+side. Get this well into your mind, friend Jonathan, for there are
+cities in which the Socialists would sweep everything before them and
+be elected to power if all the people who believe in Socialism, but
+refuse to vote for it on the ground that they would be throwing away
+their votes, would be true to themselves and vote according to their
+inmost convictions.
+
+I say that we must vote for Socialism, Jonathan, because I believe
+that, in this country at least, the change from capitalism must be
+brought about through patient and wise political action. I have no
+doubt that the economic organizations, the trade unions, will help,
+and I can even conceive the possibility of their being the chief
+agencies in the transformation in society. That possibility, however,
+seems exceedingly remote, while the possibility of effecting the
+change through the ballot box is undeniable. Once let the
+working-class of America make up its mind to vote for Socialism,
+nothing can prevent its coming. And unless the workers are wise enough
+and united enough to vote together for Socialism, Jonathan, it is
+scarcely likely that they will be able to adopt other methods with
+success.
+
+But as voting for Socialism is the most obvious duty of all who are
+convinced of its justness and wisdom, so it is the least duty. To cast
+your vote for Socialism is the very least contribution to the movement
+which you can make. The next step is to spread the light, to proclaim
+the principles of Socialism to others. To _be_ a Socialist is the
+first step; to _make_ Socialists is the second step. Every Socialist
+ought to be a missionary for the great cause. By talking with your
+friends and by circulating suitable Socialist literature, you can do
+effective work for the cause, work not less effective than that of the
+orator addressing big audiences. Don't forget, my friend, that in the
+Socialist movement there is work for _you_ to do.
+
+Naturally, you will want to be an efficient worker for Socialism, to
+be able to work successfully. Therefore you will need to join the
+organized movement, to become a member of the Socialist Party. In this
+way, working with many other comrades, you will be able to accomplish
+much more than as an individual working alone. So I ask you to join
+the party, friend Jonathan, and to assume a fair and just share of the
+responsibilities of the movement.
+
+In the Socialist party organization there are no "Leaders" in the
+sense in which that term is used in connection with the political
+parties of capitalism. There are men who by virtue of long service and
+exceptional talents of various kinds are looked up to by their
+comrades, and whose words carry great weight. But the government of
+the organization is in the hands of the rank and file and everything
+is directed from the bottom upwards, not from the top downwards. The
+party is not owned by a few people who provide its funds, for these
+are provided by the entire membership. Each member of the party pays a
+small monthly fee, and the amounts thus contributed are divided
+between the local, state and national divisions of the organization.
+It is thus a party of the people, by the people and for the people,
+which bosses cannot corrupt or betray.
+
+So I would urge you, Jonathan, and all who believe in Socialism, to
+join the party organization. Get into the movement in earnest and try
+to keep posted upon all that relates to it. Read some of the papers
+published by the party--at least two papers representing different
+phases of the movement. There are, always and everywhere, at least two
+distinct tendencies in the Socialist movement, a radical wing and a
+more moderate wing. Whichever of these appeals to you as the right
+tendency, you will need to keep informed as to both.
+
+Above all, my friend, I would like to have you _study_ Socialism. I
+don't mean merely that you should read a Socialist propaganda paper or
+two, or a few pamphlets: I do not call that studying Socialism. Such
+papers and pamphlets are very good in their way; they are written for
+people who are not Socialists for the purpose of awakening their
+interest. So far as they go they are valuable, but I would not have
+you stop there, Jonathan. I would like to have you push your studies
+beyond them, beyond even the more elaborate discussions of the
+subject contained in such books as this. Read the great classics of
+Socialist literature--and don't be afraid of reading the attacks made
+upon Socialism by its opponents. Study the philosophy of Socialism and
+its economic theories; try to apply them to your personal experience
+and to the events of every day as they are reported in the great
+newspapers. You see, Jonathan, I not only want you to know what
+Socialism is in a very thorough manner, but I also want you to be able
+to teach others in a very thorough manner.
+
+And now, my patient friend, Good Bye! If _The Common Sense of
+Socialism_ has helped you to a clear understanding of Socialism, I
+shall be amply repaid for writing it. I ask you to accept it for
+whatever measure of good it may do and to forgive its shortcomings.
+Others might have written a better book for you, and some day I may do
+better myself--I do not know. I have honestly tried my best to set the
+claims of Socialism before you in plain language and with comradely
+spirit. And if it succeeds in convincing you and making you a
+Socialist, Jonathan, I shall be satisfied.
+
+
+
+
+APPENDIX I
+
+A SUGGESTED COURSE OF READING ON SOCIALISM
+
+
+The following list of books on various phases of Socialism is
+published in connection with the advice contained on pages 173-174
+relating to the necessity of _studying_ Socialism. The names of the
+publishers are given in each case for the reader's convenience.
+Charles H. Kerr & Company do _not_ sell, or receive orders for, books
+issued by other publishers.
+
+
+(_A_) _History of Socialism_
+
+The History of Socialism, by Thomas Kirkup. The Macmillan Company, New
+York. Price $1.50, net.
+
+French and German Socialism in Modern Times, by R.T. Ely. Harper
+Brothers, New York. Price 75 cents.
+
+The History of Socialism in the United States, by Morris Hillquit. The
+Funk & Wagnalls Company, New York. Price $1.75.
+
+
+(_B_) _Biographies of Socialists_
+
+Memoirs of Karl Marx, by Wilhelm Liebknecht. Charles H. Kerr &
+Company, Chicago. Price 50 cents.
+
+Ferdinand Lassalle as a Social Reformer, by Eduard Bernstein. Charles
+H. Kerr & Company, Chicago. Price $1.00.
+
+Frederick Engels: His Life and Work, by Karl Kautsky. Charles H. Kerr
+& Company, Chicago. Price 10 cents.
+
+
+(_C_) _General Expositions of Socialism_
+
+Principles of Scientific Socialism, by Charles H. Vail. Charles H.
+Kerr & Company, Chicago. Price $1.00.
+
+Collectivism, by Emile Vandervelde. Charles H. Kerr & Company,
+Chicago. Price 50 cents.
+
+Socialism: A Summary and Interpretation of Socialist Principles, by
+John Spargo. The Macmillan Company, New York. Price $1.25, net.
+
+The Socialists--Who They Are and What They Stand For, by John Spargo.
+Charles H. Kerr & Company, Chicago. Price 50 cents.
+
+The Quintessence of Socialism, by Prof. A.E. Schaffle. Charles H. Kerr
+& Company, Chicago. Price $1.00. This is by an opponent of Socialism,
+but is much circulated by Socialists as a fair and lucid statement of
+their principles.
+
+
+(_D_) _The Philosophy of Socialism_
+
+The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels. Charles H.
+Kerr & Company, Chicago. In paper at 10 cents. Also superior edition
+in cloth at 50 cents.
+
+Evolution, Social and Organic, by A.M. Lewis. Charles H. Kerr &
+Company, Chicago. Price 50 cents.
+
+The Theoretical System of Karl Marx, by L.B. Boudin. Charles H. Kerr &
+Company, Chicago. Price $1.00.
+
+Socialism, Utopian and Scientific, by F. Engels. Charles H. Kerr &
+Company, Chicago. Price 10 cents in paper, superior edition in cloth
+50 cents.
+
+Mass and Class, by W.J. Ghent. The Macmillan Company, New York. Price
+paper 25 cents; cloth $1.25, net.
+
+
+(_E_) _Economics of Socialism_
+
+Marxian Economics, by Ernest Untermann. Charles H. Kerr & Company,
+Chicago. Price $1.00.
+
+Wage Labor and Capital, by Karl Marx. Charles H. Kerr & Company,
+Chicago. Price 5 cents.
+
+Value, Price and Profit, by Karl Marx. Charles H. Kerr & Company,
+Chicago. Price 50 cents.
+
+Capital, by Karl Marx. Charles H. Kerr & Company, Chicago. Two
+volumes, price $2.00 each.
+
+
+(_F_) _Socialism as Related to Special Questions_
+
+The American Farmer, by A.M. Simons. Charles H. Kerr & Company,
+Chicago. Price 50 cents. An admirable study of agricultural
+conditions.
+
+Socialism and Anarchism, by George Plechanoff. Charles H. Kerr &
+Company, Chicago. Price 50 cents.
+
+Poverty, by Robert Hunter. The Macmillan Company, New York. Price 25
+cents and $1.50.
+
+American Pauperism, by Isador Ladoff. Charles H. Kerr & Company,
+Chicago. Price 50 cents.
+
+The Bitter Cry of the Children, by John Spargo. The Macmillan Company,
+New York. Price $1.50, illustrated.
+
+Class Struggles in America, by A.M. Simons. Charles H. Kerr & Company,
+Chicago. Price 50 cents. A notable application of Socialist theory to
+American history.
+
+Underfed School Children, the Problem and the Remedy. By John Spargo.
+Charles H. Kerr & Company, Chicago. Price 10 cents.
+
+Socialists in French Municipalities, a compilation from official
+reports. Charles H. Kerr & Company, Chicago Price 5 cents.
+
+Socialists at Work, by Robert Hunter. The Macmillan Company, New York.
+Price $1.50, net.
+
+
+
+
+APPENDIX II
+
+HOW SOCIALIST BOOKS ARE PUBLISHED
+
+
+Nothing bears more remarkable evidence to the growth of the American
+Socialist movement than the phenomenal development of its literature.
+Even more eloquently than the Socialist vote, this literature tells of
+the onward sweep of Socialism in this country.
+
+Only a few years ago, the entire literature of Socialism published in
+this country was less than the present monthly output. There was
+Bellamy's "Looking Backward," a belated expression of the utopian
+school, not related to modern scientific Socialism, though it
+accomplished considerable good in its day; there were a couple of
+volumes by Professor R.T. Ely, obviously inspired by a desire to be
+fair, but missing the essential principles of Socialism; there were a
+couple of volumes by Laurence Gronlund and there was Sprague's
+"Socialism From Genesis to Revelation." These and a handful of
+pamphlets constituted America's contribution to Socialist literature.
+
+Added to these, were a few books and pamphlets translated from the
+German, most of them written in a heavy, ponderous style which the
+average American worker found exceedingly difficult. The great
+classics of Socialism were not available to any but those able to read
+some other language than English. "Socialism is a foreign movement,"
+said the American complacently.
+
+Even six or seven years ago, the publication of a Socialist pamphlet
+by an American writer was regarded as a very notable event in the
+movement and the writer was assured of a certain fame in consequence.
+
+Now, in this year, 1908, it is very different. There are hundreds of
+excellent books and pamphlets available to the American worker and
+student of Socialism, dealing with every conceivable phase of the
+subject. Whereas ten years ago none of the great industrial countries
+of the world had a more meagre Socialist literature than America,
+to-day America leads the world in its output.
+
+Only a few of the many Socialist books have been issued by ordinary
+capitalist publishing houses. Half a dozen volumes by such writers as
+Ghent, Hillquit, Hunter, Spargo and Sinclair exhaust the list. It
+could not be expected that ordinary publishers would issue books and
+pamphlets purposely written for propaganda on the one hand, nor the
+more serious works which are expensive to produce and slow to sell
+upon the other hand.
+
+The Socialists themselves have published all the rest--the propaganda
+books and pamphlets, the translations of great Socialist classics and
+the important contributions to the literature of Socialist philosophy
+and economics made by American students, many of whom are the products
+of the Socialist movement itself.
+
+They have done these great things through a co-operative publishing
+house, known as Charles H. Kerr & Company (Co-operative). Nearly 2000
+Socialists and sympathizers with Socialism, scattered throughout the
+country, have joined in the work. As shareholders, they have paid ten
+dollars for each share of stock in the enterprise, with no thought of
+ever getting any profits, their only advantage being the ability to
+buy the books issued by the concern at a great reduction.
+
+Here is the method: A person buys a share of stock at ten dollars
+(arrangements can be made to pay this by instalments, if desired) and
+he or she can then buy books and pamphlets at a reduction of fifty per
+cent.--or forty per cent. if sent post or express paid.
+
+Looking over the list of the company's publications, one notes names
+that are famous in this and other countries. Marx, Engels, Kautsky,
+Lassalle, and Liebknecht among the great Germans; Lafargue, Deville
+and Guesde, of France; Ferri and Labriola, of Italy; Hyndman and
+Blatchford, of England; Plechanoff, of Russia; Upton Sinclair, Jack
+London, John Spargo, A.M. Simons, Ernest Untermann and Morris
+Hillquit, of the United States. These, and scores of other names less
+known to the general public.
+
+It is not necessary to give here a complete list of the company's
+publications. Such a list would take up too much room--and before it
+was published it would become incomplete. The reader who is interested
+had better send a request for a complete list, which will at once be
+forwarded, without cost. We can only take a few books, almost at
+random, to illustrate the great variety of the publications of the
+firm.
+
+You have heard about Karl Marx, the greatest of modern Socialists, and
+naturally you would like to know something about him. Well, at fifty
+cents there is a charming little book of biographical memoirs by his
+friend Liebnecht, well worth reading again and again for its literary
+charm not less than for the loveable character it portrays so
+tenderly. Here, also, is the complete list of the works of Marx yet
+translated into the English language. There is the famous _Communist
+Manifesto_ by Marx and Engels, at ten cents, and the other works of
+Marx up to and including his great master-work, _Capital_, in three
+big volumes at two dollars each--two of which are already published,
+the other being in course of preparation.
+
+For propaganda purposes, in addition to a big list of cheap pamphlets,
+many of them small enough to enclose in a letter to a friend, there
+are a number of cheap books. These have been specially written for
+beginners, most of them for workingmen. Here, for example, one picks
+out at a random shot Work's "What's So and What Isn't," a breezy
+little book in which all the common questions about Socialism are
+answered in simple language. Or here again we pick up Spargo's "The
+Socialists, Who They Are and What They Stand For," a little book which
+has attained considerable popularity as an easy statement of the
+essence of modern Socialism. For readers of a little more advanced
+type there is "Collectivism," by Emil Vandervelde, the eminent Belgian
+Socialist leader, a wonderful book. This and Engels' "Socialism
+Utopian and Scientific" will lead to books of a more advanced
+character, some of which we must mention. The four books mentioned in
+this paragraph cost fifty cents each, postpaid. They are well printed
+and neatly and durably bound in cloth.
+
+Going a little further, there are two admirable volumes by Antonio
+Labriola, expositions of the fundamental doctrine of Social
+philosophy, called the "Materialist Conception of History," and a
+volume by Austin Lewis, "The Rise of the American Proletarian," in
+which the theory is applied to a phase of American history. These
+books sell at a dollar each, and it would be very hard to find
+anything like the same value in book-making in any other publisher's
+catalogue. Only the co-operation of nearly 2000 Socialist men and
+women makes it possible.
+
+For the reader who has got so far, yet finds it impossible to
+undertake a study of the voluminous work of Marx, either for lack of
+leisure or, as often happens, lack of the necessary mental training
+and equipment, there are two splendid books, notable examples of the
+work which American Socialist writers are now putting out. While they
+will never entirely take the place of the great work of Marx,
+nevertheless, whoever has read them with care will have a
+comprehensive grasp of Marxism. They are: L.B. Boudin's "The
+Theoretical System of Karl Marx" and Ernest Untermann's "Marxian
+Economics." These also are published at a dollar a volume.
+
+Perhaps you know some man who declares that "There are no classes in
+America," who loudly boasts that we have no class struggles: just get
+a copy of A.M. Simon's "Class Struggles in America," with its
+startling array of historical references. It will convince him if it
+is possible to get an idea into his head. Or you want to get a good
+book to lend to your farmer friends who want to know how Socialism
+touches them: get another volume by Simons, called "The American
+Farmer." You will never regret it. Or perhaps you are troubled about
+the charge that Socialism and Anarchism are related. If so, get
+Plechanoff's "Anarchism and Socialism" and read it carefully. These
+three books are published at fifty cents each.
+
+Are you interested in science? Do you want to know the reason why
+Socialists speak of Marx as doing for Sociology what Darwin did for
+biology? If so, you will want to read "Evolution, Social and Organic,"
+by Arthur Morrow Lewis, price fifty cents. And you will be delighted
+beyond your powers of expression with the several volumes of the
+Library of Science for the Workers, published at the same price. "The
+Evolution of Man" and "The Triumph of Life," both by the famous German
+scientist, Dr. Wilhelm Boelsche; "The Making of the World" and "The
+End of the World," both by Dr. M. Wilhelm Meyer; and "Germs of Mind in
+Plants," by R.H. France, are some of the volumes which the present
+writer read with absorbing interest himself and then read them to a
+lot of boys and girls, to their equal delight.
+
+One could go on and on talking about this wonderful list of books
+which marks the tremendous intellectual strength of the American
+Socialist movement. Here is the real explosive, a weapon far more
+powerful than dynamite bombs! Socialists must win in a battle of
+brains--and here is ammunition for them.
+
+Individual Socialists who can afford it should take shares of stock in
+this great enterprise. If they can pay the ten dollars all at once,
+well and good; if not, they can pay in monthly instalments. And every
+Socialist local ought to own a share of stock in the company, if for
+no other reason than that literature can then be bought much more
+cheaply than otherwise. But of course there is an even greater reason
+than that--every Socialist local ought to take pride in the
+development of the enterprise which has done so much to develop a
+great American Socialist literature.
+
+Fuller particulars will be sent upon application. Address:
+
+CHARLES H. KERR & COMPANY, (Co-operative)
+118 West Kinzie street, Chicago
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+    +-----------------------------------------------------------+
+    | Typographical errors corrected in text:                   |
+    |                                                           |
+    | Page  24: Amerca replaced with America                    |
+    | Page  74: captalists replaced with capitalists            |
+    | Page  76: beatiful replaced with beautiful                |
+    | Page  90: detroy replaced with destroy                    |
+    | Page  99: princples replaced with principles              |
+    | Page 101: machinsts replaced with machinists              |
+    | Page 116: Satndard replaced with Standard                 |
+    | Page 131: Substract replaced with Subtract                |
+    |                                                           |
+    +-----------------------------------------------------------+
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+
+
+
+
+End of Project Gutenberg's The Common Sense of Socialism, by John Spargo
+
+*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE COMMON SENSE OF SOCIALISM ***
+
+***** This file should be named 24340-8.txt or 24340-8.zip *****
+This and all associated files of various formats will be found in:
+        http://www.gutenberg.org/2/4/3/4/24340/
+
+Produced by Audrey Longhurst, Jeannie Howse and the Online
+Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net
+
+
+Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions
+will be renamed.
+
+Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no
+one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation
+(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without
+permission and without paying copyright royalties.  Special rules,
+set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to
+copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to
+protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark.  Project
+Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you
+charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission.  If you
+do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the
+rules is very easy.  You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose
+such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and
+research.  They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do
+practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks.  Redistribution is
+subject to the trademark license, especially commercial
+redistribution.
+
+
+
+*** START: FULL LICENSE ***
+
+THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
+PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
+
+To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free
+distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
+(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project
+Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project
+Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at
+http://gutenberg.org/license).
+
+
+Section 1.  General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic works
+
+1.A.  By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
+and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
+(trademark/copyright) agreement.  If you do not agree to abide by all
+the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy
+all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession.
+If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the
+terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or
+entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
+
+1.B.  "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark.  It may only be
+used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
+agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement.  There are a few
+things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works
+even without complying with the full terms of this agreement.  See
+paragraph 1.C below.  There are a lot of things you can do with Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement
+and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works.  See paragraph 1.E below.
+
+1.C.  The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation"
+or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic works.  Nearly all the individual works in the
+collection are in the public domain in the United States.  If an
+individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are
+located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from
+copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative
+works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg
+are removed.  Of course, we hope that you will support the Project
+Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by
+freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of
+this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with
+the work.  You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by
+keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project
+Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others.
+
+1.D.  The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
+what you can do with this work.  Copyright laws in most countries are in
+a constant state of change.  If you are outside the United States, check
+the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement
+before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or
+creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project
+Gutenberg-tm work.  The Foundation makes no representations concerning
+the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United
+States.
+
+1.E.  Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
+
+1.E.1.  The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate
+access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently
+whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the
+phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project
+Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed,
+copied or distributed:
+
+This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
+almost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or
+re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
+with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org
+
+1.E.2.  If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived
+from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is
+posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied
+and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees
+or charges.  If you are redistributing or providing access to a work
+with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the
+work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1
+through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the
+Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or
+1.E.9.
+
+1.E.3.  If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted
+with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
+must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional
+terms imposed by the copyright holder.  Additional terms will be linked
+to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the
+permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.
+
+1.E.4.  Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
+work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm.
+
+1.E.5.  Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
+electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
+prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
+active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
+Gutenberg-tm License.
+
+1.E.6.  You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
+compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any
+word processing or hypertext form.  However, if you provide access to or
+distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than
+"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version
+posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org),
+you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a
+copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon
+request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other
+form.  Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
+
+1.E.7.  Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
+performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works
+unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
+
+1.E.8.  You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
+access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided
+that
+
+- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
+     the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method
+     you already use to calculate your applicable taxes.  The fee is
+     owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he
+     has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the
+     Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.  Royalty payments
+     must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you
+     prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax
+     returns.  Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and
+     sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the
+     address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to
+     the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation."
+
+- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
+     you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
+     does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+     License.  You must require such a user to return or
+     destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium
+     and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of
+     Project Gutenberg-tm works.
+
+- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any
+     money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
+     electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days
+     of receipt of the work.
+
+- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
+     distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works.
+
+1.E.9.  If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set
+forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from
+both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael
+Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark.  Contact the
+Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.
+
+1.F.
+
+1.F.1.  Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
+effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
+public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm
+collection.  Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain
+"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or
+corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual
+property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a
+computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by
+your equipment.
+
+1.F.2.  LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right
+of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
+Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
+Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
+liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
+fees.  YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
+LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
+PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH F3.  YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
+TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
+LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
+INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
+DAMAGE.
+
+1.F.3.  LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
+defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
+receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
+written explanation to the person you received the work from.  If you
+received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with
+your written explanation.  The person or entity that provided you with
+the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a
+refund.  If you received the work electronically, the person or entity
+providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to
+receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund.  If the second copy
+is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further
+opportunities to fix the problem.
+
+1.F.4.  Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
+in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER
+WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
+WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
+
+1.F.5.  Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
+warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages.
+If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the
+law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be
+interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by
+the applicable state law.  The invalidity or unenforceability of any
+provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
+
+1.F.6.  INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
+trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
+providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance
+with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production,
+promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works,
+harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees,
+that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do
+or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm
+work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any
+Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause.
+
+
+Section  2.  Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of
+electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers
+including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers.  It exists
+because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from
+people in all walks of life.
+
+Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
+assistance they need, is critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's
+goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will
+remain freely available for generations to come.  In 2001, the Project
+Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
+and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations.
+To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
+and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4
+and the Foundation web page at http://www.pglaf.org.
+
+
+Section 3.  Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
+Foundation
+
+The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit
+501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
+state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
+Revenue Service.  The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification
+number is 64-6221541.  Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at
+http://pglaf.org/fundraising.  Contributions to the Project Gutenberg
+Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent
+permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws.
+
+The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S.
+Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered
+throughout numerous locations.  Its business office is located at
+809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email
+business@pglaf.org.  Email contact links and up to date contact
+information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official
+page at http://pglaf.org
+
+For additional contact information:
+     Dr. Gregory B. Newby
+     Chief Executive and Director
+     gbnewby@pglaf.org
+
+
+Section 4.  Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
+Literary Archive Foundation
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide
+spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
+increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
+freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest
+array of equipment including outdated equipment.  Many small donations
+($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
+status with the IRS.
+
+The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
+charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
+States.  Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
+considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
+with these requirements.  We do not solicit donations in locations
+where we have not received written confirmation of compliance.  To
+SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any
+particular state visit http://pglaf.org
+
+While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
+have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
+against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
+approach us with offers to donate.
+
+International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
+any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
+outside the United States.  U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
+
+Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation
+methods and addresses.  Donations are accepted in a number of other
+ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations.
+To donate, please visit: http://pglaf.org/donate
+
+
+Section 5.  General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works.
+
+Professor Michael S. Hart is the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm
+concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared
+with anyone.  For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project
+Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.
+
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed
+editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S.
+unless a copyright notice is included.  Thus, we do not necessarily
+keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.
+
+
+Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility:
+
+     http://www.gutenberg.org
+
+This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm,
+including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
+Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
+subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
diff --git a/24340-8.zip b/24340-8.zip
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..76b613f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/24340-8.zip
diff --git a/24340-h.zip b/24340-h.zip
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..9ca8e7d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/24340-h.zip
diff --git a/24340-h/24340-h.htm b/24340-h/24340-h.htm
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..6c7ec8a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/24340-h/24340-h.htm
@@ -0,0 +1,6758 @@
+<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
+<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en">
+  <head>
+    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" />
+    <title>
+      The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Common Sense of Socialism, by John Spargo.
+    </title>
+    <style type="text/css">
+/*<![CDATA[  XML blockout */
+<!--
+    p {  margin-top: .5em;
+         text-align: justify;
+         margin-bottom: .5em;
+         text-indent: 1em;
+         }
+    h1   {
+         text-align: center; font-family: garamond, serif; /* all headings centered */
+         }
+    h5,h6 {
+         text-align: center; font-family: garamond, serif; /* all headings centered */
+         }
+    h2 {
+         text-align: center; font-family: garamond, serif; /* centered and coloured */
+         }
+    h3 {
+         text-align: center; font-family: garamond, serif; /* centered and coloured */
+         }
+    h4 {
+         text-align: center; font-family: garamond, serif; /* all headings centered */
+         }
+    hr { width: 33%;
+	margin-top: 1em;
+	margin-bottom: 1em;
+       }
+    body{margin-left: 10%;
+         margin-right: 10%;
+        }
+    a  {text-decoration: none} /* no lines under links */
+    div.centered {text-align: center;} /* work around for IE centering with CSS problem part 1 */
+    div.centered table {margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: left;} /* work around for IE centering with CSS problem part 2 */
+    ul        {list-style-type: none} /* no bullets on lists */
+    ul.nest   {margin-top: .15em; margin-bottom: .15em; text-indent: -1.5em;} /* spacing for nested list */
+    li        {margin-top: .15em; margin-bottom: .15em;} /* spacing for list */
+
+    .cen      {text-align: center; text-indent: 0em;} /* centering paragraphs */
+    .sc       {font-variant: small-caps;} /* small caps */
+    .fakesc   {font-size: 90%;} /* fake small caps */
+    .noin     {text-indent: 0em;} /* no indenting */
+    .block    {margin-left: 10%; margin-right: 10%; font-size: 95%;} /* block indent */
+    .block2   {margin-left: 10%; margin-right: 10%; font-size: 95%; padding-top: .5em; padding-bottom: .5em;} /* block indent */
+    .block3   {margin-left: 5%; padding-top: .5em; padding-bottom: .5em;} /* block indent */
+    .totoc    {position: absolute; right: 2%; font-size: 75%; text-align: right;} /* Table of contents anchor */
+    .img      {text-align: center; padding: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;} /* centering images */
+    .tdr      {text-align: right; padding-right: .5em;} /* right align cell */
+    .tdc      {text-align: center; vertical-align: middle;} /* center align cell */
+    .tdl      {text-align: left; padding-left: .5em;}  /* left align cell */
+    .tdlsc    {text-align: left; font-variant: small-caps;} /* aligning cell content and small caps */
+
+/* Table Borders */
+    .tdllr    {text-align: left; border-left: 1px black solid; border-right: 1px black solid; padding-left: .5em;}  /* left align cell, left and right borders */
+    .tdllrtb  {text-align: left; border: 1px black solid; padding-left: .5em;}  /* borders, left align cell */
+    .tdllrt   {text-align: left; border-left: 1px black solid; border-right: 1px black solid; border-top: 1px black solid; padding-left: .5em; padding-top: .5em;}  /* borders, left align cell */
+    .tdllrb   {text-align: left; border-left: 1px black solid; border-right: 1px black solid; border-bottom: 1px black solid; padding-left: .5em; padding-bottom: .5em;}  /* borders, left align cell */
+    .tdrlr    {text-align: right; border-left: 1px black solid; border-right: 1px black solid; padding-right: .5em;}  /* right align cell, left and right border */
+    .tdrlrtb  {text-align: right; border: 1px black solid; padding: .5em;}  /* borders, right align cell */
+    .tdrlrt   {text-align: right; border-left: 1px black solid; border-right: 1px black solid; border-top: 1px black solid; padding-right: .5em; padding-top: .5em;}  /* borders, left align cell */
+    .tdrlrb   {text-align: right; border-left: 1px black solid; border-right: 1px black solid; border-bottom: 1px black solid; padding-right: .5em; padding-bottom: .5em;}  /* borders, left align cell */
+    .tdclrtb  {text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; border: 1px black solid; padding: .5em;}  /* borders, right align cell */
+
+/* Table Borders */
+
+    .tr       {margin-left: 20%; margin-right: 20%; margin-top: 5%; margin-bottom: 5%; padding: 1em; background-color: #f6f2f2; color: black; border: dotted black 1px;} /* transcriber's notes */
+
+    .pagenum  { /* uncomment the next line for invisible page numbers */
+               /*  visibility: hidden;  */
+               position: absolute; right: 2%;
+               font-size: 75%;
+               color: silver;
+               background-color: inherit;
+               text-align: right;
+               text-indent: 0em;
+               font-style: normal;
+               font-weight: normal;
+               font-variant: normal;} /* page numbers */
+
+    .footnote         {margin-left: 10%; margin-right: 10%; font-size: 90%;}
+    .footnote .label  {position: absolute; right: 84%; text-align: right; font-size: 90%;}
+    .fnanchor         {vertical-align: text-top; font-size: .8em; text-decoration: none;}
+
+    .poem             {margin-left: 20%; text-align: left;}
+    .poem br          {display: none;}
+    .poem .stanza     {margin: 1em 0em 1em 0em;}
+    .poem span        {display: block; margin: 0; padding-left: 3em; text-indent: -3em;}
+    .poem span.i2     {display: block; margin-left: 1em;}
+    .poem span.i4     {display: block; margin-left: 4em;}
+    .poem span.i12     {display: block; margin-left: 12em; padding-left: 3em; text-indent: -3em;}
+    .poem span.i15     {display: block; margin-left: 15em; padding-left: 3em; text-indent: -3em;}
+
+    // -->
+    /* XML end  ]]>*/
+    </style>
+   </head>
+<body>
+
+
+<pre>
+
+The Project Gutenberg EBook of The Common Sense of Socialism, by John Spargo
+
+This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
+almost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or
+re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
+with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org
+
+
+Title: The Common Sense of Socialism
+       A Series of Letters Addressed to Jonathan Edwards, of Pittsburg
+
+Author: John Spargo
+
+Release Date: January 17, 2008 [EBook #24340]
+
+Language: English
+
+Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1
+
+*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE COMMON SENSE OF SOCIALISM ***
+
+
+
+
+Produced by Audrey Longhurst, Jeannie Howse and the Online
+Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net
+
+
+
+
+
+
+</pre>
+
+
+<br />
+<hr />
+<br />
+
+<div class="tr">
+<p class="cen" style="font-weight: bold;">Transcriber's Note:</p>
+<br />
+<p class="noin">Inconsistent hyphenation in the original document has been preserved.</p>
+<p class="noin" style="text-align: left;">Obvious typographical errors have been corrected.
+For a complete list, please see the <span style="white-space: nowrap;"><a href="#TN">end of this document</a>.</span></p>
+<p class="noin">Click on the images to see a larger version.</p>
+</div>
+
+<br />
+<hr />
+<br />
+
+
+<h1>THE COMMON SENSE<br />
+OF SOCIALISM</h1>
+
+
+<h3>A SERIES OF LETTERS ADDRESSED TO<br />
+JONATHAN EDWARDS, OF PITTSBURG</h3>
+
+<br />
+<br />
+<br />
+
+<h4>BY</h4>
+
+<h2>JOHN SPARGO</h2>
+
+<p class="cen">Author of "The Bitter Cry of the Children," "Socialism: A<br />
+Summary and Interpretation of Socialist Principles,"<br />
+"The Socialists: Who They Are and What They<br />
+Stand For," "Capitalist and Laborer,"<br />
+Etc., Etc., Etc.</p>
+
+<br />
+<br />
+<br />
+<br />
+<br />
+
+<h5>CHICAGO<br />
+CHARLES H. KERR &amp; COMPANY<br />
+1911</h5>
+
+<br />
+<hr />
+<br />
+<br />
+<br />
+<br />
+
+<h5>Copyright 1909<br />
+<span class="sc">By Charles H. Kerr &amp; Company</span></h5>
+
+
+<br />
+<br />
+<br />
+<br />
+<hr />
+<br />
+<br />
+<br />
+<br />
+
+<h3>TO<br />
+GEORGE H. STROBELL</h3>
+
+<h4>AS<br />
+A TOKEN OF FRIENDSHIP AND LOVE<br />
+THIS LITTLE BOOK IS AFFECTIONATELY INSCRIBED</h4>
+
+<br />
+<br />
+<br />
+<br />
+<a name="toc" id="toc"></a><hr />
+<br />
+
+<h3>CONTENTS</h3>
+<br />
+
+<div class="centered">
+<table border="0" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" width="70%" summary="Table of Contents">
+  <tr>
+  <td class="tdr" width="10%" style="font-size: 80%;">CHAPTER</td>
+  <td class="tdl" width="70%">&nbsp;</td>
+  <td class="tdr" width="20%" style="font-size: 80%;">PAGE</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+  <td class="tdr">I</td>
+  <td class="tdlsc"><a href="#I">By Way of Introduction</a></td>
+  <td class="tdr">1</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+  <td class="tdr">II</td>
+  <td class="tdlsc"><a href="#II">What's the Matter with America?</a></td>
+  <td class="tdr">4</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+  <td class="tdr">III</td>
+  <td class="tdlsc"><a href="#III">The Two Classes in the Nation</a></td>
+  <td class="tdr">12</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+  <td class="tdr">IV</td>
+  <td class="tdlsc"><a href="#IV">How Wealth is Produced and How it is Distributed</a></td>
+  <td class="tdr">26</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+  <td class="tdr">V</td>
+  <td class="tdlsc"><a href="#V">The Drones and the Bees</a></td>
+  <td class="tdr">44</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+  <td class="tdr">VI</td>
+  <td class="tdlsc"><a href="#VI">The Root of the Evil</a></td>
+  <td class="tdr">68</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+  <td class="tdr">VII</td>
+  <td class="tdlsc"><a href="#VII">From Competition to Monopoly</a></td>
+  <td class="tdr">81</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+  <td class="tdr">VIII</td>
+  <td class="tdlsc"><a href="#VIII">What Socialism is and What it is Not</a></td>
+  <td class="tdr">94</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+  <td class="tdr">IX</td>
+  <td class="tdl"><a href="#IX"><span class="sc">What Socialism is and What it is Not</span>&mdash;<i>Continued</i></a></td>
+  <td class="tdr">118</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+  <td class="tdr">X</td>
+  <td class="tdlsc"><a href="#X">The Objections to Socialism Answered</a></td>
+  <td class="tdr">136</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+  <td class="tdr">XI</td>
+  <td class="tdlsc"><a href="#XI">What Shall We Do, Then?</a></td>
+  <td class="tdr">170</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+  <td class="tdl" colspan="3" style="padding-top: .5em; padding-bottom: .5em;">APPENDICES:</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+  <td class="tdr">I</td>
+  <td class="tdlsc"><a href="#APPENDIX_I">A Suggested Course of Reading on Socialism</a></td>
+  <td class="tdr">175</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+  <td class="tdr">II</td>
+  <td class="tdlsc"><a href="#APPENDIX_I">How Socialist Books are Published</a></td>
+  <td class="tdr">179</td>
+  </tr>
+</table>
+</div>
+
+<br />
+<br />
+<br />
+<br />
+<a name="I" id="I"></a><hr />
+<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_1" id="Page_1">[1]</a></span><br />
+
+<h2>THE COMMON SENSE OF SOCIALISM</h2>
+
+<h3>I<span class="totoc"><a href="#toc">ToC</a></span></h3>
+
+<h4>BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION</h4>
+
+<div class="block"><p>Socialism is undoubtedly spreading. It is, therefore, right
+and expedient that its teachings, its claims, its tendencies,
+its accusations and promises, should be honestly and seriously
+examined.&mdash;<i>Prof. Flint.</i></p></div>
+<br />
+
+<p><i>My Dear Mr. Edwards</i>: I count it good fortune to receive such letters
+of inquiry as that which you have written me. You could not easily
+have conferred greater pleasure upon me than you have by the charming
+candor and vigor of your letter. It is said that when President
+Lincoln saw Walt Whitman, "the good, Gray Poet," for the first time he
+exclaimed, "Well, he looks like a man!" and in like spirit, when I
+read your letter I could not help exclaiming, "Well, he writes like a
+man!"</p>
+
+<p>There was no need, Mr. Edwards, for you to apologize for your letter:
+for its faulty grammar, its lack of "style" and "polish." I am not
+insensible to these, being a literary man, but, even at their highest
+valuation, grammar and literary style are by no means the most
+important elements of a letter. They are, after all, only like the
+clothes men wear. A knave or a fool may be dressed in the most perfect
+manner, while a good man <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_2" id="Page_2">[2]</a></span>or a sage may be poorly dressed, or even
+clad in rags. Scoundrels in broadcloth are not uncommon; gentlemen in
+fustian are sometimes met with.</p>
+
+<p>He would be a very unwise man, you will admit, who tried to judge a
+man by his coat. President Lincoln was uncouth and ill-dressed, but he
+was a wise man and a gentleman in the highest and best sense of that
+much misused word. On the other hand, Mr. Blank, who represents
+railway interests in the United States Senate, is sleek, polished and
+well-dressed, but he is neither very wise nor very good. He is a
+gentleman only in the conventional, false sense of that word.</p>
+
+<p>Lots of men could write a more brilliant letter than the one you have
+written to me, but there are not many men, even among professional
+writers, who could write a better one. What I like is the spirit of
+earnestness and the simple directness of it. You say that you have
+"Read lots of things in the papers about the Socialists' ideas and
+listened to some Socialist speakers, but never could get a very clear
+notion of what it was all about." And then you add "Whether Socialism
+is good or bad, wise or foolish, <i>I want to know</i>."</p>
+
+<p>I wish, my friend, that there were more working men like you; that
+there were millions of American men and women crying out: "Whether
+Socialism is good or bad, wise or foolish, <i>I want to know</i>." For that
+is the beginning of wisdom: back of all the intellectual progress of
+the race is the cry, <i>I want to know</i>! It is a cry that belongs to
+wise hearts, such as Mr. Ruskin meant when he said, "A little group of
+wise hearts is better than a wilderness full of fools." There are lots
+of fools, both educated and uneducated, who say concerning Socialism,
+which is the greatest movement of our time, "I don't know anything
+about it and I don't want to know <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_3" id="Page_3">[3]</a></span>anything about it." Compared with
+the most learned man alive who takes that position, the least educated
+laborer in the land who says "I want to know!" is a philosopher
+compared with a fool.</p>
+
+<p>When I first read your letter and saw the long list of your objections
+and questions I confess that I was somewhat frightened. Most of the
+questions are fair questions, many of them are wise ones and all of
+them merit consideration. If you will bear with me, Mr. Edwards, and
+let me answer them in my own way, I propose to answer them all. And in
+answering them I shall be as honest and frank with you as I am with my
+own soul. Whether you believe in Socialism or not is to me a matter of
+less importance than whether you understand it or not.</p>
+
+<p>You complain that in some of the books written about Socialism there
+are lots of hard, technical words and phrases which you cannot
+properly understand, even when you have looked in the dictionary for
+their meaning, and that is a very just complaint. It is true that most
+of the books on Socialism and other important subjects are written by
+students for students, but I shall try to avoid that difficulty and
+write as a plain, average man of fair sense to another plain, average
+man of fair sense.</p>
+
+<p>All your other questions and objections, about "stirring up class
+hatred," about "dividing-up the wealth with the lazy and shiftless,"
+trying to "destroy religion," advocating "free love" and "attacking
+the family," all these and the many other matters contained in your
+letter, I shall try to answer fairly and with absolute honesty.</p>
+
+<p>I want to convert you to Socialism if I can, Mr. Edwards, but I am
+more anxious to have you <i>understand</i> Socialism.</p>
+
+<br />
+<br />
+<br />
+<br />
+<a name="II" id="II"></a><hr />
+<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_4" id="Page_4">[4]</a></span><br />
+
+<h3>II<span class="totoc"><a href="#toc">ToC</a></span></h3>
+
+<h4>WHAT'S THE MATTER WITH AMERICA?</h4>
+
+<div class="block"><p>It seems to me that people are not enough aware of the
+monstrous state of society, absolutely without a parallel in
+the history of the world, with a population poor, miserable
+and degraded in body and mind, as if they were slaves, and yet
+called freemen. The hopes entertained by many of the effects
+to be wrought by new churches and schools, while the social
+evils of their conditions are left uncorrected, appear to me
+utterly wild.&mdash;<i>Dr. Arnold, of Rugby.</i></p>
+
+<p>The working-classes are entitled to claim that the whole field
+of social institutions should be re-examined, and every
+question considered as if it now arose for the first time,
+with the idea constantly in view that the persons who are to
+be convinced are not those who owe their ease and importance
+to the present system, but persons who have no other interest
+in the matter than abstract justice and the general good of
+the community.&mdash;<i>John Stuart Mill.</i></p></div>
+<br />
+<br />
+
+<p>I presume, Mr. Edwards, that you are not one of those persons who
+believe that there is nothing the matter with America; that you are
+not wholly content with existing conditions. You would scarcely be
+interested in Socialism unless you were convinced that in our existing
+social system there are many evils for which some remedy ought to be
+found if possible. Your interest in Socialism arises from the fact
+that its advocates claim that it is a remedy for the social evils
+which distress you&mdash;is it not so?</p>
+
+<p>I need not harrow your feelings, therefore, by <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_5" id="Page_5">[5]</a></span>drawing for you
+pictures of dismal misery, poverty, vice, crime and squalor. As a
+workingman, living in Pittsburg, you are unhappily familiar with the
+evils of our present system. It doesn't require a professor of
+political economy to understand that something is wrong in our
+American life today.</p>
+
+<p>As an industrial city Pittsburg is a notable example of the defective
+working of our present social and industrial system. In Pittsburg, as
+in every other modern city, there are the extremes of wealth and
+poverty. There are beautiful residences on the one hand and miserable,
+crowded tenement hovels upon the other hand. There are people who are
+so rich, whose incomes are so great, that their lives are made
+miserable and unhappy. There are other people so poor, with incomes so
+small, that they are compelled to live miserable and unhappy lives.
+Young men and women, inheritors of vast fortunes, living lives of
+idleness, uselessness and vanity at one end of the social scale are
+driven to dissipation and debauchery and crime. At the other end of
+the social scale there are young men and women, poor, overburdened
+with toil, crushed by poverty and want, also driven to dissipation and
+debauchery and crime.</p>
+
+<p>You are a workingman. All your life you have known the conditions
+which surround the lives of working people like yourself. You know how
+hard it is for the most careful and industrious workman to properly
+care for his family. If he is fortunate enough never to be sick, or
+out of work, or on strike, or to be involved in an accident, or to
+have sickness in his family, he may become the owner of a cheap home,
+or, by dint of much sacrifice, his children may be educated and
+enabled to enter one of the professions. Or, given all the conditions
+stated, he may be enabled to save enough to <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_6" id="Page_6">[6]</a></span>provide for himself and
+wife a pittance sufficient to keep them from pauperism and beggary in
+their old age.</p>
+
+<p>That is the best the workingman can hope for as a result of his own
+labor under the very best conditions. To attain that level of comfort
+and decency he must deny himself and his wife and children of many
+things which they ought to enjoy. It is not too much to say that none
+of your fellow-workmen in Pittsburg, men known to you, your neighbors
+and comrades in labor, have been able to attain such a condition of
+comparative comfort and security except by dint of much hardship
+imposed upon themselves, their wives and children. They have had to
+forego many innocent pleasures; to live in poor streets, greatly to
+the disadvantage of the children's health and morals; to concentrate
+their energies to the narrow and sordid aim of saving money; to
+cultivate the instincts and feelings of the miser.</p>
+
+<p>The wives of such men have had to endure privations and wrongs such as
+only the wives of the workers in civilized society ever know.
+Miserably housed, cruelly overworked, toiling incessantly from morn
+till night, in sickness as well as in health, never knowing the joys
+of a real vacation, cooking, scrubbing, washing, mending, nursing and
+pitifully saving, the wife of such a worker is in truth the slave of a
+slave.</p>
+
+<p>At the very best, then, the lot of the workingman excludes him and his
+wife and children from most of the comforts which belong to modern
+civilization. A well-fitted home in a good neighborhood&mdash;to say
+nothing of a home beautiful in itself and its surroundings&mdash;is out of
+the question; foreign travel, the opportunity to enjoy the rest and
+educative advantages of occasional journeys to other lands, is
+likewise out of the question. <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_7" id="Page_7">[7]</a></span>Even though civic enterprise provides
+public libraries and art galleries, museums, lectures, concerts, and
+other opportunities of recreation and education, there is not the
+leisure for their enjoyment to any extent. For our model workman, with
+all his exceptional advantages, after a day's toil has little time
+left for such things, and little strength or desire, while his wife
+has even less time and even less desire.</p>
+
+<p>You know that this is not an exaggerated account. It may be questioned
+by the writers of learned treatises who know the life of the workers
+only from descriptions of it written by people who know very little
+about it, but you will not question it. As a workman you know it is
+true. And I know it is true, for I have lived it. The best that the
+most industrious, thrifty, persevering and fortunate workingman can
+hope for is to be decently housed, decently fed, decently clothed.
+That he and his family may always be certain of these things, so that
+they go down to their graves at last without having experienced the
+pangs of hunger and want, the worker must be exceptionally fortunate.
+<i>And yet, my friend, the horses in the stables of the rich men of this
+country, and the dogs in their kennels, have all these things, and
+more!</i> For they are protected against such overwork and such anxiety
+as the workingman and the workingman's wife must endure. Greater care
+is taken of the health of many horses and dogs than the most favored
+workingman can possibly take of the health of his boys and girls.</p>
+
+<p>At its best and brightest, then, the lot of the workingman in our
+present social system is not an enviable one. The utmost good fortune
+of the laboring classes is, properly considered, a scathing
+condemnation of modern <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_8" id="Page_8">[8]</a></span>society. There is very little poetry, beauty,
+joy or glory in the life of the workingman when taken at its very
+best.</p>
+
+<p>But you know very well that not one workingman in a hundred, nay, not
+one in a thousand, is fortunate enough never to be sick, or out of
+work, or on strike, or to be involved in an accident, or to have
+sickness in his family. Not one worker in a thousand lives to old age
+and goes down to his grave without having known the pangs of hunger
+and want, both for himself and those dependent upon him. On the
+contrary, dull, helpless, poverty is the lot of millions of workers
+whose lines are cast in less pleasant places.</p>
+
+<p>Mr. Frederic Harrison the well-known conservative English publicist,
+some years ago gave a graphic description of the lot of the working
+class of England, a description which applies to the working class of
+America with equal force. He said:</p>
+
+<div class="block2"><p>"Ninety per cent of the actual producers of wealth have no
+home that they can call their own beyond the end of a week,
+have no bit of soil, or so much as a room that belongs to
+them; have nothing of value of any kind except as much as will
+go in a cart; have the precarious chance of weekly wages which
+barely suffice to keep them in health; are housed for the most
+part in places that no man thinks fit for his horse; are
+separated by so narrow a margin from destruction that a month
+of bad trade, sickness or unexpected loss brings them face to
+face with hunger and pauperism."<a name="FNanchor_1_1" id="FNanchor_1_1"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_1" class="fnanchor">[1]</a></p></div>
+
+<p>I am perfectly willing, of course, to admit that, upon the whole,
+conditions are worse in England than in this country, but I am still
+certain that Mr. Harrison's description is fairly applicable to the
+United States of <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_9" id="Page_9">[9]</a></span>America, in this year of Grace, nineteen hundred and
+eight.</p>
+
+<p>At present we are passing through a period of industrial depression.
+Everywhere there are large numbers of unemployed workers. Poverty is
+rampant. Notwithstanding all that is being done to ease their misery,
+all the doles of the charitable and compassionate, there are still
+many thousands of men, women and children who are hungry and
+miserable. You see them every day in Pittsburg, as I see them in New
+York, Philadelphia, Boston, Cleveland, Chicago, and elsewhere. It is
+easy to see in times like the present that there is some great, vital
+defect in our social economy.</p>
+
+<p>Later on, if you will give me your attention, Jonathan, I want you to
+consider the causes of such cycles of depression as this that we are
+so patiently enduring. But at present I am interested in getting you
+to realize the terrible shortcomings of our industrial system at its
+best, in normal times. I want to have you consider the state of
+affairs in times that are called "prosperous" by the politicians, the
+preachers, the economists, the statisticians and the editors of our
+newspapers. I am not concerned, here and now, with the <i>exceptional</i>
+distress of such periods as the present, but with the ordinary,
+normal, chronic misery and distress; the poverty that is always so
+terribly prevalent.</p>
+
+<p>Do you remember the talk about the "great and unexampled prosperity"
+in which you indulged during the latter part of 1904 and the following
+year? Of course you do. Everybody was talking about prosperity, and a
+stranger visiting the United States might have concluded that we were
+a nation of congenital optimists. Yet, it was precisely at that time,
+in the very midst of our loud boasting about prosperity, that Robert
+Hunter <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_10" id="Page_10">[10]</a></span>challenged the national brain and conscience with the
+statement that there were at lease ten million persons in poverty in
+the United States. If you have not read Mr. Hunter's book, Jonathan, I
+advise you to get it and read it. You will find in it plenty of food
+for serious thought. It is called <i>Poverty</i>, and you can get a copy at
+the public library. From time to time I am going to suggest that you
+read various books which I believe you will find useful. "Reading
+maketh a full man," provided that the reading is seriously and wisely
+done. Good books relating to the problems you have to face as a worker
+are far better for reading than the yellow newspapers or the sporting
+prints, my friend.</p>
+
+<p>When they first read Mr. Hunter's startling statement that there were
+ten million persons in the United States in poverty, many people
+thought that he must be a sensationalist of the worst type. It could
+not be true, they thought. But when they read the startling array of
+facts upon which that estimate was based they modified their opinion.
+It is significant, I think, that there has been no very serious
+criticism of the estimate made by any reputable authority.</p>
+
+<p>Do you know, Jonathan, that in New York of all the persons who die one
+in every ten dies a pauper and is buried in Potter's Field? It is a
+pity that we have not statistics upon this point covering most of our
+cities, including your own city of Pittsburg. If we had, I should ask
+you to try an experiment. I should ask you to give up one of your
+Saturday afternoons, or any day when you might be idle, and to take
+your stand at the busiest corner in the city. There, I would have you
+count the people as they pass by, hurrying to and fro, and every tenth
+person you counted I would have you note by making a little cross on a
+piece of paper. Think <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_11" id="Page_11">[11]</a></span>what an awful tally it would be, Jonathan. How
+sick and weary at heart you would be if you stood all day counting,
+saying as every tenth person passed, "There goes another marked for a
+pauper's grave!" And it might happen, you know, that the fateful count
+of ten would mark your own boy, or your own wife.</p>
+
+<p>We are a practical, hard-headed people. That is our national boast.
+You are a Yankee of the good old Massachusetts stock, I understand,
+proud of the fact that you can trace your descent right back to the
+Pilgrim Fathers. But with all our hard-headed practicality, Jonathan,
+there is still some sentiment left in us. Most of us dread the thought
+of a pauper's grave for ourselves or friends, and struggle against
+such fate as we struggle against death itself. It is a foolish
+sentiment perhaps, for when the soul leaves the body a mere handful of
+clod and marl, the spark of divinity forever quenched, it really does
+not matter what happens to the body, nor where it crumbles into dust.
+But we cherish the sentiment, nevertheless, and dread having to fill
+pauper graves. And when ten per cent, of those who die in the richest
+city of the richest nation on earth are laid at last in pauper graves
+and given pauper burial there is something radically and cruelly
+wrong.</p>
+
+<p>And you and I, with our fellows, must try to find out just what the
+wrong is, and just how we can set it right. Anything less than that
+seems to me uncommonly like treason to the republic, treason of the
+worst kind. Alas! Alas! such treason is very common, friend
+Jonathan&mdash;there are many who are heedless of the wrongs that sap the
+life of the republic and careless of whether or no they are righted.</p>
+
+<br />
+<br />
+<h4>FOOTNOTES:</h4>
+<br />
+
+<div class="footnote"><p class="noin"><a name="Footnote_1_1" id="Footnote_1_1"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_1"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> Report of the Industrial Remuneration Conference, 1886,
+p. 429.</p></div>
+
+<br />
+<br />
+<br />
+<br />
+<a name="III" id="III"></a><hr />
+<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_12" id="Page_12">[12]</a></span><br />
+
+<h3>III<span class="totoc"><a href="#toc">ToC</a></span></h3>
+
+<h4>THE TWO CLASSES IN THE NATION</h4>
+
+<div class="block"><p>Mankind are divided into two great classes&mdash;the shearers and
+the shorn. You should always side with the former against the
+latter.&mdash;<i>Talleyrand.</i></p>
+
+<p>All men having the same origin are of equal antiquity; nature
+has made no difference in their formation. Strip the nobles
+naked and you are as well as they; dress them in your rags,
+and you in their robes, and you will doubtless be the nobles.
+Poverty and riches only discriminate betwixt
+you.&mdash;<i>Machiavelli.</i></p>
+
+<p>Thou shalt not steal. <i>Thou shalt not be stolen
+from.</i>&mdash;<i>Thomas Carlyle.</i></p></div>
+<br />
+<br />
+
+<p>I want you to consider, friend Jonathan, the fact that in this and
+every other civilized country there are two classes. There are, as it
+were, two nations in every nation, two cities in every city. There is
+a class that lives in luxury and a class that lives in poverty. A
+class constantly engaged in producing wealth but owning little or none
+of the wealth produced and a class that enjoys most of the wealth
+without the trouble and pain of producing it.</p>
+
+<p>If I go into any city in America I can find beautiful and costly
+mansions in one part of the city, and miserable, squalid tenement
+hovels in another part. And I never have to ask where the workers
+live. I know that the people who live in the mansions don't produce
+anything; that the wealth producers alone are poor and miserably
+housed.</p>
+
+<p>Republican and Democratic politicians never ask you <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_13" id="Page_13">[13]</a></span>to consider such
+things. They expect you to let <i>them</i> do all the thinking, and to
+content yourself with shouting and voting for them. As a Socialist, I
+want you to do some thinking for yourself. Not being a politician, but
+a simple fellow-citizen, I am not interested in having you vote for
+anything you do not understand. If you should offer to vote for
+Socialism without understanding it, I should beg you not to do it. I
+want you to vote for Socialism, of course, but not unless you know
+what it means, why you want it and how you expect to get it. You see,
+friend Jonathan, I am perfectly frank with you, as I promised to be.</p>
+
+<p>You will remember, I hope, that in your letter to me you made the
+objection that the Socialists are constantly stirring up class hatred,
+setting class against class. I want to show you now that this is <i>not
+true</i>, though you doubtless believed that it was true when you wrote
+it. I propose to show you that in this great land of ours there are
+two great classes, the "shearers and the shorn," to adopt Talleyrand's
+phrase. And I want you to side with the <i>shorn</i> instead of with the
+<i>shearers</i>, because, if I am not sadly mistaken, my friend, <i>you are
+one of the shorn</i>. Your natural interests are with the workers, and
+all the workers are shorn and robbed, as I shall try to show you.</p>
+
+<p>You work in one of the great steel foundries of Pittsburg, I
+understand. You are paid wages for your work, but you have no other
+interest in the establishment. There are lots of other men working in
+the same place under similar conditions. Above you, having the
+authority to discharge you if they see fit, if you displease them or
+your work does not suit them, are foremen and bosses. They are paid
+wages like yourself and your fellow workmen. True, they get a little
+more wages, and <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_14" id="Page_14">[14]</a></span>they live in consequence in a little better homes
+than most of you, but they do not own the plant. They, too, may be
+discharged by other bosses above them. There are a few of the workmen
+who own a small number of shares of stock in the company, but not
+enough of them to have any kind of influence in its management. They
+are just as likely to be turned out of employment as any of you.</p>
+
+<p>Above all the workers and bosses of one kind and another there is a
+general manager. Wonderful stories are told of the enormous salary he
+gets. They say that he gets more for one week than you or any of your
+fellow workmen get for a whole year. You used to know him well when
+you were boys together. You went to the same school; played "hookey"
+together; bathed in the creek together. You used to call him "Richard"
+and he always used to call you "Jon'thun." You lived close to each
+other on the same street.</p>
+
+<p>But you don't speak to each other nowadays. When he passes through the
+works each morning you bend to your work and he does not notice you.
+Sometimes you wonder if he has forgotten all about the old days, about
+the games you used to play up on "the lots," the "hookey" and the
+swimming in the creek. Perhaps he has not forgotten: perhaps he
+remembers well enough, for he is just a plain human being like
+yourself Jonathan; but if he remembers he gives no sign.</p>
+
+<p>Now, I want to ask you a few plain questions, or, rather, I want you
+to ask yourself a few plain questions. Do you and your old friend
+Richard still live on the same street, in the same kind of houses like
+you used to? Do you both wear the same kind of clothes, like you used
+to? Do you and he both go to the same places, mingle with the same
+company, like you used to in the old days? Does <i>your</i> wife wear the
+same kind of clothes <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_15" id="Page_15">[15]</a></span>than <i>his</i> wife does? Does <i>his</i> wife work as
+hard as <i>your</i> wife does? Do they both belong to the same social "set"
+or does the name of Richard's wife appear in the Social Chronicle in
+the daily papers while your wife's does not? When you go to the
+theater, or the opera, do you and your family occupy as good seats as
+Richard and his family in the same way that you and he used to occupy
+"quarter seats" in the gallery? Are your children and Richard's
+children dressed equally well? Your fourteen-year-old girl is working
+as a cash-girl in a store and your fifteen-year-old boy is working in
+a factory. What about Richard's children? They are about the same age
+you know: is his girl working in a store, his boy in a factory?
+Richard's youngest child has a nurse to take care of her. You saw her
+the other day, you remember: how about your youngest child&mdash;has she a
+nurse to care for her?</p>
+
+<p>Ah, Jonathan! I know very well how you must answer these questions as
+they flash before your mind in rapid succession. You and Richard are
+no longer chums; your wives don't know each other; your children don't
+play together, but are strangers to one another; you have no friends
+in common now. Richard lives in a mansion, while you live in a hovel;
+Richard's wife is a fine "lady" in silks and satins, attended by
+flunkeys, while your wife is a poor, sickly, an&aelig;mic, overworked
+drudge. You still live in the same city, yet not in the same world.
+You would not know how to act in Richard's home, before all the
+servants; you would be embarrassed if you sat down at his dinner
+table. Your children would be awkward and shy in the presence of his
+children, while they would scorn to introduce your children to their
+friends.</p>
+
+<p>You have drifted far apart, you two, my friend. <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_16" id="Page_16">[16]</a></span>Somehow there yawns
+between you a great, impassable gulf. You are as far apart in your
+lives as prince and pauper, lord and serf, king and peasant ever were
+in the world's history. It is wonderful, this chasm that yawns between
+you. As Shakespeare has it:</p>
+
+<div class="poem"><div class="stanza">
+<span class="i12">Strange it is that bloods<br /></span>
+<span class="i0">Alike of colour, weight and heat, pour'd out together,<br /></span>
+<span class="i0">Would quite confound distinction, yet stand off<br /></span>
+<span class="i0">In differences so mighty.<br /></span>
+</div></div>
+
+<p>I am not going to say anything against your one-time friend who is now
+a stranger to you and the lord of your life. I have not one word to
+say against him. But I want you to consider very seriously if the
+changes we have noted are the only changes that have taken place in
+him since the days when you were chums together. Have you forgotten
+the Great Strike, when you and your fellow workers went out on strike,
+demanding better conditions of labor and higher wages? Of course you
+have not forgotten it, for that was when your scanty savings were all
+used up, and you had to stand, humiliated and sorrowful, at the relief
+station, or in the "Bread Line," to get food for your little family.</p>
+
+<p>Those were the dark days when your dream of a little cottage in the
+country, with hollyhocks and morning-glories and larkspurs growing
+around it, melted away like the mists of the morning. It was the dream
+of your young manhood and of your wife's young womanhood; it was the
+dream of your earliest years together, and you both worked and saved
+for that little cottage in the suburbs where you would spend the
+sunset hours of life together. The Great Strike killed your beautiful
+dream; it killed your wife's hopes. You have no dream now and no hope
+for the sunset hours. When you think of them <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_17" id="Page_17">[17]</a></span>you become bitter and
+try to banish the thought. I know all about that faded dream,
+Jonathan.</p>
+
+<p>Why did you stay out on strike and suffer? Why did you not remain at
+work, or at least go back as soon as you saw how hard the fight was
+going to be? "What! desert my comrades, and be a traitor to my
+brothers in the fight?" you say. But I thought you did not believe in
+classes! I thought you were opposed to the Socialists because they set
+class to fight class! You were fighting the company then, weren't you;
+trying to force them to give you decent conditions? You called it a
+fight, Jonathan, and the newspapers, you remember, had great headlines
+every day about the "Great Labor War."</p>
+
+<p>It wasn't the Socialists who urged you to go out on strike, Jonathan.
+You had never heard of Socialism then, except once you read something
+in the papers about some Socialists who were shot down by the Czar's
+Cossacks in the streets of Warsaw. You got an idea then that a
+Socialist was a desperado with a firebrand in one hand and a bomb in
+the other, madly seeking to burn palaces and destroy the lives of rich
+men and rulers. No, it was not due to Socialist agitation that you
+went out on strike.</p>
+
+<p>You went out on strike because you had grown desperate on account of
+the wanton, wicked, needless waste of human life that went on under
+your very eyes, day after day. You saw man after man maimed, man after
+man killed, through defects in the machinery, and the company, through
+your old chum and playmate, refused to make the changes necessary.
+They said that it would "cost too much money," though you all knew
+that the shareholders were reaping enormous profits. Added to that,
+and the fact that you went hourly in dread of similar fate befalling
+you, your wife had a hard time <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_18" id="Page_18">[18]</a></span>to make both ends meet. There was a
+time when you could save something every week, but for some time
+before the strike there was no saving. Your wife complained; your
+comrades said that their wives complained. Finally you all agreed that
+you could stand it no longer; that you would send a committee to
+interview the manager and tell him that, unless you got better wages
+and unless something was done to make your lives safer you would go
+out on strike.</p>
+
+<p>When you and the manager were chums together he was a kind,
+good-hearted, generous fellow, and you felt certain that when the
+Committee explained things it would be all right. But you were
+mistaken. He cursed at them as though they were dogs, and you could
+scarcely believe your own ears. Do you remember how you spoke to your
+wife about it, about "the change in Dick"?</p>
+
+<p>You went out on strike. The manager scoured the country for men to
+take your places. Ruffianly men came from all parts of the country;
+insolent, strife-provoking thugs. More than once you saw your
+fellow-workmen attacked and beaten by thugs, and then the police were
+ordered to club and arrest&mdash;not the aggressors but your comrades. Then
+the manager asked the mayor to send for the troops, and the mayor did
+as he was bidden do. What else could he do when the leading
+stockholders in the company owned and controlled the Republican
+machine? So the Republican mayor wired to the Republican Governor for
+soldiers and the soldiers came to intimidate you and break the strike.
+One day you heard a rifle's sharp crack, followed by a tumult and they
+told you that one of your old friends, who used to go swimming with
+you and Richard, the manager, had <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_19" id="Page_19">[19]</a></span>been shot by a drunken sentry,
+though he was doing no harm.</p>
+
+<p>You were a Democrat. Your father had been a Democrat and you "just
+naturally growed up to be one." As a Democrat you were very bitter
+against the Republican mayor and the Republican Governor. You honestly
+thought that if there had been a good Democrat in each of those
+offices there would have been no soldiers sent into the city; that
+your comrade would not have been murdered. You spoke of little else to
+your fellows. You nursed the hope that at the next election they would
+turn out the Republicans and put the Democrats in.</p>
+
+<p>But that delusion was shattered like all the rest, Jonathan, when,
+soon after, the Democratic President you were so proud of, to whom you
+looked up as to a modern Moses, sent federal troops into Illinois,
+over the protest of the Governor of that Commonwealth, in defiance of
+the laws of the land, in violation of the sacred Constitution he had
+sworn to protect and obey. Your faith in the Democratic Party was
+shattered. Henceforth you could not trust either the Republican Party
+or the Democratic Party.</p>
+
+<p>I don't want to discuss the strike further. That is all ancient
+history to you now. I have already gone a good deal farther afield
+than I wanted to do, or than I intended to do when I began this
+letter. I want to go back&mdash;back to our discussion of the great gulf
+that divides you and your former chum, Richard.</p>
+
+<p>I want you to ask yourself, with perfect candor and good faith,
+whether you believe that Richard has been so much better than you,
+either as workman, citizen, husband or father, that his present
+position can be regarded as a just reward for his virtue and ability?
+I'll <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_20" id="Page_20">[20]</a></span>put it another way for you, Jonathan: in your own heart do you
+believe that you are so much inferior to him as a worker or as a
+citizen, so much inferior in mentality and in character that you
+deserve the hard fate which has come to you, the ill-fortune compared
+to his good fortune? Are you and your family being punished for your
+sins, while he and his family are being rewarded for his virtues? In
+other words, Jonathan, to put the matter very plainly, do you believe
+that God has ordained your respective states in accordance with your
+just deserts?</p>
+
+<p>You know that is not the case, Jonathan. You know very well that both
+Richard and yourself share the frailties and weaknesses of our kind.
+Infinite mischief has been done by those who have given the struggle
+between the capitalists and the workers the aspect of a conflict
+between "goodness" on the one side and "wickedness" upon the other.
+Many things which the capitalists do appear very wicked to the
+workers, and many things which the workers do, and think perfectly
+proper and right, the capitalists honestly regard as improper and
+wrong.</p>
+
+<p>I do not deny that there are some capitalists whose conduct deserves
+our contempt and condemnation, just as there are some workingmen of
+whom the same is true. Still less would I deny that there is a very
+real ethical measure of life; that some conduct is anti-social while
+other conduct is social. I simply want you to catch my point that we
+are creatures of our environment, Jonathan; that if the workers and
+the capitalists could change places, there would be a corresponding
+change in their views of many things. I refuse to flatter the workers,
+my friend: they have been flattered too much already.</p>
+
+<p>Politicians seeking votes always tell the workers how greatly they
+admire them for their intelligence and for <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_21" id="Page_21">[21]</a></span>their moral excellencies.
+But you know and I know that they are insincere; that, for the most
+part, their praise is lying hypocrisy. They practice what you call
+"the art of jollying the people" because that is an important part of
+their business. The way they talk <i>to</i> the working class is very
+different from the way they talk <i>of</i> the working class among
+themselves. I've heard them, my friend, and I know how most of them
+despise the workers.</p>
+
+<p>The working men and women of this country have many faults and
+failings. Many of them are ignorant, though that is not quite their
+own fault. Many a workingman starves and pinches his wife and little
+ones to gamble, squandering his money, yes, and the lives of his
+family, upon horse races, prize-fights, and other brutal and senseless
+things called "sport." It is all wrong, Jonathan, and we know it. Many
+of our fellow workmen drink, wasting the children's bread-money and
+making beasts of themselves in saloons, and that is wrong, too, though
+I do not wonder at it when I think of the hells they work in, the
+hovels they live in and the dull, soul-deadening grind of their daily
+lives. But we have got to struggle against it, got to conquer the
+bestial curse, before we can get better conditions. Men who soak their
+brains in alcohol, or who gamble their children's bread, will never be
+able to make the world a fit place to live in, a place fit for little
+children to grow in.</p>
+
+<p>But the worst of all the failings of the working class, in my humble
+judgment, is its indifference to the great problems of life. Why is
+it, Jonathan, that I can get tens of thousands of workingmen in
+Pittsburg or any large city excited and wrought to feverish enthusiasm
+over a brutal and bloody prize-fight in San Francisco, or about a
+baseball game, and only a man here and there <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_22" id="Page_22">[22]</a></span>interested in any degree
+about Child Labor, about the suffering of little babies? Why is it
+that the workers, in Pittsburg and every other city in America, are
+less interested in getting just conditions than in baseball games from
+which all elements of honest, manly sport have been taken away; brutal
+slugging matches between professional pugilists; horseraces conducted
+by gamblers for gamblers; the sickening, details of the latest scandal
+among the profligate, idle rich?</p>
+
+<p>I could get fifty thousand workingmen in Pittsburg to read long,
+disgusting accounts of bestiality and vice more easily than I could
+get five hundred to read a pamphlet on the Labor Problem, on the
+wrongfulness of things as they are and how they might be made better.
+The masters are wiser, Jonathan. They watch and guard their own
+interests better than the workers do.</p>
+
+<p>If you owned the tools with which you work, my friend, and whatever
+you could produce belonged to you, either to use or to exchange for
+the products of other workers, there would be some reason in your
+Fourth of July boasting about this</p>
+
+<p style="margin-left: 10em;">Blest land of Liberty.</p>
+
+<p class="noin">But you don't. You, and all other wage-earners, depend upon the
+goodwill and the good judgment of the men who own the land, the mines,
+the factories, the railways, and practically all other means of
+producing wealth for the right to live. You don't own the raw
+material, the machinery or the railways; you don't control your own
+jobs. Most of you don't even own your own miserable homes. These
+things are owned by a small class of, people when their number is
+compared with the total population. The workers produce the wealth of
+this <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_23" id="Page_23">[23]</a></span>and every other country, but they do not own it. They get just
+enough to keep them alive and in a condition to go on producing
+wealth&mdash;as long as the master class sees fit to have them do it.</p>
+
+<p>Most of the capitalists do not, <i>as capitalists</i>, contribute in any
+manner to the production of wealth. Some of them do render services of
+one kind and another in the management of the industries they are
+connected with. Some of them are directors, for example, <i>but they are
+always paid for their services before there is any distribution of
+profits</i>. Even when their "work" is quite perfunctory and useless,
+mere make-believe, like the games of little children, they get paid
+far more than the actual workers. But there are many people who own
+stock in the company you work for, Jonathan, who never saw the
+foundries, who were never in the city of Pittsburg in their lives,
+whose knowledge of the affairs of the company is limited to the stock
+quotations in the financial columns of the morning papers.</p>
+
+<p>Think of it: when you work and produce a dollar's worth of wealth by
+your labor, it is divided up. You get only a very small fraction. The
+rest is divided between the landlords and the capitalists. This
+happens in the case of every man among the thousands employed by the
+company. Only a small share goes to the workers, a third, or a fourth,
+perhaps, the remainder being divided among people who have done none
+of the work. It may happen, does happen in fact, that, an old
+profligate whose delight is the seduction of young girls, a wanton
+woman whose life would shame the harlot of the streets, a lunatic in
+an asylum, or a baby in the cradle, will get more than any of the
+workers who toil before the glaring furnaces day after day.</p>
+
+<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_24" id="Page_24">[24]</a></span>These are terrible assertions, Jonathan, and I do not blame you if you
+doubt them. I shall <i>prove</i> them for you in a later letter.</p>
+
+<p>At present, I want you to get hold of the fact that the wealth
+produced by the workers is so distributed that the idle and useless
+classes get most of it. People will tell you, Jonathan, that "there
+are no classes in America," and that the Socialists lie when they say
+so. They point out to you that your old chum, Richard, who is now a
+millionaire, was a poor boy like yourself. They say he rose to his
+present position because he had keener brains than his fellows, but
+you know lots of workmen in the employ of the company who know a great
+deal more about the work than he does, lots of men who are cleverer
+than he is. Or they tell you that he rose to his present position
+because of his superior character, but you know that he is, to say the
+least, no better than the average man who works under him.</p>
+
+<p>The fact is, Jonathan, the idle capitalists must have some men to
+carry on the work for them, to direct it and see that the workers are
+exploited properly. They must have some men to manage things for them;
+to see that elections are bought, that laws in their interests are
+passed and not laws in the interests of the people. They must have
+somebody to do the things they are too "respectable" to do&mdash;or too
+lazy. They take such men from the ranks of the workers and pay them
+enormous salaries, thereby making them members of their own class.
+Such men are really doing useful and necessary work in managing the
+business (though not in corrupting legislators or devising swindling
+schemes) and are to that extent producers. But their interests are
+with the capitalists. They live in palaces, like the idlers; they
+mingle in the same social sets; they enjoy the same <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_25" id="Page_25">[25]</a></span>luxuries. And,
+above all, they can invest part of their large incomes in other
+concerns and draw enormous profits from the labors of other toilers,
+sometimes even in other lands. They are capitalists and their whole
+influence is on the side of the capitalists against the workers.</p>
+
+<p>I want you to think over these things, friend Jonathan. Don't be
+afraid to do your own thinking! If you have time, go to the library
+and get some good books on the subject and read them carefully, doing
+your own thinking no matter what the authors of the books may say. I
+suggest that you get W.J. Ghent's <i>Mass and Class</i> to begin with.
+Then, when you have read that, I shall be glad to have you read
+Chapter VI of a book called <i>Socialism: A Summary and Interpretation
+of Socialist Principles</i>. It is not very hard reading, for I wrote the
+book myself to meet the needs of just such earnest, hard-working men
+as yourself.</p>
+
+<p>I think both books will be found in the public library. At any rate,
+they ought to be. But if not, it would be worth your while to save the
+price of a few whiskies and to buy them for yourself. You see,
+Jonathan, I want you to study.</p>
+
+<br />
+<br />
+<br />
+<br />
+<a name="IV" id="IV"></a><hr />
+<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_26" id="Page_26">[26]</a></span><br />
+
+<h3>IV<span class="totoc"><a href="#toc">ToC</a></span></h3>
+
+<h4>HOW WEALTH IS PRODUCED AND HOW IT IS DISTRIBUTED</h4>
+
+<div class="block"><p>It is easy to persuade the masses that the good things of this
+world are unjustly divided&mdash;especially when it happens to be
+the exact truth.&mdash;<i>J.A. Froude.</i></p>
+
+<p>The growth of wealth and of luxury, wicked, wasteful and
+wanton, as before God I declare that luxury to be, has been
+matched step by step by a deepening and deadening poverty,
+which has left whole neighborhoods of people practically
+without hope and without aspiration.&mdash;<i>Bishop Potter.</i></p>
+
+<p>At present, all the wealth of Society goes first into the
+possession of the Capitalist.... He pays the landowner his
+rent, the labourer his wages, the tax and tithe-gatherer their
+claims, and keeps a large, indeed, the largest, and a
+constantly augmenting share of the annual produce of labour
+for himself. The Capitalist may now be said to be the first
+owner of all the wealth of the community, though no law has
+conferred on him the right of this property.... This change
+has been effected by the taking of interest on Capital ... and
+it is not a little curious that all the lawgivers of Europe
+endeavoured to prevent this by Statutes&mdash;viz., Statutes
+against usury.&mdash;<i>Rights of Natural and Artificial Property
+Contrasted</i> (<i>An Anonymous work, published in London, in
+1832</i>).&mdash;<i>Th. Hodgskin.</i></p></div>
+<br />
+<br />
+
+<p>You are not a political economist, Jonathan, nor a statistician. Most
+books on political economy, and most books filled with statistics,
+seem to you quite unintelligible. Your education never included the
+study of such books and they are, therefore, almost if not quite
+worthless to you.</p>
+
+<p>But every working man ought to know something about political economy
+and be familiar with some <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_27" id="Page_27">[27]</a></span>statistics relating to social conditions.
+So I am going to ask you to study a few figures and a little political
+economy. Only just a very little, mind you, just to get you used to
+thinking about social problems in a scientific way. I think I can set
+the fundamental principles of political economy before you in very
+simple language, and I will try to make the statistics interesting.</p>
+
+<p>But I want to warn you again, Jonathan, that you must use your own
+commonsense. Don't trust too much to theories and figures&mdash;especially
+figures. Somebody has said that you can divide the liars of the world
+into three classes&mdash;liars, damned liars and statisticians. Some people
+are paid big salaries for juggling with figures to fool the American
+people into believing what is not true, Jonathan. I want you to
+consider the laws of political economy and all the statistics I put
+before you in the light of your own commonsense and your own practical
+experience.</p>
+
+<p>Political economy is the name which somebody long ago gave to the
+formal study of the production and distribution of wealth. Carlyle
+called it "the dismal science," and most books on the subject are
+dismal enough to justify the term. Upon my library shelves there are
+some hundreds of volumes dealing with political economy, and I don't
+mind confessing to you that some of them I never have been able to
+understand, though I have put no little effort and conscience into the
+attempt. I have a suspicion that the authors of these books could not
+understand them themselves. That the reason why they could not write
+so that a man of fair intelligence and education could understand them
+was the fact that they had no clear ideas to convey.</p>
+
+<p>Now, in the first place, what do we mean by <i>Wealth</i>? Why, you say,
+wealth is money and money is wealth. <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_28" id="Page_28">[28]</a></span>But that is only half true,
+Jonathan. Suppose, for example, that an American millionaire crossing
+the ocean be shipwrecked and find himself cast upon some desert
+island, like another Robinson Crusoe, without food or means of
+obtaining any. Suppose him naked, without tool or weapon of any kind,
+his one sole possession being a bag containing ten thousand dollars in
+gold and banknotes to the value of as many millions. With that money,
+in New York, or any other city in the world, he would be counted a
+rich man, and he would have no difficulty in getting food and
+clothing.</p>
+
+<p>But alone upon that desert island, what could he do with the money? He
+could not eat it, he could not keep himself warm with it? He would be
+poorer than the poorest savage in Africa whose only possessions were a
+bow and arrow and an assegai, or spear, wouldn't he? The poor kaffir
+who never heard of money, but who had the simple weapons with which to
+hunt for food, would be the richer man of the two, wouldn't he?</p>
+
+<p>I think you will find it useful, Jonathan, to read a little book by
+John Ruskin, called <i>Unto This Last</i>. It is a very small book, written
+in very simple and beautiful language. Mr. Ruskin was a somewhat
+whimsical writer, and there are some things in the book which I do not
+wholly agree with, but upon the whole it is sane, strong and eternally
+true. He shows very clearly, according to my notion, that the mere
+possession of things, or of money, is not wealth, but that <i>wealth
+consists in the possession of things useful to us</i>. That is why the
+possession of heaps of gold by a man living alone upon a desert island
+does not make him wealthy, and why Robinson Crusoe, with weapons,
+tools and an abundant food supply, was really a wealthy man, though he
+had not a dollar.</p>
+
+<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_29" id="Page_29">[29]</a></span>In a primitive state of society, then, he is poor who has not enough
+of the things useful to him, and he who has them in abundance is rich,
+or wealthy.</p>
+
+<p>Note that I say this of "A primitive state of society," Jonathan, for
+that is most important. <i>It is not true of our present capitalist
+state of society.</i> This may seem a strange proposition to you at
+first, but a little careful thought will convince you that it is true.</p>
+
+<p>Consider a moment: Mr. Carnegie is a wealthy man and Mr. Rockefeller
+is a wealthy man. They are, each of them, richer than most of the
+princes and kings whose wealth astonished the ancient world. Mr.
+Carnegie owns shares in many companies, steelmaking companies, railway
+companies, and so on. Mr. Rockefeller, owns shares in the Standard Oil
+Company, in railways, coal mines, and so on. But Mr. Carnegie does not
+personally use any of the steel ingots made in the works in which he
+owns shares. He uses practically no steel at all, except a knife or
+two. Mr. Rockefeller does not use the oil-wells he owns, nor a
+hundred-millionth part of the coal his shares in coal-mines represent.</p>
+
+<p>If one could get Mr. Carnegie into one of the works in which he is
+interested and stand with him in front of one of the great furnaces as
+it poured forth its stream of molten metal, he might say: "See! that
+is partly mine. It is part of my wealth!" Then, if one were to ask
+"But what are you going to do with that steel, Mr. Carnegie&mdash;is it
+useful to you?" Mr. Carnegie would laugh at the thought. He would
+probably reply, "No, bless your life! The steel is useless to <i>me</i>. I
+don't want it. But somebody else does. <i>It is useful to other
+people.</i>"</p>
+
+<p>Ask Mr. Rockefeller, "Is this oil refinery your property, Mr.
+Rockefeller?" and he would reply: "It is <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_30" id="Page_30">[30]</a></span>partly mine. I own a big
+share in it and it represents part of my wealth." Ask him next: "But,
+Mr. Rockefeller, what are <i>you</i> going to do with all that oil? Surely,
+you cannot need so much oil for your own use?" and he, like Mr.
+Carnegie, would reply: "No! The oil is useless to me. I don't want it.
+But somebody else does. <i>It is useful to other people.</i>"</p>
+
+<p>To be rich in our present social state, Jonathan, you must not only
+own an abundance of things useful to you, but also things useful only
+to others, which you can sell to them at a profit. Wealth, in our
+present society, then consists in the possession of things having an
+exchange value&mdash;things which other people will buy from you. So endeth
+our first lesson in political economy.</p>
+
+<p>And here beginneth our second lesson, Jonathan. We must now consider
+how wealth is produced.</p>
+
+<p>The Socialists say that all wealth is produced by labor applied to
+natural resources. That is a very simple answer, which you can easily
+remember. But I want you to examine it well. Think it over: ask
+yourself whether anything in your experience as a workingman confirms
+or disproves it. Do you produce wealth? Do your fellow workers produce
+wealth? Do you know of any other way in which wealth can be produced
+than by labor applied to natural resources? Don't be fooled, Jonathan.
+Think for yourself!</p>
+
+<p>The wealth of a fisherman consists in an abundance of fish for which
+there is a good market. But suppose there is a big demand for fish in
+the cities and that, at the same time, there are millions of fish in
+the sea, ready to be caught. So long as they are in the sea, the fish
+are not wealth. Even if the sea belonged to a private individual, as
+the oil-wells belong to Mr. Rockefeller and a few other individuals,
+nobody would be any the <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_31" id="Page_31">[31]</a></span>better off. Fish in the sea are not wealth,
+but fish in the market-places are. Why, because labor has been
+expended in catching them and bringing them to market.</p>
+
+<p>There are millions of tons of coal in Pennsylvania. President Baer
+said, you will remember, that God had appointed him and a few other
+gentlemen to look after that coal, to act as His trustees. And Mr.
+Baer wasn't joking, either. That is the funny part of the story: he
+was actually serious when he uttered that foolish blasphemy! There are
+also millions of people who want coal, whose very lives depend upon
+it. People who will pay almost any price for it rather than go without
+it.</p>
+
+<p>The coal is there, millions of tons of it. But suppose that nobody
+digs for it; that the coal is left where Nature produced it, or where
+God placed it, whichever description you prefer? Do you think it would
+do anybody any good lying there, just as it lay untouched when the
+Indian roved through the forests ignorant of its presence? Would
+anybody be wealthier on account of the coal being there? Of course
+not. It only becomes wealth when somebody's labor makes it available.
+Every dollar of the wealth of our coal-mining industry, as of the
+fishing industries, represents human labor.</p>
+
+<p>I need not go through the list of all our industries, Jonathan, to
+make this truth clear to you. If it pleases you to do so, you can
+easily do that for yourself. I simply wanted to make it clear that the
+Socialists are stating a great universal truth when they say that
+labor applied to natural resources is the true source of all wealth.
+As Sir William Petty said long ago: "Labor is the father and land is
+the mother of all wealth."</p>
+
+<p>But you must be careful, Jonathan, not to misuse that word "labor."
+Socialists don't mean the labor of the hands only, when they speak of
+labor. Take the case of <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_32" id="Page_32">[32]</a></span>the coal-mines again, just for a moment:
+There are men who dig the coal, called miners. But before they can
+work there must be other men to make tools and machinery for them. And
+before there can be machinery made and fixed in its proper place there
+must be surveyors and engineers, men with a special education and
+capacity, to draw the plans, and so on. Then there must be some men to
+organize the business, to take orders for the coal, to see that it is
+shipped, to collect the payment agreed upon, so that the workers can
+be paid, and so on through a long list of things requiring <i>mental
+labor</i>.</p>
+
+<p>Both kinds of labor are equally necessary, and no one but a fool would
+ever think otherwise. No Socialist writer or lecturer ever said that
+wealth was produced by <i>manual labor</i> alone applied to natural
+resources. And yet, I hardly ever pick up a book or newspaper article
+written against Socialism in which that is not charged against the
+Socialists! The opponents of Socialism all seem to be lineal
+descendants of Ananias, Jonathan!</p>
+
+<p>For your special, personal benefit I want to cite just one instance of
+this misrepresentation. You have heard, I have no doubt, of the
+English gentleman, Mr. W.H. Mallock, who came to this country last
+year to lecture against Socialism. He is a very pleasant fellow,
+personally&mdash;as pleasant a fellow as a confirmed aristocrat who does
+not like to ride in the street cars with "common people" can be. Mr.
+Mallock was hired by the Civic Federation and paid out of funds which
+Mr. August Belmont contributed to that body, funds which did not
+belong to Mr. Belmont, as the investigation of the affairs of the New
+York Traction Companies conducted later by the Hon. W.M. Ivins,
+showed. He was hired to lecture against Socialism in our great
+universities and colleges, in the interests of people like Mr.
+Belmont. <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_33" id="Page_33">[33]</a></span>And there was not one of those universities or colleges fair
+enough to say: "We want to hear the Socialist side of the argument!" I
+don't think the word "fairplay," about which we used to boast as one
+of the glories of our language, is very much liked or used in American
+universities, Jonathan. And I am very sorry. It ought not to be so.</p>
+
+<p>I should have been very glad to answer Mr. Mallock's silly and unjust
+attacks; to say to the professors and students in the universities and
+colleges: "I want you to listen to our side of the argument and then
+make up your minds whether we are right or whether truth is on the
+side of Mr. Mallock." That would have been fair and honest and manly,
+wouldn't it? There were several other Socialist lecturers, the equals
+of Mr. Mallock in education and as public speakers, who would have
+been ready to do the same thing. And not one of us would have wanted a
+cent of anybody's money, let alone money contributed by Mr. August
+Belmont.</p>
+
+<p>Mr. Mallock said that the Socialists make the claim that manual labor
+alone creates wealth when applied to natural objects. <i>That statement
+is not true.</i> He even dared say that a great and profound thinker like
+Karl Marx believed and taught that silly notion. The newspapers of
+America hailed Mr. Mallock as the long-looked-for conqueror of Marx
+and his followers. They thought he had demolished Socialism. But did
+they know that they were resting their case upon a <i>lie</i>, I wonder?
+That Marx never for a moment believed such a thing; that he went out
+of his way to explain that he did not?</p>
+
+<p>I don't want you to try to read the works of Marx, my friend&mdash;at
+least, not yet: <i>Capital</i>, his greatest work, is a very difficult
+book, in three large volumes. But if you will go into the public
+library and get the first volume in <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_34" id="Page_34">[34]</a></span>English translation, and turn to
+page 145, you will read the following words:</p>
+
+<p>"By labor power or capacity for labor is to be understood the
+aggregate of those <i>mental and physical</i> capabilities existing in a
+human being, which he exercises when he produces a use-value of any
+description."<a name="FNanchor_2_2" id="FNanchor_2_2"></a><a href="#Footnote_2_2" class="fnanchor">[2]</a></p>
+
+<p>I think you will agree, Jonathan, that that statement fully justifies
+all that I have said concerning Mr. Mallock. I think you will agree,
+too, that it is a very clear and intelligible definition, which any
+man of fair sense can understand. Now, by way of contrast, I want you
+to read one of Mr. Mallock's definitions. Please bear in mind that Mr.
+Mallock is an English "scholar," by many regarded as a very clear
+thinker. This is how he defines labor:</p>
+
+<p>"<i>Labor means the faculties of the individual applied to his own
+labor.</i>"</p>
+
+<p>I have never yet been able to find anybody who could make sense out of
+that definition, Jonathan, though I have submitted it to a good many
+people, among them several college professors. It does not mean
+anything. The fifty-seven letters contained in that sentence would
+mean just as much if you put them in a bag, shook them up, and then
+put them on paper just as they happened to fall out of the bag. Mr.
+Mallock's English, his veracity and his logic are all equally weak and
+defective.</p>
+
+<p>I don't think that Mr. Mallock is worthy of your consideration,
+Jonathan, but if you are interested in reading what he said about
+Socialism in the lectures I have been referring to, they are published
+in a volume entitled, <i>A Critical Examination of Socialism</i>. You can
+get the book in the library: they will be sure to have it <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_35" id="Page_35">[35]</a></span>there,
+because it is against Socialism. But I want you to buy a little book
+by Morris Hillquit, called <i>Mr. Mallock's</i> "<i>Ability</i>," and read it
+carefully. It costs only ten cents&mdash;and you will get more amusement
+reading the careful and scholarly dissection of Mallock than you could
+get in a dime show anywhere. If you will read my own reply to Mr.
+Mallock, in my little book <i>Capitalist and Laborer</i>, I shall not think
+the worse of you for doing so.</p>
+
+<p>Now, let us look at the division of the wealth. It is all produced by
+labor of manual workers and brain workers applied to natural objects
+which no man made. I am not going to weary you with figures, Jonathan,
+because you are not a statistician. I am going to take the statistics
+and make them as simple as I can for you&mdash;and tell you where you can
+find the statistics if you ever feel inclined to try your hand upon
+them.</p>
+
+<p>But first of all I want you to read a passage from the writings of a
+very great man, who was not a "wicked Socialist agitator" like your
+humble servant. Archdeacon Paley, the great English theologian, was
+not like many of our modern clergymen, afraid to tell the truth about
+social conditions; he was not forgetful of the social aspects of
+Christ's teaching. Among many profoundly wise utterances about social
+conditions which that great and good teacher made more than a century
+ago was the passage I now want you to read and ponder over. You might
+do much worse than to commit the whole passage to memory. It reads:</p>
+
+<div class="block"><p>"If you should see a flock of pigeons in a field of corn, and
+if (instead of each picking where and what it liked, taking
+just as much as it wanted, and no more) you should see
+ninety-nine of them gathering all they got into a heap,
+reserving nothing for themselves but the chaff and the refuse,
+keeping this <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_36" id="Page_36">[36]</a></span>heap for one, and that the weakest, perhaps
+worst, pigeon of the flock, sitting round and looking on, all
+the winter, whilst this one was devouring, throwing about and
+wasting it; and if a pigeon, more hardy or hungry than the
+rest, touched a grain of the hoard, all the others instantly
+flying upon it, and tearing it to pieces; if you should see
+this, you would see nothing more than what is every day
+practised and established among men.</p>
+
+<p>"Among men you see the ninety-and-nine toiling and scraping
+together a heap of superfluities for one (and this one, too,
+oftentimes the feeblest and worst of the set, a child, a
+woman, a madman or a fool), getting nothing for themselves,
+all the while, but a little of the coarsest of the provision
+which their own industry produces; looking quietly on, while
+they see the fruits of all their labor spent or spoiled; and
+if one of their number take or touch a particle of the hoard,
+the others joining against him, and hanging him for theft."</p></div>
+
+<p>If there were many men like Dr. Paley in our American churches to-day,
+preaching the truth in that fearless fashion, there would be something
+like a revolution, Jonathan. The churches would no longer be empty
+almost; preachers would not be wondering why workingmen don't go to
+church. There would probably be less show and pride in the churches;
+less preachers paid big salaries, less fashionable choirs. But the
+churches would be much nearer to the spirit and standard of Jesus than
+most of them are to-day. There is nothing in connection with modern
+religious life quite so glaring as the infidelity of the Christian
+ministry to the teachings of Christ.</p>
+
+<p>A lady once addressed Thomas Carlyle concerning Jesus in this fashion:
+"How delighted we should all be to throw open our doors to him and
+listen to his divine precepts! Don't you think so, Mr. Carlyle?" The
+bluff old puritan sage answered: "No, madam, I don't. I think if he
+had come fashionably dressed, with plenty of money, and preaching
+doctrines palatable to <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_37" id="Page_37">[37]</a></span>the higher orders, I might have had the honor
+of receiving from you a card of invitation, on the back of which would
+be written, 'To meet our Saviour.' But if he came uttering his sublime
+precepts, and denouncing the pharisees, and associating with publicans
+and the lower orders, as he did, you would have treated him as the
+Jews did, and cried out, 'Take him to Newgate and hang him.'"</p>
+
+<p>I sometimes wonder, Jonathan, what really <i>would</i> happen if the
+Carpenter-preacher of Gallilee could and did visit some of our
+American churches. Would he be able to stand the vulgar show? Would he
+be able to listen in silence to the miserable perversion of his
+teachings by hired apologists of social wrong? Would he want to drive
+out the moneychangers and the Masters of Bread, to hurl at them his
+terrible thunderbolts of wrath and scorn? Would he be welcomed by the
+churches bearing his name? Would they want to listen to his gospel?
+Frankly, Jonathan, I doubt it. A few Socialists would be found in
+nearly every church ready to receive him and to call him "Comrade,"
+but the majority of church-goers would shun him and pass him by.</p>
+
+<p>I should not be surprised, Jonathan, if the President of the United
+States called him an "undesirable citizen," as he surely would call
+Archdeacon Paley if he were alive.</p>
+
+<p>I wanted you to read Paley's illustration of the pigeons before going
+into the unequal distribution of wealth. It will help you to
+understand another illustration. Suppose that from a shipwreck one
+hundred men are fortunate enough to save themselves and to make their
+way to an island, where, making the best of conditions, they establish
+a little community, which they elect to call <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_38" id="Page_38">[38]</a></span>"Capitalia." Luckily,
+they have all got food and clothing enough to last them for a little
+while, and they are fortunate enough to find on the island a supply of
+tools, evidently abandoned by some former occupants of the island.</p>
+
+<p>They set to work, cultivating the ground, building huts for
+themselves, hunting for game, and so on. They start out to face the
+primeval struggle with the sullen forces of Nature as our ancestors
+did in the time long past. Their efforts prosper, every one of the
+hundred men being a worker, every man working with equal will, equal
+strength and vigor. Now, then, suppose that one day, they decide to
+divide up the wealth produced by their labor, to institute individual
+property in place of common property, competition in place of
+co-operation. What would you think if two or three of the strongest
+members said, "We will do the dividing, we will distribute the wealth
+according to our ideas of justice and right," and then proceeded to
+give 55 per cent. of the wealth to one man, to the next eleven men 32
+per cent. and to the remaining eighty-eight men only 13 per cent.
+between them?</p>
+
+<p>I will put it in another way, Jonathan, since you are not accustomed
+to thinking in percentages. Suppose that there were a hundred cows to
+be divided among the members of the community. According to the scheme
+of division just described, this is how the division would work out:</p>
+
+<div class="block3">
+<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="70%" summary="scheme of division">
+  <tr>
+  <td width="50%" class="tdr">1 Man would get</td>
+  <td width="5%">&nbsp;</td>
+  <td width="45%" class="tdl">55 Cows for himself</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+  <td class="tdr">11 Men would get</td>
+  <td>&nbsp;</td>
+  <td class="tdl">32 Cows among them</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+  <td class="tdr">88 Men would get</td>
+  <td>&nbsp;</td>
+  <td class="tdl">13 Cows among them</td>
+  </tr>
+</table>
+</div>
+
+<p>When they had divided the cows in this manner they would proceed to
+divide the wheat, the potato crops, the <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_39" id="Page_39">[39]</a></span>land, and everything else
+owned by the community in the same unequal way. I ask you again,
+Jonathan, what would you think of such a division?</p>
+
+<p>Of course, being a fair-minded man, endowed with ordinary intelligence
+at least, you will admit that there would be no sense and no justice
+in such a plan of division, and you doubt if intelligent human beings
+would submit to it. But, my friend, that is not quite so bad as the
+distribution of wealth in America to-day is. Suppose that instead of
+all the members of the little island community being workers, all
+working equally hard, fairly sharing the work of the community, one
+man absolutely refused to do anything at all, saying, "I was the first
+one to get ashore. The land really belongs to me. I am the landlord. I
+won't work, but you must work for me." And suppose that eleven other
+men said in like manner. "We won't work. We found the tools, we
+brought the seeds and the food out of the boats when we came. We are
+the capitalists and you must do the work in the fields. We will
+superintend you, give you orders where to dig, and when, and where to
+stop. You eighty-eight common fellows are the laborers who must do the
+hard work while we use our brains." And suppose that they actually
+carried out that plan and <i>then</i> divided the wealth in the way I have
+described, that would be a pretty good illustration of how the wealth
+produced in America under our existing social system is divided.</p>
+
+<p><i>And I ask you what you think of that, Jonathan Edwards. How do you
+like it?</i></p>
+
+<p>These are not my figures. They are not the figures of any rabid
+Socialist making frenzied guesses. They are taken from a book called
+<i>The Present Distribution of Wealth in the United States</i>, by the late
+Dr. Charles B. Spahr, a book that is used in most of our colleges and
+<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_40" id="Page_40">[40]</a></span>universities. No serious criticism of the figures has ever been
+attempted and most economists, even the conservative ones, base their
+own estimates upon Spahr's work. It would be worth your while to get
+the book from the library, Jonathan, and to read it carefully.</p>
+
+<p>In the meantime, look over the following table which sets forth the
+results of Dr. Spahr's investigation, Jonathan, and remember that the
+condition of things has not improved since 1895, when the book was
+written, but that they have, on the contrary, very much worsened.</p>
+<br />
+
+<h4>SPAHR'S TABLE OF THE DISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH IN THE UNITED STATES</h4>
+
+<div class="centered">
+<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="60%" summary="Distribution of Wealth" style="border: 1px black solid;">
+  <tr>
+  <td class="tdllrtb" width="20%">Class</td>
+  <td class="tdclrtb" width="15%">No. of Families</td>
+  <td class="tdclrtb" width="15%">Per Cent</td>
+  <td class="tdclrtb" width="15%">Average Wealth</td>
+  <td class="tdclrtb" width="20%">Aggregate Wealth</td>
+  <td class="tdclrtb" width="15%">Per Cent</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+  <td class="tdllrt">Rich</td>
+  <td class="tdrlrt">125,000</td>
+  <td class="tdrlrt">1.0</td>
+  <td class="tdrlrt">$263,040</td>
+  <td class="tdrlrt">32,880,000,000</td>
+  <td class="tdrlrt">54.8</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+  <td class="tdllr">Middle</td>
+  <td class="tdrlr">1,362,500</td>
+  <td class="tdrlr">10.9</td>
+  <td class="tdrlr">14,180</td>
+  <td class="tdrlr">29,320,000,000</td>
+  <td class="tdrlr">32.2</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+  <td class="tdllr">Poor</td>
+  <td class="tdrlr">4,762,500</td>
+  <td class="tdrlr">38.1</td>
+  <td class="tdrlr">1,639</td>
+  <td class="tdrlr">7,800,000,000</td>
+  <td class="tdrlr">13.0</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+  <td class="tdllrb">Very Poor</td>
+  <td class="tdrlrb">6,250,000</td>
+  <td class="tdrlrb">50.0</td>
+  <td class="tdrlrb">&nbsp;</td>
+  <td class="tdrlrb">&nbsp;</td>
+  <td class="tdrlrb">&nbsp;</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+  <td class="tdllrtb">Total</td>
+  <td class="tdrlrtb">13,500,000</td>
+  <td class="tdrlrtb">100.0</td>
+  <td class="tdrlrtb">$4,800</td>
+  <td class="tdrlrtb">$60,000,000,000</td>
+  <td class="tdrlrtb">100.0</td>
+  </tr>
+</table>
+</div>
+
+<br />
+
+<p>Now, Jonathan, although I have taken a good deal of trouble to lay
+these figures before you, I really don't care very much for them.
+Statistics don't impress me as they do some people, and I would far
+rather rely upon your commonsense than upon any figures. I have not
+quoted these figures because they were published by a very able
+scholar in a very wise book, nor because scientific men, professors of
+political economy and others, have accepted them as a fair estimate. I
+have used them because I believe them to be <i>true and reliable</i>.</p>
+
+<p>But don't you rest your whole faith upon them, <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_41" id="Page_41">[41]</a></span>Jonathan. If some fine
+day a Republican spellbinder, or a Democratic scribbler, tries to
+upset you and prove that Socialists are all liars and false prophets,
+just tell him the figures are quite unimportant to you, that you don't
+care to know just exactly how much of the wealth the richest one per
+cent. gets and how little of it the poorest fifty per cent. gets. A
+few millions more or less don't trouble you. Pin him down to the one
+fact which your own commonsense teaches you, that the wealth of the
+country <i>is</i> unequally distributed. Tell him that you <i>know</i>,
+regardless of figures, that there are many idlers who are enormously
+rich and many honest, industrious workers who are miserably poor. He
+won't be able to deny these things. He <i>dare</i> not, because they are
+<i>true</i>.</p>
+
+<p>Ask any such apologist for capitalism what he would think of the
+father or mother who took his or her eight children and said: "Here
+are eight cakes, as many cakes as there are boys and girls. I am going
+to distribute the cakes. Here, Walter, are seven of the cakes for you.
+The other cake the rest of you can divide among yourselves as best you
+can." If the capitalist defender is a fair-minded man, if he is
+neither fool nor liar nor monster, he will agree that such a parent
+would be brutally unjust.</p>
+
+<p>Yet, Jonathan, that is exactly how our national wealth is divided up.
+One-eighth of the families in the United States do get seven-eights of
+the wealth, and, being, I hope, neither fool, liar nor monster, I
+denounce the system as brutally unjust. There is no sense and no
+morality in mincing matters and being afraid to call spades spades.</p>
+
+<p>It is because of this unjust distribution of the wealth of modern
+society that we have so much social unrest. That is the heart of the
+whole problem. Why are <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_42" id="Page_42">[42]</a></span>workingmen organized into unions to fight the
+capitalists, and the capitalists on their side organized to fight the
+workers? Why, simply because the capitalists want to continue
+exploiting the workers, to exploit them still more if possible, while
+the workers want to be exploited less, want to get more of what they
+produce.</p>
+
+<p>Why is it that eminently respectable members of society combine to
+bribe legislators&mdash;<i>to buy laws from the lawmakers!</i>&mdash;and to corrupt
+the republic, a form of treason worse than Benedict Arnold's? Why, for
+the same reason: they want to continue the spoliation of the people.
+That is why the heads of a great life insurance company illegally used
+the funds belonging to widows and orphans to contribute to the
+campaign fund of the Republican Party in 1904. That is why, also, Mr.
+Belmont used the funds of the traction company of which he is
+president to support the Civic Federation, which is an organization
+specially designed to fool and mislead the wage-earners of America.
+That is why every investigation of American political or business life
+that is honestly made by able and fearless men reveals so much
+chicanery and fraud.</p>
+
+<p>You belong to a union, Jonathan, because you want to put a check upon
+the greed of the employers. But you never can expect through the union
+to get all that rightfully belongs to you. It is impossible to expect
+that the union will ever do away with the terrible inequalities in the
+distribution of wealth. The union is a good thing, and the workers
+ought to be much more thoroughly organized into unions than they are.
+Socialists are always on the side of the union when it is engaged in
+an honest fight against the exploiters of labor.</p>
+
+<p>Later on, I shall take up the question of unionism and discuss it with
+you, Jonathan. Meanwhile, I want to <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_43" id="Page_43">[43]</a></span>impress upon your mind that <i>a
+wise union man votes as he strikes</i>. There is not the least bit of
+sense in belonging to a union if you are to become a "scab" when you
+go to the ballot-box. <i>And a vote for a capitalist party is a scab
+vote, Jonathan.</i></p>
+
+<br />
+<br />
+<h4>FOOTNOTES:</h4>
+<br />
+
+<div class="footnote"><p class="noin"><a name="Footnote_2_2" id="Footnote_2_2"></a><a href="#FNanchor_2_2"><span class="label">[2]</span></a> Note: In the American edition, published by Kerr, the
+page is 186.</p></div>
+
+<br />
+<br />
+<br />
+<br />
+<a name="V" id="V"></a><hr />
+<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_44" id="Page_44">[44]</a></span><br />
+
+<h3>V<span class="totoc"><a href="#toc">ToC</a></span></h3>
+
+<h4>THE DRONES AND THE BEES</h4>
+
+<div class="block"><p>Hitherto it is questionable if all the mechanical inventions
+yet made have lightened the day's toil of any human being.
+They have enabled a greater population to live the same life
+of drudgery and imprisonment, and an increased number of
+manufactures, and others, to make large fortunes.&mdash;<i>John
+Stuart Mill.</i></p>
+<br />
+<br />
+
+<p>Most people imagine that the rich are in heaven, but as a rule
+it is only a gilded hell. There is not a man in the city of
+New York with brains enough to own five millions of dollars.
+Why? The money will own him. He becomes the key to a safe.
+That money will get him up at daylight; that money will
+separate him from his friends; that money will fill his heart
+with fear; that money will rob his days of sunshine and his
+nights of pleasant dreams. He becomes the property of that
+money. And he goes right on making more. What for? He does not
+know. It becomes a kind of insanity.&mdash;<i>R.G. Ingersoll.</i></p></div>
+
+<div class="poem"><div class="stanza">
+<span class="i0">Is it well that, while we range with Science, glorying in the time,<br /></span>
+<span class="i0">City children soak and blacken soul and sense in City slime?<br /></span>
+<span class="i0">There, among the gloomy alleys, Progress halts on palsied feet,<br /></span>
+<span class="i0">Crime and Hunger cast our maidens by the thousand on the street.<br /></span>
+<span class="i0">There the master scrimps his haggard seamstress of her daily bread,<br /></span>
+<span class="i0">There a single sordid attic holds the living and the dead;<br /></span>
+<span class="i0">There the smouldering fire of fever creeps across the rotted floor,<br /></span>
+<span class="i0">In the crowded couch of incest, in the warrens of the poor.<br /></span>
+<span class="i15">&mdash;<i>Tennyson.</i><br /></span>
+</div></div>
+
+<br />
+<br />
+
+<p>When you and I were boys going to school, friend Jonathan, we were
+constantly admonished to study with <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_45" id="Page_45">[45]</a></span>admiration the social economy of
+the bees. We learned to almost reverence the little winged creatures
+for the manner in which they</p>
+
+<div class="poem"><div class="stanza">
+<span class="i0">Improve each shining hour,<br /></span>
+<span class="i0">And gather honey all the day<br /></span>
+<span class="i0">From every opening flower.<br /></span>
+</div></div>
+
+<p>We were taught, you remember, to honor the bees for their hatred of
+drones. It was the great virtue of the bees that they always drove the
+drones from the hive. For my part, I learned the lesson so well that I
+really became a sort of bee-worshipper. But since I have grown to
+mature years I have come to the conclusion that those old lessons were
+not honestly meant, Jonathan. For if anybody proposes to-day that we
+should drive out the drones from the <i>human</i> hive, he is at once
+denounced as an Anarchist and an "undesirable citizen."</p>
+
+<p>It is all very well for bees to insist that there must be no idle
+parasites, that the drones must go, but for human beings such a policy
+won't do! It savors too much of Socialism, my friend, and is
+unpleasantly like Paul's foolish saying that "If any man among you
+will not work, neither shall he eat." That is a text which is out of
+date and unsuited to the twentieth century!</p>
+
+<div class="poem"><div class="stanza">
+<span class="i0">"Allah! Allah!" cried the stranger,<br /></span>
+<span class="i0">"Wondrous sights the traveller sees;<br /></span>
+<span class="i0">But the greatest is the latest,<br /></span>
+<span class="i0">Where the drones control the bees!"<br /></span>
+</div></div>
+
+<p>Every modern civilized nation rewards its drones better than it
+rewards its bees, and in every land the drones control the bees.</p>
+
+<p>I want you to consider, friend Jonathan, the lives of the people. How
+the workers live and how the shirkers <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_46" id="Page_46">[46]</a></span>live; now the bees live and how
+the drones live, if you like that better. You can study the matter for
+yourself, right in Pittsburg, much better than you can from books, for
+God knows that in Pittsburg there are the extremes of wealth and
+poverty, just as there are in New York, Chicago, St. Louis or San
+Francisco. There are gilded hells where rich drones live and squalid
+hells where poor bees live, and the number of truly happy people is
+sadly, terribly, small.</p>
+
+<p><i>Ten millions in poverty!</i> Don't you think that is a cry so terrible
+that it ought to shame a great nation like this, a nation more
+bounteously endowed by Nature than any other nation in the world's
+history? Men, women and children, poor and miserable, with not enough
+to eat, nor clothes to keep them warm in the cold winter nights; with
+places for homes that are unfit for dogs, and these not their own;
+knowing not if to-morrow may bring upon them the last crushing blow.
+All these conditions, and conditions infinitely worse than these, are
+contained in the poverty of those millions, Jonathan.</p>
+
+<p>If people were poor because the land was poor, because the country was
+barren, because Nature dealt with us in niggardly fashion, so that all
+men had to struggle against famine; if, in a word, there was democracy
+in our poverty, so that none were idle and rich while the rest toiled
+in poverty, it would be our supreme glory to bear it with cheerful
+courage. But that is not the case. While babies perish for want of
+food and care in dank and unhealthy hovels, there are pampered poodles
+in palaces, bejeweled and cared for by liveried flunkies and waiting
+maids. While men and women want bread, and beg crusts or stand
+shivering in the "bread lines" of our great cities, there are monkeys
+being banqueted at costly banquets by the profligate degenerates of
+riches. <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_47" id="Page_47">[47]</a></span>It's all wrong, Jonathan, cruelly, shamefully, hellishly
+wrong! And I for one, refuse to call such a brutalized system, or the
+nation tolerating it, <i>civilized</i>.</p>
+
+<p>Good old Thomas Carlyle would say "Amen!" to that, Jonathan. Lots of
+people wont. They will tell you that the poverty of the millions is
+very sad, of course, and that the poor are to be pitied. But they will
+remind you that Jesus said something about the poor always being with
+us. They won't read you what he did say, but you can read it for
+yourself. Here it is: "For ye have the poor always with you, and
+<i>whensoever ye will ye can do them good</i>."<a name="FNanchor_3_3" id="FNanchor_3_3"></a><a href="#Footnote_3_3" class="fnanchor">[3]</a> And now, I want you to
+read a quotation from Carlyle:</p>
+
+<div class="block"><p>"It is not to die, or even to die of hunger, that makes a man
+wretched; many men have died; all men must die,&mdash;the last exit
+of us all is in a Fire-Chariot of Pain. But it is to live
+miserable we know not why; to work sore and yet gain nothing;
+to be heart-worn, weary, yet isolated, unrelated, girt-in with
+a cold universal Laissezfaire: it is to die slowly all our
+life long, imprisoned in a deaf, dead, Infinite Injustice, as
+in the accursed iron belly of a Phalaris' Bull! This is and
+remains forever intolerable to all men whom God has made."</p></div>
+
+<p>"Miserable we know not why"&mdash;"to die slowly all our life
+long"&mdash;"Imprisoned in a deaf, dead, Infinite Injustice"&mdash;Don't these
+phrases describe exactly the poverty you have known, brother Jonathan?</p>
+
+<p>Did you ever stop to think, my friend, that poverty is the lot of the
+<i>average</i> worker, the reward of the producers of wealth, and that only
+the producers of wealth are poor? Do you know that, because we die
+slowly all our lives long, the death-rate among the working-class is
+far higher than among other classes by reason of <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_48" id="Page_48">[48]</a></span>overwork, anxiety,
+poor food, lack of pleasure, bad housing, and all the other ills
+comprehended in the lot of the wage-worker? In Chicago, for example,
+in the wards where the well-to-do reside the death-rate is not more
+than 12 per thousand, while it is 37 in the tenement districts.</p>
+
+<p>Scientists who have gone into the matter tell us that of ten million
+persons belonging to the well-to-do classes the annual deaths do not
+number more than 100,000, while among the very best paid workers the
+number is not less than 150,000 and among the very poorest paid
+workers at least 350,000. To show you just what those proportions are,
+I have represented the matter in a little diagram, which you can
+understand at a glance:</p>
+
+<div class="img">
+<p class="cen" style="margin-bottom: 1em;">DIAGRAM<br />
+Showing Relative Death-Rate Among Persons of Different Social Classes.</p>
+<a href="images/imagep048.jpg">
+<img border="0" src="images/imagep048.jpg" width="50%" alt="Relative Death-Rate Among Persons of Different Social Classes" /></a>
+</div>
+
+<p>There are some diseases, notably the Great White Plague. Consumption,
+which we call "diseases of the working-classes" on account of the fact
+that they prey most upon the wearied, ill-nourished bodies of the
+workers. Not that they are confined to the workers entirely, but
+because the workers are most afflicted by them. <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_49" id="Page_49">[49]</a></span>Because the workers
+live in crowded tenement hovels, work in factories laden with dust and
+disease germs, are overworked and badly fed, this and other of the
+great scourges of the human race find them ready victims.</p>
+
+<p>Here is another diagram for you, Jonathan, showing the comparative
+mortality from Consumption among the workers engaged in six different
+industrial occupations and the members of six groups of professional
+workers.</p>
+
+<div class="img">
+<p class="cen" style="margin-bottom: 1em;">DIAGRAM<br />
+Showing Relative Mortality From Tuberculosis.</p>
+<a href="images/imagep049.jpg">
+<img border="0" src="images/imagep049.jpg" width="60%" alt="Relative Mortality From Tuberculosis" /></a>
+</div>
+
+<p>I want you to study this diagram and the figures by which it is
+accompanied, Jonathan. You will observe that the death rate from
+Consumption among marble and stone cutters is six times greater than
+among bankers and brokers and directors of companies. Among cigar
+makers and tobacco workers it is more than five <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_50" id="Page_50">[50]</a></span>times as great. Iron
+and steel workers do not suffer so much from the plague as some other
+workers, according to the death-rates. One reason is that only fairly
+robust men enter the trade to begin with. Another reason is that a
+great many, finding they cannot stand the strain, after they have
+become infected, leave the trade for lighter occupations. I think
+there can be no doubt that the <i>true</i> mortality from Consumption among
+iron and steel workers is much higher than the figures show. But,
+taking the figures as they are, confident that they understate the
+extent of the ravages of the disease in these occupations, we find
+that the mortality is more than two and a half times greater than
+among capitalists.</p>
+
+<p>Now, these are very serious figures, Jonathan. Why is the mortality so
+much less among the capitalists? It is because they have better homes,
+are not so overworked to physical exhaustion, are better fed and
+clothed, and can have better care and attention, far better chances of
+being cured, if they are attacked. They can get these things only from
+the labor of the workers, Jonathan.</p>
+
+<p><i>In other words, they buy their lives with ours. Workers are killed to
+keep capitalists alive.</i></p>
+
+<p>It used to be frequently charged that drink was the chief cause of the
+poverty of the workers; that they were poor because they were drunken
+and thriftless. But we hear less of that silly nonsense than we used
+to, though now and then a Prohibitionist advocate still repeats the
+old and long exploded myth. It never was true, Jonathan, and it is
+less true to-day than ever before. Drunkenness is an evil and the
+working class suffers from it to a lamentable degree, but it is not
+the sole cause of poverty, it is not the chief cause of poverty, it is
+not even a very important cause of poverty at all.</p>
+
+<p>It is true that intemperance causes poverty in some <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_51" id="Page_51">[51]</a></span>cases, it is also
+true that drunkenness is very frequently caused by poverty. They act
+and react upon each other, but it is not doubted by any student of our
+social conditions whose opinion carries any weight that intemperance
+is far more often the result of poverty and bad conditions of life and
+labor than the cause of them.</p>
+
+<p>The International Socialist Congress which met at Stuttgart last
+summer very rightly decided that Socialists everywhere should do all
+in their power to combat alcoholism, to end the ravages of
+intemperance among the working classes of all nations. For drunken
+voters are not very likely to be either wise or free voters: we need
+sober, earnest, clear-thinking men to bring about better conditions,
+Jonathan. But the Socialists, while they adopt this position, do not
+mistake results for causes. They know from actual experience that
+Solomon was right when he attributed intemperance to ill conditions.
+Hunt out your Bible and turn to the Book of Proverbs, chapter 31,
+verse 7. There you will read: "Let him drink and forget his poverty,
+and remember his misery no more."</p>
+
+<p>That is not very good advice to give a workingman, but it is exactly
+what many workingmen do. There was a wise English bishop who said a
+few years ago that if he lived in the slums of any of the great
+cities, under conditions similar to those in which most of the workers
+live, he would probably be a drunkard, and when I see the conditions
+under which millions of men are working and living I wonder that we
+have not more drunkenness than we have.</p>
+
+<p>A good many years ago, "General" Booth, head of the Salvation Army,
+declared that "nine-tenths" of the poverty of the people was due to
+intemperance. Later on, "Commissioner" Cadman, one of the "General's"
+<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_52" id="Page_52">[52]</a></span>most trusted aides, made an investigation of the causes of poverty
+among all those who passed through the Army shelters for destitute men
+and women. He found that among the very lowest class, the "submerged
+tenth," where the ravages of drink are most sadly evident, depression
+in trade counted for much more than drink as a cause of poverty. The
+figures were:</p>
+
+<div class="block3">
+<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="50%" summary="causes of poverty">
+  <tr>
+  <td width="50%" class="tdl">Depression in trade</td>
+  <td width="50%" class="tdr">55.8 per cent.</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+  <td class="tdl">Drink <i>and Gambling</i></td>
+  <td class="tdr">26.6 per cent.</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+  <td class="tdl">Ill-health</td>
+  <td class="tdr">11.6 per cent.</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+  <td class="tdl">Old Age</td>
+  <td class="tdr">5.8 per cent.</td>
+  </tr>
+</table>
+</div>
+
+<p>Even among the very lowest class of the social wrecks of our great
+cities, who have long since abandoned hope, depression in trade was
+found to count for more than twice as much as drink and gambling
+combined as a producer of poverty.</p>
+
+<p>That is in keeping with all the investigations that have ever been
+made in a scientific spirit. Professor Amos Warner, in his valuable
+study of the subject, published in his book, <i>American Charities</i>,
+shows how false the notion that nearly all the poverty of the people
+is due to their intemperance proves to be when an intelligent
+investigation of the facts is made.</p>
+
+<p>Dr. Edward T. Devine, of Columbia University, editor of <i>Charities and
+the Commons</i>, is probably as competent an authority upon this question
+as any man living. He is not likely to be called a Socialist by
+anybody. Yet I find him writing in his magazine, at the end of
+November, 1907: "The tradition which many hold that the condition of
+poverty is ordinarily and as a matter of course to be explained by
+personal faults of the poor themselves is no longer tenable. Strong
+drink and vice are abnormal, unnatural and essentially unattractive
+ways of spending <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_53" id="Page_53">[53]</a></span>surplus income." Dr. Devine very frankly and bravely
+admits that poverty is an unnecessary evil, "a shocking, loathsome
+excrescence on the body politic, an intolerable evil which should come
+to an end." What else, indeed, could a sane man think of it?</p>
+
+<p>As a conservative man, I say without reservation that accidents
+incurred in the course of employment, and sickness brought on by
+industrial conditions, such as overwork accompanied by under
+nourishment, exposure to extremes of temperature, unsanitary workshops
+and factories and the inhalation of contaminated atmosphere, are far
+more important causes of poverty among the workers than intemperance.
+Every investigation ever made goes to prove this true. I wish that
+every one who seeks to blame the poverty of the poor upon the victims
+themselves would study a few facts, which I am going to ask you to
+study, without prejudice or passion. They would readily see then how
+false the belief is.</p>
+
+<p>Last year there was a Committee of very expert investigators in New
+York which made a careful inquiry into the relation of wages to the
+standard of living. They were not Socialists, these gentlemen, or I
+should not submit their testimony. I am anxious to base my case
+against our present social system upon evidence that is not in any way
+biased in favor of Socialism. Dr. Lee K. Frankel was Chairman of the
+Committee. He is Director of the United Hebrew Charities of New York
+City, an able and sincere man, but not a Socialist. Dr. Devine,
+another able and sincere man who is by no means a Socialist, was a
+member of the Committee. Among the other members were also such
+persons as Bishop Greer, of New York, Reverend Adolph Guttman,
+president of the Hebrew Relief Society, Syracuse, New York, Mrs.
+William Einstein, president of Emanu El Sisterhood, <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_54" id="Page_54">[54]</a></span>New York; Mr.
+Homer Folks, Secretary State Charities Aid Association and Reverend
+William J. White, of Brooklyn, Supervisor of Catholic Charities. The
+Committee was deputed to make the investigation by the New York State
+Conference of Charities and Corrections, and made its report in
+November, 1907, at Albany, N.Y.</p>
+
+<p>I think you will agree, Jonathan, that it would be very hard to
+imagine a more conservative body, less inoculated with the virus of
+Socialism than that. From their report to the Conference I note that
+the Committee reported that as a result of their work, after going
+carefully into the expenditure of some 322 families, they had come to
+the conclusion that the lowest amount upon which a family of five
+could be supported in decency and health in New York City was about
+eight hundred dollars a year. I am quite sure, Jonathan, that there is
+not one of the members of that Committee who would think that even
+that sum would be enough to keep <i>their</i> families in health and
+decency; not one who would want to see their children living under the
+best conditions which that sum made possible. They were
+philanthropists you see, Jonathan, "figuring out" how much the "Poor"
+ought to be able to live on. And to help them out they got Professor
+Chapin, of Beloit College and Professor Underhill, of Yale. Professor
+Underhill being an expert physiological chemist, could advise them as
+to the sufficiency of the expenditures upon food among the families
+reported.</p>
+
+<p>But the total income of thousands of families falls very short of
+eight hundred dollars a year. There are many thousands of families in
+which the breadwinner does not earn more than ten dollars a week at
+best. Making allowance for time lost through sickness, holidays, and
+so on, it is evident that the total income of such families <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_55" id="Page_55">[55]</a></span>would not
+exceed four hundred and fifty dollars a year at best. Even the worker
+with twenty dollars a week, if there is a brief period of sickness or
+unemployment, will find himself, despite his best efforts, on the
+wrong side of the line, compelled either to see his family suffer want
+or to become dependent on "that cold thing called Charity." And Dr.
+Devine, writing in <i>Charities and the Commons</i>, admits that the
+charitable societies cannot hope to make up the deficit, to add to the
+wages of the workers enough to raise their standards of living to the
+point of efficiency. He admits that "such a policy would tend to
+financial bankruptcy."</p>
+
+<p>Taking the unskilled workers in New York City, the vast army of
+laborers, it is certain that they do not average $400 a year, so that
+they are, as a class, hopelessly, miserably poor. It is true that many
+of them spend part of their miserable wages on drink, but if they did
+not, they would still be poor; if every cent went to buy the
+necessities of existence, they would still be hopelessly, miserably
+poor.</p>
+
+<p>The Massachusetts Bureau of Statistics showed a few years ago, when
+the cost of living was less than now, that a family of five could not
+live decently and in health upon less than $754 a year, but more than
+half of the unskilled workers in the shoe-making industry of that
+State got less than $300 a year. Of course, some were single and not a
+few were women, but the figures go far to show that the New York
+conditions are prevalent in New England also. Mr. John Mitchell said
+that in the anthracite district of Pennsylvania it was impossible to
+maintain a family of five in decency on less than $600 a year, but
+according to Dr. Peter Roberts, who is one of the most conservative of
+living authorities upon the conditions of industry in the coal mines
+of Pennsylvania, <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_56" id="Page_56">[56]</a></span>the <i>average</i> wage in the anthracite district is
+less than $500 and that about 60 per cent. receive less than $450 a
+year.</p>
+
+<p>I am not going to bother you with more statistics, Jonathan, for I
+know you do not like them, and they are hard to remember. What I want
+you to see is that, for many thousands of workers, poverty is an
+inevitable condition. If they do not spend a cent on drink; never give
+a cent to the Church or for charity; never buy a newspaper; never see
+a play or hear a concert; never lose a day's wages through sickness or
+accident; never make a present of a ribbon to their wives or a toy to
+their children&mdash;in a word, if they live as galley slaves, working
+without a single break in the monotony and drudgery of their lives,
+they must still be poor and endure hunger, unless they can get other
+sources of income. The mother must go out to work and neglect her baby
+to help out; the little boys and girls must go to work in the days
+when they ought to be in school or in the fields at play, to help out
+the beggars' pittance which is their portion. The greatest cause of
+poverty is low wages.</p>
+
+<p>Then think of the accidents which occur to the wage-earners, making
+them incapable of earning anything for long periods, or even
+permanently. At the same meeting of the New York State Conference of
+Charities and Corrections as that already referred to, there were
+reports presented by many of the charitable organizations of the state
+which showed that this cause of poverty is a very serious one, and one
+that is constantly increasing. In only about twenty per cent. of the
+accidents of a serious nature investigated was there any settlement
+made by the employers, and from a list that is of immense interest I
+take just a few cases as showing how little the life of the average
+workingman is valued at:</p>
+
+<div class="block3">
+<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="70%" summary="value of the average workingman">
+  <tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Nature of Injury.</i><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_57" id="Page_57">[57]</a></span></td>
+  <td class="tdc" colspan="2"><i>Settlement</i></td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+  <td width="40%" class="tdl">Spine injured</td>
+  <td width="25%" class="tdr">$ 20</td>
+  <td width="35%" class="tdl">and doctor</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+  <td class="tdl">Legs broken</td>
+  <td class="tdr">300</td>
+  <td class="tdl">&nbsp;</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+  <td class="tdl">Death</td>
+  <td class="tdr">100</td>
+  <td class="tdl">&nbsp;</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+  <td class="tdl">Death</td>
+  <td class="tdr">65</td>
+  <td class="tdl">&nbsp;</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+  <td class="tdl">Two ribs broken</td>
+  <td class="tdr">20</td>
+  <td class="tdl">&nbsp;</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+  <td class="tdl">Paralysis</td>
+  <td class="tdr">12</td>
+  <td class="tdl">&nbsp;</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+  <td class="tdl">Brain affected</td>
+  <td class="tdr">60</td>
+  <td class="tdl">&nbsp;</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+  <td class="tdl">Fingers amputated</td>
+  <td class="tdr">50</td>
+  <td class="tdl">&nbsp;</td>
+  </tr>
+</table>
+</div>
+
+<p>The reports showed that about half of the accidents occurred to men
+under forty years of age, in the very prime of life. The wages were
+determined in 241 cases and it was shown that about 25 per cent. were
+earning less than $10 a week and 60 per cent. were earning less than
+$15 a week. Even without the accidents occurring to them these workers
+and their families must be miserably poor, the accidents only plunging
+them deeper into the frightful abyss of despair, of wasting life and
+torturous struggle.</p>
+
+<p>No, my friend, it is not true that the poverty of the poor is due to
+their sins, thriftlessness and intemperance. I want you to remember
+that it is not the wicked Socialist agitators only who say this. I
+could fill a book for you with the conclusions of very conservative
+men, all of them opposed to Socialism, whose studies have forced them
+to this conclusion.</p>
+
+<p>There was a Royal Commission appointed in England some years ago to
+consider the problem of the Aged Poor and how to deal with it. Of that
+Royal Commission Lord Aberdare was chairman&mdash;and he was a most
+implacable enemy of Socialism. The Commission reported in 1895: "We
+are confirmed in our view by the evidence we have received that ... as
+regards the <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_58" id="Page_58">[58]</a></span>great bulk of the working classes, during their lives,
+they are fairly provident, fairly thrifty, fairly industrious and
+fairly temperate." But they could not add that, as a result of these
+virtues, they were also fairly well-to-do! The Right Honorable Joseph
+Chamberlain, another enemy of Socialism, signed with several others a
+Minority Report, but they agreed "that the imputation that old age
+pauperism is mainly due to drink, idleness, improvidence, and the like
+abuses applies to but a very small proportion of the working
+population."</p>
+
+<p>Very similar was the report of a Select Committee of the House of
+Commons, appointed to consider the best means of improving the
+condition of the "aged and deserving poor." The report read: "Cases
+are too often found in which poor and aged people, whose conduct and
+whose whole career has been blameless, industrious and deserving, find
+themselves from no fault of their own, at the end of a long and
+meritorious life, with nothing but the workhouse or inadequate outdoor
+relief as the refuge for their declining years."</p>
+
+<p>And what is true of England in this respect is equally true of
+America.</p>
+
+<p>Let me repeat here that I am not defending intemperance. I believe
+with all my heart that we must fight intemperance as a deadly enemy of
+the working class. I want to see the workers sober; sober enough to
+think clearly, sober enough to act wisely. Before we can get rid of
+the evils from which we suffer we must get sober minds, friend
+Jonathan. That is why the Socialists of Europe are fighting the drink
+evil; that is why, too, the Prussian Government put a stop to the
+"Anti-Alcohol" campaign of the workers, led by Dr. Frolich, of Vienna.
+Dr. Frolich was not advocating Socialism. He was simply appealing to
+the workers to stop making beasts <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_59" id="Page_59">[59]</a></span>of themselves, to become sober so
+that they could think clearly with brains unmuddled by alcohol. And
+the Prussian Government did not want that: they knew very well that
+clear thinking and sober judgment would lead the workers to the ballot
+boxes under Socialist banners.</p>
+
+<p>I care most of all for the suffering of the innocent little ones. When
+I see that under our present system it is necessary for the mother to
+leave her baby's cradle to go into a factory, regardless of whether
+the baby lives or dies when it is fed on nasty and dangerous
+artificial foods or poor, polluted milk, I am stirred to my soul's
+depths. When I think of the tens of thousands of little babies that
+die every year as a result of these conditions I have described; of
+the millions of children who go to school every day underfed and
+neglected, and of the little child toilers in shops, factories and
+mines, as well as upon the farms, though their lot is less tragic than
+that of the little prisoners of the factories and mines&mdash;I cannot find
+words to express my hatred of the ghoulish system.</p>
+
+<p>I should like you to read, Jonathan, a little pamphlet on <i>Underfed
+School Children</i>, which costs ten cents, and a bigger book, <i>The
+Bitter Cry of the Children</i>, which you can get at the public library.
+I wrote these to lay before thinking men and women some of the
+terrible evils from which our children suffer. <i>I know</i> that the
+things written are true. Every line of them was written with the
+single purpose of telling the truth as I had seen it.</p>
+
+<p>I made the terrible assertions that more than eighty thousand babies
+are slain by poverty in America each year; that some "2,000,000
+children of school age in the United States are the victims of poverty
+which denies them common necessities, particularly adequate
+<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_60" id="Page_60">[60]</a></span>nourishment"; that there were at least 1,750,000 children at work in
+this country. These statements, and the evidence given in support of
+them, attracted widespread attention, both in this country and in
+Europe. They were cited in the U.S. Senate and in Europe parliaments.
+They were preached about from thousands of pulpits and discussed from
+a thousand platforms by politicians, social reformers and others.</p>
+
+<p>A committee was formed in New York City to promote the physical
+welfare of school children. Although one of the first to take the
+matter up, I was not asked to serve on that committee, on account of
+the fact, as I was afterwards told, of my being a Socialist. Well,
+that Committee, composed entirely of non-Socialists, and including
+some very bitter opponents of Socialism, made an investigation of the
+health of school children in New York City. They examined, medically,
+some 1,400 children of various ages, living in different parts of the
+city and belonging to various social classes. If the results they
+discovered are common to the whole of the United States, the
+conditions are in every way worse than I had declared them to be.</p>
+
+<p><i>If the conditions found by the medical investigators for this
+committee are representative of the whole of the United States, then
+we have not less than twelve million school children in the United
+States suffering from physical defects more or less serious, and not
+less than 1,248,000 suffering from malnutrition&mdash;from insufficient
+nourishment, generally due to poverty, though not always&mdash;to such an
+extent that they need medical attention.</i><a name="FNanchor_4_4" id="FNanchor_4_4"></a><a href="#Footnote_4_4" class="fnanchor">[4]</a></p>
+
+<p>Do you think a nation with such conditions existing at its very heart
+ought to be called a civilized nation? I don't. I say that it is a
+<i>brutalized</i> nation, Jonathan!</p>
+
+<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_61" id="Page_61">[61]</a></span>And now I want you to look over a list of another kind of shameful
+social conditions&mdash;a list of some of the vast fortunes possessed by
+men who are not victims of poverty, but of shameful wealth. I take the
+list from the dryasdust pages of <i>The Congressional Record</i>, December
+12, 1907, from a speech by the Hon. Jeff Davis, United States Senator
+from Arkansas. I cannot find in the pages of <i>The Congressional
+Record</i> that it made any impression upon the minds of the honorable
+senators, but I hope it will make some impression upon your mind, my
+friend. It is a good deal easier to get a human idea into the head of
+an honest workingman than into the head of an honorable senator!</p>
+
+<p>Don't be frightened by a few figures. Read them. They are full of
+human interest. I have put before you some facts relating to the
+shameful poverty of the workers and their pitiable condition, and now
+I want to put before you some facts relating to the pitiable condition
+of the non-workers. I want you to feel some pity for the millionaires!</p>
+
+<br />
+
+<h4>THE RICHEST FIFTY-ONE IN THE UNITED STATES.</h4>
+
+<p>"When the average present-day millionaire is bluntly asked to name the
+value of his earthly possessions, he finds it difficult to answer the
+question correctly. It may be that he is not willing to take the
+questioner into his confidence. It is doubtful whether he really
+knows.</p>
+
+<p>"If this is true of the millionaire himself, it follows that when
+others attempt the task of estimating the amount of his wealth the
+results must be conflicting. Still, excellent authorities are not
+lacking on this subject, and the list of the richest fifty-one persons
+in the United States has been satisfactorily compiled.</p>
+
+<p>"The following list is taken from Munsey's Scrap <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_62" id="Page_62">[62]</a></span>Book of June, 1906,
+and is a fair presentation of the property owned by fifty-one of the
+very richest men of the United States.</p>
+
+<div class="centered">
+<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="65%" summary="Property owned" style="border: 1px black solid;">
+  <tr>
+  <td class="tdllrtb" width="10%">Rank</td>
+  <td class="tdclrtb" width="50%">Name.</td>
+  <td class="tdclrtb" width="20%">How Made.</td>
+  <td class="tdclrtb" width="20%">Total Fortune.</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+  <td class="tdrlrt">1</td>
+  <td class="tdllrt">John D. Rockefeller</td>
+  <td class="tdllrt">Oil</td>
+  <td class="tdrlrt">$600,000,000</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+  <td class="tdrlr">2</td>
+  <td class="tdllr">Andrew Carnegie</td>
+  <td class="tdllr">Steel</td>
+  <td class="tdrlr">300,000,000</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+  <td class="tdrlr">3</td>
+  <td class="tdllr">W.W. Astor</td>
+  <td class="tdllr">Real Estate</td>
+  <td class="tdrlr">300,000,000</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+  <td class="tdrlr">4</td>
+  <td class="tdllr">J. Pierpont Morgan</td>
+  <td class="tdllr">Finance</td>
+  <td class="tdrlr">150,000,000</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+  <td class="tdrlr">5</td>
+  <td class="tdllr">William Rockefeller</td>
+  <td class="tdllr">Oil</td>
+  <td class="tdrlr">100,000,000</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+  <td class="tdrlr">6</td>
+  <td class="tdllr">H.H. Rogers</td>
+  <td class="tdllr" style="padding-left: 5%;">do</td>
+  <td class="tdrlr">100,000,000</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+  <td class="tdrlr">7</td>
+  <td class="tdllr">W.K. Vanderbilt</td>
+  <td class="tdllr">Railroads</td>
+  <td class="tdrlr">100,000,000</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+  <td class="tdrlr">8</td>
+  <td class="tdllr">Senator Clark</td>
+  <td class="tdllr">Copper</td>
+  <td class="tdrlr">100,000,000</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+  <td class="tdrlr">9</td>
+  <td class="tdllr">John Jacob Astor</td>
+  <td class="tdllr">Real Estate</td>
+  <td class="tdrlr">100,000,000</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+  <td class="tdrlr">10</td>
+  <td class="tdllr">Russell Sage</td>
+  <td class="tdllr">Finance</td>
+  <td class="tdrlr">80,000,000</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+  <td class="tdrlr">11</td>
+  <td class="tdllr">H.C. Frick, Jr.</td>
+  <td class="tdllr">Steel and Coke</td>
+  <td class="tdrlr">80,000,000</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+  <td class="tdrlr">12</td>
+  <td class="tdllr">D.O. Mills</td>
+  <td class="tdllr">Banker</td>
+  <td class="tdrlr">75,000,000</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+  <td class="tdrlr">13</td>
+  <td class="tdllr">Marshall Field, Jr.</td>
+  <td class="tdllr">Inherited</td>
+  <td class="tdrlr">75,000,000</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+  <td class="tdrlr">14</td>
+  <td class="tdllr">Henry M. Flagler</td>
+  <td class="tdllr">Oil</td>
+  <td class="tdrlr">60,000,000</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+  <td class="tdrlr">15</td>
+  <td class="tdllr">J.J. Hill</td>
+  <td class="tdllr">Railroads</td>
+  <td class="tdrlr">60,000,000</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+  <td class="tdrlr">16</td>
+  <td class="tdllr">John D. Archbold</td>
+  <td class="tdllr">Oil</td>
+  <td class="tdrlr">50,000,000</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+  <td class="tdrlr">17</td>
+  <td class="tdllr">Oliver Payne</td>
+  <td class="tdllr" style="padding-left: 5%;">do</td>
+  <td class="tdrlr">50,000,000</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+  <td class="tdrlr">18</td>
+  <td class="tdllr">J.B. Haggin</td>
+  <td class="tdllr">Gold</td>
+  <td class="tdrlr">50,000,000</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+  <td class="tdrlr">19</td>
+  <td class="tdllr">Harry Field</td>
+  <td class="tdllr">Inherited</td>
+  <td class="tdrlr">50,000,000</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+  <td class="tdrlr">20</td>
+  <td class="tdllr">James Henry Smith</td>
+  <td class="tdllr" style="padding-left: 5%;">do</td>
+  <td class="tdrlr">40,000,000</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+  <td class="tdrlr">21</td>
+  <td class="tdllr">Henry Phipps</td>
+  <td class="tdllr">Steel</td>
+  <td class="tdrlr">40,000,000</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+  <td class="tdrlr">22</td>
+  <td class="tdllr">Alfred G. Vanderbilt</td>
+  <td class="tdllr">Railroads</td>
+  <td class="tdrlr">40,000,000</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+  <td class="tdrlr">23</td>
+  <td class="tdllr">H.O. Havemeyer</td>
+  <td class="tdllr">Sugar</td>
+  <td class="tdrlr">40,000,000</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+  <td class="tdrlr">24</td>
+  <td class="tdllr">Mrs. Hetty Green</td>
+  <td class="tdllr">Finance</td>
+  <td class="tdrlr">40,000,000</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+  <td class="tdrlr">25</td>
+  <td class="tdllr">Thomas F. Ryan</td>
+  <td class="tdllr" style="padding-left: 5%;">do</td>
+  <td class="tdrlr">40,000,000</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+  <td class="tdrlr">26</td>
+  <td class="tdllr">Mrs. W. Walker</td>
+  <td class="tdllr">Inherited</td>
+  <td class="tdrlr">35,000,000</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+  <td class="tdrlr">27</td>
+  <td class="tdllr">George Gould</td>
+  <td class="tdllr">Railroads</td>
+  <td class="tdrlr">35,000,000</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+  <td class="tdrlr">28</td>
+  <td class="tdllr">J. Ogden Armour</td>
+  <td class="tdllr">Meat</td>
+  <td class="tdrlr">30,000,000</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+  <td class="tdrlr">29</td>
+  <td class="tdllr">E.T. Gerry</td>
+  <td class="tdllr">Inherited</td>
+  <td class="tdrlr">30,000,000</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+  <td class="tdrlr">30</td>
+  <td class="tdllr">Robert W. Goelet</td>
+  <td class="tdllr">Real Estate</td>
+  <td class="tdrlr">30,000,000</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+  <td class="tdrlr">31</td>
+  <td class="tdllr">J.H. Flager</td>
+  <td class="tdllr">Finance</td>
+  <td class="tdrlr">30,000,000</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+  <td class="tdrlr">32</td>
+  <td class="tdllr">Claus Spreckels</td>
+  <td class="tdllr">Sugar</td>
+  <td class="tdrlr">30,000,000</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+  <td class="tdrlr">33</td>
+  <td class="tdllr">W.F. Havemeyer</td>
+  <td class="tdllr" style="padding-left: 5%;">do</td>
+  <td class="tdrlr">30,000,000</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+  <td class="tdrlr">34</td>
+  <td class="tdllr">Jacob H. Schiff</td>
+  <td class="tdllr">Banker</td>
+  <td class="tdrlr">25,000,000</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+  <td class="tdrlr">35</td>
+  <td class="tdllr">P.A.B. Widener</td>
+  <td class="tdllr">Street Cars</td>
+  <td class="tdrlr">25,000,000</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+  <td class="tdrlr">36</td>
+  <td class="tdllr">George F. Baker</td>
+  <td class="tdllr">Banker</td>
+  <td class="tdrlr">25,000,000</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+  <td class="tdrlr">37</td>
+  <td class="tdllr">August Belmont</td>
+  <td class="tdllr">Finance</td>
+  <td class="tdrlr">20,000,000</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+  <td class="tdrlr">38</td>
+  <td class="tdllr">James Stillman</td>
+  <td class="tdllr">Banker</td>
+  <td class="tdrlr">20,000,000</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+  <td class="tdrlr">39</td>
+  <td class="tdllr">John W. Gates</td>
+  <td class="tdllr">Finance</td>
+  <td class="tdrlr">20,000,000</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+  <td class="tdrlr">40</td>
+  <td class="tdllr">Norman B. Ream</td>
+  <td class="tdllr" style="padding-left: 5%;">do</td>
+  <td class="tdrlr">20,000,000</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+  <td class="tdrlr">41</td>
+  <td class="tdllr">Joseph Pulitzer</td>
+  <td class="tdllr">Journalist</td>
+  <td class="tdrlr">20,000,000</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+  <td class="tdrlr"><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_63" id="Page_63">[63]</a></span>42</td>
+  <td class="tdllr">James G. Bennett</td>
+  <td class="tdllr">Journalist</td>
+  <td class="tdrlr">20,000,000</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+  <td class="tdrlr">43</td>
+  <td class="tdllr">John G. Moore</td>
+  <td class="tdllr">Finance</td>
+  <td class="tdrlr">20,000,000</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+  <td class="tdrlr">44</td>
+  <td class="tdllr">D.G. Reid</td>
+  <td class="tdllr">Steel</td>
+  <td class="tdrlr">20,000,000</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+  <td class="tdrlr">45</td>
+  <td class="tdllr">Frederick Pabst</td>
+  <td class="tdllr">Brewer</td>
+  <td class="tdrlr">20,000,000</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+  <td class="tdrlr">46</td>
+  <td class="tdllr">William D. Sloane</td>
+  <td class="tdllr">Inherited</td>
+  <td class="tdrlr">20,000,000</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+  <td class="tdrlr">47</td>
+  <td class="tdllr">William B. Leeds</td>
+  <td class="tdllr">Railroads</td>
+  <td class="tdrlr">20,000,000</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+  <td class="tdrlr">48</td>
+  <td class="tdllr">James P. Duke</td>
+  <td class="tdllr">Tobacco</td>
+  <td class="tdrlr">20,000,000</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+  <td class="tdrlr">49</td>
+  <td class="tdllr">Anthony N. Brady</td>
+  <td class="tdllr">Finance</td>
+  <td class="tdrlr">20,000,000</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+  <td class="tdrlr">50</td>
+  <td class="tdllr">George W. Vanderbilt</td>
+  <td class="tdllr">Railroads</td>
+  <td class="tdrlr">20,000,000</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+  <td class="tdrlr">51</td>
+  <td class="tdllr">Fred W. Vanderbilt</td>
+  <td class="tdllr" style="padding-left: 5%;">do</td>
+  <td class="tdrlrb">20,000,000</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+  <td class="tdrlr" style="border-bottom: 1px black solid;">&nbsp;</td>
+  <td class="tdllr" style="border-bottom: 1px black solid;">Total</td>
+  <td class="tdllr" style="border-bottom: 1px black solid;">&nbsp;</td>
+  <td class="tdrlrtb"> $3,295,000,000</td>
+  </tr>
+</table>
+</div>
+
+<br />
+
+<p>"It will thus be seen that fifty-one persons in the United States,
+with a population of nearly 90,000,000 people, own approximately one
+thirty-fifth of the entire wealth of the United States. The
+Statistical Abstract of the United States, 29th number, 1906, prepared
+under the direction of the Secretary of Commerce and Labor of the
+United States, gives the estimated true value of all property in the
+United States for that year at $107,104,211,917.</p>
+
+<p>"Each of the favored fifty-one owns a wealth of somewhat more than
+$64,600,000, while each of the remaining 89,999,950 people get $1,100.
+No one of these fifty-one owns less than $20,000,000, and no one on
+the average owns less than $64,600,000. Men owning from $1,000,000 to
+$20,000,000 are no longer called rich men. There are approximately
+4,000 millionaires in the United States, but the aggregate of their
+holdings is difficult to obtain. If all their holdings be deducted
+from the total true value of all the property in the United States,
+the average share of each of the other 89,995,000 people would be less
+than $500.</p>
+
+<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_64" id="Page_64">[64]</a></span>"John Jacob Astor is reputed to have been the first American
+millionaire, although this is a matter impossible to decide. It is
+also claimed that Nicholas Longworth, of Cincinnati, the great
+grandfather of Congressman Longworth, was the first man west of the
+Allegheny Mountains to amass a million. It is difficult to prove
+either one of these propositions, but they prove that the age of the
+millionaire in the United States is a comparatively recent thing. In
+1870 to own a single million was to be a very rich man; in 1890 it
+required at least $10,000,000, while to-day a man with a single
+million or even ten millions is not in the swim. To be enumerated as
+one of the world's richest men you must own not less than
+$20,000,000."</p>
+
+<p>I am perfectly serious when I suggest that the slaves of riches are
+just as much to be pitied as the slaves of poverty. No man need envy
+Mr. Rockefeller, for example, because he has something like six
+hundred millions of dollars, an annual income of about seventy-two
+millions. He does not own those millions, Jonathan, but they own him.
+He is a slave to his possessions. If he owns a score of automobiles he
+can only use one at a time; if he spends millions in building palatial
+residences for himself he cannot get greater comfort than the man of
+modest fortune. He cannot buy health nor a single touch of love for
+money.</p>
+
+<p>Many of our great modern princes of industry and commerce are good
+men. It is a wild mistake to imagine that they are all terrible ogres
+and monsters of iniquity. But they are victims of an unjust system.
+Millions roll into their coffers while they sleep, and they are
+oppressed by the burden of responsibilities. If they give money away
+at a rate calculated to ease them of the burdens beneath which they
+stagger they can only do <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_65" id="Page_65">[65]</a></span>more harm than good. Mr. Carnegie gives
+public libraries with the lavishness with which travellers in Italy
+sometimes throw small copper coins to the beggars on the streets, but
+he is only pauperising cities wholesale and hindering the progress of
+real culture by taking away from civic life the spirit of
+self-reliance. If the people of a small town came together and said:
+"We ought to have a library in our town for our common advantage: let
+us unite and subscribe funds for a hundred books to begin with," that
+would be an expression of true culture.</p>
+
+<p>But when a city accepts a library at Mr. Carnegie's hands, there is an
+inevitable loss of self-respect and independence. Mr. Carnegie's
+motives may be good and pure, but the harm done to the community is
+none the less great.</p>
+
+<p>Mr. Rockefeller may give money to endow colleges and universities from
+the very highest motives, but he cannot prevent the endowments from
+influencing the teaching given in them, even if he should try to do
+so. Thus the gifts of our millionaires are an insidious poison flowing
+into the fountains of learning.</p>
+
+<p>Mind you, this is not the claim of a prejudiced Socialist agitator.
+President Hadley, of Yale University, is not a Socialist agitator, but
+he admits the truth of this claim. He says: "Modern University
+teaching costs more money per capita than it ever did before, because
+the public wishes a university to maintain places of scientific
+research, and scientific research is extremely expensive. <i>A
+university is more likely to obtain this money if it gives the
+property owners reason to believe that vested rights will not be
+interfered with.</i> If we recognize vested rights in order to secure the
+means of progress in physical science, is there not danger that we
+shall stifle <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_66" id="Page_66">[66]</a></span>the spirit of independence which is equally important as
+a means of progress in moral science?"</p>
+
+<p>Professor Bascom is not a Socialist agitator, either, but he also
+recognizes the danger of corrupting our university teaching in this
+manner. After calling attention to the "wrongful and unflinching way"
+in which the wealth of the Standard Oil magnate has been amassed, he
+asks: "Is a college at liberty to accept money gained in a manner so
+hostile to the public welfare? Is it at liberty, when the Government
+is being put to its wits' end to check this aggression, to rank itself
+with those who fight it?"</p>
+
+<p>And the effect of riches upon the rich themselves is as bad as
+anything in modern life. While it is true that there are among the
+rich many very good citizens, it is also perfectly plain to any honest
+observer of conditions that great riches are producing moral havoc and
+disaster among the princes of wealth in this country. Mr. Carnegie has
+said that a man who dies rich dies disgraced, but there is even
+greater reason to believe that to be born rich is to be born damned.
+The inheritance of vast fortunes is always demoralizing.</p>
+
+<p>What must the mind and soul of a woman be like who takes her toy
+spaniel in state to the opera to hear Caruso sing, while, in the same
+city, there are babies dying for lack of food? What are we to think of
+the dog-dinners, the monkey-dinners and the other unspeakably foolish
+and unspeakably vile orgies constantly reported from Newport and other
+places where the drones of our social system disport themselves? What
+shall we say of the shocking state of affairs disclosed by the
+disgusting reports of our "Society Scandals," except that unearned
+riches corrode and destroy all human virtues?</p>
+
+<p>The wise King, Solomon, knew what he was talking <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_67" id="Page_67">[67]</a></span>about when he cried
+out: "Give me neither poverty nor riches." Unnatural poverty is bad,
+blighting the soul of man; and unnatural riches are likewise bad,
+equally blighting the soul of man. Our social system is bad for both
+classes, Jonathan, and a change to better and juster conditions, while
+it will be resisted by the rich, the drones, with all their might,
+will be for the common good of all. For it is well to remember that in
+trying to get rid of the rule of the drones, the working class is not
+trying to become the ruling class, to rule others as they have been
+ruled. We are aiming to do away with classes altogether; to make a
+united and free social state.</p>
+
+<br />
+<br />
+<h4>FOOTNOTES:</h4>
+<br />
+
+<div class="footnote"><p class="noin"><a name="Footnote_3_3" id="Footnote_3_3"></a><a href="#FNanchor_3_3"><span class="label">[3]</span></a> Mark 14:7.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p class="noin"><a name="Footnote_4_4" id="Footnote_4_4"></a><a href="#FNanchor_4_4"><span class="label">[4]</span></a> Quar. Pub. American Statistical Association, June 1907.</p></div>
+
+
+<br />
+<br />
+<br />
+<br />
+<a name="VI" id="VI"></a><hr />
+<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_68" id="Page_68">[68]</a></span><br />
+
+<h3>VI<span class="totoc"><a href="#toc">ToC</a></span></h3>
+
+<h4>THE ROOT OF THE EVIL</h4>
+
+<div class="block"><p>All for ourselves and nothing for other people seems in all
+ages to have been the vile maxim of the masters of
+mankind.&mdash;<i>Adam Smith.</i></p></div>
+
+<div class="poem"><div class="stanza">
+<span class="i0">Hither, ye blind, from your futile banding!<br /></span>
+<span class="i2">Know the rights and the rights are won.<br /></span>
+<span class="i0">Wrong shall die with the understanding,<br /></span>
+<span class="i2">One truth clear, and the work is done.&mdash;<i>John Boyle O'Reilly.</i><br /></span>
+</div></div>
+
+<div class="block"><p>The great ones of the world have taken this earth of ours to
+themselves; they live in the midst of splendour and
+superfluity. The smallest nook of the land is already a
+possession; none may touch it or meddle with it.&mdash;<i>Goethe.</i></p></div>
+<br />
+<br />
+
+<p>I have by no means exhausted the evils of the system under which we
+live in the brief catalogue I have made for you, my friend. If it were
+necessary, I could compile an immense volume of authentic evidence to
+overwhelm you with a sense of the awful failure of our civilization to
+produce a free, united, healthy, happy and virtuous people, which I
+conceive to be the goal toward which all good and wise men should
+aspire. But it is dreary and unpleasant work recounting evil
+conditions; constantly looking at the sores of society is a morbid and
+soul-destroying task.</p>
+
+<p>I want you now to consider the cause of industrial misery and social
+inequality, to ask yourself why these <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_69" id="Page_69">[69]</a></span>conditions exist. For we can
+never hope to remove the evils, Jonathan, until we have discovered the
+underlying causes. How does it happen that some people are thrifty and
+virtuous and yet miserably poor and that others are thriftless and
+sinful and yet so rich that their riches weigh them down and make them
+as miserable as the very poorest? Why, in the name of all that is fair
+and good, have we got such a stupid, wasteful, unjust and unlovely
+social system after all the long centuries of human experience and
+toil? When you can answer these questions, my friend, you will know
+whither to look for deliverance.</p>
+
+<p>You said in your letter to me the other day, Jonathan, that you
+thought things were bad because of the wickedness of man's nature.
+Lots of people believe that. The churches have taught that doctrine
+for ages, but I do not believe that it is true. It is a doctrine which
+earnest men who have been baffled in trying to find a satisfactory
+explanation for the evils have accepted in desperation. It is the
+doctrine of pessimism, despair and wild unfaith in man. If it were
+true that things were so bad as they are just because men were wicked
+and because there never were good men enough to make them better, we
+should not have any ground for hope for the future.</p>
+
+<p>I propose to try and show you that the wickedness of our poor human
+nature is not responsible for the terrible social conditions, so that
+you will not have to depend for your hope of a better society upon the
+very slender thread of the chance of getting enough good men to make
+conditions better. Bad conditions make bad lives, Jonathan, and will
+continue to do so. Instead of depending upon getting good men first to
+make conditions good, we must make conditions good so that good lives
+may flourish and grow in them naturally.</p>
+
+<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_70" id="Page_70">[70]</a></span>You have read a little history, I daresay, and you know that there is
+no truth in the old cry that "As things are now things always have
+been and always will be." You know that things are always changing. If
+George Washington could come back to earth again he would be amazed at
+the changes which have taken place in the United States. Going further
+back, Christopher Columbus would not recognize the country he
+discovered. And if we could go back millions of years and bring to
+life one of our earliest ancestors, one of the primitive
+cave-dwellers, and set him down in one of our great cities, the mighty
+houses, streets railways, telephones, telegraphs, wireless telegraphy,
+electric vehicles on the streets and the ships out on the river would
+terrify him far more than an angry tiger would. Can you think how
+astonished and alarmed such a primitive cave-man would be to be taken
+into one of your great Pittsburg mills or down into a coal mine?</p>
+
+<p>No. The world has grown, Jonathan. Man has enlarged his kingdom, his
+power in the universe. Step by step in the evolution of the race, man
+has wrested from Nature her secrets. He has gone down into the deep
+caverns and found mineral treasuries there; he has made the angry
+waves of the ocean bear great, heavy burdens from shore to shore for
+his benefit; he has harnessed the tides and the winds that blow and
+caught the lightning currents, making them all his servants. Between
+the <i>lowest</i> man in the modern tenement and the cave-man there is a
+greater gulf than ever existed between the beast in the forest and the
+<i>highest</i> man dwelling in a cave in that far-off period.</p>
+
+<p>Things are not as they are to-day because a group of clever but
+desperately wicked men came together and invented a scheme of society
+in which the many must <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_71" id="Page_71">[71]</a></span>work for the few; in which some must have more
+than they can use, so that they rot of excess while others have too
+little and rot of hunger; in which little children must toil in
+factories so that big strong men may loaf in clubs and dens of vice;
+in which some women sell themselves body and soul for bread while
+other women spend the sustenance of thousands upon jewels for pet
+dogs. No. It was no such fiendish ingenuity which devised the
+capitalistic system and imposed it upon mankind. It has <i>grown</i> up
+through the ages, Jonathan, and is still growing. We have grown from
+savagery and barbarism through various stages to our present
+commercial system, and the process of growth is still going on. I
+believe we are growing into Socialism.</p>
+
+<p>There have been many forces urging mankind onward in this long
+evolution. Religion has played a part. Love of country has played a
+part. Climate and the nature of the soil have been factors. Man's ever
+growing curiosity, his desire to know more of the life around him, has
+had much to do with it. I have put the ideals of religion and
+patriotism first, Jonathan, because I wanted you to see that they were
+by no means overlooked or forgotten, but in truth they ought not to be
+placed first. It is the verdict of all who have made a study of social
+evolution that, while these factors have exerted an important
+influence, back of them have been the material economic conditions.</p>
+
+<p>In philosophy this is the basis of a very profound theory upon which
+many learned volumes have been written. It is generally called "The
+Materialistic Conception of History," but sometimes it is called
+"Economic Determinism" or "The Economic Interpretation of History."
+The first man to set forth the theory in a very clear and connected
+manner was Karl Marx, upon <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_72" id="Page_72">[72]</a></span>whose teachings the Socialists of the
+world have placed a great deal of reliance. I don't expect you to read
+all the heavy and learned books written upon this subject, for many of
+them require that a man must be specially trained in philosophy in
+order to understand them. For the present I shall be quite satisfied
+if you will read a ten-cent pamphlet called <i>The Communist Manifesto</i>,
+by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels and, along with that, the fourth,
+fifth and sixth chapters of my book, <i>Socialism</i>, about a hundred
+pages altogether. These will give you a fairly clear notion of the
+matter. I shall not mention the hard, scientific name of this
+philosophy again. I don't like big words if little ones will serve.</p>
+
+<p>If you enjoy reading a good story, a novel that is full of romance and
+adventure, I would advise you to read <i>Before Adam</i>, by Jack London, a
+Socialist writer. It is a novel, but it is also a work of science. He
+gives an account of the life of the first men and shows how their
+whole existence depended upon the crude weapons and tools, sticks
+picked up in the forests, which they used. They couldn't live
+differently than they did, because they had no other means of getting
+a living. How a people make their living determines how they live.</p>
+
+<p>For many thousands of years, the scientists tell us, men lived in the
+world without owning any private property. That came into existence
+when men saw that one man could produce more out of the soil than he
+needed to eat himself. Then, when they went out to war with other
+tribes, the members of a tribe instead of trying to kill their
+enemies, made them captives and used them as slaves. They did not
+cease killing their foes from humane motives, because they had grown
+better men, but because it was more profitable.</p>
+
+<p>From our point of view, slavery is a bad thing, but <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_73" id="Page_73">[73]</a></span>when it first
+came into existence it was a step upward and onward. If we take the
+history of slave societies and nations we shall soon find that their
+laws, their customs and their institutions were based upon the mode of
+producing wealth through the labor of slaves. There were two classes
+into which society was divided, a class of masters and a class of
+slaves.</p>
+
+<p>When slavery broke down and gave way to feudalism there were new ways
+of producing wealth. The laws of feudal societies, their customs and
+institutions, changed to meet the needs brought about through the new
+methods of making things. Under slavery, the slaves made wealth for
+their masters and were doled out food enough to keep them alive. The
+slave had no rights. Under feudalism, the serfs produced wealth for
+the lords parts of the time, working for themselves the rest of the
+time. They had some rights. The bounds of freedom were widened. Under
+neither of these systems was there a regular system of paying wages in
+money, such as we have to-day. The slave gave up all his product and
+took what the master was pleased to give him in the way of food,
+clothing and shelter. The serf divided his time between producing for
+the owner of the soil and producing for his family. The slave produced
+what his owner wanted; the serf produced what either he himself or his
+lord wanted.</p>
+
+<p>There came a time, about three hundred years ago, when the feudal
+system broke down before the beginnings of capitalism, the system
+which we are living under to-day, and which we Socialists think is
+breaking down as all other social systems have broken down before it.
+Under this system men have worked for wages and not because they
+wanted the things they were producing, nor because the men who
+employed them wanted <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_74" id="Page_74">[74]</a></span>the things, <i>but simply because the things could
+be sold and a profit made in the sale</i>.</p>
+
+<p>You will remember, Jonathan, that in a former letter I dealt with the
+nature of wealth. We saw then that wealth in our modern society
+consists of an abundance of things which can be sold. At bottom, we do
+not make things because it is well that they should be made, because
+the makers need them, but simply because the capitalists see
+possibilities of selling the things at a profit.</p>
+
+<p>I want you to consider just a moment how this works out: Here is a
+workingman in Springfield, Massachusetts, making deadly weapons with
+which other workingmen in other lands are to be killed. We go up to
+him as he works and inquire where the rifles are to be sent, and he
+very politely tells us that they are for some foreign government, say
+the Japanese, to be used in all probability against Russian soldiers.
+Suppose we ask him next what interest he has in helping the Japanese
+government to kill the Russian troops, how he comes to have an active
+hatred of the Russian soldiers. He will reply at once that he has no
+such feelings against the Russians; that he is not interested in
+having the Japanese slaughter them. Why, then, is he making the guns?
+He answers at once that he is only interested in getting his wages;
+that it is all the same to him whether he makes guns for Christians or
+Infidels, for Russians or Japs or Turks. His only interest is to get
+his wages. He would as soon be making coffins as guns, or shoes as
+coffins, so long as he got his wages.</p>
+
+<p>Perhaps, then, the company for which he is employed has an interest in
+helping Japan defeat the troops of Russia. Possibly the shareholders
+in the company are Japanese or sympathizers with Japan. Otherwise,
+why <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_75" id="Page_75">[75]</a></span>should they be bothering themselves getting workpeople to make
+guns for Japanese soldiers to kill Russian soldiers with? So we go to
+the manager and ask him to explain the matter. He very politely tells
+us that, like the man at the bench, he has no interest in the matter
+at all, and that the shareholders are in the same position of being
+quite indifferent to the quarrel of the two nations. "Why, we are also
+making guns for Russia in our factory," he says, and when we ask him
+to explain why he tells us that "There is profit to be made and the
+firm cares for nothing else."</p>
+
+<p>All our system revolves around that central sun of profit-making,
+Jonathan. Here is a factory in which a great many people are making
+shoddy clothing. You can tell at a glance that it is shoddy and quite
+unfit for wearing. But why are the people making shoddy goods&mdash;why
+don't they make decent clothing, since they can do it quite as well?
+Why, because there is a profit for somebody in making shoddy. Here a
+group of men are building a house. They are making it of the poorest
+materials, making dingy little rooms; the building is badly
+constructed and it can never be other than a barracks. Why this
+"jerry-building?" There is no reason under the sun why poor houses
+should be built except that somebody hopes to make profit out of them.</p>
+
+<p>Goods are adulterated and debased, even the food of the nation is
+poisoned, for profit. Legislatures are corrupted and courts of justice
+are polluted by the presence of the bribe-giver and the bribe-taker
+for profit. Nations are embroiled in quarrels and armies slaughter
+armies over questions which are, always, ultimately questions of
+profit. Here are children toiling in sweatshops, factories and mines
+while men are idle and seeking work. Why? Do we need the labor of the
+little ones in order to <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_76" id="Page_76">[76]</a></span>produce enough to maintain the life of the
+nation? No. But there are some people who are going to make a profit
+out of the labors which sap the strength of those little ones. Here
+are thousands of people hungry, clamoring for food and perishing for
+lack of it. They are willing to work, there are resources for them to
+work upon; they could easily maintain themselves in comfort and
+gladness if they set to work. Then why don't they set to work? Oh,
+Jonathan, the torment of this monotonous answer is unbearable&mdash;because
+no one can make a profit out of their labor they must be idle and
+starve, or drag out a miserable existence aided by the crumbs of cold
+charity!</p>
+
+<p>If our social economy were such that we produced things for use,
+because they were useful and beautiful, we should go on producing with
+a good will until everybody had a plentiful supply. If we found
+ourselves producing too rapidly, faster than we could consume the
+things, we could easily slacken our pace. We could spend more time
+beautifying our cities and our homes, more time cultivating our minds
+and hearts by social intercourse and in the companionship of the great
+spirits of all ages, through the masterpieces of literature, music,
+painting and sculpture. But instead, we produce for sale and profit.
+When the workers have produced more than the master class can use and
+they themselves buy back out of their meagre wages, there is a glut in
+the markets of the world, unless a new market can be opened up by
+making war upon some defenseless, undeveloped nation.</p>
+
+<p>When there is a glut in the market, Jonathan, you know what happens.
+Shops and factories are shut down, the number of workers employed is
+reduced, the army of the unemployed grows and there is a rise in <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_77" id="Page_77">[77]</a></span>the
+tide of poverty and misery. Yet why should it be so? Why, simply
+because there is a superabundance of wealth, should people be made
+poorer? Why should little children go without shoes just because there
+are loads of shoes stacked away in stores and warehouses? Why should
+people go without clothing simply because the warehouses are bursting
+with clothes? The answer is that these things must be so because we
+produce for profit instead of for use. All these stores of wealth
+belong to the class of profit-takers, the capitalist class, and they
+must sell and make profit.</p>
+
+<p>So you see, friend Jonathan, so long as this system lasts, <i>people
+must have too little because they have produced too much</i>. So long as
+this system lasts, there must be periods when we say that society
+<i>cannot afford to have men and women work to maintain themselves
+decently</i>! But under any sane system it will surely be considered the
+maddest kind of folly to keep men in idleness while saying that it
+does not pay to keep them working. Is there any more expensive way of
+keeping either an ass or a man than in idleness?</p>
+
+<p>The root of evil, the taproot from which the evils of modern society
+develop, is the profit idea. Life is subordinated to the making of
+profit. If it were only possible to embody that idea in human shape,
+what a monster ogre it would be! And how we should arraign it at the
+bar of human reason! Should we not call up images of the million of
+babes who have been needlessly and wantonly slaughtered by the Monster
+Idea; the images of all the maimed and wounded and killed in the wars
+for markets; the millions of others who have been bruised and broken
+in the industrial arena to secure somebody's profit, because it was
+too expensive to guard life and limb; the numberless victims of
+<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_78" id="Page_78">[78]</a></span>adulterated food and drink, of cheap tenements and shoddy clothes?
+Should we not call up the wretched women of our streets; the bribers
+and the vendors of privilege? We should surely parade in pitiable
+procession the dwarfed and stunted bodies of the millions born to
+hardship and suffering, but we could not, alas! parade the dwarfed and
+stunted souls, the sordid spirits for which the Monster Idea is
+responsible.</p>
+
+<p>I ask you, Jonathan Edwards, what you really think of this "buy cheap
+and sell dear" idea, which is the heart and soul of our capitalistic
+system. Are you satisfied that it should continue?</p>
+
+<p>Yet, my friend, bad as it is in its full development, and terrible as
+are its fruits, this idea once stood for progress. The system was a
+step in the liberation of man. It was an advance upon feudalism which
+bound the laborer to the soil. Capitalism has not been all bad; it has
+another, brighter side. Capitalism had to have laborers who were free
+to move from one place to another, even to other lands, and that need
+broke down the last vestiges of the old physical slavery. That was a
+step gained. Capitalism had to have intelligent workers and many
+educated ones. That put into the hands of the common people the key to
+the sealed treasuries of knowledge. It had to have a legal system to
+meet its requirements and that has resulted in the development of
+representative government, of something approaching political
+democracy; even where kings nominally rule to-day, their power is but
+a shadow of what it once was. Every step taken by the capitalist class
+for the advancement of its own interests has become in its turn a
+stepping-stone upon which the working-class has raised itself.</p>
+
+<p>Karl Marx once said that the capitalist system <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_79" id="Page_79">[79]</a></span>provides its own
+gravediggers. I have cited two or three things which will illustrate
+his meaning. Later on, I must try and explain to you how the great
+"trusts" about which you complain so loudly, and which seem to be the
+very perfection of the capitalist ideal, lead toward Socialism at a
+pace which nothing can very seriously hinder, though it may be
+quickened by wise action on the part of the workers.</p>
+
+<p>For the present I shall be satisfied, friend Jonathan, if you get it
+thoroughly into your mind that the source of terrible social evils, of
+the poverty and squalor, of the helpless misery of the great mass of
+the people, of most of the crime and vice and much of the disease, is
+the "buy cheap and sell dear" idea. The fact that we produce things
+for sale for the profit of a few, instead of for use and the enjoyment
+of all.</p>
+
+<p>Get that into your mind above everything else, my friend. And try to
+grasp the fact, also, that the system we are now trying to change was
+a natural outgrowth of other conditions. It was not a wicked
+invention, nor was it a foolish blunder. It was a necessary and a
+right step in human evolution. But now it has in turn become
+unsuitable to the needs of the people and it must give place to
+something else. When a man suffers from such a disease as
+appendicitis, he does not talk about the "wickedness" of the vermiform
+appendix. He realizes, if he is a sensible man, that long ago, that
+was an organ which served a useful purpose in the human system.
+Gradually, perhaps in the course of many centuries, it has ceased to
+be of any use. It has lost its original functions and become a menace
+to the body.</p>
+
+<p>Capitalism, Jonathan, is the vermiform appendix of the social
+organism. It has served its purpose. The profit idea has served an
+important function in society, <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_80" id="Page_80">[80]</a></span>but it is now useless and a menace to
+the body social. Our troubles are due to a kind of social
+appendicitis. And the remedy is to remove the useless and offending
+member.</p>
+
+<br />
+<br />
+<br />
+<br />
+<a name="VII" id="VII"></a><hr />
+<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_81" id="Page_81">[81]</a></span><br />
+
+<h3>VII<span class="totoc"><a href="#toc">ToC</a></span></h3>
+
+<h4>FROM COMPETITION TO MONOPOLY</h4>
+
+<div class="block"><p>It may be fairly said, I think, that not merely competition,
+but competition that was proving ruinous to many
+establishments, was the cause of the combinations.&mdash;<i>Prof.
+J.W. Jenks.</i></p>
+
+<p>The day of the capitalist has come, and he has made full use
+of it. To-morrow will be the day of the laborer, provided he
+has the strength and the wisdom to use his opportunities.&mdash;<i>H.
+De. B. Gibbins.</i></p>
+
+<p>Monopoly expands, ever expands, till it ends by bursting.&mdash;<i>P.J. Proudhon.</i></p>
+
+<p>For this is the close of an era; we have political freedom;
+next and right away is to come social
+enfranchisement.&mdash;<i>Benjamin Kidd.</i></p></div>
+<br />
+<br />
+
+<p>I think you realize, friend Jonathan, that the bottom principle of the
+present capitalist system is that there must be one class owning the
+land, mines, factories, railways, and other agencies of production,
+but not using them; and another class, using the land and other means
+of production, but not owning them.</p>
+
+<p>Only those things are produced which there is a reasonable hope of
+selling at a profit. Upon no other conditions will the owners of the
+means of production consent to their being used. The worker who does
+not own the things necessary to produce wealth must work upon the
+terms imposed by the other fellow in most cases. The coal miner, not
+owning the coal mine, must <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_82" id="Page_82">[82]</a></span>agree to work for wages. So must the
+mechanic in the workshop and the mill-worker.</p>
+
+<p>As a practical, sensible workingman, Jonathan, you know very well that
+if anybody says the interests of these two classes are the same it is
+a foolish and lying statement. You are a workingman, a wage-earner,
+and you know that it is to your interest to get as much wages as
+possible for the smallest amount of work. If you work by the day and
+get, let us say, two dollars for ten hours' work, it would be a great
+advantage to you if you could get your wages increased to three
+dollars and your hours of labor to eight per day, wouldn't it? And if
+you thought that you could get these benefits for the asking you would
+ask for them, wouldn't you? Of course you would, being a sensible,
+hard-headed American workingman.</p>
+
+<p>Now, if giving these things would be quite as much to the advantage of
+the company as to you, the company would be just as glad to give them
+as you would be to receive them, wouldn't it? I am assuming, of
+course, that the company knows its own interests just as well as you
+and your fellow workmen know yours. But if you went to the officials
+of the company and asked them to give you a dollar more for the two
+hours' less work, they would not give it&mdash;unless, of course, you were
+strong enough to fight and compel them to accept your terms. But they
+would resist and you would have to fight, because your interests
+clashed.</p>
+
+<p>That is why trade unions are formed on the one side and employers'
+associations upon the other. Society is divided by antagonistic
+interests; into exploiters and exploited.</p>
+
+<p>Politicians and preachers may cry out that there are no classes in
+America, and they may even be foolish <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_83" id="Page_83">[83]</a></span>enough to believe it&mdash;for there
+are lots of <i>very</i> foolish politicians and preachers in the world! You
+may even hear a short-sighted labor leader say the same thing, but you
+know very well, my friend, that they are wrong. You may not be able to
+confute them in debate, not having their skill in wordy warfare; but
+your experience, your common sense, convince you that they are wrong.
+And all the greatest political economists are on your side. I could
+fill a volume with quotations from the writings of the most learned
+political economists of all times in support of your position, but I
+shall only give one quotation. It is from Adam Smith's great work,
+<i>The Wealth of Nations</i>, and I quote it partly because no better
+statement of the principle has ever been made by any writer, and
+partly also because no one can accuse Adam Smith of being a "wicked
+Socialist trying to set class against class." He says:</p>
+
+<div class="block"><p>"The workmen desire to get as much, the masters to give as
+little as possible. The former are disposed to combine in
+order to raise, the latter in order to lower the wages of
+labor.... Masters are always and everywhere in a sort of
+tacit, but constant and uniform, combination, not to raise the
+wages of labor above their actual rate. To violate this
+combination is everywhere a most unpopular action, and a sort
+of a reproach to a master among his neighbors and equals....
+Masters too sometimes enter into particular combinations to
+sink the wages of labor.... These are always conducted with
+the utmost silence and secrecy, till the moment of execution."</p></div>
+
+<p>That is very plainly put, Jonathan. Adam Smith was a great thinker and
+an honest one. He was not afraid to tell the truth. I am going to
+quote a little further what he says about the combinations of
+workingmen to increase their wages:</p>
+
+<div class="block"><p>"Such combinations, [i.e., to lower wages] however, are<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_84" id="Page_84">[84]</a></span>
+frequently resisted by a contrary defensive combination of the
+workmen; who sometimes too, without any provocation of this
+kind, combine of their own accord to raise the price of labor.
+Their usual pretenses are, sometimes the high price of
+provisions; sometimes the great profit which their masters
+make by their work. But whether these combinations be
+offensive or defensive, they are always abundantly heard of.
+In order to bring the point to a speedy decision, they have
+always recourse to the loudest clamour, and sometimes to the
+most shocking violence and outrage. They are desperate, and
+act with the extravagance and folly of desperate men, who must
+either starve, or frighten their masters into an immediate
+compliance with their demands. The masters upon these
+occasions are just as clamorous upon the other side, and never
+cease to call aloud for the assistance of the civil
+magistrate, and the rigorous execution of those laws which
+have been enacted with so much severity against the
+combinations of servants, laborers, and journeymen.</p>
+
+<p>"But though in disputes with their workmen, masters must
+generally have the advantage, there is however a certain rate,
+below which it seems impossible to reduce, for any
+considerable time, the ordinary wages even of the lowest
+species of labor.</p>
+
+<p>"A man must always live by his work, and his wages must at
+least be sufficient to maintain him. They must even upon most
+occasions be somewhat more; otherwise it would be impossible
+for him to bring up a family, and the race of such workmen
+could not last beyond the first generation."</p></div>
+
+<p>Now, my friend, I know that some of your pretended friends, especially
+politicians, will tell you that Adam Smith wrote at the time of the
+American Revolution; that his words applied to England in that day,
+but not to the United States to-day. I want you to be honest with
+yourself, to consider candidly whether in your experience as a workman
+you have found conditions to be, on the whole, just as Adam Smith's
+words describe them. I trust your own good sense in this and
+everything. <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_85" id="Page_85">[85]</a></span>Don't let the politicians frighten you with a show of
+book learning: do your own thinking.</p>
+
+<p>Capitalism began when a class of property owners employed other men to
+work for wages. The tendency was for wages to keep at a level just
+sufficient to enable the workers to maintain themselves and families.
+They had to get enough for families, you see, in order to reproduce
+their kind&mdash;to keep up the supply of laborers.</p>
+
+<p>Competition was the law of life in the first period of capitalism.
+Capitalists competed with each other for markets. They were engaged in
+a mad scramble for profits. Foreign countries were attacked and new
+markets opened up; new inventions were rapidly introduced. And while
+the workers found that in normal conditions the employers were in what
+Adam Smith calls "a tacit combination" to keep wages down to the
+lowest level, and were obliged to combine into unions, there were
+times when, owing to the fierce competition among the employers, and
+the demand for labor being greatly in excess of the supply, wages went
+up without a struggle owing to the fact that one employer would try to
+outbid another. In other words, temporarily, the natural, "tacit
+combination" of the employers, to keep down wages, sometimes broke
+down.</p>
+
+<p>Competition was called "the life of trade" in those days, and in a
+sense it was so. Under its mighty urge, new continents were explored
+and developed and brought within the circle of civilization. Sometimes
+this was done by means of brutal and bloody wars, for capitalism is
+never particular about the methods it adopts. To get profits is its
+only concern, and though its shekels "sweat blood and dirt," to adapt
+a celebrated phrase of Karl Marx, nobody cares. Under stress of
+competition, also, <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_86" id="Page_86">[86]</a></span>the development of mechanical production went on
+at a terrific pace; navigation was developed, so that the ocean became
+as a common highway.</p>
+
+<p>In short, Jonathan, it is no wonder that men sang the praises of
+competition, that some of the greatest thinkers of the time looked
+upon competition as something sacred. Even the workers, seeing that
+they got higher wages when the keen and fierce competition created an
+excessive demand for labor, joined in the adoration of competition as
+a principle&mdash;but among themselves, in their struggles for better
+conditions, they avoided competition as much as possible and combined.
+Their instincts as wage-earners made them keen to see the folly of
+division and competition among themselves.</p>
+
+<p>So competition, considered in connection with the evolution of
+society, had many good features. The competitive period was just as
+"good" as any other period in history and no more "wicked" than any
+other period.</p>
+
+<p>But there was another side to the shield. As the competitive struggle
+among individual capitalists went on the weakest were crushed to the
+wall and fell down into the ranks of the wage workers. There was no
+system in production. Word came to the commercial world that there was
+a great market for certain manufactures in a foreign land and at once
+hundreds and even thousands of factories were worked to their utmost
+limit to meet that demand. The result was that in a little while the
+thing was overdone: there was a glut in the market, often attended by
+panic, stagnation and disaster. Rathbone Greg summed up the evils of
+competition in the following words:</p>
+
+<p>"Competition gluts our markets, enables the rich to take advantage of
+the necessity of the poor, makes each man snatch the bread out of his
+neighbor's mouth, <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_87" id="Page_87">[87]</a></span>converts a nation of brethren into a mass of
+hostile units, and finally involves capitalists and laborers in one
+common ruin."</p>
+
+<p>The crises due to this unregulated production, and the costliness of
+the struggles, led to the formation of joint-stock companies.
+Competition was giving way before a stronger force, the force of
+co-operation. There was still competition, but it was more and more
+between giants. To adopt a very homely simile, the bigger fish ate up
+the little ones so long as there were any, and then turned to a
+struggle among themselves.</p>
+
+<p>Another thing that forced the development of industry and commerce
+away from competitive methods was the increasing costliness of the
+machinery of production. The new inventions, first of steam-power and
+later of electricity, involved an immense outlay, so that many persons
+had to combine their capitals in one common fund.</p>
+
+<p>This process of eliminating competition has gone on with remarkable
+swiftness, so that we have now the great Trust Problem. Everyone
+recognizes to-day that the trusts practically control the life of the
+nation. It is the supreme issue in our politics and a challenge to the
+heart and brain of the nation.</p>
+
+<p>Fifty years ago Karl Marx, the great Socialist economist, made the
+remarkable prophecy that this condition would arise. He lived in the
+heyday of competition, when it seemed utter folly to talk about the
+end of competition. He analyzed the situation, pointed to the process
+of big capitalists crushing out the little capitalists, the union of
+big capitalists, and the inevitable drift toward monopoly. He
+predicted that the process would continue until the whole industry,
+the main agencies of production and distribution at any rate, would be
+centralized in a few great monopolies, controlled by a very <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_88" id="Page_88">[88]</a></span>small
+handful of men. He showed with wonderful clearness that capitalism,
+the Great Idea of buy cheap and sell dear, carried within itself the
+germs of its own destruction.</p>
+
+<p>And, of course, the wiseacres laughed. The learned ignorance of the
+wiseacre always compels him to laugh at the man with an idea that is
+new. Didn't the wiseacres imprison Galileo? Haven't they persecuted
+the pioneers in all ages? But Time has a habit of vindicating the
+pioneers while consigning the scoffing wiseacres to oblivion. Fifty
+years is a short time in human evolution but it has sufficed to
+establish the right of Marx to an honored place among the pioneers.</p>
+
+<p>More than twenty-five years after Marx made his great prediction,
+there came to this country on a visit Mr. H.M. Hyndman, an English
+economist who is also known as one of the foremost living exponents of
+Socialism. The intensity of the competitive struggle was most marked,
+but he looked below the surface and saw a subtle current, a drift
+toward monopoly, which had gone unnoticed. He predicted the coming of
+the era of great trusts and combines. Again the wiseacres in their
+learned ignorance laughed and derided. The amiable gentleman who plays
+the part of flunkey at the Court of St. James, in London, wearing
+plush knee breeches, silver-buckled shoes and powdered wig, a
+marionette in the tinseled show of King Edward's court, was one of the
+wiseacres. He was then editor of the <i>New York Tribune</i>, and he
+declared that Mr. Hyndman was a "fool traveler" for making such a
+prediction. But in the very next year the Standard Oil Company was
+formed!</p>
+
+<p>So we have the trust problem with us. Out of the bitter competitive
+struggle there has come a new condition, a new form of industrial
+ownership and enterprise. <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_89" id="Page_89">[89]</a></span>From the cradle to the grave we are
+encompassed by the trust.</p>
+
+<p>Now, friend Jonathan, I need not tell you that the trusts have got the
+nation by the throat. You know it. But there is a passage, a question,
+in the letter you wrote me the other day from which I gather that you
+have not given the matter very close attention. You ask "How will the
+Socialists destroy the trusts which are hurting the people?"</p>
+
+<p>I suppose that comes from your old associations with the Democratic
+Party. You think that it is possible to destroy the trusts, to undo
+the chain of social evolution, to go back twenty or fifty years to
+competitive conditions. You would restore competition. I have
+purposely gone into the historical development of the trust in order
+to show you how useless it would be to destroy the trusts and
+introduce competition again, even if that were possible. Now that you
+have mentally traced the origin of monopoly to its causes in
+competition, don't you see that if we could destroy the monopoly
+to-morrow and start fresh upon a basis of competition, the process of
+"big fish eat little fish" would begin again at once&mdash;<i>for that is
+competition</i>? And if the big ones eat the little ones up, then fight
+among themselves, won't the result be as before&mdash;that either one will
+crush the other, leaving a monopoly, or the competitors will join
+hands and agree not to fight, leaving monopoly again?</p>
+
+<p>And, Jonathan, if there should be a return to the old-fashioned,
+free-for-all scramble for markets, would it be any better for the
+workers? Would there not be the same old struggle between the
+capitalists and the workers? Would not the workers still have to give
+much for little; to wear their lives away grinding out profits for the
+masters of their bread, of their very lives? <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_90" id="Page_90">[90]</a></span>Would there not be gluts
+as before, with panics, misery, unemployed armies sullenly parading
+the streets; idlers in mansions and toilers in hovels? You know very
+well that there would be all these, my friend, and I know that you are
+too sensible a fellow to think any longer about destroying the trusts.
+It cannot be done, Jonathan, and it would not be a good thing if it
+could be done.</p>
+
+<p>I think, my friend, that you will see upon reflection that there are
+many excellent features about the trust which it would be criminal and
+foolish to destroy had we the power. Competition means waste, foolish
+and unnecessary waste. Trusts have been organized expressly to do away
+with the waste of men and natural resources. They represent economical
+production. When Mr. Perkins, of the New York Life Insurance Company,
+was testifying before the insurance investigating committee he gave
+expression to the philosophy of the trust movement by saying that, in
+the modern view, competition is the law of death and that co-operation
+and organization represent life and progress.</p>
+
+<p>While the wage-workers are probably in many respects better off as a
+result of the trustification of industry, it would be idle to deny
+that there are many evils connected with it. No one who views the
+situation calmly can deny that the trusts exert an enormous power over
+the government of the country, that they are, in fact, the real
+government of the country, exercising far more control over the lives
+of the common people than the regularly constituted, constitutional
+government of the country does. It is also true that they can
+arbitrarily fix prices in many instances, so that the natural law of
+value is set aside and the workers are exploited as consumers, as
+purchasers of the things necessary to life, just as they are exploited
+as producers.</p>
+
+<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_91" id="Page_91">[91]</a></span>Of course, friend Jonathan, wages must meet the cost of living. If
+prices rise considerably, wages must sooner or later follow, and if
+prices fall wages likewise will fall sooner or later. But it is
+important to remember that when prices fall wages are <i>quick</i> to
+follow, while when prices soar higher and higher wages are very <i>slow</i>
+to follow. That is why it wouldn't do us any good to have a law
+regulating prices, supposing that a law forcing down prices could be
+enacted and enforced. Wages would follow prices downward with
+wonderful swiftness. And that is why, also, we do need to become the
+masters of the wealth we produce. For wages climb upward with leaden
+feet, my friend, when prices soar with eagle wings. It is always the
+workers who are at a disadvantage in a system where one class controls
+the means of producing and distributing wealth.</p>
+
+<p>But, friend Jonathan, that is due to the fact that the advantages of
+the trust form of industry are not used as well as they might be. They
+are all grasped by the master class. The trouble with the trust is
+simply this: the people as a whole do not share the benefits. We
+continue the same old wage system under the new forms of industry: we
+have not changed our mode of distributing the wealth produced so as to
+conform to the new modes of producing it. The heart of the economic
+conflict is right there.</p>
+
+<p>We must find a remedy for this, Jonathan. Labor unionism is a good
+thing, but it is no remedy for this condition. It is a valuable weapon
+with, which to fight for better wages and shorter hours, and every
+workingman ought to belong to the union of his trade or calling. But
+unionism does not and cannot do away with the profit system; it cannot
+break the power of the trusts to extort monopoly prices from the
+people. To do these <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_92" id="Page_92">[92]</a></span>things we must bring into play the forces of
+government: we must vote a new status for the trust. The union is for
+the economic struggle of groups of workers day by day against the
+master class so long as the present class division exists. But that is
+not a solution of the problem. What we need to do is to vote the class
+divisions out of existence. <i>We need to own the trusts, Jonathan!</i></p>
+
+<p>This is the Socialist position. What is needed now is the harmonizing
+of our social relations with the new forms of production. When private
+property came into the primitive world in the form of slavery, social
+relations were changed and from a rude communism society passed into a
+system of individualism and class rule. When, later on, slave labor
+gave way before serf labor, the social relations were again modified
+to correspond. When capitalism came, with wage-paid labor as its
+basis, all the laws and institutions which stood in the way of the
+free development of the new principle were swept away; new social
+relations were established, new laws and institutions introduced to
+meet its needs.</p>
+
+<p>To-day, in America, we are suffering because our social relations are
+not in harmony with the changed methods of producing wealth. We have
+got the laws and institutions which were designed to meet the needs of
+competitive industry. They suited those old conditions fairly well,
+but they do not suit the new.</p>
+
+<p>In a former letter, you will remember, I likened our present suffering
+to a case of appendicitis, that society suffers from the trouble set
+up within by an organ which has lost its function and needs to be cut
+out. Perhaps I might better liken society to a woman in the travail of
+childbirth, suffering the pangs of labor incidental to the deliverance
+of the new life within her womb. The trust <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_93" id="Page_93">[93]</a></span>marks the highest
+development of capitalist society: it can go no further.</p>
+
+<p>
+<span style="margin-left: 5%;">The Old Order changeth, yielding place to new.</span><br />
+</p>
+
+<p>And the new order, waiting now for deliverance from the womb of the
+old, is Socialism, the fraternal state. Whether the birth of the new
+order is to be peaceful or violent and painful, whether it will be
+ushered in with glad shouts of triumphant men and women, or with the
+noise of civil strife, depends, my good friend, upon the manner in
+which you and all other workers discharge your responsibilities as
+citizens. That is why I am so anxious to set the claims of Socialism
+clearly before you: I want you to work for the peaceful revolution of
+society, Jonathan.</p>
+
+<p>For the present, I am only going to ask you to read a little five cent
+pamphlet, by Gaylord Wilshire, called <i>The Significance of the Trust</i>,
+and a little book by Frederick Engels, called <i>Socialism, Utopian and
+Scientific</i>. Later on, when I have had a chance to explain Socialism
+in a general way, and must then leave you to your own resources, I
+intend to make for you a list of books, which I hope you will be able
+to read.</p>
+
+<p>You see, Jonathan, I remember always that you wrote me: "Whether
+Socialism is good or bad, wise or foolish, <i>I want to know</i>." The best
+way to know is to study the question for yourself.</p>
+
+<br />
+<br />
+<br />
+<br />
+<a name="VIII" id="VIII"></a><hr />
+<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_94" id="Page_94">[94]</a></span><br />
+
+<h3>VIII<span class="totoc"><a href="#toc">ToC</a></span></h3>
+
+<h4>WHAT SOCIALISM IS AND WHAT IT IS NOT</h4>
+
+<div class="block"><p>Socialism is industrial democracy. It would put an end to the
+irresponsible control of economic interests, and substitute
+popular self-government in the industrial as in the political
+world.&mdash;<i>Charles H. Vail.</i></p>
+
+<p>Socialism says that man, machinery and land must be brought
+together; that the toll gates of capitalism must be torn down,
+and that every human being's opportunity to produce the means
+with which to sustain life shall be considered as sacred as
+his right to live.&mdash;<i>Allan L. Benson.</i></p>
+
+<p>Socialism means that all those things upon which the people in
+common depend shall by the people in common be owned and
+administered. It means that the tools of employment shall
+belong to their creators and users; that all production shall
+be for the direct use of the producers; that the making of
+goods for profit shall come to an end; that we shall all be
+workers together; and that all opportunities shall be open and
+equal to all men.&mdash;<i>National Platform of the Socialist Party,
+1904.</i></p>
+
+<p>Socialism does not consist in violently seizing upon the
+property of the rich and sharing it out amongst the poor.</p>
+
+<p>Socialism is not a wild dream of a happy land where the apples
+will drop off the trees into our open mouths, the fish come
+out of the rivers and fry themselves for dinner, and the looms
+turn out ready-made suits of velvet with golden buttons
+without the trouble of coaling the engine. Neither is it a
+dream of a nation of stained-glass angels, who never say damn,
+who always love their neighbors better than themselves, and
+who never need to work unless they wish to.&mdash;<i>Robert
+Blatchford.</i></p></div>
+<br />
+<br />
+
+<p>By this time, friend Jonathan, you have, I hope, got rid of the notion
+that Socialism is a ready-made scheme <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_95" id="Page_95">[95]</a></span>of society which a few wise men
+have planned, and which their followers are trying to get adopted. I
+have spent some time and effort trying to make it perfectly plain to
+you that great social changes are not brought about in that fashion.</p>
+
+<p>Socialism then, is a philosophy of human progress, a theory of social
+evolution, the main outlines of which I have already sketched for you.
+Because the subject is treated at much greater length in some of the
+books I have asked you to read, it is not necessary for me to
+elaborate the theory. It will be sufficient, probably, for me to
+restate, in a very few words, the main principles of that theory:</p>
+
+<p>The present social system throughout the civilized world is not the
+result of deliberately copying some plan devised by wise men. It is
+the result of long centuries of growth and development. From our
+present position we look back over the blood-blotted pages of history,
+back to the ages before men began to write their history and their
+thoughts, through the centuries of which there is only faint
+tradition; we go even further back, to the very beginning of human
+existence, to the men-apes and the ape-men whose existence science has
+made clear to us, and we see the race engaged in a long struggle to</p>
+
+<div class="poem"><div class="stanza">
+<span class="i0">Move upward, working out the beast<br /></span>
+<span class="i0">And let the ape and tiger die.<br /></span>
+</div></div>
+
+<p>We look for the means whereby the progress of man has been made, and
+find that his tools have been, so to say, the ladder upon which he has
+risen in the age-long climb from bondage toward brotherhood, from
+being a brute armed with a club to the sovereign of the universe,
+controlling tides, harnessing winds, gathering the lightning in his
+hands and reaching to the farthest star.</p>
+
+<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_96" id="Page_96">[96]</a></span>We find in every epoch of that long evolution the means of producing
+wealth as the center of all, transforming government, laws,
+institutions and moral codes to meet their limitations and their
+needs. Nothing has ever been strong enough to restrain the economic
+forces in social evolution. When laws and customs have stood in the
+way of the economic forces they have been burst asunder as by some
+mighty leaven, or hurled aside in the cyclonic sweep of revolutions.</p>
+
+<p>Have you ever gone into the country, Jonathan, and noticed an immense
+rock split and shattered by the roots of a tree, or perhaps by the
+might of an insignificant looking fungus? I have, many times, and I
+never see such a rock without thinking of its aptness as an
+illustration of this Socialist philosophy. A tiny acorn tossed by the
+wind finds lodgment in some small crevice of a rock which has stood
+for thousands of years, a rock so big and strong that men choose it as
+an emblem of the Everlasting. Soon the warm caresses of the sun and
+the rain wake the latent life in the acorn; the shell breaks and a
+frail little shoot of vegetable life appears, so small that an infant
+could crush it. Yet that weak and puny thing grows on unobserved,
+striking its rootlets farther into the crevice of the rock. And when
+there is no more room for it to grow, <i>it does not die, but makes room
+for itself by shattering the rock</i>.</p>
+
+<p>Economic forces are like that, my friend, they <i>must</i> expand and grow.
+Nothing can long restrain them. A new method of producing wealth broke
+up the primitive communism of prehistoric man; another change in the
+methods of production hurled the feudal barons from power and forced
+the establishment of a new social system. And now, we are on the eve
+of another great change&mdash;nay, we are in the very midst of the change.
+<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_97" id="Page_97">[97]</a></span>Capitalism is doomed! Not because men think it is wicked, but because
+the development of the great industrial trusts compels a new political
+and social system to meet the needs of the new mode of production.</p>
+
+<p>Something has got to give way to the irresistible growing force! A
+change is inevitable. And the change must be to Socialism. That is the
+belief of the Socialists, Jonathan, which I am trying to make you
+understand. Mind, I do not say that the coming change will be the
+<i>last</i> change in human evolution, that there will be no further
+development after Socialism. I do not know what lies beyond, nor to
+what heights humanity may attain in future years. It may be that
+thousands or millions of years from now the race will have attained to
+such a state of growth and power that the poorest and weakest man then
+alive will be so much superior to the greatest men alive to-day, our
+best scholars, poets, artists, inventors and statesmen, as these are
+superior to the cave-man. It may be. I do not know. Only a fool would
+seek to set mete and bound to man's possibilities.</p>
+
+<p>We are concerned only with the change that is imminent, the change
+that is now going on before our eyes. We say that the outcome of
+society's struggle with the trust problem must be the control of the
+trust by society. That the outcome of the struggle between the master
+class and the slave class, between the <i>wealth makers</i> and the <i>wealth
+takers</i>, must be the victory of the makers.</p>
+
+<p>Throughout all history, ever since the first appearance of private
+property&mdash;of slavery and land ownership&mdash;there have been class
+struggles. Slave and slave-owner, serf and baron, wage-slave and
+capitalist&mdash;so the classes have struggled. And what has been the
+issue, thus far? Chattel slavery gave way to serfdom, in which the
+<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_98" id="Page_98">[98]</a></span>oppression was lighter and the oppressed gained some measure of human
+recognition. Serfdom, in its turn, gave way to the wages system, in
+which, despite many evils, the oppressed class lives upon a far higher
+plane than the slave and serf classes from whence it sprang. Now, with
+the capitalists unable to hold and manage the great machinery of
+production which has been developed, with the workers awakened to
+their power, armed with knowledge, with education, and, above all,
+with the power to make the laws, the government, what they will, can
+anybody doubt what the outcome will be?</p>
+
+<p>It is impossible to believe that we shall continue to leave the things
+upon which all depend in the hands of a few members of society. Now
+that production has been so organized that it can be readily
+controlled and directed from a few centers, it is possible for the
+first time in the history of civilization for men to live together in
+peace and plenty, owning in common the things which must be used in
+common, which are needed in common; leaving to private ownership the
+things which can be privately owned without injury to society. <i>And
+that is Socialism.</i></p>
+
+<p>I have explained the philosophy of social evolution upon which modern
+Socialism is based as clearly as I could do in the space at my
+disposal. I want you to think it out for yourself, Jonathan. I want
+you to get the enthusiasm and the inspiration which come from a
+realization of the fact that progress is the law of Nature; that
+mankind is ever marching upward and onward; that Socialism is the
+certain inheritor of all the ages of struggle, suffering and
+accumulation.</p>
+
+<p>And above all, I want you to realize the position of your class, my
+friend, and your duty to stand with your <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_99" id="Page_99">[99]</a></span>class, not only as a union
+man, but as a voter and a citizen.</p>
+
+<p>As a system of political economy I need say little of Socialism,
+beyond recounting some of the things we have already considered. A
+great many learned ignorant men, like Mr. Mallock, for instance, are
+fond of telling the workers that the economic teachings of Socialism
+are unsound; that Karl Marx was really a very superficial thinker
+whose ideas have been entirely discredited.</p>
+
+<p>Now, Karl Marx has been dead twenty-five years, Jonathan. His great
+work was done a generation ago. Being just a human being, like the
+rest of us, it is not to be supposed that he was infallible. There are
+some things in his writings which cannot be accepted without
+modification. But what does that matter, so long as the essential
+principles are sound and true? When we think of a great man like
+Lincoln we do not trouble about the little things&mdash;the trivial
+mistakes he made; we consider only the big things, the noble things,
+the true things, he said and did.</p>
+
+<p>But there are lots of little-minded, little-souled people in the world
+who have eyes only for the little flaws and none at all for the big,
+strong and enduring things in a man's work. I never think of these
+critics of Marx without calling to mind an incident I witnessed two or
+three years ago at an art exhibition in New York. There was placed on
+exhibition a famous Greek marble, a statue of Aphrodite. Many people
+went to see it and on several occasions when I saw it I observed that
+some people had been enough stirred to place little bunches of flowers
+at the feet of the statue as a tender tribute to its beauty. But one
+day I was greatly annoyed by the presence of a critical woman who had
+discovered a little flaw <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_100" id="Page_100">[100]</a></span>in the statue, where a bit had been broken
+off. She chattered about it like an excited magpie. Poor soul, she had
+no eyes for the beauty of the thing, the mystery which shrouded its
+past stirred no emotions in her breast. <i>She was only just big enough
+in mind and soul to see the flaw.</i> I pitied her, Jonathan, as I pity
+many of the critics who write learned books to prove that the economic
+principles of Socialism are wrong. I cannot read such a book but a
+vision rises before my mind's eye of that woman and the statue.</p>
+
+<p>I believe that the great fundamental principles laid down by Karl Marx
+cannot be refuted, because they are true. But it is just as well to
+bear in mind that Socialism does not depend upon Karl Marx. If all his
+works could be destroyed and his name forgotten there would still be a
+Socialist movement to contend with. The question is: Are the economic
+principles of Socialism as it is taught to-day true or false?</p>
+
+<p><i>The first principle is that wealth in modern society consists in an
+abundance of things which can be sold for profit.</i></p>
+
+<p>So far as I know, there is no economist of note who makes any
+objection to that statement. I know that sometimes political
+economists confuse their readers and themselves by a loose use of the
+term wealth, including in it many things which have nothing at all to
+do with economics. Good health and cheerful spirits, for example, are
+often spoken of as wealth and there is a certain primal sense in which
+that word is rightly applied to them. You remember the poem by Charles
+Mackay&mdash;</p>
+
+<div class="poem"><div class="stanza">
+<span class="i0">Cleon hath a million acres, ne'er a one have I;<br /></span>
+<span class="i0">Cleon dwelleth in a palace, in a cottage I;<br /></span>
+<span class="i0">Cleon hath a dozen fortunes, not a penny I;<br /></span>
+<span class="i0">Yet the poorer of the twain is Cleon, and not I.<br /></span>
+</div></div>
+
+<p class="noin"><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_101" id="Page_101">[101]</a></span>In a great moral sense that is all true, Jonathan, but from the point
+of view of political economy, Cleon of the million acres, the palace
+and the dozen fortunes must be regarded as the richer of the two.</p>
+
+<p><i>The second principle is that wealth is produced by labor applied to
+natural resources.</i></p>
+
+<p>The only objections to this, the only attempts ever made to deny its
+truth, have been based upon a misunderstanding of the meaning of the
+word "labor." If a man came to you in the mill one day, and said: "See
+that great machine with all its levers and springs and wheels working
+in such beautiful harmony. It was made entirely by manual workers,
+such as moulders, blacksmiths and machinists; no brain workers had
+anything to do with it," you would suspect that man of being a fool,
+Jonathan. You know, even though you are no economist, that the labor
+of the inventor and of the men who drew the plans of the various parts
+was just as necessary as the labor of the manual workers. I have
+already shown you, when discussing the case of Mr. Mallock, that
+Socialists have never claimed that wealth was produced by manual labor
+alone, and that brain labor is always unproductive. All the great
+political economists have included both mental and manual labor in
+their use of the term, that being, indeed, the only sensible use of
+the word known to our language.</p>
+
+<p>It is very easy work, my friend, for a clever juggler of words to
+erect a straw man, label the dummy "Socialism" and then pull it to
+pieces. But it is not very useful work, nor is it an honest
+intellectual occupation. I say to you, friend Jonathan, that when
+writers like Mr. Mallock contend that "ability," as distinguished from
+labor, must be considered as a principal factor in production, they
+must be regarded as being either mentally <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_102" id="Page_102">[102]</a></span>weak or deliberate
+perverters of the truth. You know, and every man of fair sense knows,
+that ability in the abstract never could produce anything at all.</p>
+
+<p>Take Mr. Edison, for example. He is a man of wonderful ability&mdash;one of
+the greatest men of this or any other age. Suppose Mr. Edison were to
+say: "I know I have a great deal of <i>ability</i>; I think that I will
+just sit down with folded hands and depend upon the mere possession of
+my ability to make a living for me"&mdash;what do you think would happen?
+If Mr. Edison were to go to some lonely spot, without tools or food,
+making up his mind that he need not work; that he could safely depend
+upon his ability to produce food for him while he sat idle or slept,
+he would starve. Ability is like a machine, Jonathan. If you have the
+finest machine in the world and keep it in a garret it will produce
+nothing at all. You might as well have a pile of stones there as the
+machine.</p>
+
+<p>But connect the machine with the motor and place a competent man in
+charge of it, and the machine at once becomes a means of production.
+Ability is likewise useless and impotent unless it is expressed in the
+form of either manual or mental labor. And when it is so embodied in
+labor, it is quite useless and foolish to talk of ability as separate
+from the labor in which it is embodied.</p>
+
+<p><i>The third principle of Socialist economics is that the value of
+things produced for sale is, under normal conditions, determined by
+the amount of labor socially necessary, on an average, for their
+production. This is called the labor theory of value.</i></p>
+
+<p>Many people have attacked this theory, Jonathan, and it has been
+"refuted," "upset," "smashed" and "destroyed" by nearly every hack
+writer on economics living. But, for some reason, the number of people
+who <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_103" id="Page_103">[103]</a></span>accept it is constantly increasing in spite of the number of
+times it has been "exposed" and "refuted." It is worth our while to
+consider it briefly.</p>
+
+<p>You will observe that I have made two important qualifications in the
+above statement of the theory: first, that the law applies only to
+things produced for sale, and second, that it is only under normal
+conditions that it holds true. Many very clever men try to prove this
+law of value wrong by citing the fact that articles are sometimes sold
+for enormous prices, out of all proportion to the amount of labor it
+took to produce them in the first instance. For example, it took
+Shakespeare only a few minutes to write a letter, we may suppose, but
+if a genuine letter in the poet's handwriting were offered for sale in
+one of the auction rooms where such things are sold it would fetch an
+enormous price; perhaps more than the yearly salary of the President
+of the United States.</p>
+
+<p>The value of the letter would not be due to the amount of labor
+Shakespeare devoted to the writing of it, but to its <i>rarity</i>. It
+would have what the economists call a "scarcity value." The same is
+true of a great many other things, such as historical relics, great
+works of art, and so on. These things are in a class by themselves.
+But they constitute no important part of the business of modern
+society. We are not concerned with them, but with the ordinary, every
+day production of goods for sale. The truth of this law of value is
+not to be determined by considering these special objects of rarity,
+but the great mass of things produced in our workshops and factories.</p>
+
+<p>Now, note the second qualification. I say that the value of things
+produced for sale <i>under normal conditions</i> is determined by the
+amount of labor <i>socially <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_104" id="Page_104">[104]</a></span>necessary</i>, on an average, for their
+production. Some of the clever, learnedly-ignorant writers on
+Socialism think that they have completely destroyed this theory of
+value when they have only misrepresented it and crushed the image of
+their own creating.</p>
+
+<p>It does not mean that if a quick, efficient workman, with good tools,
+takes a day to make a coat, while another workman, who is slow, clumsy
+and inefficient, and has only poor tools, takes six days to make a
+table that the table will be worth six coats upon the market. That
+would be a foolish proposition, Jonathan. It would mean that if one
+workman made a coat in one day, while another workman took two days to
+make exactly the same kind of coat, that the one made by the slow,
+inefficient workman would bring twice as much as the other, even
+though they were so much alike that they could not be distinguished
+one from the other.</p>
+
+<p>Only an ignoramus could believe that. No Socialist writer ever made
+such a foolish claim, yet all the attacks upon the economic principles
+of Socialism are based upon that idea!</p>
+
+<p>Now that I have told you what it does <i>not</i> mean, let me try to make
+plain just what it <i>does</i> mean. I shall use a very simple illustration
+which you can readily apply to the whole of industry for yourself. If
+it ordinarily takes a day to make a coat, if that is the average time
+taken, and it also takes on an average a day to make a table, then,
+also on an average, one coat will be worth just as much as one table.
+But I must explain that it is not possible to bring the production of
+coats and tables down to the simple measurement. When the tailor takes
+the piece of cloth to cut out the coat, he has in that material
+something that already embodies human labor. Somebody had to weave
+that cloth upon a loom. <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_105" id="Page_105">[105]</a></span>Before that somebody had to make the loom.
+And before that loom could make cloth somebody had to raise sheep and
+shear them to get the wool. And before the carpenter could make the
+table, somebody had to go into the forest and fell a tree, after which
+somebody had to bring that tree, cut up into planks or logs, to the
+carpenter. And before he could use the lumber somebody had to make the
+tools with which he worked.</p>
+
+<p>I think you will understand now why I placed emphasis on the words
+"socially necessary." It is not possible for the individual buyer to
+ascertain just how much social labor is contained in a coat or a
+table, but their values are fixed by the competition and higgling
+which is the law of capitalism. "It jest works out so," as an old
+negro preacher said to me once.</p>
+
+<p>I have said that competition is the law of capitalism. All political
+economists recognize that as true. But we have, as I have explained in
+a former letter, come to a point where capitalism has broken away from
+competition in many industries. We have a state of affairs under which
+the economic laws of competitive society do not apply. Monopoly prices
+have always been regarded as exceptions to economic law.</p>
+
+<p>If this technical economic discussion seems a little bit difficult, I
+beg you nevertheless to try and master it, Jonathan. It will do you
+good to think out these questions. Perhaps I can explain more clearly
+what is meant by monopoly conditions being exceptional. All through
+the Middle Ages it was the custom for governments to grant monopolies
+to favored subjects, or to sell them in order to raise ready money.
+Queen Elizabeth, for instance, granted and sold many such monopolies.</p>
+
+<p>A man who had a monopoly of something which nearly everybody had to
+use could fix his own price, the only <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_106" id="Page_106">[106]</a></span>limit being the people's
+patience or their ability to pay. The same thing is true of patented
+articles and of monopolies granted to public service corporations.
+Generally, it is true, in the franchises of these corporations,
+nowadays, there is a price limit fixed beyond which they must not go,
+but it is still true that the normal competitive economic law has been
+set aside by the creation of monopoly.</p>
+
+<p>When a trust is formed, or when there is a price agreement, or what is
+politely called "an understanding among gentlemen" to that effect, a
+similar thing happens. We have monopoly prices.</p>
+
+<p>This is an important thing for the working class, though it is
+sometimes forgotten. How much your wages will secure in the way of
+necessities is just as important to you as the amount of wages you
+get. In other words, the amount you can get in comforts and
+commodities for use is just as important as the amount you can get in
+dollars and cents. Sometimes money wages increase while real wages
+decrease. I could fill a book with statistics to show this, but I will
+only quote one example. Professor Rauschenbusch cites it in his
+excellent book, <i>Christianity and the Social Crisis</i>, a book I should
+like you to read, Jonathan. He quotes <i>Dun's Review</i>, a standard
+financial authority, to the effect that what $724 would buy in 1897 it
+took $1013 to buy in 1901.</p>
+
+<p>I know that I could make your wife see the importance of this, my
+friend. She would tell you that when from time to time you have
+announced that your wages were to be increased five or ten per cent.
+she has made plans for spending the money upon little home
+improvements, or perhaps for laying it aside for the dreaded "rainy
+day." Perhaps she thought of getting a new rug, or a new sideboard for
+the dining-room; or perhaps it was a <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_107" id="Page_107">[107]</a></span>piano for your daughter, who is
+musical, she had set her heart on getting. The ten per cent. increase
+seemed to make it all so easy and certain! But after a little while
+she found that somehow the ten per cent. did not bring the coveted
+things; that, although she was just as careful as could be, she
+couldn't save, nor get the things she hoped to get.</p>
+
+<p>Often you and I have heard the cry of trouble: "I don't know how or
+why it is, but though I get ten per cent. more wages I am no better
+off than before."</p>
+
+<p>The Socialist theory of value is all right, my friend, and has not
+been disturbed by the assaults made upon it by a host of little
+critics. But Socialists have always known that the laws of competitive
+society do not apply to monopoly, and that the monopolist has an
+increased power to exploit and oppress the worker. That is one of the
+chief reasons why we demand that the great monopolies be transformed
+into common, or social, property.</p>
+
+<p><i>The fourth principle of Socialist economics is that the wages of the
+workers represent only a part of the value of their labor product. The
+remainder is divided among the non-producers in rent, interest and
+profit. The fortunes of the rich idlers come from the unpaid-for labor
+of the working class. This is the great theory of "surplus value,"
+which economists are so fond of attacking.</i></p>
+
+<p>I am not going to say much about the controversy concerning this
+theory, Jonathan. In the first place, you are not an economist, and
+there is a great deal in the discussion which is wholly irrelevant and
+unprofitable; and, in the second place, you can study the question for
+yourself. There are excellent chapters upon the subject in <i>Vail's
+Principles of Scientific Socialism</i>, Boudin's <i>The <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_108" id="Page_108">[108]</a></span>Theoretical System
+of Karl Marx</i>, and Hyndman's <i>Economics of Socialism</i>. You will also
+find a simple exposition of the subject in my <i>Socialism, A Summary
+and Interpretation of Socialist Principles</i>. It will also be well to
+read <i>Wage-Labor and Capital</i>, a five cent booklet by Karl Marx.</p>
+
+<p>But you do not need to be an economist to understand the essential
+principles of this theory of surplus value and to judge of its truth.
+I have never flattered you, Jonathan, as you know; I am in earnest
+when I say that I am content to leave the matter to your own judgment.
+I attach more importance to your decision, based upon a plain,
+matter-of-fact observation of actual life, than to the opinion of many
+a very learned economist cloistered away from the real world in a
+musty atmosphere of books and mental abstractions. So think it out for
+yourself, my friend.</p>
+
+<p>You know that when a man takes a job as a wage-worker, he enters into
+a contract to give something in return for a certain amount of money.
+What is it that he thus sells? Not his actual labor, but his power and
+will to labor. In other words, he undertakes to exert himself in a
+manner desired by the capitalist who employs him for so much an hour,
+so much a day, or so much a week as the case may be.</p>
+
+<p>Now, how are the wages fixed? What determines the amount a man gets
+for his labor? There are several factors. Let us consider them one by
+one:</p>
+
+<p>First, the man must have enough to keep himself alive and able to
+work. If he does not get that much he will die, or be unfit to work.
+Second, in order that the race may be maintained, and that there may
+be a constant supply of labor, it is necessary that men as a rule
+should have families. So, as we saw in a quotation from Adam <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_109" id="Page_109">[109]</a></span>Smith in
+an earlier letter, the wages must, on an average, be enough to keep,
+not only the man himself but those dependent upon him. These are the
+bottom requirements of wages.</p>
+
+<p>Now, the tendency is for wages to keep somewhere near this bottom
+level. If nothing else interfered they would always tend to that
+level. First of all, there is no scientific organization of the labor
+force of the world. Sometimes the demand for labor in a particular
+trade exceeds the supply, and then wages rise. Sometimes the supply is
+greater than the demand, and then wages drop toward the bottom level.
+If the man looking for a job is so fortunate as to know that there are
+many places open to him, he will not accept low wages; on the other
+hand, if the employer knows that there are ten men for every job, he
+will not pay high wages. So, as with the prices of things in general,
+supply and demand enter into the question of the price of labor in any
+given time or place.</p>
+
+<p>Then, also, by combination workingmen can sometimes raise their wages.
+They can bring about a sort of monopoly-price for their labor-power.
+It is not an absolute monopoly-price, however, for the reason that,
+almost invariably, there are men outside of the unions, whose
+competition has to be withstood. Also, the means of production and the
+accumulated surplus belong to the capitalists so that they can
+generally starve the workers into submission, or at least compromise,
+in any struggle aiming at the establishment of monopoly-prices for
+labor-power.</p>
+
+<p>But there is one thing the workers can never do, except by destroying
+capitalism: <i>they cannot get wages equal to the full value of their
+product</i>. That would destroy the capitalist system, which is based
+upon <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_110" id="Page_110">[110]</a></span>profit-making. All the luxury and wealth of the non-producers is
+wrung from the labor of the producers. You can see that for yourself,
+Jonathan, and I need not argue it further.</p>
+
+<p>I do not care very much whether you call the part of the wealth which
+goes to the non-producers "surplus value," or whether you call it
+something else. The <i>name</i> is not of great importance to us. We care
+only for the reality. But I do want you to get firm hold of the simple
+fact that when an idler gets a dollar he has not earned, some worker
+must get a dollar less than he has earned.</p>
+
+<p>Don't be buncoed by the word-jugglers who tell you that the profits of
+the capitalists are the "fruits of abstinence," or the "reward of
+managing ability," sometimes also called the "wages of superintendence."</p>
+
+<p>These and other attempted explanations of capitalists' profits are
+simply old wives' fables, Jonathan. Let us look for a minute at the
+first of these absurd attempts to explain away the fact that profit is
+only another name for unpaid-for labor. You know very well that
+abstinence never yet produced anything. If I have a dollar in my
+pocket and I say to myself, "I will not spend this dollar: I will
+abstain from using it," the dollar does not increase in any way. It
+remains just a dollar and no more. If I have a loaf of bread or a
+bottle of wine and say to myself, "I will not use this bread, or this
+wine, but will keep it in the cup-board," you know very well that I
+shall not get any increase as a result of my abstinence. I do not get
+anything more than I actually save.</p>
+
+<p>Now, I am perfectly willing that any man shall have all that he can
+save out of his own earnings. If no man had more there would be no
+need of talking about <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_111" id="Page_111">[111]</a></span>"legislation to limit fortunes," no need of
+protest against "swollen fortunes."</p>
+
+<p>But now suppose, friend Jonathan, that while I have the dollar,
+representing my "abstinence," in my pocket, a man who has not a dollar
+comes to me and says, "I really must have a dollar to get food for my
+wife and baby, or they will die. Lend me a dollar until next week and
+I will pay you back two dollars." If I lend him the dollar and next
+week take his two dollars, that is what is called the reward of my
+abstinence. But in truth it is something quite different. It is usury.
+Just because I happen to have something the other fellow has not got,
+and which he must have, he is compelled to pay me interest. If he also
+had a dollar in his pocket, I could get no interest from him.</p>
+
+<p>It would be just the same if I had not abstained from anything. If,
+for example, I had found the dollar which some other careful fellow
+had lost, I could still get interest upon it. Or if I had inherited
+money from my father, it might happen that, so far from being
+abstemious and thrifty, I had been most extravagant, while the fellow
+who came to borrow had been very thrifty and abstemious, but still
+unable to provide for his family. Yet I should make him pay me
+interest.</p>
+
+<p>As a matter of fact, my friend, the rich have not abstained from
+anything. They have not accumulated riches out of their savings,
+through abstaining from buying things. On the contrary, they have
+bought and enjoyed the costliest things. They have lived in fine
+houses, worn costly clothing, eaten the choicest food, sent their sons
+and daughters to the most expensive schools and colleges.</p>
+
+<p>From all of these things the workers have abstained, Jonathan. They
+have abstained from living in fine houses <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_112" id="Page_112">[112]</a></span>and lived in poor houses;
+they have abstained from wearing costly clothes and worn the cheapest
+and poorest clothes; they have abstained from choice food and eaten
+only food that is coarse and cheap; they have abstained from sending
+their sons and daughters to expensive schools and colleges and sent
+them only to the lower grades of the public schools. If abstinence
+were a source of wealth, the working people of every country would be
+rich, for they have abstained from nearly everything that is worth
+while.</p>
+
+<p>There is one thing the rich have abstained from, however, which the
+poor have indulged in freely&mdash;and that is <i>work</i>. I never heard of a
+man getting rich through his own labor.</p>
+
+<p>Even the inventor does not get rich by means of his own labor. To
+begin with, there is no invention which is purely an individual
+undertaking. I was talking the other day with one of the world's great
+inventors upon this subject. He was explaining to me how he came to
+invent a certain machine which has made his name famous. He explained
+that for many years men had been facing a great difficulty and other
+inventors had been trying to devise some means of meeting it. He had,
+therefore, to begin with, the experience of thousands of men during
+many years to give him a clear idea of what was required. And that was
+a great thing to start with, Jonathan.</p>
+
+<p>Secondly, he had the experiments of all the numerous other inventors
+to guide him: he could profit by their failures. Not only did he know
+what to avoid, because that great fund of others' experience, but he
+also got many useful ideas from the work of some of the men who were
+on the right line without knowing it. "I could <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_113" id="Page_113">[113]</a></span>not have invented it
+if it were not for the men who went before me," he said.</p>
+
+<p>Another point, Jonathan: In the wonderful machine the inventor was
+discussing there are wheels and levers and springs. Somebody had to
+invent the wheel, the lever and the spring before there could be a
+machine at all. Who was it, I wonder! Do you know who made the first
+wheel, or the first lever? Of course you don't! Nobody does. These
+things were invented thousands of years ago, when the race still lived
+in barbarism. Each age has simply extended their usefulness and
+efficiency. So it is wrong to speak of any invention as the work of
+one man. Into every great invention go the experience and experiments
+of countless others.</p>
+
+<p>So much for that side of the question. Now, let us look at another
+side of the question which is sometimes lost sight of. A man invents a
+machine: as I have shown you, it is as much the product of other men's
+brains as of his own. It is really a social product. He gets a patent
+upon the machine for a certain number of years, and that patent gives
+him the right to say to the world "No one can use this machine unless
+he pays me a royalty." He does not use the machine himself and keep
+what he can make in competition with others' means of production. If
+no one chooses to use his machine, then, no matter how good a thing it
+may be, he gets nothing from his invention. So that even the inventor
+is no exception to my statement that no man ever gets rich by his own
+labor.</p>
+
+<p>The inventor is not the real inventor of the machine: he only carries
+on the work which others began thousands of years ago. He takes the
+results of other people's inventive genius and adds his quota. But he
+<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_114" id="Page_114">[114]</a></span>claims the whole. And when he has done his work and added his
+contribution to the age-long development of mechanical modes of
+production, he must depend again upon society, upon the labor of
+others.</p>
+
+<p>To return to the question of abstinence: I would not attempt to deny
+that some men have saved part of their income and by investing it
+secured the beginnings of great fortunes. I know that is so. But the
+fortunes came out of the labor of other people. Somebody had to
+produce the wealth, that is quite evident. And if the person who got
+it was not that somebody, the producer, it is as clear as noonday that
+the producer must have produced something he did not get.</p>
+
+<p>No, my friend, the notion that profits are the reward of abstinence
+and thrift is stupid in the extreme. The people who enjoy the
+profit-incomes of the world, are, with few exceptions, people who have
+not been either abstemious or thrifty.</p>
+
+<p>But perhaps you will say that, while this may be true of the people
+who to-day are getting enormous incomes from rent, interest or profit,
+we must go further back; that we must go back to the beginning of
+things when their fathers or their grandfathers began by investing
+their savings.</p>
+
+<p>To that I have no objection whatever, provided only that you are
+willing to go back, not merely to the beginning of the individual
+fortune, but to the beginning of the system. If your grandfather, or
+great-grandfather, had been what is termed a thrifty and industrious
+man, working hard, living poor, working his wife and little ones in
+one long grind, all in order to save money to invest in business, you
+might now be a rich man; that is, supposing you were heir to their
+possessions.</p>
+
+<p>That is not at all certain, for it is a fact that most of <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_115" id="Page_115">[115]</a></span>the men who
+have hoarded their individual savings and then invested them have been
+ruined and fooled. In the case of our railroads, for example, the
+great majority of the early investors of savings went bankrupt. They
+were swallowed up by the bigger fish, Jonathan. But assume it
+otherwise, assume that the grandfather of some rich man of the present
+day laid the foundation of the family fortune in the manner described,
+don't you see that the system of robbing the worker of his product was
+already established; that you must go back to the beginning of the
+<i>system</i>?</p>
+
+<p>And when you trace capital back to its origin, my friend, you will
+always come to war or robbery. You can trace it back to the forcible
+taking of the land away from the people. When the machine came,
+bringing with it an industrial revolution, it was by the wealthy and
+the ruthless that the machine was owned, not by the poor toilers. In
+other words, my friends, there was simply a continuance of the old
+rule of a class of overlords, under another name.</p>
+
+<p>If the abstinence theory is foolish, even more foolish is the notion
+that profits are the reward of managing ability, the wages of
+superintendence. Under primitive capitalism there was some
+justification for this view.</p>
+
+<p>It was impossible to deny that the owner of a factory did manage it,
+that he was the superintendent, entitled as such to some reward. It
+was easy enough to say that he got a disproportionate share, but who
+was to decide just what his fair share would be?</p>
+
+<p>But when capitalism developed and became impersonal that idea of the
+nature of profits was killed. When companies were organized they
+employed salaried managers, <i>whose salaries were paid before profits
+were reckoned at all</i>. To-day I can own shares in China and <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_116" id="Page_116">[116]</a></span>Australia
+while living all the time in the United States. Even though I have
+never been to those countries, nor seen the property I am a
+shareholder in, I shall get my profits just the same. A lunatic may
+own shares in a thousand companies and, though he is confined in a
+madhouse, his shares of stock will still bring a profit to his
+guardians in his name.</p>
+
+<p>When Mr. Rockefeller was summoned to court in Chicago last year, he
+stated on oath that he could not tell anything about the business of
+the Standard Oil Company, not having had anything to do with the
+business for several years past. But he gets his profits just the
+same, showing how foolish it is to talk of profits as being the reward
+of managing ability and the wages of superintendence.</p>
+
+<p>Now, Jonathan, I have explained to you pretty fully what Socialism is
+when considered as a philosophy of social evolution. I have also
+explained to you what Socialism is when considered as a system of
+economy. I could sum up both very briefly by saying that Socialism is
+a philosophy of social evolution which teaches that the great force
+which has impelled the race onward, determining the rate and direction
+of social progress, has come from man's tools and the mode of
+production in general: that we are now living in a period of
+transition, from capitalism to Socialism, motived by the economic
+forces of our time. Socialism is a system of economics, also. Its
+substance may be summed up in a sentence as follows: Labor applied to
+natural resources is the source of the wealth of capitalistic society,
+but the greatest part of the wealth produced goes to non-producers,
+the producers getting only a part, in the form of wages&mdash;hence the
+paradox of wealthy non-producers and penurious producers.</p>
+
+<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_117" id="Page_117">[117]</a></span>I have explained to you also that Socialism is not a scheme. There
+remains still to be explained, however, another aspect of Socialism,
+of more immediate interest and importance and interest. I must try to
+explain Socialism as an ideal, as a forecast of the future. You want
+to know, having traced the evolution of society to a point where
+everything seems to be in transition, where a change seems imminent,
+just what the nature of that change will be.</p>
+
+<p>I must leave that for another letter, friend Jonathan, for this is
+over-long already. I shall not try to paint a picture of the future
+for you, to tell you in detail what that future will be like. I do not
+know: no man can know. He who pretends to know is either a fool or a
+knave, my friend. But there are some things which, I believe, we may
+premise with reasonable certainty These things I want to discuss in my
+next letter. Meantime, there are lots of things in this letter to
+think about.</p>
+
+<p><i>And I want you to think, Jonathan Edwards!</i></p>
+
+<br />
+<br />
+<br />
+<br />
+<a name="IX" id="IX"></a><hr />
+<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_118" id="Page_118">[118]</a></span><br />
+
+<h3>IX<span class="totoc"><a href="#toc">ToC</a></span></h3>
+
+<h4>WHAT SOCIALISM IS AND WHAT IT IS NOT</h4>
+
+<p class="cen">(<i>Continued</i>)</p>
+
+<div class="block"><p>And the wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall
+lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the
+fattling together; and a little child shall lead them. And the
+cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down
+together; and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. And the
+suckling child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the
+weaned child shall put his hand on the basilisk's den. They
+shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the
+earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the
+waters cover the sea.&mdash;<i>Isaiah.</i></p>
+
+<p>But we are not going to attain Socialism at one bound. The
+transition is going on all the time, and the important thing
+for us, in this explanation, is not to paint a picture of the
+future&mdash;which in any case would be useless labor&mdash;but to
+forecast a practical programme for the intermediate period, to
+formulate and justify measures that shall be applicable at
+once, and that will serve as aids to the new Socialist
+birth.&mdash;<i>W. Liebknecht.</i></p></div>
+<br />
+<br />
+
+<p>At the head of this letter I have copied two passages to which I want
+you to give particular attention, Jonathan. The first consists of a
+part of a very beautiful word-picture, in which the splendid old
+Hebrew prophet described his vision of a perfect social state. In his
+Utopia it would no longer be true to speak of Nature as being red of
+tooth and claw. Even the lion would eat straw like the ox, so that
+there might not be suffering caused <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_119" id="Page_119">[119]</a></span>by one animal preying upon
+another. Whenever I read that chapter, Jonathan, I sit watching the
+smoke-wreaths curl out of my pipe and float away, and they seem to
+bear me with them to a land of seductive beauty. I should like to live
+in a land where there was never a cry of pain, where never drop of
+blood stained the ground.</p>
+
+<p>There have been lots of Utopias besides that of the old Hebrew
+prophet. Plato, the great philosopher, wrote <i>The Republic</i> to give
+form to his dream of an ideal society. Sir Thomas More, the great
+English statesman and martyr, outlined his ideal of social relations
+in a book called <i>Utopia</i>. Mr. Bellamy, in our own day, has given us
+his picture of social perfection in <i>Looking Backward</i>. There have
+been many others who, not content with writing down their ideas of
+what society ought to be like, have tried to establish ideal
+conditions. They have established colonies, communities, sects and
+brotherhoods, all in the earnest hope of being able to attain the
+perfect social state.</p>
+
+<p>The greatest of these experimental Utopians, Robert Owen, tried to
+carry out his ideas in this country. It would be well worth your while
+to read the account of his life and work in George Browning Lockwood's
+book, <i>The New Harmony Communities</i>. Owen tried to get Congress to
+adopt his plans for social regeneration. He addressed the members of
+both houses, taking with him models, plans, diagrams and statistics,
+showing exactly how things would be, according to his idea, in the
+ideal world. In Europe he went round to all the reigning sovereigns
+begging them to adopt his plans.</p>
+
+<p>He wanted common ownership of everything with equal distribution;
+money would be abolished; the marriage system would be done away with
+and "free love" established; children would belong to and be reared
+by <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_120" id="Page_120">[120]</a></span>the community. Our concern with him at this point is that he
+called himself a Socialist and was, I believe, the first to use that
+word.</p>
+
+<p>But the Socialists of to-day have nothing in common with such Utopian
+ideas as those I have described. We all recognize that Robert Owen was
+a beautiful spirit, one of the world's greatest humanitarians. He was,
+like the prophet Isaiah, a dreamer, a visionary. He had no idea of the
+philosophy of social evolution upon which modern Socialism rests; no
+idea of its system of economics. He saw the evils of private ownership
+and competition in the fiercest period of competitive industry, and
+wanted to replace them with co-operation and public ownership. But his
+point of view was that he had been inspired with a great idea, thanks
+to which he could save the world from all its misery. He did not
+realize that social changes are produced by slow evolution.</p>
+
+<p>One of the principal reasons why I have dwelt at this length upon Owen
+is that he is a splendid representative of the great Utopia builders.
+The fact that he was probably the first man to use the word Socialism
+adds an element of interest to his personality also. I wanted to put
+Utopian Socialism before you so clearly that you would be able to
+contrast it at once with modern, scientific Socialism&mdash;the Socialism
+of Marx and Engels, upon which the great Socialist parties of the
+world are based; the Socialism that is alive in the world to-day. They
+are as opposite as the poles. It is important that you should grasp
+this fact very clearly, for many of the criticisms of Socialism made
+to-day apply only to the old utopian ideals and do not touch modern
+Socialism at all. In the letter you wrote me at the beginning of this
+discussion there are many questions <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_121" id="Page_121">[121]</a></span>which you could not have asked
+had you not conceived of Socialism as a scheme to be adopted.</p>
+
+<p>People are constantly attacking Socialism upon these false grounds.
+They remind me of a story I heard in Wales many years ago. In one of
+the mountain districts a miner returned from his work one afternoon
+and found that his wife had bought a picture of the crucifixion of
+Jesus and hung it against the wall. He had never heard of Jesus, so
+the story goes, and his wife had to explain the meaning of the
+picture. She told the story in her simple way, laying much stress upon
+the fact that "the wicked Jews" had killed Jesus. But she forgot to
+say that it all happened about two thousand years ago.</p>
+
+<p>Now, it happened not long after that the miner saw a Jew peddler come
+to the door of his cottage. The thought of the awful suffering of
+Jesus and his own Welsh hatred of oppression sufficed to fill him with
+resentment toward the poor peddler. He at once began to beat the
+unfortunate fellow in a terribly savage manner. When the peddler,
+between gasps, demanded to know why he had been so ill-treated, the
+miner dragged him into his kitchen and pointed to the picture of the
+crucifixion. "See what you did to that poor man, our Lord!" he
+thundered. To which the Jew very naturally responded: "But, my friend,
+that was not me. That was two thousand years ago!" The reply seemed to
+daze the miner for a moment. Then he said: "Two thousand years! Two
+thousand years! Why, I only heard of it last week!"</p>
+
+<p>It is just as silly to attack the Socialism of to-day for the ideas
+held by the earlier utopian Socialists as beating that poor Jew
+peddler was.</p>
+
+<p>Now then, friend Jonathan, turn back and read the <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_122" id="Page_122">[122]</a></span>second of the
+passages I have placed at the head of this letter. It is from the
+writings of one of the greatest of modern Socialists, the man who was
+the great political leader of the Socialist movement in Germany,
+Wilhelm Liebknecht.</p>
+
+<p>You will notice that he says the transition to Socialism is going on
+all the time; that we are not to attain Socialism at one bound; that
+it is useless to attempt to paint pictures of the future; that we can
+forecast an immediate programme and aid the Socialist birth. These
+statements are quite in harmony with the outline of the Socialist
+philosophy of the evolution of society contained in my last letter.</p>
+
+<p>So, if you ask me to tell you just what the world will be like when
+all people call themselves Socialists except a few reformers and
+"fanatics," earnest pioneers of further changes, I must answer you
+that I do not know. How they will dress, what sort of pictures artists
+will paint, what sort of poems poets will write, or what sort of
+novels men and women will read, I do not know. What the income of each
+family will be I cannot tell you, any more than I can tell you whether
+there will be any intercommunication between the inhabitants of this
+planet and of Mars; whether there will be an ambassador from Mars at
+the national capital.</p>
+
+<p>I do not expect that the lion will eat straw like the ox; I do not
+expect that people will be perfect. I do not suppose that men and
+women will have become so angelic that there will never be any crime,
+suffering, anger, pain or sorrow; I do not expect disease to be
+forever banished from life in the Socialist regime. Still less do I
+expect that mechanical genius will have been so perfected that human
+labor will be no longer necessary; that perpetual motion will have
+been harnessed to great <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_123" id="Page_123">[123]</a></span>indestructible machines and work become a
+thing of the past. That dream of the German dreamer, Etzler, will
+never be realized, I hope.</p>
+
+<p>I suppose that, under Socialism, there will be some men and women far
+wiser than others. There may be a few fools left! I suppose that some
+will be far juster and kinder than others. There may be some selfish
+brutes left with a good deal of hoggishness in their nature! I suppose
+that some will have to make great mistakes and endure the tragedies
+which men and women have endured through all the ages. The love of
+some men will die out, breaking the hearts of some women, I suppose,
+and there will be women whose love will bring them to ruin and death.
+I should not like to think of jails and brothels existing under
+Socialism, Jonathan, but for all I know they may exist. Whether there
+will be churches and paid ministers under Socialism, I do not know. I
+do not pretend to know.</p>
+
+<p>I suppose that, under Socialism, there will be some people who will be
+dissatisfied. I hope so! Men and women will want to move to a higher
+plane of life, I hope. What they will call that plane I do not know;
+what it will be like I do not know. I suppose they will be opposed and
+persecuted; that they will be mocked and derided, called "fanatics"
+and "dreamers" and lots of other ugly and unpleasant names. Lots of
+people will want to stay just as they are, and violently oppose the
+men who say, "Let us move on." But I don't believe that any sane
+person will want to go back to the old conditions&mdash;back to our
+conditions of to-day.</p>
+
+<p>You see, I have killed lots of your objections already, my friend!</p>
+
+<p>Now let me tell you briefly what Socialists want, and what they
+believe will take place&mdash;<i>must</i> take place. In <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_124" id="Page_124">[124]</a></span>the first place, there
+must be political changes to make complete our political democracy.
+You may be surprised at this, Jonathan. Perhaps you are accustomed to
+think of our political system as being the perfect expression of
+political democracy. Let us see.</p>
+
+<p>Compared with some other countries, like Russia, Germany and Spain,
+for example, this is a free country, politically; a model of
+democracy. We have adult suffrage&mdash;<i>for the men</i>! In only a few states
+are our mothers, wives, sisters and daughters allowed to vote. In most
+of the states the best women, and the most intelligent, are placed on
+the political level of the criminal and the maniac. They must obey the
+laws, their interests in the well-being and good government of the
+nation are as vital as those of our sex. But they are denied
+representation in the councils of the nation, denied a voice in the
+affairs of the nation. They are not citizens. We have a class below
+that of the citizens in this country, a class based upon sex
+distinctions.</p>
+
+<p>To make our political system thoroughly representative and democratic,
+we must extend political power to the women of the nation. Further
+than that, we must bring all the means of government more directly
+under the people's will.</p>
+
+<p>In our industrial system we must bring the great trusts under the rule
+of the people. They must be owned and controlled by all for all. I say
+that we "must" do this, because there is no other way by which the
+present evils may be remedied. Everybody who is not blinded to the
+real situation by vested interest must recognize that the present
+conditions are intolerable&mdash;and becoming worse and more intolerable
+every day. A handful of men have the nation's destiny in their greedy
+fingers and they <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_125" id="Page_125">[125]</a></span>gamble with it for their own profit. Something must
+be done.</p>
+
+<p>But what? We cannot go back if we would. I have shown you pretty
+clearly, I think, that if it were possible to undo the chain of
+evolution and to go back to primitive capitalism, with its competitive
+spirit, the development to monopoly would begin all over again. It is
+an inexorable law that competition breeds monopoly. So we cannot go
+back.</p>
+
+<p>What, then, is the outlook, the forward view? So far as I know,
+Jonathan, there are only two propositions for meeting the evil
+conditions of monopoly, other than the perfectly silly one of "going
+back to competition." They are (1) Regulation of the trusts; (2)
+Socialization of the trusts.</p>
+
+<p>Now, the first means that we should leave these great monopolies in
+the hands of their present owners and directors, but enact various
+laws curtailing their powers to exploit the people. Laws are to be
+passed limiting the capital they may employ, the amount of profits
+they may make, and so on. But nobody explains how they expect to get
+the laws obeyed. There are plenty of laws now aiming at regulation of
+the trusts, but they are quite futile and inoperative. First we spend
+an enormous amount of money and energy getting laws passed; then we
+spend much more money and energy trying to get them enforced&mdash;and fail
+after all!</p>
+
+<p>I submit to your good judgment, Jonathan, that so long as we have a
+relatively small class in the nation owning these great monopolies
+through corporations there can be no peace. It will be to the interest
+of the corporations to look after their profits, to prevent the
+enactment of legislation aimed to restrict them and to <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_126" id="Page_126">[126]</a></span>evade the law
+as much as possible. They will naturally use their influence to secure
+laws favorable to themselves, with the inevitable result of corruption
+in the legislative branches of the government. Legislators will be
+bought like mackerel in the market, as Mr. Lawson so bluntly expresses
+it. Efforts will be made to corrupt the judiciary also and the power
+of the entire capitalist class will be directed to the capture of our
+whole system of government. Even more than to-day, we will have the
+government of the people by a privileged part of the people in the
+interests of the privileged part.</p>
+
+<p>You must not forget, my friend, that the corruption of the government
+about which we hear so much from time to time is always in the
+interests of private capitalism. If there is graft in some public
+department, there is an outcry that graft and public business go
+together. As a matter of fact the graft is in the interests of private
+capitalism.</p>
+
+<p>When legislators sell their votes it is never for public enterprises.
+I have never heard of a city which was seeking the power to establish
+any public service raising a "yellow dog fund" with which to bribe
+legislators. On the other hand, I never yet heard of a private company
+seeking a franchise without doing so more or less openly. Regulation
+of the trusts will still leave the few masters of the many, and
+corruption still gnawing at the vitals of the nation.</p>
+
+<p>We must <i>own</i> the trusts, Jonathan, and transform the monopolies by
+which the few exploit and oppress the many into social monopolies for
+the good of all. Sooner or later, either by violent or peaceful means,
+this will be done. It is for the working-class to say whether it shall
+be sooner or later, whether it shall be <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_127" id="Page_127">[127]</a></span>accomplished through the
+strife and bitterness of war or by the peaceful methods of political
+conquest.</p>
+
+<p>We have seen that the root of the evil in modern society is the profit
+motive. Socialism means the production of things for use instead of
+for profit. Not at one stroke, perhaps, but patiently, wisely and
+surely, all the things upon which people in common depend will be made
+common property.</p>
+
+<p>Take notice of that last paragraph, Jonathan. I don't say that <i>all</i>
+property must be owned in common, but only the things upon which
+people in common depend; the things which all must use if they are to
+live as they ought, and as they have a right to live. We have a
+splendid illustration of social property in our public streets. These
+are necessary to all. It would be intolerable if one man should own
+the streets of a city and charge all other citizens for the use of
+them. So streets are built out of the common funds, maintained out of
+the common funds, freely used by all in common, and the poorest man
+has as much right to use them as the richest man. In the nutshell this
+states the argument of Socialism.</p>
+
+<p>People sometimes ask how it would be possible for the government under
+Socialism to decide which children should be educated to be writers,
+musicians and artists and which to be street cleaners and laborers;
+how it would be possible to have a government own everything, deciding
+what people should wear, what food should be produced, and so on.</p>
+
+<p>The answer to all such questions is that Socialism would not need to
+do anything of the kind. There would be no need for the government to
+attempt such an impossible task. When people raise such questions they
+are thinking of the old and dead utopianism, of the <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_128" id="Page_128">[128]</a></span>schemes which
+once went under the name of Socialism. But modern Socialism is a
+principle, not a scheme. The Socialist movement of to-day is not
+interested in carrying out a great design, but in seeing society get
+rid of its drones and making it impossible for one class to exploit
+another class.</p>
+
+<p>Under Socialism, then, it would not be at all necessary for the
+government to own everything; for private property to be destroyed.
+For instance, the State could have no possible interest in denying the
+right of a man to own his home and to make that home as beautiful as
+he pleased. It is perfectly absurd to suppose that it would be
+necessary to "take away the poor man's cottage," about which some
+opponents of Socialism shriek. It would not be necessary to take away
+<i>anybody's</i> home.</p>
+
+<p>On the contrary, Socialism would most likely enable all who so desired
+to own their own homes. At present only thirty-one per cent. of the
+families of America live in homes which they own outright. More than
+half of the people live in rented homes. They are obliged to give up
+practically a fourth part of their total income for mere shelter.</p>
+
+<p>Socialism would not prevent a man from owning a horse and wagon, since
+it would be possible for him to use that horse and wagon without
+compelling the citizens to pay tribute to him. On the other hand,
+private ownership of a railway would be impossible, because railways
+could not be indefinitely and easily multiplied, and the owners of
+such a railway would necessarily have to run it for profit.</p>
+
+<p>Under Socialism such public services as the transportation and
+delivery of parcels would be in the hands of the people, and not in
+the hands of monopolists as at present. The aim would be to serve the
+people to the <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_129" id="Page_129">[129]</a></span>best possible advantage, and not to make profit for the
+few. But if any citizen objected and wanted to carry his own parcel
+from New York to Boston, for example, it is not to be supposed for an
+instant that the State would try to prevent him.</p>
+
+<p>Under Socialism the great factories would belong to the people; the
+trusts would be socialized. But this would not stop a man from working
+for himself in a small workshop if he wanted to; it would not prevent
+a number of workers from forming a co-operative workshop and sharing
+the products of their labor. By reason of the fact that the great
+productive and distributive agencies which are entirely social were
+socially owned and controlled&mdash;railways, mines, telephones,
+telegraphs, express service, and the great factories of various
+kinds&mdash;the Socialist State would be able to set the standards of wages
+and industrial conditions for all the rest remaining in private hands.</p>
+
+<p>Let me explain what I mean, Jonathan: Under Socialism, let us suppose,
+the State undertakes the production of shoes by socializing the shoe
+trust. It takes over the great factories and runs them. Its object is
+not to make shoes for profit, however, but for use. To make shoes as
+good as possible, as cheaply as good shoes can be made, and to see
+that the people making the shoes get the best possible conditions of
+labor and the highest possible wages&mdash;as near as possible to the net
+value of their product, that is.</p>
+
+<p>Some people, however, object to wearing factory-made shoes; they want
+shoes of a special kind, to suit their individual fancy. There are
+also, we will suppose, some shoemakers who do not like to work in the
+State factories, preferring to make shoes by hand to suit individual
+tastes. Now, if the people who want the <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_130" id="Page_130">[130]</a></span>handmade shoes are willing to
+pay the shoemakers as much as they could earn in the socialized
+factories no reasonable objection could be urged against it. If they
+would not pay that amount, or near it, the shoemakers, it is
+reasonable to suppose, would not want to work for them. It would
+adjust itself.</p>
+
+<p>Under Socialism the land would belong to the people. By this I do not
+mean that the private <i>use</i> of land would be forbidden, because that
+would be impossible. There would be no object in taking away the small
+farms from their owners. On the contrary, the number of such farms
+might be greatly increased. There are many people to-day who would
+like to have small farms if they could only get a fair chance, if the
+railroads and trusts of one kind and another were not always sucking
+all the juice from the orange. Socialism would make it possible for
+the farmer to get what he could produce, without having to divide up
+with the railroad companies, the owners of grain elevators,
+money-lenders, and a host of other parasites.</p>
+
+<p>I have no doubt, Jonathan, that under Socialism there would be many
+privately-worked farms. Nor have I any doubt whatever that the farmers
+would be much better off than under existing conditions. For to-day
+the farmer is not the happy, independent man he is sometimes supposed
+to be. Very often his lot is worse than that of the city wage-earner.
+At any rate, the money return for his labor is often less. You know
+that a great many farmers do not own their farms: they are mortgaged
+and the farmer has to pay an average interest of six per cent. upon
+the mortgage.</p>
+
+<p>Now, let us look for a moment at such a farmer's conditions, as shown
+by the census statistics. According to the census of 1900, there were
+in the United States <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_131" id="Page_131">[131]</a></span>5,737,372 farms, each averaging about 146 acres.
+The total value of farm products in 1899 was $4,717,069,973. Now then,
+if we divide the value of the products by the number of farms, we can
+get the average annual product of each farm&mdash;about $770.</p>
+
+<p>Out of that $770 the farmer has to pay a hired laborer for at least
+six months in the year, let us say. At twenty-five dollars a month,
+with an added eight dollars a month for his board, this costs the
+farmer $198, so that his income now stands at $572. Next, he must pay
+interest upon his mortgage at six per cent. per annum. Now, the
+average value of the farms in 1899 was $3,562 and six per cent. on
+that amount would be about $213. Subtract that sum from the $572 which
+the farmer has after paying his hired man and you have left about
+$356. But as the farms are, not mortgaged to their full value, suppose
+we reduce the interest one half&mdash;the farmer's income remains now $464.</p>
+
+<p>Now, as a general thing, the farmer and his wife have to work equally
+hard, and they must work every day in the year. The hired laborer gets
+$150 and his board for six months, at the rate of $300 and board per
+year. The farmer and his wife get only $232 a year each and <i>part</i> of
+their board, for what is not produced on the farm they must <i>buy</i>.</p>
+
+<p>Under Socialism the farmer could own his own farm to all intents and
+purposes. While the final title might be vested in the government, the
+farmer would have a title to the use of the farm which no one could
+dispute or take from him. If he had to borrow money he would do it
+from the government and would not be charged extortionate rates of
+interest as he is now. He would not have to pay railroad companies'
+profits, since the railways being owned by all for all and not run
+for <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_132" id="Page_132">[132]</a></span>profit, would be operated upon a basis of the cost of service.
+The farmer would not be exploited by the packers and middlemen, these
+functions being assumed by the people through their government, upon
+the same basis of service to all, things being done for the use and
+welfare of all instead of for the profit of the few. Under Socialism,
+moreover, the farmer could get his machinery from the government
+factories at a price which included no profits for idle shareholders.</p>
+
+<p>I am told, Jonathan, that at the present time it costs about $24 to
+make a reaper which the farmer must pay $120 for. It costs $40 to sell
+the machine which was made for $24, the expense being incurred by
+wasteful and useless advertising, salesmen's commissions, travelling
+expenses, and so on. The other $54 which the farmer must pay goes to
+the idlers in the form of rent, interest and profit.</p>
+
+<p>Socialism, then, could very well leave the farmer in full possession
+of his farm and improve his position by making it possible for him to
+get the full value of his labor-products without having to divide up
+with a host of idlers and non-producers. Socialism would not deny any
+man the use of the land, but it would take away the right of non-users
+to reap the fruits of the toil of users. It would deny the right of
+the Astor family to levy a tax upon the people of New York, amounting
+to millions of dollars annually, for the privilege of living there.
+The Astors have such a vast business collecting this tax that they
+have to employ an agent whose salary is equal to that of the President
+of the United States and a large army of employees.</p>
+
+<p>Socialism would deny the right of the English Duke of Rutland and Lord
+Beresford to hold millions of acres of land in Texas, and to levy a
+tax upon Americans for <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_133" id="Page_133">[133]</a></span>its use. It would deny the right of the
+British Land Company to tax Kansans for the use of the 300,000 acres
+owned by the company; the right of the Duke of Sutherland and Sir
+Edward Reid to tax Americans for the use of the millions of acres they
+own in Florida; of Lady Gordon and the Marquis of Dalhousie to any
+right to tax people in Mississippi. The idea that a few people can own
+the land upon which all people must live in any country is a relic of
+slavery, friend Jonathan.</p>
+
+<p>So you see, my friend, Socialism does not mean that everything is to
+be divided up equally among the people every little while. That is
+either a fool's notion or the wilful misrepresentation of a liar.
+Socialism does not mean that there is to be a great bureaucratic
+government owning everything and controlling everybody. It does not
+mean doing away with private initiative and making of humanity a great
+herd, everybody wearing the same kind of clothes, eating the same kind
+and quantities of food, and having no personal liberties. It simply
+means that all men and women should have equal opportunities; to make
+it impossible for one man to exploit another, except at that other's
+free will. It does not mean doing away with individual liberty and
+reducing all to a dead level. That is what is at present happening to
+the great majority of people, and Socialism comes to unbind the soul
+of man&mdash;to make mankind free.</p>
+
+<p>I think, Jonathan, that you ought to have a fairly clear notion now of
+what Socialism is and what it is not. You ought to be able now to
+distinguish between the social properties which Socialism would
+establish and the private properties it could have no object in taking
+away, which it would rather foster and protect. I have tried simply to
+illustrate the principle for you, so that you <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_134" id="Page_134">[134]</a></span>can think the matter
+out for yourself. It will be a very good thing for you to commit this
+rule to memory.&mdash;</p>
+
+<p><i>Under Socialism, the State would own and control only those things
+which could not be owned and controlled by individuals without giving
+them an undue advantage over the community, by enabling them to
+extract profits from the labor of others.</i></p>
+
+<p>But be sure that you do not make the common mistake of confusing
+government ownership with Socialism, friend Jonathan, as so many
+people are in the habit of doing. In Prussia the government owns the
+railways. But the government does not represent the interests of all
+the people. It is the government of a nation by a class. That is not
+the same thing as the socialization of the railways, as you will see.
+In Russia the government owns some of the railways and has a monopoly
+of the liquor traffic. But these things are not democratically owned
+and managed in the common interest. Russia is an autocracy. Everything
+is run for the benefit of the governing class, the Czar and a host of
+bureaucrats. That is not Socialism. In this country we have a nearer
+approach to democracy in our government, and our post-office system,
+for example, is a much nearer approach to the realization of the
+Socialist principle.</p>
+
+<p>But even in this country, government ownership and Socialism are not
+the same thing. For our government is a class government too. There is
+the same inequality of wages and conditions as under capitalist
+ownership: many of the letter carriers and other employees are
+miserably underpaid, and the service is notoriously handicapped by
+private interests. Whether it is in Russia under the Czar and his
+bureaucrats, Germany with its monarchial system cumbered with the
+remnants of feudalism, or the United States with its manhood suffrage
+<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_135" id="Page_135">[135]</a></span>foolishly used to elect the interests of the capitalist class,
+government ownership can only be at best a framework for Socialism. It
+must wait for the Socialist spirit to be infused into it.</p>
+
+<p>Socialists want government ownership, Jonathan, but they don't want it
+unless the people are to own the government. When the government
+represents the interests of all the people it will use the things it
+owns and controls for the common good. <i>And that will be Socialism in
+practice, my friend.</i></p>
+
+<br />
+<br />
+<br />
+<br />
+<a name="X" id="X"></a><hr />
+<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_136" id="Page_136">[136]</a></span><br />
+
+<h3>X<span class="totoc"><a href="#toc">ToC</a></span></h3>
+
+<h4>OBJECTIONS TO SOCIALISM CONSIDERED</h4>
+
+<div class="block"><p>I feel sure that the time will come when people will find it
+difficult to believe that a rich community such as our's,
+having such command over external nature, could have submitted
+to live such a mean, shabby, dirty life as we do.&mdash;<i>William
+Morris.</i></p>
+
+<p>Morality and political economy unite in repelling the
+individual who consumes without producing.&mdash;<i>Balzac.</i></p>
+
+<p>The restraints of Communism would be freedom in comparison
+with the present condition of the majority of the human
+race.&mdash;<i>John Stuart Mill.</i></p></div>
+<br />
+<br />
+
+<p>I promised at the beginning of this discussion, friend Jonathan, that
+I would try to answer the numerous objections to Socialism which you
+set forth in your letter, and I cannot close the discussion without
+fulfilling that promise.</p>
+
+<p>Many of the objections I have already disposed of and need not,
+therefore, take further notice of them here. The remaining ones I
+propose to answer&mdash;except where I can show you that an answer is
+unnecessary. For you have answered some of the objections yourself, my
+friend, though you were not aware of the fact. I find in looking over
+the long list of your objections that one excludes another very often.
+You seem, like a great many other people, to have set down all the
+objections you had ever heard, or could think of at the time,
+regardless of the fact that they could not by <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_137" id="Page_137">[137]</a></span>any possibility be all
+well founded; that if some were wise and weighty others must be
+foolish and empty. Without altering the form of your objections,
+simply rearranging their order, I propose to set forth a few of the
+contradictions in your objections. That is fair logic, Jonathan.</p>
+
+<p>First you say that you object to Socialism because it is "the clamor
+of envious men to take by force what does not belong to them." That is
+a very serious objection, if true. But you say a little further on in
+your letter that "Socialism is a noble and beautiful dream which human
+beings are not perfect enough to realize in actual life." Either one
+of the objections <i>may</i> be valid, Jonathan, but both of them cannot
+be. Socialism cannot be both a noble and a beautiful dream, too
+sublime for human realization, and at the same time a sordid envy&mdash;can
+it?</p>
+
+<p>You say that "Socialists are opposed to law and order and want to do
+away with all government," and then you say in another objection that
+"Socialists want to make us all slaves to the government by putting
+everything and everybody under government control." It happens that
+you are wrong in both assertions, but you can see for yourself that
+you couldn't possibly be right in both of them&mdash;can't you?</p>
+
+<p>You object that under Socialism "all would be reduced to the same dead
+level." That is a very serious objection, too, but it cannot be well
+founded unless your other objection, that "under Socialism a few
+politicians would get all the power and most of the wealth, making all
+the people their slaves" is without foundation. Both objections cannot
+hold&mdash;can they?</p>
+
+<p>You say that "Socialists are visionaries with cut and dried schemes
+that look well on paper, but the world has <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_138" id="Page_138">[138]</a></span>never paid any attention
+to schemes for reorganizing society," and then you object that "the
+Socialists have no definite plans for what they propose to do, and how
+they mean to do it; that they indulge in vague principles only." And I
+ask you again, friend Jonathan, do you think that both these
+objections can be sound?</p>
+
+<p>You object that "Socialism is as old as the world; has been tried many
+times and always failed." If that were true it would be a very serious
+objection to Socialism, of course. But is it true? In another place
+you object that "Socialism has never been tried and we don't know how
+it would work." You see, my friend, you can make either objection you
+choose, but not both. Either one <i>may</i> be right, but <i>both</i> cannot be.</p>
+
+<p>Now, these are only a few of the long list of your objections which
+are directly contradictory and mutually exclusive, my friend. Some of
+them I have already answered directly, the others I have answered
+indirectly. Therefore, I shall do no more here and now than briefly
+summarize the Socialist answer to them.</p>
+
+<p>Socialists do propose that society as a whole should take and use for
+the common good some things which a few now own, things which "belong"
+to them by virtue of laws which set the interests of the few above the
+common good. But that is a very different thing from "the clamor of
+envious men to take what does not belong to them." It is no more to be
+so described than taxation, for example is. Socialism is a beautiful
+dream in one sense. Men who see the misery and despair produced by
+capitalism think with joy of the days to come when the misery and
+despair are replaced by gladsomeness and hope. That <i>is</i> a dream, but
+no Socialist rests upon the dream merely: the hope of the Socialist is
+in <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_139" id="Page_139">[139]</a></span>the very material fact of the economic development from
+competition to monopoly; in the breakdown of capitalism itself.</p>
+
+<p>You have probably learned by this time that Socialism does not mean
+either doing away with all government or making the government master
+of everything. Later, I want to return to the subject, and to the
+charge that it would reduce all to a dull level. I shall not waste
+time answering the objections that it is a scheme and that it is not a
+scheme, further than I have already answered them. And I am not going
+to waste your time arguing at length the folly of saying that
+Socialism has been tried and proved a failure. The Socialism of to-day
+has nothing to do with the thousands of Utopian schemes which men have
+tried. Before the modern Socialist movement came into existence,
+during hundreds of years, men and women tried to realize social
+equality by forming communities and withdrawing from the ordinary life
+of the world. Some of these communities, mostly of a religious nature,
+such as the Shakers and the Perfectionists, attained some measure of
+success and lasted a number of years, but most of them lasted only a
+short time. It is folly to say that Socialism has ever been tried
+anywhere at any time.</p>
+
+<p>And now, friend Jonathan, I want to consider some of the more vital
+and important objections to Socialism made in your letter. You object
+to Socialism</p>
+
+
+<ul><li>Because its advocates use violent speech</li>
+<li>Because it is "the same as Anarchism"</li>
+<li>Because it aims to destroy the family and the home</li>
+<li>Because it is opposed to religion</li>
+<li>Because it would do away with personal liberty</li>
+<li>Because it would reduce all to one dull level</li>
+<li>Because it would destroy the incentive to progress<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_140" id="Page_140">[140]</a></span></li>
+<li>Because it is impossible unless we can change human nature.</li>
+</ul>
+
+<p>These are all your objections, Jonathan, and I am going to try to
+suggest answers to them.</p>
+
+<p>(1) It is true that Socialists sometimes use very violent language.
+Like all earnest and enthusiastic men who are possessed by a great and
+overwhelming sense of wrong and needless suffering, they sometimes use
+language that is terrible in its vehemence; their speech is sometimes
+full of bitter scorn and burning indignation. It is also true that
+their speech is sometimes rough and uncultured, shocking the sensitive
+ear, but I am sure you will agree with me that the working man or
+woman who, never having had the advantage of education and refined
+environment, feels the burden of the days that are or the inspiration
+of better days to come, is entitled to be heard. So I am not going to
+apologize for the rough and uncultured speech.</p>
+
+<p>And I am not going to apologize for the violent speech. It would be
+better, of course, if all the advocates of Socialism could master the
+difficult art of stating their case strongly and without compromise,
+but without bitterness and without unnecessary offense to others. But
+it is not easy to measure speech in the denunciation of immeasurable
+wrong, and some of the greatest utterances in history have been hard,
+bitter, vehement words torn from agonized hearts. It is true that
+Socialists now and then use violent language, but no Socialist&mdash;unless
+he is so overwrought as to be momentarily irresponsible&mdash;<i>advocates
+violence</i>. The great urge and passion of Socialism is for the peaceful
+transformation of society.</p>
+
+<p>I have heard a few overwrought Socialists, all of them <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_141" id="Page_141">[141]</a></span>gentle and
+generous comrades, incapable of doing harm to any living creature, in
+bursts of tempestuous indignation use language which seemed to incite
+their hearers to violence, but those who heard them understood that
+they were borne away by their feelings. I have never heard Socialists
+advocate violence toward any human beings in cold-blooded
+deliberation. But I <i>have</i> heard capitalists and the defenders of
+capitalism advocate violence toward Socialists in cold-blooded
+deliberation. I have seen in Socialist papers upon a few occasions
+violent utterances which I deplored, but never such advocacy of
+violence as I have read in newspapers opposed to Socialism. Here, for
+example, are some extracts from an editorial which appeared January,
+1908, in the columns of the <i>Gossip</i>, of Goldfield, Nevada:</p>
+
+<div class="block"><p>"A cheaper and more satisfactory method of dealing with this
+labor trouble in Goldfield last spring would have been to have
+taken half a dozen of the Socialist leaders in the Miners'
+Union and hanged them all to telegraph poles.</p>
+
+<p>"<span class="fakesc">SPEAKING DISPASSIONATELY, AND WITHOUT ANIMUS</span>, it seems clear
+to us after many months of reflection, that <span class="fakesc">YOU COULDN'T MAKE
+A MISTAKE IN HANGING A SOCIALIST</span>.</p>
+
+<p>"<span class="fakesc">HE IS ALWAYS BETTER DEAD.</span></p>
+
+<p>"He, breathing peace, breathing order, breathing goodwill,
+fairness to all and moderation, is always the man with the
+dynamite. He is the trouble-maker, and the trouble-breeder.</p>
+
+<p>"To fully appreciate him you must live where he abounds.</p>
+
+<p>"In the Western Federation of Miners he is that plentiful
+legacy left us from the teachings of Eugene V. Debs, hero of
+the Chicago Haymarket Riots.</p>
+
+<p>"<span class="fakesc">ALWAYS HANG A SOCIALIST. NOT BECAUSE HE'S A DEEP THINKER, BUT
+BECAUSE HE'S A BAD ACTOR.</span>"</p></div>
+
+<p>I could fill many pages with extracts almost as bad as the above, all
+taken from capitalist papers, Jonathan. <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_142" id="Page_142">[142]</a></span>But for our purpose one is as
+good as a thousand. I want you to read the papers carefully with an
+eye to their class character. When the Goldfield paper printed the
+foregoing open incitement to murder, the community was already
+disturbed by a great strike and the President of the United States had
+sent federal troops to Goldfield in the interest of the master class.
+Suppose that under similar circumstances a Socialist paper had come
+out and said in big type that people "couldn't make a mistake in
+hanging a capitalist," that capitalists are "always better dead."
+Suppose that any Socialist paper urged the murder of Republicans and
+Democrats in the same way, do you think the paper would have been
+tolerated? That the editor would have escaped jail? Don't you know
+that if such a statement had been published by any Socialist paper the
+whole country would have been roused, that press and pulpit would have
+denounced it?</p>
+
+<p>Socialists are opposed to violence. They appeal to brains and not to
+bludgeons; they trust in ballots and not in bullets. The violence of
+speech with which they are charged is not the advocacy of violence,
+but unmeasured and impassioned denunciation of a cruel and brutal
+system. Not long ago I heard a clergyman denouncing Socialists for
+their "violent language." Poor fellow! He was quite unconscious that
+he was more bitter in his invective than the men he attacked. Of
+course Socialists use bitter and burning language&mdash;but not more bitter
+than was used by the great Hebrew prophets in their stern
+denunciations; not more bitter than was used by Jesus and his
+disciples; not more bitter than was used by Martin Luther and other
+great leaders of the Reformation; not more bitter than was used by
+Garrison and the other Abolitionists. Men with vital messages cannot
+always use soft words, Jonathan.</p>
+
+<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_143" id="Page_143">[143]</a></span>(2) Socialism is not "the same as Anarchism," my friend, but its very
+opposite. The only connection between them is that they are agreed
+upon certain criticisms of present society. In all else they are as
+opposite as the poles. The difference lies not merely in the fact that
+most Anarchists have advocated physical violence, for there are some
+Anarchists who are as much opposed to physical violence as you or I,
+Jonathan, and it is only fair and just that we should recognize the
+fact. It has always seemed to me that Anarchism logically leads to
+physical force by individuals against individuals, but, logical or no,
+there are many Anarchists who are gentle spirits, holding all life
+sacred and abhorring violence and assassination. When there are so
+many ready to be unjust to them, we can afford to be just to the
+Anarchists, even if we do not agree with them, Jonathan.</p>
+
+<p>Sometimes an attempt is made by Socialists to explain the difference
+between themselves and Anarchists by saying that Anarchists want to
+destroy all government, while Socialists want to extend government and
+bring everything under its control; that Anarchists want no laws,
+while Socialists want more laws. But that is not an intelligent
+statement of the difference. We Socialists don't particularly desire
+to extend the functions of government; we are not so enamoured of laws
+that we want more of them. Quite the contrary is true, in fact. If we
+had a Socialist government to-morrow in this country, one of the first
+and most important of its tasks would be to repeal a great many of the
+existing laws.</p>
+
+<p>Then there are some Socialists who try to explain the difference
+between Socialism and Anarchism by saying that the Anarchists are
+simply Socialists of a very advanced type; that society must first
+pass through a period <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_144" id="Page_144">[144]</a></span>of Socialism, in which laws will be necessary,
+before it can enter upon Anarchism, a state in which every man will be
+so pure and so good that he can be a law unto himself, no other form
+of law being necessary. But that does not settle the difficulty. I
+think you will see, friend Jonathan, that in order to have such a
+society in which without laws or penal codes, or government of any
+kind, men and women lived happily together, it would be necessary for
+every member to cultivate a social sense, a sense of responsibility to
+society as a whole. Each member of society would have to become so
+thoroughly socialized as to make the interests of society as a whole
+his chief concern in life. And such a society would be simply a
+Socialist society perfectly developed, not an Anarchist society. It
+would be a Socialist society simply because it would be dominated by
+the essential principle of Socialism&mdash;the idea of solidarity, of
+common interest.</p>
+
+<p>The basis of Anarchism is utopian individualism. Just as the old
+utopian dreamers who tried to "establish" Socialism through the medium
+of numerous "Colonies," took the abstract idea of equality and made it
+their ideal, so the Anarchist sets up the abstract idea of individual
+liberty. The true difference between Socialism and Anarchism is that
+the Socialist sets the social interest, the good of society, above all
+other interests, while the Anarchist sets the interest of the
+individual above everything else. You could express the difference
+thus:</p>
+
+<p class="noin" style="margin-left: 5%;">Socialism means <i>We</i> -ism<br />
+Anarchism means <i>Me</i> -ism</p>
+
+<p>The Anarchist says: "The world is made up of individuals. What is
+called "society" is only a lot of individuals. Therefore the
+individual is the only real <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_145" id="Page_145">[145]</a></span>being and society a mere abstraction, a
+name. As an individual I know myself, but I know nothing of society; I
+know my own interests, but I know nothing of what you call the
+interests of society." On the other hand, the Socialist says that "no
+man liveth unto himself," to use a biblical phrase. He points out that
+in modern society no individual life, apart from the social life, is
+possible.</p>
+
+<p>If this seems a somewhat abstract way of putting it, Jonathan, just
+try to put it in a concrete form yourself by means of a simple
+experiment. When you sit down to your breakfast to-morrow morning take
+time to think where your breakfast came from and how it was produced.
+Think of the coffee plantations in far-off countries drawn on for your
+breakfast; of the farms, perhaps thousands of miles away, from which
+came your bacon and your bread; of the coal miners toiling that your
+breakfast might be cooked; of the men in the engine-rooms of great
+ships and on the tenders of mighty locomotives, bringing your
+breakfast supplies across sea and land. Then think of your clothing in
+the same way, article by article, trying to realize how much you are
+dependent upon others than yourself. Throughout the day apply the same
+principle as you move about. Apply it to the streets as you go to
+work; to the street cars as you ride; apply it to the provisions which
+are made to safeguard your health against devastating plague, the
+elaborate system of drainage, the carefully guarded water-supply, and
+so on. Then, when you have done that for a day as far as possible, ask
+yourself whether the Anarchist idea that every individual is a
+distinct and separate whole, an independent being, unrelated to the
+other individuals who make up society, is a true one; or whether the
+Socialist idea that all individuals are <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_146" id="Page_146">[146]</a></span>inter-dependent upon each
+other, bound to each other by so many ties that they cannot be
+considered apart, is the true idea. Judge by your experience,
+Jonathan!</p>
+
+<p>So the Socialist says that "we are all members one of another," to use
+another familiar biblical phrase. He is not less interested in
+personal freedom than the Anarchist, not less desirous of giving to
+each individual unit in society the largest possible freedom
+compatible with the like freedom of all the other units. But, while
+the Anarchist says that the best judge of that is the individual, the
+Socialist says that society is the best judge. The Anarchist position
+is that, in the event of a conflict of interests, the will of the
+individual must rule at all costs; the Socialist says that, in the
+event of such a conflict of interests, the will of the individual must
+give way. That is the real philosophical difference between the two.</p>
+
+<p>Anarchism is not important enough in America, friend Jonathan, to
+justify our devoting so much time and space to the discussion of its
+philosophy as opposed to the philosophy of Socialism, except for the
+bearing it has upon the political movement of the working class. I
+want you to see just how Anarchism works out when the test of
+practical application is resorted to.</p>
+
+<p>Just as the Anarchist sets up an abstract idea of individual liberty
+as his ideal, so he sets up an abstract idea of tyranny. To him Law,
+the will of society, is the essence of tyranny. Laws are limitations
+of individual liberty set by society and therefore they are
+tyrannical. No matter what the law may be, all laws are wrong. There
+cannot be such a thing as a good law, according to this view. To
+illustrate just where this leads us, let me tell of a recent
+experience: I was lecturing in a New England town, and after the
+lecture an Anarchist rose to <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_147" id="Page_147">[147]</a></span>ask some questions. He wanted to know if
+it was not a fact that all laws were oppressive and bad, to which, of
+course, I replied that I thought not.</p>
+
+<p>I asked him whether the law forbidding murder and providing for its
+punishment, oppressed <i>him</i>; whether <i>he</i> felt it a hardship not to be
+allowed to murder at will, and he replied that he did not. I cited
+many other laws, such as the laws relating to arson, burglary,
+criminal assault, and so on, with the same result. His outcry about
+the oppression of law, as such, proved to be just an empty cry about
+an abstraction; a bogey of his imagination. Of course, he could cite
+bad laws, unjust laws, as I could have done; but that would simply
+show that some laws are not right&mdash;a proposition upon which most
+people will agree. My Anarchist friend quoted Herbert Spencer in
+support of his contention. He referred to Spencer's well-known summary
+of the social legislation of England. So I asked my friend if he
+thought the Factory Acts were oppressive and tyrannical, and he
+replied that, from an Anarchist viewpoint, they were.</p>
+
+<p>Think of that, Jonathan! Little boys and girls, five and six years
+old, were taken out of their beds crying and begging to be allowed to
+sleep, and carried to the factory gates. Then they were driven to work
+by brutal overseers armed with leather whips. Sometimes they fell
+asleep at their tasks and then they were beaten and kicked and cursed
+at like dogs. Little boys and girls from orphan asylums were sent to
+work thus, and died like flies in summer&mdash;their bodies being secretly
+buried at night for fear of an outcry. You can find the terrible story
+told in <i>The Industrial History of England</i>, by H. de B. Gibbins,
+which ought to be in your public library.</p>
+
+<p>Humane men set up a protest at last and there was a <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_148" id="Page_148">[148]</a></span>movement through
+the country demanding protection for the children. Once a member of
+parliament held up in the House of Commons a whip of leather thongs
+attached to an oak handle, telling his colleagues that a few days
+before it had been used to flog little children who were mere babies.
+The demand was made for legislation to stop this barbarous treatment
+of children, to protect their childhood. The factory owners opposed
+the passing of such laws on the ground that it would be an
+interference with their individual liberties, their right to do as
+they pleased. <i>And the Anarchist comes always and inevitably to the
+same conclusion.</i> Factory laws, public health laws, education
+laws&mdash;all denounced as "interferences with individual liberty."
+Extremes meet: the Anarchist in the name of individual liberty, like
+the capitalist, would prevent society from putting a stop to the
+exploitation of its little ones.</p>
+
+<p>The real danger in Anarchism is not that <i>some</i> Anarchists believe in
+violence, and that from time to time there are cowardly assassinations
+which are as futile as they are cowardly. The real danger lies first
+in the reactionary principle that the interests of society must be
+subordinated to the interests of the individual, and, second, in
+holding out a hope to the working class that its freedom from
+oppression and exploitation may be brought about by other than
+political, legislative means. And it is this second objection which is
+of extreme importance to the working class of America at this time.</p>
+
+<p>From time to time, in all working class movements, there is an outcry
+against political action, an outcry raised by impetuous men-in-a-hurry
+who want twelve o'clock at eleven. They cry out that the ballot is too
+slow; they want some more "direct" action than the ballot-box allows.
+But you will find, Jonathan, that the <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_149" id="Page_149">[149]</a></span>men who raise this cry have
+nothing to propose except riot to take the place of political action.
+Either they would have the workers give up all struggle and depend
+upon moral suasion, or they would have them riot. And we Socialists
+say that ballots are better weapons than bullets for the workers. You
+may depend upon it that any agitation among the workers against the
+use of political weapons leads to Anarchism&mdash;and to riot. I hope you
+will find time to read Plechanoff's <i>Anarchism and Socialism</i>,
+Jonathan. It will well repay your careful study.</p>
+
+<p>No, Socialism is not related to Anarchism, but it is, on the contrary,
+the one great active force in the world to-day that is combating
+Anarchism. There is a close affinity between Anarchism and the idea of
+capitalism, for both place the individual above society. The Socialist
+believes that the highest good of the individual will be realized
+through the highest good of society.</p>
+
+<p>(3) Socialism involves no attack upon the family and the home. Those
+who raise this objection against Socialism charge that it is one of
+the aims of the Socialist movement to do away with the monogamic
+marriage and to replace it with what is called "Free Love." By this
+term they do not really mean free <i>love</i> at all. For love is always
+<i>free</i>, Jonathan. Not all the wealth of a Rockefeller could buy one
+single touch of love. Love is always free; it cannot be bought and it
+cannot be bound. No one can love for a price, or in obedience to laws
+or threats. The term "Free Love" is therefore a misnomer.</p>
+
+<p>What the opponents of Socialism have in mind when they use the term is
+rather lust than love. They charge us Socialists with trying to do
+away with the monogamic marriage relation&mdash;the marriage of one man to
+<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_150" id="Page_150">[150]</a></span>one woman&mdash;and the family life resulting therefrom. They say that we
+want promiscuous sex relations, communal life instead of family life
+and the turning over of all parental functions to the community, the
+State. And to charge that these things are involved in Socialism is at
+once absurd and untrue. I venture to say, Jonathan, that the
+percentage of Socialists who believe in such things is not greater
+than the percentage of Christians believing in them, or the percentage
+of Republicans or Democrats. They have nothing to do with Socialism.</p>
+
+<p>Let us see upon what sort of evidence the charge is based: On the one
+hand, finding nothing in the programmes of the Socialist parties of
+the world to support the charge, we find them going back to the
+utopian schemes with communistic features. They go back to Plato,
+even! Because Plato in his <i>Republic</i>, which was a wholly imaginary
+description of the ideal society he conceived in his mind, advocated
+community of sex relations as well as community of goods, therefore
+the Socialists, who do not advocate community of goods or community of
+wives, must be charged with Plato's principles! In like manner, the
+fact that many other communistic experiments included either communism
+of sex relations, as, for example, the Adamites, during the Hussite
+wars, in Germany, and the Perfectionists, of Oneida, with their
+"community marriage," all the male members of a community being
+married to all the female members; or enforced celibacy, as did the
+Shakers and the Harmonists, among many other similar groups, is urged
+against Socialism.</p>
+
+<p>I need not argue the injustice and the stupidity of this sort of
+criticism, Jonathan. What have the Socialists of twentieth century
+America to do with Plato? His utopian ideal is not their ideal; they
+are neither aiming at <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_151" id="Page_151">[151]</a></span>community of goods nor at community of wives.
+And when we put aside Plato and the Platonic communities, the first
+fact to challenge attention is that the communities which established
+laws relating to sex relations which were opposed to the monogamic
+family, whether promiscuity, so-called free love; plural marriage, as
+in Mormonism, or celibacy, as in Harmonism and Shakerism, were all
+<i>religious</i> communities. In a word, all these experiments which
+antagonized the monogamic family relation were the result of various
+interpretations of the Bible and the efforts of those who accepted
+those interpretations to rule their lives in accordance therewith. In
+every case communism was only a means to an end, a way of realizing
+what they considered to be the true religious life. In other words, my
+friend, most of the so-called free love experiments made in these
+communities have been offshoots of Christianity rather than of
+Socialism.</p>
+
+<p><i>And I ask you, Jonathan Edwards, as a fair-minded American, what you
+would think of it if the Socialists charged Christianity with being
+opposed to the family and the home? It would not be true of
+Christianity and it is not true of Socialism.</i></p>
+
+<p>But there is another form of argument which is sometimes resorted to.
+The history of the movement is searched for examples of what is called
+free love. That is to say that because from time to time there have
+been individual Socialists who have refused to recognize the
+ceremonial and legal aspects of marriage, believing love to be the
+only real marriage bond, notwithstanding that the vast majority of
+Socialists have recognized the legal and ceremonial aspects of
+marriage, they have been accused of trying to do away with marriage.
+Our opponents have even stooped so low as to seize upon every <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_152" id="Page_152">[152]</a></span>case
+where Socialists have sought divorce as a means of undoing terrible
+wrong, and then married other husbands and wives, and proclaimed it as
+a fresh proof that Socialism is opposed to marriage and the family.
+When I have read some of these cruel and dishonest attacks, often
+written by men who know better, my soul has been sickened at the
+thought of the cowardice and dishonesty to which the opponents of
+Socialism resort.</p>
+
+<p>Suppose that every time a prominent Christian becomes divorced, and
+then remarries, the Socialists of the country were to attack the
+Christian religion and the Christian churches, upon the ground that
+they are opposed to marriage and the family, does anybody think that
+<i>that</i> would be fair and just? But it is the very thing which happens
+whenever Socialists are divorced. It happened, not so very long ago,
+that a case of the kind was made the occasion of hundreds of
+editorials against Socialism and hundreds of sermons. The facts were
+these: A man and his wife, both Socialists, had for a long time
+realized that their marriage was an unhappy one. Failing to realize
+the happiness they sought, it was mutually agreed that the wife should
+apply for a divorce. They had been legally married and desired to be
+legally separated. Meantime the man had come to believe that his
+happiness depended upon his wedding another woman. The divorce was to
+be procured as speedily as possible to enable the legal marriage of
+the man and the woman he had grown to love.</p>
+
+<p>Those were the facts as they appeared in the press, the facts upon
+which so many hundreds of attacks were made upon Socialism and the
+Socialist movement. Two or three weeks later, an Episcopal clergyman,
+not a Socialist, left the wife he had ceased to love and with whom he
+had presumably not been happy. He had <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_153" id="Page_153">[153]</a></span>legally married his wife, but
+he did not bother about getting a legal separation. He just left his
+wife; just ran away. He not only did not bother about getting a legal
+separation, but he ran away with a young girl, whom he had grown to
+love. They lived together as man and wife, without legal marriage, for
+if they went through any marriage form at all it was not a legal
+marriage and the man was guilty of bigamy. Was there any attack upon
+the Episcopal Church in consequence? Were hundreds of sermons preached
+and editorials written to denounce the church to which he belonged,
+accusing it of aiming to do away with the monogamic marriage relation,
+to break up the family and the home?</p>
+
+<p>Not a bit of it, Jonathan. There were some criticisms of the man, but
+there were more attempts to find excuses for him. There were thousands
+of expressions of sympathy with his church. But there were no attacks
+such as were aimed at Socialism in the other case, notwithstanding
+that the Socialist strictly obeyed the law whereas the clergyman broke
+the law and defied it. I think that was a fair way to treat the case,
+but I ask the same fair treatment of Socialism.</p>
+
+<p>So far, Jonathan, I have been taking a defensive attitude, just
+replying to the charge that Socialism is an attack upon the family and
+the home. Now, I want to go a step further: I want to take an
+affirmative position and to say that Socialism comes as the defender
+of the home and the family; that capitalism from the very first has
+been attacking the home. I am going to turn the tables, Jonathan.</p>
+
+<p>When capitalism began, when it came with its steam engine and its
+power-loom, what was the first thing it did? Why, it entered the home
+and took the child from the mother and made it a part of a great
+system of <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_154" id="Page_154">[154]</a></span>wheels and levers and springs, all driven for one end&mdash;the
+grinding of profit. It began its career by breaking down the bonds
+between mother and child. Then it took another step. It took the
+mother away from the baby in the cradle in order that she too might
+become part of the great profit-grinding system. Her breasts might be
+full to overflowing with the food wonderfully provided for the child
+by Nature; the baby in the cradle might cry for the very food that was
+bursting from its mother's breasts, but Capital did not care. The
+mother was taken away from the child and the child was left to get on
+as best it might upon a miserable substitute for its mother's milk.
+Hundreds of thousands of babies die each year for no other reason than
+this.</p>
+
+<p>There will never be safety for the home and the family so long as
+babies are robbed of their mothers' care; so long as little children
+are made to do the work of men; so long as the girls who are to be the
+wives and mothers are sent into wifehood and motherhood unprepared,
+simply because the years of maidenhood are spent in factories that
+ought to be spent in preparation for wifehood and motherhood. Here is
+capitalism cutting at the very heart of the home, with Socialism as
+the only defender of the home it is charged with attacking. For
+Socialism would give the child its right to childhood; it would give
+the mother her freedom to nourish her babe; it would give to the
+fathers and mothers of the future the opportunities for preparation
+they cannot now enjoy.</p>
+
+<p>I ask you, friend Jonathan, to think of the tens and thousands of
+women who marry to-day, not because they love and are loved in return,
+but for the sake of getting a home. Socialism would put an end to that
+condition by making woman economically and politically free. Think of
+the tens of thousands of young men in our <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_155" id="Page_155">[155]</a></span>land who do not, dare not,
+marry because they have no certainty of earning a living adequate to
+the maintenance of wives and families; of the hundreds of thousands of
+prostitutes in our country, the vast majority of whom have been driven
+to that terrible fate by economic causes outside of their control.
+Socialism would at least remove the economic pressure which forces so
+many of these women down into the terrible hell of prostitution. I ask
+you, Jonathan, to think also of the thousands of wives who are
+deserted every year. So far as the investigations of the charity
+organizations into this serious matter have gone, it has been shown
+that poverty is responsible for by far the greatest number of these
+desertions. Socialism would not only destroy the poverty, but it would
+set woman economically free, thus removing the main causes of the
+evil.</p>
+
+<p>Oh, Jonathan Edwards, hard-headed, practical Jonathan, do you think
+that the existence of the family depends upon keeping women in the
+position of an inferior class, politically and economically? Do you
+think that when women are politically and economically the equals of
+men, so that they no longer have to marry for homes, or to stand
+brutal treatment because they have no other homes than the men afford;
+so that no woman is forced to sell her body&mdash;I ask you, when women are
+thus free do you believe that the marriage system will be endangered
+thereby? For that is what the contention of the opponents of Socialism
+comes to in the last analysis, my friend. Socialism will only affect
+the marriage system in so far as it raises the standards of society as
+a whole and makes woman man's political and economic equal. Are you
+afraid of <i>that</i>, Jonathan?</p>
+
+<p>(4) Socialism is not opposed to religion. It is perfectly true that
+some Socialists oppose religion, but <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_156" id="Page_156">[156]</a></span>Socialism itself has nothing to
+do with matters of religion. In the Socialist movement to-day there
+are men and women of all creeds and all shades of religious belief. By
+all the Socialist parties of the world religion is declared to be a
+private matter&mdash;and the declaration is honestly meant; it is not a
+tactical utterance, used as bait to the unwary, which the Socialists
+secretly repudiate. In the Socialist movement of America to-day there
+are Jews and Christians, Catholics and Protestants, Spiritualists and
+Christian Scientists, Unitarians and Trinitarians, Methodists and
+Baptists, Atheists and Agnostics, all united in one great comradeship.</p>
+
+<p>This was not always the case. When the scientific Socialist movement
+began in the second half of the last century, Science was engaged in a
+great intellectual encounter with Dogma. All the younger men were
+drawn into the scientific current of the time. It was natural, then,
+that the most radical movement of the time should partake of the
+universal scientific spirit and temper. The Christians of that day
+thought that the work of Darwin and his school would destroy religion.
+They made the very natural mistake of supposing that dogma and
+religion were the same thing, a mistake which their critics fully
+shared.</p>
+
+<p>You know what happened, Jonathan. The Christians gradually came to
+realize that no religion could oppose the truth and continue to be a
+power. Gradually they accepted the position of the Darwinian critics,
+until to-day there is no longer the great vital controversy upon
+matters of theology which our fathers knew. In a very similar manner,
+the present generation of Socialists have nothing to do with the
+attacks upon religion which the Socialists of fifty years ago indulged
+in. The position of all the Socialist parties of the world to-day is
+that <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_157" id="Page_157">[157]</a></span>they have nothing to do with matters of religious belief; that
+these belong to the individual alone.</p>
+
+<p>There is a sense in which Socialism becomes the handmaiden of
+religion: not of creeds and theological beliefs, but of religion in
+its broadest sense. When you examine the great religions of the world,
+Jonathan, you will find that in addition to certain supernatural
+beliefs there are always great ethical principles which constitute the
+most vital elements in religion. Putting aside the theological beliefs
+about God and the immortality of the soul, what was it that gave
+Judaism its power? Was it not the ethical teaching of its great
+prophets, such as Isaiah, Joel, Amos and Ezekiel&mdash;the stern rebuke of
+the oppressors of the poor and downtrodden, the scathing denunciation
+of the despoilers of the people, the great vision of a unified world
+in which there should be peace, when war should no more blight the
+world and when the weapons of war should be forged into plowshares and
+pruning hooks? Leaving matters of theology aside, are not these the
+principles which make Judaism a living religion to-day for so many?
+And I say to you, Jonathan, that Socialism is not only not opposed to
+these things, but they can only be realized under Socialism.</p>
+
+<p>So with Christianity. In its broadest sense, leaving aside all matters
+of a supernatural character, concerning ourselves only with the
+relation of the religion to life, to its material problems, we find in
+Christianity the same great faith in the coming of universal peace and
+brotherhood, the same defense of the poor and the oppressed, the same
+scathing rebuke of the oppressor, that we find in Judaism. There is
+the same relentless scourge of the despoilers, of those who devour
+widows houses. And again I say that Socialism is not only not opposed
+to the great social ideals of Christianity, but it <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_158" id="Page_158">[158]</a></span>is the only means
+whereby they may be realized. And the same thing is true of the
+teachings of Confucius; Buddha and Mahomet. The great social ideals
+common to all the world's religions can never be attained under
+capitalism. Not till the Socialist state is reached will the Golden
+Rule, common to all the great religions, be possible as a rule of
+life. No ethical life is possible except as the outgrowing of just and
+harmonic economic relations; until it is rooted in proper economic
+soil.</p>
+
+<p>No, Jonathan, it is not true that Socialism is antagonistic to
+religion. With beliefs and speculations concerning the origin of the
+universe it has nothing to do. It has nothing to do with speculations
+concerning the existence of man after physical death, with belief in
+the immortality of the soul. These are for the individual. Socialism
+concerns itself with man's material life and his relation to his
+fellow man. And there is nothing in the philosophy of Socialism, or
+the platform of the political Socialist movement, antagonistic to the
+social aspects of any religion.</p>
+
+<p>(5) I have already had a good deal to say in the course of this
+discussion concerning the subject of personal freedom. The common idea
+of Socialism as a great bureaucratic government owning and controlling
+everything, deciding what every man and woman must do, is wholly
+wrong. The aim and purpose of the Socialist movement is to make life
+more free for the individual, and not to make it less free. Socialism
+means equality of opportunity for every child born into the world; it
+means doing away with class privilege; it means doing away with the
+ownership by the few of the things upon which the lives of the many
+depend, through which the many are exploited by the few. Do you see
+how individuals are to be enslaved through the <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_159" id="Page_159">[159]</a></span>destruction of the
+power of a few over many, Jonathan? Think it out!</p>
+
+<p>It is in the private ownership of social resources, and the private
+control of social opportunities, that the essence of tyranny lies. Let
+me ask you, my friend, whether you feel yourself robbed of any part of
+your personal liberty when you go to a public library and take out a
+book to read, or into one of our public art galleries to look upon
+great pictures which you could never otherwise see? Is it not rather a
+fact that your life is thereby enriched and broadened; that instead of
+taking anything from you these things add to your enjoyment and to
+your power? Do you feel that you are robbed of any element of your
+personal freedom through the action of the city government in making
+parks for your recreation, providing hospitals to care for you in case
+of accident or illness, maintaining a fire department to protect you
+against the ravages of fire? Do you feel that in maintaining schools,
+baths, hospitals, parks, museums, public lighting service, water,
+streets and street cleaning service, the city government is taking
+away your personal liberties? I ask these questions, Jonathan, for the
+reason that all these things contain the elements of Socialism.</p>
+
+<p>When you go into a government post-office and pay two cents for the
+service of having a letter carried right across the country, knowing
+that every person must pay the same as you and can enjoy the same
+right as you, do you feel that you are less free than when you go into
+an express company's office and pay the price they demand for taking
+your package? Does it really help you to enjoy yourself, to feel
+yourself more free, to know that in the case of the express company's
+service only part of your money will be used to pay the cost of
+carrying the <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_160" id="Page_160">[160]</a></span>package; that the larger part will go to bribe
+legislators, to corrupt public officials and to build up huge fortunes
+for a few investors? The post-office is not a perfect example of
+Socialism: there are too many private grafters battening upon the
+postal system, the railway companies plunder it and the great mass of
+the clerks and carriers are underpaid. But so far as the principles of
+social organization and equal charges for everybody go they are
+socialistic. The government does not try to compel you to write
+letters any more than the private company tries to compel you to send
+packages. If you said that, rather than use the postal system, you
+would carry your own letter across the continent, even if you decided
+to walk all the way, the government would not try to stop you, any
+more than the express company would try to stop you from carrying your
+trunk on your shoulder across the country. But in the case of the
+express company you must pay tribute to men who have been shrewd
+enough to exploit a social necessity for their private gain.</p>
+
+<p>Do you really imagine, Jonathan, that in those cities where the street
+railways, for example, are in the hands of the people there is a loss
+of personal liberty as a result; that because the people who use the
+street railways do not have to pay tribute to a corporation they are
+less free than they would otherwise be? So far as these things are
+owned by the people and democratically managed in the interests of
+all, they are socialistic and an appeal to such concrete facts as
+these is far better than any amount of abstract reasoning. You are not
+a closet philosopher, interested in fine-spun theories, but a
+practical man, graduated from the great school of hard experience. For
+you, if I am not mistaken, Garfield's <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_161" id="Page_161">[161]</a></span>aphorism, that "An ounce of
+fact is worth many tons of theory," is true.</p>
+
+<p>So I want to ask you finally concerning this question of personal
+liberty whether you think you would be less free than you are to-day
+if your Pittsburg foundries and mills, instead of belonging to
+corporations organized for the purpose of making profit, belonged to
+the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and if they were operated for the
+common good instead of as now to serve the interests of a few. Would
+you be less free if, instead of a corporation trying to make the
+workers toil as many hours as possible for as little pay as possible,
+naturally and consistently avoiding as far as possible the expenditure
+of time and money upon safety appliances and other means of protecting
+the health and lives of the workers, the mills were operated upon the
+principle of guarding the health and lives of the workers as much as
+possible, reducing the hours of labor to a minimum and paying them for
+their work as much as possible? Is it a sensible fear, my friend, that
+the people of any country will be less free as they acquire more power
+over their own lives? You see, Jonathan, I want you to take a
+practical view of the matter.</p>
+
+<p>(6) The cry that Socialism would reduce all men and women to one dull
+level is another bogey which frightens a great many good and wise
+people. It has been answered thousands of times by Socialist writers
+and you will find it discussed in most of the popular books and
+pamphlets published in the interest of the Socialist propaganda. I
+shall therefore dismiss it very briefly.</p>
+
+<p>Like many other objections, this rests upon an entire misapprehension
+of what Socialism really means. The people who make it have got firmly
+into their minds the <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_162" id="Page_162">[162]</a></span>idea that Socialism aims to make all men equal;
+to devise some plan for removing the inequalities with which they are
+endowed by nature. They fear that, in order to realize this ideal of
+equality, the strong will be held down to the level of the weak, the
+daring to the level of the timid, the wisest to the level of the least
+wise. That is their conception of the equality of which Socialists
+talk. And I am free to say, Jonathan, that I do not wonder that
+sensible men should oppose such equality as that.</p>
+
+<p>Even if it were possible, through the adoption of some system of
+stirpiculture, to breed all human beings to a common type, so that
+they would all be tall or short, fat or thin, light or dark, according
+to choice, it would not be a very desirable ideal, would it? And if we
+could get everybody to think exactly the same thoughts, to admire
+exactly the same things, to have exactly the same mental powers and
+exactly the same measure of moral strength and weakness, I do not
+think <i>that</i> would be a very desirable ideal. The world of human
+beings would then be just as dull and uninspiring as a waxwork show.
+Imagine yourself in a city where every house was exactly like every
+other house in all particulars, even to its furnishings; imagine all
+the people being exactly the same height and weight, looking exactly
+alike, dressed exactly alike, eating exactly alike, going to bed and
+rising at the same time, thinking exactly alike and feeling exactly
+alike&mdash;how would you like to live in such a city, Jonathan? The city
+or state of Absolute Equality is only a fool's dream.</p>
+
+<p>No sane man or woman wants absolute equality, friend Jonathan, for it
+is as undesirable as it is unimaginable. What Socialism wants is
+equality of opportunity merely. No Socialist wants to pull down the
+strong to the level of the weak, the wise to the level of the less
+wise. <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_163" id="Page_163">[163]</a></span>Socialism does not imply pulling anybody down. It does not
+imply a great plain of humanity with no mountain peaks of genius or
+character. It is not opposed to natural inequalities, but only to
+man-made inequalities. Its only protest is against these artificial
+inequalities, products of man's ignorance and greed. It does not aim
+to pull down the highest, but to lift up the lowest; it does not want
+to put a load of disadvantage upon the strong and gifted, but it wants
+to take off the heavy burdens of disadvantage which keep others from
+rising. In a word, Socialism implies nothing more than giving every
+child born into the world equal opportunities, so that only the
+inequalities of Nature remain. Don't you believe in <i>that</i>, my friend?</p>
+
+<p>Here are two babies, just born into the world. Wee, helpless seedlings
+of humanity, they are wonderfully alike in their helplessness. One
+lies in a tenement upon a mean bed, the other in a mansion upon a bed
+of wonderful richness. But if they were both removed to the same
+surroundings it would be impossible to tell one from the other. It has
+happened, you know, that babies have been mixed up in this way, the
+child of a poor servant girl taking the place of the child of a
+countess. Scientists tell us that Nature is wonderfully democratic,
+and that, at the moment of birth, there is no physical difference
+between the babies of the richest and the babies of the poorest. It is
+only afterward that man-made inequalities of conditions and
+opportunities make such a wide difference between them.</p>
+
+<p>Look at our two babies a moment: no man can tell what infinite
+possibilities lie behind those mystery-laden eyes. It may be that we
+are looking upon a future Newton and another Savonarola, or upon a
+greater than Edison and a greater than Lincoln. No man knows what
+<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_164" id="Page_164">[164]</a></span>infinitude of good or ill is germinating back of those little puckered
+brows, nor which of the cries may develop into a voice that will set
+the hearts of men aflame and stir them to glorious deeds. Or it may be
+that both are of the common clay, that neither will be more than an
+average man, representing the common level in physical and mental
+equipment.</p>
+
+<p>But I ask you, friend Jonathan, is it less than justice to demand
+equal opportunities for both? Is it fair that one child shall be
+carefully nurtured amid healthful surroundings, and given a chance to
+develop all that is in him, and that the other shall be cradled in
+poverty, neglected, poorly nurtured in a poor hovel where pestilence
+lingers, and denied an opportunity to develop physically, mentally and
+morally? Is it right to watch and tend one of the human seedlings and
+to neglect the other? If, by chance of Nature's inscrutable working,
+the babe of the tenement came into the world endowed with the greater
+possibilities of the two, if the tenement mother upon her mean bed
+bore into the world in her agony a spark of divine fire of genius, the
+soul of an artist like Leonardo da Vinci, or of a poet like Keats, is
+it less than a calamity that it should die&mdash;choked by conditions which
+only ignorance and greed have produced?</p>
+
+<p>Give all the children of men equal opportunities, leaving only the
+inequalities of Nature to manifest themselves, and there will be no
+need to fear a dull level of humanity. There will be hewers of wood
+and drawers of water content to do the work they can; there will be
+scientists and inventors, forever enlarging man's kingdom in the
+universe; there will be makers of songs and dreamers of dreams, to
+inspire the world. Socialism wants to unbind the souls of men, setting
+them free for the highest and best that is in them.</p>
+
+<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_165" id="Page_165">[165]</a></span>Do you know the story of Prometheus, friend Jonathan? It is, of
+course, a myth, but it serves as an illustration of my present point.
+Prometheus, for ridiculing the gods, was bound to a rock upon Mount
+Caucasus, by order of Jupiter, where daily for thirty years a vulture
+came and tore at his liver, feeding upon it. Then there came to his
+aid Hercules, who unbound the tortured victim and set him free. Like
+another Prometheus, the soul of man to-day is bound to a rock&mdash;the
+rock of capitalism. The vulture of Greed tears the victim,
+remorselessly and unceasingly. And now, to break the chains, to set
+the soul of man free, Hercules comes in the form of the Socialist
+movement. It is nothing less than this; my friend. In the last
+analysis, it is the bondage of the soul which counts for most in our
+indictment of capitalism and the liberation of the soul is the goal
+toward which we are striving.</p>
+
+<p>It is to-day, under capitalism, that men are reduced to a dull level.
+The great mass of the people live dull, sordid lives, their
+individuality relentlessly crushed out. The modern workman has no
+chance to express any individuality in his work, for he is part of a
+great machine, as much so as any one of the many levers and cogs.
+Capitalism makes humanity appear as a great plain with a few peaks
+immense distances apart&mdash;a dull level of mental and moral attainment
+with a few giants. I say to you in all seriousness, Jonathan, that if
+nothing better were possible I should want to pray with the poet
+Browning,&mdash;</p>
+
+<div class="poem"><div class="stanza">
+<span class="i0">Make no more giants, God&mdash;<br /></span>
+<span class="i0">But elevate the race at once!<br /></span>
+</div></div>
+
+<p>But I don't believe that. I am satisfied that when we destroy man-made
+inequalities, leaving only the <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_166" id="Page_166">[166]</a></span>inequalities of Nature's making, there
+will be no need to fear the dull level of life. When all the chains of
+ignorance and greed have been struck from the Prometheus-like human
+soul, then, and not till then, will the soul of man be free to soar
+upward.</p>
+
+<p>(7) For the reasons already indicated, Socialism would not destroy the
+incentive to progress. It is possible that a stagnation would result
+from any attempt to establish absolute equality such as I have already
+described. If it were the aim of Socialism to stamp out all
+individuality, this objection would be well founded, it seems to me.
+But that is not the aim of Socialism.</p>
+
+<p>The people who make this objection seem to think that the only
+incentive to progress comes from a few men and their hope and desire
+to be masters of the lives of others, but that is not true. Greed is
+certainly a powerful incentive to some kinds of progress, but the
+history of the world shows that there are other and nobler incentives.
+The hope of getting somebody else's property is a powerful incentive
+to the burglar and has led to the invention of all kinds of tools and
+ingenious methods, but we do not hesitate to take away that incentive
+to that kind of "progress." The hope of getting power to exploit the
+people acts as a powerful incentive to great corporations to devise
+schemes to defeat the laws of the nation, to corrupt legislators and
+judges, and otherwise assail the liberties of the people. That, also,
+is "progress" of a kind, but we do not hesitate to try to take away
+that incentive.</p>
+
+<p>Even to-day, Jonathan, Greed is not the most powerful incentive in the
+world. The greatest statesmanship in the world is not inspired by
+greed, but by love of country, the desire for the approbation and
+confidence of others, and numerous other motives. Greed never inspired
+a <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_167" id="Page_167">[167]</a></span>great teacher, a great artist, a great scientist, a great inventor,
+a great soldier, a great writer, a great poet, a great physician, a
+great scholar or a great statesman. Love of country, love of fame,
+love of beauty, love of doing, love of humanity&mdash;all these have meant
+infinitely more than greed in the progress of the world.</p>
+
+<p>(8) Finally, Jonathan, I want to consider your objection that
+Socialism is impossible until human nature is changed. It is an old
+objection which crops up in every discussion of Socialism. People talk
+about "human nature" as though it were something fixed and definite;
+as if there were certain quantities of various qualities and instincts
+in every human being, and that these never changed from age to age.
+The primitive savage in many lands went out to seek a wife armed with
+a club. He hunted the woman of his choice as he would hunt a beast,
+capturing and clubbing her into submission. <i>That</i> was human nature,
+Jonathan. The modern man in civilized countries, when he goes seeking
+a wife, hunts the woman of his choice with flattery, bon-bons,
+flowers, opera tickets and honeyed words. Instead of a brute clubbing
+a woman almost to death, we see the pleading lover, cautiously and
+earnestly wooing his bride. And that, too, is human nature. The
+African savages suffering from the dread "Sleeping Sickness" and the
+poor Indian ryots suffering from Bubonic Plague see their fellows
+dying by thousands and think angry gods are punishing them. All they
+can hope to do is to appease the gods by gifts or by mutilating their
+own poor bodies. That is human nature, my friend. But a great
+scientist like Dr. Koch, of Berlin, goes into the African centres of
+pestilence and death, seeks the germ of the disease, drains swamps,
+purifies water, isolates the infected cases and proves himself more
+powerful than the poor natives' <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_168" id="Page_168">[168]</a></span>gods. And that is human nature.
+Outside the gates of the Chicago stockyards, I have seen crowds of men
+fighting for work as hungry dogs fight over a bone. That was human
+nature. I have seen a man run down in the streets and at once there
+was a crowd ready to lift him up and to do anything for him that they
+could. It was the very opposite spirit to that shown by the brutish,
+snarling, cursing, fighting men at the stockyards, but it was just as
+much human nature.</p>
+
+<p>The great law of human development, that which expresses itself in
+what is so vaguely termed human nature, is that man is a creature of
+his environment, that self-preservation is a fundamental instinct in
+human beings. Socialism is not an idealistic attempt to substitute
+some other law of life for that of self-preservation. On the contrary,
+it rests entirely upon that instinct of self-preservation. Here are
+two classes opposed to each other in modern society. One class is
+small but exceedingly powerful, so that, despite its disadvantage in
+size, it is the ruling class, controlling the larger class and
+exploiting it. When we ask ourselves how that is possible, how it
+happens that the smaller class rules the larger, we soon find that the
+members of the smaller class have become conscious of their interests
+and the fact that these can be best promoted through organization and
+association. Thus conscious of their class interests, and acting
+together by a class instinct, they have been able to rule the world.
+But the workers, the class that is much stronger numerically, have
+been slower to recognize their class interests. Inevitably, however,
+they are developing a similar class sense, or instinct. Uniting in the
+economic struggle at first, and then, in the political struggle in
+order that they may further their economic interests through the
+channels of government, it is easy <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_169" id="Page_169">[169]</a></span>to see that only one outcome of
+the struggle is possible. By sheer force of numbers, the workers must
+win, Jonathan.</p>
+
+<p>The Socialist movement, then, is not something foreign to human
+nature, but it is an inevitable part of the development of human
+society. The fundamental instinct of the human species makes the
+Socialist movement inevitable and irresistible. Socialism does not
+require a change in human nature, but human nature does require a
+change in society. And that change is Socialism. It is perhaps the
+deepest and profoundest instinct in human beings that they are forever
+striving to secure the largest possible material comfort, forever
+striving to secure more of good in return for less of ill. And in that
+lies the great hope of the future, Jonathan. The great Demos is
+learning that poverty is unnecessary, that there is plenty for all;
+that none need suffer want; that it is possible to suffer less and to
+live more; to have more of good while suffering less of ill. The face
+of Demos is turned toward the future, toward the dawning of
+Socialism.</p>
+
+<br />
+<br />
+<br />
+<br />
+<a name="XI" id="XI"></a><hr />
+<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_170" id="Page_170">[170]</a></span><br />
+
+<h3>XI<span class="totoc"><a href="#toc">ToC</a></span></h3>
+
+<h4>WHAT TO DO</h4>
+
+<div class="poem"><div class="stanza">
+<span class="i0">Are you in earnest? Seize this very minute.<br /></span>
+<span class="i0">What you can do, or dream you can, begin it!<br /></span>
+<span class="i0">Boldness has genius, power and magic in it.<br /></span>
+<span class="i0">Only engage and then the mind grows heated;<br /></span>
+<span class="i0">Begin, and then the work will be completed.&mdash;<i>Goethe.</i><br /></span>
+</div></div>
+
+<div class="block"><p>Apart from those convulsive upheavals that escape all forecast
+and are sometimes the final supreme resource of history
+brought to bay, there is only one sovereign method for
+Socialism&mdash;the conquest of a legal majority.&mdash;<i>Jean Jaur&egrave;s.</i></p></div>
+<br />
+<br />
+
+<p>When one is convinced of the justice and wisdom of the Socialist idea,
+when its inspiration has begun to quicken the pulse and to stir the
+soul, it is natural that one should desire to do something to express
+one's convictions and to add something, however little, to the
+movement. Not only that, but the first impulse is to seek the
+comradeship of other Socialists and to work with them for the
+realization of the Socialist ideal.</p>
+
+<p>Of course, the first duty of every sincere believer in Socialism is to
+vote for it. No matter how hopeless the contest may seem, nor how far
+distant the electoral triumph, the first duty is to vote for
+Socialism. If you believe in Socialism, my friend, even though your
+vote should be the only Socialist vote in your city, you could not be
+true to yourself and to your faith and vote any other ticket. I know
+that it requires courage to do this <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_171" id="Page_171">[171]</a></span>sometimes. I know that there are
+many who will deride the action and say that you are "wasting your
+vote," but no vote is ever wasted when it is cast for a principle,
+Jonathan. For, after all, what is a vote? Is it not an expression of
+the citizen's conviction concerning the sort of government he desires?
+How, then can his vote be thrown away if it really expresses his
+conviction? He is entitled to a single voice, and provided that he
+avails himself of his right to declare through the ballot box his
+conviction, no matter whether he stands alone or with ten thousand,
+his vote is not thrown away.</p>
+
+<p>The only vote that is wasted is the vote that is cast for something
+other than the voter's earnest conviction, the vote of cowardice and
+compromise. The man who votes for what he fully believes in, even if
+he is the only one so voting, does not lose his vote, waste it or use
+it unwisely. The only use of a vote is to declare the kind of
+government the voter believes in. But the man who votes for something
+he does not want, for something less than his convictions, that man
+loses his vote or throws it away, even though he votes on the winning
+side. Get this well into your mind, friend Jonathan, for there are
+cities in which the Socialists would sweep everything before them and
+be elected to power if all the people who believe in Socialism, but
+refuse to vote for it on the ground that they would be throwing away
+their votes, would be true to themselves and vote according to their
+inmost convictions.</p>
+
+<p>I say that we must vote for Socialism, Jonathan, because I believe
+that, in this country at least, the change from capitalism must be
+brought about through patient and wise political action. I have no
+doubt that the economic organizations, the trade unions, will help,
+and I can even conceive the possibility of their being the chief
+<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_172" id="Page_172">[172]</a></span>agencies in the transformation in society. That possibility, however,
+seems exceedingly remote, while the possibility of effecting the
+change through the ballot box is undeniable. Once let the
+working-class of America make up its mind to vote for Socialism,
+nothing can prevent its coming. And unless the workers are wise enough
+and united enough to vote together for Socialism, Jonathan, it is
+scarcely likely that they will be able to adopt other methods with
+success.</p>
+
+<p>But as voting for Socialism is the most obvious duty of all who are
+convinced of its justness and wisdom, so it is the least duty. To cast
+your vote for Socialism is the very least contribution to the movement
+which you can make. The next step is to spread the light, to proclaim
+the principles of Socialism to others. To <i>be</i> a Socialist is the
+first step; to <i>make</i> Socialists is the second step. Every Socialist
+ought to be a missionary for the great cause. By talking with your
+friends and by circulating suitable Socialist literature, you can do
+effective work for the cause, work not less effective than that of the
+orator addressing big audiences. Don't forget, my friend, that in the
+Socialist movement there is work for <i>you</i> to do.</p>
+
+<p>Naturally, you will want to be an efficient worker for Socialism, to
+be able to work successfully. Therefore you will need to join the
+organized movement, to become a member of the Socialist Party. In this
+way, working with many other comrades, you will be able to accomplish
+much more than as an individual working alone. So I ask you to join
+the party, friend Jonathan, and to assume a fair and just share of the
+responsibilities of the movement.</p>
+
+<p>In the Socialist party organization there are no "Leaders" in the
+sense in which that term is used in <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_173" id="Page_173">[173]</a></span>connection with the political
+parties of capitalism. There are men who by virtue of long service and
+exceptional talents of various kinds are looked up to by their
+comrades, and whose words carry great weight. But the government of
+the organization is in the hands of the rank and file and everything
+is directed from the bottom upwards, not from the top downwards. The
+party is not owned by a few people who provide its funds, for these
+are provided by the entire membership. Each member of the party pays a
+small monthly fee, and the amounts thus contributed are divided
+between the local, state and national divisions of the organization.
+It is thus a party of the people, by the people and for the people,
+which bosses cannot corrupt or betray.</p>
+
+<p>So I would urge you, Jonathan, and all who believe in Socialism, to
+join the party organization. Get into the movement in earnest and try
+to keep posted upon all that relates to it. Read some of the papers
+published by the party&mdash;at least two papers representing different
+phases of the movement. There are, always and everywhere, at least two
+distinct tendencies in the Socialist movement, a radical wing and a
+more moderate wing. Whichever of these appeals to you as the right
+tendency, you will need to keep informed as to both.</p>
+
+<p>Above all, my friend, I would like to have you <i>study</i> Socialism. I
+don't mean merely that you should read a Socialist propaganda paper or
+two, or a few pamphlets: I do not call that studying Socialism. Such
+papers and pamphlets are very good in their way; they are written for
+people who are not Socialists for the purpose of awakening their
+interest. So far as they go they are valuable, but I would not have
+you stop there, Jonathan. I would like to have you push your studies
+beyond them, beyond even the more elaborate discussions of the
+<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_174" id="Page_174">[174]</a></span>subject contained in such books as this. Read the great classics of
+Socialist literature&mdash;and don't be afraid of reading the attacks made
+upon Socialism by its opponents. Study the philosophy of Socialism and
+its economic theories; try to apply them to your personal experience
+and to the events of every day as they are reported in the great
+newspapers. You see, Jonathan, I not only want you to know what
+Socialism is in a very thorough manner, but I also want you to be able
+to teach others in a very thorough manner.</p>
+
+<p>And now, my patient friend, Good Bye! If <i>The Common Sense of
+Socialism</i> has helped you to a clear understanding of Socialism, I
+shall be amply repaid for writing it. I ask you to accept it for
+whatever measure of good it may do and to forgive its shortcomings.
+Others might have written a better book for you, and some day I may do
+better myself&mdash;I do not know. I have honestly tried my best to set the
+claims of Socialism before you in plain language and with comradely
+spirit. And if it succeeds in convincing you and making you a
+Socialist, Jonathan, I shall be satisfied.</p>
+
+<br />
+<br />
+<br />
+<br />
+<a name="APPENDIX_I" id="APPENDIX_I"></a><hr />
+<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_175" id="Page_175">[175]</a></span><br />
+
+<h3>APPENDIX I<span class="totoc"><a href="#toc">ToC</a></span></h3>
+
+<h4>A SUGGESTED COURSE OF READING ON SOCIALISM</h4>
+<br />
+
+<p>The following list of books on various phases of Socialism is
+published in connection with the advice contained on pages 173-174
+relating to the necessity of <i>studying</i> Socialism. The names of the
+publishers are given in each case for the reader's convenience.
+Charles H. Kerr &amp; Company do <i>not</i> sell, or receive orders for, books
+issued by other publishers.</p>
+<br />
+
+<p class="cen">(<i>A</i>) <i>History of Socialism</i></p>
+
+<p>The History of Socialism, by Thomas Kirkup. The Macmillan Company, New
+York. Price $1.50, net.</p>
+
+<p>French and German Socialism in Modern Times, by R.T. Ely. Harper
+Brothers, New York. Price 75 cents.</p>
+
+<p>The History of Socialism in the United States, by Morris Hillquit. The
+Funk &amp; Wagnalls Company, New York. Price $1.75.</p>
+<br />
+
+<p class="cen">(<i>B</i>) <i>Biographies of Socialists</i></p>
+
+<p>Memoirs of Karl Marx, by Wilhelm Liebknecht. Charles H. Kerr &amp;
+Company, Chicago. Price 50 cents.</p>
+
+<p>Ferdinand Lassalle as a Social Reformer, by Eduard Bernstein. Charles
+H. Kerr &amp; Company, Chicago. Price $1.00.</p>
+
+<p>Frederick Engels: His Life and Work, by Karl <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_176" id="Page_176">[176]</a></span>Kautsky. Charles H. Kerr
+&amp; Company, Chicago. Price 10 cents.</p>
+<br />
+
+<p class="cen">(<i>C</i>) <i>General Expositions of Socialism</i></p>
+
+<p>Principles of Scientific Socialism, by Charles H. Vail. Charles H.
+Kerr &amp; Company, Chicago. Price $1.00.</p>
+
+<p>Collectivism, by Emile Vandervelde. Charles H. Kerr &amp; Company,
+Chicago. Price 50 cents.</p>
+
+<p>Socialism: A Summary and Interpretation of Socialist Principles, by
+John Spargo. The Macmillan Company, New York. Price $1.25, net.</p>
+
+<p>The Socialists&mdash;Who They Are and What They Stand For, by John Spargo.
+Charles H. Kerr &amp; Company, Chicago. Price 50 cents.</p>
+
+<p>The Quintessence of Socialism, by Prof. A.E. Schaffle. Charles H. Kerr
+&amp; Company, Chicago. Price $1.00. This is by an opponent of Socialism,
+but is much circulated by Socialists as a fair and lucid statement of
+their principles.</p>
+<br />
+
+<p class="cen">(<i>D</i>) <i>The Philosophy of Socialism</i></p>
+
+<p>The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels. Charles H.
+Kerr &amp; Company, Chicago. In paper at 10 cents. Also superior edition
+in cloth at 50 cents.</p>
+
+<p>Evolution, Social and Organic, by A.M. Lewis. Charles H. Kerr &amp;
+Company, Chicago. Price 50 cents.</p>
+
+<p>The Theoretical System of Karl Marx, by L.B. Boudin. Charles H. Kerr &amp;
+Company, Chicago. Price $1.00.</p>
+
+<p>Socialism, Utopian and Scientific, by F. Engels. Charles H. Kerr &amp;
+Company, Chicago. Price 10 cents in paper, superior edition in cloth
+50 cents.</p>
+
+<p>Mass and Class, by W.J. Ghent. The Macmillan <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_177" id="Page_177">[177]</a></span>Company, New York. Price
+paper 25 cents; cloth $1.25, net.</p>
+<br />
+
+<p class="cen">(<i>E</i>) <i>Economics of Socialism</i></p>
+
+<p>Marxian Economics, by Ernest Untermann. Charles H. Kerr &amp; Company,
+Chicago. Price $1.00.</p>
+
+<p>Wage Labor and Capital, by Karl Marx. Charles H. Kerr &amp; Company,
+Chicago. Price 5 cents.</p>
+
+<p>Value, Price and Profit, by Karl Marx. Charles H. Kerr &amp; Company,
+Chicago. Price 50 cents.</p>
+
+<p>Capital, by Karl Marx. Charles H. Kerr &amp; Company, Chicago. Two
+volumes, price $2.00 each.</p>
+<br />
+
+<p class="cen">(<i>F</i>) <i>Socialism as Related to Special Questions</i></p>
+
+<p>The American Farmer, by A.M. Simons. Charles H. Kerr &amp; Company,
+Chicago. Price 50 cents. An admirable study of agricultural
+conditions.</p>
+
+<p>Socialism and Anarchism, by George Plechanoff. Charles H. Kerr &amp;
+Company, Chicago. Price 50 cents.</p>
+
+<p>Poverty, by Robert Hunter. The Macmillan Company, New York. Price 25
+cents and $1.50.</p>
+
+<p>American Pauperism, by Isador Ladoff. Charles H. Kerr &amp; Company,
+Chicago. Price 50 cents.</p>
+
+<p>The Bitter Cry of the Children, by John Spargo. The Macmillan Company,
+New York. Price $1.50, illustrated.</p>
+
+<p>Class Struggles in America, by A.M. Simons. Charles H. Kerr &amp; Company,
+Chicago. Price 50 cents. A notable application of Socialist theory to
+American history.</p>
+
+<p>Underfed School Children, the Problem and the Remedy. By John Spargo.
+Charles H. Kerr &amp; Company, Chicago. Price 10 cents.</p>
+
+<p>Socialists in French Municipalities, a compilation from <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_178" id="Page_178">[178]</a></span>official
+reports. Charles H. Kerr &amp; Company, Chicago Price 5 cents.</p>
+
+<p>Socialists at Work, by Robert Hunter. The Macmillan Company, New York.
+Price $1.50, net.</p>
+
+<br />
+<br />
+<br />
+<br />
+<a name="APPENDIX_II" id="APPENDIX_II"></a><hr />
+<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_179" id="Page_179">[179]</a></span><br />
+
+<h3>APPENDIX II<span class="totoc"><a href="#toc">ToC</a></span></h3>
+
+<h4>HOW SOCIALIST BOOKS ARE PUBLISHED</h4>
+<br />
+
+<p>Nothing bears more remarkable evidence to the growth of the American
+Socialist movement than the phenomenal development of its literature.
+Even more eloquently than the Socialist vote, this literature tells of
+the onward sweep of Socialism in this country.</p>
+
+<p>Only a few years ago, the entire literature of Socialism published in
+this country was less than the present monthly output. There was
+Bellamy's "Looking Backward," a belated expression of the utopian
+school, not related to modern scientific Socialism, though it
+accomplished considerable good in its day; there were a couple of
+volumes by Professor R.T. Ely, obviously inspired by a desire to be
+fair, but missing the essential principles of Socialism; there were a
+couple of volumes by Laurence Gronlund and there was Sprague's
+"Socialism From Genesis to Revelation." These and a handful of
+pamphlets constituted America's contribution to Socialist literature.</p>
+
+<p>Added to these, were a few books and pamphlets translated from the
+German, most of them written in a heavy, ponderous style which the
+average American worker found exceedingly difficult. The great
+classics of Socialism were not available to any but those able to read
+some other language than English. "Socialism is a foreign movement,"
+said the American complacently.</p>
+
+<p>Even six or seven years ago, the publication of a <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_180" id="Page_180">[180]</a></span>Socialist pamphlet
+by an American writer was regarded as a very notable event in the
+movement and the writer was assured of a certain fame in consequence.</p>
+
+<p>Now, in this year, 1908, it is very different. There are hundreds of
+excellent books and pamphlets available to the American worker and
+student of Socialism, dealing with every conceivable phase of the
+subject. Whereas ten years ago none of the great industrial countries
+of the world had a more meagre Socialist literature than America,
+to-day America leads the world in its output.</p>
+
+<p>Only a few of the many Socialist books have been issued by ordinary
+capitalist publishing houses. Half a dozen volumes by such writers as
+Ghent, Hillquit, Hunter, Spargo and Sinclair exhaust the list. It
+could not be expected that ordinary publishers would issue books and
+pamphlets purposely written for propaganda on the one hand, nor the
+more serious works which are expensive to produce and slow to sell
+upon the other hand.</p>
+
+<p>The Socialists themselves have published all the rest&mdash;the propaganda
+books and pamphlets, the translations of great Socialist classics and
+the important contributions to the literature of Socialist philosophy
+and economics made by American students, many of whom are the products
+of the Socialist movement itself.</p>
+
+<p>They have done these great things through a co-operative publishing
+house, known as Charles H. Kerr &amp; Company (Co-operative). Nearly 2000
+Socialists and sympathizers with Socialism, scattered throughout the
+country, have joined in the work. As shareholders, they have paid ten
+dollars for each share of stock in the enterprise, with no thought of
+ever getting any profits, their only advantage being the ability to
+buy the books issued by the concern at a great reduction.</p>
+
+<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_181" id="Page_181">[181]</a></span>Here is the method: A person buys a share of stock at ten dollars
+(arrangements can be made to pay this by instalments, if desired) and
+he or she can then buy books and pamphlets at a reduction of fifty per
+cent.&mdash;or forty per cent. if sent post or express paid.</p>
+
+<p>Looking over the list of the company's publications, one notes names
+that are famous in this and other countries. Marx, Engels, Kautsky,
+Lassalle, and Liebknecht among the great Germans; Lafargue, Deville
+and Guesde, of France; Ferri and Labriola, of Italy; Hyndman and
+Blatchford, of England; Plechanoff, of Russia; Upton Sinclair, Jack
+London, John Spargo, A.M. Simons, Ernest Untermann and Morris
+Hillquit, of the United States. These, and scores of other names less
+known to the general public.</p>
+
+<p>It is not necessary to give here a complete list of the company's
+publications. Such a list would take up too much room&mdash;and before it
+was published it would become incomplete. The reader who is interested
+had better send a request for a complete list, which will at once be
+forwarded, without cost. We can only take a few books, almost at
+random, to illustrate the great variety of the publications of the
+firm.</p>
+
+<p>You have heard about Karl Marx, the greatest of modern Socialists, and
+naturally you would like to know something about him. Well, at fifty
+cents there is a charming little book of biographical memoirs by his
+friend Liebnecht, well worth reading again and again for its literary
+charm not less than for the loveable character it portrays so
+tenderly. Here, also, is the complete list of the works of Marx yet
+translated into the English language. There is the famous <i>Communist
+Manifesto</i> by Marx and Engels, at ten cents, and the other works of
+Marx up to and including his great <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_182" id="Page_182">[182]</a></span>master-work, <i>Capital</i>, in three
+big volumes at two dollars each&mdash;two of which are already published,
+the other being in course of preparation.</p>
+
+<p>For propaganda purposes, in addition to a big list of cheap pamphlets,
+many of them small enough to enclose in a letter to a friend, there
+are a number of cheap books. These have been specially written for
+beginners, most of them for workingmen. Here, for example, one picks
+out at a random shot Work's "What's So and What Isn't," a breezy
+little book in which all the common questions about Socialism are
+answered in simple language. Or here again we pick up Spargo's "The
+Socialists, Who They Are and What They Stand For," a little book which
+has attained considerable popularity as an easy statement of the
+essence of modern Socialism. For readers of a little more advanced
+type there is "Collectivism," by Emil Vandervelde, the eminent Belgian
+Socialist leader, a wonderful book. This and Engels' "Socialism
+Utopian and Scientific" will lead to books of a more advanced
+character, some of which we must mention. The four books mentioned in
+this paragraph cost fifty cents each, postpaid. They are well printed
+and neatly and durably bound in cloth.</p>
+
+<p>Going a little further, there are two admirable volumes by Antonio
+Labriola, expositions of the fundamental doctrine of Social
+philosophy, called the "Materialist Conception of History," and a
+volume by Austin Lewis, "The Rise of the American Proletarian," in
+which the theory is applied to a phase of American history. These
+books sell at a dollar each, and it would be very hard to find
+anything like the same value in book-making in any other publisher's
+catalogue. Only the co-operation of nearly 2000 Socialist men and
+women makes it possible.</p>
+
+<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_183" id="Page_183">[183]</a></span>For the reader who has got so far, yet finds it impossible to
+undertake a study of the voluminous work of Marx, either for lack of
+leisure or, as often happens, lack of the necessary mental training
+and equipment, there are two splendid books, notable examples of the
+work which American Socialist writers are now putting out. While they
+will never entirely take the place of the great work of Marx,
+nevertheless, whoever has read them with care will have a
+comprehensive grasp of Marxism. They are: L.B. Boudin's "The
+Theoretical System of Karl Marx" and Ernest Untermann's "Marxian
+Economics." These also are published at a dollar a volume.</p>
+
+<p>Perhaps you know some man who declares that "There are no classes in
+America," who loudly boasts that we have no class struggles: just get
+a copy of A.M. Simon's "Class Struggles in America," with its
+startling array of historical references. It will convince him if it
+is possible to get an idea into his head. Or you want to get a good
+book to lend to your farmer friends who want to know how Socialism
+touches them: get another volume by Simons, called "The American
+Farmer." You will never regret it. Or perhaps you are troubled about
+the charge that Socialism and Anarchism are related. If so, get
+Plechanoff's "Anarchism and Socialism" and read it carefully. These
+three books are published at fifty cents each.</p>
+
+<p>Are you interested in science? Do you want to know the reason why
+Socialists speak of Marx as doing for Sociology what Darwin did for
+biology? If so, you will want to read "Evolution, Social and Organic,"
+by Arthur Morrow Lewis, price fifty cents. And you will be delighted
+beyond your powers of expression with the several volumes of the
+Library of Science for the <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_184" id="Page_184">[184]</a></span>Workers, published at the same price. "The
+Evolution of Man" and "The Triumph of Life," both by the famous German
+scientist, Dr. Wilhelm Boelsche; "The Making of the World" and "The
+End of the World," both by Dr. M. Wilhelm Meyer; and "Germs of Mind in
+Plants," by R.H. France, are some of the volumes which the present
+writer read with absorbing interest himself and then read them to a
+lot of boys and girls, to their equal delight.</p>
+
+<p>One could go on and on talking about this wonderful list of books
+which marks the tremendous intellectual strength of the American
+Socialist movement. Here is the real explosive, a weapon far more
+powerful than dynamite bombs! Socialists must win in a battle of
+brains&mdash;and here is ammunition for them.</p>
+
+<p>Individual Socialists who can afford it should take shares of stock in
+this great enterprise. If they can pay the ten dollars all at once,
+well and good; if not, they can pay in monthly instalments. And every
+Socialist local ought to own a share of stock in the company, if for
+no other reason than that literature can then be bought much more
+cheaply than otherwise. But of course there is an even greater reason
+than that&mdash;every Socialist local ought to take pride in the
+development of the enterprise which has done so much to develop a
+great American Socialist literature.</p>
+
+<p>Fuller particulars will be sent upon application. Address:</p>
+<br />
+
+<h4>CHARLES H. KERR &amp; COMPANY, (Co-operative)<br />
+118 West Kinzie street, Chicago</h4>
+
+<br />
+<hr />
+<br />
+
+<div class="tr">
+<p class="cen"><a name="TN" id="TN"></a>Typographical errors corrected in text:</p>
+<br />
+Page &nbsp;&nbsp;24: &nbsp;Amerca replaced with America<br />
+Page &nbsp;&nbsp;74: &nbsp;captalists replaced with capitalists<br />
+Page &nbsp;&nbsp;76: &nbsp;beatiful replaced with beautiful<br />
+Page &nbsp;&nbsp;90: &nbsp;detroy replaced with destroy<br />
+Page &nbsp;&nbsp;99: &nbsp;princples replaced with principles<br />
+Page 101: &nbsp;machinsts replaced with machinists<br />
+Page 116: &nbsp;Satndard replaced with Standard<br />
+Page 131: &nbsp;Substract replaced with Subtract<br />
+</div>
+
+<br />
+<hr />
+<br />
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+<pre>
+
+
+
+
+
+End of Project Gutenberg's The Common Sense of Socialism, by John Spargo
+
+*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE COMMON SENSE OF SOCIALISM ***
+
+***** This file should be named 24340-h.htm or 24340-h.zip *****
+This and all associated files of various formats will be found in:
+        http://www.gutenberg.org/2/4/3/4/24340/
+
+Produced by Audrey Longhurst, Jeannie Howse and the Online
+Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net
+
+
+Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions
+will be renamed.
+
+Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no
+one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation
+(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without
+permission and without paying copyright royalties.  Special rules,
+set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to
+copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to
+protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark.  Project
+Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you
+charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission.  If you
+do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the
+rules is very easy.  You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose
+such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and
+research.  They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do
+practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks.  Redistribution is
+subject to the trademark license, especially commercial
+redistribution.
+
+
+
+*** START: FULL LICENSE ***
+
+THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
+PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
+
+To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free
+distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
+(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project
+Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project
+Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at
+http://gutenberg.org/license).
+
+
+Section 1.  General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic works
+
+1.A.  By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
+and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
+(trademark/copyright) agreement.  If you do not agree to abide by all
+the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy
+all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession.
+If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the
+terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or
+entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
+
+1.B.  "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark.  It may only be
+used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
+agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement.  There are a few
+things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works
+even without complying with the full terms of this agreement.  See
+paragraph 1.C below.  There are a lot of things you can do with Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement
+and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works.  See paragraph 1.E below.
+
+1.C.  The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation"
+or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic works.  Nearly all the individual works in the
+collection are in the public domain in the United States.  If an
+individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are
+located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from
+copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative
+works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg
+are removed.  Of course, we hope that you will support the Project
+Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by
+freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of
+this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with
+the work.  You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by
+keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project
+Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others.
+
+1.D.  The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
+what you can do with this work.  Copyright laws in most countries are in
+a constant state of change.  If you are outside the United States, check
+the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement
+before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or
+creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project
+Gutenberg-tm work.  The Foundation makes no representations concerning
+the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United
+States.
+
+1.E.  Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
+
+1.E.1.  The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate
+access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently
+whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the
+phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project
+Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed,
+copied or distributed:
+
+This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
+almost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or
+re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
+with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org
+
+1.E.2.  If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived
+from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is
+posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied
+and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees
+or charges.  If you are redistributing or providing access to a work
+with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the
+work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1
+through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the
+Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or
+1.E.9.
+
+1.E.3.  If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted
+with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
+must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional
+terms imposed by the copyright holder.  Additional terms will be linked
+to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the
+permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.
+
+1.E.4.  Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
+work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm.
+
+1.E.5.  Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
+electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
+prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
+active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
+Gutenberg-tm License.
+
+1.E.6.  You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
+compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any
+word processing or hypertext form.  However, if you provide access to or
+distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than
+"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version
+posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org),
+you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a
+copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon
+request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other
+form.  Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
+
+1.E.7.  Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
+performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works
+unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
+
+1.E.8.  You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
+access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided
+that
+
+- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
+     the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method
+     you already use to calculate your applicable taxes.  The fee is
+     owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he
+     has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the
+     Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.  Royalty payments
+     must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you
+     prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax
+     returns.  Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and
+     sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the
+     address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to
+     the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation."
+
+- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
+     you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
+     does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+     License.  You must require such a user to return or
+     destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium
+     and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of
+     Project Gutenberg-tm works.
+
+- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any
+     money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
+     electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days
+     of receipt of the work.
+
+- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
+     distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works.
+
+1.E.9.  If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set
+forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from
+both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael
+Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark.  Contact the
+Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.
+
+1.F.
+
+1.F.1.  Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
+effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
+public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm
+collection.  Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain
+"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or
+corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual
+property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a
+computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by
+your equipment.
+
+1.F.2.  LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right
+of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
+Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
+Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
+liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
+fees.  YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
+LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
+PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH F3.  YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
+TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
+LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
+INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
+DAMAGE.
+
+1.F.3.  LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
+defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
+receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
+written explanation to the person you received the work from.  If you
+received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with
+your written explanation.  The person or entity that provided you with
+the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a
+refund.  If you received the work electronically, the person or entity
+providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to
+receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund.  If the second copy
+is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further
+opportunities to fix the problem.
+
+1.F.4.  Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
+in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER
+WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
+WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
+
+1.F.5.  Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
+warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages.
+If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the
+law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be
+interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by
+the applicable state law.  The invalidity or unenforceability of any
+provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
+
+1.F.6.  INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
+trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
+providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance
+with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production,
+promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works,
+harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees,
+that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do
+or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm
+work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any
+Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause.
+
+
+Section  2.  Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of
+electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers
+including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers.  It exists
+because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from
+people in all walks of life.
+
+Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
+assistance they need, is critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's
+goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will
+remain freely available for generations to come.  In 2001, the Project
+Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
+and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations.
+To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
+and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4
+and the Foundation web page at http://www.pglaf.org.
+
+
+Section 3.  Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
+Foundation
+
+The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit
+501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
+state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
+Revenue Service.  The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification
+number is 64-6221541.  Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at
+http://pglaf.org/fundraising.  Contributions to the Project Gutenberg
+Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent
+permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws.
+
+The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S.
+Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered
+throughout numerous locations.  Its business office is located at
+809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email
+business@pglaf.org.  Email contact links and up to date contact
+information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official
+page at http://pglaf.org
+
+For additional contact information:
+     Dr. Gregory B. Newby
+     Chief Executive and Director
+     gbnewby@pglaf.org
+
+
+Section 4.  Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
+Literary Archive Foundation
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide
+spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
+increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
+freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest
+array of equipment including outdated equipment.  Many small donations
+($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
+status with the IRS.
+
+The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
+charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
+States.  Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
+considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
+with these requirements.  We do not solicit donations in locations
+where we have not received written confirmation of compliance.  To
+SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any
+particular state visit http://pglaf.org
+
+While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
+have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
+against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
+approach us with offers to donate.
+
+International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
+any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
+outside the United States.  U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
+
+Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation
+methods and addresses.  Donations are accepted in a number of other
+ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations.
+To donate, please visit: http://pglaf.org/donate
+
+
+Section 5.  General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works.
+
+Professor Michael S. Hart is the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm
+concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared
+with anyone.  For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project
+Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.
+
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed
+editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S.
+unless a copyright notice is included.  Thus, we do not necessarily
+keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.
+
+
+Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility:
+
+     http://www.gutenberg.org
+
+This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm,
+including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
+Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
+subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
+
+
+</pre>
+
+</body>
+</html>
diff --git a/24340-h/images/imagep048.jpg b/24340-h/images/imagep048.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..cec4d64
--- /dev/null
+++ b/24340-h/images/imagep048.jpg
diff --git a/24340-h/images/imagep049.jpg b/24340-h/images/imagep049.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..7de8176
--- /dev/null
+++ b/24340-h/images/imagep049.jpg
diff --git a/24340.txt b/24340.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..3a74756
--- /dev/null
+++ b/24340.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,6089 @@
+The Project Gutenberg EBook of The Common Sense of Socialism, by John Spargo
+
+This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
+almost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or
+re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
+with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org
+
+
+Title: The Common Sense of Socialism
+       A Series of Letters Addressed to Jonathan Edwards, of Pittsburg
+
+Author: John Spargo
+
+Release Date: January 17, 2008 [EBook #24340]
+
+Language: English
+
+Character set encoding: ASCII
+
+*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE COMMON SENSE OF SOCIALISM ***
+
+
+
+
+Produced by Audrey Longhurst, Jeannie Howse and the Online
+Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net
+
+
+
+
+
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+    +-----------------------------------------------------------+
+    | Transcriber's Note:                                       |
+    |                                                           |
+    | Inconsistent hyphenation in the original document has     |
+    | been preserved.                                           |
+    |                                                           |
+    | Obvious typographical errors have been corrected. For     |
+    | a complete list, please see the end of this document.     |
+    |                                                           |
+    +-----------------------------------------------------------+
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+
+
+
+THE COMMON SENSE
+OF SOCIALISM
+
+
+A SERIES OF LETTERS ADDRESSED TO
+JONATHAN EDWARDS, OF PITTSBURG
+
+
+BY
+
+JOHN SPARGO
+
+Author of "The Bitter Cry of the Children," "Socialism: A
+Summary and Interpretation of Socialist Principles,"
+"The Socialists: Who They Are and What They
+Stand For," "Capitalist and Laborer,"
+Etc., Etc., Etc.
+
+
+CHICAGO
+CHARLES H. KERR & COMPANY
+1911
+
+
+
+
+Copyright 1909
+BY CHARLES H. KERR & COMPANY
+
+
+
+
+TO
+
+GEORGE H. STROBELL
+
+AS
+A TOKEN OF FRIENDSHIP AND LOVE
+THIS LITTLE BOOK IS AFFECTIONATELY INSCRIBED
+
+
+
+
+CONTENTS
+
+
+CHAPTER                                PAGE
+
+I BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION                                        1
+
+II WHAT'S THE MATTER WITH AMERICA?                              4
+
+III THE TWO CLASSES IN THE NATION                              12
+
+IV HOW WEALTH IS PRODUCED AND HOW IT IS DISTRIBUTED            26
+
+V THE DRONES AND THE BEES                                      44
+
+VI THE ROOT OF THE EVIL                                        68
+
+VII FROM COMPETITION TO MONOPOLY                               81
+
+VIII WHAT SOCIALISM IS AND WHAT IT IS NOT                      94
+
+IX WHAT SOCIALISM IS AND WHAT IT IS NOT--_Continued_          118
+
+X THE OBJECTIONS TO SOCIALISM ANSWERED                        136
+
+XI WHAT SHALL WE DO, THEN?                                    170
+
+
+APPENDICES:
+
+I A SUGGESTED COURSE OF READING ON SOCIALISM                  175
+
+II HOW SOCIALIST BOOKS ARE PUBLISHED                          179
+
+
+
+
+THE COMMON SENSE OF SOCIALISM
+
+
+I
+
+BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION
+
+    Socialism is undoubtedly spreading. It is, therefore, right
+    and expedient that its teachings, its claims, its tendencies,
+    its accusations and promises, should be honestly and seriously
+    examined.--_Prof. Flint._
+
+
+_My Dear Mr. Edwards_: I count it good fortune to receive such letters
+of inquiry as that which you have written me. You could not easily
+have conferred greater pleasure upon me than you have by the charming
+candor and vigor of your letter. It is said that when President
+Lincoln saw Walt Whitman, "the good, Gray Poet," for the first time he
+exclaimed, "Well, he looks like a man!" and in like spirit, when I
+read your letter I could not help exclaiming, "Well, he writes like a
+man!"
+
+There was no need, Mr. Edwards, for you to apologize for your letter:
+for its faulty grammar, its lack of "style" and "polish." I am not
+insensible to these, being a literary man, but, even at their highest
+valuation, grammar and literary style are by no means the most
+important elements of a letter. They are, after all, only like the
+clothes men wear. A knave or a fool may be dressed in the most perfect
+manner, while a good man or a sage may be poorly dressed, or even
+clad in rags. Scoundrels in broadcloth are not uncommon; gentlemen in
+fustian are sometimes met with.
+
+He would be a very unwise man, you will admit, who tried to judge a
+man by his coat. President Lincoln was uncouth and ill-dressed, but he
+was a wise man and a gentleman in the highest and best sense of that
+much misused word. On the other hand, Mr. Blank, who represents
+railway interests in the United States Senate, is sleek, polished and
+well-dressed, but he is neither very wise nor very good. He is a
+gentleman only in the conventional, false sense of that word.
+
+Lots of men could write a more brilliant letter than the one you have
+written to me, but there are not many men, even among professional
+writers, who could write a better one. What I like is the spirit of
+earnestness and the simple directness of it. You say that you have
+"Read lots of things in the papers about the Socialists' ideas and
+listened to some Socialist speakers, but never could get a very clear
+notion of what it was all about." And then you add "Whether Socialism
+is good or bad, wise or foolish, _I want to know_."
+
+I wish, my friend, that there were more working men like you; that
+there were millions of American men and women crying out: "Whether
+Socialism is good or bad, wise or foolish, _I want to know_." For that
+is the beginning of wisdom: back of all the intellectual progress of
+the race is the cry, _I want to know_! It is a cry that belongs to
+wise hearts, such as Mr. Ruskin meant when he said, "A little group of
+wise hearts is better than a wilderness full of fools." There are lots
+of fools, both educated and uneducated, who say concerning Socialism,
+which is the greatest movement of our time, "I don't know anything
+about it and I don't want to know anything about it." Compared with
+the most learned man alive who takes that position, the least educated
+laborer in the land who says "I want to know!" is a philosopher
+compared with a fool.
+
+When I first read your letter and saw the long list of your objections
+and questions I confess that I was somewhat frightened. Most of the
+questions are fair questions, many of them are wise ones and all of
+them merit consideration. If you will bear with me, Mr. Edwards, and
+let me answer them in my own way, I propose to answer them all. And in
+answering them I shall be as honest and frank with you as I am with my
+own soul. Whether you believe in Socialism or not is to me a matter of
+less importance than whether you understand it or not.
+
+You complain that in some of the books written about Socialism there
+are lots of hard, technical words and phrases which you cannot
+properly understand, even when you have looked in the dictionary for
+their meaning, and that is a very just complaint. It is true that most
+of the books on Socialism and other important subjects are written by
+students for students, but I shall try to avoid that difficulty and
+write as a plain, average man of fair sense to another plain, average
+man of fair sense.
+
+All your other questions and objections, about "stirring up class
+hatred," about "dividing-up the wealth with the lazy and shiftless,"
+trying to "destroy religion," advocating "free love" and "attacking
+the family," all these and the many other matters contained in your
+letter, I shall try to answer fairly and with absolute honesty.
+
+I want to convert you to Socialism if I can, Mr. Edwards, but I am
+more anxious to have you _understand_ Socialism.
+
+
+
+
+II
+
+WHAT'S THE MATTER WITH AMERICA?
+
+    It seems to me that people are not enough aware of the
+    monstrous state of society, absolutely without a parallel in
+    the history of the world, with a population poor, miserable
+    and degraded in body and mind, as if they were slaves, and yet
+    called freemen. The hopes entertained by many of the effects
+    to be wrought by new churches and schools, while the social
+    evils of their conditions are left uncorrected, appear to me
+    utterly wild.--_Dr. Arnold, of Rugby._
+
+    The working-classes are entitled to claim that the whole field
+    of social institutions should be re-examined, and every
+    question considered as if it now arose for the first time,
+    with the idea constantly in view that the persons who are to
+    be convinced are not those who owe their ease and importance
+    to the present system, but persons who have no other interest
+    in the matter than abstract justice and the general good of
+    the community.--_John Stuart Mill._
+
+
+I presume, Mr. Edwards, that you are not one of those persons who
+believe that there is nothing the matter with America; that you are
+not wholly content with existing conditions. You would scarcely be
+interested in Socialism unless you were convinced that in our existing
+social system there are many evils for which some remedy ought to be
+found if possible. Your interest in Socialism arises from the fact
+that its advocates claim that it is a remedy for the social evils
+which distress you--is it not so?
+
+I need not harrow your feelings, therefore, by drawing for you
+pictures of dismal misery, poverty, vice, crime and squalor. As a
+workingman, living in Pittsburg, you are unhappily familiar with the
+evils of our present system. It doesn't require a professor of
+political economy to understand that something is wrong in our
+American life today.
+
+As an industrial city Pittsburg is a notable example of the defective
+working of our present social and industrial system. In Pittsburg, as
+in every other modern city, there are the extremes of wealth and
+poverty. There are beautiful residences on the one hand and miserable,
+crowded tenement hovels upon the other hand. There are people who are
+so rich, whose incomes are so great, that their lives are made
+miserable and unhappy. There are other people so poor, with incomes so
+small, that they are compelled to live miserable and unhappy lives.
+Young men and women, inheritors of vast fortunes, living lives of
+idleness, uselessness and vanity at one end of the social scale are
+driven to dissipation and debauchery and crime. At the other end of
+the social scale there are young men and women, poor, overburdened
+with toil, crushed by poverty and want, also driven to dissipation and
+debauchery and crime.
+
+You are a workingman. All your life you have known the conditions
+which surround the lives of working people like yourself. You know how
+hard it is for the most careful and industrious workman to properly
+care for his family. If he is fortunate enough never to be sick, or
+out of work, or on strike, or to be involved in an accident, or to
+have sickness in his family, he may become the owner of a cheap home,
+or, by dint of much sacrifice, his children may be educated and
+enabled to enter one of the professions. Or, given all the conditions
+stated, he may be enabled to save enough to provide for himself and
+wife a pittance sufficient to keep them from pauperism and beggary in
+their old age.
+
+That is the best the workingman can hope for as a result of his own
+labor under the very best conditions. To attain that level of comfort
+and decency he must deny himself and his wife and children of many
+things which they ought to enjoy. It is not too much to say that none
+of your fellow-workmen in Pittsburg, men known to you, your neighbors
+and comrades in labor, have been able to attain such a condition of
+comparative comfort and security except by dint of much hardship
+imposed upon themselves, their wives and children. They have had to
+forego many innocent pleasures; to live in poor streets, greatly to
+the disadvantage of the children's health and morals; to concentrate
+their energies to the narrow and sordid aim of saving money; to
+cultivate the instincts and feelings of the miser.
+
+The wives of such men have had to endure privations and wrongs such as
+only the wives of the workers in civilized society ever know.
+Miserably housed, cruelly overworked, toiling incessantly from morn
+till night, in sickness as well as in health, never knowing the joys
+of a real vacation, cooking, scrubbing, washing, mending, nursing and
+pitifully saving, the wife of such a worker is in truth the slave of a
+slave.
+
+At the very best, then, the lot of the workingman excludes him and his
+wife and children from most of the comforts which belong to modern
+civilization. A well-fitted home in a good neighborhood--to say
+nothing of a home beautiful in itself and its surroundings--is out of
+the question; foreign travel, the opportunity to enjoy the rest and
+educative advantages of occasional journeys to other lands, is
+likewise out of the question. Even though civic enterprise provides
+public libraries and art galleries, museums, lectures, concerts, and
+other opportunities of recreation and education, there is not the
+leisure for their enjoyment to any extent. For our model workman, with
+all his exceptional advantages, after a day's toil has little time
+left for such things, and little strength or desire, while his wife
+has even less time and even less desire.
+
+You know that this is not an exaggerated account. It may be questioned
+by the writers of learned treatises who know the life of the workers
+only from descriptions of it written by people who know very little
+about it, but you will not question it. As a workman you know it is
+true. And I know it is true, for I have lived it. The best that the
+most industrious, thrifty, persevering and fortunate workingman can
+hope for is to be decently housed, decently fed, decently clothed.
+That he and his family may always be certain of these things, so that
+they go down to their graves at last without having experienced the
+pangs of hunger and want, the worker must be exceptionally fortunate.
+_And yet, my friend, the horses in the stables of the rich men of this
+country, and the dogs in their kennels, have all these things, and
+more!_ For they are protected against such overwork and such anxiety
+as the workingman and the workingman's wife must endure. Greater care
+is taken of the health of many horses and dogs than the most favored
+workingman can possibly take of the health of his boys and girls.
+
+At its best and brightest, then, the lot of the workingman in our
+present social system is not an enviable one. The utmost good fortune
+of the laboring classes is, properly considered, a scathing
+condemnation of modern society. There is very little poetry, beauty,
+joy or glory in the life of the workingman when taken at its very
+best.
+
+But you know very well that not one workingman in a hundred, nay, not
+one in a thousand, is fortunate enough never to be sick, or out of
+work, or on strike, or to be involved in an accident, or to have
+sickness in his family. Not one worker in a thousand lives to old age
+and goes down to his grave without having known the pangs of hunger
+and want, both for himself and those dependent upon him. On the
+contrary, dull, helpless, poverty is the lot of millions of workers
+whose lines are cast in less pleasant places.
+
+Mr. Frederic Harrison the well-known conservative English publicist,
+some years ago gave a graphic description of the lot of the working
+class of England, a description which applies to the working class of
+America with equal force. He said:
+
+    "Ninety per cent of the actual producers of wealth have no
+    home that they can call their own beyond the end of a week,
+    have no bit of soil, or so much as a room that belongs to
+    them; have nothing of value of any kind except as much as will
+    go in a cart; have the precarious chance of weekly wages which
+    barely suffice to keep them in health; are housed for the most
+    part in places that no man thinks fit for his horse; are
+    separated by so narrow a margin from destruction that a month
+    of bad trade, sickness or unexpected loss brings them face to
+    face with hunger and pauperism."[1]
+
+I am perfectly willing, of course, to admit that, upon the whole,
+conditions are worse in England than in this country, but I am still
+certain that Mr. Harrison's description is fairly applicable to the
+United States of America, in this year of Grace, nineteen hundred and
+eight.
+
+At present we are passing through a period of industrial depression.
+Everywhere there are large numbers of unemployed workers. Poverty is
+rampant. Notwithstanding all that is being done to ease their misery,
+all the doles of the charitable and compassionate, there are still
+many thousands of men, women and children who are hungry and
+miserable. You see them every day in Pittsburg, as I see them in New
+York, Philadelphia, Boston, Cleveland, Chicago, and elsewhere. It is
+easy to see in times like the present that there is some great, vital
+defect in our social economy.
+
+Later on, if you will give me your attention, Jonathan, I want you to
+consider the causes of such cycles of depression as this that we are
+so patiently enduring. But at present I am interested in getting you
+to realize the terrible shortcomings of our industrial system at its
+best, in normal times. I want to have you consider the state of
+affairs in times that are called "prosperous" by the politicians, the
+preachers, the economists, the statisticians and the editors of our
+newspapers. I am not concerned, here and now, with the _exceptional_
+distress of such periods as the present, but with the ordinary,
+normal, chronic misery and distress; the poverty that is always so
+terribly prevalent.
+
+Do you remember the talk about the "great and unexampled prosperity"
+in which you indulged during the latter part of 1904 and the following
+year? Of course you do. Everybody was talking about prosperity, and a
+stranger visiting the United States might have concluded that we were
+a nation of congenital optimists. Yet, it was precisely at that time,
+in the very midst of our loud boasting about prosperity, that Robert
+Hunter challenged the national brain and conscience with the
+statement that there were at lease ten million persons in poverty in
+the United States. If you have not read Mr. Hunter's book, Jonathan, I
+advise you to get it and read it. You will find in it plenty of food
+for serious thought. It is called _Poverty_, and you can get a copy at
+the public library. From time to time I am going to suggest that you
+read various books which I believe you will find useful. "Reading
+maketh a full man," provided that the reading is seriously and wisely
+done. Good books relating to the problems you have to face as a worker
+are far better for reading than the yellow newspapers or the sporting
+prints, my friend.
+
+When they first read Mr. Hunter's startling statement that there were
+ten million persons in the United States in poverty, many people
+thought that he must be a sensationalist of the worst type. It could
+not be true, they thought. But when they read the startling array of
+facts upon which that estimate was based they modified their opinion.
+It is significant, I think, that there has been no very serious
+criticism of the estimate made by any reputable authority.
+
+Do you know, Jonathan, that in New York of all the persons who die one
+in every ten dies a pauper and is buried in Potter's Field? It is a
+pity that we have not statistics upon this point covering most of our
+cities, including your own city of Pittsburg. If we had, I should ask
+you to try an experiment. I should ask you to give up one of your
+Saturday afternoons, or any day when you might be idle, and to take
+your stand at the busiest corner in the city. There, I would have you
+count the people as they pass by, hurrying to and fro, and every tenth
+person you counted I would have you note by making a little cross on a
+piece of paper. Think what an awful tally it would be, Jonathan. How
+sick and weary at heart you would be if you stood all day counting,
+saying as every tenth person passed, "There goes another marked for a
+pauper's grave!" And it might happen, you know, that the fateful count
+of ten would mark your own boy, or your own wife.
+
+We are a practical, hard-headed people. That is our national boast.
+You are a Yankee of the good old Massachusetts stock, I understand,
+proud of the fact that you can trace your descent right back to the
+Pilgrim Fathers. But with all our hard-headed practicality, Jonathan,
+there is still some sentiment left in us. Most of us dread the thought
+of a pauper's grave for ourselves or friends, and struggle against
+such fate as we struggle against death itself. It is a foolish
+sentiment perhaps, for when the soul leaves the body a mere handful of
+clod and marl, the spark of divinity forever quenched, it really does
+not matter what happens to the body, nor where it crumbles into dust.
+But we cherish the sentiment, nevertheless, and dread having to fill
+pauper graves. And when ten per cent, of those who die in the richest
+city of the richest nation on earth are laid at last in pauper graves
+and given pauper burial there is something radically and cruelly
+wrong.
+
+And you and I, with our fellows, must try to find out just what the
+wrong is, and just how we can set it right. Anything less than that
+seems to me uncommonly like treason to the republic, treason of the
+worst kind. Alas! Alas! such treason is very common, friend
+Jonathan--there are many who are heedless of the wrongs that sap the
+life of the republic and careless of whether or no they are righted.
+
+FOOTNOTES:
+
+[1] Report of the Industrial Remuneration Conference, 1886, p. 429.
+
+
+
+
+III
+
+THE TWO CLASSES IN THE NATION
+
+    Mankind are divided into two great classes--the shearers and
+    the shorn. You should always side with the former against the
+    latter.--_Talleyrand._
+
+    All men having the same origin are of equal antiquity; nature
+    has made no difference in their formation. Strip the nobles
+    naked and you are as well as they; dress them in your rags,
+    and you in their robes, and you will doubtless be the nobles.
+    Poverty and riches only discriminate betwixt
+    you.--_Machiavelli._
+
+    Thou shalt not steal. _Thou shalt not be stolen from._--_Thomas
+    Carlyle._
+
+
+I want you to consider, friend Jonathan, the fact that in this and
+every other civilized country there are two classes. There are, as it
+were, two nations in every nation, two cities in every city. There is
+a class that lives in luxury and a class that lives in poverty. A
+class constantly engaged in producing wealth but owning little or none
+of the wealth produced and a class that enjoys most of the wealth
+without the trouble and pain of producing it.
+
+If I go into any city in America I can find beautiful and costly
+mansions in one part of the city, and miserable, squalid tenement
+hovels in another part. And I never have to ask where the workers
+live. I know that the people who live in the mansions don't produce
+anything; that the wealth producers alone are poor and miserably
+housed.
+
+Republican and Democratic politicians never ask you to consider such
+things. They expect you to let _them_ do all the thinking, and to
+content yourself with shouting and voting for them. As a Socialist, I
+want you to do some thinking for yourself. Not being a politician, but
+a simple fellow-citizen, I am not interested in having you vote for
+anything you do not understand. If you should offer to vote for
+Socialism without understanding it, I should beg you not to do it. I
+want you to vote for Socialism, of course, but not unless you know
+what it means, why you want it and how you expect to get it. You see,
+friend Jonathan, I am perfectly frank with you, as I promised to be.
+
+You will remember, I hope, that in your letter to me you made the
+objection that the Socialists are constantly stirring up class hatred,
+setting class against class. I want to show you now that this is _not
+true_, though you doubtless believed that it was true when you wrote
+it. I propose to show you that in this great land of ours there are
+two great classes, the "shearers and the shorn," to adopt Talleyrand's
+phrase. And I want you to side with the _shorn_ instead of with the
+_shearers_, because, if I am not sadly mistaken, my friend, _you are
+one of the shorn_. Your natural interests are with the workers, and
+all the workers are shorn and robbed, as I shall try to show you.
+
+You work in one of the great steel foundries of Pittsburg, I
+understand. You are paid wages for your work, but you have no other
+interest in the establishment. There are lots of other men working in
+the same place under similar conditions. Above you, having the
+authority to discharge you if they see fit, if you displease them or
+your work does not suit them, are foremen and bosses. They are paid
+wages like yourself and your fellow workmen. True, they get a little
+more wages, and they live in consequence in a little better homes
+than most of you, but they do not own the plant. They, too, may be
+discharged by other bosses above them. There are a few of the workmen
+who own a small number of shares of stock in the company, but not
+enough of them to have any kind of influence in its management. They
+are just as likely to be turned out of employment as any of you.
+
+Above all the workers and bosses of one kind and another there is a
+general manager. Wonderful stories are told of the enormous salary he
+gets. They say that he gets more for one week than you or any of your
+fellow workmen get for a whole year. You used to know him well when
+you were boys together. You went to the same school; played "hookey"
+together; bathed in the creek together. You used to call him "Richard"
+and he always used to call you "Jon'thun." You lived close to each
+other on the same street.
+
+But you don't speak to each other nowadays. When he passes through the
+works each morning you bend to your work and he does not notice you.
+Sometimes you wonder if he has forgotten all about the old days, about
+the games you used to play up on "the lots," the "hookey" and the
+swimming in the creek. Perhaps he has not forgotten: perhaps he
+remembers well enough, for he is just a plain human being like
+yourself Jonathan; but if he remembers he gives no sign.
+
+Now, I want to ask you a few plain questions, or, rather, I want you
+to ask yourself a few plain questions. Do you and your old friend
+Richard still live on the same street, in the same kind of houses like
+you used to? Do you both wear the same kind of clothes, like you used
+to? Do you and he both go to the same places, mingle with the same
+company, like you used to in the old days? Does _your_ wife wear the
+same kind of clothes than _his_ wife does? Does _his_ wife work as
+hard as _your_ wife does? Do they both belong to the same social "set"
+or does the name of Richard's wife appear in the Social Chronicle in
+the daily papers while your wife's does not? When you go to the
+theater, or the opera, do you and your family occupy as good seats as
+Richard and his family in the same way that you and he used to occupy
+"quarter seats" in the gallery? Are your children and Richard's
+children dressed equally well? Your fourteen-year-old girl is working
+as a cash-girl in a store and your fifteen-year-old boy is working in
+a factory. What about Richard's children? They are about the same age
+you know: is his girl working in a store, his boy in a factory?
+Richard's youngest child has a nurse to take care of her. You saw her
+the other day, you remember: how about your youngest child--has she a
+nurse to care for her?
+
+Ah, Jonathan! I know very well how you must answer these questions as
+they flash before your mind in rapid succession. You and Richard are
+no longer chums; your wives don't know each other; your children don't
+play together, but are strangers to one another; you have no friends
+in common now. Richard lives in a mansion, while you live in a hovel;
+Richard's wife is a fine "lady" in silks and satins, attended by
+flunkeys, while your wife is a poor, sickly, anaemic, overworked
+drudge. You still live in the same city, yet not in the same world.
+You would not know how to act in Richard's home, before all the
+servants; you would be embarrassed if you sat down at his dinner
+table. Your children would be awkward and shy in the presence of his
+children, while they would scorn to introduce your children to their
+friends.
+
+You have drifted far apart, you two, my friend. Somehow there yawns
+between you a great, impassable gulf. You are as far apart in your
+lives as prince and pauper, lord and serf, king and peasant ever were
+in the world's history. It is wonderful, this chasm that yawns between
+you. As Shakespeare has it:
+
+            Strange it is that bloods
+    Alike of colour, weight and heat, pour'd out together,
+    Would quite confound distinction, yet stand off
+    In differences so mighty.
+
+I am not going to say anything against your one-time friend who is now
+a stranger to you and the lord of your life. I have not one word to
+say against him. But I want you to consider very seriously if the
+changes we have noted are the only changes that have taken place in
+him since the days when you were chums together. Have you forgotten
+the Great Strike, when you and your fellow workers went out on strike,
+demanding better conditions of labor and higher wages? Of course you
+have not forgotten it, for that was when your scanty savings were all
+used up, and you had to stand, humiliated and sorrowful, at the relief
+station, or in the "Bread Line," to get food for your little family.
+
+Those were the dark days when your dream of a little cottage in the
+country, with hollyhocks and morning-glories and larkspurs growing
+around it, melted away like the mists of the morning. It was the dream
+of your young manhood and of your wife's young womanhood; it was the
+dream of your earliest years together, and you both worked and saved
+for that little cottage in the suburbs where you would spend the
+sunset hours of life together. The Great Strike killed your beautiful
+dream; it killed your wife's hopes. You have no dream now and no hope
+for the sunset hours. When you think of them you become bitter and
+try to banish the thought. I know all about that faded dream,
+Jonathan.
+
+Why did you stay out on strike and suffer? Why did you not remain at
+work, or at least go back as soon as you saw how hard the fight was
+going to be? "What! desert my comrades, and be a traitor to my
+brothers in the fight?" you say. But I thought you did not believe in
+classes! I thought you were opposed to the Socialists because they set
+class to fight class! You were fighting the company then, weren't you;
+trying to force them to give you decent conditions? You called it a
+fight, Jonathan, and the newspapers, you remember, had great headlines
+every day about the "Great Labor War."
+
+It wasn't the Socialists who urged you to go out on strike, Jonathan.
+You had never heard of Socialism then, except once you read something
+in the papers about some Socialists who were shot down by the Czar's
+Cossacks in the streets of Warsaw. You got an idea then that a
+Socialist was a desperado with a firebrand in one hand and a bomb in
+the other, madly seeking to burn palaces and destroy the lives of rich
+men and rulers. No, it was not due to Socialist agitation that you
+went out on strike.
+
+You went out on strike because you had grown desperate on account of
+the wanton, wicked, needless waste of human life that went on under
+your very eyes, day after day. You saw man after man maimed, man after
+man killed, through defects in the machinery, and the company, through
+your old chum and playmate, refused to make the changes necessary.
+They said that it would "cost too much money," though you all knew
+that the shareholders were reaping enormous profits. Added to that,
+and the fact that you went hourly in dread of similar fate befalling
+you, your wife had a hard time to make both ends meet. There was a
+time when you could save something every week, but for some time
+before the strike there was no saving. Your wife complained; your
+comrades said that their wives complained. Finally you all agreed that
+you could stand it no longer; that you would send a committee to
+interview the manager and tell him that, unless you got better wages
+and unless something was done to make your lives safer you would go
+out on strike.
+
+When you and the manager were chums together he was a kind,
+good-hearted, generous fellow, and you felt certain that when the
+Committee explained things it would be all right. But you were
+mistaken. He cursed at them as though they were dogs, and you could
+scarcely believe your own ears. Do you remember how you spoke to your
+wife about it, about "the change in Dick"?
+
+You went out on strike. The manager scoured the country for men to
+take your places. Ruffianly men came from all parts of the country;
+insolent, strife-provoking thugs. More than once you saw your
+fellow-workmen attacked and beaten by thugs, and then the police were
+ordered to club and arrest--not the aggressors but your comrades. Then
+the manager asked the mayor to send for the troops, and the mayor did
+as he was bidden do. What else could he do when the leading
+stockholders in the company owned and controlled the Republican
+machine? So the Republican mayor wired to the Republican Governor for
+soldiers and the soldiers came to intimidate you and break the strike.
+One day you heard a rifle's sharp crack, followed by a tumult and they
+told you that one of your old friends, who used to go swimming with
+you and Richard, the manager, had been shot by a drunken sentry,
+though he was doing no harm.
+
+You were a Democrat. Your father had been a Democrat and you "just
+naturally growed up to be one." As a Democrat you were very bitter
+against the Republican mayor and the Republican Governor. You honestly
+thought that if there had been a good Democrat in each of those
+offices there would have been no soldiers sent into the city; that
+your comrade would not have been murdered. You spoke of little else to
+your fellows. You nursed the hope that at the next election they would
+turn out the Republicans and put the Democrats in.
+
+But that delusion was shattered like all the rest, Jonathan, when,
+soon after, the Democratic President you were so proud of, to whom you
+looked up as to a modern Moses, sent federal troops into Illinois,
+over the protest of the Governor of that Commonwealth, in defiance of
+the laws of the land, in violation of the sacred Constitution he had
+sworn to protect and obey. Your faith in the Democratic Party was
+shattered. Henceforth you could not trust either the Republican Party
+or the Democratic Party.
+
+I don't want to discuss the strike further. That is all ancient
+history to you now. I have already gone a good deal farther afield
+than I wanted to do, or than I intended to do when I began this
+letter. I want to go back--back to our discussion of the great gulf
+that divides you and your former chum, Richard.
+
+I want you to ask yourself, with perfect candor and good faith,
+whether you believe that Richard has been so much better than you,
+either as workman, citizen, husband or father, that his present
+position can be regarded as a just reward for his virtue and ability?
+I'll put it another way for you, Jonathan: in your own heart do you
+believe that you are so much inferior to him as a worker or as a
+citizen, so much inferior in mentality and in character that you
+deserve the hard fate which has come to you, the ill-fortune compared
+to his good fortune? Are you and your family being punished for your
+sins, while he and his family are being rewarded for his virtues? In
+other words, Jonathan, to put the matter very plainly, do you believe
+that God has ordained your respective states in accordance with your
+just deserts?
+
+You know that is not the case, Jonathan. You know very well that both
+Richard and yourself share the frailties and weaknesses of our kind.
+Infinite mischief has been done by those who have given the struggle
+between the capitalists and the workers the aspect of a conflict
+between "goodness" on the one side and "wickedness" upon the other.
+Many things which the capitalists do appear very wicked to the
+workers, and many things which the workers do, and think perfectly
+proper and right, the capitalists honestly regard as improper and
+wrong.
+
+I do not deny that there are some capitalists whose conduct deserves
+our contempt and condemnation, just as there are some workingmen of
+whom the same is true. Still less would I deny that there is a very
+real ethical measure of life; that some conduct is anti-social while
+other conduct is social. I simply want you to catch my point that we
+are creatures of our environment, Jonathan; that if the workers and
+the capitalists could change places, there would be a corresponding
+change in their views of many things. I refuse to flatter the workers,
+my friend: they have been flattered too much already.
+
+Politicians seeking votes always tell the workers how greatly they
+admire them for their intelligence and for their moral excellencies.
+But you know and I know that they are insincere; that, for the most
+part, their praise is lying hypocrisy. They practice what you call
+"the art of jollying the people" because that is an important part of
+their business. The way they talk _to_ the working class is very
+different from the way they talk _of_ the working class among
+themselves. I've heard them, my friend, and I know how most of them
+despise the workers.
+
+The working men and women of this country have many faults and
+failings. Many of them are ignorant, though that is not quite their
+own fault. Many a workingman starves and pinches his wife and little
+ones to gamble, squandering his money, yes, and the lives of his
+family, upon horse races, prize-fights, and other brutal and senseless
+things called "sport." It is all wrong, Jonathan, and we know it. Many
+of our fellow workmen drink, wasting the children's bread-money and
+making beasts of themselves in saloons, and that is wrong, too, though
+I do not wonder at it when I think of the hells they work in, the
+hovels they live in and the dull, soul-deadening grind of their daily
+lives. But we have got to struggle against it, got to conquer the
+bestial curse, before we can get better conditions. Men who soak their
+brains in alcohol, or who gamble their children's bread, will never be
+able to make the world a fit place to live in, a place fit for little
+children to grow in.
+
+But the worst of all the failings of the working class, in my humble
+judgment, is its indifference to the great problems of life. Why is
+it, Jonathan, that I can get tens of thousands of workingmen in
+Pittsburg or any large city excited and wrought to feverish enthusiasm
+over a brutal and bloody prize-fight in San Francisco, or about a
+baseball game, and only a man here and there interested in any degree
+about Child Labor, about the suffering of little babies? Why is it
+that the workers, in Pittsburg and every other city in America, are
+less interested in getting just conditions than in baseball games from
+which all elements of honest, manly sport have been taken away; brutal
+slugging matches between professional pugilists; horseraces conducted
+by gamblers for gamblers; the sickening, details of the latest scandal
+among the profligate, idle rich?
+
+I could get fifty thousand workingmen in Pittsburg to read long,
+disgusting accounts of bestiality and vice more easily than I could
+get five hundred to read a pamphlet on the Labor Problem, on the
+wrongfulness of things as they are and how they might be made better.
+The masters are wiser, Jonathan. They watch and guard their own
+interests better than the workers do.
+
+If you owned the tools with which you work, my friend, and whatever
+you could produce belonged to you, either to use or to exchange for
+the products of other workers, there would be some reason in your
+Fourth of July boasting about this
+
+            Blest land of Liberty.
+
+But you don't. You, and all other wage-earners, depend upon the
+goodwill and the good judgment of the men who own the land, the mines,
+the factories, the railways, and practically all other means of
+producing wealth for the right to live. You don't own the raw
+material, the machinery or the railways; you don't control your own
+jobs. Most of you don't even own your own miserable homes. These
+things are owned by a small class of, people when their number is
+compared with the total population. The workers produce the wealth of
+this and every other country, but they do not own it. They get just
+enough to keep them alive and in a condition to go on producing
+wealth--as long as the master class sees fit to have them do it.
+
+Most of the capitalists do not, _as capitalists_, contribute in any
+manner to the production of wealth. Some of them do render services of
+one kind and another in the management of the industries they are
+connected with. Some of them are directors, for example, _but they are
+always paid for their services before there is any distribution of
+profits_. Even when their "work" is quite perfunctory and useless,
+mere make-believe, like the games of little children, they get paid
+far more than the actual workers. But there are many people who own
+stock in the company you work for, Jonathan, who never saw the
+foundries, who were never in the city of Pittsburg in their lives,
+whose knowledge of the affairs of the company is limited to the stock
+quotations in the financial columns of the morning papers.
+
+Think of it: when you work and produce a dollar's worth of wealth by
+your labor, it is divided up. You get only a very small fraction. The
+rest is divided between the landlords and the capitalists. This
+happens in the case of every man among the thousands employed by the
+company. Only a small share goes to the workers, a third, or a fourth,
+perhaps, the remainder being divided among people who have done none
+of the work. It may happen, does happen in fact, that, an old
+profligate whose delight is the seduction of young girls, a wanton
+woman whose life would shame the harlot of the streets, a lunatic in
+an asylum, or a baby in the cradle, will get more than any of the
+workers who toil before the glaring furnaces day after day.
+
+These are terrible assertions, Jonathan, and I do not blame you if you
+doubt them. I shall _prove_ them for you in a later letter.
+
+At present, I want you to get hold of the fact that the wealth
+produced by the workers is so distributed that the idle and useless
+classes get most of it. People will tell you, Jonathan, that "there
+are no classes in America," and that the Socialists lie when they say
+so. They point out to you that your old chum, Richard, who is now a
+millionaire, was a poor boy like yourself. They say he rose to his
+present position because he had keener brains than his fellows, but
+you know lots of workmen in the employ of the company who know a great
+deal more about the work than he does, lots of men who are cleverer
+than he is. Or they tell you that he rose to his present position
+because of his superior character, but you know that he is, to say the
+least, no better than the average man who works under him.
+
+The fact is, Jonathan, the idle capitalists must have some men to
+carry on the work for them, to direct it and see that the workers are
+exploited properly. They must have some men to manage things for them;
+to see that elections are bought, that laws in their interests are
+passed and not laws in the interests of the people. They must have
+somebody to do the things they are too "respectable" to do--or too
+lazy. They take such men from the ranks of the workers and pay them
+enormous salaries, thereby making them members of their own class.
+Such men are really doing useful and necessary work in managing the
+business (though not in corrupting legislators or devising swindling
+schemes) and are to that extent producers. But their interests are
+with the capitalists. They live in palaces, like the idlers; they
+mingle in the same social sets; they enjoy the same luxuries. And,
+above all, they can invest part of their large incomes in other
+concerns and draw enormous profits from the labors of other toilers,
+sometimes even in other lands. They are capitalists and their whole
+influence is on the side of the capitalists against the workers.
+
+I want you to think over these things, friend Jonathan. Don't be
+afraid to do your own thinking! If you have time, go to the library
+and get some good books on the subject and read them carefully, doing
+your own thinking no matter what the authors of the books may say. I
+suggest that you get W.J. Ghent's _Mass and Class_ to begin with.
+Then, when you have read that, I shall be glad to have you read
+Chapter VI of a book called _Socialism: A Summary and Interpretation
+of Socialist Principles_. It is not very hard reading, for I wrote the
+book myself to meet the needs of just such earnest, hard-working men
+as yourself.
+
+I think both books will be found in the public library. At any rate,
+they ought to be. But if not, it would be worth your while to save the
+price of a few whiskies and to buy them for yourself. You see,
+Jonathan, I want you to study.
+
+
+
+
+IV
+
+HOW WEALTH IS PRODUCED AND HOW IT IS DISTRIBUTED
+
+    It is easy to persuade the masses that the good things of this
+    world are unjustly divided--especially when it happens to be
+    the exact truth.--_J.A. Froude._
+
+    The growth of wealth and of luxury, wicked, wasteful and
+    wanton, as before God I declare that luxury to be, has been
+    matched step by step by a deepening and deadening poverty,
+    which has left whole neighborhoods of people practically
+    without hope and without aspiration.--_Bishop Potter._
+
+    At present, all the wealth of Society goes first into the
+    possession of the Capitalist.... He pays the landowner his
+    rent, the labourer his wages, the tax and tithe-gatherer their
+    claims, and keeps a large, indeed, the largest, and a
+    constantly augmenting share of the annual produce of labour
+    for himself. The Capitalist may now be said to be the first
+    owner of all the wealth of the community, though no law has
+    conferred on him the right of this property.... This change
+    has been effected by the taking of interest on Capital ... and
+    it is not a little curious that all the lawgivers of Europe
+    endeavoured to prevent this by Statutes--viz., Statutes
+    against usury.--_Rights of Natural and Artificial Property
+    Contrasted_ (_An Anonymous work, published in London, in
+    1832_).--_Th. Hodgskin._
+
+
+You are not a political economist, Jonathan, nor a statistician. Most
+books on political economy, and most books filled with statistics,
+seem to you quite unintelligible. Your education never included the
+study of such books and they are, therefore, almost if not quite
+worthless to you.
+
+But every working man ought to know something about political economy
+and be familiar with some statistics relating to social conditions.
+So I am going to ask you to study a few figures and a little political
+economy. Only just a very little, mind you, just to get you used to
+thinking about social problems in a scientific way. I think I can set
+the fundamental principles of political economy before you in very
+simple language, and I will try to make the statistics interesting.
+
+But I want to warn you again, Jonathan, that you must use your own
+commonsense. Don't trust too much to theories and figures--especially
+figures. Somebody has said that you can divide the liars of the world
+into three classes--liars, damned liars and statisticians. Some people
+are paid big salaries for juggling with figures to fool the American
+people into believing what is not true, Jonathan. I want you to
+consider the laws of political economy and all the statistics I put
+before you in the light of your own commonsense and your own practical
+experience.
+
+Political economy is the name which somebody long ago gave to the
+formal study of the production and distribution of wealth. Carlyle
+called it "the dismal science," and most books on the subject are
+dismal enough to justify the term. Upon my library shelves there are
+some hundreds of volumes dealing with political economy, and I don't
+mind confessing to you that some of them I never have been able to
+understand, though I have put no little effort and conscience into the
+attempt. I have a suspicion that the authors of these books could not
+understand them themselves. That the reason why they could not write
+so that a man of fair intelligence and education could understand them
+was the fact that they had no clear ideas to convey.
+
+Now, in the first place, what do we mean by _Wealth_? Why, you say,
+wealth is money and money is wealth. But that is only half true,
+Jonathan. Suppose, for example, that an American millionaire crossing
+the ocean be shipwrecked and find himself cast upon some desert
+island, like another Robinson Crusoe, without food or means of
+obtaining any. Suppose him naked, without tool or weapon of any kind,
+his one sole possession being a bag containing ten thousand dollars in
+gold and banknotes to the value of as many millions. With that money,
+in New York, or any other city in the world, he would be counted a
+rich man, and he would have no difficulty in getting food and
+clothing.
+
+But alone upon that desert island, what could he do with the money? He
+could not eat it, he could not keep himself warm with it? He would be
+poorer than the poorest savage in Africa whose only possessions were a
+bow and arrow and an assegai, or spear, wouldn't he? The poor kaffir
+who never heard of money, but who had the simple weapons with which to
+hunt for food, would be the richer man of the two, wouldn't he?
+
+I think you will find it useful, Jonathan, to read a little book by
+John Ruskin, called _Unto This Last_. It is a very small book, written
+in very simple and beautiful language. Mr. Ruskin was a somewhat
+whimsical writer, and there are some things in the book which I do not
+wholly agree with, but upon the whole it is sane, strong and eternally
+true. He shows very clearly, according to my notion, that the mere
+possession of things, or of money, is not wealth, but that _wealth
+consists in the possession of things useful to us_. That is why the
+possession of heaps of gold by a man living alone upon a desert island
+does not make him wealthy, and why Robinson Crusoe, with weapons,
+tools and an abundant food supply, was really a wealthy man, though he
+had not a dollar.
+
+In a primitive state of society, then, he is poor who has not enough
+of the things useful to him, and he who has them in abundance is rich,
+or wealthy.
+
+Note that I say this of "A primitive state of society," Jonathan, for
+that is most important. _It is not true of our present capitalist
+state of society._ This may seem a strange proposition to you at
+first, but a little careful thought will convince you that it is true.
+
+Consider a moment: Mr. Carnegie is a wealthy man and Mr. Rockefeller
+is a wealthy man. They are, each of them, richer than most of the
+princes and kings whose wealth astonished the ancient world. Mr.
+Carnegie owns shares in many companies, steelmaking companies, railway
+companies, and so on. Mr. Rockefeller, owns shares in the Standard Oil
+Company, in railways, coal mines, and so on. But Mr. Carnegie does not
+personally use any of the steel ingots made in the works in which he
+owns shares. He uses practically no steel at all, except a knife or
+two. Mr. Rockefeller does not use the oil-wells he owns, nor a
+hundred-millionth part of the coal his shares in coal-mines represent.
+
+If one could get Mr. Carnegie into one of the works in which he is
+interested and stand with him in front of one of the great furnaces as
+it poured forth its stream of molten metal, he might say: "See! that
+is partly mine. It is part of my wealth!" Then, if one were to ask
+"But what are you going to do with that steel, Mr. Carnegie--is it
+useful to you?" Mr. Carnegie would laugh at the thought. He would
+probably reply, "No, bless your life! The steel is useless to _me_. I
+don't want it. But somebody else does. _It is useful to other
+people._"
+
+Ask Mr. Rockefeller, "Is this oil refinery your property, Mr.
+Rockefeller?" and he would reply: "It is partly mine. I own a big
+share in it and it represents part of my wealth." Ask him next: "But,
+Mr. Rockefeller, what are _you_ going to do with all that oil? Surely,
+you cannot need so much oil for your own use?" and he, like Mr.
+Carnegie, would reply: "No! The oil is useless to me. I don't want it.
+But somebody else does. _It is useful to other people._"
+
+To be rich in our present social state, Jonathan, you must not only
+own an abundance of things useful to you, but also things useful only
+to others, which you can sell to them at a profit. Wealth, in our
+present society, then consists in the possession of things having an
+exchange value--things which other people will buy from you. So endeth
+our first lesson in political economy.
+
+And here beginneth our second lesson, Jonathan. We must now consider
+how wealth is produced.
+
+The Socialists say that all wealth is produced by labor applied to
+natural resources. That is a very simple answer, which you can easily
+remember. But I want you to examine it well. Think it over: ask
+yourself whether anything in your experience as a workingman confirms
+or disproves it. Do you produce wealth? Do your fellow workers produce
+wealth? Do you know of any other way in which wealth can be produced
+than by labor applied to natural resources? Don't be fooled, Jonathan.
+Think for yourself!
+
+The wealth of a fisherman consists in an abundance of fish for which
+there is a good market. But suppose there is a big demand for fish in
+the cities and that, at the same time, there are millions of fish in
+the sea, ready to be caught. So long as they are in the sea, the fish
+are not wealth. Even if the sea belonged to a private individual, as
+the oil-wells belong to Mr. Rockefeller and a few other individuals,
+nobody would be any the better off. Fish in the sea are not wealth,
+but fish in the market-places are. Why, because labor has been
+expended in catching them and bringing them to market.
+
+There are millions of tons of coal in Pennsylvania. President Baer
+said, you will remember, that God had appointed him and a few other
+gentlemen to look after that coal, to act as His trustees. And Mr.
+Baer wasn't joking, either. That is the funny part of the story: he
+was actually serious when he uttered that foolish blasphemy! There are
+also millions of people who want coal, whose very lives depend upon
+it. People who will pay almost any price for it rather than go without
+it.
+
+The coal is there, millions of tons of it. But suppose that nobody
+digs for it; that the coal is left where Nature produced it, or where
+God placed it, whichever description you prefer? Do you think it would
+do anybody any good lying there, just as it lay untouched when the
+Indian roved through the forests ignorant of its presence? Would
+anybody be wealthier on account of the coal being there? Of course
+not. It only becomes wealth when somebody's labor makes it available.
+Every dollar of the wealth of our coal-mining industry, as of the
+fishing industries, represents human labor.
+
+I need not go through the list of all our industries, Jonathan, to
+make this truth clear to you. If it pleases you to do so, you can
+easily do that for yourself. I simply wanted to make it clear that the
+Socialists are stating a great universal truth when they say that
+labor applied to natural resources is the true source of all wealth.
+As Sir William Petty said long ago: "Labor is the father and land is
+the mother of all wealth."
+
+But you must be careful, Jonathan, not to misuse that word "labor."
+Socialists don't mean the labor of the hands only, when they speak of
+labor. Take the case of the coal-mines again, just for a moment:
+There are men who dig the coal, called miners. But before they can
+work there must be other men to make tools and machinery for them. And
+before there can be machinery made and fixed in its proper place there
+must be surveyors and engineers, men with a special education and
+capacity, to draw the plans, and so on. Then there must be some men to
+organize the business, to take orders for the coal, to see that it is
+shipped, to collect the payment agreed upon, so that the workers can
+be paid, and so on through a long list of things requiring _mental
+labor_.
+
+Both kinds of labor are equally necessary, and no one but a fool would
+ever think otherwise. No Socialist writer or lecturer ever said that
+wealth was produced by _manual labor_ alone applied to natural
+resources. And yet, I hardly ever pick up a book or newspaper article
+written against Socialism in which that is not charged against the
+Socialists! The opponents of Socialism all seem to be lineal
+descendants of Ananias, Jonathan!
+
+For your special, personal benefit I want to cite just one instance of
+this misrepresentation. You have heard, I have no doubt, of the
+English gentleman, Mr. W.H. Mallock, who came to this country last
+year to lecture against Socialism. He is a very pleasant fellow,
+personally--as pleasant a fellow as a confirmed aristocrat who does
+not like to ride in the street cars with "common people" can be. Mr.
+Mallock was hired by the Civic Federation and paid out of funds which
+Mr. August Belmont contributed to that body, funds which did not
+belong to Mr. Belmont, as the investigation of the affairs of the New
+York Traction Companies conducted later by the Hon. W.M. Ivins,
+showed. He was hired to lecture against Socialism in our great
+universities and colleges, in the interests of people like Mr.
+Belmont. And there was not one of those universities or colleges fair
+enough to say: "We want to hear the Socialist side of the argument!" I
+don't think the word "fairplay," about which we used to boast as one
+of the glories of our language, is very much liked or used in American
+universities, Jonathan. And I am very sorry. It ought not to be so.
+
+I should have been very glad to answer Mr. Mallock's silly and unjust
+attacks; to say to the professors and students in the universities and
+colleges: "I want you to listen to our side of the argument and then
+make up your minds whether we are right or whether truth is on the
+side of Mr. Mallock." That would have been fair and honest and manly,
+wouldn't it? There were several other Socialist lecturers, the equals
+of Mr. Mallock in education and as public speakers, who would have
+been ready to do the same thing. And not one of us would have wanted a
+cent of anybody's money, let alone money contributed by Mr. August
+Belmont.
+
+Mr. Mallock said that the Socialists make the claim that manual labor
+alone creates wealth when applied to natural objects. _That statement
+is not true._ He even dared say that a great and profound thinker like
+Karl Marx believed and taught that silly notion. The newspapers of
+America hailed Mr. Mallock as the long-looked-for conqueror of Marx
+and his followers. They thought he had demolished Socialism. But did
+they know that they were resting their case upon a _lie_, I wonder?
+That Marx never for a moment believed such a thing; that he went out
+of his way to explain that he did not?
+
+I don't want you to try to read the works of Marx, my friend--at
+least, not yet: _Capital_, his greatest work, is a very difficult
+book, in three large volumes. But if you will go into the public
+library and get the first volume in English translation, and turn to
+page 145, you will read the following words:
+
+"By labor power or capacity for labor is to be understood the
+aggregate of those _mental and physical_ capabilities existing in a
+human being, which he exercises when he produces a use-value of any
+description."[2]
+
+I think you will agree, Jonathan, that that statement fully justifies
+all that I have said concerning Mr. Mallock. I think you will agree,
+too, that it is a very clear and intelligible definition, which any
+man of fair sense can understand. Now, by way of contrast, I want you
+to read one of Mr. Mallock's definitions. Please bear in mind that Mr.
+Mallock is an English "scholar," by many regarded as a very clear
+thinker. This is how he defines labor:
+
+"_Labor means the faculties of the individual applied to his own
+labor._"
+
+I have never yet been able to find anybody who could make sense out of
+that definition, Jonathan, though I have submitted it to a good many
+people, among them several college professors. It does not mean
+anything. The fifty-seven letters contained in that sentence would
+mean just as much if you put them in a bag, shook them up, and then
+put them on paper just as they happened to fall out of the bag. Mr.
+Mallock's English, his veracity and his logic are all equally weak and
+defective.
+
+I don't think that Mr. Mallock is worthy of your consideration,
+Jonathan, but if you are interested in reading what he said about
+Socialism in the lectures I have been referring to, they are published
+in a volume entitled, _A Critical Examination of Socialism_. You can
+get the book in the library: they will be sure to have it there,
+because it is against Socialism. But I want you to buy a little book
+by Morris Hillquit, called _Mr. Mallock's "Ability,"_ and read it
+carefully. It costs only ten cents--and you will get more amusement
+reading the careful and scholarly dissection of Mallock than you could
+get in a dime show anywhere. If you will read my own reply to Mr.
+Mallock, in my little book _Capitalist and Laborer_, I shall not think
+the worse of you for doing so.
+
+Now, let us look at the division of the wealth. It is all produced by
+labor of manual workers and brain workers applied to natural objects
+which no man made. I am not going to weary you with figures, Jonathan,
+because you are not a statistician. I am going to take the statistics
+and make them as simple as I can for you--and tell you where you can
+find the statistics if you ever feel inclined to try your hand upon
+them.
+
+But first of all I want you to read a passage from the writings of a
+very great man, who was not a "wicked Socialist agitator" like your
+humble servant. Archdeacon Paley, the great English theologian, was
+not like many of our modern clergymen, afraid to tell the truth about
+social conditions; he was not forgetful of the social aspects of
+Christ's teaching. Among many profoundly wise utterances about social
+conditions which that great and good teacher made more than a century
+ago was the passage I now want you to read and ponder over. You might
+do much worse than to commit the whole passage to memory. It reads:
+
+    "If you should see a flock of pigeons in a field of corn, and
+    if (instead of each picking where and what it liked, taking
+    just as much as it wanted, and no more) you should see
+    ninety-nine of them gathering all they got into a heap,
+    reserving nothing for themselves but the chaff and the refuse,
+    keeping this heap for one, and that the weakest, perhaps
+    worst, pigeon of the flock, sitting round and looking on, all
+    the winter, whilst this one was devouring, throwing about and
+    wasting it; and if a pigeon, more hardy or hungry than the
+    rest, touched a grain of the hoard, all the others instantly
+    flying upon it, and tearing it to pieces; if you should see
+    this, you would see nothing more than what is every day
+    practised and established among men.
+
+    "Among men you see the ninety-and-nine toiling and scraping
+    together a heap of superfluities for one (and this one, too,
+    oftentimes the feeblest and worst of the set, a child, a
+    woman, a madman or a fool), getting nothing for themselves,
+    all the while, but a little of the coarsest of the provision
+    which their own industry produces; looking quietly on, while
+    they see the fruits of all their labor spent or spoiled; and
+    if one of their number take or touch a particle of the hoard,
+    the others joining against him, and hanging him for theft."
+
+If there were many men like Dr. Paley in our American churches to-day,
+preaching the truth in that fearless fashion, there would be something
+like a revolution, Jonathan. The churches would no longer be empty
+almost; preachers would not be wondering why workingmen don't go to
+church. There would probably be less show and pride in the churches;
+less preachers paid big salaries, less fashionable choirs. But the
+churches would be much nearer to the spirit and standard of Jesus than
+most of them are to-day. There is nothing in connection with modern
+religious life quite so glaring as the infidelity of the Christian
+ministry to the teachings of Christ.
+
+A lady once addressed Thomas Carlyle concerning Jesus in this fashion:
+"How delighted we should all be to throw open our doors to him and
+listen to his divine precepts! Don't you think so, Mr. Carlyle?" The
+bluff old puritan sage answered: "No, madam, I don't. I think if he
+had come fashionably dressed, with plenty of money, and preaching
+doctrines palatable to the higher orders, I might have had the honor
+of receiving from you a card of invitation, on the back of which would
+be written, 'To meet our Saviour.' But if he came uttering his sublime
+precepts, and denouncing the pharisees, and associating with publicans
+and the lower orders, as he did, you would have treated him as the
+Jews did, and cried out, 'Take him to Newgate and hang him.'"
+
+I sometimes wonder, Jonathan, what really _would_ happen if the
+Carpenter-preacher of Gallilee could and did visit some of our
+American churches. Would he be able to stand the vulgar show? Would he
+be able to listen in silence to the miserable perversion of his
+teachings by hired apologists of social wrong? Would he want to drive
+out the moneychangers and the Masters of Bread, to hurl at them his
+terrible thunderbolts of wrath and scorn? Would he be welcomed by the
+churches bearing his name? Would they want to listen to his gospel?
+Frankly, Jonathan, I doubt it. A few Socialists would be found in
+nearly every church ready to receive him and to call him "Comrade,"
+but the majority of church-goers would shun him and pass him by.
+
+I should not be surprised, Jonathan, if the President of the United
+States called him an "undesirable citizen," as he surely would call
+Archdeacon Paley if he were alive.
+
+I wanted you to read Paley's illustration of the pigeons before going
+into the unequal distribution of wealth. It will help you to
+understand another illustration. Suppose that from a shipwreck one
+hundred men are fortunate enough to save themselves and to make their
+way to an island, where, making the best of conditions, they establish
+a little community, which they elect to call "Capitalia." Luckily,
+they have all got food and clothing enough to last them for a little
+while, and they are fortunate enough to find on the island a supply of
+tools, evidently abandoned by some former occupants of the island.
+
+They set to work, cultivating the ground, building huts for
+themselves, hunting for game, and so on. They start out to face the
+primeval struggle with the sullen forces of Nature as our ancestors
+did in the time long past. Their efforts prosper, every one of the
+hundred men being a worker, every man working with equal will, equal
+strength and vigor. Now, then, suppose that one day, they decide to
+divide up the wealth produced by their labor, to institute individual
+property in place of common property, competition in place of
+co-operation. What would you think if two or three of the strongest
+members said, "We will do the dividing, we will distribute the wealth
+according to our ideas of justice and right," and then proceeded to
+give 55 per cent. of the wealth to one man, to the next eleven men 32
+per cent. and to the remaining eighty-eight men only 13 per cent.
+between them?
+
+I will put it in another way, Jonathan, since you are not accustomed
+to thinking in percentages. Suppose that there were a hundred cows to
+be divided among the members of the community. According to the scheme
+of division just described, this is how the division would work out:
+
+     1 Man would get    55 Cows for himself
+    11 Men would get    32 Cows among them
+    88 Men would get    13 Cows among them
+
+When they had divided the cows in this manner they would proceed to
+divide the wheat, the potato crops, the land, and everything else
+owned by the community in the same unequal way. I ask you again,
+Jonathan, what would you think of such a division?
+
+Of course, being a fair-minded man, endowed with ordinary intelligence
+at least, you will admit that there would be no sense and no justice
+in such a plan of division, and you doubt if intelligent human beings
+would submit to it. But, my friend, that is not quite so bad as the
+distribution of wealth in America to-day is. Suppose that instead of
+all the members of the little island community being workers, all
+working equally hard, fairly sharing the work of the community, one
+man absolutely refused to do anything at all, saying, "I was the first
+one to get ashore. The land really belongs to me. I am the landlord. I
+won't work, but you must work for me." And suppose that eleven other
+men said in like manner. "We won't work. We found the tools, we
+brought the seeds and the food out of the boats when we came. We are
+the capitalists and you must do the work in the fields. We will
+superintend you, give you orders where to dig, and when, and where to
+stop. You eighty-eight common fellows are the laborers who must do the
+hard work while we use our brains." And suppose that they actually
+carried out that plan and _then_ divided the wealth in the way I have
+described, that would be a pretty good illustration of how the wealth
+produced in America under our existing social system is divided.
+
+_And I ask you what you think of that, Jonathan Edwards. How do you
+like it?_
+
+These are not my figures. They are not the figures of any rabid
+Socialist making frenzied guesses. They are taken from a book called
+_The Present Distribution of Wealth in the United States_, by the late
+Dr. Charles B. Spahr, a book that is used in most of our colleges and
+universities. No serious criticism of the figures has ever been
+attempted and most economists, even the conservative ones, base their
+own estimates upon Spahr's work. It would be worth your while to get
+the book from the library, Jonathan, and to read it carefully.
+
+In the meantime, look over the following table which sets forth the
+results of Dr. Spahr's investigation, Jonathan, and remember that the
+condition of things has not improved since 1895, when the book was
+written, but that they have, on the contrary, very much worsened.
+
+SPAHR'S TABLE OF THE DISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH IN THE UNITED STATES
+
+==========+============+=======+==========+=================+=======
+          |     No. of |   Per |  Average |       Aggregate |   Per
+Class     |   Families |  Cent |   Wealth |          Wealth |  Cent
+----------+------------+-------+----------+-----------------+-------
+Rich      |    125,000 |   1.0 | $263,040 |  32,880,000,000 |  54.8
+Middle    |  1,362,500 |  10.9 |   14,180 |  29,320,000,000 |  32.2
+Poor      |  4,762,500 |  38.1 |    1,639 |   7,800,000,000 |  13.0
+Very Poor |  6,250,000 |  50.0 |          |                 |
+----------+------------+-------+----------+-----------------+-------
+Total     | 13,500,000 | 100.0 |   $4,800 | $60,000,000,000 | 100.0
+----------+------------+-------+----------+-----------------+-------
+
+Now, Jonathan, although I have taken a good deal of trouble to lay
+these figures before you, I really don't care very much for them.
+Statistics don't impress me as they do some people, and I would far
+rather rely upon your commonsense than upon any figures. I have not
+quoted these figures because they were published by a very able
+scholar in a very wise book, nor because scientific men, professors of
+political economy and others, have accepted them as a fair estimate. I
+have used them because I believe them to be _true and reliable_.
+
+But don't you rest your whole faith upon them, Jonathan. If some fine
+day a Republican spellbinder, or a Democratic scribbler, tries to
+upset you and prove that Socialists are all liars and false prophets,
+just tell him the figures are quite unimportant to you, that you don't
+care to know just exactly how much of the wealth the richest one per
+cent. gets and how little of it the poorest fifty per cent. gets. A
+few millions more or less don't trouble you. Pin him down to the one
+fact which your own commonsense teaches you, that the wealth of the
+country _is_ unequally distributed. Tell him that you _know_,
+regardless of figures, that there are many idlers who are enormously
+rich and many honest, industrious workers who are miserably poor. He
+won't be able to deny these things. He _dare_ not, because they are
+_true_.
+
+Ask any such apologist for capitalism what he would think of the
+father or mother who took his or her eight children and said: "Here
+are eight cakes, as many cakes as there are boys and girls. I am going
+to distribute the cakes. Here, Walter, are seven of the cakes for you.
+The other cake the rest of you can divide among yourselves as best you
+can." If the capitalist defender is a fair-minded man, if he is
+neither fool nor liar nor monster, he will agree that such a parent
+would be brutally unjust.
+
+Yet, Jonathan, that is exactly how our national wealth is divided up.
+One-eighth of the families in the United States do get seven-eights of
+the wealth, and, being, I hope, neither fool, liar nor monster, I
+denounce the system as brutally unjust. There is no sense and no
+morality in mincing matters and being afraid to call spades spades.
+
+It is because of this unjust distribution of the wealth of modern
+society that we have so much social unrest. That is the heart of the
+whole problem. Why are workingmen organized into unions to fight the
+capitalists, and the capitalists on their side organized to fight the
+workers? Why, simply because the capitalists want to continue
+exploiting the workers, to exploit them still more if possible, while
+the workers want to be exploited less, want to get more of what they
+produce.
+
+Why is it that eminently respectable members of society combine to
+bribe legislators--_to buy laws from the lawmakers!_--and to corrupt
+the republic, a form of treason worse than Benedict Arnold's? Why, for
+the same reason: they want to continue the spoliation of the people.
+That is why the heads of a great life insurance company illegally used
+the funds belonging to widows and orphans to contribute to the
+campaign fund of the Republican Party in 1904. That is why, also, Mr.
+Belmont used the funds of the traction company of which he is
+president to support the Civic Federation, which is an organization
+specially designed to fool and mislead the wage-earners of America.
+That is why every investigation of American political or business life
+that is honestly made by able and fearless men reveals so much
+chicanery and fraud.
+
+You belong to a union, Jonathan, because you want to put a check upon
+the greed of the employers. But you never can expect through the union
+to get all that rightfully belongs to you. It is impossible to expect
+that the union will ever do away with the terrible inequalities in the
+distribution of wealth. The union is a good thing, and the workers
+ought to be much more thoroughly organized into unions than they are.
+Socialists are always on the side of the union when it is engaged in
+an honest fight against the exploiters of labor.
+
+Later on, I shall take up the question of unionism and discuss it with
+you, Jonathan. Meanwhile, I want to impress upon your mind that _a
+wise union man votes as he strikes_. There is not the least bit of
+sense in belonging to a union if you are to become a "scab" when you
+go to the ballot-box. _And a vote for a capitalist party is a scab
+vote, Jonathan._
+
+FOOTNOTES:
+
+[2] Note: In the American edition, published by Kerr, the page is
+186.
+
+
+
+
+V
+
+THE DRONES AND THE BEES
+
+    Hitherto it is questionable if all the mechanical inventions
+    yet made have lightened the day's toil of any human being.
+    They have enabled a greater population to live the same life
+    of drudgery and imprisonment, and an increased number of
+    manufactures, and others, to make large fortunes.--_John
+    Stuart Mill._
+
+    Most people imagine that the rich are in heaven, but as a rule
+    it is only a gilded hell. There is not a man in the city of
+    New York with brains enough to own five millions of dollars.
+    Why? The money will own him. He becomes the key to a safe.
+    That money will get him up at daylight; that money will
+    separate him from his friends; that money will fill his heart
+    with fear; that money will rob his days of sunshine and his
+    nights of pleasant dreams. He becomes the property of that
+    money. And he goes right on making more. What for? He does not
+    know. It becomes a kind of insanity.--_R.G. Ingersoll._
+
+    Is it well that, while we range with Science, glorying in the time,
+    City children soak and blacken soul and sense in City slime?
+    There, among the gloomy alleys, Progress halts on palsied feet,
+    Crime and Hunger cast our maidens by the thousand on the street.
+    There the master scrimps his haggard seamstress of her daily bread,
+    There a single sordid attic holds the living and the dead;
+    There the smouldering fire of fever creeps across the rotted floor,
+    In the crowded couch of incest, in the warrens of the poor.
+                                           --_Tennyson._
+
+
+When you and I were boys going to school, friend Jonathan, we were
+constantly admonished to study with admiration the social economy of
+the bees. We learned to almost reverence the little winged creatures
+for the manner in which they
+
+    Improve each shining hour,
+    And gather honey all the day
+    From every opening flower.
+
+We were taught, you remember, to honor the bees for their hatred of
+drones. It was the great virtue of the bees that they always drove the
+drones from the hive. For my part, I learned the lesson so well that I
+really became a sort of bee-worshipper. But since I have grown to
+mature years I have come to the conclusion that those old lessons were
+not honestly meant, Jonathan. For if anybody proposes to-day that we
+should drive out the drones from the _human_ hive, he is at once
+denounced as an Anarchist and an "undesirable citizen."
+
+It is all very well for bees to insist that there must be no idle
+parasites, that the drones must go, but for human beings such a policy
+won't do! It savors too much of Socialism, my friend, and is
+unpleasantly like Paul's foolish saying that "If any man among you
+will not work, neither shall he eat." That is a text which is out of
+date and unsuited to the twentieth century!
+
+    "Allah! Allah!" cried the stranger,
+    "Wondrous sights the traveller sees;
+    But the greatest is the latest,
+    Where the drones control the bees!"
+
+Every modern civilized nation rewards its drones better than it
+rewards its bees, and in every land the drones control the bees.
+
+I want you to consider, friend Jonathan, the lives of the people. How
+the workers live and how the shirkers live; now the bees live and how
+the drones live, if you like that better. You can study the matter for
+yourself, right in Pittsburg, much better than you can from books, for
+God knows that in Pittsburg there are the extremes of wealth and
+poverty, just as there are in New York, Chicago, St. Louis or San
+Francisco. There are gilded hells where rich drones live and squalid
+hells where poor bees live, and the number of truly happy people is
+sadly, terribly, small.
+
+_Ten millions in poverty!_ Don't you think that is a cry so terrible
+that it ought to shame a great nation like this, a nation more
+bounteously endowed by Nature than any other nation in the world's
+history? Men, women and children, poor and miserable, with not enough
+to eat, nor clothes to keep them warm in the cold winter nights; with
+places for homes that are unfit for dogs, and these not their own;
+knowing not if to-morrow may bring upon them the last crushing blow.
+All these conditions, and conditions infinitely worse than these, are
+contained in the poverty of those millions, Jonathan.
+
+If people were poor because the land was poor, because the country was
+barren, because Nature dealt with us in niggardly fashion, so that all
+men had to struggle against famine; if, in a word, there was democracy
+in our poverty, so that none were idle and rich while the rest toiled
+in poverty, it would be our supreme glory to bear it with cheerful
+courage. But that is not the case. While babies perish for want of
+food and care in dank and unhealthy hovels, there are pampered poodles
+in palaces, bejeweled and cared for by liveried flunkies and waiting
+maids. While men and women want bread, and beg crusts or stand
+shivering in the "bread lines" of our great cities, there are monkeys
+being banqueted at costly banquets by the profligate degenerates of
+riches. It's all wrong, Jonathan, cruelly, shamefully, hellishly
+wrong! And I for one, refuse to call such a brutalized system, or the
+nation tolerating it, _civilized_.
+
+Good old Thomas Carlyle would say "Amen!" to that, Jonathan. Lots of
+people wont. They will tell you that the poverty of the millions is
+very sad, of course, and that the poor are to be pitied. But they will
+remind you that Jesus said something about the poor always being with
+us. They won't read you what he did say, but you can read it for
+yourself. Here it is: "For ye have the poor always with you, and
+_whensoever ye will ye can do them good_."[3] And now, I want you to
+read a quotation from Carlyle:
+
+    "It is not to die, or even to die of hunger, that makes a man
+    wretched; many men have died; all men must die,--the last exit
+    of us all is in a Fire-Chariot of Pain. But it is to live
+    miserable we know not why; to work sore and yet gain nothing;
+    to be heart-worn, weary, yet isolated, unrelated, girt-in with
+    a cold universal Laissezfaire: it is to die slowly all our
+    life long, imprisoned in a deaf, dead, Infinite Injustice, as
+    in the accursed iron belly of a Phalaris' Bull! This is and
+    remains forever intolerable to all men whom God has made."
+
+"Miserable we know not why"--"to die slowly all our life
+long"--"Imprisoned in a deaf, dead, Infinite Injustice"--Don't these
+phrases describe exactly the poverty you have known, brother Jonathan?
+
+Did you ever stop to think, my friend, that poverty is the lot of the
+_average_ worker, the reward of the producers of wealth, and that only
+the producers of wealth are poor? Do you know that, because we die
+slowly all our lives long, the death-rate among the working-class is
+far higher than among other classes by reason of overwork, anxiety,
+poor food, lack of pleasure, bad housing, and all the other ills
+comprehended in the lot of the wage-worker? In Chicago, for example,
+in the wards where the well-to-do reside the death-rate is not more
+than 12 per thousand, while it is 37 in the tenement districts.
+
+Scientists who have gone into the matter tell us that of ten million
+persons belonging to the well-to-do classes the annual deaths do not
+number more than 100,000, while among the very best paid workers the
+number is not less than 150,000 and among the very poorest paid
+workers at least 350,000. To show you just what those proportions are,
+I have represented the matter in a little diagram, which you can
+understand at a glance:
+
+    [Illustration: DIAGRAM
+    Showing Relative Death-Rate Among Persons of Different Social
+    Classes.]
+
+There are some diseases, notably the Great White Plague. Consumption,
+which we call "diseases of the working-classes" on account of the fact
+that they prey most upon the wearied, ill-nourished bodies of the
+workers. Not that they are confined to the workers entirely, but
+because the workers are most afflicted by them. Because the workers
+live in crowded tenement hovels, work in factories laden with dust and
+disease germs, are overworked and badly fed, this and other of the
+great scourges of the human race find them ready victims.
+
+Here is another diagram for you, Jonathan, showing the comparative
+mortality from Consumption among the workers engaged in six different
+industrial occupations and the members of six groups of professional
+workers.
+
+    [Illustration: DIAGRAM
+    Showing Relative Mortality From Tuberculosis.
+
+    Deaths per 100,000 living in the same occupation
+
+    Marble and stone cutters.                             540
+    Cigar makers and tobacco workers.                     476
+    Compositors, printers, pressmen.                      435
+    Barbers and hairdressers.                             334
+    Masons (brick and stone).                             294
+    Iron and steel workers.                               236
+    Physicians and Surgeons.                              168
+    Engineers and Surveyors.                              145
+    School teachers.                                      144
+    Lawyers.                                              140
+    Clergymen.                                            123
+    Bankers, brokers, officials of companies, etc.         92]
+
+I want you to study this diagram and the figures by which it is
+accompanied, Jonathan. You will observe that the death rate from
+Consumption among marble and stone cutters is six times greater than
+among bankers and brokers and directors of companies. Among cigar
+makers and tobacco workers it is more than five times as great. Iron
+and steel workers do not suffer so much from the plague as some other
+workers, according to the death-rates. One reason is that only fairly
+robust men enter the trade to begin with. Another reason is that a
+great many, finding they cannot stand the strain, after they have
+become infected, leave the trade for lighter occupations. I think
+there can be no doubt that the _true_ mortality from Consumption among
+iron and steel workers is much higher than the figures show. But,
+taking the figures as they are, confident that they understate the
+extent of the ravages of the disease in these occupations, we find
+that the mortality is more than two and a half times greater than
+among capitalists.
+
+Now, these are very serious figures, Jonathan. Why is the mortality so
+much less among the capitalists? It is because they have better homes,
+are not so overworked to physical exhaustion, are better fed and
+clothed, and can have better care and attention, far better chances of
+being cured, if they are attacked. They can get these things only from
+the labor of the workers, Jonathan.
+
+_In other words, they buy their lives with ours. Workers are killed to
+keep capitalists alive._
+
+It used to be frequently charged that drink was the chief cause of the
+poverty of the workers; that they were poor because they were drunken
+and thriftless. But we hear less of that silly nonsense than we used
+to, though now and then a Prohibitionist advocate still repeats the
+old and long exploded myth. It never was true, Jonathan, and it is
+less true to-day than ever before. Drunkenness is an evil and the
+working class suffers from it to a lamentable degree, but it is not
+the sole cause of poverty, it is not the chief cause of poverty, it is
+not even a very important cause of poverty at all.
+
+It is true that intemperance causes poverty in some cases, it is also
+true that drunkenness is very frequently caused by poverty. They act
+and react upon each other, but it is not doubted by any student of our
+social conditions whose opinion carries any weight that intemperance
+is far more often the result of poverty and bad conditions of life and
+labor than the cause of them.
+
+The International Socialist Congress which met at Stuttgart last
+summer very rightly decided that Socialists everywhere should do all
+in their power to combat alcoholism, to end the ravages of
+intemperance among the working classes of all nations. For drunken
+voters are not very likely to be either wise or free voters: we need
+sober, earnest, clear-thinking men to bring about better conditions,
+Jonathan. But the Socialists, while they adopt this position, do not
+mistake results for causes. They know from actual experience that
+Solomon was right when he attributed intemperance to ill conditions.
+Hunt out your Bible and turn to the Book of Proverbs, chapter 31,
+verse 7. There you will read: "Let him drink and forget his poverty,
+and remember his misery no more."
+
+That is not very good advice to give a workingman, but it is exactly
+what many workingmen do. There was a wise English bishop who said a
+few years ago that if he lived in the slums of any of the great
+cities, under conditions similar to those in which most of the workers
+live, he would probably be a drunkard, and when I see the conditions
+under which millions of men are working and living I wonder that we
+have not more drunkenness than we have.
+
+A good many years ago, "General" Booth, head of the Salvation Army,
+declared that "nine-tenths" of the poverty of the people was due to
+intemperance. Later on, "Commissioner" Cadman, one of the "General's"
+most trusted aides, made an investigation of the causes of poverty
+among all those who passed through the Army shelters for destitute men
+and women. He found that among the very lowest class, the "submerged
+tenth," where the ravages of drink are most sadly evident, depression
+in trade counted for much more than drink as a cause of poverty. The
+figures were:
+
+    Depression in trade            55.8 per cent.
+    Drink _and Gambling_           26.6 per cent.
+    Ill-health                     11.6 per cent.
+    Old Age                         5.8 per cent.
+
+Even among the very lowest class of the social wrecks of our great
+cities, who have long since abandoned hope, depression in trade was
+found to count for more than twice as much as drink and gambling
+combined as a producer of poverty.
+
+That is in keeping with all the investigations that have ever been
+made in a scientific spirit. Professor Amos Warner, in his valuable
+study of the subject, published in his book, _American Charities_,
+shows how false the notion that nearly all the poverty of the people
+is due to their intemperance proves to be when an intelligent
+investigation of the facts is made.
+
+Dr. Edward T. Devine, of Columbia University, editor of _Charities and
+the Commons_, is probably as competent an authority upon this question
+as any man living. He is not likely to be called a Socialist by
+anybody. Yet I find him writing in his magazine, at the end of
+November, 1907: "The tradition which many hold that the condition of
+poverty is ordinarily and as a matter of course to be explained by
+personal faults of the poor themselves is no longer tenable. Strong
+drink and vice are abnormal, unnatural and essentially unattractive
+ways of spending surplus income." Dr. Devine very frankly and bravely
+admits that poverty is an unnecessary evil, "a shocking, loathsome
+excrescence on the body politic, an intolerable evil which should come
+to an end." What else, indeed, could a sane man think of it?
+
+As a conservative man, I say without reservation that accidents
+incurred in the course of employment, and sickness brought on by
+industrial conditions, such as overwork accompanied by under
+nourishment, exposure to extremes of temperature, unsanitary workshops
+and factories and the inhalation of contaminated atmosphere, are far
+more important causes of poverty among the workers than intemperance.
+Every investigation ever made goes to prove this true. I wish that
+every one who seeks to blame the poverty of the poor upon the victims
+themselves would study a few facts, which I am going to ask you to
+study, without prejudice or passion. They would readily see then how
+false the belief is.
+
+Last year there was a Committee of very expert investigators in New
+York which made a careful inquiry into the relation of wages to the
+standard of living. They were not Socialists, these gentlemen, or I
+should not submit their testimony. I am anxious to base my case
+against our present social system upon evidence that is not in any way
+biased in favor of Socialism. Dr. Lee K. Frankel was Chairman of the
+Committee. He is Director of the United Hebrew Charities of New York
+City, an able and sincere man, but not a Socialist. Dr. Devine,
+another able and sincere man who is by no means a Socialist, was a
+member of the Committee. Among the other members were also such
+persons as Bishop Greer, of New York, Reverend Adolph Guttman,
+president of the Hebrew Relief Society, Syracuse, New York, Mrs.
+William Einstein, president of Emanu El Sisterhood, New York; Mr.
+Homer Folks, Secretary State Charities Aid Association and Reverend
+William J. White, of Brooklyn, Supervisor of Catholic Charities. The
+Committee was deputed to make the investigation by the New York State
+Conference of Charities and Corrections, and made its report in
+November, 1907, at Albany, N.Y.
+
+I think you will agree, Jonathan, that it would be very hard to
+imagine a more conservative body, less inoculated with the virus of
+Socialism than that. From their report to the Conference I note that
+the Committee reported that as a result of their work, after going
+carefully into the expenditure of some 322 families, they had come to
+the conclusion that the lowest amount upon which a family of five
+could be supported in decency and health in New York City was about
+eight hundred dollars a year. I am quite sure, Jonathan, that there is
+not one of the members of that Committee who would think that even
+that sum would be enough to keep _their_ families in health and
+decency; not one who would want to see their children living under the
+best conditions which that sum made possible. They were
+philanthropists you see, Jonathan, "figuring out" how much the "Poor"
+ought to be able to live on. And to help them out they got Professor
+Chapin, of Beloit College and Professor Underhill, of Yale. Professor
+Underhill being an expert physiological chemist, could advise them as
+to the sufficiency of the expenditures upon food among the families
+reported.
+
+But the total income of thousands of families falls very short of
+eight hundred dollars a year. There are many thousands of families in
+which the breadwinner does not earn more than ten dollars a week at
+best. Making allowance for time lost through sickness, holidays, and
+so on, it is evident that the total income of such families would not
+exceed four hundred and fifty dollars a year at best. Even the worker
+with twenty dollars a week, if there is a brief period of sickness or
+unemployment, will find himself, despite his best efforts, on the
+wrong side of the line, compelled either to see his family suffer want
+or to become dependent on "that cold thing called Charity." And Dr.
+Devine, writing in _Charities and the Commons_, admits that the
+charitable societies cannot hope to make up the deficit, to add to the
+wages of the workers enough to raise their standards of living to the
+point of efficiency. He admits that "such a policy would tend to
+financial bankruptcy."
+
+Taking the unskilled workers in New York City, the vast army of
+laborers, it is certain that they do not average $400 a year, so that
+they are, as a class, hopelessly, miserably poor. It is true that many
+of them spend part of their miserable wages on drink, but if they did
+not, they would still be poor; if every cent went to buy the
+necessities of existence, they would still be hopelessly, miserably
+poor.
+
+The Massachusetts Bureau of Statistics showed a few years ago, when
+the cost of living was less than now, that a family of five could not
+live decently and in health upon less than $754 a year, but more than
+half of the unskilled workers in the shoe-making industry of that
+State got less than $300 a year. Of course, some were single and not a
+few were women, but the figures go far to show that the New York
+conditions are prevalent in New England also. Mr. John Mitchell said
+that in the anthracite district of Pennsylvania it was impossible to
+maintain a family of five in decency on less than $600 a year, but
+according to Dr. Peter Roberts, who is one of the most conservative of
+living authorities upon the conditions of industry in the coal mines
+of Pennsylvania, the _average_ wage in the anthracite district is
+less than $500 and that about 60 per cent. receive less than $450 a
+year.
+
+I am not going to bother you with more statistics, Jonathan, for I
+know you do not like them, and they are hard to remember. What I want
+you to see is that, for many thousands of workers, poverty is an
+inevitable condition. If they do not spend a cent on drink; never give
+a cent to the Church or for charity; never buy a newspaper; never see
+a play or hear a concert; never lose a day's wages through sickness or
+accident; never make a present of a ribbon to their wives or a toy to
+their children--in a word, if they live as galley slaves, working
+without a single break in the monotony and drudgery of their lives,
+they must still be poor and endure hunger, unless they can get other
+sources of income. The mother must go out to work and neglect her baby
+to help out; the little boys and girls must go to work in the days
+when they ought to be in school or in the fields at play, to help out
+the beggars' pittance which is their portion. The greatest cause of
+poverty is low wages.
+
+Then think of the accidents which occur to the wage-earners, making
+them incapable of earning anything for long periods, or even
+permanently. At the same meeting of the New York State Conference of
+Charities and Corrections as that already referred to, there were
+reports presented by many of the charitable organizations of the state
+which showed that this cause of poverty is a very serious one, and one
+that is constantly increasing. In only about twenty per cent. of the
+accidents of a serious nature investigated was there any settlement
+made by the employers, and from a list that is of immense interest I
+take just a few cases as showing how little the life of the average
+workingman is valued at:
+
+  _Nature of Injury._              _Settlement_
+
+  Spine injured                    $ 20 and doctor
+  Legs broken                       300
+  Death                             100
+  Death                              65
+  Two ribs broken                    20
+  Paralysis                          12
+  Brain affected                     60
+  Fingers amputated                  50
+
+The reports showed that about half of the accidents occurred to men
+under forty years of age, in the very prime of life. The wages were
+determined in 241 cases and it was shown that about 25 per cent. were
+earning less than $10 a week and 60 per cent. were earning less than
+$15 a week. Even without the accidents occurring to them these workers
+and their families must be miserably poor, the accidents only plunging
+them deeper into the frightful abyss of despair, of wasting life and
+torturous struggle.
+
+No, my friend, it is not true that the poverty of the poor is due to
+their sins, thriftlessness and intemperance. I want you to remember
+that it is not the wicked Socialist agitators only who say this. I
+could fill a book for you with the conclusions of very conservative
+men, all of them opposed to Socialism, whose studies have forced them
+to this conclusion.
+
+There was a Royal Commission appointed in England some years ago to
+consider the problem of the Aged Poor and how to deal with it. Of that
+Royal Commission Lord Aberdare was chairman--and he was a most
+implacable enemy of Socialism. The Commission reported in 1895: "We
+are confirmed in our view by the evidence we have received that ... as
+regards the great bulk of the working classes, during their lives,
+they are fairly provident, fairly thrifty, fairly industrious and
+fairly temperate." But they could not add that, as a result of these
+virtues, they were also fairly well-to-do! The Right Honorable Joseph
+Chamberlain, another enemy of Socialism, signed with several others a
+Minority Report, but they agreed "that the imputation that old age
+pauperism is mainly due to drink, idleness, improvidence, and the like
+abuses applies to but a very small proportion of the working
+population."
+
+Very similar was the report of a Select Committee of the House of
+Commons, appointed to consider the best means of improving the
+condition of the "aged and deserving poor." The report read: "Cases
+are too often found in which poor and aged people, whose conduct and
+whose whole career has been blameless, industrious and deserving, find
+themselves from no fault of their own, at the end of a long and
+meritorious life, with nothing but the workhouse or inadequate outdoor
+relief as the refuge for their declining years."
+
+And what is true of England in this respect is equally true of
+America.
+
+Let me repeat here that I am not defending intemperance. I believe
+with all my heart that we must fight intemperance as a deadly enemy of
+the working class. I want to see the workers sober; sober enough to
+think clearly, sober enough to act wisely. Before we can get rid of
+the evils from which we suffer we must get sober minds, friend
+Jonathan. That is why the Socialists of Europe are fighting the drink
+evil; that is why, too, the Prussian Government put a stop to the
+"Anti-Alcohol" campaign of the workers, led by Dr. Frolich, of Vienna.
+Dr. Frolich was not advocating Socialism. He was simply appealing to
+the workers to stop making beasts of themselves, to become sober so
+that they could think clearly with brains unmuddled by alcohol. And
+the Prussian Government did not want that: they knew very well that
+clear thinking and sober judgment would lead the workers to the ballot
+boxes under Socialist banners.
+
+I care most of all for the suffering of the innocent little ones. When
+I see that under our present system it is necessary for the mother to
+leave her baby's cradle to go into a factory, regardless of whether
+the baby lives or dies when it is fed on nasty and dangerous
+artificial foods or poor, polluted milk, I am stirred to my soul's
+depths. When I think of the tens of thousands of little babies that
+die every year as a result of these conditions I have described; of
+the millions of children who go to school every day underfed and
+neglected, and of the little child toilers in shops, factories and
+mines, as well as upon the farms, though their lot is less tragic than
+that of the little prisoners of the factories and mines--I cannot find
+words to express my hatred of the ghoulish system.
+
+I should like you to read, Jonathan, a little pamphlet on _Underfed
+School Children_, which costs ten cents, and a bigger book, _The
+Bitter Cry of the Children_, which you can get at the public library.
+I wrote these to lay before thinking men and women some of the
+terrible evils from which our children suffer. _I know_ that the
+things written are true. Every line of them was written with the
+single purpose of telling the truth as I had seen it.
+
+I made the terrible assertions that more than eighty thousand babies
+are slain by poverty in America each year; that some "2,000,000
+children of school age in the United States are the victims of poverty
+which denies them common necessities, particularly adequate
+nourishment"; that there were at least 1,750,000 children at work in
+this country. These statements, and the evidence given in support of
+them, attracted widespread attention, both in this country and in
+Europe. They were cited in the U.S. Senate and in Europe parliaments.
+They were preached about from thousands of pulpits and discussed from
+a thousand platforms by politicians, social reformers and others.
+
+A committee was formed in New York City to promote the physical
+welfare of school children. Although one of the first to take the
+matter up, I was not asked to serve on that committee, on account of
+the fact, as I was afterwards told, of my being a Socialist. Well,
+that Committee, composed entirely of non-Socialists, and including
+some very bitter opponents of Socialism, made an investigation of the
+health of school children in New York City. They examined, medically,
+some 1,400 children of various ages, living in different parts of the
+city and belonging to various social classes. If the results they
+discovered are common to the whole of the United States, the
+conditions are in every way worse than I had declared them to be.
+
+_If the conditions found by the medical investigators for this
+committee are representative of the whole of the United States, then
+we have not less than twelve million school children in the United
+States suffering from physical defects more or less serious, and not
+less than 1,248,000 suffering from malnutrition--from insufficient
+nourishment, generally due to poverty, though not always--to such an
+extent that they need medical attention._[4]
+
+Do you think a nation with such conditions existing at its very heart
+ought to be called a civilized nation? I don't. I say that it is a
+_brutalized_ nation, Jonathan!
+
+And now I want you to look over a list of another kind of shameful
+social conditions--a list of some of the vast fortunes possessed by
+men who are not victims of poverty, but of shameful wealth. I take the
+list from the dryasdust pages of _The Congressional Record_, December
+12, 1907, from a speech by the Hon. Jeff Davis, United States Senator
+from Arkansas. I cannot find in the pages of _The Congressional
+Record_ that it made any impression upon the minds of the honorable
+senators, but I hope it will make some impression upon your mind, my
+friend. It is a good deal easier to get a human idea into the head of
+an honest workingman than into the head of an honorable senator!
+
+Don't be frightened by a few figures. Read them. They are full of
+human interest. I have put before you some facts relating to the
+shameful poverty of the workers and their pitiable condition, and now
+I want to put before you some facts relating to the pitiable condition
+of the non-workers. I want you to feel some pity for the millionaires!
+
+
+THE RICHEST FIFTY-ONE IN THE UNITED STATES.
+
+"When the average present-day millionaire is bluntly asked to name the
+value of his earthly possessions, he finds it difficult to answer the
+question correctly. It may be that he is not willing to take the
+questioner into his confidence. It is doubtful whether he really
+knows.
+
+"If this is true of the millionaire himself, it follows that when
+others attempt the task of estimating the amount of his wealth the
+results must be conflicting. Still, excellent authorities are not
+lacking on this subject, and the list of the richest fifty-one persons
+in the United States has been satisfactorily compiled.
+
+"The following list is taken from Munsey's Scrap Book of June, 1906,
+and is a fair presentation of the property owned by fifty-one of the
+very richest men of the United States.
+
+ =====+=======================+================+================
+ Rank | Name.                 | How Made.      | Total Fortune.
+ -----+-----------------------+----------------+----------------
+   1  | John D. Rockefeller   | Oil            |   $600,000,000
+   2  | Andrew Carnegie       | Steel          |    300,000,000
+   3  | W.W. Astor            | Real Estate    |    300,000,000
+   4  | J. Pierpont Morgan    | Finance        |    150,000,000
+   5  | William Rockefeller   | Oil            |    100,000,000
+   6  | H.H. Rogers           |     do         |    100,000,000
+   7  | W.K. Vanderbilt       | Railroads      |    100,000,000
+   8  | Senator Clark         | Copper         |    100,000,000
+   9  | John Jacob Astor      | Real Estate    |    100,000,000
+  10  | Russell Sage          | Finance        |     80,000,000
+  11  | H.C. Frick, Jr.       | Steel and Coke |     80,000,000
+  12  | D.O. Mills            | Banker         |     75,000,000
+  13  | Marshall Field, Jr.   | Inherited      |     75,000,000
+  14  | Henry M. Flagler      | Oil            |     60,000,000
+  15  | J.J. Hill             | Railroads      |     60,000,000
+  16  | John D. Archbold      | Oil            |     50,000,000
+  17  | Oliver Payne          |     do         |     50,000,000
+  18  | J.B. Haggin           | Gold           |     50,000,000
+  19  | Harry Field           | Inherited      |     50,000,000
+  20  | James Henry Smith     |     do         |     40,000,000
+  21  | Henry Phipps          | Steel          |     40,000,000
+  22  | Alfred G. Vanderbilt  | Railroads      |     40,000,000
+  23  | H.O. Havemeyer        | Sugar          |     40,000,000
+  24  | Mrs. Hetty Green      | Finance        |     40,000,000
+  25  | Thomas F. Ryan        |     do         |     40,000,000
+  26  | Mrs. W. Walker        | Inherited      |     35,000,000
+  27  | George Gould          | Railroads      |     35,000,000
+  28  | J. Ogden Armour       | Meat           |     30,000,000
+  29  | E.T. Gerry            | Inherited      |     30,000,000
+  30  | Robert W. Goelet      | Real Estate    |     30,000,000
+  31  | J.H. Flager           | Finance        |     30,000,000
+  32  | Claus Spreckels       | Sugar          |     30,000,000
+  33  | W.F. Havemeyer        |     do         |     30,000,000
+  34  | Jacob H. Schiff       | Banker         |     25,000,000
+  35  | P.A.B. Widener        | Street Cars    |     25,000,000
+  36  | George F. Baker       | Banker         |     25,000,000
+  37  | August Belmont        | Finance        |     20,000,000
+  38  | James Stillman        | Banker         |     20,000,000
+  39  | John W. Gates         | Finance        |     20,000,000
+  40  | Norman B. Ream        |     do         |     20,000,000
+  41  | Joseph Pulitzer       | Journalist     |     20,000,000
+  42  | James G. Bennett      | Journalist     |     20,000,000
+  43  | John G. Moore         | Finance        |     20,000,000
+  44  | D.G. Reid             | Steel          |     20,000,000
+  45  | Frederick Pabst       | Brewer         |     20,000,000
+  46  | William D. Sloane     | Inherited      |     20,000,000
+  47  | William B. Leeds      | Railroads      |     20,000,000
+  48  | James P. Duke         | Tobacco        |     20,000,000
+  49  | Anthony N. Brady      | Finance        |     20,000,000
+  50  | George W. Vanderbilt  | Railroads      |     20,000,000
+  51  | Fred W. Vanderbilt    |     do         |     20,000,000
+      |                       |                +----------------
+      |      Total            |                | $3,295,000,000
+ -----+-----------------------+----------------+----------------
+
+"It will thus be seen that fifty-one persons in the United States,
+with a population of nearly 90,000,000 people, own approximately one
+thirty-fifth of the entire wealth of the United States. The
+Statistical Abstract of the United States, 29th number, 1906, prepared
+under the direction of the Secretary of Commerce and Labor of the
+United States, gives the estimated true value of all property in the
+United States for that year at $107,104,211,917.
+
+"Each of the favored fifty-one owns a wealth of somewhat more than
+$64,600,000, while each of the remaining 89,999,950 people get $1,100.
+No one of these fifty-one owns less than $20,000,000, and no one on
+the average owns less than $64,600,000. Men owning from $1,000,000 to
+$20,000,000 are no longer called rich men. There are approximately
+4,000 millionaires in the United States, but the aggregate of their
+holdings is difficult to obtain. If all their holdings be deducted
+from the total true value of all the property in the United States,
+the average share of each of the other 89,995,000 people would be less
+than $500.
+
+"John Jacob Astor is reputed to have been the first American
+millionaire, although this is a matter impossible to decide. It is
+also claimed that Nicholas Longworth, of Cincinnati, the great
+grandfather of Congressman Longworth, was the first man west of the
+Allegheny Mountains to amass a million. It is difficult to prove
+either one of these propositions, but they prove that the age of the
+millionaire in the United States is a comparatively recent thing. In
+1870 to own a single million was to be a very rich man; in 1890 it
+required at least $10,000,000, while to-day a man with a single
+million or even ten millions is not in the swim. To be enumerated as
+one of the world's richest men you must own not less than
+$20,000,000."
+
+I am perfectly serious when I suggest that the slaves of riches are
+just as much to be pitied as the slaves of poverty. No man need envy
+Mr. Rockefeller, for example, because he has something like six
+hundred millions of dollars, an annual income of about seventy-two
+millions. He does not own those millions, Jonathan, but they own him.
+He is a slave to his possessions. If he owns a score of automobiles he
+can only use one at a time; if he spends millions in building palatial
+residences for himself he cannot get greater comfort than the man of
+modest fortune. He cannot buy health nor a single touch of love for
+money.
+
+Many of our great modern princes of industry and commerce are good
+men. It is a wild mistake to imagine that they are all terrible ogres
+and monsters of iniquity. But they are victims of an unjust system.
+Millions roll into their coffers while they sleep, and they are
+oppressed by the burden of responsibilities. If they give money away
+at a rate calculated to ease them of the burdens beneath which they
+stagger they can only do more harm than good. Mr. Carnegie gives
+public libraries with the lavishness with which travellers in Italy
+sometimes throw small copper coins to the beggars on the streets, but
+he is only pauperising cities wholesale and hindering the progress of
+real culture by taking away from civic life the spirit of
+self-reliance. If the people of a small town came together and said:
+"We ought to have a library in our town for our common advantage: let
+us unite and subscribe funds for a hundred books to begin with," that
+would be an expression of true culture.
+
+But when a city accepts a library at Mr. Carnegie's hands, there is an
+inevitable loss of self-respect and independence. Mr. Carnegie's
+motives may be good and pure, but the harm done to the community is
+none the less great.
+
+Mr. Rockefeller may give money to endow colleges and universities from
+the very highest motives, but he cannot prevent the endowments from
+influencing the teaching given in them, even if he should try to do
+so. Thus the gifts of our millionaires are an insidious poison flowing
+into the fountains of learning.
+
+Mind you, this is not the claim of a prejudiced Socialist agitator.
+President Hadley, of Yale University, is not a Socialist agitator, but
+he admits the truth of this claim. He says: "Modern University
+teaching costs more money per capita than it ever did before, because
+the public wishes a university to maintain places of scientific
+research, and scientific research is extremely expensive. _A
+university is more likely to obtain this money if it gives the
+property owners reason to believe that vested rights will not be
+interfered with._ If we recognize vested rights in order to secure the
+means of progress in physical science, is there not danger that we
+shall stifle the spirit of independence which is equally important as
+a means of progress in moral science?"
+
+Professor Bascom is not a Socialist agitator, either, but he also
+recognizes the danger of corrupting our university teaching in this
+manner. After calling attention to the "wrongful and unflinching way"
+in which the wealth of the Standard Oil magnate has been amassed, he
+asks: "Is a college at liberty to accept money gained in a manner so
+hostile to the public welfare? Is it at liberty, when the Government
+is being put to its wits' end to check this aggression, to rank itself
+with those who fight it?"
+
+And the effect of riches upon the rich themselves is as bad as
+anything in modern life. While it is true that there are among the
+rich many very good citizens, it is also perfectly plain to any honest
+observer of conditions that great riches are producing moral havoc and
+disaster among the princes of wealth in this country. Mr. Carnegie has
+said that a man who dies rich dies disgraced, but there is even
+greater reason to believe that to be born rich is to be born damned.
+The inheritance of vast fortunes is always demoralizing.
+
+What must the mind and soul of a woman be like who takes her toy
+spaniel in state to the opera to hear Caruso sing, while, in the same
+city, there are babies dying for lack of food? What are we to think of
+the dog-dinners, the monkey-dinners and the other unspeakably foolish
+and unspeakably vile orgies constantly reported from Newport and other
+places where the drones of our social system disport themselves? What
+shall we say of the shocking state of affairs disclosed by the
+disgusting reports of our "Society Scandals," except that unearned
+riches corrode and destroy all human virtues?
+
+The wise King, Solomon, knew what he was talking about when he cried
+out: "Give me neither poverty nor riches." Unnatural poverty is bad,
+blighting the soul of man; and unnatural riches are likewise bad,
+equally blighting the soul of man. Our social system is bad for both
+classes, Jonathan, and a change to better and juster conditions, while
+it will be resisted by the rich, the drones, with all their might,
+will be for the common good of all. For it is well to remember that in
+trying to get rid of the rule of the drones, the working class is not
+trying to become the ruling class, to rule others as they have been
+ruled. We are aiming to do away with classes altogether; to make a
+united and free social state.
+
+FOOTNOTES:
+
+[3] Mark 14:7.
+
+[4] Quar. Pub. American Statistical Association, June 1907.
+
+
+
+
+VI
+
+THE ROOT OF THE EVIL
+
+    All for ourselves and nothing for other people seems in all
+    ages to have been the vile maxim of the masters of
+    mankind.--_Adam Smith._
+
+    Hither, ye blind, from your futile banding!
+      Know the rights and the rights are won.
+    Wrong shall die with the understanding,
+      One truth clear, and the work is done.--_John Boyle O'Reilly._
+
+    The great ones of the world have taken this earth of ours to
+    themselves; they live in the midst of splendour and
+    superfluity. The smallest nook of the land is already a
+    possession; none may touch it or meddle with it.--_Goethe._
+
+
+I have by no means exhausted the evils of the system under which we
+live in the brief catalogue I have made for you, my friend. If it were
+necessary, I could compile an immense volume of authentic evidence to
+overwhelm you with a sense of the awful failure of our civilization to
+produce a free, united, healthy, happy and virtuous people, which I
+conceive to be the goal toward which all good and wise men should
+aspire. But it is dreary and unpleasant work recounting evil
+conditions; constantly looking at the sores of society is a morbid and
+soul-destroying task.
+
+I want you now to consider the cause of industrial misery and social
+inequality, to ask yourself why these conditions exist. For we can
+never hope to remove the evils, Jonathan, until we have discovered the
+underlying causes. How does it happen that some people are thrifty and
+virtuous and yet miserably poor and that others are thriftless and
+sinful and yet so rich that their riches weigh them down and make them
+as miserable as the very poorest? Why, in the name of all that is fair
+and good, have we got such a stupid, wasteful, unjust and unlovely
+social system after all the long centuries of human experience and
+toil? When you can answer these questions, my friend, you will know
+whither to look for deliverance.
+
+You said in your letter to me the other day, Jonathan, that you
+thought things were bad because of the wickedness of man's nature.
+Lots of people believe that. The churches have taught that doctrine
+for ages, but I do not believe that it is true. It is a doctrine which
+earnest men who have been baffled in trying to find a satisfactory
+explanation for the evils have accepted in desperation. It is the
+doctrine of pessimism, despair and wild unfaith in man. If it were
+true that things were so bad as they are just because men were wicked
+and because there never were good men enough to make them better, we
+should not have any ground for hope for the future.
+
+I propose to try and show you that the wickedness of our poor human
+nature is not responsible for the terrible social conditions, so that
+you will not have to depend for your hope of a better society upon the
+very slender thread of the chance of getting enough good men to make
+conditions better. Bad conditions make bad lives, Jonathan, and will
+continue to do so. Instead of depending upon getting good men first to
+make conditions good, we must make conditions good so that good lives
+may flourish and grow in them naturally.
+
+You have read a little history, I daresay, and you know that there is
+no truth in the old cry that "As things are now things always have
+been and always will be." You know that things are always changing. If
+George Washington could come back to earth again he would be amazed at
+the changes which have taken place in the United States. Going further
+back, Christopher Columbus would not recognize the country he
+discovered. And if we could go back millions of years and bring to
+life one of our earliest ancestors, one of the primitive
+cave-dwellers, and set him down in one of our great cities, the mighty
+houses, streets railways, telephones, telegraphs, wireless telegraphy,
+electric vehicles on the streets and the ships out on the river would
+terrify him far more than an angry tiger would. Can you think how
+astonished and alarmed such a primitive cave-man would be to be taken
+into one of your great Pittsburg mills or down into a coal mine?
+
+No. The world has grown, Jonathan. Man has enlarged his kingdom, his
+power in the universe. Step by step in the evolution of the race, man
+has wrested from Nature her secrets. He has gone down into the deep
+caverns and found mineral treasuries there; he has made the angry
+waves of the ocean bear great, heavy burdens from shore to shore for
+his benefit; he has harnessed the tides and the winds that blow and
+caught the lightning currents, making them all his servants. Between
+the _lowest_ man in the modern tenement and the cave-man there is a
+greater gulf than ever existed between the beast in the forest and the
+_highest_ man dwelling in a cave in that far-off period.
+
+Things are not as they are to-day because a group of clever but
+desperately wicked men came together and invented a scheme of society
+in which the many must work for the few; in which some must have more
+than they can use, so that they rot of excess while others have too
+little and rot of hunger; in which little children must toil in
+factories so that big strong men may loaf in clubs and dens of vice;
+in which some women sell themselves body and soul for bread while
+other women spend the sustenance of thousands upon jewels for pet
+dogs. No. It was no such fiendish ingenuity which devised the
+capitalistic system and imposed it upon mankind. It has _grown_ up
+through the ages, Jonathan, and is still growing. We have grown from
+savagery and barbarism through various stages to our present
+commercial system, and the process of growth is still going on. I
+believe we are growing into Socialism.
+
+There have been many forces urging mankind onward in this long
+evolution. Religion has played a part. Love of country has played a
+part. Climate and the nature of the soil have been factors. Man's ever
+growing curiosity, his desire to know more of the life around him, has
+had much to do with it. I have put the ideals of religion and
+patriotism first, Jonathan, because I wanted you to see that they were
+by no means overlooked or forgotten, but in truth they ought not to be
+placed first. It is the verdict of all who have made a study of social
+evolution that, while these factors have exerted an important
+influence, back of them have been the material economic conditions.
+
+In philosophy this is the basis of a very profound theory upon which
+many learned volumes have been written. It is generally called "The
+Materialistic Conception of History," but sometimes it is called
+"Economic Determinism" or "The Economic Interpretation of History."
+The first man to set forth the theory in a very clear and connected
+manner was Karl Marx, upon whose teachings the Socialists of the
+world have placed a great deal of reliance. I don't expect you to read
+all the heavy and learned books written upon this subject, for many of
+them require that a man must be specially trained in philosophy in
+order to understand them. For the present I shall be quite satisfied
+if you will read a ten-cent pamphlet called _The Communist Manifesto_,
+by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels and, along with that, the fourth,
+fifth and sixth chapters of my book, _Socialism_, about a hundred
+pages altogether. These will give you a fairly clear notion of the
+matter. I shall not mention the hard, scientific name of this
+philosophy again. I don't like big words if little ones will serve.
+
+If you enjoy reading a good story, a novel that is full of romance and
+adventure, I would advise you to read _Before Adam_, by Jack London, a
+Socialist writer. It is a novel, but it is also a work of science. He
+gives an account of the life of the first men and shows how their
+whole existence depended upon the crude weapons and tools, sticks
+picked up in the forests, which they used. They couldn't live
+differently than they did, because they had no other means of getting
+a living. How a people make their living determines how they live.
+
+For many thousands of years, the scientists tell us, men lived in the
+world without owning any private property. That came into existence
+when men saw that one man could produce more out of the soil than he
+needed to eat himself. Then, when they went out to war with other
+tribes, the members of a tribe instead of trying to kill their
+enemies, made them captives and used them as slaves. They did not
+cease killing their foes from humane motives, because they had grown
+better men, but because it was more profitable.
+
+From our point of view, slavery is a bad thing, but when it first
+came into existence it was a step upward and onward. If we take the
+history of slave societies and nations we shall soon find that their
+laws, their customs and their institutions were based upon the mode of
+producing wealth through the labor of slaves. There were two classes
+into which society was divided, a class of masters and a class of
+slaves.
+
+When slavery broke down and gave way to feudalism there were new ways
+of producing wealth. The laws of feudal societies, their customs and
+institutions, changed to meet the needs brought about through the new
+methods of making things. Under slavery, the slaves made wealth for
+their masters and were doled out food enough to keep them alive. The
+slave had no rights. Under feudalism, the serfs produced wealth for
+the lords parts of the time, working for themselves the rest of the
+time. They had some rights. The bounds of freedom were widened. Under
+neither of these systems was there a regular system of paying wages in
+money, such as we have to-day. The slave gave up all his product and
+took what the master was pleased to give him in the way of food,
+clothing and shelter. The serf divided his time between producing for
+the owner of the soil and producing for his family. The slave produced
+what his owner wanted; the serf produced what either he himself or his
+lord wanted.
+
+There came a time, about three hundred years ago, when the feudal
+system broke down before the beginnings of capitalism, the system
+which we are living under to-day, and which we Socialists think is
+breaking down as all other social systems have broken down before it.
+Under this system men have worked for wages and not because they
+wanted the things they were producing, nor because the men who
+employed them wanted the things, _but simply because the things could
+be sold and a profit made in the sale_.
+
+You will remember, Jonathan, that in a former letter I dealt with the
+nature of wealth. We saw then that wealth in our modern society
+consists of an abundance of things which can be sold. At bottom, we do
+not make things because it is well that they should be made, because
+the makers need them, but simply because the capitalists see
+possibilities of selling the things at a profit.
+
+I want you to consider just a moment how this works out: Here is a
+workingman in Springfield, Massachusetts, making deadly weapons with
+which other workingmen in other lands are to be killed. We go up to
+him as he works and inquire where the rifles are to be sent, and he
+very politely tells us that they are for some foreign government, say
+the Japanese, to be used in all probability against Russian soldiers.
+Suppose we ask him next what interest he has in helping the Japanese
+government to kill the Russian troops, how he comes to have an active
+hatred of the Russian soldiers. He will reply at once that he has no
+such feelings against the Russians; that he is not interested in
+having the Japanese slaughter them. Why, then, is he making the guns?
+He answers at once that he is only interested in getting his wages;
+that it is all the same to him whether he makes guns for Christians or
+Infidels, for Russians or Japs or Turks. His only interest is to get
+his wages. He would as soon be making coffins as guns, or shoes as
+coffins, so long as he got his wages.
+
+Perhaps, then, the company for which he is employed has an interest in
+helping Japan defeat the troops of Russia. Possibly the shareholders
+in the company are Japanese or sympathizers with Japan. Otherwise,
+why should they be bothering themselves getting workpeople to make
+guns for Japanese soldiers to kill Russian soldiers with? So we go to
+the manager and ask him to explain the matter. He very politely tells
+us that, like the man at the bench, he has no interest in the matter
+at all, and that the shareholders are in the same position of being
+quite indifferent to the quarrel of the two nations. "Why, we are also
+making guns for Russia in our factory," he says, and when we ask him
+to explain why he tells us that "There is profit to be made and the
+firm cares for nothing else."
+
+All our system revolves around that central sun of profit-making,
+Jonathan. Here is a factory in which a great many people are making
+shoddy clothing. You can tell at a glance that it is shoddy and quite
+unfit for wearing. But why are the people making shoddy goods--why
+don't they make decent clothing, since they can do it quite as well?
+Why, because there is a profit for somebody in making shoddy. Here a
+group of men are building a house. They are making it of the poorest
+materials, making dingy little rooms; the building is badly
+constructed and it can never be other than a barracks. Why this
+"jerry-building?" There is no reason under the sun why poor houses
+should be built except that somebody hopes to make profit out of them.
+
+Goods are adulterated and debased, even the food of the nation is
+poisoned, for profit. Legislatures are corrupted and courts of justice
+are polluted by the presence of the bribe-giver and the bribe-taker
+for profit. Nations are embroiled in quarrels and armies slaughter
+armies over questions which are, always, ultimately questions of
+profit. Here are children toiling in sweatshops, factories and mines
+while men are idle and seeking work. Why? Do we need the labor of the
+little ones in order to produce enough to maintain the life of the
+nation? No. But there are some people who are going to make a profit
+out of the labors which sap the strength of those little ones. Here
+are thousands of people hungry, clamoring for food and perishing for
+lack of it. They are willing to work, there are resources for them to
+work upon; they could easily maintain themselves in comfort and
+gladness if they set to work. Then why don't they set to work? Oh,
+Jonathan, the torment of this monotonous answer is unbearable--because
+no one can make a profit out of their labor they must be idle and
+starve, or drag out a miserable existence aided by the crumbs of cold
+charity!
+
+If our social economy were such that we produced things for use,
+because they were useful and beautiful, we should go on producing with
+a good will until everybody had a plentiful supply. If we found
+ourselves producing too rapidly, faster than we could consume the
+things, we could easily slacken our pace. We could spend more time
+beautifying our cities and our homes, more time cultivating our minds
+and hearts by social intercourse and in the companionship of the great
+spirits of all ages, through the masterpieces of literature, music,
+painting and sculpture. But instead, we produce for sale and profit.
+When the workers have produced more than the master class can use and
+they themselves buy back out of their meagre wages, there is a glut in
+the markets of the world, unless a new market can be opened up by
+making war upon some defenseless, undeveloped nation.
+
+When there is a glut in the market, Jonathan, you know what happens.
+Shops and factories are shut down, the number of workers employed is
+reduced, the army of the unemployed grows and there is a rise in the
+tide of poverty and misery. Yet why should it be so? Why, simply
+because there is a superabundance of wealth, should people be made
+poorer? Why should little children go without shoes just because there
+are loads of shoes stacked away in stores and warehouses? Why should
+people go without clothing simply because the warehouses are bursting
+with clothes? The answer is that these things must be so because we
+produce for profit instead of for use. All these stores of wealth
+belong to the class of profit-takers, the capitalist class, and they
+must sell and make profit.
+
+So you see, friend Jonathan, so long as this system lasts, _people
+must have too little because they have produced too much_. So long as
+this system lasts, there must be periods when we say that society
+_cannot afford to have men and women work to maintain themselves
+decently_! But under any sane system it will surely be considered the
+maddest kind of folly to keep men in idleness while saying that it
+does not pay to keep them working. Is there any more expensive way of
+keeping either an ass or a man than in idleness?
+
+The root of evil, the taproot from which the evils of modern society
+develop, is the profit idea. Life is subordinated to the making of
+profit. If it were only possible to embody that idea in human shape,
+what a monster ogre it would be! And how we should arraign it at the
+bar of human reason! Should we not call up images of the million of
+babes who have been needlessly and wantonly slaughtered by the Monster
+Idea; the images of all the maimed and wounded and killed in the wars
+for markets; the millions of others who have been bruised and broken
+in the industrial arena to secure somebody's profit, because it was
+too expensive to guard life and limb; the numberless victims of
+adulterated food and drink, of cheap tenements and shoddy clothes?
+Should we not call up the wretched women of our streets; the bribers
+and the vendors of privilege? We should surely parade in pitiable
+procession the dwarfed and stunted bodies of the millions born to
+hardship and suffering, but we could not, alas! parade the dwarfed and
+stunted souls, the sordid spirits for which the Monster Idea is
+responsible.
+
+I ask you, Jonathan Edwards, what you really think of this "buy cheap
+and sell dear" idea, which is the heart and soul of our capitalistic
+system. Are you satisfied that it should continue?
+
+Yet, my friend, bad as it is in its full development, and terrible as
+are its fruits, this idea once stood for progress. The system was a
+step in the liberation of man. It was an advance upon feudalism which
+bound the laborer to the soil. Capitalism has not been all bad; it has
+another, brighter side. Capitalism had to have laborers who were free
+to move from one place to another, even to other lands, and that need
+broke down the last vestiges of the old physical slavery. That was a
+step gained. Capitalism had to have intelligent workers and many
+educated ones. That put into the hands of the common people the key to
+the sealed treasuries of knowledge. It had to have a legal system to
+meet its requirements and that has resulted in the development of
+representative government, of something approaching political
+democracy; even where kings nominally rule to-day, their power is but
+a shadow of what it once was. Every step taken by the capitalist class
+for the advancement of its own interests has become in its turn a
+stepping-stone upon which the working-class has raised itself.
+
+Karl Marx once said that the capitalist system provides its own
+gravediggers. I have cited two or three things which will illustrate
+his meaning. Later on, I must try and explain to you how the great
+"trusts" about which you complain so loudly, and which seem to be the
+very perfection of the capitalist ideal, lead toward Socialism at a
+pace which nothing can very seriously hinder, though it may be
+quickened by wise action on the part of the workers.
+
+For the present I shall be satisfied, friend Jonathan, if you get it
+thoroughly into your mind that the source of terrible social evils, of
+the poverty and squalor, of the helpless misery of the great mass of
+the people, of most of the crime and vice and much of the disease, is
+the "buy cheap and sell dear" idea. The fact that we produce things
+for sale for the profit of a few, instead of for use and the enjoyment
+of all.
+
+Get that into your mind above everything else, my friend. And try to
+grasp the fact, also, that the system we are now trying to change was
+a natural outgrowth of other conditions. It was not a wicked
+invention, nor was it a foolish blunder. It was a necessary and a
+right step in human evolution. But now it has in turn become
+unsuitable to the needs of the people and it must give place to
+something else. When a man suffers from such a disease as
+appendicitis, he does not talk about the "wickedness" of the vermiform
+appendix. He realizes, if he is a sensible man, that long ago, that
+was an organ which served a useful purpose in the human system.
+Gradually, perhaps in the course of many centuries, it has ceased to
+be of any use. It has lost its original functions and become a menace
+to the body.
+
+Capitalism, Jonathan, is the vermiform appendix of the social
+organism. It has served its purpose. The profit idea has served an
+important function in society, but it is now useless and a menace to
+the body social. Our troubles are due to a kind of social
+appendicitis. And the remedy is to remove the useless and offending
+member.
+
+
+
+
+VII
+
+FROM COMPETITION TO MONOPOLY
+
+    It may be fairly said, I think, that not merely competition,
+    but competition that was proving ruinous to many
+    establishments, was the cause of the combinations.--_Prof.
+    J.W. Jenks._
+
+    The day of the capitalist has come, and he has made full use
+    of it. To-morrow will be the day of the laborer, provided he
+    has the strength and the wisdom to use his opportunities.--_H.
+    De. B. Gibbins._
+
+    Monopoly expands, ever expands, till it ends by
+    bursting.--_P.J. Proudhon._
+
+    For this is the close of an era; we have political freedom;
+    next and right away is to come social
+    enfranchisement.--_Benjamin Kidd._
+
+
+I think you realize, friend Jonathan, that the bottom principle of the
+present capitalist system is that there must be one class owning the
+land, mines, factories, railways, and other agencies of production,
+but not using them; and another class, using the land and other means
+of production, but not owning them.
+
+Only those things are produced which there is a reasonable hope of
+selling at a profit. Upon no other conditions will the owners of the
+means of production consent to their being used. The worker who does
+not own the things necessary to produce wealth must work upon the
+terms imposed by the other fellow in most cases. The coal miner, not
+owning the coal mine, must agree to work for wages. So must the
+mechanic in the workshop and the mill-worker.
+
+As a practical, sensible workingman, Jonathan, you know very well that
+if anybody says the interests of these two classes are the same it is
+a foolish and lying statement. You are a workingman, a wage-earner,
+and you know that it is to your interest to get as much wages as
+possible for the smallest amount of work. If you work by the day and
+get, let us say, two dollars for ten hours' work, it would be a great
+advantage to you if you could get your wages increased to three
+dollars and your hours of labor to eight per day, wouldn't it? And if
+you thought that you could get these benefits for the asking you would
+ask for them, wouldn't you? Of course you would, being a sensible,
+hard-headed American workingman.
+
+Now, if giving these things would be quite as much to the advantage of
+the company as to you, the company would be just as glad to give them
+as you would be to receive them, wouldn't it? I am assuming, of
+course, that the company knows its own interests just as well as you
+and your fellow workmen know yours. But if you went to the officials
+of the company and asked them to give you a dollar more for the two
+hours' less work, they would not give it--unless, of course, you were
+strong enough to fight and compel them to accept your terms. But they
+would resist and you would have to fight, because your interests
+clashed.
+
+That is why trade unions are formed on the one side and employers'
+associations upon the other. Society is divided by antagonistic
+interests; into exploiters and exploited.
+
+Politicians and preachers may cry out that there are no classes in
+America, and they may even be foolish enough to believe it--for there
+are lots of _very_ foolish politicians and preachers in the world! You
+may even hear a short-sighted labor leader say the same thing, but you
+know very well, my friend, that they are wrong. You may not be able to
+confute them in debate, not having their skill in wordy warfare; but
+your experience, your common sense, convince you that they are wrong.
+And all the greatest political economists are on your side. I could
+fill a volume with quotations from the writings of the most learned
+political economists of all times in support of your position, but I
+shall only give one quotation. It is from Adam Smith's great work,
+_The Wealth of Nations_, and I quote it partly because no better
+statement of the principle has ever been made by any writer, and
+partly also because no one can accuse Adam Smith of being a "wicked
+Socialist trying to set class against class." He says:
+
+    "The workmen desire to get as much, the masters to give as
+    little as possible. The former are disposed to combine in
+    order to raise, the latter in order to lower the wages of
+    labor.... Masters are always and everywhere in a sort of
+    tacit, but constant and uniform, combination, not to raise the
+    wages of labor above their actual rate. To violate this
+    combination is everywhere a most unpopular action, and a sort
+    of a reproach to a master among his neighbors and equals....
+    Masters too sometimes enter into particular combinations to
+    sink the wages of labor.... These are always conducted with
+    the utmost silence and secrecy, till the moment of execution."
+
+That is very plainly put, Jonathan. Adam Smith was a great thinker and
+an honest one. He was not afraid to tell the truth. I am going to
+quote a little further what he says about the combinations of
+workingmen to increase their wages:
+
+    "Such combinations, [i.e., to lower wages] however, are
+    frequently resisted by a contrary defensive combination of the
+    workmen; who sometimes too, without any provocation of this
+    kind, combine of their own accord to raise the price of labor.
+    Their usual pretenses are, sometimes the high price of
+    provisions; sometimes the great profit which their masters
+    make by their work. But whether these combinations be
+    offensive or defensive, they are always abundantly heard of.
+    In order to bring the point to a speedy decision, they have
+    always recourse to the loudest clamour, and sometimes to the
+    most shocking violence and outrage. They are desperate, and
+    act with the extravagance and folly of desperate men, who must
+    either starve, or frighten their masters into an immediate
+    compliance with their demands. The masters upon these
+    occasions are just as clamorous upon the other side, and never
+    cease to call aloud for the assistance of the civil
+    magistrate, and the rigorous execution of those laws which
+    have been enacted with so much severity against the
+    combinations of servants, laborers, and journeymen.
+
+    "But though in disputes with their workmen, masters must
+    generally have the advantage, there is however a certain rate,
+    below which it seems impossible to reduce, for any
+    considerable time, the ordinary wages even of the lowest
+    species of labor.
+
+    "A man must always live by his work, and his wages must at
+    least be sufficient to maintain him. They must even upon most
+    occasions be somewhat more; otherwise it would be impossible
+    for him to bring up a family, and the race of such workmen
+    could not last beyond the first generation."
+
+Now, my friend, I know that some of your pretended friends, especially
+politicians, will tell you that Adam Smith wrote at the time of the
+American Revolution; that his words applied to England in that day,
+but not to the United States to-day. I want you to be honest with
+yourself, to consider candidly whether in your experience as a workman
+you have found conditions to be, on the whole, just as Adam Smith's
+words describe them. I trust your own good sense in this and
+everything. Don't let the politicians frighten you with a show of
+book learning: do your own thinking.
+
+Capitalism began when a class of property owners employed other men to
+work for wages. The tendency was for wages to keep at a level just
+sufficient to enable the workers to maintain themselves and families.
+They had to get enough for families, you see, in order to reproduce
+their kind--to keep up the supply of laborers.
+
+Competition was the law of life in the first period of capitalism.
+Capitalists competed with each other for markets. They were engaged in
+a mad scramble for profits. Foreign countries were attacked and new
+markets opened up; new inventions were rapidly introduced. And while
+the workers found that in normal conditions the employers were in what
+Adam Smith calls "a tacit combination" to keep wages down to the
+lowest level, and were obliged to combine into unions, there were
+times when, owing to the fierce competition among the employers, and
+the demand for labor being greatly in excess of the supply, wages went
+up without a struggle owing to the fact that one employer would try to
+outbid another. In other words, temporarily, the natural, "tacit
+combination" of the employers, to keep down wages, sometimes broke
+down.
+
+Competition was called "the life of trade" in those days, and in a
+sense it was so. Under its mighty urge, new continents were explored
+and developed and brought within the circle of civilization. Sometimes
+this was done by means of brutal and bloody wars, for capitalism is
+never particular about the methods it adopts. To get profits is its
+only concern, and though its shekels "sweat blood and dirt," to adapt
+a celebrated phrase of Karl Marx, nobody cares. Under stress of
+competition, also, the development of mechanical production went on
+at a terrific pace; navigation was developed, so that the ocean became
+as a common highway.
+
+In short, Jonathan, it is no wonder that men sang the praises of
+competition, that some of the greatest thinkers of the time looked
+upon competition as something sacred. Even the workers, seeing that
+they got higher wages when the keen and fierce competition created an
+excessive demand for labor, joined in the adoration of competition as
+a principle--but among themselves, in their struggles for better
+conditions, they avoided competition as much as possible and combined.
+Their instincts as wage-earners made them keen to see the folly of
+division and competition among themselves.
+
+So competition, considered in connection with the evolution of
+society, had many good features. The competitive period was just as
+"good" as any other period in history and no more "wicked" than any
+other period.
+
+But there was another side to the shield. As the competitive struggle
+among individual capitalists went on the weakest were crushed to the
+wall and fell down into the ranks of the wage workers. There was no
+system in production. Word came to the commercial world that there was
+a great market for certain manufactures in a foreign land and at once
+hundreds and even thousands of factories were worked to their utmost
+limit to meet that demand. The result was that in a little while the
+thing was overdone: there was a glut in the market, often attended by
+panic, stagnation and disaster. Rathbone Greg summed up the evils of
+competition in the following words:
+
+"Competition gluts our markets, enables the rich to take advantage of
+the necessity of the poor, makes each man snatch the bread out of his
+neighbor's mouth, converts a nation of brethren into a mass of
+hostile units, and finally involves capitalists and laborers in one
+common ruin."
+
+The crises due to this unregulated production, and the costliness of
+the struggles, led to the formation of joint-stock companies.
+Competition was giving way before a stronger force, the force of
+co-operation. There was still competition, but it was more and more
+between giants. To adopt a very homely simile, the bigger fish ate up
+the little ones so long as there were any, and then turned to a
+struggle among themselves.
+
+Another thing that forced the development of industry and commerce
+away from competitive methods was the increasing costliness of the
+machinery of production. The new inventions, first of steam-power and
+later of electricity, involved an immense outlay, so that many persons
+had to combine their capitals in one common fund.
+
+This process of eliminating competition has gone on with remarkable
+swiftness, so that we have now the great Trust Problem. Everyone
+recognizes to-day that the trusts practically control the life of the
+nation. It is the supreme issue in our politics and a challenge to the
+heart and brain of the nation.
+
+Fifty years ago Karl Marx, the great Socialist economist, made the
+remarkable prophecy that this condition would arise. He lived in the
+heyday of competition, when it seemed utter folly to talk about the
+end of competition. He analyzed the situation, pointed to the process
+of big capitalists crushing out the little capitalists, the union of
+big capitalists, and the inevitable drift toward monopoly. He
+predicted that the process would continue until the whole industry,
+the main agencies of production and distribution at any rate, would be
+centralized in a few great monopolies, controlled by a very small
+handful of men. He showed with wonderful clearness that capitalism,
+the Great Idea of buy cheap and sell dear, carried within itself the
+germs of its own destruction.
+
+And, of course, the wiseacres laughed. The learned ignorance of the
+wiseacre always compels him to laugh at the man with an idea that is
+new. Didn't the wiseacres imprison Galileo? Haven't they persecuted
+the pioneers in all ages? But Time has a habit of vindicating the
+pioneers while consigning the scoffing wiseacres to oblivion. Fifty
+years is a short time in human evolution but it has sufficed to
+establish the right of Marx to an honored place among the pioneers.
+
+More than twenty-five years after Marx made his great prediction,
+there came to this country on a visit Mr. H.M. Hyndman, an English
+economist who is also known as one of the foremost living exponents of
+Socialism. The intensity of the competitive struggle was most marked,
+but he looked below the surface and saw a subtle current, a drift
+toward monopoly, which had gone unnoticed. He predicted the coming of
+the era of great trusts and combines. Again the wiseacres in their
+learned ignorance laughed and derided. The amiable gentleman who plays
+the part of flunkey at the Court of St. James, in London, wearing
+plush knee breeches, silver-buckled shoes and powdered wig, a
+marionette in the tinseled show of King Edward's court, was one of the
+wiseacres. He was then editor of the _New York Tribune_, and he
+declared that Mr. Hyndman was a "fool traveler" for making such a
+prediction. But in the very next year the Standard Oil Company was
+formed!
+
+So we have the trust problem with us. Out of the bitter competitive
+struggle there has come a new condition, a new form of industrial
+ownership and enterprise. From the cradle to the grave we are
+encompassed by the trust.
+
+Now, friend Jonathan, I need not tell you that the trusts have got the
+nation by the throat. You know it. But there is a passage, a question,
+in the letter you wrote me the other day from which I gather that you
+have not given the matter very close attention. You ask "How will the
+Socialists destroy the trusts which are hurting the people?"
+
+I suppose that comes from your old associations with the Democratic
+Party. You think that it is possible to destroy the trusts, to undo
+the chain of social evolution, to go back twenty or fifty years to
+competitive conditions. You would restore competition. I have
+purposely gone into the historical development of the trust in order
+to show you how useless it would be to destroy the trusts and
+introduce competition again, even if that were possible. Now that you
+have mentally traced the origin of monopoly to its causes in
+competition, don't you see that if we could destroy the monopoly
+to-morrow and start fresh upon a basis of competition, the process of
+"big fish eat little fish" would begin again at once--_for that is
+competition_? And if the big ones eat the little ones up, then fight
+among themselves, won't the result be as before--that either one will
+crush the other, leaving a monopoly, or the competitors will join
+hands and agree not to fight, leaving monopoly again?
+
+And, Jonathan, if there should be a return to the old-fashioned,
+free-for-all scramble for markets, would it be any better for the
+workers? Would there not be the same old struggle between the
+capitalists and the workers? Would not the workers still have to give
+much for little; to wear their lives away grinding out profits for the
+masters of their bread, of their very lives? Would there not be gluts
+as before, with panics, misery, unemployed armies sullenly parading
+the streets; idlers in mansions and toilers in hovels? You know very
+well that there would be all these, my friend, and I know that you are
+too sensible a fellow to think any longer about destroying the trusts.
+It cannot be done, Jonathan, and it would not be a good thing if it
+could be done.
+
+I think, my friend, that you will see upon reflection that there are
+many excellent features about the trust which it would be criminal and
+foolish to destroy had we the power. Competition means waste, foolish
+and unnecessary waste. Trusts have been organized expressly to do away
+with the waste of men and natural resources. They represent economical
+production. When Mr. Perkins, of the New York Life Insurance Company,
+was testifying before the insurance investigating committee he gave
+expression to the philosophy of the trust movement by saying that, in
+the modern view, competition is the law of death and that co-operation
+and organization represent life and progress.
+
+While the wage-workers are probably in many respects better off as a
+result of the trustification of industry, it would be idle to deny
+that there are many evils connected with it. No one who views the
+situation calmly can deny that the trusts exert an enormous power over
+the government of the country, that they are, in fact, the real
+government of the country, exercising far more control over the lives
+of the common people than the regularly constituted, constitutional
+government of the country does. It is also true that they can
+arbitrarily fix prices in many instances, so that the natural law of
+value is set aside and the workers are exploited as consumers, as
+purchasers of the things necessary to life, just as they are exploited
+as producers.
+
+Of course, friend Jonathan, wages must meet the cost of living. If
+prices rise considerably, wages must sooner or later follow, and if
+prices fall wages likewise will fall sooner or later. But it is
+important to remember that when prices fall wages are _quick_ to
+follow, while when prices soar higher and higher wages are very _slow_
+to follow. That is why it wouldn't do us any good to have a law
+regulating prices, supposing that a law forcing down prices could be
+enacted and enforced. Wages would follow prices downward with
+wonderful swiftness. And that is why, also, we do need to become the
+masters of the wealth we produce. For wages climb upward with leaden
+feet, my friend, when prices soar with eagle wings. It is always the
+workers who are at a disadvantage in a system where one class controls
+the means of producing and distributing wealth.
+
+But, friend Jonathan, that is due to the fact that the advantages of
+the trust form of industry are not used as well as they might be. They
+are all grasped by the master class. The trouble with the trust is
+simply this: the people as a whole do not share the benefits. We
+continue the same old wage system under the new forms of industry: we
+have not changed our mode of distributing the wealth produced so as to
+conform to the new modes of producing it. The heart of the economic
+conflict is right there.
+
+We must find a remedy for this, Jonathan. Labor unionism is a good
+thing, but it is no remedy for this condition. It is a valuable weapon
+with, which to fight for better wages and shorter hours, and every
+workingman ought to belong to the union of his trade or calling. But
+unionism does not and cannot do away with the profit system; it cannot
+break the power of the trusts to extort monopoly prices from the
+people. To do these things we must bring into play the forces of
+government: we must vote a new status for the trust. The union is for
+the economic struggle of groups of workers day by day against the
+master class so long as the present class division exists. But that is
+not a solution of the problem. What we need to do is to vote the class
+divisions out of existence. _We need to own the trusts, Jonathan!_
+
+This is the Socialist position. What is needed now is the harmonizing
+of our social relations with the new forms of production. When private
+property came into the primitive world in the form of slavery, social
+relations were changed and from a rude communism society passed into a
+system of individualism and class rule. When, later on, slave labor
+gave way before serf labor, the social relations were again modified
+to correspond. When capitalism came, with wage-paid labor as its
+basis, all the laws and institutions which stood in the way of the
+free development of the new principle were swept away; new social
+relations were established, new laws and institutions introduced to
+meet its needs.
+
+To-day, in America, we are suffering because our social relations are
+not in harmony with the changed methods of producing wealth. We have
+got the laws and institutions which were designed to meet the needs of
+competitive industry. They suited those old conditions fairly well,
+but they do not suit the new.
+
+In a former letter, you will remember, I likened our present suffering
+to a case of appendicitis, that society suffers from the trouble set
+up within by an organ which has lost its function and needs to be cut
+out. Perhaps I might better liken society to a woman in the travail of
+childbirth, suffering the pangs of labor incidental to the deliverance
+of the new life within her womb. The trust marks the highest
+development of capitalist society: it can go no further.
+
+          The Old Order changeth, yielding place to new.
+
+And the new order, waiting now for deliverance from the womb of the
+old, is Socialism, the fraternal state. Whether the birth of the new
+order is to be peaceful or violent and painful, whether it will be
+ushered in with glad shouts of triumphant men and women, or with the
+noise of civil strife, depends, my good friend, upon the manner in
+which you and all other workers discharge your responsibilities as
+citizens. That is why I am so anxious to set the claims of Socialism
+clearly before you: I want you to work for the peaceful revolution of
+society, Jonathan.
+
+For the present, I am only going to ask you to read a little five cent
+pamphlet, by Gaylord Wilshire, called _The Significance of the Trust_,
+and a little book by Frederick Engels, called _Socialism, Utopian and
+Scientific_. Later on, when I have had a chance to explain Socialism
+in a general way, and must then leave you to your own resources, I
+intend to make for you a list of books, which I hope you will be able
+to read.
+
+You see, Jonathan, I remember always that you wrote me: "Whether
+Socialism is good or bad, wise or foolish, _I want to know_." The best
+way to know is to study the question for yourself.
+
+
+
+
+VIII
+
+WHAT SOCIALISM IS AND WHAT IT IS NOT
+
+    Socialism is industrial democracy. It would put an end to the
+    irresponsible control of economic interests, and substitute
+    popular self-government in the industrial as in the political
+    world.--_Charles H. Vail._
+
+    Socialism says that man, machinery and land must be brought
+    together; that the toll gates of capitalism must be torn down,
+    and that every human being's opportunity to produce the means
+    with which to sustain life shall be considered as sacred as
+    his right to live.--_Allan L. Benson._
+
+    Socialism means that all those things upon which the people in
+    common depend shall by the people in common be owned and
+    administered. It means that the tools of employment shall
+    belong to their creators and users; that all production shall
+    be for the direct use of the producers; that the making of
+    goods for profit shall come to an end; that we shall all be
+    workers together; and that all opportunities shall be open and
+    equal to all men.--_National Platform of the Socialist Party,
+    1904._
+
+    Socialism does not consist in violently seizing upon the
+    property of the rich and sharing it out amongst the poor.
+
+    Socialism is not a wild dream of a happy land where the apples
+    will drop off the trees into our open mouths, the fish come
+    out of the rivers and fry themselves for dinner, and the looms
+    turn out ready-made suits of velvet with golden buttons
+    without the trouble of coaling the engine. Neither is it a
+    dream of a nation of stained-glass angels, who never say damn,
+    who always love their neighbors better than themselves, and
+    who never need to work unless they wish to.--_Robert
+    Blatchford._
+
+
+By this time, friend Jonathan, you have, I hope, got rid of the notion
+that Socialism is a ready-made scheme of society which a few wise men
+have planned, and which their followers are trying to get adopted. I
+have spent some time and effort trying to make it perfectly plain to
+you that great social changes are not brought about in that fashion.
+
+Socialism then, is a philosophy of human progress, a theory of social
+evolution, the main outlines of which I have already sketched for you.
+Because the subject is treated at much greater length in some of the
+books I have asked you to read, it is not necessary for me to
+elaborate the theory. It will be sufficient, probably, for me to
+restate, in a very few words, the main principles of that theory:
+
+The present social system throughout the civilized world is not the
+result of deliberately copying some plan devised by wise men. It is
+the result of long centuries of growth and development. From our
+present position we look back over the blood-blotted pages of history,
+back to the ages before men began to write their history and their
+thoughts, through the centuries of which there is only faint
+tradition; we go even further back, to the very beginning of human
+existence, to the men-apes and the ape-men whose existence science has
+made clear to us, and we see the race engaged in a long struggle to
+
+    Move upward, working out the beast
+    And let the ape and tiger die.
+
+We look for the means whereby the progress of man has been made, and
+find that his tools have been, so to say, the ladder upon which he has
+risen in the age-long climb from bondage toward brotherhood, from
+being a brute armed with a club to the sovereign of the universe,
+controlling tides, harnessing winds, gathering the lightning in his
+hands and reaching to the farthest star.
+
+We find in every epoch of that long evolution the means of producing
+wealth as the center of all, transforming government, laws,
+institutions and moral codes to meet their limitations and their
+needs. Nothing has ever been strong enough to restrain the economic
+forces in social evolution. When laws and customs have stood in the
+way of the economic forces they have been burst asunder as by some
+mighty leaven, or hurled aside in the cyclonic sweep of revolutions.
+
+Have you ever gone into the country, Jonathan, and noticed an immense
+rock split and shattered by the roots of a tree, or perhaps by the
+might of an insignificant looking fungus? I have, many times, and I
+never see such a rock without thinking of its aptness as an
+illustration of this Socialist philosophy. A tiny acorn tossed by the
+wind finds lodgment in some small crevice of a rock which has stood
+for thousands of years, a rock so big and strong that men choose it as
+an emblem of the Everlasting. Soon the warm caresses of the sun and
+the rain wake the latent life in the acorn; the shell breaks and a
+frail little shoot of vegetable life appears, so small that an infant
+could crush it. Yet that weak and puny thing grows on unobserved,
+striking its rootlets farther into the crevice of the rock. And when
+there is no more room for it to grow, _it does not die, but makes room
+for itself by shattering the rock_.
+
+Economic forces are like that, my friend, they _must_ expand and grow.
+Nothing can long restrain them. A new method of producing wealth broke
+up the primitive communism of prehistoric man; another change in the
+methods of production hurled the feudal barons from power and forced
+the establishment of a new social system. And now, we are on the eve
+of another great change--nay, we are in the very midst of the change.
+Capitalism is doomed! Not because men think it is wicked, but because
+the development of the great industrial trusts compels a new political
+and social system to meet the needs of the new mode of production.
+
+Something has got to give way to the irresistible growing force! A
+change is inevitable. And the change must be to Socialism. That is the
+belief of the Socialists, Jonathan, which I am trying to make you
+understand. Mind, I do not say that the coming change will be the
+_last_ change in human evolution, that there will be no further
+development after Socialism. I do not know what lies beyond, nor to
+what heights humanity may attain in future years. It may be that
+thousands or millions of years from now the race will have attained to
+such a state of growth and power that the poorest and weakest man then
+alive will be so much superior to the greatest men alive to-day, our
+best scholars, poets, artists, inventors and statesmen, as these are
+superior to the cave-man. It may be. I do not know. Only a fool would
+seek to set mete and bound to man's possibilities.
+
+We are concerned only with the change that is imminent, the change
+that is now going on before our eyes. We say that the outcome of
+society's struggle with the trust problem must be the control of the
+trust by society. That the outcome of the struggle between the master
+class and the slave class, between the _wealth makers_ and the _wealth
+takers_, must be the victory of the makers.
+
+Throughout all history, ever since the first appearance of private
+property--of slavery and land ownership--there have been class
+struggles. Slave and slave-owner, serf and baron, wage-slave and
+capitalist--so the classes have struggled. And what has been the
+issue, thus far? Chattel slavery gave way to serfdom, in which the
+oppression was lighter and the oppressed gained some measure of human
+recognition. Serfdom, in its turn, gave way to the wages system, in
+which, despite many evils, the oppressed class lives upon a far higher
+plane than the slave and serf classes from whence it sprang. Now, with
+the capitalists unable to hold and manage the great machinery of
+production which has been developed, with the workers awakened to
+their power, armed with knowledge, with education, and, above all,
+with the power to make the laws, the government, what they will, can
+anybody doubt what the outcome will be?
+
+It is impossible to believe that we shall continue to leave the things
+upon which all depend in the hands of a few members of society. Now
+that production has been so organized that it can be readily
+controlled and directed from a few centers, it is possible for the
+first time in the history of civilization for men to live together in
+peace and plenty, owning in common the things which must be used in
+common, which are needed in common; leaving to private ownership the
+things which can be privately owned without injury to society. _And
+that is Socialism._
+
+I have explained the philosophy of social evolution upon which modern
+Socialism is based as clearly as I could do in the space at my
+disposal. I want you to think it out for yourself, Jonathan. I want
+you to get the enthusiasm and the inspiration which come from a
+realization of the fact that progress is the law of Nature; that
+mankind is ever marching upward and onward; that Socialism is the
+certain inheritor of all the ages of struggle, suffering and
+accumulation.
+
+And above all, I want you to realize the position of your class, my
+friend, and your duty to stand with your class, not only as a union
+man, but as a voter and a citizen.
+
+As a system of political economy I need say little of Socialism,
+beyond recounting some of the things we have already considered. A
+great many learned ignorant men, like Mr. Mallock, for instance, are
+fond of telling the workers that the economic teachings of Socialism
+are unsound; that Karl Marx was really a very superficial thinker
+whose ideas have been entirely discredited.
+
+Now, Karl Marx has been dead twenty-five years, Jonathan. His great
+work was done a generation ago. Being just a human being, like the
+rest of us, it is not to be supposed that he was infallible. There are
+some things in his writings which cannot be accepted without
+modification. But what does that matter, so long as the essential
+principles are sound and true? When we think of a great man like
+Lincoln we do not trouble about the little things--the trivial
+mistakes he made; we consider only the big things, the noble things,
+the true things, he said and did.
+
+But there are lots of little-minded, little-souled people in the world
+who have eyes only for the little flaws and none at all for the big,
+strong and enduring things in a man's work. I never think of these
+critics of Marx without calling to mind an incident I witnessed two or
+three years ago at an art exhibition in New York. There was placed on
+exhibition a famous Greek marble, a statue of Aphrodite. Many people
+went to see it and on several occasions when I saw it I observed that
+some people had been enough stirred to place little bunches of flowers
+at the feet of the statue as a tender tribute to its beauty. But one
+day I was greatly annoyed by the presence of a critical woman who had
+discovered a little flaw in the statue, where a bit had been broken
+off. She chattered about it like an excited magpie. Poor soul, she had
+no eyes for the beauty of the thing, the mystery which shrouded its
+past stirred no emotions in her breast. _She was only just big enough
+in mind and soul to see the flaw._ I pitied her, Jonathan, as I pity
+many of the critics who write learned books to prove that the economic
+principles of Socialism are wrong. I cannot read such a book but a
+vision rises before my mind's eye of that woman and the statue.
+
+I believe that the great fundamental principles laid down by Karl Marx
+cannot be refuted, because they are true. But it is just as well to
+bear in mind that Socialism does not depend upon Karl Marx. If all his
+works could be destroyed and his name forgotten there would still be a
+Socialist movement to contend with. The question is: Are the economic
+principles of Socialism as it is taught to-day true or false?
+
+_The first principle is that wealth in modern society consists in an
+abundance of things which can be sold for profit._
+
+So far as I know, there is no economist of note who makes any
+objection to that statement. I know that sometimes political
+economists confuse their readers and themselves by a loose use of the
+term wealth, including in it many things which have nothing at all to
+do with economics. Good health and cheerful spirits, for example, are
+often spoken of as wealth and there is a certain primal sense in which
+that word is rightly applied to them. You remember the poem by Charles
+Mackay--
+
+    Cleon hath a million acres, ne'er a one have I;
+    Cleon dwelleth in a palace, in a cottage I;
+    Cleon hath a dozen fortunes, not a penny I;
+    Yet the poorer of the twain is Cleon, and not I.
+
+In a great moral sense that is all true, Jonathan, but from the point
+of view of political economy, Cleon of the million acres, the palace
+and the dozen fortunes must be regarded as the richer of the two.
+
+_The second principle is that wealth is produced by labor applied to
+natural resources._
+
+The only objections to this, the only attempts ever made to deny its
+truth, have been based upon a misunderstanding of the meaning of the
+word "labor." If a man came to you in the mill one day, and said: "See
+that great machine with all its levers and springs and wheels working
+in such beautiful harmony. It was made entirely by manual workers,
+such as moulders, blacksmiths and machinists; no brain workers had
+anything to do with it," you would suspect that man of being a fool,
+Jonathan. You know, even though you are no economist, that the labor
+of the inventor and of the men who drew the plans of the various parts
+was just as necessary as the labor of the manual workers. I have
+already shown you, when discussing the case of Mr. Mallock, that
+Socialists have never claimed that wealth was produced by manual labor
+alone, and that brain labor is always unproductive. All the great
+political economists have included both mental and manual labor in
+their use of the term, that being, indeed, the only sensible use of
+the word known to our language.
+
+It is very easy work, my friend, for a clever juggler of words to
+erect a straw man, label the dummy "Socialism" and then pull it to
+pieces. But it is not very useful work, nor is it an honest
+intellectual occupation. I say to you, friend Jonathan, that when
+writers like Mr. Mallock contend that "ability," as distinguished from
+labor, must be considered as a principal factor in production, they
+must be regarded as being either mentally weak or deliberate
+perverters of the truth. You know, and every man of fair sense knows,
+that ability in the abstract never could produce anything at all.
+
+Take Mr. Edison, for example. He is a man of wonderful ability--one of
+the greatest men of this or any other age. Suppose Mr. Edison were to
+say: "I know I have a great deal of _ability_; I think that I will
+just sit down with folded hands and depend upon the mere possession of
+my ability to make a living for me"--what do you think would happen?
+If Mr. Edison were to go to some lonely spot, without tools or food,
+making up his mind that he need not work; that he could safely depend
+upon his ability to produce food for him while he sat idle or slept,
+he would starve. Ability is like a machine, Jonathan. If you have the
+finest machine in the world and keep it in a garret it will produce
+nothing at all. You might as well have a pile of stones there as the
+machine.
+
+But connect the machine with the motor and place a competent man in
+charge of it, and the machine at once becomes a means of production.
+Ability is likewise useless and impotent unless it is expressed in the
+form of either manual or mental labor. And when it is so embodied in
+labor, it is quite useless and foolish to talk of ability as separate
+from the labor in which it is embodied.
+
+_The third principle of Socialist economics is that the value of
+things produced for sale is, under normal conditions, determined by
+the amount of labor socially necessary, on an average, for their
+production. This is called the labor theory of value._
+
+Many people have attacked this theory, Jonathan, and it has been
+"refuted," "upset," "smashed" and "destroyed" by nearly every hack
+writer on economics living. But, for some reason, the number of people
+who accept it is constantly increasing in spite of the number of
+times it has been "exposed" and "refuted." It is worth our while to
+consider it briefly.
+
+You will observe that I have made two important qualifications in the
+above statement of the theory: first, that the law applies only to
+things produced for sale, and second, that it is only under normal
+conditions that it holds true. Many very clever men try to prove this
+law of value wrong by citing the fact that articles are sometimes sold
+for enormous prices, out of all proportion to the amount of labor it
+took to produce them in the first instance. For example, it took
+Shakespeare only a few minutes to write a letter, we may suppose, but
+if a genuine letter in the poet's handwriting were offered for sale in
+one of the auction rooms where such things are sold it would fetch an
+enormous price; perhaps more than the yearly salary of the President
+of the United States.
+
+The value of the letter would not be due to the amount of labor
+Shakespeare devoted to the writing of it, but to its _rarity_. It
+would have what the economists call a "scarcity value." The same is
+true of a great many other things, such as historical relics, great
+works of art, and so on. These things are in a class by themselves.
+But they constitute no important part of the business of modern
+society. We are not concerned with them, but with the ordinary, every
+day production of goods for sale. The truth of this law of value is
+not to be determined by considering these special objects of rarity,
+but the great mass of things produced in our workshops and factories.
+
+Now, note the second qualification. I say that the value of things
+produced for sale _under normal conditions_ is determined by the
+amount of labor _socially necessary_, on an average, for their
+production. Some of the clever, learnedly-ignorant writers on
+Socialism think that they have completely destroyed this theory of
+value when they have only misrepresented it and crushed the image of
+their own creating.
+
+It does not mean that if a quick, efficient workman, with good tools,
+takes a day to make a coat, while another workman, who is slow, clumsy
+and inefficient, and has only poor tools, takes six days to make a
+table that the table will be worth six coats upon the market. That
+would be a foolish proposition, Jonathan. It would mean that if one
+workman made a coat in one day, while another workman took two days to
+make exactly the same kind of coat, that the one made by the slow,
+inefficient workman would bring twice as much as the other, even
+though they were so much alike that they could not be distinguished
+one from the other.
+
+Only an ignoramus could believe that. No Socialist writer ever made
+such a foolish claim, yet all the attacks upon the economic principles
+of Socialism are based upon that idea!
+
+Now that I have told you what it does _not_ mean, let me try to make
+plain just what it _does_ mean. I shall use a very simple illustration
+which you can readily apply to the whole of industry for yourself. If
+it ordinarily takes a day to make a coat, if that is the average time
+taken, and it also takes on an average a day to make a table, then,
+also on an average, one coat will be worth just as much as one table.
+But I must explain that it is not possible to bring the production of
+coats and tables down to the simple measurement. When the tailor takes
+the piece of cloth to cut out the coat, he has in that material
+something that already embodies human labor. Somebody had to weave
+that cloth upon a loom. Before that somebody had to make the loom.
+And before that loom could make cloth somebody had to raise sheep and
+shear them to get the wool. And before the carpenter could make the
+table, somebody had to go into the forest and fell a tree, after which
+somebody had to bring that tree, cut up into planks or logs, to the
+carpenter. And before he could use the lumber somebody had to make the
+tools with which he worked.
+
+I think you will understand now why I placed emphasis on the words
+"socially necessary." It is not possible for the individual buyer to
+ascertain just how much social labor is contained in a coat or a
+table, but their values are fixed by the competition and higgling
+which is the law of capitalism. "It jest works out so," as an old
+negro preacher said to me once.
+
+I have said that competition is the law of capitalism. All political
+economists recognize that as true. But we have, as I have explained in
+a former letter, come to a point where capitalism has broken away from
+competition in many industries. We have a state of affairs under which
+the economic laws of competitive society do not apply. Monopoly prices
+have always been regarded as exceptions to economic law.
+
+If this technical economic discussion seems a little bit difficult, I
+beg you nevertheless to try and master it, Jonathan. It will do you
+good to think out these questions. Perhaps I can explain more clearly
+what is meant by monopoly conditions being exceptional. All through
+the Middle Ages it was the custom for governments to grant monopolies
+to favored subjects, or to sell them in order to raise ready money.
+Queen Elizabeth, for instance, granted and sold many such monopolies.
+
+A man who had a monopoly of something which nearly everybody had to
+use could fix his own price, the only limit being the people's
+patience or their ability to pay. The same thing is true of patented
+articles and of monopolies granted to public service corporations.
+Generally, it is true, in the franchises of these corporations,
+nowadays, there is a price limit fixed beyond which they must not go,
+but it is still true that the normal competitive economic law has been
+set aside by the creation of monopoly.
+
+When a trust is formed, or when there is a price agreement, or what is
+politely called "an understanding among gentlemen" to that effect, a
+similar thing happens. We have monopoly prices.
+
+This is an important thing for the working class, though it is
+sometimes forgotten. How much your wages will secure in the way of
+necessities is just as important to you as the amount of wages you
+get. In other words, the amount you can get in comforts and
+commodities for use is just as important as the amount you can get in
+dollars and cents. Sometimes money wages increase while real wages
+decrease. I could fill a book with statistics to show this, but I will
+only quote one example. Professor Rauschenbusch cites it in his
+excellent book, _Christianity and the Social Crisis_, a book I should
+like you to read, Jonathan. He quotes _Dun's Review_, a standard
+financial authority, to the effect that what $724 would buy in 1897 it
+took $1013 to buy in 1901.
+
+I know that I could make your wife see the importance of this, my
+friend. She would tell you that when from time to time you have
+announced that your wages were to be increased five or ten per cent.
+she has made plans for spending the money upon little home
+improvements, or perhaps for laying it aside for the dreaded "rainy
+day." Perhaps she thought of getting a new rug, or a new sideboard for
+the dining-room; or perhaps it was a piano for your daughter, who is
+musical, she had set her heart on getting. The ten per cent. increase
+seemed to make it all so easy and certain! But after a little while
+she found that somehow the ten per cent. did not bring the coveted
+things; that, although she was just as careful as could be, she
+couldn't save, nor get the things she hoped to get.
+
+Often you and I have heard the cry of trouble: "I don't know how or
+why it is, but though I get ten per cent. more wages I am no better
+off than before."
+
+The Socialist theory of value is all right, my friend, and has not
+been disturbed by the assaults made upon it by a host of little
+critics. But Socialists have always known that the laws of competitive
+society do not apply to monopoly, and that the monopolist has an
+increased power to exploit and oppress the worker. That is one of the
+chief reasons why we demand that the great monopolies be transformed
+into common, or social, property.
+
+_The fourth principle of Socialist economics is that the wages of the
+workers represent only a part of the value of their labor product. The
+remainder is divided among the non-producers in rent, interest and
+profit. The fortunes of the rich idlers come from the unpaid-for labor
+of the working class. This is the great theory of "surplus value,"
+which economists are so fond of attacking._
+
+I am not going to say much about the controversy concerning this
+theory, Jonathan. In the first place, you are not an economist, and
+there is a great deal in the discussion which is wholly irrelevant and
+unprofitable; and, in the second place, you can study the question for
+yourself. There are excellent chapters upon the subject in _Vail's
+Principles of Scientific Socialism_, Boudin's _The Theoretical System
+of Karl Marx_, and Hyndman's _Economics of Socialism_. You will also
+find a simple exposition of the subject in my _Socialism, A Summary
+and Interpretation of Socialist Principles_. It will also be well to
+read _Wage-Labor and Capital_, a five cent booklet by Karl Marx.
+
+But you do not need to be an economist to understand the essential
+principles of this theory of surplus value and to judge of its truth.
+I have never flattered you, Jonathan, as you know; I am in earnest
+when I say that I am content to leave the matter to your own judgment.
+I attach more importance to your decision, based upon a plain,
+matter-of-fact observation of actual life, than to the opinion of many
+a very learned economist cloistered away from the real world in a
+musty atmosphere of books and mental abstractions. So think it out for
+yourself, my friend.
+
+You know that when a man takes a job as a wage-worker, he enters into
+a contract to give something in return for a certain amount of money.
+What is it that he thus sells? Not his actual labor, but his power and
+will to labor. In other words, he undertakes to exert himself in a
+manner desired by the capitalist who employs him for so much an hour,
+so much a day, or so much a week as the case may be.
+
+Now, how are the wages fixed? What determines the amount a man gets
+for his labor? There are several factors. Let us consider them one by
+one:
+
+First, the man must have enough to keep himself alive and able to
+work. If he does not get that much he will die, or be unfit to work.
+Second, in order that the race may be maintained, and that there may
+be a constant supply of labor, it is necessary that men as a rule
+should have families. So, as we saw in a quotation from Adam Smith in
+an earlier letter, the wages must, on an average, be enough to keep,
+not only the man himself but those dependent upon him. These are the
+bottom requirements of wages.
+
+Now, the tendency is for wages to keep somewhere near this bottom
+level. If nothing else interfered they would always tend to that
+level. First of all, there is no scientific organization of the labor
+force of the world. Sometimes the demand for labor in a particular
+trade exceeds the supply, and then wages rise. Sometimes the supply is
+greater than the demand, and then wages drop toward the bottom level.
+If the man looking for a job is so fortunate as to know that there are
+many places open to him, he will not accept low wages; on the other
+hand, if the employer knows that there are ten men for every job, he
+will not pay high wages. So, as with the prices of things in general,
+supply and demand enter into the question of the price of labor in any
+given time or place.
+
+Then, also, by combination workingmen can sometimes raise their wages.
+They can bring about a sort of monopoly-price for their labor-power.
+It is not an absolute monopoly-price, however, for the reason that,
+almost invariably, there are men outside of the unions, whose
+competition has to be withstood. Also, the means of production and the
+accumulated surplus belong to the capitalists so that they can
+generally starve the workers into submission, or at least compromise,
+in any struggle aiming at the establishment of monopoly-prices for
+labor-power.
+
+But there is one thing the workers can never do, except by destroying
+capitalism: _they cannot get wages equal to the full value of their
+product_. That would destroy the capitalist system, which is based
+upon profit-making. All the luxury and wealth of the non-producers is
+wrung from the labor of the producers. You can see that for yourself,
+Jonathan, and I need not argue it further.
+
+I do not care very much whether you call the part of the wealth which
+goes to the non-producers "surplus value," or whether you call it
+something else. The _name_ is not of great importance to us. We care
+only for the reality. But I do want you to get firm hold of the simple
+fact that when an idler gets a dollar he has not earned, some worker
+must get a dollar less than he has earned.
+
+Don't be buncoed by the word-jugglers who tell you that the profits of
+the capitalists are the "fruits of abstinence," or the "reward of
+managing ability," sometimes also called the "wages of superintendence."
+
+These and other attempted explanations of capitalists' profits are
+simply old wives' fables, Jonathan. Let us look for a minute at the
+first of these absurd attempts to explain away the fact that profit is
+only another name for unpaid-for labor. You know very well that
+abstinence never yet produced anything. If I have a dollar in my
+pocket and I say to myself, "I will not spend this dollar: I will
+abstain from using it," the dollar does not increase in any way. It
+remains just a dollar and no more. If I have a loaf of bread or a
+bottle of wine and say to myself, "I will not use this bread, or this
+wine, but will keep it in the cup-board," you know very well that I
+shall not get any increase as a result of my abstinence. I do not get
+anything more than I actually save.
+
+Now, I am perfectly willing that any man shall have all that he can
+save out of his own earnings. If no man had more there would be no
+need of talking about "legislation to limit fortunes," no need of
+protest against "swollen fortunes."
+
+But now suppose, friend Jonathan, that while I have the dollar,
+representing my "abstinence," in my pocket, a man who has not a dollar
+comes to me and says, "I really must have a dollar to get food for my
+wife and baby, or they will die. Lend me a dollar until next week and
+I will pay you back two dollars." If I lend him the dollar and next
+week take his two dollars, that is what is called the reward of my
+abstinence. But in truth it is something quite different. It is usury.
+Just because I happen to have something the other fellow has not got,
+and which he must have, he is compelled to pay me interest. If he also
+had a dollar in his pocket, I could get no interest from him.
+
+It would be just the same if I had not abstained from anything. If,
+for example, I had found the dollar which some other careful fellow
+had lost, I could still get interest upon it. Or if I had inherited
+money from my father, it might happen that, so far from being
+abstemious and thrifty, I had been most extravagant, while the fellow
+who came to borrow had been very thrifty and abstemious, but still
+unable to provide for his family. Yet I should make him pay me
+interest.
+
+As a matter of fact, my friend, the rich have not abstained from
+anything. They have not accumulated riches out of their savings,
+through abstaining from buying things. On the contrary, they have
+bought and enjoyed the costliest things. They have lived in fine
+houses, worn costly clothing, eaten the choicest food, sent their sons
+and daughters to the most expensive schools and colleges.
+
+From all of these things the workers have abstained, Jonathan. They
+have abstained from living in fine houses and lived in poor houses;
+they have abstained from wearing costly clothes and worn the cheapest
+and poorest clothes; they have abstained from choice food and eaten
+only food that is coarse and cheap; they have abstained from sending
+their sons and daughters to expensive schools and colleges and sent
+them only to the lower grades of the public schools. If abstinence
+were a source of wealth, the working people of every country would be
+rich, for they have abstained from nearly everything that is worth
+while.
+
+There is one thing the rich have abstained from, however, which the
+poor have indulged in freely--and that is _work_. I never heard of a
+man getting rich through his own labor.
+
+Even the inventor does not get rich by means of his own labor. To
+begin with, there is no invention which is purely an individual
+undertaking. I was talking the other day with one of the world's great
+inventors upon this subject. He was explaining to me how he came to
+invent a certain machine which has made his name famous. He explained
+that for many years men had been facing a great difficulty and other
+inventors had been trying to devise some means of meeting it. He had,
+therefore, to begin with, the experience of thousands of men during
+many years to give him a clear idea of what was required. And that was
+a great thing to start with, Jonathan.
+
+Secondly, he had the experiments of all the numerous other inventors
+to guide him: he could profit by their failures. Not only did he know
+what to avoid, because that great fund of others' experience, but he
+also got many useful ideas from the work of some of the men who were
+on the right line without knowing it. "I could not have invented it
+if it were not for the men who went before me," he said.
+
+Another point, Jonathan: In the wonderful machine the inventor was
+discussing there are wheels and levers and springs. Somebody had to
+invent the wheel, the lever and the spring before there could be a
+machine at all. Who was it, I wonder! Do you know who made the first
+wheel, or the first lever? Of course you don't! Nobody does. These
+things were invented thousands of years ago, when the race still lived
+in barbarism. Each age has simply extended their usefulness and
+efficiency. So it is wrong to speak of any invention as the work of
+one man. Into every great invention go the experience and experiments
+of countless others.
+
+So much for that side of the question. Now, let us look at another
+side of the question which is sometimes lost sight of. A man invents a
+machine: as I have shown you, it is as much the product of other men's
+brains as of his own. It is really a social product. He gets a patent
+upon the machine for a certain number of years, and that patent gives
+him the right to say to the world "No one can use this machine unless
+he pays me a royalty." He does not use the machine himself and keep
+what he can make in competition with others' means of production. If
+no one chooses to use his machine, then, no matter how good a thing it
+may be, he gets nothing from his invention. So that even the inventor
+is no exception to my statement that no man ever gets rich by his own
+labor.
+
+The inventor is not the real inventor of the machine: he only carries
+on the work which others began thousands of years ago. He takes the
+results of other people's inventive genius and adds his quota. But he
+claims the whole. And when he has done his work and added his
+contribution to the age-long development of mechanical modes of
+production, he must depend again upon society, upon the labor of
+others.
+
+To return to the question of abstinence: I would not attempt to deny
+that some men have saved part of their income and by investing it
+secured the beginnings of great fortunes. I know that is so. But the
+fortunes came out of the labor of other people. Somebody had to
+produce the wealth, that is quite evident. And if the person who got
+it was not that somebody, the producer, it is as clear as noonday that
+the producer must have produced something he did not get.
+
+No, my friend, the notion that profits are the reward of abstinence
+and thrift is stupid in the extreme. The people who enjoy the
+profit-incomes of the world, are, with few exceptions, people who have
+not been either abstemious or thrifty.
+
+But perhaps you will say that, while this may be true of the people
+who to-day are getting enormous incomes from rent, interest or profit,
+we must go further back; that we must go back to the beginning of
+things when their fathers or their grandfathers began by investing
+their savings.
+
+To that I have no objection whatever, provided only that you are
+willing to go back, not merely to the beginning of the individual
+fortune, but to the beginning of the system. If your grandfather, or
+great-grandfather, had been what is termed a thrifty and industrious
+man, working hard, living poor, working his wife and little ones in
+one long grind, all in order to save money to invest in business, you
+might now be a rich man; that is, supposing you were heir to their
+possessions.
+
+That is not at all certain, for it is a fact that most of the men who
+have hoarded their individual savings and then invested them have been
+ruined and fooled. In the case of our railroads, for example, the
+great majority of the early investors of savings went bankrupt. They
+were swallowed up by the bigger fish, Jonathan. But assume it
+otherwise, assume that the grandfather of some rich man of the present
+day laid the foundation of the family fortune in the manner described,
+don't you see that the system of robbing the worker of his product was
+already established; that you must go back to the beginning of the
+_system_?
+
+And when you trace capital back to its origin, my friend, you will
+always come to war or robbery. You can trace it back to the forcible
+taking of the land away from the people. When the machine came,
+bringing with it an industrial revolution, it was by the wealthy and
+the ruthless that the machine was owned, not by the poor toilers. In
+other words, my friends, there was simply a continuance of the old
+rule of a class of overlords, under another name.
+
+If the abstinence theory is foolish, even more foolish is the notion
+that profits are the reward of managing ability, the wages of
+superintendence. Under primitive capitalism there was some
+justification for this view.
+
+It was impossible to deny that the owner of a factory did manage it,
+that he was the superintendent, entitled as such to some reward. It
+was easy enough to say that he got a disproportionate share, but who
+was to decide just what his fair share would be?
+
+But when capitalism developed and became impersonal that idea of the
+nature of profits was killed. When companies were organized they
+employed salaried managers, _whose salaries were paid before profits
+were reckoned at all_. To-day I can own shares in China and Australia
+while living all the time in the United States. Even though I have
+never been to those countries, nor seen the property I am a
+shareholder in, I shall get my profits just the same. A lunatic may
+own shares in a thousand companies and, though he is confined in a
+madhouse, his shares of stock will still bring a profit to his
+guardians in his name.
+
+When Mr. Rockefeller was summoned to court in Chicago last year, he
+stated on oath that he could not tell anything about the business of
+the Standard Oil Company, not having had anything to do with the
+business for several years past. But he gets his profits just the
+same, showing how foolish it is to talk of profits as being the reward
+of managing ability and the wages of superintendence.
+
+Now, Jonathan, I have explained to you pretty fully what Socialism is
+when considered as a philosophy of social evolution. I have also
+explained to you what Socialism is when considered as a system of
+economy. I could sum up both very briefly by saying that Socialism is
+a philosophy of social evolution which teaches that the great force
+which has impelled the race onward, determining the rate and direction
+of social progress, has come from man's tools and the mode of
+production in general: that we are now living in a period of
+transition, from capitalism to Socialism, motived by the economic
+forces of our time. Socialism is a system of economics, also. Its
+substance may be summed up in a sentence as follows: Labor applied to
+natural resources is the source of the wealth of capitalistic society,
+but the greatest part of the wealth produced goes to non-producers,
+the producers getting only a part, in the form of wages--hence the
+paradox of wealthy non-producers and penurious producers.
+
+I have explained to you also that Socialism is not a scheme. There
+remains still to be explained, however, another aspect of Socialism,
+of more immediate interest and importance and interest. I must try to
+explain Socialism as an ideal, as a forecast of the future. You want
+to know, having traced the evolution of society to a point where
+everything seems to be in transition, where a change seems imminent,
+just what the nature of that change will be.
+
+I must leave that for another letter, friend Jonathan, for this is
+over-long already. I shall not try to paint a picture of the future
+for you, to tell you in detail what that future will be like. I do not
+know: no man can know. He who pretends to know is either a fool or a
+knave, my friend. But there are some things which, I believe, we may
+premise with reasonable certainty These things I want to discuss in my
+next letter. Meantime, there are lots of things in this letter to
+think about.
+
+_And I want you to think, Jonathan Edwards!_
+
+
+
+
+IX
+
+WHAT SOCIALISM IS AND WHAT IT IS NOT
+
+(_Continued_)
+
+    And the wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall
+    lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the
+    fattling together; and a little child shall lead them. And the
+    cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down
+    together; and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. And the
+    suckling child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the
+    weaned child shall put his hand on the basilisk's den. They
+    shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the
+    earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the
+    waters cover the sea.--_Isaiah._
+
+    But we are not going to attain Socialism at one bound. The
+    transition is going on all the time, and the important thing
+    for us, in this explanation, is not to paint a picture of the
+    future--which in any case would be useless labor--but to
+    forecast a practical programme for the intermediate period, to
+    formulate and justify measures that shall be applicable at
+    once, and that will serve as aids to the new Socialist
+    birth.--_W. Liebknecht._
+
+
+At the head of this letter I have copied two passages to which I want
+you to give particular attention, Jonathan. The first consists of a
+part of a very beautiful word-picture, in which the splendid old
+Hebrew prophet described his vision of a perfect social state. In his
+Utopia it would no longer be true to speak of Nature as being red of
+tooth and claw. Even the lion would eat straw like the ox, so that
+there might not be suffering caused by one animal preying upon
+another. Whenever I read that chapter, Jonathan, I sit watching the
+smoke-wreaths curl out of my pipe and float away, and they seem to
+bear me with them to a land of seductive beauty. I should like to live
+in a land where there was never a cry of pain, where never drop of
+blood stained the ground.
+
+There have been lots of Utopias besides that of the old Hebrew
+prophet. Plato, the great philosopher, wrote _The Republic_ to give
+form to his dream of an ideal society. Sir Thomas More, the great
+English statesman and martyr, outlined his ideal of social relations
+in a book called _Utopia_. Mr. Bellamy, in our own day, has given us
+his picture of social perfection in _Looking Backward_. There have
+been many others who, not content with writing down their ideas of
+what society ought to be like, have tried to establish ideal
+conditions. They have established colonies, communities, sects and
+brotherhoods, all in the earnest hope of being able to attain the
+perfect social state.
+
+The greatest of these experimental Utopians, Robert Owen, tried to
+carry out his ideas in this country. It would be well worth your while
+to read the account of his life and work in George Browning Lockwood's
+book, _The New Harmony Communities_. Owen tried to get Congress to
+adopt his plans for social regeneration. He addressed the members of
+both houses, taking with him models, plans, diagrams and statistics,
+showing exactly how things would be, according to his idea, in the
+ideal world. In Europe he went round to all the reigning sovereigns
+begging them to adopt his plans.
+
+He wanted common ownership of everything with equal distribution;
+money would be abolished; the marriage system would be done away with
+and "free love" established; children would belong to and be reared
+by the community. Our concern with him at this point is that he
+called himself a Socialist and was, I believe, the first to use that
+word.
+
+But the Socialists of to-day have nothing in common with such Utopian
+ideas as those I have described. We all recognize that Robert Owen was
+a beautiful spirit, one of the world's greatest humanitarians. He was,
+like the prophet Isaiah, a dreamer, a visionary. He had no idea of the
+philosophy of social evolution upon which modern Socialism rests; no
+idea of its system of economics. He saw the evils of private ownership
+and competition in the fiercest period of competitive industry, and
+wanted to replace them with co-operation and public ownership. But his
+point of view was that he had been inspired with a great idea, thanks
+to which he could save the world from all its misery. He did not
+realize that social changes are produced by slow evolution.
+
+One of the principal reasons why I have dwelt at this length upon Owen
+is that he is a splendid representative of the great Utopia builders.
+The fact that he was probably the first man to use the word Socialism
+adds an element of interest to his personality also. I wanted to put
+Utopian Socialism before you so clearly that you would be able to
+contrast it at once with modern, scientific Socialism--the Socialism
+of Marx and Engels, upon which the great Socialist parties of the
+world are based; the Socialism that is alive in the world to-day. They
+are as opposite as the poles. It is important that you should grasp
+this fact very clearly, for many of the criticisms of Socialism made
+to-day apply only to the old utopian ideals and do not touch modern
+Socialism at all. In the letter you wrote me at the beginning of this
+discussion there are many questions which you could not have asked
+had you not conceived of Socialism as a scheme to be adopted.
+
+People are constantly attacking Socialism upon these false grounds.
+They remind me of a story I heard in Wales many years ago. In one of
+the mountain districts a miner returned from his work one afternoon
+and found that his wife had bought a picture of the crucifixion of
+Jesus and hung it against the wall. He had never heard of Jesus, so
+the story goes, and his wife had to explain the meaning of the
+picture. She told the story in her simple way, laying much stress upon
+the fact that "the wicked Jews" had killed Jesus. But she forgot to
+say that it all happened about two thousand years ago.
+
+Now, it happened not long after that the miner saw a Jew peddler come
+to the door of his cottage. The thought of the awful suffering of
+Jesus and his own Welsh hatred of oppression sufficed to fill him with
+resentment toward the poor peddler. He at once began to beat the
+unfortunate fellow in a terribly savage manner. When the peddler,
+between gasps, demanded to know why he had been so ill-treated, the
+miner dragged him into his kitchen and pointed to the picture of the
+crucifixion. "See what you did to that poor man, our Lord!" he
+thundered. To which the Jew very naturally responded: "But, my friend,
+that was not me. That was two thousand years ago!" The reply seemed to
+daze the miner for a moment. Then he said: "Two thousand years! Two
+thousand years! Why, I only heard of it last week!"
+
+It is just as silly to attack the Socialism of to-day for the ideas
+held by the earlier utopian Socialists as beating that poor Jew
+peddler was.
+
+Now then, friend Jonathan, turn back and read the second of the
+passages I have placed at the head of this letter. It is from the
+writings of one of the greatest of modern Socialists, the man who was
+the great political leader of the Socialist movement in Germany,
+Wilhelm Liebknecht.
+
+You will notice that he says the transition to Socialism is going on
+all the time; that we are not to attain Socialism at one bound; that
+it is useless to attempt to paint pictures of the future; that we can
+forecast an immediate programme and aid the Socialist birth. These
+statements are quite in harmony with the outline of the Socialist
+philosophy of the evolution of society contained in my last letter.
+
+So, if you ask me to tell you just what the world will be like when
+all people call themselves Socialists except a few reformers and
+"fanatics," earnest pioneers of further changes, I must answer you
+that I do not know. How they will dress, what sort of pictures artists
+will paint, what sort of poems poets will write, or what sort of
+novels men and women will read, I do not know. What the income of each
+family will be I cannot tell you, any more than I can tell you whether
+there will be any intercommunication between the inhabitants of this
+planet and of Mars; whether there will be an ambassador from Mars at
+the national capital.
+
+I do not expect that the lion will eat straw like the ox; I do not
+expect that people will be perfect. I do not suppose that men and
+women will have become so angelic that there will never be any crime,
+suffering, anger, pain or sorrow; I do not expect disease to be
+forever banished from life in the Socialist regime. Still less do I
+expect that mechanical genius will have been so perfected that human
+labor will be no longer necessary; that perpetual motion will have
+been harnessed to great indestructible machines and work become a
+thing of the past. That dream of the German dreamer, Etzler, will
+never be realized, I hope.
+
+I suppose that, under Socialism, there will be some men and women far
+wiser than others. There may be a few fools left! I suppose that some
+will be far juster and kinder than others. There may be some selfish
+brutes left with a good deal of hoggishness in their nature! I suppose
+that some will have to make great mistakes and endure the tragedies
+which men and women have endured through all the ages. The love of
+some men will die out, breaking the hearts of some women, I suppose,
+and there will be women whose love will bring them to ruin and death.
+I should not like to think of jails and brothels existing under
+Socialism, Jonathan, but for all I know they may exist. Whether there
+will be churches and paid ministers under Socialism, I do not know. I
+do not pretend to know.
+
+I suppose that, under Socialism, there will be some people who will be
+dissatisfied. I hope so! Men and women will want to move to a higher
+plane of life, I hope. What they will call that plane I do not know;
+what it will be like I do not know. I suppose they will be opposed and
+persecuted; that they will be mocked and derided, called "fanatics"
+and "dreamers" and lots of other ugly and unpleasant names. Lots of
+people will want to stay just as they are, and violently oppose the
+men who say, "Let us move on." But I don't believe that any sane
+person will want to go back to the old conditions--back to our
+conditions of to-day.
+
+You see, I have killed lots of your objections already, my friend!
+
+Now let me tell you briefly what Socialists want, and what they
+believe will take place--_must_ take place. In the first place, there
+must be political changes to make complete our political democracy.
+You may be surprised at this, Jonathan. Perhaps you are accustomed to
+think of our political system as being the perfect expression of
+political democracy. Let us see.
+
+Compared with some other countries, like Russia, Germany and Spain,
+for example, this is a free country, politically; a model of
+democracy. We have adult suffrage--_for the men_! In only a few states
+are our mothers, wives, sisters and daughters allowed to vote. In most
+of the states the best women, and the most intelligent, are placed on
+the political level of the criminal and the maniac. They must obey the
+laws, their interests in the well-being and good government of the
+nation are as vital as those of our sex. But they are denied
+representation in the councils of the nation, denied a voice in the
+affairs of the nation. They are not citizens. We have a class below
+that of the citizens in this country, a class based upon sex
+distinctions.
+
+To make our political system thoroughly representative and democratic,
+we must extend political power to the women of the nation. Further
+than that, we must bring all the means of government more directly
+under the people's will.
+
+In our industrial system we must bring the great trusts under the rule
+of the people. They must be owned and controlled by all for all. I say
+that we "must" do this, because there is no other way by which the
+present evils may be remedied. Everybody who is not blinded to the
+real situation by vested interest must recognize that the present
+conditions are intolerable--and becoming worse and more intolerable
+every day. A handful of men have the nation's destiny in their greedy
+fingers and they gamble with it for their own profit. Something must
+be done.
+
+But what? We cannot go back if we would. I have shown you pretty
+clearly, I think, that if it were possible to undo the chain of
+evolution and to go back to primitive capitalism, with its competitive
+spirit, the development to monopoly would begin all over again. It is
+an inexorable law that competition breeds monopoly. So we cannot go
+back.
+
+What, then, is the outlook, the forward view? So far as I know,
+Jonathan, there are only two propositions for meeting the evil
+conditions of monopoly, other than the perfectly silly one of "going
+back to competition." They are (1) Regulation of the trusts; (2)
+Socialization of the trusts.
+
+Now, the first means that we should leave these great monopolies in
+the hands of their present owners and directors, but enact various
+laws curtailing their powers to exploit the people. Laws are to be
+passed limiting the capital they may employ, the amount of profits
+they may make, and so on. But nobody explains how they expect to get
+the laws obeyed. There are plenty of laws now aiming at regulation of
+the trusts, but they are quite futile and inoperative. First we spend
+an enormous amount of money and energy getting laws passed; then we
+spend much more money and energy trying to get them enforced--and fail
+after all!
+
+I submit to your good judgment, Jonathan, that so long as we have a
+relatively small class in the nation owning these great monopolies
+through corporations there can be no peace. It will be to the interest
+of the corporations to look after their profits, to prevent the
+enactment of legislation aimed to restrict them and to evade the law
+as much as possible. They will naturally use their influence to secure
+laws favorable to themselves, with the inevitable result of corruption
+in the legislative branches of the government. Legislators will be
+bought like mackerel in the market, as Mr. Lawson so bluntly expresses
+it. Efforts will be made to corrupt the judiciary also and the power
+of the entire capitalist class will be directed to the capture of our
+whole system of government. Even more than to-day, we will have the
+government of the people by a privileged part of the people in the
+interests of the privileged part.
+
+You must not forget, my friend, that the corruption of the government
+about which we hear so much from time to time is always in the
+interests of private capitalism. If there is graft in some public
+department, there is an outcry that graft and public business go
+together. As a matter of fact the graft is in the interests of private
+capitalism.
+
+When legislators sell their votes it is never for public enterprises.
+I have never heard of a city which was seeking the power to establish
+any public service raising a "yellow dog fund" with which to bribe
+legislators. On the other hand, I never yet heard of a private company
+seeking a franchise without doing so more or less openly. Regulation
+of the trusts will still leave the few masters of the many, and
+corruption still gnawing at the vitals of the nation.
+
+We must _own_ the trusts, Jonathan, and transform the monopolies by
+which the few exploit and oppress the many into social monopolies for
+the good of all. Sooner or later, either by violent or peaceful means,
+this will be done. It is for the working-class to say whether it shall
+be sooner or later, whether it shall be accomplished through the
+strife and bitterness of war or by the peaceful methods of political
+conquest.
+
+We have seen that the root of the evil in modern society is the profit
+motive. Socialism means the production of things for use instead of
+for profit. Not at one stroke, perhaps, but patiently, wisely and
+surely, all the things upon which people in common depend will be made
+common property.
+
+Take notice of that last paragraph, Jonathan. I don't say that _all_
+property must be owned in common, but only the things upon which
+people in common depend; the things which all must use if they are to
+live as they ought, and as they have a right to live. We have a
+splendid illustration of social property in our public streets. These
+are necessary to all. It would be intolerable if one man should own
+the streets of a city and charge all other citizens for the use of
+them. So streets are built out of the common funds, maintained out of
+the common funds, freely used by all in common, and the poorest man
+has as much right to use them as the richest man. In the nutshell this
+states the argument of Socialism.
+
+People sometimes ask how it would be possible for the government under
+Socialism to decide which children should be educated to be writers,
+musicians and artists and which to be street cleaners and laborers;
+how it would be possible to have a government own everything, deciding
+what people should wear, what food should be produced, and so on.
+
+The answer to all such questions is that Socialism would not need to
+do anything of the kind. There would be no need for the government to
+attempt such an impossible task. When people raise such questions they
+are thinking of the old and dead utopianism, of the schemes which
+once went under the name of Socialism. But modern Socialism is a
+principle, not a scheme. The Socialist movement of to-day is not
+interested in carrying out a great design, but in seeing society get
+rid of its drones and making it impossible for one class to exploit
+another class.
+
+Under Socialism, then, it would not be at all necessary for the
+government to own everything; for private property to be destroyed.
+For instance, the State could have no possible interest in denying the
+right of a man to own his home and to make that home as beautiful as
+he pleased. It is perfectly absurd to suppose that it would be
+necessary to "take away the poor man's cottage," about which some
+opponents of Socialism shriek. It would not be necessary to take away
+_anybody's_ home.
+
+On the contrary, Socialism would most likely enable all who so desired
+to own their own homes. At present only thirty-one per cent. of the
+families of America live in homes which they own outright. More than
+half of the people live in rented homes. They are obliged to give up
+practically a fourth part of their total income for mere shelter.
+
+Socialism would not prevent a man from owning a horse and wagon, since
+it would be possible for him to use that horse and wagon without
+compelling the citizens to pay tribute to him. On the other hand,
+private ownership of a railway would be impossible, because railways
+could not be indefinitely and easily multiplied, and the owners of
+such a railway would necessarily have to run it for profit.
+
+Under Socialism such public services as the transportation and
+delivery of parcels would be in the hands of the people, and not in
+the hands of monopolists as at present. The aim would be to serve the
+people to the best possible advantage, and not to make profit for the
+few. But if any citizen objected and wanted to carry his own parcel
+from New York to Boston, for example, it is not to be supposed for an
+instant that the State would try to prevent him.
+
+Under Socialism the great factories would belong to the people; the
+trusts would be socialized. But this would not stop a man from working
+for himself in a small workshop if he wanted to; it would not prevent
+a number of workers from forming a co-operative workshop and sharing
+the products of their labor. By reason of the fact that the great
+productive and distributive agencies which are entirely social were
+socially owned and controlled--railways, mines, telephones,
+telegraphs, express service, and the great factories of various
+kinds--the Socialist State would be able to set the standards of wages
+and industrial conditions for all the rest remaining in private hands.
+
+Let me explain what I mean, Jonathan: Under Socialism, let us suppose,
+the State undertakes the production of shoes by socializing the shoe
+trust. It takes over the great factories and runs them. Its object is
+not to make shoes for profit, however, but for use. To make shoes as
+good as possible, as cheaply as good shoes can be made, and to see
+that the people making the shoes get the best possible conditions of
+labor and the highest possible wages--as near as possible to the net
+value of their product, that is.
+
+Some people, however, object to wearing factory-made shoes; they want
+shoes of a special kind, to suit their individual fancy. There are
+also, we will suppose, some shoemakers who do not like to work in the
+State factories, preferring to make shoes by hand to suit individual
+tastes. Now, if the people who want the handmade shoes are willing to
+pay the shoemakers as much as they could earn in the socialized
+factories no reasonable objection could be urged against it. If they
+would not pay that amount, or near it, the shoemakers, it is
+reasonable to suppose, would not want to work for them. It would
+adjust itself.
+
+Under Socialism the land would belong to the people. By this I do not
+mean that the private _use_ of land would be forbidden, because that
+would be impossible. There would be no object in taking away the small
+farms from their owners. On the contrary, the number of such farms
+might be greatly increased. There are many people to-day who would
+like to have small farms if they could only get a fair chance, if the
+railroads and trusts of one kind and another were not always sucking
+all the juice from the orange. Socialism would make it possible for
+the farmer to get what he could produce, without having to divide up
+with the railroad companies, the owners of grain elevators,
+money-lenders, and a host of other parasites.
+
+I have no doubt, Jonathan, that under Socialism there would be many
+privately-worked farms. Nor have I any doubt whatever that the farmers
+would be much better off than under existing conditions. For to-day
+the farmer is not the happy, independent man he is sometimes supposed
+to be. Very often his lot is worse than that of the city wage-earner.
+At any rate, the money return for his labor is often less. You know
+that a great many farmers do not own their farms: they are mortgaged
+and the farmer has to pay an average interest of six per cent. upon
+the mortgage.
+
+Now, let us look for a moment at such a farmer's conditions, as shown
+by the census statistics. According to the census of 1900, there were
+in the United States 5,737,372 farms, each averaging about 146 acres.
+The total value of farm products in 1899 was $4,717,069,973. Now then,
+if we divide the value of the products by the number of farms, we can
+get the average annual product of each farm--about $770.
+
+Out of that $770 the farmer has to pay a hired laborer for at least
+six months in the year, let us say. At twenty-five dollars a month,
+with an added eight dollars a month for his board, this costs the
+farmer $198, so that his income now stands at $572. Next, he must pay
+interest upon his mortgage at six per cent. per annum. Now, the
+average value of the farms in 1899 was $3,562 and six per cent. on
+that amount would be about $213. Subtract that sum from the $572 which
+the farmer has after paying his hired man and you have left about
+$356. But as the farms are, not mortgaged to their full value, suppose
+we reduce the interest one half--the farmer's income remains now $464.
+
+Now, as a general thing, the farmer and his wife have to work equally
+hard, and they must work every day in the year. The hired laborer gets
+$150 and his board for six months, at the rate of $300 and board per
+year. The farmer and his wife get only $232 a year each and _part_ of
+their board, for what is not produced on the farm they must _buy_.
+
+Under Socialism the farmer could own his own farm to all intents and
+purposes. While the final title might be vested in the government, the
+farmer would have a title to the use of the farm which no one could
+dispute or take from him. If he had to borrow money he would do it
+from the government and would not be charged extortionate rates of
+interest as he is now. He would not have to pay railroad companies'
+profits, since the railways being owned by all for all and not run
+for profit, would be operated upon a basis of the cost of service.
+The farmer would not be exploited by the packers and middlemen, these
+functions being assumed by the people through their government, upon
+the same basis of service to all, things being done for the use and
+welfare of all instead of for the profit of the few. Under Socialism,
+moreover, the farmer could get his machinery from the government
+factories at a price which included no profits for idle shareholders.
+
+I am told, Jonathan, that at the present time it costs about $24 to
+make a reaper which the farmer must pay $120 for. It costs $40 to sell
+the machine which was made for $24, the expense being incurred by
+wasteful and useless advertising, salesmen's commissions, travelling
+expenses, and so on. The other $54 which the farmer must pay goes to
+the idlers in the form of rent, interest and profit.
+
+Socialism, then, could very well leave the farmer in full possession
+of his farm and improve his position by making it possible for him to
+get the full value of his labor-products without having to divide up
+with a host of idlers and non-producers. Socialism would not deny any
+man the use of the land, but it would take away the right of non-users
+to reap the fruits of the toil of users. It would deny the right of
+the Astor family to levy a tax upon the people of New York, amounting
+to millions of dollars annually, for the privilege of living there.
+The Astors have such a vast business collecting this tax that they
+have to employ an agent whose salary is equal to that of the President
+of the United States and a large army of employees.
+
+Socialism would deny the right of the English Duke of Rutland and Lord
+Beresford to hold millions of acres of land in Texas, and to levy a
+tax upon Americans for its use. It would deny the right of the
+British Land Company to tax Kansans for the use of the 300,000 acres
+owned by the company; the right of the Duke of Sutherland and Sir
+Edward Reid to tax Americans for the use of the millions of acres they
+own in Florida; of Lady Gordon and the Marquis of Dalhousie to any
+right to tax people in Mississippi. The idea that a few people can own
+the land upon which all people must live in any country is a relic of
+slavery, friend Jonathan.
+
+So you see, my friend, Socialism does not mean that everything is to
+be divided up equally among the people every little while. That is
+either a fool's notion or the wilful misrepresentation of a liar.
+Socialism does not mean that there is to be a great bureaucratic
+government owning everything and controlling everybody. It does not
+mean doing away with private initiative and making of humanity a great
+herd, everybody wearing the same kind of clothes, eating the same kind
+and quantities of food, and having no personal liberties. It simply
+means that all men and women should have equal opportunities; to make
+it impossible for one man to exploit another, except at that other's
+free will. It does not mean doing away with individual liberty and
+reducing all to a dead level. That is what is at present happening to
+the great majority of people, and Socialism comes to unbind the soul
+of man--to make mankind free.
+
+I think, Jonathan, that you ought to have a fairly clear notion now of
+what Socialism is and what it is not. You ought to be able now to
+distinguish between the social properties which Socialism would
+establish and the private properties it could have no object in taking
+away, which it would rather foster and protect. I have tried simply to
+illustrate the principle for you, so that you can think the matter
+out for yourself. It will be a very good thing for you to commit this
+rule to memory.--
+
+_Under Socialism, the State would own and control only those things
+which could not be owned and controlled by individuals without giving
+them an undue advantage over the community, by enabling them to
+extract profits from the labor of others._
+
+But be sure that you do not make the common mistake of confusing
+government ownership with Socialism, friend Jonathan, as so many
+people are in the habit of doing. In Prussia the government owns the
+railways. But the government does not represent the interests of all
+the people. It is the government of a nation by a class. That is not
+the same thing as the socialization of the railways, as you will see.
+In Russia the government owns some of the railways and has a monopoly
+of the liquor traffic. But these things are not democratically owned
+and managed in the common interest. Russia is an autocracy. Everything
+is run for the benefit of the governing class, the Czar and a host of
+bureaucrats. That is not Socialism. In this country we have a nearer
+approach to democracy in our government, and our post-office system,
+for example, is a much nearer approach to the realization of the
+Socialist principle.
+
+But even in this country, government ownership and Socialism are not
+the same thing. For our government is a class government too. There is
+the same inequality of wages and conditions as under capitalist
+ownership: many of the letter carriers and other employees are
+miserably underpaid, and the service is notoriously handicapped by
+private interests. Whether it is in Russia under the Czar and his
+bureaucrats, Germany with its monarchial system cumbered with the
+remnants of feudalism, or the United States with its manhood suffrage
+foolishly used to elect the interests of the capitalist class,
+government ownership can only be at best a framework for Socialism. It
+must wait for the Socialist spirit to be infused into it.
+
+Socialists want government ownership, Jonathan, but they don't want it
+unless the people are to own the government. When the government
+represents the interests of all the people it will use the things it
+owns and controls for the common good. _And that will be Socialism in
+practice, my friend._
+
+
+
+
+X
+
+OBJECTIONS TO SOCIALISM CONSIDERED
+
+    I feel sure that the time will come when people will find it
+    difficult to believe that a rich community such as our's,
+    having such command over external nature, could have submitted
+    to live such a mean, shabby, dirty life as we do.--_William
+    Morris._
+
+    Morality and political economy unite in repelling the
+    individual who consumes without producing.--_Balzac._
+
+    The restraints of Communism would be freedom in comparison
+    with the present condition of the majority of the human
+    race.--_John Stuart Mill._
+
+
+I promised at the beginning of this discussion, friend Jonathan, that
+I would try to answer the numerous objections to Socialism which you
+set forth in your letter, and I cannot close the discussion without
+fulfilling that promise.
+
+Many of the objections I have already disposed of and need not,
+therefore, take further notice of them here. The remaining ones I
+propose to answer--except where I can show you that an answer is
+unnecessary. For you have answered some of the objections yourself, my
+friend, though you were not aware of the fact. I find in looking over
+the long list of your objections that one excludes another very often.
+You seem, like a great many other people, to have set down all the
+objections you had ever heard, or could think of at the time,
+regardless of the fact that they could not by any possibility be all
+well founded; that if some were wise and weighty others must be
+foolish and empty. Without altering the form of your objections,
+simply rearranging their order, I propose to set forth a few of the
+contradictions in your objections. That is fair logic, Jonathan.
+
+First you say that you object to Socialism because it is "the clamor
+of envious men to take by force what does not belong to them." That is
+a very serious objection, if true. But you say a little further on in
+your letter that "Socialism is a noble and beautiful dream which human
+beings are not perfect enough to realize in actual life." Either one
+of the objections _may_ be valid, Jonathan, but both of them cannot
+be. Socialism cannot be both a noble and a beautiful dream, too
+sublime for human realization, and at the same time a sordid envy--can
+it?
+
+You say that "Socialists are opposed to law and order and want to do
+away with all government," and then you say in another objection that
+"Socialists want to make us all slaves to the government by putting
+everything and everybody under government control." It happens that
+you are wrong in both assertions, but you can see for yourself that
+you couldn't possibly be right in both of them--can't you?
+
+You object that under Socialism "all would be reduced to the same dead
+level." That is a very serious objection, too, but it cannot be well
+founded unless your other objection, that "under Socialism a few
+politicians would get all the power and most of the wealth, making all
+the people their slaves" is without foundation. Both objections cannot
+hold--can they?
+
+You say that "Socialists are visionaries with cut and dried schemes
+that look well on paper, but the world has never paid any attention
+to schemes for reorganizing society," and then you object that "the
+Socialists have no definite plans for what they propose to do, and how
+they mean to do it; that they indulge in vague principles only." And I
+ask you again, friend Jonathan, do you think that both these
+objections can be sound?
+
+You object that "Socialism is as old as the world; has been tried many
+times and always failed." If that were true it would be a very serious
+objection to Socialism, of course. But is it true? In another place
+you object that "Socialism has never been tried and we don't know how
+it would work." You see, my friend, you can make either objection you
+choose, but not both. Either one _may_ be right, but _both_ cannot be.
+
+Now, these are only a few of the long list of your objections which
+are directly contradictory and mutually exclusive, my friend. Some of
+them I have already answered directly, the others I have answered
+indirectly. Therefore, I shall do no more here and now than briefly
+summarize the Socialist answer to them.
+
+Socialists do propose that society as a whole should take and use for
+the common good some things which a few now own, things which "belong"
+to them by virtue of laws which set the interests of the few above the
+common good. But that is a very different thing from "the clamor of
+envious men to take what does not belong to them." It is no more to be
+so described than taxation, for example is. Socialism is a beautiful
+dream in one sense. Men who see the misery and despair produced by
+capitalism think with joy of the days to come when the misery and
+despair are replaced by gladsomeness and hope. That _is_ a dream, but
+no Socialist rests upon the dream merely: the hope of the Socialist is
+in the very material fact of the economic development from
+competition to monopoly; in the breakdown of capitalism itself.
+
+You have probably learned by this time that Socialism does not mean
+either doing away with all government or making the government master
+of everything. Later, I want to return to the subject, and to the
+charge that it would reduce all to a dull level. I shall not waste
+time answering the objections that it is a scheme and that it is not a
+scheme, further than I have already answered them. And I am not going
+to waste your time arguing at length the folly of saying that
+Socialism has been tried and proved a failure. The Socialism of to-day
+has nothing to do with the thousands of Utopian schemes which men have
+tried. Before the modern Socialist movement came into existence,
+during hundreds of years, men and women tried to realize social
+equality by forming communities and withdrawing from the ordinary life
+of the world. Some of these communities, mostly of a religious nature,
+such as the Shakers and the Perfectionists, attained some measure of
+success and lasted a number of years, but most of them lasted only a
+short time. It is folly to say that Socialism has ever been tried
+anywhere at any time.
+
+And now, friend Jonathan, I want to consider some of the more vital
+and important objections to Socialism made in your letter. You object
+to Socialism
+
+  Because its advocates use violent speech
+  Because it is "the same as Anarchism"
+  Because it aims to destroy the family and the home
+  Because it is opposed to religion
+  Because it would do away with personal liberty
+  Because it would reduce all to one dull level
+  Because it would destroy the incentive to progress
+  Because it is impossible unless we can change human nature.
+
+These are all your objections, Jonathan, and I am going to try to
+suggest answers to them.
+
+(1) It is true that Socialists sometimes use very violent language.
+Like all earnest and enthusiastic men who are possessed by a great and
+overwhelming sense of wrong and needless suffering, they sometimes use
+language that is terrible in its vehemence; their speech is sometimes
+full of bitter scorn and burning indignation. It is also true that
+their speech is sometimes rough and uncultured, shocking the sensitive
+ear, but I am sure you will agree with me that the working man or
+woman who, never having had the advantage of education and refined
+environment, feels the burden of the days that are or the inspiration
+of better days to come, is entitled to be heard. So I am not going to
+apologize for the rough and uncultured speech.
+
+And I am not going to apologize for the violent speech. It would be
+better, of course, if all the advocates of Socialism could master the
+difficult art of stating their case strongly and without compromise,
+but without bitterness and without unnecessary offense to others. But
+it is not easy to measure speech in the denunciation of immeasurable
+wrong, and some of the greatest utterances in history have been hard,
+bitter, vehement words torn from agonized hearts. It is true that
+Socialists now and then use violent language, but no Socialist--unless
+he is so overwrought as to be momentarily irresponsible--_advocates
+violence_. The great urge and passion of Socialism is for the peaceful
+transformation of society.
+
+I have heard a few overwrought Socialists, all of them gentle and
+generous comrades, incapable of doing harm to any living creature, in
+bursts of tempestuous indignation use language which seemed to incite
+their hearers to violence, but those who heard them understood that
+they were borne away by their feelings. I have never heard Socialists
+advocate violence toward any human beings in cold-blooded
+deliberation. But I _have_ heard capitalists and the defenders of
+capitalism advocate violence toward Socialists in cold-blooded
+deliberation. I have seen in Socialist papers upon a few occasions
+violent utterances which I deplored, but never such advocacy of
+violence as I have read in newspapers opposed to Socialism. Here, for
+example, are some extracts from an editorial which appeared January,
+1908, in the columns of the _Gossip_, of Goldfield, Nevada:
+
+    "A cheaper and more satisfactory method of dealing with this
+    labor trouble in Goldfield last spring would have been to have
+    taken half a dozen of the Socialist leaders in the Miners'
+    Union and hanged them all to telegraph poles.
+
+    "SPEAKING DISPASSIONATELY, AND WITHOUT ANIMUS, it seems clear
+    to us after many months of reflection, that YOU COULDN'T MAKE
+    A MISTAKE IN HANGING A SOCIALIST.
+
+    "HE IS ALWAYS BETTER DEAD.
+
+    "He, breathing peace, breathing order, breathing goodwill,
+    fairness to all and moderation, is always the man with the
+    dynamite. He is the trouble-maker, and the trouble-breeder.
+
+    "To fully appreciate him you must live where he abounds.
+
+    "In the Western Federation of Miners he is that plentiful
+    legacy left us from the teachings of Eugene V. Debs, hero of
+    the Chicago Haymarket Riots.
+
+    "ALWAYS HANG A SOCIALIST. NOT BECAUSE HE'S A DEEP THINKER, BUT
+    BECAUSE HE'S A BAD ACTOR."
+
+I could fill many pages with extracts almost as bad as the above, all
+taken from capitalist papers, Jonathan. But for our purpose one is as
+good as a thousand. I want you to read the papers carefully with an
+eye to their class character. When the Goldfield paper printed the
+foregoing open incitement to murder, the community was already
+disturbed by a great strike and the President of the United States had
+sent federal troops to Goldfield in the interest of the master class.
+Suppose that under similar circumstances a Socialist paper had come
+out and said in big type that people "couldn't make a mistake in
+hanging a capitalist," that capitalists are "always better dead."
+Suppose that any Socialist paper urged the murder of Republicans and
+Democrats in the same way, do you think the paper would have been
+tolerated? That the editor would have escaped jail? Don't you know
+that if such a statement had been published by any Socialist paper the
+whole country would have been roused, that press and pulpit would have
+denounced it?
+
+Socialists are opposed to violence. They appeal to brains and not to
+bludgeons; they trust in ballots and not in bullets. The violence of
+speech with which they are charged is not the advocacy of violence,
+but unmeasured and impassioned denunciation of a cruel and brutal
+system. Not long ago I heard a clergyman denouncing Socialists for
+their "violent language." Poor fellow! He was quite unconscious that
+he was more bitter in his invective than the men he attacked. Of
+course Socialists use bitter and burning language--but not more bitter
+than was used by the great Hebrew prophets in their stern
+denunciations; not more bitter than was used by Jesus and his
+disciples; not more bitter than was used by Martin Luther and other
+great leaders of the Reformation; not more bitter than was used by
+Garrison and the other Abolitionists. Men with vital messages cannot
+always use soft words, Jonathan.
+
+(2) Socialism is not "the same as Anarchism," my friend, but its very
+opposite. The only connection between them is that they are agreed
+upon certain criticisms of present society. In all else they are as
+opposite as the poles. The difference lies not merely in the fact that
+most Anarchists have advocated physical violence, for there are some
+Anarchists who are as much opposed to physical violence as you or I,
+Jonathan, and it is only fair and just that we should recognize the
+fact. It has always seemed to me that Anarchism logically leads to
+physical force by individuals against individuals, but, logical or no,
+there are many Anarchists who are gentle spirits, holding all life
+sacred and abhorring violence and assassination. When there are so
+many ready to be unjust to them, we can afford to be just to the
+Anarchists, even if we do not agree with them, Jonathan.
+
+Sometimes an attempt is made by Socialists to explain the difference
+between themselves and Anarchists by saying that Anarchists want to
+destroy all government, while Socialists want to extend government and
+bring everything under its control; that Anarchists want no laws,
+while Socialists want more laws. But that is not an intelligent
+statement of the difference. We Socialists don't particularly desire
+to extend the functions of government; we are not so enamoured of laws
+that we want more of them. Quite the contrary is true, in fact. If we
+had a Socialist government to-morrow in this country, one of the first
+and most important of its tasks would be to repeal a great many of the
+existing laws.
+
+Then there are some Socialists who try to explain the difference
+between Socialism and Anarchism by saying that the Anarchists are
+simply Socialists of a very advanced type; that society must first
+pass through a period of Socialism, in which laws will be necessary,
+before it can enter upon Anarchism, a state in which every man will be
+so pure and so good that he can be a law unto himself, no other form
+of law being necessary. But that does not settle the difficulty. I
+think you will see, friend Jonathan, that in order to have such a
+society in which without laws or penal codes, or government of any
+kind, men and women lived happily together, it would be necessary for
+every member to cultivate a social sense, a sense of responsibility to
+society as a whole. Each member of society would have to become so
+thoroughly socialized as to make the interests of society as a whole
+his chief concern in life. And such a society would be simply a
+Socialist society perfectly developed, not an Anarchist society. It
+would be a Socialist society simply because it would be dominated by
+the essential principle of Socialism--the idea of solidarity, of
+common interest.
+
+The basis of Anarchism is utopian individualism. Just as the old
+utopian dreamers who tried to "establish" Socialism through the medium
+of numerous "Colonies," took the abstract idea of equality and made it
+their ideal, so the Anarchist sets up the abstract idea of individual
+liberty. The true difference between Socialism and Anarchism is that
+the Socialist sets the social interest, the good of society, above all
+other interests, while the Anarchist sets the interest of the
+individual above everything else. You could express the difference
+thus:
+
+  Socialism means _We_ -ism
+  Anarchism means _Me_ -ism
+
+The Anarchist says: "The world is made up of individuals. What is
+called "society" is only a lot of individuals. Therefore the
+individual is the only real being and society a mere abstraction, a
+name. As an individual I know myself, but I know nothing of society; I
+know my own interests, but I know nothing of what you call the
+interests of society." On the other hand, the Socialist says that "no
+man liveth unto himself," to use a biblical phrase. He points out that
+in modern society no individual life, apart from the social life, is
+possible.
+
+If this seems a somewhat abstract way of putting it, Jonathan, just
+try to put it in a concrete form yourself by means of a simple
+experiment. When you sit down to your breakfast to-morrow morning take
+time to think where your breakfast came from and how it was produced.
+Think of the coffee plantations in far-off countries drawn on for your
+breakfast; of the farms, perhaps thousands of miles away, from which
+came your bacon and your bread; of the coal miners toiling that your
+breakfast might be cooked; of the men in the engine-rooms of great
+ships and on the tenders of mighty locomotives, bringing your
+breakfast supplies across sea and land. Then think of your clothing in
+the same way, article by article, trying to realize how much you are
+dependent upon others than yourself. Throughout the day apply the same
+principle as you move about. Apply it to the streets as you go to
+work; to the street cars as you ride; apply it to the provisions which
+are made to safeguard your health against devastating plague, the
+elaborate system of drainage, the carefully guarded water-supply, and
+so on. Then, when you have done that for a day as far as possible, ask
+yourself whether the Anarchist idea that every individual is a
+distinct and separate whole, an independent being, unrelated to the
+other individuals who make up society, is a true one; or whether the
+Socialist idea that all individuals are inter-dependent upon each
+other, bound to each other by so many ties that they cannot be
+considered apart, is the true idea. Judge by your experience,
+Jonathan!
+
+So the Socialist says that "we are all members one of another," to use
+another familiar biblical phrase. He is not less interested in
+personal freedom than the Anarchist, not less desirous of giving to
+each individual unit in society the largest possible freedom
+compatible with the like freedom of all the other units. But, while
+the Anarchist says that the best judge of that is the individual, the
+Socialist says that society is the best judge. The Anarchist position
+is that, in the event of a conflict of interests, the will of the
+individual must rule at all costs; the Socialist says that, in the
+event of such a conflict of interests, the will of the individual must
+give way. That is the real philosophical difference between the two.
+
+Anarchism is not important enough in America, friend Jonathan, to
+justify our devoting so much time and space to the discussion of its
+philosophy as opposed to the philosophy of Socialism, except for the
+bearing it has upon the political movement of the working class. I
+want you to see just how Anarchism works out when the test of
+practical application is resorted to.
+
+Just as the Anarchist sets up an abstract idea of individual liberty
+as his ideal, so he sets up an abstract idea of tyranny. To him Law,
+the will of society, is the essence of tyranny. Laws are limitations
+of individual liberty set by society and therefore they are
+tyrannical. No matter what the law may be, all laws are wrong. There
+cannot be such a thing as a good law, according to this view. To
+illustrate just where this leads us, let me tell of a recent
+experience: I was lecturing in a New England town, and after the
+lecture an Anarchist rose to ask some questions. He wanted to know if
+it was not a fact that all laws were oppressive and bad, to which, of
+course, I replied that I thought not.
+
+I asked him whether the law forbidding murder and providing for its
+punishment, oppressed _him_; whether _he_ felt it a hardship not to be
+allowed to murder at will, and he replied that he did not. I cited
+many other laws, such as the laws relating to arson, burglary,
+criminal assault, and so on, with the same result. His outcry about
+the oppression of law, as such, proved to be just an empty cry about
+an abstraction; a bogey of his imagination. Of course, he could cite
+bad laws, unjust laws, as I could have done; but that would simply
+show that some laws are not right--a proposition upon which most
+people will agree. My Anarchist friend quoted Herbert Spencer in
+support of his contention. He referred to Spencer's well-known summary
+of the social legislation of England. So I asked my friend if he
+thought the Factory Acts were oppressive and tyrannical, and he
+replied that, from an Anarchist viewpoint, they were.
+
+Think of that, Jonathan! Little boys and girls, five and six years
+old, were taken out of their beds crying and begging to be allowed to
+sleep, and carried to the factory gates. Then they were driven to work
+by brutal overseers armed with leather whips. Sometimes they fell
+asleep at their tasks and then they were beaten and kicked and cursed
+at like dogs. Little boys and girls from orphan asylums were sent to
+work thus, and died like flies in summer--their bodies being secretly
+buried at night for fear of an outcry. You can find the terrible story
+told in _The Industrial History of England_, by H. de B. Gibbins,
+which ought to be in your public library.
+
+Humane men set up a protest at last and there was a movement through
+the country demanding protection for the children. Once a member of
+parliament held up in the House of Commons a whip of leather thongs
+attached to an oak handle, telling his colleagues that a few days
+before it had been used to flog little children who were mere babies.
+The demand was made for legislation to stop this barbarous treatment
+of children, to protect their childhood. The factory owners opposed
+the passing of such laws on the ground that it would be an
+interference with their individual liberties, their right to do as
+they pleased. _And the Anarchist comes always and inevitably to the
+same conclusion._ Factory laws, public health laws, education
+laws--all denounced as "interferences with individual liberty."
+Extremes meet: the Anarchist in the name of individual liberty, like
+the capitalist, would prevent society from putting a stop to the
+exploitation of its little ones.
+
+The real danger in Anarchism is not that _some_ Anarchists believe in
+violence, and that from time to time there are cowardly assassinations
+which are as futile as they are cowardly. The real danger lies first
+in the reactionary principle that the interests of society must be
+subordinated to the interests of the individual, and, second, in
+holding out a hope to the working class that its freedom from
+oppression and exploitation may be brought about by other than
+political, legislative means. And it is this second objection which is
+of extreme importance to the working class of America at this time.
+
+From time to time, in all working class movements, there is an outcry
+against political action, an outcry raised by impetuous men-in-a-hurry
+who want twelve o'clock at eleven. They cry out that the ballot is too
+slow; they want some more "direct" action than the ballot-box allows.
+But you will find, Jonathan, that the men who raise this cry have
+nothing to propose except riot to take the place of political action.
+Either they would have the workers give up all struggle and depend
+upon moral suasion, or they would have them riot. And we Socialists
+say that ballots are better weapons than bullets for the workers. You
+may depend upon it that any agitation among the workers against the
+use of political weapons leads to Anarchism--and to riot. I hope you
+will find time to read Plechanoff's _Anarchism and Socialism_,
+Jonathan. It will well repay your careful study.
+
+No, Socialism is not related to Anarchism, but it is, on the contrary,
+the one great active force in the world to-day that is combating
+Anarchism. There is a close affinity between Anarchism and the idea of
+capitalism, for both place the individual above society. The Socialist
+believes that the highest good of the individual will be realized
+through the highest good of society.
+
+(3) Socialism involves no attack upon the family and the home. Those
+who raise this objection against Socialism charge that it is one of
+the aims of the Socialist movement to do away with the monogamic
+marriage and to replace it with what is called "Free Love." By this
+term they do not really mean free _love_ at all. For love is always
+_free_, Jonathan. Not all the wealth of a Rockefeller could buy one
+single touch of love. Love is always free; it cannot be bought and it
+cannot be bound. No one can love for a price, or in obedience to laws
+or threats. The term "Free Love" is therefore a misnomer.
+
+What the opponents of Socialism have in mind when they use the term is
+rather lust than love. They charge us Socialists with trying to do
+away with the monogamic marriage relation--the marriage of one man to
+one woman--and the family life resulting therefrom. They say that we
+want promiscuous sex relations, communal life instead of family life
+and the turning over of all parental functions to the community, the
+State. And to charge that these things are involved in Socialism is at
+once absurd and untrue. I venture to say, Jonathan, that the
+percentage of Socialists who believe in such things is not greater
+than the percentage of Christians believing in them, or the percentage
+of Republicans or Democrats. They have nothing to do with Socialism.
+
+Let us see upon what sort of evidence the charge is based: On the one
+hand, finding nothing in the programmes of the Socialist parties of
+the world to support the charge, we find them going back to the
+utopian schemes with communistic features. They go back to Plato,
+even! Because Plato in his _Republic_, which was a wholly imaginary
+description of the ideal society he conceived in his mind, advocated
+community of sex relations as well as community of goods, therefore
+the Socialists, who do not advocate community of goods or community of
+wives, must be charged with Plato's principles! In like manner, the
+fact that many other communistic experiments included either communism
+of sex relations, as, for example, the Adamites, during the Hussite
+wars, in Germany, and the Perfectionists, of Oneida, with their
+"community marriage," all the male members of a community being
+married to all the female members; or enforced celibacy, as did the
+Shakers and the Harmonists, among many other similar groups, is urged
+against Socialism.
+
+I need not argue the injustice and the stupidity of this sort of
+criticism, Jonathan. What have the Socialists of twentieth century
+America to do with Plato? His utopian ideal is not their ideal; they
+are neither aiming at community of goods nor at community of wives.
+And when we put aside Plato and the Platonic communities, the first
+fact to challenge attention is that the communities which established
+laws relating to sex relations which were opposed to the monogamic
+family, whether promiscuity, so-called free love; plural marriage, as
+in Mormonism, or celibacy, as in Harmonism and Shakerism, were all
+_religious_ communities. In a word, all these experiments which
+antagonized the monogamic family relation were the result of various
+interpretations of the Bible and the efforts of those who accepted
+those interpretations to rule their lives in accordance therewith. In
+every case communism was only a means to an end, a way of realizing
+what they considered to be the true religious life. In other words, my
+friend, most of the so-called free love experiments made in these
+communities have been offshoots of Christianity rather than of
+Socialism.
+
+_And I ask you, Jonathan Edwards, as a fair-minded American, what you
+would think of it if the Socialists charged Christianity with being
+opposed to the family and the home? It would not be true of
+Christianity and it is not true of Socialism._
+
+But there is another form of argument which is sometimes resorted to.
+The history of the movement is searched for examples of what is called
+free love. That is to say that because from time to time there have
+been individual Socialists who have refused to recognize the
+ceremonial and legal aspects of marriage, believing love to be the
+only real marriage bond, notwithstanding that the vast majority of
+Socialists have recognized the legal and ceremonial aspects of
+marriage, they have been accused of trying to do away with marriage.
+Our opponents have even stooped so low as to seize upon every case
+where Socialists have sought divorce as a means of undoing terrible
+wrong, and then married other husbands and wives, and proclaimed it as
+a fresh proof that Socialism is opposed to marriage and the family.
+When I have read some of these cruel and dishonest attacks, often
+written by men who know better, my soul has been sickened at the
+thought of the cowardice and dishonesty to which the opponents of
+Socialism resort.
+
+Suppose that every time a prominent Christian becomes divorced, and
+then remarries, the Socialists of the country were to attack the
+Christian religion and the Christian churches, upon the ground that
+they are opposed to marriage and the family, does anybody think that
+_that_ would be fair and just? But it is the very thing which happens
+whenever Socialists are divorced. It happened, not so very long ago,
+that a case of the kind was made the occasion of hundreds of
+editorials against Socialism and hundreds of sermons. The facts were
+these: A man and his wife, both Socialists, had for a long time
+realized that their marriage was an unhappy one. Failing to realize
+the happiness they sought, it was mutually agreed that the wife should
+apply for a divorce. They had been legally married and desired to be
+legally separated. Meantime the man had come to believe that his
+happiness depended upon his wedding another woman. The divorce was to
+be procured as speedily as possible to enable the legal marriage of
+the man and the woman he had grown to love.
+
+Those were the facts as they appeared in the press, the facts upon
+which so many hundreds of attacks were made upon Socialism and the
+Socialist movement. Two or three weeks later, an Episcopal clergyman,
+not a Socialist, left the wife he had ceased to love and with whom he
+had presumably not been happy. He had legally married his wife, but
+he did not bother about getting a legal separation. He just left his
+wife; just ran away. He not only did not bother about getting a legal
+separation, but he ran away with a young girl, whom he had grown to
+love. They lived together as man and wife, without legal marriage, for
+if they went through any marriage form at all it was not a legal
+marriage and the man was guilty of bigamy. Was there any attack upon
+the Episcopal Church in consequence? Were hundreds of sermons preached
+and editorials written to denounce the church to which he belonged,
+accusing it of aiming to do away with the monogamic marriage relation,
+to break up the family and the home?
+
+Not a bit of it, Jonathan. There were some criticisms of the man, but
+there were more attempts to find excuses for him. There were thousands
+of expressions of sympathy with his church. But there were no attacks
+such as were aimed at Socialism in the other case, notwithstanding
+that the Socialist strictly obeyed the law whereas the clergyman broke
+the law and defied it. I think that was a fair way to treat the case,
+but I ask the same fair treatment of Socialism.
+
+So far, Jonathan, I have been taking a defensive attitude, just
+replying to the charge that Socialism is an attack upon the family and
+the home. Now, I want to go a step further: I want to take an
+affirmative position and to say that Socialism comes as the defender
+of the home and the family; that capitalism from the very first has
+been attacking the home. I am going to turn the tables, Jonathan.
+
+When capitalism began, when it came with its steam engine and its
+power-loom, what was the first thing it did? Why, it entered the home
+and took the child from the mother and made it a part of a great
+system of wheels and levers and springs, all driven for one end--the
+grinding of profit. It began its career by breaking down the bonds
+between mother and child. Then it took another step. It took the
+mother away from the baby in the cradle in order that she too might
+become part of the great profit-grinding system. Her breasts might be
+full to overflowing with the food wonderfully provided for the child
+by Nature; the baby in the cradle might cry for the very food that was
+bursting from its mother's breasts, but Capital did not care. The
+mother was taken away from the child and the child was left to get on
+as best it might upon a miserable substitute for its mother's milk.
+Hundreds of thousands of babies die each year for no other reason than
+this.
+
+There will never be safety for the home and the family so long as
+babies are robbed of their mothers' care; so long as little children
+are made to do the work of men; so long as the girls who are to be the
+wives and mothers are sent into wifehood and motherhood unprepared,
+simply because the years of maidenhood are spent in factories that
+ought to be spent in preparation for wifehood and motherhood. Here is
+capitalism cutting at the very heart of the home, with Socialism as
+the only defender of the home it is charged with attacking. For
+Socialism would give the child its right to childhood; it would give
+the mother her freedom to nourish her babe; it would give to the
+fathers and mothers of the future the opportunities for preparation
+they cannot now enjoy.
+
+I ask you, friend Jonathan, to think of the tens and thousands of
+women who marry to-day, not because they love and are loved in return,
+but for the sake of getting a home. Socialism would put an end to that
+condition by making woman economically and politically free. Think of
+the tens of thousands of young men in our land who do not, dare not,
+marry because they have no certainty of earning a living adequate to
+the maintenance of wives and families; of the hundreds of thousands of
+prostitutes in our country, the vast majority of whom have been driven
+to that terrible fate by economic causes outside of their control.
+Socialism would at least remove the economic pressure which forces so
+many of these women down into the terrible hell of prostitution. I ask
+you, Jonathan, to think also of the thousands of wives who are
+deserted every year. So far as the investigations of the charity
+organizations into this serious matter have gone, it has been shown
+that poverty is responsible for by far the greatest number of these
+desertions. Socialism would not only destroy the poverty, but it would
+set woman economically free, thus removing the main causes of the
+evil.
+
+Oh, Jonathan Edwards, hard-headed, practical Jonathan, do you think
+that the existence of the family depends upon keeping women in the
+position of an inferior class, politically and economically? Do you
+think that when women are politically and economically the equals of
+men, so that they no longer have to marry for homes, or to stand
+brutal treatment because they have no other homes than the men afford;
+so that no woman is forced to sell her body--I ask you, when women are
+thus free do you believe that the marriage system will be endangered
+thereby? For that is what the contention of the opponents of Socialism
+comes to in the last analysis, my friend. Socialism will only affect
+the marriage system in so far as it raises the standards of society as
+a whole and makes woman man's political and economic equal. Are you
+afraid of _that_, Jonathan?
+
+(4) Socialism is not opposed to religion. It is perfectly true that
+some Socialists oppose religion, but Socialism itself has nothing to
+do with matters of religion. In the Socialist movement to-day there
+are men and women of all creeds and all shades of religious belief. By
+all the Socialist parties of the world religion is declared to be a
+private matter--and the declaration is honestly meant; it is not a
+tactical utterance, used as bait to the unwary, which the Socialists
+secretly repudiate. In the Socialist movement of America to-day there
+are Jews and Christians, Catholics and Protestants, Spiritualists and
+Christian Scientists, Unitarians and Trinitarians, Methodists and
+Baptists, Atheists and Agnostics, all united in one great comradeship.
+
+This was not always the case. When the scientific Socialist movement
+began in the second half of the last century, Science was engaged in a
+great intellectual encounter with Dogma. All the younger men were
+drawn into the scientific current of the time. It was natural, then,
+that the most radical movement of the time should partake of the
+universal scientific spirit and temper. The Christians of that day
+thought that the work of Darwin and his school would destroy religion.
+They made the very natural mistake of supposing that dogma and
+religion were the same thing, a mistake which their critics fully
+shared.
+
+You know what happened, Jonathan. The Christians gradually came to
+realize that no religion could oppose the truth and continue to be a
+power. Gradually they accepted the position of the Darwinian critics,
+until to-day there is no longer the great vital controversy upon
+matters of theology which our fathers knew. In a very similar manner,
+the present generation of Socialists have nothing to do with the
+attacks upon religion which the Socialists of fifty years ago indulged
+in. The position of all the Socialist parties of the world to-day is
+that they have nothing to do with matters of religious belief; that
+these belong to the individual alone.
+
+There is a sense in which Socialism becomes the handmaiden of
+religion: not of creeds and theological beliefs, but of religion in
+its broadest sense. When you examine the great religions of the world,
+Jonathan, you will find that in addition to certain supernatural
+beliefs there are always great ethical principles which constitute the
+most vital elements in religion. Putting aside the theological beliefs
+about God and the immortality of the soul, what was it that gave
+Judaism its power? Was it not the ethical teaching of its great
+prophets, such as Isaiah, Joel, Amos and Ezekiel--the stern rebuke of
+the oppressors of the poor and downtrodden, the scathing denunciation
+of the despoilers of the people, the great vision of a unified world
+in which there should be peace, when war should no more blight the
+world and when the weapons of war should be forged into plowshares and
+pruning hooks? Leaving matters of theology aside, are not these the
+principles which make Judaism a living religion to-day for so many?
+And I say to you, Jonathan, that Socialism is not only not opposed to
+these things, but they can only be realized under Socialism.
+
+So with Christianity. In its broadest sense, leaving aside all matters
+of a supernatural character, concerning ourselves only with the
+relation of the religion to life, to its material problems, we find in
+Christianity the same great faith in the coming of universal peace and
+brotherhood, the same defense of the poor and the oppressed, the same
+scathing rebuke of the oppressor, that we find in Judaism. There is
+the same relentless scourge of the despoilers, of those who devour
+widows houses. And again I say that Socialism is not only not opposed
+to the great social ideals of Christianity, but it is the only means
+whereby they may be realized. And the same thing is true of the
+teachings of Confucius; Buddha and Mahomet. The great social ideals
+common to all the world's religions can never be attained under
+capitalism. Not till the Socialist state is reached will the Golden
+Rule, common to all the great religions, be possible as a rule of
+life. No ethical life is possible except as the outgrowing of just and
+harmonic economic relations; until it is rooted in proper economic
+soil.
+
+No, Jonathan, it is not true that Socialism is antagonistic to
+religion. With beliefs and speculations concerning the origin of the
+universe it has nothing to do. It has nothing to do with speculations
+concerning the existence of man after physical death, with belief in
+the immortality of the soul. These are for the individual. Socialism
+concerns itself with man's material life and his relation to his
+fellow man. And there is nothing in the philosophy of Socialism, or
+the platform of the political Socialist movement, antagonistic to the
+social aspects of any religion.
+
+(5) I have already had a good deal to say in the course of this
+discussion concerning the subject of personal freedom. The common idea
+of Socialism as a great bureaucratic government owning and controlling
+everything, deciding what every man and woman must do, is wholly
+wrong. The aim and purpose of the Socialist movement is to make life
+more free for the individual, and not to make it less free. Socialism
+means equality of opportunity for every child born into the world; it
+means doing away with class privilege; it means doing away with the
+ownership by the few of the things upon which the lives of the many
+depend, through which the many are exploited by the few. Do you see
+how individuals are to be enslaved through the destruction of the
+power of a few over many, Jonathan? Think it out!
+
+It is in the private ownership of social resources, and the private
+control of social opportunities, that the essence of tyranny lies. Let
+me ask you, my friend, whether you feel yourself robbed of any part of
+your personal liberty when you go to a public library and take out a
+book to read, or into one of our public art galleries to look upon
+great pictures which you could never otherwise see? Is it not rather a
+fact that your life is thereby enriched and broadened; that instead of
+taking anything from you these things add to your enjoyment and to
+your power? Do you feel that you are robbed of any element of your
+personal freedom through the action of the city government in making
+parks for your recreation, providing hospitals to care for you in case
+of accident or illness, maintaining a fire department to protect you
+against the ravages of fire? Do you feel that in maintaining schools,
+baths, hospitals, parks, museums, public lighting service, water,
+streets and street cleaning service, the city government is taking
+away your personal liberties? I ask these questions, Jonathan, for the
+reason that all these things contain the elements of Socialism.
+
+When you go into a government post-office and pay two cents for the
+service of having a letter carried right across the country, knowing
+that every person must pay the same as you and can enjoy the same
+right as you, do you feel that you are less free than when you go into
+an express company's office and pay the price they demand for taking
+your package? Does it really help you to enjoy yourself, to feel
+yourself more free, to know that in the case of the express company's
+service only part of your money will be used to pay the cost of
+carrying the package; that the larger part will go to bribe
+legislators, to corrupt public officials and to build up huge fortunes
+for a few investors? The post-office is not a perfect example of
+Socialism: there are too many private grafters battening upon the
+postal system, the railway companies plunder it and the great mass of
+the clerks and carriers are underpaid. But so far as the principles of
+social organization and equal charges for everybody go they are
+socialistic. The government does not try to compel you to write
+letters any more than the private company tries to compel you to send
+packages. If you said that, rather than use the postal system, you
+would carry your own letter across the continent, even if you decided
+to walk all the way, the government would not try to stop you, any
+more than the express company would try to stop you from carrying your
+trunk on your shoulder across the country. But in the case of the
+express company you must pay tribute to men who have been shrewd
+enough to exploit a social necessity for their private gain.
+
+Do you really imagine, Jonathan, that in those cities where the street
+railways, for example, are in the hands of the people there is a loss
+of personal liberty as a result; that because the people who use the
+street railways do not have to pay tribute to a corporation they are
+less free than they would otherwise be? So far as these things are
+owned by the people and democratically managed in the interests of
+all, they are socialistic and an appeal to such concrete facts as
+these is far better than any amount of abstract reasoning. You are not
+a closet philosopher, interested in fine-spun theories, but a
+practical man, graduated from the great school of hard experience. For
+you, if I am not mistaken, Garfield's aphorism, that "An ounce of
+fact is worth many tons of theory," is true.
+
+So I want to ask you finally concerning this question of personal
+liberty whether you think you would be less free than you are to-day
+if your Pittsburg foundries and mills, instead of belonging to
+corporations organized for the purpose of making profit, belonged to
+the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and if they were operated for the
+common good instead of as now to serve the interests of a few. Would
+you be less free if, instead of a corporation trying to make the
+workers toil as many hours as possible for as little pay as possible,
+naturally and consistently avoiding as far as possible the expenditure
+of time and money upon safety appliances and other means of protecting
+the health and lives of the workers, the mills were operated upon the
+principle of guarding the health and lives of the workers as much as
+possible, reducing the hours of labor to a minimum and paying them for
+their work as much as possible? Is it a sensible fear, my friend, that
+the people of any country will be less free as they acquire more power
+over their own lives? You see, Jonathan, I want you to take a
+practical view of the matter.
+
+(6) The cry that Socialism would reduce all men and women to one dull
+level is another bogey which frightens a great many good and wise
+people. It has been answered thousands of times by Socialist writers
+and you will find it discussed in most of the popular books and
+pamphlets published in the interest of the Socialist propaganda. I
+shall therefore dismiss it very briefly.
+
+Like many other objections, this rests upon an entire misapprehension
+of what Socialism really means. The people who make it have got firmly
+into their minds the idea that Socialism aims to make all men equal;
+to devise some plan for removing the inequalities with which they are
+endowed by nature. They fear that, in order to realize this ideal of
+equality, the strong will be held down to the level of the weak, the
+daring to the level of the timid, the wisest to the level of the least
+wise. That is their conception of the equality of which Socialists
+talk. And I am free to say, Jonathan, that I do not wonder that
+sensible men should oppose such equality as that.
+
+Even if it were possible, through the adoption of some system of
+stirpiculture, to breed all human beings to a common type, so that
+they would all be tall or short, fat or thin, light or dark, according
+to choice, it would not be a very desirable ideal, would it? And if we
+could get everybody to think exactly the same thoughts, to admire
+exactly the same things, to have exactly the same mental powers and
+exactly the same measure of moral strength and weakness, I do not
+think _that_ would be a very desirable ideal. The world of human
+beings would then be just as dull and uninspiring as a waxwork show.
+Imagine yourself in a city where every house was exactly like every
+other house in all particulars, even to its furnishings; imagine all
+the people being exactly the same height and weight, looking exactly
+alike, dressed exactly alike, eating exactly alike, going to bed and
+rising at the same time, thinking exactly alike and feeling exactly
+alike--how would you like to live in such a city, Jonathan? The city
+or state of Absolute Equality is only a fool's dream.
+
+No sane man or woman wants absolute equality, friend Jonathan, for it
+is as undesirable as it is unimaginable. What Socialism wants is
+equality of opportunity merely. No Socialist wants to pull down the
+strong to the level of the weak, the wise to the level of the less
+wise. Socialism does not imply pulling anybody down. It does not
+imply a great plain of humanity with no mountain peaks of genius or
+character. It is not opposed to natural inequalities, but only to
+man-made inequalities. Its only protest is against these artificial
+inequalities, products of man's ignorance and greed. It does not aim
+to pull down the highest, but to lift up the lowest; it does not want
+to put a load of disadvantage upon the strong and gifted, but it wants
+to take off the heavy burdens of disadvantage which keep others from
+rising. In a word, Socialism implies nothing more than giving every
+child born into the world equal opportunities, so that only the
+inequalities of Nature remain. Don't you believe in _that_, my friend?
+
+Here are two babies, just born into the world. Wee, helpless seedlings
+of humanity, they are wonderfully alike in their helplessness. One
+lies in a tenement upon a mean bed, the other in a mansion upon a bed
+of wonderful richness. But if they were both removed to the same
+surroundings it would be impossible to tell one from the other. It has
+happened, you know, that babies have been mixed up in this way, the
+child of a poor servant girl taking the place of the child of a
+countess. Scientists tell us that Nature is wonderfully democratic,
+and that, at the moment of birth, there is no physical difference
+between the babies of the richest and the babies of the poorest. It is
+only afterward that man-made inequalities of conditions and
+opportunities make such a wide difference between them.
+
+Look at our two babies a moment: no man can tell what infinite
+possibilities lie behind those mystery-laden eyes. It may be that we
+are looking upon a future Newton and another Savonarola, or upon a
+greater than Edison and a greater than Lincoln. No man knows what
+infinitude of good or ill is germinating back of those little puckered
+brows, nor which of the cries may develop into a voice that will set
+the hearts of men aflame and stir them to glorious deeds. Or it may be
+that both are of the common clay, that neither will be more than an
+average man, representing the common level in physical and mental
+equipment.
+
+But I ask you, friend Jonathan, is it less than justice to demand
+equal opportunities for both? Is it fair that one child shall be
+carefully nurtured amid healthful surroundings, and given a chance to
+develop all that is in him, and that the other shall be cradled in
+poverty, neglected, poorly nurtured in a poor hovel where pestilence
+lingers, and denied an opportunity to develop physically, mentally and
+morally? Is it right to watch and tend one of the human seedlings and
+to neglect the other? If, by chance of Nature's inscrutable working,
+the babe of the tenement came into the world endowed with the greater
+possibilities of the two, if the tenement mother upon her mean bed
+bore into the world in her agony a spark of divine fire of genius, the
+soul of an artist like Leonardo da Vinci, or of a poet like Keats, is
+it less than a calamity that it should die--choked by conditions which
+only ignorance and greed have produced?
+
+Give all the children of men equal opportunities, leaving only the
+inequalities of Nature to manifest themselves, and there will be no
+need to fear a dull level of humanity. There will be hewers of wood
+and drawers of water content to do the work they can; there will be
+scientists and inventors, forever enlarging man's kingdom in the
+universe; there will be makers of songs and dreamers of dreams, to
+inspire the world. Socialism wants to unbind the souls of men, setting
+them free for the highest and best that is in them.
+
+Do you know the story of Prometheus, friend Jonathan? It is, of
+course, a myth, but it serves as an illustration of my present point.
+Prometheus, for ridiculing the gods, was bound to a rock upon Mount
+Caucasus, by order of Jupiter, where daily for thirty years a vulture
+came and tore at his liver, feeding upon it. Then there came to his
+aid Hercules, who unbound the tortured victim and set him free. Like
+another Prometheus, the soul of man to-day is bound to a rock--the
+rock of capitalism. The vulture of Greed tears the victim,
+remorselessly and unceasingly. And now, to break the chains, to set
+the soul of man free, Hercules comes in the form of the Socialist
+movement. It is nothing less than this; my friend. In the last
+analysis, it is the bondage of the soul which counts for most in our
+indictment of capitalism and the liberation of the soul is the goal
+toward which we are striving.
+
+It is to-day, under capitalism, that men are reduced to a dull level.
+The great mass of the people live dull, sordid lives, their
+individuality relentlessly crushed out. The modern workman has no
+chance to express any individuality in his work, for he is part of a
+great machine, as much so as any one of the many levers and cogs.
+Capitalism makes humanity appear as a great plain with a few peaks
+immense distances apart--a dull level of mental and moral attainment
+with a few giants. I say to you in all seriousness, Jonathan, that if
+nothing better were possible I should want to pray with the poet
+Browning,--
+
+    Make no more giants, God--
+    But elevate the race at once!
+
+But I don't believe that. I am satisfied that when we destroy man-made
+inequalities, leaving only the inequalities of Nature's making, there
+will be no need to fear the dull level of life. When all the chains of
+ignorance and greed have been struck from the Prometheus-like human
+soul, then, and not till then, will the soul of man be free to soar
+upward.
+
+(7) For the reasons already indicated, Socialism would not destroy the
+incentive to progress. It is possible that a stagnation would result
+from any attempt to establish absolute equality such as I have already
+described. If it were the aim of Socialism to stamp out all
+individuality, this objection would be well founded, it seems to me.
+But that is not the aim of Socialism.
+
+The people who make this objection seem to think that the only
+incentive to progress comes from a few men and their hope and desire
+to be masters of the lives of others, but that is not true. Greed is
+certainly a powerful incentive to some kinds of progress, but the
+history of the world shows that there are other and nobler incentives.
+The hope of getting somebody else's property is a powerful incentive
+to the burglar and has led to the invention of all kinds of tools and
+ingenious methods, but we do not hesitate to take away that incentive
+to that kind of "progress." The hope of getting power to exploit the
+people acts as a powerful incentive to great corporations to devise
+schemes to defeat the laws of the nation, to corrupt legislators and
+judges, and otherwise assail the liberties of the people. That, also,
+is "progress" of a kind, but we do not hesitate to try to take away
+that incentive.
+
+Even to-day, Jonathan, Greed is not the most powerful incentive in the
+world. The greatest statesmanship in the world is not inspired by
+greed, but by love of country, the desire for the approbation and
+confidence of others, and numerous other motives. Greed never inspired
+a great teacher, a great artist, a great scientist, a great inventor,
+a great soldier, a great writer, a great poet, a great physician, a
+great scholar or a great statesman. Love of country, love of fame,
+love of beauty, love of doing, love of humanity--all these have meant
+infinitely more than greed in the progress of the world.
+
+(8) Finally, Jonathan, I want to consider your objection that
+Socialism is impossible until human nature is changed. It is an old
+objection which crops up in every discussion of Socialism. People talk
+about "human nature" as though it were something fixed and definite;
+as if there were certain quantities of various qualities and instincts
+in every human being, and that these never changed from age to age.
+The primitive savage in many lands went out to seek a wife armed with
+a club. He hunted the woman of his choice as he would hunt a beast,
+capturing and clubbing her into submission. _That_ was human nature,
+Jonathan. The modern man in civilized countries, when he goes seeking
+a wife, hunts the woman of his choice with flattery, bon-bons,
+flowers, opera tickets and honeyed words. Instead of a brute clubbing
+a woman almost to death, we see the pleading lover, cautiously and
+earnestly wooing his bride. And that, too, is human nature. The
+African savages suffering from the dread "Sleeping Sickness" and the
+poor Indian ryots suffering from Bubonic Plague see their fellows
+dying by thousands and think angry gods are punishing them. All they
+can hope to do is to appease the gods by gifts or by mutilating their
+own poor bodies. That is human nature, my friend. But a great
+scientist like Dr. Koch, of Berlin, goes into the African centres of
+pestilence and death, seeks the germ of the disease, drains swamps,
+purifies water, isolates the infected cases and proves himself more
+powerful than the poor natives' gods. And that is human nature.
+Outside the gates of the Chicago stockyards, I have seen crowds of men
+fighting for work as hungry dogs fight over a bone. That was human
+nature. I have seen a man run down in the streets and at once there
+was a crowd ready to lift him up and to do anything for him that they
+could. It was the very opposite spirit to that shown by the brutish,
+snarling, cursing, fighting men at the stockyards, but it was just as
+much human nature.
+
+The great law of human development, that which expresses itself in
+what is so vaguely termed human nature, is that man is a creature of
+his environment, that self-preservation is a fundamental instinct in
+human beings. Socialism is not an idealistic attempt to substitute
+some other law of life for that of self-preservation. On the contrary,
+it rests entirely upon that instinct of self-preservation. Here are
+two classes opposed to each other in modern society. One class is
+small but exceedingly powerful, so that, despite its disadvantage in
+size, it is the ruling class, controlling the larger class and
+exploiting it. When we ask ourselves how that is possible, how it
+happens that the smaller class rules the larger, we soon find that the
+members of the smaller class have become conscious of their interests
+and the fact that these can be best promoted through organization and
+association. Thus conscious of their class interests, and acting
+together by a class instinct, they have been able to rule the world.
+But the workers, the class that is much stronger numerically, have
+been slower to recognize their class interests. Inevitably, however,
+they are developing a similar class sense, or instinct. Uniting in the
+economic struggle at first, and then, in the political struggle in
+order that they may further their economic interests through the
+channels of government, it is easy to see that only one outcome of
+the struggle is possible. By sheer force of numbers, the workers must
+win, Jonathan.
+
+The Socialist movement, then, is not something foreign to human
+nature, but it is an inevitable part of the development of human
+society. The fundamental instinct of the human species makes the
+Socialist movement inevitable and irresistible. Socialism does not
+require a change in human nature, but human nature does require a
+change in society. And that change is Socialism. It is perhaps the
+deepest and profoundest instinct in human beings that they are forever
+striving to secure the largest possible material comfort, forever
+striving to secure more of good in return for less of ill. And in that
+lies the great hope of the future, Jonathan. The great Demos is
+learning that poverty is unnecessary, that there is plenty for all;
+that none need suffer want; that it is possible to suffer less and to
+live more; to have more of good while suffering less of ill. The face
+of Demos is turned toward the future, toward the dawning of
+Socialism.
+
+
+
+
+XI
+
+WHAT TO DO
+
+    Are you in earnest? Seize this very minute.
+    What you can do, or dream you can, begin it!
+    Boldness has genius, power and magic in it.
+    Only engage and then the mind grows heated;
+    Begin, and then the work will be completed.--_Goethe._
+
+    Apart from those convulsive upheavals that escape all forecast
+    and are sometimes the final supreme resource of history
+    brought to bay, there is only one sovereign method for
+    Socialism--the conquest of a legal majority.--_Jean Jaures._
+
+
+When one is convinced of the justice and wisdom of the Socialist idea,
+when its inspiration has begun to quicken the pulse and to stir the
+soul, it is natural that one should desire to do something to express
+one's convictions and to add something, however little, to the
+movement. Not only that, but the first impulse is to seek the
+comradeship of other Socialists and to work with them for the
+realization of the Socialist ideal.
+
+Of course, the first duty of every sincere believer in Socialism is to
+vote for it. No matter how hopeless the contest may seem, nor how far
+distant the electoral triumph, the first duty is to vote for
+Socialism. If you believe in Socialism, my friend, even though your
+vote should be the only Socialist vote in your city, you could not be
+true to yourself and to your faith and vote any other ticket. I know
+that it requires courage to do this sometimes. I know that there are
+many who will deride the action and say that you are "wasting your
+vote," but no vote is ever wasted when it is cast for a principle,
+Jonathan. For, after all, what is a vote? Is it not an expression of
+the citizen's conviction concerning the sort of government he desires?
+How, then can his vote be thrown away if it really expresses his
+conviction? He is entitled to a single voice, and provided that he
+avails himself of his right to declare through the ballot box his
+conviction, no matter whether he stands alone or with ten thousand,
+his vote is not thrown away.
+
+The only vote that is wasted is the vote that is cast for something
+other than the voter's earnest conviction, the vote of cowardice and
+compromise. The man who votes for what he fully believes in, even if
+he is the only one so voting, does not lose his vote, waste it or use
+it unwisely. The only use of a vote is to declare the kind of
+government the voter believes in. But the man who votes for something
+he does not want, for something less than his convictions, that man
+loses his vote or throws it away, even though he votes on the winning
+side. Get this well into your mind, friend Jonathan, for there are
+cities in which the Socialists would sweep everything before them and
+be elected to power if all the people who believe in Socialism, but
+refuse to vote for it on the ground that they would be throwing away
+their votes, would be true to themselves and vote according to their
+inmost convictions.
+
+I say that we must vote for Socialism, Jonathan, because I believe
+that, in this country at least, the change from capitalism must be
+brought about through patient and wise political action. I have no
+doubt that the economic organizations, the trade unions, will help,
+and I can even conceive the possibility of their being the chief
+agencies in the transformation in society. That possibility, however,
+seems exceedingly remote, while the possibility of effecting the
+change through the ballot box is undeniable. Once let the
+working-class of America make up its mind to vote for Socialism,
+nothing can prevent its coming. And unless the workers are wise enough
+and united enough to vote together for Socialism, Jonathan, it is
+scarcely likely that they will be able to adopt other methods with
+success.
+
+But as voting for Socialism is the most obvious duty of all who are
+convinced of its justness and wisdom, so it is the least duty. To cast
+your vote for Socialism is the very least contribution to the movement
+which you can make. The next step is to spread the light, to proclaim
+the principles of Socialism to others. To _be_ a Socialist is the
+first step; to _make_ Socialists is the second step. Every Socialist
+ought to be a missionary for the great cause. By talking with your
+friends and by circulating suitable Socialist literature, you can do
+effective work for the cause, work not less effective than that of the
+orator addressing big audiences. Don't forget, my friend, that in the
+Socialist movement there is work for _you_ to do.
+
+Naturally, you will want to be an efficient worker for Socialism, to
+be able to work successfully. Therefore you will need to join the
+organized movement, to become a member of the Socialist Party. In this
+way, working with many other comrades, you will be able to accomplish
+much more than as an individual working alone. So I ask you to join
+the party, friend Jonathan, and to assume a fair and just share of the
+responsibilities of the movement.
+
+In the Socialist party organization there are no "Leaders" in the
+sense in which that term is used in connection with the political
+parties of capitalism. There are men who by virtue of long service and
+exceptional talents of various kinds are looked up to by their
+comrades, and whose words carry great weight. But the government of
+the organization is in the hands of the rank and file and everything
+is directed from the bottom upwards, not from the top downwards. The
+party is not owned by a few people who provide its funds, for these
+are provided by the entire membership. Each member of the party pays a
+small monthly fee, and the amounts thus contributed are divided
+between the local, state and national divisions of the organization.
+It is thus a party of the people, by the people and for the people,
+which bosses cannot corrupt or betray.
+
+So I would urge you, Jonathan, and all who believe in Socialism, to
+join the party organization. Get into the movement in earnest and try
+to keep posted upon all that relates to it. Read some of the papers
+published by the party--at least two papers representing different
+phases of the movement. There are, always and everywhere, at least two
+distinct tendencies in the Socialist movement, a radical wing and a
+more moderate wing. Whichever of these appeals to you as the right
+tendency, you will need to keep informed as to both.
+
+Above all, my friend, I would like to have you _study_ Socialism. I
+don't mean merely that you should read a Socialist propaganda paper or
+two, or a few pamphlets: I do not call that studying Socialism. Such
+papers and pamphlets are very good in their way; they are written for
+people who are not Socialists for the purpose of awakening their
+interest. So far as they go they are valuable, but I would not have
+you stop there, Jonathan. I would like to have you push your studies
+beyond them, beyond even the more elaborate discussions of the
+subject contained in such books as this. Read the great classics of
+Socialist literature--and don't be afraid of reading the attacks made
+upon Socialism by its opponents. Study the philosophy of Socialism and
+its economic theories; try to apply them to your personal experience
+and to the events of every day as they are reported in the great
+newspapers. You see, Jonathan, I not only want you to know what
+Socialism is in a very thorough manner, but I also want you to be able
+to teach others in a very thorough manner.
+
+And now, my patient friend, Good Bye! If _The Common Sense of
+Socialism_ has helped you to a clear understanding of Socialism, I
+shall be amply repaid for writing it. I ask you to accept it for
+whatever measure of good it may do and to forgive its shortcomings.
+Others might have written a better book for you, and some day I may do
+better myself--I do not know. I have honestly tried my best to set the
+claims of Socialism before you in plain language and with comradely
+spirit. And if it succeeds in convincing you and making you a
+Socialist, Jonathan, I shall be satisfied.
+
+
+
+
+APPENDIX I
+
+A SUGGESTED COURSE OF READING ON SOCIALISM
+
+
+The following list of books on various phases of Socialism is
+published in connection with the advice contained on pages 173-174
+relating to the necessity of _studying_ Socialism. The names of the
+publishers are given in each case for the reader's convenience.
+Charles H. Kerr & Company do _not_ sell, or receive orders for, books
+issued by other publishers.
+
+
+(_A_) _History of Socialism_
+
+The History of Socialism, by Thomas Kirkup. The Macmillan Company, New
+York. Price $1.50, net.
+
+French and German Socialism in Modern Times, by R.T. Ely. Harper
+Brothers, New York. Price 75 cents.
+
+The History of Socialism in the United States, by Morris Hillquit. The
+Funk & Wagnalls Company, New York. Price $1.75.
+
+
+(_B_) _Biographies of Socialists_
+
+Memoirs of Karl Marx, by Wilhelm Liebknecht. Charles H. Kerr &
+Company, Chicago. Price 50 cents.
+
+Ferdinand Lassalle as a Social Reformer, by Eduard Bernstein. Charles
+H. Kerr & Company, Chicago. Price $1.00.
+
+Frederick Engels: His Life and Work, by Karl Kautsky. Charles H. Kerr
+& Company, Chicago. Price 10 cents.
+
+
+(_C_) _General Expositions of Socialism_
+
+Principles of Scientific Socialism, by Charles H. Vail. Charles H.
+Kerr & Company, Chicago. Price $1.00.
+
+Collectivism, by Emile Vandervelde. Charles H. Kerr & Company,
+Chicago. Price 50 cents.
+
+Socialism: A Summary and Interpretation of Socialist Principles, by
+John Spargo. The Macmillan Company, New York. Price $1.25, net.
+
+The Socialists--Who They Are and What They Stand For, by John Spargo.
+Charles H. Kerr & Company, Chicago. Price 50 cents.
+
+The Quintessence of Socialism, by Prof. A.E. Schaffle. Charles H. Kerr
+& Company, Chicago. Price $1.00. This is by an opponent of Socialism,
+but is much circulated by Socialists as a fair and lucid statement of
+their principles.
+
+
+(_D_) _The Philosophy of Socialism_
+
+The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels. Charles H.
+Kerr & Company, Chicago. In paper at 10 cents. Also superior edition
+in cloth at 50 cents.
+
+Evolution, Social and Organic, by A.M. Lewis. Charles H. Kerr &
+Company, Chicago. Price 50 cents.
+
+The Theoretical System of Karl Marx, by L.B. Boudin. Charles H. Kerr &
+Company, Chicago. Price $1.00.
+
+Socialism, Utopian and Scientific, by F. Engels. Charles H. Kerr &
+Company, Chicago. Price 10 cents in paper, superior edition in cloth
+50 cents.
+
+Mass and Class, by W.J. Ghent. The Macmillan Company, New York. Price
+paper 25 cents; cloth $1.25, net.
+
+
+(_E_) _Economics of Socialism_
+
+Marxian Economics, by Ernest Untermann. Charles H. Kerr & Company,
+Chicago. Price $1.00.
+
+Wage Labor and Capital, by Karl Marx. Charles H. Kerr & Company,
+Chicago. Price 5 cents.
+
+Value, Price and Profit, by Karl Marx. Charles H. Kerr & Company,
+Chicago. Price 50 cents.
+
+Capital, by Karl Marx. Charles H. Kerr & Company, Chicago. Two
+volumes, price $2.00 each.
+
+
+(_F_) _Socialism as Related to Special Questions_
+
+The American Farmer, by A.M. Simons. Charles H. Kerr & Company,
+Chicago. Price 50 cents. An admirable study of agricultural
+conditions.
+
+Socialism and Anarchism, by George Plechanoff. Charles H. Kerr &
+Company, Chicago. Price 50 cents.
+
+Poverty, by Robert Hunter. The Macmillan Company, New York. Price 25
+cents and $1.50.
+
+American Pauperism, by Isador Ladoff. Charles H. Kerr & Company,
+Chicago. Price 50 cents.
+
+The Bitter Cry of the Children, by John Spargo. The Macmillan Company,
+New York. Price $1.50, illustrated.
+
+Class Struggles in America, by A.M. Simons. Charles H. Kerr & Company,
+Chicago. Price 50 cents. A notable application of Socialist theory to
+American history.
+
+Underfed School Children, the Problem and the Remedy. By John Spargo.
+Charles H. Kerr & Company, Chicago. Price 10 cents.
+
+Socialists in French Municipalities, a compilation from official
+reports. Charles H. Kerr & Company, Chicago Price 5 cents.
+
+Socialists at Work, by Robert Hunter. The Macmillan Company, New York.
+Price $1.50, net.
+
+
+
+
+APPENDIX II
+
+HOW SOCIALIST BOOKS ARE PUBLISHED
+
+
+Nothing bears more remarkable evidence to the growth of the American
+Socialist movement than the phenomenal development of its literature.
+Even more eloquently than the Socialist vote, this literature tells of
+the onward sweep of Socialism in this country.
+
+Only a few years ago, the entire literature of Socialism published in
+this country was less than the present monthly output. There was
+Bellamy's "Looking Backward," a belated expression of the utopian
+school, not related to modern scientific Socialism, though it
+accomplished considerable good in its day; there were a couple of
+volumes by Professor R.T. Ely, obviously inspired by a desire to be
+fair, but missing the essential principles of Socialism; there were a
+couple of volumes by Laurence Gronlund and there was Sprague's
+"Socialism From Genesis to Revelation." These and a handful of
+pamphlets constituted America's contribution to Socialist literature.
+
+Added to these, were a few books and pamphlets translated from the
+German, most of them written in a heavy, ponderous style which the
+average American worker found exceedingly difficult. The great
+classics of Socialism were not available to any but those able to read
+some other language than English. "Socialism is a foreign movement,"
+said the American complacently.
+
+Even six or seven years ago, the publication of a Socialist pamphlet
+by an American writer was regarded as a very notable event in the
+movement and the writer was assured of a certain fame in consequence.
+
+Now, in this year, 1908, it is very different. There are hundreds of
+excellent books and pamphlets available to the American worker and
+student of Socialism, dealing with every conceivable phase of the
+subject. Whereas ten years ago none of the great industrial countries
+of the world had a more meagre Socialist literature than America,
+to-day America leads the world in its output.
+
+Only a few of the many Socialist books have been issued by ordinary
+capitalist publishing houses. Half a dozen volumes by such writers as
+Ghent, Hillquit, Hunter, Spargo and Sinclair exhaust the list. It
+could not be expected that ordinary publishers would issue books and
+pamphlets purposely written for propaganda on the one hand, nor the
+more serious works which are expensive to produce and slow to sell
+upon the other hand.
+
+The Socialists themselves have published all the rest--the propaganda
+books and pamphlets, the translations of great Socialist classics and
+the important contributions to the literature of Socialist philosophy
+and economics made by American students, many of whom are the products
+of the Socialist movement itself.
+
+They have done these great things through a co-operative publishing
+house, known as Charles H. Kerr & Company (Co-operative). Nearly 2000
+Socialists and sympathizers with Socialism, scattered throughout the
+country, have joined in the work. As shareholders, they have paid ten
+dollars for each share of stock in the enterprise, with no thought of
+ever getting any profits, their only advantage being the ability to
+buy the books issued by the concern at a great reduction.
+
+Here is the method: A person buys a share of stock at ten dollars
+(arrangements can be made to pay this by instalments, if desired) and
+he or she can then buy books and pamphlets at a reduction of fifty per
+cent.--or forty per cent. if sent post or express paid.
+
+Looking over the list of the company's publications, one notes names
+that are famous in this and other countries. Marx, Engels, Kautsky,
+Lassalle, and Liebknecht among the great Germans; Lafargue, Deville
+and Guesde, of France; Ferri and Labriola, of Italy; Hyndman and
+Blatchford, of England; Plechanoff, of Russia; Upton Sinclair, Jack
+London, John Spargo, A.M. Simons, Ernest Untermann and Morris
+Hillquit, of the United States. These, and scores of other names less
+known to the general public.
+
+It is not necessary to give here a complete list of the company's
+publications. Such a list would take up too much room--and before it
+was published it would become incomplete. The reader who is interested
+had better send a request for a complete list, which will at once be
+forwarded, without cost. We can only take a few books, almost at
+random, to illustrate the great variety of the publications of the
+firm.
+
+You have heard about Karl Marx, the greatest of modern Socialists, and
+naturally you would like to know something about him. Well, at fifty
+cents there is a charming little book of biographical memoirs by his
+friend Liebnecht, well worth reading again and again for its literary
+charm not less than for the loveable character it portrays so
+tenderly. Here, also, is the complete list of the works of Marx yet
+translated into the English language. There is the famous _Communist
+Manifesto_ by Marx and Engels, at ten cents, and the other works of
+Marx up to and including his great master-work, _Capital_, in three
+big volumes at two dollars each--two of which are already published,
+the other being in course of preparation.
+
+For propaganda purposes, in addition to a big list of cheap pamphlets,
+many of them small enough to enclose in a letter to a friend, there
+are a number of cheap books. These have been specially written for
+beginners, most of them for workingmen. Here, for example, one picks
+out at a random shot Work's "What's So and What Isn't," a breezy
+little book in which all the common questions about Socialism are
+answered in simple language. Or here again we pick up Spargo's "The
+Socialists, Who They Are and What They Stand For," a little book which
+has attained considerable popularity as an easy statement of the
+essence of modern Socialism. For readers of a little more advanced
+type there is "Collectivism," by Emil Vandervelde, the eminent Belgian
+Socialist leader, a wonderful book. This and Engels' "Socialism
+Utopian and Scientific" will lead to books of a more advanced
+character, some of which we must mention. The four books mentioned in
+this paragraph cost fifty cents each, postpaid. They are well printed
+and neatly and durably bound in cloth.
+
+Going a little further, there are two admirable volumes by Antonio
+Labriola, expositions of the fundamental doctrine of Social
+philosophy, called the "Materialist Conception of History," and a
+volume by Austin Lewis, "The Rise of the American Proletarian," in
+which the theory is applied to a phase of American history. These
+books sell at a dollar each, and it would be very hard to find
+anything like the same value in book-making in any other publisher's
+catalogue. Only the co-operation of nearly 2000 Socialist men and
+women makes it possible.
+
+For the reader who has got so far, yet finds it impossible to
+undertake a study of the voluminous work of Marx, either for lack of
+leisure or, as often happens, lack of the necessary mental training
+and equipment, there are two splendid books, notable examples of the
+work which American Socialist writers are now putting out. While they
+will never entirely take the place of the great work of Marx,
+nevertheless, whoever has read them with care will have a
+comprehensive grasp of Marxism. They are: L.B. Boudin's "The
+Theoretical System of Karl Marx" and Ernest Untermann's "Marxian
+Economics." These also are published at a dollar a volume.
+
+Perhaps you know some man who declares that "There are no classes in
+America," who loudly boasts that we have no class struggles: just get
+a copy of A.M. Simon's "Class Struggles in America," with its
+startling array of historical references. It will convince him if it
+is possible to get an idea into his head. Or you want to get a good
+book to lend to your farmer friends who want to know how Socialism
+touches them: get another volume by Simons, called "The American
+Farmer." You will never regret it. Or perhaps you are troubled about
+the charge that Socialism and Anarchism are related. If so, get
+Plechanoff's "Anarchism and Socialism" and read it carefully. These
+three books are published at fifty cents each.
+
+Are you interested in science? Do you want to know the reason why
+Socialists speak of Marx as doing for Sociology what Darwin did for
+biology? If so, you will want to read "Evolution, Social and Organic,"
+by Arthur Morrow Lewis, price fifty cents. And you will be delighted
+beyond your powers of expression with the several volumes of the
+Library of Science for the Workers, published at the same price. "The
+Evolution of Man" and "The Triumph of Life," both by the famous German
+scientist, Dr. Wilhelm Boelsche; "The Making of the World" and "The
+End of the World," both by Dr. M. Wilhelm Meyer; and "Germs of Mind in
+Plants," by R.H. France, are some of the volumes which the present
+writer read with absorbing interest himself and then read them to a
+lot of boys and girls, to their equal delight.
+
+One could go on and on talking about this wonderful list of books
+which marks the tremendous intellectual strength of the American
+Socialist movement. Here is the real explosive, a weapon far more
+powerful than dynamite bombs! Socialists must win in a battle of
+brains--and here is ammunition for them.
+
+Individual Socialists who can afford it should take shares of stock in
+this great enterprise. If they can pay the ten dollars all at once,
+well and good; if not, they can pay in monthly instalments. And every
+Socialist local ought to own a share of stock in the company, if for
+no other reason than that literature can then be bought much more
+cheaply than otherwise. But of course there is an even greater reason
+than that--every Socialist local ought to take pride in the
+development of the enterprise which has done so much to develop a
+great American Socialist literature.
+
+Fuller particulars will be sent upon application. Address:
+
+CHARLES H. KERR & COMPANY, (Co-operative)
+118 West Kinzie street, Chicago
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+    +-----------------------------------------------------------+
+    | Typographical errors corrected in text:                   |
+    |                                                           |
+    | Page  24: Amerca replaced with America                    |
+    | Page  74: captalists replaced with capitalists            |
+    | Page  76: beatiful replaced with beautiful                |
+    | Page  90: detroy replaced with destroy                    |
+    | Page  99: princples replaced with principles              |
+    | Page 101: machinsts replaced with machinists              |
+    | Page 116: Satndard replaced with Standard                 |
+    | Page 131: Substract replaced with Subtract                |
+    |                                                           |
+    +-----------------------------------------------------------+
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+
+
+
+
+End of Project Gutenberg's The Common Sense of Socialism, by John Spargo
+
+*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE COMMON SENSE OF SOCIALISM ***
+
+***** This file should be named 24340.txt or 24340.zip *****
+This and all associated files of various formats will be found in:
+        http://www.gutenberg.org/2/4/3/4/24340/
+
+Produced by Audrey Longhurst, Jeannie Howse and the Online
+Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net
+
+
+Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions
+will be renamed.
+
+Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no
+one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation
+(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without
+permission and without paying copyright royalties.  Special rules,
+set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to
+copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to
+protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark.  Project
+Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you
+charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission.  If you
+do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the
+rules is very easy.  You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose
+such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and
+research.  They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do
+practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks.  Redistribution is
+subject to the trademark license, especially commercial
+redistribution.
+
+
+
+*** START: FULL LICENSE ***
+
+THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
+PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
+
+To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free
+distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
+(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project
+Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project
+Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at
+http://gutenberg.org/license).
+
+
+Section 1.  General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic works
+
+1.A.  By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
+and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
+(trademark/copyright) agreement.  If you do not agree to abide by all
+the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy
+all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession.
+If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the
+terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or
+entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
+
+1.B.  "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark.  It may only be
+used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
+agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement.  There are a few
+things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works
+even without complying with the full terms of this agreement.  See
+paragraph 1.C below.  There are a lot of things you can do with Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement
+and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works.  See paragraph 1.E below.
+
+1.C.  The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation"
+or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic works.  Nearly all the individual works in the
+collection are in the public domain in the United States.  If an
+individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are
+located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from
+copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative
+works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg
+are removed.  Of course, we hope that you will support the Project
+Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by
+freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of
+this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with
+the work.  You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by
+keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project
+Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others.
+
+1.D.  The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
+what you can do with this work.  Copyright laws in most countries are in
+a constant state of change.  If you are outside the United States, check
+the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement
+before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or
+creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project
+Gutenberg-tm work.  The Foundation makes no representations concerning
+the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United
+States.
+
+1.E.  Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
+
+1.E.1.  The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate
+access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently
+whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the
+phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project
+Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed,
+copied or distributed:
+
+This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
+almost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or
+re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
+with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org
+
+1.E.2.  If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived
+from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is
+posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied
+and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees
+or charges.  If you are redistributing or providing access to a work
+with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the
+work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1
+through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the
+Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or
+1.E.9.
+
+1.E.3.  If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted
+with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
+must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional
+terms imposed by the copyright holder.  Additional terms will be linked
+to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the
+permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.
+
+1.E.4.  Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
+work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm.
+
+1.E.5.  Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
+electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
+prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
+active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
+Gutenberg-tm License.
+
+1.E.6.  You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
+compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any
+word processing or hypertext form.  However, if you provide access to or
+distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than
+"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version
+posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org),
+you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a
+copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon
+request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other
+form.  Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
+
+1.E.7.  Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
+performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works
+unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
+
+1.E.8.  You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
+access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided
+that
+
+- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
+     the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method
+     you already use to calculate your applicable taxes.  The fee is
+     owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he
+     has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the
+     Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.  Royalty payments
+     must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you
+     prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax
+     returns.  Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and
+     sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the
+     address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to
+     the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation."
+
+- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
+     you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
+     does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+     License.  You must require such a user to return or
+     destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium
+     and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of
+     Project Gutenberg-tm works.
+
+- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any
+     money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
+     electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days
+     of receipt of the work.
+
+- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
+     distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works.
+
+1.E.9.  If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set
+forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from
+both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael
+Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark.  Contact the
+Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.
+
+1.F.
+
+1.F.1.  Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
+effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
+public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm
+collection.  Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain
+"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or
+corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual
+property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a
+computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by
+your equipment.
+
+1.F.2.  LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right
+of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
+Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
+Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
+liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
+fees.  YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
+LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
+PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH F3.  YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
+TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
+LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
+INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
+DAMAGE.
+
+1.F.3.  LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
+defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
+receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
+written explanation to the person you received the work from.  If you
+received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with
+your written explanation.  The person or entity that provided you with
+the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a
+refund.  If you received the work electronically, the person or entity
+providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to
+receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund.  If the second copy
+is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further
+opportunities to fix the problem.
+
+1.F.4.  Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
+in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER
+WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
+WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
+
+1.F.5.  Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
+warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages.
+If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the
+law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be
+interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by
+the applicable state law.  The invalidity or unenforceability of any
+provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
+
+1.F.6.  INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
+trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
+providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance
+with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production,
+promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works,
+harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees,
+that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do
+or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm
+work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any
+Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause.
+
+
+Section  2.  Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of
+electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers
+including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers.  It exists
+because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from
+people in all walks of life.
+
+Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
+assistance they need, is critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's
+goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will
+remain freely available for generations to come.  In 2001, the Project
+Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
+and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations.
+To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
+and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4
+and the Foundation web page at http://www.pglaf.org.
+
+
+Section 3.  Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
+Foundation
+
+The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit
+501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
+state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
+Revenue Service.  The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification
+number is 64-6221541.  Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at
+http://pglaf.org/fundraising.  Contributions to the Project Gutenberg
+Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent
+permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws.
+
+The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S.
+Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered
+throughout numerous locations.  Its business office is located at
+809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email
+business@pglaf.org.  Email contact links and up to date contact
+information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official
+page at http://pglaf.org
+
+For additional contact information:
+     Dr. Gregory B. Newby
+     Chief Executive and Director
+     gbnewby@pglaf.org
+
+
+Section 4.  Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
+Literary Archive Foundation
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide
+spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
+increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
+freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest
+array of equipment including outdated equipment.  Many small donations
+($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
+status with the IRS.
+
+The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
+charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
+States.  Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
+considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
+with these requirements.  We do not solicit donations in locations
+where we have not received written confirmation of compliance.  To
+SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any
+particular state visit http://pglaf.org
+
+While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
+have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
+against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
+approach us with offers to donate.
+
+International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
+any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
+outside the United States.  U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
+
+Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation
+methods and addresses.  Donations are accepted in a number of other
+ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations.
+To donate, please visit: http://pglaf.org/donate
+
+
+Section 5.  General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works.
+
+Professor Michael S. Hart is the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm
+concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared
+with anyone.  For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project
+Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.
+
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed
+editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S.
+unless a copyright notice is included.  Thus, we do not necessarily
+keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.
+
+
+Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility:
+
+     http://www.gutenberg.org
+
+This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm,
+including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
+Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
+subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
diff --git a/24340.zip b/24340.zip
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..ac11bee
--- /dev/null
+++ b/24340.zip
diff --git a/LICENSE.txt b/LICENSE.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..6312041
--- /dev/null
+++ b/LICENSE.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
+This eBook, including all associated images, markup, improvements,
+metadata, and any other content or labor, has been confirmed to be
+in the PUBLIC DOMAIN IN THE UNITED STATES.
+
+Procedures for determining public domain status are described in
+the "Copyright How-To" at https://www.gutenberg.org.
+
+No investigation has been made concerning possible copyrights in
+jurisdictions other than the United States. Anyone seeking to utilize
+this eBook outside of the United States should confirm copyright
+status under the laws that apply to them.
diff --git a/README.md b/README.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..7b200eb
--- /dev/null
+++ b/README.md
@@ -0,0 +1,2 @@
+Project Gutenberg (https://www.gutenberg.org) public repository for
+eBook #24340 (https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/24340)