Chapter II The Enslavement of Laborers the Ultimate Result of Private Property in Land

If chattel slavery be unjust, then is private property in land unjust.

If chattel slavery is unjust, private property in land is unjust.

For let the circumstances be what they may—the ownership of land will always give the ownership of men, to a degree measured by the necessity (real or artificial) for the use of land. This is but a statement in different form of the law of rent.

Whatever the circumstances, ownership of land always gives ownership of men, to a degree measured by the need, real or artificial, to use land. This is only the law of rent stated in a different form.

And when that necessity is absolute—when starvation is the alternative to the use of land, then does the ownership of men involved in the ownership of land become absolute.

When that need is absolute, and starvation is the alternative to using land, the ownership of men that goes with ownership of land becomes absolute too.

Place one hundred men on an island from which there is no escape, and whether you make one of these men the absolute owner of the other ninety-nine, or the absolute owner of the soil of the island, will make no difference either to him or to them.

Place one hundred men on an island they cannot leave. It makes no difference, whether one man becomes the absolute owner of the other ninety-nine or the absolute owner of the island's soil.

In the one case, as the other, the one will be the absolute master of the ninety-nine—his power extending even to life and death, for simply to refuse them permission to live upon the island would be to force them into the sea.

Either way, he is the absolute master of the ninety-nine. His power extends even to life and death, for simply refusing them permission to live on the island would force them into the sea.

Upon a larger scale, and through more complex relations, the same cause must operate in the same way and to the same end—the ultimate result, the enslavement of laborers, becoming apparent just as the pressure increases which compels them to live on and from land which is treated as the exclusive property of others. Take a country in which the soil is divided among a number of346 proprietors, instead of being in the hands of one, and in which, as in modern production, the capitalist has been specialized from the laborer, and manufactures and exchange, in all their many branches, have been separated from agriculture. Though less direct and obvious, the relations between the owners of the soil and the laborers will, with increase of population and the improvement of the arts, tend to the same absolute mastery on the one hand and the same abject helplessness on the other, as in the case of the island we have supposed. Rent will advance, while wages will fall. Of the aggregate produce, the land owner will get a constantly increasing, the laborer a constantly diminishing share. Just as removal to cheaper land becomes difficult or impossible, laborers, no matter what they produce, will be reduced to a bare living, and the free competition among them, where land is monopolized, will force them to a condition which, though they may be mocked with the titles and insignia of freedom, will be virtually that of slavery.

On a larger scale and through more complex relations, the same cause works the same way to the same end. The enslavement of laborers becomes apparent as the pressure grows that forces them to live on and from land treated as the exclusive property of others. Take a country where the soil is divided among a number of346 proprietors instead of belonging to one. As in modern production, the capitalist has become distinct from the laborer, and manufactures and exchange have separated from agriculture. Here the relations between owners of the soil and laborers are less direct and obvious. Still, as population increases and the arts improve, they will tend to the same absolute mastery on one side and abject helplessness on the other, as on our island. Rent will advance while wages fall. Of the total produce, the land owner will get a constantly growing share and the laborer a constantly shrinking one. Once moving to cheaper land becomes difficult or impossible, laborers will be reduced to a bare living, no matter what they produce. Free competition among them, where land is monopolized, will force them into virtual slavery, though they may be mocked with the titles and insignia of freedom.

There is nothing strange in the fact that, in spite of the enormous increase in productive power which this century has witnessed, and which is still going on, the wages of labor in the lower and wider strata of industry should everywhere tend to the wages of slavery—just enough to keep the laborer in working condition. For the ownership of the land on which and from which a man must live is virtually the ownership of the man himself, and in acknowledging the right of some individuals to the exclusive use and enjoyment of the earth, we condemn other individuals to slavery as fully and as completely as though we had formally made them chattels.

It is not strange that wages in the lower and wider strata of industry tend everywhere to the wages of slavery, just enough to keep the laborer in working condition. This holds despite the enormous increase in productive power that this century has seen and that is still going on. Owning the land on which and from which a man must live is virtually owning the man himself. In acknowledging the right of some individuals to the exclusive use of the earth, we condemn other individuals to slavery as fully as if we had formally made them chattels.

In a simpler form of society, where production chiefly consists in the direct application of labor to the soil, the slavery that is the necessary result of according to some the exclusive right to the soil from which all must live, is plainly seen in helotism, in villeinage, in serfdom.

In a simpler society, where production mostly means applying labor directly to the soil, the slavery that follows from giving some the exclusive right to the soil appears plainly in helotism, villeinage and serfdom.

Chattel slavery originated in the capture of prisoners in war, and, though it has existed to some extent in every part of the globe, its area has been small, its effects trivial, as compared with the forms of slavery which have originated in the appropriation of land. No people as a mass have ever been reduced to chattel slavery to men of their own race, nor yet on any large scale has any people ever been reduced to slavery of this kind by conquest. The general subjection of the many to the few, which we meet with wherever society has reached a certain development, has resulted from the appropriation of land as individual property. It is the ownership of the soil that everywhere gives the ownership of the men that live upon it. It is slavery of this kind to which the enduring pyramids and the colossal monuments of Egypt yet bear witness, and of the institution of which we have, perhaps, a vague tradition in the biblical story of the famine during which the Pharaoh purchased up the lands of the people. It was slavery of this kind to which, in the twilight of history, the conquerors of Greece reduced the original inhabitants of that peninsula, transforming them into helots by making them pay rent for their lands. It was the growth of the latifundia, or great landed estates, which transmuted the population of ancient Italy, from a race of hardy husbandmen, whose robust virtues conquered the world, into a race of cringing bondsmen; it was the appropriation of the land as the absolute property of their chieftains which gradually turned the descendants of free and equal Gallic, Teutonic and Hunnish warriors into colonii and villains, and which changed the independent burghers of Sclavonic village communities into the boors of Russia and the serfs of Poland; which instituted the feudalism of China and Japan, as well as that of Europe, and which made the High Chiefs of Polynesia the all but absolute masters of their fellows. How it came to pass that the Aryan shepherds and warriors348 who, as comparative philology tells us, descended from the common birthplace of the Indo-Germanic race into the lowlands of India, were turned into the suppliant and cringing Hindoo, the Sanscrit verse which I have before quoted gives us a hint. The white parasols and the elephants mad with pride of the Indian Rajah are the flowers of grants of land. And could we find the key to the records of the long-buried civilizations that lie entombed in the gigantic ruins of Yucatan and Guatemala, telling at once of the pride of a ruling class and the unrequited toil to which the masses were condemned, we should read, in all human probability, of a slavery imposed upon the great body of the people through the appropriation of the land as the property of a few—of another illustration of the universal truth that they who possess the land are masters of the men who dwell upon it.

Chattel slavery began with the capture of prisoners in war. It has existed to some extent in every part of the globe. But its area has been small and its effects trivial compared with the forms of slavery that began in the appropriation of land. No people as a mass has ever been reduced to chattel slavery by men of their own race. Nor has conquest reduced any people to it on a large scale. The general subjection of the many to the few, found wherever society has reached a certain development, has resulted from appropriating land as individual property. Ownership of the soil everywhere gives ownership of the men who live on it. The enduring pyramids and colossal monuments of Egypt still bear witness to slavery of this kind. We have perhaps a vague tradition of its beginning in the biblical story of the famine in which Pharaoh bought up the lands of the people. In the twilight of history, the conquerors of Greece reduced the original inhabitants to this slavery. They made them helots by making them pay rent for their lands. The growth of the latifundia, or great landed estates, turned the population of ancient Italy from hardy husbandmen, whose robust virtues conquered the world, into cringing bondsmen. Chieftains appropriated the land as their absolute property. That gradually turned the descendants of free and equal Gallic, Teutonic and Hunnish warriors into colonii and villains. It changed the independent burghers of Sclavonic village communities into the boors of Russia and the serfs of Poland. It set up the feudalism of China and Japan as well as that of Europe. It made the High Chiefs of Polynesia the all but absolute masters of their fellows. How did the Aryan shepherds and warriors348 who, as comparative philology tells us, came down from the common birthplace of the Indo-Germanic race into the lowlands of India become the suppliant, cringing Hindu? The Sanscrit verse I quoted earlier gives us a hint. The white parasols and elephants mad with pride of the Indian Rajah are the flowers of grants of land. Suppose we could read the records of the long-buried civilizations entombed in the gigantic ruins of Yucatan and Guatemala. They tell of a ruling class's pride and the unrequited toil that condemned the masses. In all human probability we should read of slavery imposed on the great body of the people by appropriating the land as the property of a few. It would be another illustration of the universal truth that those who possess the land are masters of the men who dwell on it.

The necessary relation between labor and land, the absolute power which the ownership of land gives over men who cannot live but by using it, explains what is otherwise inexplicable—the growth and persistence of institutions, manners, and ideas so utterly repugnant to the natural sense of liberty and equality.

The necessary relation between labor and land, and the absolute power that owning land gives over men who can live only by using it, explains what would otherwise be inexplicable. It explains the growth and persistence of institutions, manners and ideas utterly repugnant to the natural sense of liberty and equality.

When the idea of individual ownership, which so justly and naturally attaches to things of human production, is extended to land, all the rest is a mere matter of development. The strongest and most cunning easily acquire a superior share in this species of property, which is to be had, not by production, but by appropriation, and in becoming lords of the land they become necessarily lords of their fellow-men. The ownership of land is the basis of aristocracy. It was not nobility that gave land, but the possession of land that gave nobility. All the enormous privileges of the nobility of medieval Europe flowed from their position as the owners of the soil. The simple principle of the ownership of the soil produced, on the one side, the lord, on the other, the vassal—the one hav349ing all rights, the other none. The right of the lord to the soil acknowledged and maintained, those who lived upon it could do so only upon his terms. The manners and conditions of the times made those terms include services and servitudes, as well as rents in produce or money, but the essential thing that compelled them was the ownership of land. This power exists wherever the ownership of land exists, and can be brought out wherever the competition for the use of land is great enough to enable the landlord to make his own terms. The English land owner of to-day has, in the law which recognizes his exclusive right to the land, essentially all the power which his predecessor the feudal baron had. He might command rent in services or servitudes. He might compel his tenants to dress themselves in a particular way, to profess a particular religion, to send their children to a particular school, to submit their differences to his decision, to fall upon their knees when he spoke to them, to follow him around dressed in his livery, or to sacrifice to him female honor, if they would prefer these things to being driven off his land. He could demand, in short, any terms on which men would still consent to live on his land, and the law could not prevent him so long as it did not qualify his ownership, for compliance with them would assume the form of a free contract or voluntary act. And English landlords do exercise such of these powers as in the manners of the times they care to. Having shaken off the obligation of providing for the defense of the country, they no longer need the military service of their tenants, and the possession of wealth and power being now shown in other ways than by long trains of attendants, they no longer care for personal service. But they habitually control the votes of their tenants, and dictate to them in many little ways. That “right reverend father in God,” Bishop Lord Plunkett, evicted a number of his poor Irish tenants because they would not send350 their children to Protestant Sunday-schools; and to that Earl of Leitrim for whom Nemesis tarried so long before she sped the bullet of an assassin, even darker crimes are imputed; while, at the cold promptings of greed, cottage after cottage has been pulled down and family after family forced into the roads. The principle that permits this is the same principle that in ruder times and a simpler social state enthralled the great masses of the common people and placed such a wide gulf between noble and peasant. Where the peasant was made a serf, it was simply by forbidding him to leave the estate on which he was born, thus artificially producing the condition we supposed on the island. In sparsely settled countries this is necessary to produce absolute slavery, but where land is fully occupied, competition may produce substantially the same conditions. Between the condition of the rack-rented Irish peasant and the Russian serf, the advantage was in many things on the side of the serf. The serf did not starve.

Individual ownership attaches justly and naturally to things of human production. Extend that idea to land, and all the rest is a matter of development. The strongest and most cunning easily acquire a superior share of this kind of property, which comes not by production but by appropriation. In becoming lords of the land they necessarily become lords of their fellow-men. Ownership of land is the basis of aristocracy. Nobility did not give land. Possession of land gave nobility. All the enormous privileges of the nobility of medieval Europe flowed from their position as owners of the soil. The simple principle of ownership of the soil produced the lord on one side and the vassal on the other, the one having349 all rights and the other none. Once the lord's right to the soil was maintained, those who lived on it could do so only on his terms. The manners of the times made those terms include services and servitudes as well as rents in produce or money. But ownership of land compelled them. This power exists wherever land is owned, and it comes out wherever competition for land is great enough to let the landlord make his own terms. The English land owner of today has, in the law that recognizes his exclusive right to the land, essentially all the power of his predecessor the feudal baron. He might command rent in services or servitudes. He might compel his tenants to dress a certain way, profess a certain religion, send their children to a certain school, or submit their differences to his decision. He might make them fall on their knees when he spoke to them, follow him around in his livery, or sacrifice female honor to him, if they preferred these things to being driven off his land. In short, he could demand any terms on which men would still consent to live on his land. As long as the law did not qualify his ownership, it could not stop him, because compliance would take the form of a free contract. And English landlords do exercise such of these powers as the manners of the times let them care to. They have shaken off the obligation to provide for the country's defense, so they no longer need their tenants' military service. Wealth and power now show in other ways than long trains of attendants, so they no longer care for personal service. But they habitually control their tenants' votes and dictate to them in many little ways. That “right reverend father in God,” Bishop Lord Plunkett, evicted a number of his poor Irish tenants because they would not send350 their children to Protestant Sunday-schools. The Earl of Leitrim, for whom Nemesis tarried so long before she sped the bullet of an assassin, is charged with even darker crimes. At the cold prompting of greed, cottage after cottage has been pulled down and family after family forced into the roads. The principle that permits this is the same one that enthralled the great masses of common people in ruder times and put such a wide gulf between noble and peasant. Where the peasant was made a serf, it was simply by forbidding him to leave the estate where he was born. That artificially produced the condition we supposed on the island. In sparsely settled countries this is necessary to produce absolute slavery. Where land is fully occupied, competition may produce substantially the same conditions. Between the rack-rented Irish peasant and the Russian serf, the advantage was in many things on the side of the serf. The serf did not starve.

Now, as I think I have conclusively proved, it is the same cause which has in every age degraded and enslaved the laboring masses that is working in the civilized world to-day. Personal liberty—that is to say, the liberty to move about—is everywhere conceded, while of political and legal inequality there are in the United States no vestiges, and in the most backward civilized countries but few. But the great cause of inequality remains, and is manifesting itself in the unequal distribution of wealth. The essence of slavery is that it takes from the laborer all he produces save enough to support an animal existence, and to this minimum the wages of free labor, under existing conditions, unmistakably tend. Whatever be the increase of productive power, rent steadily tends to swallow up the gain, and more than the gain.

As I think I have conclusively proved, the same cause that has degraded and enslaved the laboring masses in every age is working in the civilized world today. Personal liberty, the liberty to move about, is conceded everywhere. Political and legal inequality has no vestiges in the United States and few in the most backward civilized countries. But the great cause of inequality remains, and it shows itself in the unequal distribution of wealth. The essence of slavery is that it takes from the laborer all he produces except enough to support an animal existence. Under existing conditions the wages of free labor unmistakably tend to this minimum. Whatever the increase of productive power, rent steadily tends to swallow up the gain, and more than the gain.

Thus the condition of the masses in every civilized country is, or is tending to become, that of virtual slavery under the forms of freedom. And it is probable that of all kinds of slavery this is the most cruel and relentless. For the laborer is robbed of the produce of his labor and compelled to toil for a mere subsistence; but his taskmasters, instead of human beings, assume the form of imperious necessities. Those to whom his labor is rendered and from whom his wages are received are often driven in their turn—contact between the laborers and the ultimate beneficiaries of their labor is sundered, and individuality is lost. The direct responsibility of master to slave, a responsibility which exercises a softening influence upon the great majority of men, does not arise; it is not one human being who seems to drive another to unremitting and ill-requited toil, but “the inevitable laws of supply and demand,” for which no one in particular is responsible. The maxims of Cato the Censor—maxims which were regarded with abhorrence even in an age of cruelty and universal slave-holding—that after as much work as possible is obtained from a slave he should be turned out to die, become the common rule; and even the selfish interest which prompts the master to look after the comfort and well-being of the slave is lost. Labor has become a commodity, and the laborer a machine. There are no masters and slaves, no owners and owned, but only buyers and sellers. The higgling of the market takes the place of every other sentiment.

So the condition of the masses in every civilized country is, or is tending to become, virtual slavery under the forms of freedom. Of all kinds of slavery, this is probably the most cruel and relentless. The laborer is robbed of the produce of his labor and compelled to toil for mere subsistence. But his taskmasters are not human beings. They take the form of imperious necessities. Those to whom his labor is rendered and from whom his wages come are often driven in their turn. Contact between laborers and the ultimate beneficiaries of their labor is cut off, and individuality is lost. The direct responsibility of master to slave, which softens the great majority of men, does not arise. No human being seems to drive another to unremitting and ill-requited toil. It is “the inevitable laws of supply and demand,” for which no one in particular is responsible. Cato the Censor held that after as much work as possible has been got out of a slave, he should be turned out to die. Even in an age of cruelty and universal slave-holding, people regarded this maxim with abhorrence. Now it becomes the common rule. Even the selfish interest that prompts a master to look after his slave's comfort and well-being is lost. Labor has become a commodity, and the laborer a machine. There are no masters and slaves, no owners and owned, only buyers and sellers. The higgling of the market takes the place of every other sentiment.

When the slaveholders of the South looked upon the condition of the free laboring poor in the most advanced civilized countries, it is no wonder that they easily persuaded themselves of the divine institution of slavery. That the field hands of the South were as a class better fed, better lodged, better clothed; that they had less anxi352ety and more of the amusements and enjoyments of life than the agricultural laborers of England there can be no doubt; and even in the Northern cities, visiting slaveholders might see and hear of things impossible under what they called their organization of labor. In the Southern States, during the days of slavery, the master who would have compelled his negroes to work and live as large classes of free white men and women are compelled in free countries to work and live, would have been deemed infamous, and if public opinion had not restrained him, his own selfish interest in the maintenance of the health and strength of his chattels would. But in London, New York, and Boston, among people who have given, and would give again, money and blood to free the slave, where no one could abuse a beast in public without arrest and punishment, barefooted and ragged children may be seen running around the streets even in the winter time, and in squalid garrets and noisome cellars women work away their lives for wages that fail to keep them in proper warmth and nourishment. Is it any wonder that to the slaveholders of the South the demand for the abolition of slavery seemed like the cant of hypocrisy?

The slaveholders of the South looked at the free laboring poor in the most advanced civilized countries, and it is no wonder they easily persuaded themselves that slavery was a divine institution. The field hands of the South, as a class, were undoubtedly better fed, lodged and clothed than the agricultural laborers of England. They had less anxiety352 and more of the amusements and enjoyments of life. Even in the Northern cities, visiting slaveholders might see and hear of things impossible under what they called their organization of labor. In the Southern States in the days of slavery, a master who made his slaves work and live as large classes of free white men and women do in free countries would have been deemed infamous. If public opinion had not restrained him, his own selfish interest in the health and strength of his chattels would have. But in London, New York and Boston, people have given, and would give again, money and blood to free the slave. No one there could abuse a beast in public without arrest and punishment. Yet barefooted and ragged children run around the streets even in winter. In squalid garrets and noisome cellars, women work away their lives for wages that fail to keep them properly warm and fed. Is it any wonder that to the slaveholders of the South the demand to abolish slavery seemed like the cant of hypocrisy?

And now that slavery has been abolished, the planters of the South find they have sustained no loss. Their ownership of the land upon which the freedmen must live gives them practically as much command of labor as before, while they are relieved of responsibility, sometimes very expensive. The negroes as yet have the alternative of emigrating, and a great movement of that kind seems now about commencing, but as population increases and land becomes dear, the planters will get a greater proportionate share of the earnings of their laborers than they did under the system of chattel slavery, and the laborers a less share—for under the system of chattel slavery the slaves always got at least enough to keep them in good353 physical health, but in such countries as England there are large classes of laborers who do not get that.48

Now that slavery has been abolished, the planters of the South find they have sustained no loss. Their ownership of the land on which the freedmen must live gives them practically as much command of labor as before. It also relieves them of responsibility that was sometimes very expensive. The freedmen as yet have the alternative of emigrating, and a great movement of that kind seems about to begin. But as population increases and land becomes dear, the planters will get a greater proportionate share of their laborers' earnings than under chattel slavery, and the laborers a smaller share. Under chattel slavery the slaves always got at least enough to keep them in good353 physical health. In countries such as England there are large classes of laborers who do not get that.48

The influences which, wherever there is personal relation between master and slave, slip in to modify chattel slavery, and to prevent the master from exerting to its fullest extent his power over the slave, also showed themselves in the ruder forms of serfdom that characterized the earlier periods of European development, and aided by religion, and, perhaps, as in chattel slavery, by the more enlightened but still selfish interests of the lord, and hardening into custom, universally fixed a limit to what the owner of the land could extort from the serf or peasant, so that the competition of men without means of existence bidding against each other for access to the means of existence, was nowhere suffered to go to its full length and exert its full power of deprivation and degradation. The helots of Greece, the métayers of Italy, the serfs of Russia and Poland, the peasants of feudal Europe, rendered to their landlords a fixed proportion either of their produce or their labor, and were not generally squeezed past that point. But the influences which thus stepped in to modify the extortive power of land ownership, and which may still be seen on English estates where the landlord and his family deem it their duty to send medicines and comforts to the sick and infirm, and to look after the well-being of their cottagers, just as the Southern planter was accustomed to look after his negroes, are lost in the more refined and less obvious form which serfdom assumes in the more complicated processes of modern production, which separates so354 widely and by so many intermediate gradations the individual whose labor is appropriated from him who appropriates it, and makes the relations between the members of the two classes not direct and particular, but indirect and general. In modern society, competition has free play to force from the laborer the very utmost he can give, and with what terrific force it is acting may be seen in the condition of the lowest class in the centers of wealth and industry. That the condition of this lowest class is not yet more general, is to be attributed to the great extent of fertile land which has hitherto been open on this continent, and which has not merely afforded an escape for the increasing population of the older sections of the Union, but has greatly relieved the pressure in Europe—in one country, Ireland, the emigration having been so great as actually to reduce the population. This avenue of relief cannot last forever. It is already fast closing up, and as it closes, the pressure must become harder and harder.

Wherever master and slave have a personal relation, influences slip in that modify chattel slavery and keep the master from using his power over the slave to the fullest. The same influences showed themselves in the ruder serfdom of earlier European development. Religion helped them, and perhaps, as in chattel slavery, so did the more enlightened but still selfish interests of the lord. They hardened into custom and set a universal limit to what the owner of the land could extort from the serf or peasant. So men without means of existence, bidding against each other for access to it, were nowhere allowed to compete to the full and exert the full power of deprivation and degradation. The helots of Greece, the métayers of Italy, the serfs of Russia and Poland and the peasants of feudal Europe gave their landlords a fixed proportion of their produce or labor. They were not generally squeezed further. But serfdom takes a more refined and less obvious form in the more complicated processes of modern production, and these influences are lost. Modern production separates so354 widely, and by so many intermediate gradations, the individual whose labor is appropriated from the one who appropriates it. The relations between the two classes become indirect and general, not direct and particular. We can still see such influences on English estates, where the landlord and his family think it their duty to send medicines and comforts to the sick and look after their cottagers, as the Southern planter looked after his slaves. But in modern society competition has free play to force from the laborer the very utmost he can give. The condition of the lowest class in the centers of wealth and industry shows with what terrific force it acts. That this condition is not yet more general is due to the great extent of fertile land open so far on this continent. It has offered an escape to the growing population of the older sections of the Union, and it has greatly relieved the pressure in Europe. In one country, Ireland, emigration has been so great as actually to reduce the population. This avenue of relief cannot last forever. It is already fast closing up, and as it closes the pressure must grow harder and harder.

It is not without reason that the wise crow in the Ramayana, the crow Bushanda, “who has lived in every part of the universe and knows all events from the beginnings of time,” declares that, though contempt of worldly advantages is necessary to supreme felicity, yet the keenest pain possible is inflicted by extreme poverty. The poverty to which in advancing civilization great masses of men are condemned, is not the freedom from distraction and temptation which sages have sought and philosophers have praised; it is a degrading and embruting slavery, that cramps the higher nature, dulls the finer feelings, and drives men by its pain to acts which the brutes would refuse. It is into this helpless, hopeless poverty, that crushes manhood and destroys womanhood, that robs even childhood of its innocence and joy, that the working classes are being driven by a force which acts upon them like a resistless and unpitying machine. The355 Boston collar manufacturer who pays his girls two cents an hour may commiserate their condition, but he, as they, is governed by the law of competition, and cannot pay more and carry on his business, for exchange is not governed by sentiment. And so, through all intermediate gradations, up to those who receive the earnings of labor without return, in the rent of land, it is the inexorable laws of supply and demand, a power with which the individual can no more quarrel or dispute than with the winds and the tides, that seem to press down the lower classes into the slavery of want.

It is not without reason that the wise crow of the Ramayana, the crow Bushanda, “who has lived in every part of the universe and knows all events from the beginnings of time,” declares that contempt of worldly advantages is necessary to supreme felicity. Yet extreme poverty, he says, inflicts the keenest pain possible. The poverty to which great masses of men are condemned in advancing civilization is not the freedom from distraction and temptation that sages have sought and philosophers have praised. It is a degrading and embruting slavery. It cramps the higher nature, dulls the finer feelings, and drives men by its pain to acts that brutes would refuse. The working classes are being driven into this helpless, hopeless poverty, which crushes manhood, destroys womanhood and robs even childhood of its innocence and joy. A force acts on them like a resistless and unpitying machine. The355 Boston collar manufacturer who pays his girls two cents an hour may pity their condition. But he, like them, is governed by the law of competition. He cannot pay more and carry on his business, for exchange is not governed by sentiment. So it goes through all the intermediate gradations, up to those who receive the earnings of labor without return, in the rent of land. The inexorable laws of supply and demand seem to press the lower classes down into the slavery of want. The individual can no more quarrel with them than with the winds and the tides.

But in reality, the cause is that which always has and always must result in slavery—the monopolization by some of what nature has designed for all.

But in reality the cause is the one that always has resulted and always must result in slavery: the monopolization by some of what nature has designed for all.

Our boasted freedom necessarily involves slavery, so long as we recognize private property in land. Until that is abolished, Declarations of Independence and Acts of Emancipation are in vain. So long as one man can claim the exclusive ownership of the land from which other men must live, slavery will exist, and as material progress goes on, must grow and deepen!

Our boasted freedom necessarily involves slavery as long as we recognize private property in land. Until that is abolished, Declarations of Independence and Acts of Emancipation are in vain. While one man can claim exclusive ownership of the land other men must live from, slavery will exist, and as material progress goes on it must grow and deepen!

This—and in previous chapters of this book we have traced the process, step by step—is what is going on in the civilized world to-day. Private ownership of land is the nether millstone. Material progress is the upper millstone. Between them, with an increasing pressure, the working classes are being ground.

This is what is going on in the civilized world today, and in previous chapters of this book we have traced the process step by step. Private ownership of land is the nether millstone. Material progress is the upper millstone. Between them, with increasing pressure, the working classes are being ground.