.
| [An excerpt from the
book, The Condition of Labor, reprinted from The Freeman,
November, 1939] |
Charity is indeed a noble and beautiful virtue, grateful to man and
approved by God. But charity must be built on justice. It cannot
supersede justice. What is wrong with the condition of labor through the
Christian world is that labor is robbed. And while we justify the
continuance o£ that robbery it is idle to urge charity. To do so --
to commend charity as a substitute for justice, is indeed something akin
in essence to those heresies, that taught that the gospel had superseded
the law, and that the love of God exempted men from moral obligations.
All that charity can do where injustice exist a Is here and there to
mollify somewhat the effects of Injustice. It cannot cure them. Nor is
even what little it can do to mollify the effects of injustice without
evil. For what may be called the superimposed, and in this sense,
secondary virtues, work evil where the fundamental or primary virtues
are absent. Thus sobriety is a virtue and diligence is a virtue. But a
sober and diligent thief la all the more dangerous. Thus patience is a
virtue. But patience under wrong is the condoning of wrong. Thus it is a
virtue to seek knowledge and to endeavor to cultivate the mental powers.
But the wicked man becomes more capable of evil by reason of his
Intelligence. Devils we always think of as intelligent.
And thus that pseudo-charity that discards and denies justice works
evil. On the one side. It demoralizes its recipients, outraging that
human dignity which "God himself treats with reverence," and
turning into beggars and paupers men who to become self-supporting,
self-respecting citizens need only the restitution of what God has given
them. On the other side, it acts as an anodyne to the consciences of
those who are living on the robbery of their fellows, and fosters that
moral delusion and spiritual pride that Christ doubtless had in mind
when he said it was easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a
needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. For it leads
men steeped in injustice, and using their money and their influence to
bolster up injustice, to think that in giving alms they are doing
something more than their duty toward man and deserve to be very well
thought of by God, and in a vague way to attribute to their own goodness
what really belongs to God's goodness. For consider: Who is the
All-Provider? Who is it that "owes to man a storehouse that shall
never fail," and which "he finds only in the inexhaustible
fertility of the earth." Is it not God? And when, therefore, men,
deprived of the bounty of their God. are made dependent on the bounty of
their fellow-creatures, are not these creatures, as it were, put In the
place of God, to take credit to themselves for paying obligations that
God owes?
But worse perhaps than all else is the way in which this substituting
of vague injunctions to charity for the clear-cut demands of justice
opens an easy means for the professed teachers of the Christian religion
of all branches and communions to placate Mammon while persuading
themselves that they are serving God. Had the English clergy not
subordinated the teaching of justice to the teaching of charity -- to go
no further in Illustrating a principle of which the whole history of
Christendom from Constantine's time to our own is witness -- the Tudor
tyranny would never have arisen, and the separation of the church been
averted; had the clergy of France never substituted charity for justice,
the monstrous iniquities of the ancient regime would never have brought
the horrors of the Great Revolution; and in my own country had those who
should have preached justice not satisfied themselves with preaching
kindness, chattel slavery could never have demanded the holocaust of our
civil war.
As faith without works is dead, as men cannot give to God His due while
denying to their fellows the rights He gave them, so charity unsupported
by justice can do nothing to solve the problem of the existing condition
of labor. Though the rich were to "bestow all their goods to feed
the poor and give their bodies to be burned," poverty would
continue while property in land continues.
Take the case of the rich man today who is honestly desirous of
devoting his wealth to the improvement of the condition of labor. What
can he do?
Bestow his wealth, on those who need it? He may help some who deserve
it, but will not improve general conditions. And against the good he may
do will be the danger of doing harm.
Build churches? Under the shadow of churches poverty festers and the
vice that is born of it breeds.
Build schools and colleges? Save as it may lead men to see the iniquity
of private property in land, increased education can effect nothing for
mere laborers, for as education is diffused the wages of education sink.
Establish hospitals? Why, already it seems to laborers that there are
too many seeking work, and to save and prolong life is to add to the
pressure.
Build model tenements? Unless he cheapens house accommodations he
drives further the class he would benefit, and as he cheapens house
accommodations he brings more to seek employment and cheapens wages.
Institute laboratories, scientific schools, workshops for physical
experiments? He but stimulates invention and discovery, the very forces
that, acting on a society based on private property in land, are
crushing labor as between the upper and the nether millstone.
Promote emigration from places where wages are low to places where they
are somewhat higher? If he does, even those whom he at first helps to
emigrate will soon turn on him to demand that such emigration shall be
stopped as reducing their wages.
Give away what land he may have, or refuse to take rent for it, or let
it at lower rents than the market price? He will simply make new
landowners or partial landowners; he may make some individuals the
richer, but he will do nothing to improve the general condition of
labor.
Or, bethinking himself of those public-spirited citizens of classic
times who spent great sums in improving their native cities, shall he
try to beautify the city of his birth or adoption? Let him widen and
straighten narrow and crooked streets, let him build parks and erect
fountains, let him open tramways and bring in railroads, or in any way
make beautiful and attractive his chosen city, and what will be the
result? Must it not be that those who appropriate God's bounty will take
his also? Will it not be that the value of land will go up, and that the
net result of his benefactions will be an increase of rents and a bounty
to landowners? Why, even the mere announcement that he is going to do
such things will start speculation and send up the value of land by
leaps and bounds.
What, then, can the rich man do to improve the condition of labor?
He can do nothing at all except to use his strength for the abolition
of the great primary wrong that robs men of their birthright. The
justice of God laughs at the attempts of men to substitute anything else
for it.
|