THE IRRIGATION AGE. 85 



this, that we no longer had the monopoly of the wheat of the world, 

 but that cheap labor was using against us the fine agricultural ma- 

 chinery which we thought we were so very smart in selling and show- 

 ing how to use. But this and the fall in other produce in sympathy 

 with wheat merely cut into the farmers's surplus. It did not cut into 

 his living. The absurdity is in supposing that he was the only suf- 

 ferer. The real sufferers were those into whose living the change cut, 

 and their number was greater than that of any farmers who were 

 much affected. They never had any surplus to reduce. They never 

 had more than a living and that was reduced, while the farmer's living 

 was the same as before. Call silver the cause and we do not affect 

 this fact. 



Suppose the world consisted of three people. It is easy to see 

 how one of them may get the surplus labor of the other two, and two 

 may get all the labor of the other one. Or all three may make merely 

 a living by their own labor and none of the three have any of the sur- 

 plus labor of the rest. It is clear enough that if one gets above the 

 average, one or more must drop below it, and the only way to avoid 

 this is for each to be satisfied with turning his own labor into food 

 and clothing. The chances of success are far greater in this, for the 

 moment one tries to capture some of the surplus labor of one or both 

 of the other two, he is increasing his risk of failure. And failure 

 may leave him worse than where he started and one or two of the 

 others may have the whole of his surplus. This is often very simple. 

 Suppose A thought himself a fine poker player; B thought himself an 

 extra fine player; whereas C did not think anything about it, but was 

 a super-exera fine player. A makes a start for the surplus of the 

 other two, B does the same and they wind up by C getting the whole of it. 



For surplus labor let us now substitute money, for convenience in 

 making the exchange. Have we changed the conditions? Can it 

 alter the consequences of a mistake of A as to his smartness and the 

 mistake of B as to the stupidity of C? Will any amount of money 

 make any difference or any kind of money? 



Do we escape these conditions by increasing the number of people 

 or do we merely hide the machinery with numbers? Must there not 

 be a vast number of men satisfied with making a living, a great big 

 average man who neither climbs above nor falls below? Is not every 

 attempt to climb much above liable to result in a drop below? Is not 

 every attempt to secure much of this substitute for surplus labor 

 dangerously like a game of poker, in which you may easily be mis- 

 taken about your ability or your watchfulness? And as long as you 

 allow people to get in any way the surplus labor of others (or its rep- 

 resentative, money) how are we to prevent the long-headed, the ener- 

 getic, the economical from being ahead; especially if they walk the 

 floor when the rest are sleeping? 



