diff options
| author | nfenwick <nfenwick@pglaf.org> | 2025-01-22 13:01:11 -0800 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | nfenwick <nfenwick@pglaf.org> | 2025-01-22 13:01:11 -0800 |
| commit | 1401d6d276f216210d9e912a47705c50fb325f33 (patch) | |
| tree | 41e97eb46cea6e70274a5ef74cfe38194a260719 | |
| parent | d948d34b00d4866a0859e15b5d1074800bb64740 (diff) | |
| -rw-r--r-- | .gitattributes | 4 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | LICENSE.txt | 11 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | README.md | 2 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/66518-0.txt | 8715 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/66518-0.zip | bin | 171918 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/66518-h.zip | bin | 442247 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/66518-h/66518-h.htm | 15498 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/66518-h/images/cover.jpg | bin | 259294 -> 0 bytes |
8 files changed, 17 insertions, 24213 deletions
diff --git a/.gitattributes b/.gitattributes new file mode 100644 index 0000000..d7b82bc --- /dev/null +++ b/.gitattributes @@ -0,0 +1,4 @@ +*.txt text eol=lf +*.htm text eol=lf +*.html text eol=lf +*.md text eol=lf diff --git a/LICENSE.txt b/LICENSE.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..6312041 --- /dev/null +++ b/LICENSE.txt @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ +This eBook, including all associated images, markup, improvements, +metadata, and any other content or labor, has been confirmed to be +in the PUBLIC DOMAIN IN THE UNITED STATES. + +Procedures for determining public domain status are described in +the "Copyright How-To" at https://www.gutenberg.org. + +No investigation has been made concerning possible copyrights in +jurisdictions other than the United States. Anyone seeking to utilize +this eBook outside of the United States should confirm copyright +status under the laws that apply to them. diff --git a/README.md b/README.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..b5bef4a --- /dev/null +++ b/README.md @@ -0,0 +1,2 @@ +Project Gutenberg (https://www.gutenberg.org) public repository for +eBook #66518 (https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/66518) diff --git a/old/66518-0.txt b/old/66518-0.txt deleted file mode 100644 index fcb6263..0000000 --- a/old/66518-0.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,8715 +0,0 @@ -The Project Gutenberg eBook of Labour and the Popular Welfare, by W. H. -Mallock - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and -most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions -whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms -of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at -www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you -will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before -using this eBook. - -Title: Labour and the Popular Welfare - -Author: W. H. Mallock - -Release Date: October 11, 2021 [eBook #66518] - -Language: English - -Character set encoding: UTF-8 - -Produced by: Chris Curnow, Quentin Campbell, and the Online Distributed - Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was - produced from images generously made available by The Internet - Archive) - -*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK LABOUR AND THE POPULAR WELFARE *** - - - Transcriber’s Note - -In the following transcription, italic text is denoted by _underscores_. -Small capitals in the original text have been transcribed as ALL -CAPITALS. - -Numbered markers (◆¹, ◆², etc.) have been added to this transcription -to indicate the line in a paragraph at which the text of the -corresponding marginal note (sidenote) started. - -The corresponding marginal notes are numbered ◆1, ◆2, etc. They are -enclosed in square brackets and prefixed with the word ‘Sidenote’. They -are placed immediately above the paragraph to which they were attached -in the book. - -See end of this document for details of corrections and other changes. - - - ————————————— Start of Book ————————————— - - - - - LABOUR - - AND THE - - POPULAR WELFARE - - - BY - - W. H. MALLOCK - - AUTHOR OF ‘IS LIFE WORTH LIVING?’ ‘SOCIAL EQUALITY,’ ETC. - - - SIXTH THOUSAND - - - LONDON - ADAM AND CHARLES BLACK - 1895 - - - - - PREFACE TO NEW EDITION - - -In republishing this work at a low price, I wish to reiterate -emphatically what is said of it in the opening chapter,—namely, that -any clearheaded Radical, as distinct from the New Unionist, the -Socialistic dreamer, and the Agitator, will find nothing in it to jar -against his sympathies, or to conflict with his opinions, any more than -the most strenuous Conservative will. If the word “party” is used in -its usual sense, this is a volume absolutely free from any party bias. - -It has, however, since its first publication, some nine months ago, -been attacked continually, not by Socialistic writers only (whose -attack was natural), but by Radicals also, who, apparently quite -mistaking the drift of it, have done their best to detect in it flaws, -fallacies, and inaccuracies. As any work like the present, whose aim is -essentially practical, is worse than useless unless the reader is able -to feel confidence in it, let me say a few words as to the degree of -confidence which is claimed, after nine months of criticism, for the -facts and arguments set forth in the following pages. - -Let the reader emphasise in his mind the division between facts and -arguments, for they stand on a different footing. In estimating the -truth of any general arguments, the final appeal is to the common -sense of the reader. The reader is himself the judge of them; and the -moment he understands and assents to them, they belong to himself as -much as they ever did to the writer. On the other hand, the historical -facts, or statistics, by which arguments are illustrated, or on which -they are based, claim acceptance on the authority, not of our internal -common sense, but of external evidence. Let me speak separately, then, -of the arguments of this book, and of the facts quoted in it. - -Of the arguments, whether taken individually or as a whole, it will be -enough here to say that no hostile critic of these has been able in any -way to meet them. The only writers who have affected to do so have, -either intentionally or unintentionally, entirely failed to understand -them; and when they have seemed to be refuting anything, they have -been refuting only their own misconceptions or misrepresentations. It -is impossible in a short preface to say more than this; but in order -to illustrate the truth of the foregoing statement, a paper published -by me in the _Fortnightly Review_ is (by kind permission of Messrs. -Chapman and Hall) reprinted as an Appendix to the present volume. That -paper consists of an examination of the criticisms made, on behalf -of the Fabian Society, by Mr. Bernard Shaw on two previous papers of -my own published (also in the _Fortnightly Review_) under the title -of “Fabian Economics,” in which the main arguments of this book were -condensed. It is true that many of these arguments are here stated -merely in outline, and in a popular rather than in a philosophical -form, as is explained more fully in the Preface to the First Edition. -But it may be safely asserted that there is hardly a single Socialistic -argument used by the Socialistic party in this country to which this -present book does not contain a reply, or at all events a clear -indication of the grounds on which a reply is to be founded. - -With regard to the historical facts, and especially the statistics -here brought forward, it is necessary to speak more particularly. The -broad historical facts—facts connected with the development of wealth -in this country—are incapable of contradiction, and have never been -contradicted. Hostile critics have directed their principal attacks -against the statistics, endeavouring to show that certain of the -figures were inaccurate, and arguing that, this being so, the whole -contents of the book were unreliable. - -The most minute attack of this kind which has been brought to my notice -dealt with certain figures which were no doubt erroneous, and indeed -unmeaning; but had the critic examined the volume with more care, he -would have seen that every one of these figures was a misprint, and was -corrected in a list of errata which accompanied the first edition. - -Other critics have confined themselves almost entirely to the figures -given by me with regard to two questions—the landed rental of this -country, as distinct from the rent of houses; and the growth of the -national income during the past hundred years. - -With regard to both of these questions it should be distinctly -understood that absolute accuracy is impossible; and I have given the -statistics in round numbers only. But, for the purpose for which the -figures are quoted, approximate accuracy is as useful as absolute -accuracy, even were the latter attainable; and every attempt to correct -the figures as given in this volume has only served to show how -substantially accurate these figures are, and how totally unaffected -would be the argument, even were any of the suggested corrections -accepted. - -The landed rental of the country is given by me as something under -_a hundred million pounds_. It has been asserted that were the -ground-rents in towns properly estimated, the true rental would be -found to be _a hundred and fifty million pounds_ or _a hundred and -eighty million pounds_. It is no doubt difficult to differentiate in -town properties the total rental from the ground rental; but the most -recent investigations made into this question, so far as it affects -London, will throw light on the question as a whole. The highest -estimate of the present ground-rental of London as related to the total -rental gives the proportion of the former to the latter as _fifteen_ -to _forty_. Now house rent in London is higher than in any other town -in the kingdom; therefore, if we assume the same proportion to obtain -in all other towns, we shall be over-estimating the ground-rent of the -country as a whole, instead of underestimating it. If we take this -extreme calculation—which is obviously too great—it will be found to -yield a result as to the total landed rental exceeding only by ten per -cent that given in this volume. It will therefore be easily seen that -the figures given by me are substantially accurate, and sufficiently -accurate for all purposes of political and social argument. - -Precisely the same thing is to be said with regard to the figures given -as to the growth of the national income and the capitalised value of -the country. The estimates of various statisticians will be found to -differ from one another by something like ten per cent; but these -differences do not in the least affect the essential character and -meaning of the great facts in question. Let us take, for instance, two -facts stated in this volume—that the capital of the country during the -past century has increased in the proportion of _two_ to _ten_; and -the income per head of the country in the proportion of _fourteen_ to -_thirty-four_ or _thirty-five_. We will suppose some critic to prove -that these proportions should be _three_ to _eleven_, or _twelve_ to -_thirty-three_. Now, large as the error thus detected might be from -some points of view, it would be absolutely immaterial to the large -and general question in connection with which the figures are quoted in -this volume. - -The enormous increase in our national income and our national capital -is doubted or denied by no one. Now let us express the increase in -income as a supposed increase in the average height of the rooms -inhabited by the population. According, then, to the figures given by -me, we might say in this case that at the beginning of the century the -average house was _seven feet_ high—only high enough for tall men to -stand up in; and that now houses have been so improved that the average -height of a living-room is _seventeen feet_. If any one, dwelling on -the fact of such a change as this, were inquiring into its causes, and -were basing arguments on its assumed reality, what difference would it -make if some opponent were to prove triumphantly that the height of -the average room now was not _seventeen feet_, but _sixteen feet six -inches_, and that four generations ago it had been _six feet_ instead -of _seven_? The difference in the estimates of our national income -during the past ninety or a hundred years are not more important for -the purpose of any general argument than the difference just supposed -with regard to the height of two living-rooms; and readers may rest -assured that the round numbers given by me with regard to the growth of -the national income and the national capital are so near the admitted -and indisputable truth of things, that no possible correction of them -would substantially alter any one of the arguments which they are here -quoted to illustrate. - - _September 1894._ - - - - - PREFACE TO FIRST EDITION - - -Nearly all the general truths of Economic Science are, directly or -indirectly, truths about the character or the actions of human beings. -It is, consequently, always well to warn the readers of economic -works, that in Political Economy, more than in any other science, -every general rule is fringed with exceptions and modifications; and -that instances are never far to seek which seem to prove the reverse -of what the general rule states, or to make the statement of it appear -inaccurate. But such general rules need be none the less true for this; -nor for practical purposes any the less safe to reason from. They -resemble, in fact, these general truths with regard to the seasons, -which we do and must reason from, even in so uncertain a climate as our -own. It is, for instance, a truth from which we all reason, that summer -is dryer and warmer than winter; and yet there is a frequent occurrence -of individual days, which, taken by themselves, contradict it. So, too, -those economic definitions, the subjects of which are human actions or -faculties, can be entirely accurate only in the _majority_ of cases to -which they apply; and these cases will be fringed always by a margin -of doubtful ones. But the definitions, for all that, need be none the -less practically true. Day and night are fringed with doubtful hours -of twilight; but our clear knowledge of how midnight differs from noon -is not made less clear by our doubts as to whether a certain hour at -sunrise ought to be called an hour of night or morning. - -It is especially desirable to prefix this warning to a work as short -as the present. In larger and more elaborate works, the writer can -particularise the more important exceptions and modifications to which -his rules and definitions are subject. But in a short work this task -must be left to the common sense of the reader. For popular purposes, -however, brevity of statement has one great advantage, namely, that -of clearness; and, as the significance of the exceptions cannot be -understood without the rules, it is almost essential first to state the -rules without obscuring them by the exceptions. There are few readers -probably who will not see that the general propositions and principles -laid down in the following pages, require, in order to fit them to -certain cases, various additions and qualifications. It is necessary -only for the reader to bear in mind that these propositions need be -none the less broadly and vitally true, because any succinct statement -of them is unavoidably incomplete. - - - - - CONTENTS - - - BOOK I - - THE DIVISIBLE WEALTH OF THE UNITED KINGDOM - - CHAP. PAGE - - I. The Welfare of the Home, as the Logical End of - Government— - - A Ground of Agreement for all Parties 3 - Facts and Principles which are the same for everybody 6 - The Income of the Individual as the Aim and Test of - Government 8 - Private Income and the Empire 10 - Patriotism and the Home 11 - Cupidity as a motive in Politics 12 - The right Education of Cupidity 13 - - - II. The Conditions involved in the idea of a Legislative - Redistribution of Wealth; and the Necessary - Limitations of the Results— - - Cupidity and the Poorer Classes 14 - The Limits of Sane Cupidity as fixed by the Total - Production 16 - Unforeseen Results of an Equal Division of Wealth 18 - Contemporary Agitator on Slavery 20 - Workmen as their own Masters 21 - Ownership of the Means of Labour impossible for - Modern Workman 22 - Equality possible only under a Universal Wage-System 24 - Equality and Universal Labour 26 - - - III. The Pecuniary Results to the Individual of an Equal - Division, first of the National Income, and secondly - of certain parts of it— - - The Income of Great Britain 27 - Division of the National Income 29 - How to divide the Income equally 30 - Shares of Men, Women, and Children 31 - The Maximum Income of a Bachelor 32 - Smallness of the result 33 - Maximum Income of a Married Couple 34 - Practical absurdity of an Equal Division of Income 36 - A complete Redivision of Property advocated by nobody 38 - The attack on Landed Property 40 - Popular ignorance as to the Real Rental of the - Landlords 42 - The Landed Aristocracy 44 - Multitude of Small Landowners 45 - Owners of Railway Shares and Consols 46 - Inappreciable cost of the Monarchy 47 - Forcible Redistribution impossible 48 - - - IV. The Nature of the National Wealth: first, of the - National Capital; second, of the National Income. - Neither of these is susceptible of Arbitrary - Division— - - Difference between Wealth and Money 49 - Wealth as a whole not divisible like Money 52 - More luxurious forms of Wealth incapable of division 54 - The Wealth of Great Britain considered as Capital 56 - The elements which compose the National Capital 58 - Ludicrous results of an Equal Division of Capital 60 - Division of Income, not of Capital, alone worth - considering 62 - Elements which compose the National Income 64 - Material Goods and Services 66 - Home-made Goods and Imports 67 - Two-thirds of the Population dependent on Imported - Food 68 - Variation of the National Income relatively to the - Population 70 - Incomes of other countries compared with that of - our own 72 - Productivity of Industry not determined by Time 74 - Unperceived increase of the Income of the United - Kingdom 76 - Immense Possible Shrinkage in our National Income 78 - The Great Problem 80 - - - BOOK II - - THE CHIEF FACTOR IN THE PRODUCTION OF THE - NATIONAL INCOME - - I. Of the various Factors in Production, and how to - distinguish the Amount produced by each— - - The Cause of Production generally 84 - The Production of Given Quantities 85 - Production a Century Ago 86 - Amount of Capital employed in it 87 - Land, Capital, and Human Exertion 88 - How much produced by each 89 - The chief Practical Problem in Contemporary Economics 90 - - - II. How the Product of Land is to be distinguished - from the Product of Human Exertion— - - Rent the Product of Land 93 - The Accepted Theory of Rent illustrated by an - Example 94 - The Product of Agricultural Labour 96 - The Product of Land 97 - Maximum Produce of Labour 98 - Surplus produced by Land 99 - Land a Producing Agent as distinct from Labour 100 - The Existence of Rent not affected by Socialism 102 - Rent necessarily the Property of whoever owns the - Land 104 - The Argument of this Volume embodied in the case - of Rent 106 - - - III. Of the Products of Machinery or Fixed Capital, - as distinguished from the Products of Human - Exertion— - - Capital of Two Kinds 108 - The part of the Product produced by Machinery or - Fixed Capital 110 - Example of Product of Machinery as distinct from - that of Labour 112 - The Products of a Machine necessarily the Property - of Owner 114 - The Cotton Industry in the Last Century 116 - Arkwright’s Machinery 118 - The Iron Industry of Great Britain 119 - Machinery and Production of Iron 120 - Machinery and Wage Capital 121 - - - IV. Of the Products of Circulating Capital, or Wage - Capital, as distinguished from the Products of - Human Exertion— - - Simplest Function of Wage Capital 122 - Distinguishing Function of Modern Wage Capital 124 - Wage Capital mainly productive as a means of - directing Labour 126 - Slaves and Free Labourers 128 - Wage Capital and Progress 129 - Wage Capital as related to the production of New - Inventions 130 - Capital the Tool of Knowledge 132 - Wage Capital and Arkwright 133 - Wage Capital as Potential Machinery 134 - How to discriminate the amount produced by Wage - Capital 136 - - - V. That the Chief Productive Agent in the modern world - is not Labour, but Ability, or the Faculty which - directs Labour— - - The best Labour sometimes useless 138 - Labour not the same faculty as the faculty which - directs Labour 140 - Extraordinary confusion in current Economic - Language 142 - Labour a Lesser Productive Agent 144 - Ability a Greater Productive Agent 145 - The Vital Distinction between Ability and Labour 146 - Ability not a form of Skilled Labour 148 - Capital applied successfully the same thing as - Ability 150 - Obvious Exceptions 152 - Ability the Brain of Capital 153 - Ability as the Force behind Capital the Cause of - all Progress 154 - - - VI. Of the Addition made during the last Hundred Years - by Ability to the Product of the National Labour. - This Increment the Product of Ability— - - Production in the Last Century 156 - Growth of Agricultural Products 158 - Growth of Production of Iron 159 - Ability and Agriculture in the Last Century 160 - The Maximum Product that can be due to Labour - alone 162 - Present Annual Product of Ability in the United - Kingdom 164 - The Product of Capital virtually Product of the - Ability of the Few 166 - - - BOOK III - - AN EXPOSURE OF THE CONFUSIONS IMPLIED IN SOCIALISTIC - THOUGHT AS TO THE MAIN AGENT IN MODERN PRODUCTION. - - I. The Confusion of Thought involved in the - Socialistic Conception of Labour— - - A confusing Socialistic Formula 171 - A Plausible Argument 173 - A Plausible Argument analysed 174 - Its implied meaning considered 175 - The real Taskmaster of Labour not an Employing - Class, but Nature 176 - Different position of Ability 178 - The Organist and Bellows-blower 179 - The Picture and the Canvas 180 - The Qualifying Factor 181 - Do all men possess Ability 182 - Labour itself non-progressive 183 - Ancient Labour equal to Modern 184 - A Remarkable Illustration 185 - Labour as trained by Watt 186 - Labour as assisted by Maudslay 187 - - - II. That the Ability which at any given period is a - Producing Agent, is a Faculty residing in and - belonging to living Men— - - A Socialistic Criticism 188 - Primæval Progress and Labour 190 - Rudimentary Ability 191 - Primæval and Modern Inventions 192 - A more Important Point 193 - The necessity for Managing Ability increased by - Inventive Ability 194 - The main results of Past Ability inherited by - Living Ability 196 - Productive Ability the Ability of Living Men 198 - Fresh demonstration of the Productivity of Ability 200 - - - III. That Ability is a natural Monopoly, due to the - congenital Peculiarities of a Minority. The - Fallacies of other Views exposed— - - An Error of Mr. Herbert Spencer’s 202 - A Philosophic Truth, but an Economic Falsehood 204 - Whole body of Successful Inventors a very small - Minority 206 - Ability and Opportunity 208 - Ability not produced by Opportunity 209 - Ability the Maker of its own Opportunities 210 - Ability as a matter of Character 212 - Function of such Ability 213 - Characters not equalised by Education or - Opportunity 214 - Progress due solely to the Few 216 - Progress in the Iron Industry 217 - Early Applications of Ability to British - Iron Production 218 - Ability opposed by the Age instead of - representing it 220 - Isolated Action of Ability 222 - Arkwright and his associates 223 - The Value of Watt’s Patent as estimated by - his Contemporaries 224 - Industrial Progress the work of the Few - only 226 - - - IV. The Conclusion arrived at in the preceding Book - restated. The Annual Amount produced by - Ability in the United Kingdom— - - Grades of Ability 228 - Proportion of Able Men to Labourers 230 - A Rough Calculation 231 - More than half our National Income produced by - a Small Minority 232 - - - BOOK IV - - THE REASONABLE HOPES OF LABOUR—THEIR MAGNITUDE, - AND THEIR BASIS - - I. How the Future and Hopes of the Labouring - Classes are bound up with the Prosperity of - the Classes who exercise Ability— - - Short Summary of the preceding Arguments 237 - The preceding Arguments from the Labourer’s Point - of View 240 - The Share of Labour in the growing Products of - Ability 242 - The amount produced by Labour 244 - The amount taken by Labour 245 - Continuous Recent Growth of the Receipts of Labour 246 - Growth of the Receipts of Labour during Queen - Victoria’s Reign 248 - Actual Gains of Labour beyond the Dreams of Socialism 250 - Two Points to be considered 252 - - - II. Of the Ownership of Capital, as distinct from its - Employment by Ability— - - Land and its Owners 253 - Passive Ownership of Capital 255 - The Class that Lives on Interest 256 - The Hope of Interest as a Motive 257 - Capital created and saved mainly for the sake - of Interest 258 - Family Feeling 260 - The Bequest of Capital 261 - Interest a Necessary Incident as the Price of - the Use of Capital 262 - A Part of the Interest of Capital constantly - appropriated by Labour 264 - Interest not to be confused with Large Profits 266 - Interest not to be confused with the Profits of - Sagacity 268 - Enormous gains of Labour at the expense of - Ability 270 - Labour and the Existing System 272 - - - III. Of the Causes owing to which, and the Means by - which Labour participates in the Growing Products - of Ability— - - A Miserable Class co-existing with General - Progress 273 - Relative Decrease of Poverty 276 - Two Causes of Popular Progress 277 - The Riches of a Minority 278 - How they are produced 279 - The Rich Man’s Progress 280 - The Rivalry of the Rich 282 - The Gain of Labour 283 - Popular Progress and Growth of Population 284 - The Gain of Labour limited by the Power of - Ability 286 - The Natural Gain of Labour 288 - Its relation to Politics 289 - Self-Help and State Help 290 - - - IV. Of Socialism and Trade Unionism—the Extent - and Limitation of their Power in increasing the - Income of Labour— - - So-called Socialism in England different from - Formal Socialism 291 - An Element of Socialism necessary to every State 294 - The Socialistic question entirely a question of - degree 296 - Socialism not directly operative in increasing the - Income of Labour 298 - Trade Unionism 300 - How it strengthens Labour 301 - How the power of striking grows with the growth of - Wages 302 - Natural Limits of the Powers of Trade Unionism 304 - Labour and Ability 306 - Higgling on Equal Terms 307 - The Power represented by Strikes not Labour, but - Labouring Men 308 - Leaders of Labouring Men rarely Leaders of Labour 310 - The Power of Trade Unionism important, though - limited 312 - Certain remaining points 314 - - - V. Of the enormous Encouragement to be derived - by Labour from a true View of the Situation; - and of the Connection between the Interests of - the Labourer and Imperial Politics— - - A Recapitulation 315 - The Practical Moral 317 - The True Functions of Trade Unionism and Socialism 318 - The Natural Progress of Labour a Stimulus to Effort 320 - The Future of Labour judged from its Past Progress 322 - The one thing on which the Hopes of Labour depend 324 - The Real Bargain of Labour not with Capital but - Ability 326 - Subordination to Ability no Indignity to Labour 328 - The Moral Debt of Ability to Labour 330 - Labour, Nature, and Ability 332 - The Home and Foreign Food 333 - Imperial Politics and the National Income 334 - The Labourer’s home 336 - - - ——————————————————————————————————————————————————————— - - - - - BOOK I - - - THE DIVISIBLE WEALTH OF THE - UNITED KINGDOM - - - - - ——————————————————————————————————————————————————————— - - - - - CHAPTER I - - _The Welfare of the Home, as the Logical End of Government._ - - - [Sidenote ◆1 The subject of this book, but has nothing to do with - party politics.] - -◆¹ I wish this book to be something which, when the subject of it is -considered, the reader perhaps will think it cannot possibly be. For -its subject—to describe it in the vague language of the day—is the -labour question, the social question, the social claims of the masses; -and it is these claims and questions as connected with practical -politics. Their connection with politics is close at the present -moment; in the immediate future it is certain to become much closer; -and yet my endeavour will be to treat them in such a way that men of -the most opposite parties—the most progressive Radical and the most -old-fashioned Tory—may find this book equally in harmony with their -sympathies, and equally useful and acceptable from their respective -points of view. - - [Sidenote ◆1 An example of the order of facts it deals with.] - - [Sidenote ◆2 Such facts as these not generally known; but when - once ascertained, necessarily the same for all parties:] - - [Sidenote ◆3 And it is equally to the advantage of all parties to - understand such facts.] - -◆¹ But if the reader will consider the matter further, he will see -that my endeavour is not necessarily so impracticable as it seems -to be. A very little reflection must be enough to show anybody that -many of the political problems about which men differ most widely are -concerned with an order of truths which, when once they have been -examined properly, are the same for all of us; and that a preliminary -agreement with regard to them is the only possible basis for any -rational disagreement. I will give one example—the land-question. -About no political problem is there more disagreement than about this; -and yet there are many points in it, about which men may indeed be -ignorant, but about which, except for ignorance, there cannot be any -controversy. Such for instance is the acreage of the United Kingdom, -the number of men by whom the acres are owned, the respective numbers -of large and of small properties, together with their respective -rentals, and the proportion which the national rent bears to the -national income. ◆² The truth about all these points is very easily -ascertained; and yet not one man in a hundred of those by whom the -land-question is discussed, appears to possess the smallest accurate -knowledge of it. A curious instance of this ignorance is to be found -in the popular reception accorded some years ago to the theories of -Mr. Henry George. If Mr. George’s reasonings were correct as applied -to this country, the rental of our titled and untitled aristocracy -would be now about _eight hundred millions_: and few of his admirers -quarrelled with this inference. But if they had only consulted official -records, and made themselves masters of the real facts of the case, -they would have seen at once that this false and ludicrous estimate -was wrong by no less a sum than _seven hundred and seventy millions_; -that the _eight hundred millions_ of Mr. George’s fancy were in reality -not more than _thirty_; and that the rent, which according to him was -two-thirds of the national income, was not in reality more than two -and a quarter per cent of it. Now here is a fact most damaging to the -authority of a certain theorist with whom many Radicals are no doubt -in sympathy; but it none the less is a fact which any honest Radical is -as much concerned to know as is any honest Tory, and which may easily -supply the one with as many arguments as the other. ◆³ The Tory may -use it against the Radical rhetorician who denounces the landlords as -appropriating the whole wealth of the country. The Radical may use -it against the Tory who is defending the House of Peers, and may ask -why a class whose collective wealth is so small, should be specially -privileged to represent the interests of property: whilst those who -oppose protection may use it with equal force as showing how the -diffusion of property has been affected by free trade. - -Here is a fair sample, so far as particular facts are concerned, of -the order of truths with which I propose to deal: and if I can deal -with them in the way they ought to be dealt with, they will be as -interesting—and many will be as amusing—as they are practically useful. -It may indeed be said, without the smallest exaggeration, that the -salient facts which underlie our social problems of to-day, would, if -properly presented, be to the general reader as stimulating and fresh -as any novel or book of travels, besides being as little open to any -mere party criticism. - - [Sidenote ◆1 Besides such facts, this book deals with general - truths and principles, equally independent of party.] - -◆¹ But there are other truths, besides particular facts, which I -propose to urge on the reader’s attention also. There are general -truths, general considerations, and principles: and these too, like -the facts, will be found to have this same characteristic—that though -many of them are not generally realised, though many of them are often -forgotten, and though some of them are supposed to be the possession of -this or that party only, they do but require to be fairly and clearly -stated, to command the assent of every reflecting mind, and to show -themselves as common points from which, like diverging lines, all -rational politicians, whatever may be their differences, must start. - - [Sidenote ◆1 The proposition with which the argument starts is an - example of a truth of this kind.] - -◆¹ The very first principle to which I must call attention, and which -forms a key to my object throughout this entire book, will at once be -recognised by the reader as being of this kind. The Radical perhaps may -regard it as a mere truism; but the most bigoted Tory, on reflection, -will not deny that it is true. The great truth or principle of which I -speak is as follows. - - [Sidenote ◆1 The conditions of private happiness are the end of - all Government.] - - [Sidenote ◆2 These conditions are principally a question of - private income.] - - [Sidenote ◆3 The end of Government is therefore to secure adequate - incomes for the greatest possible number.] - -◆¹ The ultimate end of Government is to secure or provide for -the greatest possible number, not indeed happiness, as is often -inaccurately said, but the external conditions that make happiness -possible. As for happiness, that must come from ourselves, or at all -events from sources beyond the control of Governments. But though no -external conditions are sufficient to make it come, there are many -which are sufficient to drive it or to keep it permanently away; and -it is the end of all Government to minimise conditions such as these. -Now these conditions, though their details vary in various cases, are -essentially alike in all. They are a want of the necessaries, or a want -of the decencies of life, or an excessive difficulty in obtaining them, -or a recurring impossibility of doing so. ◆² They are conditions in -fact which principally, though not entirely, result from an uncertain -or an insufficient income. The ultimate duty of a Government is -therefore towards the incomes of the governed; ◆³ and the three chief -tests of whether a Government is good or bad, are first the number of -families in receipt of sufficient incomes, secondly the security with -which the receipt of such incomes can be counted on, and lastly the -quality of the things which such incomes will command. - - [Sidenote ◆1 This view not necessarily materialistic, nor - unpatriotic:] - -◆¹ Some people however—perhaps even some Radicals—may be tempted to -say that this is putting the case too strongly, and is caricaturing -the truth rather than fairly stating it. They may say that it excludes -or degrades to subordinate positions all the loftier ends both of -individual and of national life, such as moral and mental culture, and -the power and greatness of the country: but in reality it does nothing -of the kind. - - [Sidenote ◆1 For income is necessary for mental as well as - physical welfare,] - - [Sidenote ◆2 And the complete welfare of the citizens is what - gives meaning to patriotism.] - -◆¹ In the first place, with regard to moral and mental culture, if -these are really desired by the individual citizen, they will be -included amongst the things which his income will help him to obtain: -and an insufficient income certainly tends to deprive him of them. -If he wishes to have books, he must have money to buy books: and if -he wishes his children to be educated, there must be money to pay -for teaching them. In the second place, with regard to the power and -greatness of the country, though for many reasons ◆² we are apt -to forget the fact, it is the material welfare of the home, or the -maintenance of the domestic income, that really gives to them the whole -of their fundamental meaning. Our Empire and our power of defending -it have a positive money value, which affects the prosperity of every -class in the country: and though this may not be the only ground on -which our Empire can be justified, it is the only ground on which, -considering what it costs, its maintenance can be justified in the eyes -of a critical democracy. Supposing, it could be shown to demonstration -that the loss of our Empire and our influence would do no injury to -our trade, or make one British household poorer, it is impossible to -suppose that the democracy of Great Britain would continue for long, -from mere motives of sentiment, to sanction the expense, or submit to -the anxiety and the danger, which the maintenance of an Empire like our -own constantly and necessarily involves. - - [Sidenote ◆1 Further, patriotism will only flourish in a country - which secures for its citizens the conditions of a happy - life.] - -◆¹ But let us waive this argument, and admit that a sense of our -country’s greatness, quite apart from any thought of our own material -advantage, enlarges and elevates the mind as nothing else can—that -to be proud of our country and proud of ourselves as belonging to it, -to feel ourselves partners in the majesty of the great battle-ship, -in the menace of Gibraltar stored with its sleeping thunders, or the -boastful challenge of the flag that floats in a thousand climates, is -a privilege which it is easier to underrate than exaggerate. Let us -admit all this. But these large and ennobling sentiments are all of -them dependent on the welfare of the home in this way:—they are hardly -possible for those whose home conditions are miserable. Give a man -comfort in even the humblest cottage, and the glow of patriotism may, -and probably will, give an added warmth to that which shines on him -from his fireside. But if his children are crying for food, and he is -shivering by a cold chimney, he will not find much to excite him in the -knowledge that we govern India. Thus, from whatever point of view we -regard the matter, the welfare of the home as secured by a sufficient -income is seen to be at once the test and the end of Government; and it -ceases to be the end of patriotism only when it becomes the foundation -of it. - - [Sidenote ◆1 Cupidity, therefore, or the desire for sufficient - income, is a legitimate basis for popular interest in - politics;] - -◆¹ Here, then, is the principle which I assume throughout this volume. -And now, I think that, having explained it thus, I may, without offence -to either Tory or Radical, venture to condemn, as strongly as its -stupidity deserves, the way in which politicians are at present so -often attacked for appealing to what is called the cupidity of the -poorer classes. Cupidity is in itself the most general and legitimate -desire to which any politician or political party can appeal. It is -illegitimate only when it is excited by illegitimate methods: and -these methods are of two obvious kinds. One is an exaggeration of the -advantages which are put before the people as obtainable: the other is -the advocacy of a class of measures as means to them, by which not even -a part of them could be, in reality, obtained. Everybody must see that -a cupidity which is excited thus is one of the most dangerous elements -by which the prosperity of a country can be threatened. But a cupidity -which is excited in the right way, which is controlled by a knowledge -of what wealth really exists, and of the fundamental conditions on -which its distribution depends—is merely another name for spirit, -energy, and intelligence. - - [Sidenote ◆1 The aim of this book is to educate popular cupidity.] - -◆¹ My one aim then, in writing this book, is to educate the cupidity of -voters, no matter what their party, by popularising knowledge of this -non-controversial kind. And such knowledge will be found, as I have -said already, to be composed partly of particular facts, and partly -of general truths. We will begin with the consideration of certain -particular facts, which must, however, be prefaced by a few general -observations. - - - - - CHAPTER II - - _The Conditions involved in the idea of a Legislative - Redistribution of Wealth; and the Necessary - Limitations of the Results._ - - - [Sidenote ◆1 All men ask of a Government either the increase or - the maintenance of their incomes.] - -◆¹ Let me then repeat that we start with assuming cupidity as not only -the general foundation, but also as the inevitable, the natural, and -the right foundation, of the interest which ordinary men of all classes -take in politics. We assume that where the ordinary man, of whatever -class or party, votes for a member of Parliament, or supports any -political measure, he is primarily actuated by one of two hopes, or -both of them—the first being the hope of securing the continuance of -his present income, the second being the hope of increasing it. Now, to -secure what they have already got is the hope of all classes; but to -increase it by legislation is the hope of the poorer only. It is of -course perfectly true that the rich as well as the poor are anxious, as -a rule, to increase their incomes when they can; but they expect to do -so by their own ability and enterprise, and they look to legislation -for merely such negative help as may be given by affording their -abilities fair play. - - [Sidenote ◆1 The poor alone look for an increase of income by - direct legislative means. They are right in doing this.] - - [Sidenote ◆2 The cupidity which this book chiefly deals with is - the cupidity of the poorer classes.] - -◆¹ But with the poorer classes the case is entirely different. They -look to legislation for help of a direct and positive kind, which -may tend to increase their incomes, without any new effort of their -own: and not only do they do this themselves, but the richer classes -sympathise with the desire that makes them do so. It is, for instance, -by no means amongst the poorer classes only that the idea of seizing -on the land, without compensating the owners, has found favour as a -remedy for distress and poverty generally. Owners of every kind of -property, except land, have been found to advocate it; whilst as to -such vaguer and less startling proposals, as the “restoration of the -labourer to the soil,” the limitation of the hours of labour, or the -gradual acquirement by the State of many of our larger industries—the -persistent way in which these are being kept before the public, is due -quite as much to men of means as to poor men. ◆² It is then with the -cupidity of the poorer classes that we are chiefly concerned to deal; -and the great question before us may briefly be put thus: By what sort -of social legislation may the incomes of the poorer classes—or, in -other words, the incomes of the great mass of the community—be, in the -first place, made more constant; and, in the second place, increased? - - [Sidenote ◆1 The first question to ask is: What is the maximum - amount which it would be theoretically possible for them - to obtain? For this is much exaggerated.] - -◆¹ But before proceeding to this inquiry, there is a preliminary -question to be disposed of. What is the maximum increase which any -conceivable legislation could conceivably secure for them out of the -existing resources of the country? Not only unscrupulous agitators, but -many conscientious reformers, speak of the results to be hoped for from -a better distribution of riches, in terms so exaggerated as to have -no relation to facts; and ideas of the wildest kind are very widely -diffused as to the degree of opulence which it would be possible to -secure for all. The consequence is that at the present moment popular -cupidity has no rational standard. It will therefore be well, before -we go further, to reduce these ideas—I do not say to the limits -which facts will warrant—but to the limits which facts set on what is -theoretically and conceivably possible. - - [Sidenote ◆1 An ascertainable limit is placed to this amount by - circumstances.] - - [Sidenote ◆2 And this amount would be obtainable only under - certain conditions,] - -◆¹ Let me then call attention to the self-evident truth, that the -largest income which could possibly be secured for everybody, could not -be more than an equal share of the actual gross income enjoyed by the -entire nation. Now it happens that we know with substantial accuracy -what the gross amount of the income of the nation now is, and I will -presently show what is the utmost which each individual could hope for -from the most successful attempt at a redistribution of everything. ◆² -But the mere pecuniary results of a revolution of this kind are not the -only results of which we must take account. There are others which it -will be well to glance at before proceeding to our figures. - - [Sidenote ◆1 One of which would entirely change the existing - character of wealth.] - -◆¹ Though an equal division of wealth would, as we soon shall see, -bring a large addition to the income of a considerable majority of -the nation, the advantages which the recipients would gain from this -addition, would be very different from the advantages which an -individual would gain now, from the same annual sum coming to him from -invested capital. In other words, if wealth were equally distributed, -it would, from the very necessity of the case, lose half the qualities -for which it is at present most coveted. - - [Sidenote ◆1 Were wealth equally distributed, nobody would have an - independence.] - -◆¹ At present wealth suggests before all things what is commonly called -“an independence”—something on which a man can live independently -of his own exertions. But the moment a whole nation possessed it in -equal quantities this power of giving an independence would go from -it suddenly and for ever. If a workman who at present makes _seventy -pounds_ a year, would receive, by an equal division, an additional -_forty pounds_, it is indeed true that no additional work could be -entailed on him. The work which at present gets him _seventy pounds_, -would in that case get him _a hundred and ten_. But he would never be -able, if he preferred leisure to wealth, to forego the _seventy pounds_ -and live in idleness on the _forty pounds_; as he would be able to do -now if the additional _forty pounds_ were the interest of a legacy left -him by his maiden aunt. Unless he continued to work, as he had worked -hitherto, he would lose not only the first sum, but the second. - - [Sidenote ◆1 Every one would have to work as hard as he does now;] - -This is self-evident, when we consider what is the essence of such a -situation, namely that the position of everybody is identical. For if -everybody preferred to be idle, no wealth could be produced at all. -However great nominally might be the value of our national property, -it is perfectly clear that everybody could not live at leisure in -it: and from the very nature of the case, in a nation where all are -equal, what cannot be done by all, could not be done by anybody. ◆¹ -If, therefore, we estimate the income possible for each individual -as an equal fraction of the present income of the nation, it must be -remembered that, to produce the total out of which these fractions are -to come, everybody would have to work as hard as he does now. And more -than that, it would be the concern of all to see that his share of -work was not being shirked by anybody. This is at present the concern -of the employer only: but under the conditions we are now considering, -everybody would be directly interested in becoming his neighbour’s -taskmaster. - - [Sidenote ◆1 And be even more under the dominion of the employer - than he is now;] - -These last considerations lead us to another aspect of the subject, -with which every intelligent voter should make himself thoroughly -familiar, and which every honest speaker would force on the attention -of his hearers. A large number of agitators, who are either ignorant or -entirely reckless, but who nevertheless possess considerable gifts of -oratory, ◆¹ are constantly endeavouring to associate, in the popular -mind, the legitimate hope of obtaining an increased income, with an -insane hostility to conditions which alone make such an increase -possible. These men[1] are accustomed to declaim against the slavery of -the working classes, quite as much as against their inadequate rate of -payment. By slavery they mean what they call “enslavement to capital.” -Capital means the implements and necessaries of production. These, they -argue, are no longer owned by the workmen as they were in former times: -and thus the workers are no longer their own masters. They must work -under the direction of those who can give them the means of working; -and this, they are urged to believe, reduces them to the condition of -slaves. - - [Sidenote ◆1 Nor could any one hope to own the instruments of - production used by him.] - - [Sidenote ◆2 Self-contradictions of agitators, who say that - capitalism means slavery, and that socialism would make - the worker free.] - - [Sidenote ◆3 The industrial discipline of the State would - necessarily be much harder than that of the private - employer.] - -Of course, in these representations there is a certain amount of truth: -but it is difficult to conceive of anything more stupidly and more -wantonly misleading, than the actual meaning which they are employed by -the agitators to convey. For that meaning is nothing else than this—◆¹ -that under improved conditions, when wealth is better distributed, the -so-called slavery will disappear, the workers will be their own masters -again, and will each own, as formerly, the implements and the materials -of his work. But, as no one knows better than the extreme socialists, -and as any intelligent man can see easily for himself, such a course of -events is not only not possible, but is the exact reverse of that on -which the progress of the workers must depend. ◆² The wildest agitator -admits, and the most ignorant agitator knows, that the wealth of the -modern world, on the growth of which they insist, and which, for the -very reason that its growth has been so enormous, is declared by them -to offer so rich a prize to the workers, mainly owes its existence -to improved conditions of production. Such persons know also that of -these conditions the chief have been the development of machinery, the -increased subdivision of employments, and the perfected co-operation -of the workers. But the development of machinery necessarily means -this—the transformation of (say) each thousand old-fashioned implements -into a single vast modern one of a hundred times their aggregate -power: and it means that at this single implement a thousand men shall -work. The increased subdivision of labour means that no man shall -make an entire thing, but merely some small part of it; and perfected -co-operation is another name for perfected discipline. It will be thus -seen that the conditions which the agitator calls those of slavery -are essential to the production of the wealth which is to constitute -the workers’ heritage. ◆³ It will be seen that the workers’ hope of -bettering their own position is so far from depending on a recovery -of any former freedom, that it involves yet further elaboration of -industrial discipline; and puts the old ownership of his own tools -by the individual farther and further away into the region of dreams -and impossibilities: and that no redistribution of wealth would even -tend to bring it back again. The weaver of the last century was the -owner of his own loom: and a great cotton-mill may now be owned by one -capitalist. But a co-operative cotton-mill that was owned by all the -workers, in the old sense of the word would not be owned by anybody. -Could any one of these thousand or more men say that any part of the -mill was his own personal property? Could he treat a single bolt, or -a brick, or a wheel, or a door-nail, as he might have treated a loom -left to him in his cottage by his father? Obviously not. No part of -the mill would be his own private property, any more than a train -starting from Euston Station is the property of any shareholder in -the London and North-Western Railway. His ownership would mean merely -that he was entitled to a share of the profits, and that he had one -vote out of a thousand in electing the managers. But however the -managers were elected, he would have to obey their orders; and their -discipline would be probably stricter than that of any private owner. -Much more would this be the case if the dream of the Socialist were -fulfilled, and if instead of each factory or business being owned by -its own workers, all the workers of the country collectively owned all -the businesses—all the machinery, all the raw materials, and all the -capital reserved for and spent in wages. For though the capital of -the country would be owned by the workers nominally, their use of it -would have to be regulated by a controlling body, namely the State. The -managers and the taskmasters would all be State officials, and be armed -with the powers of the State to enforce discipline. The individual -under such an arrangement, might gain in point of income; but if he is -foolish enough to adopt the view of the agitator, and regard himself as -the slave to capital now, he would be no less a slave to it were all -capitals amalgamated, and out of so many million shares he himself were -to own one. - - [Sidenote ◆1 For it must always be remembered that the idea of an - equal distribution of wealth necessarily presupposes the - State as sole employer and capitalist.] - -◆¹ It is particularly desirable in this particular place to fix -the reader’s attention on this aspect of the question, because -it is inseparably associated with the point we are preparing to -consider—namely, the pecuniary position in which the individual would -be placed by an equal division, were such possible, of the entire -national income. For we must bear in mind that not even in thought or -theory is an equal division of the national income possible, unless -all the products of the labour of every citizen are in the first place -taken by the State as sole employer and capitalist, and are then -distributed as wages in equal portions. Under no other conditions -could equality be more than momentary. If each worker himself sold his -own products to the consumer,—which he could not do, because no one -produces the whole of anything,—the strong and industrious would soon -be richer than the idle; and the man with no children richer than the -man with ten. Inequality would have begun again as soon as one day’s -work was over. Equality demands, as the Socialists are well aware, that -all incomes shall be wages paid by the State; and it implies further, -as we shall presently have occasion to observe—that equal wages shall -be paid to all individuals, not because they are equally productive, -but because they are all equally human. When therefore I speak, as I -shall do presently, of what each individual would receive, if wealth -were divided equally, I must be understood as meaning that he would -receive so much from the State. - - [Sidenote ◆1 A redistribution of wealth, if it increased the - incomes of some, would lessen the labour of nobody.] - - [Sidenote ◆2 The next chapter contains an examination of the - amount of income which would theoretically result from - an equal distribution in this country.] - -◆¹ Let us remember then that a redistribution of wealth would have in -itself no tendency to alter the existing conditions of the workers in -any respect except that of wages only. It would not tend to relieve -any man of a single hour of labour, to give him any more freedom in -choosing the nature of his work or the method of it, or make him less -liable to fines or other punishments for disobedience or unpunctuality. -◆² His only gain, if any, would be a simple gain in money. Let us now -proceed to deal with the pounds, shillings, and pence; and see what is -the utmost that this gain could come to. - - - - - CHAPTER III - - _The Pecuniary Results to the Individual of an Equal - Division, first of the National Income, and - secondly of certain parts of it._ - - - [Sidenote ◆1 The gross income of the United Kingdom.] - - [Sidenote ◆2 The whole amount attributed to the rich would not be - available for distribution.] - - [Sidenote ◆3 A certain deduction must therefore be made from the - estimated total.] - -◆¹ The gross income of the United Kingdom—the aggregate yearly amount -received by the entire population—is computed to be in round numbers -some _thirteen hundred million pounds_. But though this estimate may -be accepted as true under existing circumstances, we should find it -misleading as an estimate of the amount available for distribution. -So far as it relates to the income of the poorer classes, it would -be indeed still trustworthy; but the income of the richer—which is -the total charged with income-tax—we should find to be seriously -exaggerated, as considerable sums are included in it which are counted -twice over. ◆² For instance, the fee of a great London doctor for -attending a patient in the South of France would be about _twelve -hundred pounds_. Let us suppose this to be paid by a patient whose -income is _twelve thousand pounds_. The doctor pays income-tax on his -fee; the patient pays income-tax on his entire income; and thus the -whole sum charged with income-tax is _thirteen thousand two hundred -pounds_. But if we came to distribute it, we should find that there -was _twelve thousand pounds_ only. And there are many other cases of a -precisely similar nature. According to the calculations of Professor -Leone Levi, the total amount which was counted twice over thus, -amounted ten years ago to more than a _hundred million pounds_.[2] ◆³ -In order, therefore, to arrive at the sum which we may assume to be -susceptible of distribution, it will be necessary, therefore, to deduct -at least as much as this from the sum which was just now mentioned of -_thirteen hundred million pounds_.[3] Accordingly the income of the -country, if we estimate it with a view to dividing it, is in round -numbers, _twelve hundred million pounds_. - - [Sidenote ◆1 This, divided amongst all, would yield _thirty-two - pounds_ per head:] - - [Sidenote ◆2 But different sexes and ages would require different - amounts,] - - [Sidenote ◆3 The proportions of which are readily ascertainable.] - -◆¹ And now let us glance at our problem in its crudest and most -rudimentary form, and see what would be the share coming to each -individual, if these millions were divided equally amongst the entire -population. The entire population of the United Kingdom numbers a -little over _thirty-eight millions_; so our division sum is simple. -The share of each individual would be about _thirty-two pounds_. But -this sort of equality in distribution would satisfy nobody. It is not -worth talking about. For a quarter of the population are children -under ten years of age,[4] and nearly two-fifths are under fifteen: -and it would be absurd to assign to a baby seeking a pap-bottle, or -even to a boy—voracious as boys’ appetites are—the same sum that -would be assigned to a full-grown man or woman. ◆² In order to give -our distribution even the semblance of rationality, the shares must -be graduated according to the requirements of age and sex. The sort -of proportion to each other which these graduated shares should bear -might possibly be open to some unimportant dispute: but we cannot go -far wrong if we take for our guide the amount of food which scientific -authorities tell us is required respectively by men, women, and -children; together with the average proportion which actually obtains -at present, both between their respective wages and the respective -costs of their maintenance. ◆³ The result which we arrive at from -these sources of information is substantially as follows, and every -fresh inquiry confirms it. For every _pound_ which is required or -received by a man, _fifteen shillings_ does or should go to a woman, -_ten shillings_ to a boy, _nine shillings_ to a girl, and _four and -sixpence_ to an infant.[5] - - [Sidenote ◆1 The problem best approached by taking the family as - the unit:] - - [Sidenote ◆2 And then we can arrive at the share of each member.] - - [Sidenote ◆3 The maximum income that an equal distribution would - give a bachelor.] - -◆¹ So much, then, being admitted, we shall make our calculations best -by starting with the family as our unit, and coming to the individual -afterwards. The average family consists of four and a half persons; and -the families in the United Kingdom number _eight and a half millions_. -_Twelve hundred millions_—the sum we have to divide—would give each -family an income of _a hundred and forty pounds_. From this, however, -we should have to deduct taxes; and, since if all classes were equal, -all would have to be taxed equally,—the amount due from each family -would be considerable. Public expenditure, if the State directed -everything, would of necessity be larger than it is at present; but -even if we assume that it would remain at its present figure, each -family would have to contribute at least _sixteen pounds_.[6] Therefore -_sixteen pounds_ must be deducted from the _hundred and forty pounds_. -Accordingly we have for four and a half persons a net income of _a -hundred and twenty-six pounds_. Now these persons would be found to -consist on an average of a man and his wife, a youth, a girl, and a -half of a baby,—for when we deal with averages we must execute many -judgments like Solomon’s,—and if we distribute the income among them -in the proportion I just now indicated, the result we shall arrive at -will, in round numbers, be this. ◆² The man will have _fifty pounds_, -the woman _thirty-six pounds_, the youth _twenty-five pounds_, the girl -_twenty-four pounds_, and the half of the infant _five pounds_. And now -let us scrutinise the result a little further, and see how it looks in -various familiar lights. An equal distribution of the whole wealth of -the country would give every adult male about _nineteen shillings and -sixpence_ a week, and every adult female about _fourteen shillings_. -These sums would, however, be free of taxes; so in order to compare -them with the wages paid at present, we must add to them _two shillings -and sixpence_ and _two shillings_ respectively, which will raise them -respectively to _twenty-two shillings_, and to _sixteen shillings_: ◆³ -but a bachelor who is earning the former sum now, or an unmarried woman -who is now earning the latter, would neither of them, under any scheme -of equal distribution conceivable, come in for a penny of the plunder -taken from the rich. They already are receiving all that, on principles -of equality, they could claim. - -The smallness of this result is likely to startle anybody; but none the -less is it true: and it is well to consider it carefully, because the -reason why it startles us requires to be particularly noticed. Of the -female population of the country that is above fifteen years old, the -portion that works for wages is not so much as a half;[7] and of the -married women that do so, the portion is much smaller. The remainder -work, no doubt, quite as hard as the rest; but they work as wives and -mothers; and whatever money they have comes to them through their -husbands. Thus when the ordinary man considers the question of income, -he regards income as something which belongs exclusively to the man, -his wife and his children being things which the man maintains as he -pleases. But the moment the principle of equality of distribution is -accepted, all such ideas as these have to be rudely changed: for if -all of us have a claim to an equal share of wealth, just as the common -man’s claim is as good as that of the uncommon man, so the woman’s -claim is as good as the claim of either; and whatever her income might -be under such conditions, it would be hers in her own right, not in -that of anybody else. Accordingly it happens that an equal distribution -of wealth, though it would increase the present income of the ordinary -working man’s family, might actually, so far as the head of the family -was concerned, have the paradoxical result of making him feel that -personally he was poorer than before—not richer.[8] - - [Sidenote ◆1 The highest possible standard of living would be - represented by a man and wife without children.] - -◆¹ The man’s personal share, then, would be _twenty-two shillings_ a -week, and the woman’s _sixteen shillings_; and they could increase -their income in no way except by marrying. As many of their expenses -would be greatly diminished by being shared, they would by this -arrangement both be substantial gainers: but if the principle of -equality were properly carried out, they would gain very little further -by the appearance of children; for though we must assume that a certain -suitable sum would be paid them by the State for the maintenance of -each child, that would have to be spent for the child’s benefit. We -may, therefore, say that the utmost results which could possibly be -secured to the individual by a general confiscation and a general -redistribution of wealth, would be represented by the condition of a -childless man and wife, with _thirty-eight shillings_ a week, which -they could spend entirely on themselves: for all the wealth of the -nation that was not absorbed in supplying such incomes to men and women -who were childless, would be absorbed in supporting the children of -those who had them; thus merely equalising the conditions of large and -of small families, and enabling the couple with ten or a dozen children -to be personally as well off as the couple with none. Could such a -condition of wellbeing be made universal, many of the darkest evils of -civilisation would no doubt disappear: but it is well for a man who -imagines that the masses of this country are kept by unjust laws out of -the possession of some enormous heritage, to see how limited would be -the result, if the laws were to give them everything; and to reflect -that the largest income that would thus be assigned to any woman, would -be less than the income enjoyed at the present moment by multitudes of -unmarried girls who work in our Midland mills—girls whose wages amount -to _seventeen shillings_ a week, who pay their parents _a shilling_ a -day for board, and who spend the remainder, with a most charming taste, -on dress. - -He will have to reflect also that such a result as has been just -described could be produced only by an equality that would be -absolutely grotesque in its completeness—by every male being treated as -equal to every other male of the same age, and by every female being -treated similarly. The prime minister, the commander-in-chief, the most -important State official, would thus, if they were unmarried, be poorer -than many a factory-girl is at present; whilst if they were married, -they and their wives together would have but _four shillings_ a week -more than is at present earned by a mason, and _six shillings_ a week -less than is earned by an overlooker in a cotton-mill. - - [Sidenote ◆1 Absolute pecuniary equality, however, is not thought - possible by anybody;] - - [Sidenote ◆2 As the salaries asked for Members of Parliament by - the Labour Party show.] - -◆¹ But an equality of this kind, from a practical point of view, is -worth considering only as a means of reducing it to an absurdity. -Even were it established to-morrow, it could not be maintained for a -month, owing to the difficulty that would arise in connection with the -question of children: as unless a State official checked the weekly -bills of every parent, parents inevitably would save out of their -children’s allowances; and those with many children would be very soon -founding fortunes. And again it is obvious that different kinds of -occupation require from those engaged in them unequal expenditures; so -that the inevitable inequality of needs would make pecuniary equality -impossible. Indeed every practical man in our own country owns this, -however extreme his views; ◆² as is evidenced by the amounts which have -been suggested by the leaders of the Labour Party as a fit salary for -a paid Member of Parliament. These amounts vary from _three hundred -pounds_ a year to _four hundred pounds_; so that the unmarried Member -of Parliament, in the opinion of our most thoroughgoing democrats, -deserves an income from six to eight times as great as the utmost -income possible for the ordinary unmarried man. And there are many -occupations which will, if this be admitted, deserve to be paid on the -same or on even a higher scale. We may therefore take it for granted -that the most levelling politicians in the country, with whom it is -worth while to reason as practical and influential men, would spare -those incomes not exceeding _four hundred pounds_ a year, and would -probably increase the number of those between that amount and _a -hundred and fifty pounds_. Now the total amount of the incomes between -these limits is not far from _two hundred million pounds_: so if this -be deducted from the _twelve hundred million pounds_ which we just -now took as the sum to be divided equally, the incomes of the people -at large will be less by sixteen per cent than the sums at which they -were just now estimated; and the standard of average comfort will be -represented by a childless man and wife having _thirty-one shillings -and eightpence_ instead of _thirty-eight shillings_ a week. - - [Sidenote ◆1 General redistribution, then, is not thought possible - by any English party;] - - [Sidenote ◆2 But it is still instructive to consider the - theoretical results of it.] - -◆¹ We need not, however, dwell upon such details longer: for there -are few people who conceive even a redistribution like this to be -possible; and there would probably be fewer still who would run the -risk of attempting it, if they realised how limited would be the -utmost results of it to themselves. My only reason for dealing with -these schemes at all is that, ◆² whilst they are felt to be impossible -as soon as they are considered closely, they are yet the schemes -which invariably suggest themselves to the mind when first the idea -of any great social change is presented to it; and a knowledge of -their theoretical results, though it offers no indication of what may -actually be attainable, will sober our thoughts, and at the same time -stimulate them, by putting a distinct and business-like limit to what -is conceivable. - - [Sidenote ◆1 But there are certain parts of the national income - the redistribution of which has been actually advocated, - _i.e._: (1) the rent of the land; (2) the interest of - the National Debt; (3) the sums spent on the Monarchy.] - - [Sidenote ◆2 We will consider what the nation would gain by - confiscating the above.] - - [Sidenote ◆3 Absurd ideas as to the amount of the landed rental of - the country.] - -◆¹ And for this reason, before I proceed further, I shall ask the -reader to consider a few more theoretical estimates. The popular -agitator, and those whose opinions are influenced by him, do not -propose to seize upon all property; they content themselves with -proposing to appropriate certain parts of it. The parts generally fixed -upon are as follows:—First and foremost comes the landed rental[9] -of the country—the incomes of the iniquitous landlords. Second comes -the interest on the National Debt; third, the profits of the railway -companies; and last, the sum that goes to support the Monarchy. All -these annual sums have been proposed as subjects of confiscation, -though the process may generally be disguised under other names. ◆² -Let us take each of these separately, and see what the community at -large would gain by the appropriation of each. And we will begin with -the income of the landlords; for not only is this the property which is -most frequently attacked, but it is the one from the division of which -the largest results are expected. ◆³ It is indeed part of the creed of -a certain type of politician that, if the income of the landlords could -be only divided amongst the people, all poverty would be abolished, and -the great problem solved. - - [Sidenote ◆1 The popular conception of the wealth of the larger - landlords.] - -◆¹ In the minds of most of our extreme reformers, excepting a few -Socialists, the income of the landlords figures as something limitless; -and the landlords themselves as the representatives of all luxury. It -is not difficult to account for this. To any one who studies the aspect -of any of our rural landscapes, with a mind at all occupied with the -problem of the redistribution of wealth, the things that will strike -his eye most and remain uppermost in his mind, are the houses and parks -and woods belonging to the large landlords. Small houses and cottages, -though he might see a hundred of them in a three-miles’ drive, he -would hardly notice; but if in going from York to London he caught -glimpses of twelve large castles, he would think that the whole of -the Great Northern Railway was lined with them. And from impressions -derived thus two beliefs have arisen—first that the word “landlord” is -synonymous with “large landlord”; and secondly that large landlords own -most of the wealth of the kingdom. But ideas like these, when we come -to test them by facts, are found to be ludicrous in their falsehood. -If we take the entire rental derived from land, and compare it with -the profits derived from trade and capital, we shall find that, so far -as mere money is concerned, the land offers the most insignificant, -instead of the most important question[10] that could engage us. Of the -income of the nation, the entire rental of the land does not amount to -more than one-thirteenth; and during the last ten years it has fallen -about thirteen per cent. The community could not possibly get more than -all of it; and if all of it were divided in the proportions we have -already contemplated, it would give each man about twopence a day and -each woman about three half-pence.[11] - - [Sidenote ◆1 The landed aristocracy are not the chief - rent-receivers.] - - [Sidenote ◆2 A multitude of small proprietors receive twice as - much in rent as the entire landed aristocracy.] - - [Sidenote ◆3 The entire rental of the landed aristocracy is so - small that its confiscation would benefit no one.] - -◆¹ But the more important part of the matter still remains to be -noticed. The popular idea is, as I just now said, that we should, in -confiscating the rental of the kingdom, be merely robbing a handful -of rich men, who would be probably a deserving, and certainly an easy -prey. The facts of the case are, however, singularly different. It is -true, indeed, if we reckon the land by area, that the large landlords -own a preponderating part of it: but if we reckon the land by value, -the whole case is reversed; ◆² and we find that classes of men who are -supposed by the ordinary agitator to have no fixed interest in the -national soil at all, really draw from it a rental twice as great as -that of the class which is supposed to absorb the whole. I will give -the actual figures,[12] based upon official returns; and in order that -the reader may know my exact meaning, let me define the term that I -have just used—namely “large landlords”—as meaning owners of more than -_a thousand_ acres. No one, according to popular usage, would be called -a large landlord, who was not the owner of at least as much as this; -indeed the large landlord, as denounced by the ordinary agitator, is -generally supposed to be the owner of much more. Out of the aggregate -rental, then—that total sum which would, if divided, give each man -twopence a day—what goes to the large landlords is now considerably -less than _twenty-nine million pounds_. By far the larger part—namely -something like _seventy million pounds_—is divided amongst _nine -hundred and fifty thousand_ owners, of whose stake in the country the -agitator seems totally unaware; and in order to give to each man the -above daily dividend, it would be necessary to rob all this immense -multitude whose rentals are, on an average, _seventy-six pounds_ a -year.[13] Supposing, then, this nation of smaller landlords to be -spared, ◆³ and our robbery confined to peers and to country gentlemen, -the sum to be dealt with would be less than _twenty-nine million -pounds_; and out of the ruin of every park, manor, and castle in the -country, each adult male would receive less than three-farthings daily. - - [Sidenote ◆1 Were the National Debt and the Railways confiscated, - the results would likewise be hardly perceptible to the - nation as a whole.] - -◆¹ And now let us turn to the National Debt and to the railways. The -entire interest of the one and the entire profits of the other, would, -if divided equally amongst the population, give results a little, but -only a little, larger than the rental of the large landlords. But here -again, if the poorer classes were spared, and the richer investors -alone were singled out for attack, the small dividend of perhaps -one penny for each man daily, would be diminished to a sum yet more -insignificant. How true this is may be seen from the following figures -relating to the National Debt. Out of the _two hundred and thirty-six -thousand_ persons who held consols in 1880, _two hundred and sixteen -thousand_, or more than nine-tenths of the whole, derived from their -investments less than _ninety pounds_ a year; whilst nearly half of the -whole derived less than _fifteen pounds_. - - [Sidenote ◆1 The Monarchy costs so small a sum, that no one would - be the richer for its abolition.] - -◆¹ And lastly, let us consider the Monarchy, with all its pomp and -circumstance, the maintenance of which is constantly represented as -a burden seriously pressing on the shoulders of the working-class. I -am not arguing that in itself a Monarchy is better than a Republic. -I am considering nothing but its cost in money to the nation. Let -us see then what its maintenance actually costs each of us, and how -much each of us might conceivably gain by its abolition. The total -cost of the Monarchy is about _six hundred thousand pounds_ a year; -but ingenious Radicals have not infrequently argued that virtually, -though indirectly, it costs as much as _a million pounds_. Let us take -then this latter sum, and divide it amongst _thirty-eight million_ -people. What does it come to a head? It comes to something less than -_sixpence halfpenny_ a year. It costs each individual less to maintain -the Queen than it would cost him to drink her health in a couple of -pots of porter. The price of these pots is the utmost he could gain -by the abolition of the Monarchy. But does any one think that the -individual would gain so much—or indeed, gain anything? If he does, -he is singularly sanguine. Let him turn to countries that are under a -Republican government; and he will find that elected Presidents are apt -to cost more than Queens. - - [Sidenote ◆1 All such schemes of redistribution are illusory, not - only on account of the insignificance of their results,] - - [Sidenote ◆2 But also on account of a far deeper reason, on which - the whole problem depends.] - -◆¹ All these schemes, then, for attacking property as it exists, for -confiscating and redistributing by some forcible process of legislation -the whole or any part of the existing national income, are either -obviously impracticable, or their result would be insignificant. Their -utmost result indeed would not place any of the workers in so good a -position as is at present occupied by many of them. This is evident -from what has been seen already. ◆² But there is another reason which -renders such schemes illusory—a far more important one than any I have -yet touched upon, and of a far more fundamental kind. We will consider -this in the next chapter; and we shall find, when we have done so, that -it has brought us to the real heart of the question. - - - - - CHAPTER IV - - _The Nature of the National Wealth: first, of the - National Capital; second, of the National - Income. Neither of these is susceptible of - Arbitrary Division._ - - - [Sidenote ◆1 A legislative division of the national income is not - only disappointing in its theoretical results, but - practically impossible,] - -◆¹ We have just seen how disappointing, to those even who would gain -most by it, would be the results of an equal division of the national -income of this country, and how intolerable to all would be the general -conditions involved in it. In doing this, we have of course adopted, -for argument’s sake, an assumption which underlies all popular ideas of -such a process; namely, that if a Government were only strong enough -and possessed the requisite will, it could deal with the national -income in any way that might be desired; or, in other words, that the -national income is something that could be divided and distributed, -as an enormous heap of sovereigns could, according to the will of -any one who had them under his fingers. I am now going to show that -this assumption is entirely false, and that even were it desirable -theoretically that the national income should be redivided, it is not -susceptible of any such arbitrary division. - - [Sidenote ◆1 As will be shown in this chapter.] - -◆¹ To those who are unaccustomed to reflecting on economic problems, -and who more or less consciously associate the qualities of wealth -with those of the money in whose terms its amount is stated, I cannot -introduce this important subject better than by calling their attention -to the few following facts, which, simple and accessible as they are, -are not generally known. - - [Sidenote ◆1 Wealth is utterly unlike money in its divisible - qualities.] - - [Sidenote ◆2 The money of the United Kingdom is an imperceptible - fraction of its wealth.] - -◆¹ The capital value of the wealth of the United Kingdom is estimated -at something like _ten thousand million pounds_; but the entire amount -of sovereigns and shillings in the country does not exceed _a hundred -and forty-four million pounds_, nor that of the uncoined bullion, _a -hundred and twenty-two million pounds_. That is to say, for every -nominal _ten thousand_ sovereigns there does not exist in reality more -than _two hundred and twenty-six_. Were this sum divided amongst the -population equally, it would give every one a share of exactly _seven -pounds_. Again, this country produces every year wealth which we -express by calling it _thirteen hundred million pounds_. ◆² The amount -of gold and silver produced annually by the whole world is hardly -so much as _thirty-eight million pounds_. If the whole of this were -appropriated by the United Kingdom, it would give annually to each -inhabitant only ten new shillings and a single new half-sovereign. -The United Kingdom, however, gets annually but a tenth of the world’s -money, so its annual share in reality is not so much as _four million -pounds_. Accordingly, that vast volume of wealth which we express by -calling it _thirteen hundred million pounds_, has but _four million -pounds_ of fresh money year by year to correspond to it. That is to -say, there is only one new sovereign for every new nominal sum of -_three hundred and twenty-five_. - - [Sidenote ◆1 The nature of wealth, as a whole, is quite - misconceived by most people;] - - [Sidenote ◆2 As we see by the metaphors they use to describe it.] - -◆¹ Wealth as a whole, therefore, is something so totally distinct from -money that there is no ground for presuming it to be divisible in the -same way. What is wealth, then, in a country like our own? To some -people this will seem a superfluous question. They will say that every -one knows what wealth is by experience—by the experience of possessing -it, or by the experience of wanting it. And in a certain sense this -is true, but not in any sense that concerns us here. In precisely the -same sense every one knows what health is; but that is very different -from knowing on what health depends; and to know the effects of wealth -on our own existence is very different from knowing the nature of the -thing that causes them. Indeed, as a matter of fact, what wealth really -consists of is a thing which very few people are ever at the trouble to -realise; and nothing shows that such is the case more clearly than the -false and misleading images which are commonly used to represent it. -◆² The most familiar of these are: “a treasure,” “a store,” “a hoard,” -or, as the Americans say, “a pile.” Now any one of these images is not -only not literally true, but embodies and expresses a mischievous and -misleading falsehood. It represents wealth as something which could be -carried off and divided—as a kind of plunder which might be seized by -a conquering army. But the truth is, that the amount of existing wealth -which can be accurately described, or could be possibly treated in this -way, is, in a country like ours, a very insignificant portion; and, -were social conditions revolutionised to any serious degree, much of -that portion would lose its value and cease to be wealth at all. - - [Sidenote ◆1 Many kinds of wealth that are considered typical - would become almost valueless if divided: for instance, - a great house and its contents.] - -◆¹ Let us take, for instance, some palatial house in London, which -catches the public gaze as a monument of wealth and splendour; and we -will suppose that a mob of five hundred people are incited to plunder -it by a leader who informs them that its contents are worth _two -hundred thousand pounds_. Assuming that estimate to be correct, would -it mean that of these five hundred people each would get a portion to -him worth _four hundred pounds_? Let us see what would really happen. -They would find enough wine, perhaps, to keep them all drunk for a -week; enough food to feed thirty of them for a day; and sheets and -blankets for possibly thirty beds. But this would not account for -many thousands out of the _two hundred thousand pounds_. The bulk of -that sum would be made up—how? _A hundred thousand pounds_ would be -probably represented by some hundred and fifty pictures, and the rest -by rare furniture, china, and works of art. Now all these things to -the pillagers would be absolutely devoid of value; for if such pillage -were general there would be nobody left to buy them; and they would -in themselves give the pillagers no pleasure. One can imagine the -feelings of a man who, expecting _four hundred pounds_, found himself -presented with an unsaleable Sèvres broth-basin, or a picture of a -Dutch burgomaster; or of five such men if for their share they were -given a buhl cabinet between them. We may be quite certain that the -broth-basin would be at once broken in anger; the cabinet would be -tossed up for, and probably used as a rabbit-hutch; and the men as a -body would endeavour to make up for their disappointment by ducking or -lynching the leader who had managed to make such fools of them. - - [Sidenote ◆1 Wealth, as a whole, even less susceptible of - division.] - -◆¹ And now let us consider the wealth of the kingdom as a whole. -Much as the bulk of it differs from the contents of a house of this -kind, it would, if seized on in any forcible way, prove even more -disappointing and elusive. - - [Sidenote ◆1 Wealth, as a whole, has two aspects: that of capital, - and that of income.] - - [Sidenote ◆2 We will first consider the national capital.] - -◆¹ We may consider it under two aspects. We may consider it as so much -annual income, or else as so much capital. In the last chapter we were -considering it as so much income, and presently we shall be doing so -again. But as capital may possibly strike the imagination of many as -something more tangible and easily seized, and likely to yield, if -redistributed, more satisfactory results, ◆² we will see first of what -items the estimated capital of this country is composed. To do so will -not only be instructive: it will also be curious and amusing. - - [Sidenote ◆1 This capital consists not of money;] - -◆¹ As I said just now, its value, expressed in money, is according to -the latest authorities about _ten thousand million pounds_.[14] As -actual money, however, forms so minute a portion of this,—the reader -will see that it is hardly more than one-fortieth,—we may, for our -present purpose, pass it entirely over; and our concern will be solely -with the things for which our millions are a mere expression. - - [Sidenote ◆1 But of three classes of things: the two first - comprising things not susceptible of division;] - -◆¹ It will be found that these things divide themselves into three -classes. The first consists of things which, from their very nature, -are not susceptible of any forcible division at all; the second -consists of things which are susceptible of division only by a process -of physically destroying them and pulling them into pieces; and each -of these two classes, in point of value, represents, roughly speaking, -nearly a quarter of the total. The third class alone, which represents -little more than a half, consists of things which, even theoretically, -could be divided without being destroyed. - - [Sidenote ◆1 The third class comprising all those things that - could be divided without destroying them; and forming - about half of the total.] - -◆¹ We will consider this third class first, which represents in the -estimates of statisticians _five thousand seven hundred million -pounds_. The principal things comprised in it are land, houses, -furniture, works of art, clothing, merchandise, provisions, and -live-stock; and such commodities in general as change hands over the -shopman’s counter, or in the market.[15] Of these items, by far the -largest is houses, which make up a quarter of the capital value of -the country, or _two thousand five hundred million pounds_. But more -than half this sum stands for houses which are much above the average -in size, and which do not form more than an eighth part of the whole; -and were they apportioned to a new class of occupants, they would lose -at least three-fourths of their present estimated value. So too with -regard to furniture and works of art, a large part of their estimated -value would, as we have seen already, disappear in distribution -likewise: and their estimated value is about a tenth of the whole we -are now considering. Land, of course, can, at all events in theory, -be divided with far greater advantage; and counts in the estimates -as _fifteen hundred million pounds_—or something under a sixth of the -whole. Merchandise, provisions, and movable goods in general can be -divided yet more readily; and so one would think could live-stock, -though this is hardly so in reality: but of the whole these three last -items form little more than a twentieth. - - [Sidenote ◆1 The results of dividing these would be ridiculous.] - -◆¹ And now, supposing all these divisible things to be divided, let us -see what the capital would look like which would be allotted to each -individual. Each individual would find himself possessed of a lodging -of some sort, together with clothes and furniture worth about _eight -pounds_. He would have about _eight pounds_’ worth of provisions and -miscellaneous movables, and a ring, a pin, or a brooch, worth about -_three pounds ten shillings_. He would also be the proprietor of one -acre of land, which would necessarily in many cases be miles away from -his dwelling, whilst as to stocking his acre, he would be met by the -following difficulty. He would find himself entitled to the twentieth -part of a horse, to two-thirds of a sheep, the fourth part of a cow, -and the tenth part of a pig. - - [Sidenote ◆1 The second class of things, comprising the national - capital, could not be divided without destroying them.] - - [Sidenote ◆2 The remaining class of things could not be divided at - all.] - -◆¹ Such then would be the result to the individual of dividing the -whole of our capital that could be divided without destroying it. This -is, as we said, a little more than half of the total; and now let -us turn to the two other quarters; beginning with the things which -could be indeed divided, but which would obviously be destroyed in -the process. Their estimated value is more than _two thousand million -pounds_: half of which sum is represented by the railways and shipping -of the kingdom; _six hundred million pounds_, by gasworks and the -machinery in our factories; and the rest, by roads and streets and -public works and buildings. ◆² These, it is obvious, are not suitable -for division; and still less divisible are the things in the class that -still remains. For of their total value, which amounts to some _two -thousand five hundred million pounds_, more than _a thousand million -pounds_, according to Mr. Giffen, represent the good-will of various -professions of business; and the whole of the remainder—nearly _fifteen -hundred million pounds_—represents nothing that is in the United -Kingdom at all, but merely legal claims on the part of particular -British subjects to a share in the proceeds of enterprise in other -countries. - -This last class consists of things which are merely rights and -advantages secured by law, and dependent on existing social conditions; -and it can be easily understood how they would disappear under any -attempt to seize them. But the remaining three quarters of our capital -consists of material things; and what we have seen with regard to them -may strike many people as incredible; for the moment we imagine them -violently seized and distributed, they seem to dwindle and shrivel up; -and the share of each individual suggests to one’s mind nothing but a -series of ludicrous pictures—pictures of men whose heritage in all this -unimaginable wealth is an acre of ground, two wheels of a steam-engine, -a bedroom, a pearl pin, and the tenth part of a pig. - - [Sidenote ◆1 Capital has no value at all, except when vivified by - use;] - -◆¹ The explanation, however, of this result is to be found in the -recognition of an exceedingly simple fact: that the capital of a -country is of hardly any value at all, and is, as capital, of no value -at all, when regarded merely as an aggregate of material things, and -not as material things made living by their connection with life. The -land, which is worth _fifteen hundred million pounds_, depends for its -value on the application of human labour to it, and the profitable -application of labour depends on skill and intelligence. The value -of the houses depends on our means of living in them—depends not on -themselves, but on the way in which they are inhabited. What are -railways or steamships, regarded as dead matter, or all the machinery -belonging to all the manufacturing companies? Nothing. They are no -more wealth than a decomposing corpse is a man. They become wealth -only when life fills them with movement by a power which, like all -vital processes, is one of infinite complexity: when multitudes are -massed in this or in that spot, or diffused sparsely over this or that -district; when trains move at appropriate seasons, and coal finds its -way from the mine to the engine-furnace. The only parts of the capital -in existence at any given moment, which deserve the name of capital -as mere material things, are the stores of food, fuel, and clothing -existing in granaries, shops, and elsewhere; and not only is the value -of these proportionately small, but, if not renewed constantly, they -would in a few weeks be exhausted. - - [Sidenote ◆1 And it obviously cannot be used if it is equally - distributed.] - - [Sidenote ◆2 Income is all that could conceivably be thus divided.] - -◆¹ It is plain then that, under the complicated system of production -to which the wealth of the modern world is due, an equal division of -the capital of a country like our own is not the way to secure an equal -division of wealth. ◆² The only thing that could conceivably be divided -is income. If, however, it is true that capital is, as we have seen -it is, in its very nature living, and ceases to be itself the moment -that life goes out of it, still more emphatically must the same thing -be said of income, for the sake of producing which capital is alone -accumulated. Agitators talk of the national income as if it were a dead -tree which a statesman like Mr. Gladstone could cut into chips and -distribute. It is not like a dead tree; it is like the living column -of a fountain, of which every particle is in constant movement, and of -which the substance is never for two minutes the same. - - [Sidenote ◆1 The national income consists of money no more than - the national capital does.] - - [Sidenote ◆2 It consists of other things, or rights to other - things;] - - [Sidenote ◆3 Namely, of perishable goods, durable goods, and - services.] - -◆¹ Let us examine the details of this income, and the truth of what -has been said will be apparent. The total amount, as we have seen, is -estimated at _thirteen hundred million pounds_; it is not, however, -made up of sovereigns, but of things of which sovereigns are nothing -more than the measure. ◆² The true income of the nation and the true -income of the individual consist alike of things which are actually -consumed or enjoyed; or of legal rights to such things which are -accumulated for future exercise. Of these last, which, in other words, -are savings, and are estimated to amount to _a hundred and thirty -million pounds_ annually, we need not speak here, except to deduct them -from the total spent. The total is thus reduced to _eleven hundred and -seventy million pounds_—or to things actually consumed or enjoyed, -which are valued at that figure. Now what are these things? That is -our present question. ◆³ By far the larger part of them comes under -the following heads: Food, Clothing, Lodging, Fuel and Lighting, the -attendance of Servants, the Defence of the Country and Empire, and the -Maintenance of Law and Order. These together represent about _eight -hundred million pounds_. Of the remaining _three hundred and seventy -million pounds_, about a third is represented by the transport of goods -and travelling; and not much more than a quarter of the total income, -or about _two hundred and seventy million pounds_, by new furniture, -pictures, books, plate, and other miscellaneous articles. The furniture -produced annually counts for something like _forty million pounds_; and -the new plate for not more than _five hundred thousand pounds_. - -And now let us examine these things from certain different points of -view, and see how in each case they group themselves into different -classes. - -In the first place, they may be classified thus: into things that -are wealth because they are consumed, things that are wealth because -they are owned, and things that are wealth because they are used or -occupied. Under the first heading come food, clothing, lighting, and -fuel; under the second, movable chattels; and under the third, the -occupation of houses,[16] the services of domestics, the carrying of -letters by the Post Office, transport and travelling, and the defences -and administration of the country. In other words, the first class -consists of new perishable goods, the second of new durable goods, and -the third not of goods at all, but of services and uses. The relative -amounts of value of the three will be shown with sufficient accuracy by -the following rough estimates. - -Of a total of _eleven hundred and seventy million pounds_, perishable -goods count for _five hundred and twenty million pounds_, durable goods -and chattels for _two hundred and fifty million pounds_, and services -and uses for _four hundred million pounds_. Thus, less than a quarter -of what we call the national income consists of material things which -we can keep and collect about us; little less than half consists of -material things which are only produced to perish, and perish almost -as fast as they are made; and more than a third consists of actions -and services which are not material at all, and pass away and renew -themselves even faster than food and fuel. - - [Sidenote ◆1 A large part of the national income consists of - things that are imported.] - - [Sidenote ◆2 Most of our food is imported.] - -◆¹ This is how the national income appears, as seen from one point -of view. Let us change our ground, and see how it appears to us from -another. We shall see the uses and the services—to the value of -_four hundred million pounds_—still grouped apart as before. But the -remaining elements, representing nearly _eight hundred million pounds_, -and consisting of durable and perishable material things, we shall -see dividing itself in an entirely new way—into material things made -at home, and material things imported. We shall see that the imported -things come to very nearly half;[17] and we shall see further that -amongst these imported things food forms incomparably the largest -item. But the significance of this fact is not fully apparent till we -consider what is the total amount of food consumed by us; and when we -do that, we shall see that, exclusive of alcoholic drinks, actually -more than half come to us from other countries.[18] The reader perhaps -may think that this imported portion consists largely of luxuries, -which, on occasion, we could do without. If he does think so, let him -confine his attention to those articles which are most necessary, and -most universally consumed—namely bread, meat, tea, coffee, and sugar—◆² -and he will see that our imports are to our home produce as _ninety_ to -_seventy-three_. If we strike out the last three, our position is still -more startling;[19] and most startling if we confine ourselves to the -prime necessary—bread. The imported wheat is to the home-grown wheat -as _twenty-six_ to _twelve_: that is to say, of the population of this -kingdom _twenty-six millions_ subsist on wheat that is imported, and -only _twelve millions_ on wheat that is grown at home; or, to put the -matter in a slightly different way, we all subsist on imported wheat -for eight months of the year. - - [Sidenote ◆1 Thus the national income is a product of infinite - complexity.] - -◆¹ And now let the reader reflect on what all this means. It means that -of the material part of the national income half consists, not of goods -which we ourselves produce, but of foreign goods which are exchanged -for them; and are exchanged for them only because, by means of the most -far-reaching knowledge, and the most delicate adaptation of skill, we -are able to produce goods fitted to the wants and tastes of distant -nations and communities, many of which are to most of us hardly even -known by name. On every workman’s breakfast-table is a meeting of all -the continents and of all the zones; and they are united there by a -thousand processes that never pause for a moment, and thoughts and -energies that never for a moment sleep. - - [Sidenote ◆1 Its amount also varies owing to infinitely - complicated causes,] - -◆¹ A consideration of these facts will be enough to bring home to -anybody the accuracy of the simile of which I made use just now, when -I compared the income of the nation to the column thrown up by a -fountain. He will see how, like such a column, it is a constant stream -of particles, taking its motion from a variety of complicated forces, -and how it is a phenomenon of force quite as much as a phenomenon of -matter. He will see that it is a living thing, not a dead thing: and -that it can no more be distributed by any mechanical division of it, -than the labour of a man can be distributed by cutting his limbs to -pieces. - -This simile of the fountain, though accurate, is, like most similes, -incomplete. It will, however, serve to introduce us to one peculiarity -more by which our national income is distinguished, and which has an -even greater significance than any we have yet dealt with. - -In figuring the national income as the water thrown up by a fountain, -we of course suppose its estimated amount or value to be represented -by the volume of the water and the height to which it is thrown. What -I am anxious now to impress on the attention of the reader is that the -height and volume of our national fountain of riches are never quite -the same from one year to another; whilst we need not extend our view -beyond the limits of one generation to see that they have varied in -the most astonishing manner. The height and volume of the fountain are -now very nearly double what they were when Mr. Gladstone was in Lord -Aberdeen’s Ministry.[20] - - [Sidenote ◆1 Which are quite independent of the growth of - population;] - -◆¹ Some readers will perhaps be tempted to say that in this there is -nothing wonderful, for it is due to the increase of population. But the -increase of population has nothing to do with the matter. It cannot -have anything to do with what I am now stating. For when I say that -within a certain period the income of the nation has doubled itself, -I mean that it has doubled itself in proportion to the population; so -that, no matter how many more millions of people there may be in the -country now than there were at the beginning of the period in question, -there is annually produced for each million of people now nearly -twice the income that was produced for each million of people then. -Or in other words, an equal division now would give each man nearly -double the amount that it would have given him when Mr. Gladstone was -beginning to be middle-aged. - - [Sidenote ◆1 As we may see by comparing the income of this country - with the income of others.] - -◆¹ But we must not be content with comparing our national income with -itself. Let us compare it also with the incomes of other countries; -and let it in all cases be understood that the comparison is between -the income as related to the respective populations, and not between -the absolute totals. We will begin with France. It is estimated -that, within the last hundred and ten years, the income of France -has, relatively to the population, increased more than fourfold. A -division of the income in 1780 would have given _six pounds_ a head to -everybody: a similar division now would give everybody _twenty-seven -pounds_. And yet the income of France, after all this rapid growth, -is to-day twenty-one per cent less than that of the United Kingdom. -Other comparisons we shall find even more striking. Relatively to the -respective populations, the income of the United Kingdom exceeds that -of Norway in the proportion of _thirty-four_ to _twenty_; that of -Switzerland, in the proportion of _thirty-four_ to _nineteen_; that -of Italy, in the proportion of _thirty-four_ to _twelve_; and that of -Russia, in the proportion of _thirty-four_ to _eleven_. The comparison -with Italy and Russia brings to light a remarkable fact. Were all the -property of the upper classes in those countries confiscated, and the -entire incomes distributed in equal shares, the share of each Russian -would be fifty per cent less, and of each Italian forty per cent less -than what each inhabitant of the United Kingdom would receive from a -division of the income of its wage-earning classes only. - -We find, therefore, that if we take equal populations of -men,—populations, let us say, of a million men each,—either belonging -to the same nation at different dates, or to different civilised -nations at the same date, that the incomes produced by no two of them -reach to the same amount; but that, on the contrary, the differences -between the largest income and the others range from twenty to two -hundred per cent. - - [Sidenote ◆1 The causes of these differences in income are not - differences of race,] - -◆¹ Now what is the reason of this? Perhaps it will be said that -differences of race are the reason. That may explain a little, but -it will not explain much; for these differences between the incomes -produced by equal bodies of men are not observable only when men are of -different races; but the most striking examples,—namely, those afforded -by our own country and France—are differences between the incomes -produced by the same race during different decades—by the same race, -and by many of the same individuals. - - [Sidenote ◆1 Nor of soil or climate,] - -◆¹ Perhaps then it will be said that they are due to differences of -soil and climate. But again, that will not explain the differences, at -various dates, between the incomes of the same countries; and though -it may explain a little, it will not explain much, of the differences -at the same date between the incomes of different countries. The soil -and climate, for instance, of the United Kingdom, are not in themselves -more suited for agriculture than the soil and climate of France and -Belgium; and yet for each individual actually engaged in agriculture, -this country produces in value twenty-five per cent more than France, -and forty per cent more than Belgium. I may add that it produces -forty-six per cent more than Germany, sixty-six per cent more than -Austria, and sixty per cent more than Italy.[21] - - [Sidenote ◆1 Nor of hours of labour,] - -◆¹ Perhaps then a third explanation will be suggested. These -differences will be said to be due to differences in the hours of -labour. But a moment’s consideration will show that that has nothing to -do with the problem; for when a million people in this country produced -half what they produce to-day, they had fewer holidays, and they worked -longer hours. Now that they have doubled the annual produce, they take -practically four weeks less in producing it.[22] Again, the hours of -labour for the manufacturing classes are in Switzerland twenty-six -per cent longer at the present time than in this country; and yet -the annual product, in proportion to the number of operatives, is -twenty-eight per cent less.[23] - -Agriculture gives us examples of the same discrepancy between the -labour expended and the value of the result obtained. In France, the -agricultural population is three times what it is in this country, but -the value of the agricultural produce is not so much as double.[24] - - [Sidenote ◆1 But are causes of some other kind which lie below the - surface,] - -Plainly, therefore, the growth of a nation’s income, under modern -conditions, does not depend on an increased expenditure of labour. -There might, indeed, seem some ground for leaping to the contrary -conclusion—that it grows in proportion as the hours of labour -are limited: but whatever incidental truth there may be in that -contention, it does not explain the main facts we are dealing with; for -some of the most rapid changes in the incomes of nations we find have -occurred during periods when the hours of labour remained unaltered; -and we find at the present moment that countries in which the hours of -labour are the same, differ even more, in point of income, from one -another than they differ from countries in which the hours of labour -are different. ◆¹ Whatever, therefore, the causes of such differences -may be, they are not simple and superficial causes like these. - - [Sidenote ◆1 And which requires to be carefully searched for.] - -I have alluded to the incomes of foreign countries only for the sake -of throwing more light on the income of our own. Let us again turn -to that. Half of that income, as we have seen, consists to-day of an -annual product new since the time when men still in their prime were -children; and this mysterious addition to our wealth has rapidly and -silently developed itself, without one person in a thousand being -aware of its extent, or realising the operation of any new forces that -might account for it. Let people of middle age look back to their own -childhood; and the England of that time, in aspects and modes of life, -will not seem to them very different from what it seems now. Let them -turn over a book of John Leech’s sketches, which appeared in _Punch_ -about the time of the first Exhibition; and, putting aside a few -changes in feminine fashion, they will see a faithful representation -of the life that still surrounds them. The street, the drawing-room, -the hunting-field, the railway-station—nothing will be obsolete, -nothing out-of-date. Nothing will suggest that since these sketches -were made any perceptible change has come over the conditions of our -civilisation. And yet, somehow or other, some changes have taken place, -owing to which our income has nearly doubled itself. ◆¹ In other words, -the existence of one-half of our wealth is due to causes, the nature, -the presence, and the operation of which, are hidden so completely -beneath the surface of life as to escape altogether the eye of ordinary -observation, and reveal themselves only to careful and deliberate -search. - - [Sidenote ◆1 For, unless we understand the causes which have made - our national income grow, we may, by interfering with - them unknowingly, make our income decrease:] - -◆¹ The practical moral of all this is obvious: that just as our income -has doubled itself without our being aware of the causes, and almost -without our being aware of the fact, so unless we learn what the causes -are, and are consequently able to secure for them fair play, or, at all -events, to avoid interfering with their operation, we may lose what we -have gained even more quickly than we have gained it, and annihilate -the larger part of what we are desirous to distribute. We have seen -that the national income is a living thing; and, as is the case with -other living things, the principles of its growth reside in parts of -the body which are themselves not sensitive to pain, but which may for -the moment be deranged and injured with impunity, and will betray their -injury only by results which arise afterwards, and which may not be -perceived till it is too late to remedy them. - - [Sidenote ◆1 And this is the danger of reckless social - legislation.] - -◆¹ Here lies the danger of reckless social legislation, and even of -the reckless formation of vague public opinion; for public opinion, in -a democratic country like ours, is legislation in its nebular stage: -and hence the only way to avert this danger is, first to do what we -have just now been doing,—to consider the amount and character of the -wealth with which we have to deal,—and secondly, to examine the causes -to which the production of this wealth has been due, and on which the -maintenance of its continued production must depend. - - [Sidenote ◆1 We will therefore, in the following Book, examine - what these causes are.] - -◆¹ Let the social reformer lay the following reflections to his heart. -Some of the more ardent and hopeful of the leaders of the Labour -Party to-day imagine that considerable changes in the distribution of -the national income may be brought about by the close of the present -century. In other words, they prophesy that the Government will seven -years hence do certain things with that year’s national income. But -the national income of that year is not yet in existence; and what -grounds have those sanguine persons for thinking that when it is -produced it will be as large, or even half as large, as the national -income is to-day? What grounds have they for believing that, if the -working-classes then take everything, they will be as rich as they are -now when they take only a part? The only ground on which such a belief -can be justified is the implied belief that the same conditions and -forces which have swelled the national income to its present vast -amount, will still continue in undisturbed operation. - -We will now proceed to consider what these conditions and forces are. - - - ——————————————————————————————————————————————————————— - - - - - BOOK II - - THE CHIEF FACTOR IN THE PRODUCTION - OF THE NATIONAL INCOME - - - - - ——————————————————————————————————————————————————————— - - - - - CHAPTER I - - _Of the various Factors in Production, and how to - distinguish the Amount produced by each._ - - -The inquiry on which we are entering really comprises two. I will -explain how. - -Although, as we have seen, of the yearly income of the nation a part -only consists of material things, yet the remainder depends upon these, -and its amount is necessarily in proportion to them. Accordingly, when -we are dealing with the question of how the income is produced, we may -represent the whole of it as a great heap of commodities, which every -year disappears, and is every year replaced by a new one. Here then we -have a heap of commodities on one side, and on the other the subjects -of our inquiry—namely, the conditions and forces which produce that -heap. - - [Sidenote ◆1 Land, Capital, and Human Exertion are the three - factors in production; but at present we may omit - Capital.] - -Now, as to what these conditions and forces are, there is a familiar -answer ready for us—◆¹ Land, Labour, and Capital; and, with a certain -reservation, we may take this to be true. But as Capital is itself the -result of Land and Labour, we need not, for the moment, treat Capital -separately; but we may say that the heap is produced by Land and Labour -simply. I use this formula, however, only for the purpose of amending -it. It will be better, for reasons with which I shall deal presently, -instead of the term Labour to use the term Human Exertion. And further, -we must remember this—the heap of commodities we have in view is no -mere abstraction, but represents the income of this country at some -definite date; so that when we are talking of the forces and conditions -that have produced it, we mean not only Human Exertion and Land, but -Human Exertion of a certain definite amount applied to Land of a -definite extent and quality. - - [Sidenote ◆1 The first point we notice is that the exertion of the - same number of men applied to the same land does not - always produce the same amount of wealth.] - - [Sidenote ◆2 This must be due to some varying element in the Human - Exertion in question.] - - [Sidenote ◆3 Let us compare production in this country 100 years - ago with production now.] - -◆¹ Now, as I pointed out in the last Book, one of the most remarkable -things about our national production of commodities, is that the yearly -exertion of the same number of men, applied to land of the same extent -and quality, has been far from producing always a heap of the same -size. On the contrary, the heap which it produces to-day is twice as -large as that which it produced in the days of our fathers; and nearly -three times as large as that which it produced in the days of our -grandfathers. Here then is the reason why the inquiry that is before -us is twofold. For we have at first to take some one of such heaps -singly—on several accounts it will be convenient to take the smallest, -namely that produced about a hundred years ago—and to analyse the parts -which Land and Human Exertion played respectively in the production of -_it_. Then, having seen how Land and Human Exertion produced in the -days of our grandfathers a heap of this special size, we must proceed -to inquire why three generations later the same land and the exertions -of a similar number of men produce a heap which is nearly three times -as large. For the difference of result cannot be due to nothing. ◆² -It must be due to some difference in one of the two causes—to the -presence in this cause of some varying element: and it is precisely -here—here in this varying element—that the main interest of our inquiry -centres. For if it is owing to a variation in this element that our -productive powers have nearly trebled themselves in the course of -three generations, nearly two-thirds of the income which the nation -enjoys at present depends on the present condition of this element -being maintained, and not being suffered—as it very easily might be—to -again become what it was three generations back. ◆³ Let us begin then -with taking the amount of commodities produced in this country at the -end of the last century, which is at once the most convenient and the -most natural period to select; for production was then entering on its -present stage of development, and its course from then till now is more -or less familiar to us all. - -We will start therefore with the fact that, about a hundred years ago, -our national income, if divided equally amongst the inhabitants of -the kingdom, would have yielded to each inhabitant a share of about -_fourteen pounds_; so that if we confine ourselves to Great Britain, -the population of which was then about _ten millions_, we have a -national income of _a hundred and forty million pounds_, or a heap of -commodities produced every year to an amount that is indicated by that -money value. Let us take then any one of the closing years of the last -century, and consider for a moment the causes at work in this island to -which the production of such a heap of commodities was due. - -In general language, these causes have been described already as Human -Exertion of a certain definite amount applied to Land of a certain -definite extent and quality; but it will now be well to restore to -its traditional place the accumulated result of past exertion—namely -Capital, and to think of it as a separate cause, according to the usual -practice. For everybody knows that at the close of the last century, -many sorts of machinery, and stores of all sorts of necessaries, were -made and accumulated to assist and maintain Labour; and it is of such -things that Capital principally consists. The Capital of Great Britain -was at that time about _sixteen hundred million pounds_.[25] We will -accordingly say that about a hundred years ago, the Land of this -island, the Capital of this island, and the Exertions of a population -of _ten million_ people produced together, every twelve months, a heap -of commodities worth _a hundred and forty million pounds_. We need -not, however, dwell, till later, on these details. For the present our -national production at this particular period may be taken to represent -the production of wealth generally. - - [Sidenote ◆1 How much in each case did Land, Capital, and Human - Exertion produce respectively?] - -◆¹ Now the question, let it be remembered, with which we are concerned -ultimately, is how wealth, as produced in the modern world, may be -distributed. Accordingly, since the distribution of it presupposes its -production, and since we are agreed generally as to what the causes of -its production are,—namely, Land, Capital, and Human Exertion,—our next -great step is to inquire what proportion of the product is to be set -down as due to each of these causes separately; for it is by this means -only that we can see how and to what extent our social arrangements -may be changed, without our production being diminished. And I cannot -introduce the subject in a better way than by quoting the following -passage from John Stuart Mill, in which he declares such an inquiry to -be both meaningless and impossible to answer; for that it _can_ be -answered, and that it is full of meaning, and that to ask and answer it -is a practical and fundamental necessity, will be made all the plainer -by the absurdity of Mill’s denial. - - [Sidenote ◆1 Mill declares this question to be meaningless;] - - [Sidenote ◆2 But his argument is answered, and is refuted both by - practical life and by his own writings.] - -◆¹ “Some writers,” he says, “have raised the question whether Nature -(or, in the language of economics, Land) gives more assistance to -Labour in one kind of industry or another, and have said that in some -occupations Labour does most; in others, Nature most. In this, however, -there seems much confusion of ideas. The part which Nature has in any -work of man is indefinite and immeasurable. It is impossible to decide -that in any one thing Nature does more than in any other. One cannot -even say that Labour does less. Less Labour may be required; but if -that which is required is absolutely indispensable, the result is just -as much the product of Labour as of Nature. When two conditions are -equally necessary for producing the effect at all, it is unmeaning to -say that so much of it is produced by one and so much by the other. -It is like attempting to decide which half of a pair of scissors has -most to do with the act of cutting; or, which of the factors—five or -six—has most to do with the production of thirty.” So writes Mill in -the first chapter of his _Principles of Political Economy_; and if what -he says is true with regard to Land and Labour (or, as we are calling -it, Human Exertion), it is equally true with regard to Human Exertion -and Capital; for without Human Exertion, Capital could produce nothing, -and without Capital modern industry would be impossible: and thus, -according to Mill’s argument, we cannot assign to either of them a -specific portion of the product. ◆² But Mill’s argument is altogether -unsound; and the actual facts of life, and a large part of Mill’s own -book, little as he perceived that it was so, are virtually a complete -refutation of it. - -To understand this, the reader need only reflect on those three -principal and familiar parts into which the annual income of every -civilised nation is divided, not only in actual practice, but -theoretically by Mill himself—namely Rent, Interest, and Wages.[26] -For these—what are they? The answer is very simple. They are portions -of the income which correspond, at all events in theory, to the amounts -produced respectively by Land, Capital, and Human Exertion; and which -are on that account distributed amongst three sets of men—those who own -the Land, those who own the Capital, and those who have contributed -the Exertion. There are many causes which in practice may prevent the -correspondence being complete; but that the general way in which the -income is actually distributed is based on the amount produced by these -three things respectively,—Land, Capital, and Human Exertion,—is a fact -which no one can doubt who has once taken the trouble to consider it. -It is thus perfectly clear that, contrary to what Mill says, though two -or more agencies may be equally indispensable to the production of any -wealth at all, it is not only not “unmeaning to say that so much is -produced by one and so much by the other,” but it is possible to make -the calculation with practical certainty and precision; and I will now -proceed to explain the principles on which it is made. - - - - - CHAPTER II - - _How the Product of Land is to be distinguished from - the Product of Human Exertion._ - - -The question before us will be most easily understood if we begin -with once again waiving any consideration of Capital, and if we deal -only with what Mill, in the passage just quoted, calls “Nature and -Labour”—or, in other words, with Land and Human Exertion. We will -also, for simplicity’s sake, confine ourselves to one use of land—its -primary and most important use, namely its use in agriculture or -food-production. - - [Sidenote ◆1 Rent is the proportion of the produce produced not by - Human Exertion, but by the Land itself;] - -◆¹ Now a British tenant-farmer who lives solely by his farming -obviously derives his whole income from the produce of the soil he -occupies; but the whole of this produce does not go to himself. Part is -paid away in the form of rent to his landlord, and part in the form -of wages to his labourers. We may however suppose, without altering -the situation, that he has no labourers under him—that he is his own -labourer as well as his own manager, and that the whole of the produce -that is not set aside as rent goes to himself as the wages of his own -exertion. The point on which I am going to insist is this—that whilst -the exertion has produced the product that is taken as wages, the -soil—or to speak more accurately—a certain quality in the soil has just -as truly produced the produce that goes in rent—in fact that “Nature -and Labour, though equally necessary for producing the effect at all,” -each produce respectively a certain definite part of it. - - [Sidenote ◆1 As will be shown in this chapter by reference to the - universally accepted theory of Rent.] - -◆¹ In order to prove this it will be enough to make really clear to -the reader the explanation of rent which is given by all economists—an -explanation in which men of the most opposite schools agree—men like -Ricardo, and men like Mr. Henry George; and of which Mill himself -is one of the most illustrious exponents. I shall myself attempt to -add nothing new to it, except a greater simplicity of statement and -illustration, and a special stress on a certain part of its meaning, -the importance of which has been hitherto disregarded. - -Now, as we are going to take the industry of agriculture for our -example, we shall mean by rent a portion of the agricultural products -derived from Human Exertion applied to a given tract of soil. Of such -products let us take corn, and use it, for simplicity’s sake, as -representing all the rest; and that being settled, let us go yet a -step further; and, for simplicity’s sake also, let us represent corn -by bread; and imagine that loaves develop themselves in the soil like -potatoes, and, when the ground is properly tilled, are dug up ready -for consumption. We shall figure rent therefore as a certain number -of loaves that are dug up from a given tract of soil. Now everybody -knows that all soils are not equally good. That there is good land and -that there is poor land is a fact quite familiar even to people who -have never spent a single day in the country. And this means, if we -continue the above supposition, that different fields of precisely the -same size, cultivated by similar men and with the same expenditure of -exertion, will yield to their respective cultivators different numbers -of loaves. - - [Sidenote ◆1 We will illustrate this by the case of three men of - equal power tilling three fields of unequal fertility.] - -◆¹ Let us take an example. Tom, Dick, and Harry, we will say, are three -brothers, who have each inherited a field of twelve acres. They are all -equally strong, and equally industrious: we may suppose, in fact, that -they all came into the world together, and are as like one another as -three Enfield rifles. Each works in his field for the same time every -day, digs up as many loaves as he can, and every evening brings them -home in a basket. But when they come to compare the number that has -been dug up by each, Tom always finds that he has fifteen loaves, Dick -that he has twelve, and Harry that he has only nine; the reason being -that in the field owned by Harry fewer loaves develop themselves than -in the fields owned by Tom and Dick. Harry digs up fewer, because there -are fewer to dig up. Let us consider Harry’s case first. - - [Sidenote ◆1 Labour must be held to produce so much as is - absolutely necessary for its own support.] - -◆¹ Each of the loaves is, we will say, worth fourpence; therefore -Harry, with his nine loaves, makes three shillings a day, or eighteen -shillings a week. This is just enough to support him, according to the -ideas and habits of his class. If his field were such that it yielded -him fewer loaves, or if he had to give even one of the loaves away, -the field would be useless; it would not be cultivated at all, either -by him, or by anybody, nor could it be; for the entire produce, which -would then go to the cultivator, would not be enough to induce, or -perhaps even to make him able, to cultivate it. But, as matters stand, -so long as the entire produce does go to him, and to no one else, we -must take it for granted that his exertion and his field between them -yield him a livelihood which, according to his habits, is sufficient; -for otherwise, as I have said, this field neither would nor could be -cultivated. And it will be well here to make the general observation -that whenever we find a class of men cultivating the utmost area of -land which their strength permits, and taking for themselves the entire -produce, their condition offers the highest standard of living that -can possibly be general amongst peasant cultivators: from which it -follows that, unless no land is cultivated except the best, the general -standard of living must necessarily require less than the entire -produce which the best land will yield. We assume then that Harry, -with his nine loaves a day, represents the highest standard of living -that is, or that can be, general amongst his class. - -And now let us turn from Harry’s case to the case of Tom and Dick. They -have been accustomed to precisely the same standard of living as he has -been; and they require for their support precisely the same amount of -produce. But each day, after they have all of them fared alike, each -taking the same quantity from his own particular basket, the baskets -of Tom and Dick present a different appearance to that of Harry. There -is in each of the two first a something which is not to be found in -his. There is a surplus. In Dick’s basket there are three extra loaves -remaining; and in Tom’s basket there are six. To what then is the -production of these extra loaves due? Is it due to land, or is it due -to the exertions of Tom and Dick? Mill, as we have seen, would tell us -that this was an unmeaning question; but we shall soon see that it is -not so. - - [Sidenote ◆1 But whatever is beyond this is the product not of - Labour, but of Land;] - -It is perfectly true that it would be an unmeaning question if we -had to do with one of the brothers only—say with Harry, and only -with Harry’s field. Then, no doubt, it would be impossible to say -which produced most—Harry or the furrows tilled by him,—whether Harry -produced two loaves and the furrows seven, or Harry seven and the -furrows two. And as to Harry’s case more must be said than this. Such -a calculation with regard to it would be not only impossible, but -useless; for even if we convinced ourselves that the land produced -seven loaves, and Harry’s exertion only two, all the loaves would -still of necessity go to Harry. In a case like this, therefore, it is -quite sufficient to take account of Human Exertion only. Agricultural -labour, in fact, must be held to produce whatever product is necessary -for the customary maintenance of the labourer. ◆¹ But if this is the -entire product obtained from the worst soil cultivated, it cannot be -the entire product obtained from the best soil; and the moment we have -to deal with a second field,—a field which is of a different quality, -and which, although it is of exactly the same size, and is cultivated -every day with precisely similar labour, yields to that labour a -larger number of loaves,—twelve loaves, or fifteen loaves, instead of -nine,—then our position altogether changes. We are not only able, but -obliged to consider Land as well as Labour, and to discriminate between -their respective products. A calculation which was before as unmeaning -as Mill declares it to be, not only becomes intelligible, but is forced -on us. - - [Sidenote ◆1 As we shall see by comparing the case of the man - tilling the best field with that of the man tilling the - worst.] - -◆¹ For if we start with the generalisation derived from Harry’s case, -or any other case in which the land is of a similar quality that one -man’s labour produces nine loaves daily, and then find that Tom and -Dick, for the same amount of labour, are rewarded respectively by -fifteen loaves or by twelve, we have six extra loaves in one case, -and three in the other, which cannot have been produced by Labour, -and which yet must have been produced by something. They cannot have -been produced by Labour; for the very assumption with which we start -is that the Labour is the same in the last two cases as in the first; -and according to all common-sense and all logical reasoning, the same -cause cannot produce two different results. When results differ, the -cause of the difference must be sought in some cause that varies, not -a cause that remains the same; and the only cause that here varies -is the Land. Accordingly, just as in Harry’s case we are neither able -nor concerned to credit the Land with any special part, or indeed any -part, of the product, but say that all the nine loaves are produced by -Harry’s Labour, so too in the case of Tom and Dick we credit Labour -with a precisely similar number; but all loaves beyond that number -we credit not to their Labour, but to their Land—or, to speak more -accurately, to certain qualities which their Land possesses, and which -are not possessed by Harry’s. In Dick’s case these superior qualities -produce three loaves; in Harry’s case, they produce six. - - [Sidenote ◆1 The men themselves would be the first to understand - this.] - -If any one doubts that such is the case, let him imagine our three -brothers beginning to quarrel amongst themselves, and Tom and Dick -boasting that they were better men than Harry, on the ground that they -always brought home more loaves than he. Every one can see what Harry’s -retort would be, and see also that it is unanswerable. ◆¹ Of course he -would say, “I am as good a man as either of you, and my labour produces -quite as much as yours. Let us only change fields, and you will see -that soon enough. Let Tom take mine, and let me take his, and I then -will bring home fifteen loaves; and he, work as he may, will only -bring home nine. It is your b——y land that produces more than mine, -not you that produce more than I; and if you deny it, stand out you -——s and I’ll fight you.” We may also appeal to one of the commonest -of our common phrases, in which Harry’s supposed contention is every -day reiterated. If a farmer is transferred from a bad farm to a good -one, and the product of his farming is thereby increased, as it will -be, everybody will say, “The good farm _makes_ all the difference.” -This is merely another way of saying, the superior qualities in the -soil _produce_ all the increase, or—to continue our illustration—the -increased number of loaves. - -And all the world is not only asserting this truth every day, but is -also acting on it; for these extra loaves, produced by the qualities -peculiar to superior soils, are neither more nor less than Rent. Rent -is the amount of produce which a given amount of exertion obtains -from rich land, beyond what it obtains from poor land. Such is the -account of rent in which all economists agree; indeed, when once it is -understood, the truth of it is self-evident. Mr. Henry George’s entire -doctrines are built on it; whilst Mill calls it the _pons asinorum_ of -economics. I have added nothing in the above statement of it to what is -stated by all economists, except weight and emphasis to a truth which -they do not so much state as imply, and whose importance they seem to -have overlooked. This truth is like a note on a piano, which they have -all of them sounded lightly amongst other notes. I have sounded it -by itself, and have emphasised it with the loud pedal—the truth that -rent is for all practical purposes not the product of Land and Human -Exertion combined, but the product of Land solely, as separate from -Human Exertion and distinct from it. - - [Sidenote ◆1 The above doctrine of Rent is not a landlord’s - doctrine. It would hold true of a Socialistic State as - well as of any other.] - -◆¹ And here let me pause for a moment to point out a fact which, though -it illustrates the above truth further, I should not mention here if -it were not for the following reason. Rent forms the subject of so -much social and party prejudice that what I have just been urging may -be received by certain readers with suspicion, and regarded as some -special pleading on behalf of landlords. I wish therefore to point -out clearly that the existence of rent and the payment of rent is -not peculiar to our existing system of landlordism. Rent must arise, -under any social arrangement, from all soils which are better than the -poorest soil cultivated: it must be necessarily paid to somebody; and -that somebody must necessarily be the owner. If a peer or a squire is -the owner, it is paid to the peer or squire; if the cultivator is the -owner, the cultivator pays it to himself; if the land were nationalised -and the State were to become the owner, the cultivator would have to -pay it away to the State. - - [Sidenote ◆1 It is easy to see how Rent arises, under any - conditions, from all superior soils.] - -◆¹ In order that the reader may fully realise this, let us go back to -our three brothers, of whom the only two who paid rent at all, paid -it, according to our supposition, to themselves; and let us imagine -that Harry—the brother who pays no rent to anybody, because his field -produces none, has a sweetheart who lives close to Tom’s field, or -who sits and sucks blackberries all day in its hedge; and that Harry -is thus anxious to exchange fields with Tom, in order that he may be -cheered at his work by the smiles of the beloved object. Now if Tom -were to assent to Harry’s wishes without making any conditions, he -would be not only humouring the desire of Harry’s heart, but he would -be making him a present of six loaves daily; and this, we may assume, -he certainly would not do; nor would Harry, if he knew anything of -human nature, expect or even ask him to do so. If Tom, however, were on -good terms with his brother, he might quite conceivably be willing to -meet his wishes, could it be but arranged that he should be no loser -by doing so; and this could be accomplished in one way only—namely, -by arranging that, since Harry would gain six loaves each day by -the exchange, and Tom would lose them, Harry should send these six -loaves every day to Tom; and thus, whilst Harry was a gainer from a -sentimental point of view, the material circumstances of both of them -would remain what they were before. Or we may put the arrangement -in more familiar terms. The loaves in question we have supposed to -be worth fourpence each; so we may assume that instead of actually -sending the loaves, Harry sends his brother two shillings a day, or -twelve shillings a week, or thirty pounds a year. Tom’s field, as we -have said, is twelve acres; therefore, Harry pays him a rent of fifty -shillings an acre. And Tom’s case is the case of every landlord, no -matter whether the landlord is a private person or the State—a peer who -lets his land, a peasant like Tom who cultivates it, or a State which -allows the individual to occupy but not to own it. Rent represents an -advantage which is naturally inherent in certain soils; and whoever -owns this advantage—either the State or the private person—must of -necessity either take the rent, or else make a present of it to certain -favoured individuals. - -It should further be pointed out that this doctrine of Rent, though -putting so strict a limit on the product that can be assigned to -Labour, interferes with no view that the most ardent Socialist or -Radical may entertain with regard to the moral rights of the labourer. -If any one contends that the men who labour on the land, and who pay -away part of the produce as rent to other persons, ought by rights to -retain the whole produce for themselves, he is perfectly at liberty to -do so, for anything that has been urged here. For the real meaning -of such a contention is, not that the labourers do not already keep -everything that is produced by their labour, but that they ought to -own their land instead of hiring it, and so keep everything that is -produced by the land as well. - - [Sidenote ◆1 The doctrine of Rent is the fundamental example of - the reasoning by which to each agent in production a - definite portion of the product is attributed.] - -This doctrine of Rent, then, which I have tried to make absolutely -clear, involves no special pleading on behalf either of landlord or -tenant, of rich or poor. It can be used with equal effect by Tory, -Radical, or Socialist, and it would be as true of a Socialistic State -as it is of any other. I have insisted on it here for one reason only. -◆¹ It illustrates, and is the fundamental example of, the following -great principle—that in all cases where Human Exertion is applied to -Land which yields only enough wealth to maintain the man exerting -himself, practical logic compels us to attribute the entire product to -his exertion, and to take the assumption that his exertion produces -this much as our starting-point. But in all other cases—that is to say -in all cases where the same exertion results in an increased product, -we attribute the increase—we attribute the added product—not to Human -Exertion, which is present equally in both cases, but to some cause -which is present in the second case, and was not present in the first: -that is to say, to some superior quality in the soil. - -And now let us put this in a more general form. When two or more -causes produce a given amount of wealth, and when the same causes with -some other cause added to them produce a greater amount, the excess -of the last amount over the first is produced by the added cause; or -conversely, the added cause produces precisely that proportion of the -total by which the total would be diminished if the added cause were -withdrawn. - -It is on this principle that the whole reasoning in the present book is -based; and having seen how it enables us to discriminate between the -amounts of wealth produced respectively by Human Exertion and Land, let -us go on to see how it will enable us likewise to discriminate what is -produced by Capital. - - - - - CHAPTER III - - _Of the Products of Machinery or Fixed Capital, as distinguished - from the Products of Human Exertion._ - - - [Sidenote ◆1 To understand how much of the gross product is made - by Capital, it will be well to turn from agriculture to - manufactures;] - - [Sidenote ◆2 As Capital plays in manufactures a more obvious part.] - -◆¹ Land, which in economics means everything that the earth produces -and the areas it offers for habitation, is of course in a sense at -the bottom of every industry. But if we wish to understand the case -of Capital, it will be well to turn from agriculture to industry of -another kind; the reason being that the part which Capital plays in -agriculture is not only, comparatively speaking, small, but is also a -part which, when we are first approaching the subject, is comparatively -ill fitted for purposes of illustration. ◆² What is best fitted for -the purpose of illustration is Capital applied to manufactures; and it -is best at first not to consider all such Capital, but to confine our -attention to one particular part of it. I must explain to the reader -exactly what I mean. - - [Sidenote ◆1 Capital, when actually employed, is of two kinds:] - - [Sidenote ◆2 Fixed Capital, such as plant and machinery; and Wage - Capital.] - - [Sidenote ◆3 The Capital embodied in machinery is what, for our - present purpose, we must first consider.] - -◆¹ People constantly speak of Capital as being a sensitive thing—a -movable thing—a thing that is easily driven away—that can be -transferred from one place to another by a mere stroke of the pen. -We all of us know the phrases. But though they express a truth, it -is partial truth only. Capital before it is employed, when it is -lying, let us say, in a bank, to the credit of a Company that has not -yet begun operations—Capital, under such circumstances, is no doubt -altogether movable; for before it is employed it exists as credit only. -◆² But the moment it is employed in manufacture, a very considerable -part of it is converted into things that are very far from movable—into -such things as buildings and heavy machinery; and only a part remains -movable—namely that reserved for wages. For example, M’Culloch -estimates that the average cost of a factory is about _one hundred -pounds_ for every operative to be employed in it; whilst the yearly -wages of each adult male would now on the average, be about _sixty -pounds_. Thus, if a factory is started which will employ _one thousand_ -men, and if the wages of all of them have to be paid out of Capital -for a year, the amount reserved for wages will be _sixty thousand -pounds_, whilst _a hundred thousand pounds_ will have been converted -into plant and buildings. Most people are familiar with the names given -by economists to distinguish the two forms into which employed capital -divides itself. The part which is reserved for, and paid in wages, is -called “Circulating Capital”; that which is embodied in buildings and -machinery is called “Fixed Capital.” Of Circulating Capital—or, as we -may call it, Wage Capital—we will speak presently. ◆³ We will speak -at first of Fixed Capital only; and of this we will take the most -essential part, namely machinery; and for convenience sake we will omit -the accidental part, namely buildings, which render merely the passive -service of shelter. - - [Sidenote ◆1 We shall see that machinery adds to the product of - Labour in the same way that a superior soil adds to it;] - -Now in any operation of manufacturing raw material, or—what means the -same thing—conveying raw material, say water or coal or fish, to the -places where they are to be consumed, certain machines or appliances -are necessary to enable the operation to take place well. Thus fish -or coal could hardly be carried without a basket, whilst water could -certainly not be carried without some vessel, nor in many places raised -from its source without a rope and pail. For all purposes therefore of -practical argument and calculation, appliances of these most simple and -indispensable kinds are merged in Human Exertion, just as is the case -with the poorest kind of Land, and are not credited separately with -any portion of the result. We do not say the man raised so much water, -and the rope and the pail so much. We say the man raised the whole. ◆¹ -But the moment we have to deal with appliances of an improved kind, by -which the result is increased, whilst the labour remains the same, the -case of the appliances becomes analogous to that of superior soils; -and a portion of the result can be assigned to them, distinct from the -result of Labour. - - [Sidenote ◆1 As a certain simple instance will show.] - -◆¹ Let us suppose, for instance, that a village gets all its water -from a cistern, to keep which replenished takes the labour of ten men -constantly raising the water by means of pails and ropes, and then -carrying it to the cistern, up a steep wearisome hill. These men, we -will say, receive each _one pound_ a week, the village thus paying -for its water _five hundred pounds_ a year, the whole of which sum -goes in the remuneration of labour. We will suppose, further, that the -amount of water thus obtained is _a thousand_ gallons daily, each man -raising and carrying _a hundred_ gallons; and that this supply, though -sufficient for the necessities of the villagers, is not sufficient for -their comfort. They would gladly have twice that amount; but they are -not able to pay for it. Such is the situation with which we start. We -have _a thousand_ gallons of water supplied daily by the exertion of -ten men, or _a hundred_ gallons by the exertion of each of them. - -And now let us suppose that the village is suddenly presented with a -pumping-engine, having a handle or handles at which five of these men -can work simultaneously, and by means of which they, working no harder -than formerly, can raise twice the amount of water that was formerly -raised by ten men—namely _two thousand_ gallons daily, instead of _one -thousand_. The villagers, therefore, have now _a thousand_ gallons -daily which they did not have before; and to what is the supply of -this extra quantity due? It is not due to Labour. The Labour involved -can produce no more than formerly; indeed it must produce less; for -its quality is unchanged, and it is halved in quantity. Obviously, -then, the extra _thousand_ gallons are due to the pumping-engine, and -this not in a mere theoretical sense, but in the most practical sense -possible; for this extra supply appears in the cistern as soon as the -engine is present, and would cease to appear if the engine were taken -away. - - [Sidenote ◆1 It may be also observed that the added product will - go to the owner of the machine, just as rent goes to the - owner of the land.] - -◆¹ And here let me pause for a moment, as I did when I was discussing -land, to point out a fact which at the present stage of argument has -no logical place, but which should be realised by the reader, in order -to avoid misconception: namely, the fact that the extra water-supply -which is due to the pumping-engine, will necessarily be the property of -whoever owns the engine, just as rent will be the property of whoever -owns the land that yields it. We supposed just now that the owner of -the engine was the village. We supposed that the engine was presented -to it. Consequently the village owned the whole extra _thousand_ -gallons. It had not to pay for them. But let us suppose instead that -the engine was the property of some stranger. Just as necessarily in -that case the gallons would belong to him; and he could command payment -for them, just as if he had carried them to the cistern himself. We -supposed that the village was able to pay _five hundred pounds_ for -its water; and that it really wanted, for its convenience, twice -as much as it could obtain for that sum expended on human labour. -The owner of the pumping-engine, by allowing the village to use it, -doubles the water-supply, and halves the labour bill. The expenditure -on labour sinks from _five hundred pounds_ to _two hundred and fifty -pounds_; and the owner of the pumping-engine can, it is needless to -say, command the _two hundred and fifty pounds_ which is saved to the -village by its use. In actual life, no doubt, the bargain would be -less simple; because in actual life there would be a number of rival -pumping-engines, whose owners would reduce, by competition, the price -of the extra water; but whatever the price might be, the principle -would remain the same. The price or the value of the water would go to -the owner of the engine; and it would fail to do so only if one thing -happened—if the owner refused to receive it, and, for some reason -or other, made the village a free gift of what the village would be -perfectly willing to buy. In this truth there is nothing that makes for -or against Socialism. The real contention of the Socialist is simply -this—not that labour makes what is actually made by machinery; but that -labourers ought to own the machinery, and for that reason appropriate -what is made by it. A machine or engine, in fact, which is used to -assist labour is, in its quality of a producing agent, just as separate -from the labour with which it co-operates, as a donkey, in its quality -of a carrying agent, is distinct from its master, if the master is -walking along carrying one sack of corn, and guiding the donkey who -walks carrying seven. - - [Sidenote ◆1 A machine, then, as a productive agent, is as - distinct from human labour as are the efforts of an - animal.] - -◆¹ And this brings us back into the line of our main argument; the -comparison just made being a very apt and helpful illustration of it. -Every machine may be looked on as a kind of domestic animal, and each -new machine as an animal of some new species; which animals co-operate -with men in the production of certain products: and the point I am -urging on the reader may accordingly be put thus. When a man, or a -number of men, without one of these animals to assist them, produce a -certain amount of some particular product, and with the assistance of -one of these animals produce a much larger amount, the added quantity -is produced not by the men, but by the animal—or, to drop back again -into the language of fact, by the machine. - - [Sidenote ◆1 The history of the cotton industry is a remarkable - illustration of this.] - -◆¹ I have taken an imaginary case of drawing and pumping water, because -the operation is of an exceedingly simple kind. We will now turn from -the imaginary world to the real, and clench what has been said by an -illustration from the history of our own country—and from that period -which at present we specially have in view—namely the close of the last -century. - -From the year 1795 to the year 1800, the amount of cotton manufactured -in this country was on the average about _thirty-seven million pounds_ -weight annually: ten years before it was only _ten million pounds_; -ten years before that, only _four million pounds_; and during the -previous fifty years it had been less than _two and a half million -pounds_. The amount manufactured, up to the end of this last-named -period, was limited by the fact that spinning was a much slower -process than weaving. It was performed by means of an apparatus known -as “the one-thread wheel.” No other spinning-machine existed; and it -was the opinion of experts, about the year 1770, that it would hardly -be possible in the course of the next thirty years, by collecting and -training to the spinning trade every hand that could be secured for -such a purpose, to raise the annual total to so much as _five million -pounds_. As a matter of fact, however, _five million pounds_ were spun -in the year 1776. In six years’ time, the original product had been -doubled. In ten years, it had been more than quadrupled; in twenty -years, it had increased nearly elevenfold; and in five and twenty -years, it had increased fifteenfold.[27] - - [Sidenote ◆1 For every pound of cotton spun by labour, Arkwright’s - machinery spun fourteen pounds.] - -◆¹ To what, then, was this extraordinary increase due? It was due to -the invention and introduction of new spinning machinery—especially to -the machines invented by Hargreaves and Arkwright, and the successive -application of horse-power, water-power, and lastly of steam-power, to -driving them. Previous to the year 1770, such a thing as a cotton-mill -was unknown. During the ten following years, about forty were erected -in Great Britain; in the six years following there were erected a -hundred more; and from that time forward their number increased -rapidly, till they first absorbed, and then more than absorbed, the -whole population that had previously conducted the industry in their -own homes. As we follow the history of the manufacture into the present -century, a large part of the increasing gross produce is to be set down -to the increase in the employed population; but during the twenty-five -years with which we have just been dealing, the number of hands -employed in spinning had not more than doubled,[28] whilst the amount -of cotton manufactured had increased by fifteen hundred per cent. It -is therefore evident that the increase during this period is due almost -entirely, not to human exertion, but to machinery.[29] - - [Sidenote ◆1 The manufacture of iron offers a similar example.] - -◆¹ And next, with more brevity, let us consider the manufacture of -iron. By and by we shall come back to the subject; so it will be enough -here to mention a single fact connected with it. From about the year -1740, when a careful and comprehensive inquiry into the matter was -made, up to the year 1780, the average produce of each smelting furnace -in the country was _two hundred and ninety-four tons_ of iron annually. -Towards the close of this period machinery had been invented by which a -blast was produced of a strength that had been unknown previously; and -in the year 1788, the average product of each of these same furnaces -was _five hundred and ninety-five tons_, or very nearly double what it -had been previously. An extra _two hundred and fifty tons_ was produced -from each furnace annually: and if we attribute the whole of the former -product to human exertion, _two hundred and fifty tons_ at all events -was the product of the new machinery; since if that had been destroyed, -the product, in proportion to the expenditure of exertion, would at -once have sunk back to what it had been forty-eight years earlier. - - [Sidenote ◆1 The products, then, of Capital embodied in machinery - are easily distinguishable from the products of Labour.] - -◆¹ Here, then, we have before us the two principal manufactures of this -country, as they were during the closing years of the last century; and -we have seen that in each a definite portion of the product was due to -a certain kind of capital, as distinct from human exertion—distinct -from human exertion in precisely the same way, as we have already seen -land to be, when we find it producing rent; and we have seen further -that the products both of this kind of Capital and of Land, are to -be distinguished from those of Human Exertion on precisely similar -principles.[30] - - [Sidenote ◆1 In the next chapter we will consider the products of - Wage Capital.] - -◆¹ Machinery, however,—or fixed capital, of which we have taken -machinery as the type,—is only a part of Capital considered as a whole. -We have still to deal with the part that is reserved for and spent in -wages; and this will introduce us to an entirely new subject—a subject -which as yet I have not so much as hinted at—namely human exertion -considered in an entirely new light. - - - - - CHAPTER IV - - _Of the Products of Circulating Capital, or Wage - Capital, as distinguished from the Products - of Human Exertion._ - - - [Sidenote ◆1 Wage Capital enables men to undertake work which will - not support them till a considerable time has elapsed.] - -◆¹ Circulating Capital, or, as it is better to call it, Wage Capital, -is practically a store of those things which wages are used to buy—that -is to say the common necessaries of subsistence. And the primary -function—the simplest and most obvious function—which such Capital -performs is this: it enables men, by supplying them with the means -of living, to undertake long operations, which when completed will -produce much or be of much use, but which until they are completed will -produce nothing and be of no use, and will consequently supply nothing -themselves to the men whilst actually engaged in them. - - [Sidenote ◆1 A tunnel is a good instance of such work.] - -◆¹ Let us imagine, for instance, a tunnel which pierces a range of -mountains, and facilitates communication between two populous cities. -Five hundred navvies, we will say, have to work five years to make it. -Now if two yards of tunnel were made every day, and if each yard could -be used as soon as made, the tolls of passengers would at once yield -a daily revenue which would provide the navvies with subsistence, as -their work proceeded. But as a matter of fact until the last day’s -work is done, and the end of the fifth year sees the piercing of the -mountain completed, the tunnel is as useless as it was when it was -only just begun, and when it was nothing more than a shallow cavity -in a rock. Five years must elapse before a single toll is paid, and -before the tunnel itself supplies a single human being with the means -of providing bread for even a single day. The possibility then of the -tunnel being made at all, depends on the existence of a five-years’ -supply of necessaries, for which indirectly the tunnel will pay -hereafter, but in producing or providing which, it has had no share -whatever. - - [Sidenote ◆1 But the above-mentioned function of Wage Capital is - not its principal function in the modern world.] - -Wage Capital, in fact, imparts to industry the power of waiting for its -own results. This is its simplest, its most obvious, and its primeval -function. ◆¹ It has been the function of such capital from the days -of the earliest civilisations; and it is, indeed, its fundamental -function still: but in the modern world it is far from being its -principal function. I call its principal functions in the modern world -the functions by which during the past century and a quarter it has -produced results so incomparably, and so increasingly greater, than -were ever produced by it in the whole course of preceding ages. - - [Sidenote ◆1 Its principal function now is to enable a few men - of exceptional powers to assist by these powers the - exertions of the ordinary labourers.] - - [Sidenote ◆2 The modern employer in this respect differs from the - ancient.] - - [Sidenote ◆3 Wage Capital in the modern world is the means by - which exceptional intellect is lent to Labour.] - -◆¹ What this function is must be explained very clearly and carefully. -It is not to enable labourers to wait for the results of their labours. -It is to enable the exceptional knowledge, ingenuity, enterprise, and -productive genius of a few men so to animate, to organise, and direct -the average physical exertions of the many, as to improve, to multiply, -or to hasten the results of that exertion without increasing its -quantity. All civilisations, ancient as well as modern, have involved, -in a certain sense, the direction by the few of the many. The temples -and palaces of early Egypt and Assyria, which excite the wonder of -modern engineers and architects by the size of the blocks of stone used -in their astounding structure, are monuments of a control, absolute and -unlimited and masterly, exercised by a few human minds over millions of -human bodies. But in that control, as exercised in the ancient world, -one element was wanting which is the essence of modern industry. When -the masters of ancient labour wished to multiply commodities, or to -secure an increase of power for accomplishing some single work, the -sole means known to them was to increase the number of labourers; and -when one thousand slaves were insufficient, to reinforce them with -(let us say) four thousand more. The masters of modern labour pursue -a new and essentially opposite course. Instead of seeking in such a -case to secure four thousand new labourers, they seek to endow one -thousand with the industrial power of five. ◆² If Nebuchadnezzar had -set himself to tunnel a mountain, he could have hastened the work only -by flogging more slaves to it. The modern contractor, in co-operation -with the modern inventor, instead of flogging labour, would assist it -with tram-lines, trucks, and boring engines. In other words, whereas -in former ages the aim of the employing class was simply to secure the -service of an increasing quantity of labour, the aim of the employing -class in the present age is to increase the productive power of the -same quantity. The employing class in former ages merely forced the -employed to exert their own industrial faculties, and appropriated what -those faculties produced. The employing class of the present age not -only commands the employed, but it co-operates with them by lending -them faculties which they do not themselves possess. ◆³ It applies to -the guidance of the muscles of the most ordinary worker the profoundest -knowledge of science, all the strength of will, all the spirit of -enterprise, and the exceptional aptitude for affairs, that distinguish -the most gifted and the vigorous characters of the day. And it is the -peculiar modern function of Capital, as spent in Wages, to enable this -result to take place. - - [Sidenote ◆1 Wage Capital does this in a way which the socialistic - definition of Capital altogether ignores.] - -◆¹ Let us consider how it does so. Socialists tell us that Capitalism -in the modern world means merely the appropriation by the few of all -the materials of production, so that the many must either work as -the few bid them, or must starve. But this is a very small part of -what modern Capitalism means, and it is not the essential part, nor -does it even suggest the essential part. The majority of men must -always work or starve. Nature, not modern Capitalism, is responsible -for that necessity. The essential difference which modern Capitalism -has introduced into the situation is this—and it is an enormous -difference—that whereas in former ages the livelihood of a man was -contingent on his working in the best way that the average man knew, -modern Capitalism has made his livelihood contingent on his working in -the best way that exceptional men know. Now this best way, as we shall -see more clearly presently, does not involve the forcing of each man -to work harder, or the exacting from him any more difficult effort. -It involves merely the supplying him with a constant external guide -for even his minutest actions—a guide for every movement of arm and -hand, or a pattern of each of the objects which are the direct result -of these movements; and consequently the one thing which before all -others it requires is constant obedience or conformity to such guides -and patterns. The entire industrial progress of the modern world has -depended, and depends altogether on this constant obedience being -secured; and the possession of Wage Capital by the employing class is -the sole means which is possible in the modern world of securing it. In -the ancient world the case would no doubt have been different. The lash -of the taskmaster, the fear of prison, of death, of torture, were then -available for the stimulation and organisation of Labour. But they are -available no longer. The masses of civilised humanity have taken this -great step—they have risen from the level on which they could be driven -to industrial obedience, to the level on which they must be induced -to it. Obedience of some sort is a social necessity now as ever, and -always must be: but social necessity spoke merely to the fear of the -slave; it speaks to the will and the reason of the free labourer. The -free labourer may be, and must be, in one or other of two positions. -He may work for himself, consuming or selling his own produce; or he -may work for an employer, who pays him wages, and exacts in return for -them not work only, but work performed in a certain prescribed way. -The first position is that of the peasant proprietor or the hand-loom -weaver. The second is that of the employee in a mill or factory. In -both cases, the voice of social necessity, or of society, speaks to -the man’s reason, informing him of the homely fact that he cannot live -unless he labours: but in the first case, the voice of society cries to -him out of the ground, “You will get no food unless you labour in some -way”; and in the second case it cries to him from the mouths of the -wisest and strongest men, “You will get no food unless you consent to -labour in the best way.”[31] - - [Sidenote ◆1 Wage Capital is merely the means by which intellect - impresses itself as Labour;] - -◆¹ In other words, Wage Capital in the modern world promotes that -growth of wealth by which the modern world is distinguished, simply -because Wage Capital is the vehicle by which the exceptional qualities -of the few communicate themselves to the whole industrial community. -The real principle of progress and production is not in the Capital, -but in the qualities of the men who control it; just as the vital -force which goes to make a great picture is not in the brush, but in -the great painter’s hand; or as the skill which pilots a coach and -four through London is not in the reins, but in the hand of the expert -coachman. - - [Sidenote ◆1 As we can see by following the steps by which a - company would introduce some new machine.] - -◆¹ This can easily be seen by turning our attention once again to -machinery, and supposing that a company is floated for the improved -manufacture of something by means of some new invention. The directors -must of course begin with securing a site for the factory; but with -this exception their entire initial expenditure will directly or -indirectly consist in the payment of wages—in purchasing the services -of a certain number of men by whose exertions certain masses of raw -material are to be produced and fashioned into certain definite -forms—that is to say, into the new machinery and a suitable building to -protect it. - - [Sidenote ◆1 The whole success of such a company depends on the - amount of intellect used in the expenditure of the Wage - Capital.] - -◆¹ Now, the powers of these men resemble a mass of fluid metal which -is capable of being run into any variety of mould. If the directors -were bound by no articles of association, and if, at their first -board meeting, before they had entered into any contract for the -machinery, some other invention for the manufacture of some other -commodity were suddenly brought to their notice, and happened to take -their fancy, the men they were on the point of employing to produce -one kind of machinery might, with equal ease, be employed to produce -another. We will assume that the machinery which the men are set to -produce actually is a great improvement on anything of the kind used -hitherto, and ends in adding greatly to the productive powers of the -nation; but, so far as the men are concerned whose exertions are paid -for out of the capital of the company, the machinery might just as -well have been absolutely valueless—a mere aggregation of wheels and -axles, as meaningless as a madman’s dream. What makes their exertions -not only useful instead of useless, but more useful than any exertion -similarly applied had ever been hitherto, is, firstly, the ingenuity -of the inventor of the new machine; secondly, the judgment of the -promoters and directors of the company; and lastly, the confidence in -their judgment felt by the subscribing public. Or, we may suppose -the inventor to have himself supplied the Capital, and to unite in -himself the parts of the directors and the shareholders. In that case -the exertions of the men employed derive their value entirely from the -talent of this one man. The men employed by him, we will say, number -a thousand, and the Wage Capital he owns and administers aids and -increases production only because it is the means by which the one man -induces the thousand to accept him as the steersman of their exertions, -and to allow him to direct their course towards new and remote results -which for them lie hidden behind the horizon of contemporary habit or -ignorance. - - [Sidenote ◆1 The case of Arkwright’s spinning-frame illustrates - this.] - -◆¹ Let us take an actual case—the case of Arkwright’s spinning-frame. -This invention, which was destined to influence the prosperity of so -many millions, was in great danger of being altogether lost, simply -on account of the difficulty experienced by the inventor in securing -sufficient capital to construct and perfect his machine, and, what was -equally necessary, to exhibit it in actual use. After many rebuffs and -disappointments, a sum was at last advanced him by a certain firm of -bankers—the Messrs. Wright of Nottingham; but before the preliminary -experiments had advanced far their courage failed them, they repented -of what they had done, and they passed the inventor on to two other -capitalists whose insight was fortunately keener, and whose characters -were more courageous. These gentlemen, Mr. Need and Mr. Strutt of -Derby, took Arkwright into partnership, and by means of the Capital -which they placed at his disposal, his machine, which till now had -existed only in his own brain and in a few unfinished models, was -before long in operation, and a new industrial era was inaugurated. -Now, to the accomplishment of this result Wage Capital was essential; -but it was essential only as the means of giving effect to the genius -and strong character of certain specially gifted persons—Arkwright -with his marvellous inventive genius, Messrs. Need and Strutt with -their sagacity and spirit and enterprise. If it had not been for the -qualities of these three men, the wages paid to the labourers who made -the machine of Arkwright would have probably been paid indeed to the -very same labourers, but their exertions would have been directed to -producing some different product—some product which added nothing to -the existing powers of the community. - - [Sidenote ◆1 Now machinery is necessarily Wage Capital congealed;] - -◆¹ Machinery, therefore, or Fixed Capital, though it differs as soon -as it is made from Capital employed in wages, is the result of the use -of such Capital, and is indeed but another form of it. And now comes -the point on which I am concerned to insist here: that conversely Wage -Capital, when employed so as to increase the productivity of labour,—in -other words when employed by men with the requisite capacity,—is in -its essence but another form of machinery. Machinery may be called -congealed Wage Capital. Wage Capital may be called fluid machinery. -For the function of both—namely, to increase wealth—is the same, and -they fulfil this function by means of the same virtue residing in them. -It is easy to see the truth of this. The increase of wealth means -the improvement and multiplication of commodities which reward the -exertions of the same number of men. The number and quality of these -commodities are increased by application of Capital, because Capital -enables persons who are exceptionally gifted to control and direct -the exertions of the majority; and Capital, as embodied in machinery, -differs from Capital continuously employed in wages, only because the -former gives us machinery which is inanimate, and the latter, machinery -which is living. For a thousand men so organised as to produce some -given product or result, and to produce it with the greatest precision -or in the least possible time, are to all intents and purposes as much -an invention and a machine as a thousand wheels or rollers adjusted for -a similar purpose. - - [Sidenote ◆1 And therefore all Capital, equally with Wage Capital, - represents the control of Intellect over Labour—or one - kind of Human Exertion over another.] - -◆¹ All Capital, therefore, in all its distinctively modern -applications—all those applications which have caused what is called -industrial progress—is virtually this, and this only: it is the -exceptional capacities of one set of men applied to the average -capacities of another set. We may accordingly include all Capital—fixed -and circulating—under one head, and say of it as a whole what in the -last chapter was said of machinery: that when by its application to -the exertions of a given number of men a larger product results than -resulted from them before it was applied, Capital is to be credited -with producing the amount of the increase; or—to put the same thing in -another way—with the amount of the decrease which would result if its -application were withdrawn. - - [Sidenote ◆1 This aspect of the question will be considered - further in the next chapter.] - -How this is the case with machinery I have already illustrated by -examples. It is less easy to illustrate by examples, but equally easy -to see how it is the case with Capital continuously employed as wages. -It is less easy to select illustrations, because the whole of modern -progress is itself one great, though infinitely complex example of it; -and it will be enough here as we shall recur to the subject presently, -to consider one obvious and very familiar fact. Many new commodities, -and many new methods of production, depend on the invention not of new -machines, but of new processes. The Capital employed in working a new -process is mainly employed as wages, by the administration of which the -actions of the workmen are guided, controlled, and organised. Thus if -fifty men, working independently and selling their own produce, produce -a hundred articles of a certain sort weekly, and another fifty men, -◆¹ working for a wage-paying employer, produce, owing to the way in -which their labour is guided and organised, just double the number of -such articles in the same time, we shall say that the hundred extra -articles are the product of Wage Capital, just as we should say, if the -increased production had been due to the introduction of a machine, -that these extra hundred articles were the product of Fixed Capital. -And in both cases we should mean, as I am now going to insist more -particularly, that they were really the product of the capacities which -each kind of Capital represents. This brings us to the heart of the -whole problem. - - - - - CHAPTER V - - _That the Chief Productive Agent in the modern world - is not Labour, but Ability, or the Faculty which - directs Labour._ - - - [Sidenote ◆1 What was said in the last chapter shows that - productive Human Exertion is of two kinds, and does not - consist only of what is meant by Labour,] - - [Sidenote ◆2 As familiar instances will show us.] - -◆¹ I said in the last chapter that machinery or Fixed Capital was -congealed Wage Capital. But as Wage Capital is metamorphosed into -machinery only owing to the fact that it is at once the instrument and -the guide of Human Exertion, machinery may be called congealed exertion -also. This description of it is but half original; for Socialistic -writers have for a long time called it “congealed Labour.” But between -the two phrases there is a great and fundamental difference, and I -now bring them thus together to show what the difference is. The -first includes the whole meaning of the second, whereas the second -includes only a part of the meaning of the first. Let us take the -finest bronze statue that was ever made, and also the worst, the -feeblest, the most ridiculous. ◆² Both can with equal accuracy be -called congealed Labour; but to call them this is just as useless a -truism as to call them congealed bronze. It describes the point in -which the two statues resemble each other; it tells us nothing of what -is far more important—the points in which the two statues differ. -They differ because, whilst both are congealed Labour, the one is -also congealed imagination of the highest order, the other is also -congealed imagination of the lowest. The excellence of the metal and -of the casting may be the same in both cases. Or again, let us take -a vessel like the _City of Paris_, and let us take also the vessel -that was known as the _Bessemer Steamer_. The _Bessemer Steamer_ was -fitted with a sort of rocking saloon, which, when the vessel rolled, -was expected to remain level. The contrivance was a complete failure. -The hundreds of thousands of pounds spent on it were practically thrown -away, and the structure ended by being sold as old iron. Now these -two vessels were equally congealed Labour, and congealed Labour of -precisely the same quality; for the workmen employed on the _Bessemer -Steamer_ were as skilful as those employed on the _City of Paris_. And -yet the Labour in the one case was congealed into a piece of lumber, -and in the other case it was congealed into one of the most perfect -of those living links by which the lives of two worlds are united. -To call both the vessels, then, congealed Labour, only tells us how -success resembles failure, not how it differs from it. The _City of -Paris_ differs from the _Bessemer Steamer_ because the _City of Paris_ -was congealed judgment, and the _Bessemer Steamer_ was congealed -misjudgment. - -It is therefore evident that in _using_ Capital so as to make Labour -more efficacious, as distinct from _wasting_ Capital so as to make -Labour nugatory, some other human faculties are involved distinct from -the faculty of Labour; and I have employed, except when it would have -been mere pedantry to do so, the term “Human Exertion” instead of the -term “Labour,” because the former includes those other faculties, and -the latter does not; or, if it includes them, it entirely fails to -distinguish them, and merely confounds them with faculties from which -they fundamentally differ. Thus, when I pointed out in the last chapter -that Capital, in so far as it increased the productivity of Labour, -was mental and moral energy as applied to muscular energy, I might have -said with equal propriety, had my argument advanced far enough, that it -was one kind of Human Exertion guiding and controlling another kind. -Here we come to the great central fact which forms the key to the whole -economic problem: the fact that in the production of wealth two kinds -of Human Exertion are involved, and not, as economists have hitherto -told us, one—two kinds of exertion absolutely distinct, and, as we -shall see presently, following different laws. - - [Sidenote ◆1 Economic writers vaguely recognise this fact, but - have never formally expressed it, or made it a part of - their systems.] - - [Sidenote ◆2 They confuse all productive exertion together under - the heading of Labour.] - -◆¹ Economic writers, like the world in general, do indeed recognise, -in an unscientific way, that productive exertion exhibits itself under -many various forms; but their admissions and statements with regard to -this point are entirely confused and stultified by the almost ludicrous -persistence with which they classify all these forms under the single -heading of Labour. Mill, for instance, says that a large part of -profits are really wages of the labour of superintendence. He speaks of -“the labour of the invention of industrial processes,” “the labour of -Watt in contriving the steam-engine,” and even of “the labour of the -savant and the speculative thinker.” ◆² He employs the same word to -describe the effort that invented Arkwright’s spinning-frame, and the -commonest muscular movement of any one of the mechanics who assisted -with hammer or screwdriver to construct it under Arkwright’s direction. -He employs the same word to describe the power that perfected the -electric telegraph, and the power that hangs the wires from pole to -pole, like clothes-lines. He confuses under one heading the functions -of the employer and the employed—of the men who lead in industry, and -of the men who follow. He calls them all labourers, and he calls their -work Labour. - - [Sidenote ◆1 But practically, Labour means muscular or manual - exertion.] - - [Sidenote ◆2 Mental and moral exertion, as applied to production, - must therefore be given another name:] - -Now were the question merely one of literary or philosophical -propriety, this inclusive use of the word Labour might be defensible; -but we have nothing to do here with the niceties of such trivial -criticism. We are concerned not with what a word might be made to mean, -but what it practically does mean; and if we appeal to the ordinary -use of language,—not only its use by the mass of ordinary men, but -its most frequent use by economic writers also,—we shall find that -the word Labour has a meaning which is practically settled; and we -shall find that this meaning is not an inclusive one, but exclusive. -◆¹ We shall find that Labour practically means muscular Labour, or -at all events some form of exertion of which men—common men—are as -universally capable, and that it not only never naturally includes any -other idea, but distinctly and emphatically excludes it. For instance, -when Mill in his _Principles of Political Economy_ devotes one of his -chapters to the future of the “Labouring Classes,” he instinctively -uses the phrase as meaning manual labourers. When, as not unfrequently -happens, some opulent politician says to a popular audience, “I, too, -am a labouring man,” he is either understood to be saying something -which is only true metaphorically, or is jeered at as saying something -which is not true at all. Probably no two men in the United Kingdom -have worked harder or for longer hours than Mr. Gladstone and Lord -Salisbury; yet no one could call Mr. Gladstone a labour member, or -say that Lord Salisbury was an instance of a labouring man being a -peer. The Watts, the Stevensons, the Whitworths, the Bessemers, the -Armstrongs, the Brasseys, are, according to the formal definition of -the economists, one and all of them labourers. But what man is there -who, if, in speaking of a strike, he were to say that he supported or -opposed the claims of Labour, would be understood as meaning the claims -of employers and millionaires like these? It is evident that no one -would understand him in such a sense; and if he used the word _Labour_ -thus, he would be merely trifling with language. The word, for all -practical purposes, has its meaning unequivocally fixed. It does not -mean all Human Exertion; it emphatically means a part of it only. It -means muscular and manual exertion, or exertion of which the ordinary -man is capable, as distinct from industrial exertion of any other -kind; and not only as distinct from it, but as actively opposed to and -struggling with it. Since, then, we have to deal with distinct and -opposing things, it is idle to attempt to discuss them under one and -the same name. ◆² To do so would be like describing the Franco-Prussian -War with only one name for both armies—the soldiers; or like attempting -to explain the composition of water, with only one name for oxygen and -hydrogen—the gas. Accordingly, for the industrial exertion—exertion -moral and mental—which is distinct from Labour and opposed to it, we -must find some separate and some distinctive name; and the name which I -propose to use for this purpose is Ability. - - [Sidenote ◆1 In this book it will be called Ability.] - - [Sidenote ◆2 There is, however, a deeper distinction between the - two than the fact of one being mental and the other - muscular.] - -◆¹ Human Exertion then, as applied to the production of wealth, is of -two distinct kinds: Ability and Labour—the former being essentially -moral or mental exertion, and only incidentally muscular; the latter -being mainly muscular, and only moral or mental in a comparatively -unimportant sense. ◆² This difference between them, however, though -accidentally it is always present, and is what at first strikes the -observation, is not the fundamental difference. The fundamental -difference is of quite another kind. It lies in the following fact: -That Labour is a kind of exertion on the part of the individual, which -begins and ends with each separate task it is employed upon, whilst -Ability is a kind of exertion on the part of the individual which is -capable of affecting simultaneously the labour of an indefinite number -of individuals, and thus hastening or perfecting the accomplishment of -an indefinite number of tasks. - - [Sidenote ◆1 The vital distinction is that the Labour of one man - affects one task only; the Ability of one man may affect - an indefinite number.] - -◆¹ This vital distinction, hitherto so entirely neglected, should be -written in letters of fire on the mind of everybody who wishes to -understand, to improve, or even to discuss intelligibly, the economic -conditions of a country such as ours. Unless it is recognised, and -terms are found to express it, it is impossible to think clearly about -the question; much more is it impossible to argue clearly about it: for -men’s thoughts, even if for moments they are correct and clear, will be -presently tripped up and entangled in the language they are obliged to -use. Thus, we constantly find that when men have declared all wealth -to be due to Labour, more or less consciously including Ability in the -term, they go on to speak of Labour and the labouring classes, more -or less consciously excluding it; and we can hardly open a review or -a newspaper, or listen to a speech on any economic problem, without -finding the labouring classes spoken of as “the producers,” to the -obvious and intentional exclusion of the classes who exercise Ability; -whereas it can be demonstrated, as we shall see in another chapter, -that of the wealth enjoyed by this country to-day, Labour produces -little more than a third. - -Let us go back then to the definitions I have just now given, and -insist on them and enlarge them and explain them, so as to make them -absolutely clear. - - [Sidenote ◆1 Familiar examples will show the truth of this.] - -Labour, I said, is a kind of exertion on the part of the individual, -which begins and ends with each separate task it is employed upon; -whilst Ability is a kind of exertion on the part of the individual -which is capable of affecting simultaneously the labour of an -indefinite number of individuals. ◆¹ Here are some examples. An -English navvy, it is said, will do more work in a day than a French -navvy; he will dig or wheel away more barrow-loads of earth; but -the greater power of the one, if the two work together, has no -tendency to communicate itself to the other. The one, let us say, -will wheel twelve barrow-loads, whilst the other will wheel ten. We -will imagine, then, a gang of ten French navvies, who in a given time -wheel a hundred barrow-loads. One of them dies, and his place is -taken by an Englishman. The Englishman wheels twelve loads instead -of ten; but the rest of the gang continue to wheel ten only. Let us -suppose, however, that the Englishman, instead of being a navvy, is -a little cripple who has this kind of ability—that he can show the -navvies how to attack with their picks each separate ton of earth -in the most efficacious way, and how to run their barrows along the -easiest tracks or gradients. He might quite conceivably enable the -nine Frenchmen to wheel fifteen barrow-loads in the time that they -formerly consumed in wheeling ten; and thus, though the gang contained -one labourer less than formerly, yet owing to the presence of one -man of ability, the efficacy of its exertions would be increased by -fifty per cent. Or again, let us take the case of some machine, whose -efficiency is in proportion to the niceness with which certain of its -parts are finished. The skilled workman whose labour finishes such -parts contributes by doing so to the efficiency of that one machine -only; he does nothing to influence the labour of any other workman, -or facilitate the production of any other machine similar to it. But -the man who, by his inventive ability, makes the machine simpler, or -introduces into it some new principle, so that, without requiring so -much or such skilled labour to construct it, it will, when constructed, -be twice as efficient as before, may, by his ability, affect individual -machines without number, and increase the efficiency of the labour -of many millions of workmen. Such a case as this is specially worth -considering, because it exposes an error to which I shall again refer -hereafter—the error often made by economic writers, of treating Ability -as a species of Skilled Labour. For Skilled Labour is itself so far -from being the same thing as Ability, that it is in some respects more -distinct from it than Labour of more common kinds; for the secret -of it is less capable of being communicated to other labourers. For -instance, one of the most perfect chronometers ever made—namely, that -invented by Mudge in the last century—required for its construction -Labour of such unusual nicety, that though two specimens, made under -the direct supervision of the inventor, went with an accuracy that has -not since been surpassed, the difficulty of reproducing them rendered -the invention valueless. But the great example of this particular truth -is to be found in a certain fact connected with the history of the -steam-engine—a fact which is little known, whose significance has never -been realised, and which I shall mention a little later on. It may thus -be said with regard to the production of wealth generally, that it -will be limited in proportion to the exceptionally skilled labour it -requires, whilst it will be increased in proportion to the exceptional -ability that is applied to it. - - [Sidenote ◆1 We shall now be able to describe Capital accurately - as _Ability_ controlling _Labour_.] - -◆¹ The difference, then, between Ability and Labour must be now -abundantly clear. As a general rule, there is the broad difference -on the surface, that the one is mainly mental and the other mainly -muscular; but to this rule there are many exceptions, and the -difference in question is accidental and superficial. The essential, -the fundamental difference from a practical point of view is, that -whilst Labour is the exertion of a single man applied to a single -task, Ability is the exertion of a single man applied to an indefinite -number of tasks, and an indefinite number of individuals. - - [Sidenote ◆1 It is, of course, understood that this definition - applies only to Capital used so as actually to make - Labour more productive, not to Capital wasted.] - -◆¹ And now let us go back to the subject of Capital. I have said that -Capital is one kind of Human Exertion guiding and controlling another -kind. We can at last express this with more brevity, and say that -Capital is Ability guiding and controlling Labour. This is no mere -rhetorical or metaphorical statement. It is the accurate expression of -what is at once a theoretical truth and an historical fact; and to show -the reader that it is so, let me remove certain objections which may -very possibly suggest themselves. In the first place, it may be said -that Capital belongs constantly to idle and foolish persons, or even -indeed to idiots, to all of whom it yields a revenue. This is true; but -such an objection altogether ignores the fact that though such persons -own the Capital, they do not administer it. An idiot inherits shares in -a great commercial house; but the men who manage the business are not -idiots. They only pay the idiot a certain sum for allowing his Capital -to be made use of by their Ability. It may, however, be said further -that many men, neither idle nor idiotic, had administered Capital -themselves, and had succeeded merely in wasting it. This again is true; -but where Capital is wasted the productive powers of the nation are -not increased by it. It is, however, a broad historical fact that, by -the application of Capital the productive powers of the nation have -been increasing continually for more than a hundred years, and are -increasing still; and this is the fact, or the phenomenon, which we -are engaged in studying. Capital for us, then, means Capital applied -successfully; and when I say that Capital is Ability guiding and -controlling Labour, it is of Capital applied successfully, and not of -Capital wasted, that I must in every case be understood to be speaking; -just as if it were said that a battle was won by British bayonets, the -bayonets meant would be those that the combatants used, not those that -deserters happened to throw away. The fact, indeed, that in certain -hands so much Capital is thrown away and wasted, is nothing but a proof -of what I say, that as a productive agent Capital represents, and -practically _is_, Ability. - - [Sidenote ◆1 Capital is to Ability something like what the brain - is to the mind.] - -It may, however, be said—and the objection is worth noticing—that -Capital is a material thing, and Ability a mental thing; and it may be -asked how, except metaphorically, the one can be said to be the other? -◆¹ An answer may be given by the analogy of the mind and brain. So long -as the mind inhabits and directs a human body, mind and matter are -two sides of the same thing. It is only through the brain that mind -has power over the muscles; and the brain is powerful only because -it is the organ of the mind. Now Ability is to Capital what mind is -to the brain; and, like mind and brain, the two terms may be used -interchangeably. Capital is that through which the Ability of one set -of men acts on the muscles—that is to say, the Labour—of another set, -whether by setting Labour to produce machinery, or by so organising -various multitudes of labourers that each multitude becomes a single -machine in itself, or by settling or devising the uses to which these -machines shall be put. - - [Sidenote ◆1 And this would be as true of Capital in a Socialistic - State as in any other.] - -And it will be well, in case any Socialist should happen to read these -pages, to point out that my insisting on this fact is no piece of -special pleading on behalf of the private capitalist. ◆¹ The whole of -the above argument would apply to Capital, no matter who owned it: -individuals, or the community as a whole. For no matter who owned it, -or who divided the proceeds of it, the entire control of it would -have to be in the hands of Ability. In what, or how many, individuals -Ability may be held to reside; how such individuals are best found, -tested, and brought forward; and how their power over Capital may be -best attained by them—whether as owners, or as borrowers, or as State -officials,—is a totally different question, and is in this place beside -the point. - -At present, it will be enough to sum up what we have seen thus far. The -causes of wealth are not, as is commonly said, three: Land, Labour, and -Capital. This analysis omits the most important cause altogether, and -makes it impossible to explain, or even reason about, the phenomenon -of industrial progress. The causes of wealth are four—Land, Labour, -Capital, and Ability: the two first being the indispensable elements in -the production of any wealth whatsoever; the fourth being the cause of -all progress in production; and the third, as it now exists, being the -creation of the fourth, and the means through; which it operates. These -two last, as we shall see presently, may, except for special purposes, -be treated as only one, and will be best included under the one term -Ability. - -And now let us turn back to the condition of this country at the close -of the last century, and the reader will see why, at the outset of the -above inquiry, I fixed his attention on that particular period. - - - - - CHAPTER VI - - _Of the Addition made during the last Hundred Years - by Ability to the Product of the National Labour. - This Increment the Product of Ability._ - - - [Sidenote ◆1 Let us now turn to the history of production in this - country during the past hundred years;] - -◆¹ I have already said something—but in very general terms—of what, -at the close of the last century, the wealth of this country was. -Let us now consider the subject a little more in detail, though we -need not trouble ourselves with a great many facts and figures. The -comparatively backward state of Ireland makes it easier to deal with -Great Britain only; and the income of Great Britain was then, as I have -said already, about _a hundred and forty million pounds_ annually. -This amount was, as has been said already, also produced by Land, -Capital, and Human Exertion, or, as we are now able to put it, by Land, -Labour, Capital, and Ability; and according to the principles which I -have already carefully explained, had the statistics of industry been -recorded as fully as they are now, we should be able to assign to each -cause a definite proportion of the product. Of what the Land produced, -as distinct from the three other causes, we are indeed able to speak -with sufficient accuracy as it is. It was practically the amount taken -in rent; and the amount taken in rent was about _twenty-five million -pounds_, or something between a fifth and sixth of the total. But the -proportion produced respectively by Labour, Capital, and Ability cannot -be determined with the same ease or exactness. There are, however, -connected with this question, a number of well-known and highly -significant facts, to a few of which I will call the reader’s attention. - - [Sidenote ◆1 And consider the enormous increase both in - agricultural production,] - -◆¹ Between the years 1750 and 1800, the population of Great Britain -increased by barely so much as twenty-five per cent. It rose from about -eight millions to about ten. Now during that period the number of hands -employed in manufactures increased proportionally far faster than the -total population. The cotton-spinners, for instance, increased from -_forty_ to _eighty thousand_.[32] Such being the case, it is of course -evident that the increase of agricultural labourers cannot have been -very great. It can hardly have been, at the utmost, so much as eighteen -per cent.[33] And now let us glance at the history of agricultural -products, as indicated by a few typical facts. In the year 1688, the -number of sheep in Great Britain was estimated at _twelve millions_. -In the year 1774, the number was estimated at almost the same figure; -but between the years 1774 and 1800, this _twelve millions_ had risen -to _twenty millions_. During the same twenty-six years, the number of -cattle had increased in almost the same proportion. That is to say, -live-stock had increased by seventy-five per cent. Between the years -1750 and 1780 there was an average annual increase in agricultural -capital of _seven million three hundred thousand pounds_. But from -the years 1780 and 1800 there was an average annual increase of -_twenty-six million pounds_; whilst between the years 1750 and 1800 -the farmer’s income had very nearly doubled,[34] and the total products -of agriculture had increased sixty per cent. - - [Sidenote ◆1 And in manufactures,] - - [Sidenote ◆2 That had recently taken place at the close of the - last century.] - -◆¹ And now let us turn to manufactures. These, as a whole, had advanced -more slowly; but the advance of certain of them had been yet more -rapid and striking. It will be enough to mention two: the manufacture -of cotton, to which I have called attention already; and an industry -yet more important—the manufacture of iron. ◆² The amount of pig-iron -produced annually in Great Britain during the earlier part of the last -century was not more than _twenty thousand tons_;[35] at the close of -the century it was more than _a hundred and eighty thousand_. What may -have been the increase in the amount of labour employed, cannot be said -with certainty; but it cannot have been comparable to the increase of -the product, which was, as we have just seen, eight hundred per cent; -and it may again be mentioned that one single set of inventions, in the -course of eight years, nearly doubled the product of each individual -smelting furnace.[36] As to the cotton industry, our information is -more complete. The amount of labour was doubled in forty years. The -product was increased fifteen-fold in twenty-five. - - [Sidenote ◆1 We shall see how obviously a part at least of this - increase must have been due to Ability and Capital.] - - [Sidenote ◆2 And that Labour cannot really have produced the - whole.] - -◆¹ My present aim, however, is to make no exact calculation respecting -the extent to which production, taken as a whole, had during the -period in question outstripped the increase of Labour; but merely to -show the reader that the extent was very large; and that, according -to the principles explained already, it was due altogether to the -operation of Capital and Ability—or, to speak more exactly, of Ability -operating through Capital. The truth of this statement with regard -to the increase of manufactures has been shown and illustrated by -the instance of Arkwright and the cotton industry. It will be well -to mention at this point several analogous instances taken from the -history of agriculture. ◆² Elkington, who inaugurated a new system -of drainage, will supply us with one. One still more remarkable is -supplied by Bakewell, who may be said to have played in practical life -a part resembling that which Darwin has played in speculation. He -discovered the method of improving the breeds of sheep and cattle by -a system of selection and crossing that was not before known; and it -was owing to the ability of this one man that “the breed of animals in -England,” as Mr. Lecky points out, “was probably more improved in the -course of a single fifty years than in all the recorded centuries that -preceded it.” The close connection of such improvements with Capital -is the constant theme of Arthur Young, though he was not consciously -anything of a political economist, nor did he attempt to express his -opinion in scientific language. But a still more effective witness is -a distinguished modern Radical, Professor Thorold Rogers, who, though -always ready, and, as many people would say, eager to espouse the -side of Labour as against Capital and Ability,—especially when the -two last belonged to the landed class—is yet compelled to assert as -emphatically as Young himself, that the Ability and the Capital of -this very class were in the last century “the pioneers of agricultural -progress”—a progress which he illustrates by these picturesque -examples: that it raised the average weight of the fatted ox from 400 -lbs. to 1200 lbs., and increased the weight of the average fleece -fourfold. - - [Sidenote ◆1 Therefore it is plain that Labour would not have - created the whole of the national income a hundred years - ago. But for argument’s sake we will concede that it - produced the whole.] - -◆¹ It will therefore be apparent to every reader, that of the income of -Great Britain at the close of the last century, Ability and Capital, as -distinct from Labour, created a considerable part, though we need not -determine what part. Accordingly, since the income of Great Britain, -with a population of _ten millions_, was at that time about _a hundred -and forty million pounds_, or _fourteen pounds_ per head,[37] it is -evident that the Labour of a population of _ten millions_ was quite -incapable, a hundred years ago, of producing by itself as much as -_fourteen pounds_ per head.[38] I will, however, merely for the sake of -argument, and of keeping a calculation I am about to make far within -the limits which strict truth would warrant, make a preposterous -concession to any possible objector. I will concede that Labour by -itself produced the entire value in question, and that Ability, as -distinct from Labour, had nothing at all to do with it. I will concede -that the faculties which produced the machines of Arkwright, which -had already turned steam into an infant Hercules of industry, and -was pouring into this island the wealth of the farthest Indies, were -faculties of the same order as those which were possessed by any -waggoner who had driven the same waggon along the same ruts for a -lifetime. And I will now proceed to the calculation I spoke of. I shall -state it first, and establish its truth afterwards. - - [Sidenote ◆1 The whole income of Great Britain at that time was _a - hundred and forty million pounds_, and the population - _ten millions_. Hence, as will be shown in the next - Book, we get an indication of the utmost that Labour - alone can produce. Now, a population of _ten millions_ - at present produces _three hundred and fifty millions_ - annually.] - -◆¹ It will be seen, from what has just been said, that a hundred -years ago the utmost that Labour could produce in the most advanced -country of Europe was _a hundred and forty million pounds_ annually -for a population of _ten millions_, or—let me repeat—_fourteen pounds_ -per head. The production per head is now _thirty-five pounds_; or, for -each ten millions of population, _three hundred and fifty millions_. -The point on which presently I shall insist at length is this: that -if Labour is to be credited with producing the whole of the smaller -sum, the entire difference between the smaller sum and the larger is -to be credited to Ability operating on industry through Capital. That -is to say, for every _three hundred and fifty millions_ of our present -national income, Labour produces only _a hundred and forty millions_ -whilst Ability and Capital produce _two hundred and ten_. But the -fact may be put yet more clearly than this. Of our present national -income of _thirteen hundred millions_, Labour produces about _five -hundred_, whilst Ability and Capital produce about _eight hundred_. -It could indeed be shown, as I just now indicated, that Labour in -reality produces less than this, and Ability and Capital more; but for -argument’s sake we will let the calculation stand thus, in order that -Labour shall be at all events credited with not less than its due. - - [Sidenote ◆1 And it will accordingly be shown in the next Book - that the whole of this increment is produced by Ability, - and not by Labour.] - -◆¹ And now as to Capital and Ability, and the _eight hundred millions_ -produced by them, what has just been said can be put in a simpler way. -Capital is not only the material means through which Ability acts on -and assists Labour, but it is a material means which Ability has itself -created. So long as Labour alone was the principal productive agent, -those vast accumulations which are distinctive of the modern world were -unknown and impossible. Professor Thorold Rogers has pointed out how -small was the Capital of this country at so late a date as the close of -the seventeenth century. Labour alone was unable to supply a surplus -from which any such accumulation as we now call Capital could be taken. -These became possible only by the increasing action of Ability. They -were taken from the products which Ability added to the products of -Labour, Capital therefore _is_ Ability in a double sense—not only -in the sense that as a productive agent it represents Ability, but -in the sense that Ability has created it. We may therefore for the -present leave Capital entirely out of our discussion, regarding it as -comprehended under the term and the idea of Ability; although when we -come to consider the question of distribution, we shall have to take -account of the distinction between the two. But for the present we are -concerned with the problem of production only; and in dealing with that -part of it which alone is now before us, we have to do only with two, -and not three forces—not with Labour, Ability, and Capital, but with -Labour and Ability only. - -The calculation, therefore, which was put forward just now may be -expressed in yet simpler terms. Of our present national income of -_thirteen hundred millions_, Labour produces _five hundred millions_ -and Ability _eight hundred_. And now comes another point which yet -remains to be mentioned. When we speak of Labour, we mean not an -abstract quality: what we mean is labouring men. Similarly, when we -talk of Ability, we do not mean an abstract quality either: we mean -men who possess and exercise it. But whereas when we talk of Labour -we mean an immense number of men, when we talk of Ability—as I shall -show presently—we mean a number that by comparison is extremely small. -The real fact then on which I am here insisting, and which I shall -now proceed to substantiate and explain further, is that, whilst the -immense majority of the population of this country produce little more -than one-third of the income, a body of men who are comparatively a -mere handful actually produce little less than two-thirds of it. - - - ——————————————————————————————————————————————————————— - - - - - BOOK III - - AN EXPOSURE OF THE CONFUSIONS IMPLIED IN SOCIALISTIC - THOUGHT AS TO THE MAIN AGENT IN MODERN PRODUCTION - - - - - ——————————————————————————————————————————————————————— - - - - - CHAPTER I - - _The Confusion of Thought involved in the Socialistic - Conception of Labour._ - - - [Sidenote ◆1 After what has now been said, every one will admit - that Ability, as distinct from Labour, is as truly a - productive agent as Labour is.] - - [Sidenote ◆2 But Socialists, even if they admit this fact, by - their inaccurate thought and language obscure the - meaning of the fact;] - -◆¹ There is one point which now must be quite plain to every reader, -and on which there is no need to insist further; namely, that Ability -is as truly a productive agent as Labour, and that if Labour produces -any part of contemporary wealth, Ability just as truly produces another -part. This proposition, when put in a general way, will, after what -has been said, not be disputed by anybody; but there are various -arguments which readers of socialistic sympathies will probably invoke -as disproving it in the particular form just given to it. Certain of -these arguments require to be discussed at length; but the rest can be -disposed off quickly, and we will get them out of the way first. ◆² -They are, indeed, not so much arguments as confusions of thought, due -largely to an inaccurate use of language. - -These confusions are practically all comprehended in the common -socialistic formula which declares all production, under modern -conditions, to be what Socialists call “socialised.” By this is meant -that the whole wealth of the community is produced by the joint -action of all the classes of men and of all the faculties employed -in its production; and the formula thus includes, as Socialists will -be careful to tell us, all those faculties which are here described -as Ability. Now such a doctrine, if we consider its superficial -sense merely, is so far from being untrue that it is a truism. But -if we consider what it implies, if we consider the only meaning -which gives it force as a socialistic argument, or indeed invests it -with the character of any argument at all, we shall find it to be a -collection of fallacies for which the truism is only a cloak. For the -implied meaning is not the mere barren statement that the exertions -of all contribute to the joint result, but that the exertions of all -contribute to it in an equal degree; the further implication being that -all therefore should share alike in it. - - [Sidenote ◆1 Making use of the same fallacy as that of Mill, which - has been already criticised.] - -◆¹ This is really Mill’s argument with respect to Land and Labour, put -into different language and applied to Labour and Ability. It says in -effect precisely what was said by Mill, that when two causes are both -necessary to producing a given result, it is absurd to say that the one -produces more or less of it than the other: only here the argument can -be used with greater apparent force. For the Socialists may say that -if the principle which has been explained in this book is admitted, -and if Ability is held to produce all that part of the product which -is over and above what Labour could produce by itself, Labour, by the -same reasoning, could be proved to produce the whole of the product, -since, without the assistance of Labour, Ability could produce nothing. -Accordingly, they will go on to say, this conclusion being absurd, -the reasoning which leads to it must be false, and we must fall back -again on the principle set forth by Mill. Labour and Ability are both -necessary to the result, and being equally necessary must be held to -contribute equally to producing it. - -This argument, as I have said, has great apparent force; but again we -have a plausibility which is altogether upon the surface. If Labour -and Ability were here conceived of as faculties, without regard to -the number of men possessing them, the argument would, whatever its -logical value, coincide broadly with one great practical fact, to which -by and by I shall call the reader’s attention; namely, that Labour -and Ability do in this country divide between them the joint product -in nearly equal portions. But those who make use of the socialistic -formula use it with a meaning very different from the above. When they -say that Ability and Labour contribute equally to producing a given -amount of wealth, they mean not that the men who exercise one faculty -produce collectively as much as the men who exercise the other; for -that might mean that _five hundred men of Ability_ produced as much as -_five hundred thousand labourers_; and that is the very position which -the Socialists desire to combat. They mean something which is the exact -reverse of this: not that one faculty produces as much as the other -faculty, but that one man produces as much as, and no more than another -man, no matter which faculty he exercises in the producing process. -They mean not that the faculty of Labour which an ordinary ploughman -represents, produces as much as the faculty represented by an Arkwright -or by a Stevenson, but that the individual ploughman, by the single -task which he himself performs, adds as much to his country’s wealth as -the creators of the spinning-frame and the locomotive. - - [Sidenote ◆1 Their meaning needs only to be clearly stated to show - its absurdity.] - -◆¹ As soon as we realise that this is what the argument means, its -apparent plausibility turns into a sort of absurdity which common sense -rejects, even before seeing why it does so. We will not, however, be -content with dismissing the argument as absurd: there is an idea at the -back of it which requires and deserves to be examined. It is an idea -which rests upon the fact already alluded to, that though Ability can -make nothing without Labour, Labour can make something without Ability; -and that thus the labourers who work under the direction of an able man -each contribute a kind of exertion more essential to the result than -he does. Each can say to him, “I am something without you. You, on the -contrary, are nothing without me.” Thus there arises a more or less -conscious idea of Labour as a force which, if only properly organised, -will be able at any moment, by refusing to exert itself, to render -Ability helpless, and so bring it to terms and become its master, -instead of being, as now, its servant. - - [Sidenote ◆1 But in it there is, indeed, a plausible view as to - Labour, which must be refuted, not only ridiculed. - According to this view, Labour can always bring Ability - to terms by refusing to exert itself.] - - [Sidenote ◆2 But Labour cannot refuse to exert itself for long, - and never except with the assistance of Capital.] - - [Sidenote ◆3 Nature, not the men of ability, forces the majority - of men to Labour.] - -◆¹ But this idea, which is suggested, and seems to be supported, by the -modern development of labour-organisation and strikes, really ignores -the most fundamental facts of the case. In the first place, it may -be observed that though Ability, regarded as a faculty, is no doubt -helpless unless there is Labour for it to act upon, Ability, if we -take it to mean the men possessing the faculty, is, whatever happens, -in as good a position as Labour; for the average man of ability can -always become a labourer. But the principal point to realise is far -more important than this. We are perfectly right in saying, as was said -just now, that if Labour should refuse to exert itself, Ability could -produce nothing; but it seems completely to escape the notice of those -who use this argument that to refuse to exert itself is what Labour -can never do, except for very short times, and to a quite unimportant -extent; and it can only do thus much when Ability indirectly helps it. -The ideas of the power of Labour which are suggested by the phenomenon -of the strike are, as I shall by and by show more fully, curiously -fallacious. ◆² Men can strike—that is to say, cease to labour—only when -they have some store on which to live when they are idle; and such a -store is nothing but so much Capital. A strike, therefore, represents -the power not of Labour, but of Capital.[39] The Capital which is -available in the present day for supporting strikes would never have -been in existence but for the past action of Ability; and what is -still more important, a widespread strike would very quickly exhaust -it. Further, a strike, no matter what Capital were at the back of it, -could never be more than partial for even a single day; for there are -many kinds of Labour, such as transport and distribution of food, the -constant performance of which is required by even the humblest lives. -But it is not necessary to dwell on such small matters as these. It -is enough to point to the fact, which does not require proving—the -broad fact that men, taken as a whole, can no more refuse to labour -than they can refuse to breathe. ◆³ What compels them to labour is -not the employing class, but Nature. The employing class—the men of -ability—merely compel them to labour in a special way. - - [Sidenote ◆1 But Nature forces no one to exert Ability; therefore - Ability is, in the long run, in a stronger position than - Labour.] - -But Ability itself stands on an entirely different footing. Whereas -Labour, as a whole, cannot cease to exert itself, Ability can. Indeed, -for long periods of history it has hardly exerted itself at all; whilst -its full industrial power, as we know it now, only began to be felt a -century and a half ago. Labour, in other words, represents a necessary -kind of exertion, which can always be counted on as we count on some -force of Nature: Ability represents a voluntary kind of exertion, -which can only be induced to manifest itself under certain special -circumstances. Accordingly, ◆¹ whilst Labour can make no terms with -Nature, Ability in the long run can always make terms with Labour. It -will thus be seen that the set of arguments founded on the conception -of Labour as stronger than Ability, because more necessary, are -arguments founded on a complete misconception of facts. I speak of them -as arguments; but they hardly deserve the name. Rather they are vague -ideas that float in the minds of many people, and suggest beliefs or -opinions to which they can give no logical basis. At all events, after -what has been said, we may dismiss them from our thoughts, and turn to -another fallacy that lurks in the socialistic formula. - - [Sidenote ◆1 Let us now test the socialistic view by examples:] - - [Sidenote ◆2 By the case of an organist and the man who blows the - bellows;] - - [Sidenote ◆3 Or of a great painter and the man who stretches his - canvas.] - -◆¹ I said of that formula that, the moment its meaning was realised, -it struck the mind as an absurdity, even before the mind knew why. Let -us now apply it to two simple cases, which will show its absurdity in -a yet more striking manner. ◆² There is an old story commonly told of -Handel. The great composer had been playing some magnificent piece -of music on the organ; and as soon as the last vibration of inspired -sound had subsided, he was greeted by the voice of the man who blew -the bellows, saying, “I think that we two played that beautifully.” -“_We!_” exclaimed Handel. “What had you to do with it?” He turned -again to the keys, and struck them, but not a note came. “Ha!” said -the bellows-blower, “what have I to do with it? Admit that I have as -much to do with it as you have, or I will not give you the power to -sound a single chord.” The whole point of this story lies in the fact -that the argument of the bellows-blower, though possessed of a certain -plausibility, is at the same time obviously absurd. But according to -the principles of the Socialists, it is absolutely and entirely true. -It exhibits those principles applied in the most perfect way. ◆³ With -just the same force, it may be said about a great picture by the man -who has woven the canvas, or tacked it to its wooden frame. This man -may, according to the socialistic theory of production, call the -picture the socialised product of the great painter and himself, and, -though no more able to draw than a child of four years old, may put -himself on a level with a Millais or an Alma Tadema. To the production -of the result the canvas is as necessary as the painter. - - [Sidenote ◆1 The socialistic view of production would be true only - were a certain fact of life quite different to what it - is.] - -The nature of the fallacy which leads us to such conclusions as these -is revealed almost instantly by the light such conclusions throw on it. -It consists in ignoring the fact that whilst anybody, not a cripple -or idiot, can blow the bellows of an organ, or stretch the canvas for -a picture, only one man in a million can make music like Handel, or -cover the canvas with pictures like Millais or Alma Tadema. The nature -of the situation will be understood most accurately if we imagine the -bellows-blower at the key-board of the organ, and the canvas-stretcher -with the painter’s brushes. The one, no doubt, could elicit a large -volume of sound; the other could cover the canvas with daubs of -unmeaning colour. These men, then, when they work for the artists of -whom we speak, may very properly be credited with a share in as much -of the result as would have been produced if they had been in the -artists’ places. That is to say, to the production of mere sound the -bellows-blower may be held to contribute as much as the great musician; -and the canvas-stretcher as much as the painter to the mere laying on -of colour. But all the difference between an unmeaning discord and -music, all the difference between an unmeaning daub and a picture, is -due to qualities that are possessed by no one except the musician and -the painter.[40] ◆¹ The socialistic theory of production would be true -only on the supposition that the faculties employed in production were -all equally common, and that everybody is equally capable of exertion -of every grade. Now is this supposition true, or is it not true? A -moment ago I spoke of it, assuming it to be obviously false; and many -people will think it is hardly worth discussion. That, however, is far -from being the case. It is a supposition which, as we have seen, lies -at the very root of Socialism: the question it involves is a broad -question of fact; and it is necessary, by an appeal to fact, to show -that it is as false as I have assumed it to be. - - [Sidenote ◆1 The great feature in modern production is the - progress in the productivity of the same number of men.] - -◆¹ Let me once again, then, state the great proposition which I am -anxious to put beyond the reach of all denial or misconception. A -given number of people, a hundred years ago, produced yearly in this -country _a hundred and forty million pounds_. The same number of -people to-day produce two and a half times as much. Labour, a hundred -years ago, could not have produced more than the total product of the -community—that is to say, _a hundred and forty million pounds_; and, if -it produced that then, it produces no more now. The whole added product -is produced by the action of Ability. The proposition is a double one. -Let us take the two parts in order. - - [Sidenote ◆1 History shows us that Labour is not progressive, - except within very narrow limits that were reached long - ago, or, at all events, by the end of the last century.] - -◆¹ I have already here and there pointed out in passing how certain -special advances in the productive powers of the community were due -demonstrably to Ability, not to Labour; but I have waited till our -argument had arrived at its present stage to insist on the general -truth that, except within very narrow limits, Labour is, in its very -nature, not progressive at all. If we cast our eyes backwards as far -into the remote past as any records or relics of human existence will -carry us, we can indeed discern three steps in industrial progress, -which we may, if we please, attribute to the self-development of -Labour—the use of stone, the use of bronze, and the use of iron. But -these steps followed each other slowly, and at immeasurable intervals; -and though the last was taken in the early morning of history, yet -Labour even then had, in certain respects, reached for thousands -of years an efficiency which it has never since surpassed. In the -lake-dwellings of Switzerland, which belong to the age of stone, -objects have been found which bear witness to a manual skill equal to -that of the most dexterous workmen of to-day. No labour, again, is -more delicate than that of engraving gems; and yet the work of the -finest modern gem-engravers is outdone by that of the ancient Greeks -and Romans. It was even found, when the unburied ship of a Viking was -being reproduced for the International Exhibition at Chicago, that -in point of mere workmanship, with all our modern appliances, it was -impossible to make the copy any better than the original; whilst, if -we institute a comparison with times nearer our own—especially if we -come to the close of the last century—it is hardly necessary to say -that in every operation which depended on training of eye and hand, the -great-grandfathers of the present generation were the equals of their -great-grandsons. - - [Sidenote ◆1 Let us then compare the workers of that period with - their great-grandsons of to-day.] - -◆¹ We will therefore content ourselves with comparing the labourers of -to-day with the labourers of the days of Pitt; and with regard to those -two sets of men, we may safely say this, that in whatever respect the -latter seem able to do more than the former, their seemingly increased -power can be definitely and distinctly traced to some source outside -themselves, from which it has been taken and lent to them—in other -words, to the ability of some one able man, or else to the joint action -of a body of able men. A single illustration is sufficient to prove -this. It consists of a fact to which I have alluded in general terms -already. It is as follows:— - - [Sidenote ◆1 We shall see that in Labour itself there has been - no progress whatsoever. Ability has been the sole - progressive agent.] - -When Watt had perfected his steam-engine in structure, design, and -principle, and was able to make a model which was triumphantly -successful in its working, he encountered an obstacle of which -few people are aware, and which, had it not been overcome, would -have made the development of steam-power, as we know it now, an -utter impossibility. It was indeed, in the opinion of the engineer -Smeaton, fatal to the success of Watt’s steam-engine altogether. -This obstacle was the difficulty of making cylinders, of any useful -size, sufficiently true to keep the pistons steam-tight. Watt, with -indomitable perseverance, endeavoured to train men to the degree of -accuracy required, by setting them to work at cylinders, and at nothing -else; and by inducing fathers to bring up their sons with them in the -workshop, and thus from their earliest youth habituate them to this -single task. By this means, in time, a band of labourers was secured -in whom skill was raised to the highest point of which it is capable. -◆¹ But not even all the skill of those carefully-trained men—men -trained by the greatest mechanical genius of the modern world—was equal -to making cylinders approaching the standard of accuracy which was -necessary to render the steam-engine, as we now know it, a possibility. -But what the Labour of the cleverest labourer could never be brought -to accomplish, was instantly and with ease accomplished by the action -of Ability. Henry Maudslay, by introducing the slide-rest, did at a -single stroke for all the mechanics in the country what Watt, after -years of effort, was unable to do for any of them. The Ability of -Maudslay, congealed in this beautiful instrument, took the tool out of -the hands of Labour at the turning-lathe, and held it to the surface -of the cylinder, whilst Labour looked on and watched. With this iron -“mate” lent to him,—this child of an alien brain,—the average mechanic -was enabled to accomplish wonders which no mechanic in the world by his -own skill could approach. The power of one man descended at once on a -thousand workshops, and sat on each of the labourers like the fire of -an industrial Pentecost; and their own personal efficiency, which was -the slowly-matured product of centuries, was, by a power acting outside -themselves, increased a hundredfold in the course of a few years. - - [Sidenote ◆1 There is, however, a plausible objection to this view - which we must consider.] - -◆¹ Illustrations of this kind might be multiplied without limit; but -nothing could add to the force of the one just given, or show more -clearly how the productivity of Labour is fixed, and the power of -Ability, and of Ability alone, is progressive. There is, however, a -very important argument which objectors may use here with so much -apparent force that, although it is entirely fallacious, it requires to -be considered carefully. - - - - - CHAPTER II - - _That the Ability which at any given period is a - Producing Agent, is a Faculty residing in - and belonging to living Men._ - - -It may amuse the reader to hear this argument stated—forcibly, if not -very fully—by an American Socialist, in an anonymous letter to myself. -I had published an article in _The North American Review_, giving a -short summary of what I have said in the preceding chapters with regard -to the part played by Ability in production; and the letter which I -will now give was sent me as a criticism on this: - - [Sidenote ◆1 The objection is thus put by an American Socialist: - that it is absurd to say that primæval inventors, such - as the inventor of the plough, are still producing - wealth by their ability; and if absurd in this case, - then in all cases.] - - ◆¹ Sir—Your article in the current number of _The North American - Review_ on “Who are the Chief Wealth Producers?” in my judgment is - the crowning absurdity of the various effusions that parade under the - self-assumed title of political economy. In the vulgar parlance of - some newspapers, it is hog-wash. It is utterly senseless, and wholly - absurd and worthless. You propose to publish a book in which you will - elaborate your theory. Well, if the book has a large sale, it will - not be because the author has any ability as a writer on economical - subjects, but rather that the buyers are either dupes or fools. All - the increase in wealth that has resulted by reason of men using - ploughs was produced by the man who invented the plough—eh? The total - amount of the wealth produced by men by reason of their using certain - appliances in the form of tools or machines is produced by the man - who invented the tool or machine—eh? perhaps some one in Egypt - thousands of years ago? Such stuff is not only worthless hog-wash: it - is nauseating, is worthy of the inmate of Bedlam. - - [Sidenote ◆1 To this there are two answers. The first is that the - simpler inventions are probably due, not to Ability at - all, but to the common experience of the average man;] - - [Sidenote ◆2 And, like Labour itself, they have remained unchanged - up till quite recent times.] - - [Sidenote ◆3 But even if invented by Ability, we should still - attribute the wealth now produced by them to Labour;] - -Now the argument implied in this charming letter, so far as it goes, is -sound; and I will put it presently in a more comprehensive form. Its -fault is that it goes a very little way, and does not even approach -the position it is adduced to combat. To say that if one man who lived -thousands of years ago could be shown to be the sole and only inventor -of the plough, then all the increase of wealth that has since been -produced by ploughing ought to be credited to the Ability of this one -man, is practically no doubt as absurd[41] as the writer of the letter -thinks it; and were such the result of the reasoning in this volume, -it would reduce that reasoning to an absurdity. ◆¹ That reasoning, -however, leads to no result of the kind; and it is necessary to explain -to the reader exactly why it fails to do so. It fails to do so because -ploughs, and other implements equally simple, instead of representing -those conditions of production to which alone the reasoning in this -volume applies, represent conditions which are altogether opposed to -them. The plough, or at least such a plough as was in use in ancient -Egypt, is the very type and embodiment of the non-progressive nature of -Labour, as opposed to, and contrasted with, the progressive nature of -Ability. The plough, indeed, in its simplest form, was probably not the -result of Ability at all, but rather of the experience of multitudes -of common men, acting on the intelligence which common men possess; -just as, even more obviously, was the use of a stick to walk with, -or of a flail for thrashing corn. It will perhaps, however, be said -that in that case, according to the definition given by me, the plough -would be the result of Ability all the same, only that it would prove -Ability to be a faculty almost as universal as Labour. And no doubt -it would prove this of Ability of a low kind; indeed, we may admit -that it does prove it. Everybody has a little Ability in him, just as -everybody has a little poetry; but in cases of this kind everything -is a question of degree; and for practical purposes we are compelled -to classify men not according to faculties which, strictly speaking, -they possess, but according to the degree in which they possess them. -Cold, strictly speaking, is merely a low degree of heat; but for all -practical purposes winter is opposed to summer. Similarly, a man who -has just enough poetry in him to be able—as most men can—to scribble -a verse of doggerel, is for all practical purposes opposed to a -Shakespeare or a Dante; and similarly also the man who has just enough -Ability in him to discover the use of a stick, a flail, or a plough, -is for all practical purposes opposed to the men who are capable of -inventing implements of a higher and more complicated order. Nor is the -line which we thus draw drawn arbitrarily. It is a line drawn for us -by the whole industrial history of mankind; ◆² and never was there a -division more striking and more persistent. For the simpler implements -in question, from the first days when they were invented,—“thousands of -years ago,” as my American correspondent says,—remained what they then -were up to the beginning of the modern epoch; and in many countries, -such as India, they remain the same to-day. The simpler industrial -arts, then, and the simpler implements of industry are sharply marked -off from the higher and more complicated by the fact that, whilst -the latter are demonstrably due to individuals, have flourished only -within the area of their influence, and have constituted a sudden and -distinct advance on the former, the former have apparently been due -to the average faculties of mankind, and have remained practically -unchanged from the days of their first discovery. Accordingly, the -distinction between the two being so marked and enormous, the faculties -to which they are respectively due, even if differing only in degree, -yet differ in degree so much that they are for practical purposes -different faculties, and must be called by different names. ◆³ The -simple inventions, then, to which my correspondent refers, together -with the wealth produced by them, are to be credited to Labour, the -non-progressive character of which they embody and represent, and -have nothing to do with that Ability which is the cause of industrial -progress. - -My correspondent’s letter, however, whether he saw it himself or -not, really raises a point far more important than this. For even -if the invention of the plough had been the work of one man only, -if it had involved as much knowledge and genius as the invention of -the steam-engine, and if, but for this one man, ploughs would never -have existed, yet to attribute to the Ability of this one man all the -wealth that has been subsequently produced by ploughing would still be -practically as absurd as my correspondent implies it would be. - - [Sidenote ◆1 Because the commonest labourer, when once he has seen - them, can make and use them.] - -◆¹ Now why is this? The reason why is as follows. Although, according -to such an hypothesis, if a plough had not been made by this one able -man, no ploughs would ever have been made by anybody, yet when such a -simple implement has once been made and used, anybody who has seen it -can make and use others like it; so that the Ability of the inventor of -the plough increases the productivity of every labourer who uses it, -not by co-operating with him, but by actually passing into him. Thus, -so far as this particular operation is concerned, the simplest labourer -becomes endowed with all the powers of the inventor; and the inventor -thenceforward is, in no practical sense, the producer of the increased -product of what he has enabled the labourer to produce, any more than a -father is the producer of what is produced by his son. - - [Sidenote ◆1 But the inventions by which Ability in the modern - world has increased production are the very opposite of - these inventions of earlier days; for they require as - much Ability to use them to the best advantage as they - required to make them.] - -And if the productivity of Labour were increased by inventions alone, -and if all inventions were as simple as the primæval plough—if, when -once seen, anybody were able to make them, and, having once made them, -to use them to the utmost advantage—then, though Ability might still -be the sole cause of every fresh addition to the productive powers -of exertion, these added powers would be all made over to Labour, and -be absorbed and appropriated by it, just as Lear’s kingdom was made -over to his daughters; and whatever increased wealth might be produced -thenceforward through their agency would be the true product of Labour, -which had in itself become more effective. ◆¹ But, as a matter of -fact, this is not the case; and it is not so for two reasons. In the -first place, such implements as the primæval plough differ from the -implements on which modern industry depends, in the complexity alike -of their structure, and of the principles involved in it; so that -without the guidance of Ability of many kinds, Labour alone would -be powerless to reproduce them; and, in the second place, as these -implements multiply, not only is Ability more and more necessary -for their manufacture, but is more and more necessary also for the -use of them when manufactured. One of the principal results of the -modern development of machinery, or of the use, by new processes, of -newly discovered powers of Nature, is the increasing division and -subdivision of Labour; so that the labourers, as I have said before, -by the introduction of this mass of machinery, become themselves the -most complicated machine of all, each labourer being a single minute -wheel, and Ability being the framework which alone keeps them in their -places. It may be said, therefore, that each modern invention or -discovery by which the productivity of human exertion is increased has -upon Labour an effect exactly opposite to that which was produced on -it by such inventions as the primæval plough. Instead of making Labour -more efficacious in itself, they make it less and less efficacious, -unless it is assisted by Ability. - - [Sidenote ◆1 They do not become, as is vulgarly said, common - property. They belong to those who can use them;] - - [Sidenote ◆2 And more and more is living Ability required to - maintain and use the powers left to it by the Ability of - the past.] - -◆¹ And here we have the answer to the real argument which lies at the -bottom of my American correspondent’s letter—an argument which, in -some such words as the following, is to be found repeated in every -Socialistic treatise: “When once an invention is made, it becomes -common property.” So it does in a certain theoretical sense; but only -in the sense in which a knowledge of Chinese becomes common property -in England on the publication of a Chinese grammar. For all practical -purposes, such a statement is about as true as to say that because -anybody can buy a book on military tactics, everybody is possessed of -the genius of the Duke of Wellington. ◆² The real truth is, that to -utilise modern inventions, and to maintain the conditions of industry -which these inventions subserve, as much Ability is required as was -required to invent them; though, as I shall have occasion to point out -later on, the Ability is of a different kind. - - [Sidenote ◆1 We must, then, here note that when Ability is said to - produce so much of the national income, what is meant is - the Ability of men alive at the time,] - -These considerations bring us to another important point, which must -indeed from the beginning have been more or less obvious, but which -must now be stated explicitly. ◆¹ That point is, that when we speak -of Ability as producing at any given time such and such a portion -of the national income, as distinguished from the portion which is -produced by Labour, we are speaking of Ability possessed by living men, -who possess it either in the form of their own superior faculties, -assimilating, utilising, and adding to the inventions and discoveries -of their predecessors; or in the form of inherited Capital, which those -predecessors have produced and left to them. Thus, though dead men -like Arkwright, or Watt, or Stevenson may, in a certain theoretical -sense, be considered as continuing to produce wealth still, they cannot -be considered to do so in any sense that is practical; because they -cannot as individuals put forward any practical claims, or influence -the situation any further by their actions. For all practical purposes, -then, their Ability as a productive force exists only in those living -men who inherit or give effect to its results. Now, of the externalised -or congealed Ability which is inherited in the form of Capital, as -distinguished from the personal Ability by which Capital is utilised, -we need not speak here, though we shall have to do so presently. For -this inherited Capital would not only be useless in production, but -would actually disappear and evaporate like a lump of camphor, if -it were not constantly used, and, in being used, renewed, by that -personal Ability which inherits it, and is inseparable from the living -individual; and, though it will be necessary to consider Capital apart -from this when we come to deal with the problem of distribution, -all that we need consider when we are dealing with the problem of -production is this personal Ability, which alone makes Capital live. - - [Sidenote ◆1 Who are practically the monopolists not only of their - own special powers, but of the complicated discoveries - of their predecessors.] - -◆¹ So far, then, as modern production is concerned, all the results -of past Ability, instead of becoming the common property of Labour, -become on the whole, with allowance for many exceptions, more and more -strictly the monopoly of living Ability; because these results becoming -more and more complicated, Ability becomes more and more essential to -the power of mastering and of using them. As, however, I shall point -out by and by, in more than one connection, the Ability that masters -and uses them differs much in kind from the Ability that originally -produced them: one difference being that, whereas to invent and perfect -some new machine requires Ability of the highest class in, let us -say, one man, and Ability of the second class in a few other men, his -partners; to use this machine to the best advantage, and control and -maintain the industry which its use has inaugurated or developed, may -require perhaps Ability of only the second class in one man, but will -require Ability of the third and fourth class in a large number of men. - - [Sidenote ◆1 And the monopoly of Ability grows stricter at each - fresh stage of progress.] - -◆¹ Ability therefore—the Ability of living men—constantly tends, as the -income of the nation grows, to play a larger part in its production, -or to produce a larger part of it; whilst Labour, though without it -no income could be produced at all, tends to produce a part which -is both relatively and absolutely smaller. We assume, for instance, -that the Labour of this country a hundred years ago was capable of -producing the whole of what was the national income then. If it could -by itself, without any Ability to guide it, have succeeded then, when -production was so much simpler, in just producing the yearly amount -in question,—which, as a matter of fact, it could not have done even -then,—the same amount of Labour, without any Ability to guide it, could -certainly not succeed in producing so much now, when all the conditions -of production have become so much more complicated, and when elaborate -organisation is necessary to make almost any effort effective. - - [Sidenote ◆1 Thus the argument above quoted against the claims of - Ability, when examined, only throws additional light on - their strength.] - -◆¹ Thus the argument, which was fermenting in my American -correspondent’s mind, and which he regarded as reducing the claims of -Ability to “hog-wash,” really affords the means, if examined carefully -and minutely, of establishing yet more firmly the position it was -invoked to shatter, and of making the claims of Ability not only -clearer but more extensive. - - - - - CHAPTER III - - _That Ability is a natural Monopoly, due to the - congenital Peculiarities of a Minority. The - Fallacies of other Views exposed._ - - - [Sidenote ◆1 But the Socialists have yet another fallacy with - which they will attempt to neutralise the force of what - has just been said.] - - [Sidenote ◆2 They will say that Ability is the creation of special - opportunity, and that everybody at birth is potentially - an able man.] - -◆¹ But the socialistic theorist will not even yet have been silenced. -Even if he is constrained to admit the truth of all that has just been -said, we shall find that he still possesses in his arsenal of error -another set of arguments by which he will endeavour to do away with its -force. These are generally presented to us in mere loose rhetorical -forms; but however loosely they may be expressed, they contain a -distinct meaning, which I will endeavour to state as completely and -as clearly as is possible. ◆² Put shortly, it is as follows. Though -Ability and Labour may both be productive faculties, and though it may -be allowed that the one is more productive than the other, it is on the -whole a mere matter of social accident—a matter depending on station, -fortune, and education—which faculty is exercised by this or that -individual. Thus, though it may be allowed that a great painter and the -man who stretches his canvas, or an inventor like Watt and the average -mechanic who works for him, do, by the time that both are mature men, -differ enormously in the comparative efficacy of their faculties, yet -the difference is mainly due to circumstances posterior to their birth; -that the circumstances which developed the higher faculties in one -man might equally well have developed them in the other; and that the -circumstances in question, even if only a few can profit by them, are -really created by the joint action of the many. - - [Sidenote ◆1 This is sometimes expressed in saying that “the great - man is made by his age,” i.e. by the opportunities - others have secured for him.] - - [Sidenote ◆2 But this, though true psychologically, is absolutely - false in the practical sphere of economics.] - -The above contention contains several different propositions, which we -will presently examine one by one. We will, however, take its general -meaning first. One of the chief exponents of this, strange as the -fact may seem, is that vehement anti-Socialist, Mr. Herbert Spencer. -Mr. Spencer disposes of the claims of the man of ability as a force -distinct from the generation at large to which he belongs, by saying -that ◆¹ “Before the great man can remake his society, his society -must make him.” Thus, to take an example from art, the genius of a man -like Shakespeare is explained by reference to the condition of the -civilised world, and of England more especially, during the reign of -Queen Elizabeth. The temper of the human mind caused by centuries of -Catholicism, the stir of the human mind shown in the Reformation or the -Renaissance, and the sense of the new world then being conquered in -America, are all dwelt on as general or social causes which produced -in an individual poet a greatness which has been since unequalled. ◆² -Now this reasoning, if used to combat a certain psychological error, no -doubt expresses a very important truth; but if it is transferred to the -sphere of economics its whole meaning vanishes. It was originally used -in opposition to the now obsolete theory according to which a genius -was a kind of spiritual aerolite, fallen from heaven, and related in -no calculable way to its environment. It was used, for instance, to -prove with regard to Shakespeare that had he lived in another age he -would have thought and written differently, and that he might have been -a worse poet under circumstances less exciting to the imagination. -But when we leave the psychological side of the case, and look at its -practical side, a set of facts is forced on us which are of quite a -different order. We are forced to reflect that though Shakespeare’s -mind may have been what it was because the age acted on it, the age was -acting on all Shakespeare’s contemporaries, and yet it produced one -Shakespeare only. If Queen Elizabeth had been told that it was the age -which produced Shakespeare, and in consequence had ordered that three -or four more Shakespeares should be brought to her, her courtiers, do -what they would, would have been unable to find them; and the reason is -plain. The age acts on, or sets its stamp on, the character of every -single mind that belongs to it; but the effect in each case depends -on the mind acted on; and it is only one mind amongst ordinary minds -innumerable, that this universal action can fashion into a great poet. -And what is true of poetic genius is true of industrial Ability. -The great director of Labour is as rare as a great poet is; and -though Ability of lower degrees is far commoner than Ability of the -highest, yet the fact that it is the age which elicits and conditions -its activities does nothing to make it commoner than it would be -otherwise, nor affects the fact that its possessors are relatively -a small minority. For the psychologist, the action of the age is an -all-important consideration; for the economist, it is a consideration -of no importance at all. - -But it is by no means my intention to dismiss the Socialistic argument -with this simple demonstration of the irrelevance of its general -meaning. I am going to call the attention of the reader to the -particular meanings that are attached to it, and show how absolutely -false these are, by comparing them with historical facts. - - [Sidenote ◆1 Again, Socialists urge that no perfected invention is - the work of a single man, but that many men have always - co-operated to produce it.] - - [Sidenote ◆2 This is true; but the class of men referred to is - that very minority who are the monopolists of Ability. - It is this class only, not the community in general.] - -◆¹ In the first place, then, the claims of the age, or of society as -a whole, to be the author of industrial progress, in opposition to -the claims of a minority, are supported by many writers on the ground -that no invention or discovery is in reality the work of any single -man. Such writers delight to multiply—and they can do so without -difficulty—instances of how the most important machines or processes -have been perfected only after a long lapse of time, by the efforts -of many men following or co-operating with one another. Thus the -electric telegraph, and the use of gas for lighting, were not the -discoveries of those who first introduced them to the public; and -Stevenson described the locomotive as the “invention of no one man, -but of a race of mechanical engineers.” Further, it is frequently -urged that the same discoveries and inventions are arrived at in -different places, by different minds, simultaneously; and this fact -is put forward as a conclusive proof and illustration of how society, -not the individual, is the true discoverer and inventor. ◆² But these -arguments leave out of sight entirely the fact that, in the first -place, the whole body of individuals spoken of—such as the race of -engineers who produced the locomotive, or the astronomers in different -countries who are discovering the same new star—form a body which -is infinitesimally small itself; and secondly, that even the body -of persons they represent,—namely, all of those who are engaged in -the same pursuits, and have even so much as attempted any step in -industrial progress,—though numerous in comparison with those who have -actually succeeded in taking one, are merely a handful when compared -with society as a whole, and instead of representing society, offer the -strongest contrast to it. The nature of the assistance which Ability -gives to Ability is an interesting question, but it is nothing to the -point here. To prove that progress is the joint product of Ability and -Ability, does not form a proof, but on the contrary a disproof of the -proposition, that it is the joint product of Ability and Labour—or, in -other words, that it is the product of the age, or the entire community. - - [Sidenote ◆1 Further, Socialists contend that Ability is the - product of education, and that an equal education would - equalise faculties.] - - [Sidenote ◆2 But this wild theory is in absolute opposition to the - most notorious facts;] - -◆¹ The socialistic theorist, however, even if he admits the above -answer, will by no means admit that it is fatal to his own position. He -will still take refuge in the proposition already alluded to, that the -Ability of individuals is the child of opportunity, and that Ability -is rarer than Labour, and able men are a minority, only because, under -existing social circumstances, the opportunities which enable it to -develop itself are comparatively few. And if he is pressed to say -what these opportunities are, he will say that they may be described -generally by the one word education. This argument can be answered in -one way only, namely, an appeal to facts; and it is hard to conceive -of anything which facts more conclusively disprove. Indeed, of much -industrial Ability, it can not only be shown to be false, but it is -also, on the very surface of it, absurd. It is plausible as applied -to Ability of one kind only, namely, that of the inventor or the -discoverer; but this, as we shall see presently, is so far from being -Ability as a whole, that it is not even the most important part of it. -Let us, however, suppose it to be the whole for a moment, and ask how -far the actual facts of life warrant us in regarding it as the child -of opportunity and education. Let us first refer to that general kind -of experience which is recorded in the memory of everybody who has -ever been at a school or college, and which, in the lives of tutors -and masters, is repeated every day. Let a hundred individuals from -childhood be brought up in the same school, let them all be devoted -to the study of the same branch of knowledge, let them enjoy to the -fullest what is called “equality of opportunity,” and it will be found -that not only is there no equality in the amount of knowledge they -acquire, but that there is hardly any resemblance in the uses to which -they will be able to put it. Two youths may have worked together in -one laboratory. One will never do more than understand the discoveries -of others. The other will discover, like Columbus, some new world of -mysteries. ◆² Indeed, equality of opportunity, as all experience shows, -instead of tending to make the power of all men equal, does but serve -to exhibit the extent to which they differ. - - [Sidenote ◆1 As may be seen by a glance at the lives of some of - the most distinguished inventors of the world.] - -◆¹ But particular facts are more forcible than general facts. Let us -consider the men who, as a matter of history, have achieved by their -Ability the greatest discoveries and inventions, and let us see if it -can be said of these men, on the whole, that their Ability has been -due to any exceptional education or opportunity. Speaking generally, -the very reverse is the case. If education means education in the -branch of work or knowledge in which the Ability of the able man is -manifested, the greatest inventors of the present century have had no -advantages of educational opportunity at all. Dr. Smiles observes that -our greatest mechanical inventors did not even have the advantage of -being brought up as engineers. “Watt,” he writes, “was a mathematical -instrument-maker; Arkwright was a barber; Cartwright, the inventor of -the power-loom, was a clergyman; Bell, who afterwards invented the -reaping-machine, was a Scotch minister; Armstrong, the inventor of the -hydraulic engine, was a solicitor; and Wheatstone, inventor of the -electric telegraph, was a maker of musical instruments.” That knowledge -is necessary to mechanical invention is of course a self-evident truth; -and the acquisition of knowledge, however acquired, is education: -education, therefore, was necessary to the exercise of the Ability of -all these men. But the point to observe is, that they had none of them -any special educational opportunity; they were placed at no advantage -as compared with any of their fellows; many of them, indeed, were at -a very marked disadvantage; and though, when opportunity is present, -Ability will no doubt profit by it, the above examples show, and the -whole course of industrial history shows,[42] that Ability is so far -from being the creature of opportunity, that it is, on the contrary, -in most cases the creator of it. - - [Sidenote ◆1 The theory is still further refuted by the fact that - moral Ability is a matter of character and temperament, - rather than of intellect.] - - [Sidenote ◆2 A business started by Ability of intellect is - maintained by Ability of character.] - -◆¹ The mental power, however, which is exercised by the inventor and -discoverer, as I have said, is but one kind of industrial Ability out -of many. Ability—or the faculty by which one man assists the Labour of -an indefinite number of men—consists in what may be called exceptional -gifts of character, quite as much as in exceptional gifts of intellect. -A sagacity, an instinctive quickness in recognising the intellect of -others, a strength of will that sometimes is almost brutal, and will -force a way for a new idea, like a pugilist forcing himself through -a crowd, these are faculties quite as necessary as intellect for -giving effect to what intellect discovers or creates; and they do not -always, or even generally, reside in the same individuals. The genius -which is capable of grappling with ideas and principles, and in the -domain of thought will display the sublimest daring, often goes with -a temperament of such social timidity as to unfit its possessor for -facing and dealing with the world. It is one thing to perfect some -new machine or process, it is another to secure Capital which may -put it into practical operation; and again, if we put the difficulty -of securing Capital out of the question by supposing the inventor -to be a large capitalist himself, there is another difficulty to be -considered, more important far than this—the difficulty dealt with -in the last chapter—namely, the conduct of the business when once -started. Here we come to a number of complicated tasks, in which the -faculty of invention or discovery offers no assistance whatsoever. We -come to tasks which have to do, not with natural principles, but with -men—the thousand tasks of daily and of hourly management. A machine -or process is invented by intellect—there is one step. It is put into -practical operation with the aid of Capital—there is another. When -these two steps are taken, they do not require to be repeated, but the -tasks of management are tasks which never cease; on the contrary, as -has been said already, they tend rather to become ever more numerous -and complicated. ◆² Nor do they consist only of the mere management of -labourers, the selection of foremen and inspectors, and the minutiæ -of industrial discipline. They consist also of what may be called the -policy of the whole business—the quick comprehension of the fluctuating -wants of the consumer, the extent to which these may be led, the -extent to which they must be followed, the constant power of adjusting -the supply of a commodity to the demand. On the importance of these -faculties there is a great deal to be said; but I will only observe -here that it is embodied and exemplified in the fact that successful -inventors and discoverers are nearly always to be found in partnership -with men who are not inventors, but who are critics of inventions, who -understand how to manage and use them, and who supplement the Ability -that consists of gifts of intellect by that other kind of Ability that -consists of gifts of character. - - [Sidenote ◆1 Equality of education and opportunity, instead of - equalising characters, displays their differences.] - - [Sidenote ◆2 Ability, then, is a natural monopoly; because few - people are born with it.] - -Now if, as we have seen, it is entirely contrary to experience to -suppose that inventive Ability is produced by educational opportunity, -much more is it contrary to experience—it is contrary even to common -sense—to suppose that Ability of character can be produced in the same -way. ◆¹ Education, as applied to the rousing and the training of the -intellect, is like a polishing process applied to various stones, which -may give to all of them a certain kind of smoothness, but brings to -light their differences far more than their similarity. Education may -make all of us write equally good grammar, but it will not make all of -us write equally good poetry, any more than cutting and polishing will -turn a pebble into an emerald. And if this is true of education applied -to intellect, of education applied to character it is truer still. -Character consists of such qualities as temperament, strength of will, -imagination, perseverance, courage; ◆² and it is as absurd to expect -that the same course of education will make a hundred boys equally -brave or imaginative, as it is to expect that it will make them equally -tall or heavy, or decorate all of them with hair of the same colour. - - [Sidenote ◆1 And now let us again compare its action with that of - the mass of men surrounding it.] - -Ability, then, is rare as compared with Labour, not because the -opportunities are rare which are favourable or necessary to its -development, but because the minds and characters are rare which can -turn opportunity to account. ◆¹ And now let us turn again to the more -general form of the Socialistic fallacy—the general proposition that -the Age, or Society, or the Human Race is the true inventor, and let us -test this by a new order of facts. - - [Sidenote ◆1 Do able men in any sense represent the tendencies and - intelligence of their average contemporaries? Let - us turn for an answer to the history of the three - chief industrial triumphs of this country: (1) the - iron manufacture, (2) the cotton manufacture, (3) the - steam-engine.] - -I have already alluded to the stress laid by Socialists on the fact -that different individuals in different parts of the world often make -the same discoveries at almost the same time; and I pointed out that -whatever this might teach us, applied only to a small minority of -persons, and had no reference whatever to the great mass of the race. -But Socialists very frequently put their view in a form even more -exaggerated than that which I thus criticised. ◆¹ They use language -which implies that the whole mass of society moves forward together -at the same intellectual pace; and that discoverers and inventors -merely occupy the position of persons who chance to be walking a few -paces in advance of the crowd, and who thus light upon new processes -or machines like so many nuggets lying and glittering on the ground, -which those who follow would have presently discovered for themselves; -or, again, they are represented as persons who are merely the first -to utter some word or exclamation which is already on the lips of -everybody. Let us, then, take the three great elements which go to make -up the industrial prosperity of this country—the manufacture of iron, -the manufacture of cotton, and the development of the steam-engine, -and see how far the history of each of these lends any support to the -theory just mentioned. - - [Sidenote ◆1 The modern development of the iron industry dependent - on the use of coal in place of wood.] - - [Sidenote ◆2 The discovery of how to use coal for this purpose due - to a few individuals, whose labours were either secret, - or bitterly opposed by all who knew of them. Chief - amongst these were] - -We will begin with the manufacture of iron. Ever since man was -acquainted with the use of this metal till a time removed from our own -by a few generations only, ◆¹ its production from the ore was dependent -entirely upon wood, which alone of all fuels—so far as knowledge then -went—had the chemical qualities necessary for the process of smelting. -The iron industry in this country was therefore, till very recently, -confined to wooded districts, such as parts of Sussex and Shropshire; -and so large, during the seventeenth century, was the consumption of -trees and brushwood, that the smelting furnace came to be considered by -many statesmen as the destroyer of wood, rather than as the producer -of metal. ◆² This view, indeed, can hardly be called exaggerated; for -by the beginning of the century following the wood available for the -furnaces was becoming so fast exhausted that the industry had begun -to dwindle; and but for one great discovery it would have soon been -altogether extinguished. This was the method of smelting iron with -coal. Now to what cause was this discovery due? The answer can be given -with the utmost completeness and precision. It was due to the Ability -of a few isolated individuals, whose relation to their contemporaries -and to their age we will now briefly glance at. - - [Sidenote ◆1 Dud Dudley,] - - [Sidenote ◆2 The two Darbys,] - - [Sidenote ◆3 Reynolds and the two Craneges, and others;] - -◆¹ The first of these was a certain Dud Dudley, who procured a patent -in the year 1620 for smelting iron ore “with coal, in furnaces with -bellows”; and his process was so far successful, that at length from a -single furnace he produced for a time seven tons of iron weekly. For -reasons, however, which will be mentioned presently Dudley’s invention -died with himself; and for fifty years after his death the application -of coal to smelting was as much a lost art as it would have been had he -never lived. ◆² Between the years 1718 and 1735 it was again discovered -by a father and son—the Darbys of Coalbrookdale. A further step, -and one of almost equal importance, ◆³ was achieved by two of their -foremen—brothers of the name of Cranege—assisted by Reynolds, who had -married the younger Darby’s daughter, and this was the application of -coal to the process which succeeds smelting, namely, the conversion of -crude iron into bar-iron, or iron that is malleable. Other inventors -might be mentioned by whom these men were assisted, but it will be -quite enough to consider the case of these. As related to the age, as -related to the society round him, the one thing most striking in the -life of each of them is not that he represented that society, but that -he was in opposition to it, and had to fight a way for his inventions -through neglect, ridicule, and persecution. The nation at large was -absolutely ignorant of the very nature of the objects which these men -had in view; whilst the ironmasters of the day, as a body, though not -equally ignorant, disbelieved that the objects were practicable until -they were actually accomplished. It is true that these great inventors -were not alone in their efforts; for where they succeeded, others -attempted and failed: but these failures do but show in a stronger -light how rare and how great were the faculties which success demanded. - - [Sidenote ◆1 The details of whose several lives are signal - illustrations of what has just been said.] - -◆¹ Let us take each case separately. Dudley’s life as an ironmaster was -one long succession of persecution at the hands of his brothers in the -trade. They petitioned the king to put a stop to his manufacture; they -incited mobs to destroy his bellows and his furnaces; they harassed him -with law-suits, ruined him with legal expenses; they succeeded at last -in having him imprisoned for debt; and by thus crippling the inventor, -they at last killed his invention. It is true that meanwhile a few -men—a very few—believed in his ideas, and attempted to work them out -independently; and amongst these was Oliver Cromwell himself. He and -certain partners protected themselves with a patent for the purpose, -and actually bought up the works of the ruined Dudley; but all their -attempts ended in utter failure. Two more adventurers, named Copley -and Proger, were successively granted patents during the reign of -Charles II. for this same purpose, and likewise failed ignominiously. -One man alone in the whole nation had proved himself capable of -accomplishing this new conquest for industry; whilst the nation as a -whole, and the masters of the iron trade in particular, remained as -they were—stationary in their old invincible ignorance. The two Darbys, -the two Craneges, and Reynolds, though not encountering, as Dudley did, -the hostility of their contemporaries, yet achieved their work without -the slightest encouragement or assistance from them. The younger Darby, -solitary as Columbus on his quarter-deck, watched all night by his -furnace as he was bringing his process to perfection. His workmen, like -the sailors of Columbus, obeyed their orders blindly; and in hardly a -brain but his own did there exist the smallest consciousness that one -man was laying, in secret, the foundation of his country’s greatness. -With regard to Reynolds and the Craneges, who imitated, though they did -not perfect, the further use of coal for the production of iron that -is malleable, we have similar evidence that is yet more circumstantial. -Reynolds distinctly declares in a letter written to a friend that the -conception of this process was so entirely original with the Craneges -that it had never for a moment occurred to himself as being possible, -and that they had had to convince him that it was so, against his own -judgment. But when once his conversion was completed, he united his -Ability with theirs; and within a very short time the second great step -in our iron industry had been taken triumphantly by these three unaided -men. - -Were it necessary, and would space permit of it, we might extend this -history further. We might cite the inventions of Huntsman, of Onions, -of Cort, and Neilson, and show how each of these was conceived, was -perfected, and was brought into practical use, whilst the nation as -a whole remained inert, passive, and ignorant, and the experts of -the trade were hostile, and sometimes equally ignorant. Huntsman -perfected his process in a secrecy as carefully guarded as that of a -mediæval necromancer hiding himself from the vigilance of the Church; -whilst James Neilson, the inventor of the hot-blast, had at first to -encounter the united ridicule and hostility of all the shrewdest and -most experienced iron-masters in the kingdom. - - [Sidenote ◆1 The history of the cotton manufacture does so with - equal force;] - -◆¹ The history of the cotton manufacture offers precisely similar -evidence. Almost every one of those great improvements made in it, by -which Ability has multiplied the power of Labour, had to be forced -by the able men on the acceptance of adverse contemporaries. Hay was -driven from the country; Hargreaves from his native town; Arkwright’s -mill, near Chorley, was burnt down by a mob; Peel, who used Arkwright’s -machinery, was at one time in danger of his life. Nor was it only -the hostility of the ignorant that the inventors had to encounter. -They had to conquer Capital before they could conquer Labour; for -the Capitalists at the beginning were hardly more friendly to them -than the labourers. The first Capitalists who assisted Arkwright, and -had Ability enough to discover some promise in his invention, had -not enough Ability to see their way through certain difficulties, -and withdrew their help from him at the most critical moment. The -enterprising men who at last became his partners, and with the aid -of whose Capital his invention became successful, represented their -age just as little as Arkwright did. He and they, indeed, had the same -opportunities as the society round them; but they stand contrasted to -the society by the different use they made of them. - - [Sidenote ◆1 Also the history of the steam-engine, as a very - curious anecdote will show.] - -◆¹ And now, lastly, let us come to the history of the steam-engine. -We need not go over ground we have already trodden, and prove once -more that in this case, as in the others, the age, in the sense of the -majority of the community, had as little to do with the work of the -great inventors as Hannibal had to do with the beheading of Charles I. -It will be enough to insist on the fact that the scientific minority -amongst whom the inventors lived, and who were busied with the same -pursuits, were, as a body, concerned in it just as little. The whole -forward movement, the step after step of discovery by which the -power of steam has become what it now is, was due to individuals—to -a minority of a minority; and this smaller minority was so far from -representing the larger, or from merely marching a few steps ahead of -it, that the large minority always hung back incredulous, till, in -spite of itself, it was converted by the accomplished miracle. One -example is enough to illustrate this. Watt, when he was perfecting -his steam-engine, was in partnership with Dr. Roebuck, who advanced -the money required to patent the invention, and whose energy and -encouragement helped him over many practical difficulties. When the -engine was almost brought to completion, Roebuck found himself so much -embarrassed for money, on account of expense incurred by him in an -entirely different enterprise, that he was forced to sell a large part -of his property; and amongst other things with which he parted was -his interest in Watt’s patent. This he transferred to the celebrated -engineer Boulton; and the patent for that invention which has since -revolutionised the world was valued by Roebuck’s creditors at only one -farthing. - - [Sidenote ◆1 The average man, if cross-examined at the Day of - Judgment, would be forced to give his testimony to the - same effect.] - -◆¹ These facts speak plainly enough for themselves; and the conscience -of most men will add its own witness to what they teach us—which is -this. So far as industrial progress is concerned, the majority of -mankind are passive. They labour as the conditions into which they are -born compel them to labour; but they do nothing, from their cradle to -their grave, so to alter these conditions that their own labour, or -Labour generally, shall produce larger or improved results. The most -progressive race in the world—or in other words the English race—has -progressed as it has done only because it has produced the largest -minority of men fitted to lead, and has been quickest in obeying their -orders; but apart from these men it has had no appreciable tendency to -move. Let the average Englishman ask himself if this is not absolutely -true. Let him imagine himself arraigned before the Deity at the Day -of Judgment, and the Deity saying this to him: “You found when you -entered the world that a man’s labour on the average produced each year -such and such an amount of wealth. Have you done anything to make the -product of the same labour greater? Have you discovered or applied any -new principle to any branch of industry? Have you guided industry into -any new direction? Have the exertions of any other human being been -made more efficacious owing to your powers of invention, of enterprise, -or of management?” There is not one man in a hundred who, if thus -questioned at the Judgment-seat, would be able, on examining every -thought and deed of his life, to give the Judge any answer but, “No. So -far as I am concerned, the powers of Labour, are as I found them.” - - - - - CHAPTER IV - - _The Conclusion arrived at in the preceding Book - restated. The Annual Amount produced by Ability - in the United Kingdom._ - - - [Sidenote ◆1 The more, then, that we examine the question, the - more clearly do we see the magnitude of the work - performed by Ability of the few.] - -◆¹ In spite, then, of the arguments which Socialists have borrowed -from psychology, and with which, by transferring them to the sphere of -economics, and so depriving them of all practical meaning, they have -contrived to confuse the problem of industrial progress, the facts -of the case, when examined from a practical point of view, stand out -hard and clear and unambiguous. Industrial progress is the work not of -society as a whole but of a small part of it, to the entire exclusion -of the larger part; the reason of this being that the faculties to -which this progress is due—the faculties which I have included under -the name of Industrial Ability—are found to exist only in a small -percentage of individuals, and are practically absent from the minds, -characters, and temperaments of the majority of the human race. Ability -is, in fact, a narrow natural monopoly. - - [Sidenote ◆1 But it must not be supposed that Ability is rarer - than it is.] - - [Sidenote ◆2 A rough indication of the number of able men in this - country is found in the incomes earned that are above - the average wages of Labour.] - - [Sidenote ◆3 The highest Ability very rare. Of all grades of - Ability below the highest, there is always a plentiful - supply.] - -◆¹ Ability, however, is of different kinds and grades, some kinds -being far commoner than others; and before summing up what has been -said in this chapter, it will be well to give the reader some more -or less definite idea of the numerical proportion which, judging by -general evidence, the men of Ability bear to the mass of labourers. -Such evidence, not indeed very exact, but still corresponding broadly -to the underlying facts of the case, is to be found in the number of -men paying income-tax on business incomes, as compared with the number -of wage-earners whose incomes escape that tax; in the number of men, -that is, who earn more than _one hundred and fifty pounds_ a year, as -compared with the number of men who do not earn so much. It may seem at -first sight that this division is purely arbitrary; but we shall see, -on consideration, that it is not so. ◆² We shall find that, allowing -for very numerous exceptions, men in this country do as a rule receive -less than _one hundred and fifty pounds_ a year for Labour, and that -when they receive for their exertions a larger income than this they -receive it for the direction of Labour, or for the exercise of some -sort of Ability. Now if we take the males who are over sixteen years -of age, and who are actually engaged in some industrial occupation, we -shall find that those who earn more than _one hundred and fifty pounds_ -a year form of the entire number something like six per cent. We may -therefore say that out of every thousand men there are, on an average, -sixty who are distinctly superior to their fellows, who each add more -to the gross amount of the product by directing Labour, than any one -man does by labouring, and who possesses Ability to a greater or less -extent. ◆³ The commoner kinds of Ability, however, depend as a rule -on the higher kinds, and are efficacious only as working under their -direction; and if we continue our estimate on the basis we have just -adopted, and accept the amount that a man makes in industry as being on -the whole an evidence of the amount of his Ability, we consider that, -all allowance being made for mere luck or speculation, a business -income of _fifty thousand pounds_ means, as a rule, Ability of the -first class, of _fifteen thousand pounds_ Ability of the second, and -_five thousand pounds_ Ability of the third, we shall find that men -possessing these higher degrees of the faculty are, in comparison to -the mass of employed males, very few indeed. We shall find that Ability -of the third class is possessed by but one man out of two thousand; of -the second class by but one man out of four thousand; and of the first -class by but one man out of a hundred thousand. This is, as I have -said, a very rough method of calculation, but it is not a random one; -and there is reason to believe that it affords us an approximation to -truth. At all events, taking it as a whole, it does not err by making -Ability too rare; and we shall be certainly within the mark if, taking -Ability as a whole, and waiving the question of its various classes and -their rarity, we say that of the men in this country actively engaged -in production, the men of Ability constitute one-sixteenth. - - [Sidenote ◆1 We may now repeat the conclusions arrived at in - the last Book, that Ability produces at _least_ - eight-thirteenths of the present income of this country; - and Labour, at the utmost, five-thirteenths.] - -And now we are in a position to repeat with more precision and -confidence the conclusion which we reached at the end of the last -chapter. ◆¹ It was there pointed out that of our present national -income, consisting as it does of about _thirteen hundred million -pounds_, Labour demonstrably produced not more than _five hundred -million pounds_, whilst _eight hundred million pounds_ at least was -demonstrably the product of Ability. In the present chapter, I have -substantiated that proposition: I have exposed the confusions and -fallacies which have been used to obscure its truth; I have shown that -Ability and Labour are two distinct forces, in the sense that whilst -the latter represents a faculty common to all men, the possession of -the former is the natural monopoly of the few; that the labourer and -the man of Ability play such different parts in production that a given -amount of wealth is no more their joint product than a picture is the -joint product of a great painter and a canvas-stretcher; and I have -now pointed to some rough indication of the respective numbers of the -men of Ability and of the labourers. Instead, therefore, of contenting -ourselves with the general statement that Ability makes so much of -the national income, and Labour so much, we may say that ninety-six -per cent of the producing classes produce little more than a third -of our present national income, and that a minority, consisting of -one-sixteenth of these classes, produces little less than two-thirds of -it. - - - ——————————————————————————————————————————————————————— - - - - - BOOK IV - - THE REASONABLE HOPES OF LABOUR — THEIR MAGNITUDE, - AND THEIR BASIS - - - - - ——————————————————————————————————————————————————————— - - - - - CHAPTER I - - _How the Future and Hopes of the Labouring Classes - are bound up with the Prosperity of the Classes - who exercise Ability._ - - - [Sidenote ◆1 The foregoing conclusions not yet complete; but first - let us see the lesson which it teaches us as it stands.] - -◆¹ The conclusion just arrived at is not yet completely stated; for -there are certain further facts to be considered in connection with it -which have indeed already come under our view, but which, in order to -simplify the course of our argument, have been put out of sight in the -two preceding chapters. I shall return to these facts presently; but it -will be well, before doing so, to take the conclusion as it stands in -this simple and broad form, and see, by reference to those principles -which were explained at starting, and in which all classes and parties -agree, what is the broad lesson which it forces on us, underlying all -party differences. - - [Sidenote ◆1 If we sum up all that has been said thus far, it may - seem at first sight that it teaches nothing but the - negative lesson, that we should let Ability have its own - way unchecked.] - -◆¹ I started with pointing out that, so far as politics are concerned, -the aim of all classes is to maintain their existing incomes; and that -the aim of the most numerous class is not only to maintain, but to -increase them. I pointed out further that the income of the individual -is necessarily limited by the amount of the income of the nation; and -that therefore the increase, or at all events the maintenance, of the -existing income of the nation is implied in all hopes of social and -economic progress, and forms the foundation on which all such hopes -are based. I then examined the causes to which the existing income of -the nation is due; and I showed that very nearly two-thirds of it is -due to the exertions of a small body of men who contribute thus to -the productive powers of the community, not primarily because they -possess Capital, but because they possess Ability, of which Capital is -merely the instrument; that it is owing to the exercise of Ability only -that this larger part of the income has gradually made its appearance -during the past hundred years; and that were the exercise of Ability -interfered with, the increment would at once dwindle, and before long -disappear. - -Thus the two chief factors in the production of the national income—in -the production of that wealth which must be produced before it can -be distributed—are not Labour and Capital, which terms, as commonly -used, mean living labourers on the one hand, and dead material on the -other; but they are two distinct bodies of living men—labourers on the -one hand, and on the other men of Ability. The great practical truth, -then, which is to be drawn from the foregoing arguments is this—and it -is to be drawn from them in the interest of all classes alike—that the -action of Ability should never be checked or hampered in such a way as -to diminish its productive efficacy, either by so interfering with its -control of Capital, or by so diminishing its rewards, as to diminish -the vigour with which it exerts itself; but that, on the contrary, all -these social conditions should be jealously maintained and guarded -which tend to stimulate it most, by the nature of the rewards they -offer it, and which secure for it also the most favourable conditions -for its exercise. By such means, and by such means only, is there any -possibility of the national wealth being increased, or even preserved -from disastrous and rapid diminution. - - [Sidenote ◆1 But this is very far from being the whole lesson - taught, or indeed the chief part of it.] - -◆¹ This, however, is but one half of the case; and, taken by itself, -it may seem to have no connection with the problem which forms the -main subject of this volume, namely, the social hopes and interests, -not of Ability, but of Labour. For, taken by itself, the conclusion -which has just been stated may strike the reader at first sight as -amounting merely to this: that the sum total of the national income -will be largest when the most numerous minority of able men produce the -largest possible incomes,—incomes which they themselves consume; and -that, unless they are allowed to consume them, they will soon cease -to produce them. From the labourer’s point of view, such a conclusion -would indeed be a barren one. It might show him that he could not -better himself by attacking the fortunes of the minority; but it would, -on the other hand, fail to show him that he was much interested in -their maintenance, since, if Ability consumes the whole of the annual -wealth which it adds to the wealth annually produced by Labour, the -total might be diminished by the whole of the added portion, and -Labour itself be no worse off than formerly. But when I said just -now that it was to the interest of all classes alike not to diminish -the rewards which Ability may hope for by exerting itself, this was -said with a special qualification. I did not say that it was to the -interest of the labourers to allow Ability to retain the whole of what -it produced, or to abstain themselves from appropriating a certain -portion of it; but what I did say was that any portion appropriated -thus should not be so large, nor appropriated in such a way, as to make -what remains an object of less desire, or the hope of possessing it -less powerful as a stimulus to producing it. This qualification, as the -reader will see presently, gives to the conclusion in question a very -different meaning from that which at first he may very naturally have -attributed to it. - - [Sidenote ◆1 The chief lesson to be learnt is that, whilst Ability - is the chief producer of wealth, Labour may appropriate - a large share of its products.] - -◆¹ For the precise point to which I have been leading up, from the -opening page of the present volume to this, is that a considerable -portion of the wealth produced by Ability may be taken from it and -handed over to Labour, without the vigour of Ability being in the -least diminished by the loss; that such being the case, the one great -aim of Labour is to constantly take from Ability a certain part of its -product; and that this is the sole process by which, so far as money -is concerned, Labour has improved its position during the past hundred -years, or by which it can ever hope to improve it further in the future. - - [Sidenote ◆1 The question is, How much may it appropriate without - paralysing the Ability which produces it?] - -◆¹ The practical question, therefore, for the great mass of the -population resolves itself into this: What is the extent to which -Ability can be mulcted of its products, without diminishing its -efficacy as a productive agent? An able man’s hopes of securing _nine -hundred thousand pounds_ for himself would probably stimulate his -Ability as much as his hopes of securing a _million_. Indeed the fact -that, before he could secure a _million pounds_ for himself, he had to -produce a _hundred thousand_ for other people, might tend to increase -his efforts rather than to relax them. But, on the other hand, if, -before he could secure a _hundred thousand pounds_ for himself, he had -to produce a _million_ for other people, it is doubtful whether either -sum would ever be produced at all. There must therefore be, under any -given set of circumstances, some point somewhere between these two -extremes up to which Labour can appropriate the products of Ability -with permanent advantage to itself, but beyond which it cannot carry -the process, without checking the production of what it desires to -appropriate. But how are we to ascertain where that precise point is? - - [Sidenote ◆1 This is a question which can be answered only by - experience; and we have the experience of a century to - guide us.] - -◆¹ To this question it is altogether impossible to give any answer -based upon _à priori_ reasoning. The very idea of such a thing is -ridiculous; and to attempt it could, at the best, result in nothing -better than some piece of academic ingenuity, having no practical -meaning for man, woman, or child. But what reasoning will not do, -industrial history will. Industrial history will provide us with an -answer of the most striking kind—general, indeed, in its character; -but not, for that reason, any the less decided, or less full of -instruction. For industrial history, in a way which few people realise, -will show us how, during the past hundred years, Labour has actually -succeeded in accomplishing the feat we are considering; how, without -checking the development and the power of Ability, it has been able to -appropriate year by year a certain share of what Ability produces. When -the reader comes to consider this,—which is the great industrial object -lesson of modern times,—when he sees what the share is which Labour -has appropriated so triumphantly, he will see how the conclusions we -have here arrived at, with regard to the causes of production, afford -a foundation for the hopes and claims of Labour, as broad and solid as -that by which they support the rights of Ability. - -Let us turn, then, once more to the fact which I have already so -often dwelt upon, that during the closing years of the last century -the population of Great Britain was about _ten millions_, and the -national income about a _hundred and forty million pounds_. It has been -shown that to reach and maintain that rate of production required the -exertion of an immense amount of Ability, and the use of an immense -Capital which Ability had recently created. But let me repeat what -I have said already: that we will, for the purpose of the present -argument, attribute the production of the whole to average human -Labour. It is obvious that Labour did not produce more, for no more -was produced; and it is also obvious that if, since that time, it -had never been assisted and never controlled by Ability, the same -amount of Labour would produce no more now. We are therefore, let me -repeat, plainly understating the case if we say that British Labour -by itself—in other words, Labour shut out from, and unassisted by the -industrial Ability of the past ninety years—can, at the utmost, produce -annually a _hundred and forty million pounds_ for every _ten millions_ -of the population. - - [Sidenote ◆1 In 1860 Labour took at least twenty-five per cent - more than it produced itself, out of the products of - Ability; and it now takes about forty-five per cent.] - -And now let us turn from what Labour produces to what the labouring -classes[43] have received at different dates within the ninety or -hundred years in question. ◆¹ At the time of which we have just been -speaking, they received about half of what we assume Labour to have -produced. A labouring population of _ten million_ people received -annually about _seventy million pounds_.[44] Two generations later, -the same number of people received in return for their labour about a -_hundred and sixty million pounds_.[45] They were twenty-five per cent -richer than they possibly could have been if, in 1795, they had seized -on all the property in the kingdom and divided it amongst themselves. -In other words, Labour in 1860, instead of receiving, as it did two -generations previously, half of what we assume it to have produced, -received twenty-five per cent more than it produced. If we turn from -the year 1860 to the present time, we find that the gains of Labour -have gone on increasing; and that each _ten millions_ of the labouring -classes to-day receives in return for its labour _two hundred million -pounds_, or over forty per cent more than it produces. And all these -calculations are based, the reader must remember, on the ridiculously -exaggerated assumption which was made for the sake of argument, that -in the days of Watt and Arkwright, Capital, Genius, and Ability had no -share in production; and that all the wealth of the country, till the -beginning of the present century, was due to the spontaneous efforts of -common Labour alone. - - [Sidenote ◆1 The gains of Labour are put in a yet more striking - light by comparing the present income of Labour with the - total income of the country fifty years ago.] - -◆¹ And now let us look at the matter from a point of view slightly -different, and compare the receipts of Labour not with what we assume -it to have itself produced, but with the total product of the community -at a certain very recent date. - -In 1843, when Queen Victoria had been six or seven years on the throne, -the gross income of the nation was in round numbers _five hundred and -fifteen million pounds_. Of this, _two hundred and thirty-five million -pounds_ went to the labouring classes, and the remainder, _two hundred -and eighty million pounds_, to the classes that paid income-tax. Only -fifty years have elapsed since that time, and, according to the best -authorities, the income of the labouring classes now is certainly not -less than _six hundred and sixty million pounds_.[46] That is to say, -it exceeds, by a _hundred and forty-five million pounds_, the entire -income of the nation fifty years ago. - -An allowance, however, must be made for the increase in the number of -the labourers. That is of course obvious, and we will at once proceed -to make it. But when it is made, the case is hardly less wonderful. -The labouring classes in 1843 numbered _twenty-six millions_; at the -present time they number _thirty-three millions_.[47] That is to say, -they have increased by _seven million_ persons. Now assuming, as we -have done, that Labour by itself produces as much as _fourteen pounds_ -per head of the population, this addition of _seven million_ persons -will account for an addition of _ninety-eight million pounds_ to the -_five hundred and fifteen million pounds_ which was the amount of -the national income fifty years ago. We must therefore, to make our -comparisons accurate, deduct _ninety-eight million pounds_ from the -_hundred and forty-five million pounds_ just mentioned, which will -leave us an addition of _forty-seven million pounds_. We may now say, -without any reservation, that the labouring classes of this country, in -proportion to their number, receive to-day _forty-seven million pounds_ -a year more than the entire income of the country at the beginning of -the reign of Queen Victoria. - - [Sidenote ◆1 Every labourer anxious for his own welfare should - reflect on these facts.] - -◆¹ To any labourer anxious for his own welfare, to any voter or -politician of any kind, who realises that the welfare of the labourers -is the foundation of national stability, and who seeks to discover by -what conditions that welfare can be best secured and promoted, this -fact which I have just stated is one that cannot be considered too -closely, too seriously, or too constantly. - -Let the reader reflect on what it means. - - [Sidenote ◆1 They show him that the existing system has done, and - is doing for him far more than any Socialist ever - promised.] - -Dreams of some possible social revolution, dreams of some division of -property by which most of the riches of the rich should be abstracted -from them and divided amongst the poor—these were not wanting fifty -years ago. ◆¹ But even the most sanguine of the dreamers hardly -ventured to hope that the then riches of the rich could be taken -away from them completely; that a sum equal to the rent of the whole -landed aristocracy, all the interest on Capital, all the profits of -our commerce and manufactures, could be added to what was then the -income of the labouring classes. No forces of revolution were thought -equal to such a change as that. But what have the facts been? What has -happened really? Within fifty years the miracle has taken place, or, -indeed, one greater than that. The same number of labourers and their -families as then formed the whole labouring population of the country -now possess among them every penny of the amount that then formed the -income of the entire nation. They have gained every penny that they -possibly could have gained if every rich man of that period—if duke, -and cotton lord, and railway king, followed by all the host of minor -plutocrats, had been forced to cast all they had into the treasury -of Labour, and give their very last farthing to swell the labourer’s -wages. The labourers have gained this; but that is not all. They have -gained an annual sum of _forty-seven million pounds_ more. And they -have done all this, not only without revolution, but without any -attack on the fundamental principles of property. On the contrary, the -circumstances which have enabled Labour to gain most from the proceeds -of Ability, have been the circumstances which have enabled Ability to -produce most itself. - - [Sidenote ◆1 But before proceeding with this argument, there are - two side points to dispose of.] - -◆¹ Before, however, we pursue these considerations further, it is -necessary that we should deal with two important points which have -perhaps already suggested themselves to the reader as essential to the -problem before us. They are not new points. They have been discussed in -previous chapters; but the time has now arrived to turn to them once -again. - - - - - CHAPTER II - - _Of the Ownership of Capital, as distinct from its - Employment by Ability._ - - - [Sidenote ◆1 In the foregoing argument, all mention of Land has - been omitted, for simplicity’s sake.] - - [Sidenote ◆2 But rent, especially the rent of the large owners, is - so small a part of the national income that the omission - is of no practical importance.] - -The first of the points I have alluded to can be disposed of very -quickly. It relates to Land. In analysing the causes to which our -national income is due, I began with showing that Land produced a -certain definite part of it. ◆¹ For the sake, however, of simplicity, -in the calculation which I went on to make, I ignored Land, and the -fact of its being a productive agent; and treated the whole income as -if produced by Labour, Capital, and Ability. I wish, therefore, now to -point out to the reader that this procedure has had little practical -effect on the calculation in question, and that any error introduced -by it can be easily rectified in a moment. ◆² The entire landed rental -of this country is, as I have already shown, not so much as one -thirteenth of the income; whilst that of the larger landed proprietors -is not so much as one thirty-ninth. Now my sole object in dealing with -the national income at all is to show how far it is susceptible of -redistribution; and it is perfectly certain that no existing political -party would attempt, or even desire, to redistribute the rents of any -class except the large proprietors only. The smaller proprietors,—_nine -hundred and fifty thousand_ in number,—who take between them two-thirds -of the rental, are in little immediate danger of having their rights -attacked. The only rental therefore—namely, that of the larger -proprietors—which can be looked on, even in theory, as the subject of -redistribution, is too insignificant, being less than _thirty million -pounds_, to appreciably affect our calculations when we are dealing -with _thirteen hundred millions_. The theory of Land as an independent -productive agent, and of rent as representing its independent product, -is essential to an understanding of the theory of production generally; -but in this country the actual product of the Land is so small, as -compared with the products of Labour, Capital, and Ability, that for -purposes like the present it is hardly worth considering. Its being -redistributed, or not redistributed, would, as we have seen already, -make to each individual but a difference of three farthings a day. - - [Sidenote ◆1 Capital, as distinct from the Ability that uses it, - has been omitted also.] - - [Sidenote ◆2 We must now again consider it in connection with the - classes which never themselves employ it, but live on - the interest of it.] - - [Sidenote ◆3 What place do these classes hold in the productive - system?] - -◆¹ The second point I alluded to must be considered at greater length. -In dealing with Capital and Ability, I first treated them separately. I -then showed that, regarded as a productive agent, Capital _is_ Ability, -and must be treated as identical with it. But it is necessary, now that -we are dealing with distribution, to disunite them for a moment, and -treat them separately once more. ◆² For even though it be admitted that -Ability, working by means of Capital, produces, as it has been shown to -do, nearly two-thirds of the national income, and though it be admitted -further that a large portion of this product should go to those able -men who are actively engaged in producing it,—the men whose Ability -animates and vivifies Capital,—it may yet be urged that a portion of it -which is very large indeed goes, as a fact, to men who do not exert -themselves at all, or who, at any rate, do not exert themselves in -the production of wealth. These men, it will be said, live not on the -products of Ability, but on the interest of Capital which they have -come accidentally to possess; ◆³ and it will be asked on what grounds -Labour is interested in forbearing to touch the possessions of those -who produce nothing? If it has added to its income, as it has done, -during the past hundred years, why should it not now add to it much -more rapidly, by appropriating what goes to this wholly non-productive -class? - -To this question there are several answers. One is that a leisured -class—a class whose exertions have no commercial value, or no -value commensurate with the cost of its maintenance—is essential -to the development of culture, of knowledge, of art, and of mental -civilisation generally. But this is an answer which we need not dwell -on here; for, whatever its force, it is foreign to our present purpose. -We will confine ourselves solely to the material interests that are -involved, and consider solely how the plunder of a class living on -the interest of Capital would tend to affect the actual production of -wealth. - -It would affect the production of wealth in just the same way as would -a similar treatment of that class on whose active Ability production is -directly dependent; and it would do this for the following reasons. - - [Sidenote ◆1 They are the heirs of Ability, and represent, by - their possession of Capital, the main object with which - that Capital was originally created.] - - [Sidenote ◆2 For Capital is created and saved in order that it may - yield interest, firstly, to the man who himself created - and saved it;] - -◆¹ The greater part of the Capital that has been accumulated in the -modern world is the creation of active Ability, as I have pointed out -already. It has been saved not from the product of Labour, but from -the product which Ability has added to this. It is Ability congealed, -or Ability stored up. And the main motive that has prompted the men -of Ability to create it has not consisted only of the desire of -enjoying the income which they are enabled to produce by its means, -when actually employing it themselves, but the desire also of enjoying -some portion of the income which will be produced by its means if it -is employed by the Ability of others. ◆² In a word, the men who create -and add to our Capital are motived to do so by expectation that the -Capital shall be their own property; that it shall, when they wish -it, yield them a certain income independent of any further exertions -of their own. Were this expectation rendered impossible, were Capital -by any means prevented from yielding interest either to the persons -who made and saved it, or those to whom the makers might bequeath it, -the principal motive for making or saving it would be gone. If a man, -for instance, makes _one thousand pounds_ he can, as matters stand, do -three things with it, any one of which will gratify him. He can spend -it as income, and enjoy the whole of it in that way; he can use it -himself as Capital, and so enjoy the profits; or he can let others use -it as Capital, and so enjoy the interest. But if he were by any means -precluded from receiving interest for it, and desired for any reason -to retire from active business, he could do with his _thousand pounds_ -one of two things only—he could spend it as income, in which case it -would be destroyed; or let others use it as Capital, in which case he -himself could derive no benefit whatever from it, and would, in effect, -be giving it or throwing it away. Were the first course pursued, no -Capital would be saved; were the second course obligatory, no Capital -would be created.[48] - - [Sidenote ◆1 And secondly, to his family and his immediate heirs.] - - [Sidenote ◆2 The bulk of the Capital owned now by those who do not - employ it themselves has come to them from their fathers - or grandfathers who created it;] - - [Sidenote ◆3 As the history of the growth of Capital during the - present century shows.] - - [Sidenote ◆4 A man’s desire to leave money to his family is shown - by history to be as strong a motive as the desire to - enjoy it himself.] - -I have spoken thus far as though in creating Capital a man’s motive -were the hope of enjoying the interest of it himself. ◆¹ But there is -another motive almost equally powerful—in some cases more powerful—and -that is the hope of transferring or transmitting it to his family or to -his children. ◆² Now four-fifths of the Capital of the United Kingdom -has been created within the last eighty years. The total Capital in -1812 amounted to about _two thousand millions_; now it amounts to -almost _ten thousand millions_. Therefore _eight thousand millions_ -of the Capital of this country has been created by the Ability of -the parents and of the grandparents of those who now possess it, -supplemented by the Ability of many who now possess it themselves. The -most rapid increase in it took place between 1840 and 1875. ◆³ If we -regard men of fifty as representing the present generation of those -actively engaged in business, we may say that their grandfathers made -_two thousand millions_ of our existing Capital, their parents _four -thousand millions_, and themselves _two thousand millions_. It will -thus be easily realised how those persons who own Capital which they -leave others to employ, and which personally they have had no hand in -making, are for the most part relatives or representatives of the very -persons who made it, and who made it actuated by the hope that their -relations or representatives should succeed to it. ◆⁴ All history shows -us that one of the most important and unalterable factors in human -action is a certain solidarity of interest between men—even selfish -men—and those nearly connected with them; and just as parents are, by -an almost universal instinct, prompted to rear their children, so are -they prompted to bequeath to them—or, at all events, to one of them—the -greater part of their possessions. We might as well try to legislate -against the instincts of maternity, as against the instinct of bequest. -Therefore, that the ownership of much of the Capital of the country -should be separated from the actual employment of it, is a necessary -result of the forces by which it was called into existence; and in -proportion as such a result was made impossible in the future, the -continued operation of these forces would be checked. - - [Sidenote ◆1 Further, it is impossible to prevent interest being - both offered and taken for the use of Capital.] - -◆¹ But interest depends also on a reason that is yet stronger and more -simple than these. The owner of Capital receives interest for the use -of it, because it is, in the very nature of things, impossible to -prevent its being offered him, and impossible to prevent his taking it. -If a man who possesses _one hundred thousand pounds_, by using it as -Capital makes _ten thousand pounds_ a year, and could, if he had the -use of another _one hundred thousand pounds_, add another _ten thousand -pounds_ to his income, no Government could prevent his making a bargain -with a man who happened to possess the sum required, by which the -latter, in return for lending him that sum, would obtain a part of the -income which the use of it would enable him to produce. - -The most practical aspect of the matter, however, yet remains to be -considered. I have spoken of interest as of a thing with whose nature -we are all familiar. But let us pause and ask, What is it? It is merely -a part of the product which active Ability is enabled to produce by -means of its tool, Capital. It is the part given by the man who uses -the tool to the man who owns it. But the tool, or Capital, is, as we -have seen already, itself the product of the Ability of some man in the -past; so that the payment of interest, whether theoretically just or -no, is a question which concerns theoretically two parties only: the -possessor of living Ability, and the possessor of the results of past -Ability. Thus, whatever view we may happen to take about it, Labour, -in so far as theoretical justice goes, has no concern in the matter, -one way or the other. For if interest is robbery, it is Ability that is -robbed, not Labour. - - [Sidenote ◆1 And whether interest be just or no, it at all events - represents no injustice to Labour.] - - [Sidenote ◆2 For it will modify, though not extinguish, their - desire to appropriate a part of what is paid as - interest.] - -◆¹ It is important to take notice of this truth; for a knowledge of -what is theoretically just, though it can never control classes so -far as to prevent their seizing on whatever they can obtain and keep, -exercises none the less a very strong influence on their views as to -how much of the wealth of other classes is obtainable, and also on -the temper in which, and the entire procedure by which, they will -endeavour to obtain it. ◆² For this reason it is impossible to insist -too strongly on the fact that, as a matter of theoretical justice, -Labour, as such, has no claim whatever on any of the interest paid -for the use of Capital; and that if it succeeds in obtaining any part -of this interest, it will be obtaining what has been made by others, -not what has been made by itself. It is not that such arguments as -these will extinguish the desire of Labour to increase its own wages -at the expense of interest, if possible; for might—the might that can -sustain itself, not the brute force of the moment—will always form in -the long run the practical rule of right; but they will disseminate a -dispassionate view of what the limits of possibility are, and on what -these limits depend. - - [Sidenote ◆1 History shows us that they have been doing this - already,] - -◆¹ And now let us turn to the facts of industrial history, and see -what light they throw on what has just been said. I have pointed out -that if Capital is to be made or used at all, it must necessarily, -for many reasons, be allowed to yield interest to its owners; but the -amount of interest it yields has varied at various times; and, although -to abolish it altogether would be impossible, or, if possible, fatal -to production, it is capable, under certain circumstances, of being -reduced to a minimum, without production being in any degree checked; -and every _pound_ which the man who employs Capital is thus relieved -from paying to the man who owns it constitutes, other things being -equal, a fund which may be appropriated by Labour. To say this is to -make no barren theoretical statement. The fund in question not only -may, under certain circumstances, be appropriated by Labour; but these -circumstances are the natural result of our existing industrial system; -and the fund, as I will now show, has been appropriated by Labour -already, and forms a considerable part of that additional income which -Labour, as we have seen, has secured from the income created by Ability. - - [Sidenote ◆1 to an increasing extent.] - - [Sidenote ◆2 Interest now forms but a small part of the income of - the nation,] - -◆¹ In days preceding the rise of the modern industrial system, the -average rate of interest was as high as ten per cent. As the modern -system developed itself, as Ability more and more was diverted from -war, and concentrated on commerce and industry, and produced by the use -of Capital a larger and more certain product, ◆² the price it paid for -the use of Capital fell, till by the middle of this century it was not -more than five per cent. During the past forty years it has continued -to sink still further, and can hardly be said now to average much more -than three. - - [Sidenote ◆1 In spite of appearances to the contrary;] - -◆¹ This fact is sufficiently well known to investors; but there are -other facts known equally well which tend to confuse popular thought -on the subject, and which accordingly, in a practical work like this, -it is very necessary to place in their true light. For, in spite of -what has been said of the fall in the rate of interest from ten to six, -and to five, and from five to three per cent, it is notorious that -companies, when successful, often pay to-day dividends of from ten to -twenty per cent, or even more; and founders’ shares in companies are -constantly much sought after, which are merely shares in such profits -as result over and above a return of at least ten per cent on the -capital. - - [Sidenote ◆1 As much of what is vulgarly considered interest is - something quite different.] - -But the explanation of this apparent contradiction is simple. Large -profits must not be confounded with high interest. ◆¹ Large profits are -a mixture of three things, as was pointed out by Mill, though he did -not name two of them happily. He said that profits consisted of wages -of superintendence, compensation for risk, and interest on Capital. If, -instead of wages of superintendence, we say the product of Ability, and -instead of compensation for risk, we say the reward of sagacity, which -is itself a form of Ability, we shall have an accurate statement of the -case. A large amount of the Capital in the kingdom is managed by the -men who own it; and when they manage it successfully, the returns are -large. Sometimes a man with a Capital of _a hundred thousand pounds_ -will make as much as _fifteen thousand pounds_ a year; but that does -not mean that his Capital yields fifteen per cent of interest. Let such -a man be left another _hundred thousand pounds_, which he determines -not to put into his own business, but invests in some security held to -be absolutely safe, and he will find that interest on Capital means not -more than three and a half per cent. If he is determined to get a large -return on his Capital, and if he does this by investing it in some -new and speculative enterprise, this result, unless it be the mere -good luck of a gambler, is mainly the result of his own knowledge and -judgment, as the following facts clearly enough show. - -Between the years 1862 and 1885 there were registered in the United -Kingdom about _twenty-five thousand_ joint stock companies, with an -aggregate Capital of about _two thousand nine hundred million pounds_. -Of these companies, by the year 1885, more than _fifteen thousand_ -had failed, and less than _ten thousand_ were still existing. During -the following four years the proportion of failures was smaller; but -a return published in 1889 shows that of all the companies formed -during the past twenty-seven years, considerably more than half had -been wound up judicially. Therefore a man who secures a large return -on money invested in a business not under his own control, does so by -an exercise of sagacity not only beneficial to himself, but in a still -higher degree beneficial to the country generally; for he has helped -to direct human exertion into a profitable and useful channel, whereas -those who are less sagacious do but help it to waste itself.[49] - -Of large returns on Capital, then, only a part is interest; the larger -part being merely another name for what we have shown to be the actual -creation of Ability—either the Ability with which the Capital has -been employed in directing Labour, or the Ability with which some new -method of directing Labour has been selected. There is accordingly no -contradiction in the two statements that Capital may often bring more -than fifteen per cent to the original investors; and yet that interest -on Capital in the present day is not more than three or three and a -half per cent. Here is the explanation of shares rising in value. A man -who at the starting of a business takes _a hundred one pound shares_ -in it, and, when it is well established, gets _twenty pounds_ a year -as a dividend, will be able to sell his shares for something like _six -hundred pounds_; which means that little more than three per cent is -the interest which will be received by the purchaser. - - [Sidenote ◆1 Interest, then, has decreased, and the whole sum thus - saved has gone to the labouring classes.] - -◆¹ Interest, then, or the sum which those who use Capital pay to -those who own it, having decreased, as we have seen it has done, with -the development of our industrial system, it remains to show the -reader where the sum thus saved has gone. It must have gone to one -or other of two classes of people: to the men of Ability, or to the -labourers. If it had gone to the former,—that is, to the employers of -Labour,—their gains now would be greater, in proportion to the Capital -employed by them, than they were fifty years ago; but if their gains -have not become greater, then the sum in question must obviously have -found its way to the labourers. And that such is the case will be made -sufficiently evident by the fact that Mr. Giffen has demonstrated in -the most conclusive way that, if rent and the interest taken by the -classes that pay income-tax had increased as fast as the sum actually -taken by Labour, the sum assessed to income-tax would be _four hundred -million pounds_ greater than it is, and the sum taken by Labour _four -hundred million pounds_ less.[50] In this case the wealthier classes -would be now taking _one thousand and sixty million pounds_, instead -of the _six hundred million pounds_ which they actually do take;[51] -and the labouring classes, instead of taking, as they do, _six hundred -and sixty million pounds_, or, as Mr. Giffen maintains, more, would be -taking only _two hundred and sixty million pounds_.[52] In fact, as Mr. -Giffen declares, “It would not be far short of the mark to say that the -whole of the great improvement of the last fifty years has gone to the -masses.” And the accuracy of this statement is demonstrated in a very -striking way by the fact that had the whole improvement, according to -the contrary hypothesis, gone not to the labourers, but to the classes -that pay income-tax, the remainder, namely, _two hundred and sixty -million pounds_, would correspond, almost exactly, allowing for the -increase of their numbers, with what the labouring classes received at -the close of the last century. - - [Sidenote ◆1 What the social reformer should study is not the - dreams of Socialists, but the forces actually at work, - through which Labour has already gained, and is gaining - so much.] - -◆¹ What, then, the social reformer, what the labourer, and the friend -of Labour, ought to study with a view to improving the condition of -the labouring classes, is not the theories and dreams of those who -imagine that the improvement is to be made only by some reorganisation -of society, but the progress, and the causes of the progress, that -these classes have actually been making, not only under existing -institutions, but through them, because of them, by means of them. - - - - - CHAPTER III - - _Of the Causes owing to which, and the Means by - which Labour participates in the growing - Products of Ability._ - - -Let me repeat in other words what I have just said. The labouring -classes, under the existing condition of things, have acquired more -wealth in a given time than the most sanguine Socialist of fifty -years ago could have promised them; and this increased wealth has -found its way into their pockets owing to causes that are in actual -operation round us. These causes, therefore, should be studied for two -reasons: firstly, in order that we may avoid hindering their operation; -secondly, in order that we may, if possible, accelerate it; and I shall -presently point out, as briefly, but as clearly as I can, what the -general character of these causes is. - - [Sidenote ◆1 It is true that there are notorious facts that may - make the superficial or excitable observer doubt the - reality of this great progress of the labouring classes.] - -◆¹ But before doing this,—before considering the cause of this -progress,—I must for a moment longer dwell and insist upon the reality -of it; because unhappily there are certain notorious facts which -constantly obtrude themselves on the observation of everybody, and -which tend to make many people deny, or at least doubt it. These facts -are as follows. - - [Sidenote ◆1 But when these facts—viz. facts relating to the very - poor—are reduced to their true proportions,] - -Speaking in round numbers, there exists in this country to-day a -population consisting of about _seven hundred thousand_ families, -or _three million_ persons, whose means of subsistence are either -insufficient, or barely sufficient, or precarious, and the conditions -of whose life generally are either hard or degrading, or both. A -considerable portion of them may, without any sentimental exaggeration, -be called miserable; and all of them may be called more or less -unfortunate. There is, further, this observation to be made. People who -are in want of the bare necessaries of life can hardly be worse off -absolutely at one period than another; but if, whilst their own poverty -remains the same, the riches of other classes increase, they do, in -a certain sense, become worse off relatively. The common statement, -therefore, that the poor are getting constantly poorer is, in this -relative sense, true of a certain part of the population; and that -part is now nearly equal in numbers to the entire population of the -country at the time of the Norman Conquest. Such being the case, it is -of course obvious that persons who, for purposes of either benevolence -or agitation, are concerned to discover want, misfortune, and misery, -find it easier to do so now than at any former period. London alone -possesses an unfortunate class which is probably as large as the whole -population of Glasgow; and an endless procession of rags and tatters -might be marched into Hyde Park to demonstrate every Sunday. But if -the unfortunate class in London is as large as the whole population of -Glasgow, we must not forget that the population of London is greater -by nearly a _million_ than the population of all Scotland; ◆¹ and the -truth is that, although the unfortunate class has, with the increase -of population, increased in numbers absolutely, yet relatively, for -at least two centuries, it has continued steadily to decrease. In -illustration of this fact, it may be mentioned that, whereas in 1850 -there were _nine_ paupers to every _two hundred_ inhabitants, in 1882 -there were only _five_; whilst, to turn for a moment to a remoter -period, so as to compare the new industrial system with the old, in -the year 1615, a survey of Sheffield, already a manufacturing centre, -showed that the “begging poor,” who “could not live without the charity -of their neighbours,” actually amounted to one-third of the population, -or _seven hundred and twenty-five_ households out of _two thousand two -hundred and seven_. Further, although, as I observed just now, it is -in a certain sense true to say that, relatively to other classes, the -unfortunate class has been getting poorer, the real tendency of events -is expressed in a much truer way by saying that all other classes have -been getting more and more removed from poverty. - - [Sidenote ◆1 We shall find that they have no such significance, - nor disprove in any way the extraordinary progress of - the vast majority.] - - [Sidenote ◆2 What then are the causes of this progress?] - -◆¹ What the presence, then, and the persistence of this class really -shows us is not that the progress of the labouring classes as a whole -has been less rapid and less remarkable than it has just been said to -be, but that a certain fraction of the population, for some reason or -other, has always remained hitherto outside this general progress; and -the one practical lesson which its existence ought to force on us is -not to doubt the main movement, still less to interfere with it, but to -find some means of drawing these outsiders into it. ◆² This great and -grave problem, however, requires to be treated by itself, and does not -come within the scope of the present volume. Our business is not with -the causes which have shut out one-tenth of the poorer classes from the -growing national wealth, but with those which have so signally operated -in making nine-tenths of them sharers in it. - - [Sidenote ◆1 They are of two kinds: spontaneous tendencies, and - the deliberate and concerted actions of men.] - -We will accordingly return to these, and consider what they are. ◆¹ We -shall find them to be of two kinds: firstly, those which consist of -the natural actions of men, each pursuing his own individual interest; -and secondly, their concerted actions, which represent some general -principle, and are deliberately undertaken for the advantage not of an -individual but of a class. We will begin with considering the former; -as not only are they the most important, but they also altogether -determine and condition the latter, and the latter, indeed, can do -little more than assist them. - - [Sidenote ◆1 We will begin with the spontaneous tendencies—_i.e._ - the natural actions of individuals, each pursuing his - own interest.] - - [Sidenote ◆2 There are two ways of getting rich: (1) by - abstracting from an existing income, or (2) by adding to - it. The rich class of the modern world have, as a whole, - become rich in the second way.] - -◆¹ The natural causes that tend to distribute amongst Labour a large -portion of the wealth produced by Ability will be best understood if we -first consider for a moment the two ways—and the two only ways—in which -a minority can become wealthy. ◆² What these are can be easily realised -thus. Let us imagine a community of eight labouring men, who make each -of them _fifty pounds_ a year, and who represent Labour; and let us -imagine a ninth man,—a man of Ability,—who represents the minority. The -ninth man might, if he were strong enough, rob each of the eight men -of _twenty-five pounds_, compelling them each to live on _twenty-five -pounds_ instead of on _fifty pounds_, and appropriate to himself an -annual _two hundred pounds_. Or he might reach the same result in a -totally different way. He might so direct and assist the Labour of -the eight men, that without any extra effort to themselves they each, -instead of _fifty pounds_ produced _seventy-five pounds_, and if, -under these circumstances, he took _twenty-five pounds_ from each, he -would gain the same sum as before, namely _two hundred pounds_, but, -as I said, in a totally different way. It would represent what he had -added to the original product of the labourers, instead of representing -anything he had taken from it. Now whatever may have been true of rich -classes in former times and under other social conditions, the riches -now enjoyed by the rich class in this country have, with exceptions -which are utterly unimportant, been acquired by the latter of these two -methods, not by the former. They represent an addition to the product -of Labour, not an abstraction from it. This is, of course, clear from -what has been said already; but it is necessary here to specially bear -it in mind. - - [Sidenote ◆1 Let us consider the nature of the process,] - - [Sidenote ◆2 By first representing Labour and Ability in their - simplest imaginable forms; Ability, or the employing - class, being represented as one man.] - -◆¹ Let us then take a community of eight labourers, each producing -commodities worth _fifty pounds_ a year, and each consuming—as he -easily might—the whole of them. These men represent the productive -power of Labour; ◆² and now let us suppose the advent of Ability in -the person of the ninth man, by whose assistance this productive power -is multiplied, and consider more particularly what the ninth man does. -There is one thing which it is quite plain he does not do. He does -not multiply the power of Labour for the sake of merely increasing -the output of those actual products which he finds the labourers -originally producing and consuming, and of appropriating the added -quantity; for the things he would thus acquire would be of no possible -good to him. He would have more boots and trousers than he could wear, -more bread and cheese than he could eat, and spades and implements -which he did not want to use. He would not want them himself, and -the labourers are already supplied with them. They would be no good -to anybody. He does not therefore employ his Ability thus, so as to -increase the output of the products that have been produced hitherto; -but he enables first, we will say, four men, then three, then two, and -lastly one, to produce the same products that were originally produced -by eight; and he thus liberates a continually increasing number, whom -he sets to produce products of new and quite different kinds. - -Let us see how he does this. The eight labourers, when he finds -them, make each _fifty pounds_ a year, or _four hundred pounds_ in -the aggregate; and this represents the normal necessaries of their -existence. He, by the assistance which his Ability renders Labour, -enables at last, after many stages of progress, these same necessaries -to be produced by one single man, who, instead of producing, as -formerly, goods worth _fifty pounds_, finds himself, with the -assistance of Ability, producing goods worth _four hundred pounds_. -There is thus an increase of _three hundred and fifty pounds_, and this -increment the man of Ability takes. - -Meanwhile, seven men are left idle, and with them the man of Ability -makes the following bargain. Out of the _three hundred and fifty -pounds_ worth of necessaries which he possesses, he offers each of -them _fifty pounds_ worth—the amount which originally they each made -for themselves, on condition that they will make other things for him, -or put their time at his disposal. They accordingly make luxuries for -him, or become his personal servants. For the _three hundred and fifty -pounds_ he pays them in the shape of necessaries, they return him -another _three hundred and fifty pounds_ in the shape of commodities or -of service; and this new wealth constitutes the able man’s income. - - [Sidenote ◆1 In this case, there being no competition of - employers, there would be no natural distribution of the - increasing products amongst the labourers.] - -Such, reduced to its simplest elements, is the process on which the -riches of the rich in the modern world depend. ◆¹ It will be seen, -however, that in the case we have just supposed, the labourers, by the -process in question, gain absolutely nothing. Each of them originally -made _fifty pounds_ a year. He now receives the same sum in wages. But -the total product has increased by _three hundred and fifty pounds_, -and of this the labourers acquire no share whatever. Nor, supposing -them to be inexperienced in the art of combination, is there any means -by which they could ever do so. And if our imaginary community were a -complete representation of reality, the same would be the case with the -labourers in real life. - - [Sidenote ◆1 But let us introduce a second man of Ability - competing with the first, and the process of - distribution of the increased product amongst the - labourers begins at once.] - -◆¹ But it must now be pointed out that in one important respect, as a -representation of reality, our community is incomplete. It represents -the main process by which the riches of the rich are produced; but it -offers no parallel to one factor in the real situation, owing to which -the labourers inevitably acquire a share in them. In that community the -rich classes are represented by a single person, who has no conflicting -interests analogous to his own to contend against. But in actual -life, so far as this point is concerned, the condition of the rich is -different altogether. As looked at from without, they are, indeed, a -single body, which may with accuracy be represented as one man; but -as looked at from within, they are a multitude of different bodies, -whose interests, within certain limits, are diametrically opposed to -each other. In order, therefore, to make our illustration complete, -instead of one man of Ability we must imagine two. The first, whose -fortunes we have just followed, and whom, for the sake of distinctness, -we will christen John, has already brought production to the state -that has been just described. He has managed to get seven men out of -eight to produce luxuries for himself,—luxuries, we will say, such -as wine, cigars, and butter,—paying these seven men with the surplus -necessaries which, with his assistance, are produced by the eighth man. -But of these luxuries the seven men keep none; nor can they give any -of them to the eighth man, their fellow. John takes all. But now let -us suppose that a second man of Ability, whom we will christen James, -appears upon the scene, just as anxious as John to direct Labour by -his Ability, and just as capable of making Labour productive. But all -the labourers are at present in the pay of John. James therefore must -set himself to detach them from John’s service; and he accordingly -engages that if they will work for him they shall not only each receive -the necessaries that John gives them, but a share of the other things -that they produce—of the butter, of the cigars, and of the wine—as -well. The moment this occurs, John has to make a similar offer; and -thus the wages of Labour at once begin to rise. When they have been -forced up to a certain point, James and John cease to bid against one -another, and each employs a certain number of labourers, till one or -other of them makes some new discovery which enables the same amount -of some commodity—we will say cigars—as has hitherto been produced by -two men, to be produced by one; and thus a new labourer is set free, -and is available for some new employment. We must assume that James and -John could both employ this man profitably—that is, that they could -set him to produce some new object of desire—let us say strawberries; -and, this being so, there is again a competition for his labour. He -is offered by both employers as much as he has received hitherto, and -as the other labourers receive; and he is offered besides a certain -number of strawberries. Whichever employer ultimately secures his -services, the man has secured some further addition to his income. He -has some share in the increasing wealth of the community; and, as John -and James continue to compete in increasing the production of all other -commodities, some share of each increase will in time go to all the -labourers. - - [Sidenote ◆1 And nothing can stop this process except an increase - of population _in excess of the increase_ in the - productive powers of Ability.] - -◆¹ One thing only could interfere with this process; and that has -been excluded from our supposed community: namely, an increase in its -numbers. And a mere increase in the numbers would in itself not be -enough. It must be an increase which outstrips the discovery of new -ways in which labour may be employed profitably. Let us suppose that -to our original eight labourers, eight new labourers are added, who -if left to themselves could do just what the first eight could do, -namely, produce annual subsistence for themselves to the value of -_fifty pounds_ each. If, under the management of James or John, the -productivity of these men could be multiplied eight-fold, as was the -case with the first eight, James and John would be soon competing for -their services, and the second eight, like the first eight, would share -in the increased product. But if, owing to all the best land being -occupied, and few improvements having been discovered in the methods of -any new industries, the productivity of the new men could be increased -not eight-fold, but only by one-eighth—that is to say, if what each man -produces by his unaided Labour could be raised by Ability from _fifty -pounds_, not to _four hundred pounds_, but to no more than _fifty-six -pounds ten shillings_,—_fifty-six pounds ten shillings_ would be the -utmost these men would get, even if the Ability of James or John got -no remuneration whatever. Meanwhile, however, the first set of workmen -are, as we have seen, receiving much more than this. They are receiving -each, we will say, _one hundred pounds_. The second set, therefore, -naturally envy them their situations, and endeavour to secure these -for themselves by offering their Labour at a considerably lower price. -They offer it at _ninety pounds_, at _seventy pounds_, or even at -_sixty pounds_; for they would be bettering their present situation by -accepting even this last sum. This being the case, the original eight -labourers have necessarily to offer their Labour at reduced terms also; -and thus the wages of Labour are diminished all round. - -Such is the inevitable result under such circumstances, if each -man—employer and employed alike—follows his own interest at the bidding -of common sense. One man is not more selfish than another; indeed, in -a bad sense, nobody is selfish at all; and for the result nobody is -to blame. The average wages of Labour are diminished for this simple -reason, and for no other—that the average product is diminished which -each labourer assists in producing. The community is richer absolutely; -but it is poorer in proportion to its numbers.[53] Let us see how -this works out. The original product of the first eight labourers was -_fifty pounds_ a head, or _four hundred pounds_ in the aggregate. This -was raised by the co-operation of Ability to _four hundred pounds_ a -head, or _three thousand two hundred pounds_ in the aggregate. But the -second set of labourers, whatever Ability may do for them, cannot be -made to produce more than _fifty-six pounds ten shillings_ a head, or -an aggregate of _four hundred and fifty-two pounds_; and thus, whereas -eight labourers produced _three thousand two hundred pounds_, sixteen -labourers produce only _three thousand six hundred and fifty-two -pounds_, and the average product is lowered from _four hundred pounds_ -to _two hundred and twenty-eight pounds_.[54] - - [Sidenote ◆1 This natural power, however, can be regulated by - deliberate action, political and other, and made more - beneficial to the labourers;] - - [Sidenote ◆2 Which action takes two chief forms—legislation, and - combinations amongst the labourers. We will discuss both - in the next chapter.] - -Wages naturally decline then, owing to an increase of population, when -relatively to the population wealth declines also; but only then. ◆¹ On -the other hand,—and this is the important point to consider,—so long as -a country, under the existing system of production, continues, like our -own, to grow richer in proportion to the number of labourers, of every -fresh increase in riches the labourers will obtain a share, without any -political action or corporate struggle on their part, merely by means -of a natural and spontaneous process. And we have now seen in a broad -and general way what the character of this process is. It may seem, -however, to many people that a study of it and of its results can teach -no lesson but the lesson of _laisser faire_, which practically means -that the labourers have no interest in politics at all, and that all -social legislation and corporate action of their own is no better than -a waste of trouble, and is very possibly worse. But to think this is -to completely misconceive the matter. Even a study of this process of -natural distribution by itself would be fruitful of suggestions of a -highly practical kind; but if we would understand the actual forces -to which distribution is due, it must, as I have said already, not -be studied by itself, but taken in connection with others by which -its operation has been accelerated. I spoke of these as consisting of -deliberate and concerted actions in contradistinction to individual -and spontaneous actions; ◆² and these, speaking broadly, have been of -two kinds—the one represented by the organisation of Labour in Trade -Unions, the other by certain legislative measures, which, in a vague -and misleading way, are popularly described as “Socialistic.” Let us -proceed to consider these. - - - - - CHAPTER IV - - _Of Socialism and Trade Unionism—the Extent and - Limitation of their Power in increasing the - Income of Labour._ - - - [Sidenote ◆1 Legislation of the kind just alluded to is commonly - called Socialistic:] - - [Sidenote ◆2 But this way of describing it is inaccurate;] - -◆¹ I will speak first of the kind of legislation, popularly called -Socialistic, which certain people now regard with so much hope, and -others with corresponding dread; and I shall show that both of these -extreme views rest on a complete misconception of what this so-called -Socialism is. For what is popularly called Socialism in this country, -so far as it has ever been advocated by any political party, or has -been embodied in any measure passed or even proposed in Parliament, ◆² -does not embody what is really the distinctive principle of Socialism. -Socialism, regarded as a reasoned body of doctrine, rests altogether -on a peculiar theory of production, to which already I have made -frequent reference—a theory according to which the faculties of men -are so equal that one man produces as much wealth as another; or, if -any man produces more, he is so entirely indifferent as to whether -he enjoys what he produces or no, that he would go on producing it -just the same, if he knew that the larger part would at once be taken -away from him. Hence Socialists argue that the existing rewards of -Ability are altogether superfluous, and that the existing system of -production, which rests on their supposed necessity, can be completely -revolutionised and made equally efficacious without them. - - [Sidenote ◆1 As all the so-called Socialistic legislation in this - country rests on the very system of production which - professed Socialists aim at destroying.] - -But whatever may be the opinions of a few dreamers or theorists, or -however in the future these opinions may spread, the fundamental -principle of Socialism, up to the present time, has never been embodied -in any measure or proposal which has been advocated in this country by -any practical party. ◆¹ On the contrary, the proposals and measures -which are most frequently denounced as Socialistic—even one so extreme -as that of free meals for children at Board Schools—all presuppose -the system of production which is existing, and thus rest on the -very foundation which professed Socialists would destroy.[55] They -merely represent so many ways—wise or unwise—of distributing a public -revenue, which consists almost entirely of taxes on an income produced -by the forces of Individualism. - -Now, so far as the matter is a mere question of words, we may call such -proposals or measures Socialistic if we like. On grounds of etymology -we should be perfectly right in doing so; but we shall see that in -that case, with exactly the same propriety, we may apply the word to -the institution of Government itself. The Army, the Navy, and more -obviously still the Police Force, are all Socialistic in this sense of -the word; nor can anything be more completely Socialistic than a public -road or a street. In each case a certain something is supported by a -common fund for the use of all; and every one is entitled to an equal -advantage from it, irrespective of his own deserts, or the amount he -has contributed to its support. - - [Sidenote ◆1 What is called Socialism in this country is a - necessary part of every State;] - - [Sidenote ◆2 And the principle may probably be extended with good - results, if not pushed too far.] - -◆¹ If, then, we agree to call those measures Socialistic to which the -word is popularly applied at present, Socialism, instead of being -opposed to Individualism, is its necessary complement, as we may see -at once by considering the necessity of public roads and a police -force; for the first of these shows us that private property would be -inaccessible without the existence of social property; and the second -that it would be insecure without the existence of social servants. -The good or evil, then, that will result from Socialism, as understood -thus, depends altogether on questions of degree and detail. There is -no question as to whether we shall be Socialistic or no. ◆² We must be -Socialistic; and we always have been, though perhaps without knowing -it, as M. Jourdain talked prose. The only question is as to the precise -limits to which the Socialistic principle can be pushed with advantage -to the greatest number. - - [Sidenote ◆1 That it can easily be pushed too far is obvious.] - -What these limits may be it is impossible to discuss here. Any general -discussion of such a point would be meaningless. Each case or measure -must be discussed on its own merits. But, though it is impossible to -state what the limits are, it is exceedingly easy to show on what -they depend. They depend on two analogous and all-important facts, -one of which I have already explained and dwelt upon, and which -forms, indeed, one of the principal themes of this volume. This is -the fact, that the most powerful of our productive agents, namely -Ability, cannot be robbed, without diminishing its productivity, of -more than a certain proportion of the annual wealth produced by it; -and, as it is from this wealth that most of the Socialistic fund must -be appropriated, Socialistic distribution is limited by the limits of -possible appropriation. The other fact—the counterpart of this—is as -follows. Just as Ability is paralysed by robbing it of more than a -certain portion of its products, Labour may equally be paralysed by -an unwise distribution of them; and thus their continued production -be at last rendered impossible. ◆¹ For instance, quite apart from any -initial difficulty in raising the requisite fund from the wealthier -class of tax-payers, the providing of free meals for children in -Board Schools is open to criticism, on account of the effect which it -might conceivably have upon parents, of diminishing their industry -by diminishing the necessity for its exercise. Whether such would be -the effect really in this particular case, it is beside my purpose -to consider; but few people will doubt that if such a provision were -extended, and if, even for so short a time as a single six months, -free meals were provided for the parents also, half the Labour of -the country would be for the time annihilated. Labour, however, is -as necessary to production as is Ability, even though, under modern -conditions, it does not produce so much; and it is therefore perfectly -evident that there is a limit somewhere, beyond which to relieve the -individual labourer of his responsibilities by paying his expenses out -of a public fund will be, until human nature is entirely changed, to -dry up the sources from which that fund is derived. - - [Sidenote ◆1 The sort of natural limit that there is to its - beneficial effects is shown by the history of our Poor - Laws.] - - [Sidenote ◆2 Such Socialism, whatever good it may do, can never do - much in the way of raising money wages.] - -As I have said already, it is impossible, in any general way, to give -any indication of what this limit is; but the industrial history of -this country supplies a most instructive instance in which it was -notoriously overpassed, and what was meant as a benefit to Labour, -under circumstances of exceptional difficulty, ended by endangering -the prosperity of the whole community. I refer to our Poor Law at the -beginning of this century, the effects of which form one of the most -remarkable object-lessons by which experience has ever illustrated a -special point in economics. ◆¹ That Poor Law, as Professor Marshall -well observes, “arranged that part of the wages [of the labourers] -should be given in the form of poor relief; and that this should be -distributed amongst them in the inverse proportion to their industry, -thrift, and forethought. The traditions and instincts,” he adds, “which -were fostered by that evil experience are even now a great hindrance to -the progress of the working classes.”[56] Now that particular evil on -which Professor Marshall comments,—namely, that the part of the wages -coming through this Socialistic channel were in the inverse proportion -to what had really been produced by the labourer—is inherent in all -Socialistic measures, the principal object of which is to raise or -supplement wages; as is clearly enough confessed by the Socialistic -motto, “To every man according to his needs.” ◆² It may accordingly be -said that, absolutely necessary as the Socialistic principle is, and -much as may be hoped from its extension in many directions, it neither -has been in the past, nor can possibly be in the future, efficacious to -any great extent in increasing the actual income of the labourer.[57] - - [Sidenote ◆1 Trade Unionism in this way can do far more. We will - see first how, and then within what limits.] - -◆¹ Such being the case, then, let us now turn our attention to another -principle of an entirely different kind, which, so far as regards -this object, is incalculably more important, and which has constantly -operated in the past, and may operate in the future, to increase the -labourer’s income, without any corresponding disadvantages. I mean -that principle of organisation amongst the labourers themselves which -is commonly called Trade Unionism; and which directly or indirectly -represents the principal means by which Labour is attempting, -throughout the civilised world, to accelerate and regulate the natural -distribution of wealth. I will first, in the light of the conclusions -we have already arrived at, point out to the reader what, speaking -generally, is the way in which Trade Unionism strengthens the hands -of Labour; and then consider what is the utmost extent to which the -strength which Labour now derives from it may be developed. - - [Sidenote ◆1 The operation of Trade Unionism in raising wages can - be easily seen at a glance by reference to the simple - community which was imagined in the last chapter.] - -◆¹ If the reader has not already forgotten our imaginary community,—our -eight labourers with John and James directing them,—our easiest -course will be to turn again to that. We saw that when the labourers -were employed by John only,—John who found them each making _fifty -pounds_ a year, and enabled them by his Ability each to make _four -hundred pounds_—we saw that the whole of this increase, in the natural -course of things, would be kept by John himself, by whose Ability it -was practically created; for it would not be to John’s advantage to -part with any of it, and the labourers, so long as they all acted -separately, would have no means of extracting any of it from him. It -would be useless for one of them at a time to strike for higher wages. -The striker and the employer would meet on wholly unequal terms; -because the striker, whilst the strike lasted, would be sacrificing the -whole of his income, whilst depriving the employer of only an eighth -part of his. But let us alter the supposition. Let us suppose that -the labourers combine together, and that the whole eight strike for -higher wages simultaneously. The situation is now completely changed; -and the loss that the struggle will entail on both parties is equal. -The employer, like the labourer, will for a time lose all his income. -It is true that if the employer has a reserve fund on which he can -support himself whilst production is suspended, and if the labourer has -no such fund, the employer may still be sure of an immediate victory, -should he be resolved at all costs to resist the labourers’ demand. -But, in any case, the cost of resisting it will be appreciable: it is -a loss which the labourers will be able to inflict on him repeatedly; -and he may see that they would be able, by their strikes, to make him -ultimately lose more than he would by assenting to their demands, or, -at all events, making some concessions to them. It is therefore obvious -that the labourers, in such a case, will be able to extract extra wages -in the inverse proportion to the loss which the employer will sustain -if he concedes them, and in direct proportion to the loss which would -threaten him should he refuse to do so.[58] - - [Sidenote ◆1 Combination amongst labourers puts them at an - advantage as against competing employers, until their - demands grow so unreasonable as to force the employers - to combine.] - -There is, however, much more to be said. With each increase of their -wages which the labourers succeed in gaining, they will be better -equipping themselves for any fresh struggle in the future; for they -will be able to set aside a larger and larger fund on which to support -themselves without working, and thus be in a position to make the -struggle longer, or, in other words, to inflict still greater injury -on the employer. ◆¹ And if such will be the case when there is one -employer only, much more will it be the case when there are two—when -John and James, as we have seen, are forced by the necessities of -competition to grant part of the labourers’ demands, even before they -are formulated. It might thus seem that there is hardly any limit -to the power which a perfected system of Trade Unionism may one day -confer upon the labourers. There are, however, two which we will -consider now, in addition to others at which we will glance presently. -One is the limit with which we are already familiar, and of which in -this connection I shall again speak, namely, the limit of the minimum -reward requisite as a stimulus to Ability. The other is a limit closely -connected with this, which is constituted by the fact that if the -demands of Labour are pushed beyond a certain point against disunited -employers, the employers will combine against Labour, as Labour has -combined against them, and all further concessions will be, at all -costs, unanimously refused. - - [Sidenote ◆1 The ultimate tendency of Trade Unionism is to make - any conflict between the employer and employed like a - conflict between two individuals.] - - [Sidenote ◆2 The limit to which it can raise wages is fixed by the - minimum reward that suffices to make Ability operative.] - -◆¹ Now a situation like this is the ultimate situation which all Trade -Unionism tends to bring about. It tends, by turning the labourers into -a single body on the one hand, and the employers into a single body on -the other, to make the dispute like one between two individuals; and -though for many reasons this result can never be entirely realised,[59] -the limits of the power of Trade Unionism can be best seen by -imagining it. What, then, is the picture we have before us? We have -Labour and Ability in the character of two men confronting each other, -each determined to secure for himself the largest possible portion of -a certain aggregate amount of wealth which they produce together. Now -we will assume, though this is far from being the case, that neither -of them would shrink, for the sake of gaining their object, from -inflicting on the other the utmost injury possible; and we shall see -also, if we make our picture accurate, that Labour is physically the -bigger man of the two. It happens, however, that the very existence -of the wealth for the possession of which they are prepared to fight -is entirely dependent on their peacefully co-operating to produce it; -so that if in the struggle either disabled the other, he would be -destroying the prize which it is the object of his struggle to secure. -Thus the dispute between them, however hostile may be their temper, -must necessarily be of the nature not of a fight, but of a bargain; -and will be settled, like other bargains, by the process of compromise -which Adam Smith calls “the higgling of the market.” ◆² When such a -bargain is struck, there will be a limit on both sides: a maximum limit -to what Ability will consent to give, and a minimum limit to what -Labour will consent to receive. There will be a certain minimum which -Ability must concede in the long run; because if it did not give so -much, it would indirectly lose more: and conversely there is a certain -maximum more than which Labour will never permanently obtain; because -if it did so the stimulus to Ability would be weakened, and the total -product would in consequence be diminished, out of which alone the -increased share which Labour demands can come. - - [Sidenote ◆1 Thus the possible power of Trade Unionism in raising - wages is far more limited than it seems.] - - [Sidenote ◆2 If we judge hastily by the magnitude of modern Labour - combinations, and the extent to which they can terrorise - the community.] - -◆¹ Thus the extent to which Trade Unionism can assist in raising -wages, no matter how wide and how complete its development, is far -more limited than appearances lead many people to suppose. For the -labourers, not only in this country, but all over the world, are -growing yearly more expert in the art of effective combination, and -are increasing their strength by a vast network of alliances; ◆² -and from time to time the whole civilised world is startled at the -powers of resistance and destruction which they show themselves to -have acquired, and which they have called into operation with a view -to enforcing their demands. The gas-strikes and the dock-strikes in -London, and the great railway-strikes, and the strike at Homestead in -America, are cases in point, and are enough to illustrate my meaning. -They impress the imagination with a sense that Labour is becoming -omnipotent. But in all these Labour movements there is one unchanging -feature, which seems never to be realised either by those who take part -in them or by observers, but on which really their entire character -depends, and which makes their actual character entirely different -from what it seems to be. That this feature should have so completely -escaped popular notice is one of the most singular facts in the history -of political blindness, and can be accounted for only by the crude -and imperfect state in which the analysis of the causes of production -has been left hitherto by economists. The feature I allude to is as -follows. - - [Sidenote ◆1 The imperfect state of economic science has allowed a - totally false idea to be formed as to the force which - Trade Unionism represents.] - - [Sidenote ◆2 The force which it represents is not Labour at all, - but a power of combining in order to abstain from - labour.] - - [Sidenote ◆3 And even this power could never be universal, nor - last long; and whilst it lasts it depends on Capital.] - -◆¹ These great developments of Trade Unionism which are commonly called -Labour movements do not really, in any accurate sense, represent -Labour at all. ◆² All that they represent in themselves is a power to -abstain from labouring. In other words, the increased command of the -labourers over the machinery of combination, and even their increased -command of the tactics of industrial warfare, represents no increased -command over the smallest of industrial processes, nor puts them in a -better position, without the aid of Ability, to maintain—still less -to increase by the smallest fraction—the production of that wealth in -which they are anxious to share farther. A strike therefore, however -great or however admirably organised, no more represents any part of -the power of Labour than the mutiny organised amongst the crew of -Columbus, with a view to making him give up his enterprise, represented -the power which achieved the discovery of America. And this is not -true of the average labourers only; it is yet more strikingly true of -the superior men who lead them. From the ranks of the labourers, men -are constantly rising whose abilities for organising resistance are -remarkable, and indeed admirable; but it is probably not too much to -say that no leader who has devoted himself to organising the labourers -for resistance has ever been a man capable, to any appreciable degree, -of giving them help by rendering their labour more productive. Those -who have been most successful in urging their fellows to _ask_ for -more, have been quite incompetent to help them to _make_ more. Thus -these so-called Labour leaders, no matter how considerable may be -many of their intellectual and moral qualities, are indeed leaders of -labourers; but they are no more leaders of Labour than a sergeant who -drilled a volunteer corps of art students could be called the leader -of a rising school of painting; and a strike is no more the expression -of the power of Labour than Byron’s swimming across the Hellespont was -an expression of the power of poetry, or than Burns’s poetry was an -expression of the power of ploughing. A strike is merely an expression -of the fact that the labourers, for good or ill, can acquire, under -certain circumstances, the power to cease from labouring, and can use -this as a weapon not of production, but of warfare. ◆³ The utmost that -the power embodied in Trade Unionism could accomplish would be to bring -about a strike that was universal; and although no doubt it might do -this theoretically, it could never do so much as this practically, for -the simple reason that, as I have already pointed out, Labour could -not be entirely suspended for even a single day. Further, the more -general the suspension was, the shorter would be the time for which it -could be maintained; and to mention yet another point to which I have -referred already, it could be maintained only, for no matter how short -a time, by the assistance of the very thing against which strikes are -ostensibly directed, namely Capital; and not even Capital could make -that time long. Nature, who is the arch-taskmaster, and who knows no -mercy, would soon smash like matchwood a Trade Union of all the world, -and force the labourers to go back to their work, even if no such body -as an employing class existed. - -All the ideas, then, derived from the recent developments of Trade -Unionism, that Labour, through its means, will acquire any greatly -increasing power of commanding an increasing share of the total income -of the community, rests on a total misconception of the power that -Trade Unionism represents, and a total failure to see the conditions -and things that limit it. It is limited firstly by Nature, who makes -a general strike impossible; secondly by Capital, without which any -strike is impossible; and lastly by the fact that the labourers of the -present day already draw part of their wages from the wealth produced -by Ability; that any further increase they must draw from this source -entirely; and that, being thus dependent on the assistance of Ability -now, Trade Unionism, as we have seen, has not the slightest tendency to -make them any the less dependent on it in the future. - -When the reader takes into account all that has just been said, he -will be hardly disposed to quarrel with the following conclusions of -Professor Marshall, who derives them from history quite as much as from -theory, and who expresses himself with regard to Trade Unions thus: -“Their importance,” he says, “is certainly great, and grows rapidly; -but it is apt to be exaggerated: for indeed many of them are little -more than eddies such as have always fluttered over the surface of -progress. And though they are now on a larger and more imposing scale -in this age than before, yet much as ever the main body of the movement -depends on the deep, silent, strong stream of the tendencies of Normal -Distribution and Exchange.” - - [Sidenote ◆1 Trade Unionism, in raising wages, can do little more - than accelerate or regulate a rise that would take place - owing to other causes.] - - [Sidenote ◆2 But none the less it may be of great benefit to the - labourers, and remove many evils which a general rise in - wages has not removed, and could not remove by itself.] - -◆¹ But in the case of Trade Unionism, just as in that of Socialism, -because the extent is limited to which it can raise the labourers’ -income, it does not follow that within these limits its action may -not be of great and increasing benefit. ◆² Thus Mill, whose general -view of the subject coincides broadly with that of Professor Marshall, -points out that though a Union will never be able permanently to raise -wages above the point to which in time they would rise naturally, nor -permanently to keep them above a point to which they would naturally -fall, it can hasten the rise, which might otherwise be long delayed, -and retard the fall, which might otherwise be premature; and the gain -to Labour may thus in the long run be enormous. Unions have done this -for Labour in the past; and with improved and extended organisation, -they may be able to do it yet more effectively in the future; and -they have done, and may continue to do many other things besides—to do -them, and to add to their number. It is beyond my purpose to speak of -these things in detail. In the next chapter, I shall briefly indicate -some of them; but the main points on which I am concerned to insist are -simpler; and the next chapter—the last—will be devoted principally to -these. - - - - - CHAPTER V - - _Of the enormous Encouragement to be derived by - Labour from a true View of the Situation; - and of the Connection between the Interests - of the Labourer and Imperial Politics._ - - - [Sidenote ◆1 Let me again remind the reader of the object of this - book.] - - [Sidenote ◆2 It is to show that the labourer’s income depends on - the general forces of production firstly, and secondly - on those of distribution.] - -◆¹ The object of this work, as I explained in the opening chapter, is -to point out to the great body of the people—that is to say, to the -multitude of average men and women, whose incomes consist of the wages -of ordinary Labour—the conditions which determine the possibility of -these incomes being increased, and so to enable them to distinguish -the true means from the false, which they may themselves adopt with a -view to obtaining this result. ◆² And in order to show them how their -present incomes may be increased, I have devoted myself to showing -the reader how their present incomes have been obtained. I have done -this by fixing his attention on the fact that their present incomes -obviously depend upon two sets of causes: first, the forces that -produce the aggregate income of the country; and secondly, the forces -that distribute a certain portion of this amongst the labourers. And -these last I have examined from two points of view; first exhibiting -their results, and then indicating their nature. Let me briefly -recapitulate what I have said about both subjects. - - [Sidenote ◆1 I have just shown how the normal forces of - distribution are all in favour of the labourer, contrary - to the vulgar view of the matter.] - -◆¹ I have shown that, contrary to the opinion which is too commonly -held, and which is sedulously fostered by the ignorance alike of the -agitator and the sentimentalist, the forces of distribution which -are actually at work around us, which have been at work for the past -hundred years, and which are part and parcel of our modern industrial -system, have been and are constantly securing for Labour a share of -every fresh addition to the total income of the nation; and have, for -at all events the past fifty years, made the average income of the -labouring man grow faster than the incomes of any other members of the -community. They have, in fact, been doing the very thing which the -agitator declared could be done only by resisting them; and they have -not only given Labour all that the agitator has promised it, but they -have actually given it more than the wildest agitator ever suggested to -it. I have shown the reader this; and I have shown him also that the -forces in question are primarily the spontaneous forces—“deep, strong, -and silent,” as Professor Marshall calls them—“of normal distribution -and exchange”; how that these have been, and are seconded by the -deliberate action of men: by extended application of what is called the -Socialistic principle, and to a far greater extent by combinations of -the labourers amongst themselves. - - [Sidenote ◆1 This should encourage, and not discourage, political - action on behalf of the labourers.] - -The practical moral of all this is obvious. As to the normal and -spontaneous forces of distribution, what a study of them inculcates on -the labourer is not any principle of political action, but a general -temper of mind towards the whole existing system. It inculcates general -acquiescence, instead of general revolt. Now temper of mind, being -that from which policies spring, is quite as important as the details -of any of the policies themselves. Still it must be admitted that -were the normal forces of distribution the only forces that had been -at work for the labourer’s benefit, the principal lesson they would -teach him would be the lesson of _laisser aller_. But though these -forces have been the primary, they have not been the only forces; and -the deliberate policies by which men have controlled their operation, -and have applied them, have been equally necessary in producing the -desired results. The normal forces of distribution may be compared -to the waters of the Nile, which would indeed, as the river rises, -naturally fertilise the whole of the adjacent country, but which would -do as much harm as good, and do but half the good they might do, if -it were not for the irrigation works devised by human ingenuity. And -what these works are to the Nile, deliberate measures have been to the -normal forces of distribution. The growing volume of wealth, which is -spreading itself over the fields of Labour, even yet has failed to -reach an unhappy fraction of the community; the tides and currents flow -with intermittent force, which is often destructive, still more often -wasted, rarely husbanded and applied to the best advantage. Had it not -been for the deliberate action of men,—for legislation in favour of the -labourers, and their own combinations amongst themselves,—these evils -which have accompanied their general progress would have been greater. -◆¹ Wise action in the future will undoubtedly make them less; and may, -though it is idle to hope for Utopias in this world, cause the larger -and darker part of them to disappear. - - [Sidenote ◆1 Much is to be done beyond the mere raising of the - labourers’ wages; and Trade Unionism and so-called - Socialism vary much.] - -The lesson, then, to be drawn from what I have urged in the preceding -chapter is, taken as a whole, no lesson of _laisser faire_. Though -neither Socialism nor Trade Unionism may have much, or perhaps any, -efficacy in raising the maximum of the labourer’s actual income,—though -this must depend on forces which are wholly different,—yet Trade -Unionism, and the principle which is called Socialism, may be of -incalculable service in bringing about conditions under which that -income may be earned with greater certainty, and under improved -circumstances, and, above all, be able to command more comforts, -conveniences, and enjoyments. Thus many of these measures which I have -called Socialistic under protest, may be regarded as an interception -of a portion of the labourer’s income, and an expenditure of it on his -account by the State in a way from which he derives far more benefit -than he would, or could have secured if he had had the spending of it -himself; whilst Trade Unionism, though it cannot permanently raise his -wages beyond a maximum determined by other causes, may, as has been -said before, raise them to this earlier than they would have risen -otherwise, and prevent what might otherwise occur—a fall in them before -it was imperative. ◆¹ Trade Unionism, however, has many other functions -besides the raising of wages. It aims—and aims successfully—at -diminishing the pain and friction caused amongst the labourers by the -vicissitudes alike of industry and of life. It has done much in this -direction already; and in the future it may do more. - -The fact then that the normal forces of distribution must, if things -continue their present course, increase the income of the labourer, -even without any action on their own part, though it is calculated -to change the temper in which the labourers approach politics, -is, instead of being calculated to damp their political activity, -calculated to animate it with far more hope and interest than the -wild denunciations and theories of the contemporary agitator, which -those who applaud them do but half believe. It will to the labourer -be far more encouraging to feel that the problem before him is not -how to undermine a vast system which is hostile to him, and which, -though often attacked, has never yet been subverted, but merely to -accommodate more completely to his needs a system which has been, and -is, constantly working in his favour. - - [Sidenote ◆1 Whilst as to mere wages, if the labourers will judge - of the possible near future from the actual near past, - the prospects before them must exceed their wildest - dreams hitherto.] - -◆¹ Let him consider the situation well. Let him realise what that -system has already done for him. In spite of the sufferings which, -owing to various causes, were inflicted on the labouring classes -during the earlier years of the century,—many of them of a kind whose -recurrence improved policy may obviate,—the income of Labour has, on -the aggregate, continued to rise steadily. Let him consider how much. -I have stated this once, let me state it now again. During the first -sixty years of this century the income of the labouring classes rose -to such an extent that in the year 1860 it was equal (all deductions -for the increase of population being made) to the income of all classes -in the year 1800. But there is another fact, far more extraordinary, -to follow; and that is, that a result precisely similar has been -accomplished since in one-half of the time. In 1880 the income of the -labouring classes was (all deductions for the increase of population -being made) more than equal to the income of all classes in the year -1850. Thus the labouring classes in 1860 were in precisely the same -pecuniary position as the working classes in 1800 would have been had -the entire wealth of the kingdom been in their hands; and the working -classes of to-day are in a better pecuniary position than their fathers -would have been could they have plundered and divided between them the -wealth of every rich and middle-class man at the time of the building -of the first Great Exhibition. I repeat what I have said before—that -this represents a progress, which the wildest Socialist would never -have dreamed of promising. - -And now comes what is practically the important deduction from these -facts. What has happened in the near past, will, other things being -equal, happen in the near future. If the same forces that have been -at work since the year 1850 continue to be at work, and if, although -regulated, they are not checked, the labourers of this country will in -another thirty years have nearly doubled the income which they enjoy -at present. Their income will have risen from something under _seven -hundred millions_ to something over _thirteen hundred millions_. The -labourers, in fact, will, so far as money goes, be in precisely the -same position as they would be to-day if, by some unheard-of miracle, -the entire present income of the country were suddenly made over to -them in the form of wages, and the whole of the richer classes were -left starving and penniless. This is no fanciful calculation. It is -simply a plain statement of what must happen, and will happen, if only -the forces of production continue to operate for another thirty years -as they have been operating steadily for the past hundred. Is not this -enough to stimulate the labourer’s hopes, and convince him that for him -the true industrial policy is one that will adjust his own relations -with the existing system better, and regulate better the flow of the -wealth which it promises to bring him, rather than a policy whose aim -is to subvert that system altogether, and in especial to paralyse the -force from which it derives its efficacy? - - [Sidenote ◆1 But the one point to remember is that all their - prosperity depends on the continued action of Ability, - and the best conditions being secured for its operation,] - -◆¹ And this brings me back to that main, that fundamental truth which -it is the special object of this volume to elucidate. The force which -has been at the bottom of all the labourers’ progress during the past, -and on the continued action of which depends all these hopes for their -future—that force is not Labour but Ability; it is a force possessed -and exercised not by the many but by the few. The income which Labour -receives already is largely in excess of what Labour itself produces. -Were Ability crippled, or discouraged from exerting itself, the entire -income of the nation would dwindle down to an amount which would not -yield Labour so much as it takes now; whilst any advance, no matter how -small, on what Labour takes now must come from an increasing product, -which Ability only can produce. - - [Sidenote ◆1 Labour must remember that Ability is a living force - which cannot be appropriated as Capital might be; but - that it must be encouraged and propitiated.] - -◆¹ Hitherto this truth, though more or less apparent to economic -writers and thoughtful persons generally, has been apparent to them -only by fits and starts, and has never been assigned any definite -or logical place in their theories of production, or has ever been -expressed clearly; and, owing to this cause, not only has it been -entirely absent from the theories of the public generally, but its -place has been usurped by a meaningless and absurd falsehood. In place -of the living force Ability, residing in living men, popular thought, -misled by a singular oversight of the economists, has substituted -Capital—a thing which, apart from Ability, assists production as -little as a dead or unborn donkey; and hence has arisen that dangerous -and ridiculous illusion—sometimes plainly expressed, often only -half-conscious—to the effect that if the labourers could only seize -upon Capital they would be masters of the entire productive power of -the country. The defenders of the existing system have been as guilty -of this error as its antagonists; and the attack and defence have -been conducted on equally false grounds. Thus in a recent strike, -the final threat of the employers—men who had created almost the -whole of their enormous business—was that, if the strikers insisted -upon certain demands, the Capital involved in the business would be -removed to another country; and a well-known journal, professing to be -devoted to the interest of Labour, conceived that it had disposed of -this threat triumphantly by saying that, of the Capital a large part -was not portable, and that the employers might go if they chose, and -leave this behind. A great musician, who conceived himself to have been -ill-treated in London, might just as well have threatened that he would -remove his concert-room to St. Petersburg, when the principal meaning -of his threat would be that he would remove _himself_; and the journal -referred to might just as well have said, had the business in question -been the production of a great picture, “The painter may go if he -likes—what matter? We can keep his brushes.” - -The real parties, then, to the industrial disputes of the modern -world are not active labourers on one side, and idle, perhaps idiotic -owners of so much dead material on the other side: but they are, on -the one side, the vast majority of men, possessed of average powers -of production, and able to produce by them a comparatively small -amount; and, on the other, a minority whose powers of production are -exceptional, who, if we take the product of the average labourer as a -unit, are able to multiply this to an almost indefinite extent, and who -thus create an increasing store of Capital to be used by themselves, or -transmitted to their representatives, and an increasing income to be -divided between these and the labourers. In other words, the dispute is -between the many who desire to increase their incomes, and the few by -whose exceptional powers it is alone possible to increase them. Such -has been the situation hitherto; it is such at the present moment; and -the whole tendency of industrial progress is not to change, but to -accentuate it. As the productivity of Human Exertion increases, the -part played by Ability becomes more and more important. More and more -do the average men become dependent on the exceptional men. So long as -the nation at large remembers this, no reforms need be dreaded. If the -nation forgets this, it will be in danger every day of increasing, by -its reforms, the very evils it wishes to obviate, and postponing or -making impossible the advantages it wishes to secure. - - [Sidenote ◆1 In this view there is nothing derogatory to Labour.] - - [Sidenote ◆2 Ability does not _improve_ the products of Labour, - but multiplies them.] - -◆¹ And now let me pause to point out to the reader that to insist thus -on the subordinate position of Labour as a productive agent is to -insist on nothing that need wound the self-love of the labourers. In -asserting that a man who can produce wealth only by Labour is inferior -to a man who can produce ten times the amount by Ability, we assert -his inferiority in the business of production only. In other respects -he may be the better, even the greater man of the two. Shakespeare or -Turner or Beethoven, if employed as producers of commodities, would -probably have been no better than the ordinary hands in a factory, and -far inferior to many a vulgar manufacturer. Again,—and it is still -more important to notice this,—if we confine our attention to single -commodities, many commodities produced by Labour[60] alone are better -and more beautiful than any similar ones produced by Labour under the -direction of Ability. ◆² Of some the reverse is true—notably those -whose utility depends on their mechanical precision; but of others, in -which beauty or even durability is of importance, such as fine stuffs -or carpets, fine paper and printing, carved furniture, and many kinds -of metal work, it is universally admitted that the handicraftsman, -working under his own direction, was long ago able to produce results -which Labour, directed by Ability, has never been able to improve -upon, and is rarely able to equal. What Ability does is not to improve -such commodities, but to multiply them, and thus convert them from -rare luxuries into generally accessible comforts. A paraffin lamp, for -instance, cast or stamped in metal, and manufactured by the thousand, -might not be able to compare for beauty with a lamp of wrought iron, -made by the skill and taste of some single unaided craftsman; but -whereas the latter would probably cost several guineas, and be in reach -only of the more opulent classes, the former would probably cost about -half a crown, and, giving precisely as much light as the other, would -find its way into every cottage home, and take the place of a tallow -dip or of darkness. Now since what the labouring classes demand in -order to improve their position is not _better_ commodities than can be -produced by hand, but _more_ commodities than can be produced by hand, -Ability is a more important factor in the case than Labour; but none -the less, from an artistic and moral point of view, the highest kind -of Labour may stand higher than many of the most productive kinds of -Ability. - - [Sidenote ◆1 Ability, in yielding up part of its proceeds to - Labour, is discharging a moral debt.] - -◆¹ Nor, again, do we ascribe to Labour any undignified position in -insisting that much of its present income, and any possible increase -of it, is and must be taken from the wealth produced by Ability. For -even were there nothing more to be said than this, Labour is in a -position, or we assume it will be, to command from Ability whatever -sum may be in question, and can be neither despised nor blamed for -making the best bargain for itself that is possible. But its position -can be justified on far higher grounds than these. In the first place, -Labour, by submitting itself to the guidance of Ability,—no matter -whether the submission was voluntary, which it was not, or gradual, -unconscious, and involuntary, which it was,—surrendered many conditions -of life which were in themselves desirable, and has a moral claim on -Ability to be compensated for having done so; whilst Ability, for its -part, owes a moral debt to Labour, not upon this ground only, but on -another also—one which thus far has never been recognised nor insisted -on, but out of which arises a yet deeper and stronger obligation. I -have shown that of the present annual wealth of the nation Ability -creates very nearly two-thirds. But it may truly be said to have -created far more than this. It may be said to have created not only -two-thirds of the income, but also to have created two-thirds of the -inhabitants. If the minority of this country, in pursuit of their own -advantage, had not exercised their Ability and increased production as -they have done, it is not too much to say that of our country’s present -inhabitants _twenty-four millions_ would never have been in existence. -Those, then, who either contributed to this result themselves, or -inherit the Capital produced by those who did so, are burdened by the -responsibility of having called these multitudes into life; and thus -when the wages of Labour are augmented out of the proceeds of Ability, -Ability is not robbed, nor does Labour accept a largess, but a duty is -discharged which, if recognised for what it is, and performed in the -spirit proper to it, will have the effect of really uniting classes, -instead of that which is now so often aimed at—of confusing them. - - [Sidenote ◆1 But Labour must not forget that it owes a debt to - Ability;] - - [Sidenote ◆2 And that this debt will grow heavier as the national - wealth increases.] - -◆¹ The labourers, on the other hand, must remember this: that having -been called into existence, no matter by what means, and presumably -wishing to live rather than be starved to death, they do not labour -because the men of Ability make them, but—as I have before pointed -out—because imperious Nature makes them; ◆² and that the tendency of -Ability is in the long run to stand as a mediator between them and -Nature, and whilst increasing the products of their Labour, to diminish -its duration and severity. - -There are two further points which yet remain to be noticed. - -I have hitherto spoken of the increase of wealth and wages, as if that -were the main object on which the labourers should concentrate their -attention, and which bound up their interests so indissolubly with -those of Ability. But it must also be pointed out that were Ability -unduly hampered, and its efficacy enfeebled either by a diminution of -its rewards, or by interference with its action, the question would -soon arise, not of how to increase wages, but of how to prevent their -falling. This point I have indeed alluded to already; but I wish now -to exhibit it in a new light. As I mentioned in an earlier chapter, of -the inhabitants of this country, who are something like _thirty-eight -millions_ in number, _twenty-six millions_ live on imported corn, -and about _thirteen millions_ live on imported meat; or, to put it -in another way, we all of us—the whole population—live on imported -meat for nearly _five months_ of the year, and on imported corn for -_eight months_; and were these foreign food supplies interfered with, -there are possibilities in this country of suffering, of famine, and -of horror for all classes of society, to which the entire history of -mankind offers us no parallel. This country, more than any country in -the world, is an artificial fabric that has been built up by Ability, -half of its present wealth being,—let me repeat once more,—the -marvellous product of the past fifty years; and the constant action -of Ability is just as necessary to prevent this from dwindling as -it is to achieve its increase. But in order that Ability may exert -itself, something more is needed than mere freedom from industrial -interference, or security for its natural rewards; and that is the -maintenance of the national or international position which this -country has secured for itself amongst the other countries of the world. - - [Sidenote ◆1 And this brings us round to what is commonly called - Politics; which have, as this book will show, a far - closer interest for the labourer than is commonly - thought.] - -◆¹ And this brings us to that class of questions which, in ordinary -language, are called questions of policy, and amongst which foreign -policy holds a chief place. Successful foreign policy means the -maintenance or the achievement of those conditions that are most -favourable to the industries of our own nation; and this means the -conditions that are most favourable to the homes of our own people. It -is too commonly supposed that the greatness and the ascendancy of our -Empire minister to nothing but a certain natural pride; and natural -pride, in its turn, is supposed by some to be an immoral and inhuman -sentiment peculiar to the upper classes. No one will be quicker to -resent this last ludicrous supposition than the great masses of the -British people; but, all the same, they are apt to think the former -supposition correct,—to regard the mere glory of the country as the -principal result of our Empire; and such being the case, they are, on -occasion, apt to be persuaded that glory can be bought at too dear -a price, in money, struggle, or merely international friction. At -all events, they are constantly tempted to regard foreign politics -as something entirely unconnected with their own immediate, their -domestic, their personal, their daily interests. - -I am going to enter here on no debatable matter, nor discuss the value -of this or that special possession, or this or that policy. It is -enough to point out that, to a very great extent, on the political -future of this country depends the magnitude of its income, and on the -magnitude of its income depends the income of the working classes—the -warmth of the hearth, the supply of food on the breakfast-table, of -every labourer’s home,—and that when popular support is asked for some -foreign war, the sole immediate aim of which seems the defence of some -remote frontier, or the maintenance of British prestige, it may well be -that our soldiers will be really fighting for the safety and welfare -of their children and wives at home—fighting to keep away from British -and Irish doors not the foreign plunderer and the ravisher, but enemies -still more pitiless—the want, the hunger, and the cold that spare -neither age nor sex, and against which all prayers are unavailing. - - - - - APPENDIX - - -_Early in this year [1894] I published in the_ Fortnightly Review _two -articles under the title of “Fabian Economics.” These articles were -not written or published until some months after the first publication -of the present volume. I wrote them then, because then, for the first -time, I happened to see a volume from which previously I had seen some -extracts only—a volume entitled_ Fabian Essays, _in which the doctrines -of contemporary English Socialism are set forth; and my aim was to -apply the general arguments embodied in_ Labour and the Popular Welfare -_to the position of the Socialists, as definitely stated by themselves. -One of the Fabian Essayists—Mr. Bernard Shaw—came forward in the_ -Fortnightly Review _to attach my arguments, with what success will be -shown by the subjoined reply to him, which was originally published in -the same Review, under the title of “A Socialist in a Corner.” A few -paragraphs which would be here superfluous are omitted._ - - - A SOCIALIST IN A CORNER - - _Fortnightly Review, May 1894_ - -Magazine controversy on complicated and serious subjects, though it -can never be exhaustive, may yet be of great use, if it calls the -attention of the public to the main points at issue, if it helps men -to judge for themselves of the character and weight of the arguments -which are capable of being employed on one side and the other; and, -above all, if by elucidating the points on which opponents agree, the -area of actual dispute be narrowed down and defined. For this reason it -seems to me not useless to examine briefly the answer which, on behalf -of a body of Socialists, Mr. Shaw has made to the criticisms which, -in this Review and elsewhere, I have recently directed against the -entire Socialistic position—and particularly against that position as -expounded by himself and his colleagues. - -Not only Mr. Shaw, but the other Fabian writers, are persons, at -all events, of sufficient intelligence, sufficient knowledge, and -sufficient literary skill, to render the way in which they put the -case for Socialism a valuable indication of what the strength of that -case is. It was for this reason that I thought _Fabian Essays_ worth -criticising; and for this reason I think Mr. Shaw’s answer worth -criticising also. It is an indication not only of how Mr. Shaw can -argue as an individual, but of what arguments are available in defence -of the position which he occupies; and Mr. Shaw has taken trouble -himself to make this view still more plausible, by the hints he gives -that in the composition of his answer he has sought the advice and -counsel of his faithful colleagues; so that his pages represent the -wisdom of many, though presumably the wit of one. - -I propose, then, to show, in as few words as possible, that Mr. Shaw -has not only proved himself incapable of shaking a single one of the -various arguments advanced by me, but that whilst flattering himself -that, in his own phrase, he has been taking his opponent’s scalp, the -scalp which he holds, and has really taken, is his own. His criticism -divides itself into two main parts. One is an admission of the truth -of one of the fundamental propositions on which I insisted. The second -is a complete evasion of another, and the substitution for it of an -ineptitude which is entirely of Mr. Shaw’s invention, and which he -finds it so easy and so exciting to demolish, that he sets it up as -often as he knocks it down, for the pleasure of displaying his prowess -over again. - -Here, then, are three propositions to be dealt with: First, the -primary proposition on which I insisted, and the truth of which Mr. -Shaw admits; secondly, a proposition on which Mr. Shaw declares that -I insisted, but which is really an invention of his own; and thirdly, -a proposition on which I did insist actually, but which Mr. Shaw -never even states, much less attempts to meet. This third proposition -I shall briefly state once again when I have dealt with the two -others, and show how Fabian philosophy—indeed the philosophy of all -Socialism—completely fails to meet it. - -To begin, then, with the first. My primary object has been to exhibit -the absolute falsehood of the Socialistic doctrine that _all wealth -is due to labour_, and to replace this by a demonstration that under -modern conditions of production, labour is not only not the sole -producer of wealth, but does not even produce the principal part of -it. The principal producing agent, I have pointed out, is what I have -called Industrial Ability—or the faculty which, whilst exercised by -a few, directs the labour of the many; and if this truth is once -accepted, it completely cuts away from Socialism the whole of its -existing foundations, and renders absolutely meaningless the whole of -its popular rhetoric. For the most powerful argumentative appeal which -Socialism can make to the majority is merely some amplification of the -statement, which is no doubt plausible, and is advanced by Socialists -as an axiom, that the exertions of the majority—or, in other words, -Labour—has produced all wealth, and that therefore the majority not -only ought to possess it, but will be able to possess it by the simple -process of retaining it. But the moment the productive functions of -industrial ability are made clear, the doctrine which seemed an axiom -is reduced to an absurdity; and what might before have seemed a paradox -becomes a simple and intelligible truth—the doctrine, namely, that a -comparatively few persons, with certain exceptional gifts, are capable -of producing more wealth than all the rest of the community; and that -whoever may produce the wealth which the rich classes possess, it is -at all events not produced by the multitude, and might, under changed -conditions, be no longer produced at all. - -Now this doctrine of Ability Mr. Shaw accepts, and completely -surrenders and throws overboard the Socialistic doctrine of Labour. He -does indeed endeavour to make the surrender seem less complete than it -is, partly by irrelevant comments on some minor points,[61] and partly -by insisting on certain qualifications which are perfectly true, and to -which I have myself often elsewhere alluded, but which, as I shall show -presently, are, on his own admission, of small practical importance, -and do not appreciably affect the main position. For instance Mr. -Shaw argues that it is not always the most able man who, in any given -business, is to be found directing it. This also is no doubt true. -It merely means, however, that of industrial ability the same thing -may be said, which has so truly been said of Government—that it is -always _in_, or _passing into_, the hands of the most powerful section -of the community. Businesses conducted by men of inferior Ability -are gradually superseded by businesses conducted by men of superior -Ability. Men’s actual positions may be a few years behind or before -their capacities, but for all practical purposes they coincide with -them and the utmost that Mr. Shaw’s contention could prove would be -that some members of a minority are in places which should be occupied -by other members of a minority; not that the majority could take the -places of either. - -But I merely mention these points in passing, and waste no pains in -insisting on them or pressing them home, because their practical -insignificance is admitted by Mr. Shaw himself. The great body of -men—of men selected at random, even if they should enjoy the advantages -of superior position and education—“could not,” he says, “invent a -wheelbarrow, much less a locomotive.” He amplifies this admission -by quoting the case of an acquaintance of his, whose exceptional -Ability secured him _four thousand pounds_ a year, because without the -assistance of that Ability his employer would have lost more than this -sum. “Other men,” he proceeds, “have an eye for contracts, or what not, -or are born captains of industry, in which case they go into business -on their own account, and make ten, twenty, or two hundred per cent, -_where you or I should lose five_.... All these people are _rentiers_ -of Ability.” Again he quotes with emphatic approval a passage from an -American writer, whom he praises as a skilled economist; and using this -passage as a text, endorses its meaning in these words of his own. -“The able man, the actual organiser and employer, alone is able to find -a use for mere manual deftness, or for that brute strength, and heavy -bank balance, which any fool may possess.” “The capitalist and the -labourer run helplessly to the able man.” “He is the only party in the -transaction capable of the slightest initiative in production.” - -I need not add anything to these admissions. They constitute, as I -say, a complete surrender of the Socialistic doctrine of Labour, and -an emphatic admission of the primary proposition I advanced as to the -productive function of Ability. It is enough then to say, that so far -as the question of Labour is concerned, Mr. Shaw throws over completely -all the doctrines of the Gotha programme, the Erfurt programme, of Karl -Marx and his disciples, of Mr. Hyndman and his Social Democrats—in fact -the cardinal doctrine of Socialism as hitherto preached everywhere. - -Having disposed then of the point as to which Mr. Shaw agrees with -me, I will pass on to the point on which he supposes me to disagree -with him; and this is the point to which he devotes the larger part -of his article. Everything else is thrown in as a sort of by-play. -This point is as follows. Speaking roughly, and adopting the following -figures, not because I consider them accurate, but merely because they -agree with Mr. Shaw’s, and are for the present purpose as good as any -others, above _seven hundred million pounds_ of the national income go -to the non-labouring classes. Mr. Shaw, as I gather, would set down -about _two hundred million pounds_ of this as the earnings or profits -of Ability; whilst he contends that the remainder is the product -neither of Ability nor Labour, but of capital or land. It represents -the assistance which land and capital give to the two other productive -agents; and it goes to those who possess this land and capital, -simply on account of the rights which they possess as passive owners. -This sum, which Mr. Shaw estimates at about _five hundred million -pounds_,[62] ought, he contends, still to go to the owners—in fact, it -must always go to its owners; but the owners should be changed. They -should be the whole nation instead of a small class. - -Now Mr. Shaw says that my great mistake has relation to these _five -hundred million pounds_. He says that, having argued rightly enough -that _two hundred million pounds_ or so are the genuine product or -rent of actual and indispensable Ability, I have committed the absurd -mistake of confusing with this rent of ability, the rent of land, of -houses, and above all, the interest on capital. “Mr. Mallock,” he -says, “is an inconsiderate amateur, who does not know the difference -between profits and earnings on the one hand, and rent and interest on -the other.” And he summarises my views on the subject by saying, that -I “see in every railway shareholder the inventor of the locomotive or -the steam-engine,” and that I gravely maintain that the _three hundred -thousand pounds_ a year which may form the income of one or two great -urban landlords is produced by the exercise of some abnormal ability on -their parts. This supposed doctrine of mine forms the main subject of -Mr. Shaw’s attack. He is exuberantly witty on the subject. He turns -the doctrine this way and that, distorting its features into all sorts -of expressions, laughing afresh each time he does so. He calls me his -“brother” and his “son”; he quotes nursery rhymes at me. He alludes to -my own income and the income of the Duke of Westminster, and intimates -a desire to know whether the Duke being, so he says, many hundred -times as rich as myself, I am many hundred times as big a fool as the -Duke. In fact, he has recourse to every argumentative device which his -private sense of humour and his excellent taste suggest. - -The immediate answer to all this is very simple—namely, that I never -gave utterance to any such absurdity as Mr. Shaw attributes to me, -but that, on the contrary, I have insisted with the utmost emphasis -on this very distinction between profits and earnings, and rent and -interest, which he assures his readers I do not even perceive. Mr. -Shaw, therefore, has devoted most of his time to trampling only on a -misconception of his own. This is the immediate answer to him; but -there is a further answer to come, relating to the conclusions I -drew from nature of rent and interest, after I had pointed out their -contrast to the direct receipts of Ability. Let me show the truth of -the immediate answer first. - -I do not think that in my two recent articles in this Review there is -a single sentence that to any clear-headed man could form an excuse -for such a misconception as Mr. Shaw’s, whereas there are pages which -ought to have made it impossible. Indeed, a notice in the _Spectator_ -disposes of Mr. Shaw by saying that he evades the real point raised -by me, not meeting what I did say, and combating what I did not say. -But, as I started with observing, magazine articles can rarely be -exhaustive, and I will assume that some incompleteness or carelessness -of expression on my part might have afforded, had these articles stood -alone, some excuse for their critic. Mr. Shaw, however, is at pains -to impress us that he has read other writings of mine on the same -subject. He even remembers, after an interval of more than ten years, -some letters I wrote to the _St. James’s Gazette_. It might, therefore, -have been not unreasonable to expect that he would have referred to -my recent volume, _Labour and the Popular Welfare_, which I expressly -referred to in my two articles, and in which I said I had stated my -position more fully. As an answer to Mr. Shaw I will quote from that -volume now. - -The first Book deals with certain statistics as to production in this -country, and the growth of the national income as related to the -population. In the second Book I deal with the cause of this growth. -I point out that the causes of production are not three, as generally -stated—viz. Land, Labour, and Capital; but four—viz. Land, Labour, -Capital, and Ability; and that the fourth is the sole source of that -_increase_ in production which is the distinguishing feature of -modern industrial progress. In thus treating Capital as distinct from -Ability, I point out—taking a pumping-engine as an example—that capital -creates a product which necessarily goes to its owner, _quâ_ owner, -whether the owner is an individual or the State. I then proceed to -show that fixed capital—_e.g._ an engine—is the result of circulating -capital fossilised; and that circulating capital is productive only -in proportion as it is under the control of Ability. For this reason -I said that whilst it is _in process of being utilised_, Capital is -connected with Ability as the brain is connected with the mind, it -being the material means through which Ability controls Labour; and -that thus from _a certain point of view_ the two are inseparable. I -need not insist on this truth, because Mr. Shaw admits it. But Mr. -Shaw will find a subsequent chapter (Book IV. chap. ii.) bearing the -title, _Of the Ownership of Capital as distinct from its Employment by -Ability_. From that chapter I quote the following passage:— - - “In dealing with Capital and Ability, I first treated them - separately, I then showed that, regarded as a productive agent, - Capital _is_ Ability, and must be treated as identical with it. But - it is necessary, now we are dealing with distribution, to dissociate - them for a moment and treat them separately once more. For even - though it be admitted that Ability, working by means of Capital, - produces, as it has been shown to do, nearly two-thirds of the - national income,[63] and though it may be admitted further that - a large portion of this product should go to the able men who are - actively engaged in producing it—the men whose Ability animates and - vivifies Capital—it may be argued that a portion of it, which is very - large indeed, goes as a fact to men who do not exert themselves at - all, or who, at any rate, do not exert themselves in the production - of wealth. These men, it will be said, live not on the products - of Ability, but on the interest of Capital, which they have come - accidentally to possess; and it will be asked on what ground Labour - is interested in forbearing to touch the possessions of those who - produce nothing?... Why should it not appropriate what goes to this - wholly non-productive class.” - -If Mr. Shaw or his readers are still in doubt as to the extent to which -his criticism of myself is wide of the mark—if he still thinks that he -is fighting any mistake but his own, when he attacks me as though I -confused interest with the direct earnings of Ability, let me add one -passage more out of the same chapter:— - - “Large profits must not be confounded with high interest. Large - profits are a mixture of three things, as was pointed out by Mill, - though he did not name two of them happily. He said that profits - consisted of wages of superintendence, compensation for risk, and - interest on Capital. If, instead of wages of superintendence we say - the product of Ability, and instead of compensation for risk we say - the reward of sagacity, which is itself a form of Ability, we shall - have an accurate statement of the case.” - -Again, two pages earlier Mr. Shaw will find this:— - - “Interest is capable, under certain circumstances, of being reduced - to a minimum without production being in any degree checked; and - every pound which the man who employs Capital is thus relieved from - paying to the man who owns it constitutes, _other things being - equal_, a fund which may be appropriated by Labour.” - -These quotations will be enough to show how the bulk of Mr. Shaw’s -criticisms, which he thinks are directed against myself, are criticisms -of an absurd error and confusion of thought, which I have myself done -my utmost to expose, in order that I might put the real facts of the -case more clearly. - -Let me now briefly restate what I have actually said about these facts. -Let me restate the points which Mr. Shaw hardly ventures even to -glance at. I have said that Capital and Ability, as actually engaged -in production, are united like mind and brain. There is, however, as I -observed also, this difference. So far as this life is concerned, at -all events, brain and mind are inseparable. The organ and the function -cannot be divided. But in the case of Ability and Capital they can be. -The mind of one man has often to borrow from another man the matter -through which alone it is able to operate in production. Thus though -Ability and Capital, when viewed from the standpoint of Labour, are one -thing, when viewed from the standpoint of their different processes -they are two; and Capital is seen to produce a part of the product, as -distinguished from the Ability whose tool and organ it is. Mr. Shaw -says that the capital of the country at the present time produces _five -hundred million pounds_ annually, and, for argument’s sake, I accept -this figure. Thus far, then, Mr. Shaw and I agree. But what I have -urged Mr. Shaw to consider, and what he does not venture even to think -of, is the following question:—How did the capital of this country come -into existence? - -Even the soil of this country, as we know it now, is an artificial -product. It did not exist in its present state two hundred years ago. -Still it was there. But of the capital of the country, as it exists -to-day, by far the larger part did not exist at all. Let us merely -go back two generations—to the times of our own grandfathers; and we -shall find that of the _ten thousand million pounds_ at which our -present capital is estimated, _eight thousand million pounds_ have been -produced during the last eighty years. That is to say, four-fifths of -our capital was non-existent at a time when the grandfathers of many -of us were already grown men. How, then, was this capital produced? -The ordinary Socialist will say that it was produced by Labour—that -it is, as (I think) Lassalle called it, “fossil Labour.” Mr. Shaw, -however, judging by what we have seen of his opinions, will agree with -me that though a small part of it may be fossil Labour, by far the -larger part is fossil Ability. It is, in fact, savings from the growing -annual wealth which has been produced during the period in question -by the activity of able men. But these able men did not produce -it by accident. They produced it under the stimulus of some very -strong motive. What was this motive? Mr. Shaw’s Socialistic friends -and predecessors have been spouting and shouting an answer to this -question for the past sixty years. They have been telling us that the -main motive of the employing class was “greed.” Unlike most of their -statements, this is entirely true. Nor, although the sound of it is -offensive, is there anything offensive in its meaning. It means that -in saving capital and in producing the surplus out of which they were -able to save it, the motive of the producers was the desire to live on -the interest of it when it was saved; and that if it had not been for -the desire, the hope, the expectation of getting this interest, the -capital most certainly would never have been produced at all, or, at -all events, only a very minute fraction of it. - -I asked in one of my articles in this Review whether Mr. Shaw thought -that a man who received ten thousand a year as the product of his -exceptional ability would value this sum as much if he were forbidden -by the State to invest a penny of it—if the State, in fact, were an -organised conspiracy to prevent his investing it so as to make an -independent provision for his family, or for himself at any moment -when he might wish to stop working—as he values it now when the State -is organised so as to make his investments secure? And the sole -indication in the whole of Mr. Shaw’s paper that he has ever realised -the existence of the question here indicated is to be found in a casual -sentence, in which he says that to think that the complete confiscation -of all the capital created by the two past generations, and the avowed -intention on the part of the State to confiscate all the capital that -is now being created by the present—to think, in other words, that the -annihilation of the strongest and fiercest hope that has ever nerved -exceptional men to make exceptional industrial exertion, would in the -smallest degree damp the energies of any able man—“is an extremely -unhistoric apprehension,” and one as to which he “doubts whether the -public will take the alarm.” And having said this, he endeavours to -justify himself by an appeal to history. He asks if the men who built -the Pyramids did not work just as hard “though they knew that Pharaoh -was at the head of an organised conspiracy to take away the Pyramids -from them as soon as they were made?” - -This remarkable historical reference is the sole answer Mr. Shaw -attempts to make to the real point raised by me. If it is necessary -seriously to answer it, let me refer Mr. Shaw to _Labour and -the Popular Welfare_, pp. 124, 125, where his childish piece of -reasoning—actually illustrated there by the example of Ancient Egypt—is -anticipated and disposed of. As I there pointed out, these great -buildings of the ancient world were the products not of Ability as it -exists in the modern world, but of Labour; the difference between the -two (so far as this point is concerned) being this:—that the labour an -average man can perform is a known quantity, and wherever a dominant -race enslaves an inferior one, the taskmasters of the former can -coerce the latter into performing a required amount of service. But -the existence of exceptional ability cannot be known or even suspected -by others till the able individual voluntarily shows and exerts it. He -cannot be driven; he must be induced and tempted. And not only is there -no means of making him exert his talents, except by allowing these -talents to secure for himself an exceptional reward; but in the absence -of any such reward to fire his imagination and his passion, he will -probably not be conscious of his own Ability himself. Pharaoh could -flog the stupidest Israelite into laying so many bricks, but he could -not have flogged Moses himself into a Brassey, a Bessemer, or an Edison. - -This, however, is a point with which it is impossible to deal in a few -sentences or a few pages. The great question of human motive, closely -allied as it is with the question of family affection, the pleasures -of social intercourse, the excitements and prizes of social rivalry, -of love, of ambition, and all the philosophy of taste and manners—this -great question of motive can be only touched upon here. But a few more -words may be said to show the naïve ignorance of human nature and of -the world betrayed by the Fabian champion. - -Mr. Shaw, in order to prove how fully he understands the question of -Ability, quotes the case of a friend of his, who, by his Ability, -makes _four thousand pounds_ a year. This, says Mr. Shaw, is just as -it should be: but if a man, like his friend, should save _one hundred -thousand pounds_, and desire to leave this to his son, invested for -him at 3½ per cent, so that the son may receive an income whether he -has any of his father’s ability or no—this, says Mr. Shaw, is what -Socialism will not permit. The son must earn all he gets; and if he -happens to have no exceptional ability, which may probably be the case, -he will have to put up with the mere wages of manual labour. He will -have to live on some _eighty pounds_ a year instead of _four thousand -pounds_. And Mr. Shaw says, that to introduce this arrangement into -our social system will have no appreciable effect on the men who are -now making, by their ability, their _four thousand pounds_ a year. Let -us suggest to him the following reflections. What good, in that case, -would the _four thousand pounds_ a year be to the father, unless he -were to eat and drink nearly the whole of it himself? For it would -be absurd and cruel in him to bring up his children in luxury if the -moment he died they would have to become scavengers. Wealth is mainly -valuable, and sought for, not for the sake of the pleasures of sense -which it secures for a man’s individual nervous system, but for the -sake of the _entourage_—of the world—which it creates around him, which -it peoples with companions for him brought up and refined in a certain -way, and in which alone his mere personal pleasures can be fully -enjoyed. Capitalism, as Mr. Shaw truly observes, produces many personal -inequalities, which without it could not exist. He fails to understand -that it is precisely the prospect of producing such inequalities that -constitutes the main motive that urges able men to create Capital. - -More than ten years ago I published a book called _Social Equality_, -devoted to the exposition of these truths. I cannot dwell upon them -now. In that book history is appealed to, and biography is appealed to; -and the special case of literary and artistic production, of which Mr. -Shaw makes so much, is considered in a chapter devoted to the subject, -and Mr. Shaw’s precise arguments are disposed of in anticipation. But -to a great extent the true doctrine of motive is one which cannot be -established by mere formal argument. It must to a great extent be left -to the verdict of the jury of general common sense, the judgment of men -of experience and knowledge of the world—that knowledge which, of all -others, Mr. Shaw and his friends appear to be most lacking in. - -It will be enough, then, to turn from Mr. Shaw himself to ordinary -sensible men, especially to the men of exceptional energy, capacity, -shrewdness, strong will, and productive genius—the men who are making -fortunes, or who have just made them, and without whose efforts all -modern industry would be paralysed, and to tell such men that the -sole answer of Fabianism to my attack on the Socialistic position is -summed up in the following astounding statement:—That the complete -confiscation of all the invested money in this country, and all the -incomes derived from it—from the many thousands a year going to the -great organiser of industry to the hundred a year belonging to the -small retired tradesman—would have no effect whatever on the hopes and -efforts of those who are now devoting their Ability to making money to -invest (see Mr. Shaw’s article). Well—_Bos locutus est_: there is the -quintessence of Mr. Shaw’s knowledge of human nature and of the world, -and though it would be interesting and instructive to analyse the error -of his view, no analysis could make its absurdity seem more complete -than it will seem without analysis, to every practical man. - - - - - FOOTNOTES - - -[1] Writers also from whom better things might have been expected make -use of the same foolish language. “The proletarian, in accepting the -highest bid, sells himself openly into bondage” (_Fabian Essays_, p. -12). - -[2] According to Professor Leone Levi, the actual sum would be _one -hundred and thirteen million pounds_: but in dealing with estimates -such as these, in which absolute accuracy is impossible, it is better, -as well as more convenient, to use round numbers. More than nine-tenths -of this sum belongs to the income of the classes that pay income-tax. -Of the working-class income, not more than two per cent is counted -twice over, according to Professor Leone Levi. - -[3] There is a general agreement amongst statisticians with regard to -these figures. _Cf._ Messrs Giffen, Mulhall, and Leone Levi _passim_. - -[4] Out of any _thousand_ inhabitants, _two hundred and fifty-eight_ -are under ten years of age; and _three hundred and sixty-six_ out of -every _thousand_ are under fifteen. - -[5] Statistics in support of the above result might be indefinitely -multiplied, both from European countries and America. So far as food is -concerned, scientific authorities tell us that if _twenty_ represents -the amount required by a man, a woman will require _fifteen_, and a -child _eleven_; but the total expenditures necessary are somewhat -different in proportion. - -[6] The total imperial taxation in the United Kingdom is about _two -pounds eight shillings_ per head; and the total local taxation is about -_one pound four shillings_. Thus the two together come to _three pounds -twelve shillings_ per head, which for every family of four and a half -persons gives a total of _sixteen pounds four shillings_. - -[7] The number of females over fifteen years of age is about _twelve -millions_. Those who work for wages number less than _five millions_. - -[8] Mr. Giffen’s latest estimates show that not more than twenty-three -per cent of the wage-earners in this country earn less than _twenty -shillings_ a week; whilst seventy-seven per cent earn this sum -and upwards. Thirty-five per cent earn from _twenty shillings_ to -_twenty-five shillings_; and forty-one per cent earn more than -_twenty-five shillings_. See evidence given by Mr. Giffen before the -Labour Commission, 7th December 1892. - -[9] The reader must observe that I speak of the _rent_ of the land, -not of the land itself, as the subject of the above calculation. I -forbear to touch the question of any mere change in the occupancy or -administration of the land, or even of any scheme of nationalising the -land by purchasing it at its market price from the owners; for by none -of these would the present owners be robbed pecuniarily, nor would the -nation pecuniarily gain, except in so far as new conditions of tenure -made agriculture more productive. All such schemes are subjects of -legitimate controversy, or, in other words, are party questions; and -I therefore abstain from touching them. I deal in the text with facts -about which there can be no controversy. - -[10] It is also every year becoming more unimportant, in diametrical -contradiction of the theories of Mr. H. George. This was pointed out -some twelve years ago by Professor Leone Levi, who showed that whereas -in 1814 the incomes of the landlord and farmer were fifty-six per cent -of the total assessed to income-tax, in 1851 they were thirty-seven per -cent, and in 1880 only twenty-four per cent. They are now only sixteen -per cent. - -[11] See Local Government Board valuation of 1878. - -[12] Recent falls in rent make it impossible to give the figures with -actual precision; but the returns in the New Doomsday Book, taken -together with subsequent official information, enable us to arrive at -the substantial facts of the case. In 1878 the rental of the owners -of more than _a thousand_ acres was _twenty-nine million pounds_. -The rental of the rural owners of smaller estates was _thirty-two -million pounds_; and the rental of small urban and suburban owners was -_thirty-six million pounds_. The suburban properties averaged _three -and a half_ acres, the average rent being _thirteen pounds_ per acre. - -[13] According to the Local Government Report of 1878, the rental of -all the properties over _five hundred_ acres averaged _thirty-six -shillings_ an acre; that of properties between _fifty_ and _a hundred_ -acres, _forty-eight shillings_ an acre; and that of properties between -_ten_ and _fifty_ acres, _a hundred and sixteen shillings_ an acre. In -Scotland, the rental of properties over _five hundred_ acres averaged -_nine shillings_ an acre: that of properties between _ten_ and _fifty_ -acres, _four hundred and thirteen shillings_. With regard to the value -of properties under _ten_ acres, the following Scotch statistics are -interesting. Four-fifths of the ground rental of Edinburgh is taken -by owners of less than one acre, the rental of such owners being on -an average _ninety-nine pounds_. Three-fourths of the ground rental -of Glasgow is taken by owners of similar plots of ground; only there -the rental of such owners is _a hundred and seventy-one pounds_. In -the municipal borough of Kilmarnock, land owned in plots of less than -an acre lets per acre at _thirty-two pounds_. The land of the few men -who own larger plots lets for not more than _twenty pounds_. Each -one of the _eleven thousand_ men who own collectively four-fifths of -Edinburgh, has in point of money as much stake in the soil as though he -were the owner in Sutherland of _two thousand_ acres: and each one of -the _ten thousand_ men who own collectively three-fourths of Glasgow, -has as much stake in the soil as though he were the owner in Sutherland -of _three thousand four hundred_ acres. - -[14] This is Mr. Giffen’s estimate. Mr. Mulhall, who has made -independent calculations, does not differ from Mr. Giffen by more than -five per cent. - -[15] General merchandise is estimated by Mr. Mulhall at _three hundred -and forty-three million pounds_. For every _hundred_ inhabitants in the -year 1877 there were _five_ horses, _twenty-eight_ cows, _seventy-six_ -sheep, and _ten_ pigs. In 1881 there were in Great Britain _five -million four hundred and seventy-five thousand_ houses. The rent of -eighty-seven per cent of these was under _thirty pounds_ a year, -and the rental of more than a half averaged only _ten pounds_. The -total house-rental of Great Britain in that year was _one hundred -and fourteen million pounds_; and the aggregate total of houses over -_thirty pounds_ annual value was _sixty million pounds_; though in -point of number these houses were only thirteen per cent of the whole. - -[16] This classification of houses may perhaps be objected to; but -from the above point of view it is correct. Houses represent an annual -income of _one hundred and thirty-five million pounds_. Not more -than _thirty-five million pounds_ are spent annually in building new -houses; whilst the whole are counted as representing a new _one hundred -million pounds_ every year. It is plain, therefore, that if we estimate -the entire annual value as above, the sum in question stands not for -the houses, but for the use of them. Even more clearly does the same -reasoning apply to railways and shipping. Whether we send goods by -these or are conveyed by them ourselves, all that we get from them is -the mere service of transport. On transport and travelling by railway -about _seventy million pounds_ are spent annually: by ship about -_thirty million pounds_; by trams about _two million pounds_. - -[17] The total annual imports are about _four hundred and twenty -million pounds_. The amount retained for home consumption is about -_three hundred and sixty-five million pounds_. - -[18] The approximate value of the food consumed annually in the United -Kingdom (exclusive of alcoholic drinks) is _two hundred and ninety -million pounds_. The total value of food imported is over _one hundred -and fifty million pounds_. - -[19] The number of persons fed on home-grown meat was _twenty-three -millions one hundred thousand_. The number fed on imported meat was -_fourteen millions seven hundred thousand_. In other words, the number -of persons who subsist on imported meat now is about equal to the -entire population of the United Kingdom in 1801. - -[20] From the year 1843 to 1851, the annual income of the nation -averaged _five hundred and fifteen million pounds_, according to the -calculations of Messrs. Leone Levi, Dudley Baxter, Mulhall, and Giffen. - -[21] The actual figures are as follows:—In 1887 the estimates of the -value of agricultural products per each individual actually engaged -in agriculture were: United Kingdom, _ninety-eight pounds_; France, -_seventy-one pounds_; Belgium, _fifty-six pounds_; Germany, _fifty-two -pounds_; Austria, _thirty-one pounds_; Italy, _thirty-seven pounds_. - -[22] It is understating the case to say that the British operative -to-day works one hundred and eighty-nine hours less annually than -his predecessor of forty or fifty years ago, and one hundred and -eighty-nine hours = three weeks of nine hours a day. To this must be -added at least a week of additional holidays. - -[23] The hours of labour in Switzerland are, on an average, sixty-six a -week. - -[24] The agricultural population in France is about _eighteen -millions_; in this country, about _six millions_. The produce of France -is worth about _four hundred and fourteen million pounds_; of this -country, _two hundred and twenty-six million pounds_. - -[25] According to Eden it was about _seventeen hundred million pounds_ -at the beginning of the present century. Twenty-five years previously -it was, according to Young’s estimate, _eleven hundred million pounds_. - -[26] I have not mentioned Profits. They consist, says Mill, of Interest -on Capital and Wages of Superintendence; to which he adds compensation -for risk—a most important item, but not requiring to be included here. - -[27] From 1716 to 1770 the cotton manufactured in this country annually -averaged under _two and a half million pounds_ weight. From 1771 to -1775 it was _four million seven hundred thousand pounds_. From 1781 -to 1785 it was _eleven million pounds_. From 1791 to 1795 it was -_twenty-six million pounds_; and from 1795 to 1800 it was _thirty-seven -million pounds_. - -[28] Pitt estimated that the hands employed in spinning increased from -forty thousand to eighty thousand between the years 1760 and 1790. - -[29] Were any confirmation of this conclusion needed, it is afforded -us by the fact that in 1786 a spinner received _ten shillings_ a pound -for spinning cotton of a certain quality: in 1795 he had received only -_eightpence_, or a fifteenth part of ten shillings; and yet in the -course of a similar day’s labour, he made more money than he had been -able to do under the former scale of payment. The price of spinning -No. 100 was _ten shillings_ per pound in 1786; in 1793, _two shillings -and sixpence_. The subsequent drop to _eightpence_ coincided with the -application of machinery to the working of the mule. - -[30] Were this work a treatise on political economy, rather than a work -on practical politics, in which only the simplest and most fundamental -economic principles are insisted on, I should have here introduced a -chapter on the special and peculiar part which fixed capital, other -than machinery, plays in agriculture. I have not done so, however, for -fear of interrupting the thread of the main argument; but it will be -useful to call the reader’s attention to the subject in a note. - -It was explained in the last chapter that rent (to speak with strict -accuracy) is not to be described as the product of superior soils, -but rather as the product of the qualities which make such soils -superior—qualities which are present in them and which in poorer -soils are absent. Now in speaking of rent, we assumed these superior -qualities to be natural. As a matter of fact, however, in highly -cultivated countries, many of them are artificial. They have been added -to the soil by human exertion—for instance by the process of draining; -or they have been actually placed in the soil, as by the process of -manuring. In this way land and capital merge and melt into one another, -and illustrate each other’s functions as productive agents. It is -impossible to imagine a more complete and beautiful example of the -relation between the two. At this point the rent of Capital and the -rent of Land become indistinguishable. - -[31] In a state where the employing class were physically the masters -of the employed, Wage Capital would be unnecessary for the employer. A -system of forced labour might take its place. - -[32] This was Pitt’s computation. _See_ Lecky, _History of England -during the Eighteenth Century_, vol. vi. chap. xxiii. - -[33] The amount of land, formerly waste, that was added to the -cultivable area during the last century, was in England and Wales not -more than sixteen per cent of the total. - -[34] The rental of Great Britain in 1750 was about _thirteen million -five hundred thousand pounds_, and in 1800 about _twenty-nine million -six hundred thousand pounds_. According to the estimates of Arthur -Young, the farmer’s income somewhat more. The wages of Agricultural -Labour had not risen proportionately. - -[35] See _Encyclopædia Britannica_, first and earlier editions. - -[36] See _Encyclopædia Britannica_, first and earlier editions. The -product of each smelting furnace in use in 1780 was _two hundred -and ninety-four tons_ annually. In 1788, these same furnaces were -producing, by the aid of new inventions, _five hundred and ninety-four -tons_. - -[37] According to Arthur Young’s estimates, the earnings of an -agricultural family, consisting of seven persons all capable of work, -would be about _fifty-one pounds_ annually. This gives a little over -_seven pounds_ a head; but when the children and others not capable -of work are taken into account the average is considerably lower. The -wages, however, of the artisan class being higher, the average amount -per head taken by the whole working population would be about _seven -pounds_. - -[38] About £1 12s. per head would have to be set down to land, were -the land question being dealt with. But for the purpose of the above -discussion, land may be ignored, as it does not affect the problem. - -[39] This fact has been commented on with much force by Mr. Gourlay in -a paper contributed by him to the _National Review_. - -[40] The matter may also be put in this way. There are _ninety-nine -labourers_ engaged on a certain work at which there is room for _a -hundred_. The _ninety-nine men_ produce every week value to the amount -of _ninety-nine pounds_. There are two candidates for the hundredth -place: one a labourer, John; and one, a man of ability, James. If -John takes the vacant place, we have _a hundred men_ producing _a -hundred pounds_. If James takes the vacant place, the productivity -of labour by his action is (we will say) doubled, and we have _a -hundred men_ producing _a hundred and ninety-eight pounds_. No amount -of theory based on the fact that James could do nothing without the -_ninety-nine labourers_ can obscure or do away with the practical truth -and importance of the fact that the exertion of James will produce -_ninety-eight pounds_ more than the exertion of John; and any person -with whom the decision rested, which of these two men should take the -hundredth place, would base their decision on this fact. - -[41] I say _practically_ as absurd, meaning absurd and practically -meaningless in an economic argument. There are many points of view from -which it would be philosophically true. - -[42] The examples given above might be multiplied indefinitely. -Maudslay was brought up as a “powder-boy” at Woolwich. The inventors of -the planing machine, Clements and Fox, were brought up, the one as a -slater, the other as a domestic servant. Neilson, the inventor of the -hot-blast, was a millwright. Roberts, the inventor of the self-acting -mule and the slotting-machine, was a quarryman. The illustrious Bramah -began life as a common farm-boy. - -[43] By labouring classes is meant all those families having incomes of -less than a _hundred and fifty pounds_ a year. The substantial accuracy -of this rough classification has already been pointed out. No doubt -they include many persons who are not manual labourers; but against -this must be set the fact that, according to the latest evidence, there -are at least a _hundred and eighty thousand_ skilled manual labourers -who earn more than a _hundred and fifty pounds_. And, at all events, -whether the classes in question are manual labourers or not, they -are, with very manifest exceptions, wage-earners—that is to say, for -whatever money they receive they give work which is estimated at at -least the same money value. A schoolmaster, for instance, who receives -a _hundred and forty pounds_ a year gives in return teaching which -is valued at the same sum. School teaching is wealth just as much as -a schoolhouse; it figures in all estimates as part of the national -income; and therefore the schoolmaster is a producer just as much as -the school builder. - -[44] This corresponds with Arthur Young’s estimate of wages for about -the same period. - -[45] Statisticians estimate that in 1860 the working classes of the -United Kingdom received in wages _four hundred million pounds_; the -population then being about twice what it was at the close of the -last century. In order to arrive at the receipts of British Labour, -the receipts of Irish Labour must be deducted from this total. The -latter are proportionately much lower than the former, and could not -have reached the sum of _eighty million pounds_. But assuming them to -have reached that, and deducting _eighty million pounds_ from _four -hundred million pounds_, there is left for British Labour _three -hundred and twenty million pounds_, to be divided, roughly speaking, -amongst _twenty million_ people; which for each _ten millions_ yields a -_hundred and sixty million pounds_. - -[46] According to the latest estimates, it exceeds _seven hundred -million pounds_. - -[47] The entire population has risen from about _twenty-seven million -five hundred thousand_ to _thirty-eight millions_. But a large part of -this increase has taken place amongst the classes who pay income-tax, -and are expressly excluded from the above calculations. These classes -have risen from _one million five hundred thousand_ to _five millions_. - -[48] These considerations are so obvious, and have been so constantly -dwelt upon by all economic writers, other than avowed Socialists, -that it is quite unnecessary here to insist on these further. Even -the Socialists themselves have recognised how much force there is in -them, and have consequently been at pains to meet them by the following -curious doctrine. They maintain that a man who makes or inherits a -certain sum has a perfect right to possess it, to hoard it, or squander -it on himself; but no right to any payment for the use made of it by -others. They argue that if he puts it into a business he is simply -having it preserved for him; for the larger part of the Capital at any -time existing would dwindle and disappear if it were not renewed by -being used. Let him put it into a business, say the Socialists, and -draw it out as he wants it. Few things can show more clearly than this -suggested arrangement the visionary character of the Socialistic mind; -for it needs but little thought to show that such an arrangement would -defeat its own objects and be altogether impracticable. The sole ground -on which the Socialists recommend it, in preference to the arrangement -which prevails at present, is that the interest which the owners of -the Capital are forbidden to receive themselves would by some means -or other be taken by the State instead and distributed amongst the -labourers as an addition to their wages, and would thus be the means -of supplying them with extra comforts. Now the interest if so applied -would, it is needless to say, be not saved but consumed. But the owners -of the Capital, who are thus deprived of their interest, are to have -the privilege, according to the arrangement we are considering, of -consuming their Capital in lieu of the interest that has been taken -from them. Accordingly, whereas the interest is all that is consumed -now, under this arrangement the Capital would be consumed as well. The -tendency, in fact, of the arrangement would be neither more nor less -than this: to increase the consumption of the nation at the expense of -its savings, until at last all the savings had disappeared. It would be -impracticable also for many other reasons, to discuss which here would -simply be waste of time. It is enough to observe that the fact of its -having been suggested is only a tribute to the insuperable nature of -the difficulty it was designed to meet. - -[49] The part played in national progress by the mere business -sagacity of investors, amounts practically to a constant criticism of -inventions, discoveries, schemes, and enterprises of all kinds, and the -selection of those that are valuable from amongst a mass of what is -valueless and chimerical. - -[50] See Mr. Giffen’s Inaugural Address of the Fiftieth Session of the -Statistical Society. - -[51] The gross amount assessed to income-tax in 1891 was nearly _seven -hundred million pounds_; now more than _a hundred million pounds_ was -exempt, as belonging to persons with incomes of less than _a hundred -and fifty pounds_ a year. Mr. Giffen maintains (see his evidence given -before the Royal Commission on Labour, 7th December 1892) that there -is an immense middle-class income not included amongst the wages of -the labouring class. This, according to the classification adopted -above, which divides the population into those with incomes above, and -those with incomes below _a hundred and fifty pounds_, would raise the -collective incomes of the latter to over _seven hundred million pounds_. - -[52] See Mr. Giffen’s Address, as above. - -[53] If the number of employers does not increase, it is true that -they, unlike the employed, will be richer in proportion to their -numbers; but they will be poorer in proportion to the number of men -employed by them. - -[54] Thus the old theory of the wage-fund, which has so often been -attacked of late, has after all this great residuary truth, namely, -that the amount of wealth that is spent and taken in wages is limited -by the total amount of wealth produced _in proportion to the number_ -of labourers who assist in its production. That theory, however, as -commonly understood, is no doubt erroneous, though not for the reasons -commonly advanced by its critics. The theory of a wage-fund as commonly -understood means this—that if there were eight labourers and a capital -of _four hundred pounds_, which would be spent in wages and replaced -within a year, and if this were distributed in equal shares of _fifty -pounds_, it would be impossible to increase the share of one labourer -without diminishing that of the others; or to employ more labourers -without doing the same thing. But the truth is that if means were -discovered by which the productivity of any one labourer could be -doubled during the first six months, the whole _fifty pounds_ destined -for his whole year’s subsistence might be paid to him during the first -six months, and the fund would meanwhile have been created with which -to pay him a similar sum for the next six months—the employer gaining -in the same proportion as the labourer. So, too, with regard to an -additional number of labourers—if ability could employ their labour to -sufficient advantage, part of the sum destined to support the original -labourer for the second six months of the year might be advanced to -them, and before the second six months’ wages became due there might be -enough to pay an increased wage to all. - -[55] This is true even of productive or distributive industries carried -out by the State. The real Socialistic principle of production has -never been applied by the State, or by any municipal authority; nor -has any practical party so much as suggested that it should be. The -manager of a State factory has just the same motive to save that an -ordinary employer has: he can invest his money, and get interest -on it. A State or a municipal business differs only from a private -Capitalist’s business either in making no profits, as is the case in -the building of ships of war; or of securing the services of Ability -at a somewhat cheaper rate, and, in consequence, generally diminishing -its efficacy. Of State business carried on at a profit, the Post Office -offers the best example; and it is the example universally fixed on -by contemporary English Socialists. It is an example, however, which -disproves everything that they think it proves; and shows the necessary -limitations of the principle involved, instead of the possibility of -its extension. For, in the first place, the object aimed at—_i.e._ the -delivery of letters—is one of exceptional simplicity. In the second -place, all practical men agree that, could the postal service be -carried out by private and competing firms, it would (at all events -in towns) be carried out much better; only the advantages gained in -this special and exceptional case from the entire service being under -a single management, outweigh the disadvantages. And lastly, the -business, as it stands, is a State business in the most superficial -sense only. The railways and the steamers that carry the letters are -all the creations of private enterprise, in which the principle of -competition, and the motive force of the natural rewards of Ability, -have had free play. Indeed the Post Office, as we now know it, if we -can call it Socialistic at all, represents only a superficial layer of -State Socialism resting on individualism, and only made possible by its -developments. Real State Socialism would be merely the Capitalistic -system minus the rewards of that Ability by which alone Capital is made -productive. - -[56] _Principles of Economics_, by Alfred Marshall, book iv. chap. vii. - -[57] Though I have aimed at excluding from this volume all -controversial matter, I may here hazard the opinion that the -Socialistic principle is most properly applied to providing the -labourers, not with things that they would buy if they were able to do -so, but things that naturally they would not buy. Things procurable -by money may be divided into three classes—things that are necessary, -things that are superfluous, and things that are beneficial. Clothing -is an example of the first class, finery of the second, and education -of the third. If a man receives food from the State, otherwise than as -a reward for a given amount of labour, his motive to labour will be -lessened. If a factory girl, irrespective of her industry, was supplied -by the State with fashionable hats and jackets, her motive to labour -would be lessened also; for clothing and finery are amongst the special -objects to procure which labour is undertaken. But desire to be able to -pay for education does not constitute, for most men and women, a strong -motive to labour; and therefore education may be supplied by the State, -without the efficacy of their labour being interfered with. - -[58] In our imaginary community we have at first eight labourers, who -produce _fifty pounds_ a year a-piece = _four hundred pounds_. Then -we have eight labourers + one able man, who produce _four hundred -pounds_ a year for each labourer = _three thousand two hundred pounds_. -Of this the able man takes _two thousand eight hundred pounds_. Now, -suppose the labourers strike for double wages, and succeed in getting -them, their total wages are _eight hundred pounds_ a year instead of -_four hundred pounds_; and the employer’s income is _two thousand four -hundred pounds_ instead of _two thousand eight hundred pounds_. The -labourers gain a hundred per cent; the employer loses little more than -fourteen per cent. The labourers therefore have a stronger motive in -demanding than the employer has in resisting. But let us suppose that, -the total income of the community remaining unchanged, the labourers -have succeeded in obtaining _one thousand eight hundred pounds_, thus -leaving the employer _one thousand four hundred pounds_. The situation -will now be changed. The labourers could not possibly now gain an -increase of a hundred per cent, for the entire income available would -not supply this; but let us suppose they strike for an increase of -_two hundred pounds_. If they gained that, their income would be _two -thousand pounds_, and that of the employer _one thousand two hundred -pounds_; but the former situation would be reversed. The employer now -would lose more than the labourer would gain. The labourers would gain, -in round numbers, only eleven per cent; and the employer would lose -fourteen per cent. Therefore the employer would have a stronger motive -in resisting than the labourers in demanding. - -[59] The possibility of such a result would depend upon two -assumptions, which are not in accordance with reality, and for which -allowance must be made. The first is the assumption that the labouring -population is stationary; the second is that Ability can increase the -productivity of Labour equally in all industries. In reality, however, -as was noticed in the last chapter, the number of labourers increases -constantly, and the improvements in different industries are very -unequal; and, owing to these two causes, it often happens that the -total value produced in some industries by Labour and Ability together -is not so great as is the share that is taken by Labour in others. -Thus the labourers employed in the inferior industries could by no -possibility raise their wages to the amount received by the labourers -employed in the superior ones. Their effort accordingly would be to -obtain employment in the latter, and to do so by accepting wages -higher indeed than what they receive at present, but lower than those -received by the men whose positions they wish to take. Thus, under such -circumstances, a union of industrial interests ceases to be any longer -possible. By an irresistible and automatic process, there is produced -an antagonism between them; and the labourers who enjoy the higher -wages will do what is actually done by our Trade Unions: they will form -a separate combination to protect their own interests, not only against -the employers, but even more directly against other labourers. At a -certain stage of their demands, the labourers may be able to combine -more readily and more closely than the employers; but when a certain -stage has been passed, the case will be the reverse. The employers will -be forced more and more into unanimous action, whilst the labourers, -by their diverging interests, are divided into groups whose action is -mutually hostile. - -[60] The reader must always bear in mind the definition given of -Labour, as that kind of industrial exertion which is applied to one -task at a time only, and while so applied begins and ends with that -task; as distinguished from Ability, which influences simultaneously an -indefinite number of tasks. - -[61] Mr. Shaw, for instance, is at much pains to point out that Ability -is not one definite thing, as the power of jumping is, and makes -himself merry by asking if Wellington’s Ability could be compared -with Cobden’s, or Napoleon’s with Beethoven’s. This is all beside the -mark. I have been careful to define the sense in which I used the -word Ability—to define it with the utmost exactness. I have said that -I use it as meaning productive Ability—industrial Ability. That is -to say, those faculties by which men, not labouring themselves, are -capable of directing to the best advantage the labour of others, with -a view to the production of economic commodities. In the Middle Ages I -said that another kind of Ability was more important—_i.e._ Military -Ability, instead of Economic; and the historical importance of this -fact, which Mr. Shaw says I discovered only after I had written my -first article on Fabian Economics, I insisted on, at much greater -length, years ago, when criticising Karl Marx’s “Theory of Value,” in -this [the Fortnightly] Review. Again, let Mr. Shaw turn to _Labour and -the Popular Welfare_, p. 328, and he will find what he says put more -clearly by myself than by him. - -[62] It is interesting to see the analysis which Mr. Shaw gives of the -elements which make up the _five hundred million pounds_ (see page 482 -of his article). It shows a curious want of sense of proportion, and -reads much like a statement that a young man’s bankruptcy was due to -the _one hundred thousand pounds_ he has spent on the turf, the _fifty -thousand pounds_ he had spent on building a house, the _fifty pounds_ -he has spent on a fur coat, and the sixpence he gave last Saturday to -the porter at Paddington Station. But there is in it a more serious -error than this. Mr. Shaw says, and rightly, that a large part of the -millions to which he alludes consists of payments to artists and other -professional men (_e.g._ doctors), by very rich commonplace people -competing for their services. But he entirely mistakes the meaning of -this fact. I have pointed it out carefully in _Labour and the Popular -Welfare_ (Book I. chap. iii.) and have illustrated it by one of the -exact cases Mr. Shaw has in view, viz. that of a doctor who gets a fee -of _one thousand two hundred pounds_ from “a very rich commonplace -person.” I pointed out that in the estimates, from which Mr. Shaw gets -his figures of _five hundred million pounds_, all such payments are -counted twice over. The “very rich commonplace person” and the doctor -both pay income-tax on and are regarded as possessing the same _one -thousand two hundred pounds_. As matters stand this is right enough, -for the patient receives either in good or fancied good an equivalent -for his fee in the doctor’s services; but if the sum in question were -to be divided up and distributed, there would for distribution be one -_one thousand two hundred pounds_ only. By reference to calculations -of Professor Leone Levi, with whom I corresponded on these matters, I -drew the conclusion that the sum thus counted twice over was about _one -hundred million pounds_ annually ten years ago. This would knock off -twenty per cent at once from Mr. Shaw’s _five hundred million pounds_; -and I may again mention Mr. Giffen’s emphatic warning that, if we are -thinking of any general redistribution, another _two hundred million -pounds_ would have to be deducted from the sums which persons like Mr. -Shaw imagine await their seizure. - -[63] The case may also be put in another way. Interest is the product -of capital _quâ_ capital, as opposed to the product of ability as -distinct from capital. But the bulk of modern capital is historically -the creation of ability, which has miraculously multiplied the few -loaves and fishes existing at the close of the last century. Interest -may therefore be called the secondary or indirect product of ability, -whilst earnings and profits may be called the direct product of -ability. Any one who is living on interest at the present moment is -almost sure to be living, not on his own ability, but on the products -of the ability of some member of his own family who has added to the -national wealth within the past two generations. Suppose a man who -died in 1830 left a fortune of _two hundred thousand pounds_, which he -made, as Salt did, by the invention and production of some new textile -fabric; and suppose that this fortune is now in the hands of a foolish -and feeble grandson, who enjoys _eight thousand pounds_ a year. This -is evidently not the product of the grandson’s ability; but it is the -product of the ability of the grandfather. The truth of this may be -easily seen by altering the supposition thus—by supposing that the -original maker of the fortune, instead of dying in 1830, is alive now, -but as imbecile as we supposed his grandson to be. He has, we will say, -long retired from business, and lives on the interest of the capital -he made when his faculties were in their vigour. Would any one say -that he is not living on his own ability? The only difference is—and -it is a difference which, from many points of view, is of the greatest -importance—that formerly he was living on the direct product of his -ability, and he is now living on its indirect product. - - - THE END - - - _Printed by_ R. & R. CLARK, _Edinburgh_. - - - ——————————————————————————————————————————————————————— - - - PRINCIPLES OF - POLITICAL ECONOMY - - By J. SHIELD NICHOLSON, M.A., D.Sc. - - PROFESSOR OF POLITICAL ECONOMY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH, - SOME TIME EXAMINER IN THE UNIVERSITIES OF CAMBRIDGE, - LONDON, AND VICTORIA - - In 2 Vols. demy 8vo. - - Vol. I. price 15s. - - - _ALSO BY THE SAME AUTHOR_ - - MONEY AND ESSAYS ON PRESENT - MONETARY PROBLEMS - - Second Edition, Revised and Enlarged. - - In crown 8vo, price 7s. 6d. - - - HISTORICAL PROGRESS - AND - IDEAL SOCIALISM - - In crown 8vo, price 1s. 6d. - - —————————— - - LONDON: A. & C. BLACK, SOHO SQUARE. - - - ——————————————————————————————————————————————————————— - - - A - - HISTORY OF SOCIALISM - - BY - - THOMAS KIRKUP - - In crown 8vo, 300 pages, price 6s. - - -“So fair, so learned, and so well written, that we have nothing but -praise for its author.”—_Athenæum._ - -“No better book for the purpose has come under our notice than Mr. -Kirkup’s new work, ‘A History of Socialism.’”—_The World._ - -“This bold and luminous outline displays an uncommon grasp of the -underlying principles of a movement which is rapidly beginning to play -a great part in modern society.”—_Standard._ - -“A very valuable and useful epitome.”—_Glasgow Herald._ - -“It is a work of true value and present importance.”—_Evening News and -Post._ - -“Well written, clear, tolerant, intelligible to all cultivated -people.”—_Daily Chronicle._ - -“Should be on the shelves of every public library and every -workingmen’s club.”—_Pall Mall Gazette._ - -“The tone of this able and opportune volume is at once sympathetic, -independent, and fearless.”—_Leeds Mercury._ - -“Well worthy to remain the standard text-book on Socialism.”—_British -Weekly._ - -“Marked by great candour and much independence of thought, as well as -by a wide knowledge of his subject.”—_Newcastle Leader._ - -“Practically indispensable to any one who wishes to acquire an adequate -grasp of the leading phases of historic socialism.”—_Freeman’s Journal._ - -“Sound, original work.”—_Aberdeen Free Press._ - -“Nothing could be more timely than Mr. Kirkup’s very able and lucid -though concise ‘History of Socialism.’”—_Literary World._ - -“Apropos of Socialism, I do not know where you will find a more -brilliant account or a more lucid criticism of this on-coming movement -than in Mr. Thomas Kirkup’s ‘History of Socialism.’”—_Truth._ - - —————————— - - LONDON: A. & C. BLACK, SOHO SQUARE. - - - —————————————————— End of Book —————————————————— - - - Transcriber’s Note (continued) - -Minor typographical errors have been corrected in this transcription. - -Other errors and unusual or variable spelling and hyphenation have been -left unchanged except as noted below. - - The four references to (Henry) Maudsley have the surname corrected - to Maudslay. - - Page 79 — “labour-party” changed to “Labour Party” (leaders of the - Labour Party to-day) - - Page 118 — “Hargraves” changed to “Hargreaves” (Hargreaves and - Arkwright) - - Page 200 — “monoply” changed to “monopoly” (the monopoly of Ability) - - Page 337 — “originially” changed to “originally” (which was originally - published) - - Page 243 — “transction” changed to “transaction” (party in the - transaction) - - Page 344 — “Leoni” changed to “Leone” in footnote (Professor Leone - Levi) - -Footnotes have been re-indexed using numbers and placed after the -Appendix. - - - -*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK LABOUR AND THE POPULAR WELFARE *** - -Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will -be renamed. - -Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright -law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, -so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the -United States without permission and without paying copyright -royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part -of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm -concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, -and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following -the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use -of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for -copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very -easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation -of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project -Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away--you may -do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected -by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark -license, especially commercial redistribution. - -START: FULL LICENSE - -THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK - -To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full -Project Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at -www.gutenberg.org/license. - -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works - -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or -destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your -possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a -Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound -by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the -person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph -1.E.8. - -1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this -agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. - -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the -Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection -of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual -works in the collection are in the public domain in the United -States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the -United States and you are located in the United States, we do not -claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, -displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as -all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope -that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting -free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm -works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the -Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily -comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the -same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when -you share it without charge with others. - -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are -in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, -check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this -agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, -distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any -other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no -representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any -country other than the United States. - -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: - -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other -immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear -prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work -on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the -phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, -performed, viewed, copied or distributed: - - This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and - most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no - restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it - under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this - eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the - United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where - you are located before using this eBook. - -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is -derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not -contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the -copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in -the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are -redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply -either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or -obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any -additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms -will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works -posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the -beginning of this work. - -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. - -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg-tm License. - -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including -any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access -to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format -other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official -version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm website -(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense -to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means -of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain -Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the -full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. - -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -provided that: - -* You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed - to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has - agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid - within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are - legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty - payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in - Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg - Literary Archive Foundation." - -* You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm - License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all - copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue - all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm - works. - -* You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of - any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of - receipt of the work. - -* You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than -are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing -from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of -the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the Foundation as set -forth in Section 3 below. - -1.F. - -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project -Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may -contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate -or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other -intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or -other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or -cannot be read by your equipment. - -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right -of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. - -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium -with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you -with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in -lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person -or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second -opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If -the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing -without further opportunities to fix the problem. - -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO -OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT -LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. - -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of -damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement -violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the -agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or -limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or -unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the -remaining provisions. - -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in -accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the -production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, -including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of -the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this -or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or -additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any -Defect you cause. - -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm - -Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of -computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It -exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations -from people in all walks of life. - -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future -generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see -Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at -www.gutenberg.org - -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation - -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by -U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. - -The Foundation's business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, -Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up -to date contact information can be found at the Foundation's website -and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact - -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation - -Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without -widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. - -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND -DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular -state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate - -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. - -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. - -Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To -donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate - -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works - -Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project -Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be -freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and -distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of -volunteer support. - -Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in -the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not -necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper -edition. - -Most people start at our website which has the main PG search -facility: www.gutenberg.org - -This website includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. diff --git a/old/66518-0.zip b/old/66518-0.zip Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 4b455ec..0000000 --- a/old/66518-0.zip +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/66518-h.zip b/old/66518-h.zip Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index ec5ae1a..0000000 --- a/old/66518-h.zip +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/66518-h/66518-h.htm b/old/66518-h/66518-h.htm deleted file mode 100644 index d4cab4c..0000000 --- a/old/66518-h/66518-h.htm +++ /dev/null @@ -1,15498 +0,0 @@ -<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" - "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"> -<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en"> - <head> - <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=utf-8" /> - <meta http-equiv="Content-Style-Type" content="text/css" /> - <title> - Labour and the Popular Welfare, by W. H. Mallock—A Project Gutenberg eBook - </title> - <link rel="coverpage" href="images/cover.jpg" /> - <style type="text/css"> - -body { - margin-left: 10%; - margin-right: 10%; -} - - h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6 { - text-align: center; /* all headings centered */ - clear: both; -} - -h3 { font-size: 130%; } - -p { - margin-top: .51em; - text-align: justify; - margin-bottom: .49em; - text-indent: 1em; -} - -.p2 {margin-top: 2em;} -.p4 {margin-top: 4em;} -.p6 {margin-top: 6em;} - -hr { - width: 33%; - margin-top: 2em; - margin-bottom: 2em; - margin-left: 33.5%; - margin-right: 33.5%; - clear: both; -} - -hr.chap { - width: 65%; - margin-left: 17.5%; - margin-right: 17.5%; -} -@media print { -hr.chap { - display: none; - visibility: hidden; -} } - -hr.r10 { - width: 10%; - margin-top: 1em; - margin-bottom: 1em; - margin-left: 45.0%; - margin-right: 45.0%; -} - -div.chapter {page-break-before: always;} -h2.nobreak {page-break-before: avoid;} - -table { - margin-left: auto; - margin-right: auto; -} - -.tdl {text-align: left;} -.tdr {text-align: right;} -.tdc {text-align: center;} - -.pagenum { /* uncomment the next line for invisible page numbers */ - /* visibility: hidden; */ - position: absolute; - left: 92%; - font-size: small; - text-align: right; - font-style: normal; - font-weight: normal; - font-variant: normal; -} /* page numbers */ - -.sidenote { - width: 20%; - padding-bottom: .1em; - padding-top: .1em; - padding-left: .5em; - padding-right: .1em; - margin-left: 1em; - float: right; - clear: right; - margin-top: 0.5em; - font-size: x-small; - color: black; - background: #eeeeee; - border: 1px dashed; - text-align: left; -/* - display: inline; -*/ - text-indent: 0em; -} - -.center {text-align: center;} - -.smcap {font-variant: small-caps;} - -/* Images */ - -img { - max-width: 100%; - height: auto; -} - -/* Footnotes */ -.footnotes {border: 1px dashed;} - -.footnote {margin-left: 10%; margin-right: 10%; font-size: 0.9em; } - -.footnote .label {position: absolute; right: 84%; text-align: right; font-size: 0.9em; } - -.fnanchor { -/* - vertical-align: super; -*/ - vertical-align: text-top; - font-size: .8em; - text-decoration: none; -} - -/* Changed and project-specific CSS */ - -/* Transcriber's notes */ -.transnote { - background-color: #E6E6FA; - margin-left: 10%; - margin-right: 10%; - color: black; - padding: 0.5em; - margin-bottom: 5em; - font-family: sans-serif, serif; -} - -@media print { .transnote { - margin-left: 2.5%; - margin-right: 2.5%; - } -} - -.x-ebookmaker .transnote { - margin-left: 5%; - margin-right: 5%; -} - -p.TN-style-1 { - text-indent: 0em; - margin-top: 1.5em; - font-size: small; -} - -p.TN-style-2 { - text-align: left; - margin-top: 1.0em; - text-indent: -1em; - margin-left: 3em; - font-size: small; -} - -.center-img-cover { - margin: 2% 33%; - page-break-inside: avoid; - page-break-before: auto; -} - -.coverimg-caption { font-weight: bold; font-size: small; } - -.x-small { font-size: x-small; } -.small { font-size: small; } -.large { font-size: large; } - -.noindent { text-indent: 0em; } - -.p1 { margin-top: 1em; } -.p3 { margin-top: 3em; } -.x-ebookmaker .p6 { margin-top: 10em; } - -table.toc { width: 60%; } -.x-ebookmaker table.toc { - width: 90%; - margin-left: 5%; - margin-right: 5%; -} - -.tdrt { text-align: right; vertical-align: top; } -.tdrb { text-align: right; vertical-align: bottom; } -.tdpt2em { padding-top: 2em; } -.tdpt1em { padding-top: 1em; } - -.fs1 { font-size: 90%; } -.fs2 { font-size: 80%; } -.fs3 { font-size: 45%; } -.fs4 { font-size: 160%; } -.fs5 { font-size: 150%; } -.fs6 { font-size: 110%; } - -a { text-decoration: none; } -a.underline { text-decoration: underline; } - -.bold { font-weight: bold; } - -.no-wrap { white-space: nowrap; } - -.blockquot { - margin-left: 2em; - font-size: small; -} - -.blockquot1 { - margin-left: 2em; -} - -.adjust1 { text-indent: 1.2em; } -.adjust2 { text-indent: 1.2em; font-size: small; } - -h1 { text-align: center; line-height: 1.5; } -h1 .little { font-size: 45%; } -h1 .big { font-size: 105%; } - -p.title { - text-align: center; - text-indent: 0; - font-weight: bold; - line-height: 1.4; -} -p .little { font-size: 65%; } -p .littler { font-size: 55%; } - -p.publisher { - text-align: center; text-indent: 0; - font-weight: bold; - line-height: 1.6; - margin-bottom: 2em; -} - -.sans { font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; } -.little-sans { font-size: 75%; } - -.chapter-title { - text-indent: 0em; - text-align: center; - margin-bottom: 2em; -} - - </style> - </head> -<body> - -<div style='text-align:center; font-size:1.2em; font-weight:bold'>The Project Gutenberg eBook of Labour and the Popular Welfare, by W. H. Mallock</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and -most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions -whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms -of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online -at <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org">www.gutenberg.org</a>. If you -are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the -country where you are located before using this eBook. -</div> - -<p style='display:block; margin-top:1em; margin-bottom:1em; margin-left:2em; text-indent:-2em'>Title: Labour and the Popular Welfare</p> - -<div style='display:block; margin-top:1em; margin-bottom:1em; margin-left:2em; text-indent:-2em'>Author: W. H. Mallock</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'>Release Date: October 11, 2021 [eBook #66518]</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'>Language: English</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'>Character set encoding: UTF-8</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin-left:2em; text-indent:-2em'>Produced by: Chris Curnow, Quentin Campbell, and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images generously made available by The Internet Archive)</div> - -<div style='margin-top:2em; margin-bottom:4em'>*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK LABOUR AND THE POPULAR WELFARE ***</div> - -<div class="center-img-cover x-ebookmaker-drop"> - <a href="images/cover.jpg"> - <img src="images/cover.jpg" alt="" /> - </a> - <div class="coverimg-caption"> - <p class="noindent center">The cover image was created by Thiers Halliwell - using elements from the title page. It is placed in the public domain.</p> - </div> -</div> - -<div class="transnote p4"> - -<p class="noindent center small bold" id="top">Transcriber’s Note</p> - -<p class="TN-style-1">Numbered markers (◆¹, ◆², etc.) have -been added to this transcription to indicate the line in a paragraph -at which the text of the corresponding marginal note (sidenote) -started.</p> - -<p class="TN-style-1">The corresponding marginal notes are numbered -◆1, ◆2, etc. They are displayed as boxed text against a grey background -and placed within the paragraph to which they were attached in the -book. On mobile devices, they are displayed immediately above that paragraph.</p> - -<hr class="r10" /> - -<p class="TN-style-1">See <a class="underline" href="#TN">end -of this document</a> for details of corrections and other changes.</p> -</div> - -<div class="chapter"> -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> -</div> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p class="noindent center bold p6"><span class="large">LABOUR</span><br /><br /> -<span class="x-small">AND THE</span><br /><br /> -<span class="large">POPULAR WELFARE</span></p> -</div> - -<hr class="chap p6 x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<h1> -<span class="big">LABOUR</span><br /> -<span class="little">AND THE</span><br /> -<span class="big" style="line-height: 1.9">POPULAR WELFARE</span> -</h1> -</div> - -<p class="title p2"> -<span class="little">BY</span><br /> -W. H. MALLOCK<br /> -<span class="littler">AUTHOR OF ‘IS LIFE WORTH LIVING?’ ‘SOCIAL EQUALITY,’ ETC.</span> -</p> - -<p class="title sans p3"><span class="little-sans">SIXTH THOUSAND</span></p> - - -<p class="publisher p3">LONDON<br /> -ADAM AND CHARLES BLACK<br /> -1895 -</p> - - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<h2 class="nobreak" id="PREFACE_TO_NEW_EDITION">PREFACE TO NEW EDITION</h2> -</div> - -<p class="noindent"><span class="smcap">In</span> republishing this work at a low price, I -wish to reiterate emphatically what is said of it -in the opening chapter,—namely, that any clearheaded -Radical, as distinct from the New -Unionist, the Socialistic dreamer, and the -Agitator, will find nothing in it to jar against -his sympathies, or to conflict with his opinions, -any more than the most strenuous Conservative -will. If the word “party” is used in its -usual sense, this is a volume absolutely free -from any party bias.</p> - -<p>It has, however, since its first publication, -some nine months ago, been attacked continually, -not by Socialistic writers only (whose -attack was natural), but by Radicals also,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_vi">[vi]</span> -who, apparently quite mistaking the drift of -it, have done their best to detect in it flaws, -fallacies, and inaccuracies. As any work like -the present, whose aim is essentially practical, -is worse than useless unless the reader is able -to feel confidence in it, let me say a few -words as to the degree of confidence which -is claimed, after nine months of criticism, -for the facts and arguments set forth in the -following pages.</p> - -<p>Let the reader emphasise in his mind the -division between facts and arguments, for -they stand on a different footing. In estimating -the truth of any general arguments, -the final appeal is to the common sense of -the reader. The reader is himself the judge -of them; and the moment he understands -and assents to them, they belong to himself -as much as they ever did to the writer. On -the other hand, the historical facts, or statistics, -by which arguments are illustrated, or on<span class="pagenum" id="Page_vii">[vii]</span> -which they are based, claim acceptance on -the authority, not of our internal common -sense, but of external evidence. Let me -speak separately, then, of the arguments of -this book, and of the facts quoted in it.</p> - -<p>Of the arguments, whether taken individually -or as a whole, it will be enough here to -say that no hostile critic of these has been able -in any way to meet them. The only writers -who have affected to do so have, either intentionally -or unintentionally, entirely failed -to understand them; and when they have -seemed to be refuting anything, they have -been refuting only their own misconceptions -or misrepresentations. It is impossible in a -short preface to say more than this; but in -order to illustrate the truth of the foregoing -statement, a paper published by me in the -<i>Fortnightly Review</i> is (by kind permission of -Messrs. Chapman and Hall) reprinted as an -Appendix to the present volume. That paper<span class="pagenum" id="Page_viii">[viii]</span> -consists of an examination of the criticisms -made, on behalf of the Fabian Society, by Mr. -Bernard Shaw on two previous papers of -my own published (also in the <i>Fortnightly -Review</i>) under the title of “Fabian Economics,” -in which the main arguments of this -book were condensed. It is true that many of -these arguments are here stated merely in -outline, and in a popular rather than in a -philosophical form, as is explained more fully -in the Preface to the First Edition. But it -may be safely asserted that there is hardly -a single Socialistic argument used by the -Socialistic party in this country to which this -present book does not contain a reply, or at -all events a clear indication of the grounds -on which a reply is to be founded.</p> - -<p>With regard to the historical facts, and -especially the statistics here brought forward, -it is necessary to speak more particularly. -The broad historical facts—facts connected<span class="pagenum" id="Page_ix">[ix]</span> -with the development of wealth in this -country—are incapable of contradiction, and -have never been contradicted. Hostile critics -have directed their principal attacks against -the statistics, endeavouring to show that -certain of the figures were inaccurate, and -arguing that, this being so, the whole contents -of the book were unreliable.</p> - -<p>The most minute attack of this kind which -has been brought to my notice dealt with -certain figures which were no doubt erroneous, -and indeed unmeaning; but had the critic -examined the volume with more care, he -would have seen that every one of these -figures was a misprint, and was corrected in -a list of errata which accompanied the first -edition.</p> - -<p>Other critics have confined themselves -almost entirely to the figures given by me with -regard to two questions—the landed rental of -this country, as distinct from the rent of<span class="pagenum" id="Page_x">[x]</span> -houses; and the growth of the national income -during the past hundred years.</p> - -<p>With regard to both of these questions it -should be distinctly understood that absolute -accuracy is impossible; and I have given the -statistics in round numbers only. But, for -the purpose for which the figures are quoted, -approximate accuracy is as useful as absolute -accuracy, even were the latter attainable; and -every attempt to correct the figures as given -in this volume has only served to show how -substantially accurate these figures are, and -how totally unaffected would be the argument, -even were any of the suggested corrections -accepted.</p> - -<p>The landed rental of the country is given -by me as something under <i>a hundred million -pounds</i>. It has been asserted that were the -ground-rents in towns properly estimated, the -true rental would be found to be <i>a hundred -and fifty million pounds</i> or <i>a hundred and<span class="pagenum" id="Page_xi">[xi]</span> -eighty million pounds</i>. It is no doubt difficult -to differentiate in town properties the -total rental from the ground rental; but the -most recent investigations made into this -question, so far as it affects London, will -throw light on the question as a whole. -The highest estimate of the present ground-rental -of London as related to the total rental -gives the proportion of the former to the -latter as <i>fifteen</i> to <i>forty</i>. Now house rent in -London is higher than in any other town in -the kingdom; therefore, if we assume the -same proportion to obtain in all other towns, -we shall be over-estimating the ground-rent -of the country as a whole, instead of underestimating -it. If we take this extreme calculation—which -is obviously too great—it will -be found to yield a result as to the total landed -rental exceeding only by ten per cent that -given in this volume. It will therefore be -easily seen that the figures given by me are<span class="pagenum" id="Page_xii">[xii]</span> -substantially accurate, and sufficiently accurate -for all purposes of political and social argument.</p> - -<p>Precisely the same thing is to be said with -regard to the figures given as to the growth -of the national income and the capitalised -value of the country. The estimates of -various statisticians will be found to differ -from one another by something like ten per -cent; but these differences do not in the least -affect the essential character and meaning of -the great facts in question. Let us take, for -instance, two facts stated in this volume—that -the capital of the country during the -past century has increased in the proportion -of <i>two</i> to <i>ten</i>; and the income per head of the -country in the proportion of <i>fourteen</i> to <i>thirty-four</i> -or <i>thirty-five</i>. We will suppose some -critic to prove that these proportions should -be <i>three</i> to <i>eleven</i>, or <i>twelve</i> to <i>thirty-three</i>. -Now, large as the error thus detected might -be from some points of view, it would be<span class="pagenum" id="Page_xiii">[xiii]</span> -absolutely immaterial to the large and general -question in connection with which the figures -are quoted in this volume.</p> - -<p>The enormous increase in our national -income and our national capital is doubted -or denied by no one. Now let us express -the increase in income as a supposed increase -in the average height of the rooms -inhabited by the population. According, -then, to the figures given by me, we might -say in this case that at the beginning of -the century the average house was <i>seven -feet</i> high—only high enough for tall men to -stand up in; and that now houses have been -so improved that the average height of a -living-room is <i>seventeen feet</i>. If any one, -dwelling on the fact of such a change as this, -were inquiring into its causes, and were basing -arguments on its assumed reality, what difference -would it make if some opponent were -to prove triumphantly that the height of the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_xiv">[xiv]</span> -average room now was not <i>seventeen feet</i>, but -<i>sixteen feet six inches</i>, and that four generations -ago it had been <i>six feet</i> instead of <i>seven</i>? -The difference in the estimates of our national -income during the past ninety or a hundred -years are not more important for the purpose -of any general argument than the difference -just supposed with regard to the height of two -living-rooms; and readers may rest assured -that the round numbers given by me with -regard to the growth of the national income -and the national capital are so near the admitted -and indisputable truth of things, that -no possible correction of them would substantially -alter any one of the arguments which -they are here quoted to illustrate.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p><i>September 1894.</i></p> -</div> - - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<h2 class="nobreak" id="PREFACE_TO_FIRST_EDITION">PREFACE TO FIRST EDITION</h2> -</div> - - -<p class="noindent"><span class="smcap">Nearly</span> all the general truths of Economic -Science are, directly or indirectly, truths about -the character or the actions of human beings. -It is, consequently, always well to warn the -readers of economic works, that in Political -Economy, more than in any other science, -every general rule is fringed with exceptions -and modifications; and that instances are -never far to seek which seem to prove the -reverse of what the general rule states, or to -make the statement of it appear inaccurate. -But such general rules need be none the less -true for this; nor for practical purposes any -the less safe to reason from. They resemble, -in fact, these general truths with regard to<span class="pagenum adjust1" id="Page_xvi">[xvi]</span> -the seasons, which we do and must reason -from, even in so uncertain a climate as our -own. It is, for instance, a truth from which -we all reason, that summer is dryer and -warmer than winter; and yet there is a -frequent occurrence of individual days, which, -taken by themselves, contradict it. So, -too, those economic definitions, the subjects -of which are human actions or faculties, -can be entirely accurate only in the <i>majority</i> -of cases to which they apply; and these -cases will be fringed always by a margin -of doubtful ones. But the definitions, for all -that, need be none the less practically true. -Day and night are fringed with doubtful -hours of twilight; but our clear knowledge -of how midnight differs from noon is not made -less clear by our doubts as to whether a certain -hour at sunrise ought to be called an hour -of night or morning.</p> - -<p>It is especially desirable to prefix this<span class="pagenum" id="Page_xvii">[xvii]</span> -warning to a work as short as the present. -In larger and more elaborate works, the writer -can particularise the more important exceptions -and modifications to which his rules and -definitions are subject. But in a short work -this task must be left to the common sense -of the reader. For popular purposes, however, -brevity of statement has one great advantage, -namely, that of clearness; and, as the significance -of the exceptions cannot be understood -without the rules, it is almost essential first -to state the rules without obscuring them by -the exceptions. There are few readers probably -who will not see that the general propositions -and principles laid down in the following -pages, require, in order to fit them to certain -cases, various additions and qualifications. It -is necessary only for the reader to bear in mind -that these propositions need be none the less -broadly and vitally true, because any succinct -statement of them is unavoidably incomplete.</p> - - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<h2 class="nobreak" id="CONTENTS">CONTENTS</h2> -</div> - -<table class="toc" summary="CONTENTS"> - <tr> - <td class="tdc fs1" colspan="3">BOOK I</td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdc tdpt2em fs2" colspan="3">THE DIVISIBLE WEALTH OF THE UNITED KINGDOM</td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdc tdpt1em fs3">CHAP.</td> - <td class="tdl tdpt1em fs3"> </td> - <td class="tdr tdpt1em fs3">PAGE</td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt fs1">I.</td> - <td class="tdl fs1">The Welfare of the Home, as the Logical End of - <span class="no-wrap">Government—</span></td> - <td class="tdr fs1"> </td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdl fs2" colspan="3"> </td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">A Ground of Agreement for all Parties</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#CHAPTER_IB1">3</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">Facts and Principles which are the same for everybody</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_6">6</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">The Income of the Individual as the Aim and Test of Government</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_8">8</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">Private Income and the Empire</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_10">10</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">Patriotism and the Home</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_11">11</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">Cupidity as a motive in Politics</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_12">12</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">The right Education of Cupidity</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_13">13</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt tdpt1em fs1">II.</td> - <td class="tdl tdpt1em fs1">The Conditions involved in the idea of a Legislative - Redistribution of Wealth; and the - Necessary Limitations of the <span class="no-wrap">Results—</span></td> - <td class="tdr tdpt1em fs1"> </td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdl fs2" colspan="3"> </td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">Cupidity and the Poorer Classes</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_14">14</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">The Limits of Sane Cupidity as fixed by the Total Production</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_16">16</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">Unforeseen Results of an Equal Division of Wealth<span class="pagenum adjust2" id="Page_xx">[xx]</span></td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_18">18</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">Contemporary Agitator on Slavery</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_20">20</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">Workmen as their own Masters</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_21">21</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">Ownership of the Means of Labour impossible for Modern Workman</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_22">22</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">Equality possible only under a Universal Wage-System</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_24">24</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">Equality and Universal Labour</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_26">26</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt tdpt1em fs1">III.</td> - <td class="tdl tdpt1em fs1">The Pecuniary Results to the Individual of an - Equal Division, first of the National Income, - and secondly of certain parts of <span class="no-wrap">it—</span></td> - <td class="tdr tdpt1em fs1"> </td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdl fs2" colspan="3"> </td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">The Income of Great Britain</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_27">27</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">Division of the National Income</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_29">29</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">How to divide the Income equally</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_30">30</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">Shares of Men, Women, and Children</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_31">31</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">The Maximum Income of a Bachelor</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_32">32</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">Smallness of the result</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_33">33</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">Maximum Income of a Married Couple</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_34">34</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">Practical absurdity of an Equal Division of Income</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_36">36</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">A complete Redivision of Property advocated by nobody</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_38">38</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">The attack on Landed Property</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_40">40</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">Popular ignorance as to the Real Rental of the Landlords</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_42">42</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">The Landed Aristocracy</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_44">44</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">Multitude of Small Landowners</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_45">45</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">Owners of Railway Shares and Consols</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_46">46</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">Inappreciable cost of the Monarchy</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_47">47</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">Forcible Redistribution impossible</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_48">48</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt tdpt1em fs1">IV.</td> - <td class="tdl tdpt1em fs1">The Nature of the National Wealth: first, of - the National Capital; second, of the National - Income. Neither of these is susceptible of - Arbitrary <span class="no-wrap">Division—</span></td> - <td class="tdr tdpt1em fs1"> </td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdl fs2" colspan="3"> </td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">Difference between Wealth and Money</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_49">49</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">Wealth as a whole not divisible like Money</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_52">52</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">More luxurious forms of Wealth incapable of division</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_54">54</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">The Wealth of Great Britain considered as Capital</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_56">56</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">The elements which compose the National Capital<span class="pagenum adjust2" id="Page_xxi">[xxi]</span></td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_58">58</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">Ludicrous results of an Equal Division of Capital</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_60">60</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">Division of Income, not of Capital, alone worth considering</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_62">62</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">Elements which compose the National Income</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_64">64</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">Material Goods and Services</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_66">66</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">Home-made Goods and Imports</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_67">67</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">Two-thirds of the Population dependent on Imported Food</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_68">68</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">Variation of the National Income relatively to the Population</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_70">70</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">Incomes of other countries compared with that of our own</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_72">72</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">Productivity of Industry not determined by Time</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_74">74</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">Unperceived increase of the Income of the United Kingdom</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_76">76</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">Immense Possible Shrinkage in our National Income</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_78">78</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">The Great Problem</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_80">80</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdc tdpt2em fs1" colspan="3">BOOK II</td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdc tdpt2em fs2" colspan="3">THE CHIEF FACTOR IN THE PRODUCTION OF THE NATIONAL INCOME</td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt tdpt1em fs1">I.</td> - <td class="tdl tdpt1em fs1">Of the various Factors in Production, and how - to distinguish the Amount produced by <span class="no-wrap">each—</span></td> - <td class="tdr tdpt1em fs1"> </td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdl fs2" colspan="3"> </td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">The Cause of Production generally</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_84">84</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">The Production of Given Quantities</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_85">85</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">Production a Century Ago</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_86">86</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">Amount of Capital employed in it</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_87">87</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">Land, Capital, and Human Exertion</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_88">88</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">How much produced by each</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_89">89</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">The chief Practical Problem in Contemporary Economics</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_90">90</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt tdpt1em fs1">II.</td> - <td class="tdl tdpt1em fs1">How the Product of Land is to be distinguished - from the Product of Human <span class="no-wrap">Exertion—</span></td> - <td class="tdr tdpt1em fs1"> </td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdl fs2" colspan="3"> </td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">Rent the Product of Land</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_93">93</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">The Accepted Theory of Rent illustrated by an Example</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_94">94</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">The Product of Agricultural Labour<span class="pagenum adjust2" id="Page_xxii">[xxii]</span></td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_96">96</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">The Product of Land</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_97">97</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">Maximum Produce of Labour</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_98">98</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">Surplus produced by Land</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_99">99</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">Land a Producing Agent as distinct from Labour</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_100">100</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">The Existence of Rent not affected by Socialism</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_102">102</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">Rent necessarily the Property of whoever owns the Land</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_104">104</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">The Argument of this Volume embodied in the case of Rent</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_106">106</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt tdpt1em fs1">III.</td> - <td class="tdl tdpt1em fs1">Of the Products of Machinery or Fixed Capital, - as distinguished from the Products of Human - <span class="no-wrap">Exertion—</span></td> - <td class="tdr tdpt1em fs1"> </td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdl fs2" colspan="3"> </td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">Capital of Two Kinds</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_108">108</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">The part of the Product produced by Machinery or Fixed Capital</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_110">110</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">Example of Product of Machinery as distinct from that of Labour</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_112">112</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">The Products of a Machine necessarily the Property of Owner</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_114">114</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">The Cotton Industry in the Last Century</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_116">116</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">Arkwright’s Machinery</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_118">118</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">The Iron Industry of Great Britain</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_119">119</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">Machinery and Production of Iron</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_120">120</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">Machinery and Wage Capital</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_121">121</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt tdpt1em fs1">IV.</td> - <td class="tdl tdpt1em fs1">Of the Products of Circulating Capital, or Wage - Capital, as distinguished from the Products of - Human <span class="no-wrap">Exertion—</span></td> - <td class="tdr tdpt1em fs1"> </td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdl fs2" colspan="3"> </td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">Simplest Function of Wage Capital</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_122">122</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">Distinguishing Function of Modern Wage Capital</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_124">124</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">Wage Capital mainly productive as a means of directing Labour</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_126">126</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">Slaves and Free Labourers</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_128">128</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">Wage Capital and Progress</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_129">129</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">Wage Capital as related to the production of New Inventions</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_130">130</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">Capital the Tool of Knowledge</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_132">132</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">Wage Capital and Arkwright<span class="pagenum adjust2" id="Page_xxiii">[xxiii]</span></td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_133">133</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">Wage Capital as Potential Machinery</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_134">134</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">How to discriminate the amount produced by Wage Capital</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_136">136</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt tdpt1em fs1">V.</td> - <td class="tdl tdpt1em fs1">That the Chief Productive Agent in the modern - world is not Labour, but Ability, or the - Faculty which directs <span class="no-wrap">Labour—</span></td> - <td class="tdr tdpt1em fs1"> </td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdl fs2" colspan="3"> </td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">The best Labour sometimes useless</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_138">138</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">Labour not the same faculty as the faculty which directs Labour</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_140">140</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">Extraordinary confusion in current Economic Language</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_142">142</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">Labour a Lesser Productive Agent</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_144">144</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">Ability a Greater Productive Agent</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_145">145</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">The Vital Distinction between Ability and Labour</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_146">146</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">Ability not a form of Skilled Labour</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_148">148</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">Capital applied successfully the same thing as Ability</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_150">150</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">Obvious Exceptions</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_152">152</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">Ability the Brain of Capital</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_153">153</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">Ability as the Force behind Capital the Cause of all Progress</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_154">154</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt tdpt1em fs1">VI.</td> - <td class="tdl tdpt1em fs1">Of the Addition made during the last Hundred - Years by Ability to the Product of the - National Labour. This Increment the Product - of Ability<span class="no-wrap">—</span></td> - <td class="tdr tdpt1em fs1"> </td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdl fs2" colspan="3"> </td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">Production in the Last Century</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_156">156</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">Growth of Agricultural Products</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_158">158</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">Growth of Production of Iron</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_159">159</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">Ability and Agriculture in the Last Century</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_160">160</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">The Maximum Product that can be due to Labour alone</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_162">162</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">Present Annual Product of Ability in the United Kingdom</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_164">164</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">The Product of Capital virtually Product of the Ability of the Few</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_166">166</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdc tdpt2em fs1" colspan="3">BOOK III<span class="pagenum adjust2" id="Page_xxiv">[xxiv]</span></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdc tdpt2em fs2" colspan="3">AN EXPOSURE OF THE CONFUSIONS IMPLIED IN SOCIALISTIC - THOUGHT AS TO THE MAIN AGENT IN MODERN PRODUCTION.</td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt tdpt1em fs1">I.</td> - <td class="tdl tdpt1em fs1">The Confusion of Thought involved in the Socialistic - Conception of <span class="no-wrap">Labour—</span></td> - <td class="tdr tdpt1em fs1"> </td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdl fs2" colspan="3"> </td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">A confusing Socialistic Formula</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_171">171</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">A Plausible Argument</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_173">173</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">A Plausible Argument analysed</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_174">174</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">Its implied meaning considered</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_175">175</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">The real Taskmaster of Labour not an Employing Class, but Nature</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_176">176</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">Different position of Ability</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_178">178</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">The Organist and Bellows-blower</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_179">179</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">The Picture and the Canvas</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_180">180</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">The Qualifying Factor</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_181">181</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">Do all men possess Ability</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_182">182</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">Labour itself non-progressive</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_183">183</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">Ancient Labour equal to Modern</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_184">184</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">A Remarkable Illustration</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_185">185</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">Labour as trained by Watt</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_186">186</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">Labour as assisted by Maudslay</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_187">187</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt tdpt1em fs1">II.</td> - <td class="tdl tdpt1em fs1">That the Ability which at any given period is a - Producing Agent, is a Faculty residing in and - belonging to living <span class="no-wrap">Men—</span></td> - <td class="tdr tdpt1em fs1"> </td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdl fs2" colspan="3"> </td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">A Socialistic Criticism</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_188">188</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">Primæval Progress and Labour</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_190">190</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">Rudimentary Ability</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_191">191</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">Primæval and Modern Inventions</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_192">192</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">A more Important Point</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_193">193</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">The necessity for Managing Ability increased by Inventive Ability<span class="pagenum adjust2" id="Page_xxv">[xxv]</span></td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_194">194</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">The main results of Past Ability inherited by Living Ability</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_196">196</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">Productive Ability the Ability of Living Men</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_198">198</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">Fresh demonstration of the Productivity of Ability</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_200">200</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt tdpt1em fs1">III.</td> - <td class="tdl tdpt1em fs1">That Ability is a natural Monopoly, due to the - congenital Peculiarities of a Minority. The - Fallacies of other Views <span class="no-wrap">exposed—</span></td> - <td class="tdr tdpt1em fs1"> </td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdl fs2" colspan="3"> </td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">An Error of Mr. Herbert Spencer’s</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_202">202</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">A Philosophic Truth, but an Economic Falsehood</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_204">204</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">Whole body of Successful Inventors a very small Minority</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_206">206</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">Ability and Opportunity</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_208">208</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">Ability not produced by Opportunity</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_209">209</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">Ability the Maker of its own Opportunities</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_210">210</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">Ability as a matter of Character</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_212">212</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">Function of such Ability</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_213">213</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">Characters not equalised by Education or Opportunity</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_214">214</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">Progress due solely to the Few</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_216">216</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">Progress in the Iron Industry</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_217">217</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">Early Applications of Ability to British Iron Production</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_218">218</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">Ability opposed by the Age instead of representing it</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_220">220</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">Isolated Action of Ability</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_222">222</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">Arkwright and his associates</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_223">223</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">The Value of Watt’s Patent as estimated by his Contemporaries</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_224">224</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">Industrial Progress the work of the Few only</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_226">226</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt tdpt1em fs1">IV.</td> - <td class="tdl tdpt1em fs1">The Conclusion arrived at in the preceding Book - restated. The Annual Amount produced by - Ability in the United <span class="no-wrap">Kingdom—</span></td> - <td class="tdr tdpt1em fs1"> </td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdl fs2" colspan="3"> </td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">Grades of Ability</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_228">228</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">Proportion of Able Men to Labourers</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_230">230</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">A Rough Calculation</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_231">231</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">More than half our National Income produced by a Small Minority</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_232">232</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdc tdpt2em fs1" colspan="3">BOOK IV<span class="pagenum adjust2" id="Page_xxvi">[xxvi]</span></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdc tdpt2em fs2" colspan="3">THE REASONABLE HOPES OF LABOUR—THEIR MAGNITUDE, AND THEIR BASIS</td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt tdpt1em fs1">I.</td> - <td class="tdl tdpt1em fs1">How the Future and Hopes of the Labouring - Classes are bound up with the Prosperity of - the Classes who exercise <span class="no-wrap">Ability—</span></td> - <td class="tdr tdpt1em fs1"> </td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdl fs2" colspan="3"> </td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">Short Summary of the preceding Arguments</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_237">237</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">The preceding Arguments from the Labourer’s Point of View</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_240">240</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">The Share of Labour in the growing Products of Ability</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_242">242</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">The amount produced by Labour</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_244">244</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">The amount taken by Labour</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_245">245</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">Continuous Recent Growth of the Receipts of Labour</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_246">246</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">Growth of the Receipts of Labour during Queen Victoria’s Reign</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_248">248</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">Actual Gains of Labour beyond the Dreams of Socialism</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_250">250</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">Two Points to be considered</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_252">252</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt tdpt1em fs1">II.</td> - <td class="tdl tdpt1em fs1">Of the Ownership of Capital, as distinct from its - Employment by <span class="no-wrap">Ability—</span></td> - <td class="tdr tdpt1em fs1"> </td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdl fs2" colspan="3"> </td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">Land and its Owners</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_253">253</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">Passive Ownership of Capital</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_255">255</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">The Class that Lives on Interest</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_256">256</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">The Hope of Interest as a Motive</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_257">257</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">Capital created and saved mainly for the sake of Interest</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_258">258</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">Family Feeling</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_260">260</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">The Bequest of Capital</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_261">261</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">Interest a Necessary Incident as the Price of the Use of Capital</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_262">262</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">A Part of the Interest of Capital constantly appropriated by Labour</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_264">264</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">Interest not to be confused with Large Profits</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_266">266</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">Interest not to be confused with the Profits of Sagacity</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_268">268</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">Enormous gains of Labour at the expense of Ability</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_270">270</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">Labour and the Existing System<span class="pagenum adjust2" id="Page_xxvii">[xxvii]</span></td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_272">272</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt tdpt1em fs1">III.</td> - <td class="tdl tdpt1em fs1">Of the Causes owing to which, and the Means by - which Labour participates in the Growing Products - of <span class="no-wrap">Ability—</span></td> - <td class="tdr tdpt1em fs1"> </td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdl fs2" colspan="3"> </td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">A Miserable Class co-existing with General Progress</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_273">273</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">Relative Decrease of Poverty</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_276">276</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">Two Causes of Popular Progress</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_277">277</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">The Riches of a Minority</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_278">278</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">How they are produced</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_279">279</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">The Rich Man’s Progress</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_280">280</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">The Rivalry of the Rich</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_282">282</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">The Gain of Labour</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_283">283</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">Popular Progress and Growth of Population</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_284">284</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">The Gain of Labour limited by the Power of Ability</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_286">286</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">The Natural Gain of Labour</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_288">288</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">Its relation to Politics</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_289">289</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">Self-Help and State Help</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_290">290</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt tdpt1em fs1">IV.</td> - <td class="tdl tdpt1em fs1">Of Socialism and Trade Unionism—the Extent - and Limitation of their Power in increasing the - Income of <span class="no-wrap">Labour—</span></td> - <td class="tdr tdpt1em fs1"> </td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdl fs2" colspan="3"> </td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">So-called Socialism in England different from Formal Socialism</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_291">291</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">An Element of Socialism necessary to every State</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_294">294</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">The Socialistic question entirely a question of degree</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_296">296</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">Socialism not directly operative in increasing the Income of Labour</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_298">298</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">Trade Unionism</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_300">300</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">How it strengthens Labour</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_301">301</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">How the power of striking grows with the growth of Wages</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_302">302</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">Natural Limits of the Powers of Trade Unionism</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_304">304</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">Labour and Ability</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_306">306</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">Higgling on Equal Terms</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_307">307</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">The Power represented by Strikes not Labour, but Labouring Men</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_308">308</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">Leaders of Labouring Men rarely Leaders of Labour</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_310">310</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">The Power of Trade Unionism important, though limited</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_312">312</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">Certain remaining points<span class="pagenum adjust2" id="Page_xxviii">[xxviii]</span></td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_314">314</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdrt tdpt1em fs1">V.</td> - <td class="tdl tdpt1em fs1">Of the enormous Encouragement to be derived - by Labour from a true View of the Situation; - and of the Connection between the Interests of - the Labourer and Imperial <span class="no-wrap">Politics—</span></td> - <td class="tdr tdpt1em fs1"> </td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdl fs2" colspan="3"> </td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">A Recapitulation</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_315">315</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">The Practical Moral</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_317">317</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">The True Functions of Trade Unionism and Socialism</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_318">318</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">The Natural Progress of Labour a Stimulus to Effort</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_320">320</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">The Future of Labour judged from its Past Progress</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_322">322</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">The one thing on which the Hopes of Labour depend</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_324">324</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">The Real Bargain of Labour not with Capital but Ability</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_326">326</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">Subordination to Ability no Indignity to Labour</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_328">328</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">The Moral Debt of Ability to Labour</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_330">330</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">Labour, Nature, and Ability</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_332">332</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">The Home and Foreign Food</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_333">333</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">Imperial Politics and the National Income</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_334">334</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr fs2"> </td> - <td class="tdl fs2">The Labourer’s home</td> - <td class="tdrb fs2"><a href="#Page_336">336</a></td> - </tr> -</table> - -<div class="chapter"> -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<h2 class="fs4">BOOK I</h2> - -<p class="noindent center fs1 p1">THE DIVISIBLE WEALTH OF THE<br /> -UNITED KINGDOM</p> - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> -</div> - -<div class="chapter"> -<h3 class="nobreak" id="CHAPTER_IB1">CHAPTER I</h3> -</div> - -<p class="chapter-title"><i>The Welfare of the Home, as the Logical End of -Government.</i></p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 The subject -of this -book, but -has nothing -to do with -party -politics.</div> - -<p class="noindent">◆¹ <span class="smcap">I wish</span> this book to be something which, when -the subject of it is considered, the reader -perhaps will think it cannot possibly be. For -its subject—to describe it in the vague -language of the day—is the labour question, -the social question, the social claims of the -masses; and it is these claims and questions -as connected with practical politics. Their -connection with politics is close at the present -moment; in the immediate future it is certain -to become much closer; and yet my endeavour -will be to treat them in such a way that men -of the most opposite parties—the most progressive -Radical and the most old-fashioned -Tory—may find this book equally in harmony<span class="pagenum adjust1" id="Page_4">[4]</span> -with their sympathies, and equally useful and -acceptable from their respective points of -view.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 An example -of the order -of facts it -deals with.</div> - -<div class="sidenote">◆2 Such facts -as these not -generally -known; -but when -once ascertained, -necessarily -the same -for all -parties:</div> - -<div class="sidenote">◆3 And it is -equally to -the advantage -of all -parties to -understand -such facts.</div> - -<p>◆¹ But if the reader will consider the matter -further, he will see that my endeavour is not -necessarily so impracticable as it seems to be. -A very little reflection must be enough to -show anybody that many of the political -problems about which men differ most widely -are concerned with an order of truths which, -when once they have been examined properly, -are the same for all of us; and that a preliminary -agreement with regard to them is -the only possible basis for any rational disagreement. -I will give one example—the -land-question. About no political problem is -there more disagreement than about this; and -yet there are many points in it, about which -men may indeed be ignorant, but about which, -except for ignorance, there cannot be any -controversy. Such for instance is the acreage -of the United Kingdom, the number of men -by whom the acres are owned, the respective -numbers of large and of small properties, -together with their respective rentals, and the -proportion which the national rent bears to<span class="pagenum" id="Page_5">[5]</span> -the national income. ◆² The truth about all -these points is very easily ascertained; and -yet not one man in a hundred of those by -whom the land-question is discussed, appears -to possess the smallest accurate knowledge -of it. A curious instance of this ignorance -is to be found in the popular reception accorded -some years ago to the theories of Mr. -Henry George. If Mr. George’s reasonings -were correct as applied to this country, the -rental of our titled and untitled aristocracy -would be now about <i>eight hundred millions</i>: -and few of his admirers quarrelled with this -inference. But if they had only consulted -official records, and made themselves masters -of the real facts of the case, they would have -seen at once that this false and ludicrous -estimate was wrong by no less a sum than -<i>seven hundred and seventy millions</i>; that the -<i>eight hundred millions</i> of Mr. George’s fancy -were in reality not more than <i>thirty</i>; and that -the rent, which according to him was two-thirds -of the national income, was not in reality more -than two and a quarter per cent of it. Now -here is a fact most damaging to the authority -of a certain theorist with whom many Radicals<span class="pagenum" id="Page_6">[6]</span> -are no doubt in sympathy; but it none the -less is a fact which any honest Radical is as -much concerned to know as is any honest -Tory, and which may easily supply the one -with as many arguments as the other. ◆³ The -Tory may use it against the Radical rhetorician -who denounces the landlords as appropriating -the whole wealth of the country. The Radical -may use it against the Tory who is defending -the House of Peers, and may ask why a class -whose collective wealth is so small, should be -specially privileged to represent the interests -of property: whilst those who oppose protection -may use it with equal force as showing -how the diffusion of property has been affected -by free trade.</p> - -<p>Here is a fair sample, so far as particular -facts are concerned, of the order of truths with -which I propose to deal: and if I can deal -with them in the way they ought to be dealt -with, they will be as interesting—and many -will be as amusing—as they are practically -useful. It may indeed be said, without the -smallest exaggeration, that the salient facts -which underlie our social problems of to-day, -would, if properly presented, be to the general<span class="pagenum" id="Page_7">[7]</span> -reader as stimulating and fresh as any novel -or book of travels, besides being as little open -to any mere party criticism.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 Besides -such facts, -this book -deals with -general -truths and -principles, -equally independent -of party.</div> - -<p>◆¹ But there are other truths, besides particular -facts, which I propose to urge on the -reader’s attention also. There are general -truths, general considerations, and principles: -and these too, like the facts, will be found to -have this same characteristic—that though -many of them are not generally realised, -though many of them are often forgotten, and -though some of them are supposed to be the -possession of this or that party only, they do -but require to be fairly and clearly stated, to -command the assent of every reflecting mind, -and to show themselves as common points -from which, like diverging lines, all rational -politicians, whatever may be their differences, -must start.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 The proposition -with which -the argument -starts -is an -example of -a truth of -this kind.</div> - -<p>◆¹ The very first principle to which I must -call attention, and which forms a key to my -object throughout this entire book, will at -once be recognised by the reader as being of -this kind. The Radical perhaps may regard -it as a mere truism; but the most bigoted -Tory, on reflection, will not deny that it is<span class="pagenum" id="Page_8">[8]</span> -true. The great truth or principle of which -I speak is as follows.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 The conditions -of -private -happiness -are the end -of all Government.</div> - -<div class="sidenote">◆2 These conditions -are -principally -a question -of private -income.</div> - -<div class="sidenote">◆3 The end of -Government -is therefore -to secure -adequate -incomes for -the greatest -possible -number.</div> - -<p>◆¹ The ultimate end of Government is to secure -or provide for the greatest possible number, not -indeed happiness, as is often inaccurately said, -but the external conditions that make happiness -possible. As for happiness, that must -come from ourselves, or at all events from -sources beyond the control of Governments. -But though no external conditions are sufficient -to make it come, there are many which are -sufficient to drive it or to keep it permanently -away; and it is the end of all Government to -minimise conditions such as these. Now these -conditions, though their details vary in various -cases, are essentially alike in all. They are a -want of the necessaries, or a want of the -decencies of life, or an excessive difficulty in -obtaining them, or a recurring impossibility of -doing so. ◆² They are conditions in fact which -principally, though not entirely, result from -an uncertain or an insufficient income. The -ultimate duty of a Government is therefore -towards the incomes of the governed; ◆³ and the -three chief tests of whether a Government is -good or bad, are first the number of families<span class="pagenum" id="Page_9">[9]</span> -in receipt of sufficient incomes, secondly the -security with which the receipt of such -incomes can be counted on, and lastly the -quality of the things which such incomes will -command.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 This view -not necessarily -materialistic, -nor unpatriotic:</div> - -<p>◆¹ Some people however—perhaps even some -Radicals—may be tempted to say that this is -putting the case too strongly, and is caricaturing -the truth rather than fairly stating it. -They may say that it excludes or degrades to -subordinate positions all the loftier ends both -of individual and of national life, such as -moral and mental culture, and the power and -greatness of the country: but in reality it does -nothing of the kind.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 For income -is necessary -for mental -as well as -physical -welfare,</div> - -<div class="sidenote">◆2 And the -complete -welfare of -the citizens -is what -gives meaning -to -patriotism.</div> - -<p>◆¹ In the first place, with regard to moral and -mental culture, if these are really desired by -the individual citizen, they will be included -amongst the things which his income will help -him to obtain: and an insufficient income -certainly tends to deprive him of them. If -he wishes to have books, he must have money -to buy books: and if he wishes his children to -be educated, there must be money to pay for -teaching them. In the second place, with -regard to the power and greatness of the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_10">[10]</span> -country, though for many reasons ◆² we are apt -to forget the fact, it is the material welfare of -the home, or the maintenance of the domestic -income, that really gives to them the whole of -their fundamental meaning. Our Empire and -our power of defending it have a positive -money value, which affects the prosperity of -every class in the country: and though this -may not be the only ground on which our -Empire can be justified, it is the only ground -on which, considering what it costs, its maintenance -can be justified in the eyes of a critical -democracy. Supposing, it could be shown to -demonstration that the loss of our Empire and -our influence would do no injury to our trade, -or make one British household poorer, it is -impossible to suppose that the democracy of -Great Britain would continue for long, from -mere motives of sentiment, to sanction the expense, -or submit to the anxiety and the danger, -which the maintenance of an Empire like our -own constantly and necessarily involves.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 Further, -patriotism -will only -flourish in -a country -which -secures for -its citizens -the conditions -of a -happy life.</div> - -<p>◆¹ But let us waive this argument, and admit -that a sense of our country’s greatness, quite -apart from any thought of our own material -advantage, enlarges and elevates the mind as<span class="pagenum" id="Page_11">[11]</span> -nothing else can—that to be proud of our -country and proud of ourselves as belonging -to it, to feel ourselves partners in the majesty -of the great battle-ship, in the menace of -Gibraltar stored with its sleeping thunders, or -the boastful challenge of the flag that floats in -a thousand climates, is a privilege which it is -easier to underrate than exaggerate. Let us -admit all this. But these large and ennobling -sentiments are all of them dependent on the -welfare of the home in this way:—they are -hardly possible for those whose home conditions -are miserable. Give a man comfort -in even the humblest cottage, and the glow of -patriotism may, and probably will, give an -added warmth to that which shines on him -from his fireside. But if his children are -crying for food, and he is shivering by a cold -chimney, he will not find much to excite him -in the knowledge that we govern India. -Thus, from whatever point of view we regard -the matter, the welfare of the home as secured -by a sufficient income is seen to be at once -the test and the end of Government; and it -ceases to be the end of patriotism only when -it becomes the foundation of it.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_12">[12]</span></p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 Cupidity, -therefore, -or the -desire for -sufficient -income, is a -legitimate -basis for -popular -interest in -politics;</div> - -<p>◆¹ Here, then, is the principle which I assume -throughout this volume. And now, I think -that, having explained it thus, I may, without -offence to either Tory or Radical, venture to -condemn, as strongly as its stupidity deserves, -the way in which politicians are at present so -often attacked for appealing to what is called -the cupidity of the poorer classes. Cupidity is -in itself the most general and legitimate desire -to which any politician or political party can -appeal. It is illegitimate only when it is -excited by illegitimate methods: and these -methods are of two obvious kinds. One is an -exaggeration of the advantages which are put -before the people as obtainable: the other is -the advocacy of a class of measures as means -to them, by which not even a part of them -could be, in reality, obtained. Everybody -must see that a cupidity which is excited -thus is one of the most dangerous elements -by which the prosperity of a country can -be threatened. But a cupidity which is -excited in the right way, which is controlled -by a knowledge of what wealth -really exists, and of the fundamental conditions -on which its distribution depends—is<span class="pagenum" id="Page_13">[13]</span> -merely another name for spirit, energy, and -intelligence.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 The aim of -this book -is to -educate -popular -cupidity.</div> - -<p>◆¹ My one aim then, in writing this book, is -to educate the cupidity of voters, no matter -what their party, by popularising knowledge -of this non-controversial kind. And such -knowledge will be found, as I have said -already, to be composed partly of particular -facts, and partly of general truths. We will -begin with the consideration of certain particular -facts, which must, however, be prefaced -by a few general observations.</p> -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_14">[14]</span></p> - -<h3 class="nobreak" id="CHAPTER_IIB1">CHAPTER II</h3> -</div> - -<p class="chapter-title"><i>The Conditions involved in the idea of a Legislative -Redistribution of Wealth; and the Necessary -Limitations of the Results.</i></p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 All men -ask of a -Government -either the -increase or -the maintenance -of -their -incomes.</div> - -<p class="noindent">◆¹ <span class="smcap">Let</span> me then repeat that we start with assuming -cupidity as not only the general foundation, -but also as the inevitable, the natural, and -the right foundation, of the interest which -ordinary men of all classes take in politics. -We assume that where the ordinary man, of -whatever class or party, votes for a member of -Parliament, or supports any political measure, -he is primarily actuated by one of two hopes, -or both of them—the first being the hope of -securing the continuance of his present income, -the second being the hope of increasing it. -Now, to secure what they have already got is -the hope of all classes; but to increase it by -legislation is the hope of the poorer only. It<span class="pagenum adjust1" id="Page_15">[15]</span> -is of course perfectly true that the rich as well -as the poor are anxious, as a rule, to increase -their incomes when they can; but they expect -to do so by their own ability and enterprise, and -they look to legislation for merely such negative -help as may be given by affording their -abilities fair play.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 The poor -alone look -for an increase -of -income by -direct -legislative -means. -They are -right in -doing this.</div> - -<div class="sidenote">◆2 The cupidity -which -this book -chiefly -deals with -is the -cupidity of -the poorer -classes.</div> - -<p>◆¹ But with the poorer classes the case is -entirely different. They look to legislation -for help of a direct and positive kind, which -may tend to increase their incomes, without -any new effort of their own: and not only do -they do this themselves, but the richer classes -sympathise with the desire that makes them do -so. It is, for instance, by no means amongst -the poorer classes only that the idea of -seizing on the land, without compensating the -owners, has found favour as a remedy for -distress and poverty generally. Owners of -every kind of property, except land, have been -found to advocate it; whilst as to such vaguer -and less startling proposals, as the “restoration -of the labourer to the soil,” the limitation -of the hours of labour, or the gradual acquirement -by the State of many of our larger -industries—the persistent way in which these<span class="pagenum" id="Page_16">[16]</span> -are being kept before the public, is due quite -as much to men of means as to poor men. ◆² It -is then with the cupidity of the poorer classes -that we are chiefly concerned to deal; and the -great question before us may briefly be put -thus: By what sort of social legislation may -the incomes of the poorer classes—or, in other -words, the incomes of the great mass of the -community—be, in the first place, made more -constant; and, in the second place, increased?</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 The first -question -to ask is: -What is the -maximum -amount -which it -would be -theoretically -possible -for -them to -obtain? -For this is -much exaggerated.</div> - -<p>◆¹ But before proceeding to this inquiry, -there is a preliminary question to be disposed -of. What is the maximum increase which -any conceivable legislation could conceivably -secure for them out of the existing resources of -the country? Not only unscrupulous agitators, -but many conscientious reformers, speak of the -results to be hoped for from a better distribution -of riches, in terms so exaggerated as to -have no relation to facts; and ideas of the -wildest kind are very widely diffused as to the -degree of opulence which it would be possible -to secure for all. The consequence is that at -the present moment popular cupidity has no -rational standard. It will therefore be well, -before we go further, to reduce these ideas—I<span class="pagenum" id="Page_17">[17]</span> -do not say to the limits which facts will -warrant—but to the limits which facts set on -what is theoretically and conceivably possible.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 An ascertainable -limit is -placed -to this -amount by -circumstances.</div> - -<div class="sidenote">◆2 And this -amount -would be -obtainable -only under -certain -conditions,</div> - -<p>◆¹ Let me then call attention to the self-evident -truth, that the largest income which -could possibly be secured for everybody, could -not be more than an equal share of the -actual gross income enjoyed by the entire -nation. Now it happens that we know with -substantial accuracy what the gross amount of -the income of the nation now is, and I will -presently show what is the utmost which each -individual could hope for from the most -successful attempt at a redistribution of -everything. ◆² But the mere pecuniary results -of a revolution of this kind are not the only -results of which we must take account. There -are others which it will be well to glance at -before proceeding to our figures.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 One of -which -would -entirely -change the -existing -character -of wealth.</div> - -<p>◆¹ Though an equal division of wealth would, -as we soon shall see, bring a large addition -to the income of a considerable majority of -the nation, the advantages which the recipients -would gain from this addition, would -be very different from the advantages which<span class="pagenum" id="Page_18">[18]</span> -an individual would gain now, from the same -annual sum coming to him from invested -capital. In other words, if wealth were -equally distributed, it would, from the very -necessity of the case, lose half the qualities -for which it is at present most coveted.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 Were -wealth -equally distributed, -nobody -would have -an independence.</div> - -<p>◆¹ At present wealth suggests before all things -what is commonly called “an independence”—something -on which a man can live independently -of his own exertions. But the -moment a whole nation possessed it in equal -quantities this power of giving an independence -would go from it suddenly and for ever. If -a workman who at present makes <i>seventy -pounds</i> a year, would receive, by an equal -division, an additional <i>forty pounds</i>, it is -indeed true that no additional work could be -entailed on him. The work which at present -gets him <i>seventy pounds</i>, would in that case -get him <i>a hundred and ten</i>. But he would -never be able, if he preferred leisure to wealth, -to forego the <i>seventy pounds</i> and live in idleness -on the <i>forty pounds</i>; as he would be able -to do now if the additional <i>forty pounds</i> -were the interest of a legacy left him by his -maiden aunt. Unless he continued to work,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_19">[19]</span> -as he had worked hitherto, he would lose not -only the first sum, but the second.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 Every one -would have -to work as -hard as he -does now;</div> - -<p>This is self-evident, when we consider what -is the essence of such a situation, namely -that the position of everybody is identical. -For if everybody preferred to be idle, no wealth -could be produced at all. However great -nominally might be the value of our national -property, it is perfectly clear that everybody -could not live at leisure in it: and from the -very nature of the case, in a nation where all -are equal, what cannot be done by all, could -not be done by anybody. ◆¹ If, therefore, we -estimate the income possible for each individual -as an equal fraction of the present -income of the nation, it must be remembered -that, to produce the total out of which these -fractions are to come, everybody would have -to work as hard as he does now. And more -than that, it would be the concern of all to see -that his share of work was not being shirked -by anybody. This is at present the concern -of the employer only: but under the conditions -we are now considering, everybody -would be directly interested in becoming his -neighbour’s taskmaster.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_20">[20]</span></p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 And be -even more -under the -dominion -of the employer -than -he is now;</div> - -<p>These last considerations lead us to another -aspect of the subject, with which every intelligent -voter should make himself thoroughly -familiar, and which every honest speaker would -force on the attention of his hearers. A large -number of agitators, who are either ignorant -or entirely reckless, but who nevertheless -possess considerable gifts of oratory, ◆¹ are -constantly endeavouring to associate, in the -popular mind, the legitimate hope of obtaining -an increased income, with an insane hostility -to conditions which alone make such an -increase possible. These men<a id="FNanchor_1" href="#Footnote_1" class="fnanchor">[1]</a> are accustomed -to declaim against the slavery of the working -classes, quite as much as against their inadequate -rate of payment. By slavery they -mean what they call “enslavement to capital.” -Capital means the implements and necessaries -of production. These, they argue, are no -longer owned by the workmen as they were in -former times: and thus the workers are no -longer their own masters. They must work<span class="pagenum" id="Page_21">[21]</span> -under the direction of those who can give them -the means of working; and this, they are -urged to believe, reduces them to the condition -of slaves.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 Nor could -any one -hope to -own the instruments -of production -used -by him.</div> - -<div class="sidenote">◆2 Self-contradictions -of agitators, -who say -that -capitalism -means -slavery, -and that -socialism -would -make the -worker -free.</div> - -<div class="sidenote">◆3 The industrial -discipline -of -the State -would -necessarily -be much -harder than -that of the -private -employer.</div> - -<p>Of course, in these representations there is a -certain amount of truth: but it is difficult to -conceive of anything more stupidly and more -wantonly misleading, than the actual meaning -which they are employed by the agitators to -convey. For that meaning is nothing else -than this—◆¹ that under improved conditions, -when wealth is better distributed, the so-called -slavery will disappear, the workers will be -their own masters again, and will each own, -as formerly, the implements and the materials -of his work. But, as no one knows better than -the extreme socialists, and as any intelligent -man can see easily for himself, such a course -of events is not only not possible, but is the -exact reverse of that on which the progress -of the workers must depend. ◆² The wildest -agitator admits, and the most ignorant agitator -knows, that the wealth of the modern world, -on the growth of which they insist, and -which, for the very reason that its growth -has been so enormous, is declared by them<span class="pagenum" id="Page_22">[22]</span> -to offer so rich a prize to the workers, -mainly owes its existence to improved conditions -of production. Such persons know -also that of these conditions the chief have -been the development of machinery, the increased -subdivision of employments, and the -perfected co-operation of the workers. But -the development of machinery necessarily -means this—the transformation of (say) each -thousand old-fashioned implements into a -single vast modern one of a hundred times -their aggregate power: and it means that at -this single implement a thousand men shall -work. The increased subdivision of labour -means that no man shall make an entire thing, -but merely some small part of it; and -perfected co-operation is another name for -perfected discipline. It will be thus seen that -the conditions which the agitator calls those of -slavery are essential to the production of the -wealth which is to constitute the workers’ -heritage. ◆³ It will be seen that the workers’ -hope of bettering their own position is so far -from depending on a recovery of any former -freedom, that it involves yet further elaboration -of industrial discipline; and puts the old<span class="pagenum" id="Page_23">[23]</span> -ownership of his own tools by the individual -farther and further away into the region of -dreams and impossibilities: and that no redistribution -of wealth would even tend to -bring it back again. The weaver of the last -century was the owner of his own loom: and -a great cotton-mill may now be owned by -one capitalist. But a co-operative cotton-mill -that was owned by all the workers, in the old -sense of the word would not be owned by anybody. -Could any one of these thousand or -more men say that any part of the mill was -his own personal property? Could he treat -a single bolt, or a brick, or a wheel, or a door-nail, -as he might have treated a loom left to -him in his cottage by his father? Obviously -not. No part of the mill would be his own -private property, any more than a train starting -from Euston Station is the property of -any shareholder in the London and North-Western -Railway. His ownership would mean -merely that he was entitled to a share of the -profits, and that he had one vote out of a -thousand in electing the managers. But however -the managers were elected, he would have -to obey their orders; and their discipline<span class="pagenum" id="Page_24">[24]</span> -would be probably stricter than that of any -private owner. Much more would this be the -case if the dream of the Socialist were fulfilled, -and if instead of each factory or business being -owned by its own workers, all the workers of -the country collectively owned all the businesses—all -the machinery, all the raw materials, -and all the capital reserved for and spent in -wages. For though the capital of the country -would be owned by the workers nominally, -their use of it would have to be regulated by -a controlling body, namely the State. The -managers and the taskmasters would all be -State officials, and be armed with the powers -of the State to enforce discipline. The individual -under such an arrangement, might -gain in point of income; but if he is foolish -enough to adopt the view of the agitator, and -regard himself as the slave to capital now, he -would be no less a slave to it were all capitals -amalgamated, and out of so many million -shares he himself were to own one.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 For it must -always be -remembered -that -the idea of -an equal -distribution of -wealth -necessarily -presupposes -the -State as -sole employer -and -capitalist.</div> - -<p>◆¹ It is particularly desirable in this particular -place to fix the reader’s attention on this -aspect of the question, because it is inseparably -associated with the point we are preparing to<span class="pagenum" id="Page_25">[25]</span> -consider—namely, the pecuniary position in -which the individual would be placed by an -equal division, were such possible, of the -entire national income. For we must bear in -mind that not even in thought or theory is an -equal division of the national income possible, -unless all the products of the labour of every -citizen are in the first place taken by the State -as sole employer and capitalist, and are then -distributed as wages in equal portions. Under -no other conditions could equality be more -than momentary. If each worker himself sold -his own products to the consumer,—which he -could not do, because no one produces the -whole of anything,—the strong and industrious -would soon be richer than the idle; and -the man with no children richer than the -man with ten. Inequality would have begun -again as soon as one day’s work was over. -Equality demands, as the Socialists are well -aware, that all incomes shall be wages paid by -the State; and it implies further, as we shall -presently have occasion to observe—that equal -wages shall be paid to all individuals, not -because they are equally productive, but because -they are all equally human. When<span class="pagenum" id="Page_26">[26]</span> -therefore I speak, as I shall do presently, of -what each individual would receive, if wealth -were divided equally, I must be understood -as meaning that he would receive so much -from the State.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 A redistribution -of -wealth, if -it increased -the incomes -of some, -would -lessen the -labour of -nobody.</div> - -<div class="sidenote">◆2 The next -chapter -contains an -examination -of the -amount of -income -which -would -theoretically -result -from an -equal distribution -in this -country.</div> - -<p>◆¹ Let us remember then that a redistribution -of wealth would have in itself no tendency to -alter the existing conditions of the workers in -any respect except that of wages only. It -would not tend to relieve any man of a single -hour of labour, to give him any more freedom -in choosing the nature of his work or the -method of it, or make him less liable to fines -or other punishments for disobedience or unpunctuality. -◆² His only gain, if any, would be -a simple gain in money. Let us now proceed -to deal with the pounds, shillings, and pence; -and see what is the utmost that this gain -could come to.</p> -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_27">[27]</span></p> - -<h3 class="nobreak" id="CHAPTER_IIIB1">CHAPTER III</h3> -</div> - -<p class="chapter-title"><i>The Pecuniary Results to the Individual of an Equal -Division, first of the National Income, and secondly -of certain parts of it.</i></p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 The gross -income of -the United -Kingdom.</div> - -<div class="sidenote">◆2 The whole -amount -attributed -to the rich -would not -be available -for distribution.</div> - -<div class="sidenote">◆3 A certain -deduction -must -therefore -be made -from the -estimated -total.</div> - -<p class="noindent">◆¹ <span class="smcap">The</span> gross income of the United Kingdom—the -aggregate yearly amount received by the -entire population—is computed to be in -round numbers some <i>thirteen hundred million -pounds</i>. But though this estimate may be -accepted as true under existing circumstances, -we should find it misleading as an estimate -of the amount available for distribution. So -far as it relates to the income of the poorer -classes, it would be indeed still trustworthy; -but the income of the richer—which is the -total charged with income-tax—we should -find to be seriously exaggerated, as considerable -sums are included in it which are -counted twice over. ◆² For instance, the fee<span class="pagenum adjust1" id="Page_28">[28]</span> -of a great London doctor for attending a -patient in the South of France would be -about <i>twelve hundred pounds</i>. Let us suppose -this to be paid by a patient whose -income is <i>twelve thousand pounds</i>. The -doctor pays income-tax on his fee; the -patient pays income-tax on his entire income; -and thus the whole sum charged with -income-tax is <i>thirteen thousand two hundred -pounds</i>. But if we came to distribute it, we -should find that there was <i>twelve thousand -pounds</i> only. And there are many other -cases of a precisely similar nature. According -to the calculations of Professor Leone Levi, -the total amount which was counted twice -over thus, amounted ten years ago to more -than a <i>hundred million pounds</i>.<a id="FNanchor_2" href="#Footnote_2" class="fnanchor">[2]</a> ◆³ In order, -therefore, to arrive at the sum which we may -assume to be susceptible of distribution, it will -be necessary, therefore, to deduct at least as<span class="pagenum adjust1" id="Page_29">[29]</span> -much as this from the sum which was just now -mentioned of <i>thirteen hundred million pounds</i>.<a id="FNanchor_3" href="#Footnote_3" class="fnanchor">[3]</a> -Accordingly the income of the country, if we -estimate it with a view to dividing it, is in round -numbers, <i>twelve hundred million pounds</i>.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 This, -divided -amongst -all, would -yield -<i>thirty-two -pounds</i> per -head:</div> - -<div class="sidenote">◆2 But different -sexes -and ages -would -require -different -amounts,</div> - -<div class="sidenote">◆3 The proportions -of -which are -readily -ascertainable.</div> - -<p>◆¹ And now let us glance at our problem in -its crudest and most rudimentary form, and -see what would be the share coming to each -individual, if these millions were divided -equally amongst the entire population. The -entire population of the United Kingdom -numbers a little over <i>thirty-eight millions</i>; -so our division sum is simple. The share -of each individual would be about <i>thirty-two -pounds</i>. But this sort of equality in -distribution would satisfy nobody. It is not -worth talking about. For a quarter of the -population are children under ten years of -age,<a id="FNanchor_4" href="#Footnote_4" class="fnanchor">[4]</a> and nearly two-fifths are under fifteen: -and it would be absurd to assign to a baby -seeking a pap-bottle, or even to a boy—voracious<span class="pagenum" id="Page_30">[30]</span> -as boys’ appetites are—the same sum -that would be assigned to a full-grown man -or woman. ◆² In order to give our distribution -even the semblance of rationality, the shares -must be graduated according to the requirements -of age and sex. The sort of proportion -to each other which these graduated shares -should bear might possibly be open to some -unimportant dispute: but we cannot go far -wrong if we take for our guide the amount -of food which scientific authorities tell us is -required respectively by men, women, and -children; together with the average proportion -which actually obtains at present, both between -their respective wages and the respective -costs of their maintenance. ◆³ The result which -we arrive at from these sources of information -is substantially as follows, and every fresh -inquiry confirms it. For every <i>pound</i> which -is required or received by a man, <i>fifteen -shillings</i> does or should go to a woman, <i>ten -shillings</i> to a boy, <i>nine shillings</i> to a girl, and -<i>four and sixpence</i> to an infant.<a id="FNanchor_5" href="#Footnote_5" class="fnanchor">[5]</a></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_31">[31]</span></p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 The problem -best -approached -by taking -the family -as the -unit:</div> - -<div class="sidenote">◆2 And then -we can -arrive at -the share -of each -member.</div> - -<div class="sidenote">◆3 The maximum -income that -an equal -distribution -would -give a -bachelor.</div> - -<p>◆¹ So much, then, being admitted, we shall -make our calculations best by starting with -the family as our unit, and coming to the -individual afterwards. The average family -consists of four and a half persons; and the -families in the United Kingdom number <i>eight -and a half millions</i>. <i>Twelve hundred millions</i>—the -sum we have to divide—would give each -family an income of <i>a hundred and forty -pounds</i>. From this, however, we should have -to deduct taxes; and, since if all classes were -equal, all would have to be taxed equally,—the -amount due from each family would be -considerable. Public expenditure, if the State -directed everything, would of necessity be -larger than it is at present; but even if we -assume that it would remain at its present -figure, each family would have to contribute -at least <i>sixteen pounds</i>.<a id="FNanchor_6" href="#Footnote_6" class="fnanchor">[6]</a> Therefore <i>sixteen<span class="pagenum" id="Page_32">[32]</span> -pounds</i> must be deducted from the <i>hundred -and forty pounds</i>. Accordingly we have for -four and a half persons a net income of <i>a -hundred and twenty-six pounds</i>. Now these -persons would be found to consist on an -average of a man and his wife, a youth, a girl, -and a half of a baby,—for when we deal with -averages we must execute many judgments -like Solomon’s,—and if we distribute the -income among them in the proportion I just -now indicated, the result we shall arrive at -will, in round numbers, be this. ◆² The man -will have <i>fifty pounds</i>, the woman <i>thirty-six -pounds</i>, the youth <i>twenty-five pounds</i>, the girl -<i>twenty-four pounds</i>, and the half of the infant -<i>five pounds</i>. And now let us scrutinise the -result a little further, and see how it looks in -various familiar lights. An equal distribution -of the whole wealth of the country would give -every adult male about <i>nineteen shillings -and sixpence</i> a week, and every adult female -about <i>fourteen shillings</i>. These sums would, -however, be free of taxes; so in order to -compare them with the wages paid at present, -we must add to them <i>two shillings and sixpence</i> -and <i>two shillings</i> respectively, which will<span class="pagenum" id="Page_33">[33]</span> -raise them respectively to <i>twenty-two shillings</i>, -and to <i>sixteen shillings</i>: ◆³ but a bachelor who is -earning the former sum now, or an unmarried -woman who is now earning the latter, would -neither of them, under any scheme of equal -distribution conceivable, come in for a penny -of the plunder taken from the rich. They -already are receiving all that, on principles of -equality, they could claim.</p> - -<p>The smallness of this result is likely to -startle anybody; but none the less is it true: -and it is well to consider it carefully, because -the reason why it startles us requires to be -particularly noticed. Of the female population -of the country that is above fifteen years old, -the portion that works for wages is not so much -as a half;<a id="FNanchor_7" href="#Footnote_7" class="fnanchor">[7]</a> and of the married women that do -so, the portion is much smaller. The remainder -work, no doubt, quite as hard as the rest; but -they work as wives and mothers; and whatever -money they have comes to them through -their husbands. Thus when the ordinary man -considers the question of income, he regards<span class="pagenum" id="Page_34">[34]</span> -income as something which belongs exclusively -to the man, his wife and his children being -things which the man maintains as he pleases. -But the moment the principle of equality of -distribution is accepted, all such ideas as these -have to be rudely changed: for if all of us -have a claim to an equal share of wealth, just -as the common man’s claim is as good as that -of the uncommon man, so the woman’s claim -is as good as the claim of either; and whatever -her income might be under such conditions, -it would be hers in her own right, -not in that of anybody else. Accordingly it -happens that an equal distribution of wealth, -though it would increase the present income -of the ordinary working man’s family, might -actually, so far as the head of the family was -concerned, have the paradoxical result of -making him feel that personally he was poorer -than before—not richer.<a id="FNanchor_8" href="#Footnote_8" class="fnanchor">[8]</a></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_35">[35]</span></p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 The highest -possible -standard of -living -would be -represented -by -a man -and wife -without -children.</div> - -<p>◆¹ The man’s personal share, then, would be -<i>twenty-two shillings</i> a week, and the woman’s -<i>sixteen shillings</i>; and they could increase -their income in no way except by marrying. -As many of their expenses would be greatly -diminished by being shared, they would by -this arrangement both be substantial gainers: -but if the principle of equality were properly -carried out, they would gain very little further -by the appearance of children; for though -we must assume that a certain suitable sum -would be paid them by the State for the -maintenance of each child, that would have -to be spent for the child’s benefit. We may, -therefore, say that the utmost results which -could possibly be secured to the individual -by a general confiscation and a general redistribution -of wealth, would be represented -by the condition of a childless man and wife, -with <i>thirty-eight shillings</i> a week, which -they could spend entirely on themselves: -for all the wealth of the nation that was -not absorbed in supplying such incomes to -men and women who were childless, would -be absorbed in supporting the children of -those who had them; thus merely equalising<span class="pagenum" id="Page_36">[36]</span> -the conditions of large and of small families, -and enabling the couple with ten or a dozen -children to be personally as well off as the -couple with none. Could such a condition of -wellbeing be made universal, many of the -darkest evils of civilisation would no doubt -disappear: but it is well for a man who -imagines that the masses of this country are -kept by unjust laws out of the possession of -some enormous heritage, to see how limited -would be the result, if the laws were to give -them everything; and to reflect that the -largest income that would thus be assigned to -any woman, would be less than the income -enjoyed at the present moment by multitudes -of unmarried girls who work in our Midland -mills—girls whose wages amount to <i>seventeen -shillings</i> a week, who pay their parents <i>a -shilling</i> a day for board, and who spend -the remainder, with a most charming taste, -on dress.</p> - -<p>He will have to reflect also that such a -result as has been just described could be -produced only by an equality that would be -absolutely grotesque in its completeness—by -every male being treated as equal to every<span class="pagenum" id="Page_37">[37]</span> -other male of the same age, and by every -female being treated similarly. The prime -minister, the commander-in-chief, the most -important State official, would thus, if they -were unmarried, be poorer than many a factory-girl -is at present; whilst if they were married, -they and their wives together would have but -<i>four shillings</i> a week more than is at present -earned by a mason, and <i>six shillings</i> a week -less than is earned by an overlooker in a -cotton-mill.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 Absolute -pecuniary -equality, -however, is -not thought -possible by -anybody;</div> - -<div class="sidenote">◆2 As the -salaries -asked for -Members of -Parliament -by the -Labour -Party -show.</div> - -<p>◆¹ But an equality of this kind, from a practical -point of view, is worth considering only as -a means of reducing it to an absurdity. Even -were it established to-morrow, it could not be -maintained for a month, owing to the difficulty -that would arise in connection with the -question of children: as unless a State official -checked the weekly bills of every parent, -parents inevitably would save out of their -children’s allowances; and those with many -children would be very soon founding fortunes. -And again it is obvious that different kinds of -occupation require from those engaged in them -unequal expenditures; so that the inevitable -inequality of needs would make pecuniary<span class="pagenum" id="Page_38">[38]</span> -equality impossible. Indeed every practical -man in our own country owns this, however -extreme his views; ◆² as is evidenced by the -amounts which have been suggested by the -leaders of the Labour Party as a fit salary for -a paid Member of Parliament. These amounts -vary from <i>three hundred pounds</i> a year to -<i>four hundred pounds</i>; so that the unmarried -Member of Parliament, in the opinion of -our most thoroughgoing democrats, deserves -an income from six to eight times as great -as the utmost income possible for the ordinary -unmarried man. And there are many -occupations which will, if this be admitted, -deserve to be paid on the same or on even a -higher scale. We may therefore take it for -granted that the most levelling politicians in -the country, with whom it is worth while to -reason as practical and influential men, would -spare those incomes not exceeding <i>four hundred -pounds</i> a year, and would probably increase the -number of those between that amount and <i>a -hundred and fifty pounds</i>. Now the total -amount of the incomes between these limits -is not far from <i>two hundred million pounds</i>: -so if this be deducted from the <i>twelve hundred<span class="pagenum" id="Page_39">[39]</span> -million pounds</i> which we just now took as the -sum to be divided equally, the incomes of the -people at large will be less by sixteen per cent -than the sums at which they were just now -estimated; and the standard of average comfort -will be represented by a childless man and -wife having <i>thirty-one shillings and eightpence</i> -instead of <i>thirty-eight shillings</i> a week.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 General -redistribution, -then, -is not -thought -possible by -any English -party;</div> - -<div class="sidenote">◆2 But it is -still instructive -to -consider -the theoretical -results -of it.</div> - -<p>◆¹ We need not, however, dwell upon such -details longer: for there are few people who -conceive even a redistribution like this to be -possible; and there would probably be fewer -still who would run the risk of attempting it, -if they realised how limited would be the -utmost results of it to themselves. My only -reason for dealing with these schemes at all -is that, ◆² whilst they are felt to be impossible as -soon as they are considered closely, they are -yet the schemes which invariably suggest -themselves to the mind when first the idea of -any great social change is presented to it; and -a knowledge of their theoretical results, though -it offers no indication of what may actually be -attainable, will sober our thoughts, and at the -same time stimulate them, by putting a distinct -and business-like limit to what is conceivable.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_40">[40]</span></p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 But there -are certain -parts of the -national -income the -redistribution -of -which has -been -actually -advocated, -<i>i.e.</i>: -(1) the rent -of the land; -(2) the interest -of the -National -Debt; -(3) the -sums spent -on the -Monarchy.</div> - -<div class="sidenote">◆2 We will -consider -what the -nation -would gain -by confiscating -the -above.</div> - -<div class="sidenote">◆3 Absurd -ideas as to -the amount -of the -landed -rental -of the -country.</div> - -<p>◆¹ And for this reason, before I proceed -further, I shall ask the reader to consider a -few more theoretical estimates. The popular -agitator, and those whose opinions are influenced -by him, do not propose to seize upon -all property; they content themselves with -proposing to appropriate certain parts of it. -The parts generally fixed upon are as follows:—First -and foremost comes the landed rental<a id="FNanchor_9" href="#Footnote_9" class="fnanchor">[9]</a> -of the country—the incomes of the iniquitous -landlords. Second comes the interest on the -National Debt; third, the profits of the railway -companies; and last, the sum that goes to -support the Monarchy. All these annual sums -have been proposed as subjects of confiscation, -though the process may generally be disguised<span class="pagenum" id="Page_41">[41]</span> -under other names. ◆² Let us take each of these -separately, and see what the community at -large would gain by the appropriation of each. -And we will begin with the income of the landlords; -for not only is this the property which -is most frequently attacked, but it is the one -from the division of which the largest results -are expected. ◆³ It is indeed part of the creed -of a certain type of politician that, if the -income of the landlords could be only divided -amongst the people, all poverty would be -abolished, and the great problem solved.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 The popular -conception -of the -wealth of -the larger -landlords.</div> - -<p>◆¹ In the minds of most of our extreme -reformers, excepting a few Socialists, the -income of the landlords figures as something -limitless; and the landlords themselves as the -representatives of all luxury. It is not difficult -to account for this. To any one who studies -the aspect of any of our rural landscapes, with -a mind at all occupied with the problem of the -redistribution of wealth, the things that will -strike his eye most and remain uppermost in -his mind, are the houses and parks and woods -belonging to the large landlords. Small -houses and cottages, though he might see a -hundred of them in a three-miles’ drive, he<span class="pagenum" id="Page_42">[42]</span> -would hardly notice; but if in going from -York to London he caught glimpses of twelve -large castles, he would think that the whole of -the Great Northern Railway was lined with -them. And from impressions derived thus -two beliefs have arisen—first that the word -“landlord” is synonymous with “large landlord”; -and secondly that large landlords own -most of the wealth of the kingdom. But ideas -like these, when we come to test them by -facts, are found to be ludicrous in their falsehood. -If we take the entire rental derived -from land, and compare it with the profits -derived from trade and capital, we shall find -that, so far as mere money is concerned, the -land offers the most insignificant, instead of -the most important question<a id="FNanchor_10" href="#Footnote_10" class="fnanchor">[10]</a> that could -engage us. Of the income of the nation, the -entire rental of the land does not amount to -more than one-thirteenth; and during the last<span class="pagenum" id="Page_43">[43]</span> -ten years it has fallen about thirteen per -cent. The community could not possibly get -more than all of it; and if all of it were -divided in the proportions we have already -contemplated, it would give each man about -twopence a day and each woman about three -half-pence.<a id="FNanchor_11" href="#Footnote_11" class="fnanchor">[11]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 The landed -aristocracy -are not the -chief rent-receivers.</div> - -<div class="sidenote">◆2 A multitude -of -small proprietors -receive -twice -as much in -rent as the -entire -landed -aristocracy.</div> - -<div class="sidenote">◆3 The entire -rental of -the landed -aristocracy -is so small -that its -confiscation -would -benefit no -one.</div> - -<p>◆¹ But the more important part of the matter -still remains to be noticed. The popular idea -is, as I just now said, that we should, in confiscating -the rental of the kingdom, be merely -robbing a handful of rich men, who would be -probably a deserving, and certainly an easy -prey. The facts of the case are, however, -singularly different. It is true, indeed, if we -reckon the land by area, that the large landlords -own a preponderating part of it: but if -we reckon the land by value, the whole case -is reversed; ◆² and we find that classes of men -who are supposed by the ordinary agitator to -have no fixed interest in the national soil at -all, really draw from it a rental twice as great -as that of the class which is supposed to absorb -the whole. I will give the actual figures,<a id="FNanchor_12" href="#Footnote_12" class="fnanchor">[12]</a><span class="pagenum" id="Page_44">[44]</span> -based upon official returns; and in order that -the reader may know my exact meaning, let me -define the term that I have just used—namely -“large landlords”—as meaning owners of more -than <i>a thousand</i> acres. No one, according to -popular usage, would be called a large landlord, -who was not the owner of at least as much as -this; indeed the large landlord, as denounced -by the ordinary agitator, is generally supposed -to be the owner of much more. Out of the -aggregate rental, then—that total sum which -would, if divided, give each man twopence a -day—what goes to the large landlords is now -considerably less than <i>twenty-nine million -pounds</i>. By far the larger part—namely -something like <i>seventy million pounds</i>—is -divided amongst <i>nine hundred and fifty thousand</i> -owners, of whose stake in the country<span class="pagenum" id="Page_45">[45]</span> -the agitator seems totally unaware; and in -order to give to each man the above daily -dividend, it would be necessary to rob all this -immense multitude whose rentals are, on an -average, <i>seventy-six pounds</i> a year.<a id="FNanchor_13" href="#Footnote_13" class="fnanchor">[13]</a> Supposing, -then, this nation of smaller landlords to<span class="pagenum" id="Page_46">[46]</span> -be spared, ◆³ and our robbery confined to peers -and to country gentlemen, the sum to be dealt -with would be less than <i>twenty-nine million -pounds</i>; and out of the ruin of every park, -manor, and castle in the country, each adult -male would receive less than three-farthings -daily.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 Were the -National -Debt and -the Railways -confiscated, -the results -would likewise -be -hardly perceptible -to -the nation -as a whole.</div> - -<p>◆¹ And now let us turn to the National Debt -and to the railways. The entire interest of -the one and the entire profits of the other, -would, if divided equally amongst the population, -give results a little, but only a little, -larger than the rental of the large landlords. -But here again, if the poorer classes were spared, -and the richer investors alone were singled out -for attack, the small dividend of perhaps one -penny for each man daily, would be diminished -to a sum yet more insignificant. How true -this is may be seen from the following figures -relating to the National Debt. Out of the -<i>two hundred and thirty-six thousand</i> persons -who held consols in 1880, <i>two hundred and -sixteen thousand</i>, or more than nine-tenths of -the whole, derived from their investments less -than <i>ninety pounds</i> a year; whilst nearly half -of the whole derived less than <i>fifteen pounds</i>.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_47">[47]</span></p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 The Monarchy -costs -so small a -sum, that -no one -would be -the richer -for its -abolition.</div> - -<p>◆¹ And lastly, let us consider the Monarchy, -with all its pomp and circumstance, the -maintenance of which is constantly represented -as a burden seriously pressing on the shoulders -of the working-class. I am not arguing that -in itself a Monarchy is better than a Republic. -I am considering nothing but its cost in -money to the nation. Let us see then what -its maintenance actually costs each of us, and -how much each of us might conceivably gain -by its abolition. The total cost of the Monarchy -is about <i>six hundred thousand pounds</i> -a year; but ingenious Radicals have not -infrequently argued that virtually, though indirectly, -it costs as much as <i>a million pounds</i>. -Let us take then this latter sum, and divide -it amongst <i>thirty-eight million</i> people. What -does it come to a head? It comes to something -less than <i>sixpence halfpenny</i> a year. -It costs each individual less to maintain the -Queen than it would cost him to drink her -health in a couple of pots of porter. The -price of these pots is the utmost he could -gain by the abolition of the Monarchy. -But does any one think that the individual -would gain so much—or indeed, gain anything?<span class="pagenum" id="Page_48">[48]</span> -If he does, he is singularly sanguine. -Let him turn to countries that are under a -Republican government; and he will find that -elected Presidents are apt to cost more than -Queens.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 All such -schemes of -redistribution -are -illusory, -not only on -account of -the insignificance -of their -results,</div> - -<div class="sidenote">◆2 But also on -account of -a far deeper -reason, on -which the -whole -problem -depends.</div> - -<p>◆¹ All these schemes, then, for attacking -property as it exists, for confiscating and redistributing -by some forcible process of legislation -the whole or any part of the existing -national income, are either obviously impracticable, -or their result would be insignificant. -Their utmost result indeed would not place -any of the workers in so good a position as is -at present occupied by many of them. This -is evident from what has been seen already. -◆² But there is another reason which renders such -schemes illusory—a far more important one -than any I have yet touched upon, and of a -far more fundamental kind. We will consider -this in the next chapter; and we shall find, -when we have done so, that it has brought us -to the real heart of the question.</p> - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_49">[49]</span></p> - -<h3 class="nobreak" id="CHAPTER_IVB1">CHAPTER IV</h3> -</div> - -<p class="chapter-title"><i>The Nature of the National Wealth: first, of the -National Capital; second, of the National Income. -Neither of these is susceptible of Arbitrary -Division.</i></p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 A legislative -division -of the -national income -is not -only disappointing -in its theoretical -results, -but -practically -impossible,</div> - -<p class="noindent">◆¹ <span class="smcap">We</span> have just seen how disappointing, to those -even who would gain most by it, would be the -results of an equal division of the national -income of this country, and how intolerable to -all would be the general conditions involved in -it. In doing this, we have of course adopted, -for argument’s sake, an assumption which -underlies all popular ideas of such a process; -namely, that if a Government were only strong -enough and possessed the requisite will, it could -deal with the national income in any way that -might be desired; or, in other words, that the -national income is something that could be -divided and distributed, as an enormous heap<span class="pagenum adjust1" id="Page_50">[50]</span> -of sovereigns could, according to the will of -any one who had them under his fingers. I am -now going to show that this assumption is -entirely false, and that even were it desirable -theoretically that the national income should -be redivided, it is not susceptible of any such -arbitrary division.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 As will -be shown -in this -chapter.</div> - -<p>◆¹ To those who are unaccustomed to reflecting -on economic problems, and who more or less -consciously associate the qualities of wealth -with those of the money in whose terms its -amount is stated, I cannot introduce this -important subject better than by calling their -attention to the few following facts, which, -simple and accessible as they are, are not -generally known.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 Wealth is -utterly unlike -money -in its -divisible -qualities.</div> - -<div class="sidenote">◆2 The money -of the -United -Kingdom -is an imperceptible -fraction of -its wealth.</div> - -<p>◆¹ The capital value of the wealth of the -United Kingdom is estimated at something -like <i>ten thousand million pounds</i>; but the -entire amount of sovereigns and shillings in -the country does not exceed <i>a hundred and -forty-four million pounds</i>, nor that of the -uncoined bullion, <i>a hundred and twenty-two -million pounds</i>. That is to say, for every -nominal <i>ten thousand</i> sovereigns there does -not exist in reality more than <i>two hundred<span class="pagenum" id="Page_51">[51]</span> -and twenty-six</i>. Were this sum divided -amongst the population equally, it would give -every one a share of exactly <i>seven pounds</i>. -Again, this country produces every year -wealth which we express by calling it <i>thirteen -hundred million pounds</i>. ◆² The amount of -gold and silver produced annually by the -whole world is hardly so much as <i>thirty-eight -million pounds</i>. If the whole of this were -appropriated by the United Kingdom, it -would give annually to each inhabitant only -ten new shillings and a single new half-sovereign. -The United Kingdom, however, -gets annually but a tenth of the world’s -money, so its annual share in reality is not -so much as <i>four million pounds</i>. Accordingly, -that vast volume of wealth which we express -by calling it <i>thirteen hundred million pounds</i>, -has but <i>four million pounds</i> of fresh money -year by year to correspond to it. That is -to say, there is only one new sovereign for -every new nominal sum of <i>three hundred -and twenty-five</i>.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 The nature -of wealth, -as a whole, -is quite -misconceived by -most -people;</div> - -<div class="sidenote">◆2 As we see -by the -metaphors -they use to -describe it.</div> - -<p>◆¹ Wealth as a whole, therefore, is something -so totally distinct from money that there is no -ground for presuming it to be divisible in the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_52">[52]</span> -same way. What is wealth, then, in a country -like our own? To some people this will seem -a superfluous question. They will say that -every one knows what wealth is by experience—by -the experience of possessing it, or by the -experience of wanting it. And in a certain -sense this is true, but not in any sense that -concerns us here. In precisely the same sense -every one knows what health is; but that is -very different from knowing on what health -depends; and to know the effects of wealth on -our own existence is very different from knowing -the nature of the thing that causes them. -Indeed, as a matter of fact, what wealth really -consists of is a thing which very few people are -ever at the trouble to realise; and nothing -shows that such is the case more clearly than -the false and misleading images which are -commonly used to represent it. ◆² The most -familiar of these are: “a treasure,” “a store,” -“a hoard,” or, as the Americans say, “a pile.” -Now any one of these images is not only not -literally true, but embodies and expresses a -mischievous and misleading falsehood. It -represents wealth as something which could be -carried off and divided—as a kind of plunder<span class="pagenum" id="Page_53">[53]</span> -which might be seized by a conquering army. -But the truth is, that the amount of existing -wealth which can be accurately described, or -could be possibly treated in this way, is, in a -country like ours, a very insignificant portion; -and, were social conditions revolutionised to -any serious degree, much of that portion -would lose its value and cease to be wealth -at all.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 Many kinds -of wealth -that are -considered -typical -would -become -almost -valueless if -divided: -for -instance, a -great house -and its -contents.</div> - -<p>◆¹ Let us take, for instance, some palatial house -in London, which catches the public gaze as a -monument of wealth and splendour; and we -will suppose that a mob of five hundred people -are incited to plunder it by a leader who -informs them that its contents are worth -<i>two hundred thousand pounds</i>. Assuming -that estimate to be correct, would it mean -that of these five hundred people each would -get a portion to him worth <i>four hundred -pounds</i>? Let us see what would really -happen. They would find enough wine, -perhaps, to keep them all drunk for a -week; enough food to feed thirty of them -for a day; and sheets and blankets for -possibly thirty beds. But this would not -account for many thousands out of the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_54">[54]</span> -<i>two hundred thousand pounds</i>. The bulk of -that sum would be made up—how? <i>A -hundred thousand pounds</i> would be probably -represented by some hundred and fifty pictures, -and the rest by rare furniture, china, and -works of art. Now all these things to the -pillagers would be absolutely devoid of value; -for if such pillage were general there would -be nobody left to buy them; and they would -in themselves give the pillagers no pleasure. -One can imagine the feelings of a man who, -expecting <i>four hundred pounds</i>, found himself -presented with an unsaleable Sèvres broth-basin, -or a picture of a Dutch burgomaster; or -of five such men if for their share they were -given a buhl cabinet between them. We may -be quite certain that the broth-basin would be -at once broken in anger; the cabinet would -be tossed up for, and probably used as a -rabbit-hutch; and the men as a body would -endeavour to make up for their disappointment -by ducking or lynching the leader -who had managed to make such fools of -them.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 Wealth, as -a whole, -even less -susceptible -of division.</div> - -<p>◆¹ And now let us consider the wealth of the -kingdom as a whole. Much as the bulk of it<span class="pagenum" id="Page_55">[55]</span> -differs from the contents of a house of this -kind, it would, if seized on in any forcible -way, prove even more disappointing and -elusive.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 Wealth, as -a whole, -has two -aspects: -that of -capital, and -that of -income.</div> - -<div class="sidenote">◆2 We will -first consider -the -national -capital.</div> - -<p>◆¹ We may consider it under two aspects. -We may consider it as so much annual income, -or else as so much capital. In the last chapter -we were considering it as so much income, -and presently we shall be doing so again. -But as capital may possibly strike the imagination -of many as something more tangible -and easily seized, and likely to yield, if redistributed, -more satisfactory results, ◆² we will -see first of what items the estimated capital of -this country is composed. To do so will not -only be instructive: it will also be curious -and amusing.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 This capital -consists -not of -money;</div> - -<p>◆¹ As I said just now, its value, expressed in -money, is according to the latest authorities -about <i>ten thousand million pounds</i>.<a id="FNanchor_14" href="#Footnote_14" class="fnanchor">[14]</a> As -actual money, however, forms so minute a -portion of this,—the reader will see that it is -hardly more than one-fortieth,—we may, for<span class="pagenum" id="Page_56">[56]</span> -our present purpose, pass it entirely over; -and our concern will be solely with the things -for which our millions are a mere expression.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 But of three -classes of -things: the -two first -comprising -things not -susceptible -of division;</div> - -<p>◆¹ It will be found that these things divide -themselves into three classes. The first -consists of things which, from their very -nature, are not susceptible of any forcible -division at all; the second consists of things -which are susceptible of division only by a -process of physically destroying them and -pulling them into pieces; and each of these -two classes, in point of value, represents, -roughly speaking, nearly a quarter of the total. -The third class alone, which represents little -more than a half, consists of things which, -even theoretically, could be divided without -being destroyed.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 The third -class comprising -all -those -things that -could be -divided -without -destroying -them; and -forming -about half -of the total.</div> - -<p>◆¹ We will consider this third class first, which -represents in the estimates of statisticians -<i>five thousand seven hundred million pounds</i>. -The principal things comprised in it are land, -houses, furniture, works of art, clothing, -merchandise, provisions, and live-stock; and -such commodities in general as change hands -over the shopman’s counter, or in the market.<a id="FNanchor_15" href="#Footnote_15" class="fnanchor">[15]</a><span class="pagenum" id="Page_57">[57]</span> -Of these items, by far the largest is houses, -which make up a quarter of the capital value -of the country, or <i>two thousand five hundred -million pounds</i>. But more than half this -sum stands for houses which are much -above the average in size, and which do -not form more than an eighth part of the -whole; and were they apportioned to a new -class of occupants, they would lose at least -three-fourths of their present estimated value. -So too with regard to furniture and works of -art, a large part of their estimated value -would, as we have seen already, disappear in -distribution likewise: and their estimated -value is about a tenth of the whole we are -now considering. Land, of course, can, at all -events in theory, be divided with far greater<span class="pagenum" id="Page_58">[58]</span> -advantage; and counts in the estimates as -<i>fifteen hundred million pounds</i>—or something -under a sixth of the whole. Merchandise, -provisions, and movable goods in general -can be divided yet more readily; and so one -would think could live-stock, though this is -hardly so in reality: but of the whole these -three last items form little more than a -twentieth.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 The results -of dividing -these -would be -ridiculous.</div> - -<p>◆¹ And now, supposing all these divisible -things to be divided, let us see what the -capital would look like which would be allotted -to each individual. Each individual would -find himself possessed of a lodging of some -sort, together with clothes and furniture worth -about <i>eight pounds</i>. He would have about -<i>eight pounds</i>’ worth of provisions and miscellaneous -movables, and a ring, a pin, or a -brooch, worth about <i>three pounds ten shillings</i>. -He would also be the proprietor of one acre -of land, which would necessarily in many -cases be miles away from his dwelling, -whilst as to stocking his acre, he would be -met by the following difficulty. He would -find himself entitled to the twentieth part -of a horse, to two-thirds of a sheep, the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_59">[59]</span> -fourth part of a cow, and the tenth part of -a pig.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 The second -class of -things, -comprising -the -national -capital, -could not -be divided -without -destroying -them.</div> - -<div class="sidenote">◆2 The -remaining -class of -things -could not -be divided -at all.</div> - -<p>◆¹ Such then would be the result to the individual -of dividing the whole of our capital -that could be divided without destroying it. -This is, as we said, a little more than half -of the total; and now let us turn to the -two other quarters; beginning with the -things which could be indeed divided, but -which would obviously be destroyed in the -process. Their estimated value is more than -<i>two thousand million pounds</i>: half of which -sum is represented by the railways and shipping -of the kingdom; <i>six hundred million -pounds</i>, by gasworks and the machinery in -our factories; and the rest, by roads and -streets and public works and buildings. ◆² These, -it is obvious, are not suitable for division; -and still less divisible are the things in the -class that still remains. For of their total -value, which amounts to some <i>two thousand -five hundred million pounds</i>, more than <i>a -thousand million pounds</i>, according to Mr. -Giffen, represent the good-will of various -professions of business; and the whole of the -remainder—nearly <i>fifteen hundred million<span class="pagenum" id="Page_60">[60]</span> -pounds</i>—represents nothing that is in the -United Kingdom at all, but merely legal -claims on the part of particular British -subjects to a share in the proceeds of enterprise -in other countries.</p> - -<p>This last class consists of things which are -merely rights and advantages secured by law, -and dependent on existing social conditions; -and it can be easily understood how they -would disappear under any attempt to seize -them. But the remaining three quarters of -our capital consists of material things; and -what we have seen with regard to them may -strike many people as incredible; for the -moment we imagine them violently seized -and distributed, they seem to dwindle and -shrivel up; and the share of each individual -suggests to one’s mind nothing but a series of -ludicrous pictures—pictures of men whose -heritage in all this unimaginable wealth is an -acre of ground, two wheels of a steam-engine, -a bedroom, a pearl pin, and the tenth part of -a pig.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 Capital has -no value at -all, except -when vivified -by use;</div> - -<p>◆¹ The explanation, however, of this result is -to be found in the recognition of an exceedingly -simple fact: that the capital of a country<span class="pagenum" id="Page_61">[61]</span> -is of hardly any value at all, and is, as capital, -of no value at all, when regarded merely as -an aggregate of material things, and not as -material things made living by their connection -with life. The land, which is worth -<i>fifteen hundred million pounds</i>, depends for -its value on the application of human labour -to it, and the profitable application of labour -depends on skill and intelligence. The value -of the houses depends on our means of living -in them—depends not on themselves, but on -the way in which they are inhabited. What -are railways or steamships, regarded as dead -matter, or all the machinery belonging to -all the manufacturing companies? Nothing. -They are no more wealth than a decomposing -corpse is a man. They become wealth only -when life fills them with movement by a -power which, like all vital processes, is one of infinite -complexity: when multitudes are massed -in this or in that spot, or diffused sparsely -over this or that district; when trains move at -appropriate seasons, and coal finds its way from -the mine to the engine-furnace. The only parts -of the capital in existence at any given moment, -which deserve the name of capital as mere<span class="pagenum" id="Page_62">[62]</span> -material things, are the stores of food, fuel, -and clothing existing in granaries, shops, and -elsewhere; and not only is the value of these -proportionately small, but, if not renewed -constantly, they would in a few weeks be -exhausted.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 And it -obviously -cannot be -used if it is -equally distributed.</div> - -<div class="sidenote">◆2 Income is -all that -could conceivably -be thus -divided.</div> - -<p>◆¹ It is plain then that, under the complicated -system of production to which the wealth of -the modern world is due, an equal division of -the capital of a country like our own is not -the way to secure an equal division of wealth. -◆² The only thing that could conceivably be -divided is income. If, however, it is true that -capital is, as we have seen it is, in its very -nature living, and ceases to be itself the -moment that life goes out of it, still more -emphatically must the same thing be said of -income, for the sake of producing which -capital is alone accumulated. Agitators talk -of the national income as if it were a dead -tree which a statesman like Mr. Gladstone -could cut into chips and distribute. It is not -like a dead tree; it is like the living column of -a fountain, of which every particle is in constant -movement, and of which the substance is -never for two minutes the same.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_63">[63]</span></p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 The -national -income -consists of -money no -more than -the national -capital -does.</div> - -<div class="sidenote">◆2 It consists -of other -things, or -rights to -other -things;</div> - -<div class="sidenote">◆3 Namely, of -perishable -goods, -durable -goods, and -services.</div> - -<p>◆¹ Let us examine the details of this income, -and the truth of what has been said will be -apparent. The total amount, as we have -seen, is estimated at <i>thirteen hundred million -pounds</i>; it is not, however, made up of sovereigns, -but of things of which sovereigns are -nothing more than the measure. ◆² The true -income of the nation and the true income of -the individual consist alike of things which -are actually consumed or enjoyed; or of legal -rights to such things which are accumulated -for future exercise. Of these last, which, in -other words, are savings, and are estimated -to amount to <i>a hundred and thirty million -pounds</i> annually, we need not speak here, except -to deduct them from the total spent. The total -is thus reduced to <i>eleven hundred and seventy -million pounds</i>—or to things actually consumed -or enjoyed, which are valued at that -figure. Now what are these things? That is -our present question. ◆³ By far the larger part -of them comes under the following heads: -Food, Clothing, Lodging, Fuel and Lighting, -the attendance of Servants, the Defence of the -Country and Empire, and the Maintenance of -Law and Order. These together represent<span class="pagenum" id="Page_64">[64]</span> -about <i>eight hundred million pounds</i>. Of the -remaining <i>three hundred and seventy million -pounds</i>, about a third is represented by the -transport of goods and travelling; and not -much more than a quarter of the total income, -or about <i>two hundred and seventy million -pounds</i>, by new furniture, pictures, books, -plate, and other miscellaneous articles. The -furniture produced annually counts for something -like <i>forty million pounds</i>; and the -new plate for not more than <i>five hundred -thousand pounds</i>.</p> - -<p>And now let us examine these things from -certain different points of view, and see how in -each case they group themselves into different -classes.</p> - -<p>In the first place, they may be classified -thus: into things that are wealth because -they are consumed, things that are wealth -because they are owned, and things that are -wealth because they are used or occupied. -Under the first heading come food, clothing, -lighting, and fuel; under the second, movable -chattels; and under the third, the occupation -of houses,<a id="FNanchor_16" href="#Footnote_16" class="fnanchor">[16]</a> the services of domestics, the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_65">[65]</span> -carrying of letters by the Post Office, transport -and travelling, and the defences and administration -of the country. In other words, -the first class consists of new perishable -goods, the second of new durable goods, -and the third not of goods at all, but of -services and uses. The relative amounts -of value of the three will be shown with -sufficient accuracy by the following rough -estimates.</p> - -<p>Of a total of <i>eleven hundred and seventy -million pounds</i>, perishable goods count for -<i>five hundred and twenty million pounds</i>, -durable goods and chattels for <i>two hundred<span class="pagenum" id="Page_66">[66]</span> -and fifty million pounds</i>, and services and -uses for <i>four hundred million pounds</i>. Thus, -less than a quarter of what we call the national -income consists of material things which we -can keep and collect about us; little less than -half consists of material things which are only -produced to perish, and perish almost as fast -as they are made; and more than a third -consists of actions and services which are -not material at all, and pass away and renew -themselves even faster than food and fuel.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 A large -part of the -national -income -consists -of things -that are -imported.</div> - -<div class="sidenote">◆2 Most of -our food is -imported.</div> - -<p>◆¹ This is how the national income appears, -as seen from one point of view. Let us change -our ground, and see how it appears to us from -another. We shall see the uses and the -services—to the value of <i>four hundred million -pounds</i>—still grouped apart as before. But -the remaining elements, representing nearly -<i>eight hundred million pounds</i>, and consisting -of durable and perishable material things, -we shall see dividing itself in an entirely -new way—into material things made at -home, and material things imported. We -shall see that the imported things come to -very nearly half;<a id="FNanchor_17" href="#Footnote_17" class="fnanchor">[17]</a> and we shall see further that<span class="pagenum" id="Page_67">[67]</span> -amongst these imported things food forms -incomparably the largest item. But the significance -of this fact is not fully apparent till -we consider what is the total amount of food -consumed by us; and when we do that, we -shall see that, exclusive of alcoholic drinks, -actually more than half come to us from other -countries.<a id="FNanchor_18" href="#Footnote_18" class="fnanchor">[18]</a> The reader perhaps may think -that this imported portion consists largely of -luxuries, which, on occasion, we could do -without. If he does think so, let him confine -his attention to those articles which -are most necessary, and most universally -consumed—namely bread, meat, tea, coffee, and -sugar—◆² and he will see that our imports are to -our home produce as <i>ninety</i> to <i>seventy-three</i>. -If we strike out the last three, our position -is still more startling;<a id="FNanchor_19" href="#Footnote_19" class="fnanchor">[19]</a> and most startling if<span class="pagenum" id="Page_68">[68]</span> -we confine ourselves to the prime necessary—bread. -The imported wheat is to the home-grown -wheat as <i>twenty-six</i> to <i>twelve</i>: that is -to say, of the population of this kingdom -<i>twenty-six millions</i> subsist on wheat that is -imported, and only <i>twelve millions</i> on wheat -that is grown at home; or, to put the matter -in a slightly different way, we all subsist on -imported wheat for eight months of the year.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 Thus the -national income -is a -product of -infinite -complexity.</div> - -<p>◆¹ And now let the reader reflect on what -all this means. It means that of the -material part of the national income half -consists, not of goods which we ourselves -produce, but of foreign goods which are -exchanged for them; and are exchanged for -them only because, by means of the most -far-reaching knowledge, and the most delicate -adaptation of skill, we are able to produce -goods fitted to the wants and tastes of distant -nations and communities, many of which are -to most of us hardly even known by name. -On every workman’s breakfast-table is a meeting -of all the continents and of all the zones;<span class="pagenum" id="Page_69">[69]</span> -and they are united there by a thousand -processes that never pause for a moment, -and thoughts and energies that never for a -moment sleep.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 Its amount -also varies -owing to -infinitely -complicated -causes,</div> - -<p>◆¹ A consideration of these facts will be -enough to bring home to anybody the accuracy -of the simile of which I made use just now, -when I compared the income of the nation to -the column thrown up by a fountain. He -will see how, like such a column, it is a -constant stream of particles, taking its motion -from a variety of complicated forces, and how -it is a phenomenon of force quite as much as a -phenomenon of matter. He will see that it is -a living thing, not a dead thing: and that it -can no more be distributed by any mechanical -division of it, than the labour of a man can be -distributed by cutting his limbs to pieces.</p> - -<p>This simile of the fountain, though accurate, -is, like most similes, incomplete. It will, however, -serve to introduce us to one peculiarity -more by which our national income is distinguished, -and which has an even greater -significance than any we have yet dealt with.</p> - -<p>In figuring the national income as the water -thrown up by a fountain, we of course suppose<span class="pagenum" id="Page_70">[70]</span> -its estimated amount or value to be represented -by the volume of the water and the height to -which it is thrown. What I am anxious now -to impress on the attention of the reader is -that the height and volume of our national -fountain of riches are never quite the same -from one year to another; whilst we need not -extend our view beyond the limits of one -generation to see that they have varied in the -most astonishing manner. The height and -volume of the fountain are now very nearly -double what they were when Mr. Gladstone -was in Lord Aberdeen’s Ministry.<a id="FNanchor_20" href="#Footnote_20" class="fnanchor">[20]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 Which are -quite independent -of -the growth -of population;</div> - -<p>◆¹ Some readers will perhaps be tempted to -say that in this there is nothing wonderful, for -it is due to the increase of population. But -the increase of population has nothing to do -with the matter. It cannot have anything to -do with what I am now stating. For when I -say that within a certain period the income of -the nation has doubled itself, I mean that it -has doubled itself in proportion to the population; -so that, no matter how many more<span class="pagenum" id="Page_71">[71]</span> -millions of people there may be in the country -now than there were at the beginning of the -period in question, there is annually produced -for each million of people now nearly twice -the income that was produced for each million -of people then. Or in other words, an equal -division now would give each man nearly -double the amount that it would have given -him when Mr. Gladstone was beginning to be -middle-aged.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 As we may -see by comparing -the -income of -this country -with -the income -of others.</div> - -<p>◆¹ But we must not be content with comparing -our national income with itself. Let us compare -it also with the incomes of other countries; -and let it in all cases be understood that the -comparison is between the income as related to -the respective populations, and not between -the absolute totals. We will begin with -France. It is estimated that, within the last -hundred and ten years, the income of France -has, relatively to the population, increased more -than fourfold. A division of the income in -1780 would have given <i>six pounds</i> a head to -everybody: a similar division now would give -everybody <i>twenty-seven pounds</i>. And yet the -income of France, after all this rapid growth, -is to-day twenty-one per cent less than that<span class="pagenum" id="Page_72">[72]</span> -of the United Kingdom. Other comparisons -we shall find even more striking. Relatively -to the respective populations, the income of -the United Kingdom exceeds that of Norway -in the proportion of <i>thirty-four</i> to <i>twenty</i>; -that of Switzerland, in the proportion of <i>thirty-four</i> -to <i>nineteen</i>; that of Italy, in the proportion -of <i>thirty-four</i> to <i>twelve</i>; and that of -Russia, in the proportion of <i>thirty-four</i> to -<i>eleven</i>. The comparison with Italy and Russia -brings to light a remarkable fact. Were all -the property of the upper classes in those -countries confiscated, and the entire incomes -distributed in equal shares, the share of each -Russian would be fifty per cent less, and of -each Italian forty per cent less than what each -inhabitant of the United Kingdom would -receive from a division of the income of its -wage-earning classes only.</p> - -<p>We find, therefore, that if we take equal -populations of men,—populations, let us say, -of a million men each,—either belonging to the -same nation at different dates, or to different -civilised nations at the same date, that the incomes -produced by no two of them reach to -the same amount; but that, on the contrary,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_73">[73]</span> -the differences between the largest income and -the others range from twenty to two hundred -per cent.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 The causes -of these -differences -in income -are not -differences -of race,</div> - -<p>◆¹ Now what is the reason of this? Perhaps -it will be said that differences of race are the -reason. That may explain a little, but it will -not explain much; for these differences between -the incomes produced by equal bodies of men -are not observable only when men are of -different races; but the most striking examples,—namely, -those afforded by our own country -and France—are differences between the incomes -produced by the same race during -different decades—by the same race, and by -many of the same individuals.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 Nor of soil -or climate,</div> - -<p>◆¹ Perhaps then it will be said that they are -due to differences of soil and climate. But -again, that will not explain the differences, at -various dates, between the incomes of the same -countries; and though it may explain a little, -it will not explain much, of the differences at -the same date between the incomes of different -countries. The soil and climate, for instance, -of the United Kingdom, are not in themselves -more suited for agriculture than the soil and -climate of France and Belgium; and yet for<span class="pagenum" id="Page_74">[74]</span> -each individual actually engaged in agriculture, -this country produces in value twenty-five per -cent more than France, and forty per cent -more than Belgium. I may add that it produces -forty-six per cent more than Germany, -sixty-six per cent more than Austria, and -sixty per cent more than Italy.<a id="FNanchor_21" href="#Footnote_21" class="fnanchor">[21]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 Nor of -hours of -labour,</div> - -<p>◆¹ Perhaps then a third explanation will be -suggested. These differences will be said to -be due to differences in the hours of labour. -But a moment’s consideration will show that -that has nothing to do with the problem; for -when a million people in this country produced -half what they produce to-day, they had fewer -holidays, and they worked longer hours. Now -that they have doubled the annual produce, -they take practically four weeks less in -producing it.<a id="FNanchor_22" href="#Footnote_22" class="fnanchor">[22]</a> Again, the hours of labour for -the manufacturing classes are in Switzerland<span class="pagenum" id="Page_75">[75]</span> -twenty-six per cent longer at the present time -than in this country; and yet the annual product, -in proportion to the number of operatives, -is twenty-eight per cent less.<a id="FNanchor_23" href="#Footnote_23" class="fnanchor">[23]</a></p> - -<p>Agriculture gives us examples of the same -discrepancy between the labour expended and -the value of the result obtained. In France, -the agricultural population is three times -what it is in this country, but the value of -the agricultural produce is not so much as -double.<a id="FNanchor_24" href="#Footnote_24" class="fnanchor">[24]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 But are -causes of -some other -kind which -lie below -the surface,</div> - -<p>Plainly, therefore, the growth of a nation’s -income, under modern conditions, does not -depend on an increased expenditure of labour. -There might, indeed, seem some ground for -leaping to the contrary conclusion—that it -grows in proportion as the hours of labour are -limited: but whatever incidental truth there<span class="pagenum" id="Page_76">[76]</span> -may be in that contention, it does not explain -the main facts we are dealing with; for some -of the most rapid changes in the incomes of -nations we find have occurred during periods -when the hours of labour remained unaltered; -and we find at the present moment that -countries in which the hours of labour are -the same, differ even more, in point of income, -from one another than they differ from countries -in which the hours of labour are different. -◆¹ Whatever, therefore, the causes of such differences -may be, they are not simple and -superficial causes like these.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 And which -requires to -be carefully -searched -for.</div> - -<p>I have alluded to the incomes of foreign -countries only for the sake of throwing -more light on the income of our own. Let -us again turn to that. Half of that income, -as we have seen, consists to-day of -an annual product new since the time when -men still in their prime were children; -and this mysterious addition to our wealth -has rapidly and silently developed itself, -without one person in a thousand being -aware of its extent, or realising the operation -of any new forces that might account for -it. Let people of middle age look back to<span class="pagenum" id="Page_77">[77]</span> -their own childhood; and the England of -that time, in aspects and modes of life, will -not seem to them very different from what it -seems now. Let them turn over a book of -John Leech’s sketches, which appeared in -<i>Punch</i> about the time of the first Exhibition; -and, putting aside a few changes in feminine -fashion, they will see a faithful representation -of the life that still surrounds them. The -street, the drawing-room, the hunting-field, -the railway-station—nothing will be obsolete, -nothing out-of-date. Nothing will suggest -that since these sketches were made any perceptible -change has come over the conditions -of our civilisation. And yet, somehow or -other, some changes have taken place, owing -to which our income has nearly doubled itself. -◆¹ In other words, the existence of one-half of -our wealth is due to causes, the nature, the -presence, and the operation of which, are -hidden so completely beneath the surface of -life as to escape altogether the eye of ordinary -observation, and reveal themselves only to -careful and deliberate search.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 For, unless -we understand -the causes -which have -made our -national income -grow, -we may, by -interfering -with them -unknowingly, -make -our income -decrease:</div> - -<p>◆¹ The practical moral of all this is obvious: -that just as our income has doubled itself<span class="pagenum" id="Page_78">[78]</span> -without our being aware of the causes, and -almost without our being aware of the fact, -so unless we learn what the causes are, and -are consequently able to secure for them fair -play, or, at all events, to avoid interfering -with their operation, we may lose what we -have gained even more quickly than we have -gained it, and annihilate the larger part of -what we are desirous to distribute. We have -seen that the national income is a living thing; -and, as is the case with other living things, -the principles of its growth reside in parts -of the body which are themselves not sensitive -to pain, but which may for the moment be -deranged and injured with impunity, and will -betray their injury only by results which arise -afterwards, and which may not be perceived -till it is too late to remedy them.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 And this is -the danger -of reckless -social legislation.</div> - -<p>◆¹ Here lies the danger of reckless social legislation, -and even of the reckless formation of -vague public opinion; for public opinion, in a -democratic country like ours, is legislation in -its nebular stage: and hence the only way to -avert this danger is, first to do what we have -just now been doing,—to consider the amount -and character of the wealth with which we<span class="pagenum" id="Page_79">[79]</span> -have to deal,—and secondly, to examine -the causes to which the production of this -wealth has been due, and on which the -maintenance of its continued production must -depend.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 We will -therefore, -in the -following -Book, -examine -what these -causes are.</div> - -<p>◆¹ Let the social reformer lay the following -reflections to his heart. Some of the more -ardent and hopeful of the leaders of the -Labour Party to-day imagine that considerable -changes in the distribution of the national -income may be brought about by the close of -the present century. In other words, they -prophesy that the Government will seven -years hence do certain things with that year’s -national income. But the national income of -that year is not yet in existence; and what -grounds have those sanguine persons for -thinking that when it is produced it will be -as large, or even half as large, as the national -income is to-day? What grounds have they -for believing that, if the working-classes then -take everything, they will be as rich as they -are now when they take only a part? The -only ground on which such a belief can be -justified is the implied belief that the same -conditions and forces which have swelled the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_80">[80]</span> -national income to its present vast amount, -will still continue in undisturbed operation.</p> - -<p>We will now proceed to consider what -these conditions and forces are.</p> - -<div class="chapter"> -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_81">[81]</span></p> - -<h2 class="fs4">BOOK II</h2> - -<p class="noindent center fs1 p1">THE CHIEF FACTOR IN THE PRODUCTION -OF THE NATIONAL INCOME</p> - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> -</div> - -<div class="chapter"> -<h3 class="nobreak" id="CHAPTER_IB2">CHAPTER I</h3> -</div> - -<p class="chapter-title"><i>Of the various Factors in Production, and how to -distinguish the Amount produced by each.</i></p> - -<p class="noindent"><span class="smcap">The</span> inquiry on which we are entering really -comprises two. I will explain how.</p> - -<p>Although, as we have seen, of the yearly -income of the nation a part only consists of -material things, yet the remainder depends -upon these, and its amount is necessarily in -proportion to them. Accordingly, when we are -dealing with the question of how the income -is produced, we may represent the whole of it -as a great heap of commodities, which every -year disappears, and is every year replaced by -a new one. Here then we have a heap of -commodities on one side, and on the other the -subjects of our inquiry—namely, the conditions -and forces which produce that heap.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 Land, -Capital, -and -Human -Exertion -are the -three -factors in -production; -but -at present -we may -omit -Capital.</div> - -<p>Now, as to what these conditions and forces<span class="pagenum" id="Page_84">[84]</span> -are, there is a familiar answer ready for us—◆¹ Land, -Labour, and Capital; and, with a certain -reservation, we may take this to be true. But -as Capital is itself the result of Land and -Labour, we need not, for the moment, treat -Capital separately; but we may say that the -heap is produced by Land and Labour simply. -I use this formula, however, only for the -purpose of amending it. It will be better, for -reasons with which I shall deal presently, instead -of the term Labour to use the term -Human Exertion. And further, we must -remember this—the heap of commodities we -have in view is no mere abstraction, but represents -the income of this country at some definite -date; so that when we are talking of the -forces and conditions that have produced it, we -mean not only Human Exertion and Land, but -Human Exertion of a certain definite amount -applied to Land of a definite extent and quality.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 The first -point we -notice is -that the -exertion -of the -same number -of men -applied to -the same -land does -not always -produce -the same -amount of -wealth.</div> - -<div class="sidenote">◆2 This must -be due to -some varying -element -in the -Human -Exertion in -question.</div> - -<div class="sidenote">◆3 Let us -compare -production -in this -country -100 years -ago with -production -now.</div> - -<p>◆¹ Now, as I pointed out in the last Book, one -of the most remarkable things about our -national production of commodities, is that the -yearly exertion of the same number of men, -applied to land of the same extent and quality, -has been far from producing always a heap of<span class="pagenum" id="Page_85">[85]</span> -the same size. On the contrary, the heap -which it produces to-day is twice as large as -that which it produced in the days of our -fathers; and nearly three times as large as -that which it produced in the days of our -grandfathers. Here then is the reason why -the inquiry that is before us is twofold. For -we have at first to take some one of such -heaps singly—on several accounts it will be -convenient to take the smallest, namely that -produced about a hundred years ago—and to -analyse the parts which Land and Human -Exertion played respectively in the production -of <i>it</i>. Then, having seen how Land and Human -Exertion produced in the days of our grandfathers -a heap of this special size, we must -proceed to inquire why three generations -later the same land and the exertions of a -similar number of men produce a heap which -is nearly three times as large. For the difference -of result cannot be due to nothing. ◆² It -must be due to some difference in one of the -two causes—to the presence in this cause of -some varying element: and it is precisely here—here -in this varying element—that the main -interest of our inquiry centres. For if it is<span class="pagenum" id="Page_86">[86]</span> -owing to a variation in this element that our -productive powers have nearly trebled themselves -in the course of three generations, nearly -two-thirds of the income which the nation -enjoys at present depends on the present -condition of this element being maintained, -and not being suffered—as it very easily might -be—to again become what it was three -generations back. ◆³ Let us begin then with -taking the amount of commodities produced in -this country at the end of the last century, -which is at once the most convenient and the -most natural period to select; for production -was then entering on its present stage of -development, and its course from then till -now is more or less familiar to us all.</p> - -<p>We will start therefore with the fact that, -about a hundred years ago, our national income, -if divided equally amongst the inhabitants of -the kingdom, would have yielded to each -inhabitant a share of about <i>fourteen pounds</i>; -so that if we confine ourselves to Great Britain, -the population of which was then about <i>ten -millions</i>, we have a national income of <i>a -hundred and forty million pounds</i>, or a heap of -commodities produced every year to an amount<span class="pagenum" id="Page_87">[87]</span> -that is indicated by that money value. Let us -take then any one of the closing years of the -last century, and consider for a moment the -causes at work in this island to which the production -of such a heap of commodities was due.</p> - -<p>In general language, these causes have been -described already as Human Exertion of a -certain definite amount applied to Land of a -certain definite extent and quality; but it will -now be well to restore to its traditional place -the accumulated result of past exertion—namely -Capital, and to think of it as a separate -cause, according to the usual practice. For -everybody knows that at the close of the last -century, many sorts of machinery, and stores -of all sorts of necessaries, were made and -accumulated to assist and maintain Labour; -and it is of such things that Capital principally -consists. The Capital of Great Britain was -at that time about <i>sixteen hundred million -pounds</i>.<a id="FNanchor_25" href="#Footnote_25" class="fnanchor">[25]</a> We will accordingly say that about -a hundred years ago, the Land of this island, -the Capital of this island, and the Exertions of<span class="pagenum" id="Page_88">[88]</span> -a population of <i>ten million</i> people produced -together, every twelve months, a heap of commodities -worth <i>a hundred and forty million -pounds</i>. We need not, however, dwell, till -later, on these details. For the present our -national production at this particular period -may be taken to represent the production of -wealth generally.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 How much -in each -case did -Land, -Capital, -and Human -Exertion -produce respectively?</div> - -<p>◆¹ Now the question, let it be remembered, -with which we are concerned ultimately, is -how wealth, as produced in the modern world, -may be distributed. Accordingly, since the -distribution of it presupposes its production, -and since we are agreed generally as to what -the causes of its production are,—namely, Land, -Capital, and Human Exertion,—our next great -step is to inquire what proportion of the product -is to be set down as due to each of these -causes separately; for it is by this means only -that we can see how and to what extent our -social arrangements may be changed, without -our production being diminished. And I -cannot introduce the subject in a better way -than by quoting the following passage from -John Stuart Mill, in which he declares such -an inquiry to be both meaningless and<span class="pagenum" id="Page_89">[89]</span> -impossible to answer; for that it <i>can</i> be -answered, and that it is full of meaning, and -that to ask and answer it is a practical and -fundamental necessity, will be made all the -plainer by the absurdity of Mill’s denial.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 Mill declares -this -question to -be meaningless;</div> - -<div class="sidenote">◆2 But his -argument -is -answered, -and is refuted -both -by practical -life and -by his own -writings.</div> - -<p>◆¹ “Some writers,” he says, “have raised the -question whether Nature (or, in the language -of economics, Land) gives more assistance to -Labour in one kind of industry or another, and -have said that in some occupations Labour -does most; in others, Nature most. In this, -however, there seems much confusion of ideas. -The part which Nature has in any work of -man is indefinite and immeasurable. It is -impossible to decide that in any one thing -Nature does more than in any other. One -cannot even say that Labour does less. Less -Labour may be required; but if that which is -required is absolutely indispensable, the result -is just as much the product of Labour as of -Nature. When two conditions are equally -necessary for producing the effect at all, it is -unmeaning to say that so much of it is produced -by one and so much by the other. It -is like attempting to decide which half of a -pair of scissors has most to do with the act of<span class="pagenum" id="Page_90">[90]</span> -cutting; or, which of the factors—five or six—has -most to do with the production of -thirty.” So writes Mill in the first chapter -of his <i>Principles of Political Economy</i>; -and if what he says is true with regard to -Land and Labour (or, as we are calling it, -Human Exertion), it is equally true with regard -to Human Exertion and Capital; for without -Human Exertion, Capital could produce -nothing, and without Capital modern industry -would be impossible: and thus, according to -Mill’s argument, we cannot assign to either of -them a specific portion of the product. ◆² But -Mill’s argument is altogether unsound; and -the actual facts of life, and a large part of -Mill’s own book, little as he perceived that it -was so, are virtually a complete refutation of it.</p> - -<p>To understand this, the reader need only -reflect on those three principal and familiar -parts into which the annual income of every -civilised nation is divided, not only in actual -practice, but theoretically by Mill himself—namely -Rent, Interest, and Wages.<a id="FNanchor_26" href="#Footnote_26" class="fnanchor">[26]</a> For<span class="pagenum" id="Page_91">[91]</span> -these—what are they? The answer is very -simple. They are portions of the income -which correspond, at all events in theory, to -the amounts produced respectively by Land, -Capital, and Human Exertion; and which are -on that account distributed amongst three -sets of men—those who own the Land, those -who own the Capital, and those who have -contributed the Exertion. There are many -causes which in practice may prevent the -correspondence being complete; but that the -general way in which the income is actually -distributed is based on the amount produced -by these three things respectively,—Land, -Capital, and Human Exertion,—is a fact which -no one can doubt who has once taken the -trouble to consider it. It is thus perfectly -clear that, contrary to what Mill says, though -two or more agencies may be equally indispensable -to the production of any wealth at -all, it is not only not “unmeaning to say -that so much is produced by one and so -much by the other,” but it is possible to make -the calculation with practical certainty and -precision; and I will now proceed to explain -the principles on which it is made.</p> -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_92">[92]</span></p> - -<h3 class="nobreak" id="CHAPTER_IIB2">CHAPTER II</h3> -</div> - -<p class="chapter-title"><i>How the Product of Land is to be distinguished from -the Product of Human Exertion.</i></p> - -<p class="noindent"><span class="smcap">The</span> question before us will be most easily -understood if we begin with once again -waiving any consideration of Capital, and if -we deal only with what Mill, in the passage -just quoted, calls “Nature and Labour”—or, in -other words, with Land and Human Exertion. -We will also, for simplicity’s sake, confine -ourselves to one use of land—its primary and -most important use, namely its use in agriculture -or food-production.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 Rent is the -proportion -of the -produce -produced -not by -Human -Exertion, -but by the -Land itself;</div> - -<p>◆¹ Now a British tenant-farmer who lives -solely by his farming obviously derives his -whole income from the produce of the soil he -occupies; but the whole of this produce does -not go to himself. Part is paid away in the -form of rent to his landlord, and part in the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_93">[93]</span> -form of wages to his labourers. We may -however suppose, without altering the situation, -that he has no labourers under him—that -he is his own labourer as well as his own -manager, and that the whole of the produce -that is not set aside as rent goes to himself -as the wages of his own exertion. The point -on which I am going to insist is this—that -whilst the exertion has produced the product -that is taken as wages, the soil—or to speak -more accurately—a certain quality in the soil -has just as truly produced the produce that -goes in rent—in fact that “Nature and Labour, -though equally necessary for producing the -effect at all,” each produce respectively a -certain definite part of it.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 As will be -shown in -this chapter -by -reference -to the -universally -accepted -theory of -Rent.</div> - -<p>◆¹ In order to prove this it will be enough to -make really clear to the reader the explanation -of rent which is given by all economists—an -explanation in which men of the most -opposite schools agree—men like Ricardo, and -men like Mr. Henry George; and of which -Mill himself is one of the most illustrious -exponents. I shall myself attempt to add -nothing new to it, except a greater simplicity -of statement and illustration, and a special<span class="pagenum" id="Page_94">[94]</span> -stress on a certain part of its meaning, the -importance of which has been hitherto disregarded.</p> - -<p>Now, as we are going to take the industry -of agriculture for our example, we shall mean -by rent a portion of the agricultural products -derived from Human Exertion applied to a -given tract of soil. Of such products let us -take corn, and use it, for simplicity’s sake, -as representing all the rest; and that being -settled, let us go yet a step further; and, -for simplicity’s sake also, let us represent corn -by bread; and imagine that loaves develop -themselves in the soil like potatoes, and, when -the ground is properly tilled, are dug up -ready for consumption. We shall figure rent -therefore as a certain number of loaves that -are dug up from a given tract of soil. Now -everybody knows that all soils are not equally -good. That there is good land and that there -is poor land is a fact quite familiar even to -people who have never spent a single day in -the country. And this means, if we continue -the above supposition, that different fields of -precisely the same size, cultivated by similar -men and with the same expenditure of exertion,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_95">[95]</span> -will yield to their respective cultivators -different numbers of loaves.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 We will -illustrate -this by the -case of -three men -of equal -power tilling -three -fields of -unequal -fertility.</div> - -<p>◆¹ Let us take an example. Tom, Dick, and -Harry, we will say, are three brothers, who -have each inherited a field of twelve acres. -They are all equally strong, and equally -industrious: we may suppose, in fact, that -they all came into the world together, and are -as like one another as three Enfield rifles. -Each works in his field for the same time every -day, digs up as many loaves as he can, and -every evening brings them home in a basket. -But when they come to compare the number -that has been dug up by each, Tom always -finds that he has fifteen loaves, Dick that he -has twelve, and Harry that he has only nine; -the reason being that in the field owned by -Harry fewer loaves develop themselves than -in the fields owned by Tom and Dick. Harry -digs up fewer, because there are fewer to dig up. -Let us consider Harry’s case first.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 Labour -must be -held to -produce so -much as is -absolutely -necessary -for its own -support.</div> - -<p>◆¹ Each of the loaves is, we will say, worth -fourpence; therefore Harry, with his nine -loaves, makes three shillings a day, or eighteen -shillings a week. This is just enough to -support him, according to the ideas and habits<span class="pagenum" id="Page_96">[96]</span> -of his class. If his field were such that it -yielded him fewer loaves, or if he had to give -even one of the loaves away, the field would be -useless; it would not be cultivated at all, -either by him, or by anybody, nor could it be; -for the entire produce, which would then go to -the cultivator, would not be enough to induce, -or perhaps even to make him able, to cultivate -it. But, as matters stand, so long as the entire -produce does go to him, and to no one else, we -must take it for granted that his exertion and -his field between them yield him a livelihood -which, according to his habits, is sufficient; for -otherwise, as I have said, this field neither would -nor could be cultivated. And it will be well -here to make the general observation that -whenever we find a class of men cultivating -the utmost area of land which their strength -permits, and taking for themselves the entire -produce, their condition offers the highest -standard of living that can possibly be -general amongst peasant cultivators: from -which it follows that, unless no land is -cultivated except the best, the general -standard of living must necessarily require -less than the entire produce which the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_97">[97]</span> -best land will yield. We assume then that -Harry, with his nine loaves a day, represents -the highest standard of living that is, or that -can be, general amongst his class.</p> - -<p>And now let us turn from Harry’s case to -the case of Tom and Dick. They have been -accustomed to precisely the same standard of -living as he has been; and they require for -their support precisely the same amount of -produce. But each day, after they have all -of them fared alike, each taking the same -quantity from his own particular basket, the -baskets of Tom and Dick present a different -appearance to that of Harry. There is in each -of the two first a something which is not to be -found in his. There is a surplus. In Dick’s -basket there are three extra loaves remaining; -and in Tom’s basket there are six. To what -then is the production of these extra loaves -due? Is it due to land, or is it due to the -exertions of Tom and Dick? Mill, as we have -seen, would tell us that this was an unmeaning -question; but we shall soon see that it is not so.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 But whatever -is beyond -this -is the product -not -of Labour, -but of -Land;</div> - -<p>It is perfectly true that it would be an -unmeaning question if we had to do with one -of the brothers only—say with Harry, and<span class="pagenum" id="Page_98">[98]</span> -only with Harry’s field. Then, no doubt, it -would be impossible to say which produced -most—Harry or the furrows tilled by him,—whether -Harry produced two loaves and the -furrows seven, or Harry seven and the furrows -two. And as to Harry’s case more must be said -than this. Such a calculation with regard to -it would be not only impossible, but useless; -for even if we convinced ourselves that the -land produced seven loaves, and Harry’s -exertion only two, all the loaves would still of -necessity go to Harry. In a case like this, -therefore, it is quite sufficient to take account -of Human Exertion only. Agricultural labour, -in fact, must be held to produce whatever -product is necessary for the customary -maintenance of the labourer. ◆¹ But if this is -the entire product obtained from the worst soil -cultivated, it cannot be the entire product -obtained from the best soil; and the moment -we have to deal with a second field,—a field -which is of a different quality, and which, -although it is of exactly the same size, and is -cultivated every day with precisely similar -labour, yields to that labour a larger number -of loaves,—twelve loaves, or fifteen loaves,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_99">[99]</span> -instead of nine,—then our position altogether -changes. We are not only able, but obliged -to consider Land as well as Labour, and to discriminate -between their respective products. -A calculation which was before as unmeaning -as Mill declares it to be, not only becomes -intelligible, but is forced on us.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 As we shall -see by comparing -the -case of the -man tilling -the best -field with -that of the -man tilling -the worst.</div> - -<p>◆¹ For if we start with the generalisation -derived from Harry’s case, or any other case -in which the land is of a similar quality that -one man’s labour produces nine loaves daily, -and then find that Tom and Dick, for the same -amount of labour, are rewarded respectively by -fifteen loaves or by twelve, we have six extra -loaves in one case, and three in the other, -which cannot have been produced by Labour, -and which yet must have been produced by -something. They cannot have been produced -by Labour; for the very assumption with which -we start is that the Labour is the same in the -last two cases as in the first; and according -to all common-sense and all logical reasoning, -the same cause cannot produce two different -results. When results differ, the cause of the -difference must be sought in some cause that -varies, not a cause that remains the same;<span class="pagenum" id="Page_100">[100]</span> -and the only cause that here varies is the Land. -Accordingly, just as in Harry’s case we are -neither able nor concerned to credit the Land -with any special part, or indeed any part, of -the product, but say that all the nine loaves -are produced by Harry’s Labour, so too in the -case of Tom and Dick we credit Labour with a -precisely similar number; but all loaves -beyond that number we credit not to their -Labour, but to their Land—or, to speak more -accurately, to certain qualities which their -Land possesses, and which are not possessed -by Harry’s. In Dick’s case these superior -qualities produce three loaves; in Harry’s case, -they produce six.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 The men -themselves -would be -the first to -understand -this.</div> - -<p>If any one doubts that such is the case, let -him imagine our three brothers beginning to -quarrel amongst themselves, and Tom and -Dick boasting that they were better men than -Harry, on the ground that they always brought -home more loaves than he. Every one can see -what Harry’s retort would be, and see also that -it is unanswerable. ◆¹ Of course he would say, -“I am as good a man as either of you, and my -labour produces quite as much as yours. Let -us only change fields, and you will see that<span class="pagenum" id="Page_101">[101]</span> -soon enough. Let Tom take mine, and let me -take his, and I then will bring home fifteen -loaves; and he, work as he may, will only -bring home nine. It is your b——y land that -produces more than mine, not you that produce -more than I; and if you deny it, stand out -you ——s and I’ll fight you.” We may -also appeal to one of the commonest of our -common phrases, in which Harry’s supposed -contention is every day reiterated. If a -farmer is transferred from a bad farm to a good -one, and the product of his farming is thereby -increased, as it will be, everybody will say, -“The good farm <i>makes</i> all the difference.” -This is merely another way of saying, the -superior qualities in the soil <i>produce</i> all the -increase, or—to continue our illustration—the -increased number of loaves.</p> - -<p>And all the world is not only asserting this -truth every day, but is also acting on it; for -these extra loaves, produced by the qualities -peculiar to superior soils, are neither more -nor less than Rent. Rent is the amount of -produce which a given amount of exertion -obtains from rich land, beyond what it obtains -from poor land. Such is the account of rent<span class="pagenum" id="Page_102">[102]</span> -in which all economists agree; indeed, when -once it is understood, the truth of it is self-evident. -Mr. Henry George’s entire doctrines -are built on it; whilst Mill calls it the -<i>pons asinorum</i> of economics. I have added -nothing in the above statement of it to what -is stated by all economists, except weight and -emphasis to a truth which they do not so much -state as imply, and whose importance they -seem to have overlooked. This truth is like -a note on a piano, which they have all of them -sounded lightly amongst other notes. I have -sounded it by itself, and have emphasised it -with the loud pedal—the truth that rent is for -all practical purposes not the product of Land -and Human Exertion combined, but the product -of Land solely, as separate from Human -Exertion and distinct from it.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 The above -doctrine of -Rent is not -a landlord’s -doctrine. -It would -hold true -of a Socialistic -State -as well as -of any -other.</div> - -<p>◆¹ And here let me pause for a moment to -point out a fact which, though it illustrates -the above truth further, I should not mention -here if it were not for the following reason. -Rent forms the subject of so much social and -party prejudice that what I have just been -urging may be received by certain readers -with suspicion, and regarded as some special<span class="pagenum" id="Page_103">[103]</span> -pleading on behalf of landlords. I wish therefore -to point out clearly that the existence -of rent and the payment of rent is not -peculiar to our existing system of landlordism. -Rent must arise, under any social arrangement, -from all soils which are better than the -poorest soil cultivated: it must be necessarily -paid to somebody; and that somebody must -necessarily be the owner. If a peer or a -squire is the owner, it is paid to the peer or -squire; if the cultivator is the owner, the -cultivator pays it to himself; if the land were -nationalised and the State were to become the -owner, the cultivator would have to pay it -away to the State.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 It is easy -to see how -Rent arises, -under any -conditions, -from all -superior -soils.</div> - -<p>◆¹ In order that the reader may fully realise -this, let us go back to our three brothers, of -whom the only two who paid rent at all, paid -it, according to our supposition, to themselves; -and let us imagine that Harry—the brother -who pays no rent to anybody, because his -field produces none, has a sweetheart who -lives close to Tom’s field, or who sits and -sucks blackberries all day in its hedge; and -that Harry is thus anxious to exchange fields -with Tom, in order that he may be cheered at<span class="pagenum" id="Page_104">[104]</span> -his work by the smiles of the beloved object. -Now if Tom were to assent to Harry’s wishes -without making any conditions, he would be -not only humouring the desire of Harry’s -heart, but he would be making him a present -of six loaves daily; and this, we may assume, -he certainly would not do; nor would Harry, -if he knew anything of human nature, expect -or even ask him to do so. If Tom, however, -were on good terms with his brother, he -might quite conceivably be willing to meet -his wishes, could it be but arranged that he -should be no loser by doing so; and this -could be accomplished in one way only—namely, -by arranging that, since Harry would -gain six loaves each day by the exchange, and -Tom would lose them, Harry should send -these six loaves every day to Tom; and thus, -whilst Harry was a gainer from a sentimental -point of view, the material circumstances of -both of them would remain what they were -before. Or we may put the arrangement in -more familiar terms. The loaves in question -we have supposed to be worth fourpence each; -so we may assume that instead of actually -sending the loaves, Harry sends his brother<span class="pagenum" id="Page_105">[105]</span> -two shillings a day, or twelve shillings a week, -or thirty pounds a year. Tom’s field, as we -have said, is twelve acres; therefore, Harry -pays him a rent of fifty shillings an acre. -And Tom’s case is the case of every landlord, -no matter whether the landlord is a private -person or the State—a peer who lets his land, -a peasant like Tom who cultivates it, or a -State which allows the individual to occupy -but not to own it. Rent represents an advantage -which is naturally inherent in certain -soils; and whoever owns this advantage—either -the State or the private person—must -of necessity either take the rent, or else make -a present of it to certain favoured individuals.</p> - -<p>It should further be pointed out that this -doctrine of Rent, though putting so strict a -limit on the product that can be assigned to -Labour, interferes with no view that the most -ardent Socialist or Radical may entertain with -regard to the moral rights of the labourer. -If any one contends that the men who labour -on the land, and who pay away part of the -produce as rent to other persons, ought by -rights to retain the whole produce for themselves, -he is perfectly at liberty to do so, for<span class="pagenum" id="Page_106">[106]</span> -anything that has been urged here. For the -real meaning of such a contention is, not that -the labourers do not already keep everything -that is produced by their labour, but that -they ought to own their land instead of hiring -it, and so keep everything that is produced by -the land as well.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 The doctrine -of -Rent is the -fundamental -example -of the -reasoning -by which to -each agent -in production -a -definite -portion of -the product -is -attributed.</div> - -<p>This doctrine of Rent, then, which I have -tried to make absolutely clear, involves no -special pleading on behalf either of landlord -or tenant, of rich or poor. It can be used -with equal effect by Tory, Radical, or Socialist, -and it would be as true of a Socialistic State -as it is of any other. I have insisted on it -here for one reason only. ◆¹ It illustrates, and -is the fundamental example of, the following -great principle—that in all cases where Human -Exertion is applied to Land which yields only -enough wealth to maintain the man exerting -himself, practical logic compels us to attribute -the entire product to his exertion, and to -take the assumption that his exertion produces -this much as our starting-point. But in all -other cases—that is to say in all cases where -the same exertion results in an increased product, -we attribute the increase—we attribute<span class="pagenum" id="Page_107">[107]</span> -the added product—not to Human Exertion, -which is present equally in both cases, but to -some cause which is present in the second -case, and was not present in the first: that is -to say, to some superior quality in the soil.</p> - -<p>And now let us put this in a more general -form. When two or more causes produce a -given amount of wealth, and when the same -causes with some other cause added to them -produce a greater amount, the excess of the -last amount over the first is produced by the -added cause; or conversely, the added cause -produces precisely that proportion of the total -by which the total would be diminished if the -added cause were withdrawn.</p> - -<p>It is on this principle that the whole -reasoning in the present book is based; and -having seen how it enables us to discriminate -between the amounts of wealth produced respectively -by Human Exertion and Land, let -us go on to see how it will enable us likewise -to discriminate what is produced by Capital.</p> -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_108">[108]</span></p> - -<h3 class="nobreak" id="CHAPTER_IIIB2">CHAPTER III</h3> -</div> - -<p class="chapter-title"><i>Of the Products of Machinery or Fixed Capital, as distinguished -from the Products of Human Exertion.</i></p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 To understand -how -much of -the gross -product is -made by -Capital, it -will be -well to -turn from -agriculture -to manufactures;</div> - -<div class="sidenote">◆2 As Capital -plays in -manufactures -a -more -obvious -part.</div> - -<p class="noindent">◆¹ <span class="smcap">Land</span>, which in economics means everything -that the earth produces and the areas it offers -for habitation, is of course in a sense at the -bottom of every industry. But if we wish -to understand the case of Capital, it will be -well to turn from agriculture to industry of -another kind; the reason being that the part -which Capital plays in agriculture is not only, -comparatively speaking, small, but is also a -part which, when we are first approaching the -subject, is comparatively ill fitted for purposes -of illustration. ◆² What is best fitted for the -purpose of illustration is Capital applied to -manufactures; and it is best at first not to -consider all such Capital, but to confine our -attention to one particular part of it. I must -explain to the reader exactly what I mean.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_109">[109]</span></p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 Capital, -when -actually -employed, -is of two -kinds:</div> - -<div class="sidenote">◆2 Fixed -Capital, -such as -plant and -machinery; -and Wage -Capital.</div> - -<div class="sidenote">◆3 The Capital -embodied -in machinery -is what, -for our -present -purpose, we -must first -consider.</div> - -<p>◆¹ People constantly speak of Capital as being -a sensitive thing—a movable thing—a thing -that is easily driven away—that can be -transferred from one place to another by a -mere stroke of the pen. We all of us know -the phrases. But though they express a truth, -it is partial truth only. Capital before it is -employed, when it is lying, let us say, in a -bank, to the credit of a Company that has not -yet begun operations—Capital, under such -circumstances, is no doubt altogether movable; -for before it is employed it exists as -credit only. ◆² But the moment it is employed -in manufacture, a very considerable part of it -is converted into things that are very far from -movable—into such things as buildings and -heavy machinery; and only a part remains -movable—namely that reserved for wages. -For example, M’Culloch estimates that the -average cost of a factory is about <i>one hundred -pounds</i> for every operative to be employed in -it; whilst the yearly wages of each adult male -would now on the average, be about <i>sixty -pounds</i>. Thus, if a factory is started which -will employ <i>one thousand</i> men, and if the -wages of all of them have to be paid out of<span class="pagenum" id="Page_110">[110]</span> -Capital for a year, the amount reserved for -wages will be <i>sixty thousand pounds</i>, whilst -<i>a hundred thousand pounds</i> will have been -converted into plant and buildings. Most -people are familiar with the names given -by economists to distinguish the two forms -into which employed capital divides itself. -The part which is reserved for, and paid in -wages, is called “Circulating Capital”; that -which is embodied in buildings and machinery -is called “Fixed Capital.” Of Circulating -Capital—or, as we may call it, Wage Capital—we -will speak presently. ◆³ We will speak at -first of Fixed Capital only; and of this we will -take the most essential part, namely machinery; -and for convenience sake we will omit the -accidental part, namely buildings, which -render merely the passive service of shelter.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 We shall -see that -machinery -adds to the -product of -Labour in -the same -way that a -superior -soil adds -to it;</div> - -<p>Now in any operation of manufacturing -raw material, or—what means the same thing—conveying -raw material, say water or coal -or fish, to the places where they are to be -consumed, certain machines or appliances are -necessary to enable the operation to take -place well. Thus fish or coal could hardly be -carried without a basket, whilst water could<span class="pagenum" id="Page_111">[111]</span> -certainly not be carried without some vessel, -nor in many places raised from its source -without a rope and pail. For all purposes -therefore of practical argument and calculation, -appliances of these most simple and indispensable -kinds are merged in Human Exertion, -just as is the case with the poorest kind -of Land, and are not credited separately with -any portion of the result. We do not say -the man raised so much water, and the rope -and the pail so much. We say the man -raised the whole. ◆¹ But the moment we have -to deal with appliances of an improved kind, -by which the result is increased, whilst the -labour remains the same, the case of the appliances -becomes analogous to that of superior -soils; and a portion of the result can be assigned -to them, distinct from the result of Labour.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 As a certain -simple -instance -will show.</div> - -<p>◆¹ Let us suppose, for instance, that a village -gets all its water from a cistern, to keep -which replenished takes the labour of ten -men constantly raising the water by means -of pails and ropes, and then carrying it to -the cistern, up a steep wearisome hill. These -men, we will say, receive each <i>one pound</i> a -week, the village thus paying for its water <i>five<span class="pagenum" id="Page_112">[112]</span> -hundred pounds</i> a year, the whole of which sum -goes in the remuneration of labour. We will -suppose, further, that the amount of water -thus obtained is <i>a thousand</i> gallons daily, -each man raising and carrying <i>a hundred</i> -gallons; and that this supply, though sufficient -for the necessities of the villagers, is -not sufficient for their comfort. They would -gladly have twice that amount; but they -are not able to pay for it. Such is the situation -with which we start. We have <i>a -thousand</i> gallons of water supplied daily by -the exertion of ten men, or <i>a hundred</i> gallons -by the exertion of each of them.</p> - -<p>And now let us suppose that the village is -suddenly presented with a pumping-engine, -having a handle or handles at which five of -these men can work simultaneously, and by -means of which they, working no harder than -formerly, can raise twice the amount of -water that was formerly raised by ten men—namely -<i>two thousand</i> gallons daily, instead -of <i>one thousand</i>. The villagers, therefore, -have now <i>a thousand</i> gallons daily which -they did not have before; and to what is the -supply of this extra quantity due? It is not<span class="pagenum" id="Page_113">[113]</span> -due to Labour. The Labour involved can -produce no more than formerly; indeed it -must produce less; for its quality is unchanged, -and it is halved in quantity. Obviously, then, -the extra <i>thousand</i> gallons are due to the pumping-engine, -and this not in a mere theoretical -sense, but in the most practical sense possible; -for this extra supply appears in the cistern as -soon as the engine is present, and would cease -to appear if the engine were taken away.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 It may be -also observed -that -the added -product -will go to -the owner -of the -machine, -just as rent -goes to the -owner of -the land.</div> - -<p>◆¹ And here let me pause for a moment, as I -did when I was discussing land, to point out -a fact which at the present stage of argument -has no logical place, but which should be -realised by the reader, in order to avoid misconception: -namely, the fact that the extra -water-supply which is due to the pumping-engine, -will necessarily be the property of -whoever owns the engine, just as rent will be -the property of whoever owns the land that -yields it. We supposed just now that the -owner of the engine was the village. We -supposed that the engine was presented to it. -Consequently the village owned the whole -extra <i>thousand</i> gallons. It had not to pay for -them. But let us suppose instead that the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_114">[114]</span> -engine was the property of some stranger. -Just as necessarily in that case the gallons -would belong to him; and he could command -payment for them, just as if he had carried -them to the cistern himself. We supposed -that the village was able to pay <i>five hundred -pounds</i> for its water; and that it really wanted, -for its convenience, twice as much as it could -obtain for that sum expended on human labour. -The owner of the pumping-engine, by allowing -the village to use it, doubles the water-supply, -and halves the labour bill. The expenditure -on labour sinks from <i>five hundred -pounds</i> to <i>two hundred and fifty pounds</i>; and -the owner of the pumping-engine can, it is -needless to say, command the <i>two hundred and -fifty pounds</i> which is saved to the village by its -use. In actual life, no doubt, the bargain would -be less simple; because in actual life there -would be a number of rival pumping-engines, -whose owners would reduce, by competition, -the price of the extra water; but whatever -the price might be, the principle would remain -the same. The price or the value of the -water would go to the owner of the engine; -and it would fail to do so only if one thing<span class="pagenum" id="Page_115">[115]</span> -happened—if the owner refused to receive it, -and, for some reason or other, made the -village a free gift of what the village would -be perfectly willing to buy. In this truth -there is nothing that makes for or against -Socialism. The real contention of the -Socialist is simply this—not that labour -makes what is actually made by machinery; -but that labourers ought to own the machinery, -and for that reason appropriate what is made -by it. A machine or engine, in fact, which -is used to assist labour is, in its quality of -a producing agent, just as separate from the -labour with which it co-operates, as a donkey, -in its quality of a carrying agent, is distinct -from its master, if the master is walking along -carrying one sack of corn, and guiding the -donkey who walks carrying seven.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 A machine, -then, as a -productive -agent, is as -distinct -from human -labour -as are the -efforts of an -animal.</div> - -<p>◆¹ And this brings us back into the line of -our main argument; the comparison just -made being a very apt and helpful illustration -of it. Every machine may be looked on as -a kind of domestic animal, and each new -machine as an animal of some new species; -which animals co-operate with men in the -production of certain products: and the point<span class="pagenum" id="Page_116">[116]</span> -I am urging on the reader may accordingly -be put thus. When a man, or a number of -men, without one of these animals to assist -them, produce a certain amount of some particular -product, and with the assistance of one of -these animals produce a much larger amount, -the added quantity is produced not by the men, -but by the animal—or, to drop back again into -the language of fact, by the machine.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 The history -of the -cotton industry -is a -remarkable -illustration -of this.</div> - -<p>◆¹ I have taken an imaginary case of drawing -and pumping water, because the operation is of -an exceedingly simple kind. We will now turn -from the imaginary world to the real, and clench -what has been said by an illustration from the -history of our own country—and from that -period which at present we specially have in -view—namely the close of the last century.</p> - -<p>From the year 1795 to the year 1800, -the amount of cotton manufactured in this -country was on the average about <i>thirty-seven -million pounds</i> weight annually: ten years -before it was only <i>ten million pounds</i>; ten -years before that, only <i>four million pounds</i>; -and during the previous fifty years it had been -less than <i>two and a half million pounds</i>. -The amount manufactured, up to the end of<span class="pagenum" id="Page_117">[117]</span> -this last-named period, was limited by the -fact that spinning was a much slower process -than weaving. It was performed by means -of an apparatus known as “the one-thread -wheel.” No other spinning-machine existed; -and it was the opinion of experts, about the -year 1770, that it would hardly be possible in -the course of the next thirty years, by collecting -and training to the spinning trade every -hand that could be secured for such a purpose, -to raise the annual total to so much as <i>five -million pounds</i>. As a matter of fact, however, -<i>five million pounds</i> were spun in the year 1776. -In six years’ time, the original product had -been doubled. In ten years, it had been more -than quadrupled; in twenty years, it had -increased nearly elevenfold; and in five and -twenty years, it had increased fifteenfold.<a id="FNanchor_27" href="#Footnote_27" class="fnanchor">[27]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 For every -pound of -cotton spun -by labour, -Arkwright’s -machinery -spun fourteen -pounds.</div> - -<p>◆¹ To what, then, was this extraordinary -increase due? It was due to the invention -and introduction of new spinning machinery—especially<span class="pagenum" id="Page_118">[118]</span> -to the machines invented by -Hargreaves and Arkwright, and the successive -application of horse-power, water-power, -and lastly of steam-power, to driving them. -Previous to the year 1770, such a thing as a -cotton-mill was unknown. During the ten -following years, about forty were erected in -Great Britain; in the six years following -there were erected a hundred more; and from -that time forward their number increased -rapidly, till they first absorbed, and then -more than absorbed, the whole population -that had previously conducted the industry -in their own homes. As we follow the -history of the manufacture into the present -century, a large part of the increasing gross -produce is to be set down to the increase in -the employed population; but during the -twenty-five years with which we have just -been dealing, the number of hands employed -in spinning had not more than doubled,<a id="FNanchor_28" href="#Footnote_28" class="fnanchor">[28]</a> -whilst the amount of cotton manufactured -had increased by fifteen hundred per cent.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_119">[119]</span> -It is therefore evident that the increase -during this period is due almost entirely, not -to human exertion, but to machinery.<a id="FNanchor_29" href="#Footnote_29" class="fnanchor">[29]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 The manufacture -of -iron offers -a similar -example.</div> - -<p>◆¹ And next, with more brevity, let us -consider the manufacture of iron. By and -by we shall come back to the subject; so it -will be enough here to mention a single fact -connected with it. From about the year -1740, when a careful and comprehensive -inquiry into the matter was made, up to the -year 1780, the average produce of each -smelting furnace in the country was <i>two hundred -and ninety-four tons</i> of iron annually. -Towards the close of this period machinery -had been invented by which a blast was -produced of a strength that had been unknown -previously; and in the year 1788, the -average product of each of these same furnaces<span class="pagenum" id="Page_120">[120]</span> -was <i>five hundred and ninety-five tons</i>, or very -nearly double what it had been previously. -An extra <i>two hundred and fifty tons</i> was -produced from each furnace annually: and if -we attribute the whole of the former product -to human exertion, <i>two hundred and fifty -tons</i> at all events was the product of the new -machinery; since if that had been destroyed, -the product, in proportion to the expenditure -of exertion, would at once have sunk back to -what it had been forty-eight years earlier.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 The products, -then, -of Capital -embodied -in machinery -are -easily distinguishable -from -the products -of -Labour.</div> - -<p>◆¹ Here, then, we have before us the two -principal manufactures of this country, as -they were during the closing years of the last -century; and we have seen that in each a -definite portion of the product was due to a -certain kind of capital, as distinct from human -exertion—distinct from human exertion in precisely -the same way, as we have already seen -land to be, when we find it producing rent; -and we have seen further that the products -both of this kind of Capital and of Land, -are to be distinguished from those of Human -Exertion on precisely similar principles.<a id="FNanchor_30" href="#Footnote_30" class="fnanchor">[30]</a></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_121">[121]</span></p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 In the next -chapter we -will consider -the -products -of Wage -Capital.</div> - -<p>◆¹ Machinery, however,—or fixed capital, of -which we have taken machinery as the type,—is -only a part of Capital considered as a whole. -We have still to deal with the part that is -reserved for and spent in wages; and this -will introduce us to an entirely new subject—a -subject which as yet I have not so much -as hinted at—namely human exertion considered -in an entirely new light.</p> -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_122">[122]</span></p> - -<h3 class="nobreak" id="CHAPTER_IV2">CHAPTER IV</h3> -</div> - -<p class="chapter-title"><i>Of the Products of Circulating Capital, or Wage -Capital, as distinguished from the Products of -Human Exertion.</i></p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 Wage -Capital enables -men -to undertake -work -which will -not support -them till a -considerable -time -has elapsed.</div> - -<p class="noindent">◆¹ <span class="smcap">Circulating</span> Capital, or, as it is better to call -it, Wage Capital, is practically a store of those -things which wages are used to buy—that is -to say the common necessaries of subsistence. -And the primary function—the simplest and -most obvious function—which such Capital -performs is this: it enables men, by supplying -them with the means of living, to undertake -long operations, which when completed will -produce much or be of much use, but which -until they are completed will produce nothing -and be of no use, and will consequently -supply nothing themselves to the men whilst -actually engaged in them.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 A tunnel -is a good -instance of -such work.</div> - -<p>◆¹ Let us imagine, for instance, a tunnel which<span class="pagenum" id="Page_123">[123]</span> -pierces a range of mountains, and facilitates -communication between two populous cities. -Five hundred navvies, we will say, have to -work five years to make it. Now if two yards -of tunnel were made every day, and if each -yard could be used as soon as made, the tolls -of passengers would at once yield a daily -revenue which would provide the navvies with -subsistence, as their work proceeded. But as -a matter of fact until the last day’s work is -done, and the end of the fifth year sees the -piercing of the mountain completed, the tunnel -is as useless as it was when it was only just -begun, and when it was nothing more than a -shallow cavity in a rock. Five years must -elapse before a single toll is paid, and before -the tunnel itself supplies a single human being -with the means of providing bread for even a -single day. The possibility then of the tunnel -being made at all, depends on the existence of -a five-years’ supply of necessaries, for which -indirectly the tunnel will pay hereafter, but in -producing or providing which, it has had no -share whatever.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 But the -above-mentioned -function of -Wage -Capital is -not its -principal -function in -the modern -world.</div> - -<p>Wage Capital, in fact, imparts to industry -the power of waiting for its own results. This<span class="pagenum" id="Page_124">[124]</span> -is its simplest, its most obvious, and its -primeval function. ◆¹ It has been the function -of such capital from the days of the earliest -civilisations; and it is, indeed, its fundamental -function still: but in the modern world it is -far from being its principal function. I call -its principal functions in the modern world -the functions by which during the past -century and a quarter it has produced results -so incomparably, and so increasingly greater, -than were ever produced by it in the whole -course of preceding ages.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 Its principal -function -now is -to enable a -few men of -exceptional -powers to -assist by -these -powers the -exertions -of the -ordinary -labourers.</div> - -<div class="sidenote">◆2 The -modern -employer -in this -respect -differs -from the -ancient.</div> - -<div class="sidenote">◆3 Wage -Capital in -the modern -world is the -means by -which exceptional -intellect is -lent to -Labour.</div> - -<p>◆¹ What this function is must be explained -very clearly and carefully. It is not to enable -labourers to wait for the results of their -labours. It is to enable the exceptional knowledge, -ingenuity, enterprise, and productive -genius of a few men so to animate, to organise, -and direct the average physical exertions of -the many, as to improve, to multiply, or to -hasten the results of that exertion without -increasing its quantity. All civilisations, -ancient as well as modern, have involved, in a -certain sense, the direction by the few of the -many. The temples and palaces of early -Egypt and Assyria, which excite the wonder<span class="pagenum" id="Page_125">[125]</span> -of modern engineers and architects by the -size of the blocks of stone used in their -astounding structure, are monuments of a -control, absolute and unlimited and masterly, -exercised by a few human minds over millions -of human bodies. But in that control, as -exercised in the ancient world, one element -was wanting which is the essence of modern -industry. When the masters of ancient labour -wished to multiply commodities, or to secure an -increase of power for accomplishing some single -work, the sole means known to them was to increase -the number of labourers; and when one -thousand slaves were insufficient, to reinforce -them with (let us say) four thousand more. -The masters of modern labour pursue a new -and essentially opposite course. Instead of -seeking in such a case to secure four thousand -new labourers, they seek to endow one -thousand with the industrial power of five. -◆² If Nebuchadnezzar had set himself to tunnel -a mountain, he could have hastened the work -only by flogging more slaves to it. The -modern contractor, in co-operation with the -modern inventor, instead of flogging labour, -would assist it with tram-lines, trucks, and<span class="pagenum" id="Page_126">[126]</span> -boring engines. In other words, whereas in -former ages the aim of the employing class -was simply to secure the service of an increasing -quantity of labour, the aim of the -employing class in the present age is to -increase the productive power of the same -quantity. The employing class in former ages -merely forced the employed to exert their own -industrial faculties, and appropriated what -those faculties produced. The employing class -of the present age not only commands the -employed, but it co-operates with them by -lending them faculties which they do not -themselves possess. ◆³ It applies to the guidance -of the muscles of the most ordinary worker -the profoundest knowledge of science, all the -strength of will, all the spirit of enterprise, -and the exceptional aptitude for affairs, that -distinguish the most gifted and the vigorous -characters of the day. And it is the peculiar -modern function of Capital, as spent in Wages, -to enable this result to take place.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 Wage Capital -does -this in a -way which -the socialistic -definition -of Capital -altogether -ignores.</div> - -<p>◆¹ Let us consider how it does so. Socialists tell -us that Capitalism in the modern world means -merely the appropriation by the few of all the -materials of production, so that the many<span class="pagenum" id="Page_127">[127]</span> -must either work as the few bid them, or must -starve. But this is a very small part of what -modern Capitalism means, and it is not the -essential part, nor does it even suggest the -essential part. The majority of men must -always work or starve. Nature, not modern -Capitalism, is responsible for that necessity. The -essential difference which modern Capitalism -has introduced into the situation is this—and -it is an enormous difference—that whereas in -former ages the livelihood of a man was contingent -on his working in the best way that -the average man knew, modern Capitalism has -made his livelihood contingent on his working -in the best way that exceptional men know. -Now this best way, as we shall see more -clearly presently, does not involve the forcing -of each man to work harder, or the exacting -from him any more difficult effort. It involves -merely the supplying him with a constant -external guide for even his minutest actions—a -guide for every movement of arm and hand, -or a pattern of each of the objects which are -the direct result of these movements; and -consequently the one thing which before all -others it requires is constant obedience or<span class="pagenum" id="Page_128">[128]</span> -conformity to such guides and patterns. The -entire industrial progress of the modern world -has depended, and depends altogether on this -constant obedience being secured; and the -possession of Wage Capital by the employing -class is the sole means which is possible in -the modern world of securing it. In the -ancient world the case would no doubt have -been different. The lash of the taskmaster, -the fear of prison, of death, of torture, were -then available for the stimulation and organisation -of Labour. But they are available no -longer. The masses of civilised humanity -have taken this great step—they have risen -from the level on which they could be driven -to industrial obedience, to the level on which -they must be induced to it. Obedience of -some sort is a social necessity now as ever, and -always must be: but social necessity spoke -merely to the fear of the slave; it speaks to -the will and the reason of the free labourer. -The free labourer may be, and must be, in one -or other of two positions. He may work for -himself, consuming or selling his own produce; -or he may work for an employer, who pays -him wages, and exacts in return for them not<span class="pagenum" id="Page_129">[129]</span> -work only, but work performed in a certain -prescribed way. The first position is that of -the peasant proprietor or the hand-loom -weaver. The second is that of the employee -in a mill or factory. In both cases, the voice -of social necessity, or of society, speaks to the -man’s reason, informing him of the homely -fact that he cannot live unless he labours: -but in the first case, the voice of society cries -to him out of the ground, “You will get no -food unless you labour in some way”; and in -the second case it cries to him from the mouths -of the wisest and strongest men, “You will -get no food unless you consent to labour in the -best way.”<a id="FNanchor_31" href="#Footnote_31" class="fnanchor">[31]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 Wage -Capital is -merely the -means by -which intellect -impresses -itself as -Labour;</div> - -<p>◆¹ In other words, Wage Capital in the modern -world promotes that growth of wealth by which -the modern world is distinguished, simply -because Wage Capital is the vehicle by which -the exceptional qualities of the few communicate -themselves to the whole industrial -community. The real principle of progress -and production is not in the Capital, but in the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_130">[130]</span> -qualities of the men who control it; just as -the vital force which goes to make a great -picture is not in the brush, but in the great -painter’s hand; or as the skill which pilots a -coach and four through London is not in the -reins, but in the hand of the expert coachman.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 As we can -see by -following -the steps -by which a -company -would introduce -some new -machine.</div> - -<p>◆¹ This can easily be seen by turning our -attention once again to machinery, and -supposing that a company is floated for the -improved manufacture of something by means -of some new invention. The directors must -of course begin with securing a site for the -factory; but with this exception their entire -initial expenditure will directly or indirectly -consist in the payment of wages—in purchasing -the services of a certain number of men -by whose exertions certain masses of raw -material are to be produced and fashioned -into certain definite forms—that is to say, into -the new machinery and a suitable building to -protect it.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 The whole -success of -such a -company -depends on -the amount -of intellect -used in the -expenditure -of the -Wage -Capital.</div> - -<p>◆¹ Now, the powers of these men resemble -a mass of fluid metal which is capable of -being run into any variety of mould. If -the directors were bound by no articles of -association, and if, at their first board<span class="pagenum" id="Page_131">[131]</span> -meeting, before they had entered into any -contract for the machinery, some other -invention for the manufacture of some other -commodity were suddenly brought to their -notice, and happened to take their fancy, the -men they were on the point of employing to -produce one kind of machinery might, with -equal ease, be employed to produce another. -We will assume that the machinery which -the men are set to produce actually is a -great improvement on anything of the kind -used hitherto, and ends in adding greatly to -the productive powers of the nation; but, so -far as the men are concerned whose exertions -are paid for out of the capital of the company, -the machinery might just as well have been -absolutely valueless—a mere aggregation of -wheels and axles, as meaningless as a madman’s -dream. What makes their exertions -not only useful instead of useless, but more -useful than any exertion similarly applied -had ever been hitherto, is, firstly, the ingenuity -of the inventor of the new machine; -secondly, the judgment of the promoters and -directors of the company; and lastly, the -confidence in their judgment felt by the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_132">[132]</span> -subscribing public. Or, we may suppose the -inventor to have himself supplied the Capital, -and to unite in himself the parts of the directors -and the shareholders. In that case the -exertions of the men employed derive their -value entirely from the talent of this one man. -The men employed by him, we will say, number -a thousand, and the Wage Capital he owns -and administers aids and increases production -only because it is the means by which the one -man induces the thousand to accept him as -the steersman of their exertions, and to allow -him to direct their course towards new and -remote results which for them lie hidden behind -the horizon of contemporary habit or -ignorance.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 The case of -Arkwright’s -spinning-frame -illustrates -this.</div> - -<p>◆¹ Let us take an actual case—the case of -Arkwright’s spinning-frame. This invention, -which was destined to influence the prosperity -of so many millions, was in great danger of -being altogether lost, simply on account of the -difficulty experienced by the inventor in securing -sufficient capital to construct and perfect -his machine, and, what was equally necessary, -to exhibit it in actual use. After many rebuffs -and disappointments, a sum was at last<span class="pagenum" id="Page_133">[133]</span> -advanced him by a certain firm of bankers—the -Messrs. Wright of Nottingham; but before -the preliminary experiments had advanced far -their courage failed them, they repented of -what they had done, and they passed the -inventor on to two other capitalists whose -insight was fortunately keener, and whose -characters were more courageous. These -gentlemen, Mr. Need and Mr. Strutt of Derby, -took Arkwright into partnership, and by means -of the Capital which they placed at his disposal, -his machine, which till now had existed only in -his own brain and in a few unfinished models, -was before long in operation, and a new industrial -era was inaugurated. Now, to the accomplishment -of this result Wage Capital was -essential; but it was essential only as the -means of giving effect to the genius and strong -character of certain specially gifted persons—Arkwright -with his marvellous inventive -genius, Messrs. Need and Strutt with their -sagacity and spirit and enterprise. If it had -not been for the qualities of these three men, -the wages paid to the labourers who made the -machine of Arkwright would have probably -been paid indeed to the very same labourers,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_134">[134]</span> -but their exertions would have been directed -to producing some different product—some -product which added nothing to the existing -powers of the community.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 Now machinery -is -necessarily -Wage -Capital -congealed;</div> - -<p>◆¹ Machinery, therefore, or Fixed Capital, -though it differs as soon as it is made from -Capital employed in wages, is the result of the -use of such Capital, and is indeed but another -form of it. And now comes the point on which -I am concerned to insist here: that conversely -Wage Capital, when employed so as to increase -the productivity of labour,—in other words -when employed by men with the requisite -capacity,—is in its essence but another form -of machinery. Machinery may be called congealed -Wage Capital. Wage Capital may be -called fluid machinery. For the function of -both—namely, to increase wealth—is the -same, and they fulfil this function by means of -the same virtue residing in them. It is easy -to see the truth of this. The increase of wealth -means the improvement and multiplication of -commodities which reward the exertions of the -same number of men. The number and quality -of these commodities are increased by application -of Capital, because Capital enables persons<span class="pagenum" id="Page_135">[135]</span> -who are exceptionally gifted to control and -direct the exertions of the majority; and Capital, -as embodied in machinery, differs from Capital -continuously employed in wages, only because -the former gives us machinery which is inanimate, -and the latter, machinery which is -living. For a thousand men so organised as -to produce some given product or result, and -to produce it with the greatest precision or in -the least possible time, are to all intents and -purposes as much an invention and a machine -as a thousand wheels or rollers adjusted for a -similar purpose.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 And therefore -all -Capital, -equally -with Wage -Capital, -represents -the control -of Intellect -over -Labour—or -one kind -of Human -Exertion -over -another.</div> - -<p>◆¹ All Capital, therefore, in all its distinctively -modern applications—all those applications -which have caused what is called industrial -progress—is virtually this, and this only: it -is the exceptional capacities of one set of men -applied to the average capacities of another -set. We may accordingly include all Capital—fixed -and circulating—under one head, and -say of it as a whole what in the last chapter -was said of machinery: that when by its -application to the exertions of a given number -of men a larger product results than resulted -from them before it was applied, Capital is to<span class="pagenum" id="Page_136">[136]</span> -be credited with producing the amount of -the increase; or—to put the same thing in -another way—with the amount of the decrease -which would result if its application -were withdrawn.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 This aspect -of the -question -will be -considered -further in -the next -chapter.</div> - -<p>How this is the case with machinery I -have already illustrated by examples. It is -less easy to illustrate by examples, but equally -easy to see how it is the case with Capital -continuously employed as wages. It is less -easy to select illustrations, because the whole -of modern progress is itself one great, though -infinitely complex example of it; and it will -be enough here as we shall recur to the subject -presently, to consider one obvious and very -familiar fact. Many new commodities, and -many new methods of production, depend on -the invention not of new machines, but of -new processes. The Capital employed in -working a new process is mainly employed as -wages, by the administration of which the -actions of the workmen are guided, controlled, -and organised. Thus if fifty men, working -independently and selling their own produce, -produce a hundred articles of a certain sort -weekly, and another fifty men, ◆¹ working for a<span class="pagenum" id="Page_137">[137]</span> -wage-paying employer, produce, owing to the -way in which their labour is guided and -organised, just double the number of such -articles in the same time, we shall say that -the hundred extra articles are the product of -Wage Capital, just as we should say, if the -increased production had been due to the -introduction of a machine, that these extra -hundred articles were the product of Fixed -Capital. And in both cases we should mean, -as I am now going to insist more particularly, -that they were really the product of the -capacities which each kind of Capital represents. -This brings us to the heart of the -whole problem.</p> -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_138">[138]</span></p> - -<h3 class="nobreak" id="CHAPTER_VB2">CHAPTER V</h3> -</div> - -<p class="chapter-title"><i>That the Chief Productive Agent in the modern world -is not Labour, but Ability, or the Faculty which -directs Labour.</i></p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 What was -said in the -last chapter -shows -that productive -Human -Exertion is -of two -kinds, and -does not -consist only -of what is -meant by -Labour,</div> - -<div class="sidenote">◆2 As familiar -instances -will show -us.</div> - -<p class="noindent">◆¹ <span class="smcap">I said</span> in the last chapter that machinery or -Fixed Capital was congealed Wage Capital. But -as Wage Capital is metamorphosed into machinery -only owing to the fact that it is at once -the instrument and the guide of Human Exertion, -machinery may be called congealed exertion -also. This description of it is but half original; -for Socialistic writers have for a long time called -it “congealed Labour.” But between the two -phrases there is a great and fundamental difference, -and I now bring them thus together to -show what the difference is. The first includes -the whole meaning of the second, whereas the -second includes only a part of the meaning of -the first. Let us take the finest bronze statue -that was ever made, and also the worst, the<span class="pagenum adjust1" id="Page_139">[139]</span> -feeblest, the most ridiculous. ◆² Both can with -equal accuracy be called congealed Labour; but -to call them this is just as useless a truism as -to call them congealed bronze. It describes -the point in which the two statues resemble -each other; it tells us nothing of what is far -more important—the points in which the two -statues differ. They differ because, whilst both -are congealed Labour, the one is also congealed -imagination of the highest order, the other is -also congealed imagination of the lowest. The -excellence of the metal and of the casting may -be the same in both cases. Or again, let us -take a vessel like the <i>City of Paris</i>, and let -us take also the vessel that was known as the -<i>Bessemer Steamer</i>. The <i>Bessemer Steamer</i> -was fitted with a sort of rocking saloon, which, -when the vessel rolled, was expected to remain -level. The contrivance was a complete failure. -The hundreds of thousands of pounds spent on -it were practically thrown away, and the structure -ended by being sold as old iron. Now -these two vessels were equally congealed Labour, -and congealed Labour of precisely the same -quality; for the workmen employed on the -<i>Bessemer Steamer</i> were as skilful as those<span class="pagenum adjust1" id="Page_140">[140]</span> -employed on the <i>City of Paris</i>. And yet the -Labour in the one case was congealed into a -piece of lumber, and in the other case it was -congealed into one of the most perfect of those -living links by which the lives of two worlds -are united. To call both the vessels, then, -congealed Labour, only tells us how success -resembles failure, not how it differs from it. -The <i>City of Paris</i> differs from the <i>Bessemer -Steamer</i> because the <i>City of Paris</i> was congealed -judgment, and the <i>Bessemer Steamer</i> -was congealed misjudgment.</p> - -<p>It is therefore evident that in <i>using</i> -Capital so as to make Labour more efficacious, -as distinct from <i>wasting</i> Capital so as to make -Labour nugatory, some other human faculties -are involved distinct from the faculty of -Labour; and I have employed, except when it -would have been mere pedantry to do so, the -term “Human Exertion” instead of the term -“Labour,” because the former includes those -other faculties, and the latter does not; or, if -it includes them, it entirely fails to distinguish -them, and merely confounds them with faculties -from which they fundamentally differ. Thus, -when I pointed out in the last chapter that<span class="pagenum" id="Page_141">[141]</span> -Capital, in so far as it increased the productivity -of Labour, was mental and moral energy as applied -to muscular energy, I might have said with -equal propriety, had my argument advanced -far enough, that it was one kind of Human -Exertion guiding and controlling another -kind. Here we come to the great central fact -which forms the key to the whole economic -problem: the fact that in the production of -wealth two kinds of Human Exertion are involved, -and not, as economists have hitherto -told us, one—two kinds of exertion absolutely -distinct, and, as we shall see presently, following -different laws.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 Economic -writers -vaguely -recognise -this fact, -but have -never -formally -expressed -it, or made -it a part of -their -systems.</div> - -<div class="sidenote">◆2 They confuse -all -productive -exertion -together -under the -heading of -Labour.</div> - -<p>◆¹ Economic writers, like the world in general, -do indeed recognise, in an unscientific way, -that productive exertion exhibits itself under -many various forms; but their admissions and -statements with regard to this point are entirely -confused and stultified by the almost ludicrous -persistence with which they classify all these -forms under the single heading of Labour. -Mill, for instance, says that a large part of -profits are really wages of the labour of superintendence. -He speaks of “the labour of the -invention of industrial processes,” “the labour<span class="pagenum" id="Page_142">[142]</span> -of Watt in contriving the steam-engine,” and -even of “the labour of the savant and the -speculative thinker.” ◆² He employs the same -word to describe the effort that invented Arkwright’s -spinning-frame, and the commonest -muscular movement of any one of the mechanics -who assisted with hammer or screwdriver to -construct it under Arkwright’s direction. He -employs the same word to describe the power -that perfected the electric telegraph, and the -power that hangs the wires from pole to pole, -like clothes-lines. He confuses under one -heading the functions of the employer and the -employed—of the men who lead in industry, -and of the men who follow. He calls them all -labourers, and he calls their work Labour.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 But practically, -Labour -means -muscular -or manual -exertion.</div> - -<div class="sidenote">◆2 Mental and -moral exertion, -as -applied to -production, -must therefore -be -given -another -name:</div> - -<p>Now were the question merely one of literary -or philosophical propriety, this inclusive -use of the word Labour might be defensible; -but we have nothing to do here with the -niceties of such trivial criticism. We are concerned -not with what a word might be made -to mean, but what it practically does mean; -and if we appeal to the ordinary use of language,—not -only its use by the mass of ordinary -men, but its most frequent use by economic<span class="pagenum" id="Page_143">[143]</span> -writers also,—we shall find that the word Labour -has a meaning which is practically settled; -and we shall find that this meaning is not an -inclusive one, but exclusive. ◆¹ We shall find -that Labour practically means muscular Labour, -or at all events some form of exertion of which -men—common men—are as universally capable, -and that it not only never naturally includes -any other idea, but distinctly and emphatically -excludes it. For instance, when Mill in his -<i>Principles of Political Economy</i> devotes one -of his chapters to the future of the “Labouring -Classes,” he instinctively uses the phrase as -meaning manual labourers. When, as not -unfrequently happens, some opulent politician -says to a popular audience, “I, too, am a -labouring man,” he is either understood to be -saying something which is only true metaphorically, -or is jeered at as saying something -which is not true at all. Probably no two -men in the United Kingdom have worked -harder or for longer hours than Mr. Gladstone -and Lord Salisbury; yet no one could call Mr. -Gladstone a labour member, or say that Lord -Salisbury was an instance of a labouring man -being a peer. The Watts, the Stevensons, the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_144">[144]</span> -Whitworths, the Bessemers, the Armstrongs, -the Brasseys, are, according to the formal -definition of the economists, one and all of -them labourers. But what man is there who, -if, in speaking of a strike, he were to say that -he supported or opposed the claims of Labour, -would be understood as meaning the claims of -employers and millionaires like these? It is -evident that no one would understand him in -such a sense; and if he used the word <i>Labour</i> -thus, he would be merely trifling with language. -The word, for all practical purposes, has its -meaning unequivocally fixed. It does not -mean all Human Exertion; it emphatically -means a part of it only. It means muscular -and manual exertion, or exertion of which the -ordinary man is capable, as distinct from industrial -exertion of any other kind; and not -only as distinct from it, but as actively opposed -to and struggling with it. Since, then, we -have to deal with distinct and opposing things, -it is idle to attempt to discuss them under one -and the same name. ◆² To do so would be like -describing the Franco-Prussian War with only -one name for both armies—the soldiers; or -like attempting to explain the composition of<span class="pagenum" id="Page_145">[145]</span> -water, with only one name for oxygen and -hydrogen—the gas. Accordingly, for the industrial -exertion—exertion moral and mental—which -is distinct from Labour and opposed -to it, we must find some separate and some -distinctive name; and the name which I propose -to use for this purpose is Ability.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 In this -book it will -be called -Ability.</div> - -<div class="sidenote">◆2 There is, -however, a -deeper -distinction -between -the two -than the -fact of one -being -mental and -the other -muscular.</div> - -<p>◆¹ Human Exertion then, as applied to the -production of wealth, is of two distinct kinds: -Ability and Labour—the former being essentially -moral or mental exertion, and only incidentally -muscular; the latter being mainly muscular, -and only moral or mental in a comparatively -unimportant sense. ◆² This difference between -them, however, though accidentally it is always -present, and is what at first strikes the observation, -is not the fundamental difference. The -fundamental difference is of quite another kind. -It lies in the following fact: That Labour is a -kind of exertion on the part of the individual, -which begins and ends with each separate -task it is employed upon, whilst Ability is a -kind of exertion on the part of the individual -which is capable of affecting simultaneously -the labour of an indefinite number of individuals, -and thus hastening or perfecting the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_146">[146]</span> -accomplishment of an indefinite number of -tasks.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 The vital -distinction -is that the -Labour of -one man -affects one -task only; -the Ability -of one man -may affect -an indefinite -number.</div> - -<p>◆¹ This vital distinction, hitherto so entirely -neglected, should be written in letters of fire -on the mind of everybody who wishes to -understand, to improve, or even to discuss -intelligibly, the economic conditions of a -country such as ours. Unless it is recognised, -and terms are found to express it, it is impossible -to think clearly about the question; -much more is it impossible to argue clearly -about it: for men’s thoughts, even if for -moments they are correct and clear, will be -presently tripped up and entangled in the -language they are obliged to use. Thus, we -constantly find that when men have declared -all wealth to be due to Labour, more or less -consciously including Ability in the term, -they go on to speak of Labour and the labouring -classes, more or less consciously excluding -it; and we can hardly open a review or a -newspaper, or listen to a speech on any -economic problem, without finding the labouring -classes spoken of as “the producers,” to the -obvious and intentional exclusion of the classes -who exercise Ability; whereas it can be demonstrated,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_147">[147]</span> -as we shall see in another chapter, -that of the wealth enjoyed by this country -to-day, Labour produces little more than a -third.</p> - -<p>Let us go back then to the definitions I -have just now given, and insist on them and -enlarge them and explain them, so as to -make them absolutely clear.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 Familiar -examples -will show -the truth -of this.</div> - -<p>Labour, I said, is a kind of exertion on -the part of the individual, which begins and -ends with each separate task it is employed -upon; whilst Ability is a kind of exertion on -the part of the individual which is capable of -affecting simultaneously the labour of an indefinite -number of individuals. ◆¹ Here are -some examples. An English navvy, it is said, -will do more work in a day than a French -navvy; he will dig or wheel away more barrow-loads -of earth; but the greater power of the -one, if the two work together, has no tendency -to communicate itself to the other. The one, -let us say, will wheel twelve barrow-loads, -whilst the other will wheel ten. We will -imagine, then, a gang of ten French navvies, -who in a given time wheel a hundred barrow-loads. -One of them dies, and his place is<span class="pagenum" id="Page_148">[148]</span> -taken by an Englishman. The Englishman -wheels twelve loads instead of ten; but the -rest of the gang continue to wheel ten only. -Let us suppose, however, that the Englishman, -instead of being a navvy, is a little cripple who -has this kind of ability—that he can show -the navvies how to attack with their picks -each separate ton of earth in the most efficacious -way, and how to run their barrows -along the easiest tracks or gradients. He -might quite conceivably enable the nine -Frenchmen to wheel fifteen barrow-loads in -the time that they formerly consumed in -wheeling ten; and thus, though the gang -contained one labourer less than formerly, -yet owing to the presence of one man of -ability, the efficacy of its exertions would be -increased by fifty per cent. Or again, let -us take the case of some machine, whose -efficiency is in proportion to the niceness with -which certain of its parts are finished. The -skilled workman whose labour finishes such -parts contributes by doing so to the efficiency -of that one machine only; he does nothing -to influence the labour of any other workman, -or facilitate the production of any other<span class="pagenum" id="Page_149">[149]</span> -machine similar to it. But the man who, -by his inventive ability, makes the machine -simpler, or introduces into it some new -principle, so that, without requiring so much -or such skilled labour to construct it, it will, -when constructed, be twice as efficient as -before, may, by his ability, affect individual -machines without number, and increase the -efficiency of the labour of many millions of -workmen. Such a case as this is specially -worth considering, because it exposes an error -to which I shall again refer hereafter—the -error often made by economic writers, of -treating Ability as a species of Skilled Labour. -For Skilled Labour is itself so far from being -the same thing as Ability, that it is in some -respects more distinct from it than Labour of -more common kinds; for the secret of it is -less capable of being communicated to other -labourers. For instance, one of the most -perfect chronometers ever made—namely, that -invented by Mudge in the last century—required -for its construction Labour of such -unusual nicety, that though two specimens, -made under the direct supervision of the -inventor, went with an accuracy that has<span class="pagenum" id="Page_150">[150]</span> -not since been surpassed, the difficulty of -reproducing them rendered the invention -valueless. But the great example of this -particular truth is to be found in a certain -fact connected with the history of the steam-engine—a -fact which is little known, whose -significance has never been realised, and which -I shall mention a little later on. It may thus -be said with regard to the production of -wealth generally, that it will be limited in -proportion to the exceptionally skilled labour -it requires, whilst it will be increased in proportion -to the exceptional ability that is -applied to it.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 We shall -now be able -to describe -Capital -accurately -as <i>Ability</i> -controlling -<i>Labour</i>.</div> - -<p>◆¹ The difference, then, between Ability and -Labour must be now abundantly clear. As -a general rule, there is the broad difference on -the surface, that the one is mainly mental -and the other mainly muscular; but to this -rule there are many exceptions, and the difference -in question is accidental and superficial. -The essential, the fundamental difference from -a practical point of view is, that whilst -Labour is the exertion of a single man applied -to a single task, Ability is the exertion of a -single man applied to an indefinite number<span class="pagenum" id="Page_151">[151]</span> -of tasks, and an indefinite number of individuals.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 It is, of -course, -understood -that this -definition -applies -only to -Capital -used so as -actually to -make -Labour -more productive, -not to -Capital -wasted.</div> - -<p>◆¹ And now let us go back to the subject of -Capital. I have said that Capital is one kind -of Human Exertion guiding and controlling -another kind. We can at last express this -with more brevity, and say that Capital is -Ability guiding and controlling Labour. This -is no mere rhetorical or metaphorical statement. -It is the accurate expression of what -is at once a theoretical truth and an historical -fact; and to show the reader that it is so, -let me remove certain objections which may -very possibly suggest themselves. In the -first place, it may be said that Capital belongs -constantly to idle and foolish persons, or -even indeed to idiots, to all of whom it yields -a revenue. This is true; but such an objection -altogether ignores the fact that though -such persons own the Capital, they do not -administer it. An idiot inherits shares in a -great commercial house; but the men who -manage the business are not idiots. They -only pay the idiot a certain sum for allowing -his Capital to be made use of by their Ability. -It may, however, be said further that many<span class="pagenum" id="Page_152">[152]</span> -men, neither idle nor idiotic, had administered -Capital themselves, and had succeeded merely -in wasting it. This again is true; but where -Capital is wasted the productive powers of -the nation are not increased by it. It is, -however, a broad historical fact that, by the -application of Capital the productive powers -of the nation have been increasing continually -for more than a hundred years, and are increasing -still; and this is the fact, or the -phenomenon, which we are engaged in studying. -Capital for us, then, means Capital -applied successfully; and when I say that -Capital is Ability guiding and controlling -Labour, it is of Capital applied successfully, -and not of Capital wasted, that I must in -every case be understood to be speaking; just -as if it were said that a battle was won by -British bayonets, the bayonets meant would -be those that the combatants used, not those -that deserters happened to throw away. The -fact, indeed, that in certain hands so much -Capital is thrown away and wasted, is nothing -but a proof of what I say, that as a productive -agent Capital represents, and practically -<i>is</i>, Ability.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_153">[153]</span></p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 Capital is -to Ability -something -like what -the brain -is to the -mind.</div> - -<p>It may, however, be said—and the objection -is worth noticing—that Capital is a -material thing, and Ability a mental thing; -and it may be asked how, except metaphorically, -the one can be said to be the other? -◆¹ An answer may be given by the analogy of -the mind and brain. So long as the mind -inhabits and directs a human body, mind -and matter are two sides of the same thing. -It is only through the brain that mind has -power over the muscles; and the brain is -powerful only because it is the organ of the -mind. Now Ability is to Capital what mind -is to the brain; and, like mind and brain, -the two terms may be used interchangeably. -Capital is that through which the Ability of -one set of men acts on the muscles—that is -to say, the Labour—of another set, whether by -setting Labour to produce machinery, or by so -organising various multitudes of labourers -that each multitude becomes a single machine -in itself, or by settling or devising the uses to -which these machines shall be put.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 And this -would be -as true of -Capital in a -Socialistic -State as in -any other.</div> - -<p>And it will be well, in case any Socialist -should happen to read these pages, to point -out that my insisting on this fact is no<span class="pagenum" id="Page_154">[154]</span> -piece of special pleading on behalf of the -private capitalist. ◆¹ The whole of the above -argument would apply to Capital, no matter -who owned it: individuals, or the community -as a whole. For no matter who owned it, -or who divided the proceeds of it, the entire -control of it would have to be in the hands of -Ability. In what, or how many, individuals -Ability may be held to reside; how such individuals -are best found, tested, and brought -forward; and how their power over Capital -may be best attained by them—whether as -owners, or as borrowers, or as State officials,—is -a totally different question, and is in this -place beside the point.</p> - -<p>At present, it will be enough to sum up -what we have seen thus far. The causes of -wealth are not, as is commonly said, three: -Land, Labour, and Capital. This analysis -omits the most important cause altogether, -and makes it impossible to explain, or even -reason about, the phenomenon of industrial -progress. The causes of wealth are four—Land, -Labour, Capital, and Ability: the two first -being the indispensable elements in the production -of any wealth whatsoever; the fourth<span class="pagenum" id="Page_155">[155]</span> -being the cause of all progress in production; -and the third, as it now exists, being the -creation of the fourth, and the means through; -which it operates. These two last, as we shall -see presently, may, except for special purposes, -be treated as only one, and will be best included -under the one term Ability.</p> - -<p>And now let us turn back to the condition -of this country at the close of the last century, -and the reader will see why, at the outset of -the above inquiry, I fixed his attention on -that particular period.</p> -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_156">[156]</span></p> - -<h3 class="nobreak" id="CHAPTER_VIB2">CHAPTER VI</h3> -</div> - -<p class="chapter-title"><i>Of the Addition made during the last Hundred Years -by Ability to the Product of the National Labour. -This Increment the Product of Ability.</i></p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 Let us now -turn to the -history of -production -in this -country -during the -past hundred -years;</div> - -<p class="noindent">◆¹ <span class="smcap">I have</span> already said something—but in very -general terms—of what, at the close of the -last century, the wealth of this country was. -Let us now consider the subject a little more -in detail, though we need not trouble ourselves -with a great many facts and figures. The -comparatively backward state of Ireland makes -it easier to deal with Great Britain only; and -the income of Great Britain was then, as I have -said already, about <i>a hundred and forty million -pounds</i> annually. This amount was, as has been -said already, also produced by Land, Capital, -and Human Exertion, or, as we are now able to -put it, by Land, Labour, Capital, and Ability;<span class="pagenum adjust1" id="Page_157">[157]</span> -and according to the principles which I have -already carefully explained, had the statistics -of industry been recorded as fully as they are -now, we should be able to assign to each cause -a definite proportion of the product. Of what -the Land produced, as distinct from the three -other causes, we are indeed able to speak with -sufficient accuracy as it is. It was practically -the amount taken in rent; and the amount taken -in rent was about <i>twenty-five million pounds</i>, or -something between a fifth and sixth of the -total. But the proportion produced respectively -by Labour, Capital, and Ability cannot be -determined with the same ease or exactness. -There are, however, connected with this -question, a number of well-known and highly -significant facts, to a few of which I will call -the reader’s attention.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 And consider -the -enormous -increase -both in -agricultural -production,</div> - -<p>◆¹ Between the years 1750 and 1800, the -population of Great Britain increased by barely -so much as twenty-five per cent. It rose from -about eight millions to about ten. Now during -that period the number of hands employed -in manufactures increased proportionally far -faster than the total population. The cotton-spinners, -for instance, increased from <i>forty</i> to<span class="pagenum" id="Page_158">[158]</span> -<i>eighty thousand</i>.<a id="FNanchor_32" href="#Footnote_32" class="fnanchor">[32]</a> Such being the case, it -is of course evident that the increase of -agricultural labourers cannot have been very -great. It can hardly have been, at the utmost, -so much as eighteen per cent.<a id="FNanchor_33" href="#Footnote_33" class="fnanchor">[33]</a> And now let -us glance at the history of agricultural products, -as indicated by a few typical facts. In -the year 1688, the number of sheep in Great -Britain was estimated at <i>twelve millions</i>. In -the year 1774, the number was estimated at -almost the same figure; but between the years -1774 and 1800, this <i>twelve millions</i> had risen -to <i>twenty millions</i>. During the same twenty-six -years, the number of cattle had increased -in almost the same proportion. That is to say, -live-stock had increased by seventy-five per -cent. Between the years 1750 and 1780 there -was an average annual increase in agricultural -capital of <i>seven million three hundred thousand -pounds</i>. But from the years 1780 and 1800 -there was an average annual increase of <i>twenty-six -million pounds</i>; whilst between the years<span class="pagenum" id="Page_159">[159]</span> -1750 and 1800 the farmer’s income had very -nearly doubled,<a id="FNanchor_34" href="#Footnote_34" class="fnanchor">[34]</a> and the total products of -agriculture had increased sixty per cent.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 And in -manufactures,</div> - -<div class="sidenote">◆2 That had -recently -taken place -at the close -of the last -century.</div> - -<p>◆¹ And now let us turn to manufactures. -These, as a whole, had advanced more slowly; -but the advance of certain of them had been -yet more rapid and striking. It will be -enough to mention two: the manufacture of -cotton, to which I have called attention -already; and an industry yet more important—the -manufacture of iron. ◆² The amount of pig-iron -produced annually in Great Britain during -the earlier part of the last century was not more -than <i>twenty thousand tons</i>;<a id="FNanchor_35" href="#Footnote_35" class="fnanchor">[35]</a> at the close of the -century it was more than <i>a hundred and eighty -thousand</i>. What may have been the increase -in the amount of labour employed, cannot be -said with certainty; but it cannot have been -comparable to the increase of the product, which -was, as we have just seen, eight hundred per cent;<span class="pagenum" id="Page_160">[160]</span> -and it may again be mentioned that one single -set of inventions, in the course of eight years, -nearly doubled the product of each individual -smelting furnace.<a id="FNanchor_36" href="#Footnote_36" class="fnanchor">[36]</a> As to the cotton industry, -our information is more complete. The amount -of labour was doubled in forty years. The product -was increased fifteen-fold in twenty-five.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 We shall -see how -obviously -a part at -least of this -increase -must have -been due to -Ability and -Capital.</div> - -<div class="sidenote">◆2 And that -Labour -cannot -really have -produced -the whole.</div> - -<p>◆¹ My present aim, however, is to make no -exact calculation respecting the extent to -which production, taken as a whole, had during -the period in question outstripped the increase -of Labour; but merely to show the reader that -the extent was very large; and that, according -to the principles explained already, it was due -altogether to the operation of Capital and -Ability—or, to speak more exactly, of Ability -operating through Capital. The truth of this -statement with regard to the increase of -manufactures has been shown and illustrated -by the instance of Arkwright and the cotton -industry. It will be well to mention at this -point several analogous instances taken from<span class="pagenum" id="Page_161">[161]</span> -the history of agriculture. ◆² Elkington, who -inaugurated a new system of drainage, will -supply us with one. One still more remarkable -is supplied by Bakewell, who may be said to -have played in practical life a part resembling -that which Darwin has played in speculation. -He discovered the method of improving the -breeds of sheep and cattle by a system of -selection and crossing that was not before -known; and it was owing to the ability of -this one man that “the breed of animals in -England,” as Mr. Lecky points out, “was -probably more improved in the course of a -single fifty years than in all the recorded -centuries that preceded it.” The close connection -of such improvements with Capital is -the constant theme of Arthur Young, though -he was not consciously anything of a political -economist, nor did he attempt to express his -opinion in scientific language. But a still -more effective witness is a distinguished -modern Radical, Professor Thorold Rogers, who, -though always ready, and, as many people -would say, eager to espouse the side of Labour -as against Capital and Ability,—especially -when the two last belonged to the landed class—is<span class="pagenum" id="Page_162">[162]</span> -yet compelled to assert as emphatically -as Young himself, that the Ability and the -Capital of this very class were in the last century -“the pioneers of agricultural progress”—a -progress which he illustrates by these -picturesque examples: that it raised the -average weight of the fatted ox from 400 lbs. -to 1200 lbs., and increased the weight of the -average fleece fourfold.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 Therefore -it is plain -that Labour -would -not have -created -the whole -of the -national -income a -hundred -years ago. -But for -argument’s -sake we -will concede -that it -produced -the whole.</div> - -<p>◆¹ It will therefore be apparent to every -reader, that of the income of Great Britain at -the close of the last century, Ability and -Capital, as distinct from Labour, created a -considerable part, though we need not determine -what part. Accordingly, since the -income of Great Britain, with a population of -<i>ten millions</i>, was at that time about <i>a hundred -and forty million pounds</i>, or <i>fourteen pounds</i> -per head,<a id="FNanchor_37" href="#Footnote_37" class="fnanchor">[37]</a> it is evident that the Labour of a<span class="pagenum" id="Page_163">[163]</span> -population of <i>ten millions</i> was quite incapable, -a hundred years ago, of producing by itself as -much as <i>fourteen pounds</i> per head.<a id="FNanchor_38" href="#Footnote_38" class="fnanchor">[38]</a> I will, -however, merely for the sake of argument, and -of keeping a calculation I am about to make -far within the limits which strict truth would -warrant, make a preposterous concession to any -possible objector. I will concede that Labour -by itself produced the entire value in question, -and that Ability, as distinct from Labour, had -nothing at all to do with it. I will concede -that the faculties which produced the machines -of Arkwright, which had already turned steam -into an infant Hercules of industry, and was -pouring into this island the wealth of the -farthest Indies, were faculties of the same order -as those which were possessed by any waggoner -who had driven the same waggon along the -same ruts for a lifetime. And I will now -proceed to the calculation I spoke of. I shall -state it first, and establish its truth afterwards.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 The whole -income of -Great Britain -at that -time was -<i>a hundred -and forty -million -pounds</i>, -and the -population -<i>ten -millions</i>. -Hence, as -will be -shown in -the next -Book, we -get an -indication -of the utmost -that -Labour -alone can -produce. -Now, a -population -of <i>ten -millions</i> -at present -produces -<i>three -hundred -and fifty -millions</i> -annually.</div> - -<p>◆¹ It will be seen, from what has just been<span class="pagenum" id="Page_164">[164]</span> -said, that a hundred years ago the utmost -that Labour could produce in the most -advanced country of Europe was <i>a hundred -and forty million pounds</i> annually for a -population of <i>ten millions</i>, or—let me repeat—<i>fourteen -pounds</i> per head. The production -per head is now <i>thirty-five pounds</i>; or, for each -ten millions of population, <i>three hundred and -fifty millions</i>. The point on which presently I -shall insist at length is this: that if Labour is -to be credited with producing the whole of the -smaller sum, the entire difference between the -smaller sum and the larger is to be credited -to Ability operating on industry through -Capital. That is to say, for every <i>three -hundred and fifty millions</i> of our present -national income, Labour produces only <i>a -hundred and forty millions</i> whilst Ability -and Capital produce <i>two hundred and ten</i>. -But the fact may be put yet more clearly -than this. Of our present national income -of <i>thirteen hundred millions</i>, Labour produces -about <i>five hundred</i>, whilst Ability and -Capital produce about <i>eight hundred</i>. It -could indeed be shown, as I just now -indicated, that Labour in reality produces<span class="pagenum" id="Page_165">[165]</span> -less than this, and Ability and Capital more; -but for argument’s sake we will let the -calculation stand thus, in order that Labour -shall be at all events credited with not less -than its due.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 And it will -accordingly -be shown -in the next -Book that -the whole -of this -increment -is produced -by Ability, -and not by -Labour.</div> - -<p>◆¹ And now as to Capital and Ability, and the -<i>eight hundred millions</i> produced by them, what -has just been said can be put in a simpler way. -Capital is not only the material means through -which Ability acts on and assists Labour, but -it is a material means which Ability has -itself created. So long as Labour alone was -the principal productive agent, those vast -accumulations which are distinctive of the -modern world were unknown and impossible. -Professor Thorold Rogers has pointed out how -small was the Capital of this country at so late -a date as the close of the seventeenth century. -Labour alone was unable to supply a surplus -from which any such accumulation as we now -call Capital could be taken. These became -possible only by the increasing action of Ability. -They were taken from the products which -Ability added to the products of Labour, -Capital therefore <i>is</i> Ability in a double sense—not -only in the sense that as a productive<span class="pagenum" id="Page_166">[166]</span> -agent it represents Ability, but in the sense -that Ability has created it. We may therefore -for the present leave Capital entirely out of -our discussion, regarding it as comprehended -under the term and the idea of Ability; -although when we come to consider the -question of distribution, we shall have to -take account of the distinction between the -two. But for the present we are concerned -with the problem of production only; and -in dealing with that part of it which alone -is now before us, we have to do only with -two, and not three forces—not with Labour, -Ability, and Capital, but with Labour and -Ability only.</p> - -<p>The calculation, therefore, which was put -forward just now may be expressed in yet -simpler terms. Of our present national income -of <i>thirteen hundred millions</i>, Labour produces -<i>five hundred millions</i> and Ability <i>eight -hundred</i>. And now comes another point which -yet remains to be mentioned. When we speak -of Labour, we mean not an abstract quality: -what we mean is labouring men. Similarly, -when we talk of Ability, we do not mean an -abstract quality either: we mean men who<span class="pagenum" id="Page_167">[167]</span> -possess and exercise it. But whereas when we -talk of Labour we mean an immense number -of men, when we talk of Ability—as I shall -show presently—we mean a number that by -comparison is extremely small. The real -fact then on which I am here insisting, and -which I shall now proceed to substantiate -and explain further, is that, whilst the -immense majority of the population of this -country produce little more than one-third of -the income, a body of men who are comparatively -a mere handful actually produce little -less than two-thirds of it.</p> - -<div class="chapter"> -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_169">[169]</span></p> - -<h2 class="fs4">BOOK III</h2> - -<p class="noindent center fs1 p1">AN EXPOSURE OF THE CONFUSIONS IMPLIED -IN SOCIALISTIC THOUGHT AS -TO THE MAIN AGENT IN MODERN -PRODUCTION</p> - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> -</div> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_171">[171]</span></p> - -<h3 class="nobreak" id="CHAPTER_IB3">CHAPTER I</h3> -</div> - -<p class="chapter-title"><i>The Confusion of Thought involved in the Socialistic -Conception of Labour.</i></p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 After what -has now -been said, -every one -will admit -that -Ability, as -distinct -from -Labour, is -as truly a -productive -agent as -Labour is.</div> - -<div class="sidenote">◆2 But Socialists, -even -if they -admit this -fact, by -their inaccurate -thought -and -language -obscure -the meaning -of the -fact;</div> - -<p class="noindent">◆¹ <span class="smcap">There</span> is one point which now must be quite -plain to every reader, and on which there is -no need to insist further; namely, that Ability -is as truly a productive agent as Labour, and -that if Labour produces any part of contemporary -wealth, Ability just as truly produces -another part. This proposition, when put in -a general way, will, after what has been said, -not be disputed by anybody; but there are -various arguments which readers of socialistic -sympathies will probably invoke as disproving -it in the particular form just given to it. -Certain of these arguments require to be -discussed at length; but the rest can be -disposed off quickly, and we will get them -out of the way first. ◆² They are, indeed, not<span class="pagenum adjust1" id="Page_172">[172]</span> -so much arguments as confusions of thought, -due largely to an inaccurate use of language.</p> - -<p>These confusions are practically all comprehended -in the common socialistic formula which -declares all production, under modern conditions, -to be what Socialists call “socialised.” -By this is meant that the whole wealth of the -community is produced by the joint action of -all the classes of men and of all the faculties -employed in its production; and the formula -thus includes, as Socialists will be careful to -tell us, all those faculties which are here -described as Ability. Now such a doctrine, if -we consider its superficial sense merely, is so -far from being untrue that it is a truism. But -if we consider what it implies, if we consider -the only meaning which gives it force as a -socialistic argument, or indeed invests it with -the character of any argument at all, we shall -find it to be a collection of fallacies for which -the truism is only a cloak. For the implied -meaning is not the mere barren statement that -the exertions of all contribute to the joint result, -but that the exertions of all contribute to it in -an equal degree; the further implication being -that all therefore should share alike in it.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_173">[173]</span></p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 Making use -of the same -fallacy as -that of -Mill, which -has been -already -criticised.</div> - -<p>◆¹ This is really Mill’s argument with respect -to Land and Labour, put into different language -and applied to Labour and Ability. It says in -effect precisely what was said by Mill, that -when two causes are both necessary to producing -a given result, it is absurd to say that the -one produces more or less of it than the other: -only here the argument can be used with -greater apparent force. For the Socialists may -say that if the principle which has been explained -in this book is admitted, and if Ability -is held to produce all that part of the product -which is over and above what Labour could -produce by itself, Labour, by the same reasoning, -could be proved to produce the whole of the -product, since, without the assistance of Labour, -Ability could produce nothing. Accordingly, -they will go on to say, this conclusion being -absurd, the reasoning which leads to it must -be false, and we must fall back again on the -principle set forth by Mill. Labour and -Ability are both necessary to the result, and -being equally necessary must be held to contribute -equally to producing it.</p> - -<p>This argument, as I have said, has great -apparent force; but again we have a plausibility<span class="pagenum" id="Page_174">[174]</span> -which is altogether upon the surface. If -Labour and Ability were here conceived of as -faculties, without regard to the number of men -possessing them, the argument would, whatever -its logical value, coincide broadly with -one great practical fact, to which by and by I -shall call the reader’s attention; namely, that -Labour and Ability do in this country divide -between them the joint product in nearly -equal portions. But those who make use of -the socialistic formula use it with a meaning -very different from the above. When they -say that Ability and Labour contribute equally -to producing a given amount of wealth, they -mean not that the men who exercise one -faculty produce collectively as much as the men -who exercise the other; for that might mean -that <i>five hundred men of Ability</i> produced as -much as <i>five hundred thousand labourers</i>; and -that is the very position which the Socialists desire -to combat. They mean something which is -the exact reverse of this: not that one faculty -produces as much as the other faculty, but that -one man produces as much as, and no more than -another man, no matter which faculty he exercises -in the producing process. They mean not<span class="pagenum" id="Page_175">[175]</span> -that the faculty of Labour which an ordinary -ploughman represents, produces as much as the -faculty represented by an Arkwright or by a -Stevenson, but that the individual ploughman, -by the single task which he himself performs, -adds as much to his country’s wealth as the creators -of the spinning-frame and the locomotive.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 Their -meaning -needs only -to be -clearly -stated -to show its -absurdity.</div> - -<p>◆¹ As soon as we realise that this is what the -argument means, its apparent plausibility turns -into a sort of absurdity which common sense rejects, -even before seeing why it does so. We -will not, however, be content with dismissing -the argument as absurd: there is an idea at -the back of it which requires and deserves to -be examined. It is an idea which rests upon -the fact already alluded to, that though Ability -can make nothing without Labour, Labour can -make something without Ability; and that -thus the labourers who work under the direction -of an able man each contribute a kind of -exertion more essential to the result than he -does. Each can say to him, “I am something -without you. You, on the contrary, are nothing -without me.” Thus there arises a more or less -conscious idea of Labour as a force which, if only -properly organised, will be able at any moment,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_176">[176]</span> -by refusing to exert itself, to render Ability -helpless, and so bring it to terms and become -its master, instead of being, as now, its servant.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 But in it -there is, -indeed, a -plausible -view as to -Labour, -which must -be refuted, -not only -ridiculed. -According -to this view, -Labour can -always -bring -Ability to -terms by -refusing to -exert itself.</div> - -<div class="sidenote">◆2 But Labour -cannot -refuse to -exert itself -for long, -and never -except with -the assistance -of -Capital.</div> - -<div class="sidenote">◆3 Nature, not -the men of -ability, -forces the -majority of -men to -Labour.</div> - -<p>◆¹ But this idea, which is suggested, and seems -to be supported, by the modern development of -labour-organisation and strikes, really ignores -the most fundamental facts of the case. In -the first place, it may be observed that though -Ability, regarded as a faculty, is no doubt helpless -unless there is Labour for it to act upon, -Ability, if we take it to mean the men possessing -the faculty, is, whatever happens, in as -good a position as Labour; for the average man -of ability can always become a labourer. But -the principal point to realise is far more -important than this. We are perfectly right -in saying, as was said just now, that if Labour -should refuse to exert itself, Ability could produce -nothing; but it seems completely to -escape the notice of those who use this argument -that to refuse to exert itself is what -Labour can never do, except for very short -times, and to a quite unimportant extent; and -it can only do thus much when Ability indirectly -helps it. The ideas of the power of Labour -which are suggested by the phenomenon of the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_177">[177]</span> -strike are, as I shall by and by show more -fully, curiously fallacious. ◆² Men can strike—that -is to say, cease to labour—only when -they have some store on which to live when -they are idle; and such a store is nothing but -so much Capital. A strike, therefore, represents -the power not of Labour, but of Capital.<a id="FNanchor_39" href="#Footnote_39" class="fnanchor">[39]</a> -The Capital which is available in the present -day for supporting strikes would never have -been in existence but for the past action of -Ability; and what is still more important, a -widespread strike would very quickly exhaust -it. Further, a strike, no matter what Capital -were at the back of it, could never be more -than partial for even a single day; for there -are many kinds of Labour, such as transport -and distribution of food, the constant performance -of which is required by even the -humblest lives. But it is not necessary to -dwell on such small matters as these. It is -enough to point to the fact, which does not -require proving—the broad fact that men, taken -as a whole, can no more refuse to labour than -they can refuse to breathe. ◆³ What compels them<span class="pagenum" id="Page_178">[178]</span> -to labour is not the employing class, but Nature. -The employing class—the men of ability—merely -compel them to labour in a special way.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 But Nature -forces no -one to exert -Ability; -therefore -Ability is, -in the -long run, -in a -stronger -position -than -Labour.</div> - -<p>But Ability itself stands on an entirely -different footing. Whereas Labour, as a -whole, cannot cease to exert itself, Ability can. -Indeed, for long periods of history it has hardly -exerted itself at all; whilst its full industrial -power, as we know it now, only began to be -felt a century and a half ago. Labour, in -other words, represents a necessary kind of -exertion, which can always be counted on as -we count on some force of Nature: Ability -represents a voluntary kind of exertion, which -can only be induced to manifest itself under -certain special circumstances. Accordingly, -◆¹ whilst Labour can make no terms with Nature, -Ability in the long run can always make terms -with Labour. It will thus be seen that the set -of arguments founded on the conception of -Labour as stronger than Ability, because more -necessary, are arguments founded on a complete -misconception of facts. I speak of them as -arguments; but they hardly deserve the name. -Rather they are vague ideas that float in the -minds of many people, and suggest beliefs or<span class="pagenum" id="Page_179">[179]</span> -opinions to which they can give no logical -basis. At all events, after what has been said, -we may dismiss them from our thoughts, and -turn to another fallacy that lurks in the socialistic -formula.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 Let us now -test the -socialistic -view by -examples:</div> - -<div class="sidenote">◆2 By the case -of an -organist -and the -man who -blows the -bellows;</div> - -<div class="sidenote">◆3 Or of a -great -painter and -the man -who -stretches -his canvas.</div> - -<p>◆¹ I said of that formula that, the moment its -meaning was realised, it struck the mind as an -absurdity, even before the mind knew why. -Let us now apply it to two simple cases, which -will show its absurdity in a yet more striking -manner. ◆² There is an old story commonly told -of Handel. The great composer had been -playing some magnificent piece of music on -the organ; and as soon as the last vibration of -inspired sound had subsided, he was greeted -by the voice of the man who blew the bellows, -saying, “I think that we two played that beautifully.” -“<i>We!</i>” exclaimed Handel. “What -had you to do with it?” He turned again to -the keys, and struck them, but not a note came. -“Ha!” said the bellows-blower, “what have I -to do with it? Admit that I have as much to -do with it as you have, or I will not give you -the power to sound a single chord.” The -whole point of this story lies in the fact that -the argument of the bellows-blower, though<span class="pagenum" id="Page_180">[180]</span> -possessed of a certain plausibility, is at the -same time obviously absurd. But according -to the principles of the Socialists, it is absolutely -and entirely true. It exhibits those principles -applied in the most perfect way. ◆³ With just -the same force, it may be said about a great -picture by the man who has woven the canvas, -or tacked it to its wooden frame. This man -may, according to the socialistic theory of production, -call the picture the socialised product -of the great painter and himself, and, though -no more able to draw than a child of four years -old, may put himself on a level with a Millais -or an Alma Tadema. To the production of the -result the canvas is as necessary as the painter.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 The socialistic -view -of production -would -be true -only were -a certain -fact of life -quite -different to -what it is.</div> - -<p>The nature of the fallacy which leads us -to such conclusions as these is revealed -almost instantly by the light such conclusions -throw on it. It consists in ignoring the fact -that whilst anybody, not a cripple or idiot, -can blow the bellows of an organ, or stretch -the canvas for a picture, only one man in a -million can make music like Handel, or cover -the canvas with pictures like Millais or Alma -Tadema. The nature of the situation will be -understood most accurately if we imagine the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_181">[181]</span> -bellows-blower at the key-board of the organ, -and the canvas-stretcher with the painter’s -brushes. The one, no doubt, could elicit a -large volume of sound; the other could cover -the canvas with daubs of unmeaning colour. -These men, then, when they work for the -artists of whom we speak, may very properly -be credited with a share in as much of the -result as would have been produced if they had -been in the artists’ places. That is to say, to -the production of mere sound the bellows-blower -may be held to contribute as much as -the great musician; and the canvas-stretcher -as much as the painter to the mere laying on -of colour. But all the difference between an -unmeaning discord and music, all the difference -between an unmeaning daub and a picture, is -due to qualities that are possessed by no one -except the musician and the painter.<a id="FNanchor_40" href="#Footnote_40" class="fnanchor">[40]</a> ◆¹ The<span class="pagenum" id="Page_182">[182]</span> -socialistic theory of production would be true -only on the supposition that the faculties -employed in production were all equally common, -and that everybody is equally capable of -exertion of every grade. Now is this supposition -true, or is it not true? A moment ago I -spoke of it, assuming it to be obviously false; -and many people will think it is hardly worth -discussion. That, however, is far from being -the case. It is a supposition which, as we -have seen, lies at the very root of Socialism: -the question it involves is a broad question of -fact; and it is necessary, by an appeal to fact, to -show that it is as false as I have assumed it to be.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 The great -feature in -modern -production -is the progress -in the -productivity -of the -same number -of men.</div> - -<p>◆¹ Let me once again, then, state the great -proposition which I am anxious to put beyond -the reach of all denial or misconception. A -given number of people, a hundred years ago, -produced yearly in this country <i>a hundred<span class="pagenum" id="Page_183">[183]</span> -and forty million pounds</i>. The same number -of people to-day produce two and a half times -as much. Labour, a hundred years ago, could -not have produced more than the total product -of the community—that is to say, <i>a hundred -and forty million pounds</i>; and, if it produced -that then, it produces no more now. The -whole added product is produced by the action -of Ability. The proposition is a double one. -Let us take the two parts in order.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 History -shows us -that -Labour is -not progressive, -except -within very -narrow -limits -that were -reached -long ago, -or, at all -events, by -the end of -the last -century.</div> - -<p>◆¹ I have already here and there pointed out -in passing how certain special advances in -the productive powers of the community were -due demonstrably to Ability, not to Labour; -but I have waited till our argument had -arrived at its present stage to insist on the -general truth that, except within very narrow -limits, Labour is, in its very nature, not progressive -at all. If we cast our eyes backwards -as far into the remote past as any records or -relics of human existence will carry us, we -can indeed discern three steps in industrial -progress, which we may, if we please, attribute -to the self-development of Labour—the use of -stone, the use of bronze, and the use of iron. -But these steps followed each other slowly,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_184">[184]</span> -and at immeasurable intervals; and though -the last was taken in the early morning of -history, yet Labour even then had, in certain -respects, reached for thousands of years an -efficiency which it has never since surpassed. -In the lake-dwellings of Switzerland, which -belong to the age of stone, objects have been -found which bear witness to a manual skill -equal to that of the most dexterous workmen -of to-day. No labour, again, is more delicate -than that of engraving gems; and yet the -work of the finest modern gem-engravers is -outdone by that of the ancient Greeks and -Romans. It was even found, when the -unburied ship of a Viking was being reproduced -for the International Exhibition at -Chicago, that in point of mere workmanship, -with all our modern appliances, it was impossible -to make the copy any better than the -original; whilst, if we institute a comparison -with times nearer our own—especially if we -come to the close of the last century—it is -hardly necessary to say that in every operation -which depended on training of eye and -hand, the great-grandfathers of the present generation -were the equals of their great-grandsons.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_185">[185]</span></p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 Let us then -compare -the workers -of that -period with -their great-grandsons -of to-day.</div> - -<p>◆¹ We will therefore content ourselves with -comparing the labourers of to-day with the -labourers of the days of Pitt; and with regard -to those two sets of men, we may safely say -this, that in whatever respect the latter seem -able to do more than the former, their seemingly -increased power can be definitely and -distinctly traced to some source outside themselves, -from which it has been taken and -lent to them—in other words, to the ability -of some one able man, or else to the joint -action of a body of able men. A single -illustration is sufficient to prove this. It -consists of a fact to which I have alluded in -general terms already. It is as follows:—</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 We shall -see that in -Labour -itself there -has been -no progress -whatsoever. -Ability has -been the -sole progressive -agent.</div> - -<p>When Watt had perfected his steam-engine -in structure, design, and principle, and was -able to make a model which was triumphantly -successful in its working, he encountered an -obstacle of which few people are aware, and -which, had it not been overcome, would have -made the development of steam-power, as -we know it now, an utter impossibility. It -was indeed, in the opinion of the engineer -Smeaton, fatal to the success of Watt’s steam-engine -altogether. This obstacle was the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_186">[186]</span> -difficulty of making cylinders, of any useful -size, sufficiently true to keep the pistons -steam-tight. Watt, with indomitable perseverance, -endeavoured to train men to the -degree of accuracy required, by setting them -to work at cylinders, and at nothing else; and -by inducing fathers to bring up their sons -with them in the workshop, and thus from -their earliest youth habituate them to this -single task. By this means, in time, a band -of labourers was secured in whom skill was -raised to the highest point of which it is -capable. ◆¹ But not even all the skill of those -carefully-trained men—men trained by the -greatest mechanical genius of the modern -world—was equal to making cylinders approaching -the standard of accuracy which was -necessary to render the steam-engine, as we now -know it, a possibility. But what the Labour -of the cleverest labourer could never be -brought to accomplish, was instantly and with -ease accomplished by the action of Ability. -Henry Maudslay, by introducing the slide-rest, -did at a single stroke for all the mechanics in -the country what Watt, after years of effort, -was unable to do for any of them. The<span class="pagenum" id="Page_187">[187]</span> -Ability of Maudslay, congealed in this beautiful -instrument, took the tool out of the hands -of Labour at the turning-lathe, and held it to -the surface of the cylinder, whilst Labour -looked on and watched. With this iron “mate” -lent to him,—this child of an alien brain,—the -average mechanic was enabled to accomplish -wonders which no mechanic in the world by -his own skill could approach. The power of -one man descended at once on a thousand -workshops, and sat on each of the labourers -like the fire of an industrial Pentecost; and -their own personal efficiency, which was the -slowly-matured product of centuries, was, by -a power acting outside themselves, increased a -hundredfold in the course of a few years.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 There is, -however, a -plausible -objection -to this view -which we -must consider.</div> - -<p>◆¹ Illustrations of this kind might be multiplied -without limit; but nothing could add -to the force of the one just given, or show -more clearly how the productivity of Labour -is fixed, and the power of Ability, and of -Ability alone, is progressive. There is, however, -a very important argument which objectors -may use here with so much apparent -force that, although it is entirely fallacious, it -requires to be considered carefully.</p> -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_188">[188]</span></p> - -<h3 class="nobreak" id="CHAPTER_IIB3">CHAPTER II</h3> -</div> - -<p class="chapter-title"><i>That the Ability which at any given period is a -Producing Agent, is a Faculty residing in and -belonging to living Men.</i></p> - -<p class="noindent"><span class="smcap">It</span> may amuse the reader to hear this argument -stated—forcibly, if not very fully—by -an American Socialist, in an anonymous letter -to myself. I had published an article in -<i>The North American Review</i>, giving a short -summary of what I have said in the preceding -chapters with regard to the part played by -Ability in production; and the letter which -I will now give was sent me as a criticism -on this:</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 The objection -is thus -put by an -American -Socialist: -that it is -absurd to -say that -primæval -inventors, -such as the -inventor of -the plough, -are still -producing -wealth by -their -ability; -and if -absurd in -this case, -then in all -cases.</div> - -<div class="blockquot1"> -<p>◆¹ Sir—Your article in the current number of -<i>The North American Review</i> on “Who are the -Chief Wealth Producers?” in my judgment is the -crowning absurdity of the various effusions that -parade under the self-assumed title of political<span class="pagenum" id="Page_189">[189]</span> -economy. In the vulgar parlance of some newspapers, -it is hog-wash. It is utterly senseless, and -wholly absurd and worthless. You propose to -publish a book in which you will elaborate your -theory. Well, if the book has a large sale, it will -not be because the author has any ability as a writer -on economical subjects, but rather that the buyers -are either dupes or fools. All the increase in wealth -that has resulted by reason of men using ploughs -was produced by the man who invented the plough—eh? -The total amount of the wealth produced by -men by reason of their using certain appliances in -the form of tools or machines is produced by the -man who invented the tool or machine—eh? perhaps -some one in Egypt thousands of years ago? Such -stuff is not only worthless hog-wash: it is nauseating, -is worthy of the inmate of Bedlam.</p> -</div> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 To this -there are -two -answers. -The first is -that the -simpler -inventions -are probably -due, -not to -Ability at -all, but to -the common -experience -of -the average -man;</div> - -<div class="sidenote">◆2 And, like -Labour itself, -they -have -remained -unchanged -up till -quite recent -times.</div> - -<div class="sidenote">◆3 But even if -invented -by Ability, -we should -still attribute -the -wealth now -produced -by them to -Labour;</div> - -<p>Now the argument implied in this charming -letter, so far as it goes, is sound; and I will -put it presently in a more comprehensive form. -Its fault is that it goes a very little way, -and does not even approach the position it -is adduced to combat. To say that if one -man who lived thousands of years ago could -be shown to be the sole and only inventor of -the plough, then all the increase of wealth -that has since been produced by ploughing<span class="pagenum" id="Page_190">[190]</span> -ought to be credited to the Ability of this one -man, is practically no doubt as absurd<a id="FNanchor_41" href="#Footnote_41" class="fnanchor">[41]</a> as the -writer of the letter thinks it; and were such -the result of the reasoning in this volume, it -would reduce that reasoning to an absurdity. -◆¹ That reasoning, however, leads to no result -of the kind; and it is necessary to explain -to the reader exactly why it fails to do so. -It fails to do so because ploughs, and other -implements equally simple, instead of representing -those conditions of production to -which alone the reasoning in this volume -applies, represent conditions which are altogether -opposed to them. The plough, or at -least such a plough as was in use in ancient -Egypt, is the very type and embodiment -of the non-progressive nature of Labour, as -opposed to, and contrasted with, the progressive -nature of Ability. The plough, indeed, -in its simplest form, was probably not the -result of Ability at all, but rather of the -experience of multitudes of common men, -acting on the intelligence which common<span class="pagenum" id="Page_191">[191]</span> -men possess; just as, even more obviously, -was the use of a stick to walk with, or of -a flail for thrashing corn. It will perhaps, -however, be said that in that case, according -to the definition given by me, the plough -would be the result of Ability all the same, -only that it would prove Ability to be a -faculty almost as universal as Labour. And -no doubt it would prove this of Ability of -a low kind; indeed, we may admit that it -does prove it. Everybody has a little Ability -in him, just as everybody has a little poetry; -but in cases of this kind everything is a -question of degree; and for practical purposes -we are compelled to classify men not according -to faculties which, strictly speaking, they -possess, but according to the degree in which -they possess them. Cold, strictly speaking, -is merely a low degree of heat; but for all -practical purposes winter is opposed to summer. -Similarly, a man who has just enough poetry -in him to be able—as most men can—to -scribble a verse of doggerel, is for all practical -purposes opposed to a Shakespeare or a Dante; -and similarly also the man who has just -enough Ability in him to discover the use of<span class="pagenum" id="Page_192">[192]</span> -a stick, a flail, or a plough, is for all practical -purposes opposed to the men who are capable -of inventing implements of a higher and -more complicated order. Nor is the line -which we thus draw drawn arbitrarily. It -is a line drawn for us by the whole industrial -history of mankind; ◆² and never was there -a division more striking and more persistent. -For the simpler implements in question, from -the first days when they were invented,—“thousands -of years ago,” as my American -correspondent says,—remained what they then -were up to the beginning of the modern -epoch; and in many countries, such as India, -they remain the same to-day. The simpler -industrial arts, then, and the simpler implements -of industry are sharply marked off -from the higher and more complicated by -the fact that, whilst the latter are demonstrably -due to individuals, have flourished -only within the area of their influence, and -have constituted a sudden and distinct -advance on the former, the former have -apparently been due to the average faculties -of mankind, and have remained practically -unchanged from the days of their first discovery.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_193">[193]</span> -Accordingly, the distinction between -the two being so marked and enormous, the -faculties to which they are respectively -due, even if differing only in degree, yet -differ in degree so much that they are for -practical purposes different faculties, and -must be called by different names. ◆³ The -simple inventions, then, to which my correspondent -refers, together with the wealth -produced by them, are to be credited to -Labour, the non-progressive character of which -they embody and represent, and have nothing -to do with that Ability which is the cause of -industrial progress.</p> - -<p>My correspondent’s letter, however, whether -he saw it himself or not, really raises a point -far more important than this. For even if the -invention of the plough had been the work of -one man only, if it had involved as much -knowledge and genius as the invention of the -steam-engine, and if, but for this one man, -ploughs would never have existed, yet to attribute -to the Ability of this one man all the -wealth that has been subsequently produced -by ploughing would still be practically as absurd -as my correspondent implies it would be.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_194">[194]</span></p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 Because -the commonest -labourer, -when once -he has seen -them, can -make and -use them.</div> - -<p>◆¹ Now why is this? The reason why is -as follows. Although, according to such an -hypothesis, if a plough had not been made -by this one able man, no ploughs would ever -have been made by anybody, yet when such -a simple implement has once been made and -used, anybody who has seen it can make -and use others like it; so that the Ability of -the inventor of the plough increases the productivity -of every labourer who uses it, not by -co-operating with him, but by actually passing -into him. Thus, so far as this particular -operation is concerned, the simplest labourer -becomes endowed with all the powers of the -inventor; and the inventor thenceforward is, -in no practical sense, the producer of the -increased product of what he has enabled the -labourer to produce, any more than a father is -the producer of what is produced by his son.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 But the -inventions -by which -Ability in -the modern -world has -increased -production -are the very -opposite -of these -inventions -of earlier -days; -for they -require as -much -Ability to -use them -to the best -advantage -as they required -to -make them.</div> - -<p>And if the productivity of Labour were -increased by inventions alone, and if all -inventions were as simple as the primæval -plough—if, when once seen, anybody were -able to make them, and, having once made -them, to use them to the utmost advantage—then, -though Ability might still be the sole<span class="pagenum" id="Page_195">[195]</span> -cause of every fresh addition to the productive -powers of exertion, these added powers would -be all made over to Labour, and be absorbed -and appropriated by it, just as Lear’s kingdom -was made over to his daughters; and whatever -increased wealth might be produced -thenceforward through their agency would -be the true product of Labour, which had in -itself become more effective. ◆¹ But, as a matter -of fact, this is not the case; and it is not so -for two reasons. In the first place, such -implements as the primæval plough differ -from the implements on which modern industry -depends, in the complexity alike of -their structure, and of the principles involved -in it; so that without the guidance of Ability -of many kinds, Labour alone would be powerless -to reproduce them; and, in the second -place, as these implements multiply, not only -is Ability more and more necessary for their -manufacture, but is more and more necessary -also for the use of them when manufactured. -One of the principal results of the modern -development of machinery, or of the use, by -new processes, of newly discovered powers -of Nature, is the increasing division and subdivision<span class="pagenum" id="Page_196">[196]</span> -of Labour; so that the labourers, as -I have said before, by the introduction of this -mass of machinery, become themselves the -most complicated machine of all, each labourer -being a single minute wheel, and Ability -being the framework which alone keeps them -in their places. It may be said, therefore, -that each modern invention or discovery by -which the productivity of human exertion is -increased has upon Labour an effect exactly -opposite to that which was produced on it -by such inventions as the primæval plough. -Instead of making Labour more efficacious -in itself, they make it less and less efficacious, -unless it is assisted by Ability.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 They do -not become, -as is -vulgarly -said, common -property. -They belong -to -those who -can use -them;</div> - -<div class="sidenote">◆2 And more -and more -is living -Ability required -to -maintain -and use the -powers left -to it by -the Ability -of the past.</div> - -<p>◆¹ And here we have the answer to the -real argument which lies at the bottom of my -American correspondent’s letter—an argument -which, in some such words as the following, -is to be found repeated in every Socialistic -treatise: “When once an invention is made, -it becomes common property.” So it does -in a certain theoretical sense; but only in -the sense in which a knowledge of Chinese -becomes common property in England on -the publication of a Chinese grammar. For<span class="pagenum" id="Page_197">[197]</span> -all practical purposes, such a statement is -about as true as to say that because anybody -can buy a book on military tactics, everybody -is possessed of the genius of the Duke of -Wellington. ◆² The real truth is, that to utilise -modern inventions, and to maintain the conditions -of industry which these inventions -subserve, as much Ability is required as was -required to invent them; though, as I shall -have occasion to point out later on, the -Ability is of a different kind.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 We must, -then, here -note that -when -Ability is -said to -produce -so much -of the -national -income, -what is -meant is -the Ability -of men -alive at the -time,</div> - -<p>These considerations bring us to another -important point, which must indeed from -the beginning have been more or less obvious, -but which must now be stated explicitly. -◆¹ That point is, that when we speak of Ability -as producing at any given time such and -such a portion of the national income, as -distinguished from the portion which is -produced by Labour, we are speaking of -Ability possessed by living men, who possess -it either in the form of their own -superior faculties, assimilating, utilising, and -adding to the inventions and discoveries -of their predecessors; or in the form of -inherited Capital, which those predecessors<span class="pagenum" id="Page_198">[198]</span> -have produced and left to them. Thus, -though dead men like Arkwright, or Watt, -or Stevenson may, in a certain theoretical -sense, be considered as continuing to produce -wealth still, they cannot be considered -to do so in any sense that is practical; because -they cannot as individuals put forward -any practical claims, or influence the situation -any further by their actions. For all practical -purposes, then, their Ability as a productive -force exists only in those living men who -inherit or give effect to its results. Now, -of the externalised or congealed Ability which -is inherited in the form of Capital, as distinguished -from the personal Ability by which -Capital is utilised, we need not speak here, -though we shall have to do so presently. For -this inherited Capital would not only be useless -in production, but would actually disappear -and evaporate like a lump of camphor, if it -were not constantly used, and, in being used, -renewed, by that personal Ability which inherits -it, and is inseparable from the living -individual; and, though it will be necessary -to consider Capital apart from this when we -come to deal with the problem of distribution,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_199">[199]</span> -all that we need consider when we are -dealing with the problem of production is -this personal Ability, which alone makes -Capital live.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 Who are -practically -the monopolists -not -only of -their own -special -powers, -but of the -complicated -discoveries -of -their predecessors.</div> - -<p>◆¹ So far, then, as modern production is concerned, -all the results of past Ability, instead -of becoming the common property of Labour, -become on the whole, with allowance for -many exceptions, more and more strictly the -monopoly of living Ability; because these -results becoming more and more complicated, -Ability becomes more and more essential to -the power of mastering and of using them. -As, however, I shall point out by and by, -in more than one connection, the Ability that -masters and uses them differs much in kind -from the Ability that originally produced -them: one difference being that, whereas to -invent and perfect some new machine requires -Ability of the highest class in, let us say, -one man, and Ability of the second class in -a few other men, his partners; to use this -machine to the best advantage, and control -and maintain the industry which its use has -inaugurated or developed, may require perhaps -Ability of only the second class in one man,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_200">[200]</span> -but will require Ability of the third and -fourth class in a large number of men.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 And the -monopoly -of Ability -grows -stricter at -each fresh -stage of -progress.</div> - -<p>◆¹ Ability therefore—the Ability of living -men—constantly tends, as the income of the -nation grows, to play a larger part in its -production, or to produce a larger part of it; -whilst Labour, though without it no income -could be produced at all, tends to produce a -part which is both relatively and absolutely -smaller. We assume, for instance, that the -Labour of this country a hundred years ago -was capable of producing the whole of what -was the national income then. If it could -by itself, without any Ability to guide it, -have succeeded then, when production was -so much simpler, in just producing the yearly -amount in question,—which, as a matter of -fact, it could not have done even then,—the -same amount of Labour, without any Ability -to guide it, could certainly not succeed in -producing so much now, when all the conditions -of production have become so much -more complicated, and when elaborate organisation -is necessary to make almost any effort -effective.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 Thus the -argument -above -quoted -against the -claims of -Ability, -when examined, -only -throws -additional -light on -their -strength.</div> - -<p>◆¹ Thus the argument, which was fermenting<span class="pagenum" id="Page_201">[201]</span> -in my American correspondent’s mind, and -which he regarded as reducing the claims of -Ability to “hog-wash,” really affords the means, -if examined carefully and minutely, of establishing -yet more firmly the position it was -invoked to shatter, and of making the claims -of Ability not only clearer but more extensive.</p> -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_202">[202]</span></p> - -<h3 class="nobreak" id="CHAPTER_IIIB3">CHAPTER III</h3> -</div> - -<p class="chapter-title"><i>That Ability is a natural Monopoly, due to the congenital -Peculiarities of a Minority. The Fallacies -of other Views exposed.</i></p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 But the -Socialists -have yet -another -fallacy -with which -they will -attempt to -neutralise -the force of -what has -just been -said.</div> - -<div class="sidenote">◆2 They will -say that -Ability is -the creation -of -special -opportunity, -and -that everybody -at -birth is -potentially -an able -man.</div> - -<p class="noindent">◆¹ <span class="smcap">But</span> the socialistic theorist will not even yet -have been silenced. Even if he is constrained -to admit the truth of all that has just been -said, we shall find that he still possesses in his -arsenal of error another set of arguments by -which he will endeavour to do away with its -force. These are generally presented to us -in mere loose rhetorical forms; but however -loosely they may be expressed, they contain a -distinct meaning, which I will endeavour to -state as completely and as clearly as is possible. -◆² Put shortly, it is as follows. Though Ability and -Labour may both be productive faculties, and -though it may be allowed that the one is more -productive than the other, it is on the whole -a mere matter of social accident—a matter<span class="pagenum adjust1" id="Page_203">[203]</span> -depending on station, fortune, and education—which -faculty is exercised by this or that individual. -Thus, though it may be allowed that -a great painter and the man who stretches -his canvas, or an inventor like Watt and the -average mechanic who works for him, do, by -the time that both are mature men, differ -enormously in the comparative efficacy of -their faculties, yet the difference is mainly due -to circumstances posterior to their birth; that -the circumstances which developed the higher -faculties in one man might equally well have -developed them in the other; and that the -circumstances in question, even if only a few -can profit by them, are really created by the -joint action of the many.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 This is -sometimes -expressed -in saying -that “the -great man -is made by -his age,” -i.e. by the -opportunities -others -have -secured for -him.</div> - -<div class="sidenote">◆2 But this, -though true -psychologically, -is absolutely -false -in the -practical -sphere of -economics.</div> - -<p>The above contention contains several different -propositions, which we will presently -examine one by one. We will, however, take -its general meaning first. One of the chief -exponents of this, strange as the fact may seem, -is that vehement anti-Socialist, Mr. Herbert -Spencer. Mr. Spencer disposes of the claims -of the man of ability as a force distinct from -the generation at large to which he belongs, -by saying that ◆¹ “Before the great man can<span class="pagenum" id="Page_204">[204]</span> -remake his society, his society must make -him.” Thus, to take an example from art, the -genius of a man like Shakespeare is explained -by reference to the condition of the civilised -world, and of England more especially, during -the reign of Queen Elizabeth. The temper -of the human mind caused by centuries of -Catholicism, the stir of the human mind -shown in the Reformation or the Renaissance, -and the sense of the new world then being -conquered in America, are all dwelt on as -general or social causes which produced in an -individual poet a greatness which has been -since unequalled. ◆² Now this reasoning, if used -to combat a certain psychological error, no -doubt expresses a very important truth; but -if it is transferred to the sphere of economics -its whole meaning vanishes. It was originally -used in opposition to the now obsolete theory -according to which a genius was a kind of -spiritual aerolite, fallen from heaven, and -related in no calculable way to its environment. -It was used, for instance, to prove with regard -to Shakespeare that had he lived in another age -he would have thought and written differently, -and that he might have been a worse poet<span class="pagenum" id="Page_205">[205]</span> -under circumstances less exciting to the imagination. -But when we leave the psychological -side of the case, and look at its practical side, -a set of facts is forced on us which are of -quite a different order. We are forced to -reflect that though Shakespeare’s mind may -have been what it was because the age acted -on it, the age was acting on all Shakespeare’s -contemporaries, and yet it produced one -Shakespeare only. If Queen Elizabeth had -been told that it was the age which produced -Shakespeare, and in consequence had -ordered that three or four more Shakespeares -should be brought to her, her courtiers, do -what they would, would have been unable to -find them; and the reason is plain. The age -acts on, or sets its stamp on, the character of -every single mind that belongs to it; but the -effect in each case depends on the mind acted -on; and it is only one mind amongst ordinary -minds innumerable, that this universal action -can fashion into a great poet. And what is -true of poetic genius is true of industrial -Ability. The great director of Labour is -as rare as a great poet is; and though -Ability of lower degrees is far commoner than<span class="pagenum" id="Page_206">[206]</span> -Ability of the highest, yet the fact that it is -the age which elicits and conditions its activities -does nothing to make it commoner than -it would be otherwise, nor affects the fact that -its possessors are relatively a small minority. -For the psychologist, the action of the age is an -all-important consideration; for the economist, -it is a consideration of no importance at all.</p> - -<p>But it is by no means my intention to dismiss -the Socialistic argument with this simple -demonstration of the irrelevance of its general -meaning. I am going to call the attention of -the reader to the particular meanings that are -attached to it, and show how absolutely false -these are, by comparing them with historical -facts.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 Again, -Socialists -urge that -no perfected -invention -is -the work -of a single -man, but -that many -men have -always co-operated -to -produce it.</div> - -<div class="sidenote">◆2 This is -true; but -the class -of men -referred to -is that very -minority -who are the -monopolists -of -Ability. -It is this -class only, -not the -community -in general.</div> - -<p>◆¹ In the first place, then, the claims of the -age, or of society as a whole, to be the author -of industrial progress, in opposition to the -claims of a minority, are supported by many -writers on the ground that no invention or -discovery is in reality the work of any single -man. Such writers delight to multiply—and -they can do so without difficulty—instances of -how the most important machines or processes -have been perfected only after a long lapse of<span class="pagenum" id="Page_207">[207]</span> -time, by the efforts of many men following or -co-operating with one another. Thus the electric -telegraph, and the use of gas for lighting, -were not the discoveries of those who first -introduced them to the public; and Stevenson -described the locomotive as the “invention of -no one man, but of a race of mechanical -engineers.” Further, it is frequently urged -that the same discoveries and inventions are -arrived at in different places, by different minds, -simultaneously; and this fact is put forward -as a conclusive proof and illustration of how -society, not the individual, is the true discoverer -and inventor. ◆² But these arguments leave out -of sight entirely the fact that, in the first place, -the whole body of individuals spoken of—such -as the race of engineers who produced the -locomotive, or the astronomers in different -countries who are discovering the same new -star—form a body which is infinitesimally -small itself; and secondly, that even the body -of persons they represent,—namely, all of those -who are engaged in the same pursuits, and have -even so much as attempted any step in industrial -progress,—though numerous in comparison -with those who have actually succeeded in<span class="pagenum" id="Page_208">[208]</span> -taking one, are merely a handful when compared -with society as a whole, and instead of -representing society, offer the strongest contrast -to it. The nature of the assistance which -Ability gives to Ability is an interesting question, -but it is nothing to the point here. To -prove that progress is the joint product of -Ability and Ability, does not form a proof, -but on the contrary a disproof of the proposition, -that it is the joint product of Ability and -Labour—or, in other words, that it is the product -of the age, or the entire community.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 Further, -Socialists -contend -that Ability -is the -product of -education, -and that an -equal -education -would -equalise -faculties.</div> - -<div class="sidenote">◆2 But this -wild theory -is in -absolute -opposition -to the -most -notorious -facts;</div> - -<p>◆¹ The socialistic theorist, however, even if he -admits the above answer, will by no means -admit that it is fatal to his own position. He -will still take refuge in the proposition already -alluded to, that the Ability of individuals is -the child of opportunity, and that Ability is -rarer than Labour, and able men are a minority, -only because, under existing social circumstances, -the opportunities which enable it to -develop itself are comparatively few. And if -he is pressed to say what these opportunities -are, he will say that they may be described generally -by the one word education. This argument -can be answered in one way only, namely,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_209">[209]</span> -an appeal to facts; and it is hard to conceive -of anything which facts more conclusively disprove. -Indeed, of much industrial Ability, it -can not only be shown to be false, but it is -also, on the very surface of it, absurd. It is -plausible as applied to Ability of one kind -only, namely, that of the inventor or the discoverer; -but this, as we shall see presently, -is so far from being Ability as a whole, that it -is not even the most important part of it. -Let us, however, suppose it to be the whole -for a moment, and ask how far the actual facts -of life warrant us in regarding it as the child -of opportunity and education. Let us first -refer to that general kind of experience which -is recorded in the memory of everybody who -has ever been at a school or college, and -which, in the lives of tutors and masters, is -repeated every day. Let a hundred individuals -from childhood be brought up in the same -school, let them all be devoted to the study of -the same branch of knowledge, let them enjoy -to the fullest what is called “equality of opportunity,” -and it will be found that not only is -there no equality in the amount of knowledge -they acquire, but that there is hardly any<span class="pagenum" id="Page_210">[210]</span> -resemblance in the uses to which they will be -able to put it. Two youths may have worked -together in one laboratory. One will never do -more than understand the discoveries of others. -The other will discover, like Columbus, some -new world of mysteries. ◆² Indeed, equality of -opportunity, as all experience shows, instead -of tending to make the power of all men equal, -does but serve to exhibit the extent to which -they differ.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 As may be -seen by a -glance at -the lives of -some of the -most distinguished -inventors -of the -world.</div> - -<p>◆¹ But particular facts are more forcible than -general facts. Let us consider the men who, -as a matter of history, have achieved by their -Ability the greatest discoveries and inventions, -and let us see if it can be said of these men, -on the whole, that their Ability has been due -to any exceptional education or opportunity. -Speaking generally, the very reverse is the case. -If education means education in the branch -of work or knowledge in which the Ability of -the able man is manifested, the greatest inventors -of the present century have had no -advantages of educational opportunity at all. -Dr. Smiles observes that our greatest mechanical -inventors did not even have the advantage of -being brought up as engineers. “Watt,” he<span class="pagenum" id="Page_211">[211]</span> -writes, “was a mathematical instrument-maker; -Arkwright was a barber; Cartwright, the inventor -of the power-loom, was a clergyman; -Bell, who afterwards invented the reaping-machine, -was a Scotch minister; Armstrong, -the inventor of the hydraulic engine, was a -solicitor; and Wheatstone, inventor of the -electric telegraph, was a maker of musical -instruments.” That knowledge is necessary -to mechanical invention is of course a self-evident -truth; and the acquisition of knowledge, -however acquired, is education: education, -therefore, was necessary to the exercise of the -Ability of all these men. But the point to -observe is, that they had none of them any -special educational opportunity; they were -placed at no advantage as compared with any -of their fellows; many of them, indeed, were -at a very marked disadvantage; and though, -when opportunity is present, Ability will no -doubt profit by it, the above examples show, -and the whole course of industrial history -shows,<a id="FNanchor_42" href="#Footnote_42" class="fnanchor">[42]</a> that Ability is so far from being the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_212">[212]</span> -creature of opportunity, that it is, on the -contrary, in most cases the creator of it.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 The theory -is still -further -refuted by -the fact -that moral -Ability is a -matter of -character -and temperament, -rather -than of -intellect.</div> - -<div class="sidenote">◆2 A business -started by -Ability of -intellect is -maintained -by Ability -of character.</div> - -<p>◆¹ The mental power, however, which is exercised -by the inventor and discoverer, as I -have said, is but one kind of industrial Ability -out of many. Ability—or the faculty by -which one man assists the Labour of an -indefinite number of men—consists in what -may be called exceptional gifts of character, -quite as much as in exceptional gifts of intellect. -A sagacity, an instinctive quickness in -recognising the intellect of others, a strength -of will that sometimes is almost brutal, and -will force a way for a new idea, like a pugilist -forcing himself through a crowd, these are -faculties quite as necessary as intellect for -giving effect to what intellect discovers or -creates; and they do not always, or even -generally, reside in the same individuals. -The genius which is capable of grappling with -ideas and principles, and in the domain of -thought will display the sublimest daring,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_213">[213]</span> -often goes with a temperament of such social -timidity as to unfit its possessor for facing -and dealing with the world. It is one thing -to perfect some new machine or process, it -is another to secure Capital which may put -it into practical operation; and again, if we -put the difficulty of securing Capital out of -the question by supposing the inventor to be -a large capitalist himself, there is another -difficulty to be considered, more important -far than this—the difficulty dealt with in the -last chapter—namely, the conduct of the -business when once started. Here we come -to a number of complicated tasks, in which -the faculty of invention or discovery offers -no assistance whatsoever. We come to tasks -which have to do, not with natural principles, -but with men—the thousand tasks of daily -and of hourly management. A machine or -process is invented by intellect—there is one -step. It is put into practical operation with -the aid of Capital—there is another. When -these two steps are taken, they do not require -to be repeated, but the tasks of management -are tasks which never cease; on the contrary, -as has been said already, they tend rather<span class="pagenum" id="Page_214">[214]</span> -to become ever more numerous and complicated. -◆² Nor do they consist only of the mere -management of labourers, the selection of -foremen and inspectors, and the minutiæ of -industrial discipline. They consist also of -what may be called the policy of the whole -business—the quick comprehension of the -fluctuating wants of the consumer, the extent -to which these may be led, the extent to -which they must be followed, the constant -power of adjusting the supply of a commodity -to the demand. On the importance of these -faculties there is a great deal to be said; -but I will only observe here that it is -embodied and exemplified in the fact that -successful inventors and discoverers are nearly -always to be found in partnership with men -who are not inventors, but who are critics -of inventions, who understand how to manage -and use them, and who supplement the Ability -that consists of gifts of intellect by that -other kind of Ability that consists of gifts -of character.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 Equality of -education -and opportunity, -instead -of -equalising -characters, -displays -their differences.</div> - -<div class="sidenote">◆2 Ability, -then, is a -natural -monopoly; -because -few people -are born -with it.</div> - -<p>Now if, as we have seen, it is entirely -contrary to experience to suppose that inventive -Ability is produced by educational opportunity,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_215">[215]</span> -much more is it contrary to experience—it -is contrary even to common sense—to -suppose that Ability of character can be -produced in the same way. ◆¹ Education, as -applied to the rousing and the training of -the intellect, is like a polishing process applied -to various stones, which may give to all of -them a certain kind of smoothness, but brings -to light their differences far more than their -similarity. Education may make all of us -write equally good grammar, but it will not -make all of us write equally good poetry, -any more than cutting and polishing will -turn a pebble into an emerald. And if this -is true of education applied to intellect, of -education applied to character it is truer -still. Character consists of such qualities as -temperament, strength of will, imagination, perseverance, -courage; ◆² and it is as absurd to expect -that the same course of education will make a -hundred boys equally brave or imaginative, -as it is to expect that it will make them -equally tall or heavy, or decorate all of them -with hair of the same colour.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 And now -let us again -compare its -action with -that of the -mass of -men surrounding -it.</div> - -<p>Ability, then, is rare as compared with -Labour, not because the opportunities are<span class="pagenum" id="Page_216">[216]</span> -rare which are favourable or necessary to its -development, but because the minds and -characters are rare which can turn opportunity -to account. ◆¹ And now let us turn again to -the more general form of the Socialistic -fallacy—the general proposition that the Age, -or Society, or the Human Race is the true -inventor, and let us test this by a new order -of facts.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 Do able -men in any -sense represent -the -tendencies -and intelligence -of -their average -contemporaries? -Let -us turn for -an answer -to the history -of the -three chief -industrial -triumphs -of this -country: -(1) the iron -manufacture, -(2) -the cotton -manufacture, -(3) -the steam-engine.</div> - -<p>I have already alluded to the stress laid -by Socialists on the fact that different individuals -in different parts of the world often -make the same discoveries at almost the -same time; and I pointed out that whatever -this might teach us, applied only to a small -minority of persons, and had no reference -whatever to the great mass of the race. But -Socialists very frequently put their view in -a form even more exaggerated than that -which I thus criticised. ◆¹ They use language -which implies that the whole mass of society -moves forward together at the same intellectual -pace; and that discoverers and inventors -merely occupy the position of persons -who chance to be walking a few paces in -advance of the crowd, and who thus light<span class="pagenum" id="Page_217">[217]</span> -upon new processes or machines like so many -nuggets lying and glittering on the ground, -which those who follow would have presently -discovered for themselves; or, again, they -are represented as persons who are merely -the first to utter some word or exclamation -which is already on the lips of everybody. -Let us, then, take the three great elements -which go to make up the industrial prosperity -of this country—the manufacture of iron, the -manufacture of cotton, and the development -of the steam-engine, and see how far the -history of each of these lends any support to -the theory just mentioned.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 The -modern development -of the iron -industry -dependent -on the use -of coal in -place of -wood.</div> - -<div class="sidenote">◆2 The discovery -of -how to use -coal for -this purpose -due -to a few individuals, -whose -labours -were either -secret, or -bitterly -opposed by -all who -knew of -them. -Chief -amongst -these were</div> - -<p>We will begin with the manufacture of -iron. Ever since man was acquainted with -the use of this metal till a time removed from -our own by a few generations only, ◆¹ its production -from the ore was dependent entirely -upon wood, which alone of all fuels—so far -as knowledge then went—had the chemical -qualities necessary for the process of smelting. -The iron industry in this country was therefore, -till very recently, confined to wooded -districts, such as parts of Sussex and Shropshire; -and so large, during the seventeenth<span class="pagenum" id="Page_218">[218]</span> -century, was the consumption of trees and -brushwood, that the smelting furnace came -to be considered by many statesmen as the -destroyer of wood, rather than as the producer -of metal. ◆² This view, indeed, can hardly -be called exaggerated; for by the beginning -of the century following the wood available -for the furnaces was becoming so fast exhausted -that the industry had begun to -dwindle; and but for one great discovery it -would have soon been altogether extinguished. -This was the method of smelting iron with -coal. Now to what cause was this discovery -due? The answer can be given with the -utmost completeness and precision. It was -due to the Ability of a few isolated individuals, -whose relation to their contemporaries and to -their age we will now briefly glance at.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 Dud -Dudley,</div> - -<div class="sidenote">◆2 The two -Darbys,</div> - -<div class="sidenote">◆3 Reynolds -and the two -Craneges, -and others;</div> - -<p>◆¹ The first of these was a certain Dud -Dudley, who procured a patent in the year -1620 for smelting iron ore “with coal, in -furnaces with bellows”; and his process was -so far successful, that at length from a single -furnace he produced for a time seven tons of -iron weekly. For reasons, however, which will -be mentioned presently Dudley’s invention<span class="pagenum" id="Page_219">[219]</span> -died with himself; and for fifty years after -his death the application of coal to smelting -was as much a lost art as it would have been -had he never lived. ◆² Between the years 1718 -and 1735 it was again discovered by a father -and son—the Darbys of Coalbrookdale. A -further step, and one of almost equal importance, -◆³ was achieved by two of their foremen—brothers -of the name of Cranege—assisted -by Reynolds, who had married the younger -Darby’s daughter, and this was the application -of coal to the process which succeeds smelting, -namely, the conversion of crude iron into -bar-iron, or iron that is malleable. Other -inventors might be mentioned by whom these -men were assisted, but it will be quite enough -to consider the case of these. As related to -the age, as related to the society round him, -the one thing most striking in the life of -each of them is not that he represented that -society, but that he was in opposition to it, -and had to fight a way for his inventions -through neglect, ridicule, and persecution. The -nation at large was absolutely ignorant of the -very nature of the objects which these men -had in view; whilst the ironmasters of the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_220">[220]</span> -day, as a body, though not equally ignorant, -disbelieved that the objects were practicable -until they were actually accomplished. It is -true that these great inventors were not alone -in their efforts; for where they succeeded, -others attempted and failed: but these failures -do but show in a stronger light how rare and -how great were the faculties which success -demanded.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 The details -of whose -several -lives are -signal illustrations -of -what has -just been -said.</div> - -<p>◆¹ Let us take each case separately. Dudley’s -life as an ironmaster was one long succession -of persecution at the hands of his brothers in -the trade. They petitioned the king to put a -stop to his manufacture; they incited mobs to -destroy his bellows and his furnaces; they -harassed him with law-suits, ruined him with -legal expenses; they succeeded at last in having -him imprisoned for debt; and by thus crippling -the inventor, they at last killed his invention. -It is true that meanwhile a few men—a very -few—believed in his ideas, and attempted to -work them out independently; and amongst -these was Oliver Cromwell himself. He and -certain partners protected themselves with a -patent for the purpose, and actually bought up -the works of the ruined Dudley; but all their<span class="pagenum" id="Page_221">[221]</span> -attempts ended in utter failure. Two more -adventurers, named Copley and Proger, were -successively granted patents during the reign -of Charles II. for this same purpose, and likewise -failed ignominiously. One man alone in -the whole nation had proved himself capable -of accomplishing this new conquest for industry; -whilst the nation as a whole, and the -masters of the iron trade in particular, remained -as they were—stationary in their old invincible -ignorance. The two Darbys, the two Craneges, -and Reynolds, though not encountering, as -Dudley did, the hostility of their contemporaries, -yet achieved their work without the -slightest encouragement or assistance from -them. The younger Darby, solitary as Columbus -on his quarter-deck, watched all night by -his furnace as he was bringing his process to -perfection. His workmen, like the sailors of -Columbus, obeyed their orders blindly; and in -hardly a brain but his own did there exist -the smallest consciousness that one man was -laying, in secret, the foundation of his country’s -greatness. With regard to Reynolds and the -Craneges, who imitated, though they did not -perfect, the further use of coal for the production<span class="pagenum" id="Page_222">[222]</span> -of iron that is malleable, we have similar -evidence that is yet more circumstantial. Reynolds -distinctly declares in a letter written to a -friend that the conception of this process was so -entirely original with the Craneges that it had -never for a moment occurred to himself as being -possible, and that they had had to convince -him that it was so, against his own judgment. -But when once his conversion was completed, -he united his Ability with theirs; and within a -very short time the second great step in our -iron industry had been taken triumphantly by -these three unaided men.</p> - -<p>Were it necessary, and would space permit -of it, we might extend this history further. -We might cite the inventions of Huntsman, of -Onions, of Cort, and Neilson, and show how -each of these was conceived, was perfected, -and was brought into practical use, whilst the -nation as a whole remained inert, passive, -and ignorant, and the experts of the trade -were hostile, and sometimes equally ignorant. -Huntsman perfected his process in a secrecy -as carefully guarded as that of a mediæval -necromancer hiding himself from the vigilance -of the Church; whilst James Neilson, the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_223">[223]</span> -inventor of the hot-blast, had at first to -encounter the united ridicule and hostility of -all the shrewdest and most experienced iron-masters -in the kingdom.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 The history -of the -cotton -manufacture -does -so with -equal force;</div> - -<p>◆¹ The history of the cotton manufacture offers -precisely similar evidence. Almost every one -of those great improvements made in it, by -which Ability has multiplied the power of -Labour, had to be forced by the able men on -the acceptance of adverse contemporaries. Hay -was driven from the country; Hargreaves from -his native town; Arkwright’s mill, near Chorley, -was burnt down by a mob; Peel, who used -Arkwright’s machinery, was at one time in -danger of his life. Nor was it only the hostility -of the ignorant that the inventors had to -encounter. They had to conquer Capital before -they could conquer Labour; for the Capitalists -at the beginning were hardly more friendly to -them than the labourers. The first Capitalists -who assisted Arkwright, and had Ability -enough to discover some promise in his invention, -had not enough Ability to see their way -through certain difficulties, and withdrew their -help from him at the most critical moment. -The enterprising men who at last became his<span class="pagenum" id="Page_224">[224]</span> -partners, and with the aid of whose Capital his -invention became successful, represented their -age just as little as Arkwright did. He and -they, indeed, had the same opportunities as -the society round them; but they stand contrasted -to the society by the different use they -made of them.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 Also the -history of -the steam-engine, -as -a very -curious -anecdote -will show.</div> - -<p>◆¹ And now, lastly, let us come to the history -of the steam-engine. We need not go over -ground we have already trodden, and prove -once more that in this case, as in the others, the -age, in the sense of the majority of the community, -had as little to do with the work of -the great inventors as Hannibal had to do with -the beheading of Charles I. It will be enough -to insist on the fact that the scientific minority -amongst whom the inventors lived, and who -were busied with the same pursuits, were, as a -body, concerned in it just as little. The whole -forward movement, the step after step of discovery -by which the power of steam has become -what it now is, was due to individuals—to a -minority of a minority; and this smaller -minority was so far from representing the -larger, or from merely marching a few steps -ahead of it, that the large minority always<span class="pagenum" id="Page_225">[225]</span> -hung back incredulous, till, in spite of itself, it -was converted by the accomplished miracle. -One example is enough to illustrate this. -Watt, when he was perfecting his steam-engine, -was in partnership with Dr. Roebuck, who -advanced the money required to patent the -invention, and whose energy and encouragement -helped him over many practical difficulties. -When the engine was almost brought to -completion, Roebuck found himself so much -embarrassed for money, on account of expense -incurred by him in an entirely different enterprise, -that he was forced to sell a large part of -his property; and amongst other things with -which he parted was his interest in Watt’s -patent. This he transferred to the celebrated -engineer Boulton; and the patent for that -invention which has since revolutionised the -world was valued by Roebuck’s creditors at -only one farthing.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 The average -man, -if cross-examined -at the Day -of Judgment, -would be -forced to -give his -testimony -to the same -effect.</div> - -<p>◆¹ These facts speak plainly enough for themselves; -and the conscience of most men will add -its own witness to what they teach us—which is -this. So far as industrial progress is concerned, -the majority of mankind are passive. They -labour as the conditions into which they are<span class="pagenum" id="Page_226">[226]</span> -born compel them to labour; but they do -nothing, from their cradle to their grave, so to -alter these conditions that their own labour, -or Labour generally, shall produce larger or -improved results. The most progressive race -in the world—or in other words the English -race—has progressed as it has done only because -it has produced the largest minority of -men fitted to lead, and has been quickest in -obeying their orders; but apart from these -men it has had no appreciable tendency to -move. Let the average Englishman ask himself -if this is not absolutely true. Let him -imagine himself arraigned before the Deity at -the Day of Judgment, and the Deity saying -this to him: “You found when you entered -the world that a man’s labour on the average -produced each year such and such an amount -of wealth. Have you done anything to make -the product of the same labour greater? Have -you discovered or applied any new principle -to any branch of industry? Have you guided -industry into any new direction? Have the -exertions of any other human being been made -more efficacious owing to your powers of invention, -of enterprise, or of management?” There<span class="pagenum" id="Page_227">[227]</span> -is not one man in a hundred who, if thus questioned -at the Judgment-seat, would be able, -on examining every thought and deed of his -life, to give the Judge any answer but, “No. -So far as I am concerned, the powers of Labour, -are as I found them.”</p> -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_228">[228]</span></p> - -<h3 class="nobreak" id="CHAPTER_IVB3">CHAPTER IV</h3> -</div> - -<p class="chapter-title"><i>The Conclusion arrived at in the preceding Book -restated. The Annual Amount produced by Ability -in the United Kingdom.</i></p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 The more, -then, that -we examine -the question, -the -more -clearly do -we see the -magnitude -of the work -performed -by Ability -of the few.</div> - -<p class="noindent">◆¹ <span class="smcap">In</span> spite, then, of the arguments which Socialists -have borrowed from psychology, and with -which, by transferring them to the sphere of -economics, and so depriving them of all practical -meaning, they have contrived to confuse -the problem of industrial progress, the facts of -the case, when examined from a practical point -of view, stand out hard and clear and unambiguous. -Industrial progress is the work not -of society as a whole but of a small part of it, -to the entire exclusion of the larger part; the -reason of this being that the faculties to which -this progress is due—the faculties which I -have included under the name of Industrial -Ability—are found to exist only in a small<span class="pagenum adjust1" id="Page_229">[229]</span> -percentage of individuals, and are practically -absent from the minds, characters, and -temperaments of the majority of the human -race. Ability is, in fact, a narrow natural -monopoly.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 But it must -not be supposed -that -Ability is -rarer than -it is.</div> - -<div class="sidenote">◆2 A rough -indication -of the number -of able -men in this -country is -found in -the incomes -earned that -are above -the average -wages of -Labour.</div> - -<div class="sidenote">◆3 The highest -Ability -very rare. -Of all -grades of -Ability -below the -highest, -there is -always a -plentiful -supply.</div> - -<p>◆¹ Ability, however, is of different kinds and -grades, some kinds being far commoner than -others; and before summing up what has been -said in this chapter, it will be well to give the -reader some more or less definite idea of the -numerical proportion which, judging by general -evidence, the men of Ability bear to the mass -of labourers. Such evidence, not indeed very -exact, but still corresponding broadly to the -underlying facts of the case, is to be found in -the number of men paying income-tax on business -incomes, as compared with the number of -wage-earners whose incomes escape that tax; -in the number of men, that is, who earn more -than <i>one hundred and fifty pounds</i> a year, as -compared with the number of men who do -not earn so much. It may seem at first sight -that this division is purely arbitrary; but we -shall see, on consideration, that it is not so. -◆² We shall find that, allowing for very numerous -exceptions, men in this country do as a rule<span class="pagenum" id="Page_230">[230]</span> -receive less than <i>one hundred and fifty pounds</i> -a year for Labour, and that when they receive -for their exertions a larger income than this -they receive it for the direction of Labour, or -for the exercise of some sort of Ability. Now -if we take the males who are over sixteen years -of age, and who are actually engaged in some -industrial occupation, we shall find that those -who earn more than <i>one hundred and fifty -pounds</i> a year form of the entire number -something like six per cent. We may therefore -say that out of every thousand men -there are, on an average, sixty who are distinctly -superior to their fellows, who each -add more to the gross amount of the product -by directing Labour, than any one man -does by labouring, and who possesses Ability -to a greater or less extent. ◆³ The commoner -kinds of Ability, however, depend as a rule -on the higher kinds, and are efficacious only -as working under their direction; and if we -continue our estimate on the basis we have -just adopted, and accept the amount that a -man makes in industry as being on the whole -an evidence of the amount of his Ability, we -consider that, all allowance being made for<span class="pagenum" id="Page_231">[231]</span> -mere luck or speculation, a business income of -<i>fifty thousand pounds</i> means, as a rule, Ability -of the first class, of <i>fifteen thousand pounds</i> -Ability of the second, and <i>five thousand -pounds</i> Ability of the third, we shall find that -men possessing these higher degrees of the -faculty are, in comparison to the mass of -employed males, very few indeed. We shall -find that Ability of the third class is possessed -by but one man out of two thousand; of the -second class by but one man out of four thousand; -and of the first class by but one man -out of a hundred thousand. This is, as I have -said, a very rough method of calculation, but -it is not a random one; and there is reason to -believe that it affords us an approximation to -truth. At all events, taking it as a whole, it -does not err by making Ability too rare; and -we shall be certainly within the mark if, taking -Ability as a whole, and waiving the question of -its various classes and their rarity, we say -that of the men in this country actively engaged -in production, the men of Ability constitute -one-sixteenth.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 We may -now repeat -the conclusions -arrived at -in the last -Book, that -Ability -produces at -<i>least</i> eight-thirteenths -of the present -income -of this -country; -and -Labour, at -the utmost, -five-thirteenths.</div> - -<p>And now we are in a position to repeat -with more precision and confidence the conclusion<span class="pagenum" id="Page_232">[232]</span> -which we reached at the end of the last -chapter. ◆¹ It was there pointed out that of -our present national income, consisting as -it does of about <i>thirteen hundred million -pounds</i>, Labour demonstrably produced not -more than <i>five hundred million pounds</i>, whilst -<i>eight hundred million pounds</i> at least was -demonstrably the product of Ability. In the -present chapter, I have substantiated that proposition: -I have exposed the confusions and -fallacies which have been used to obscure its -truth; I have shown that Ability and Labour -are two distinct forces, in the sense that whilst -the latter represents a faculty common to all -men, the possession of the former is the natural -monopoly of the few; that the labourer and -the man of Ability play such different parts in -production that a given amount of wealth is no -more their joint product than a picture is the -joint product of a great painter and a canvas-stretcher; -and I have now pointed to some -rough indication of the respective numbers of -the men of Ability and of the labourers. Instead, -therefore, of contenting ourselves with -the general statement that Ability makes so -much of the national income, and Labour so<span class="pagenum" id="Page_233">[233]</span> -much, we may say that ninety-six per cent of -the producing classes produce little more than a -third of our present national income, and that -a minority, consisting of one-sixteenth of these -classes, produces little less than two-thirds -of it.</p> - -<div class="chapter"> -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_235">[235]</span></p> - -<h2 class="fs4">BOOK IV</h2> - -<p class="noindent center fs1 p1">THE REASONABLE HOPES OF LABOUR—THEIR -MAGNITUDE, AND THEIR -BASIS</p> - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> -</div> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_237">[237]</span></p> - -<h3 class="nobreak" id="CHAPTER_IB4">CHAPTER I</h3> -</div> - -<p class="chapter-title"><i>How the Future and Hopes of the Labouring Classes -are bound up with the Prosperity of the Classes -who exercise Ability.</i></p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 The foregoing -conclusions -not yet -complete; -but first -let us see -the lesson -which it -teaches us -as it -stands.</div> - -<p class="noindent">◆¹ <span class="smcap">The</span> conclusion just arrived at is not yet completely -stated; for there are certain further -facts to be considered in connection with it -which have indeed already come under our -view, but which, in order to simplify the course -of our argument, have been put out of sight -in the two preceding chapters. I shall return -to these facts presently; but it will be well, -before doing so, to take the conclusion as it -stands in this simple and broad form, and see, -by reference to those principles which were explained -at starting, and in which all classes and -parties agree, what is the broad lesson which -it forces on us, underlying all party differences.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 If we sum -up all that -has been -said thus -far, it may -seem at -first sight -that it -teaches -nothing -but the -negative -lesson, that -we should -let Ability -have its -own way -unchecked.</div> - -<p>◆¹ I started with pointing out that, so far<span class="pagenum" id="Page_238">[238]</span> -as politics are concerned, the aim of all classes -is to maintain their existing incomes; and -that the aim of the most numerous class is -not only to maintain, but to increase them. -I pointed out further that the income of the -individual is necessarily limited by the amount -of the income of the nation; and that therefore -the increase, or at all events the maintenance, -of the existing income of the nation is -implied in all hopes of social and economic -progress, and forms the foundation on which -all such hopes are based. I then examined -the causes to which the existing income of -the nation is due; and I showed that very -nearly two-thirds of it is due to the exertions -of a small body of men who contribute thus -to the productive powers of the community, -not primarily because they possess Capital, -but because they possess Ability, of which -Capital is merely the instrument; that it is -owing to the exercise of Ability only that -this larger part of the income has gradually -made its appearance during the past hundred -years; and that were the exercise of Ability -interfered with, the increment would at once -dwindle, and before long disappear.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_239">[239]</span></p> - -<p>Thus the two chief factors in the production -of the national income—in the production -of that wealth which must be produced before -it can be distributed—are not Labour and -Capital, which terms, as commonly used, mean -living labourers on the one hand, and dead -material on the other; but they are two -distinct bodies of living men—labourers on -the one hand, and on the other men of -Ability. The great practical truth, then, -which is to be drawn from the foregoing -arguments is this—and it is to be drawn from -them in the interest of all classes alike—that -the action of Ability should never be checked -or hampered in such a way as to diminish its -productive efficacy, either by so interfering -with its control of Capital, or by so diminishing -its rewards, as to diminish the vigour -with which it exerts itself; but that, on the -contrary, all these social conditions should be -jealously maintained and guarded which tend -to stimulate it most, by the nature of the -rewards they offer it, and which secure for -it also the most favourable conditions for its -exercise. By such means, and by such means -only, is there any possibility of the national<span class="pagenum" id="Page_240">[240]</span> -wealth being increased, or even preserved -from disastrous and rapid diminution.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 But this is -very far -from being -the whole -lesson -taught, or -indeed the -chief part -of it.</div> - -<p>◆¹ This, however, is but one half of the case; -and, taken by itself, it may seem to have no -connection with the problem which forms the -main subject of this volume, namely, the -social hopes and interests, not of Ability, but -of Labour. For, taken by itself, the conclusion -which has just been stated may strike -the reader at first sight as amounting merely -to this: that the sum total of the national -income will be largest when the most numerous -minority of able men produce the largest -possible incomes,—incomes which they themselves -consume; and that, unless they are -allowed to consume them, they will soon -cease to produce them. From the labourer’s -point of view, such a conclusion would indeed -be a barren one. It might show him that -he could not better himself by attacking the -fortunes of the minority; but it would, on -the other hand, fail to show him that he -was much interested in their maintenance, -since, if Ability consumes the whole of the -annual wealth which it adds to the wealth -annually produced by Labour, the total might<span class="pagenum" id="Page_241">[241]</span> -be diminished by the whole of the added -portion, and Labour itself be no worse off -than formerly. But when I said just now -that it was to the interest of all classes alike -not to diminish the rewards which Ability -may hope for by exerting itself, this was -said with a special qualification. I did not -say that it was to the interest of the labourers -to allow Ability to retain the whole of what -it produced, or to abstain themselves from -appropriating a certain portion of it; but -what I did say was that any portion appropriated -thus should not be so large, nor -appropriated in such a way, as to make what -remains an object of less desire, or the hope -of possessing it less powerful as a stimulus -to producing it. This qualification, as the -reader will see presently, gives to the conclusion -in question a very different meaning -from that which at first he may very naturally -have attributed to it.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 The chief -lesson to -be learnt -is that, -whilst -Ability is -the chief -producer -of wealth, -Labour -may appropriate -a -large share -of its products.</div> - -<p>◆¹ For the precise point to which I have -been leading up, from the opening page of -the present volume to this, is that a considerable -portion of the wealth produced by -Ability may be taken from it and handed<span class="pagenum" id="Page_242">[242]</span> -over to Labour, without the vigour of Ability -being in the least diminished by the loss; -that such being the case, the one great aim -of Labour is to constantly take from Ability -a certain part of its product; and that this -is the sole process by which, so far as money -is concerned, Labour has improved its position -during the past hundred years, or by which -it can ever hope to improve it further in the -future.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 The question -is, How -much may -it appropriate -without -paralysing -the Ability -which produces -it?</div> - -<p>◆¹ The practical question, therefore, for the -great mass of the population resolves itself -into this: What is the extent to which -Ability can be mulcted of its products, without -diminishing its efficacy as a productive -agent? An able man’s hopes of securing -<i>nine hundred thousand pounds</i> for himself -would probably stimulate his Ability as much -as his hopes of securing a <i>million</i>. Indeed -the fact that, before he could secure a <i>million -pounds</i> for himself, he had to produce a -<i>hundred thousand</i> for other people, might -tend to increase his efforts rather than to relax -them. But, on the other hand, if, before he -could secure a <i>hundred thousand pounds</i> for -himself, he had to produce a <i>million</i> for other<span class="pagenum" id="Page_243">[243]</span> -people, it is doubtful whether either sum -would ever be produced at all. There must -therefore be, under any given set of circumstances, -some point somewhere between -these two extremes up to which Labour can -appropriate the products of Ability with permanent -advantage to itself, but beyond which -it cannot carry the process, without checking -the production of what it desires to appropriate. -But how are we to ascertain where -that precise point is?</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 This is a -question -which -can be -answered -only by -experience; -and we -have the -experience -of a -century to -guide us.</div> - -<p>◆¹ To this question it is altogether impossible -to give any answer based upon <i>à priori</i> -reasoning. The very idea of such a thing -is ridiculous; and to attempt it could, at the -best, result in nothing better than some piece -of academic ingenuity, having no practical -meaning for man, woman, or child. But -what reasoning will not do, industrial history -will. Industrial history will provide us with -an answer of the most striking kind—general, -indeed, in its character; but not, for that -reason, any the less decided, or less full of -instruction. For industrial history, in a -way which few people realise, will show us -how, during the past hundred years, Labour<span class="pagenum" id="Page_244">[244]</span> -has actually succeeded in accomplishing the -feat we are considering; how, without checking -the development and the power of Ability, -it has been able to appropriate year by year -a certain share of what Ability produces. -When the reader comes to consider this,—which -is the great industrial object lesson -of modern times,—when he sees what the -share is which Labour has appropriated so -triumphantly, he will see how the conclusions -we have here arrived at, with regard to the -causes of production, afford a foundation for -the hopes and claims of Labour, as broad and -solid as that by which they support the rights -of Ability.</p> - -<p>Let us turn, then, once more to the fact -which I have already so often dwelt upon, -that during the closing years of the last -century the population of Great Britain was -about <i>ten millions</i>, and the national income -about a <i>hundred and forty million pounds</i>. -It has been shown that to reach and maintain -that rate of production required the exertion -of an immense amount of Ability, and the -use of an immense Capital which Ability had -recently created. But let me repeat what I<span class="pagenum" id="Page_245">[245]</span> -have said already: that we will, for the -purpose of the present argument, attribute -the production of the whole to average human -Labour. It is obvious that Labour did not -produce more, for no more was produced; -and it is also obvious that if, since that time, -it had never been assisted and never controlled -by Ability, the same amount of Labour would -produce no more now. We are therefore, -let me repeat, plainly understating the case -if we say that British Labour by itself—in -other words, Labour shut out from, and unassisted -by the industrial Ability of the past -ninety years—can, at the utmost, produce -annually a <i>hundred and forty million pounds</i> -for every <i>ten millions</i> of the population.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 In 1860 -Labour -took at -least -twenty-five -per cent -more than -it produced -itself, out -of the -products -of Ability; -and it now -takes about -forty-five -per cent.</div> - -<p>And now let us turn from what Labour -produces to what the labouring classes<a id="FNanchor_43" href="#Footnote_43" class="fnanchor">[43]</a> have<span class="pagenum" id="Page_246">[246]</span> -received at different dates within the ninety -or hundred years in question. ◆¹ At the time -of which we have just been speaking, they -received about half of what we assume Labour -to have produced. A labouring population of <i>ten -million</i> people received annually about <i>seventy -million pounds</i>.<a id="FNanchor_44" href="#Footnote_44" class="fnanchor">[44]</a> Two generations later, the -same number of people received in return for -their labour about a <i>hundred and sixty million -pounds</i>.<a id="FNanchor_45" href="#Footnote_45" class="fnanchor">[45]</a> They were twenty-five per cent<span class="pagenum" id="Page_247">[247]</span> -richer than they possibly could have been if, -in 1795, they had seized on all the property -in the kingdom and divided it amongst themselves. -In other words, Labour in 1860, -instead of receiving, as it did two generations -previously, half of what we assume it to have -produced, received twenty-five per cent more -than it produced. If we turn from the year -1860 to the present time, we find that the -gains of Labour have gone on increasing; -and that each <i>ten millions</i> of the labouring -classes to-day receives in return for its labour -<i>two hundred million pounds</i>, or over forty -per cent more than it produces. And all -these calculations are based, the reader must -remember, on the ridiculously exaggerated -assumption which was made for the sake -of argument, that in the days of Watt and -Arkwright, Capital, Genius, and Ability had -no share in production; and that all the -wealth of the country, till the beginning of -the present century, was due to the spontaneous -efforts of common Labour alone.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 The gains -of Labour -are put in -a yet more -striking -light by -comparing -the present -income of -Labour -with the -total -income -of the -country -fifty years -ago.</div> - -<p>◆¹ And now let us look at the matter from a<span class="pagenum" id="Page_248">[248]</span> -point of view slightly different, and compare -the receipts of Labour not with what we -assume it to have itself produced, but with -the total product of the community at a -certain very recent date.</p> - -<p>In 1843, when Queen Victoria had been -six or seven years on the throne, the gross -income of the nation was in round numbers -<i>five hundred and fifteen million pounds</i>. Of -this, <i>two hundred and thirty-five million -pounds</i> went to the labouring classes, and the -remainder, <i>two hundred and eighty million -pounds</i>, to the classes that paid income-tax. -Only fifty years have elapsed since that time, -and, according to the best authorities, the -income of the labouring classes now is certainly -not less than <i>six hundred and sixty -million pounds</i>.<a id="FNanchor_46" href="#Footnote_46" class="fnanchor">[46]</a> That is to say, it exceeds, -by a <i>hundred and forty-five million pounds</i>, -the entire income of the nation fifty years ago.</p> - -<p>An allowance, however, must be made for -the increase in the number of the labourers. -That is of course obvious, and we will at once -proceed to make it. But when it is made,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_249">[249]</span> -the case is hardly less wonderful. The labouring -classes in 1843 numbered <i>twenty-six -millions</i>; at the present time they number -<i>thirty-three millions</i>.<a id="FNanchor_47" href="#Footnote_47" class="fnanchor">[47]</a> That is to say, they -have increased by <i>seven million</i> persons. -Now assuming, as we have done, that Labour -by itself produces as much as <i>fourteen pounds</i> -per head of the population, this addition of -<i>seven million</i> persons will account for an -addition of <i>ninety-eight million pounds</i> to -the <i>five hundred and fifteen million pounds</i> -which was the amount of the national income -fifty years ago. We must therefore, to make -our comparisons accurate, deduct <i>ninety-eight -million pounds</i> from the <i>hundred and forty-five -million pounds</i> just mentioned, which -will leave us an addition of <i>forty-seven million -pounds</i>. We may now say, without any -reservation, that the labouring classes of this -country, in proportion to their number, receive -to-day <i>forty-seven million pounds</i> a year more<span class="pagenum" id="Page_250">[250]</span> -than the entire income of the country at the -beginning of the reign of Queen Victoria.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 Every -labourer -anxious for -his own -welfare -should -reflect on -these facts.</div> - -<p>◆¹ To any labourer anxious for his own welfare, -to any voter or politician of any kind, who -realises that the welfare of the labourers is -the foundation of national stability, and who -seeks to discover by what conditions that -welfare can be best secured and promoted, -this fact which I have just stated is one that -cannot be considered too closely, too seriously, -or too constantly.</p> - -<p>Let the reader reflect on what it means.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 They show -him that -the existing -system -has done, -and is -doing for -him far -more than -any Socialist -ever -promised.</div> - -<p>Dreams of some possible social revolution, -dreams of some division of property by which -most of the riches of the rich should be -abstracted from them and divided amongst -the poor—these were not wanting fifty years -ago. ◆¹ But even the most sanguine of the -dreamers hardly ventured to hope that the -then riches of the rich could be taken away -from them completely; that a sum equal to -the rent of the whole landed aristocracy, all -the interest on Capital, all the profits of our -commerce and manufactures, could be added -to what was then the income of the labouring -classes. No forces of revolution were thought<span class="pagenum" id="Page_251">[251]</span> -equal to such a change as that. But what -have the facts been? What has happened -really? Within fifty years the miracle has -taken place, or, indeed, one greater than that. -The same number of labourers and their -families as then formed the whole labouring -population of the country now possess among -them every penny of the amount that then -formed the income of the entire nation. They -have gained every penny that they possibly -could have gained if every rich man of that -period—if duke, and cotton lord, and railway -king, followed by all the host of minor plutocrats, -had been forced to cast all they had -into the treasury of Labour, and give their -very last farthing to swell the labourer’s -wages. The labourers have gained this; but -that is not all. They have gained an annual -sum of <i>forty-seven million pounds</i> more. And -they have done all this, not only without -revolution, but without any attack on the -fundamental principles of property. On the -contrary, the circumstances which have enabled -Labour to gain most from the proceeds of -Ability, have been the circumstances which -have enabled Ability to produce most itself.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_252">[252]</span></p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 But before -proceeding -with this -argument, -there are -two side -points to -dispose of.</div> - -<p>◆¹ Before, however, we pursue these considerations -further, it is necessary that we should -deal with two important points which have -perhaps already suggested themselves to the -reader as essential to the problem before us. -They are not new points. They have been -discussed in previous chapters; but the time -has now arrived to turn to them once again.</p> -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_253">[253]</span></p> - -<h3 class="nobreak" id="CHAPTER_IIB4">CHAPTER II</h3> -</div> - -<p class="chapter-title"><i>Of the Ownership of Capital, as distinct from its -Employment by Ability.</i></p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 In the -foregoing -argument, -all mention -of Land -has been -omitted, -for simplicity’s -sake.</div> - -<div class="sidenote">◆2 But rent, -especially -the rent of -the large -owners, is -so small a -part of the -national -income -that the -omission -is of no -practical -importance.</div> - -<p class="noindent"><span class="smcap">The</span> first of the points I have alluded to can -be disposed of very quickly. It relates to -Land. In analysing the causes to which our -national income is due, I began with showing -that Land produced a certain definite part -of it. ◆¹ For the sake, however, of simplicity, -in the calculation which I went on to make, I -ignored Land, and the fact of its being a productive -agent; and treated the whole income -as if produced by Labour, Capital, and Ability. -I wish, therefore, now to point out to the -reader that this procedure has had little -practical effect on the calculation in question, -and that any error introduced by it can be -easily rectified in a moment. ◆² The entire -landed rental of this country is, as I have<span class="pagenum adjust1" id="Page_254">[254]</span> -already shown, not so much as one thirteenth -of the income; whilst that of the larger landed -proprietors is not so much as one thirty-ninth. -Now my sole object in dealing with the -national income at all is to show how far it -is susceptible of redistribution; and it is perfectly -certain that no existing political party -would attempt, or even desire, to redistribute -the rents of any class except the large proprietors -only. The smaller proprietors,—<i>nine -hundred and fifty thousand</i> in number,—who -take between them two-thirds of the rental, -are in little immediate danger of having their -rights attacked. The only rental therefore—namely, -that of the larger proprietors—which -can be looked on, even in theory, as the -subject of redistribution, is too insignificant, -being less than <i>thirty million pounds</i>, to -appreciably affect our calculations when we -are dealing with <i>thirteen hundred millions</i>. -The theory of Land as an independent productive -agent, and of rent as representing -its independent product, is essential to an -understanding of the theory of production -generally; but in this country the actual -product of the Land is so small, as compared<span class="pagenum adjust1" id="Page_255">[255]</span> -with the products of Labour, Capital, and -Ability, that for purposes like the present -it is hardly worth considering. Its being -redistributed, or not redistributed, would, -as we have seen already, make to each individual -but a difference of three farthings -a day.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 Capital, -as distinct -from the -Ability -that uses it, -has been -omitted -also.</div> - -<div class="sidenote">◆2 We must -now again -consider it -in connection -with -the classes -which -never -themselves -employ it, -but live -on the -interest -of it.</div> - -<div class="sidenote">◆3 What place -do these -classes hold -in the -productive -system?</div> - -<p>◆¹ The second point I alluded to must be -considered at greater length. In dealing with -Capital and Ability, I first treated them -separately. I then showed that, regarded as -a productive agent, Capital <i>is</i> Ability, and -must be treated as identical with it. But it -is necessary, now that we are dealing with -distribution, to disunite them for a moment, -and treat them separately once more. ◆² For -even though it be admitted that Ability, -working by means of Capital, produces, as -it has been shown to do, nearly two-thirds -of the national income, and though it be -admitted further that a large portion of this -product should go to those able men who -are actively engaged in producing it,—the -men whose Ability animates and vivifies -Capital,—it may yet be urged that a portion -of it which is very large indeed goes, as a<span class="pagenum" id="Page_256">[256]</span> -fact, to men who do not exert themselves at -all, or who, at any rate, do not exert themselves -in the production of wealth. These -men, it will be said, live not on the products -of Ability, but on the interest of Capital -which they have come accidentally to possess; -◆³ and it will be asked on what grounds Labour -is interested in forbearing to touch the possessions -of those who produce nothing? If it -has added to its income, as it has done, during -the past hundred years, why should it not -now add to it much more rapidly, by appropriating -what goes to this wholly non-productive -class?</p> - -<p>To this question there are several answers. -One is that a leisured class—a class whose -exertions have no commercial value, or no -value commensurate with the cost of its -maintenance—is essential to the development -of culture, of knowledge, of art, and of mental -civilisation generally. But this is an answer -which we need not dwell on here; for, whatever -its force, it is foreign to our present -purpose. We will confine ourselves solely to -the material interests that are involved, and -consider solely how the plunder of a class<span class="pagenum" id="Page_257">[257]</span> -living on the interest of Capital would -tend to affect the actual production of -wealth.</p> - -<p>It would affect the production of wealth -in just the same way as would a similar -treatment of that class on whose active -Ability production is directly dependent; -and it would do this for the following -reasons.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 They are -the heirs -of Ability, -and represent, -by -their possession -of -Capital, -the main -object with -which that -Capital was -originally -created.</div> - -<div class="sidenote">◆2 For Capital -is created -and saved -in order -that it may -yield interest, -firstly, -to the man -who himself -created -and saved -it;</div> - -<p>◆¹ The greater part of the Capital that has -been accumulated in the modern world is the -creation of active Ability, as I have pointed -out already. It has been saved not from the -product of Labour, but from the product which -Ability has added to this. It is Ability congealed, -or Ability stored up. And the main -motive that has prompted the men of Ability -to create it has not consisted only of the desire -of enjoying the income which they are enabled -to produce by its means, when actually employing -it themselves, but the desire also of -enjoying some portion of the income which -will be produced by its means if it is employed -by the Ability of others. ◆² In a word, the men -who create and add to our Capital are motived -to do so by expectation that the Capital shall<span class="pagenum" id="Page_258">[258]</span> -be their own property; that it shall, when they -wish it, yield them a certain income independent -of any further exertions of their own. Were -this expectation rendered impossible, were -Capital by any means prevented from yielding -interest either to the persons who made and -saved it, or those to whom the makers might -bequeath it, the principal motive for making -or saving it would be gone. If a man, for -instance, makes <i>one thousand pounds</i> he can, -as matters stand, do three things with it, any -one of which will gratify him. He can spend -it as income, and enjoy the whole of it in that -way; he can use it himself as Capital, and so -enjoy the profits; or he can let others use it -as Capital, and so enjoy the interest. But if -he were by any means precluded from receiving -interest for it, and desired for any reason to -retire from active business, he could do with -his <i>thousand pounds</i> one of two things only—he -could spend it as income, in which case it -would be destroyed; or let others use it as -Capital, in which case he himself could derive -no benefit whatever from it, and would, in -effect, be giving it or throwing it away. Were -the first course pursued, no Capital would be<span class="pagenum" id="Page_259">[259]</span> -saved; were the second course obligatory, no -Capital would be created.<a id="FNanchor_48" href="#Footnote_48" class="fnanchor">[48]</a></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_260">[260]</span></p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 And -secondly, -to his -family -and his -immediate -heirs.</div> - -<div class="sidenote">◆2 The bulk -of the -Capital -owned now -by those -who do not -employ it -themselves -has come -to them -from their -fathers or -grandfathers -who -created it;</div> - -<div class="sidenote">◆3 As the -history of -the growth -of Capital -during the -present -century -shows.</div> - -<div class="sidenote">◆4 A man’s -desire to -leave -money to -his family -is shown -by history -to be as -strong a -motive as -the desire -to enjoy it -himself.</div> - -<p>I have spoken thus far as though in creating -Capital a man’s motive were the hope of enjoying -the interest of it himself. ◆¹ But there is -another motive almost equally powerful—in -some cases more powerful—and that is the -hope of transferring or transmitting it to his -family or to his children. ◆² Now four-fifths of -the Capital of the United Kingdom has been -created within the last eighty years. The -total Capital in 1812 amounted to about -<i>two thousand millions</i>; now it amounts to -almost <i>ten thousand millions</i>. Therefore <i>eight -thousand millions</i> of the Capital of this -country has been created by the Ability of the -parents and of the grandparents of those who -now possess it, supplemented by the Ability -of many who now possess it themselves. The -most rapid increase in it took place between -1840 and 1875. ◆³ If we regard men of fifty as<span class="pagenum" id="Page_261">[261]</span> -representing the present generation of those -actively engaged in business, we may say that -their grandfathers made <i>two thousand millions</i> -of our existing Capital, their parents <i>four -thousand millions</i>, and themselves <i>two thousand -millions</i>. It will thus be easily realised -how those persons who own Capital which they -leave others to employ, and which personally -they have had no hand in making, are for the -most part relatives or representatives of the -very persons who made it, and who made -it actuated by the hope that their relations -or representatives should succeed to it. ◆⁴ All -history shows us that one of the most important -and unalterable factors in human action is -a certain solidarity of interest between men—even -selfish men—and those nearly connected -with them; and just as parents are, by an -almost universal instinct, prompted to rear -their children, so are they prompted to bequeath -to them—or, at all events, to one of -them—the greater part of their possessions. -We might as well try to legislate against the -instincts of maternity, as against the instinct -of bequest. Therefore, that the ownership of -much of the Capital of the country should be<span class="pagenum" id="Page_262">[262]</span> -separated from the actual employment of it, is -a necessary result of the forces by which it -was called into existence; and in proportion -as such a result was made impossible in the -future, the continued operation of these forces -would be checked.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 Further, it -is impossible -to -prevent -interest -being both -offered and -taken for -the use of -Capital.</div> - -<p>◆¹ But interest depends also on a reason that is -yet stronger and more simple than these. The -owner of Capital receives interest for the use of -it, because it is, in the very nature of things, -impossible to prevent its being offered him, and -impossible to prevent his taking it. If a man -who possesses <i>one hundred thousand pounds</i>, -by using it as Capital makes <i>ten thousand -pounds</i> a year, and could, if he had the use of -another <i>one hundred thousand pounds</i>, add -another <i>ten thousand pounds</i> to his income, -no Government could prevent his making a -bargain with a man who happened to possess -the sum required, by which the latter, in -return for lending him that sum, would obtain -a part of the income which the use of it would -enable him to produce.</p> - -<p>The most practical aspect of the matter, -however, yet remains to be considered. I -have spoken of interest as of a thing with<span class="pagenum" id="Page_263">[263]</span> -whose nature we are all familiar. But let us -pause and ask, What is it? It is merely a -part of the product which active Ability is -enabled to produce by means of its tool, Capital. -It is the part given by the man who uses the -tool to the man who owns it. But the tool, -or Capital, is, as we have seen already, itself -the product of the Ability of some man in the -past; so that the payment of interest, whether -theoretically just or no, is a question which -concerns theoretically two parties only: the -possessor of living Ability, and the possessor -of the results of past Ability. Thus, whatever -view we may happen to take about it, Labour, -in so far as theoretical justice goes, has no -concern in the matter, one way or the other. -For if interest is robbery, it is Ability that is -robbed, not Labour.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 And -whether -interest be -just or no, -it at all -events represents -no -injustice to -Labour.</div> - -<div class="sidenote">◆2 For it will -modify, -though not -extinguish, -their desire -to appropriate -a -part of -what is -paid as -interest.</div> - -<p>◆¹ It is important to take notice of this truth; -for a knowledge of what is theoretically just, -though it can never control classes so far as to -prevent their seizing on whatever they can -obtain and keep, exercises none the less a very -strong influence on their views as to how much -of the wealth of other classes is obtainable, -and also on the temper in which, and the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_264">[264]</span> -entire procedure by which, they will endeavour -to obtain it. ◆² For this reason it is impossible -to insist too strongly on the fact that, as a -matter of theoretical justice, Labour, as such, -has no claim whatever on any of the interest -paid for the use of Capital; and that if it -succeeds in obtaining any part of this interest, -it will be obtaining what has been made by -others, not what has been made by itself. It -is not that such arguments as these will extinguish -the desire of Labour to increase its own -wages at the expense of interest, if possible; -for might—the might that can sustain itself, -not the brute force of the moment—will always -form in the long run the practical rule of right; -but they will disseminate a dispassionate view -of what the limits of possibility are, and on -what these limits depend.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 History -shows us -that they -have been -doing this -already,</div> - -<p>◆¹ And now let us turn to the facts of industrial -history, and see what light they -throw on what has just been said. I have -pointed out that if Capital is to be made or -used at all, it must necessarily, for many -reasons, be allowed to yield interest to its -owners; but the amount of interest it yields -has varied at various times; and, although to<span class="pagenum" id="Page_265">[265]</span> -abolish it altogether would be impossible, or, -if possible, fatal to production, it is capable, -under certain circumstances, of being reduced -to a minimum, without production being in -any degree checked; and every <i>pound</i> which -the man who employs Capital is thus relieved -from paying to the man who owns it constitutes, -other things being equal, a fund -which may be appropriated by Labour. To -say this is to make no barren theoretical -statement. The fund in question not only -may, under certain circumstances, be appropriated -by Labour; but these circumstances -are the natural result of our existing industrial -system; and the fund, as I will now show, -has been appropriated by Labour already, and -forms a considerable part of that additional -income which Labour, as we have seen, has -secured from the income created by Ability.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 to an -increasing -extent.</div> - -<div class="sidenote">◆2 Interest -now forms -but a small -part of the -income of -the nation,</div> - -<p>◆¹ In days preceding the rise of the modern -industrial system, the average rate of interest -was as high as ten per cent. As the modern -system developed itself, as Ability more and -more was diverted from war, and concentrated -on commerce and industry, and produced by -the use of Capital a larger and more certain<span class="pagenum" id="Page_266">[266]</span> -product, ◆² the price it paid for the use of -Capital fell, till by the middle of this century -it was not more than five per cent. During -the past forty years it has continued to sink -still further, and can hardly be said now to -average much more than three.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 In spite of -appearances -to the -contrary;</div> - -<p>◆¹ This fact is sufficiently well known to -investors; but there are other facts known -equally well which tend to confuse popular -thought on the subject, and which accordingly, -in a practical work like this, it is very necessary -to place in their true light. For, in -spite of what has been said of the fall in the -rate of interest from ten to six, and to five, -and from five to three per cent, it is notorious -that companies, when successful, often pay -to-day dividends of from ten to twenty per -cent, or even more; and founders’ shares in -companies are constantly much sought after, -which are merely shares in such profits as -result over and above a return of at least ten -per cent on the capital.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 As much -of what is -vulgarly -considered -interest is -something -quite -different.</div> - -<p>But the explanation of this apparent contradiction -is simple. Large profits must not -be confounded with high interest. ◆¹ Large -profits are a mixture of three things, as was<span class="pagenum" id="Page_267">[267]</span> -pointed out by Mill, though he did not name -two of them happily. He said that profits -consisted of wages of superintendence, compensation -for risk, and interest on Capital. -If, instead of wages of superintendence, we -say the product of Ability, and instead of -compensation for risk, we say the reward of -sagacity, which is itself a form of Ability, we -shall have an accurate statement of the case. -A large amount of the Capital in the kingdom -is managed by the men who own it; and -when they manage it successfully, the returns -are large. Sometimes a man with a Capital -of <i>a hundred thousand pounds</i> will make as -much as <i>fifteen thousand pounds</i> a year; -but that does not mean that his Capital yields -fifteen per cent of interest. Let such a man -be left another <i>hundred thousand pounds</i>, -which he determines not to put into his own -business, but invests in some security held -to be absolutely safe, and he will find that -interest on Capital means not more than three -and a half per cent. If he is determined -to get a large return on his Capital, and if he -does this by investing it in some new and -speculative enterprise, this result, unless it be<span class="pagenum" id="Page_268">[268]</span> -the mere good luck of a gambler, is mainly the -result of his own knowledge and judgment, -as the following facts clearly enough show.</p> - -<p>Between the years 1862 and 1885 there -were registered in the United Kingdom about -<i>twenty-five thousand</i> joint stock companies, -with an aggregate Capital of about <i>two thousand -nine hundred million pounds</i>. Of these -companies, by the year 1885, more than -<i>fifteen thousand</i> had failed, and less than <i>ten -thousand</i> were still existing. During the -following four years the proportion of failures -was smaller; but a return published in 1889 -shows that of all the companies formed during -the past twenty-seven years, considerably -more than half had been wound up judicially. -Therefore a man who secures a large return on -money invested in a business not under his own -control, does so by an exercise of sagacity not -only beneficial to himself, but in a still higher -degree beneficial to the country generally; for -he has helped to direct human exertion into a -profitable and useful channel, whereas those who -are less sagacious do but help it to waste itself.<a id="FNanchor_49" href="#Footnote_49" class="fnanchor">[49]</a></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_269">[269]</span></p> - -<p>Of large returns on Capital, then, only a -part is interest; the larger part being merely -another name for what we have shown to -be the actual creation of Ability—either the -Ability with which the Capital has been -employed in directing Labour, or the Ability -with which some new method of directing -Labour has been selected. There is accordingly -no contradiction in the two statements -that Capital may often bring more than -fifteen per cent to the original investors; and -yet that interest on Capital in the present -day is not more than three or three and a -half per cent. Here is the explanation of -shares rising in value. A man who at the -starting of a business takes <i>a hundred one -pound shares</i> in it, and, when it is well established, -gets <i>twenty pounds</i> a year as a dividend, -will be able to sell his shares for something like -<i>six hundred pounds</i>; which means that little -more than three per cent is the interest which -will be received by the purchaser.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 Interest, -then, has -decreased, -and the -whole sum -thus saved -has gone -to the -labouring -classes.</div> - -<p>◆¹ Interest, then, or the sum which those who<span class="pagenum" id="Page_270">[270]</span> -use Capital pay to those who own it, having -decreased, as we have seen it has done, with -the development of our industrial system, it -remains to show the reader where the sum -thus saved has gone. It must have gone -to one or other of two classes of people: -to the men of Ability, or to the labourers. -If it had gone to the former,—that is, to the -employers of Labour,—their gains now would -be greater, in proportion to the Capital employed -by them, than they were fifty years -ago; but if their gains have not become -greater, then the sum in question must -obviously have found its way to the labourers. -And that such is the case will be made -sufficiently evident by the fact that Mr. -Giffen has demonstrated in the most conclusive -way that, if rent and the interest -taken by the classes that pay income-tax -had increased as fast as the sum actually -taken by Labour, the sum assessed to income-tax -would be <i>four hundred million pounds</i> -greater than it is, and the sum taken by -Labour <i>four hundred million pounds</i> less.<a id="FNanchor_50" href="#Footnote_50" class="fnanchor">[50]</a><span class="pagenum" id="Page_271">[271]</span> -In this case the wealthier classes would be -now taking <i>one thousand and sixty million -pounds</i>, instead of the <i>six hundred million -pounds</i> which they actually do take;<a id="FNanchor_51" href="#Footnote_51" class="fnanchor">[51]</a> and -the labouring classes, instead of taking, as -they do, <i>six hundred and sixty million -pounds</i>, or, as Mr. Giffen maintains, more, -would be taking only <i>two hundred and sixty -million pounds</i>.<a id="FNanchor_52" href="#Footnote_52" class="fnanchor">[52]</a> In fact, as Mr. Giffen declares, -“It would not be far short of the mark -to say that the whole of the great improvement -of the last fifty years has gone to the -masses.” And the accuracy of this statement -is demonstrated in a very striking way by -the fact that had the whole improvement, -according to the contrary hypothesis, gone<span class="pagenum" id="Page_272">[272]</span> -not to the labourers, but to the classes that -pay income-tax, the remainder, namely, <i>two -hundred and sixty million pounds</i>, would -correspond, almost exactly, allowing for the -increase of their numbers, with what the -labouring classes received at the close of the -last century.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 What the -social -reformer -should -study is -not the -dreams of -Socialists, -but the -forces actually -at -work, -through -which -Labour has -already -gained, and -is gaining -so much.</div> - -<p>◆¹ What, then, the social reformer, what the -labourer, and the friend of Labour, ought to -study with a view to improving the condition -of the labouring classes, is not the theories -and dreams of those who imagine that the -improvement is to be made only by some -reorganisation of society, but the progress, -and the causes of the progress, that these -classes have actually been making, not only -under existing institutions, but through them, -because of them, by means of them.</p> -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_273">[273]</span></p> - -<h3 class="nobreak" id="CHAPTER_IIIB4">CHAPTER III</h3> -</div> - -<p class="chapter-title"><i>Of the Causes owing to which, and the Means by -which Labour participates in the growing Products -of Ability.</i></p> - -<p class="noindent"><span class="smcap">Let</span> me repeat in other words what I have -just said. The labouring classes, under the -existing condition of things, have acquired -more wealth in a given time than the most -sanguine Socialist of fifty years ago could -have promised them; and this increased -wealth has found its way into their pockets -owing to causes that are in actual operation -round us. These causes, therefore, should be -studied for two reasons: firstly, in order that -we may avoid hindering their operation; -secondly, in order that we may, if possible, -accelerate it; and I shall presently point out, -as briefly, but as clearly as I can, what the -general character of these causes is.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_274">[274]</span></p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 It is true -that there -are notorious -facts -that may -make the -superficial -or excitable -observer -doubt the -reality of -this great -progress -of the -labouring -classes.</div> - -<p>◆¹ But before doing this,—before considering -the cause of this progress,—I must for a -moment longer dwell and insist upon the -reality of it; because unhappily there are -certain notorious facts which constantly obtrude -themselves on the observation of everybody, -and which tend to make many people deny, or -at least doubt it. These facts are as follows.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 But when -these facts—viz. -facts -relating to -the very -poor—are -reduced to -their true -proportions,</div> - -<p>Speaking in round numbers, there exists in -this country to-day a population consisting of -about <i>seven hundred thousand</i> families, or -<i>three million</i> persons, whose means of subsistence -are either insufficient, or barely sufficient, -or precarious, and the conditions of whose life -generally are either hard or degrading, or both. -A considerable portion of them may, without -any sentimental exaggeration, be called miserable; -and all of them may be called more or -less unfortunate. There is, further, this observation -to be made. People who are in want of -the bare necessaries of life can hardly be worse -off absolutely at one period than another; but -if, whilst their own poverty remains the same, -the riches of other classes increase, they do, in -a certain sense, become worse off relatively. -The common statement, therefore, that the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_275">[275]</span> -poor are getting constantly poorer is, in this -relative sense, true of a certain part of the -population; and that part is now nearly equal -in numbers to the entire population of the -country at the time of the Norman Conquest. -Such being the case, it is of course obvious -that persons who, for purposes of either benevolence -or agitation, are concerned to discover -want, misfortune, and misery, find it easier -to do so now than at any former period. -London alone possesses an unfortunate class -which is probably as large as the whole -population of Glasgow; and an endless procession -of rags and tatters might be marched -into Hyde Park to demonstrate every Sunday. -But if the unfortunate class in London is as -large as the whole population of Glasgow, we -must not forget that the population of London -is greater by nearly a <i>million</i> than the population -of all Scotland; ◆¹ and the truth is that, -although the unfortunate class has, with the -increase of population, increased in numbers -absolutely, yet relatively, for at least two -centuries, it has continued steadily to decrease. -In illustration of this fact, it may be mentioned -that, whereas in 1850 there were <i>nine</i> paupers<span class="pagenum" id="Page_276">[276]</span> -to every <i>two hundred</i> inhabitants, in 1882 -there were only <i>five</i>; whilst, to turn for a -moment to a remoter period, so as to compare -the new industrial system with the old, in -the year 1615, a survey of Sheffield, already -a manufacturing centre, showed that the -“begging poor,” who “could not live without -the charity of their neighbours,” actually -amounted to one-third of the population, or -<i>seven hundred and twenty-five</i> households -out of <i>two thousand two hundred and seven</i>. -Further, although, as I observed just now, -it is in a certain sense true to say that, -relatively to other classes, the unfortunate -class has been getting poorer, the real tendency -of events is expressed in a much truer -way by saying that all other classes have been -getting more and more removed from poverty.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 We shall -find that -they have -no such -significance, -nor -disprove in -any way -the extraordinary -progress of -the vast -majority.</div> - -<div class="sidenote">◆2 What then -are the -causes of -this -progress?</div> - -<p>◆¹ What the presence, then, and the persistence -of this class really shows us is not that -the progress of the labouring classes as a whole -has been less rapid and less remarkable than -it has just been said to be, but that a certain -fraction of the population, for some reason or -other, has always remained hitherto outside -this general progress; and the one practical<span class="pagenum" id="Page_277">[277]</span> -lesson which its existence ought to force on us -is not to doubt the main movement, still less -to interfere with it, but to find some means of -drawing these outsiders into it. ◆² This great -and grave problem, however, requires to be -treated by itself, and does not come within the -scope of the present volume. Our business is -not with the causes which have shut out one-tenth -of the poorer classes from the growing -national wealth, but with those which have so -signally operated in making nine-tenths of -them sharers in it.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 They are of -two kinds: -spontaneous -tendencies, -and the -deliberate -and -concerted -actions of -men.</div> - -<p>We will accordingly return to these, and -consider what they are. ◆¹ We shall find them -to be of two kinds: firstly, those which consist -of the natural actions of men, each pursuing -his own individual interest; and secondly, -their concerted actions, which represent some -general principle, and are deliberately undertaken -for the advantage not of an individual -but of a class. We will begin with considering -the former; as not only are they the -most important, but they also altogether -determine and condition the latter, and the -latter, indeed, can do little more than assist -them.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_278">[278]</span></p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 We will -begin with -the spontaneous -tendencies—<i>i.e.</i> -the -natural -actions of -individuals, -each -pursuing -his own -interest.</div> - -<div class="sidenote">◆2 There are -two ways -of getting -rich: (1) by -abstracting -from an -existing -income, -or (2) by -adding to -it. The -rich class -of the -modern -world have, -as a whole, -become -rich in the -second -way.</div> - -<p>◆¹ The natural causes that tend to distribute -amongst Labour a large portion of the wealth -produced by Ability will be best understood -if we first consider for a moment the two -ways—and the two only ways—in which a -minority can become wealthy. ◆² What these -are can be easily realised thus. Let us imagine -a community of eight labouring men, who -make each of them <i>fifty pounds</i> a year, and -who represent Labour; and let us imagine a -ninth man,—a man of Ability,—who represents -the minority. The ninth man might, if he -were strong enough, rob each of the eight men -of <i>twenty-five pounds</i>, compelling them each -to live on <i>twenty-five pounds</i> instead of on -<i>fifty pounds</i>, and appropriate to himself an -annual <i>two hundred pounds</i>. Or he might -reach the same result in a totally different way. -He might so direct and assist the Labour of -the eight men, that without any extra effort -to themselves they each, instead of <i>fifty pounds</i> -produced <i>seventy-five pounds</i>, and if, under -these circumstances, he took <i>twenty-five pounds</i> -from each, he would gain the same sum as -before, namely <i>two hundred pounds</i>, but, as -I said, in a totally different way. It would<span class="pagenum" id="Page_279">[279]</span> -represent what he had added to the original -product of the labourers, instead of representing -anything he had taken from it. Now whatever -may have been true of rich classes in former -times and under other social conditions, the -riches now enjoyed by the rich class in this -country have, with exceptions which are utterly -unimportant, been acquired by the latter of -these two methods, not by the former. They -represent an addition to the product of Labour, -not an abstraction from it. This is, of course, -clear from what has been said already; but it -is necessary here to specially bear it in mind.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 Let us -consider -the nature -of the -process,</div> - -<div class="sidenote">◆2 By first -representing -Labour -and Ability -in their -simplest -imaginable -forms; -Ability, or -the employing -class, being -represented -as -one man.</div> - -<p>◆¹ Let us then take a community of eight -labourers, each producing commodities worth -<i>fifty pounds</i> a year, and each consuming—as he -easily might—the whole of them. These men -represent the productive power of Labour; -◆² and now let us suppose the advent of Ability -in the person of the ninth man, by whose -assistance this productive power is multiplied, -and consider more particularly what the ninth -man does. There is one thing which it is -quite plain he does not do. He does not -multiply the power of Labour for the sake of -merely increasing the output of those actual<span class="pagenum" id="Page_280">[280]</span> -products which he finds the labourers originally -producing and consuming, and of appropriating -the added quantity; for the things he -would thus acquire would be of no possible -good to him. He would have more boots and -trousers than he could wear, more bread and -cheese than he could eat, and spades and implements -which he did not want to use. He would -not want them himself, and the labourers are -already supplied with them. They would be -no good to anybody. He does not therefore -employ his Ability thus, so as to increase the -output of the products that have been produced -hitherto; but he enables first, we will say, -four men, then three, then two, and lastly one, -to produce the same products that were originally -produced by eight; and he thus liberates -a continually increasing number, whom he sets -to produce products of new and quite different -kinds.</p> - -<p>Let us see how he does this. The eight -labourers, when he finds them, make each <i>fifty -pounds</i> a year, or <i>four hundred pounds</i> in the -aggregate; and this represents the normal -necessaries of their existence. He, by the -assistance which his Ability renders Labour,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_281">[281]</span> -enables at last, after many stages of progress, -these same necessaries to be produced by one -single man, who, instead of producing, as formerly, -goods worth <i>fifty pounds</i>, finds himself, -with the assistance of Ability, producing goods -worth <i>four hundred pounds</i>. There is thus -an increase of <i>three hundred and fifty pounds</i>, -and this increment the man of Ability takes.</p> - -<p>Meanwhile, seven men are left idle, and with -them the man of Ability makes the following -bargain. Out of the <i>three hundred and fifty -pounds</i> worth of necessaries which he possesses, -he offers each of them <i>fifty pounds</i> worth—the -amount which originally they each made -for themselves, on condition that they will -make other things for him, or put their time at -his disposal. They accordingly make luxuries -for him, or become his personal servants. For -the <i>three hundred and fifty pounds</i> he pays -them in the shape of necessaries, they return -him another <i>three hundred and fifty pounds</i> in -the shape of commodities or of service; and this -new wealth constitutes the able man’s income.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 In this -case, there -being no -competition -of -employers, -there would -be no -natural -distribution -of the -increasing -products -amongst -the labourers.</div> - -<p>Such, reduced to its simplest elements, is -the process on which the riches of the rich in -the modern world depend. ◆¹ It will be seen,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_282">[282]</span> -however, that in the case we have just supposed, -the labourers, by the process in question, gain -absolutely nothing. Each of them originally -made <i>fifty pounds</i> a year. He now receives -the same sum in wages. But the total product -has increased by <i>three hundred and fifty -pounds</i>, and of this the labourers acquire no -share whatever. Nor, supposing them to be -inexperienced in the art of combination, is there -any means by which they could ever do so. -And if our imaginary community were a complete -representation of reality, the same would -be the case with the labourers in real life.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 But let us -introduce a -second man -of Ability -competing -with the -first, and -the process -of distribution -of the -increased -product -amongst -the labourers -begins -at once.</div> - -<p>◆¹ But it must now be pointed out that in -one important respect, as a representation of -reality, our community is incomplete. It represents -the main process by which the riches -of the rich are produced; but it offers no -parallel to one factor in the real situation, -owing to which the labourers inevitably acquire -a share in them. In that community the rich -classes are represented by a single person, who -has no conflicting interests analogous to his -own to contend against. But in actual life, -so far as this point is concerned, the condition -of the rich is different altogether. As looked<span class="pagenum" id="Page_283">[283]</span> -at from without, they are, indeed, a single -body, which may with accuracy be represented -as one man; but as looked at from within, they -are a multitude of different bodies, whose -interests, within certain limits, are diametrically -opposed to each other. In order, therefore, -to make our illustration complete, instead -of one man of Ability we must imagine two. -The first, whose fortunes we have just followed, -and whom, for the sake of distinctness, we will -christen John, has already brought production -to the state that has been just described. He -has managed to get seven men out of eight to -produce luxuries for himself,—luxuries, we will -say, such as wine, cigars, and butter,—paying -these seven men with the surplus necessaries -which, with his assistance, are produced by -the eighth man. But of these luxuries the -seven men keep none; nor can they give any -of them to the eighth man, their fellow. John -takes all. But now let us suppose that a -second man of Ability, whom we will christen -James, appears upon the scene, just as anxious -as John to direct Labour by his Ability, and -just as capable of making Labour productive. -But all the labourers are at present in the pay<span class="pagenum" id="Page_284">[284]</span> -of John. James therefore must set himself to -detach them from John’s service; and he accordingly -engages that if they will work for him -they shall not only each receive the necessaries -that John gives them, but a share of the other -things that they produce—of the butter, of the -cigars, and of the wine—as well. The moment -this occurs, John has to make a similar offer; -and thus the wages of Labour at once begin to -rise. When they have been forced up to a -certain point, James and John cease to bid -against one another, and each employs a -certain number of labourers, till one or other -of them makes some new discovery which -enables the same amount of some commodity—we -will say cigars—as has hitherto been -produced by two men, to be produced by one; -and thus a new labourer is set free, and is -available for some new employment. We -must assume that James and John could both -employ this man profitably—that is, that they -could set him to produce some new object of -desire—let us say strawberries; and, this being -so, there is again a competition for his labour. -He is offered by both employers as much as -he has received hitherto, and as the other<span class="pagenum" id="Page_285">[285]</span> -labourers receive; and he is offered besides a -certain number of strawberries. Whichever -employer ultimately secures his services, the -man has secured some further addition to his -income. He has some share in the increasing -wealth of the community; and, as John and -James continue to compete in increasing the -production of all other commodities, some -share of each increase will in time go to all -the labourers.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 And -nothing -can stop -this process -except an -increase of -population -<i>in excess of -the increase</i> -in the -productive -powers of -Ability.</div> - -<p>◆¹ One thing only could interfere with this -process; and that has been excluded from our -supposed community: namely, an increase in -its numbers. And a mere increase in the -numbers would in itself not be enough. It -must be an increase which outstrips the discovery -of new ways in which labour may be -employed profitably. Let us suppose that to -our original eight labourers, eight new labourers -are added, who if left to themselves could do -just what the first eight could do, namely, -produce annual subsistence for themselves to -the value of <i>fifty pounds</i> each. If, under the -management of James or John, the productivity -of these men could be multiplied eight-fold, as -was the case with the first eight, James and<span class="pagenum" id="Page_286">[286]</span> -John would be soon competing for their services, -and the second eight, like the first eight, would -share in the increased product. But if, owing -to all the best land being occupied, and few -improvements having been discovered in the -methods of any new industries, the productivity -of the new men could be increased not eight-fold, -but only by one-eighth—that is to say, if -what each man produces by his unaided Labour -could be raised by Ability from <i>fifty pounds</i>, -not to <i>four hundred pounds</i>, but to no more -than <i>fifty-six pounds ten shillings</i>,—<i>fifty-six -pounds ten shillings</i> would be the utmost these -men would get, even if the Ability of James -or John got no remuneration whatever. -Meanwhile, however, the first set of workmen -are, as we have seen, receiving much more than -this. They are receiving each, we will say, -<i>one hundred pounds</i>. The second set, therefore, -naturally envy them their situations, and -endeavour to secure these for themselves by -offering their Labour at a considerably lower -price. They offer it at <i>ninety pounds</i>, at -<i>seventy pounds</i>, or even at <i>sixty pounds</i>; for -they would be bettering their present situation -by accepting even this last sum. This being<span class="pagenum" id="Page_287">[287]</span> -the case, the original eight labourers have -necessarily to offer their Labour at reduced -terms also; and thus the wages of Labour are -diminished all round.</p> - -<p>Such is the inevitable result under such -circumstances, if each man—employer and -employed alike—follows his own interest -at the bidding of common sense. One man -is not more selfish than another; indeed, in -a bad sense, nobody is selfish at all; and for -the result nobody is to blame. The average -wages of Labour are diminished for this simple -reason, and for no other—that the average -product is diminished which each labourer -assists in producing. The community is richer -absolutely; but it is poorer in proportion to -its numbers.<a id="FNanchor_53" href="#Footnote_53" class="fnanchor">[53]</a> Let us see how this works out. -The original product of the first eight labourers -was <i>fifty pounds</i> a head, or <i>four hundred -pounds</i> in the aggregate. This was raised by -the co-operation of Ability to <i>four hundred -pounds</i> a head, or <i>three thousand two hundred<span class="pagenum" id="Page_288">[288]</span> -pounds</i> in the aggregate. But the second set -of labourers, whatever Ability may do for them, -cannot be made to produce more than <i>fifty-six -pounds ten shillings</i> a head, or an aggregate -of <i>four hundred and fifty-two pounds</i>; -and thus, whereas eight labourers produced -<i>three thousand two hundred pounds</i>, sixteen -labourers produce only <i>three thousand six -hundred and fifty-two pounds</i>, and the average -product is lowered from <i>four hundred -pounds</i> to <i>two hundred and twenty-eight -pounds</i>.<a id="FNanchor_54" href="#Footnote_54" class="fnanchor">[54]</a></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_289">[289]</span></p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 This -natural -power, -however, -can be -regulated -by deliberate -action, -political -and other, -and made -more beneficial -to the -labourers;</div> - -<div class="sidenote">◆2 Which -action -takes two -chief forms—legislation, -and -combinations -amongst -the labourers. -We -will discuss -both in the -next -chapter.</div> - -<p>Wages naturally decline then, owing to an -increase of population, when relatively to the -population wealth declines also; but only then. -◆¹ On the other hand,—and this is the important -point to consider,—so long as a country, under -the existing system of production, continues, -like our own, to grow richer in proportion to -the number of labourers, of every fresh increase -in riches the labourers will obtain a share, -without any political action or corporate -struggle on their part, merely by means of a -natural and spontaneous process. And we -have now seen in a broad and general way -what the character of this process is. It may -seem, however, to many people that a study of -it and of its results can teach no lesson but the -lesson of <i>laisser faire</i>, which practically means -that the labourers have no interest in politics<span class="pagenum" id="Page_290">[290]</span> -at all, and that all social legislation and corporate -action of their own is no better than a -waste of trouble, and is very possibly worse. -But to think this is to completely misconceive -the matter. Even a study of this process of -natural distribution by itself would be fruitful -of suggestions of a highly practical kind; but -if we would understand the actual forces to -which distribution is due, it must, as I have -said already, not be studied by itself, but taken -in connection with others by which its operation -has been accelerated. I spoke of these as -consisting of deliberate and concerted actions -in contradistinction to individual and spontaneous -actions; ◆² and these, speaking broadly, -have been of two kinds—the one represented -by the organisation of Labour in Trade Unions, -the other by certain legislative measures, which, -in a vague and misleading way, are popularly -described as “Socialistic.” Let us proceed to -consider these.</p> -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_291">[291]</span></p> - -<h3 class="nobreak" id="CHAPTER_IVB4">CHAPTER IV</h3> -</div> - -<p class="chapter-title"><i>Of Socialism and Trade Unionism—the Extent and -Limitation of their Power in increasing the Income -of Labour.</i></p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 Legislation -of the kind -just alluded -to is -commonly -called -Socialistic:</div> - -<div class="sidenote">◆2 But this -way of -describing -it is -inaccurate;</div> - -<p class="noindent">◆¹ <span class="smcap">I will</span> speak first of the kind of legislation, -popularly called Socialistic, which certain -people now regard with so much hope, and -others with corresponding dread; and I shall -show that both of these extreme views rest -on a complete misconception of what this so-called -Socialism is. For what is popularly -called Socialism in this country, so far as it -has ever been advocated by any political -party, or has been embodied in any measure -passed or even proposed in Parliament, ◆² does -not embody what is really the distinctive -principle of Socialism. Socialism, regarded -as a reasoned body of doctrine, rests altogether -on a peculiar theory of production, to which<span class="pagenum adjust1" id="Page_292">[292]</span> -already I have made frequent reference—a -theory according to which the faculties of men -are so equal that one man produces as much -wealth as another; or, if any man produces -more, he is so entirely indifferent as to -whether he enjoys what he produces or no, -that he would go on producing it just the -same, if he knew that the larger part would -at once be taken away from him. Hence -Socialists argue that the existing rewards of -Ability are altogether superfluous, and that -the existing system of production, which rests -on their supposed necessity, can be completely -revolutionised and made equally efficacious -without them.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 As all the -so-called -Socialistic -legislation -in this -country -rests on -the very -system of -production -which -professed -Socialists -aim at -destroying.</div> - -<p>But whatever may be the opinions of a -few dreamers or theorists, or however in the -future these opinions may spread, the fundamental -principle of Socialism, up to the -present time, has never been embodied in -any measure or proposal which has been -advocated in this country by any practical -party. ◆¹ On the contrary, the proposals and -measures which are most frequently denounced -as Socialistic—even one so extreme as that -of free meals for children at Board Schools—all<span class="pagenum" id="Page_293">[293]</span> -presuppose the system of production -which is existing, and thus rest on the very -foundation which professed Socialists would -destroy.<a id="FNanchor_55" href="#Footnote_55" class="fnanchor">[55]</a> They merely represent so many -ways—wise or unwise—of distributing a public<span class="pagenum" id="Page_294">[294]</span> -revenue, which consists almost entirely of -taxes on an income produced by the forces -of Individualism.</p> - -<p>Now, so far as the matter is a mere question -of words, we may call such proposals or -measures Socialistic if we like. On grounds -of etymology we should be perfectly right in -doing so; but we shall see that in that case, -with exactly the same propriety, we may -apply the word to the institution of Government -itself. The Army, the Navy, and more -obviously still the Police Force, are all Socialistic -in this sense of the word; nor can anything -be more completely Socialistic than a -public road or a street. In each case a certain -something is supported by a common fund -for the use of all; and every one is entitled -to an equal advantage from it, irrespective of<span class="pagenum" id="Page_295">[295]</span> -his own deserts, or the amount he has contributed -to its support.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 What is -called -Socialism -in this -country is a -necessary -part of -every -State;</div> - -<div class="sidenote">◆2 And the -principle -may probably -be -extended -with good -results, -if not -pushed -too far.</div> - -<p>◆¹ If, then, we agree to call those measures -Socialistic to which the word is popularly -applied at present, Socialism, instead of being -opposed to Individualism, is its necessary -complement, as we may see at once by considering -the necessity of public roads and a -police force; for the first of these shows us -that private property would be inaccessible -without the existence of social property; and -the second that it would be insecure without -the existence of social servants. The good -or evil, then, that will result from Socialism, -as understood thus, depends altogether on -questions of degree and detail. There is no -question as to whether we shall be Socialistic -or no. ◆² We must be Socialistic; and we -always have been, though perhaps without -knowing it, as M. Jourdain talked prose. The -only question is as to the precise limits to -which the Socialistic principle can be pushed -with advantage to the greatest number.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 That it can -easily be -pushed too -far is -obvious.</div> - -<p>What these limits may be it is impossible -to discuss here. Any general discussion of -such a point would be meaningless. Each<span class="pagenum" id="Page_296">[296]</span> -case or measure must be discussed on its own -merits. But, though it is impossible to state -what the limits are, it is exceedingly easy to -show on what they depend. They depend on -two analogous and all-important facts, one of -which I have already explained and dwelt upon, -and which forms, indeed, one of the principal -themes of this volume. This is the fact, that -the most powerful of our productive agents, -namely Ability, cannot be robbed, without -diminishing its productivity, of more than a -certain proportion of the annual wealth produced -by it; and, as it is from this wealth -that most of the Socialistic fund must be -appropriated, Socialistic distribution is limited -by the limits of possible appropriation. The -other fact—the counterpart of this—is as -follows. Just as Ability is paralysed by -robbing it of more than a certain portion of -its products, Labour may equally be paralysed -by an unwise distribution of them; and thus -their continued production be at last rendered -impossible. ◆¹ For instance, quite apart from -any initial difficulty in raising the requisite -fund from the wealthier class of tax-payers, -the providing of free meals for children in<span class="pagenum" id="Page_297">[297]</span> -Board Schools is open to criticism, on account -of the effect which it might conceivably have -upon parents, of diminishing their industry -by diminishing the necessity for its exercise. -Whether such would be the effect really in -this particular case, it is beside my purpose -to consider; but few people will doubt that -if such a provision were extended, and if, -even for so short a time as a single six -months, free meals were provided for the -parents also, half the Labour of the country -would be for the time annihilated. Labour, -however, is as necessary to production as is -Ability, even though, under modern conditions, -it does not produce so much; and it is therefore -perfectly evident that there is a limit -somewhere, beyond which to relieve the individual -labourer of his responsibilities by -paying his expenses out of a public fund will -be, until human nature is entirely changed, -to dry up the sources from which that fund -is derived.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 The sort of -natural -limit that -there is to -its beneficial -effects -is shown -by the -history of -our Poor -Laws.</div> - -<div class="sidenote">◆2 Such -Socialism, -whatever -good it -may do, -can never -do much in -the way of -raising -money -wages.</div> - -<p>As I have said already, it is impossible, in -any general way, to give any indication of -what this limit is; but the industrial history -of this country supplies a most instructive<span class="pagenum" id="Page_298">[298]</span> -instance in which it was notoriously overpassed, -and what was meant as a benefit to -Labour, under circumstances of exceptional -difficulty, ended by endangering the prosperity -of the whole community. I refer to our Poor -Law at the beginning of this century, the -effects of which form one of the most remarkable -object-lessons by which experience has -ever illustrated a special point in economics. -◆¹ That Poor Law, as Professor Marshall well -observes, “arranged that part of the wages -[of the labourers] should be given in the form -of poor relief; and that this should be distributed -amongst them in the inverse proportion -to their industry, thrift, and forethought. -The traditions and instincts,” he adds, “which -were fostered by that evil experience are even -now a great hindrance to the progress of the -working classes.”<a id="FNanchor_56" href="#Footnote_56" class="fnanchor">[56]</a> Now that particular evil -on which Professor Marshall comments,—namely, -that the part of the wages coming -through this Socialistic channel were in the -inverse proportion to what had really been -produced by the labourer—is inherent in all<span class="pagenum" id="Page_299">[299]</span> -Socialistic measures, the principal object of -which is to raise or supplement wages; as is -clearly enough confessed by the Socialistic -motto, “To every man according to his needs.” -◆² It may accordingly be said that, absolutely -necessary as the Socialistic principle is, and -much as may be hoped from its extension in -many directions, it neither has been in the -past, nor can possibly be in the future, -efficacious to any great extent in increasing -the actual income of the labourer.<a id="FNanchor_57" href="#Footnote_57" class="fnanchor">[57]</a></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_300">[300]</span></p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 Trade -Unionism -in this way -can do far -more. -We will -see first -how, and -then within -what -limits.</div> - -<p>◆¹ Such being the case, then, let us now -turn our attention to another principle of an -entirely different kind, which, so far as regards -this object, is incalculably more important, -and which has constantly operated in the past, -and may operate in the future, to increase -the labourer’s income, without any corresponding -disadvantages. I mean that principle of -organisation amongst the labourers themselves -which is commonly called Trade Unionism; -and which directly or indirectly represents -the principal means by which Labour is -attempting, throughout the civilised world, -to accelerate and regulate the natural distribution -of wealth. I will first, in the light of -the conclusions we have already arrived at, -point out to the reader what, speaking generally, -is the way in which Trade Unionism -strengthens the hands of Labour; and then -consider what is the utmost extent to which -the strength which Labour now derives from -it may be developed.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 The operation -of -Trade -Unionism -in raising -wages can -be easily -seen at a -glance by -reference to -the simple -community -which was -imagined -in the last -chapter.</div> - -<p>◆¹ If the reader has not already forgotten our -imaginary community,—our eight labourers -with John and James directing them,—our -easiest course will be to turn again to that.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_301">[301]</span> -We saw that when the labourers were employed -by John only,—John who found them each -making <i>fifty pounds</i> a year, and enabled them -by his Ability each to make <i>four hundred -pounds</i>—we saw that the whole of this -increase, in the natural course of things, would -be kept by John himself, by whose Ability -it was practically created; for it would not be -to John’s advantage to part with any of it, -and the labourers, so long as they all acted -separately, would have no means of extracting -any of it from him. It would be useless for -one of them at a time to strike for higher -wages. The striker and the employer would -meet on wholly unequal terms; because -the striker, whilst the strike lasted, would -be sacrificing the whole of his income, whilst -depriving the employer of only an eighth -part of his. But let us alter the supposition. -Let us suppose that the labourers combine -together, and that the whole eight strike for -higher wages simultaneously. The situation -is now completely changed; and the loss that -the struggle will entail on both parties is -equal. The employer, like the labourer, will -for a time lose all his income. It is true<span class="pagenum" id="Page_302">[302]</span> -that if the employer has a reserve fund on which -he can support himself whilst production is -suspended, and if the labourer has no such fund, -the employer may still be sure of an immediate -victory, should he be resolved at all costs to -resist the labourers’ demand. But, in any -case, the cost of resisting it will be appreciable: -it is a loss which the labourers will be able to -inflict on him repeatedly; and he may see -that they would be able, by their strikes, to -make him ultimately lose more than he would -by assenting to their demands, or, at all events, -making some concessions to them. It is therefore -obvious that the labourers, in such a case, -will be able to extract extra wages in the -inverse proportion to the loss which the employer -will sustain if he concedes them, and -in direct proportion to the loss which would -threaten him should he refuse to do so.<a id="FNanchor_58" href="#Footnote_58" class="fnanchor">[58]</a></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_303">[303]</span></p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 Combination -amongst -labourers -puts them -at an advantage -as -against -competing -employers, -until their -demands -grow so -unreasonable -as to -force the -employers -to combine.</div> - -<p>There is, however, much more to be said. -With each increase of their wages which the -labourers succeed in gaining, they will be -better equipping themselves for any fresh -struggle in the future; for they will be able -to set aside a larger and larger fund on which -to support themselves without working, and -thus be in a position to make the struggle -longer, or, in other words, to inflict still greater -injury on the employer. ◆¹ And if such will be<span class="pagenum" id="Page_304">[304]</span> -the case when there is one employer only, -much more will it be the case when there are -two—when John and James, as we have seen, -are forced by the necessities of competition to -grant part of the labourers’ demands, even -before they are formulated. It might thus -seem that there is hardly any limit to the -power which a perfected system of Trade -Unionism may one day confer upon the -labourers. There are, however, two which we -will consider now, in addition to others at -which we will glance presently. One is the -limit with which we are already familiar, and -of which in this connection I shall again speak, -namely, the limit of the minimum reward -requisite as a stimulus to Ability. The other -is a limit closely connected with this, which -is constituted by the fact that if the demands -of Labour are pushed beyond a certain point -against disunited employers, the employers -will combine against Labour, as Labour has -combined against them, and all further concessions -will be, at all costs, unanimously refused.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 The -ultimate -tendency -of Trade -Unionism -is to make -any -conflict -between -the employer -and -employed -like a -conflict -between -two individuals.</div> - -<div class="sidenote">◆2 The limit -to which it -can raise -wages is -fixed by the -minimum -reward that -suffices to -make -Ability -operative.</div> - -<p>◆¹ Now a situation like this is the ultimate -situation which all Trade Unionism tends to -bring about. It tends, by turning the labourers<span class="pagenum" id="Page_305">[305]</span> -into a single body on the one hand, and the -employers into a single body on the other, to -make the dispute like one between two individuals; -and though for many reasons this -result can never be entirely realised,<a id="FNanchor_59" href="#Footnote_59" class="fnanchor">[59]</a> the limits<span class="pagenum" id="Page_306">[306]</span> -of the power of Trade Unionism can be best seen -by imagining it. What, then, is the picture we -have before us? We have Labour and Ability -in the character of two men confronting each -other, each determined to secure for himself -the largest possible portion of a certain aggregate -amount of wealth which they produce -together. Now we will assume, though this is -far from being the case, that neither of them -would shrink, for the sake of gaining their -object, from inflicting on the other the utmost -injury possible; and we shall see also, if we -make our picture accurate, that Labour is -physically the bigger man of the two. It -happens, however, that the very existence of -the wealth for the possession of which they -are prepared to fight is entirely dependent on -their peacefully co-operating to produce it; so -that if in the struggle either disabled the other, -he would be destroying the prize which it is -the object of his struggle to secure. Thus the -dispute between them, however hostile may be<span class="pagenum" id="Page_307">[307]</span> -their temper, must necessarily be of the nature -not of a fight, but of a bargain; and will be -settled, like other bargains, by the process of -compromise which Adam Smith calls “the -higgling of the market.” ◆² When such a bargain -is struck, there will be a limit on both sides: -a maximum limit to what Ability will consent -to give, and a minimum limit to what Labour -will consent to receive. There will be a certain -minimum which Ability must concede in the -long run; because if it did not give so much, -it would indirectly lose more: and conversely -there is a certain maximum more than which -Labour will never permanently obtain; because -if it did so the stimulus to Ability would be -weakened, and the total product would in consequence -be diminished, out of which alone the increased -share which Labour demands can come.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 Thus the -possible -power of -Trade -Unionism -in raising -wages is -far more -limited -than it -seems.</div> - -<div class="sidenote">◆2 If we judge -hastily by -the magnitude -of -modern -Labour -combinations, -and -the extent -to which -they can -terrorise -the community.</div> - -<p>◆¹ Thus the extent to which Trade Unionism -can assist in raising wages, no matter how -wide and how complete its development, is far -more limited than appearances lead many -people to suppose. For the labourers, not -only in this country, but all over the world, -are growing yearly more expert in the art of -effective combination, and are increasing their<span class="pagenum" id="Page_308">[308]</span> -strength by a vast network of alliances; ◆² and -from time to time the whole civilised world -is startled at the powers of resistance and -destruction which they show themselves to have -acquired, and which they have called into -operation with a view to enforcing their -demands. The gas-strikes and the dock-strikes -in London, and the great railway-strikes, and -the strike at Homestead in America, are cases -in point, and are enough to illustrate my -meaning. They impress the imagination with -a sense that Labour is becoming omnipotent. -But in all these Labour movements there is -one unchanging feature, which seems never to -be realised either by those who take part in -them or by observers, but on which really -their entire character depends, and which -makes their actual character entirely different -from what it seems to be. That this feature -should have so completely escaped popular -notice is one of the most singular facts in the -history of political blindness, and can be -accounted for only by the crude and imperfect -state in which the analysis of the causes of -production has been left hitherto by economists. -The feature I allude to is as follows.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_309">[309]</span></p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 The imperfect -state of -economic -science has -allowed -a totally -false idea -to be -formed -as to the -force which -Trade -Unionism -represents.</div> - -<div class="sidenote">◆2 The force -which it -represents -is not -Labour at -all, but a -power of -combining -in order to -abstain -from -labour.</div> - -<div class="sidenote">◆3 And even -this power -could -never be -universal, -nor last -long; and -whilst it -lasts it -depends on -Capital.</div> - -<p>◆¹ These great developments of Trade Unionism -which are commonly called Labour movements -do not really, in any accurate sense, -represent Labour at all. ◆² All that they represent -in themselves is a power to abstain from -labouring. In other words, the increased -command of the labourers over the machinery -of combination, and even their increased command -of the tactics of industrial warfare, -represents no increased command over the -smallest of industrial processes, nor puts them -in a better position, without the aid of Ability, -to maintain—still less to increase by the -smallest fraction—the production of that -wealth in which they are anxious to share -farther. A strike therefore, however great or -however admirably organised, no more represents -any part of the power of Labour than -the mutiny organised amongst the crew of -Columbus, with a view to making him give up -his enterprise, represented the power which -achieved the discovery of America. And this -is not true of the average labourers only; it is -yet more strikingly true of the superior men -who lead them. From the ranks of the -labourers, men are constantly rising whose<span class="pagenum" id="Page_310">[310]</span> -abilities for organising resistance are remarkable, -and indeed admirable; but it is probably -not too much to say that no leader who has -devoted himself to organising the labourers for -resistance has ever been a man capable, to any -appreciable degree, of giving them help by -rendering their labour more productive. Those -who have been most successful in urging their -fellows to <i>ask</i> for more, have been quite incompetent -to help them to <i>make</i> more. Thus -these so-called Labour leaders, no matter how -considerable may be many of their intellectual -and moral qualities, are indeed leaders of -labourers; but they are no more leaders of -Labour than a sergeant who drilled a volunteer -corps of art students could be called the leader -of a rising school of painting; and a strike is -no more the expression of the power of Labour -than Byron’s swimming across the Hellespont -was an expression of the power of poetry, or -than Burns’s poetry was an expression of the -power of ploughing. A strike is merely an -expression of the fact that the labourers, for -good or ill, can acquire, under certain circumstances, -the power to cease from labouring, and -can use this as a weapon not of production, but of<span class="pagenum" id="Page_311">[311]</span> -warfare. ◆³ The utmost that the power embodied -in Trade Unionism could accomplish would be -to bring about a strike that was universal; and -although no doubt it might do this theoretically, -it could never do so much as this practically, -for the simple reason that, as I have already -pointed out, Labour could not be entirely suspended -for even a single day. Further, the -more general the suspension was, the shorter -would be the time for which it could be maintained; -and to mention yet another point to -which I have referred already, it could be -maintained only, for no matter how short a -time, by the assistance of the very thing -against which strikes are ostensibly directed, -namely Capital; and not even Capital could -make that time long. Nature, who is the arch-taskmaster, -and who knows no mercy, would -soon smash like matchwood a Trade Union of -all the world, and force the labourers to go -back to their work, even if no such body as an -employing class existed.</p> - -<p>All the ideas, then, derived from the recent -developments of Trade Unionism, that Labour, -through its means, will acquire any greatly -increasing power of commanding an increasing<span class="pagenum" id="Page_312">[312]</span> -share of the total income of the community, -rests on a total misconception of the power -that Trade Unionism represents, and a total -failure to see the conditions and things that -limit it. It is limited firstly by Nature, who -makes a general strike impossible; secondly -by Capital, without which any strike is -impossible; and lastly by the fact that the -labourers of the present day already draw part -of their wages from the wealth produced by -Ability; that any further increase they must -draw from this source entirely; and that, being -thus dependent on the assistance of Ability -now, Trade Unionism, as we have seen, has -not the slightest tendency to make them any -the less dependent on it in the future.</p> - -<p>When the reader takes into account all that -has just been said, he will be hardly disposed -to quarrel with the following conclusions of -Professor Marshall, who derives them from -history quite as much as from theory, and who -expresses himself with regard to Trade Unions -thus: “Their importance,” he says, “is certainly -great, and grows rapidly; but it is apt to -be exaggerated: for indeed many of them are -little more than eddies such as have always<span class="pagenum" id="Page_313">[313]</span> -fluttered over the surface of progress. And -though they are now on a larger and more -imposing scale in this age than before, yet -much as ever the main body of the movement -depends on the deep, silent, strong stream of -the tendencies of Normal Distribution and -Exchange.”</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 Trade -Unionism, -in raising -wages, can -do little -more than -accelerate -or regulate -a rise that -would take -place owing -to other -causes.</div> - -<div class="sidenote">◆2 But none -the less it -may be of -great benefit -to the -labourers, -and remove -many evils -which a -general -rise in -wages has -not -removed, -and could -not remove -by itself.</div> - -<p>◆¹ But in the case of Trade Unionism, just as -in that of Socialism, because the extent is -limited to which it can raise the labourers’ -income, it does not follow that within these -limits its action may not be of great and increasing -benefit. ◆² Thus Mill, whose general -view of the subject coincides broadly with that -of Professor Marshall, points out that though a -Union will never be able permanently to raise -wages above the point to which in time they -would rise naturally, nor permanently to keep -them above a point to which they would -naturally fall, it can hasten the rise, which -might otherwise be long delayed, and retard -the fall, which might otherwise be premature; -and the gain to Labour may thus in the long -run be enormous. Unions have done this for -Labour in the past; and with improved and -extended organisation, they may be able to do<span class="pagenum" id="Page_314">[314]</span> -it yet more effectively in the future; and they -have done, and may continue to do many other -things besides—to do them, and to add to their -number. It is beyond my purpose to speak of -these things in detail. In the next chapter, I -shall briefly indicate some of them; but the -main points on which I am concerned to insist -are simpler; and the next chapter—the last—will -be devoted principally to these.</p> -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_315">[315]</span></p> - -<h3 class="nobreak" id="CHAPTER_VB4">CHAPTER V</h3> -</div> - -<p class="chapter-title"><i>Of the enormous Encouragement to be derived by -Labour from a true View of the Situation; and -of the Connection between the Interests of the -Labourer and Imperial Politics.</i></p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 Let me -again -remind the -reader of -the object -of this -book.</div> - -<div class="sidenote">◆2 It is to -show -that the -labourer’s -income -depends on -the general -forces of -production -firstly, and -secondly -on those of -distribution.</div> - -<p class="noindent">◆¹ <span class="smcap">The</span> object of this work, as I explained in the -opening chapter, is to point out to the great -body of the people—that is to say, to the -multitude of average men and women, whose -incomes consist of the wages of ordinary -Labour—the conditions which determine the -possibility of these incomes being increased, -and so to enable them to distinguish the true -means from the false, which they may themselves -adopt with a view to obtaining this -result. ◆² And in order to show them how their -present incomes may be increased, I have -devoted myself to showing the reader how -their present incomes have been obtained. I<span class="pagenum adjust1" id="Page_316">[316]</span> -have done this by fixing his attention on the -fact that their present incomes obviously -depend upon two sets of causes: first, the -forces that produce the aggregate income of the -country; and secondly, the forces that distribute -a certain portion of this amongst the labourers. -And these last I have examined from two points -of view; first exhibiting their results, and then -indicating their nature. Let me briefly recapitulate -what I have said about both subjects.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 I have just -shown how -the normal -forces of -distribution -are all -in favour -of the -labourer, -contrary to -the vulgar -view of the -matter.</div> - -<p>◆¹ I have shown that, contrary to the opinion -which is too commonly held, and which is -sedulously fostered by the ignorance alike of -the agitator and the sentimentalist, the forces -of distribution which are actually at work -around us, which have been at work for the -past hundred years, and which are part and -parcel of our modern industrial system, have -been and are constantly securing for Labour -a share of every fresh addition to the total -income of the nation; and have, for at all -events the past fifty years, made the average -income of the labouring man grow faster than -the incomes of any other members of the -community. They have, in fact, been doing -the very thing which the agitator declared<span class="pagenum" id="Page_317">[317]</span> -could be done only by resisting them; and -they have not only given Labour all that -the agitator has promised it, but they have -actually given it more than the wildest agitator -ever suggested to it. I have shown the -reader this; and I have shown him also that -the forces in question are primarily the spontaneous -forces—“deep, strong, and silent,” as -Professor Marshall calls them—“of normal -distribution and exchange”; how that these -have been, and are seconded by the deliberate -action of men: by extended application of what -is called the Socialistic principle, and to a far -greater extent by combinations of the labourers -amongst themselves.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 This should -encourage, -and not -discourage, -political -action on -behalf -of the -labourers.</div> - -<p>The practical moral of all this is obvious. -As to the normal and spontaneous forces of -distribution, what a study of them inculcates -on the labourer is not any principle of political -action, but a general temper of mind towards -the whole existing system. It inculcates -general acquiescence, instead of general revolt. -Now temper of mind, being that from which -policies spring, is quite as important as the -details of any of the policies themselves. Still -it must be admitted that were the normal<span class="pagenum" id="Page_318">[318]</span> -forces of distribution the only forces that had -been at work for the labourer’s benefit, the -principal lesson they would teach him would -be the lesson of <i>laisser aller</i>. But though -these forces have been the primary, they have -not been the only forces; and the deliberate -policies by which men have controlled their -operation, and have applied them, have been -equally necessary in producing the desired -results. The normal forces of distribution -may be compared to the waters of the Nile, -which would indeed, as the river rises, naturally -fertilise the whole of the adjacent country, -but which would do as much harm as good, and -do but half the good they might do, if it were -not for the irrigation works devised by human -ingenuity. And what these works are to the -Nile, deliberate measures have been to the -normal forces of distribution. The growing -volume of wealth, which is spreading itself -over the fields of Labour, even yet has failed -to reach an unhappy fraction of the community; -the tides and currents flow with -intermittent force, which is often destructive, -still more often wasted, rarely husbanded and -applied to the best advantage. Had it not<span class="pagenum" id="Page_319">[319]</span> -been for the deliberate action of men,—for -legislation in favour of the labourers, and -their own combinations amongst themselves,—these -evils which have accompanied their -general progress would have been greater. -◆¹ Wise action in the future will undoubtedly -make them less; and may, though it is -idle to hope for Utopias in this world, cause -the larger and darker part of them to disappear.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 Much is to -be done -beyond the -mere -raising -of the -labourers’ -wages; and -Trade -Unionism -and -so-called -Socialism -vary much.</div> - -<p>The lesson, then, to be drawn from what -I have urged in the preceding chapter is, -taken as a whole, no lesson of <i>laisser faire</i>. -Though neither Socialism nor Trade Unionism -may have much, or perhaps any, efficacy in -raising the maximum of the labourer’s actual -income,—though this must depend on forces -which are wholly different,—yet Trade Unionism, -and the principle which is called Socialism, -may be of incalculable service in bringing -about conditions under which that income -may be earned with greater certainty, and -under improved circumstances, and, above all, -be able to command more comforts, conveniences, -and enjoyments. Thus many of these -measures which I have called Socialistic under<span class="pagenum" id="Page_320">[320]</span> -protest, may be regarded as an interception -of a portion of the labourer’s income, and an -expenditure of it on his account by the State -in a way from which he derives far more -benefit than he would, or could have secured -if he had had the spending of it himself; -whilst Trade Unionism, though it cannot permanently -raise his wages beyond a maximum -determined by other causes, may, as has been -said before, raise them to this earlier than -they would have risen otherwise, and prevent -what might otherwise occur—a fall in them -before it was imperative. ◆¹ Trade Unionism, -however, has many other functions besides -the raising of wages. It aims—and aims -successfully—at diminishing the pain and -friction caused amongst the labourers by the -vicissitudes alike of industry and of life. It -has done much in this direction already; and -in the future it may do more.</p> - -<p>The fact then that the normal forces of -distribution must, if things continue their -present course, increase the income of the -labourer, even without any action on their -own part, though it is calculated to change -the temper in which the labourers approach<span class="pagenum" id="Page_321">[321]</span> -politics, is, instead of being calculated to damp -their political activity, calculated to animate -it with far more hope and interest than the -wild denunciations and theories of the contemporary -agitator, which those who applaud -them do but half believe. It will to the -labourer be far more encouraging to feel that -the problem before him is not how to undermine -a vast system which is hostile to him, -and which, though often attacked, has never -yet been subverted, but merely to accommodate -more completely to his needs a system -which has been, and is, constantly working in -his favour.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 Whilst as -to mere -wages, if -the -labourers -will judge -of the -possible -near future -from the -actual near -past, the -prospects -before -them must -exceed -their -wildest -dreams -hitherto.</div> - -<p>◆¹ Let him consider the situation well. Let -him realise what that system has already -done for him. In spite of the sufferings -which, owing to various causes, were inflicted -on the labouring classes during the earlier -years of the century,—many of them of a kind -whose recurrence improved policy may obviate,—the -income of Labour has, on the aggregate, -continued to rise steadily. Let him consider -how much. I have stated this once, let me -state it now again. During the first sixty -years of this century the income of the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_322">[322]</span> -labouring classes rose to such an extent that -in the year 1860 it was equal (all deductions -for the increase of population being made) to -the income of all classes in the year 1800. -But there is another fact, far more extraordinary, -to follow; and that is, that a result -precisely similar has been accomplished since -in one-half of the time. In 1880 the income -of the labouring classes was (all deductions -for the increase of population being made) -more than equal to the income of all classes -in the year 1850. Thus the labouring classes -in 1860 were in precisely the same pecuniary -position as the working classes in 1800 would -have been had the entire wealth of the kingdom -been in their hands; and the working -classes of to-day are in a better pecuniary -position than their fathers would have been -could they have plundered and divided between -them the wealth of every rich and -middle-class man at the time of the building -of the first Great Exhibition. I repeat what -I have said before—that this represents a -progress, which the wildest Socialist would -never have dreamed of promising.</p> - -<p>And now comes what is practically the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_323">[323]</span> -important deduction from these facts. What -has happened in the near past, will, other -things being equal, happen in the near future. -If the same forces that have been at work -since the year 1850 continue to be at work, -and if, although regulated, they are not -checked, the labourers of this country will in -another thirty years have nearly doubled the -income which they enjoy at present. Their -income will have risen from something under -<i>seven hundred millions</i> to something over -<i>thirteen hundred millions</i>. The labourers, in -fact, will, so far as money goes, be in precisely -the same position as they would be to-day if, -by some unheard-of miracle, the entire present -income of the country were suddenly made -over to them in the form of wages, and the -whole of the richer classes were left starving -and penniless. This is no fanciful calculation. -It is simply a plain statement of what must -happen, and will happen, if only the forces of -production continue to operate for another -thirty years as they have been operating -steadily for the past hundred. Is not this -enough to stimulate the labourer’s hopes, and -convince him that for him the true industrial<span class="pagenum" id="Page_324">[324]</span> -policy is one that will adjust his own relations -with the existing system better, and regulate -better the flow of the wealth which it promises -to bring him, rather than a policy whose aim -is to subvert that system altogether, and in -especial to paralyse the force from which it -derives its efficacy?</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 But the -one point -to remember -is that -all their -prosperity -depends -on the -continued -action of -Ability, -and the -best conditions -being -secured -for its -operation,</div> - -<p>◆¹ And this brings me back to that main, -that fundamental truth which it is the special -object of this volume to elucidate. The force -which has been at the bottom of all the -labourers’ progress during the past, and on -the continued action of which depends all -these hopes for their future—that force is not -Labour but Ability; it is a force possessed -and exercised not by the many but by the -few. The income which Labour receives -already is largely in excess of what Labour -itself produces. Were Ability crippled, or -discouraged from exerting itself, the entire -income of the nation would dwindle down to -an amount which would not yield Labour so -much as it takes now; whilst any advance, -no matter how small, on what Labour takes -now must come from an increasing product, -which Ability only can produce.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_325">[325]</span></p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 Labour -must -remember -that -Ability is -a living -force which -cannot -be appropriated -as -Capital -might be; -but that it -must be -encouraged -and propitiated.</div> - -<p>◆¹ Hitherto this truth, though more or less -apparent to economic writers and thoughtful -persons generally, has been apparent to them -only by fits and starts, and has never been -assigned any definite or logical place in their -theories of production, or has ever been expressed -clearly; and, owing to this cause, not -only has it been entirely absent from the theories -of the public generally, but its place has been -usurped by a meaningless and absurd falsehood. -In place of the living force Ability, -residing in living men, popular thought, misled -by a singular oversight of the economists, has -substituted Capital—a thing which, apart from -Ability, assists production as little as a dead -or unborn donkey; and hence has arisen that -dangerous and ridiculous illusion—sometimes -plainly expressed, often only half-conscious—to -the effect that if the labourers could only -seize upon Capital they would be masters of -the entire productive power of the country. -The defenders of the existing system have -been as guilty of this error as its antagonists; -and the attack and defence have been conducted -on equally false grounds. Thus in a -recent strike, the final threat of the employers—men<span class="pagenum" id="Page_326">[326]</span> -who had created almost the whole of -their enormous business—was that, if the -strikers insisted upon certain demands, the -Capital involved in the business would be -removed to another country; and a well-known -journal, professing to be devoted to -the interest of Labour, conceived that it had -disposed of this threat triumphantly by saying -that, of the Capital a large part was not -portable, and that the employers might go if -they chose, and leave this behind. A great -musician, who conceived himself to have been -ill-treated in London, might just as well have -threatened that he would remove his concert-room -to St. Petersburg, when the principal -meaning of his threat would be that he would -remove <i>himself</i>; and the journal referred to -might just as well have said, had the business -in question been the production of a great -picture, “The painter may go if he likes—what -matter? We can keep his brushes.”</p> - -<p>The real parties, then, to the industrial -disputes of the modern world are not active -labourers on one side, and idle, perhaps idiotic -owners of so much dead material on the -other side: but they are, on the one side,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_327">[327]</span> -the vast majority of men, possessed of average -powers of production, and able to produce by -them a comparatively small amount; and, on -the other, a minority whose powers of production -are exceptional, who, if we take the -product of the average labourer as a unit, are -able to multiply this to an almost indefinite -extent, and who thus create an increasing -store of Capital to be used by themselves, or -transmitted to their representatives, and an -increasing income to be divided between these -and the labourers. In other words, the dispute -is between the many who desire to -increase their incomes, and the few by whose -exceptional powers it is alone possible to -increase them. Such has been the situation -hitherto; it is such at the present moment; -and the whole tendency of industrial progress -is not to change, but to accentuate it. As the -productivity of Human Exertion increases, -the part played by Ability becomes more -and more important. More and more do the -average men become dependent on the exceptional -men. So long as the nation at large -remembers this, no reforms need be dreaded. -If the nation forgets this, it will be in danger<span class="pagenum" id="Page_328">[328]</span> -every day of increasing, by its reforms, the -very evils it wishes to obviate, and postponing -or making impossible the advantages it wishes -to secure.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 In this -view there -is nothing -derogatory -to Labour.</div> - -<div class="sidenote">◆2 Ability -does not -<i>improve</i> the -products of -Labour, -but multiplies -them.</div> - -<p>◆¹ And now let me pause to point out to the -reader that to insist thus on the subordinate -position of Labour as a productive agent is to -insist on nothing that need wound the self-love -of the labourers. In asserting that a man who -can produce wealth only by Labour is inferior -to a man who can produce ten times the -amount by Ability, we assert his inferiority in -the business of production only. In other -respects he may be the better, even the greater -man of the two. Shakespeare or Turner or -Beethoven, if employed as producers of commodities, -would probably have been no better -than the ordinary hands in a factory, and far -inferior to many a vulgar manufacturer. Again,—and -it is still more important to notice this,—if -we confine our attention to single commodities, -many commodities produced by Labour<a id="FNanchor_60" href="#Footnote_60" class="fnanchor">[60]</a><span class="pagenum" id="Page_329">[329]</span> -alone are better and more beautiful than any -similar ones produced by Labour under the -direction of Ability. ◆² Of some the reverse is -true—notably those whose utility depends on -their mechanical precision; but of others, in -which beauty or even durability is of importance, -such as fine stuffs or carpets, fine paper -and printing, carved furniture, and many kinds -of metal work, it is universally admitted that -the handicraftsman, working under his own -direction, was long ago able to produce results -which Labour, directed by Ability, has never -been able to improve upon, and is rarely able -to equal. What Ability does is not to improve -such commodities, but to multiply them, and -thus convert them from rare luxuries into -generally accessible comforts. A paraffin lamp, -for instance, cast or stamped in metal, and -manufactured by the thousand, might not be -able to compare for beauty with a lamp of -wrought iron, made by the skill and taste of -some single unaided craftsman; but whereas -the latter would probably cost several guineas, -and be in reach only of the more opulent -classes, the former would probably cost about -half a crown, and, giving precisely as much<span class="pagenum" id="Page_330">[330]</span> -light as the other, would find its way into every -cottage home, and take the place of a tallow -dip or of darkness. Now since what the -labouring classes demand in order to improve -their position is not <i>better</i> commodities than -can be produced by hand, but <i>more</i> commodities -than can be produced by hand, Ability -is a more important factor in the case than -Labour; but none the less, from an artistic -and moral point of view, the highest kind of -Labour may stand higher than many of the -most productive kinds of Ability.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 Ability, in -yielding up -part of its -proceeds to -Labour, is -discharging -a moral -debt.</div> - -<p>◆¹ Nor, again, do we ascribe to Labour any -undignified position in insisting that much of -its present income, and any possible increase -of it, is and must be taken from the wealth -produced by Ability. For even were there -nothing more to be said than this, Labour is -in a position, or we assume it will be, to command -from Ability whatever sum may be in -question, and can be neither despised nor -blamed for making the best bargain for itself -that is possible. But its position can be justified -on far higher grounds than these. In the -first place, Labour, by submitting itself to the -guidance of Ability,—no matter whether the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_331">[331]</span> -submission was voluntary, which it was not, -or gradual, unconscious, and involuntary, which -it was,—surrendered many conditions of life -which were in themselves desirable, and has a -moral claim on Ability to be compensated for -having done so; whilst Ability, for its part, -owes a moral debt to Labour, not upon this -ground only, but on another also—one which -thus far has never been recognised nor insisted -on, but out of which arises a yet deeper and -stronger obligation. I have shown that of the -present annual wealth of the nation Ability -creates very nearly two-thirds. But it may -truly be said to have created far more than -this. It may be said to have created not only -two-thirds of the income, but also to have -created two-thirds of the inhabitants. If the -minority of this country, in pursuit of their own -advantage, had not exercised their Ability and -increased production as they have done, it is -not too much to say that of our country’s present -inhabitants <i>twenty-four millions</i> would -never have been in existence. Those, then, who -either contributed to this result themselves, -or inherit the Capital produced by those who -did so, are burdened by the responsibility of<span class="pagenum" id="Page_332">[332]</span> -having called these multitudes into life; and -thus when the wages of Labour are augmented -out of the proceeds of Ability, Ability is not -robbed, nor does Labour accept a largess, but -a duty is discharged which, if recognised for -what it is, and performed in the spirit proper -to it, will have the effect of really uniting -classes, instead of that which is now so often -aimed at—of confusing them.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 But Labour -must not -forget that -it owes a -debt to -Ability;</div> - -<div class="sidenote">◆2 And that -this debt -will grow -heavier -as the -national -wealth -increases.</div> - -<p>◆¹ The labourers, on the other hand, must -remember this: that having been called into -existence, no matter by what means, and presumably -wishing to live rather than be starved -to death, they do not labour because the men -of Ability make them, but—as I have before -pointed out—because imperious Nature makes -them; ◆² and that the tendency of Ability is in -the long run to stand as a mediator between -them and Nature, and whilst increasing the -products of their Labour, to diminish its -duration and severity.</p> - -<p>There are two further points which yet -remain to be noticed.</p> - -<p>I have hitherto spoken of the increase of -wealth and wages, as if that were the main -object on which the labourers should concentrate<span class="pagenum" id="Page_333">[333]</span> -their attention, and which bound up -their interests so indissolubly with those of -Ability. But it must also be pointed out that -were Ability unduly hampered, and its efficacy -enfeebled either by a diminution of its rewards, -or by interference with its action, the question -would soon arise, not of how to increase wages, -but of how to prevent their falling. This -point I have indeed alluded to already; but I -wish now to exhibit it in a new light. As I -mentioned in an earlier chapter, of the inhabitants -of this country, who are something like -<i>thirty-eight millions</i> in number, <i>twenty-six -millions</i> live on imported corn, and about -<i>thirteen millions</i> live on imported meat; or, -to put it in another way, we all of us—the -whole population—live on imported meat for -nearly <i>five months</i> of the year, and on imported -corn for <i>eight months</i>; and were these foreign -food supplies interfered with, there are possibilities -in this country of suffering, of famine, -and of horror for all classes of society, to which -the entire history of mankind offers us no -parallel. This country, more than any country -in the world, is an artificial fabric that has -been built up by Ability, half of its present<span class="pagenum" id="Page_334">[334]</span> -wealth being,—let me repeat once more,—the -marvellous product of the past fifty years; -and the constant action of Ability is just as -necessary to prevent this from dwindling as it -is to achieve its increase. But in order that -Ability may exert itself, something more is -needed than mere freedom from industrial -interference, or security for its natural rewards; -and that is the maintenance of the national or -international position which this country has -secured for itself amongst the other countries -of the world.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">◆1 And this -brings us -round to -what is -commonly -called -Politics; -which -have, as -this book -will show, -a far -closer -interest -for the -labourer -than is -commonly -thought.</div> - -<p>◆¹ And this brings us to that class of questions -which, in ordinary language, are called questions -of policy, and amongst which foreign -policy holds a chief place. Successful foreign -policy means the maintenance or the achievement -of those conditions that are most favourable -to the industries of our own nation; and -this means the conditions that are most -favourable to the homes of our own people. -It is too commonly supposed that the greatness -and the ascendancy of our Empire minister to -nothing but a certain natural pride; and -natural pride, in its turn, is supposed by some -to be an immoral and inhuman sentiment<span class="pagenum" id="Page_335">[335]</span> -peculiar to the upper classes. No one will be -quicker to resent this last ludicrous supposition -than the great masses of the British people; -but, all the same, they are apt to think the -former supposition correct,—to regard the mere -glory of the country as the principal result of -our Empire; and such being the case, they -are, on occasion, apt to be persuaded that glory -can be bought at too dear a price, in money, -struggle, or merely international friction. At -all events, they are constantly tempted to -regard foreign politics as something entirely -unconnected with their own immediate, their -domestic, their personal, their daily interests.</p> - -<p>I am going to enter here on no debatable -matter, nor discuss the value of this or that -special possession, or this or that policy. It is -enough to point out that, to a very great -extent, on the political future of this country -depends the magnitude of its income, and on -the magnitude of its income depends the income -of the working classes—the warmth of the -hearth, the supply of food on the breakfast-table, -of every labourer’s home,—and that when -popular support is asked for some foreign war, -the sole immediate aim of which seems the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_336">[336]</span> -defence of some remote frontier, or the maintenance -of British prestige, it may well be that -our soldiers will be really fighting for the safety -and welfare of their children and wives at -home—fighting to keep away from British and -Irish doors not the foreign plunderer and the -ravisher, but enemies still more pitiless—the -want, the hunger, and the cold that spare -neither age nor sex, and against which all -prayers are unavailing.</p> - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_337">[337]</span></p> - -<h2 class="nobreak" id="APPENDIX">APPENDIX</h2> -</div> - -<p class="noindent"><i><span class="smcap">Early</span> in this year [1894] I published in the</i> Fortnightly -Review <i>two articles under the title of “Fabian -Economics.” These articles were not written or published -until some months after the first publication of the -present volume. I wrote them then, because then, for -the first time, I happened to see a volume from which -previously I had seen some extracts only—a volume -entitled</i> Fabian Essays, <i>in which the doctrines of -contemporary English Socialism are set forth; and my -aim was to apply the general arguments embodied in</i> -Labour and the Popular Welfare <i>to the position of -the Socialists, as definitely stated by themselves. One -of the Fabian Essayists—Mr. Bernard Shaw—came -forward in the</i> Fortnightly Review <i>to attach my -arguments, with what success will be shown by the -subjoined reply to him, which was originally published -in the same Review, under the title of “A Socialist in -a Corner.” A few paragraphs which would be here -superfluous are omitted.</i></p> - - -<p class="noindent center p2">A SOCIALIST IN A CORNER</p> - -<p class="noindent center small"><i>Fortnightly Review, May 1894</i></p> - -<p class="noindent"><span class="smcap">Magazine</span> controversy on complicated and serious -subjects, though it can never be exhaustive, may<span class="pagenum adjust1" id="Page_338">[338]</span> -yet be of great use, if it calls the attention of the -public to the main points at issue, if it helps men -to judge for themselves of the character and weight -of the arguments which are capable of being -employed on one side and the other; and, above -all, if by elucidating the points on which opponents -agree, the area of actual dispute be narrowed down -and defined. For this reason it seems to me not -useless to examine briefly the answer which, on -behalf of a body of Socialists, Mr. Shaw has made -to the criticisms which, in this Review and elsewhere, -I have recently directed against the entire -Socialistic position—and particularly against that -position as expounded by himself and his colleagues.</p> - -<p>Not only Mr. Shaw, but the other Fabian writers, -are persons, at all events, of sufficient intelligence, -sufficient knowledge, and sufficient literary skill, to -render the way in which they put the case for -Socialism a valuable indication of what the strength -of that case is. It was for this reason that I -thought <i>Fabian Essays</i> worth criticising; and for -this reason I think Mr. Shaw’s answer worth -criticising also. It is an indication not only of -how Mr. Shaw can argue as an individual, but of -what arguments are available in defence of the -position which he occupies; and Mr. Shaw has -taken trouble himself to make this view still more -plausible, by the hints he gives that in the composition -of his answer he has sought the advice -and counsel of his faithful colleagues; so that his -pages represent the wisdom of many, though presumably -the wit of one.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_339">[339]</span></p> - -<p>I propose, then, to show, in as few words as -possible, that Mr. Shaw has not only proved himself -incapable of shaking a single one of the various -arguments advanced by me, but that whilst flattering -himself that, in his own phrase, he has been taking -his opponent’s scalp, the scalp which he holds, and -has really taken, is his own. His criticism divides -itself into two main parts. One is an admission of -the truth of one of the fundamental propositions -on which I insisted. The second is a complete -evasion of another, and the substitution for it of an -ineptitude which is entirely of Mr. Shaw’s invention, -and which he finds it so easy and so exciting to -demolish, that he sets it up as often as he knocks -it down, for the pleasure of displaying his prowess -over again.</p> - -<p>Here, then, are three propositions to be dealt -with: First, the primary proposition on which I -insisted, and the truth of which Mr. Shaw admits; -secondly, a proposition on which Mr. Shaw declares -that I insisted, but which is really an invention of -his own; and thirdly, a proposition on which I -did insist actually, but which Mr. Shaw never even -states, much less attempts to meet. This third -proposition I shall briefly state once again when I -have dealt with the two others, and show how -Fabian philosophy—indeed the philosophy of all -Socialism—completely fails to meet it.</p> - -<p>To begin, then, with the first. My primary -object has been to exhibit the absolute falsehood of -the Socialistic doctrine that <i>all wealth is due to -labour</i>, and to replace this by a demonstration that<span class="pagenum" id="Page_340">[340]</span> -under modern conditions of production, labour is -not only not the sole producer of wealth, but does -not even produce the principal part of it. The -principal producing agent, I have pointed out, is -what I have called Industrial Ability—or the -faculty which, whilst exercised by a few, directs -the labour of the many; and if this truth is once -accepted, it completely cuts away from Socialism -the whole of its existing foundations, and renders -absolutely meaningless the whole of its popular -rhetoric. For the most powerful argumentative -appeal which Socialism can make to the majority -is merely some amplification of the statement, -which is no doubt plausible, and is advanced by -Socialists as an axiom, that the exertions of the -majority—or, in other words, Labour—has produced -all wealth, and that therefore the majority not only -ought to possess it, but will be able to possess it -by the simple process of retaining it. But the -moment the productive functions of industrial -ability are made clear, the doctrine which seemed -an axiom is reduced to an absurdity; and what -might before have seemed a paradox becomes a -simple and intelligible truth—the doctrine, namely, -that a comparatively few persons, with certain -exceptional gifts, are capable of producing more -wealth than all the rest of the community; and -that whoever may produce the wealth which the -rich classes possess, it is at all events not produced -by the multitude, and might, under changed conditions, -be no longer produced at all.</p> - -<p>Now this doctrine of Ability Mr. Shaw accepts,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_341">[341]</span> -and completely surrenders and throws overboard the -Socialistic doctrine of Labour. He does indeed -endeavour to make the surrender seem less complete -than it is, partly by irrelevant comments on some -minor points,<a id="FNanchor_61" href="#Footnote_61" class="fnanchor">[61]</a> and partly by insisting on certain -qualifications which are perfectly true, and to which -I have myself often elsewhere alluded, but which, -as I shall show presently, are, on his own admission, -of small practical importance, and do not appreciably -affect the main position. For instance Mr. Shaw -argues that it is not always the most able man who, -in any given business, is to be found directing it. -This also is no doubt true. It merely means, -however, that of industrial ability the same thing -may be said, which has so truly been said of Government—that -it is always <i>in</i>, or <i>passing into</i>, the -hands of the most powerful section of the community.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_342">[342]</span> -Businesses conducted by men of inferior Ability -are gradually superseded by businesses conducted by -men of superior Ability. Men’s actual positions -may be a few years behind or before their capacities, -but for all practical purposes they coincide with -them and the utmost that Mr. Shaw’s contention -could prove would be that some members of a -minority are in places which should be occupied by -other members of a minority; not that the majority -could take the places of either.</p> - -<p>But I merely mention these points in passing, -and waste no pains in insisting on them or pressing -them home, because their practical insignificance is -admitted by Mr. Shaw himself. The great body of -men—of men selected at random, even if they -should enjoy the advantages of superior position and -education—“could not,” he says, “invent a wheelbarrow, -much less a locomotive.” He amplifies this -admission by quoting the case of an acquaintance -of his, whose exceptional Ability secured him <i>four -thousand pounds</i> a year, because without the assistance -of that Ability his employer would have lost -more than this sum. “Other men,” he proceeds, -“have an eye for contracts, or what not, or are born -captains of industry, in which case they go into -business on their own account, and make ten, -twenty, or two hundred per cent, <i>where you or I -should lose five</i>.... All these people are <i>rentiers</i> -of Ability.” Again he quotes with emphatic -approval a passage from an American writer, whom -he praises as a skilled economist; and using this -passage as a text, endorses its meaning in these<span class="pagenum" id="Page_343">[343]</span> -words of his own. “The able man, the actual -organiser and employer, alone is able to find a use -for mere manual deftness, or for that brute strength, -and heavy bank balance, which any fool may -possess.” “The capitalist and the labourer run -helplessly to the able man.” “He is the only -party in the transaction capable of the slightest -initiative in production.”</p> - -<p>I need not add anything to these admissions. -They constitute, as I say, a complete surrender of -the Socialistic doctrine of Labour, and an emphatic -admission of the primary proposition I advanced as -to the productive function of Ability. It is enough -then to say, that so far as the question of Labour -is concerned, Mr. Shaw throws over completely all -the doctrines of the Gotha programme, the Erfurt -programme, of Karl Marx and his disciples, of Mr. -Hyndman and his Social Democrats—in fact the -cardinal doctrine of Socialism as hitherto preached -everywhere.</p> - -<p>Having disposed then of the point as to which -Mr. Shaw agrees with me, I will pass on to the -point on which he supposes me to disagree with -him; and this is the point to which he devotes -the larger part of his article. Everything else is -thrown in as a sort of by-play. This point is as -follows. Speaking roughly, and adopting the -following figures, not because I consider them -accurate, but merely because they agree with Mr. -Shaw’s, and are for the present purpose as good as -any others, above <i>seven hundred million pounds</i> of -the national income go to the non-labouring classes.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_344">[344]</span> -Mr. Shaw, as I gather, would set down about <i>two -hundred million pounds</i> of this as the earnings or -profits of Ability; whilst he contends that the -remainder is the product neither of Ability nor -Labour, but of capital or land. It represents the -assistance which land and capital give to the two -other productive agents; and it goes to those who -possess this land and capital, simply on account of -the rights which they possess as passive owners. -This sum, which Mr. Shaw estimates at about -<i>five hundred million pounds</i>,<a id="FNanchor_62" href="#Footnote_62" class="fnanchor">[62]</a> ought, he contends, -still to go to the owners—in fact, it must always go -to its owners; but the owners should be changed. -They should be the whole nation instead of a -small class.</p> - -<p>Now Mr. Shaw says that my great mistake has -relation to these <i>five hundred million pounds</i>. He -says that, having argued rightly enough that <i>two<span class="pagenum" id="Page_345">[345]</span> -hundred million pounds</i> or so are the genuine product -or rent of actual and indispensable Ability, I -have committed the absurd mistake of confusing -with this rent of ability, the rent of land, of houses, -and above all, the interest on capital. “Mr. -Mallock,” he says, “is an inconsiderate amateur, -who does not know the difference between profits -and earnings on the one hand, and rent and interest -on the other.” And he summarises my views on -the subject by saying, that I “see in every railway -shareholder the inventor of the locomotive or the -steam-engine,” and that I gravely maintain that -the <i>three hundred thousand pounds</i> a year which -may form the income of one or two great urban -landlords is produced by the exercise of some -abnormal ability on their parts. This supposed -doctrine of mine forms the main subject of Mr. -Shaw’s attack. He is exuberantly witty on the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_346">[346]</span> -subject. He turns the doctrine this way and that, -distorting its features into all sorts of expressions, -laughing afresh each time he does so. He calls me -his “brother” and his “son”; he quotes nursery -rhymes at me. He alludes to my own income and -the income of the Duke of Westminster, and -intimates a desire to know whether the Duke being, -so he says, many hundred times as rich as myself, -I am many hundred times as big a fool as the -Duke. In fact, he has recourse to every argumentative -device which his private sense of humour and -his excellent taste suggest.</p> - -<p>The immediate answer to all this is very simple—namely, -that I never gave utterance to any such -absurdity as Mr. Shaw attributes to me, but that, -on the contrary, I have insisted with the utmost -emphasis on this very distinction between profits -and earnings, and rent and interest, which he -assures his readers I do not even perceive. Mr. -Shaw, therefore, has devoted most of his time to -trampling only on a misconception of his own. -This is the immediate answer to him; but there is -a further answer to come, relating to the conclusions -I drew from nature of rent and interest, after -I had pointed out their contrast to the direct -receipts of Ability. Let me show the truth of the -immediate answer first.</p> - -<p>I do not think that in my two recent articles in -this Review there is a single sentence that to any -clear-headed man could form an excuse for such a -misconception as Mr. Shaw’s, whereas there are -pages which ought to have made it impossible.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_347">[347]</span> -Indeed, a notice in the <i>Spectator</i> disposes of Mr. -Shaw by saying that he evades the real point raised -by me, not meeting what I did say, and combating -what I did not say. But, as I started with observing, -magazine articles can rarely be exhaustive, and -I will assume that some incompleteness or carelessness -of expression on my part might have afforded, -had these articles stood alone, some excuse for their -critic. Mr. Shaw, however, is at pains to impress -us that he has read other writings of mine on the -same subject. He even remembers, after an interval -of more than ten years, some letters I wrote to the -<i>St. James’s Gazette</i>. It might, therefore, have been -not unreasonable to expect that he would have -referred to my recent volume, <i>Labour and the -Popular Welfare</i>, which I expressly referred to in -my two articles, and in which I said I had stated -my position more fully. As an answer to Mr. Shaw -I will quote from that volume now.</p> - -<p>The first Book deals with certain statistics as to -production in this country, and the growth of the -national income as related to the population. In -the second Book I deal with the cause of this -growth. I point out that the causes of production -are not three, as generally stated—viz. Land, -Labour, and Capital; but four—viz. Land, Labour, -Capital, and Ability; and that the fourth is the -sole source of that <i>increase</i> in production which is -the distinguishing feature of modern industrial -progress. In thus treating Capital as distinct from -Ability, I point out—taking a pumping-engine as -an example—that capital creates a product which<span class="pagenum" id="Page_348">[348]</span> -necessarily goes to its owner, <i>quâ</i> owner, whether -the owner is an individual or the State. I then -proceed to show that fixed capital—<i>e.g.</i> an engine—is -the result of circulating capital fossilised; and -that circulating capital is productive only in proportion -as it is under the control of Ability. For -this reason I said that whilst it is <i>in process of -being utilised</i>, Capital is connected with Ability as -the brain is connected with the mind, it being the -material means through which Ability controls -Labour; and that thus from <i>a certain point of view</i> -the two are inseparable. I need not insist on this -truth, because Mr. Shaw admits it. But Mr. Shaw -will find a subsequent chapter (Book IV. chap. ii.) -bearing the title, <i>Of the Ownership of Capital as -distinct from its Employment by Ability</i>. From that -chapter I quote the following passage:—</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“In dealing with Capital and Ability, I first treated them -separately, I then showed that, regarded as a productive -agent, Capital <i>is</i> Ability, and must be treated as identical -with it. But it is necessary, now we are dealing with distribution, -to dissociate them for a moment and treat them -separately once more. For even though it be admitted that -Ability, working by means of Capital, produces, as it has -been shown to do, nearly two-thirds of the national income,<a id="FNanchor_63" href="#Footnote_63" class="fnanchor">[63]</a><span class="pagenum" id="Page_349">[349]</span> -and though it may be admitted further that a large portion -of this product should go to the able men who are actively -engaged in producing it—the men whose Ability animates -and vivifies Capital—it may be argued that a portion of it, -which is very large indeed, goes as a fact to men who do not -exert themselves at all, or who, at any rate, do not exert -themselves in the production of wealth. These men, it will -be said, live not on the products of Ability, but on the -interest of Capital, which they have come accidentally to -possess; and it will be asked on what ground Labour is -interested in forbearing to touch the possessions of those -who produce nothing?... Why should it not appropriate -what goes to this wholly non-productive class.”</p> -</div> - -<p>If Mr. Shaw or his readers are still in doubt as -to the extent to which his criticism of myself is -wide of the mark—if he still thinks that he is -fighting any mistake but his own, when he attacks -me as though I confused interest with the direct<span class="pagenum" id="Page_350">[350]</span> -earnings of Ability, let me add one passage more -out of the same chapter:—</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“Large profits must not be confounded with high interest. -Large profits are a mixture of three things, as was pointed -out by Mill, though he did not name two of them happily. -He said that profits consisted of wages of superintendence, -compensation for risk, and interest on Capital. If, instead -of wages of superintendence we say the product of Ability, -and instead of compensation for risk we say the reward of -sagacity, which is itself a form of Ability, we shall have an -accurate statement of the case.”</p> -</div> - -<p>Again, two pages earlier Mr. Shaw will find -this:—</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“Interest is capable, under certain circumstances, of being -reduced to a minimum without production being in any -degree checked; and every pound which the man who -employs Capital is thus relieved from paying to the man -who owns it constitutes, <i>other things being equal</i>, a fund which -may be appropriated by Labour.”</p> -</div> - -<p>These quotations will be enough to show how -the bulk of Mr. Shaw’s criticisms, which he thinks -are directed against myself, are criticisms of an -absurd error and confusion of thought, which I -have myself done my utmost to expose, in order -that I might put the real facts of the case more -clearly.</p> - -<p>Let me now briefly restate what I have actually -said about these facts. Let me restate the points -which Mr. Shaw hardly ventures even to glance at. -I have said that Capital and Ability, as actually -engaged in production, are united like mind and -brain. There is, however, as I observed also, this -difference. So far as this life is concerned, at all<span class="pagenum" id="Page_351">[351]</span> -events, brain and mind are inseparable. The organ -and the function cannot be divided. But in the -case of Ability and Capital they can be. The mind -of one man has often to borrow from another man -the matter through which alone it is able to operate -in production. Thus though Ability and Capital, -when viewed from the standpoint of Labour, are -one thing, when viewed from the standpoint of -their different processes they are two; and Capital -is seen to produce a part of the product, as distinguished -from the Ability whose tool and organ -it is. Mr. Shaw says that the capital of the -country at the present time produces <i>five hundred -million pounds</i> annually, and, for argument’s sake, -I accept this figure. Thus far, then, Mr. Shaw -and I agree. But what I have urged Mr. Shaw to -consider, and what he does not venture even to -think of, is the following question:—How did the -capital of this country come into existence?</p> - -<p>Even the soil of this country, as we know it -now, is an artificial product. It did not exist in -its present state two hundred years ago. Still it -was there. But of the capital of the country, as it -exists to-day, by far the larger part did not exist -at all. Let us merely go back two generations—to -the times of our own grandfathers; and we shall -find that of the <i>ten thousand million pounds</i> at -which our present capital is estimated, <i>eight thousand -million pounds</i> have been produced during the last -eighty years. That is to say, four-fifths of our -capital was non-existent at a time when the grandfathers -of many of us were already grown men.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_352">[352]</span> -How, then, was this capital produced? The -ordinary Socialist will say that it was produced by -Labour—that it is, as (I think) Lassalle called it, -“fossil Labour.” Mr. Shaw, however, judging by -what we have seen of his opinions, will agree with -me that though a small part of it may be fossil -Labour, by far the larger part is fossil Ability. It -is, in fact, savings from the growing annual wealth -which has been produced during the period in -question by the activity of able men. But these -able men did not produce it by accident. They -produced it under the stimulus of some very strong -motive. What was this motive? Mr. Shaw’s -Socialistic friends and predecessors have been -spouting and shouting an answer to this question -for the past sixty years. They have been telling -us that the main motive of the employing class -was “greed.” Unlike most of their statements, -this is entirely true. Nor, although the sound of -it is offensive, is there anything offensive in its -meaning. It means that in saving capital and in -producing the surplus out of which they were able -to save it, the motive of the producers was the -desire to live on the interest of it when it was -saved; and that if it had not been for the desire, -the hope, the expectation of getting this interest, -the capital most certainly would never have been -produced at all, or, at all events, only a very -minute fraction of it.</p> - -<p>I asked in one of my articles in this Review -whether Mr. Shaw thought that a man who received -ten thousand a year as the product of his exceptional<span class="pagenum" id="Page_353">[353]</span> -ability would value this sum as much if he -were forbidden by the State to invest a penny of it—if -the State, in fact, were an organised conspiracy -to prevent his investing it so as to make an independent -provision for his family, or for himself at -any moment when he might wish to stop working—as -he values it now when the State is organised -so as to make his investments secure? And the -sole indication in the whole of Mr. Shaw’s paper -that he has ever realised the existence of the question -here indicated is to be found in a casual sentence, -in which he says that to think that the complete -confiscation of all the capital created by the two -past generations, and the avowed intention on the -part of the State to confiscate all the capital that is -now being created by the present—to think, in -other words, that the annihilation of the strongest -and fiercest hope that has ever nerved exceptional -men to make exceptional industrial exertion, would -in the smallest degree damp the energies of any able -man—“is an extremely unhistoric apprehension,” -and one as to which he “doubts whether the public -will take the alarm.” And having said this, he endeavours -to justify himself by an appeal to history. -He asks if the men who built the Pyramids did -not work just as hard “though they knew that -Pharaoh was at the head of an organised conspiracy -to take away the Pyramids from them as soon as -they were made?”</p> - -<p>This remarkable historical reference is the sole -answer Mr. Shaw attempts to make to the real -point raised by me. If it is necessary seriously to<span class="pagenum" id="Page_354">[354]</span> -answer it, let me refer Mr. Shaw to <i>Labour and the -Popular Welfare</i>, pp. 124, 125, where his childish -piece of reasoning—actually illustrated there by -the example of Ancient Egypt—is anticipated and -disposed of. As I there pointed out, these great -buildings of the ancient world were the products -not of Ability as it exists in the modern world, -but of Labour; the difference between the two (so -far as this point is concerned) being this:—that -the labour an average man can perform is a known -quantity, and wherever a dominant race enslaves -an inferior one, the taskmasters of the former can -coerce the latter into performing a required amount -of service. But the existence of exceptional ability -cannot be known or even suspected by others till -the able individual voluntarily shows and exerts -it. He cannot be driven; he must be induced and -tempted. And not only is there no means of -making him exert his talents, except by allowing -these talents to secure for himself an exceptional -reward; but in the absence of any such reward to -fire his imagination and his passion, he will probably -not be conscious of his own Ability himself. -Pharaoh could flog the stupidest Israelite into -laying so many bricks, but he could not have -flogged Moses himself into a Brassey, a Bessemer, -or an Edison.</p> - -<p>This, however, is a point with which it is -impossible to deal in a few sentences or a few pages. -The great question of human motive, closely allied -as it is with the question of family affection, the -pleasures of social intercourse, the excitements and<span class="pagenum" id="Page_355">[355]</span> -prizes of social rivalry, of love, of ambition, and -all the philosophy of taste and manners—this -great question of motive can be only touched upon -here. But a few more words may be said to show -the naïve ignorance of human nature and of the -world betrayed by the Fabian champion.</p> - -<p>Mr. Shaw, in order to prove how fully he understands -the question of Ability, quotes the case of a -friend of his, who, by his Ability, makes <i>four -thousand pounds</i> a year. This, says Mr. Shaw, is -just as it should be: but if a man, like his friend, -should save <i>one hundred thousand pounds</i>, and -desire to leave this to his son, invested for him at 3½ -per cent, so that the son may receive an income -whether he has any of his father’s ability or no—this, -says Mr. Shaw, is what Socialism will not -permit. The son must earn all he gets; and if he -happens to have no exceptional ability, which may -probably be the case, he will have to put up with -the mere wages of manual labour. He will have to -live on some <i>eighty pounds</i> a year instead of <i>four -thousand pounds</i>. And Mr. Shaw says, that to -introduce this arrangement into our social system -will have no appreciable effect on the men who are -now making, by their ability, their <i>four thousand -pounds</i> a year. Let us suggest to him the following -reflections. What good, in that case, would the -<i>four thousand pounds</i> a year be to the father, unless -he were to eat and drink nearly the whole of it -himself? For it would be absurd and cruel in him -to bring up his children in luxury if the moment -he died they would have to become scavengers.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_356">[356]</span> -Wealth is mainly valuable, and sought for, not for -the sake of the pleasures of sense which it secures -for a man’s individual nervous system, but for the -sake of the <i>entourage</i>—of the world—which it creates -around him, which it peoples with companions for -him brought up and refined in a certain way, and -in which alone his mere personal pleasures can be -fully enjoyed. Capitalism, as Mr. Shaw truly -observes, produces many personal inequalities, which -without it could not exist. He fails to understand -that it is precisely the prospect of producing such -inequalities that constitutes the main motive that -urges able men to create Capital.</p> - -<p>More than ten years ago I published a book -called <i>Social Equality</i>, devoted to the exposition of -these truths. I cannot dwell upon them now. In -that book history is appealed to, and biography is -appealed to; and the special case of literary and -artistic production, of which Mr. Shaw makes so -much, is considered in a chapter devoted to the -subject, and Mr. Shaw’s precise arguments are disposed -of in anticipation. But to a great extent the -true doctrine of motive is one which cannot be -established by mere formal argument. It must to -a great extent be left to the verdict of the jury of -general common sense, the judgment of men of -experience and knowledge of the world—that knowledge -which, of all others, Mr. Shaw and his friends -appear to be most lacking in.</p> - -<p>It will be enough, then, to turn from Mr. Shaw -himself to ordinary sensible men, especially to the -men of exceptional energy, capacity, shrewdness,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_357">[357]</span> -strong will, and productive genius—the men who -are making fortunes, or who have just made them, -and without whose efforts all modern industry would -be paralysed, and to tell such men that the sole -answer of Fabianism to my attack on the Socialistic -position is summed up in the following astounding -statement:—That the complete confiscation of all -the invested money in this country, and all the -incomes derived from it—from the many thousands -a year going to the great organiser of industry -to the hundred a year belonging to the small -retired tradesman—would have no effect whatever -on the hopes and efforts of those who are now -devoting their Ability to making money to invest -(see Mr. Shaw’s article). Well—<i>Bos locutus est</i>: -there is the quintessence of Mr. Shaw’s knowledge -of human nature and of the world, and though it -would be interesting and instructive to analyse the -error of his view, no analysis could make its -absurdity seem more complete than it will seem -without analysis, to every practical man.</p> - - -<div class="footnotes p2"><h2>FOOTNOTES</h2> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p class="noindent"><a id="Footnote_1" href="#FNanchor_1" class="label">[1]</a> Writers also from whom better things might have been -expected make use of the same foolish language. “The -proletarian, in accepting the highest bid, sells himself openly -into bondage” (<i>Fabian Essays</i>, p. 12).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p class="noindent"><a id="Footnote_2" href="#FNanchor_2" class="label">[2]</a> According to Professor Leone Levi, the actual sum -would be <i>one hundred and thirteen million pounds</i>: but in -dealing with estimates such as these, in which absolute -accuracy is impossible, it is better, as well as more convenient, -to use round numbers. More than nine-tenths of -this sum belongs to the income of the classes that pay income-tax. -Of the working-class income, not more than two per -cent is counted twice over, according to Professor Leone Levi.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p class="noindent"><a id="Footnote_3" href="#FNanchor_3" class="label">[3]</a> There is a general agreement amongst statisticians with -regard to these figures. <i>Cf.</i> Messrs Giffen, Mulhall, and -Leone Levi <i>passim</i>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p class="noindent"><a id="Footnote_4" href="#FNanchor_4" class="label">[4]</a> Out of any <i>thousand</i> inhabitants, <i>two hundred and fifty-eight</i> -are under ten years of age; and <i>three hundred and sixty-six</i> -out of every <i>thousand</i> are under fifteen.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p class="noindent"><a id="Footnote_5" href="#FNanchor_5" class="label">[5]</a> Statistics in support of the above result might be -indefinitely multiplied, both from European countries and -America. So far as food is concerned, scientific authorities -tell us that if <i>twenty</i> represents the amount required by a man, -a woman will require <i>fifteen</i>, and a child <i>eleven</i>; but the total -expenditures necessary are somewhat different in proportion.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p class="noindent"><a id="Footnote_6" href="#FNanchor_6" class="label">[6]</a> The total imperial taxation in the United Kingdom is -about <i>two pounds eight shillings</i> per head; and the total local -taxation is about <i>one pound four shillings</i>. Thus the two -together come to <i>three pounds twelve shillings</i> per head, which -for every family of four and a half persons gives a total of -<i>sixteen pounds four shillings</i>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p class="noindent"><a id="Footnote_7" href="#FNanchor_7" class="label">[7]</a> The number of females over fifteen years of age is -about <i>twelve millions</i>. Those who work for wages number -less than <i>five millions</i>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p class="noindent"><a id="Footnote_8" href="#FNanchor_8" class="label">[8]</a> Mr. Giffen’s latest estimates show that not more than -twenty-three per cent of the wage-earners in this country earn -less than <i>twenty shillings</i> a week; whilst seventy-seven per -cent earn this sum and upwards. Thirty-five per cent earn -from <i>twenty shillings</i> to <i>twenty-five shillings</i>; and forty-one -per cent earn more than <i>twenty-five shillings</i>. See evidence -given by Mr. Giffen before the Labour Commission, 7th -December 1892.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p class="noindent"><a id="Footnote_9" href="#FNanchor_9" class="label">[9]</a> The reader must observe that I speak of the <i>rent</i> of the -land, not of the land itself, as the subject of the above -calculation. I forbear to touch the question of any mere -change in the occupancy or administration of the land, or -even of any scheme of nationalising the land by purchasing -it at its market price from the owners; for by none of these -would the present owners be robbed pecuniarily, nor would -the nation pecuniarily gain, except in so far as new conditions -of tenure made agriculture more productive. All such -schemes are subjects of legitimate controversy, or, in other -words, are party questions; and I therefore abstain from -touching them. I deal in the text with facts about which -there can be no controversy.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p class="noindent"><a id="Footnote_10" href="#FNanchor_10" class="label">[10]</a> It is also every year becoming more unimportant, in -diametrical contradiction of the theories of Mr. H. George. -This was pointed out some twelve years ago by Professor -Leone Levi, who showed that whereas in 1814 the incomes -of the landlord and farmer were fifty-six per cent of the total -assessed to income-tax, in 1851 they were thirty-seven per -cent, and in 1880 only twenty-four per cent. They are now -only sixteen per cent.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p class="noindent"><a id="Footnote_11" href="#FNanchor_11" class="label">[11]</a> See Local Government Board valuation of 1878.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p class="noindent"><a id="Footnote_12" href="#FNanchor_12" class="label">[12]</a> Recent falls in rent make it impossible to give the -figures with actual precision; but the returns in the New -Doomsday Book, taken together with subsequent official information, -enable us to arrive at the substantial facts of the -case. In 1878 the rental of the owners of more than <i>a -thousand</i> acres was <i>twenty-nine million pounds</i>. The rental -of the rural owners of smaller estates was <i>thirty-two million -pounds</i>; and the rental of small urban and suburban owners -was <i>thirty-six million pounds</i>. The suburban properties -averaged <i>three and a half</i> acres, the average rent being <i>thirteen -pounds</i> per acre.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p class="noindent"><a id="Footnote_13" href="#FNanchor_13" class="label">[13]</a> According to the Local Government Report of 1878, -the rental of all the properties over <i>five hundred</i> acres averaged -<i>thirty-six shillings</i> an acre; that of properties between <i>fifty</i> -and <i>a hundred</i> acres, <i>forty-eight shillings</i> an acre; and that of -properties between <i>ten</i> and <i>fifty</i> acres, <i>a hundred and sixteen -shillings</i> an acre. In Scotland, the rental of properties over -<i>five hundred</i> acres averaged <i>nine shillings</i> an acre: that of -properties between <i>ten</i> and <i>fifty</i> acres, <i>four hundred and thirteen -shillings</i>. With regard to the value of properties under <i>ten</i> -acres, the following Scotch statistics are interesting. Four-fifths -of the ground rental of Edinburgh is taken by owners -of less than one acre, the rental of such owners being on an -average <i>ninety-nine pounds</i>. Three-fourths of the ground -rental of Glasgow is taken by owners of similar plots of -ground; only there the rental of such owners is <i>a hundred -and seventy-one pounds</i>. In the municipal borough of Kilmarnock, -land owned in plots of less than an acre lets per -acre at <i>thirty-two pounds</i>. The land of the few men who own -larger plots lets for not more than <i>twenty pounds</i>. Each one -of the <i>eleven thousand</i> men who own collectively four-fifths -of Edinburgh, has in point of money as much stake in the -soil as though he were the owner in Sutherland of <i>two -thousand</i> acres: and each one of the <i>ten thousand</i> men who -own collectively three-fourths of Glasgow, has as much stake -in the soil as though he were the owner in Sutherland of -<i>three thousand four hundred</i> acres.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p class="noindent"><a id="Footnote_14" href="#FNanchor_14" class="label">[14]</a> This is Mr. Giffen’s estimate. Mr. Mulhall, who has -made independent calculations, does not differ from Mr. -Giffen by more than five per cent.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p class="noindent"><a id="Footnote_15" href="#FNanchor_15" class="label">[15]</a> General merchandise is estimated by Mr. Mulhall at -<i>three hundred and forty-three million pounds</i>. For every -<i>hundred</i> inhabitants in the year 1877 there were <i>five</i> horses, -<i>twenty-eight</i> cows, <i>seventy-six</i> sheep, and <i>ten</i> pigs. In 1881 -there were in Great Britain <i>five million four hundred and -seventy-five thousand</i> houses. The rent of eighty-seven per -cent of these was under <i>thirty pounds</i> a year, and the rental -of more than a half averaged only <i>ten pounds</i>. The total -house-rental of Great Britain in that year was <i>one hundred -and fourteen million pounds</i>; and the aggregate total of -houses over <i>thirty pounds</i> annual value was <i>sixty million -pounds</i>; though in point of number these houses were only -thirteen per cent of the whole.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p class="noindent"><a id="Footnote_16" href="#FNanchor_16" class="label">[16]</a> This classification of houses may perhaps be objected to; -but from the above point of view it is correct. Houses -represent an annual income of <i>one hundred and thirty-five -million pounds</i>. Not more than <i>thirty-five million pounds</i> are -spent annually in building new houses; whilst the whole -are counted as representing a new <i>one hundred million -pounds</i> every year. It is plain, therefore, that if we -estimate the entire annual value as above, the sum in question -stands not for the houses, but for the use of them. Even more -clearly does the same reasoning apply to railways and -shipping. Whether we send goods by these or are conveyed -by them ourselves, all that we get from them is the mere -service of transport. On transport and travelling by railway -about <i>seventy million pounds</i> are spent annually: by ship -about <i>thirty million pounds</i>; by trams about <i>two million -pounds</i>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p class="noindent"><a id="Footnote_17" href="#FNanchor_17" class="label">[17]</a> The total annual imports are about <i>four hundred and -twenty million pounds</i>. The amount retained for home -consumption is about <i>three hundred and sixty-five million -pounds</i>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p class="noindent"><a id="Footnote_18" href="#FNanchor_18" class="label">[18]</a> The approximate value of the food consumed annually -in the United Kingdom (exclusive of alcoholic drinks) is -<i>two hundred and ninety million pounds</i>. The total value of -food imported is over <i>one hundred and fifty million pounds</i>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p class="noindent"><a id="Footnote_19" href="#FNanchor_19" class="label">[19]</a> The number of persons fed on home-grown meat was -<i>twenty-three millions one hundred thousand</i>. The number fed -on imported meat was <i>fourteen millions seven hundred thousand</i>. -In other words, the number of persons who subsist on imported -meat now is about equal to the entire population of -the United Kingdom in 1801.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p class="noindent"><a id="Footnote_20" href="#FNanchor_20" class="label">[20]</a> From the year 1843 to 1851, the annual income of the -nation averaged <i>five hundred and fifteen million pounds</i>, -according to the calculations of Messrs. Leone Levi, Dudley -Baxter, Mulhall, and Giffen.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p class="noindent"><a id="Footnote_21" href="#FNanchor_21" class="label">[21]</a> The actual figures are as follows:—In 1887 the estimates -of the value of agricultural products per each individual actually -engaged in agriculture were: United Kingdom, <i>ninety-eight -pounds</i>; France, <i>seventy-one pounds</i>; Belgium, <i>fifty-six -pounds</i>; Germany, <i>fifty-two pounds</i>; Austria, <i>thirty-one -pounds</i>; Italy, <i>thirty-seven pounds</i>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p class="noindent"><a id="Footnote_22" href="#FNanchor_22" class="label">[22]</a> It is understating the case to say that the British -operative to-day works one hundred and eighty-nine hours -less annually than his predecessor of forty or fifty years ago, -and one hundred and eighty-nine hours = three weeks of -nine hours a day. To this must be added at least a week -of additional holidays.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p class="noindent"><a id="Footnote_23" href="#FNanchor_23" class="label">[23]</a> The hours of labour in Switzerland are, on an average, -sixty-six a week.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p class="noindent"><a id="Footnote_24" href="#FNanchor_24" class="label">[24]</a> The agricultural population in France is about -<i>eighteen millions</i>; in this country, about <i>six millions</i>. The -produce of France is worth about <i>four hundred and fourteen -million pounds</i>; of this country, <i>two hundred and twenty-six -million pounds</i>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p class="noindent"><a id="Footnote_25" href="#FNanchor_25" class="label">[25]</a> According to Eden it was about <i>seventeen hundred million -pounds</i> at the beginning of the present century. Twenty-five -years previously it was, according to Young’s estimate, -<i>eleven hundred million pounds</i>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p class="noindent"><a id="Footnote_26" href="#FNanchor_26" class="label">[26]</a> I have not mentioned Profits. They consist, says Mill, -of Interest on Capital and Wages of Superintendence; to -which he adds compensation for risk—a most important -item, but not requiring to be included here.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p class="noindent"><a id="Footnote_27" href="#FNanchor_27" class="label">[27]</a> From 1716 to 1770 the cotton manufactured in this -country annually averaged under <i>two and a half million pounds</i> -weight. From 1771 to 1775 it was <i>four million seven hundred -thousand pounds</i>. From 1781 to 1785 it was <i>eleven million -pounds</i>. From 1791 to 1795 it was <i>twenty-six million pounds</i>; -and from 1795 to 1800 it was <i>thirty-seven million pounds</i>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p class="noindent"><a id="Footnote_28" href="#FNanchor_28" class="label">[28]</a> Pitt estimated that the hands employed in spinning -increased from forty thousand to eighty thousand between -the years 1760 and 1790.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p class="noindent"><a id="Footnote_29" href="#FNanchor_29" class="label">[29]</a> Were any confirmation of this conclusion needed, it is -afforded us by the fact that in 1786 a spinner received <i>ten -shillings</i> a pound for spinning cotton of a certain quality: in -1795 he had received only <i>eightpence</i>, or a fifteenth part of -ten shillings; and yet in the course of a similar day’s labour, -he made more money than he had been able to do under the -former scale of payment. The price of spinning No. 100 -was <i>ten shillings</i> per pound in 1786; in 1793, <i>two shillings -and sixpence</i>. The subsequent drop to <i>eightpence</i> coincided -with the application of machinery to the working of the mule.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p class="noindent"><a id="Footnote_30" href="#FNanchor_30" class="label">[30]</a> Were this work a treatise on political economy, rather -than a work on practical politics, in which only the simplest -and most fundamental economic principles are insisted on, -I should have here introduced a chapter on the special and -peculiar part which fixed capital, other than machinery, -plays in agriculture. I have not done so, however, for fear -of interrupting the thread of the main argument; but it -will be useful to call the reader’s attention to the subject in -a note.</p> - -<p class="noindent">It was explained in the last chapter that rent (to speak -with strict accuracy) is not to be described as the product of -superior soils, but rather as the product of the qualities -which make such soils superior—qualities which are present -in them and which in poorer soils are absent. Now in -speaking of rent, we assumed these superior qualities to be -natural. As a matter of fact, however, in highly cultivated -countries, many of them are artificial. They have been -added to the soil by human exertion—for instance by the -process of draining; or they have been actually placed in -the soil, as by the process of manuring. In this way land -and capital merge and melt into one another, and illustrate -each other’s functions as productive agents. It is impossible -to imagine a more complete and beautiful example -of the relation between the two. At this point the rent of -Capital and the rent of Land become indistinguishable.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p class="noindent"><a id="Footnote_31" href="#FNanchor_31" class="label">[31]</a> In a state where the employing class were physically -the masters of the employed, Wage Capital would be unnecessary -for the employer. A system of forced labour -might take its place.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p class="noindent"><a id="Footnote_32" href="#FNanchor_32" class="label">[32]</a> This was Pitt’s computation. <i>See</i> Lecky, <i>History of -England during the Eighteenth Century</i>, vol. vi. chap. xxiii.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p class="noindent"><a id="Footnote_33" href="#FNanchor_33" class="label">[33]</a> The amount of land, formerly waste, that was added to -the cultivable area during the last century, was in England -and Wales not more than sixteen per cent of the total.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p class="noindent"><a id="Footnote_34" href="#FNanchor_34" class="label">[34]</a> The rental of Great Britain in 1750 was about -<i>thirteen million five hundred thousand pounds</i>, and in 1800 about -<i>twenty-nine million six hundred thousand pounds</i>. According -to the estimates of Arthur Young, the farmer’s income somewhat -more. The wages of Agricultural Labour had not risen -proportionately.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p class="noindent"><a id="Footnote_35" href="#FNanchor_35" class="label">[35]</a> See <i>Encyclopædia Britannica</i>, first and earlier editions.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p class="noindent"><a id="Footnote_36" href="#FNanchor_36" class="label">[36]</a> See <i>Encyclopædia Britannica</i>, first and earlier editions. -The product of each smelting furnace in use in 1780 was <i>two -hundred and ninety-four tons</i> annually. In 1788, these same -furnaces were producing, by the aid of new inventions, <i>five -hundred and ninety-four tons</i>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p class="noindent"><a id="Footnote_37" href="#FNanchor_37" class="label">[37]</a> According to Arthur Young’s estimates, the earnings -of an agricultural family, consisting of seven persons all -capable of work, would be about <i>fifty-one pounds</i> annually. -This gives a little over <i>seven pounds</i> a head; but when the -children and others not capable of work are taken into -account the average is considerably lower. The wages, -however, of the artisan class being higher, the average amount -per head taken by the whole working population would be -about <i>seven pounds</i>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p class="noindent"><a id="Footnote_38" href="#FNanchor_38" class="label">[38]</a> About £1 12s. per head would have to be set down to -land, were the land question being dealt with. But for the -purpose of the above discussion, land may be ignored, as it -does not affect the problem.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p class="noindent"><a id="Footnote_39" href="#FNanchor_39" class="label">[39]</a> This fact has been commented on with much force by Mr. -Gourlay in a paper contributed by him to the <i>National Review</i>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p class="noindent"><a id="Footnote_40" href="#FNanchor_40" class="label">[40]</a> The matter may also be put in this way. There are -<i>ninety-nine labourers</i> engaged on a certain work at which -there is room for <i>a hundred</i>. The <i>ninety-nine men</i> produce -every week value to the amount of <i>ninety-nine pounds</i>. -There are two candidates for the hundredth place: one -a labourer, John; and one, a man of ability, James. If -John takes the vacant place, we have <i>a hundred men</i> producing -<i>a hundred pounds</i>. If James takes the vacant place, -the productivity of labour by his action is (we will say) -doubled, and we have <i>a hundred men</i> producing <i>a hundred -and ninety-eight pounds</i>. No amount of theory based on the fact -that James could do nothing without the <i>ninety-nine labourers</i> -can obscure or do away with the practical truth and importance -of the fact that the exertion of James will produce <i>ninety-eight -pounds</i> more than the exertion of John; and any -person with whom the decision rested, which of these two men -should take the hundredth place, would base their decision -on this fact.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p class="noindent"><a id="Footnote_41" href="#FNanchor_41" class="label">[41]</a> I say <i>practically</i> as absurd, meaning absurd and -practically meaningless in an economic argument. There -are many points of view from which it would be philosophically -true.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p class="noindent"><a id="Footnote_42" href="#FNanchor_42" class="label">[42]</a> The examples given above might be multiplied indefinitely. -Maudslay was brought up as a “powder-boy” at -Woolwich. The inventors of the planing machine, Clements -and Fox, were brought up, the one as a slater, the other as a -domestic servant. Neilson, the inventor of the hot-blast, was -a millwright. Roberts, the inventor of the self-acting mule -and the slotting-machine, was a quarryman. The illustrious -Bramah began life as a common farm-boy.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p class="noindent"><a id="Footnote_43" href="#FNanchor_43" class="label">[43]</a> By labouring classes is meant all those families having -incomes of less than a <i>hundred and fifty pounds</i> a year. The -substantial accuracy of this rough classification has already -been pointed out. No doubt they include many persons -who are not manual labourers; but against this must be set -the fact that, according to the latest evidence, there are at -least a <i>hundred and eighty thousand</i> skilled manual labourers -who earn more than a <i>hundred and fifty pounds</i>. And, at all -events, whether the classes in question are manual labourers -or not, they are, with very manifest exceptions, wage-earners—that -is to say, for whatever money they receive they give -work which is estimated at at least the same money value. -A schoolmaster, for instance, who receives a <i>hundred and -forty pounds</i> a year gives in return teaching which is valued -at the same sum. School teaching is wealth just as much -as a schoolhouse; it figures in all estimates as part of the -national income; and therefore the schoolmaster is a producer -just as much as the school builder.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p class="noindent"><a id="Footnote_44" href="#FNanchor_44" class="label">[44]</a> This corresponds with Arthur Young’s estimate of -wages for about the same period.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p class="noindent"><a id="Footnote_45" href="#FNanchor_45" class="label">[45]</a> Statisticians estimate that in 1860 the working classes -of the United Kingdom received in wages <i>four hundred million -pounds</i>; the population then being about twice what it was -at the close of the last century. In order to arrive at the -receipts of British Labour, the receipts of Irish Labour must -be deducted from this total. The latter are proportionately -much lower than the former, and could not have reached the -sum of <i>eighty million pounds</i>. But assuming them to have -reached that, and deducting <i>eighty million pounds</i> from <i>four -hundred million pounds</i>, there is left for British Labour -<i>three hundred and twenty million pounds</i>, to be divided, -roughly speaking, amongst <i>twenty million</i> people; which for -each <i>ten millions</i> yields a <i>hundred and sixty million pounds</i>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p class="noindent"><a id="Footnote_46" href="#FNanchor_46" class="label">[46]</a> According to the latest estimates, it exceeds <i>seven -hundred million pounds</i>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p class="noindent"><a id="Footnote_47" href="#FNanchor_47" class="label">[47]</a> The entire population has risen from about <i>twenty-seven -million five hundred thousand</i> to <i>thirty-eight millions</i>. But a -large part of this increase has taken place amongst the -classes who pay income-tax, and are expressly excluded from -the above calculations. These classes have risen from <i>one -million five hundred thousand</i> to <i>five millions</i>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p class="noindent"><a id="Footnote_48" href="#FNanchor_48" class="label">[48]</a> These considerations are so obvious, and have been so -constantly dwelt upon by all economic writers, other than -avowed Socialists, that it is quite unnecessary here to insist -on these further. Even the Socialists themselves have recognised -how much force there is in them, and have consequently -been at pains to meet them by the following curious doctrine. -They maintain that a man who makes or inherits a certain -sum has a perfect right to possess it, to hoard it, or squander -it on himself; but no right to any payment for the use -made of it by others. They argue that if he puts it into a -business he is simply having it preserved for him; for the -larger part of the Capital at any time existing would dwindle -and disappear if it were not renewed by being used. Let -him put it into a business, say the Socialists, and draw it -out as he wants it. Few things can show more clearly than -this suggested arrangement the visionary character of the -Socialistic mind; for it needs but little thought to show that -such an arrangement would defeat its own objects and be -altogether impracticable. The sole ground on which the -Socialists recommend it, in preference to the arrangement -which prevails at present, is that the interest which the -owners of the Capital are forbidden to receive themselves -would by some means or other be taken by the State instead -and distributed amongst the labourers as an addition to their -wages, and would thus be the means of supplying them with -extra comforts. Now the interest if so applied would, it is -needless to say, be not saved but consumed. But the owners -of the Capital, who are thus deprived of their interest, are -to have the privilege, according to the arrangement we are -considering, of consuming their Capital in lieu of the interest -that has been taken from them. Accordingly, whereas the -interest is all that is consumed now, under this arrangement -the Capital would be consumed as well. The tendency, in -fact, of the arrangement would be neither more nor less than -this: to increase the consumption of the nation at the expense -of its savings, until at last all the savings had disappeared. -It would be impracticable also for many other reasons, to -discuss which here would simply be waste of time. It is -enough to observe that the fact of its having been suggested -is only a tribute to the insuperable nature of the difficulty it -was designed to meet.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p class="noindent"><a id="Footnote_49" href="#FNanchor_49" class="label">[49]</a> The part played in national progress by the mere -business sagacity of investors, amounts practically to a constant -criticism of inventions, discoveries, schemes, and enterprises -of all kinds, and the selection of those that are valuable -from amongst a mass of what is valueless and chimerical.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p class="noindent"><a id="Footnote_50" href="#FNanchor_50" class="label">[50]</a> See Mr. Giffen’s Inaugural Address of the Fiftieth Session -of the Statistical Society.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p class="noindent"><a id="Footnote_51" href="#FNanchor_51" class="label">[51]</a> The gross amount assessed to income-tax in 1891 was -nearly <i>seven hundred million pounds</i>; now more than <i>a -hundred million pounds</i> was exempt, as belonging to persons -with incomes of less than <i>a hundred and fifty pounds</i> a year. -Mr. Giffen maintains (see his evidence given before the Royal -Commission on Labour, 7th December 1892) that there is -an immense middle-class income not included amongst the -wages of the labouring class. This, according to the classification -adopted above, which divides the population into those -with incomes above, and those with incomes below <i>a hundred -and fifty pounds</i>, would raise the collective incomes of the -latter to over <i>seven hundred million pounds</i>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p class="noindent"><a id="Footnote_52" href="#FNanchor_52" class="label">[52]</a> See Mr. Giffen’s Address, as above.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p class="noindent"><a id="Footnote_53" href="#FNanchor_53" class="label">[53]</a> If the number of employers does not increase, it is true -that they, unlike the employed, will be richer in proportion -to their numbers; but they will be poorer in proportion to -the number of men employed by them.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p class="noindent"><a id="Footnote_54" href="#FNanchor_54" class="label">[54]</a> Thus the old theory of the wage-fund, which has so -often been attacked of late, has after all this great residuary -truth, namely, that the amount of wealth that is spent and -taken in wages is limited by the total amount of wealth produced -<i>in proportion to the number</i> of labourers who assist in -its production. That theory, however, as commonly understood, -is no doubt erroneous, though not for the reasons commonly -advanced by its critics. The theory of a wage-fund -as commonly understood means this—that if there were eight -labourers and a capital of <i>four hundred pounds</i>, which would -be spent in wages and replaced within a year, and if this -were distributed in equal shares of <i>fifty pounds</i>, it would be -impossible to increase the share of one labourer without -diminishing that of the others; or to employ more labourers -without doing the same thing. But the truth is that if -means were discovered by which the productivity of any one -labourer could be doubled during the first six months, the -whole <i>fifty pounds</i> destined for his whole year’s subsistence -might be paid to him during the first six months, and the -fund would meanwhile have been created with which to pay -him a similar sum for the next six months—the employer -gaining in the same proportion as the labourer. So, too, -with regard to an additional number of labourers—if ability -could employ their labour to sufficient advantage, part of the -sum destined to support the original labourer for the second -six months of the year might be advanced to them, and -before the second six months’ wages became due there might -be enough to pay an increased wage to all.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p class="noindent"><a id="Footnote_55" href="#FNanchor_55" class="label">[55]</a> This is true even of productive or distributive industries -carried out by the State. The real Socialistic principle of -production has never been applied by the State, or by any -municipal authority; nor has any practical party so much -as suggested that it should be. The manager of a State -factory has just the same motive to save that an ordinary -employer has: he can invest his money, and get interest on -it. A State or a municipal business differs only from a -private Capitalist’s business either in making no profits, as -is the case in the building of ships of war; or of securing the -services of Ability at a somewhat cheaper rate, and, in consequence, -generally diminishing its efficacy. Of State business -carried on at a profit, the Post Office offers the best example; -and it is the example universally fixed on by contemporary -English Socialists. It is an example, however, which disproves -everything that they think it proves; and shows the -necessary limitations of the principle involved, instead of the -possibility of its extension. For, in the first place, the -object aimed at—<i>i.e.</i> the delivery of letters—is one of exceptional -simplicity. In the second place, all practical men -agree that, could the postal service be carried out by private -and competing firms, it would (at all events in towns) be -carried out much better; only the advantages gained in this -special and exceptional case from the entire service being -under a single management, outweigh the disadvantages. -And lastly, the business, as it stands, is a State business in -the most superficial sense only. The railways and the -steamers that carry the letters are all the creations of private -enterprise, in which the principle of competition, and the -motive force of the natural rewards of Ability, have had -free play. Indeed the Post Office, as we now know it, if -we can call it Socialistic at all, represents only a superficial -layer of State Socialism resting on individualism, and only -made possible by its developments. Real State Socialism -would be merely the Capitalistic system minus the rewards -of that Ability by which alone Capital is made productive.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p class="noindent"><a id="Footnote_56" href="#FNanchor_56" class="label">[56]</a> <i>Principles of Economics</i>, by Alfred Marshall, book iv. -chap. vii.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p class="noindent"><a id="Footnote_57" href="#FNanchor_57" class="label">[57]</a> Though I have aimed at excluding from this volume -all controversial matter, I may here hazard the opinion that -the Socialistic principle is most properly applied to providing -the labourers, not with things that they would buy if they -were able to do so, but things that naturally they would not -buy. Things procurable by money may be divided into -three classes—things that are necessary, things that are -superfluous, and things that are beneficial. Clothing is an -example of the first class, finery of the second, and education -of the third. If a man receives food from the State, otherwise -than as a reward for a given amount of labour, his -motive to labour will be lessened. If a factory girl, irrespective -of her industry, was supplied by the State with -fashionable hats and jackets, her motive to labour would be -lessened also; for clothing and finery are amongst the special -objects to procure which labour is undertaken. But desire -to be able to pay for education does not constitute, for most -men and women, a strong motive to labour; and therefore -education may be supplied by the State, without the efficacy -of their labour being interfered with.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p class="noindent"><a id="Footnote_58" href="#FNanchor_58" class="label">[58]</a> In our imaginary community we have at first eight -labourers, who produce <i>fifty pounds</i> a year a-piece = <i>four -hundred pounds</i>. Then we have eight labourers + one able -man, who produce <i>four hundred pounds</i> a year for each -labourer = <i>three thousand two hundred pounds</i>. Of this the -able man takes <i>two thousand eight hundred pounds</i>. Now, -suppose the labourers strike for double wages, and succeed -in getting them, their total wages are <i>eight hundred pounds</i> a -year instead of <i>four hundred pounds</i>; and the employer’s income -is <i>two thousand four hundred pounds</i> instead of <i>two thousand -eight hundred pounds</i>. The labourers gain a hundred per cent; -the employer loses little more than fourteen per cent. The -labourers therefore have a stronger motive in demanding than -the employer has in resisting. But let us suppose that, the -total income of the community remaining unchanged, the -labourers have succeeded in obtaining <i>one thousand eight -hundred pounds</i>, thus leaving the employer <i>one thousand four -hundred pounds</i>. The situation will now be changed. The -labourers could not possibly now gain an increase of a hundred -per cent, for the entire income available would not supply -this; but let us suppose they strike for an increase of <i>two -hundred pounds</i>. If they gained that, their income would be -<i>two thousand pounds</i>, and that of the employer <i>one thousand -two hundred pounds</i>; but the former situation would be -reversed. The employer now would lose more than the -labourer would gain. The labourers would gain, in round -numbers, only eleven per cent; and the employer would -lose fourteen per cent. Therefore the employer would -have a stronger motive in resisting than the labourers in -demanding.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p class="noindent"><a id="Footnote_59" href="#FNanchor_59" class="label">[59]</a> The possibility of such a result would depend upon two -assumptions, which are not in accordance with reality, and -for which allowance must be made. The first is the assumption -that the labouring population is stationary; the second -is that Ability can increase the productivity of Labour equally -in all industries. In reality, however, as was noticed in the -last chapter, the number of labourers increases constantly, -and the improvements in different industries are very unequal; -and, owing to these two causes, it often happens -that the total value produced in some industries by Labour -and Ability together is not so great as is the share that is -taken by Labour in others. Thus the labourers employed -in the inferior industries could by no possibility raise their -wages to the amount received by the labourers employed -in the superior ones. Their effort accordingly would be to -obtain employment in the latter, and to do so by accepting -wages higher indeed than what they receive at present, but -lower than those received by the men whose positions they -wish to take. Thus, under such circumstances, a union of -industrial interests ceases to be any longer possible. By an -irresistible and automatic process, there is produced an -antagonism between them; and the labourers who enjoy the -higher wages will do what is actually done by our Trade -Unions: they will form a separate combination to protect -their own interests, not only against the employers, but -even more directly against other labourers. At a certain -stage of their demands, the labourers may be able to combine -more readily and more closely than the employers; but when -a certain stage has been passed, the case will be the reverse. -The employers will be forced more and more into unanimous -action, whilst the labourers, by their diverging interests, are -divided into groups whose action is mutually hostile.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p class="noindent"><a id="Footnote_60" href="#FNanchor_60" class="label">[60]</a> The reader must always bear in mind the definition -given of Labour, as that kind of industrial exertion which is -applied to one task at a time only, and while so applied -begins and ends with that task; as distinguished from Ability, -which influences simultaneously an indefinite number of tasks.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p class="noindent"><a id="Footnote_61" href="#FNanchor_61" class="label">[61]</a> Mr. Shaw, for instance, is at much pains to point out that -Ability is not one definite thing, as the power of jumping is, and -makes himself merry by asking if Wellington’s Ability could be -compared with Cobden’s, or Napoleon’s with Beethoven’s. This is -all beside the mark. I have been careful to define the sense in -which I used the word Ability—to define it with the utmost -exactness. I have said that I use it as meaning productive Ability—industrial -Ability. That is to say, those faculties by which men, -not labouring themselves, are capable of directing to the best -advantage the labour of others, with a view to the production of -economic commodities. In the Middle Ages I said that another -kind of Ability was more important—<i>i.e.</i> Military Ability, instead -of Economic; and the historical importance of this fact, which Mr. -Shaw says I discovered only after I had written my first article on -Fabian Economics, I insisted on, at much greater length, years -ago, when criticising Karl Marx’s “Theory of Value,” in this [the -Fortnightly] Review. Again, let Mr. Shaw turn to <i>Labour and -the Popular Welfare</i>, p. 328, and he will find what he says put -more clearly by myself than by him.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p class="noindent"><a id="Footnote_62" href="#FNanchor_62" class="label">[62]</a> It is interesting to see the analysis which Mr. Shaw gives of -the elements which make up the <i>five hundred million pounds</i> (see -page 482 of his article). It shows a curious want of sense of proportion, -and reads much like a statement that a young man’s -bankruptcy was due to the <i>one hundred thousand pounds</i> he has spent -on the turf, the <i>fifty thousand pounds</i> he had spent on building a -house, the <i>fifty pounds</i> he has spent on a fur coat, and the sixpence -he gave last Saturday to the porter at Paddington Station. But -there is in it a more serious error than this. Mr. Shaw says, and -rightly, that a large part of the millions to which he alludes consists -of payments to artists and other professional men (<i>e.g.</i> doctors), -by very rich commonplace people competing for their services. -But he entirely mistakes the meaning of this fact. I have pointed -it out carefully in <i>Labour and the Popular Welfare</i> (Book I. -chap. iii.) and have illustrated it by one of the exact cases Mr. -Shaw has in view, viz. that of a doctor who gets a fee of <i>one thousand -two hundred pounds</i> from “a very rich commonplace person.” I -pointed out that in the estimates, from which Mr. Shaw gets his -figures of <i>five hundred million pounds</i>, all such payments are counted -twice over. The “very rich commonplace person” and the doctor -both pay income-tax on and are regarded as possessing the same -<i>one thousand two hundred pounds</i>. As matters stand this is right -enough, for the patient receives either in good or fancied good an -equivalent for his fee in the doctor’s services; but if the sum in -question were to be divided up and distributed, there would for -distribution be one <i>one thousand two hundred pounds</i> only. By -reference to calculations of Professor Leone Levi, with whom I -corresponded on these matters, I drew the conclusion that the sum -thus counted twice over was about <i>one hundred million pounds</i> -annually ten years ago. This would knock off twenty per cent at -once from Mr. Shaw’s <i>five hundred million pounds</i>; and I may -again mention Mr. Giffen’s emphatic warning that, if we are thinking -of any general redistribution, another <i>two hundred million pounds</i> -would have to be deducted from the sums which persons like Mr. -Shaw imagine await their seizure.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p class="noindent"><a id="Footnote_63" href="#FNanchor_63" class="label">[63]</a> The case may also be put in another way. Interest is the -product of capital <i>quâ</i> capital, as opposed to the product of ability -as distinct from capital. But the bulk of modern capital is -historically the creation of ability, which has miraculously multiplied -the few loaves and fishes existing at the close of the last -century. Interest may therefore be called the secondary or indirect -product of ability, whilst earnings and profits may be called the -direct product of ability. Any one who is living on interest at the -present moment is almost sure to be living, not on his own ability, -but on the products of the ability of some member of his own -family who has added to the national wealth within the past two -generations. Suppose a man who died in 1830 left a fortune of -<i>two hundred thousand pounds</i>, which he made, as Salt did, by the -invention and production of some new textile fabric; and suppose -that this fortune is now in the hands of a foolish and feeble grandson, -who enjoys <i>eight thousand pounds</i> a year. This is evidently -not the product of the grandson’s ability; but it is the product of -the ability of the grandfather. The truth of this may be easily -seen by altering the supposition thus—by supposing that the -original maker of the fortune, instead of dying in 1830, is alive -now, but as imbecile as we supposed his grandson to be. He has, -we will say, long retired from business, and lives on the interest -of the capital he made when his faculties were in their vigour. -Would any one say that he is not living on his own ability? The -only difference is—and it is a difference which, from many points -of view, is of the greatest importance—that formerly he was living -on the direct product of his ability, and he is now living on its -indirect product.</p> - -</div> -</div> - -<p class="noindent center p4">THE END</p> - -<p class="noindent center small p4"><i>Printed by</i> <span class="smcap">R. & R. Clark</span>, <i>Edinburgh</i>.</p> - -<div class="chapter"> -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> -</div> - -<p class="noindent center fs5">PRINCIPLES OF</p> -<p class="noindent center fs4">POLITICAL ECONOMY</p> - -<p class="noindent center fs6 p2">By J. SHIELD NICHOLSON, M.A., D.Sc.</p> - -<p class="noindent center fs2">PROFESSOR OF POLITICAL ECONOMY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH,<br /> -SOME TIME EXAMINER IN THE UNIVERSITIES OF CAMBRIDGE,<br /> -LONDON, AND VICTORIA</p> - -<p class="noindent center p2">In 2 Vols. demy 8vo.</p> - -<p class="noindent center">Vol. I. price 15s.</p> - -<p class="noindent center p2"><i>ALSO BY THE SAME AUTHOR</i></p> - -<p class="noindent center fs5">MONEY AND ESSAYS ON PRESENT</p> -<p class="noindent center fs5">MONETARY PROBLEMS</p> - -<p class="noindent center p2">Second Edition, Revised and Enlarged.</p> - -<p class="noindent center">In crown 8vo, price 7s. 6d.</p> - -<p class="noindent center fs4 p2">HISTORICAL PROGRESS</p> -<p class="noindent center fs6">AND</p> -<p class="noindent center fs4">IDEAL SOCIALISM</p> - -<p class="noindent center">In crown 8vo, price 1s. 6d.</p> - -<hr class="r10" /> - -<p class="noindent center"><span class="smcap">London: A. & C. BLACK, Soho Square.</span></p> - -<div class="chapter"> -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> -</div> - -<p class="noindent center fs6">A</p> - -<p class="noindent center fs4">HISTORY OF SOCIALISM</p> - -<p class="noindent center fs2">BY</p> - -<p class="noindent center fs6">THOMAS KIRKUP</p> - -<p class="noindent center p1">In crown 8vo, 300 pages, price 6s.</p> - -<p class="fs1 p1">“So fair, so learned, and so well written, that we have nothing but -praise for its author.”—<i>Athenæum.</i></p> - -<p class="fs1">“No better book for the purpose has come under our notice than -Mr. Kirkup’s new work, ‘A History of Socialism.’”—<i>The World.</i></p> - -<p class="fs1">“This bold and luminous outline displays an uncommon grasp of -the underlying principles of a movement which is rapidly beginning to -play a great part in modern society.”—<i>Standard.</i></p> - -<p class="fs1">“A very valuable and useful epitome.”—<i>Glasgow Herald.</i></p> - -<p class="fs1">“It is a work of true value and present importance.”—<i>Evening -News and Post.</i></p> - -<p class="fs1">“Well written, clear, tolerant, intelligible to all cultivated people.”—<i>Daily -Chronicle.</i></p> - -<p class="fs1">“Should be on the shelves of every public library and every workingmen’s -club.”—<i>Pall Mall Gazette.</i></p> - -<p class="fs1">“The tone of this able and opportune volume is at once sympathetic, -independent, and fearless.”—<i>Leeds Mercury.</i></p> - -<p class="fs1">“Well worthy to remain the standard text-book on Socialism.”—<i>British -Weekly.</i></p> - -<p class="fs1">“Marked by great candour and much independence of thought, as -well as by a wide knowledge of his subject.”—<i>Newcastle Leader.</i></p> - -<p class="fs1">“Practically indispensable to any one who wishes to acquire an -adequate grasp of the leading phases of historic socialism.”—<i>Freeman’s -Journal.</i></p> - -<p class="fs1">“Sound, original work.”—<i>Aberdeen Free Press.</i></p> - -<p class="fs1">“Nothing could be more timely than Mr. Kirkup’s very able and -lucid though concise ‘History of Socialism.’”—<i>Literary World.</i></p> - -<p class="fs1">“Apropos of Socialism, I do not know where you will find a more -brilliant account or a more lucid criticism of this on-coming movement -than in Mr. Thomas Kirkup’s ‘History of Socialism.’”—<i>Truth.</i></p> - -<hr class="r10" /> - -<p class="noindent center"><span class="smcap">London: A. & C. BLACK, Soho Square.</span></p> - -<div class="chapter"> -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> -</div> - -<div class="chapter transnote p2"> - -<p class="TN-style-1 center bold" id="TN">Transcriber’s Note (continued)</p> - -<p class="TN-style-1">Minor typographical errors have been corrected -in this transcription. Other errors and unusual or variable spelling and -hyphenation have been left unchanged except as noted below.</p> - -<p class="TN-style-2">The four references to (Henry) Maudsley have the surname corrected to Maudslay.</p> - -<p class="TN-style-2">Page 79 — “labour-party” changed to “Labour Party” (leaders of the Labour Party to-day)</p> - -<p class="TN-style-2">Page 118 — “Hargraves” changed to “Hargreaves” (Hargreaves and Arkwright)</p> - -<p class="TN-style-2">Page 200 — “monoply” changed to “monopoly” (the monopoly of Ability)</p> - -<p class="TN-style-2">Page 337 — “originially” changed to “originally” (which was originally published)</p> - -<p class="TN-style-2">Page 243 — “transction” changed to “transaction” (party in the transaction)</p> - -<p class="TN-style-2">Page 344 — “Leoni” changed to “Leone” in footnote (Professor Leone Levi)</p> - -<p class="TN-style-1">Footnotes have been re-indexed using numbers and placed after the Appendix.</p> - -<p class="TN-style-1"><a class="underline" href="#top">Back to top</a></p> -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin-top:4em'>*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK LABOUR AND THE POPULAR WELFARE ***</div> -<div style='text-align:left'> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will -be renamed. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright -law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, -so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United -States without permission and without paying copyright -royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part -of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project -Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™ -concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, -and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following -the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use -of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for -copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very -easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation -of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project -Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away--you may -do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected -by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark -license, especially commercial redistribution. -</div> - -<div style='margin:0.83em 0; font-size:1.1em; text-align:center'>START: FULL LICENSE<br /> -<span style='font-size:smaller'>THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE<br /> -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK</span> -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project -Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full -Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at -www.gutenberg.org/license. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; font-size:1.1em; margin:1em 0; font-weight:bold'> -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™ -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or -destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your -possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a -Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be bound -by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person -or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this -agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™ -electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the -Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection -of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual -works in the collection are in the public domain in the United -States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the -United States and you are located in the United States, we do not -claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, -displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as -all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope -that you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting -free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™ -works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the -Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can easily -comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the -same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when -you share it without charge with others. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are -in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, -check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this -agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, -distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any -other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes no -representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any -country other than the United States. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other -immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear -prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any work -on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the -phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, -performed, viewed, copied or distributed: -</div> - -<blockquote> - <div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> - This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most - other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions - whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms - of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online - at <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org">www.gutenberg.org</a>. If you - are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws - of the country where you are located before using this eBook. - </div> -</blockquote> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is -derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not -contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the -copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in -the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are -redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project -Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply -either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or -obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™ -trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any -additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms -will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works -posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the -beginning of this work. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™ -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg™ License. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including -any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access -to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a format -other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official -version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website -(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense -to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means -of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain -Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the -full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works -provided that: -</div> - -<div style='margin-left:0.7em;'> - <div style='text-indent:-0.7em'> - • You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed - to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has - agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid - within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are - legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty - payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in - Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg - Literary Archive Foundation.” - </div> - - <div style='text-indent:-0.7em'> - • You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™ - License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all - copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue - all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™ - works. - </div> - - <div style='text-indent:-0.7em'> - • You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of - any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of - receipt of the work. - </div> - - <div style='text-indent:-0.7em'> - • You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works. - </div> -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project -Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than -are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing -from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of -the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set -forth in Section 3 below. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.F. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project -Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ -electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may -contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate -or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other -intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or -other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or -cannot be read by your equipment. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right -of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium -with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you -with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in -lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person -or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second -opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If -the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing -without further opportunities to fix the problem. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO -OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT -LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of -damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement -violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the -agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or -limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or -unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the -remaining provisions. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in -accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the -production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™ -electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, -including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of -the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this -or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or -additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any -Defect you cause. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; font-size:1.1em; margin:1em 0; font-weight:bold'> -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™ -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of -computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It -exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations -from people in all walks of life. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future -generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see -Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; font-size:1.1em; margin:1em 0; font-weight:bold'> -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by -U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, -Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up -to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website -and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact -</div> - -<div style='display:block; font-size:1.1em; margin:1em 0; font-weight:bold'> -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread -public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND -DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state -visit <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/donate/">www.gutenberg.org/donate</a>. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To -donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate -</div> - -<div style='display:block; font-size:1.1em; margin:1em 0; font-weight:bold'> -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project -Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be -freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and -distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of -volunteer support. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in -the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not -necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper -edition. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Most people start at our website which has the main PG search -facility: <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org">www.gutenberg.org</a>. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. -</div> - -</div> - -</body> -</html> diff --git a/old/66518-h/images/cover.jpg b/old/66518-h/images/cover.jpg Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 6cb87b5..0000000 --- a/old/66518-h/images/cover.jpg +++ /dev/null |
