💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › freedom-press-london-letters-between-workmen.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 10:18:31. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Letters Between Workmen Author: Freedom Press (London) Date: September, 1889 Language: en Source: Freedom: A Journal of Anarchist Socialism Vol. 3, No. 34, online source http://www.revoltlib.com/?id=3039, retrieved on April 12, 2020.
Front W. C. to J. B.
DEAR JACK,-You're about right; I do not see how you're going to got rid
of landlords and employers of labor. First of all, if they weren't there
how should we got any work to do or any wages for it I And second, they
are there and wont clear off for our pleasure. Why they are rich by law;
a lot of thorn are swindlers and such, but they've kept the right side
of the law somehow, and I'd have the law made a bit plainer and tighter
so that the scoundrels should not be able to play tricks. As far as I
see, its less stealing not more stealing we want, and yet as far as I
can make out your Communism, you would have stealing allowed. Why every
one would be grabbing everything from every one else if there was no law
against stealing. If a law was passed to make us all equal to-day we
should be unequal to-morrow. And for my part I can't see the unfairness
of that. You said in your first letter that if every one had a fair
chance of a choice of work there is not so much difference in ability
between men. Perhaps not; but there's an awful lot of difference in
"go", in the amount of grip a man has over things and in the amount he
can get out of them for himself. If the law gave every man a chance, I
can't see but that he ought to got and to keep all he can, or that it's
fair to expect him to share it with all the ne'er do-weels. Government
can do almost anything, but I don't think that it'll ever make
Englishmen see the fairness of that. It's all very fine to talk about
lying under the trees and listening to the birds, like your Alphonse
Kerr; but if he had wanted to build himself a house of the timber and
eat the game for supper, be and the Marquis might have had some bones to
pick before they could settle who was to have the use of the forest.
Altogether I am in a complete fog.
-Yours, confusedly,
WILL.
From J. B. to W. C.
DEAR WILLIAM,-You seem to have an idea that the capitalist exercises
some useful function in society, that he really confers some benefit
upon us in return for the wealth he squanders. This is a delusion.
Employers of labor, landlords, lawyers and their kind, are nothing more
nor less than parasites-they live upon you and I and the other working
human beings. At present you have to have an employer because you are
denied by law the opportunity of employing yourself. Look at the vast
number of uncultivated acres of land there are in this our birth
country, which might be made to yield food in abundance for all those
who require it if they were allowed to labor upon it. Look at the vast
stores of mineral wealth which might be worked, if required. Evidently
there is at any rate a profusion of raw material, and we owe this to
nature not to the capitalist. But we cannot get at it because of private
property or rather monopoly. If we wish to cultivate the earth we are
met by the landowner who claims the land in virtue of some musty title
deeds backed up by Acts of Parliament which his ancestors have framed
and adopted after a great deal of imposing procedure meant to awe the
simple-minded. And on this rotten foundation the whole system of fraud
which we call civilization is built up. The capitalist's recognize the
legal right of the landlords to own the raw material, land, so as to
work with them in robbing the real producer of the wealth the whole pack
of thieves consume.
I think you will now admit that the raw material-land, minerals,
etc.-from which everything is made, belongs in an exclusive sense to
nobody, seeing that it is the production of nature and not of man. And I
am sure neither you nor anyone else can give me any good reason why this
raw material should be monopolized by a few. Evidently it is the
property of all alike, and you and I are from every point of view
entitled to the use of so much of it as will satisfy our needs.
But the law which you admire so much is the support of the unjust
system. which prevents our gaining access to the raw material we need,
and which compels us instead to sell our labor at a competition price.
Have you ever considered how our wages are fixed? Perhaps you think
workmen are paid according to their ability, but this is not exactly the
case. The value of labor is chiefly determined by its scarcity, and
ability is only a secondary factor. Take as an example the shorthand
writer. Years ago the wages of shorthand writers were very high, far
above those of bricklayers, carpenters and compositors. But it does not
follow that because the ability to write shorthand was paid two, three,
or four times as much as the ability to lay bricks or set type, it was
therefore a superior ability. This is proved by the fact that now only
the very best shorthand writers can command a high price for their
services, and thousands who years ago would have got good salaries
cannot secure the income of an ordinary mechanic. Just think this over
and tell me whether you think a shorthand writer who got a high salary
some years ago was getting more than his due, or if you think he is
getting less than his due now that wages have fallen, supposing his
ability to be exactly the same now as then. The fact is you cannot tell
the distinct value of any individual's services, and therein lies the
-rest strength of Communism. Communism is just because it gives all men
equal opportunities, whereas Individualism is unjust because it tends to
give one man greater opportunities than another. As to the difference in
"go" among men that is chiefly due to the fact that some have bad
greater freedom of development than others. When a man's family for
generations have lived in a healthy place and a healthy way, cultivating
their minds and bodies; and when he himself, inheriting from them a
strong body and mind, is able to live as suits him, and to work as he
likes best, the chances are that he will have plenty of "go." And the
man who has plenty of energy is the man who can best enjoy life. He
enjoys work, he enjoys society, he makes everything round him ,,go" too.
If he has a fair chance he benefits his follows whilst he benefits
himself. There is no need that he should be rewarded by being allowed to
monopolize extra wealth as well. It is the people who have been
handicapped by nature or the cruelty and selfishness of their fellows
who need extra artificial aids to help them up to the level of the more
energetic members of society. If they get such brotherly aid they become
happy and useful citizens. If not, they become a curse, a dead weight on
society. And our present social arrangements tend to continually
increase the proportion of these feeble and ineffectual people, at the
very time when our knowledge of chemistry and mechanics ought to make it
easier every day to find varied and light work suited to all sorts of
capacities. Another argument in favor of Communism and Anarchy.
You want to make Law which is the support of all these evils and
inequalities stronger, whilst I want to abolish it altogether. And you
say that under Communism stealing would be allowed because there would
be no law against stealing. But to-day stealing is allowed because there
is a law in its favor. To-day stealing on a colossal scale goes on,
stealing which causes the mass of the human race to live in misery and
privation, and the abolition of law would mean the abolition of that
sort of stealing. Do you not call it stealing when every capitalist
takes from his workmen every day a great deal more than his equal share
of what they produce and yet very often he has not even put a finger
towards the work or given an hour to planning it?
The abolition of law would mean the disappearance of the policeman from
the street corner, the magistrate from the police court and the judge
from the bench, but it would also mean the practical cessation of crime,
because with it that poverty and degradation which is the main cause of
crime would disappear. If there were no law backed up by force, people
would doubtless refuse to pay rent, they would think they were quite
justified in helping themselves to the necessaries of life, and they
would work willingly enough to replace what they had consumed, but there
would be no injustice whatever in that.
You think a man ought to be able to get and to keep all he can. Very
good, but this law of to-day prevents all but a few getting very much.
If it was abolished and every man tried to take all he could with his
own individual strength, he would precious soon discover that he was by
no means capable of "licking creation," and that he was a very ordinary
individual. I am not at all disposed to force such an individual to be
sociable. Let him grab to his heart's content so long as he does not
interfere with others. Let him have his pound of flesh. But he must not
grumble if some there be who bind him to his bond and treat him as
Portia treated Shylock. I rather think that those who try Individualism
after the general liquidation of the Social Revolution, will soon tire
of it and its thousand and one illusive expedients to secure to each
individual exactly what he produces.
As you say the capitalists and landlords am there and wont clear off for
our pleasure. But the aristocrats in France thought, they were secure
enough in their position before '89, Yet they fell. And tomorrow maybe
the aristocrats of wealth will join them. The education of the people
proceeds rapidly. The respect for royalty, landlordism and capitalism is
being undermined day by day here as elsewhere, and although it is
impossible to say exactly when the people will resolve to act, it is
quite certain that before very long they will do so.
-Yours fraternally,
JACK.