The Kennewick courier. [volume] (Kennewick, Wash.) 1905-1914, 1908-11-06
Doing Versus Owning

time a widespread opposition to the
money power among the people Of
the western world, an opposition
nowhere more pronounced than in
the United Statas. There is also
apparent turnout the same area a
widespread interest in socialism;
and between this common OPPOSITE
on to the money power and this
common interest in socialism there
is very manifest connection. In
deed, almost any criticism of capt.
alistic institutions or activities is to-
| day likely to be labeled socialistic'
yet the peoples understanding Of
the institution which is really OPP
pressing them, and of the aim Of
socialism in dealing with it, seems
about equally vague. TO attempt
to clear away the confusion on this
subject is the object of the present
! article.
Socialism first diagnoses the trou-
be with the present order Of things,
and, second, propose a remedy.
The diagnosis stated in its simpli-
city is as follows:
Co=extensNe with the capitalistic
system under which we of the west
ern world live there are two legiti=
mate modes of acquiring wealth:
CD By service. (-) By ownership.
The rews r for service is called wag-
es or salary, and he who lives by
service is called wage-earner. The
reward for ownership is called inter
est, dividends or rent, and he who
lives by ownership is called a cap
italist, the name being derived from
the term capital, which means
wealth used in the production of
wealth. The compensation of the
wage Garner is for service; the COM
peIsation of the capitalist is for
prOprietorship. The first earns his
own reward; the second lets his cap
ital earn it for him. The one does
something for a living; the other
owns something for a living.
Now, while it is true that the
normal and legitimate modes of ac-
curing wealth under capitalism can
thus be divided into two catcgories,
it is not true that the individuals
who acquire it can be so divided
While there is a class which lives
by ownership alone and a much
larger class which lives by service
alone, there is a third class, larger
than the first and smaller than the
second, which lives partly by SER
wee When a man holds legal title
to wealth producing property he can
re luire the wealth producer who
e nploys that prperty as a means of
of production to divide up" the
product of his labor with him.
Thus the existence of individual
capitalists means that one class of
society may, in whole or in part,
live upon the labor Of another class.
title to SO do being based, not Oh
any physical or mental incapacity,
but merely on a legal relationship
to a certain kind of property.
1t is quite generally supposed that
soclalistic criticism of capitalistic
society is founded upon this divisi
on of the community into classes
between which, and particularly be-
tween the smallest and largest of J
which, there is an antagonism of |
interest. But this is mistake. So
cialistic criticism goes deeper than
such distinction. 1t is a criticism
not of men or classes of men, but of |
institutions, and is founded upon
the dual mode of acquiring wealth,
of which this class division is one
symptom.
If we agree to group interest, divi-
dends and rent under the collective
term profit, " and to call the insti-
tuition by virtue of which ownership