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

Tolstoi has seldom, if ever, expressed
so clearly his ideas on the present or
oaniZation of society as he does IN a
little article on money in the Frele
Buhne fur Modernes Leben, in Berlin
In this he says:
"N1oney! What is money? Money
is an equivalent for labor. l have met
educated persons who seriously main
tanned that money represents the
amount of labor done by its possessor.
I confess that I, too, once vaguely ill.,
clined towards the same view. L
wished, however, to learn what money
was, and to learn this | turned to SCI
ence.
"Science says 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 a man with three rou-
bles in his pocket needs only to whis-
tie to have instantaneously a 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.
"Sc:oace, 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 ether two fac
tors, gives rise to an exceedingly CON-
plicated relationship, from which re-
suits the dependence Of man upon man,
the enslavement Of one human being
by another. --4Nhenee-cemes this lord
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
this results from the distribution Of the
productive factors, which places the
working man under constant pressure.
This answer seems little strange to
me. It is maintained that each of
these three factors participates in the
production and the product, and that
consequently the product-or the value,
its price, the money-is justly divided
among all three, IN the form of ground
rent for the landowner, profit on capi-
tai for the capitalist, and wages for the
laborer. Now IS all this true? Is it,
in the first place, correct that these
factors, and these only, participate in
the production of a commodity?
"As write these lines, hay is beiug
produced around me. What factors
are combined in this product? I per-
ceive that here the three-fold division
has no application, that besides land,
machinery, and labor, other elements
come in cuestion-the sun, the water,
the social order which protects the
grass in the meadows from the ravages
of cattle, the special skill ofthe mowers,
their ability to make themselves under
stood by means of language and speech,
and numberless other factors, Of which
political economy for some reason or
other says nothing.
"The heat and light ofthe sun consti-
tute productive factor just as indis-
pensable as the soil. I can imagine
that man living in the city might
claim for himself the right to rob an
other of sunlight by means of walls or
hedges; nor IL a similar proceeding
with water and air impossible. could,
in fact, enumerate whole bookful Of
the most varied factors, all Of which
participate in the process of produc-
ton. Why does silence ignore them?
Why does science ignore them? Why
does science invariably speak only. of
the three factors of production? Merely
because no claim is laid to those other
things-the rays of the sun, water, air,
&c.-while the struggle for the owner
ship of land and capital in our society
is universal.
"Science does not, therefore pene-
trate to the core of fittings, but adapts her
opinions to the tickle conditions of the
moment, and speaks arbitrarily of the
three factors which she happens to see
or wishes to see. The laborer, then, is
to be deprived of land AID capital. If
we look into the Specification Of this
proposition q little we recognize at once
the paradox which it contains. The
conception of the laborer must include
the soil on which he lives, as well as
the Instruments which he makes use
of at his work.
"a workingman without residence on
this earth's surface, and without the
necessary tools of his labor, never ex-
,>o.,,. the