Oxford Democrat. [volume] (Paris, Me.) 1833-1933, 1910-01-25
What's Whoss, and Why9

What's whose. and whys .
~ honor the man who IL ready 70 sink
Half his present repute for the freedom 70 think
And when he has thought, be his cause strong Of
WIN III .'o.her half for the freedom 70 speak
| james Russell Lowell.
Following my article which appeared
In the Oxford Democrat Jan. 4, present
ing the claim that labor produces al
wealth, appeared q lengthy criticism
which at the outset, admits the truth oil
the assertion In the following language
In sense It IL true that all wealth has beer
produced-that is. material furnished BY nature
| has been t,ken and converted Into form FOL
mems use-by lsbor
Close to this admission, We find clear
recognition of an intended purport oil
the writing as follows:
The Socialist starts with the statement that
Labor produces all wealth" He rarely puts
the conclusion BADLY in 80 many words, yet the
whols tenor of his argument Ia to the effect thai
because labor produces all wealth, all the prod.
uct Of industry should 60 to the laborers, and
none Of 1t anywhere else.
That Is 1t, precisely. The inference wa
plain, natural and unavoidable; and my
critic "a her unwittingly admitted 1t,
and introduced the truth which wish
next to emphasize. This involves the
question of ethics, the question of right
and wrong, and my critic probably knows
ahat it is much more difficult to appeal
effectively to the sense of right than TO
that of necessity. ut is right. 1t ia
just" may produce few sentimental
tears, but cts necessary; the stomach
says so," is the expression that moves
the race. 1t is the principal argument
of the Socialists.
EYES," somebody says, "These Social
lists think more of their grub than they
do of their God" And that pleases me,
for | see he catches the idea readily,
which makes it easier for me to proceed.
Every institution or system has it's
ethics, that is, a code of ideas respecting
the rightness of its characters or of that
of its activities. So when new order
or programme is presented to the minds
of men, the element OF ethics immediate
ly appears, and the rightness of the
proposition must necessarily be explain
ed to the satisfaction of the inquirers-
and here ia the great problem of the
mental advancement OF the human race.
You will understand as we proceed.
There is the codes of ethics, the moral
code, some call it, of Jurisprudence, un-
derstood by the lawyer; the ethics Of
journalism, understood by editors; the
ethics of matrimony, understood by
we'll, by scarcely anybody, but which are
interesting to divines and divorce courts
because "it paws"
There are the ethics OF pugilism, that
say it is right for men to pommel each
other into hash; and OF cannibalism,
that it is right to eat the hash. There
were the ethics of chattel slavery. In
slavery times, a prominent minister in
the South, (his name was Kapin, l be-
lieve) declared: 1--WE know our work.
1t is to preach and pray for the slaves"
He did not say 1t was their duty to edu-
cate the Negro out Of his bondage, or to
develop in him desire for liberty; and
they deliberately refrained from doing
so, because the reverend and his class
the preaching, teaching, owning, master
class secured their living from the
labor of the slave. Owning the slave,
they owned the products of his toll.
The slave was a means of production, a
tool, or a machine. The owner used 1t
to produce wealth for himself, and the
whole aristocratic class stood upon, and
was supported by the institution of
chattel slavery, and those people, as a
class, declared that it was right. Their
ethics grew out of and agreed with the
prevailing method Of producing wealth,
the means Of life. They therefore said
and believed that slavery was right, and
went to the limit of voice and violence
tonustain that "right."
:. That system of slavery was destroyed,
aud the "right" became wrong, max
ing it necessary for the people to get
living some other way or get off the
earth. Aud that other way was the
process that exists to-day OF wage-labor
and private capital, which, because of
the predominance of capital, is called
We are now called upon to consider
the ethics OF capitalism, if such an ex-
preston may be used. 1t is paradox,
a contradiction of terms. Ethics of
cauuibalism sounded bad enough. The
idea of a moral code in their society
seems absurd; but an industrial and
financial code of ethics in the capitalist
state is hard TO be conceived, difficult of
and not to be understood.
will let those explain who know. Be
prepared to be undeceived. The follow
ing from Thos. W. Lawson, in Every
body's Magazine of August, 1905, illus
trates this point:
1.-THE truth Is that In big business all civilized
customs have long since been Suspended. The
III, a. Na Iarv Nha afa nhQ nd
AMI assassination are 80 much the rule nova.
days that all parties to business transaction
wear armor and carry dirks.
property rights are vested In power; the sole
license to have is the strength to hold; to covet
another mans railway or factory II you be the
stronger, Is full warrant and charter to Its pos.
session. In pursuit Of made dollars greed and
cunning lead ne PACE isi H. aeang
code 10 Wall Streets Bible; Its priest the cor
poration lawyer; conscience Is fear of legal con.
the sole crime, being caught; talent
and character are best proved by large bank
speculation. and few years. immunity from
justice constitute q reputation for virtue and
stability that finds Its highest Justification as
handy asset behind bond Issue. II 10 deplor-
deals that have marked the last few yeara, It
has become habit for men to lie, cheat, steal,
bride and commit perjury"
Do you see that? Do any good to deny
it,? Are we not all satisfied that it Is
true, and that all humanity is suffering
or mentally, or both, as the
result of such INSCRIPTIONS conduct at
the "head centres" of our great indus
trial machines9 And do we not know
that the real values which those people
possess, and by which they live In luxu-
rious Incidence or lawless revelry, were
wrested from the wearied and exhausted
brains and hands of honest toll?
Can't you begin to see how near the
tru, it is to say that capitalism has no
moral code, no heart, no sense Of right
and wrong9 II not, read this by Robert
G. Ipgersoll, Republican politician and
orator:
In the days Of slavery the strong devoured the
weak actually ate their flesh. In spite Of all
the laws that man has made, In spite Of all ad.
vances In science, the strong, the cunning, the
heartless, still live on the weak the unfortunate
and foolish. True, they do not eat their flesh or
drink their blood. but they live on their labor.
on their denial their WEAKNESS and want. The
poor man who deforms himself by toll. who
abors for wife aud chile through ali his anxious,
barren, wasted life-who goes to the grave with
out ever having had one luxury-has been the
food Of others. He has been devoured by his
fellow men. The poor woman living In the bare
and lonely room. cherries and freless, sewing
night and day to keep starvation from child, is
slowly being devoured by her fellow men:
civilized life-the failures. the poverty. the anx
Lefty. the tears. the withered hopes, the bitter
realities, the hunger, the crime, the humiliation
the shame-I- am almost forced TO say that can.