If every person were to produce all the different things he needs or
wants, there would be no use for money, and the people would escape the
curses that follow in its trail, but experience taught labourers that it
was an economy for each to labour in some special way, and to exchange
his surplus products for those of others labouring in different ways.
Besides, the different climates produce different commodities, of each
of which all other climates require a share. Out of these facts came
agencies for effecting exchanges—money, the merchant and commerce. In
their origin and normal functions they are the agents, the servants of
labour; but when from exchanging the products of labour they grew into
speculating in these products, then they assumed abnormal functions, and
became the masters of labour. It must be seen, therefore, that the only
legitimate method by which wealth can increase, is by adding to itself
the net results of labour; indeed that is the only way in which it can
increase. It must also be clear that these results belong _in toto_ to
their producers, since, if nothing were exchanged save equivalents,
these results could never pass from the hands of their producers. But by
permitting the representatives of wealth—money—to have the power to
increase, the makers of money have been able to filch all the net
earnings from labour, and as a result of this, most of the accumulated
wealth of the world is in the hands of the makers of money instead of in
those of the makers of wealth. This may be legal, but can never be made
just. Had the labourers been let alone they would have continued to
produce and exchange their commodities among themselves without any
trouble, and they could have always maintained themselves comfortably.
But the “middlemen”—their agents—conceived, constructed and thrust upon
them a vicious system of money, by which they are forced to pay tribute
on everything that passes from, or is received by them, which tribute
amounts to the total net products of all the industries.