The Labor enquirer., 1886-08-14
PosITIvlsm.
Continued nom first page.

r
ist between public and private wealth
Parks, schools and libraries are not cap
ital yet they are mostly public property.
The test must be USE. A spade, used by
me in my garden to raise plants for my
use, cannot be public property. A rail-
road, neither produced nor used by one
Individual. should not be private prop
erty. There is not a single item OF
wealth regarding which there need be
the slightest ambiguity as to whether it
be public or private property.
The Positivist can see no difference.
"Any interference by the state with the
individual sense of responsibility in the
management of wealth, must inevitably,
it seems to me, end in the complete de-
struction of responsibility and ultimate
absorption by the state of all wealth."
And consequently the assumption of
all functions. If the state should lnter r
fere with private railroads (being dis
couraged with the moralization process)
and run them with the design of stop
ping extortion, the state must "inevita-
bly," drive the family horse, cut the
kindIings, black boots and brush our
teeth. But the state must be supreme
in its sphere, and need not infringe upon
individuality.
4. We can moralize or educate pub
lie opinion sooner than we can the capl-
talist, because in the one case we have
natural self-interest to aid US; but in
the other we have it to combat. Self
interest will move the people to estab-
lish state railroads to be run at cost !;
then the railroad king will have no
traffic for his road, but he can retire and
moralize himself at his leisure. Besides,
we do not want railroads run according
to a private code of morals, but accord
ing to laws favorable to the whole peo-
pie and sanctioned by them.
This is democracy the moralizlng
scheme is autocracy. 1t is self-evident
that, if am to have a custodian over
nv wealth, have a right to appoint
that custodian. When the capitalist be-
comes moral enough to know what is
right he will see this and become a So
cialist. He will not retain position
where despotism is possible.
The course of the capitalist, who re-
fuses to be moralized, can be modified
only by the boycott, says the Posltivist.
Should such a capitalist have monopoly
Of something, boycotting would be i'm
possible. Public welfare would depend
upon the result of civil war in the cap
italist's mind, between his acquisitive
faculties and his Posltivistic morality.
Should the latter prove the weaker, the
public will suffer and wait patiently for
the custodian's son, the office being
hereditary.
s. The strangest part of the Positiv-
lists doctrine, is the claim that all wealth
belongs to humanity, in close connection
with the counter claim that individual
control of capitals necessary to progress
and development. After arguing ably
that the world belongs to humanity
that only a small part of existing
wealth is the product of our labor, the
greater part being heritage; that cap
italists are but custodians and not
owners, Mr.. Ellis then declares that
Positivism "pronounces explicitly in
favor of individual ownership" and that
private property is, in our view, des-
tined to be permanent, because it II the
spontaneous and inevitable result of the
whole human evolution"
The student at once asks Can man
be both private. owner of capital, and
custodian for others, of the same capital :?
The only solution is State Socialism
to recognize both public and private
property, making USE the test of owner
ship. Mr.. Ellis means all wealth shall
be private, for he mentions large enter
prises. He says: Where expenditure
is spread over wide area, and in the
hands of innumerable agents, the ten
dency to waste must be almost unsur-
noun table. Against this private owner
ship is corrective"
Will the capitalist with his selfish
thrift be a. better custodian than the
elective Socialistic officer2 If the GUS
todian corrects waste by the ins inct Of
ownership he will end bv greedy extor-
ton, fact for which we have plenty of
proof.
After all Positivism is but an apology
for private property in public capital.
There is nowhere in all the false reason
ing of political economists more self
contradictory passage tnan the following
by Mr.. Ellis:
II need scarcely repeat that PoSitlv-
ism, while advocating for these reasons
(the various incentives due to the sense
of ownership the institution of indivld-
ual appropriation. dlscards all notion Of
absolute ownership. II sanctions no ap'
peal to the So called rights of property.
The arrangement is simply a matter OF
social convenience. individuals are en-
trusted [bv whom p ON behalf of the
community with he custody and man
agement of portions of the common peo.
pleW whether in the shape of land or
movable wealth, and are expected to