Then, since their work is useless, and since they are now being paid, is it not evident that under Socialism we could actually pay them their full wages for doing nothing, and still be as well off as we are now?
But I think under Socialism we could, and should, find a very great many of them congenial and useful work.
Under the "Trusts" they will be thrown out of work, and it will be nobody's business to see that they do not starve.
Yes: Socialism would displace labour. But does not non-Socialism displace labour?
Why was the linotype machine adopted? Because it was a saving of cost. What became of the compositors? They were thrown out of work. Did anybody help them?
Well, Socialism would save cost. If it displaces labour, as the machine does, should that prevent us from adopting Socialism?
Socialism would organise labour, and leave no man to starve.
But will the Trusts do that? No. And the Trusts are coming; the Trusts which will swallow up the small firms and destroy competition; the Trusts which will use their monopolies not to lower prices, but to make profits.
You will have your choice, then, between the grasping and grinding Trust and the beneficent Municipality.
Can any reasonable, practical, hard-headed man hesitate for one moment over his choice?