Dear diary,
It seems that all the wrong people are rich, and all the wrong people are poor. The rich people are stupid and discordant; the poor are wise and compassionate. If you could just switch the two groups, the world would be perfect: for the poor, now rich, would help the rich who have become poor, thus leaving everyone neither rich nor poor, and all would be pleasant.
I know that what I just relayed is wrong: Once rich, the ex-poor would prove just as stupid and discordant as their precursors. (And the rich would commit self-slaughter to avoid impoverishment.)
Is there something about money that repels everything constructive and compassionate, the way that Nature abhors a vacuum? Maybe money has a built-in aversion to humane outcomes, and it insists that misery and oppression result from its use.
Quicksilver is our gauge of temperature of air and water, clay is our pyrometer, silver our photometer, feathers our electrometer, catgut our hygrometer, but what is our meter of man, our anthropometer? Poverty is the mercury. Wealth seems the state of man.
That is from Ralph Waldo Emerson’s journals, July 1841. Here’s another passage, from October 1841:
Rich, say you? Are you rich? how rich? rich enough to help anybody? rich enough to succor the friendless, the unfashionable, the eccentric, rich enough to make the Canadian in his wagon, the travelling beggar with his written paper which recommends him to the charitable, the Italian foreigner with his few broken words of English, the ugly, lame pauper hunted by overseers from town to town, even the poor insane or half-insane wreck of man or woman, feel the noble exception of your presence and your house, from the general bleakness and stoniness; to make such feel that they were greeted with a voice that made them both remember and hope? What is vulgar but to refuse the claim? What is gentle but to allow it?
Gentle. Do people still value gentleness? Is it still desirable to be considered a gentleman?
What’s the opposite of a gentleman? A violentman: that’s what people value today. “We honor violentmen for keeping us safe.” “Safe from what?” The violentmen protect us from violentmen.
To engage in violence should leave one feeling ashamed, since it reveals that one is deficient in wisdom and intellect. The culture that I’m trapped in celebrates violence and shames sex; I think it should be the opposite: shame violence, and treat sex as they did in paradise: “they were both naked . . . and were not ashamed” (Genesis 2:25).
As a society, we say: “Let us remain nonviolent.” And then some members of the society remain nonviolent, while others use violence freely. The latter group simply ignores the societal resolution: they think that whoever follows nonviolence is a sucker. But if everyone in a society is equally violent, then the likely winner will be whoever is the strongest, or the best fighter, or the one with the biggest bomb. And if everyone in a society is equally nonviolent, then at least nobody will get cut down by a sword, except mistakenly. Yet, like I said, society does not act in concert: 99% of the people will adhere to the societal aim of nonviolence; but then that remaining 1% that is willing to defy the aim ends up as the winner.
Imagine a fistfight between a couple of boxers, one of whom has pledged to remain nonviolent, while the other is willing to punch.
All this is on my mind because last night I watched a movie about a labor dispute. One fisherman had a son who was sick. The cost of the medicine that could save the boy’s life was more than his father possessed. So this father of the sick son went to visit the owner of the local fishing company, and he asked for a job, to earn money to pay for his son’s operation; but the owner said “I have no work for you, at present. Go away.” So, the father could not earn the money to buy the medicine to save his son. Therefore, his son died, and the father buried him in a child-size coffin.
Then, suddenly, a great many fishes were seen leaping in the sea: this sight made the owner of the fishing company rejoice, for it meant that he could make money selling these fishes in the marketplace. The owner therefore announced to the townspeople that he was willing to pay fishermen to work for his company: he would give them money if they would go out into the sea, capture the fishes, and bring them back.
Fifty men signed up to work for the fishing company. They all went out into the sea, captured the fishes, and brought them back to the owner, who then paid each fishermen a few pennies for that day of work. The owner then took the fishes to the market, where he sold them for ten thousand dollars.
When the crew of fishermen learned that the company’s owner received so much more money than he had paid them for the fishes that they had caught, they came and asked him if he would be willing to share some of the profit with them. But the owner refused.
Now, the next time that there was a call for men to catch fishes for the owner of the company, the same crew of fifty fishermen came and said: “We will work, but only for a higher pay than last time.” The owner of the fishing company rejected this offer, saying: “I will only pay you the pennies that I paid you before. If you do not like this deal, then begone; I can find other fishermen to work for me.” So the men walked away; and other fishermen from a nearby village came and agreed to work for pennies.
Now the father from the beginning of the story, whose son died because he could not afford to buy medicine, was one of the fifty fishermen who worked on the first occasion but declined to work on the next. This man then said to the other fishermen from that same group:
“It is not right that the owner of the company makes so much money on the fishes that we catch but then pays us so little that we cannot afford to buy medicine to save our sick children. Let us therefore go and speak to that new crew of fisherman whom the owner hired to replace us; let us explain to them what we have learned from our experience, so that these inhumane conditions can be amended.”
So, the original fifty fishermen set out on foot to visit the group of replacement fishermen, who were standing in the sand outside the headquarters of the fishing company. This new group had just returned from their fishing trip, so their boat was full of fishes, and they were planning on meeting with the owner to exchange the catch for their pay.
Now the owner was hiding behind a fortification within his company’s headquarters: he was watching the first group of fishermen as they approached the new crew. He saw that the man whose son had died was leading the old group. Then, before that original crew of fishermen could speak to the new crew, the owner pulled out a firearm, aimed it at the father of the dead child, and shot him. The fisherman fell to the ground and died.
When the new crew of fishermen witnessed this murder, they had second thoughts about giving their catch of fishes to the owner of the company. In fright, they retreated from the headquarters. They climbed back into their boat, which was filled with the fishes that they had caught, and rowed away.
I wondered, while watching their boat disappear over the horizon: What shall the fishermen do with all those fresh fishes? Will they bring their catch to the marketplace and sell it themselves? Maybe they will return to their village, and give away the abundance to their families and friends. Perhaps a storm will capsize their boat and return everything to the sea. Or the owner of the fishing company might initiate some counterplan and end up getting his way after all.
The film ended there. My main thought, once it finished, was this:
The owner was quick to use violence; it was his first reaction: before even hearing the reason for their visit, he simply discharged his firearm at his workers. To the workers, violence was not even a consideration, but to the owner it was the preferred option.
In the gospel of Matthew (11:12), Jesus says: “From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.”
I wonder why he mentions John. Does he really mean that violence was not a problem in pre-Baptist days? Perhaps he is just using the man as a cultural boundary marker, to indicate that this problem has been plaguing us since the beginning of our age, the way that I might say to my fellow United Statesians that oppression has been the rule since the time of George Washington.
The last line is from Emerson’s journals (Oct. 1841):
People say law, but they mean wealth.









