New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1894-08-22
&" THE UAGE SIS1EN.'

Eugene Y. Debs rcappcaring amid the after
maih Of the disastrous strike-responsibility for
which he vanly tries 10 evade-declares that ne
believes In 'abolshlng the wage system, add
ing: "Thc wage system Is nothing more than
slavery" His observations are not striklngly
original NJ Lafarguc recently said 80 long
"as the wage system remains In force you have
accomplished nothing" Karl Marx argued
that wages were robbery and every employer i
thief European and American Socialists gen
orally suppose, hold such opinions. How
many of them could give n reason Tor their faith
Is an interesting question. The wage system Is
robbery has scntcntous and oracuar sound.
as does Proudhon's property Is robbery. ana
~ do many other current sayings and phrases.
But what does II mean!
Would II not be- just ~ sensible 10 say Trade
Is robbery. For the wage system Is. after
all nothing bur an integral part or the vast
trade system which comprises all legitimate
business Ii Is an exchange OF one commodity
for another one man has muscular energy 10
sell Another purchases 1t: or. II You prefer
exchanges for Il a certain amount Of some other
commodity That Is all this much abused sys-
TEN Is; lust Ike the system Of selling potatoes
II IL a simple contract between two Individuals
each Of whom wants something which the other
has and has something of his own which he is
willing 10 give for IT, The dealing may not nj
WAYS be equitable; nor Is II always equitable In
other transactions But because the farmer does
not always get as much for his potatoes rs he
ought to- and because the shopper sometimes
does not get as much calico or muslin or silk
for her money rs she thinks she ought TO get
shall all trade therefore be abolished!
Mr. Debs like Marx and Lassalle would sub
sttute state Socialism for the wage system;
by which he probably means that the State
should manage all business and apportion the
profits TO those who take part therein. Very well
In what respect would that differ from the pres
cnt wage system: The State would be- the en-
ployer and the quota OF profits in money or
goods which ii allotted TO each man would be
that mans wages. And the total amount Of
business done, and the total amount OF profits
realized from 1t, and the portion distributed TO
each individual, would be subject to and deter
mined by exactly the same laws that prevail
to-day so long as men work they must either
sell their labor or sell the fruits Of 1t. The lat
ter Is done by those who own their business
plant The former must he done by all others.
1t il not possible for every spinner TO own 4
factory and for every brakeman to own n rail
road. Until, therefore. all trade and industry
are abolished, there must be an exchange OF
labor for money or goods, and Of money or
goods for labor. And the principle is precisely
the same, whether the party to the contract who
purchases the labor and pays for 1t in money
or goods be the individual capitalist or the ag-
glomerated State TO rage against the wage
system because some wage-earners are under
paid is as sensclcss as 1t would be to dcnounce
the law OF gravitaton because some men fall
down and are hurt.