labor? They supply us with bread, and in return we give them money; and thus the peasants live by us, and we by them; one hand washes the other, and so both are clean."
No, your argument does not disconcert us. We are not as stupid as you believe, and you yourselves are not as intelligent as you think. Do not forget that I who speak am standing at the threshold of your palace (like Lazarus).
Half the people living do not labor for bread; the other half, laboring for and not selling it, can scarce support themselves. But why should these last not know where to find money, if all the world labored for bread?
Far from being useful, the sale of bread is hurtful. This present year the harvest is good, and the laborer sells his wheat to the rich man for thirty kopecks the measure. He thinks what he has left will suffice for his wants. But suppose that, next year, the harvest shall be bad, and we have a famine: the laborer will buy his wheat from the same rich man for a rouble and fifty kopecks the measure; and if he have not enough money to pay for it, he will sell his beasts at half price. And while he has not supplied his wants, he has sold his wheat, is deprived of his cattle, and will become a beggar. Thus many are ruined by selling their wheat. Then how can you say that the peasants cannot live without selling their wheat, when by doing so they die of hunger? The true conclusion is that it is you, not we, who live on others.
