335 
 Am 33s 
 
 AMER INGER 
 
 SOCIALISM FOR THE 
 FARMER WHO FARMS THE 
 FARM 
 
Return this book on or before the 
 Latest Date stamped below. 
 

 
4 '-' V, 1 
 
 ^ 
 
 PWCE |0c 
 
 < V • 
 
 Socialism For The 
 Farmer 
 
 WHO FARMS THE FARM 
 
 
 
 'h;: 
 
 4 > %$, 
 
 ; By OSCAR AMERINGER, 
 
 ^ Author of “SOCIALISM, WHAT IT IS AND 
 HOW TO GET IT,” “LIFE AND DEEDS OF 
 ? UNCLE SAM; A LITTLE HISTORY FOR 
 BIG CHILDREN' 
 
 ss 
 
 • - x 
 
 , * , * • ** > X - r -?■* 
 
:l?i 
 
 Oscar 
 
 
 ■>“»' a* M te , 
 
 M'- Amednget's Italy M'do , ppt , r ,„ . 
 
 ITT- » •*«« ***h j 
 
 !Tm T V E “W V. Debs, W. S. J 
 most brilliant staff of writers 1 
 
 m the English-speaking world ^ *« 
 
 •organ 
 
 . 
 
 « : 
 
 
 
 ■VdJJr tarfS'mT*’ “ 1904 ' “ d ■»< 
 
 ... ft. 
 
 »»ft.?w.*:TtrwL“ :rr r Wr ,b ™ th ^ 
 
 « ..tafaion., IV Bit”"' W °" tin * ’ 
 ten in language for the average reader! ’ 
 
 **{ 
 
 four f 
 

 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 3 33 
 
 
 7 ^ 
 
 This booklet is written for the farmer who farms the 
 > farm. That is. the actual tiller of the soil. The man who 
 works eight hours in the morning and eight in the afternoon 
 that mankind may be fed and clothed. The Socialist move- 
 ment is not concerned with the farmer who farms the farmer. 
 There are lawyers, doctors, bankers and merchants who own 
 farms Then there are the retired farmers who moved to town 
 to die and then forgot why they moved to town. All these 
 people are no farmers hut exploiters of labor. They live o 
 the farmer who farms the farm. They are parasites as much 
 as our idle rich, only on a smaller scale. 
 
 The author has often been asked, “After a man has 
 worked hard all his life and saved his money and bought a 
 farm to have something to live on in his old age, would you 
 Socialists take it away from him?” To this question we 
 . answer: “If that farmer had received the full product of his 
 
 : labor during his producing years he could retire to well-earned 
 rest on the accumulations of his own labor. As it is, he lives 
 on the fruit of some one else’s labor.” We also may as in 
 return, “If a man worked hard all his life on a rented farm 
 and paid one-third or one-half of the crop to the landlord 
 what are you going to do with him after he becomes too old 
 
 to work?” 
 
 We may add further that we don’t expect the beneficial ies 
 • of the capitalist system to voluntarily relinquish their soft snap. 
 
 In fact they would be very foolish in doing this, especially so 
 . since the victims of the system are still willing to support it 
 - with their votes. So we say to the farmer who farms the far- 
 . mer, “personally we do not blame you for exploiting the renter 
 any more than we blame the chicken for eating worms or the 
 hawk for devouring the chickens. As long as the landless 
 who even now are in the over-whelming majority are willing 
 to pay you for the use of God’s earth, you would be a foo 
 not to take all you can. Only we want to serve notice that 
 ' some day the majority will wake up and then you 11 join the 
 % one time highly respected Robber Barons and the Feudal 
 
 : Lords.” 
 
 i 
 
Socialism for the Farmer 
 
 o„ fo THE SAD STORY OF the slamericans 
 
 ica it l fT 3 6 th6re Was a great islan d named Slamer 
 
 left ^ ° D the 
 
 mericans Th . , ' inhabitants called themselves Sla- 
 
 not 1 N ° W ‘l 80 happened ‘hat the Slamerican food raisers could 
 ' , hen ® ver a food raiser wanted clothing to cover his 
 
 :tz:; w °oti fetc !? p p is to the ° wner ° f the bridge apd 
 
 tain 0 l tlT Wheel ;ehold ° h 0t ’ L ° rd ° f Sp ° ndulix Cap ' 
 him The OC ,t , 1 ’ b h old thy servant and take pity upon 
 
 of m v my breeches has gone to naught and the seam 
 
 of my garment has frazzled to frazzles Mv tin 
 
 through the sleeves and cry for covering Might LH 
 
 porker tbat 1 
 
 the plunks.” 1 ” PnCe ° f PISS iS flVe Dhlnks t °- da >'’- h ere are 
 
 pended upon the children of my own bosom. Five plunks' 
 oh! my eyes! Five plunk-have mercy upon me!” 
 
 plunkst htfat paw. Sm ° Ie ” S " ile ^ th « Sl1 ™ 
 
 While the food raiser thus wailed and wept a chillv 
 tCgh “* crawled 
 
 through thP hZZ 71 S n tne n ° rth pole and crawled 
 garment. ” Ve P ' UnkS - ™ 
 
 me have a 
 
3 
 
 “Go easy,” replied Ploot, “I am not in business for the 
 fun of it. This bridge cost oodles of spondulix. Am I not 
 entitled to a reward for my abstinence for not having eaten 
 this bridge? Besides the land on which these pillars rest be- 
 longs to me and surely I ought to have some rent for the use 
 of it. Then too I must have a little profit on my investment in 
 this clothing stock. Therefore go hence and fetch me three 
 more pigs. 
 
 “One for interest, 
 
 “One for rent, and, 
 
 “One for profit.” 
 
 The food raiser departed with a sorely puzzled mind to 
 do as he was told. 
 
 From the other side of the river approached a garment 
 maker with a new suit of clothes slung over his arm. As soon 
 as he spied the 'fat man on the bridge he cried, “My stomach 
 is as empty as a summer resort in January. It growls until 
 the echoes reverberate on the walls. Have mercy upon me and 
 give me a porker to still the voice in my innards. O! mighty 
 Ploot, take this garment and give me food.” 
 
 Thereupon the Ploot handed to the garment maker five 
 plunks and bade him to return and fetch three more garments. 
 The poor worker looked flabbergasted at this, but Ploot only 
 said : 
 
 “One for interest, 
 
 “One for rent, and 
 
 “One for profit.” 
 
 The garment man was too hungry to argue the case, so he 
 took himself hence to do as he was told. 
 
 When the food raiser and garment worker returned next 
 day, the one with three pigs and the other with three suits of 
 clothes, Ploot gave each one fifteen shining plunks. Then he 
 sold the pig to the hungry tailor for twenty plunks and the 
 suit of clothing to the shivering food raiser for the same sum. 
 
 These were prosperous times 'and business was brisk. 
 The two workers had earned twenty plunks apiece. One de- 
 parted with a pig, and the other with a new suit. Both were 
 happy and so was Ploot, for he had not only gotten all his 
 money back but three suits of clothes and three pigs in the 
 bargain. 
 
 All the Slamericans went through the same transaction 
 every time they needed food and clothing and so it happened 
 that Ploot often got more than he could eat or wear. At such 
 times he would lock the gates to the bridge and hang out a 
 sign saying, “Closed on account of over production.” But the 
 
4 
 
 great and wise ones among the Slamericans called it a panic 
 and explained to the people that over production of 
 food was the prime cause of starvation, while too much cloth- 
 ing was the cause of the nakedness in the world. 
 
 One day a crank came among these people and said, 
 Let us build a bridge of our own and do away with Ploot 
 who charges us interest for money he took away from us, who 
 makes us pay rent for land which the Creator made for all, 
 and who demands of us profit for being in our way. With a 
 bridge of our own we can exchange pig for garment and gar- 
 ment for pig instead of paying four pigs for one garment and 
 four garments for one pig.” When Ploot heard this he called 
 the Slamericans together and spake: “Harken unto me. This 
 man would drive capital out of ,the country. Do I not give you 
 work? By allowing you to make four suits for one pig and to 
 laise four pigs for one suit, do I not give employment to you, 
 your wife and children? If, as this agitator saith, a pig could 
 be swapped for a suit and a suit for a pig, then you would be 
 out of work three-fourths of the time. Does not the holy book 
 say, “in the sweat of thy brow thou shalt eat bread?” Who 
 gives you an opportunity to sweat? It’s me. This man would 
 rob you of the incentive to work. He would destroy the Gods 
 and steal your wives. Stone him, hang him!” 
 
 And when the people heard Ploot say all this they tied a 
 millstone around the neck of the crank and sunk him to the 
 bottom of the river. 
 
 TWO MEN SKINNED ALIVE. 
 
 Brother farmer, do you recognize yourself in this picture? 
 Maybe not, but the capitalist system works, and works you, 
 exactly like it. Only it’s more complicated. But have you ever 
 noticed that when you haul wheat, corn or cotton to town 
 you never say to the buyer, “I want so much.” You always say, 
 How much will you pay?” And when you buy goods in the 
 store, you don’t say, “I give so much,” but you inquire, “How 
 much does it cost?” You do not set the price of the things you 
 sell, or the price of the things you buy. And since the people 
 to whom you sell and from whom you buy are in the business 
 for profit they pay you as little as they can and charge you as 
 much as you can stand. 
 
 Did you ever take a drove of hogs to town and then eat 
 store cheese and crackers for dinner because you did not feel 
 that you could afford a pork chop in the “short order” res- 
 taurant? 
 
 Did you ever escort a carload of export steers to Chicago 
 and then eat oxtail soup and beef tongue in the cheapest hash 
 
5 
 
 joint in Packingtown just to make both ends “meat?” 
 
 Did you ever haul a ton of sugar beets to the refinery and 
 your wife hauled the sugar she bought with the six dollars 
 you received for the ton of 15 per cent beets home under the 
 buggy seat? 
 
 Did you ever sell a barrel of apples for one dollar and 
 then throw a double decked fit when the “news butch” on the 
 “Cannon Ball” soaks you a nickel apiece? 
 
 Did you ever sell a heifer, horn, hoof, hide and tallow and 
 all and then buy back the tanned hide for more money than you 
 got for the whole beast? 
 
 Most likely you did and blamed it on the tariff, or the 
 gold standard or those pesky “Labor union fellers” in town 
 who do nothing but strike for more wages and who make the 
 price of every blamed thing go clear out of sight. 
 
 But you’re wrong. It’s not the tariff or the gold 
 standard or the Labor Unions that cause the trouble. 
 It’s the capitalist system. It’s the man on ,the bridge between 
 you and the city laborer. 
 
 That fellow pays you for a basket of grapes two cents, 
 while the worker in town is soaked 40 cents for the same. 
 That’s an increase of 2000 per cent. Now you understand why 
 that City worker howls for more wages. 
 
 The buyers pay 35 cents for potatoes in Waupacca, Wis., 
 and the people of Milwaukee, only a hundred miles away, pay 
 $1.50. This is an increase of 300 per cent of which only about 
 30 per cent went to freight and handling. 
 
 The farmer feeds the calf until it has grown into a cow. 
 Then he feeds the cow, milks the cow, hauls the milk to the 
 station and pays the freight to the city. For all this he gets 
 four cents a quart. While the milk company for delivering 
 the milk from the depot to the consumer gets an equal 
 amount. 
 
 Asparagus; price paid to the farmer 8c; cost in the 
 city 35c; an increase of 400 per cent. 
 
 Tomatoes $2.00 for a 24 pound crate or 8c per pound; 
 cost in the city 25c per pound; advance 300 per cent. 
 
 Wheat, for which the farmer received one dollar per 
 bushel, when converted into breakfast cereal, sells for 15 
 cents per pound or $9.00 per bushel, and the steer for which 
 the farmer received $55.00 on the hoof, figured on the basis 
 of prices paid in swell restaurants, runs up to about $2000. 
 That is, the city man pays as much for the steer as the farm 
 on which he was raised is mortgaged for. 
 
6 
 
 Yes, brother Farmer, you sell cheap enough and the city 
 man pays high enough, but the benefit of high prices for 
 farm products in the city go not to you and the low cost of 
 
 c.ty man The dT® C ° UntlT ° f n ° earthly beneflt to 
 city man. The difference is swallowed up by the numerous fat 
 
 ' consumer" 6 Btand betwe - Producer a* 
 
 Since t-he farmer bat no control over the price of his 
 products his income is determined by people who have all 
 
 r P rr in the woHd *° see hsm - — wnh :;i2 
 
 WAGES OF THE FARMERS 
 Why don’t people go back to the soil? Why do thev 
 
 back S to ln th 1VinS 'I Crowded ’ noisy tenements instead of going 
 back to the country where they can hear the song at the 
 
 water? W ’ ’“h*' 6 G ° d ’ S fr6Sh air and drlnk fresh spring 
 
 _ „. Well 1 ’ ! here is nothin S wrong with the warble of the 
 
 in the ci Y Fresh air and good water are plentiful enough 
 in the country, and if farmers could exchange the notes of the 
 
 meadow lark with the notes held by the bankers or buy 
 ultivators and manure spreaders with hunks of fresh air or 
 
 sw f ia 0001 Sprins Water ’ life in the country would be one 
 
 the h a ? nS ' BUt the faCt ‘ S tbe farmer hoIds a monopoly on 
 the hardest way of making a living ever invented He works 
 
 longer hours than the city worker and gets less pay People 
 
 ho are continually harping about the desirability of life on 
 
 Uncle sL. may d ° WeU *° StUdy the flSUreS oomPiiod by 
 Farm incomes. 
 
 Under $250.00 per year . o-, Q ^ 
 
 From $250.00 to $500 per vear den * 
 
 From $500.00 to $1000 per vear Ill £ 6r Cen ‘ 
 
 From $1000.00 to $250 0 P per^ar' .' ! .' ! ! .Ils Z Zt 
 Out of this princely income the farmer pays taxes, in- 
 terest, insurance, pays for fertilizers, machinery, tools, repairs 
 
 fs «o n oo oY aS ! ° f tte 17 PCT C6nt ° f farms where the income 
 is $1000.00 and over, a goodly amount goes in wages for farm 
 
 hands. From these figures it may easily be seen that the 
 farmer is even closer to the minimum of subsistence than the 
 wage worker. 
 
 Says A. M. Simons in his very able book, “The American 
 armer:” “When it comes to amount of income, all author- 
 ities agree that the farmers and the wage workers are alike 
 in receiving little more than a subsistence wage.” Prof. C. P. 
 Walker in a discussion before the American Economic Asso- 
 
: ciation made the following statement: “By using all available 
 statistics, it becomes evident that, deducting rent and interest, 
 the American farmer receives less for his exertion than does 
 the laborer in factory or the hired man on the farm.” Prof. 
 L. B. Bailey of the Department of Agriculture in Cornell 
 University, and one of the foremost authorities on agriculture 
 in this country, declared that *the “$200.00 a year income 
 farmer is the ideal in American farming.” Geo*. G. Holmes, 
 Assistant Statistician of the United States Department of 
 Agriculture, in an analysis of the statistics for 1891, gives as 
 his conclusion: “It appears that if you allow interest to the 
 farmers on the farm capital, they earn substantially no wages. 
 On the other hand, if you allow them no interest, they receive 
 $22.61 per month as wages.” 
 
 This gives a farmer a chance to feel either as a capitalist 
 or as a wageworker. As a capitalist he gets $22.61 per month 
 interest on his investment and works for nothing; while as a 
 wage worker he loses the interest on his money and gets $22.61 
 per month wages. So we see that as far as incomes »are con- 
 cerned wage workers and farmers find themselves in the same 
 boat. And the reason that neither of them gets much more or 
 less than is necessary to keep themselves in working condition 
 and to raise a new crop of workers is that neither the wage 
 worker or the farmer own the implements of production. The 
 process by which the workers become separated from the 
 means of production will be explained in the next chapter. 
 It will be rather dry reading, but people who get skinned 
 ought to know at least how it is done. Finding out the reason 
 why after all is not nearly as painful as the skinning process 
 itself. 
 
 THE DECAY OF PRIVATE PROPERTY. 
 
 Within the last century a great change has taken place 
 in the relation of men to property. A hundred years ago 
 nearly every craftsman owned the tools with which he worked. 
 Production was carried on privately and the private ownership 
 of the tool insured to the user the product of his labor. This 
 relationship although just from the viewpoint of distribution, 
 because it gave to the owner the product of his toil, was in- 
 ferior as a means of production to the system which replaced 
 it. 
 
 As the tool was merged into the machine and the machine 
 into the great factory, there evolved a wonderful organism, 
 operated by many laborers working together, that is, co-opera- 
 tively. But while we developed co-operative or social produc- 
 tion, we still retained the private ownership of the means of 
 
8 
 
 r h -:ro he T ::;rrL k To r r ,d ; not c ~ ^ « 
 
 employment in the factory The m»!l ** Sh ° P and accel 
 by one man,, or at least bv „ l t ^ Can be owne 
 operated by many Thos^ W h ^ fGW people ’ but must b 
 
 machinery "an “hose t 0 ho u W s h e 0 it 0 7o Tt ***' *° ^ 
 
 about the senaration w„ * d own lt T bus cam 
 division of modern socLn -l 7*7^ ^ Iabor aad th 
 on the one side and workers on thTotC Camps - capitaI -< 
 
 The instrum^nfoT'lah ** h n ° W Carried on for Private profil 
 The product of the ° ! eXploitati °» 
 
 this owner is a WAvirino- Soes to its owner, bu 
 
 dividend-chasing capitalist”" 11 ' If l0nger ’ but a cou Pon-clippi n g 
 invested' "rZ'T °‘ 
 
 r s 
 
 series. He not onlv in«t a Iong and complicated 
 
 trade itself and he becomes ' mT a ^ trad ®' bUt ° ften the 
 owning class. 6 and more dependent on the 
 
 «^i:sr,r.ro rr^r:;-,riirs u “ r ’ 
 rr, ss? -f ■ “ ■ 
 
 amount of money reouirc i t 1 Product, but by the 
 
 The dissolution of the nt u P h ‘ m iP W ° rking oondition . 
 
 transformation is but thA hiVfu • * * But thls P ainf ul 
 
 bi S b plane t= t=^r^d^n hi - “ ‘ 
 
 wbe^^stzfrtn the - a -** 
 
 THE OLD FARM. 
 
 finoi neip and the women prepared it for 
 
 zzrszzsizrjxzz s.*™ 
 
9 
 
 made sugar, packed pork, dried beef, wove cloth and made 
 clothing. 
 
 What little furniture and implements they had were 
 usually home made. The blacksmith, the miller and the shoe 
 cobbler were about the only artisans called upon outside the 
 homeland these were usually paid in produce instead of in 
 money. If there was a house to be erected they called upon the 
 neighbors for help, and the old time “log raising” was re- 
 garded in the light of a holiday. Tobacco was raised, cured 
 and smoked by the men folks on the place. Corn was easily 
 transformed into whiskey and still easier consumed. If there 
 was a bigger corn crop than the family could harvest, a husk- 
 ing bee was arranged, followed by a dance of the young folks 
 on the barn floor. 
 
 Grandfather had few luxuries, but he made a living and 
 raised a dozen or so of children. He was economically and 
 politically a free man. Being, dependent on none he did not 
 care a continental who knew when he voted for “Tippecanoe 
 and Tyler too.” 
 
 The cradle of American democracy stood on the inde- 
 pendent farm of the first half of the last century. Free soil 
 and freedom cannot be separated, economic independence and 
 political liberty go ever hand in hand. 
 
 The invention of the power loom made hand weaving 
 unprofitable; the spinning wheel became a plaything for the 
 children and the weaving industry moved to the towns. Soap 
 factories making soap that floats and soap that sinks, soon 
 relegated the soap kettle to the scrap pile. The oil refinery 
 put an end to the candle mould. Armour absorbed the meat 
 packing industry. Havemeyer assimilated the sugar making- 
 business. The whiskey trust manufactured booze, and Duke, 
 by discovering a process which makes alfalfa hay smell almost 
 like tobacco, put an end to the Dog Leg and Granger Twist 
 industry of the farmers. 
 
 The farmer trade too, became decomposed and specialized. 
 One industry after the other left the farm until the farmer 
 finds himself a specialist, raising a few products, not for home 
 consumption but for sale. 
 
 THE MODERN FARM. 
 
 As soon as the farmer produced for sale instead of for 
 home use, his independence ceased and he became dependent 
 upon the great and unknown market. Without organization 
 to regulate production, with no knowledge as to how much of 
 his products the market demanded, he produced blindly, 
 
10 
 
 something for the'fruU ^ hTs^oTk’ S ° meb ° dy wouId W hin ' 
 
 ganized ‘"T” d “ U Wlth “ n0r 
 
 by the law of suddiv ami a , produc ' ts were determined 
 
 in which iarm. products are e TreparerL Wh fi e nl the 
 
 became trustified, a small and powerful cliauT ofT""^ 011 
 
 have food ^ f ~^ abl rt e ‘° raiSe Cr ° PS he 
 income fall below t’he mnt where he' “Tk Sh ° Uld WS 
 these necessities, he must cease to produce 8?” aCQUire 
 the farmers completely the trusts would kill f 7 Paupemin S 
 
 de? b6 Sa " tba ‘ - 
 
 ate- . wksk 
 
 No c H ° H „ ™ E FABMEB IS SKINNED, 
 sumer ? Pr ° duced until B has reached the con- 
 
 11. bu, “S “™ “*'““»*• «« 1. 
 
 it * 0 ^™^ farmer iS b ° th Pr ° ducer and consumer he gets 
 
 Era r Sr- ~ a a 
 
 sSSHS 
 
 the pork industry gives to the owners of the hog a pr'e that 
 
11 
 
 will feed and clothe the hog raiser while he raises the hog. 
 Time has been when the price of hogs was set too low by the 
 meat trust, then the half starved hog raisers quit raising hogs 
 and the price had to be raised again to induce the farmers to 
 return to the hog industry. Prices rise and prices fall, but on 
 an average the farmer gets a bare living while the hog and 
 pork manufacturers grow fat. 
 
 THE CATTLEMAN. 
 
 Tradition tells us that the cow man is the free born son 
 of the boundless plain. A hale fellow well met, a happy-go- 
 lucky kind of a chap. Independent — should say so; free 
 man — no word for it. 
 
 Now let us see how things stand with the cow man. A 
 steer has no value as long as it is a steer. Cattle raised in 
 Texas are converted into beef in Kansas City or Chicago, and 
 consumed as porterhouse or soup meat in New York, Berlin 
 or Paris, 
 
 The ranch and the steer belong to the cattleman. To 
 finish a steer for the market requires corn, and corn costs 
 money. Like most farmers, the cow man is usually long on 
 expectation and short on coin. So he borrows the money from 
 the commission house at a more or less unreasonable rate of 
 interest. To secure the commission house he mortgages the 
 steers and agrees to deliver them at the stock yards any time 
 the commission house may request it. He cannot take advan- 
 tage, if there is such a thing, of a favorable market, but must 
 deliver when told to. 
 
 But let us assume that our free-born cattleman is inde- 
 pendent of the commission house. He takes his cattle to the 
 Kansas City Stockyards. This institution is controlled by the 
 meat trust. Every morning the different firms composing this 
 organization agree on the maximum price of cattle. Let us say 
 this price is five cents per pound. There is still competition in 
 the stock yard; every buyer tries to buy steers for less than 
 five cents. It is a kind of Dutch auction, where the buyers 
 beat the price down instead of up. 
 
 If your cattleman does not want to accept the top notch 
 price of five cents, he may keep his steer in the stock yards 
 by paying certain reasonable charges. He also may purchase 
 feed for his animals at a figure usually charged the two-legged 
 cattle at the Waldorf-Astoria or the St. Regis. In a short 
 time the cattle eat their heads off. Our freeborn son of the 
 prairie may have to sell them for less than he was offered in 
 the first place and pay the board bill besides. 
 
12 
 
 If he refuses to sell at live cents per pound in Kansas 
 City, he may reload his stock and ship it to the Chicago Stock 
 Yards, belonging to the same trust, and sell them for a nickle 
 per pound. By the time he has deducted feed bills and addi- 1 
 tional transportation charges, he can he glad that his cattle 
 pass entitles him to a return trip home. 
 
 The cattle man is only the owner of the first few links in 
 the chain of production. The ownership of land and cattle 
 does not prevent his exploitation by the Armours, Swifts and 
 Sulzbergers, who own the packing houses and the market 
 facilities. On his way to the consumer he finds his road 
 blocked by the Capitalist owner of the greater means of pro- 
 duction, who says, “Stand and deliver.” 
 
 Sometimes cattle are high and sometimes low. Some 
 cattlemen make money, others go into bankruptcy. But on an 
 average the cow man receives enough for his stock to keep him 
 alive and in working condition to raise more steers for the 
 meat trust. 
 
 PICKING THE COTTON PICKER. 
 
 King Cotton, Queen Poverty, Prime Minister Hunger and 
 Court Chaplain Ignorance rule the cotton states. 
 
 Cotton is the devil’s own crop. It takes thirteen months 
 out of the twelve and all the children out of school to raise a 
 cotton crop. 
 
 Raw cotton on the farm has no more value than ice on 
 the North Pole. To prepare cotton for the consumer it must 
 go through 
 
 THE GIN, 
 
 THE COMPRESS, 
 over 
 
 THE RAILROAD, 
 through 
 
 THE COTTON MILL 
 THE CLOTHING FACTORY 
 and 
 
 THE STORE. 
 
 The cotton raiser may be the proud owner of land, mules, 
 implements, cotton bags, and children, but the cotton gin, the 
 compress, the railroad, the cotton mill, the clothing factory 
 and the store belong to Mr. Capitalist, and this gentleman sets 
 the price of cotton and regulates the price of clothing. The 
 result is that the cotton raiser’s family, who produce enough 
 cotton in one season to clothe themselves for a life time, are 
 forced to dress in rags and shoddy. In a pinch the hog raiser 
 may eat his own hog. The wheat farmer can take his wheat 
 
13 
 
 to the flour mill and have it ground, and if his wife hasn’t 
 forgotten how to bake, he may eat the bread. But raw cotton, 
 cannot be worn, eaten, or used as fuel; therefore no other class 
 of farmers are more dependent upon the capitalist class than 
 the cotton raiser. 
 
 It is claimed that the cotton raisers suffer greatly from 
 the hook worm, but it is hard to believe that even a hook worm 
 can make a living out of the cotton raiser after the capitalists 
 get through with him. 
 
 Suppose you own a fiddle and I own the bow. How much 
 music will you make? Suppose you own the well and I own 
 the pump. How much water can you get? Even a free 
 owned farm with all its implements, animals and machines 
 form only the first link in a long chain of production. Those 
 who own the other links between the farmer and the con- 
 sumer determine the wages and the mode of living of the far- 
 mer as effectively as the owner of the factory determines the 
 wages of his employes. 
 
 But not all the farmers own even the first link of this 
 chain. The farm land itself is gradually slipping away from 
 the farmer. It may be well for some people to po,int to the 
 automobiles and carriages as sure signs of prosperity among 
 the farmers, but as long as it can be shown that the farmer is 
 losing the very foundation on which he rests; if it can be 
 shown that mother earth itself is becoming capitalist property 
 — that is, a means of exploitation — then all this prosperity 
 talk is idle wind. A farmer without land is a good deal like 
 a fish without water, and so it may be well to give a little 
 study to the land question. 
 
 THE LAND QUESTION. 
 
 The private ownership of land has been condemned by 
 every thinker and prophet from Moses to Herbert Spencer, 
 Karl Marx and Henry George. Even God has declared himself 
 in favor of the common ownership of land when he said: 
 “You are strangers and sojourners on this earth. And the 
 land shall not be sold forever, for the land is mine.” For 
 many centuries the Jews heeded the divine injunction and 
 divided the land every fiftieth year among the children of 
 Israel. But in the course of time real estate agents and land 
 boomers settled among them. The common land of God’s 
 children became the private property of the few, and the many 
 found themselves landless. Thereupon God waxed wroth, as 
 they used to say when a person got huffy, and he said to his 
 chosen people, “Woe unto you, for you have built house on 
 
14 
 
 HH§iiPpH 
 
 THE STORY OF MR. ANANIAS 
 
 - '£= ~ a ss 
 
 were a queer set, and nothing like them has ever been seen 
 
 i a o S gu D m no hnStend0m ' ^ the firSt PlaCe ’ they beIie ™ d m divid- 
 
 Of clothing “We e h M aS advoc ' ating the common ownership 
 t clothing We hold everything in common except our wives ” 
 
 comnTn tab/ 116 ^’ A ‘ Ume they assembl ed around the 
 ifTbe f n b v, ery ° ne brousht aI > b e had to the table and 
 
 a kfct T 0 W s T°k1 Ched n he l6aSt ea ‘ th6 m ° st “ one raised 
 * ; Tkls looked might y good to Mr. Ananias and he de- 
 cided to get m on the ground floor. 
 
 Now, the by-laws of the organization stipulated that 
 those who had land must sell it and bring the proceeds thereof 
 o the common table. Well, this Ananias man owned a good 
 farm in Palestme County, and he sold it. But when it came 
 
 ‘no / “° ney t0 hiS Cbristian brothers he hedged 
 No one knows how much I got for my farm except the man 
 
 to himseff So heV l ° keep mum ’” said A »anias 
 
 himself. So he knocked down some of the money 
 
 But it appears that St. Peter, the chairman of the meet- 
 ing, smelled a rat, and he spake unto the new convert thusly 
 nanias, is this all the boodle thou got for thy farm’” 
 
 "Sure n pete n ” ni Th l00ked P6 ‘ er SQUare in the eyes - and said, 
 °ure, Pete. Thereupon God smote him dead and some 
 
 the ‘out side. WS WraPP6d “ a blanket and dumbed bim 
 
 And Ib h r th6y CaI ' ed iD Ml ' S ' Ananias and cross-examined her 
 nd she swore up and down that the money on the table was 
 
15 
 
 all they got for the farm. But all this time she had a wad 
 stuck away down in her stocking, where no one could see it. 
 But the Lord saw it, and he smote her dead also. This is 
 what happened to Christians who refused to divide up when 
 Christianity was still in working order. 
 
 Nowadays the preachers explain that Ananias and his old 
 I lady were killed because they lied and not because they refused 
 to divide their land. But anybody with a grain of sense 
 ! ought to know that if folks got killed for lying in business 
 only deaf and dumb people would populate this world. 
 
 Yes, the private ownership of land is wrong from the 
 religious standpoint, but if people who claim to be saved 
 don’t care a rap for what God says, then what’s the use for an 
 ordinary mortal like myself to spring the religious argument 
 against the private ownership of land? It wouldn’t cause the 
 most pious land owner on earth to part with enough soil to 
 make a mud pie. 
 
 Land is the storehouse of nature, from which mankind 
 draws the material to sustain life. Those who hold the key to 
 this storehouse also hold in their hands the life of those who 
 , cannot enter without their permission. 
 
 Labor applied to land creates wealth; but those who are 
 denied access to the soil can only create wealth by working for 
 the owner of the land. 
 
 Land is the free gift of nature to all her children. If there 
 such a thing as natural right, the right to the use of the land 
 should be foremost. ' But in this world of strife and strug- 
 gle there is no such a thing as natural right. “Might is right,”* 
 and for thousands of years the mighty have possessed them- 
 selves of the land and used it to oppress and enslave the weak. 
 Even a religion which proclaims the Fatherhood of God and 
 the Brotherhood of Men failed to prevent a division of “God’s 
 Children” into lords and serfs, landlords and tenants. 
 
 As long as our population was small and land practi- 
 cally unlimited landlordism could not develop, for no man 
 will voluntarily work for another for less than he can get by 
 working for himself. But in the course of time the country 
 became more densely populated. A capitalist government, 
 with an eye for the interest of the class it served, presented 
 whole empires to railroad companies. Up to 1896 our benevo- 
 lent, paternalistic government gave 266,000,000 acres of -land 
 to the railroad promoters. The Northern Pacific alone received 
 a grant of forty-eight million acres. 
 
 Most of these grants were obtained through fraud, 
 bribery and the corruption of the representatives of the people. 
 
16 
 
 Court Judges down to State 
 
 from Presidents and Supreme 
 Governors and Assemblymen. 
 
 It seems that the sole purpose of all land legislation dur- 
 ing the last three quarters of a century was to encourage land- 
 lordism and land speculation and to rob the farming popula- 
 tion for the benefit of gigantic corporations. Uncle Sam 
 squandered natural resources like a drunken sailor; or, better 
 
 he robbed his nephews and nieces like an unscrupulous guar- 
 dian to enrich a few of his pets. S 
 
 All through the northwest we find -the railroad corpora- 
 tions selling the land, which Uncle Sam was kind enough to 
 give them for nothing, to subsidiary lumber companies and 
 with the proceeds thereof built the roads. 
 
 These lumber companies barely paid more than a few 
 dollars per acre for the finest timber land in the world but the 
 price more than paid for. the building of the roads. In due time 
 the majestic forest was converted info lumber. The cut and 
 burned-over land, with nothing left on it but the blackened 
 stumps, was sold to settlers for from ten to fifteen dollars per 
 acre. In this ingenious way the farmer was made to pay for 
 the building of roads which were to rob him ever after. Inci- 
 dentally he also helped the struggling lumber trust to bear 
 the heavy expense entailed in the devastation of our forests. 
 
 Even when the government gave the land direct to the set- 
 tlers under the homestead acts it was more from a desire to 
 furnish freight and passenger traffic for the subsidized roads 
 than to help the farmer to land. 
 
 To-day our public domain is a thing of the past, and what 
 little land there is still open for homesteading is too poor to 
 raise a fuss on with two Irishmen and a gallon of whisky. 
 
 Where other enlightened people have steadily striven 
 towards the abolition of land monopoly, our own government 
 made it easy to monopolize the soil. There is absolutely no limit 
 as to how much of God’s earth an individual may hog in the 
 land of the free and the home of the brave. Even foreign land- 
 lords have been encouraged to take as much of the pie as 
 desired. 
 
 Here, for instance, are a few English beneficiaries of 
 Uncle Sam’s generosity: 
 
 Earl of Cleveland 106,650 acres 
 
 Duke of Devonshire 148,625 acres 
 
 Duke of Northumberland 191,460 acres 
 
 Byron H. Evans 700,000 acres 
 
 Duke of Sutherland 422,-000 acres 
 
 Robert Tenant 530,000 acres 
 
. 17 
 
 W. Whaley, M. P 
 Mr. Ellerhousen 
 Baron Tweedale 
 
 310.000 acres 
 
 600.000 acres 
 
 1,700,000 acres 
 
 In 1896 six foreign land companies owned twenty-six mil- 
 lion acres of this country, or enough to give 140,000 home- 
 steads of 160 acres each. Cutting the homesteads down to 
 eighty acres each, this land would support a farming popula- 
 tion of 1,400,000 souls. 
 
 SQme patriotic souls are bitterly opposed to alien owner- 
 ship of land, but, to save my soul, I cannot see what difference 
 j it makes whether the rack-rent-ridden tenant pays his sweat- 
 stained sheckels to the agent of my Lord Tweedledeedle in St. 
 Louis or to Lawyer Skinnem at the nearest county seat. 
 
 If a boy puts a tack on my chair and I sit on it, I am not 
 going to lick the boy because he is Dutch or Irish, but because 
 he put the tack under me. It is not the nationality of the boy 
 that hurts, but the tack, and so it is with landlordism. 
 
 The native land hog has been not less enterprising than 
 the foreign breed, and it seems that our homemade trusts have 
 dabbled considerably in the real estate business on the side. 
 Here are a few trust landlords: 
 
 Lumber Trust 30,000,000 acres 
 
 Standard Oil 1,000,000 acres 
 
 Leather Trust 500,000 acres 
 
 Steel Trust, value $60,000,000 
 
 Then there a number of thrifty and frugal individuals, 
 who worked hard and saved still harder, until they acquired 
 farms of such goodly proportions as that one of the late D. C. 
 Murphy of New York, who left 4,000,000 acres of land be- 
 hind; former United States Senator Farwell of Illinois, who 
 owned 3,000,000; and Henry Miller of California, who to-day 
 is the undisputed lord over 22,500 square miles. 
 
 Yes, this is the richest country on earth, and there is 
 enough land for ten times the population we have, but it hap- 
 pens to belong to the fellow who farms the farmer instead of 
 the farmer who farms the farm. There is plenty of air for 
 everybody and some to spare, but if air could be bottled, frozen, 
 packed or monopolized, some captain of industry would choke 
 little meters down our throats and make us cough up a quar- 
 ter for a day’s breathing. And he should not be blamed for it, 
 either, because it is our duty to encourage brain, ability, 
 foresightedness, enterprise and sagacity. Besides, a people 
 who are willing to pay others for the use of God’s earth should 
 have no objection to putting up good money for God’s air also. 
 
18 
 
 Yes but the^isTn ," bUt th6Se Pe ° Ple ° Wn to ° much land." 
 
 r r srr % 
 
 ten hundreds, thousands or unions of peopfe^ B^idt ^ 
 
 the great trusts own considerable land, the ^LmutET 
 sashed in getti the , farm product wiihout 0 “^ ta™ 
 
 towns w^i:^:hr;:^ apitaiists in the «*»* «* 
 
 WHY THE FARMERS LOSE THE SOIL 
 
 a hope that some" daT thT ^ * 
 
 z r sinss ot fa ™ - * 
 
 s55S3£=~s=5 
 
 =pH~ss:ss= 
 
 Worths "C “ Way: The Same Kansas farm 
 
 Worth $ 1 J“ HI,’ pro f ced 2 °00 bu. of corn, value $1000 
 Worth $ 5*000 in loon* Pr ° duCed 2000 bu - of cor n, value $1000 
 Worth x ' in , n’ ^ 2 °°° bU ' ° f Corn - value $1000 
 
 to $^;rr— ! 
 
 SHSr- 
 
 rn m 1880 will not produce 2000 
 
19 
 
 kushels of corn in 1910 unless a greater amount of labor is 
 “ expended, for while land values have steadily gone up, the 
 tj: productivity of the soil has gone down. As long as this farmer 
 works his own land it is immaterial to him whether the land 
 i is worth ten cents or ten thousand dollars. 
 
 Yes, you see that; but you say: “This farmer bought his 
 i farm for $100.00 in 1880; to-day he can sell it for $10,000.00 
 land make a clear profit of $9,900.00.” Admitted, but some- 
 'body must have $10,000.00 before our farmer can get it. Let 
 > us say our farmer’s name is Tom and the other fellow’s name 
 is Dick. 
 
 i Tom has A farm 
 
 Dick has ..$10,000.00 
 
 Now the two swap, and let’s see what happened, 
 j Nothing happened; not a cent of value was created. In- 
 ! stead of Dick eating up his $10,000.00 in town, Tom is mov- 
 ing to town to do the spending and Dick moves on the farm. 
 The two change positions — that is all. If this changing of land 
 and money has benefited Tom and Dick, then figure it out for 
 me; and if the swapping between Tom and Dick did not make 
 the two any richer than they were before the swap, how on 
 |l earth is the swapping of all the Toms and Dicks in the country 
 j| going to benefit the farming class? 
 
 If I own a dollar and you own a pup, and I give you a 
 dollar for your pup, how many more dollars and how many 
 more pups have we now? And if we haven’t got any more 
 pups and dollars, how much better off are we? 
 
 But let us say I am a land speculator and you are a far- 
 mer. In 1880 I bought the above-mentioned piece of dirt for 
 $100.00. The rent has paid all the taxes and 8 per cent on the 
 money invested. For thirty years I have busied myself sitting 
 in the shade waiting for a sucker. Then you come along. Want 
 a farm to raise corn, don’t you? and you have $10,000.00, 
 which means that I get $9,900 for waiting for you; and you 
 raised 18,800 bushels of corn in the days gone by and turned 
 the money over to me. I, the land speculator, got the savings 
 of your life time and you got a piece of land which was here a 
 couple of millions of years before land speculators ever were 
 | invented. Therefore I say again, high land values are of no 
 more benefit to the farmer than high-priced farm implements 
 1 are to him, for the actual farmer wants land and implements 
 for use and not for' speculation. 
 
 EFFECT OF INHERITANCE. 
 
 Now let us put the case differently. Tom, the owner of 
 the aforementioned Kansas farm lives on it until he dies. Of 
 
20 
 
 amounts to $360.00 per vear at « na ! * f * The lnteres 
 a <nn non nn f P y at 6 per Cent interst. Taxes oi 
 
 oTj~’ and next - th - 
 
 — - rz 
 
 Z2 117212: TLTelT 'ZtT r stock of 
 
 t.on of the land-owning farmers into renters transf orma- 
 
 Landlordism is rapidly increasing in the United state* 
 r 6 DnCle Sam haSn ’‘ any m °re *** to spend, and the b 
 sTavervTIt? Tu\' ^ n ° thing asai » st ‘he clm'ng 
 
 making h! ‘ 7 en ° Ugh t0 teU usof the Progress we are 
 
 making. Here are a few census figures: 
 
 Farms Operated by 
 
 1880: .... 
 
 Owners. 
 Per cent. 
 
 Tenants. 
 Per cent. 
 
 1890 
 
 
 25.5 
 
 1900 
 
 
 28.4 
 
 1910 
 
 
 35.3 
 
 
 
 38.0 
 
21 
 
 Farm s Mortgaged . 
 
 30.0 per cent 
 
 33.3 per cent 
 
 The complete census figures on farm homes for the census 
 year of 1910 are not available as yet. But they are complete 
 for some states. Among them is Wisconsin. This state boasts 
 of a large German population, known for its thrift and fru- 
 gality. If this class of farmers are losing their hold on the 
 soil and are rapidly drifting towards tenantry, then we may 
 safely assume that the same transformation is taking place all 
 over the country. As a matter of fact, tenantry in the South- 
 ern States is increasing at a terrific rate. Oklahoma, for in- 
 stance, which was thrown open for settlement in 1889, has 
 over 92,000 farm tenants to-day. But let us return to the 
 thrifty, cornfed farmer of Wisconsin and learn what is hap- 
 pening to him. 
 
 THE MORTGAGED BADGER FARMER. 
 
 Brother farmer, I want you to sit down and do some hard 
 figuring. Over one-half of all the farms of Wisconsin are 
 mortgaged. Your place may still be unincumbered, but since 
 the percentage of mortgaged farms is steadily increasing you 
 may be the next one to put a plaster on your place. 
 
 No. mort- Per cent 
 
 gaged farms. mortgaged farms. 
 
 1890 55,242 42.9 
 
 1900 65,589 45.8 
 
 1910 72,129 51.1 
 
 According to the foregoing figures, the relative number 
 of farms operated by their owners which are mortgaged has 
 increased quite regularly since 1890. From 1890 to 1910 the 
 number increased 21,887, or 39.6 per cent. 
 
 From the above it may be easily seen that as a class you 
 are getting more and more in debt. A mortgage is anything 
 but a sign of prosperity. But wait, the worst is yet to come. 
 
 Average Mortgage Debt Per Farm Increase. 
 
 1890 $1,001 
 
 1910 2,116 111.3 per cent 
 
 So we see that in twenty years the mortgaged farms in- 
 creased 39.6 per cent, while the mortgaged indebtedness in- 
 creased 111.8 per cent. Or, to put it differently, in 1890 the 
 farmers of Wisconsin paid interest on a debt of $55,305,000. 
 In 1910 they paid interest on $146,815,000. 
 
 All this looks bad for the Wisconsin farmers, and the cen- 
 sus man, not wishing to cast a gloom over the prosperity- 
 
22 
 
 blessed Badger State, produced another array of figures, which 
 show that while the farmers are getting in debt more and more 
 they are becoming richer at the same time. 
 
 The wealth of the farmer, we are told, is accumulating in 
 the form of land values. The census states that while 
 the mortgaged indebtedness increased 111.8 per cent land 
 values increased 105.0 per cent in twenty years. But what the 
 census man fails to prove is that the increase of land values is a 
 benefit to the farmer who farms the farm. 
 
 The Fetish of Land Values. 
 
 The average value of land and buildings, per acre, was: 
 
 1850. 
 1860. 
 1870. 
 1880. 
 1890. 
 1900. 
 1910 . 
 
 $ 9.58 
 16.61 
 20.51 
 23.30 
 28.44 
 34.54 
 57.06 
 
 That’s going some. “Getting richer all the time,” you say. 
 
 Now let me ask you a few questions. 
 
 If an acre of land, valued at $9.58 in 1850, produced 50 
 bushels of corn, how many bushels will it produce in 1910, 
 
 when its value has gone up to $57.06? 
 
 If an acre of land worth $16.61 in^ 1870 pastured two 
 cows, how many cows will the same acre pasture in 1910 after 
 its value has reached $57.06 ? 
 
 The result of your meditation and calculation will be 
 that while land values have increased, the productivity of the 
 land has remained almost the same. And if with the same 
 expenditure of labor you cannot get a bigger crop on a fifty 
 dollar acre than you got on the same acre when it cost only 
 ten dollars, how on earth is the rise of land values benefitting 
 the actual tiller of the soil- Does the farmer draw interest on 
 the value of his land ? 
 
 When figuring your yearly income do you state 
 Value of land, $10,000. 6 per cent interest on same. . $600 
 
 Value of crop $800 
 
 Total income $1400 
 
 Or do you put it this way — 
 
 Value of crop $800 
 
 Taxes on $10,000 farm 70 
 
 Net income 
 
 $730. 
 
■ 
 
 When you look at it in the right light you will find that 
 land values are a liability instead of an asset to the farmer 
 who farms the farm. Rising land values may increase your 
 taxes, but they don’t increase the product of the land. 
 
 Tenant Farming. 
 
 The landlord robs the tenant and the tenant robs the 
 (soil. The result is an impoverished rural population and an 
 impoverished soil. Landlordism is a curse, whether we find 
 it in India, Ireland or Wisconsin. It produces miserable farm 
 ! homes, overworked women, and underschooled children. 
 Schools, churches and homes go down in the country and a 
 jj non-producing, non-progressing parasite class composed of 
 'tired and retired farmers hang around the county seat towns 
 like flies around the bungholes of molasses barrels. 
 
 Landlordism is a survival of Lordism or Feudalism. The 
 landlord is a parasite without an extenuating circumstance. 
 I i n the scheme of life he fulfills no useful function. He is to 
 agriculture what the mistletoe is to the tree. The rent money 
 3 that flows from the farm to the towns is a fearful drain on 
 1 the actual tillers of the soil. He finds himself short of the 
 i capital required for the purchase of the best farm animals and 
 implements. Every improvement made in soil culture or by 
 1 more scientific management is absorbed by the landlord in 
 
 ever rising rent. 
 
 The division of the farming class into landlords and 
 landtillers, exploiter and exploited, produces the same effect 
 noticed in the separation of ownership and labor in modern 
 industrial life. The tenant as his brother the wage worker 
 will retain from the product of his toil only sufficient to keep 
 himself in working condition. The surplus above the existence 
 wage is confiscated by the landlord even as the capitalist con- 
 fiscates the surplus value produced by the wage worker. 
 
 Tenantry did not increase at the fearful rate as mort- 
 gaged indebtedness did in Wisconsin. But it does increase 
 faster than the new farms cut out of the jungle have increased. 
 
 On the whole it may be said that the higher the land 
 values, the denser the population and the older the settlement 
 the greater is the number of tenants. The greatest Percentage 
 of tenants is found in the southern counties of the state. 
 Tenantry gradually disappears as we move north toward the 
 sparsely settled jungle. From this it may be deducted that 
 if tenantry rises with age and land values, the northern part 
 of Wisconsin will produce a lusty crop of renters as soon as 
 the land has reached a state of cultivation where it will sup- 
 port two men — landlord' and renter. Up to the present time 
 
24 
 
 the cheap land , of the state has proven the only hindrance to 
 the extension of landlordism. With the disappearance of 
 free or cheap land, tenantry is bound to grow rapidly in the 
 state, says the census man. 
 
 Farm Tenure — 1880-1910. 
 
 The following table shows the status of farm tenure by 1 
 decades since 1880. 
 
 Farms operated by tenants: 
 
 Per Cent 
 
 1880 12,159 or 9.1 
 
 1890 16,728 or 11.4 
 
 1900 22,996 or 13.5 
 
 1910 24,659 or 13.9 
 
 Farms operated by owners: 
 
 1880 122,163 
 
 1890 129,681 
 
 1900 146,799 
 
 1910 152,473 
 
 In thirty years the number of tenants doubled in the 
 state. Tenantry increased 102.8 per cent, while the farms 
 
 operated by their owners only increased 24.8 per cent. The 
 latter increase is almost exclusively due to the reclamation 
 of cut over land by the pioneer farmers. 
 
 The Sunny South. 
 
 From damp and cold Wisconsin let us turn towards the 
 sunny South and see how much sunshine we find for the 
 Southern farmer in the census report of 1910. Complete 
 figures for the South Central division comprising the states of 
 Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Loui- 
 siana, Oklahoma and Texas are now available. The figures 
 show — 
 
 Mortgaged farms operated by their owners: 
 
 1900 138,856 or 17 per cent 
 
 1910 246,048 or 26 per cent 
 
 Farms operated by tenants: 
 
 1900 805,546 or 49 per cent 
 
 1910 1,024,265 or 52 per cent 
 
 To be sure, land values rose 133 per cent during the same 
 period but it remains to be proven whether or not rising land 
 values benefit the farmer who farms the farm. 
 
 As a glaring example of the blessing (?) of rising land 
 values we may point to the conditions in Oklahoma. In that 
 state land values increased 333 per cent from 19.00 to 1910. 
 At the same time the number of farm tenants rose from 47,250 
 to 103,753. 
 
25 
 
 In 1900, 92 per cent of the farms operated by their 
 owners were owned free of indebtedness. Ten years later and 
 after an increase of 333 per cent in the value of land only 5 8 
 per cent of the same farms remained unmortgaged. 
 
 The New Feudalism. 
 
 The same economic forces which have separated the 
 mechanic from the ownership of his tools are even now robbing 
 the farmer of the ownership of the soil. 
 
 The privately owned farm gives to the operating owner 
 the product of his toil, but when the farm passes into the 
 hands of a non-farming landlord, it becomes a means of de- 
 priving the farmer of the product of his labor. 
 
 Owned by the farmer, the soil is a means of production. 
 Owned by the landlord it is a means of exploitation. In agri- 
 culture we find the same transformation from private to capi- 
 talist owned property as observed^ in industry. 
 
 But let us ask the question, is this transformation in the 
 direction of social production, and consequently towards social 
 ownership? Are the capitalists buying up the soil to repeat 
 in agriculture the same magnificent process witnessed in the 
 development of capitalist production? How long will it be 
 before we ^ee the farmer reduced to a wage worker, toiling 
 on gigantic farms under the direction of hired managers, 
 scientists and soil experts for the benefit of absentee stock- 
 holders? 
 
 To all these questions there can be but one answer, and 
 that is the evolution in agriculture is not towards social pro- 
 duction and capitalist ownership. Instead of striving forward 
 towards capitalism, we are really returning toward feudalism. 
 
 The farmers are losing the land to the capitalists. The 
 separation between ownership and labor is taking place, but 
 the farmer is not entering a higher stage of production as a 
 wage worker, but is cast into a lower one — tenantry. 
 
 If the Census figures prove anything then it is that there 
 is no -tendency towards bonanza farming in this country. The 
 size of the average farm is remaining practically stationary, 
 and the number of capitalist farms operated by managers is 
 actually decreasing. 
 
 Average number of acres per farm. 
 
 Year Number of acres per farm 
 
 1850 202 
 
 1860 199 
 
 1870 153 
 
 1880 133 
 
 1890 136 
 
 1900 146 
 
 1910 138 
 
- * 
 
 Farms operated by managers: 
 
 1900 59,085 
 
 1910 57,398 
 
 Decrease 1,687 
 
 The whole movement is reactionary, away from progress 
 toward feudalism. Here we have much land owned by one 
 landlord and tilled by many tenant families. 
 
 Not let us separate the syllable Land, from Lord, retaining 
 Lord alone; let us substitute serf for tenant, and we have in 
 name what we have in reality — Feudalism. 
 
 Under feudalism the Lord took about one-third of the 
 product of the serf. The modern landlord, thanks to the intro- 
 duction of farm machinery, takes one-half of the crop produced 
 by the tenant; and yet there are people who regard Landlord- 
 ism as an improvement on plain Lord-ism. 
 
 While the county seat usurers, bankers and small fry 
 capitalists are gleefully returning to the good old days when 
 “Knighthood Was In Flower,” the real capitalists have taken 
 up a stragetic position and placed themselves in possession of 
 the faucet through which the agricultural products flow into 
 the world’s markets. 
 
 Grain elevators, flour mills, cotton gins, packing plants, 
 canning factories and market facilities are all the property 
 of the greater capitalists. The possession of these means of 
 production and distribution makes it possible for this class to 
 take from the farmer all he produces, leaving only sufficient to 
 allow him to reproduce his labor power and raise a new genera- 
 tion of farmers. 
 
 The farmer selling into and buying out of a monopolized 
 market, finds himself in the identical position of the’ wage 
 worker who sells his labor power under free competition with 
 his fellow workers to the owners of capital. The only difference 
 is that the wage worker sells his labor power direct to the 
 capitalist while the farmer converts his labor power into pro- 
 ducts which he cannot turn into cash without first passing 
 through the fingers of the gentlemen who cluster around the 
 faucet. 
 
 The pay envelope of the factory worker must contain the 
 price which he must pay to the landlord for the use of a town 
 lot, and the price of farm produce must be high enough to 
 allow the farmer a sum large enough to pay land rent and 
 sustain life. 
 
 In both cases the landlord appears as a pure parasite on 
 industrial capitalist. The abolition of landlordism in the cities 
 would undoubtedly result in an immediate benefit to the work- 
 
27 
 
 ing class, but in the long run this benefit would be benevolent- 
 ly assimilated by the industrial capitalists. The same is true 
 in regard to landlordism in the farming regions. But it is 
 ! further true that wherever the workers have succeeded in 
 raising their standard of living they will resist bitterly being 
 | reduced to the former standard. This undoubtedly would in- 
 tensify the class struggle and ultimately result in a stronger 
 and more militant working class. 
 
 The Socialists cpuld not and would not hinder the develop- 
 ment of the trust. 
 
 The Socialists could not and would not hinder the develop- 
 ment of capitalist farming. But if there is a tendency toward 
 bonanza farming in this country it has escaped the most care- 
 ful observers. 
 
 Two things are absolutely clear. The ratio of farm owners 
 I tilling their own soil is decreasing all over the United States. 
 
 ' The amount of land cultivated by the individual farmer 
 is becoming less. 
 
 The machinery required for the marketing of farm 
 ! products is in the hands of the ‘capitalists. Nowhere do we 
 find the remotest sign of capitalist farming: So far not even 
 
 j the partnership, the lowest form of capitalist association, has 
 • developed on the farm. 
 
 In seeking a solution of the agricultural problem, we must 
 cease to wander about in the realm of speculation, hunting 
 cures for the ills of phantoms created by ourselves. We must 
 get down to actual facts. 
 
 In order that a farmer may farm he must have: 
 
 First, land; 
 
 Second, tools, machinery, animals, or in other words, 
 capital; 
 
 Third, means of bringing his product to the ultimate con- 
 sumer without the intervention of the capitalist. 
 
 Land. 
 
 The land questiop. may be solved through a system of 
 taxation which would make renting of land unprofitable. By 
 forcing the owners of rented land and idle land held for the 
 rise of land values, to pay a higher rate of taxation than is 
 paid by the farmer who tills his own soil, the land will natur- 
 ally revert to the actual user of the soil. This elimination of 
 the parasite landlord and speculator depends entirely on the 
 degree of taxation. A tax that would equal the full rental value 
 of the land would amount to the same thing as confiscation by 
 society. 
 
Capital. 
 
 The nationalization of the banking system, loaning money 
 at actual cost, would give capital to the usury ridden farmer 
 at a rate that would be lower than his greatest expectations. 
 
 The national, state and municipal ownership of railroads, 
 packing plants, canning factories, grain elevators, cotton gins, 
 market facilities and so forth, would finally relieve the farmer 
 from exploitation through the private ownership of these, the 
 greater means of production and distribution. 
 
 The ultimate goal of Socialism is to give to the worker 
 the product of his labor. 
 
 As a means to this end we demand the common ownership 
 of the things that can be used as a means of exploitation. 
 
 Most farmers imagine that the private o’vvfaership of the 
 farm is the only thinkable arrangement by which they can 
 obtain the product of their labor. But this is not the case. 
 THE RIGHT TO THE USE OF THE LAND WILL INSURE 
 THE PRODUCT TO THE PRODUCER AS EFFECTUALLY AS 
 OUTRIGHT OWNERSHIP. 
 
 We do not have to own a school house to give education 
 to our children. The common owned street or county road 
 allows us to move about as freely as if we had a title deed to 
 those things. 
 
 What we do need though is the right to the use of the 
 school, the roads and the streets. 
 
 Land is not used in common like a factory or railroad 
 and yet it may be used as a means o_ exploitation. A farm 
 owned by one man and operated by another will give to the 
 idle owner the surplus produced by the tenant as effectually as 
 if the same farm were operated by wage workers under the 
 direction of a hired manager. 
 
 Since land is limited, it can become monopolized and the 
 ownership of many farms by a few owners and filled indi- 
 vidually by a great number of tenant families must result in 
 the enslavement of the landless workers. 
 
 The Remedy. 
 
 We have now a fair diagnosis of the case of the farmer. 
 He is a cruelly exploited being. Parasites of all kinds and 
 descriptions feed on his body. Usurers, landlords, speculators 
 and capitalists rob him of the fruit of his labor. How can 
 Doctor Socialist help the farmer? 
 
 In promulgating a farmers’ program the socialists have 
 the choice between three policies: 
 
 First, they may prolong the life of the small, isolated and 
 individually worked farm through land legislation, along the 
 
29 
 
 lines laid down by Henry George and through the nationaliza- 
 tion of credit. In doing this the union between ownership and 
 labor will be preserved in the farming industry. But we are 
 also perpetrating a system of production which, although just 
 from the viewpoint of distribution, is undesirable from the 
 standpoint of production. 
 
 Second, the Socialists may keep their hands off, allowing 
 the capitalists to organize agriculture on a capitalist basis or 
 to reduce the farmers to feudal serfs. 
 
 Third, they may place a check to the expropriation of the 
 farming class by the capitalists,, while at the same time open 
 a way for the development of co-operative farming and the 
 gradual nationalization of the land. 
 
 The Socialist Party of Oklahoma, composed almost ex- 
 clusively of farmers, has worked out a program along these 
 latter lines. The program was adopted by the overwhelming 
 vote of actual farmers three years ago and up to the present 
 time has remained unamended. 
 
 I do not claim that it is perfect or that other states 
 with different conditions should adopt it without change, but 
 it is a program that nearly every level headed farmer will 
 accept. It is progressive and tends in the direction of increased 
 productivity and the collective ownership of the means of life, 
 without threatening the actual tiller of the soil with the loss 
 of his land. I herewith submit it to the earnest consideration 
 of the farmers and Socialists of other states: 
 
 FARMERS’ PROGRAM. 
 
 Art. 1 • 
 
 The retention and constant enlargement of the public 
 domain: 
 
 By retaining school and other public lands. 
 
 By purchase of arid and overflow lands and the state re- 
 clamation of all such lands now held by the state or that may 
 be acquired by the state. 
 
 By the purchase of all lands sold for the non-payment of 
 taxes. 
 
 By the purchase of segregated and unallotted Indian lands. 
 
 By the retention of leased lands after the expiration of 
 leases and the payment of the improvements thereon at an 
 appraised valuation. 
 
 Art. 2. 
 
 Separation of the department of agriculture from the poli- 
 tical government by means of — 
 
 Election of all members and officers of the Board of Agri- 
 culture by the direct vote of the actual farmers. 
 
30 
 
 Introduction of the- merit system among the employees. 
 
 Art. 3. 
 
 Erection by the state of grain elevators and warehouses 
 for the storage of farm products; these elevators and ware- 
 houses to be managed by the Board of Agriculture. 
 
 Art. 4. 
 
 Organization by the Board of Agriculture of free agricul- 
 tural education and the establishment of model farms. 
 
 Art. 5. 
 
 Encouragement by the Board of Agriculture of co-opera- 
 tive societies of farmers — 
 
 For the buying of seed and fertilizer. 
 
 For the purchase and common use of implements and 
 machinery. 
 
 For the preparing and sale of produce. 
 
 For the working of land by groups. 
 
 Art. 6. 
 
 Organization by the state for loans on mortgages and ware- 
 house certificates, the interest charges to cover cost only. 
 
 Art. 7. 
 
 State insurance against diseases of animals, diseases of 
 plants, insect pests, hail, flood, storm and fire. 
 
 Art. 8. 
 
 Aid and encouragement to be given the actual workers of 
 thi farms in the formation of district co-operative associations 
 which shall be given the power to issue bonds for the purchase 
 of suitable farming lands — bonds to be redeemable in forty 
 years. Individuals purchasing such lands shall pay the pur- 
 chase price of land in share or cash annual or semi-annual 
 rentals extending over a period of forty years, or may at their 
 option pay in full in any given number of years. 
 
 Art. 9. 
 
 Exemption from taxation and execution of dwellings, tools, 
 farm animals, implements and improvements to the amount of 
 one thousand dollars. 
 
 Art. 10. 
 
 A graduated tax on the value of rented land and land held 
 ror speculation. 
 
 Art. 11. 
 
 Absentee landlords to assess their own lands, the state 
 reserving the right to purchase such land at their assessed 
 value plus 10 per cent. 
 
 Art. 12. 
 
 Land now in the possession of the state or hereafter ac- 
 quired through purchase, reclamation or tax sales to be rented 
 to landless farmers under the supervision of the Board of Agri- 
 
31 
 
 culture at the prevailing rate of share rent or its equivalent. 
 The payment of such rent to cease as soon as the total amount 
 of rent paid is equal to the value of the land and the tenant 
 thereby acquires for himself and his children the right of occu- 
 pancy. The title to all such lands remaining with the common- 
 wealth. 
 
 The Farmers’ Program, 
 
 adopted by the National Convention of the Socialist Party in 
 1912: 
 
 1. The Socialist party demands that the means of trans- 
 portation and storage and the plants used in the manufacture 
 of farm products and farm machinery shall be socially owned 
 and democratically managed. 
 
 2. To prevent the holding of land out of use and to 
 eliminate tenantry, we demand that all farm land not cultivated 
 by owners shall be taxed at its full rental value, and that 
 actual use and occupancy shall be the only title to land. 
 
 3. We demand the retention by the national, state or 
 local governing bodies of all land owned by them, and the con- 
 tinuous acquirement of other land by reclamation, purchase, 
 condemnation, taxation or otherwise; such land to be organized 
 as rapidly as possible into socially operated farms for the con- 
 duct of collective agricultural enterprises. 
 
 4. Such farms should constitute educational and experi- 
 mental centers for crop culture, the use of fertilizers and farm 
 machinery and distributing points for improved seeds and 
 better breeds of animals. 
 
 5. The formation of co-operative associations for agri- 
 cultural purposes should be encouraged. 
 
 6. Insurance against diseases of animals and plants, 
 insect pests and natural calamities should be provided by 
 national, state or local governments. 
 
 7. We call attention to the fact, that the elimination of 
 farm tenantry and the development of socially owned and 
 operated agriculture will open new opportunities to the agricul- 
 tural wage-worker and free him from the tyranny of the private 
 employer. 
 
 Conclusion. 
 
 The Socialist party is the party of the working class of 
 which the farmer who farms is an important division. The 
 ultimate goal of Socialispi is to insure to every worker the 
 product of his labor. All wealth is created by labor. This 
 being true, all wealth should belong to its creator. The reason 
 why this is not the case at present is because the means of 
 production belong not to the worker, but to the capitalist. To 
 
32 
 
 give to the worker the fruit of his labor he must own the means 
 of production, and since the modern means of production are 
 used socially or in common, they must be owned socially and 
 in common. But mark well — the Socialists do not demand the 
 common ownership of all property. They do not ask for the 
 public ownership of private property. Only such property as 
 is now used by one class to exploit another class is to become 
 common property. 
 
 The Socialists do not intend to take the farm from the 
 farmer who farms the farm; but on the contrary to see that the 
 actual tiller of his soil may receive the use of the land without 
 paying tribute to landlord or land speculator, or any other 
 owner of the tools of production, such as railroads, packing 
 houses mills, factories and mines. 
 
 Neither are such means of production that are privately 
 used to become public property. 
 
 The farmer may own his own private smoke house, but 
 the packing plant must belong to all. The farmer may retain 
 the private ownership of his farm implements, but the imple- 
 ment factory must be commonly owned. He also may retain 
 as private property anything and everything that is not used 
 to deprive another man of the product of his labor. This in- 
 cludes homes, automobiles, carriages, diamonds, dogs, horses, 
 cows, clothing, pianos, jewsharps, muies, goats, cats, churns, 
 • cream separators, plows, harrows, reapers and rat traps. In 
 short anything that is not used to skin the other fellow. 
 
 Brother farmer, the Socialist program points the way to 
 deliverance from Landlord, Speculator, Usurer and Parasite. 
 Get into the Socialist party and vote for your wife and child, 
 and the full product of your labor. 
 
 The End. 
 
 i i 
 
he Rip-Saw Series 
 
 Uniform with this pamphlet— many different titles, 32 to 
 48 pages, good paper, large type. Nothing better published. 
 
 Order by Number. 
 
 -LAW AND THE WHITE SLAVER— 
 
 £No. 
 
 No. 2— CHUECH AND THE SOCIAL PROBLEM— 
 
 By Kate Richards O’Harc — For minister or layman -ff 10c 
 
 To. 3— COMMON SEN&; AND THE LIQUOR QUESTION 
 
 By Kate Richards O’Hare— -This settles the “wet” and “dry”. . . . 10c 
 
 to. 4— PROSTITUTION FOR PROFIT— 
 
 By H. G. Creel — Will work a revolution... 10c 
 
 10. 6— TRICKS OF THE PRESS— 
 
 By EL. G. Creel — Tricks of newspapers exposed..*.... 10c 
 
 to. 6— NEWSPAPER FRAUDS— * ' 
 
 | By H. G. Creel — Completes the story in No. Z 10c 
 
 to. 7— SOCIALISM AND FREE LOVE— 
 
 By Allen w. nicker — You bare been waiting' for this... ..10c 
 
 io. 8— A WAVE OF HORROR— 
 
 By Henry M. Tlcbenor — From first to last this is great. ....... ,10c 
 
 To. 9— SOCIALISM IN ACTION— 
 
 By Allen W. Ricker— -Kicker’s great speech 10c 
 
 io. 10— THE EVILS OF CAPITALISM— 
 
 By H. M. Tlcheaor— Tichenor tears the hide off 10c 
 
 to. U— MILITANT SOCIALISM— 
 
 By James Oneal— The Way To Get It 10c 
 
 to. 12— TriE POLITICAL ECONOMY OF JESUS— 
 
 By A. W. Ricker — An Eye Opener. < . 10c 
 
 (o. 13— WAR!— 
 
 By Howard Caldwell— Shows Why Men Fight.. 10c 
 
 i No. 14— RIP-SAW MOTHER GOOSE— 
 
 By H. M. Tichenor— Catchy Jingles. .. .10c 
 
 to. 15— SOCIAtlSM FOR THE FARMER— 
 
 By Oscar Amerlnger — For Farmers Who Farm... 10c 
 
 to. 16— WOMAN UNDER CAPITALISM— 
 
 By H. M. TUhenor— Every Woman Should Read It... 10c 
 
 Bottom wholesale prices of the above booklets. You may 
 order all of one kind, or mix them aa yon desire. 
 
 copies, postpaid. ...... .9 .25 100 copies, express prepaid . .| 5.50 
 
 copies, postpaid .50 500 copies In one order (yon 
 
 k copies, postpaid. ..... . 1.00 pay the express charges; 
 
 copies, postpaid 3.00 shipping weight 35 lbs.) . . . 20.00 
 
SORROWS OF cup: 
 
 Eight years ago Kal 
 Richards O’Hare wrote a li'. 
 tie 64-page booklet, WHA 
 HAPPENED TO BAN - 
 when the great- edition wa;. 
 exhausted the book was ex- 
 panded into 112 pages and 
 called “The Sorrows of Cu- 
 pid”; when time would per- 
 mit, Mrs. O’Hare eontmueo . 
 the work of enlarging and ? 
 
 . • +v>ic hoont fill i 
 
 improving this . beautiful 
 work until now it is a fine 
 
 large volume of many chap- 
 ters. It covers the entire 
 case of capitalism from the 
 point of most intense human .< 
 interest. Dove, — marriage,— 
 tfbme, — babies, all the sweet 
 Snd tender thoughts that 
 this gifted writer has ex- 
 pressed in her many written 
 articles are gathered here; 
 a book that every wife and 
 mother, every husband ana. 
 father, every lover and maul- 
 ten should have by them. 
 Life will be sweeter and 
 richer for you when you 
 have read “The Sorrows of 
 
 C “ P ‘ WORKERS IN 
 AMERICAN HISTORY.' 
 
 James Oneal of Terre Haut^In^ spent 
 and research to write a bonk, ine the American toiling masses, ; 
 
 Mexfcan^War. This is a wonder- 
 
 lul Either of these great books will be sent pre-pald on receipt of 
 SAM REMEMB I ER~iryou are mol 
 
 you are missing son^Mng great. ^r more, 25 cents a year. The 
 SO cents a year — m clubs n* ™u £ \V ach car a good for one years 
 
 Rip-Saw also sells subscription card^eac^ ^ cftnts each You can 
 
 Vil ?hSe 6 c n ards any t°ime°to yoir friends. They are always good-for 
 3 "BUT rOOKHERE-YilU £^1 
 
 JSg trlfL^ho^easy, it^toget 
 
 THEY ALD WANT Bo* this and 
 
 of Kat*e ’Rlchards'crHare's’or^neal^^ook tor yonr 
 
 library FREE. 
 
 as JtJ-O.1 O W VT» ,'x 
 
 Address:— THE NATIONAL RIP-SAW ^ L(jrIS> M0 . 
 
 tfty~°prfee^ ’on** “The^Wo'rketsf^llf "American History* »d 
 
 ‘°' u - not 
 
 
 rive 
 
 kind os -