Freeland tribune. (Freeland, Pa.) 1888-1921, 1892-11-14
MIXING THINGS UP.
THE OPEN ENEMY, THE HYPOCRITE
AND THE FOOL FRIEND.

More from the Latter Than from Either
of the Others-Terse Comment Upon
Some Recent Utterances.
1t is q hard matter to determine
whether the open antagonism of the
tools of capitalism or the hypocrisy
which vice pays to virtue or the blum
dering of fool friends is the greatest
stumbling block in the efforts toward
labor's emancipation. l am almost con-
vinced that either of the two last named
do more to prevent progress than the
former. The hypocrite in the pulpit,
the editorial chair or on the platform,
who pretends to be the friend of the
workingman, deludes him by advice
which has weight with the untutored
and unthinking because the cloven foot
is hidden behind an ambush of words
that on their face synpathize with ac-
knowledged grievances. The politician
not only admits that the workingman
has just cause for complaint, but he de-
nounces the enemy of our "bone and
sinew" in the strongest of terms. The
gudgeon sits open mouthed drinking in
the denunciation of his enemy and praise
of the worthiness of his own horny
handed self until, blinded by the dust
the willy trickster throws into his eyes,
he sees a Moses come to lead him out of
bondage. And the worst of it is he
comes up punctually in every political
campaign for his handful of eye dust.
Though he gets the dirt out of his eyes
regularly the morning after every cleo
ton, he becomes nuts for the himfam-
mer by the tine the next campaign
opens.
1t is only necessary for newspaper to
say word of praise of some labor or
ganization which for the moment may
be at peace with organized capital, or to
denounce some trust as illegal, for the
gullible workingman to be ready to
swallow yards of sophistry and to quiet
ly submit to ridicule of bottom principles
and infamous misrepresentation of the
claims and aims of the general move
ment. P. T. Barnum said the people
loved to be humbugged. What would
he have said had he been acquainted
with the modern workingman of Amer
lea? Not only does he love to be hum
bugged, but he seems to delight in being
skinned and hayed. If not, then why
has he so long suffered from ills that he
could remove if he would turn deaf
ear to the SIRENS song and work out his
own salvation?
These thoughts were induced by read
cd o1 bn
(O0 Press. The paper pretends to be
friendly to the cause of labor, and says
some good things in the article in ques-
ton; but one is inclined to the belief that
it is attempting the confidence game
dodge when one reads in the concluding
paragraphs about the Importance of the
tariff question. But let that pass out of
our minds and we will find that the best
that can be said of the writer of the ar
ticle is that he is one of the fool friends.
The way in which he mixes up truth and
fiction and error stamps him one whose
efforts, if successful, can result in only
sympathy for the workingman, who
wants not tears and aims, but justice.
AS the article in the Ohio paper is
very like many others that come under
the eyes of the reading workingmen, |
want to give it a little consideration and
see if | can point out wherein it does
the cause of labor harm, while ON its
face it reads like the expressions of
friendship. Take the following extract,
for instance:
Capital is labor stored away, and it is in
large part the accumulation of those who are
dead There should not exist, nor does there
exist natural hostility between the rich and
the poor. Whatever hostility exists is brought
about by designing persons, who hope for some
selfish advantage by the strife.
The definition of capital is nearer cor
rect than what is usually given by the
newspaper editor, but why confuse it by
changing the terms capital and labor to
rich and poor, as is done in the next
sentence? There can be no hostility,
natural or otherwise, between labor and
capital, but when capital becomes the
rich and labor the poor the case is diff
ferent. There is natural antagonism
between the laborer and the capitalist
so long as they are two distinct classes.
And there is a natural hostility between
s'NS &'S'A eAAAA ChV PoOi' ~ uOCS ilO SOOu
to attempt to disguise this fact it is too
apparent. 1t must be admitted, and the
only point open to discussion in connec-
ton Herewith is whether the hostility
is natural or not.
Now / claim it is. If the natural
condition of unity between labor and
capital were not perverted by system
which makes two classes of the laborer
and capitalist, there would not be the
distinctly rich and the distinctly poor
Hence it seems to me natural that a re-
suit of the capitalist system which places
the "labor stored away" in the hands of
one class-that is, gives to employers all
the surplus of production-and allows
to the actual producer only barely
enough to keep him in condition to pro-
duce, must necessarily create antago-
nisms between the two. AS the laborer
becomes more intelligent he sees more
clearly the injustice of such system,
and while he realizes that the rich are
becOminp richer off of the res1ltS Of bio