Equality

Cross-

Edith listened to the story of my dream. When,

u thinking a

ed, "how it would have been

ed. "How could it

hole thing about us. And suppose you had gone forth just as you did in your dream, and had passed up and down telling men of the terrible folly and wickedness of their way of life and how much nobler and

self," I said, for her wistful expression

on your own account. As for me, I have very go

dreamed it all you would have had no existence save as a

serious; "yet if I could have been more useful to humanity as a fictio

life anywhere or under any conditions after leaving her behind in a dream--a confession of shameless selfishness w

last night, when I tried to tell my contemporaries and even my best friends about the nobler way men might live together, they derided me as a fool

g that it would presently mean a leveling up of all together to a vastly higher plane of life and happiness, of material welfare and moral dignity than the most fortunate had ever enjoyed. But even if the rich had at first mist

impossible. It used to be commonly said, and it often seemed true, that the social reformer who tried to better the condition of the people found a more discouraging obstacle in the hopelessness of the masses he would raise than in the active resistance of the few, whose superiority was threatened. And indeed, Edith, to be fair to my own class, I am bound to say that with the best of the rich it was often as much this same hopelessne

h smiled

course of events. I, on the other hand, having gone to school in the twentieth century, and been obliged, much against my will, to study nineteenth-century history, naturally know what happened after the date at which your knowledge ceased. I know, impossible as it may seem to you, that you had scarcely fallen into

to me, but when I began to question Edit

almost nothing either as to the Revolution or nineteenth-century matters generally. You have no idea how hard I have been trying to post myself on the subject so as to be able to talk intelligently with you, but I fear it is of no use. I could not understand it in school and can not seem to understand it

I said; "but I don't see what there was particularl

ween the pretensions of your contemporaries about the way their so

mple?" I

what I mean. You ought to be able to clear up the matter if anybody can. You have just been telling me about the shockingly unequal conditions of the peo

es

ts were almost as great as at

ns of different classes than you would find in a half hour's walk in Boston, New York, C

equal. One is constantly coming upon this phrase in the literature of the day. Now, you have made it clear that they were neither free nor equal in any ordinary sense of the word

se, that they were all

he rich and poor equal in the courts?

ll alike, but not in fact. There was more difference in the position of the rich and the poor man before

then, were the ric

to be equal in

nities f

tting rich, for getting ahead of

ut that all had an equal chance to make themselves unequal. But was it true

re so in my day. Capital had practically monopolized all economic opportunities by that time; there was

to give at least a color to all this boasting about equali

uals. They all had one vote alike, and

makes the actual condition of thi

y s

toiling, starving, freezing, wretched masses of the poor--why did they not wit

d I am by saying this. Doubtless I am overlooking some important fact, but did you

ineteenth century manhood suffrage had

ugh their chosen agents made all

tain

ation and of the States. Perhaps they prevente

f laws. The majority made and altered them at will. The people we

g arrangement, or think it to their advantage, t

ty could do anything if it was

oor, not the rich--the ones who had the wro

e rich were but a ha

hey just willed it, from making an end of their sufferings and organizin

ng wha

nse, they didn't do it at once and be happy instead of making a spectacle

on of industry and commerce and the production and distribution of wea

needs to the gratification of the most refined tastes, all that belongs to the development of mind as well as body, depend first, last, and a

cour

me power of regulating their affairs into their own hands, deliberately consented to exclude from their jur

e historie

there must be some way of explaining it. But tell me, Julian, seeing the people did not think that they could trust th

capita

eople elect th

electe

en, were the

appointe

y they must have been accountable to somebody for the manner in which they ex

ccountable to nobody and noth

the public good, that people tolerated their usurpation out of gratitude. The people nowadays wo

t. As to any benevolent interest in the conduct of industry and commerce, the capitalists expressly disavowed it. Their on

t professed to govern for the welfare of their people, as fathers acting for children, and the good ones did try to

what

ly without moral sanction of any sort or plea of benevolent intentions, but was pract

e tried to tell you this morning, gives but a faint sugg

d me; there must be some explanation or at least color of excuse why the people not only abdicated the power of controling their most vital and important

s in the name of individual liberty, industrial freedom, and individual initiativ

ms to have been the most irresponsible and despo

y of economic initiati

tive and business opportunity in your day were pra

pitalists in business, and it was rapidly becoming so that only the

ry to capitalist government was the promotion of industrial

al system for their own benefit; that the capitalists would, moreover, look out for their welfare more wisely and kindly than they could possibly do it themselves, so that they would be able to provide for themselves

ockery; it was addin

ed the soundest sort of political economy in my time. Those

must have done something. There must have been some odds and ends of th

e peace among the people. That was the main part o

great amount of keeping? Why didn'

is general frenzy in some restraint, so that the entire social system should not resolve itself into a general massacre, required an army of soldiers, police, judges, and jailers, and endless law-making to settle the quarrels. Add

nment was to struggle with the social chaos which resulted from its failure

not state the whole case more a

em from its own effects, did the polit

dewaiters, maintained an army and navy, a

in a government limited to the range of functions you have

tes in close elections in America

ow exactly what the value of money was in your day,

ll it for money, but from the point of view to which you have brought me this morning I am inclined to think that the fellows who sold their votes had a far clearer idea of the sham of our so-c

paid for

ession that the bulk of the votes were bought outright. That would have been too open a confession of the sham of popular government as well as too expensive. The money contributed by the capitalists to procure the election of the office-seekers was mainly expended to influence the people by indirect means. Immense sums under the name of campaign funds were raised for this purpose and used

d on the economic government as their special province, but also pr

ite necessary as instruments for putting through their schemes. Moreover, in order to protect themselves and their property against popular outbreaks, it was hi

overnors, and Legislatures represen

sure way of sacrificing his career. You must remember, if you would understand how absolutely the capitalists controled the Government, that a President, Governor, or mayor, or member of the municipal, State, or national council, was only temporarily a servant of the people or dependent on their favour. His public position he held only from election to election, and rarely long. His permanent, lifelong, and all-controling interest, like that of us all, was his livelihood, and that was dependent, not on the applause of the people, but the fav

nd representatives of their own class, who wo

orally any better than the rich. Then, too--and that was the most important reason why the masses of the people, who were poor, did not send men of their class to represent them--poverty as a rule implied

ent and thoughtful

so-called popular system of government in your day is that I was trying to find

ut if you only grasp firmly the vital point that the rule of the rich, the supremacy of capital and its interests, as against those of the people at l