The Labor enquirer., 1886-07-17
Paupers or Communistsf

Paupers or Communistsf
For the ENQUIRER.
What is pauDer? The common def
milton is: One wlo subsists upon the
wealth Of a community. This precisely
fits the landlord. The value of his land
is created entirely by the people around.
If the value of his houses is half the
whole of his real estate" he is still half
a pau Jer. But as his tenements were
built chiefly by money which represents
an increase of land values, he is a COM
plete pauper.
He is also a communist. The same
definition applies to the Communist and
the pauper with the distinction, that one
has subsistence as charity, while the
other, claims it as his right rega dless of
ability or willingness to produce wealth.
Yet the landlord, the boss pauper and
communist, despises his fellow paupers,
and reviles alleged communists who
work to pay rent.
Sometimes it Is attempted to show a
distinction between resident pauper
and an alien pauper in the ranks of
those benefc;aries called landlords, the
claim being that the latter are a detrl-
ment, but the former a blessing of some
sort. The objection to the alien pauper
is that he sheds his blessings abroad in
stead of at home.
But figures will not lie in this case.
After paw over value as rent, l can
not get it again without paying for 1t.
Yet in some sane minds we find the
idea that after tenant gives up part
of his crop, the landlord is doing him
favor by buving the remainder, giving
as payment the part previously paid
over as rent.
Let the tyrannlcal pauper take his
rent to the city and give it for wine and
women; it is all the same to the tenant.
Suppose he lives near his tenants and
stores away all the rent except a COM
mon living 1t would b, the same as
though he spent it abroad, and his sub
sistence is dead weight to his tenants
If be will only spend it at home for luxu-
ries he will be jolly good fellow, yet all
the ice cream, makers, livery men, or
other luxury producers, will be still
more dead weights for the tenants. In
other words, the tenants produce the
luxuries and iders enjoy them, whether
they be alien or not.
While nabobs condemn the conmu-
nism that they practice, they share with
all society, many purely communistic
institutions, and approve of them. In
surance of any kind is communism.
Charity is a communism greatly to be
admired when you are on the respecta
BILE side of the deal. Highways, streets,
bridges, parks, street lights, and other
things are purely communistic. They
are proofs of collectivism and the neces
sty for organized society; they prove
Communism a true principle. Houses
gardens, horses, carriages, animals, pets,
personal adornment, furniture and
books, are individualstic, and are prop,
erly deemed private property, and prove
| indivldualism true principle.
Individualism is he only clear detnl'
ton for Anarchy. If IN the discussion
of Anarchy, debaters will recognize the
obvious differences between public and
private property, their definitions will
show more exactness. That mo ruler
ship"is different from against ruler
ship" seems a useless distinction. The
latter means opposition to despot
hence if against rulership" means An
archY, there must always exist despo
to be antagonized. When he is DESTROYED
Anarchy also ceases to exist because op
position ceases NO rulership" is cor
rect. ZENo.