The Labor enquirer., 1884-07-19
What ts Capital :

What is Capitals
Editor LABOR ENqUIRER.
LANSING, Michigan, July S.-There is
one point in Mr.. d. Mex. Whyte's article
in The ENQUIRER of the fifth instant to
which / wish to call attention, / believe
he has mistaken Henry George some.
what, and it is barely possible that he
has not read Progress and Poverty" as
closely as he might have done. I myself
once took occasion to critcise Mr.. George
in his use of the word capital, but when
he called my attention to the fact that
hedoes not class money as capital, and
gives his reason therefor, l saw at once
that it was my oversight and not his
error. 1t may be that Mr.. Whyte has
made the same oversight did. How
ever, I am in perfect sympathy with Mr..
Whyte's opposition to interest, and if 1
had my way about it every dollar of debt
that has been drawing interest for more
than twenty years would be Immediately
repudiated, Lam opposed to interest
just as much as anybody, but believe the
way to abolish it is not to pass laws for
bidding people taking interest, but by
abolishlng all property that is not the
result Of human toll, thereby making it
impossible for anybody to get it. This
would make the condition of the people
so that no one would need to borrow,
and would annihilate interest, profit and
rent. '..- u
But to the point at issue. Mr.. Whyte,
as I understand him, claims that bonds
and-moneY are capital, and thinks Mr..
George has got himself mixed. tits not
my intention to discuss whether Mr..
Georges position on the interest question
is correct or not, All I propose to do is
to attempt to prove that money and
bonds are not capital. 80
It is fortunate that those who discuss
these economic problems cannot agree on
the meaning of terms, because not to do
so involves discussion so as to make it
unintelligible, 1t is useless to discuss a
proposition in political economy and not
to- draw the, same meaning from such
words as capital, value, wealth, labor and
money. How are we to,know what man
means when he uses the word "capital'
unless he tells what he means, as almost
every individual has different idea of
capital? One man says that capital is
the accumulated knowledge of the hui
man race for all time, human exertion
and all the elements that in any way con-
tribute to the creation of wealth. Il Ae-
cording to this definition if plow corn
with a jackass and harness and plow
these are capital, and besides that my
knowledge of plowing and my exertions
are capital and not only that, but the
heat of the sun and the air and the diff
ferent elements of the soil are all capital.
Now it seems to me that a word that
means everything is no good at all in a
scientific discussion-it means nothing at
all. You talk to me of capital with such
a definition as this and I may think you
are talking about a jackass, when really
you may be talking about the SUMS heat
or ones labor. .....
like Mr.. Georges definitions very
well, and think they are the best I have
yet seen. When the word capitalls con-
fined to mean ''that part of wealth used
to aid labor to produce more wealth" it
gives it defniteness that is easily COM
pretended. A jackass that man
raises is wealth, because he has to feed
him and shelter him-take care'of him
generally but one that is born and raised
in wild state is not wealth, because no
human exertion has been expended in
raising him. If this patient, long-eared
animal is used in producing more wealth,
he is then capital. The type and presses
and paper that you use in printing THE
ENQUIRER is capital. These things are
capital because they are used to produce
more wealth. But your knowledge and
the motions and exertions in producing
the paper are not capital, because capital
is the result of your knowledge and ex-
ertions. Wealth is the product of labor.
Wealth, then, must be some tangible
thing because labor cannot produce any,
Thing that is not tangible. That thing
that is percepitible by the touch, or that
| "a aonnhlo of hainn tnnchad Is tangible