Hartford labor., 1894-10-20
SANIAL VS. PATTERSON.
Concluded from 1st page. ]

of labor you employ your time. Your criticism of my remark, that our present environments are totally different from
 those of the old Greek philosophers, is not well taken;
 For I Referred to EEthe Times,''
 which included all classes, and not simply
 any particular or ruling class as you
 suggest and certainly the change of en- vironment has been the same to one class as 1t has to another. Your quotation from Mill, that ''it is questionable if have frightened the days toll of any
 human being,' is not at all in accord with the facts under our observation.
 Karl Marx is Also Quite Wrong
 in saying that machinery has greatly
 increased the number of well-to-do- idlers." The "idle'' kill time just we'll without machinery as he can with it; therefore machinery is in no sense whatever factor of idleness;-but the idler with machine is double loss of time. Plato's thought, in the construc- ton of his ideal republic, that slavery will be preserved" was consistent with his idea of the necessities of his own time; but he doubtless had the magical glass; in his hand when he said that
 Which Is the Slavery of Freemen, will fall in the fire, which is the tyran- ny of slaves.'' Your next suggestion is that "the whole purpose of modern gov ernment, under the control of a so-called better class is to vest in the individuals of that class a right to the forces of na- ture" as permanent private property, the monstrous assumption that. in bene- fitting himself, every individual capitalist would benefit society at large, by the conditions of enormous wealth, unlimited capacity of production, vast knowledge, extreme poverty, enforced idleness and class ignorance
 My Reply to This Is.
 First, as a question of fact, there is no such purpose in any modern govern ment on the face of. the earth. Second, it is true that every individual who benefits himself benefits society at large, and it is not true that wealth, capacity of produc- tion, or vast knowledge. are the factors of poverty, idleness and ignorance. Be- cause one man has wealth, it does not follow that another shall have poverty; one mans industry is not The Cause of Another Mans Idle
 ness; neither is knowledge the cause of ignor- ancaE All tF1eSa copdifiops ara tha livinr contrasts of human life and human char acter, and the remedy is not to be found in a1sx change of government. How. or when, or where, you find that ssperversion | of democracy to the ends of p7utocracy, through which all the factors of civiliza- ton are turned into instruments of phys | caI decay, mental degradation and moral l turpitude," unless it be in the develop | nents of the Lexow Committee, is beyond | What you mean by
 "Anarchdsts of the Upper Crust, who deny the right of government to do l aught but protect themselves by force, in | heir privileges and plunder,'' you have 1 rot explained. If we accept your deffni- | ion that society means "the whole people as corporate body,' with the | upper crust anarchists and the under rust anarchists as parts of the same ,ody, at war with each other then what To you mean by "*the society," which will step in and put an end to the conflict by establishing cooperative common--l vealth?'' Where will your society get
 The Power to Panish and Reform hese bomb-throwfEEg anarchists; and corr- ert them into good and loyal citizensgl Who will be the ministers of the law tU, djudge, reward ang punish? IF you say hat there will be no anarchists in thei lie, which has neither an upper crust noFf n under crust, it will be (to borrow fro1n'l otatoes, That We May Have "No Fotato,
 BuEs."
 Adam Smith was a full century behind he time when he riihculed the patronage 7hch tfre wealthy class bestowed upom he pocr, and it is quite wrong to2say thHt ertain workers are Benefited byTsach pat onage at the expense of other workers ,n the contrary, it is the so-caIled wor rs wh@ have the natural monopoly of all he luxuries and extravagances@ of the ich mans life; and unless tlaea weaNhy re permitted to buy them from the work rs, and the workers are permitted tcs sell hem to the rich,
 Then the Workers WIFE Suffer, while the rich man will get along very yell with smaller supply of luNury, and ave his money. In that event we can understand why tae rich wiI be, growing ichsr and the peer will be growing poor r'' until the tacetious '1nerrsment of | ocsRty'' will have ''reachesI it's climax" nG the ''humor of it'' wiLn not be appre ' issed by the iG2e laborerss who have lost