The Labor enquirer., 1886-08-14
Zeno" Reviews an Article by
Mr.. Ellis, an English
Positivist.
The Parable Of the Sharpened
Stick to illustrate Property
and Capital.
The Distinction Between Public and
Private Property According to
State Socialism.

day, one Henry Ellis compares Social.
ism with Comte's positive Philosophy
drawing his inspiration from the latter
doctrine. The question Can the capi-
talist be moralized2 is answered affi rm-
atively, and it is shown how Positivism
will ometime make a humanitarian out
of the monopolist by moral means.
One necessary step was overlooked,
namely: To convince the capitalist
that he is immoral. Like the sinner, who
must recognize his sin before salvation
can be had, he must be convinced that
he is not doing society favor by taking
most of society's wealth as payment for
the use of very intricate, superfine and
massive brain.
The points asserted by Mr.. Ellis which
the Socialist disputes are:
l. That all wealth is not created bv
labor.
2. That all property is held solely by
consent of society.
8. That no useful distinction exists
between what IS called capital and all
other items of wealth, natural or artl-
fetal.
4. That the capitalist will see the
error of his way, through the spread of
Positivism.
5. That private ownership is neces.
sary to economic administration of in
dustry.
6. That all exertion is for Humanity
at large.
Very often theorist, with good mo-
tives, places his scheme along side of
State Socialism for comparison when he
has but vague idea of the latter doc
trlne. Hence when be calls Socialism
"a chimerlcal and impracticable dream"
be merely reflects his hazy conception
of it.
l. State Socialists will continue to
defend their declaration: Labor is the
source of all wealth, and therefore all
wealth belongs to labor" This" saws
Mr.. Ellis, 'is mischievous fallacy," be-
cause past labor and "the moral and in
tellectual treasures which are the her
itage Of humanity" are factors in pro-
duction. I'VE are the heirs of vast accu-
mutations, which have resulted from the
labors, the sufferings and the sacrifices
of countless generations"
So it is labor after all, for "sufferings
and sacrifices" can produce nothing but
experience or knowledge of the best
methods.
This knowledge, or heritage, along
with land and other natural wealth,
affords opportunity for the individual to
acquire wealth. The dead make no de-
mand for share. Why should the liv-
ing monopolist who does NO work, take
all ? Socialists do not mean that mus
cular exertione alone produces all
wealth, yet Mr.. Ellis argues as though
they do. Nor is it necessary to claim,
that the labor of any generation is the
source of the wealth which exists" But
should any generation stop laboring
there would be no wealth for the next.
2. A man does not hold property
solely by the consent of society. lie
holds it by light of labor. The man
with the sharpened stick, taken for an
example. holds his stick because be took
it from the natural, free supply of sticks
and sharpened it. He does not ask the
state: May l possess this stick but
says: NY labor sharpened the stick. 1t
8 mine. Protect my right to it or re-
bel. While he holds it with the assist
ance of society,"" such assistance is not
The source of property. Can the officer
v ho protects right, be the source of
that right? If 30, only might is right.
3. Mr.. Ellis says society may with
draw it's consent to allow prope rty in
the sharpened stick and take it from
the suppositious primitive man and
then "as an economic term capital dis
This disputes the universal
idea of capital. If the stick be used to
produce wealth, it is capital whether
owned by the state or the individual.
Positiyism is too fastidious to descend
to the ground of mere political economy.
1t is vulgar to notice the difference be-
tween capital and other wealth. So the
world is Jumped off as wealth, already
turned over to the capitalists for admin
istration. They will be moralized by
Positivism In some remote age. Such ls
the scheme that competes with State
as to the desired lack of cul-
merical qualities.
Some Socialists seek to establish
what seems to me fanciful distinction
between wealth which Ii used for pur-
poses of production and that wi.ich is
not 80 used. The former they would
make collective, while the latte would
remain in the custody of individuals"
Although to the reflective mind there
is nothing fanciful in the distinction be-
tween capital and wealth used for con-
SUMPTION, ornamentation or culture,
such is not the line drawn by the Social-
Continued on fourth page.l