They represent industry to us as a conflict. This is not true; or is true only when you confine yourself to considering each branch of industry in its effects on some similar branch--in isolating both, in the mind, from the rest of humanity. But there is something else; there are its effects on consumption, and the general well-being. This is the reason why it is not allowable to assimilate labor to war as they do. In war, _the strongest overwhelms the weakest_. In labor, _the strongest gives strength to the weakest_. This radically destroys the analogy. Though the English are strong and skilled; possess immense invested capital, and have at their disposal the two great powers of production, iron and fire, all this is converted into the _cheapness_ of the product; and who gains by the cheapness of the product?--he who buys it. It is not in their power to absolutely annihilate any portion of our labor. All that they can do is to make it superfluous through some result acquired--to give air at the same time that they suppress the pump; to increase thus the force at our disposal, and, which is a remarkable thing, to render their pretended supremacy more impossible, as their superiority becomes more undeniable. Thus, by a rigorous and consoling demonstration, we reach this conclusion: That _labor_ and _violence_, so opposed in their nature, are, whatever socialists and protectionists may say, no less so in their effects. All we required, to do that, was to distinguish between _annihilated_ labor and _economized_ labor. Having less iron _because_ one works less, or having more iron _although_ one works less, are things which are more than different,--they are opposites. The protectionists confound them; we do not. That is all. Be convinced of one thing. If the English bring into play much activity, labor, capital, intelligence, and natural force, it is not for the love of us. It is to give themselves many comforts in exchange for their products. They certainly desire to receive at least as much as they give, and _they make at home the payment for that which they buy elsewhere_. If then, they inundate us with their products, it is because they expect to be inundated with ours. In this case, the best way to have much for ourselves is to be free to choose between these two methods of production: direct production or indirect production. All the British Machiavelism cannot lead us to make a bad choice. Let us then stop assimilating industrial competition with war; a false assimilation, which is specious only when two rival branches of industry are isolated, in order to judge of the effects of competition. As soon as the effect produced on the general well-being is taken into consideration, the analogy disappears.