Start Date: May 31, 2003 Finish Date: June 4, 2003

Introduction

     The work, Wealth of Nations, was an enormous book with a great impact of society. Unfortunately, it's length, and taste of dryness, has left a great deal of its proponents wholly ignorant of what it states. After reading the entire work, I felt that I was greatly more educated on the matter of economics. My critique of this work will deal with particular concepts that I find to be in contradiction to logic, reason, and evidence.

Stumbling Upon Communism

     In several incidents, I found that Smith discovered the foundations of Communism, but never further formulated upon it. In an analogy, he stumbled upon the roots of Socialism, but never bothered to look up to see the entire tree. For instance, to quote Smith, "It was not by gold or by silver, but by labour, that all the wealth of the world was originally purchased." [Book 1, chapter 5.] Smith even noted that the work of the worker produces society's wealth, pays his own wages, and then goes to "his master's profit." [Book 2, chapter 3.] This is, simply, a restatement of what Henry Salt once wrote, "Our capitalists persist to the bitter end in the fatuous assertion that to live idly on the labour of others is not the same thing as to steal." ["Thou Shalt Not Steal," Justice, March 14, 1885.] What is the essential difference between the words of Salt and those of Smith? Only this: Smith stated his observations, while Salt did that and applied a fair and just critique of Capitalism. Thus, we have what every Marxist writer has conclude, that the laborer is the creator of all the wealth, and consequently, the creator of all the means of production which create this wealth. Also, by Smith...

The condition of artificers is, if possible, still worse. Instead of waiting indolently in their workhouses, for the calls of their customers, as in Europe, they are continually running about the streets with the tools of their respective trades, offering their service, and as it were begging employment. The poverty of the lower ranks of people in China far surpasses that of the most beggarly nations in Europe. In the neighbourhood of Canton many hundred, it is commonly said, many thousand families have no habitation on the land, but live constantly in little fishing boats upon the rivers and canals. The subsistence which they find there is so scanty that they are eager to fish up the nastiest garbage thrown overboard from any European ship. Any carrion, the carcase of a dead dog or cat, for example, though half putrid and stinking, is as welcome to them as the most wholesome food to the people of other countries. Marriage is encouraged in China, not by the profitableness of children, but by the liberty of destroying them. In all great towns several are every night exposed in the street, or drowned like puppies in the water. The performance of this horrid office is even said to be the avowed business by which some people earn their subsistence. [Book 1, Chapter 8.]

     In this quote by Smith, we find a great deal of the extremes of poverty. We see here, that the person who produces the wealth of the world, receives only the crumbs of his production. But the cruelty dealt to the workers of the world is not restricted to the time of Smith. To quote Tim Connor, author for the Global Exchange...

Austermuhle noted that management took down the names of the workers he interviewed, and that may explain why they didn't tell him that wages at Kuk Dong were well below the prevailing industry wage in Mexico (Justiani 2001). Wages were so low that workers were reliant on eating the food served in the factory cafeteria even though it was occasionally rotten or rancid and was commonly of very poor quality. On December 15, 2000 frustration with this and other issues lead five relatively senior workers (Marco Santiago Perez Mesa, Marcela Muņoz Tepepa, Josefina Hernandez Ponce, Mario Nicanor Sefina, and Eduardo Sanchez Velasquez) to protest by refusing to eat the factory food. Several weeks later those five workers were dismissed as punishment for this protest.

In response, workers at the factory put a list of demands to Kuk Dong, including the reinstatement of the dismissed workers, a change of union, and better wages and factory food. On January 9, 2001 these negotiations between the factory and the workers broke off and approximately 650 of the 860 workers at the factory staged a work stoppage to press their demands. They picketed the factory for two and a half days, during which time a number received anonymous threatening letters.

At around 10:30pm on Thursday January 11, 2001, the government of Puebla sent 200 police in full riot gear to attack the 300 workers then guarding the factory. According to workers interviewed by United Students Against Sweatshops, the leader of the CROC union and other CROC representatives were at the scene and pointed out strike leaders to police (WRC 2001). When the workers saw the police officers approach, they threw their arms up in the air to indicate that they would not fight, and they attempted to leave through the exits. Instead police surrounded and cornered them and violently drove workers out of the factory one by one. A number of workers were beaten severely with police clubs and at least four workers were hospitalized as a result of injuries sustained. Evidently two of the women guarding the factory were pregnant and lost their babies as a result of being hit with shields, cubs, and fists during the attack (Boje, Rosile. and Carrillo 2001). [This information is based on taped interviews by Professor David Boje of New Mexico State University with two workers and a labor lawyer who were present at the time the attack occurred (Boje, Rosile. & Carrillo 2001 and Boje D. 2001, pers. comm., April 16).] [Still waiting for Nike to do it, by Tim Connor, pages 82 to 85.]

[...]

The same point was made in a January 30 letter to Nike from the coordinating committee of United Students Against Sweatshops. The letter alleged that "the workplace has become a place of terror, with riot police stationed inside of the factory where there have been multiple reports of management screaming at and belittling workers for their attempts to come together to assert their rights." [Still waiting for Nike to do it, by Tim Connor, page 86.]

     But even in developed countries, we find that there are great injustices when it comes to the distribution of wealth. On average, workers are paid 5 to 20% of the wealth which they produce for their employers. On these statistics...

The mining industry made 174.5 billion in 1997 and paid its workers only 20.9 billion -- each worker was paid 12% of the wealth they produced. The construction industry made 834.8 billion and paid its workers 171.0 billion -- each worker was paid 20% of the wealth they produced. The manufacturing industry made 3,958.1 billion and paid its workers 595.7 billion -- each worker was paid 15% of the wealth they produced. The transportation and public utilities industry made 1,143.9 billion and paid its workers 199.7 billion -- each worker was paid 17% of the wealth they produced. The wholesale trade industry made 4,235.4 billion and paid its workers 234.5 billion -- each worker was paid 5% of the wealth they produced. The retail trade industry made 2,545.9 billion and paid its workers 290.5 billion -- each worker was paid 11% of the wealth they produced. The finance, insurance, and real estate industry made 2,474.9 billion and paid its workers 308.2 billion -- each worker was paid 12% of the wealth they produced. The services (taxable firms only) industry made 1,843.8 billion and paid its workers 688.9 billion -- each worker was paid 37% of the wealth they produced. [Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census, Comparative Statistics, Core Business Fantastics Series, EC97X-C52, issued June 2000.]

     I have elsewhere, though, elaborated upon such great inequalities in our society, and I will trust the reader that if he or she is further interested in such socio-economic observations, they can read such works. However, for the time being, I will leave it as it is, as I have demonstrated my point. What we find, essentially, are two startling facts, often the preceding discoveries to a person's own conversion to the system of Communism. First, we find that everything in our economy is produced by one class of people: the working class. Second, we find that a small portion of everything is given to the working class, while a great deal of everything is given to the Capitalist class, a group of beings who engage in the roles of bosses, employers, investors, and the like. These two facts, when considered in relation to each other, are enough to arouse a thousand questions about the way things are in our current society, and whether they are just. One startling statement comes about though, "How is it, in any conceivable manner, just that those who labor receive the fewest fruits of that labor, while those who do not labor receive a great deal of those fruits of labor?" As far an introduction to Communism and Socialism, I will go no further. This piece is a critique of Adam Smith's work The Wealth of Nations, not a defense of Communism.

     One may find it curious, though, that with a mind as observant as Smith, why is it that he did not write the first vindicating paper, defending the rights of the workers? For the most part, as far as his writing on the matter of Capitalism goes, he plays the role of an observer, some times making short-termed predictions on based on these observations. He predicted, for instance, the failure of certain government restrictions to achieve their desired end (which I shall cover further in the next section). However, most of his predictions on the economy are by judging a purely Capitalist system -- of perfect liberty -- and those which had not changed in a single aspect, except to allow the inclusion of government policies. By judging these government policies, their outcomes as have the been in the past, and comparing them to nations where they do not exist, he has made his conclusion that government or public interference with the economy may sometimes make things worse. He never once said that government interference is bad, but simply criticized failed attempts at it. The reason why he did not write a thesis of Communism is because the system was so greatly different than the one in which he examined. Rarely does he bring up anything of ingenuity of this work; rather, it is one great, objective, honest observation of the mechanics of economy. He is sincere about it, and the fact that he did not arrive at Communism, it does not lead me to believe that this work is less significant than it truly is. Simply put: Smith did not observe Communism is because he wrote mostly as an observer of a Capitalist system, and nothing more.

On Government Regulation

     In the first book, as far as regulation goes, Smith deals with certain government interferences with economy that control the production (such as his reference to the over production of wine and the underproduction of food in France), as well as the regulation of the movement of people between different parishes in England. As to these regulations, which Smith asserts stand in opposition to "perfect liberty," he argues that they disrupt the natural economy, often times producing bad consequences when good ones were intended. To these criticisms that Smith makes of these government regulations of economy, I hold almost no comment. The only thing which I wish to clarify, at least in the first book of The Wealth of Nations, is that Smith never makes one single statement against the system of using government to interfere with the economy. Instead, he simply criticizes the failed attempts of government to interfere with the economy in a certain manner. There is one government regulation, though, that he brought up which I thought would be worthy of further comment -- at least, drawing conclusions of his observations on today's economy. To quote Smith...

By the 5th of Elizabeth, commonly called the Statute of Apprenticeship, it was enacted, that no person should for the future exercise any trade, craft, or mystery at that time exercised in England, unless he had previously served to it an apprenticeship of seven years at least; and what before had been the bye law of many particular corporations became in England the general and public law of all trades carried on in market towns. For though the words of the statute are very general, and seem plainly to include the whole kingdom, by interpretation its operation has been limited to market towns, it having been held that in country villages a person may exercise several different trades, though he has not served a seven years' apprenticeship to each, they being necessary for the convenience of the inhabitants, and the number of people frequently not being sufficient to supply each with a particular set of hands. [Book 1, Chapter 10, Part 2.]

     The law stated that no person may buy a product from an individual who has not ascertained a certain number of years of study in that profession, and that no person may sell a product who himself has not studied a certain number of years in that trade. Simply put, as far as the modern social economy is set up, there are numerous organizations set up by the government that do exactly as Smith noted of these antiquated governments. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of the United States, for instance, will prohibit the sale of consumables if they are unfit. It is, indeed, identical to the Statue of Apprenticeship. The question, now, though: are either the Statue of Apprenticeship or the FDA justifiable? If one is, then the other is, but if one is not, then the other is not; this is the one indiscernible observation of the matter, that a person would run into countless contradictions if they approved one and not the other. In the United States, a so-called Free Enterprise, a marvelous example of the alleged merits of a "Free Trade," we find that the greatest obstacle to this perfect liberty, as Smith called it, is the FDA.

     To the question, though, are either of them justified? I would say, it most respects, that they are justified insomuch as the public desires them. A Democratic society will choose its own regulations to follow, choose the punishment for failing to follow such regulations, and carry out law as the people see fit. Yet, here, we find certain ailing aspects of the system of Democracy. If a community democratically voted for the use of torture as a method of obtaining evidence, I would be against it, regardless of its democratically chosen roots, because I would be against the philosophy of cruelty. But if a Democracy elected an FDA into regulation, how would I view it? I believe that the best conclusion would be for an FDA, or FDA-like, organization to exist, but not to legally prohibit any items, but only to act as a watch-dog for possible fraudulent products. I believe that every person is different, and therefore will find appeal in different things. Though certain drugs may prove fatal, for instance, perhaps a person desires death -- in this case, the FDA would have restricted a man from attaining his heart's desire. Smith argued against the idea of having a Statute of Apprenticeship, on the grounds that a consumer will purchase a product not on how many years a man has in education, but rather on the sturdy nature of the product. However, the nature of products has changed greatly since Smith's day. How is a consumer, an average person, going to judge the quality of one drug over another? Unless he is a Chemist willing to dedicate long hours in this quest for truth, he will remain ignorant, and it is in this field that I believe a watchdog should exist for monitoring -- not prohibiting -- products.

     Finally, I ought to make one final comment in this remark... Smith noted that, though government regulation may have been unsuccessful, that government interference is absolutely crucial to the development of a good economy. In regard to where this is true, Smith writes of the different instances, "That the erection and maintenance of the public works which facilitate the commerce of any country, such as good roads, bridges, navigable canals, harbours, etc." [Book 5, chapter 1, part 3, article 1.]

The Sacred Right to Property

     There is no doubt that Smith's work is one of economics and not of philosophy or ethics. However, works of study in different fields often operate upon simple, often-accepted premises to base their scholarly work upon. In this piece by Smith, there is the premise of the sacred right to property. As he puts it in his own words...

The property which every man has in his own labour, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable. The patrimony of a poor man lies in the strength and dexterity of his hands; and to hinder him from employing this strength and dexterity of his hands; and to hinder him from employing this strength and dexterity in what manner he thinks proper without injury to his neighbour is a plain violation of this most sacred property. It is a manifest encroachment upon the just liberty both of the workman and of those who might be disposed to employ him. As it hinders the one from working at what he thinks proper, so it hinders the others from employing whom they think proper. To judge whether he is fit to be employed may surely be trusted to the discretion of the employers whose interest it so much concerns. The affected anxiety of the law-giver lest they should employ an improper person is evidently as impertinent as it is oppressive. [Book 1, Chapter 10, Part 2.]

     Perhaps in the entire length of the work, this is the only paragraph dedicated to philosophy, rights, and other such theories. A great deal of this work simply deals with how economics worked in his day, and how many economic policies today are formed around these observations. The first thing a person will notice at Smith's defense of the "sacred and inviolable" right to property, is that it is in an enormous work, but is only a small focus. Smith may have defended it here, but he did not do so later on. It was an economic, not philosophical work. As far as the remarks he makes towards the law-giver applying unjust laws, the examples he draws upon are those not dissimilar to Affirmative Action: forcing an employer to take on an employee who is not the most qualified. I do not believe in Affirmative Action, though, because its precepts are wholly racist. This is diverging from the topic, however... To Smith's remarks, they deal with laws or policies which may hinder an employee from seeking whatever job they want, or an employer from seeking whatever employee they want. He does not recognize, in this part or at any later part, a society where the worker is also the boss -- an Anarcho-Communist society, where those who work the machinery are also the ones who own it, and also the ones to reap its benefits. I cannot blame Smith for not taking into account this type of society, as his work was not a criticism of the distribution of wealth, nor a promotion of it, but simply an observation of it.

The Economics of Smith and the Economics of Communists -- Incompatible?

     Those who promote the idea of Capitalism, a theory which had long been discredited not only by every humane author by but every author governed by reason (such Thomas Paine), yet, those who promote the idea of Capitalism are often found heralding Adam Smith as the father of Free Enterprise. I cannot, in any conceivable manner, suspect this to be true. Even with only a slight understanding of The Wealth of Nations and reading only a minimal amount of Marxist literature, a person will find that the mindsets of both of these individuals were not exactly far apart. In fact, they were remarkably close. For instance, to quote Mikhail Bakunin....

What is it that brings the capitalist to the market? It is the urge to get rich, to increase his capital, to gratify his ambitions and social vanities, to be able to indulge in all conceivable pleasures. And what brings the worker to the market? Hunger, the necessity of eating today and tomorrow. Thus, while being equal from the point of juridical fiction, the capitalist and the worker are anything but equal from the point of view of the economic situation, which is the real situation. The capitalist is not threatened with hunger when he comes to the market; he knows very well that if he does not find today the workers for whom he is looking, he will still have enough to eat for quite a long time, owing to the capital of which he is the happy possessor. If the workers whom he meets in the market present demands which seem excessive to him, because, far from enabling him to increase his wealth and improve even more his economic position, those proposals and conditions might, I do not say equalize, but bring the economic position of the workers somewhat close to his own - what does he do in that case? He turns down those proposals and waits. After all, he was not impelled by an urgent necessity, but by a desire to improve his position, which, compared to that of the workers, is already quite comfortable, and so he can wait. And he will wait, for his business experience has taught him that the resistance of workers who, possessing neither capital, nor comfort, nor any savings to speak of, are pressed by a relentless necessity, by hunger, that this resistance cannot last very long, and that finally he will be able to find the hundred workers for whom he is looking - for they will be forced to accept the conditions which he finds it profitable to impose upon them. If they refuse, others will come who will be only too happy to accept such conditions. That is how things are done daily with the knowledge and in full view of everyone. ["The Capitalist System," by Mikhail Bakunin, an excerpt from The Knouto-Germanic Empire and the Social Revolution, and included in The Complete Works of Michael Bakunin under the title "Fragment."]

     Any Capitalist philosopher who reads this will regard it as propaganda, attempting to scare individuals to becoming Communists and Socialists, and overthrowing their government and their bosses. But, alas, we cannot ignore what Smith has written on this subject...

What are the common wages of labour, depends everywhere upon the contract usually made between those two parties, whose interests are by no means the same. The workmen desire to get as much, the masters to give as little as possible. The former are disposed to combine in order to raise, the latter in order to lower the wages of labour.

It is not, however, difficult to foresee which of the two parties must, upon all ordinary occasions, have the advantage in the dispute, and force the other into a compliance with their terms. The masters, being fewer in number, can combine much more easily; and the law, besides, authorizes, or at least does not prohibit their combinations, while it prohibits those of the workmen. We have no acts of parliament against combining to lower the price of work; but many against combining to raise it. In all such disputes the masters can hold out much longer. A landlord, a farmer, a master manufacturer, a merchant, though they did not employ a single workman, could generally live a year or two upon the stocks which they have already acquired. Many workmen could not subsist a week, few could subsist a month, and scarce any a year without employment. In the long run the workman may be as necessary to his master as his master is to him; but the necessity is not so immediate.

We rarely hear, it has been said, of the combinations of masters, though frequently of those of workmen. But whoever imagines, upon this account, that masters rarely combine, is as ignorant of the world as of the subject. Masters are always and everywhere in a sort of tacit, but constant and uniform combination, not to raise the wages of labour above their actual rate. To violate this combination is everywhere a most unpopular action, and a sort of reproach to a master among his neighbours and equals. We seldom, indeed, hear of this combination, because it is the usual, and one may say, the natural state of things, which nobody ever hears of. Masters, too, sometimes enter into particular combinations to sink the wages of labour even below this rate. These are always conducted with the utmost silence and secrecy, till the moment of execution, and when the workmen yield, as they sometimes do, without resistance, though severely felt by them, they are never heard of by other people. Such combinations, however, are frequently resisted by a contrary defensive combination of the workmen; who sometimes too, without any provocation of this kind, combine of their own accord to raise the price of their labour. Their usual pretences are, sometimes the high price of provisions; sometimes the great profit which their masters make by their work. But whether their combinations be offensive or defensive, they are always abundantly heard of. In order to bring the point to a speedy decision, they have always recourse to the loudest clamour, and sometimes to the most shocking violence and outrage. They are desperate, and act with the folly and extravagance of desperate men, who must either starve, or frighten their masters into an immediate compliance with their demands. The masters upon these occasions are just as clamorous upon the other side, and never cease to call aloud for the assistance of the civil magistrate, and the rigorous execution of those laws which have been enacted with so much severity against the combinations of servants, labourers, and journeymen. The workmen, accordingly, very seldom derive any advantage from the violence of those tumultuous combinations, which, partly from the interposition of the civil magistrate, partly from the necessity superior steadiness of the masters, partly from the necessity which the greater part of the workmen are under of submitting for the sake of present subsistence, generally end in nothing, but the punishment or ruin of the ringleaders.

But though in disputes with their workmen, masters must generally have the advantage, there is, however, a certain rate below which it seems impossible to reduce, for any considerable time, the ordinary wages even of the lowest species of labour.

A man must always live by his work, and his wages must at least be sufficient to maintain him. They must even upon most occasions be somewhat more; otherwise it would be impossible for him to bring up a family, and the race of such workmen could not last beyond the first generation. [Book 1, chapter 8.]

     When comparing these two quotes, we find invariably the same attitude: that the worker is at a loss, because he is ultimately reliant upon an industrialist for his food. Though the industrialist is reliant upon the worker for producing his goods, he may offer whatever conditions he wants, creating slavery. Allow me to quote Bakunin once and Smith once. "They [the workers] are desperate, and act with the folly and extravagance of desperate men, who must either starve, or frighten their masters into an immediate compliance with their demands." -- "The worker is in the position of a serf because this terrible threat of starvation which daily hangs over his head and over his family, will force him to accept any conditions imposed by the gainful calculations of the capitalist, the industrialist, the employer." When comparing these two quotes, we find the same attitude, still. Yet can the author of either of them be regarded as "The Father of Capitalism"? Are either of them complimentary speaking of the idea of Free Enterprise? It would be folly to think so.

     Furthermore, to align the economic positions of Marx and Smith, consider the last few lines where I quoted Smith. Smith wrote that the wages of the worker "must even upon most occasions be somewhat more; otherwise it would be impossible for him to bring up a family, and the race of such workmen could not last beyond the first generation." Marx observed this quote well when he wrote...

The manufacturer who calculates his cost of production and, in accordance with it, the price of the product, takes into account the wear and tear of the instruments of labor. If a machine costs him, for example, 1,000 shillings, and this machine is used up in 10 years, he adds 100 shillings annually to the price of the commodities, in order to be able after 10 years to replace the worn-out machine with a new one. In the same manner, the cost of production of simple labor-power must include the cost of propagation, by means of which the race of workers is enabled to multiply itself, and to replace worn-out workers with new ones. The wear and tear of the worker, therefore, is calculated in the same manner as the wear and tear of the machine. ["Wage Labour and Capital," by Karl Marx, 1847, chapter 4 "By What Are Wages Determined?"]

     In comparing both of these works, of Marx and Smith, we find without prejudice that both are remarkably similar. Smith wrote that wages must be high enough to sustain a worker's family, and Marx wrote that wages must be adequate for workers to replace themselves through reproduction. Essentially, they are both speaking the same ideas here. In regards to the reduction of cost of producing a product, Smith remarked...

A dyer who has found the means of producing a particular colour with materials which cost only half the price of those commonly made use of, may, with good management, enjoy the advantage of his discovery as long as he lives, and even leave it as a legacy to his posterity. His extraordinary gains arise from the high price which is paid for his private labour. They properly consist in the high wages of that labour. But as they are repeated upon every part of his stock, and as their whole amount bears, upon that account, a regular proportion to it, they are commonly considered as extraordinary profits of stock. [Book 1, chapter 7.]

     In the previous quote, Smith makes a simple observation of economics: when a producer has found a cheaper method of producing something, they gain an advantage. Not only does Marx similarly observe this, but he makes further observations...

If, now, by a greater division of labor, by the application and improvement of new machines, by a more advantageous exploitation of the forces of nature on a larger scale, a capitalist has found the means of producing with the same amount of labor (whether it be direct or accumulated labor) a larger amount of products of commodities than his competitors - if, for instance, he can produce a whole yard of linen in the same labor-time in which his competitors weave half-a-yard - how will this capitalist act?

He could keep on selling half-a-yard of linen at old market price; but this would not have the effect of driving his opponents from the field and enlarging his own market. But his need of a market has increased in the same measure in which his productive power has extended. The more powerful and costly means of production that he has called into existence enable him, it is true, to sell his wares more cheaply, but they compel him at the same time to sell more wares, to get control of a very much greater market for his commodities; consequently, this capitalist will sell his half-yard of linen more cheaply than his competitors.

But the capitalist will not sell the whole yard so cheaply as his competitors sell the half-yard, although the production of the whole yard costs him no more than does that of the half-yard to the others. Otherwise, he would make no extra profit, and would get back in exchange only the cost of production. He might obtain a greater income from having set in motion a larger capital, but not from having made a greater profit on his capital than the others. Moreover, he attains the object he is aiming at if he prices his goods only a small percentage lower than his competitors. He drives them off the field, he wrests from them at least part of their market, by underselling them. ["Wage Labour and Capital," by Karl Marx, 1847, chapter 8 "The Interests of Capital and Wage-Labour are diametrically opposed; Effect of growth of productive Capital on Wages."]

     Those of the industrialist class who have managed to produce the same product as their competitors, but can do so more cheaply, will offer their product at only a slightly lower price than their adversaries. This, it can hardly be doubted, is rather elementary, yet Smith did not make this observation. However, when comparing the works of both Marxists and Smith, we find a great deal of similarities, economically and politically. I will here quote Ronald Reagen (indeed, I once lamented to myself, "If there is one person who is not worth quoting, it is president Ronald Reagan."), yet, he once said, "How do you tell a Communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin." [Remarks in Arlington, Virginia, September 25, 1987.] Of course, this quote is not flattering, but rather insulting (as far as the character of the speaker is concerned). Because, even with a small amount of information on Marx and Smith (authors who Reagan has neither read, I imagine, or at least understand), one can conclude that they are not entirely different economically.

Capitalist System and the Public

     "During the years 1881 to 1888 wages in the trades principally filled by the Russian Jews rarely rose above five or six dollars a week, while the hours ranged from sixteen to eighteen, and in the busy season often much longer. I have seen cloak-makers working in the sweaters' shops on the East Side at one or two o'clock in the morning, and members of the Cloak-makers' Union testify that before the formation of the union twenty hours was by no means an uncommon work-day. In fact, there seemed to be no limit to the extent of a day's work, except the limit of physical endurance. The conditions under which these people worked are almost indescribable to one who has never seen a sweater's den. The over-crowding and over-work, the filth and the squalor, and the horrible sanitary surroundings make a picture which must be seen to be understood. Factory laws and the regulations of the Board of Health were entirely ignored. Factory and sanitary inspectors were rare visitors in the sweaters' territory at this time, and it would be hard to picture the misery and suffering of these people, who in fleeing from the persecution of the Czar of Russia had fallen under the iron rule of a multitude of little industrial czars. They had fled from unbearable Old World conditions to sweaters' dens and tenement-houses where human beings are packed more closely than in any other quarter of the globe--a density of three hundred and seventy-four thousand persons to the square mile. In Russia they ate black bread, but they had at least plenty of pure air. In New York also they ate black bread, but they ate it in a poisonous atmosphere." -- Van Etten, Ida M., "Russian Jews as Desirable Immigrants," 1893.

     "Every pound of rope we buy for our vessels or for our mines is bought at a price fixed by a committee of the rope manufacturers of the United States. Every keg of nails, every paper of tacks, all our screws and wrenches and hinges, the boiler flues for our locomotives, are never bought except at the price fixed by the representatives of the mills that manufacture them. Iron beams for your houses or your bridges can be had only at the prices agreed upon by a combination of those who produce them. Fire-brick, gas-pipe, terra-cotta pipe for drainage, every keg of powder we buy to blast coal, are purchased under the same arrangement. Every pane of window glass in this house was bought at a scale of prices established exactly in the same manner. White lead, galvanized sheet iron, hose and belting and files are bought and sold at a rate determined in the same way. When my friend Mr. Lane was called upon to begin his speech the other day and wanted to delay because the stenographer had not arrived, I asked Mr. Collins, the stenographer of your committee, if he would not act. He said no, it was against the rules of the committee of stenographers. I said, 'Well, Mr. Collins, I will pay you anything you ask. I want to get off.' 'Oh,' said he, 'prices are established by our combination, and I cannot change them.' And when we come to the cost of labor, which enters more than anything else in to the cost of coal, we are met by a combination there, and are often obliged to pay the price fixed by it." -- Lloyd, Henry Demarest, "Lords of Industry," 1910, chapter 4.

     "Dr. Drysdale, of London, at the last session of the Social Science Congress, pointed out how the deathrate rose with scarcity of food. The mean age of the rich in England, at the time of death, is fifty-five; among the poor it is not thirty. The death-rate among the children of the comfortable classes is eighty in a thousand; among the working people of Manchester and Liverpool it is three hundred in a thousand. Dr. Farr shows that the death-rate of England decreases three per cent, when wheat declines two shillings a quarter. As food grows dear, typhus grows plenty. Scarcer bread means more crime. An increase of one larceny to every hundred thousand inhabitants comes with every rise of two farthings in the price of wheat in Bavaria. The enemies of the men who corner wheat and pork could wish for no heavier burden on their souls than that they should be successful. As wheat rises, flour rises; and when flour becomes dear, through manipulation, it is the blood of the poor that flows into the treasury of the syndicate. Such money costs too much." -- Lloyd, Henry Demarest, "Lords of Industry," 1910, chapter 3.

Public Interest and Prosperity

[The following excerpts are resources that are quoted along with a wealth of other material in Class Conscious: The Injustice of Poverty, Second Edition, chapter 9, by Punkerslut.]

In almost every other race of animals each individual, when it is grown up to maturity, is entirely independent, and in its natural state has occasion for the assistance of no other living creature. But man has almost constant occasion for the help of his brethren, and it is in vain for him to expect it from their benevolence only. He will be more likely to prevail if he can interest their self-love in his favour, and show them that it is for their own advantage to do for him what he requires of them. Whoever offers to another a bargain of any kind, proposes to do this. Give me that which I want, and you shall have this which you want, is the meaning of every such offer; and it is in this manner that we obtain from one another the far greater part of those good offices which we stand in need of. It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages.

-- Adam Smith, 1776 [*49]

     In this previous excerpt, one found often quoted in every historical, modern, and post-modern textbook on the subject, we find what may be one of the bases of economic study. Adam Smith's book was revolutionary in itself, but it came at a time when the potential for technological influence over economy had barely been realized. It is true that he did identify specialization among the trades, allowing for a more efficient method of production, but with the aid of technology, their productive ability to increase one hundred fold, at least. This economic thesis has been quoted and requoted again, standing as a base for theoretical economics. By every person following their self-love, the greater good of the whole is realized. Of course, with the evidence of the following century, economists finally realized that Adam Smith had made an enormous mistake. Simply reread the chapters 3 to 8, and you will see the empirical evidence, that by everyone following their own self-love, a system of slavery and serfdom is entirely recreated. The evidence of poverty has been always unsightly, and so it was the effort of the high class, or any upper class, to place themselves as far away from the ghetto as possible. Economists of the 1800's doubted Smith, and in the 1900's had nearly discredited him as an appendage of economic history, without any value. And rightly so: the evidence mounted against his claims and made him appear quick in his assertions. It is true that many universities in this century have taught Adam Smith is truth, but I don't think the whole world should suffer just because Harvard, Oxford, or Princeton happen to be some of the slowest learners.

     The idea that by following self-love is the greatest method of attaining happiness for the whole is perhaps the most absurd of all ideas when considered with all of the evidence. I suppose by creating an artificial winter, hoarding coal, refusing to let miners work, and allowing hundreds of people to die -- to increase the price of coal and decrease the price of wages -- is in fact in the best interest of people? And what of the poor tenement housing, dilapidated and without sufficient fire escapes? And what of tainted, contaminated, and infected food that was sold to reap profit? And what of starvation wages, offered globally to third world nations to make great profits for investors abroad? I suppose, by all of these people following their self interest, the whole was benefited? In fact, all of this was commonplace in Smith's era. He simply lacked vision. But, it seems quite clear to anyone today with eyes open that self-love is not the way to saving society. Adam Smith was wrong.

     Even in the late 1600's, the presence of a Capitalist class was obvious, even though the people of only some nations had been liberated by Feudalist fetters. And, as comes with any class that owns, operates, and indulges in the greatest wealth of society, without contributing a single ounce of value or labor, there came the hatred of this Capitalist class. In an era where men were still burned at the stake for their opinions, surrounded by the the pages of their works as they turned crisp, there was one author who would write a dissertation against this class. In 1668, Josiah Child wrote on the Capitalist class...

For the Sufferers by such a Law, I know none but idle persons that lives at as little expence as labour, Neither scattering by their expences, so as the Poor may Glean any thing after them, nor working with their hands or heads to bring either Wax, or Honey to the common Hive of the Kingdom; but swelling their own Purses by the sweat of other mens brows, and the contrivances of other mens brains: And how unprofitable it is for any Nation, to suffer IDLENESSE TO SUCK THE BREASTS OF INDUSTRY; needs no demonstration. And if it be granted me, that these will be the effects of an Abatement of Interest doth tend to the enriching of a Nation, and consequently, hath been one great cause of the Riches of the Dutch and Italians: And the increase of the Riches of our own Kingdom, in these last fifty years. [*50]

     The scathing attack on the Capitalist class was not the first, and it certainly would not be the last. Other authors would come, pleading that public interest must be served. In 1683, Matthew Hale would write...

A Due care for the relief of the Poor is an act, 1, of great Piety towards Almighty God, who requires it of us: He hath left the Poor as his Pupils, and the Rich as his Stewards to provided for them: It is one of those great Tributes that he justly requires from the rest of Mankind; which, because they cannot pay to him, he hath scattered the Poor amongst the rest of Mankind as his Substitutes and Receivers. [*51]

     The principle of the rich giving to the poor, or simply serving the public interest, was realized in hundreds of other manuscripts by different authors. In 1690, Nicholas Barbon writes, "The Chief Causes that Promote Trade, (not to mention good Government, Peace, and Situation, with other Advantages) are Industry in the Poor, and Liberality in the Rich: Liberality, is the free Usage of all those things that are made by the Industry of the Poor, for the Use of the Body and Mind; It Relates chiefly to Man's self, but doth not hinder him from being Liberal to others." [*52] Not all authors pleaded charity. Some argued that it wasn't so much the charity of the rich, their liberality, as it was their responsibility, their duty to feed the poor. In 1720, Isaac Gervaise writes, "For all Men have a natural Right to their Proportion of what is in the World..." [*53] Caesar Beccaria, Humanitarian and social justice advocate of the era, as well as enlightenment author, would promote the idea of public welfare. In a treatise of political economy, likely to have been written in the mid 1700's, he writes...

...the study of public oeconomy must necessarily enlarge and elevate the views of private oeconomy, by suggesting the means of uniting our own interest with that of the publick. When accustomed to consider the affairs of the common weal, and often to call up the ideas of general good, the natural partiality we bear to our own reasonings, and to objects which afford us so much intellectual pleasure, re-kindles the languishing love of our country. We no longer look upon ourselves as solitary parts of society, but as the children of the public, of the laws, and of the sovereign. The sphere of our feelings becomes greater and more lively; the selfish passions diminish, and social affections are dilated, and gather strength from the power of imagination and habit; and measuring objects according to their real dimensions, we lose sight of every mean and groveling disposition; vices which spring continually from a false measure of things. [*54]

     In one manuscript by David Hume, the author writes, "In short, a government has great reason to preserve with care its people and its manufactures." [*55] In 1755, Jean Jacques Rousseau writes...

It is therefore one of the most important functions of government to prevent extreme inequality of fortunes; not by taking away wealth from its possessors, but by depriving all men of means to accumulate it; not by building hospitals for the poor, but by securing the citizens from becoming poor. The unequal distribution of inhabitants over the territory, when men are crowded together in one place, while other places are depopulated; the encouragement of the arts that minister to luxury and of purely industrial arts at the expense of useful and laborious crafts; the sacrifice of agriculture to commerce; the necessitation of the tax-farmer by the mal-administration of the funds of the State; and in short, venality pushed to such an extreme that even public esteem is reckoned at a cash value, and virtue rated at a market price: these are the most obvious causes of opulence and of poverty, of public interest, of mutual hatred among citizens, of indifference to the common cause, of the corruption of the people, and of the weakening of all the springs of government. Such are the evils, which are with difficulty cured when they make themselves felt, but which a wise administration ought to prevent, if it is to maintain, along with good morals, respect for the laws, patriotism, and the influence of the general will. [*56]

     In 1767, James Steuart would write a great deal on political economy, commenting that public interest must be served to enrich the whole. He would write...

The principal object of this science [Economics] is to secure a certain fund of subsistence for all the inhabitants, to obviate every circumstance which may render it precarious; to provide every thing necessary for supplying the wants of the society, and to employ the inhabitants (supposing them to be free-men) in such a manner as naturally to create reciprocal relations and dependencies between them, so as to make their several interests lead them to supply one another with their reciprocal wants. [*57]

     Speaking of the duties of a statesmen, he writes, "A statesman should make it his endeavour to employ as many of every class as possible, and when employment fails in the common run of affairs, to contrive new outlets for young people of every denomination." [*58] And speaking of the downfall of a Capitalist economy, he writes, "From this results the principal cause of decay in modern states: it results from [economic] liberty [in a Capitalist system], and is inseparably connected with it." [*59] With strength against poverty, he writes, "...the principal care of a statesman should be, to keep all employed..." [*60] With duty to justice, he writes, "...grain, which belongs to the strong man for his labour and toil..." [*61] Finally, James Steuart writes...

In like manner, if a number of machines are all at once introduced into the manufactures of an industrious nation, (in consequence of that freedom which must necessarily be indulged to all sorts of improvement, and without which a state cannot thrive,) it becomes the business of the statesman to interest himself so far in the consequences, as to provide a remedy for the inconveniences resulting from the sudden alteration. It is farther his duty to make every exercise even of liberty and refinement an object of government and administration; not so as to discourage or to check them, but to prevent the revolution from affecting the interests of the different classes of the people, whose welfare he is particularly bound to take care of. [*62]

     Thomas Paine, in the late 1700's, would be writing the American Revolution, and defending the rights of all humans, of every race. In one document, speaking of justice in society, he writes...

It is a position not to be controverted that the earth, in its natural, cultivated state was, and ever would have continued to be, the common property of the human race. In that state every man would have been born to property. He would have been a joint life proprietor with rest in the property of the soil, and in all its natural productions, vegetable and animal. [*63]

     Thomas Malthus would continue the tradition of economic theory, but diverging greatly from Adam Smith on many points. While David Ricardo can be hailed as the true successor to Adam Smith economics, Malthus's system held truer to the evidence. In one 1815 essay, arguing for tariffs to protect the people, he writes, "As those, however, form but a very small portion of the class of persons living on the profits of stock, in point of number, and not probably above a seventh or eighth in point of property, their interests cannot be allowed to weigh against the interests of so very large a majority." [*64] In another work dated to 1815, J.C.L. Simonde de Sismondi writes...

...it is sufficient, in general, that the use of the ground be transmitted to the industrious man, who may turn it to advantage, whilst the property of it continues with the rich man, who has no longer the same incitements or the same fitness for labour, and who thinks only of enjoyment. The national interest, however. sometimes also requires that property itself shall pass into hands likely to make a better use of it. It is not for themselves alone that the rich elicit the fruits of the earth; it is for the whole nation; and if, by a derangement in their fortune, they suspend the productive power of the country, it concerns the whole nation to put their property under different managers. [*65]

     In the year 1825, Thomas Hodgskin, defender of labor, would write, "...whatever labour produces ought to belong to it." [*66] and elsewhere, too, "...allow labour to possess and enjoy the whole of its produce." [*67] In a less brief section, he thoroughly outlines the matter of justice, as it applies to economics...

He who makes the instruments [of production] is entitled, in the eye of justice, and in proportion to the labour he employs, to as great a reward as he who uses them; but he is not entitled to a greater; and he who neither makes nor uses them has no just claim to any portion of the produce.

Betwixt him who produces food and him who produces clothing, betwixt him who makes instruments and him who uses them, in steps the capitalist, who neither makes nor uses them, and appropriates to himself the produce of both. With as niggard a hand as possible he transfers to each a part of the produce of the other, keeping to himself the large share. [*68]

     In 1830, Nassau Senior would give a lecture, saying, "...the labourers form the strength of the country, and that to diminish their number is to incur voluntary feebleness." [*69] To end the injustice of the Capitalist system on the worker, Karl Marx made a bold demand, "Princely and other feudal estates, together with mines, pits, and so forth, shall become the property of the state. The estates shall be cultivated on a large scale and with the most up-to-date scientific devices in the interests of the whole of society." [*70] In his centennial oration, Robert Green Ingersoll said to the crowd, "Liberty: Give to every man the fruit of his own labor -- the labor of his hands and of his brain." [*71] Speaking of what the founders of the United States said, he spoke further...

They then declared that each man has a right to live. And what does that mean? It means that he has the right to make his living. It means that he has the right to breathe the air, to work the land, that he stands the equal of every other human being beneath the shining stars; entitled to the product of his labor -- the labor of his hand and of his brain. [*72]

     In 1877, Ingersoll wrote, "The working people should be protected by law; if they are not, the capitalists will require just as many hours as human nature can bear." [*73] In 1904, Gustav Schmoller, more of a sociologist than an economist, would write, "The lower classes have always been most unfavorably situated for that sort of influence [on making laws], but custom and law have sought to protect them, and every intelligent state government has had the same purpose." [*74] In that same document, he writes...

We have either to crush the laborers down to the level of slaves, which is impossible, or we must recognize their equal rights as citizens, we must improve their mental and technical training, we must permit them to organize, we must concede to them the influence which they need in order to protect their interests; not forget that this organization of the laborers alone could so emphatically remind rulers and property owners of their social duties that a serious social reform would be undertaken. [*75]

     In 1908, social reformer A.J. McKelway would write, "The need of placing the principle of child-protection upon the statute books is no longer to be considered, but the duty of securing advanced and effective legislation." [*76] In a 1910 publication, Henry Demarest Lloyd writes, "We have given competition its own way, and have found that we are not good enough or wise enough to be trusted with this power of ruining ourselves in the attempt to ruin others." [*77] Outlining his theory of social economy a bit more, Lloyd writes...

Failing competition and regulation, ownership by the people is the only agency which the people can use to restore their market rights and all their other rights. If we cannot have freedom by competition, we must get freedom by the Commonwealth.... Germany, England, Switzerland, New Zealand, Australia and a multitude of municipalities furnish illustrations of the successful recourse to public monopoly as an escape from the evils of private monopoly. [*78]

     Here, Lloyd suggested that ownership by the common people was the best method of obtaining justice. It was a Socialism, what some people call a lighter form of Communism. He didn't believe in the ownership of the entire economy by the public, but he believed that certain industries that produced necessities ought to be. Today, the American government does this with electricity and water. In 1921, Zimand Savel would describe the role of trade unions...

The American trade union movement is in part organized by international unions into an American Federation of Labor to promote the economic welfare of the workers outside of political parties. England, with its many independent unions, now on the way to amalgamation, finds them almost united in the support of the Labour Party. Germany's Social-Democratic unions form the economic arm of the different Socialist parties. In France the unions, originally moulded by anarchist influence, have, since the Great War, become more centralized. [*79]

     Before proceeding to the next section, dealing with property rights, there is one last excerpt that I feel ought to be read in its entirety. It was written in the 1700's by David Hume, and contains a wealth of information on public interest being served, rather than private desire. With that, I hope it is as informative as I believe it to be...

It will not, I hope, be considered as a superfluous digression, if I here observe, that, as the multitude of mechanical arts is advantageous, so is the great number of persons to whose share the productions of these arts fall. A too great disproportion among the citizens weakens any state. Every person, if possible, ought to enjoy the fruits of his labour, in a full possession of all the necessaries, and many of the conveniencies of life. No one can doubt, but such an equality is most suitable to human nature, and diminishes much less from the happiness of the rich than it adds to that of the poor. It also augments the power of the state, and makes any extraordinary taxes or impositions be paid with more chearfulness. Where the riches are engrossed by a few, these must contribute very largely to the supplying of the public necessities. But when the riches are dispersed among multitudes, the burthen feels light on every shoulder, and the taxes make not a very sensible difference on any one's way of living.

Add to this, that, where the riches are in few hands, these must enjoy all the power, and will readily conspire to lay the whole burthen on the poor, and oppress them still farther, to the discouragement of all industry.

In this circumstance consists the great advantage of ENGLAND above any nation at present in the world, or that appears in the records of any story. It is true, the ENGLISH feel some disadvantages in foreign trade by the high price of labour, which is in part the effect of the riches of their artisans, as well as of the plenty of money: But as foreign trade is not the most material circumstance, it is not to be put in competition with the happiness of so many millions. And if there were no more to endear to them that free government under which they live, this alone were sufficient. The poverty of the common people is a natural, if not an infallible effect of absolute monarchy; though I doubt, whether it be always true, on the other hand, that their riches are an infallible result of liberty. Liberty must be attended with particular accidents, and a certain turn of thinking, in order to produce that effect. Lord BACON, accounting for the great advantages obtained by the ENGLISH in their wars with FRANCE, ascribes them chiefly to the superior ease and plenty of the common people amongst the former; yet the government of the two kingdoms was, at that time, pretty much alike. Where the labourers and artisans are accustomed to work for low wages, and to retain but a small part of the fruits of their labour, it is difficult for them, even in a free government, to better their condition, or conspire among themselves to heighten their wages. But even where they are accustomed to a more plentiful way of life, it is easy for the rich, in an arbitrary government, to conspire against them, and throw the whole burthen of the taxes on their shoulders.

It may seem an odd position, that the poverty of the common people in FRANCE. ITALY, and SPAIN, is, in some measure, owing to the superior riches of the soil and happiness of the climate; yet there want not reasons to justify this paradox. In such a fine mould or soil as that of those more southern regions, agriculture is an easy art; and one man, with a couple of sorry horses, will be able, in a season, to cultivate as much land as will pay a pretty considerable rent to the proprietor. All the art. which the farmer knows, is to leave his ground fallow for a year, as soon as it is exhausted; and the warmth of the sun alone and temperature of the climate enrich it, and restore its fertility. Such poor peasants, therefore, require only a simple maintenance for their labour. They have no stock or riches, which claim more; and at the same time, they are for ever dependant on their landlord, who gives no leases, nor fears that his land will be spoiled by the ill methods of cultivation. In ENGLAND, the land is rich, but coarse; must be cultivated at a great expence; and produces slender crops, when not carefully managed, and by a method which gives not the full profit but in a course of several years. A farmer, therefore, in ENGLAND must have a considerable stock, and a long lease; which beget proportional profits. The fine vineyards of CHAMPAGNE and BURGUNDY that often yield to the landlord above five pounds per acre, are cultivated by peasants, who have scarcely bread: The reason is, that such peasants need no stock but their own limbs, with instruments of husbandry, which they can buy for twenty shillings. The farmers are commonly in some better circumstances in those countries. But the grasiers are most at their ease of all those who cultivate the land. The reason is still the same. Men must have profits proportionable to their expence and hazard. Where so considerable a number of the labouring poor as the peasants and farmers are in very low circumstances, all the rest must partake of their poverty, whether the government of that nation be monarchical or republican. [*80]

Property Rights

[The following excerpts are resources that are quoted along with a wealth of other material in Class Conscious: The Injustice of Poverty, Second Edition, chapter 9, by Punkerslut.]

It is certain that the right of property is the most sacred of all the rights of citizenship, and even more important in some respects than liberty itself; either because it more nearly affects the preservation of life, or because, property being more easily usurped and more difficult to defend than life, the law ought to pay a greater attention to what is most easily taken away; or finally, because property is the true foundation of civil society, and the real guarantee of the undertakings of citizens: for if property were not answerable for personal actions, nothing would be easier than to evade duties and laugh at the laws.

-- Jean Jacques Rousseau, 1755 [*81]

The property which every man has in his own labour, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable. The patrimony of a poor man lies in the strength and dexterity of his hands; and to hinder him from employing this strength and dexterity of his hands; and to hinder him from employing this strength and dexterity in what manner he thinks proper without injury to his neighbour is a plain violation of this most sacred property. It is a manifest encroachment upon the just liberty both of the workman and of those who might be disposed to employ him. As it hinders the one from working at what he thinks proper, so it hinders the others from employing whom they think proper. To judge whether he is fit to be employed may surely be trusted to the discretion of the employers whose interest it so much concerns. The affected anxiety of the law-giver lest they should employ an improper person is evidently as impertinent as it is oppressive.

-- Adam Smith, 1776 [*82]

     Up until this point, we have a few immutable, inarguable facts. The first chapter drew upon the productivity that we can receive from technological innovation and occupation specialization. The second chapter set a basic understanding of the structure of Capitalism, without relying all too heavily on specifics. With a stable understanding of the socio-economic system, I then ventured to show the historical and modern effects of it. In this chapter, I proved that labor produces all wealth and that public interest is necessary toward creating prosperity.

     What is the most common response to all this information? Quite simply: why is it that the worker, who produces the wealth, is the person to receive the least amount of it? Why is it that the Capitalist, who produces nothing, is the person to receive the greatest amount of wealth? The answer is simple. In a Capitalist economy, a person has the right to private property. By this, it is meant that he has the right to obtain property through legal recourse, by making contracts and agreements. What is the result? There becomes the haves and the have-nots, the separation of classes. How is it that a person comes into possession of wealth? Perhaps they worked at a fair-paying job (as uncommon as it is), and earned enough wealth to amass their own shop or factory. Perhaps it was simply a small amount of wealth wisely invested in the right corporations. Or, another likely scenario, it was inherited. Whatever the case, once a person becomes wealthy in a Capitalist economy, they have the working class to do their bidding. Why is this? Because every worker is subject to their own needs: particularly housing and feeding themselves and their families. The Capitalist will amass a working force to operate the factories, the farms, the mines, the shops. He will say to them, "You must do as I command you -- you must work these gears, sow these fields, mine this coal, drive this train, sell this merchandise. If you refuse, you will not be paid. If you are not paid, you will not be able to buy food or housing." The human will to survive is strong, and so the worker accepts the Capitalist's terms.

     Wage-slavery is the result of Capitalism. No longer the slave to any master, but their own self-interest: they sign over a certain amount of hours of their lives that they might not starve to death. The right to private property is the right to enslave any person who has no wealth. It is a right exclusive to those who already own the wealth of society. The fact that one class of individuals is oppressing another class is deplorable enough, but then we must recognize that the oppressors in this situation are those who do no labor though they are the ones who indulge in the sweetness of wealth. And, those who do the labor (that creates wealth) are those who are given the smallest amount of wealth. The oppressors form the smallest part of society of a handful of nations, while the oppressed form the great majority of the entire planet. African slaves in the south made up a third of society. Yet in our Capitalist system, those who are forced to labor are in fact the greatest part of the society. One may argue, "But the person may change any employment they like; they can quit and reapply anywhere else!" But a Capitalist anywhere has the same interest of depressing wages. It is slavery, because the only alternative offered to labor is starvation. It is an injustice, a cruelty, a poorly-acted sense of social behavior. To quote Karl Marx...

All property relations in the past have continually been subject to historical change consequent upon the change in historical conditions.

The French Revolution, for example, abolished feudal property in favor of bourgeois property.

The distinguishing feature of communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property. But modern bourgeois private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few.

In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.

[...]

You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property. But in your existing society, private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population; its existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in the hands of those nine-tenths. You reproach us, therefore, with intending to do away with a form of property, the necessary condition for whose existence is the non-existence of any property for the immense majority of society. [*83]

     This view of society, that Capitalists are in fact responsible for poor working conditions, for scams on consumers, for the poverty that infects every city, this view of society changes around our entire perception of civilization. The initial view of unemployment in our cities is the idea that people are lazy and detest work in its forms. Homelessness that ensues from unemployment is given the same idea. While some may argue that it is in fact problems in personal life, including physical, mental, or sexual abuse, the greatest reason why homelessness exists is Capitalism. If you can't work 10 hours a day at a repetitive job with no possibility of rising up, so you can rent out a closet for sleeping and eat shit food -- if you can't do this, you're lazy. That is the ethos of Capitalism, a system that is as deplorable as it is impractical. The view of poverty is entirely changed: it is not caused by the worker, but by the Capitalist, whose sole goal is to gain profit by allowing miserable working conditions, poor quality products, and a sinking economy. The perception that we have on social ills like crime and violence certainly change, as well. It may be believed that crime is the desire to live easy without doing work: the same perception that we had of homelessness, unemployment, and poverty. But no, that is not the case. Crime's cause is the same as the cause of homelessness: the conditions of upholding a "straight, narrow, working class life" being enough to physically deteriorate the human body and destroy any potential for liberty, happiness, or security. By putting the means of production into the hands of a few, Capitalism has been realized. To quote Karl Marx...

The bourgeoisie keeps more and more doing away with the scattered state of the population, of the means of production, and of property. It has agglomerated population, centralized the means of production, and has concentrated property in a few hands. [*84]

     What is the result of this system of Capitalism, besides a nearly artistic rage against human greed and a sickening disgust against modern civilization? There is an underlying sentiment, an idea that seeks expression in our hearts. Spoken by the philosopher and felt by the worker, there is the ideal... can we have any other system besides Capitalism? We are restricted to living one life on earth, so why must it be a life full of misery and struggle? We are torn, distressed, enraged, sickened, almost hopeless and almost believing there can be no better future. But, what comes from it? We want to live in a different society where the property relations are different. Homelessness is caused by Capitalism's low wages and high costs. Police officers arresting people for sleeping in an abandoned building is class war. Two hundred people dying from salmonella poisoning because packaging plants lack safety is class war. Working ten hours a day to feed yourself and your family is class war. What the good, common people want is to live in a society where none of this exists. We want Communism.

     To redefine the class relations of society, the idea of class must be destroyed. When I speak of class here, it must be understood that I am speaking of the haves and the have-nots, the Capitalists and the Proletariat. We must establish a society where the economy is managed not by the Capitalist, but by the Proletariat. The only solution to the crime that Capitalism is, is to create a society where the Proletariat are in control. Who decides the wages and the costs of commodities? In a Capitalist society, it is the Capitalist: those who own the means of production and have the legal right to do as they please. But, in a Communist society, it is the Proletariat. The people will own the means of production and have the legal right to set the wages and the prices of commodities. In a Communist society, there will be no Capitalist class. Each and every person in this society will be as much a Capitalist as they are a Proletariat. Everyone will own the means of production, just as everyone will work the gears, dig the mines, harvest the fields, and manage the distribution of wealth. Henry Demarest Lloyd wrote, "Democracy found that the only way to regulate kings was to make every citizen a king." [*85] If this is true, then what is the best way to regulate an economy? It is to make every Proletariat a Capitalist -- it is to give the means of production to those who operate them. In a Communist society, every farm, every factory, every mine, and every distribution center will be public property, as much as the roads and highways are.

     With the people, the common people, in ownership of the means of production, with the capability of producing food, housing, clothing, necessities and pleasures, there can be no doubt that fairness, justice, and truth will succeed. In a Communist society, homelessness, poverty, and crime will nearly disappear entirely, and those social illnesses that still do exist will exist by means of habit rather than necessity. The prices of commodities and the wages of the workers will be decided much like the way we today decide laws and regulations: by the public voting and deciding these matters. I imagine that under such a system, the working hours will be cut in half, the total wages will double (or quadruple under eight hours), and the prices of commodities will be cut to one third or one fourth. It will be in such a society that poverty, unemployment, and other undesirable features will completely disappear. Such things only existed in a Capitalist society.

     But one may ask, one may inquire, one may bring up the argument, that by turning the means of production into public property, are we not infringing on the rights of those Capitalists? Are we not encroaching upon their right -- particularly, their right to private property? A right which says that a man can amass wealth, forge iron contracts with his employees of twelve hours a day, and then sell black bread and rotten meat at such high costs, as to render the entire society with the burden of poverty?

     We are brought up in our culture to believe in this right to private property. Every social issue seems to revolve around it. When we become the judge and jury of opinion, and a quarrel or a conflict is brought up, we tend to think and believe, "Well, does that man not have the right to private property -- and to do with it as he likes?" The idea of personal property is not specifically being attacked here. I do not contest a man to own belongings, to do with them as he might like. The part of personal property that becomes a conflicting point for a Communist, is when it is used to engage in wage-slavery, either in the form of worker abuse, consumer abuse, or poverty. So, when it comes to the matter of private property, as it exists with the form of private capital and private means of production, what of the Capitalists' rights?

     When we think of these matters, of the rights of a man or a woman, we often think of the great political battles that were waged and fought. We think of the pamphlets that circulated in countries, convincing the people that they have rights: the right to freedom of press, the right to freedom of speech, the right to freedom of religion, of opinion, to bear arms, to fairness and equality in the justice system. What of the right to private property? Do we overturn it, without thought, without caprice, almost as scoundrels? It is difficult to know what rights we really have, or what rights we really should give. We cannot turn to god and ask what rights we have, for if he could just as arbitrarily give us the right to private property, he could just as well give us the right to rape, or to murder -- and it still would not make it a just right, because it comes from a god. This right, the right to private property, has long been held sacred, upheld as one of the greatest rights, in Western civilization. How can we just overturn it? With what justice can we do it? It may be difficult, but when we examine the situation, the oppression that is dealt by the Capitalist class with the aid of this right, the absolute misery and poverty that stricken the majority of the people, we must see that the right to private property is no different than a king's right to the throne: it is simply a right to tyranny, to overflowing and unrestricted brutality. We must pass over the right to private property as a right that no longer exists; just as man has no right to murder or rape, he has no right to private property. No, he cannot and must not. We must have a new right: the right to personal property. To own and control your own personal wealth, so long as it is not used in contractual agreements to control or abuse the lives of others.

     When one really thinks of it, what good is the right to private property? It simply assures us that, if we become wealthy enough, we have the right to buy and own our own factory, mine, farm, or shop. It gives us the very limited potential to become wealthy. If a person falls in to that 2% of the population, then that right to private property actually means something -- otherwise, it means nothing. What is greater, what is for the common good to mankind: the right to private property, or the right to live without the fear of starvation, misery, and poverty? Should we uphold the dreams of those who oppress us and force us to live in cruel living conditions -- or should we uphold our own sacred right to just working conditions, paid our value for work, rather than paid what is enough to subsist? We must believe in the right to live without absolute poverty wracking our lives, bankrupting our souls, and turning misery into an everyday battle. "When liberty is the system, every one, according to his disposition, becomes industrious, in order to procure such enjoyments for himself," writes James Steuart. [*86] But slavery is our system, in the form of Capitalism, and men labor, but in order to subsist.

     The right to private property has been eroding ever since the year 1900 passed. No longer is it allowed for corporations to conspire in price hikes or wage depressions: the anti-trust laws disallow this use of private property. Social services provided by the state now aid those living in poverty. Everywhere, all around, it is becoming more and more clear that the Capitalist class is wholly responsible for the poverty that abounds, not only in this nation, but around the world. It is a crumbling creed, but that does not mean that the poor are liberated, nor does it mean that those abused are without misery.

     We must do what we can to destroy the right to private property and instill liberty and the right to a free life in our world.

A Summary

     Would I recommend this book to a friend? Perhaps. The first book (aside from the section dealing with the varying value of gold and silver) is a good introduction into basic economics, but its length and dryness may bore readers. The rest of the books composing this work would probably be of interest only to those who are incredibly interested in economics. There is one minor note I must admit before ending this critique. While I wrote that the works of Smith and of Communists are invariably written along the same lines, Smith was not a sympathizer of the plight of the workers, or even the consumers. He wrote his observations on the matter. He saw that the workers were abused, that the creators of wealth were given crumbs of society. He also saw that Capitalists and industrialists are known to burn their entire fields of crops, to drive up prices (and indeed, every Capitalist philosopher hereon has written that Capitalism is the most productive, and I am forced to confess that they are probably ignorant of this book, The Wealth of Nations). Smith simply wrote his observations on these matters, whereas it would be up to the Socialists and the Communists to apply very basic ethical ideas to economics. Finally, this critique will probably not only be understood as a criticism of what Smith wrote, but a criticism of how people interpret what he wrote and how it actually relates to the world.

     In ending this piece, I must reiterate one last, final, ultimate point: I am a Communist. I believe that the workers of the world deserve to be the choosers of their own fate -- that no person should ever be an authority over them -- that a representative government is no less evil than a dictatorship. I believe that the fruits of labor ought to go to the laborer, not the idle. I believe in freedom, liberty, charity, and kindness. That civilization will no longer be insulted by the rhetoric of Capitalist philosophers, this is one dream that I have. I am a Communist.

Punkerslut,

49. Smith, Adam, "An Inquiry into the Wealth of Nations," book 1, chapter 2, 1776.
50. Child, Josiah, "Observations concerning Trade and Interest of Money," 1668.
51. Hale, Matthew, "A Discourse Touching Provision for the Poor," 1683.
52. Barbon, Nicholas, "A Discourse of Trade," 1690, Of the Chief Causes that Promote Trade.
53. Gervaise, Isaac, "The System or Theory of the Trade of the World," 1720.
54. Becarria, Caesar, "A Discourse on Public Economy and Commerce," Date Unknown.
55. Hume, David, "On the Balance of Trade," Date Unknown.
56. Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, "Political Economy," 1755.
57. Steuart, James, "An Inquiry into the Principles of Political Economy," 1767, book 1, preface.
58. Steuart, James, "An Inquiry into the Principles of Political Economy," 1767, book 1, chapter 11.
59. Steuart, James, "An Inquiry into the Principles of Political Economy," 1767, book 1, chapter 12.
60. Steuart, James, "An Inquiry into the Principles of Political Economy," 1767, book 1, chapter 13.
61. Steuart, James, "An Inquiry into the Principles of Political Economy," 1767, book 1, chapter 16.
62. Steuart, James, "An Inquiry into the Principles of Political Economy," 1767, book 1, chapter 19.
63. Paine, Thomas, "Agrarian Justice," Date Unknown.
64. Malthus, Thomas, "The Grounds of an Opinion on the Policy of Restricting the Importation of Foreign Corn," 1815.
65. Sismondi, J.C.L. Simonde de, "Political Economy," 1815.
66. Hodgskin, Thomas, "Labour Defended," 1825.
67. Hodgskin, Thomas, "Labour Defended," 1825.
68. Hodgskin, Thomas, "Labour Defended," 1825.
69. Senior, Nassau, "Three Lectures on the Rate of Wages," 1830.
70. Marx, Karl, "Demands of the Communist Party," 1848, demand #7.
71. Ingersoll, Robert Green, "Centennial Oration," 1876.
72. Ingersoll, Robert Green, "Centennial Oration," 1876.
73. Ingersoll, Robert Green, "Eight Hours Must Come," 1877.
74. Schmoller, Gustav, "On Class Conflict in General," 1904.
75. Schmoller, Gustav, "On Class Conflict in General," 1904.
76. McKelway, A.J., "Child Labor and Social Progress," 1908.
77. Lloyd, Henry Demarest, "Lords of Industry," 1910, chapter 4.
78. Lloyd, Henry Demarest, "Lords of Industry," 1910, chapter 9.
79. Zimand, Savel, "Trade Unionism," 1921.
80. Hume, David, "On Commerce," Date Unknown.
81. Rousseau, Jean Jacques, "Political Economy," 1755.
82. Smith, Adam, "An Inquiry into the Wealth of Nations," book 1, chapter 10, part 2, 1776.
83. "Manifesto of the Communist Party," by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, "Proletarians and Communists," 1848.
84. "Manifesto of the Communist Party," by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, "Proletarians and Communists," 1848.
85. "Lords of Industry," by Henry Demarest Lloyd, 1910, chapter 10.
86. Steuart, James, "An Inquiry into the Principles of Political Economy," 1767, book 2, chapter 6.

copyleft notice and responsibility clause (read this first before reading anything else on the site)