If they accept a guide by reason of the virtue of that guide, and use his virtue for their own guidance, they cease to be virtuous themselves. As they submit to the power of another they become slavish and cringing themselves. But, on the other hand, as they reject authority, and refuse to obey its dictates, do they become progressive and self-reliant.

These principles hold good when applied in every possible sphere of human activity. To concede the authority of the past, or of its masters of thought, in science, art, literature, or religion is to deny progress, and stop enquiry. To call it in question is to open the door for advancement. As long as the slave submits to a master he will continue to be a slave. Independence, self-reliance, strength of will, insubordination, always go together, and are incompitable with discipline.

As showing how completely the socialistic scheme depends upon compulsion, discipline, the superiority of some and inferiority of others, and the paternal nature of its government, see pages 63, 94, 123, 127-8, 141, 156, 183-4, 189-91, 199-201, of Edward Bellamy's "Looking Backward." These are only a few of the grosser illustrations of this essential character of the plan; and "Looking Backward" is only the working out in detail of the scheme. The schemes of those state socialists who do not accept Mr. Bellamy's plans, depend equally upon this same submission.

Upon such a foundation there can be built but one superstructure: that of slavish dependence. Freedom of thought, independent manhood, individuality become swallowed up in authority, and a steadily falling standard of mediocrity. The power of the state made supreme, holding within its grasp all the resources and activities of the people to an extent which no despot ever knew before, with the spirit of resistance steadily weakened, we should have conditions inviting, and certain to produce, a despotism more intolerable than any the world ever knew.

But even if this were not so: even if under these conditions the people could retain the power within their own grasp, and carry into successful operation their schemes, it would still violate the conditions of human progress, check the development of individual character, extinguish genius, and promote a constantly falling standard of mediocrity. Whatever our plans of progress, to succeed, they must not run counter to men's natures; but to make sustenance the reward of labor, and then reward all men alike, whatever their deserts, at once destroys the incentive to excel, closes the door to personal advancement in that direction, prevents the expression of individuality, and encourages indolence and sloth. For some time to come the hope of increased reward for increased exertion must continue to be one of the greatest incentives to excellence. This, state socialism would destroy without substituting anything but dependence and uniformity in its place.

Such a system, as compared with the present, in some respects, might increase the amount of wealth produced, just as an improved system of discipline on a slave plantation might enable the master to get more work out of the slaves; but the advantage could not go to the slaves. Those who wielded the despotism would get the advantage. As between the two: our present industrial slavery, and a slavery like this, the present is infinitely more to be desired.

This fact is incontestable, that the condition necessary to the development of an independent self-reliant manhood is the perfect freedom of the individual; and that just in proportion as that freedom is violated, this type of manhood is suppressed, and men become mean-spirited and base.

CHAPTER VI.

THE FALLACIES OF KARL MARX.

Karl Marx, like all the economic writers that I know of, started out to study the laws which govern the relations of men, by observing some of the things that men do; which is like trying to learn the mechanical construction and movements of a machine by examining a few of the different kinds of work it turns out. What can a man find out of the complicated mechanical movements of a planing machine by examining a planed board after it has passed through? And what can we infer of the laws which govern the social relations of men by observing the phenomena of the circulation of wealth, splitting economic hairs, and drawing fine distinctions as to the nature of property, the rightfulness of interest, or the value of commodities? We must first know what man is; what are his springs of action, what the purpose of his being, and in what ways he seeks to accomplish that purpose, before we can make real headway in tracing his relations to his fellows.

Without any disrespect to Mr. Marx for his faulty methods, for they have been the methods of others before and since, and with no purpose to detract anything from the real value of his work, I will try and point out some of the mistakes into which he fell, and which might have been avoided had he begun at the right point and followed the subject with the same care and fidelity that he has evidently bestowed upon his work (Kapital).

Along with other economic writers, Mr. Marx falls into an almost inextricable confusion over "labor value,” “surplus value, "and "value in exchange. "

Observing that a commodity requiring a given number of hours' or days' labor to produce it, does not always exchange equally for another commodity into which the same amount of labor has entered, and which he therefore regards as of equal labor value, he calls that difference "profit," or "surplus value,' which, together with the "labor value" make up the "value in exchange." He roundly condemns profit or surplus value, as a species of robbery. Insisting that it can have no economic basis, he says:

"Turn and twist then as we may, the fact remains unaltered. If equivalents are exchanged, no surplus value results, and if non-equivalents are exchanged, still no surplus value. Circulation, or exchange of commodities, begets no value."

By this he thinks he has shown the injustice of profit, taking profit to mean the difference between the labor cost to produce the commodity and the labor that entered into the cost of production of the thing it is exchanged for.

Condillac came nearer the truth when he said:

"It is not true that on an exchange of commodities we give value for value. On the contrary, each of the two contracting parties, in every case, gives a less for a greater value. And yet, they both gain, or ought to gain-why? The value of a thing consists solely in its relation to our wants. What is more to one is less to the other, and vice versa."

But why more to one and less to another? Let us see. I have desires. It is only by my labor that I can gratify my desires. By an expenditure of thirty days of my labor, I have produced wheat; but my desire is for clothing. Owing to various causes, the principal of which is my want of skill, if I apply my labor directly to the making of the clothes I want, I must work sixty days to obtain them. But here is another who has clothing which has cost him thirty days' labor, and who wants wheat. His skill in wheat growing is as limited as mine is in the making of

clothes, and it would take him as long, were he to undertake directly to grow wheat, to get the wheat he wants as it would me to produce the clothes I want. But, if we can exchange, I giving him my wheat for his clothes, we have clearly both made a profit in the transaction. He has saved thirty days of his labor over what it would have cost him to grow the wheat he wanted, and I have saved thirty days of my labor over what it would have cost me to make the clothes I needed. This is how both parties to an equal exchange make a profit on the same transaction.

But what is meant by "labor cost" and "labor value?" Are they both the same thing, or different? Let us see. If I speak of the labor cost of a thing I mean the amount of labor that entered into its production. But if I speak of its "labor value," I mean the amount of the product of labor, measured by its labor cost, that it will exchange for, which is often a very different thing. Let me make that plain. In the case of a famine my wheat rises in value. Labor applied to the production of wheat, owing to the conditions which cause the famine, is unproductive. It may take five times as much of my skilled labor, or five times as much of the others' unskilled labor, to produce as much wheat as I already have that only cost me thirty days' labor. The labor cost of my wheat remains the same, but its labor value has risen five fold. It will require five times as much labor to replace it as it did to produce what I have. The labor necessary to produce clothing remaining the same, if I now wish to exchange for clothing I can get five times as many clothes as I could before, and yet I only obtain the labor value, under the then existing conditions, of my wheat.

Again, it often occurs that the labor value of a thing falls below its labor cost. Any improvement in methods of production by which labor is saved, its effectiveness increased, and the labor cost of future production is reduced, reduces the labor value of all