New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1907-02-16
SOCIALISM AT PRESENT.
SUCCESSORS TO NARY.
". II. NaUock Disputes Theories 81
q. b. .Shqgc and Sidney Webb.

announcer DlS '.tA-'--Ae t...l-'' .+- e'"-'+'-a
hear Y. IT. MalIock. the English economic writer,
give his third lecture socialism at Columbia
University. Ia his lecture yesterday nv Mal!ock
got away from the theories OF Kari Marx. ana took
up some modern aspects Of the subject met with
in the writings q George Bernard Shaw and Sidney
Webb.
The most generally accepted theory. he said,
maintained that all should be rewarded equally
FOR their work, matter what they produced
This doctrine was justified, he said, by the argu-
ment that any special ability that q man might
have was an Upearned incremeut-s0methnG that
was produced ty the general evolution Of society
IN the past and present. Consequently a man In
giving TO society any special ability which he might
have. only gave back to society what belonged 10
II. This doctrine, said Mr. Nallock, made the in
feriors Of society the joint authors Of the su-
periority Of their superiors. Mr. MaocE criticised
this attitude b- saying that il mere specula-
rive TRUTH and that when II came to its apJNca-
ton to actual society it intensely impracticabie
Mr. Mallock continued his discussion of Ability
which he had dweIt on iu his previous lecture He
said that socialists treated ability I'm four ways:
One class maintained that while superior ability
existed IN certain persons. It vas thu property of
society; another school Of socialists maintained
that IN reality the suueucrties were small, and
could easily be equalized: still another class main
tanned that the inequality of men really existed,
hut that it was due TO the difference Of environ
meut, and that If the environment were changed
the inferior would have tsir ability increased;
and a fourth class maintained that the slperiori-
IeS were que Simply 10 l4lt tth llitiL '- Inc
community in the past and We're not a credit %
the individual himself
Mr.. Aallock argued that none OF these arguments
got around The practical issue-that iu reality in
dividual ability was TO be measured only by its
practical effects. and that a practical people could
be induced look at il in no other way. His lect-
follows
The cardinal fact which I insisted in my last
IicL se W. - iiz nv an clsi[e an
peal 10 the majority bases itself on theory or
7rrr~ u.
siy-a-s ezeTise I'm or5ar 10 sustain lie In resrert
Of which all normal men are substantially II not
absolutely equal, ana Nlril IN az S',l1llstc clS
cussions are indicated by the common name OF
labor-the labor OF an average rair Of hands,
aleGIea 10y a a re d1lI er lll, nv lie
furthermore detailed contention mat me value oF
hours Of average labor embodied II IT, one hour
economic 1r6ductivity 10 one hour of tli, labor
81 any cller man L polllttu ou~ -'I t!eI.
it which ordinary common sense suggests, haS
continued 10 De accepted by lhoLGhiai prol-. "tlo
because it really IS Kari Marx claimed mat it
which stn dnds lis place in the text books Of he
erJhodoA ee2a2nilsis l-is elo3il I SIS ;t -1T
the non-fuman implements of prodUcuon Els lac
agency which they recognize i'm having operation,
they, Ike the socialists, indicate by The name OF
The orthodox economists, however, differed from
alyzei. unsyste1aatizsd ana parenthetc way they
recg-uized that there We're certain exceptions 70
ffttt- a''et-il- -.t-l t' tA7'
rs bt rI ,i@i AGENT IN rrosIess is the n
that il is difficult - Set any bounds to the pro-
IUctilitv OF mere Thought. But though The ortho
dox economists make many admissions Of this
KIND. as concessions - common sense, they make
no attempt TO invest Them V 40 any precise mean
tHS. They continue to call al productive effort by
which Is measured by The common standard OF
zine; and even if occasionally they recognize that
themss iyas no language BY which it is possible 70
such being the case. what I endeavored to make
evident that this mass Of human effort which
ing them. grouped together under the common
name OF LABOR is in reality not one sort Of effort
not only in degree but in knd-in the essential
meme ol t-sf "s!'s''. .4 M W" aPlly
namely, 10 average manual inLuFtIE-it Is absolute
argument 10 apply some other and contradist.n-
gushing name T. the other. To the other ! pro
The two pointed ont was this. thar whereas labor
meant tie faculties Of Tie individual applied 10 his
own labor ability consists OF the intellectual fac
tlty Of direction applied by one man Simultaneous
y 10 the direction OF manual labor of any number
Among the various illustrations which gave of
ms LaAqaneit- I4cf may real - your minds
Vel E5t one I-1i- yTiii 1 80 , y. 'S NC, Tll'.-
vii want 70 a it: Thf the otfer viii ' he To, en-
what males the diner,snoe between "a bile in lie
booksellers warehouse OF ten thousand copies of
The one boo arc ten thousand copies Of the other?
Not the labor ~ the printers for tle quality Of that
IS in both cases Inc s.me. What makes the differ
pIaaes VIII y mon me Composites nave arranged
thelr types. ne manuscflpi in short, constitutes
reSfd f i Inc t names Is o.
49,. :" e." '--S I'd ,--- t--.l h"" lev
all production which rises. and IN proportion az il
rises, above the COMPARATIVE sterlit Of labor when
working in undirected isolation. The Diagrams Of
the inventor the abstruse formula # the chemist
modern production generally that the mind and
manuscript Of the writer bear TO the printed book.
ECONOMIC THEORY or karl MARX