To Workingmen
Henry George
[An article first published in Belford's Magazine,
New York, June 1888.
Reprinted from The Standard, 16 June 1888]
I AM one of those who believe that it is possible for workingmen to
raise wages by an intelligent use of their votes; that this is the
only way in which wages can be generally and permanently raised-the
only way labour can obtain that share of wealth which is justly its
due. And I am one of those who believe that this is the supreme object
that workingmen should seek in politics. In seeking to raise wages, to
improve the conditions of labour, we are seeking, not the good of a
class, but the good of the whole. The number of those who can live on
the labour of others is and can be but small as compared with the
number who must labour to live. And where labour yields the largest
results to the labourer, where the production of wealth is greatest
and its distribution most equitable, where the man who has nothing but
his labour is surest of making the most comfortable living and best
provide for those whom nature has made dependent upon him, there, I
believe, will be the best conditions of life for all -- there will the
general standard of intelligence and virtue be highest, and there will
all that makes a nation truly great and strong and glorious most
abound.
Believing this, I am glad that the presidential campaign this year is
to turn, not upon sectional issues or matters of party or personal
character, but upon a great question of national policy-the question
of protection or free trade; and that this is to be discussed, as it
is most important that it should be discussed, in its relation to
wages. What is thus entering our politics is more than a question of
higher or lower duties, or no duties at all -- it is the most
important of all questions, the great labour question. And what is
really involved in the decision that will be asked of you as to
whether protection or free trade is best for the interests of labour,
is whether the emancipation of labour is to be sought by imposing
restrictions or by securing freedom. Until the men who would raise
wages and emancipate labour settle that for themselves, they can not
unite to carry out any large measure.
In the coming campaign the most frantic appeals will be made to
workingmen to vote for protection. You will be told that "protection"
means "protection to American labour"; that that is what it
was instituted for, and that is why it is maintained; that it is
protection that makes this country so prosperous and your wages so
high, and that if it is abolished, or even interfered with, mills must
close, mines shut down, and poor labour stand idle and starve until
American workmen are forced to work for the lowest wages that are paid
in Europe.
Don't accept what any one tells you -- least of all what is told you
by and on behalf of those who have an enormous pecuniary interest in
maintaining what is styled "protection." Hear what they say,
but make up your minds for yourselves. There is nothing in the tariff
question that cannot readily be mastered by any one of ordinary
intelligence, and the great question whether what is called "protection"
does or does not benefit the labourer can be settled for himself by
any one who will ask himself what protection really is, and how it
benefits labour.
Now what is "protection"? It is a system of taxes levied on
imports for the purpose of increasing the price of certain commodities
in our own country so that the home producers of such commodities can
get higher prices for what they sell to their own fellow-countrymen.
This is all there is to "protection." Protection can't
enable any American producer to get higher prices for what he sells to
people of other countries, and no duty is protective unless it so
increases prices as to enable some one to get more from his
fellow-citizens than he could without protection. How "protection"
may thus benefit some people is perfectly clear. But how can it
benefit the whole people? That it may increase the profits of the
manufacturer, or the income of the owner of timber or mineral land, is
plain. But how can it increase wages? "Protection" raises
the price of commodities. That may be to the advantage of those who
buy labour and sell commodities. But how can it be to the advantage of
those who sell labour and buy commodities?
Never mind the confused and confusing claims that are put forth for
protection until you can see how it can do what is claimed for it.
Ask yourselves what protection is and how it operates, and you will
see that the only way it can benefit any one, or by "encouraging"
him give him power to encourage or benefit any one else, is by
enabling him to get from his fellow-citizens more than he could
otherwise get. This is the essence of protection; and if it has any
stimulating or beneficial effect it must be through this. The
protective effect of any protective duty is precisely that of a
subsidy paid by the government to some people out of taxes levied on
the whole people. The only difference is, that in what is called the
subsidy system the government tax-gatherers would collect the tax from
the whole people and pay it over to some people, while in what is
called the protective system the government tax-gatherers collect a
tax on foreign goods so as to "protect" the favoured people,
while they for themselves collect taxes on their fellow-citizens in
increased prices.
Now if workmen get any benefit from what is thus called protection,
it can only be through the protected employers and by their favour.
The protective system gives nothing whatever to labour. It gives only
to the employers of labour, and only to some of them. And these some
are necessarily comparatively few. It is utterly impossible that any
protective tariff can "protect" the largest industries of
any country, for a duty can only have a protective effect when levied
upon goods some of which are produced in the country and some of which
are imported or would be imported if it were not for the duty. Import
duties cannot be levied upon things of which we produce enough for
ourselves and consequently do not import, or of which we produce more
than enough for ourselves and consequently export; and if levied upon
things we do not produce and must import or go without, they can have
no protective effect. In every country, therefore, the protected
industries can only be those in which but a small part of the labour
of that country is employed. In this country, out of over seventeen
millions of labourers of one sort or another, those employed in the
protected industries do not amount to more than 900,000, and these
industries, it is to be observed, are those in which large capital is
required and in which it is impossible for the mere labourer to employ
himself.
Now, would it be possible by levying a general tax (especially a tax
which, like all protective taxes, bears on the poor far more heavily
than on the rich, on the labourer far more heavily than on the
capitalist), and paying out the proceeds directly to the labourers
engaged in certain industries, to raise wages, or even to raise wages
in those industries? Everyone who thinks a moment will say no! If we
were to levy such a tax and pay out the proceeds directly to glass
workers or iron-ore miners or the hands in cotton or woollen
factories, in addition to what they get from their employers, the
consequence would simply be that labour would be attracted from the
unsubsidised to the subsidised employments, and wages would go down to
a point that would give the subsidised labourers no more than they got
without the subsidy!
But if such a plan of raising wages is utterly hopeless, what should
we say of a plan to raise wages by levying a tax upon all labourers
and giving the proceeds, not to all labourers, or even to some
labourers, but only to some employers? This is the plan of protection.
If protection can increase or maintain wages, it must be in this way.
What protective duties actually do is to increase the profits of
certain employers -- to allow them to collect a tax from their
fellow-citizens without any stipulation as to how they shall spend it.
To suppose that wages can be increased in this way is to suppose, in
the first place, that these protected employers voluntarily give up
their increased profits to their workmen, and to suppose, in the
second place, that the increase of wages which the benevolence of the
protected employers thus causes in industries which at the best employ
not more than 1,500,000 people can raise wages in occupations that
employ 20,000,000 people!
Observe also that the first step in this precious scheme of plunder
which is called protection to American labour is really to reduce
wages. Wages do not really consist of money. Money is the mere flux
and counter of exchanges. What the man who works for wages really
works for are commodities and services for which he pays with the
money he receives in wages. Necessarily, therefore, to increase the
price of the commodities he buys with his money- wages is to decrease
his real wages. For instance, a good many of the highly protected
American labourers in the state of Pennsylvania (as in some other
States) are compelled by their benevolent protectionist employers to
make their purchases in what the highly protected American labourers
call "pluck-me stores." In fact, it is through these
pluck-me stores that these highly protected American workingmen get
their wages, as the pluck-me bill is deducted before any money is
turned over to them on pay days; and many of them being kept
constantly in debt, hardly see a dollar from one year's end to
another. Now, it is evident that if one of these employers adds a
dollar to the prices his men have to pay for the goods they must buy
in his "pluck-me," he just as effectually cuts down their
real earnings as though he reduced their wages by a dollar. And so it
is evident that the protective taxes which we impose for the purpose
of increasing the prices of commodities must in the same way operate
to reduce the real wages of labour. Therefore the protective scheme
for raising wages fully stated is simply this: Wages generally are in
the first place reduced by taxes which increase the price of certain
commodities, in order (1) that a comparatively few employers who
profit by this increase in the price of what they have to sell may
voluntarily increase the wages of their employees, and (2) that this
benevolent raising of wages in some occupations may cause the raising
of wages in all occupations!
Is it not time that American workingmen were done with such a
preposterous scheme as this? There is one sense, and one sense alone,
in which protection may raise wages. When real wages are low enough,
it may to some extent raise nominal wages. If the protected
Pennsylvania employer were to keep on raising the prices in his
workmen's "protected home market," the pluck-me store, he
would come to a point where their nominal wages would not enable them
to get enough food and clothing to support life, and where,
consequently, he would be forced to increase their nominal wages in
order to prevent their removal or starvation. In this way protection,
like a depreciation of currency, may sometimes increase nominal wages.
But it can never increase real wages. Whomsoever protection may
benefit -- and analysis will show that it cannot even benefit the
employing capitalists whom it assumes to benefit, unless they are also
protected from home competition by some sort of a monopoly -- it
cannot benefit the labourer. It is to the labourer a delusion and a
fraud -- a scheme of barefaced plunder that adds insult to injury;
that first robs him, and then tells him to get down on his knees and
thank his robber!
The impudent pretence that what is called protection is protection to
labour is peculiar to the United States, and is an afterthought here.
When this utterly un-American system of robbing the many for the
benefit of the few was introduced into this country, it was not
pretended that it was to protect labour or to compensate for high
wages. It was asked for the protection of capital -- to give
capitalists a bonus-so that here, where interest was high, they could
engage in the same sort of manufacturing businesses as in Europe,
where interest was low. It was asked for the "protection of
infant industries" -- to give them artificial support for a few
years, when, it was then claimed, they could stand alone without any
more protection.
But men who once secure the enactment of laws to enable them to take
the earnings of others never want an excuse for demanding the
continuance of the privilege. Now that United States three per cent,
bonds are at a premium, it would be preposterous to talk of protecting
American capital against the cheaper capital of Europe, and now that
the great protected industries have become very industrial giants, it
would be only ridiculous to talk of protecting "infant
industries." So we are now told that protection is "protection
for labour," and is made necessary by our higher wages. In fact,
we are now told that it is because of protection that wages are so
high and the country so prosperous.
The pretence is as hollow and insulting as the pretence of the
slave-owners that slavery was for the protection of the slave. Special
privilege needs protection, and monopoly needs protection, and all
legalised systems of robbery that enable men who do no labour to grow
rich by appropriating the earnings of those who do labour, need
protection. But what is labour, that it should need protection? What
is labour, that votes should have to be bought and coerced, and
lobbyists maintained, and congressmen interested, and newspapers
subsidised, and our coasts and borders lined with seizers and
searchers and spies and informers and tax-gatherers, to keep it from
falling to pauperism? Is not labour the producer of all wealth? Is it
not labour that feeds all, clothes all, shelters all, and pays for
all? Is not labour the one thing that can take care of itself; that
requires but access to the raw materials of nature to bring forth all
that man's needs require? What benevolent capitalist drew a tariff
wall around Adam to enable him to get a living and bring up a family?
Whatever else may need protection, labour needs no protection. What
labour needs is freedom! Not the keeping up of restrictions and the
perpetuation of monopolies, but the tearing of them down.
Who are these benevolent individuals, so anxious to protect the poor,
helpless workingman, so fearful lest American labour may fall to the
level of "the pauper labour of Europe"? The coal barons and
the factory lords, the iron and steel combinations, the lumber ring,
and the thou sand trusts that, having secured the imposition of duties
to keep out foreign productions, band themselves together to limit
home production and to screw down the wages of their workmen. And are
not these men who are so anxious, as they say, to protect you from the
competition of "foreign pauper labour" the very men who are
most ready to avail themselves of foreign labour?
Do you know of any protected employer, no matter how many millions he
may have made out of the tariff, who pays any higher wages to labour
than he has to? Is it not true that in all the protected industries
wages are, if any thing, lower than in the unprotected industries? Is
it not true that in all the protected industries workmen have been
compelled to band themselves together to protect themselves; and that
these protected industries are the industries notable above all others
for their strikes and lock-outs -- the bitter and oft-times disastrous
industrial wars that labour is compelled to wage to prevent being
crowded to starvation rates? Are these the men whose protection you
need?
It is impossible for me in a brief article like this to go over all
the claims and expose all the fallacies of protection. That I have
already done, in anticipation of the coming before the people of this
question, in a little book entitled "Protection or Free Trade?"
in which I have shown the full relations of the tariff question to the
labour question. All I want here to do is to urge every American
workingman to think over the matter for himself, and to decide whether
what is called ''protection" is or is not in the interests of the
men who earn their daily bread by their daily labour.
For if, as protectionists tell us, our country is so prosperous and
wages are so high because of the protection we already have, then we
certainly ought to bend all our efforts to get more protection.
However prosperous this country may be when viewed through the
rose-coloured spectacles of the millionaire, and however high wages
may be from the standpoint of those who think that the natural wages
of labour are only enough to keep soul and body together, there will
be no dispute among workingmen that this country is not prosperous
enough and wages not high enough. Whoever may be satisfied with things
as they are, the great mass of American citizens who work for a living
are not satisfied and ought not to be satisfied. Monstrous fortunes
are rolling up here faster than they ever did in the world before; but
the great body of the American people get but a poor hand-to-mouth
living, and find year after year passing without anything laid by for
a rainy day. Our rich men astonish the rich men of Europe by their
lavish expenditure, and the daughters of our millionaires are sought
in marriage by European aristocrats of the bluest blood; but the tramp
is known from the Atlantic to the Pacific; the proportion of our
people who are maintained by charity, the proportion who are confined
in prisons and lunatic asylums, the proportion of our women and
children who must go to work, is steadily in creasing. And the
proportion of men who, starting with nothing but their ability to
labour, can become their own employers, or can hope out of the
earnings of their labour to maintain a family and put by a competence
for old age, is steadily diminishing. "Statisticians" may
pile up figures to prove to the American workingman how much better
off he is than he used to be, and the editors of protection papers may
picture the poverty of European workingmen in the darkest colours to
show him how proud and happy and contented he ought to be. But the
labour organisations, the strikes, the bitter unrest with which the
whole industrial mass is seething, show that he is not contented. If
protection gives prosperity, if protection raises wages, then in
heaven's name let us demand more protection, even though we utterly
destroy all foreign commerce, put a line of custom-houses between
every State, and shut in our rich men so that they cannot go to Europe
and spend their money on foreign paupers, as Mr. Blaine is doing. But
if it does not -- then let us sweep away what protection we have. Let
us raise the banner of equal rights, and try the way of freedom!
It is not protection that has made wages higher here than in Europe.
If protection could make wages high, why has it not made wages high in
Germany and Italy and Spain and Mexico? Why did it not make wages high
in England when it was in full force there? Wages were higher in the
United States than in Europe before we had any protection; and if they
have on the whole remained higher, it is in spite of protection. Our
higher wages are because of our cheaper land -- because labour can
more readily obtaiu access to the natural materials and opportunities
of labour. The secret of our prosperity, of our rapid growth, of our
better conditions of labour, is simply that we have had the temperate
zone of a vast and virgin continent to overrun, and that it has taken
a long while for monopoly to fence it in. As it is gradually fenced
in, as the tribute that labour must pay to monopoly for the use of
land becomes higher and higher, so must our social conditions, tariff
or no tariff, approximate to the social conditions of Europe.
To give labour full freedom; to make wages what they ought to be, the
full earnings of labour; to secure work for all, and leisure for all,
and abundance for all; to enable all to enjoy the advantages and
blessings of an advancing civilization -- we must break down all
monopolies and destroy all special privileges.
The rejection of protection and the abolition of the tariff will not
of itself accomplish this, but it will be a long step towards it -- a
step that must necessarily be taken if labour is to be emancipated and
industrial slavery abolished. Until the workingmen of the United
States get over the degrading superstition of protection they must be
divided and helpless. But when they once realise the true dignity of
labour, once see that the good of all can only be gained by securing
the equal rights of each, then they can unite, and then they will be
irresistible.
And this is the question that you will be asked this year to answer
by your votes. Are you for restriction or are you for freedom? Are you
in favour of taxing the whole people for the benefit of a few
capitalists, in the hope that they will give to their workmen some of
the crumbs? or are you against all special privileges and in favour of
equal rights to all?
To the man who thinks the matter over there can be no question as to
what answer best accords with the interests of workingmen. It is
possible for the few to be come rich by taxing the many. But it is not
possible for the many to become rich by taxing themselves to put the
proceeds in the hands of the few.
Labour cannot be hurt by freedom. The only thing that can be hurt by
freedom is monopoly. And monopoly means the robbery of labour. What
labour needs is freedom, not protection; justice, not charity; equal
rights for all, not special privileges for some.
|