ABNORMITY OF THE SOCIAL SITUATION.
The preceding chapter has shown the differences between the conditions
of life of the propertied [SN: DIFFERENCES IN CONDITIONS OF LIFE.] and
of the propertyless people. It has explained the multiple expenditures
of the resourceless, and how they are obliged to labor under the
principle of dividogenesure without ever being able to appropriate the
full results of their labor to themselves. The present chapter will
reveal the astonishing number of the propertyless in the United States,
and the places where they are mostly to be found.
However, before proceeding to examine the investigations about the
people without property, we must add here, that the propertyless [SN:
THE PROPERTYLESS PAY RENT OR ARE EXPELLED.] are those that occupy
houses, or rooms, or simply little cells in the rentable properties of
the propertied, paying rent for them. They are, therefore, regarded as
the tenants of homes, and when occupying rentable farms, they are
regarded as the tenants of farms. And as long as they are able to earn
and to pay the rents on time, they are regarded as good people, good
families and respectable persons, because they constitute the real
sources of income to the owners of the rentable properties. But as soon
as they cannot find a situation, cannot find employment, cannot find
work, cannot find a job, cannot borrow money, cannot pawn anything,
hence cannot pay rent at the well defined times, then they are gently or
ruthlessly kicked out of the rooms, and regarded as “no good,” as
degenerates.
Expelling them from the tenement houses or farms, some gentlemen or
lady-proprietors sometimes even express sympathy or [SN: CANNOT HELP THE
SITUATION.] sorrow to lose their tenants; and sometimes they anticipate
further sufferings and privations for their unfortunate roomers, etc.,
but cannot help them under the existing conditions. The expelled tenant
then wanders about, suffers privations, humiliations, till he falls into
prison, or she falls into prostitution, and into all the miseries of the
world. And it is only at the point where these propertyless lose their
real manhood and womanhood that they cease to be the sources of income
for the propertied.
Now let us deal with the homeless and landless in the statistical
accounts, where the tenants and mortgagors are described together, but
with greater details in respect to the mortgagors than to the tenants.
For the sake of clearness, therefore, I must prominently represent here
the tenant families, as the propertyless, and must leave the mortgagor
families for the next chapter.
The following census statistics represent only percentages of families
occupying farms and homes in the United States, while I have supplied
the figures implied in the relative percentages of these families.
STATISTICS OF THE TENANTS.
“Extra Bulletin No. 98 of the United States Census, 1890, says:
“There are 12,690,152 families in the United States, and of these
families 52.20 per cent,” or 6,624,259 families, “hire their farms or
homes, and 47.80 per cent own them.”[61]
“In regard to the families occupying farms the [SN: FARM FAMILIES.]
conclusion is, that 34.08 per cent,” or 1,624,655 families, “hire, and
65.92[62] per cent own, the farms cultivated by them.” So that “among
every 100 farm families 34 hire their farms,” being landless.
“The corresponding facts for the families occupying [SN: HOME FAMILIES.]
homes are, that 63.10 per cent,” i. e., 4,999,396 families “hire, and
36.90[62] per cent,” i. e., 2,923,560,[62] families, “own their homes.”
So that “in every 100 home families, on the average, 63 hire their
homes, and 37[63] own them.”
“There are 420 cities and towns that have a population of 8,000 to
100,000, and in these cities [SN: CITIES 64.004 PER CENT. HIRE.] and
towns 64.04 per cent of the home-families hire and 35.96[63] per cent
own their homes.” So that in these cities and towns, 64 out of every 100
families hire their homes, and 36 own them, or as the Bulletin states:
“in 100 home families, on the average, are found 64 that hire their
homes, and 36[63] own them.”
Besides this, “the cities that have a population of 100,000 and over,”
i. e., cities up to millions, like Philadelphia, Chicago, New [SN: LARGE
CITIES 77.17 PER CENT. HIRE.] York and so on, “number 28, and in these
cities 77.17 per cent of the home families hire their homes and
22.83[63] per cent own them.” It follows, that in these large and very
populous cities of the United States more than 77 families out of every
100 are tenant families or those that hire their homes, and 23[63] own
them. Or, as the Bulletin says: “In these cities among 100 home
families, on the average, 77 hire and 23[63] own their homes.”[64]
Now then, what this Extra Bulletin reveals to us is as follows:
1. That in 1890 we had 1,624,655 families hiring farms. The difference
between hiring a farm and owning a farm is this, that an owner of a farm
reaps all the benefits [SN: NUMBER OF FAMILIES HIRING FARMS.] of his own
farm; whatever amount of energy he spends upon his farm, he obtains all
the results of it by himself and for himself, remaining all the time an
independent man. A farm tenant is just the contrary. He is a dependent
being and is a subject to dividogenesure. He works upon a rentable
property and must first of all satisfy the rightful owner of the farm.
He must divide the results of his labor between his master and himself,
by paying rent. And in order to be equally well off with the farmer that
works upon his own farm, the tenant must exert almost twice as much of
labor energy as the owner of a farm. But this is impossible. And this
impossibility rests upon all the tenants of farms. They are economic
slaves of their masters, slaves under the principle of dividogenesure.
If they don’t wish to divide the sole results of their labor, then they
must starve, and there is no other alternative for them, because they
are propertyless and hence resourceless.
2. That at the same time we had 4,999,412 other families that were
hiring not the farms but rentable homes of the propertied men. And these
nearly [SN: NUMBER OF FAMILIES HIRING HOMES.] 5-million families were
not only the sources of income and profit in favor of the owners of the
homes, but also the sources of income for the employers that permit them
to labor. So that a farm tenant is a direct[65] source of income to one
lord of property; while a home tenant is a direct[66] source of income
for two owners of wealth. And a great injustice hangs on the neck of
every one of these millions, because they have no property of their own.
But the principal point is this, that neither one of them has the right
to expend or apply his labor energy anywhere without paying for it to
those that may not labor at all and live.
Adding now the two classes of tenant families, we have 6,624,259 of
them; and regarding their [SN: NUMBERS COMBINED.] numbers individually,
we have 32,656,808 propertyless persons who are in bondage of
dividogenesure, because they have neither the right to expend their
strength nor to restore it without paying for both to the propertied.
The question now is, Do these numbers show that we had “less than half
the families in the United States without property?”[67] Even without
examining the numbers of the propertyless in cities and towns, the Extra
Bulletin proves that there were 279,023 more of the propertyless
families than the half of the entire population. And [SN: COULD BUILD A
LARGE CITY.] this little more than the half represents 1,345,683
propertyless individuals who could build and could inhabit yet another
one of the largest cities in the world, while under the unjust principle
of dividogenesure they have neither a farm, nor a lot, nor a single
house of their own.
But what do you think about the whole number of the propertyless? We had
fully 32,656,808 individuals of them in 1890, according to this
Bulletin, and they could [SN: COULD BUILD 32 LARGE CITIES.] likewise
build and inhabit 32 great cities having in each more than a million of
good citizens. A million population in one city, as you know,
constitutes one of the most populous cities in the world; and we could
have thirty-two such cities in the possession of these now propertyless
people. These millions of people could make one of the finest nations on
earth with 32 of most populous cities which they could erect by their
labor energy. How is it, then, that they are obliged to remain homeless,
landless, propertyless, resourceless? Have they been lazy to work? Have
they been incapable of doing anything for themselves? Have they been
degenerates? No, no, these tens of millions have been working hard, but
they have been deprived of the results of their labor by the unjust
principle of dividogenesure that compelled them to labor for the few
families of the wealthy group of the two tables on p. 47, which own the
results of their labor and toil.
And do you realize what it means to have 420 cities and towns with the
population of 8,000 to 100,000 individuals in each? Do you know what
[SN: CITIES BUILT BY LABORERS.] it means to have nearly seven-tenths of
their population without property, when they cannot exist without it?
And what it means to have 28 cities whose population is above 100,000,
and which goes up to millions in some of them; and yet nearly
four-fifths of their people are without homes, without property, and
without any resources of their own? And do you know that these very
cities (and towns) have almost all been built out of the realized labor
energy or on account of the results of labor of these slaves of
dividogenesure?
And this is not all, for, according to the Bulletin, we had 32,656,808
of the propertyless individuals, while the 2d R. table, p. 36, [SN:
COULD BUILD 33 GREAT CITIES.] which resulted from the 2d table on p. 32,
and which was published in 1897—this table authoritatively demands that
we should add 1,251,469 more propertyless people to the number found in
the Bulletin. This additional number of the propertyless could make yet
another one of the most populous cities in the world. And, being added
together, these people could inhabit not 32 but 33 cities, with the
total population of 33,908,277 individuals or nearly 34-millions of
souls.
Imagine! The whole nation in 1865 was made [SN: WHOLE NATION OF 1865
PROPERTYLESS IN 1890.] up of this number of people, whose wealth
aggregated over $24,000,000,000 worth. Now the principle of
dividogenesure required but 25 years to render the [SN: BY INCREASING
PROPERTY MEN LOST PROPERTY.] number of the propertyless equal to the
entire nation of 1865. Is it not an astonishing fact that while this
great number of the propertyless people grew up, the national wealth
actually increased by the worth of about $41,877,475,129? For in 1860
the total aggregate of it was $16,159,616,068, whereas in 1890 it
aggregated to $65,037,091,197 worth of wealth.
In view of these contrasting facts, can any one say that the 33-millions
of the property-losers were idle? or that the phenomenal increase of the
wealth was produced [SN: HUMAN ENERGY IS THE INITIAL OPERATOR IN
PRODUCTION.] by the very few owners of it because they had the most
effective capital at their own hands? No, sir, the capital itself is
dead in every respect and form, and not a single piece of it can produce
anything by itself. But, being effective aid, assistant in production,
capital only helps _the living human energy_ to increase the results of
its labor. And it follows that whatever the increase in production due
to mechanical forces or to other capital may be, it must be attributed
to the activity of human energy which manipulates all invented forms of
capital. And surely _the blessings of the various inventions_ consist in
the fact that the inventions _can aid the labor energy to produce more
wealth than it can produce without them_. Hence the real blessings of
the invented capital ought to have been preëminently in the fact of its
increasing the well-being of the millions of laborers in the various
grades of industry.
How is it, then, that the wealth of the United States nation, from 1865
to 1890, increased by more than 42-billion dollars worth, [SN: IS IT
LOGICALLY CORRECT OR MORALLY RIGHT?] while the well-being of its
producers greatly decreased? How is it that the tens of millions of the
workers not only could not obtain the due share of the wealth they
increased, but many millions of them in addition lost their own
properties? How is it that the great blessings of the inventors have
been changed into great curses against their well-being, because now
they appeared to be absolutely dependent for life on the wealthy few,
having nothing of their own? No explanations of minor causes can answer
these questions, but the great injustice of dividogenesure explains
them.
But what can the propertyless people do when they increase and when all
the wealth and capital produced by the people are monopolized by a few
families, as even the 1st and 2d tables, p. 47, show the facts? What can
the 33,908,277 individuals without property do, when they have nothing
to hope for but labor under the principle of dividogenesure for the
wealthy few that consist of less than a million families in the enlarged
nation?
It is evident that their fate condemns them to labor, as slaves, on
permission, and to satisfy first the demands of dividogenesure and
afterward take [SN: THE CLAIMS OF DIVIDOGENESURE REGARDED FIRST.] for
themselves what may be allowed from the results of their toil on the
rentable farms, while the millions of families which hire homes in the
448 cities and towns are still harder slaves of dividogenesure than the
families that hire their farms. They are harder slaves because they are
more liable to be freed even from the oppression of dividogenesure, and
liable to remain months and months in the sphere of starvation without
employment.
Can there be a greater iniquity in the world than the iniquity that
proceeds from the abnormal system of dividogenesure?
No! No nation in human history has seen an iniquity that can be compared
with the results of dividogenesure as they are at present, for it now
deprives men of their [SN: DIVIDOGENESURE IS A FOUNTAIN OF GREAT EVILS.]
fruits of toil to the utmost degree; it deprives them of their energy,
of their rights, and of their property; it deceives them by the medium
of exchange of commodities and products; it makes them economic slaves
of the very few masters or throws them out of the region of the slavery
into the region of resourceless starvation and degeneration; it
concentrates masses of the people’s wealth into a few hands, leaving
millions of families without income in despair and casts them out of the
rentable homes; it drags them into the courts, throws them into prisons,
drives them into penitentiaries, fits them for and chases them into the
lunatic and insane asylums. And not only this, but nearly all causes of
murders, of parricides, of infanticides, etc., and of the suicides
perpetrated by the people, can indirectly be traced to the abnormal
system of dividogenesure, which most fundamentally conditions almost all
national, social and private crimes, because sound life always depends
upon sound economic basis of a nation.
The system of dividogenesure, however, is pernicious not only to the
tens of millions of the propertyless people alone, but it has [SN: IT
COMPRISES THE PROPERTIED EMPLOYEES.] enslaved millions of families that
have homes and have other little properties not bearing direct incomes
for subsistence. These families therefore are also compelled to be in
gainful pursuits under the same conditions with the landless and
homeless. And Mr. Carroll D. Wright, onesided and severely criticised,
wrote about some of them as the American bread-winners, as follows:
“Bread-winners in 1870 engaged in supporting themselves were 12,505,923,
or 32.43 per cent” of the population. “The bread-winners in 1880 were
17,392,099, or 34.67 per cent of the total population” of that time.
“The bread-winners in 1890 were 22,735,661, or 36.31 per cent.” By
“bread-winners” he meant “wage earners, salary receivers ... or any one
who was engaged in gainful pursuit,” including “proprietors of whatever
grade or description, and all professional persons.”[68]
I must here make a diversion to examine this author’s argument.
For the purpose of proving that the poor, the producers of wealth, were
getting better off from 1870 to 1890 by their gainful pursuits, Mr.
Wright has placed in the [SN: MR. C. D. WRIGHT.] same class individuals
of incomparable description, and, by making averages upon equally
incomparable basis of their gains, logically arrived at the false
conclusion that the wages in general had risen during that period of
time. And hence, he added that “the rich are growing richer and the poor
are getting better off.” He thus arrived at the same nominal conclusion
at which Mr. Shearman has arrived in making nearly 56-millions of
individuals appear to be in possession of $209 each.[69] And it is
exactly in the same way Mr. Wright himself made the per capita wealth in
the United States, as a whole, amount to $1,036 for every inhabitant of
the nation. The rules of arithmetic are accurate in every calculation.
But the nominal distribution of wealth has never made the millions of
the people better off; and it has never altered the fact, that in 1890
we had nearly 34-millions of them without property; and we had a little
over 7-millions of other individuals owning more than 55½-billion
dollars worth of wealth.[70] Whereas, at the same time, there were more
than 27-millions of individuals whose aggregate wealth was only
$825-millions, which is but $30 to each person.[71]
This little diversion from our main thought once more testifies that the
increase of the 42-billion dollars worth of wealth which accrued from
1865 to 1890 did not in the least raise the wages of those producers of
the wealth who were compelled even to lose their own properties. On the
contrary, while the salaries and incomes of some professional persons
had decidedly increased, the wages in general had fallen, as we shall
see later on. Consequently, the tens of millions of the creators of that
wealth appeared to be all the worse off, as we have seen on pp. 85, 86.
And when Mr. Wright adds “that the transportation has been so
perfected,” during the same time, “as to bring to the door of the [SN:
THE PROPERTYLESS HAVE NEITHER DOOR NOR WINDOW.] poor man and the rich
the results of industry of far away people” in order that they may buy
them from different monopolists; this sentence really sounds like a
mockery to the 34-millions of individuals who had in 1890 neither their
own door nor even window, and who were absolutely dependent upon chances
for a semi-income under the oppressive dividogenesure.
But as to how many people were engaged in the gainful pursuits and how
many of them were entirely subject to the system of dividogenesure, we
can better know from the researches of Prof. Mayo Smith. He says as
follows:
“Persons in gainful pursuits, United States 1890, by classes of
occupations, in ten years of age and over, were 47,413,559. Out of them
[SN: PROF. MAYO SMITH.] 24,352,659 were males and 23,060,900 were
females.” After this statement he innumerates their respective
occupations and adds “That 9,013,201 persons were in gainful pursuits in
agriculture, fisheries and mining, and that 8,333,692 of these last are
males and 679,509 are females.”[72] So that out of 62,622,250
inhabitants of the country 47,413,559 individuals of 10 years of age and
upwards were engaged in the gainful pursuits.
Now these nearly 47½-millions of persons in gainful pursuits could not
all be the slaves of dividogenesure. For some of these [SN: FAVORITES OF
DIVIDOGENESURE SPECULATE.] persons serve its favorites for very high
salaries and their services are well remunerated. Nor could this number
include many of the favorites of this unjust principle. For its real
favorites are those that possess extensive rights in natural and
artificial resources of wealth; they are those that earn their enormous
incomes even in their comfortable beds, by simply speculating on and
relying upon the energy and productivity of the subjects to
dividogenesure. And as the productivity of the American people is very
high, it therefore becomes as easy for them to grow very wealthy under
the favor of dividogenesure as for the millions of makers of their
fortunes to grow very poor and emaciated.
Reviewing then the various occupations of the people in the United
States as these are represented by different authorities, we [SN:
1,000,000 FAMILIES AND 38,837,849 INDIVIDUALS.] have sufficient reason
to judge that since the year 1890 there have been about 38,837,849
persons who may be regarded as positive slaves to dividogenesure on the
one hand. And there have been about one million families that were more
or less profited by their highly productive labor and skillful energy on
the other hand. The above number includes nearly all the homeless and
landless of the last census, and includes about six millions of those
who had their little homes and other properties of no importance.
The productivity of these people may be exemplified by the following
reports:
“Mr. Mulhall, in the ‘North American Review,’ for June, 1895, says:
“An ordinary farm-hand in the United States raises as much grain as
three in England, four in France, five in Germany, or six in [SN:
PRODUCTIVITY OF FARMERS.] Austria, which shows what an enormous waste of
labor occurs in Europe, because farmers are not possessed of the same
mechanical appliances as in the United States.” (Enc. of Soc. Ref. p.
1093.)
“Mr. Edward Atkinson gives the following statements on the industrial
productivity of the United States.” He says:
“One thousand barrels of flour, the annual ration of 1,000 people, can
be placed in the city of New York from a point 1,700 or [SN: 7 PERSONS
SERVE 1,000 WITH BREAD.] 2,000 miles distant with the exertion of human
labor equivalent to that of only four men, working one year in
producing, milling and moving the wheat. It can then be baked and
distributed by the work of three more persons, so that seven persons
serve 1,000 with bread.”[73]
“The average crop of wheat in the United States and Canada would give
one person in every 20 of the population of the globe a [SN: ENOUGH TO
FEED THE WORLD.] barrel of flour in each year, with enough to spare for
seed. The land capable of producing wheat is not occupied to anything
like one-twentieth of its extent. We can raise grain enough on a small
part of territory of the United States to feed the world.”[74]
“The general conclusion at which I have arrived is that in the year
1880, the census year, [SN: GROSS INCOME IN YEAR 1880.] when the
population of the United States numbered a little over 50,000,000, the
annual product had a value of nearly, or quite $10,000,000,000 at points
of final consumption, including, at market prices, that portion which
was consumed upon the farm, but which was never sold. Omitting that
consumed upon the farm, it was about $9,000,000,000.”[75]
“At an average of 200 pounds per head in the United States, the largest
consumption of iron of [SN: ONE OPERATOR SERVES HUNDREDS WITH GOODS.]
any nation, we may yet find that the equivalent of one man’s work for
one year, divided between the coal-mine, the iron-mine and the
iron-furnace, suffices for the supply of 500 persons. One operator in
the cotton factory makes cloth for 250; in the woolen factory for 300;
one modern cobbler (who is anything but a cobbler), working in a boot or
shoe factory, furnishes 1,000 men or more than 1,000 women with all the
boots and shoes they require for a year.”[76]
These paragraphs sufficiently indicate the general capability of the
American people for production under the existing conditions.
If an Austrian wine-producer or a farmer is six times less capable to
produce than an American farmer; and if this Austrian farmer [SN:
POVERTY IS IMPOSSIBLE.] can easily defray the multiple expenses of his
family and his own out of the results of his less capable labor and live
comfortably every year, the American farmer ought to have five times as
much of net profit from the results of his capable labor energy as the
Austrian farmer can spend every year for his living. So that, living in
the same way as the Austrian, the American farmer ought to be in six
years fully thirty times wealthier than an Austrian farmer of an
ordinary type.
How is it then that the wealth of the sturdy American farm tenant
consists on the average of but $360 per family of nearly five members
each; while an Austrian farmer is incomparably better off, being almost
always a propertied man?
And if seven American laborers are able to serve 1,000 persons with
bread and feed themselves every year, it is perfectly legitimate, then,
that every one of them should have a yearly profit of his labor, which
is equal to the value of bread, yearly consumed by nearly 143 men. And
this yearly profit must quickly make a considerable amount of wealth in
his store.
How is it then that the millions of American producers of bread, each
supplying hundreds of [SN: POVERTY EXISTS.] persons, are obliged to live
from hand to mouth, having neither property nor land, nor any other
wealth in store for their future? And if their productivity testifies
that they are able to feed and clothe the world, as Mr. Atkinson very
reasonably affirms, is it not highly important to find out who profits
by their remarkably efficient labor energy? Or, who yearly devours the
surplus of their products, leaving them in poverty?
Further, the work of one American miner, “for one year, divided between
the coal-mine, the iron-mine and the iron-furnace,” ultimately [SN: NO
ROOM FOR POVERTY.] “suffices for the supply of 500 persons” with the
metallic goods and utilities they consume in a year. “One operator in
the cotton factory can provide goods for 250, in the woolen factory for
300, in a boot or shoe factory for 1,000 men or more than 1,000
women”—one worker in any of these industries, in one year, can work out
the respective goods these numbers of consumers require for a year, thus
showing that the productivity of every operator is simply phenomenal.
How is it then that these very operators who can and do supply hundreds
and even thousands of consumers with different utilities [SN: YET
POVERTY EXISTS IN THE ABSENCE OF JUSTICE, ETC.] for living and enjoying,
are unable to support their own families for six months after they cease
to be in their exceedingly productive employment? And why are nearly all
of them homeless? Is it the essential and necessary demand of modern
ethics, that the more one produces the poorer one must be? Or is it
exactly the demand of modern justice that millions of human beings
should only toil and work for others, without having the right to work
for themselves and to partake of the fruits of their own labor? And
where is the court of justice to be found which can vindicate their
cause in view of their unusual productivity?
Many consumers are convinced that these operators as well as all other
American laborers are always paid what they deserve, though they cannot
provide for [SN: ILL-BASED REASONING.] their future. Many other
consumers think that they could not be so productive if it were not for
the highly efficient aid of costly capital under their operations. And
as a logical inference, these consumers further think that this capital
must be highly paid for its own productivity. Hence the capitalist must
have a lion’s share from the results of the active energy of every
operator with the mechanical forces in production. And, although the
error of such reasoning is transparent from beginning to end, yet it
seems that justice itself is thus often satisfied.
These reasoners seem to never ask, Whose energy is embodied in the
capital that the inventors have [SN: JUSTICE CLAIMS A DEEPER BASIS FOR
REASONING.] left as great blessing for working humanity? And whose
energy has realized, or rather materialized, the existing inventions
after they had been created in the minds of the great men? Has all this
been done by inanimate dollars or money, or by the same animate and
intelligent beings whom we now regard as the mere operators in every
sphere of human activity? Is it not their energy that flows like a river
into all things of utility?
Then they say that the organizers, the managers, the superintendents
must be paid manifold for their superior work and intelligence. All
right, nobody denies that.
But will you show me a single article in use, in existence, or an object
in the process toward use and existence, which does not represent the
energy [SN: THE WHOLE ARTISTIC WORLD IMPLIES EXPENDED HUMAN ENERGY.] of
the laborers in need of some of the necessaries of mere existence? Show
me a brick or a stone in its use, an iron-bar, a steel-rail, a machine
or an engine, a steamer or cable, or whatever you please, which has not
been washed with the sweat of the brow of their makers in need? Show me
that building, that palace or mansion, a house or home, which does not
directly imply, or does not testify of the energy of the propertied poor
and the homeless?
Or show me that article, a heavy stone in a structure, a lump of iron or
coal, a coin of silver or gold, or show me anything in the world, which
should prove to have been only stained with the sweat of the brow of a
mere speculator in motions of values, in rentable farms and homes, or in
products of the workers in need? I am sure you cannot.
While as facts I can show that the crystallized energy of the homeless,
the poor and the landless, in possession of others, floats on the
rivers, the seas and the oceans; it [SN: IT HAS NOT BEEN JUSTLY PAID
FOR.] fills up the land, builds up the towns and cities, heats them in
winter, lights them at night. In possession of others, their energy is
sold on the markets, and is laid in the stores and the banks of others.
Further, their energy stands in the forms of the plants and the
factories working in speed throughout the country; and it burns in the
stoves, in the furnace of the various works; it steams in the boilers
and moves the machines of its own making; and it pulls on the cables and
the cars upon the roads made by its muscle and bone. It crystallizes in
goods and all objects of use; it then moves on in masses upon the lines
of rails, and runs on from cities to cities, obeying speculators’
commands. So, having been shaped into millions of different forms, and
having escaped from the working hands of its genuine owners, the energy
quickly changes into more and more durable forms; and after several
motions, it finally rests in the clean hands of the speculators, as if
it were their righteous net profit and wealth.
Even this picture indicates the true basis where one should look for
justice and rights, for losses and profits.
“The profits of the Wall street kings the past year were enormous,” says
Dr. Josiah Strong,[77] about January, 1880. “It is estimated that one of
them made $30,000,000; another, $15,000,000; two, $10,000,000 each; one,
$8,000,000; and four, from $1,000,000 to $2,000,000 each; making a grand
total for 10 or 12 estates of about $80,000,000”[77] in one year.
While “Mr. F. C. Waite, special agent of the Eleventh Census, in charge
of True Wealth, makes the following statement as to the gross and net
earnings of important natural monopolies for the census year 1890.”[78]
-----------------------------+---------------+-------------
Items. |Gross Earnings.|Net Earnings.
-----------------------------+---------------+-------------
RAILROADS: | |
From operation |$1,051,877,632 |}
Other sources | 126,767,064 |}
Unreported roads | |}$331,373,057
(about) | 50,000,000 |}
Express companies[79] | 53,000,000 | 11,000,000
Street railways | 90,000,000 | 28,000,000
Water transportation | 191,000,000 | 31,000,000
Telegraph companies | 25,000,000 | 7,000,000
Telephone companies | 16,404,583 | 5,260,712
INSURANCE COMPANIES: | |
Life | 90,000,000 | 59,000,000
Fire, etc. | 54,991,613 | 19,000,000
BANKS: | |
National | 144,614,053 | 72,055,564
All others (estimated) | 200,000,000 |
ARTIFICIAL GAS | |
COMPANIES: | |
(Estimated) | 25,000,000 |
-----------------------------+---------------+-------------
Total earnings[80] | 2,118,654,945 | 553,689,333
-----------------------------+---------------+-------------
Now, these totals show what an enormous amount of the people’s
crystallized energy accrues to the monopolists in one year, and in every
year, besides covering all yearly expenses. No wonder, then, why we find
that the highly productive people, of which Mr. Atkinson speaks and
which could even in 1880 put upon the market, “at final points of
consumption,” the annual surplus of $9,000,000,000 worth of various
kinds of products, appeared in 1890 to be in possession of only about
$10,000,000,000 worth of aggregate wealth, belonging to more than
55-millions of individuals. Whereas, on the other side, there appeared
less than 7½-millions of individuals in possession of more than
$55,000,000,000 worth of wealth.[81]
It is certainly understood that all products, while reaching the “points
of final consumption,” rise in their value, on account of the enormous
earnings derived from them by the speculators in the products of human
energy, while they move these products by the cheapest possible labor of
millions of employees, under the principle of dividogenesure. The rising
of their value is, of course, inevitable from beginning to end. For as
the raw materials, or the products of any kind, continue to acquire
their consumable state in the hands of the operators, more and more
energy is being spent upon them or added to them. And it is just and
meet that the persons who thus add their energy to the products should
be paid for it, whether engaged in the factory, in the plant, in
transportation or in the final distribution among consumers.
Yet what do we find? We find that the 38,837,849[82] slaves of
dividogenesure, who work in the whole field of production and
distribution, are losing a great amount [SN: THEY LABOR FOR LESS THAN
THE DUE.] of their energy in favor of about one million[82] families
that employ them for less payment than these families finally derive
from the results of the labor energy of these employees. By “less
payment” I mean that net profit which is called the undue concentration
of the producers’ wealth in the employer’s hands; and I mean what is
absolutely due to the laborers and not what is undue. The facts of the
undue concentration of wealth in the hands of these few families will be
shown in chapter VI.
If we now regard one million families of the wealthy group of one of the
tables[83] as the employers [SN: THE RATES OF INCOMES.] of the
38,837,849 propertyless and the propertied poor, the daily injustice of
the million families will be expressed in their daily incomes from every
individual as follows:
Obtaining daily from each individual worker:
1c. they derive $ 388,378.48
2c. „ „ 776,756.96
3c. „ „ 1,165,135.44
4c. „ „ 1,553,513.92
5c. „ „ 1,941,892.40
6c. „ „ 2,330,270.88
7c. „ „ 2,718,649.36
8c. „ „ 3,107,027.84
9c. „ „ 3,495,406.32
10c. „ „ 3,883,784.80
11c. „ „ 4,272,163.28
12c. „ „ 4,660,541.76
15c. „ „ 5,825,677.20
20c. „ „ 7,767,569.60
So that, if only 20c is obtained from each of the propertyless and the
propertied poor in any employment whatever, then every one of the
million families on the average gets daily more than $7 of the unjust
income. And that is simply because the resourceless people cannot apply
their energy anywhere without oppression. But, if the principle of
dividogenesure allows these families to squeeze out of every one’s
energy daily 25c, then the daily dividend of these families will amount
to $9,709,462.25, which is nearly $10 to each family among the million.
And this is one way how the rich are growing richer and the poor are
growing poorer. While the next chapter will show another way of getting
rich and the poor.
No one ought to suppose, however, that the million families, variously
employing the above number of the absolutely dependent people, obtain
equal shares of the [SN: THE LOSSES AND PROFITS ARE UNEQUAL.] unearned
profits from the workers in the United States. Nor ought one to suppose
that these workers lose equal amounts of energy in favor of the owners
of capital, means of transportation, or distribution of products, in
favor of landlords and houselords, etc. No, some of the workers lose
more than others, just as some of the families get much more than
others. The net profits of the different monopolies, p. 101, as
represented by the census agent, illustrate these differences in the
gains of several families connected with the monopolies.
But, notwithstanding the differences in the detailed gains and losses,
there cannot be any doubt or discrepancy in the general fact, that if
“the natural” and other[84] “monopolies” shall continue to earn billions
of dollars worth of wealth every year, all the nation will soon be
absolutely enslaved by a very few families of the wealthiest type. The
economic slavery of the nation then will grow harder and harder upon the
people absolutely dependent on the principle of dividogenesure.
For if each one of the 38,837,849 individuals now daily loses, on the
average, 25c worth of wealth produced by his energy, the continual [SN:
DEPENDENT INDIVIDUALS.] increase of these dependents must bring about a
continual increase in the rates of the daily incomes in favor of the
wealthy few—at the rates shown on p. 104, which shall then go higher up.
The concentration of wealth will go on, and from the standpoint of
dividogenesure, these rates will indicate a continual increase or
decrease in the unjust concentration of wealth in a few hands.
No one must suppose, however, that by the rates of dividogenesure we
mean only the underrated wages and salaries. No, we mean here the losses
of the people in all stages of productive and distributive activity and
the final gains of those that unjustly profit by this general activity
of the people. And I view the nation as a whole with its future.
If the situation be left, as it is at present, many possibilities can
unmistakably be predicted for the nation’s future.
When the nation is rapidly growing into the economic slaves of a few
favorites of dividogenesure, there is no use to think about the freedom
and political power of [SN: POSSIBLE FUTURE.] the enslaved people,
because such thinking or talking will only be a general mock-flattery
against the helpless by the ignorant or dishonest men who may also be
slaves over the slaves. And this modern dependence of the people will
certainly be to their own harm. The tens of millions of families
together shall neither be able to support the public schools, colleges,
churches, nor any other public institutions without the means of the
wealthy few. Then it will be that the very teachers, professors,
ministers and every one else in the public service will also be in
bondage. Then it will be that they shall be bound to educate the people
by so shaping their nervous system as to bear even greater economic
slavery than any savages could tolerate. Then it will be that they shall
be unable to teach any truth valuable for the well-being of the people
even if they know it perfectly well.[85] And then it will be that every
one shall feel his impotency and littleness in attempting to throw off
the heavy yoke of the few rich families.
Besides, we may see here a type of the Venetian Republic with all its
inherent miseries, on a large scale; while the people shall continue to
groan even as the Venetians did [SN: VENETIAN REPUBLIC.] under a few
prosperous families. But the American groaning and misery may
undoubtedly be even greater than theirs, because they were oppressed and
labored as beasts of burden, but they were never compelled to work on a
par with the modern mechanical forces. And as the misery of the American
Republic will be greater, the oppression heavier, and the economic and
other forms of slavery will be more degrading, it will be necessary to
have a greater Napoleon Bonaparte in order to liberate the future
Americans from their oligarchic plutocracy than the one who spoke to the
Venetians: “I am your liberator; I am not your enemy; I am your friend;
don’t be afraid,” and so on.
It is, however, to be hoped that the present American fathers will not
hesitate to provide something better for their children.