possible to answer to-day. It is not we who have to effect this development, and of any compulsion inherent in the circumstances which would make one or the other solution absolutely necessary, there can in this case be no question. Nevertheless, a number of reasons point to the probability of a proletarian government preferring the way of purchase, of compensation of the capitalists and of the landlords. Of these reasons, I will only mention two, which seem to me the most weighty. Money capital has, as we have said, become an impersonal power, and anybody can turn any sum of money into money capital without its possessor necessarily becoming an active capitalist. We know that if one has saved up a shilling one can invest it on interest, without thereby becoming a capitalist. This, as is well known, is made a very great deal of by optimistic champions of the existing order of society. They argue that it would be possible in this way to expropriate the capitalists by every worker simply putting his savings into the savings banks, or buying shares, and thus becoming part-proprietor of the capital. These very optimists have said in another place, that if we were to-day to confiscate capital, we should be confiscating not only the capital of the rich, but also that of the worker; we should be robbing the poor, the widows, and the orphans of their savings. In this way we should produce great discontent among the workers themselves, which would be another inducement to them to overthrow their own rule—a contingency which these enthusiasts for the existing order look for with certainty.
The first assumption need not be expatiated upon. It is too foolish. Those who wish to expropriate capital by the growth of savings do not perceive the still greater growth of the large capital. On the other hand, however, there is some justification in saying that a proletarian régime which would proceed by way of a general confiscation would also confiscate the savings of the small people. That is certainly no reason why the workers should become disgusted with their own rule—one must be very hard up for effective arguments against the social revolution to indulge in such expectations—still it may well be a reason why the victorious proletariat should hesitate to confiscate the means of production.
If, however, compensation should take place, one may well ask, What advantage, then, do the workers obtain from the expropriation? The expropriation simply results in all capital becoming mere money capital, that is, becoming national, municipal and co-operative societies' debts, and surplus value, instead of being extracted from the workers directly by the capitalists, will be taken from them by the State, municipality, or the co-operative society, and be paid over to the capitalists. Has, however, in that case, anything changed in the position of the worker?
This question is certainly justified. But even if the proletarian régime had to hand over to capital the same amount of profit which it had hitherto drawn, the expropriation would nevertheless, with
