So that, on the whole (and even men of science admit this), up to
the present time, all these remarkable discoveries and products of
science and art have certainly not ameliorated the condition of the
workingman, if, indeed, they have not made it worse. So that, if we
set against the question as to the reality of the progress attained
by the arts and sciences, not our own rapture, but that standard
upon the basis of which the division of labor is defended,--the good
of the laboring man,--we shall see that we have no firm foundations
for that self-satisfaction in which we are so fond of indulging.

The peasant travels on the railway, the woman buys calico, in the
isba (cottage) there will be a lamp instead of a pine-knot, and the
peasant will light his pipe with a match,--this is convenient; but
what right have I to say that the railway and the factory have
proved advantageous to the people?

If the peasant rides on the railway, and buys calico, a lamp, and
matches, it is only because it is impossible to forbid the peasant's
buying them; but surely we are all aware that the construction of
railways and factories has never been carried out for the benefit of
the lower classes: so why should a casual convenience which the
workingman enjoys lead to a proof of the utility of all these
institutions for the people?

There is something useful in every injurious thing. After a
conflagration, one can warm one's self, and light one's pipe with a
firebrand; but why declare that the conflagration is beneficial?

Men of art and science might say that their pursuits are beneficial
to the people, only when men of art and science have assigned to