Oxford Democrat. [volume] (Paris, Me.) 1833-1933, 1910-01-04

with which TO apply his strength, an.
other element besides labor enters Into
the matter of production. That ele-
! ment is the accumulation from previous
labor, and that accumulation goes by the
general name Of capital. In the present
highly developed state of industry, when
practically everything is done BY ma.
chinery, there must be In many lines OF
production a large amount of capital
before labor can produce thing. There
are two elements to production, labor
and capital, both absolutely necessary,
and both entitled to compensation for
their part In the production. There
will probably be in all ages some men
who will believe that capital is entitled
to no return for Its use, but 1t will never
be possible, 80 long as men generally
retain their common sense, to bring any
large fraction of the whole population to
that point of view.
The primary proposition OF the So
cialist is just as bad fallacy as that
other, which we have heard just as
grsvely stated, that all wealth comes
from the soil, therefore the tillers OF the
soil are the only producers, and all
wealth should belong to them.
Having stated his first proposition, the
Socialist proceeds to talk on the calm
assumption that the laborer Is not get.
ting what belongs to him. No Socialist
ever argues that point. He rarely even
states It in direct terms. He assumes 1t
as fact and bases bis talk upon it. 1t
is matter of argument, but 1t is
difficult to prove or disprove, and it
can certainly not be proved by the falla.
cious Reinstatement that Labor pro-
duces all wealth." 1t is a good rule of
economies, that in the division of the
product of industry, capital and labor
are respectively entitled to that share of
the product which they have produced.
That is a good statement of the principle
which should govern, but needless to
say it is extremely difficult to put into
practice and determine with mathemat-
ical accuracy.
Having stated the alleged wrong, the
Socialist states the remedy, which is
"the collective ownership Of the indus
tries" or in the phrase so much affected
by the Socialist orators, "the municipal
ization of all industry" A vague term,
but implying a revolution which would
carry with it such an overwhelming
horde of practical problems to be solved
as would stagger the wisest, yet we have
never heard Socialist even mention one
of them. Sufficient to name the panacea.
Edward Bellamy, who really did great
service for mankind, disposed Of all the
problems easily, but he did it by very
simple expedient. With stroke of his
pen he removed from human nature the
element of greed. If that could be doue,
it would make no difference under what
system We lived-private ownership OF
collective ownership, Socialism or other
ism-for every man would always do the
right thing by his neighbor. Then the
millennium would be here. But most
of those who cherish the hope that some
time the Kingdom of God will come
upon earth, do not expect it in its full
ness for some cons of time yet.
Many thinking people of calm judgment
and in no way radical in their views, be-
lieve that in the shifting of conditions
which has come in the past seventy-fve
years with the great progress of inven-
ton and the close organization and de-
velopment of industries, taken as a
whole the laborer has not received his
fair share of the large increase OF prod
uct which has resulted. To correct
that condition, and so to order things
that there may be, not equality of con-
dition, which can never be, but some
thing nearer equality of opportunity
than now exists, is problem to which
students of economics may we'll address
themselves, as many are doing. But
the process, whatever form it may take,
must be by gradual readjustment, not
accomplished by confiscation or an
abrupt overturn of the social order. Ger
tainly the remedy is not to be found in
the programme of the present-day Social
lists, which starts from false assumption
and lands nowhere.