The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1903-04-19
THE INTERDEPENDENCE OF LABOR
AND CAPITAL.

1t would be unfortunate in the extreme
IL the i'll feeling which was expressed in
the manufacturers convention by few
speakers. and the angry retorts OF some OF
the leaders Of organized labor should lead
to a positive hostility between the two
forces of production and distribution. II
labor and capital have been interdependent
in the past they are more than ever so
under the present conditions. when large
capital is employed in production and dis
tribution. 1t never was true that labor is
the source of all wealth, and 1t is less true
to-day than years ago. Immense capital Is
needed at the outset to make labor availa-
bic, and the larger the capital and the bet
ter the equipment which capital affords
the greater output per employe. which is
the measure OF wealth. Labor cannot be
made productive and cannot create wealth
without capital Even in the simplest en-
ployment Of labor. like the grading Of
railroad or the mining of coal. capital is alb
solutely necessary before a stroke Of work
can be done. 1t takes capital to purchase
picks and shovels, mules, carts, and pro-
visions for the sustenance of labor before
the soil can be turned. A thousand men
would be useless If assembled to grade
railroad track without the previous expendi-
ture of capital for tools. Before coal can
be mined there must be hosting machinery
and money for wages while the shaft is
being sunk.
| Men who talk wildly of shutting down
| all the productive machinery of the country
| by general strike seem to assume that
labor is the only essential element in pro-
| duction and that it lies with labor to say
| whether factories shall be run or be closed
| Such men seem not to have dreamed that
| II would be vastly easier for the capital
| employed in production to stop it's wheels
than for labor to do so. Such, however, is
the case, because there are fewer on the
side OF capital, which would render COM
bination easier and shutting down more
effective; all they would need to do would
| be to lock the doors of mills and factories.
| There being fewer of the employing class.
| and their ability to withstand suspension
being greater than that of labor, which de-
| Ponds upon the weekly pay roll, labor would
| be the chief sufferer in a general lockout, as
| it always is in protracted strike. Capital
| loses its profits in strikes and lockouts, but
labor loses the bread upon which it subsists.
In the Debs strike, in 1894, the many who
depended on day labor for existence were
the chief sufferers. and their suffering
would have been intense if Debss pro-
| gramme could have been carried out. Yet
there are so-called labor leaders who have
learned nothing from such experiences and
assume that the disaster of general strike
would fall on others than the strikers them
selves.
1t is well for all to understand that while
the interdependence of capital and labor is
mutual, and that one cannot get along
without the other, neither party has the
advantage. If thousands of workmen were
transported to a new field to build factory
or railroad, they could not do a stroke of re-
munerative labor if capital in the form OF
tools. machinery and supplies did not &c
with them or precede them. They would
starve if beyond the reach of outside aid
Tools and machinery would rust to useless
ness if labor did not go with them. Never
theless, all things considered, the mass OF
labor is more dependent to-day upon cap
ital than is capital upon labor, for the rea
son that civilized man is helpless without
the tools which a condition of civiliza
ton. The more costly the plant and the
larger the expenditure to obtain the hes
results, the more dependent labor become.
4 unon papital