The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-06-17

opportunities, but he charged all the evils
OF the present to competition, saying:
Monopolies, corporations, syndicates and
trusts are the ripe fruits of competition. pro-
pose TO show that this consequence is abso-
lutely inevitable The reason that monopoli-
cation OF capital and industry exists is that the
combination supersedes and supplants the in
diy1dual man. The small power must go down
before the larger. Corporations are entrenched
land.
that it viii not result in competition, and if it
does not.produce competition it will not solve
the problem from the single point OF view.
labor produces all else" says Henry George;
wages do not come from capital. The surplus
of product above what is paid to labor becomes
capital; that is to say capital is unpaid labor"
Ii this accumulated profit, or unpaid labor
called capital, be invested in railroad stocks or
machinery my opponent would say IL was all
right, but let it be invested in land and he
would say: There's the thief! Take from
him the unpaid labor he has appropriated"
We argue that because OF the qualifications of
capital throughout the entire industrial and
commercial system it belongs to all the COM
munity.
Why cannot man go on free strip OF land
from here to New York-some natural highway
and compete in transportation with the
Southern Pacific? Because he could not COM
pete with the capital of the Southern Pacific.
Mr.. Hartman then argued that the pos
SCISSOR of natural opportunities cannot
possibly compete with the possessor of
capital, because the latter has invested in
machinery, which has SO simplifed the
methods of production and increased and
magnified it's possibilities that competition
is quite out of the question. He continued:
Why not have this vast accrument of labor
power taken and used by society in common?
The gentleman says it would do away with ri
yalry. say it would not.
The difference between state socialism
and social democracy was explained by
Mr. Hartman in favor of the latter. He
said he proposed to take away all prepon-
derance of opportunity and privilege nd
throw it back into the hands of the people,
in which case the individual would become
a partner in the social copartnership and
take his pro rata of the aggregated product.
1t would not destroy intellectual aspira-
tons.
Mr.. Hartman was a disciple of A. Schathe
and not of Carl Marx. and he quoted as
follows from Schaff1es 'Quintessence,"
page 81:
1t has been proved that Marks theory of
democratic collectivism-the social democracy
represents an impracticable programme that
I! leads down to economic chaos.
1t was against Marks school that Mr.
Mcguire said he was contending in par
| ticular and not that of Schaffle, and then
| he told why combinations of capital in
| trench themselves behind legislation in the
| following:
How do they do so? Solely by the economic
! ignorance of the people whose legislation they
control. Il is begging the question to say that
| the whole system of society must be over
| turned and not the vices eradicated simply be-
cause such trusts and combinations exist.
assert that when the people shall want to make
wise laws no power will prevent them. 1t is
simply matter of intellectual development.
Combinations, says the gentleman, drive in
diyiduals out OF production. OF course they
n 10 no 90 off oil
why should it not combine? Combination and
subdivision of labor the results of material
progress Voluntary cooperation and enter
perfect accord with the highest development
Of intellect along individual lines.
Then Mr.. Mcguire showed the true value
of machinery to the race, when properly
| used, and asked:
Why should men attempt to compete by the
slavish work of their hands with machinery
| that is doing away with the necessity of such
slavish work? They try to compete because of
starvation on the one hand and the depriva-
| ton of natural opportunities on the other.
Machinery is really a godsend to diminish the
hours of labor and pain of effort. 1t is true
| that all the machinery made has not done so
because of false systems of ownership and con-
| troll and the benefits of production have not
| been properly distributed. At present the
| landlord gets all the advantages of machinery
in cheapened labor, and all the surplus labor
| is obliged to underbid in the struggle for en-
| ployment or take a smaller share of the
| products of labor for its service.
Manifestly the evil is not in the private use
! of machinery, but in the closing of natural re-
| sources.
AS to the inability of small land-users to pay
| the economic rent, which the gentleman says
would result from the single tax, say that
economic rent is only that surplus of value
which exists after al labor, including its
superintendence, has been compensated. If
| there were no such surplus he would have no
| tax to pay.
Questions Of profit and ground rent were
then discussed fully by Mr.. Mcguire and
he concluded by saying that if men had
| freedom of access to natural opportunities
and were masters of themselves they
| would not voluntarily hire themselves out
| to others.
Mr. Hartman enumerated Mr. Maguire's
volleys in his last effort in an anlytical
| manner. To Mr.. Maguire's first assertion
he replied that he was a Marx socialist and
not Schaffle socialist "Schaffie," said
he, twas not a socialist, but an individual
list, like Mr.. Mcguire, except that he does
not believe in the single tax. Scheffel
merely criticizes Carl Marx" He pro-
ceeded:
The gentleman says that corporations do en-
trench themselves behind legislation because
of economic ignorance. Of course they do; if
they were not ignorant they would adopt
socialism. Laughter and applauSe1
He says that voluntary cooperation would
settle it, but that that is not socialism I say,
too, that it is not socialism, it is what a num-
Der of men here and there-like the few hum
bred in this City-are trying in their Co-opera-
tive Commonwealth.
AS to Mr.. Maguires views on the relation of
machinery, let me say that the man who can
control the largest power of machinery could
crowd out the small farmer under the single
tax. Why, he says that If a farmer could not
produce the surplus of value known as econo-
mic rent, neither would he have to pay any
tax. And I say that neither would he be able
to produce anything at all, for he could not
possibly compete with his more fortunate
neighbor who possessed an abundance of ma
chinery and could produce great deal of
value with little outlay of effort.
The value of thing is not what you, as an
Individual put in thing, but what society,"
as whole, puts into it. If society upon a
large ranch and with large machine could
produce wheat at 60 cents q bushel, you, if you
were not able to produce 1t as cheap would
have to go to the wall.
The reason labor does not combine volun-
tarily and take possession of the machine is be-
cause they are not able to take advantage of
the surplus profit of labor.
/ do not say that machines are evils. Social
lists do not believe anything of the kind.
have simply been standing here trying to tell
you that if you do not take advantage OF these
machines they will crush you, but if you do
take advantage of them you can reduce your
hours of toll and enjoy greater amount Of
social product
Men employ other men because they want to
I 1919 > NSc i 80 IL