1
10
1
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/875249d1dc691fb934359c9db111fa42.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=mF3xq3GdtxoobaqXqoNi4ERKpAT533ost0gCUKhtUWDrAQoaTuw0u2eGYt37nOqK6fSpldyn-SwV8kGCYysu-qIPaow5FdHKbLcsSD2OkH4Fu6tp2w0S7opn07Cfr6MESVYoUR-M93DZr9vEpEYqShNZm13sdDx0cB%7E87HentlRLD5bCDYPDAg2QQRtD3CKWF0h4Zi33Z85JxJfa9r%7EAWFEf4wujxKibyIJskSNr7zKmHhy0TkvG3FCqC-HAnnI1cA9gpjb6L7%7EGny4Y7iQYvL6lJhp0mpumDrpWmUa7T0YY0WDir-q%7EmwjARj%7EC98y3ZGL3AJ1GeST8d5CLOX2wTA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
ccefbc5561ec629647e7c440704b1ecb
PDF Text
Text
WORK AND WEALTH
ESSAY
AN
ON THE
OF
ECONOMICS
SOCIALISM,
BY
J. K. INGALLS.
ONE
PENNY.
LONDON:
INTERNATIONAL PUBLISHING COMPANY,
*
r
35, NEWINGTON GREEN ROAD, N.
1887.
��WORK AND WEALTH.4
<Ti HAVE chosen the above terms in preference to Labour and
W Capital, because they convey more exact ideas. Thè word
labour carries with it the impression of compulsory, or servile
toil. Capital is a word which economists themselves cannot satis
factorily define, and to which they apply only an arbitrary meaning.
The things signified by work and wealth are subject to no equivocal
interpretation, are understood by all, and stand to each other in the
relation of a natural sequence.
Speaking from the standpoint of the trader, from which political
economists mainly speak, Adam Smith lays down this fundamental
proposition : “ It was not by gold or silver, but by labour, that all
the wealth of the world was originally purchased.” For him the
term labour was appropriate, because, in his time, a large proportion
of the world’s work was performed by bondmen or by hirelings,
even more the mere dependents of the legal possessors of the world’s
wealth than are the workers of to-day.
Starting from this comprehensive, but exact, proposition that work
is the only source from which wealth can be produced or purchased
as an axiom, the opposite of which is simply unthinkable, let us
direct our attention to an inquiry into the manner in which wealth
to appearance is transferred so often in exchange for no equivalent
in labour. Even the trader may be interested in the attempt to
account for the fact that wealth, at first purchasable only by work,
comes to be possessed mainly by those who do no work.
The thing which a man has produced by his work, and which is an
object of desire to himself and others, can be transferred in several
different ways. The natural or simplistic methods are: (r) Force,
involving robbery, theft, and, in an advanced stage, cheating, over
reaching, and advantage-taking of every description ; (2) Gift, involving partial and invidious bestowments, as well as noble gene
rosities ; (3) Hazard, involving all kinds of gaming, and, in the
progress of society, all speculative ventures.
* This paper originally appeared in the Ameiican “ Radical Review.”
*
�4
v
i
The rational method, and one which is arrived at only by culture
and the recognition of social obligations, is mutual exchange.
With the earlier method^ as they have existed in the past, we need
have no quarrel. They were the only ones possible under the con
dition of social and moral development then obtaining. Robbery is
the main element of organic and animated life. The carnivorous
animals all support life by drawing it from orders less powerful or
aggressive than themselves, and even the herbivorous sustain life by
devouring vegetable life. Man destroys the lives of the creatures
beneath him that he may eat their flesh and robe himself with their
furs and skins.. He robs the sheep of its fleece, the silk-worm of its
web that he may clothe himself. That he pursues a similar course
with his fellow is not to be wondered at. Only a conception of the
brotherhood of man and the real dignity of work can win him from
his tendency to devour the substance of the weak and simple who
fall into his hands, instead of producing wealth for himself.
The rude man, who has spent hours in the forest gathering fagots,
but lies down at night without a fire, while another enjoys the genial
warmth those same fagots yield while burning, may have transferred
their possession in several different ways. He may, with a certain
degree of equity, have exchanged them, for different products which
the other had worked to obtain ; he may have engaged in some
game of chance, and lost them wholly ; or he may have been met
by a stronger man, while returning laden, and deprived of his fagots
by force. Or, he already may have been reduced to a bond-slave,
his life having bten spared in war on condition of his submission to
a life of slavery; and thus have given his captor the perpetual
ability to purchase wealth with his and his childrens’ toil.
From the mental state which results from such motives as sway
the successful warrior and slave-holder, to that of the enlightened
moralist and economist who discovers that, if another has created
wealth which he himself desires, the true thing to do is to create
something which the other will equally desire, that so the transfers
may be mutually agreeable and beneficial, is a distance which
requires ages of toil and struggle to overcome.
It may be urged that in the capture and management of slaves,
who would not willingly work if left to themselves, a certain necessary
work was performed, and a larger production of wealth obtained.
If we were to admit this as regards the past, it would serve as no justi
fication for the continuance of slavery ; but it should also be con
sidered that the robber class, until taught by the toil of the indus
trious that labour will produce or purchase wealth, never seeks to
subject the toilers to slavery. Besides, all experience shows that
•••
�5
slavery, so far from promoting industry, begets a general repugnance
to work on the part of both slave and slave owner : thus the thing
urged in its justification is seen to have been caused mainly by
itself.
It was not till after centuries of advancement that civilized nations
began to discourage chattel slavery. Its entire abolition in our
country is a recent event. But by its abolition we have by no
means reached any thing like an equitable system of exchange. We
still have class legislation, protecting the vast accumalations of
wealth and ownership of land in unlimited quantities, just as incom
patible with justice as the older tyranny.
To be able to purchase wealth with others’ labour, it is not at all
necessary to own their bodies. The strong assumed “ property in ■
man ” and “ property in the soil ” at the same time. Now, since the
soil is absolutely essential to the application of labour to productive
uses, he who has an exclusive claim to it can labour under any
tribute he pleases, or deny it opportunity to employ itself or be
employed at all. Since ownership in man has been abolished,
private ownership of land is the chief basis, the great fulcrum, of alt
devices for purchasing wealth by the work of others.
By the workers themselves this power is little understood, because
it affects them indirectly. They come in immediate contact with
their employers, and questions of raising or lowering wages, lengthen
ing or shortening hours, attract their attention and divert it from
more fundamental questions. They hardly reflect that their em
ployers are also subject to the competitive struggle, and are often
broken down by the operation of the same law which shortens the
rations, and renders more and more precarious the employment, on
which the labourer depends.
The indifference of the working-men to this question of the land,
and their failure to obtain even enough of it to enable them to rear
homes for themselves and families, has a curious, as well as sad,
result. Quite twenty-five per cent, of the earnings of labourers,
clerks, and mechanics who do not own a home of their own, goes
to the landlords for rent. In many instances, this is for structures
which have been paid for a hundred times over, and are not worth in
their material the labour of pulling down and carrying away. It is
true that a portion of this rent comes back in payment of repairs,
taxes, etc., but still leaving a large percentage for which labour
receives no return whatever, and may almost be said to yield
voluntarily, thus permitting others, to that extent, to purchase wealth
with their unrequited toil.
Had our Government established a system of easy access to the
*
�6
soil through nationalization of the land or a judicious limitation to
private ownership, the questions arising between employer and em
ployed would have a ready solution. On the recurrence of a de
pression in business, general or special, the parties feeling themselves
crowded would betake themselves to the cultivation of the soil, or
some self-employment; or at least enough would do so to relieve the
overstocked labour market, thus increasing the demand for the
things which had been over-produced.
Out of our semi-feudal land system grow also many of the giant
evils which afflict our commerce and finance. The man who has no
land must hire it or pay for its use, before he can apply his labours
in cultivation, however willing and capable he may be. This basic
necessity of borrowing is the foundation of all other borrowing ;
paying for the use of land is the basis of all rent and usury and
speculative profit of every description. Distressed by unnatural dis-'“*^* possession and deprivation, people are in no condition to resist the
temptation to borrow anything which promises relief, and to pledge
themselves to pay therefor impossible rates of interest. The poor
man, to free himself from present deprivation, borrows the means to
do a little business • the man of considerable means borrows that he
may do more business; and for the result, we have most of the real
estate and much of the personal property of both in the hands of
the money-lender through foreclosures. A large proportion of all
transfers of real estate, especially for the last three years, has been
through foreclosures, and to avoid foreclosures.
An annual half-billion does not cover the amount which goes into
or through the hands of corporations in the form of interest in this
country, not to mention the enormous rentals, private speculative
profits, etc.
The industrious man, who purchases by his work any desired
wealth, gets only one-half, or less, himself,—the other half going to
the usurer, landlord, or profit-monger. These are enabled to pur
chase, or get recognized possession of, this other half through
unlimited control of land, and the system of usance and annuities
growing up from that basis.
It may be said with too much truth that working-men get now
more than they wisely use; but it is still truer that, in proportion as
their share in what they have produced is diminished, they become
more and more indifferent to saving, and more and more shiftless
and unreliable.
It is not the purpose of this paper to attempt to point out what
is right and equitable between employer and employed under our
system of wages. W-hen any considerable portion of mankind
�7
desires equity and mutualism in industry and division, there will be
no difficulty in arriving at exact conclusions. My object will be
more than realized, if I draw attention to these things as they
actually exist, and to the positive relation which work and wealth
sustain to each other, the truth in regard to which can only be
ascertained by careful analysis.
Into all production of wealth only two factors enter: (i) the raw
material—the soil or its spontaneous productions; (2) human effort.
However complex or extended, in the last analysis only these two
elements are found. It is not the carbon and nitrogen, the salts and
gases, of which our food and clothing are composed, which we pro
duce as wealth, but that specific form and aptitude for use which our
work has wrought or effected.
According to that ingenious political economist, Bastiat, even
when we purchase things with money or by barter, we do not
exchange things, but forms of service. The inference, however,
which he draws from this truthful proposition—that, therefore, any
one in possession of wealth to whatever amount must necessarily
have rendered an equivalent service for that wealth (either by him
self, or through an ancestor or donor)—is so monstrous as to be
accepted only by specialists in 11 exact science.” On the contrary,
we find mutuality of service nowhere recognized as at all requisite in
the business transactions of the world. We might as well look for
it under the chattel system, where men and women are bought and
sold, and where labour does not have to be purchased with equiva
lent service, but can be enforced by the lash. Adam Smith says :
“ It is impossible for one to become excessively rich without making
many others correspondingly poor.” This is a result which could
not possibly arise from any mutual exchange of services, or from any
honest transfers of equivalents, any more than we can have an
equation with one side plus and the other minus. Hence it follows
that, where inordinate wealth exists, it has been purchased by the
labour of others than the possessors, and through transfers by force,
fraud or hazard.
To produce or have wealth at all, human effort must be put forth.
Even the spontaneous productions of Nature cannot constitute
wealth, until taken out of their natural state. The savage who has
fagots and game in store for a week has wealth, as compared with
him who has to gather a daily supply. Application and frugality
seem the only requisites for its acquirement. By a wise division of
labour and special adaptation of functions, the wealth of the world
has been vastly increased; but we must not let the complexity of
work and diversity of employments confuse our ideas in regard to
�8
*
the main question,—namely, the source of wealth, and the equity or
iniquity of the present method of distribution.
As society advanced from the simply savage state, the search,
capture, and transportation of natural wealth was followed by various
handicrafts which added value thereto. It was work, nothing less
and nothing more, of hand and brain which formed social wealth
from the resources of Nature. In all these elaborate transforma
tions, we can discover no other earthly agency, nor indeed make any
material distinction in the essential character of these varied services.
One and all are necessary to each other. By no logic can we decide
that one service is more important than another, except in the utility
of its product.
If one has discovered, another secured, and a third transported
the prize to the place where it is needed for consumption, we can
decide no otherwise than that the pay of each should be propor
tioned to the time employed in labour and the useful result accom
plished. Even the labour necessary to divide and distribute it comes
in justly for a share.
So far all must be plain in regard to the facts involved in our
question. It seems to me the principles must also be clear. But
it will be answered that still the distinctions in life and the inequali
ties of distribution of which we complain have been transmitted to
us from previously existing conditions, and result from the operations
of forces that can be traced back through every form of civilization.
This is, however, very far from proving that they exist in accordance
with elementary principles or any rational interpretation of law.
Really it comes to this,—whether we will continue the essential
injustice, while dropping the barbaric methods of the savage, or
attempt a truly scientific solution of the problem of work and wealth.
In the discovery, procurance, and manipulation of natural produc
tions, I have indicated all the steps in the production of wealth.
Services in the preservation or conservation of wealth are equally
entitled to consideration, but cannot be yielded a superior claim.
With our inequitable division, and the disorganized methods of dis
tribution which it begets, the number of traders becomes sadly
disproportioned to the number of actual producers ; and since those
despoiled are chiefly those who perform the most useful labour, the
smart and shrewd seek the more indirect methods of obtaining
wealth. And just here the principle of competition, which political
economists seem to think ought to reconcile the wealth producers to
starvation, does not work with facility, for no one can do a business
at a loss, and hence society has to support numbers to do the work
which one might do.
�9
I may, in this connection, refer to the instrumentality of money
or currency, serviceable in moving crops and the work of distribu
tion generally. Its importance, however, is ’ mainly due to the want
of mutualism in our distributive system and of equity in our methods
of exchange.
A charge for the time-use of this instrument, in defiance of the
sentiments of all moralists from Moses and Cato to Ruskin and
Palmer, has been enforced by our laws, because labour was at the
mercy of the few who hold the soil, and because operations could
be made to pay dividends out of the wealth purchased by the labour
of the poor arid simple. Chattel slavery enabled the planter to pay
interest. ‘Land monopoly enables the capitalist to assume that there
is a usufruct ’to wealth. In return, usury has been the great lever by
which millions of homes have been alienated, and gone to swell the
domain of avarice and love of lordly domination.
As war was the parent of slavery, by which whole families, tribes,
and nations were reduced to bondage,—made “ hewers of wood and
drawers of water” to the victors,—so it has been employed to
enslave labour by the creation of immense national debts, the mere
interest of which is an onerous tax upon the worker. Hazard has
also played as large, if not so conspicuous, a part as war in reducing
labour to the condition of dependence and distress. The liberty of
self, wife, and children, in barbaric times, was often staked. And
when this was not done, borrowing to prolong play was practised, as
to-day in Turkey and in some Christian and even republican
countries, upon conditions and at rates which can have no termina
tion but in life-long bondage or peonage. To relieve present dis
tress, or deluded by the hope of acquiring the ability to live by
others’ labour, many people to-day, who would despise the mere
gambler, fall into a similar fatuity, and wake from it only to find
themselves slaves to the power they expected to use to lay others*
labour under contribution.
I am not urging sympathy for these dupes. I am only pointing
out some of the causes, still in operation, which have resulted in
making the few the actual masters of labour, and given them the
ability to purchase wealth without work of their own. In our country
and time we do not enforce gambling debts as they do in Turkey ;
but we do enforce contracts to pay interest, often just as oppressive,
and only outwardly less barbarous and inhuman.
In.thus tracing the. working of these crude methods, we find that
the productive labour of our time has its .inheritance, through the
wage system, serfdom, and slavery, from primitive subjection to
force; or through speculative trade, from the hazard which ruined
�ro
the victim without permanently benefiting the winner. It is not
important to our purpose to inquire whether the plunderers or
plundered are more to blame, or the greater sufferers. This is plain;
with the land in the hands of the hereditary or speculative lord, the
labourer has no resources for self-employment, however fit or unfit
he may be.
The working-man can obtain independence now only by the
possession of exceptional powers, or by special good fortune, and
then only through schemes and operations which raise one at the
expense of many.
The inheritance of the property class consists of a transmission of
power attained by forceful conquest, or by the varied forms of hazard,
fraud, and corruption. With their wealth they inherit generally the
tendency to take advantage of the necessities of others, and to apply
new methods of overreaching when the spirit of progress will no
longer tolerate the old ones.
1 do not make this application to individuals, but only to those
given to the shrewd use of wealth; well I know that many parvenus
far outdo, in management, those who inherit wealth.
In this country we have changed some things to suit republican
prejudices. For instance, our land is no longer entailed in a family.
Yet it is all falling into the hands of a class; and although the great
fortunes sometimes change to other hands, they are controlled by
those with still greater, and their attitude and relation to industry
remain the same. Of the large fortunes now enjoyed in New York
and New England, many had their foundations laid by successful
privateers and slave traders ; and by other methods no less dis
cordant with principles of natural justice.
The immense fortunes made by two well-known citizens in the
generation now past are quite exceptional, and yet they well illustrate
the present divorced relation between work and wealth. In a certain
sense, both were industrious workers. Each has said of himself that,
when he worked in the ordinary way, his income was trifling. It
was only after lon^ struggle, in which many worthy men went to the
wall, that their fortunes began to accumulate with great rapidity.
Both were greatly indebted to our civil war, which reduced whole
populations to poverty, left the nation three billions in debt, and
sacrificed a million lives. It is also worthy of note that a great
banker at our nat onal capital was made rich by privileges granted
him to trade during the Mexican war. When it is said in justifica
tion of these men that they did not go outside the acknowledged
rules of I usiness. it is admitting that our systems of trade, finance,
etc., are essentially the same as in barbarous ages whose forms we
have discarded.
�11
Another great estate, also recently left in the city of New York
was mainly inherited, being now in the possession of the third gene
ration. In mentioning these instances I disclaim any purpose of
judging the men. They were what inheritance and environment
made them. My only purpose is to show the irrational and fatal
policy which places in the hands of any men, however good or great,
the power to purchase, ad libitum, wealth with other people’s work.
I am quite well aware that for many years to come this remonstrance
will remain measurably unheeded. The workers are so depressed
with hardship, or so readily elated with the prospect of success in
some exceptional field, that they are quite unwilling to look away
from prospects of temporary relief to the consideration of broad
questions of reform, even if they were less idiotically joined to party,
labelled republican or democratic, by leaders who form a mutual
ring, whichever party attains power, and conspire to make the
plunder of public funds and public trusts a fine art.
But from the operation upon the public mind of works like those
of Spencer, Mill, Lewes, and Ruskin, much is to be hoped. Our
own country, also, has the names of men, not unknown to fame,
who are deeply impressed with the importance of this vital social
and ethical problem. Its development promises to take form like
this :
First, As a civil right,—freedom of access to the soil and oppor
tunity of self-employment;
Second, As a principle of law,—the partnership of all concerned
in the production of wealth requiring division of labour;
Third, As a matter of commercial ethics,—equivalents of service
in all exchanges.
In connection with these developments in the intellectual and
ethical field, it occurs to me that there is a probability, at least, of
a movement which shall greatly hasten the downfall of our barbarous
system of division, and the approach of the era when work shall be
the only recognized title to wealth. Within the present century,
men like Robert Owen, Peter Cooper, Gerrit Smith, and many
others who could be mentioned, have shown, with more or less
success, that it is “nobl-e to live for others,” and that personal
interests may be subordinated to social aims. It seems to me no
dream of romance to indulge the faith that, at a time near at hand,
a class of true men and women will arise and form an order, which
will abstain from preying on the results of others’ toil. These social
knights-errant will scorn to rely on the efforts of others for their
support, or to apply to their own use, in any way, that for which
another has wrought. They will no more consider the necessity or
�12
weakness of their toiling fellow a reason why they should overreach
and plunder him, than would the model knight of the days of
chivalry have considered that the weakness and defenceless state of
a persecuted woman was a reason why he should outrage rather than
protect her. These will organize industries on an equitable basis,
promote emigration to districts where the exactions of landlords are
less intolerable, and turn the current of many now questionable,
though well-intended, charities into channels of self-employment and
self-help. It is not too much to hope that they will be able ulti
mately to change the application of the vast amount of labour and
wealth now expended in “ plans of salvation ” to save the souls of
men in a future world, into a broadly beneficent measures of indus
trial organization and social renovation, and thus render possible the
coming of the “ kingdom of heaven upon the earth,” under the
equitable rule of which it<£ shall be given to every one according to
his work.”
PUBLICATION LIST.
P. J. PROUDHON : A Biographical Sketch, with Portrait.
Seymour.
By Henry
Post free, I ^d.
SAMFUNDET DAGEN EFTER REVOLUTIONEN (Society on the
Morrow of the Revolution). Translated from the French into Danish.
32 pp. and Coloured Cover Post free 2|d.
THE CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT ACT. By “An English
Anarchist.” Reprinted from “The Anarchist,” to which is added an
Appendix. Post free, 1 jd.
THE MALTHUSIANS. A Socialistic attack on the doctrine of Malthus.
By P. J. Proudhon. Post free, i|d.
EVOLUTION AND REVOLUTION. A Scientific Essay on the doctrine
of Evolution. By M. Elisee Reclus. Post free, i^d.
LAW AND AUTHORITY. An essay on the error and usurpation of politi
cal legislation, and its concomitant evils. By Pierre Kropotkine. Post
free, 2|d.
GESETZ UND AUTORITAET (Law and Authority). German Edition.
Post free, 2.jd.
THE PLACE OF ANARCHISM IN SOCIALISTIC EVOLUTION.
By the same author.
Post free, i|d.
EXPROPRIATION. By the same author. Post free, i|d.
WAR. By the same author. Post free, i^d.
THE MANIFESTO OF THE COMMUNISTS. By Karl Marx and
Frederick Engels. Crimson Cover. Post free, 2|d.
INTERNATIONAL PUBLISHING COMPANY.
THE ANARCHIST,
A Journal of Anti-political Socialism and advocate of the abolition of the State.
EDITOR AND PUBLISHER: HENRY SEYMOUR.
Price, One Penny.
LONDON : 35, NEWINGTON GREEN ROAD, N.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Work and wealth: an essay on the economics of socialism
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Ingalls, J.K.
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 12 p. ; 23 cm.
Notes: Stamp on front flyleaf: South Place Chapel Finsbury, Lending Library. "This paper originally appeared in the American 'Radical Review'". Publisher's list on numbered page at the end.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
International Publishing Company
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1887
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G4968
Subject
The topic of the resource
Economics
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Work and wealth: an essay on the economics of socialism), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Economics
Socialism