That there is in this country a deep-seated and growing distrust
of the rich by the poor is a truth which every right-headed and
right-hearted man is compelled to perceive and deplore. That many of
the rich have thoughtlessly and selfishly done much to provoke it is
equally obvious and equally deplorable; but largely, I think, it is
due to the pernicious teachings of those of both classes who find a
profit in promoting it. For neither the rich nor the poor constitute
a brotherhood bound by the ties of a common interest; and on the
whole, it is well that they do not, for loyalty in defense is usually
associated with loyalty in aggression, and those accustomed to stand
together for their rights too frequently think that the best foothold
is found upon the rights of those opposing them. Not all the rich are
men of prey, but to those who are, no quarry is more alluring than the
other rich, not only in the way of direct spoliation in business, but
by catching the pennies of the applauding poor through that kind of
apostasy that poses as superior virtue.
A great part of the sullen animosity of poverty to wealth is
undoubtedly the product of mere envy, one of the black elements of
human nature whose strength and activity are commonly underestimated,
even by the most discerning observers, which of all modern pessimists,
Schopenhauer seems most clearly to have perceived. Hatred of the
wealthy by the poor, of the great by the obscure, of the gifted by
the dull, is so admirably disguised by the servility with which it is
not inconsistent, so generally concealed through consciousness of its
disgraceful character, as to have escaped right appraisement by all but
the most penetrating understandings.
In producing this antipathy of class to class many other factors are
concerned, among them the notion, carefully fostered by demagogues,
that, naturally and without reference to personal worth, the rich
man despises the poor man. The fact that most of our rich men were
once poor is permitted to cut no figure in the matter; as is the fact
that annually in this country more than one hundred million dollars
are given away by the rich in merely those benefactions large enough
to attract public attention. “Not so very much,” says the demagogue,
“considering how many of them there are.” But when engaged in showing
how large a proportion of the country’s wealth is owned by how few
persons, he sings another song.
The hatred is not mutual; the wealthy do not dislike and despise their
less fortunate, less capable, less thrifty, lucky, enterprising or
ambitious fellow-men. The element of envy is not present to feed the
rancor. Nor is there any profit in the business of kindling and keeping
alight the fires of hostility to the poor; the demagogue has among the
rich no professional antagonist practising _his_ methods.
True, the wealthy do, as a rule, hold themselves aloof from the poor;
even usually from those with whom they associated before their days
of prosperity; sometimes from their own less prosperous relatives.
There are several reasons; the inexperienced “capitalist” who suspects
that none of them is valid can try his luck at making no change in
his associations. He will be wiser after a while, but will have fewer
friends and less ready money. It will be more economical to learn from
some one who has prospered before him—even from a person known to have
merely a fair salary and not known to have any dependents.
Doubtless “colossal” fortunes have their disadvantages, chiefly,
I think, to those in possession; but as a general proposition,
money-making may safely be permitted, for there is no way under the sun
to get any good out of money except by parting with it. One may pay
it to a tradesman for goods; the tradesman pays it to another, but
eventually it goes to the man that makes the goods, the workman. Or
one may lend it on interest, the borrower lending it again at a higher
interest, or investing it; it may pass through a dozen hands, but the
ultimate man pays it out for labor—the sole purpose and meaning of the
entire series of transactions. All the money in the world, except the
small part hoarded by misers or lost, is paid out for labor, flows back
in converging streams as capital, and is again distributed in wages.
Does the socialist know this? He knows nothing; he learned it from Karl
Marx and Upton Sinclair. The man who, making money in his own country,
spends it in another, may or may not be mischievous to his countrymen;
that depends on what he buys. To his race he is harmless and beneficial.
On the whole, the unfortunate rich man, cowering as a prisoner in the
dock before the austere tribunal of public opinion, has a pretty good
defense if he only knew it. As he seems imperfectly provided with
counsel and is not saying much himself, it would be only just for the
court to enter a plea of not guilty for him, and to hear a little
more testimony than that so abundantly proffered by swift and willing
witnesses for the prosecution.