The Newberry herald and news. (Newberry, S.C.) 1884-1903, 1891-07-16
WHAT IS MONEY?
Tolstoi, the Russian Philosopher, Says 1t is
the Most Suitable Instrument for the
Enslavement of Man, but We
AL Wish We Had II.

Tolstoi, the Russian Philosopher, Says 1t is
the Most Suitable Instrument for the
Enslarement of Man, but We
AL Wish We Had 1t.
Tolstoi has seldom, if ever, expressed
so clearly his ideas on the present Or
ganization of society as he does in a
little article on money in the Freie
Buhne fur Modernes Leben, in Berlin.
In this he says:
"Money! What is money? Money
is an equivalent for labor. / have met
educated persons who seriously main
tained that money represents the
amount of labor done by its possessor.
I confess that I, too, once vaguely in
clined towards the same view. I
wished, however, to learn what money
was, and to learn this I turned to sci
ence.
"Sciepce say that the conception of
money does not include anything
wrong or harmful; that money is the
natural groundwork of our social order,
and that it is indispensable as means
of facilitating trade and the saving of
capital, as we'll as for measuring values
and making payments.
"The evident fact that in any civilized
city of the world man with three rou-
bles in his pocket needs only to whis-
tie to have instantaneously hundred
people at hand ready to do for him the
hardest, most disagreeable, and de-
grading tasks; this fact, science says,
is caused, not by money, but by the
highly complicated conditions of the
economical life of the people.
"The enslaving of man by man does
not result from money, but from the
circumstance that the laborer does not
receive the full product Of his labor.
The reason Of his not receiving this full
product is to be found in the peculiar
properties of capital, ground rent, and
wages, as we'll as in the complicated
relationships between these factors,
and in general between the production,
the distribution, and the consumption
of commodities. Plainly said, whoever
has money, has him who has none by
throat.
"Science, however, denies this. Sci
ence says: Every commodity is the
product of three factors-land, capital,
and labor Now the fact that the pos
SCISSOR Of the labor is not at the same
time the possessor of the other two fac
tors, gives rise to an exceedingly COM
plicated relationship, from which re-
suits the dependence of man upon man,
the enslavement of one human being
by another Whence comes -thiE lord-sE
ship of money, how does it happen
that one part of mankind by means of
money keeps another part of mankind
dependent upon him? Science says all
his results from the distribution of the
productive factors, which places the
man under constant pressure.
This answer seems a little strange to
ne. 1t is maintained that each of
:hese three factors participates in the
production and the product, and that
consequently the product the value,
is price, the money-is justly divided
among all three, IN the form of ground
rent for the landowner, profit on capi-
al for the capitalist, and wages for the
aborer. Now IS all this true? Is it,
n the first place, correct that these
actors, and these only, participate in
he production of a commodity?
"As I write these lines, hay is being
produced around me. What factors
re combined in this product? I per-
'eive that here the three-fold division
las no application, that besides land,
machinery, and labor, other elements
ome in question-the sun, the water,
he social order which protects the
,rass in the meadows from the ravages
# cattle, the special skill ofthe mowers,
heir ability to make themselves under
TODD by means of language and speech,
nd numberless other factors, of which
'olitical economy for some reason or
ther says nothing.
"The heat and light of the sun consti-
ute 2 productive factor just as indis-
as the soil. I can imagine
hat man living in the city might
lain for himself the right to rob an
ther of sunlight by means of walls or
edges; nor in similar proceeding
7ith water and air impossible. I could,
q fact, enumerate whole bookful Of
he most varied factors, all of which
anticipate in the process of produc-
ion. Why does silence ignore them?
Why does science ignore them? Why
oes science Invariably speak only of
be three factors of production? Merely
ecause no claim is laid to those other
hings-the rays of the sun, water, air,
;c.-while the struggle for the owner
hip of land and capital in our society
universal.
"Science does not, therefore pene-
rate to the core of things, but adapts her
pi1ions to the tickle conditions Of the
and speaks arbitrarily Of the
nree factors which she happens to see