A momentary disarrangement necessarily accompanies all progress.

This may be a reason for making the transition a gentle one, but not for systematically interdicting all progress, and still less for misunderstanding it.
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.