Workmen's advocate., 1889-11-30

of economic laws. others maintained that the connection Is an important one.
 Oi pros and cons as regards this ques- ton there have been written volumes upon volumes. By using here the hypo- thetical method, we reason as follows Suppose (hypothesis) a hundred laborers produce yearly $36,0 ,0O0 worth of goods hy which society, consisting of wives, children and the aged, in all 400 person, must be fed and clothed and housed and schooled. Now, suppose that these S36, 900 are so distributed that 3laborers receive $l0,000 each, and the remaining $6,000 are shared in by the remaining 91 laborers. The result will be that these 91 laborers will go hungry and cold. and having no decent house they will be greatly in want of invigorating sleep. Evidently, those 97 laborers will be poor, unskilled, and perhaps lazy. But he who is hungry is also angry and predlsposed to crime. Hungry people cannot afford to educate their children. One.half of these are sure to die before they have grown to be laborers, which is a sure loss of productive power. The other half may live to be laborers, but will be stunted. ignorant and generally poor laborers. This again, is a sheer loss of productive power.
 On the other hand, those three laborers who received $50, GOO, seeing that the majority of the people are ignorant and hungry and angry and disposed to crime, will direct their attention to keeping their wealth in safety, instead of direct ing it to some useful productive labor. This again is an irredeemable loss of productive energy. Besides, they will think now of hiring people to defend their property; and the policeman is in- troduced, and he struts about leisurely instead of doing some useful work. Prisons become necessary, and instead of teachers we have prison turnkeys. This again is a loss of productive energy.
 But reverse the case. Suppose those $36, GOO are equally niviled between the 100 laborers, or, still better, the whole is used for the benefit of all. What a gain in purely productive energy society makes by the arrangement {! Thus, by applying the hypothetical method, 1t is easily seen that unequal distribution means economic loss of productive energy; that it is uneconomic and should be denounced by the science of econo- mics while equal distribution Is an in- dispensabe condition for a scientific system of production.
 Or, the question of profit on capital arises. Let us suppose two woOd-carvers, each making. say $3 per day. But one of them invents a knife enabling him to make twice the amount of work per day he used to make. He gives that knife to his fellow worker, charging him for the benefit thus bes owed, say $1 90 per day. This is the least objectionable case of profit on capital 1t is possible to think of. Now what does science say to this arrangement? Why, it is mere waste of productive power, as all profit on capital is. Our inventor should have made as quickly as possible another knife and gone to work to the best of his ability, and then there would be SIP worth of goods per day, the highest possible productivity. Any other ar rangement can but lessen this degree of productivity and is therefore unecono- mic. As to profits on capital in particu lar, you must remember that unequal distribution is conducive to uneconomic production.
 The above illustrations of the princi- pies Chernishefsky promulgates in his writings on economies will suffice, we hope, to show the reader that he had the interests of labor near at heart. In conclusion let us here reproduce still another piece of his reasonings.
 The products of labor are distributed as wages, profit and rent. Now, given a result of production; wages plus profit, plus rent make up its sum total. Evi- dently the increase of any one of this part means a corresponding decrease of the remaining parts. That is, the less goes to rent and profits the more goes to wages Uhe laborer). But suppose only the item of rent be diminished or even reduced to zero. Its part is, mathematic- ally considered, transmitted to wages and profit. But, practically, who will get It? The strongest party, of course. Who is the strongest, profit (capitaD or wages Qabor)? And the abolishing of rent means only more profits for the capitalist because he is the strongest, It would do them good, the free.vacaut- landers and the single-taxers, to study the French translation of Chernishefsky s economic essays. Then they wills why he taught chat the emancipation of labor synonymous with the abolition ot both profits and rent.
 M. ZAMETKIN.