Johnstown weekly Democrat. (Johnstown, Cambria County, Pa.) 1889-1916, 1890-01-10

NIL ICdu bCFeId
pages from Progress and Poverty anC
then continued Before proceeding
further let us give our terms meaning
There are three elements that enter int,
the production of wealth IN to-day's civil
zation, viz, Man, Land and Capital. Al
wealth is produced bv labor. When man
kind was in its infancy there was NO cap
ital except that provided by the Godhead
in the thing called life and that he gives
us yet. Nan we define as that creature
or animal, made in the image of the God
head-less than this we can not say, more
we dare not. Land we define as includ.
ing everything existent not made by man
not merely the surface of the earth, but
the whole material universe, its forces,
and OPPORTUNITIES, and everything sup
piled by Nature.
Starting with these two we produce
by mans labor, Wealth, which means
all natural products obtained by the
exercise of mans labor on land, that tend
to the qualification of mans desires, but
we find that if man is not debarred from
the natural opportunities that exist in
land, he can make more wealth than he
need use. We, the followers of Henry
George, believe he can make more than
he can use. AS man does not want
nothing but labor, he saves part of this
wealth, so that when he wants to rest he
can, and puts it by for further use and
expediency, and out of part of the wealth
so stored up comes Capital viz, that
part of mans stock of wealth, which he
expects to Use for the purpose of getting
out of it some return or revenue. We
must exclude from capital everything that
is included in land or labor, and we will
call it " wealth in course of exchange"
AS men multiply tits found that instead
of isolation, each from his fellow, and
living and laboring as units, it is better to
work together. 1t is found that 100 men,
each taking the special work he is fitted
for, can produce more than 100 times as
much as one man. As each does all he
can in his own line and then exchanges
the surplus of his particular products
above his individual wants with those who
have a similar surplus of their own and
different products. The fisherman gives
some to the man who makes shoes by eX.
change, each get what he wants, and so
on. In this general exchange, we want a
name that will explain what part of the
general distribution goes to the different
elements of wealth. So we say that the
proportion done by land is paid for by
rent. The proportion done by man is
paid for by wages, and capital is
paid by interest. We must now define
the.three. Rent, the return received for
the use of land, means that share of
wealth which measures natural products
and opportunities, Wages means that
part of wealth which gives us a return
! for labor as distinguished from the re-
turn received for the use of land and the
return for the use OF capital. We include
in this the labor of all who work--not the
day laborers alone, but all men who work,
whether as bankers, doctors, authors or
| day laborers. IHterest is the return for
the use of capital. To continue we will
first consider man as his own employer,
and bear in mind that if not debarred
from natural opportunities, every man
who so desires could to-day be his own
employer. Remember that we are dealing
particularly with the returns of wages
and capital. Say | devote my labor to
gathering birds eggs as food, orpicking
berries, Are not the eggs or berries |
get my wages There is no capital in
this case, or If take piece of leather
and make it into shoes, the shoes are my
wages, Are they drawn from capital,
either mine or anybody else's 4? If you
choose to call the leather my capital, have
| taken any value from it ? No; | have
added value to it, and if this be your ar
gument what is left is the capital plus my
wages-the additional value being my
wages. We will go further and
take agriculture. Since the days
of the Roman Empire large dis
districts in Europe have been worked by
what is called the " Metayer System"-a
system similar to the practice of farming
on shares, where the landowner and capi-
talist, generally combined in one, gets his
return from the resulting produce. Does
the capitalist pay the laborer? 1t seems
to me in this case the laborer pays the
capitalist,
The next step in advance brings us to
the case where the laborer, though work
ing for another or with another's capital,
receives his wages in kind, or a step
further, though estimated in kind, is paid
in money. For example, on American
whaling ship the custom is to pay fixed
portion of the catch, say from one
twelfth to the captain to one three
hundredth to the cabin boy. Can any
thing be clearer than that these wages -
this oil and bone, which the whaler has
taken-have not been drawn fIom capi-
tai? The principle with whalers is, no
catch, no wages. Take again the admir-