The independent. [volume] (Lincoln, Neb.) 1902-1907, 1905-10-05
Letters From The People


some of the envy and hate born of a struggle
that compels bringing of these traits to the
front? 1t is the private ownership OF the means
of production and distribution by the capitalists
that makes this implacable contest inevitable.
And as stated in my letter. it is inevitable first,
because fvesixths of the labor of production is
performed by the machine; second, because
the machine, or machinery OF production, is
almost wholly owned by the capitalists, and
hence what formerly under hand production went
to the laborer goes to the capitalist as the
legitimate fruits of ownership Now if the work
ing man is dispOssessed of all but one-sxth OF
the field OF production it stands to reason that
the productive capacity of the machine with his
aid cannot be disposed of, for labor can buy
but one-ffth of it. You assert that the working
constitutes SO per cent of the whole pOpula-
ton. Assuming you are correct have but
per cent capitalists. This SO per cent working
class however, have received compensation of
but oneifth of the product produced, and GER
tainly cannot buy or consume more than their
income. AS there other consumers but the
4 per cent capitalists it becomes perfectly plain
that all the product Tor it's equivalent)
above the wage of the workers must remain
with the capitalists, according to the memorable
law of profit inevitable from ownership of the
means in the hands of the few. To the extent that
the reward of labor has been insufficient for it's
support it has simply sacrificed its previously
inherited acquired holdings, which inheritance
or holdings, in the form of material wealth, have
passed to the capitalist in exchange for the
sumable things necessary for subsistence.
Your assertion that these statements are but
"haf truths surprises me. Why they are self
evident propositions Labor, receiving a re-
ward of but une-ffth of what with the aid of
machinery is produces, can certainly buy back but
One-fifth." Your trouble about wealth consumed
and wealth wasted in nowise affects it. Your
difficulty in not understanding about wealth that
is neither wasted consumed is not in taking
note explained above and in my former let
ter, that the previously inherited acquired
holdings of the workers constantly being sac
rifced for this consumable surplus, and, as re-
suit the mass of the workers were growing
poorer while the wealthy were growing weather..
Your belief that most of misery comes
from breaking the laws of God-lust, intemper-
ance, sloth, pride envy hate etc., is, / think in
directly correct. | certainly cannot conceive the
Almighty approving the competitive struggle for
existence amid the bounteous gifts of his hands,
which in our superstition and prejudice we are
too vain to turn to our welbeing. But if all
people were ideal in the respects you mention,
the condition of economic inequality would be
just vitality present. The very principle of
competition is war, strife, and conflict of in
terests. The principle has served its purpose in
the evolutionary progress to be superseded as
reason and economic forces dictate system of
universal cooperation in which the brotherhood
ideal can grow and expand as God intended it
should in the breast of man.
c. E. OBENCHAIN.