tem which MAKES these unfortunates, and then tries to reform them in a faint-hearted way. I think that "charity" is degrading to both giver and receiver. The giving of charity implies a condition of poverty on the one side, of wealth on the other; it implies class distinction. It shows a spirit of brutal selfishness on the part of one and weak dependence on the part of the other. "Charity" condescends, and expects gratitude. The recipient of "charity" feels injured and rebellious. One of the best things to be said about socialism is that when it is inaugurated there will be no further need for "charity."
MODERN MARRIAGES.
One of the worst things for which the present system is to blame is the commercialism of modern marriage. As I have said before, a man or a woman tries to find a rich partner before entering into the business of founding a home. If a poor woman is attractive enough to have several suitors for her hand, she is always advised to choose the man who can give her the most in the way of food, clothing, shelter and amusements. If she succeeds in attracting and winning such, she is said to have "made a good match"; to have "done well"; to have gotten "a good provider." On the other hand, if it is the woman who has money, she is besieged with offers of marriage from men who would like to better their conditions. So common is this desire to get property through marriage that it has come to be looked upon as the one thing needful for "a match." Then people complain about the sordidness of modern marriage. Think of what it means! a woman being obliged to bargain herself away in order to get the commonest necessities of life which ought to be hers without question from her birth to her death.
All of these evils have one common root, namely, the economic dependence of the weaker members
