of their workers, paid them too low for too long working days
under working conditions which were a disgrace, it is also true
that these conditions are in most industries, especially the best
organized and most prosperous industries, a thing of the past.
Moreover, the charge against capitalism, brought against it by
the most extreme of its critics, is not merely that it has been in
the past or is now unjust to those who work for it in the matter
of hours and wages, but that the whole system is essentially
based upon robbery, that the whole product of industry is really
due to the exertions of labour, and that any interest or profit
taken by the capitalist is necessarily a form of robbery. It is not
a question of degree that the capitalist has taken more than he
is entitled to but that the capitalist is not entitled to take any-
thing at all, and that anything he takes is essentially a theft.
Labour's Capacity. For this contention it is very difficult to find any real ground either in fact or in theory. Labour, in the sense of manual labour, by itself can effect nothing. Put down the most skilful hand-worker on a bare piece of ground and he cannot produce anything out of it until he has made himself tools and so become a capitalist ; and, in the meantime, he would somehow have to feed himself on any roots that he could dig up, or any wild animals that he might be able to kill. Even if we include under labour the brain-workers and organizers, it re- mains true that any body of skilled workers, organized as well as possible under the most skilful management, would be equally ineffective without the assistance of the factory, tools, and other equipment which have to be supplied out of capital, that is to say out of the accumulation of past savings, before they can produce effectively. Labour by itself can effect nothing industrially or commercially; labour plus management is equally powerless. Capital by itself is, of course, in exactly the same position. Any- one who through the possession of capital owns a large supply of raw materials, and the necessary land, factory and equipment, can make nothing out of them without efficient management and efficient manual labour. These truisms are usually acknowl- edged by the extremist advocates of labour's claim to what is called the whole of its product. They admit that labour must have machinery and tools to work with ; but Mr. Philip Snowden, for instance, the English Labour M.P., has contended that " the existence of a rich class who do no labour is the conclusive proof of the claim that labour does not receive all that labour creates, but that a surplus over and above the wages of labour is ap- propriated in some way and some form by those who do no work." But this argument begs the whole question by assuming that " labour creates " all that labour produces with the help of machinery. It seems to be based on a confusion of mind which imagines that because the machinery and equipment by them- selves can produce nothing, therefore, those who work them and make them efficient are entitled to everything that is pro- duced by their own efforts assisted by the machinery. In fact the existence of the machinery, which has been provided by the poss.ibly idle capitalist, enables the manual workers to produce goods of an immeasurably greater volume and value than they could turn out without it. If labour is entitled to the whole of its product, as it surely is, it is also true that labour gets the whole of its product and a very great deal more, because, owing to the assistance given it by the machinery and equipment provided by capital, it is able to produce a very much greater volume of goods, and the bargain between it and capital results in its being better off than it could have been without capitalism's assistance.
To take an obvious example, let us suppose a man in a prim- itive stage of society to have hit on the idea of making a spade, and so greatly increasing his own production of food. If he then makes a second spade and lends it to a friend, enabling the latter to multiply his production and charging him a portion of the in- creased food for the use of the spade, then we see a rough analogy of the bargain which under capitalism is struck between cap- ital and labour. In this case the friend who borrows the spade works for the capitalist who lent it, but he also works for himself. By the use of the spade his production is multiplied manifold; and to argue that he is entitled to take the whole amount of what he produces with the assistance of the spade, and that the
man who invented and lent him the spade robs him by taking part of the increased production which it brings into being, is surely an example of astonishingly distorted logic. At the same time it has to be remembered that those who claim the whole product of industry for the manual workers can say that all the factories, means of transport, tools and machinery have actually been erected or produced by manual labour. But this manual labour, and the skill which organized it, were paid to produce these instruments by owners of wealth who were prepared to risk it on these objects. All these forms of the equipment of industry only came into being and increased the numbers and welfare of the whole community because some of those who con- trolled wealth when they were first invented used it to secure their manufacture and production instead of upon their own immediate enjoyment. At any time the future development of any country or community depends upon the extent to which its members are prepared to postpone immediate enjoyment to the provision of equipment for its further progress. If some of our ancestors had not made investments in industry in the past, and so equipped the world with all the machinery of industry and commerce, probably not half of us would now have been alive. Interest and profit are thus the reward paid for successful investment in the means of life in the results of which we all share.
Means of Production. Critics of the capitalistic system are, at first sight, on firmer ground when they argue that it is wrong that anybody should possess, by the ownership of private wealth, this responsibility for the future development of the country or community; that injustice arises because private ownership makes it difficult and sometimes impossible for those who want to work to secure access to the means of production, and that a more equitable basis would be arrived at if all the means of production were owned by the state, or by some other public body, or, as is now contended by the syndicalists and guild socialists, by the industries which employ them organized into an all-embracing trade union or guild.
There can be no question that the existence of private property in the means of production does involve hardships and difficulties for those members of the community who do not happen to be born into the possession of property, or of the kind of qualities which enable them to acquire it rapidly. To such people, the ordinary unskilled workers, it must naturally seem unjust that if the kind and quantity of work that they offer to any private employer is not needed, some of them find great difficulty in earning a livelihood for themselves and their dependents. And the question that we have to consider is whether the hardships involved to a comparatively small number of the less fortunate members of the community are balanced by the advantages to the community as a whole involved by the working of the capi- talistic system. Under that system anybody who by ingenuity and energy can earn more than his fellows is enabled and encour- aged to do so and to devote his accumulations to the furtherance of industry by putting them out at interest, or engaging them in enterprises from which he hopes for profit. There is consequently a continued stimulus for activity and exertion, and it must always be remembered that this activity and exertion can only be suc- cessful if it produces something with which the community, as a whole, or a sufficient number of its members who are in a position to buy goods and services, are satisfied.
Thus, by this stimulus, the wants of the community have been continually considered and cared for by its most enterprising members, who are urged to do so by the hope of gaining profit. If this stimulus were taken away.it is at least possible that prog- ress would be very greatly retarded and that the interests of the community, as a whole, especially those of its poorest members, would be seriously affected. It has to be admitted that the wants of the community are not always wholly sensible and are very often marked by highly questionable taste. These draw- backs are surely to be best amended by the education of the community to a more sensible and tasteful use of the power that it has by its decision, through the manner in which it spends its money, concerning the goods and services which are turned out by industry. If the decision as to what is to be produced is to be
