1 is the only source of value; . . . the employer is a vital factor in all work which requires time for its completion, which is conducted on a large scale, which requires many hands and careful supervision," etc. The clear implication here is that Marx denies this; that in the phrase "the amount of labor socially necessary," he does not include the work of the "employer" or superintendent, who, Dr. Woolsey says, is "thrown out of calculation and treated as of no account." Nothing could be further from the truth. Marx distinctly and repeatedly recognizes the functions of the brain, as well as the hand, in work. "Each such function," he says, "whatever may be its nature or form, is essentially the expenditure of human brain, nerves, muscle, etc." 2 Such expressions as "the work of supervision," "the labor of superintendence," are continually employed. "In order to labor productively," he says, "it is no longer necessary for you to do manual work yourself." Indeed, there is not a syllable in "Das Kapital" to support this inference of Dr. Woolsey. Again, the latter says of Marx's system, "The differences of influence upon the amount produced by skilled and unskilled, efficient and inefficient work, . . . and by labor little above brute force, are not estimated. . . . All who work an hour are paid alike." So far is this from being true, that Marx repeatedly shows the keenest appreciation of these various factors in production. For example, he says, "In every process of creating value, the reduction of skilled labor to average social labor, for example, one day of skilled to six days of unskilled labor is unavoidable; we therefore save ourselves a superfluous operation, and simplify our analysis by the assumption, that the labor of the workmen employed by the capitalist is unskilled average labor." It fairly takes one's breath away to be told, after statements like this, as to the parts played by skilled and unskilled labor, that "they are not estimated." "Efficient 1 "Communism and Socialism," pp. 165, 166. 2" Capital," p. 42. 3 Ibid., p. 517. 4 "Communism and Socialism," p. 168. 5 Capital," p. 180. and inefficient work" are also carefully distinguished, the one from the other in his theory of value. The value of a commodity is constituted not by the particular labor embodied in it, but by the labor commonly required for its production; by labor socially necessary, according to the average skill, efficiency, and other conditions prevailing at any given time and place. It is not, then, any particular degree of efficiency or inef ficiency, but the average quantity of labor, that determines. value. Marx is sometimes hard to be understood, but there is no obscurity here. He says, "Some people might think that if the value of a commodity is determined by the quantity of labor spent on it, the more idle and unskilful the laborer, the more valuable would his commodity be, because more time would be required in its production. The labor, however, that forms the substance of value is homogeneous human labor, expenditure of one uniform labor-power. The total labor-power of society, which is embodied in the sum total of the values of all commodities produced by that society, counts here as one homogeneous mass of human labor-power, composed though it be of innumerable individual units." 1 However these units may differ in other respects, they have one common character as component parts of "the average labor-power of society," which alone determines value. No author was ever more completely travestied than is Marx in this remarkable chapter by Dr. Woolsey. The implication contained in his question, "Suppose that all the profits were paid over to the operatives; would that mitigate any of the evils of society?" is as misleading as to Marx's position as anything to which we have called. attention. His statement that a body of German Socialists expect that in "the new Socialistic world of the future all the returns from labor will go to the laborer; for instance, that a year's production of cotton cloth, consisting of fifty million yards at ten cents the yard, or $5,000,000, would have no deductions made from it by the new employer, the State," 1 "Capital," pp. 5, 6. 2" Communism and Socialism," p. 160. is the most far-fetched, fictitious, and utterly unwarrantable of all. "The State," the proper support of which is a sine qua non, is the very foundation of Socialism, recognized by all representative Socialistic writers. This eminent critic could find no authority for this statement, or others to which we have called attention, nor does he pretend to give any. These statements, however, have been regarded as authority in the subject-matters to which they relate, by large numbers who recognize the great ability and reputation of their author. It is not exaggeration to say that his entire chapter is a tissue of misrepresentations from beginning to end. That such misrepresentation was unintentional renders it none the less mischievous in its consequences. It is not only unjust to Marx, but, what is far more serious, it falsifies the position of all Socialists, renders Socialism at once absurd and odious to an inquirer, and thus hinders it from having a fair hearing. We have seen (chapter iii., section 1) that labor in its most comprehensive sense is the only source of value; that nearly, if not all kinds of manual, mental, and moral labor can be reduced to simple labor-time, and, for the most part, actually are so reduced and paid on a time basis. The analysis of the process of this reduction unmasks the injustice in the great inequalities of remuneration received by the different classes of laborers. Socialism seeks to remedy this injustice, which all right-minded men must deplore, but which is inherent in the capitalistic system. The present extremes of compensation received by the highest and lowest social workers, are condemned by Christian ethics as unjust and dangerous to society. Socialism would not equate hard labor with easy, or skilled with unskilled, or dangerous with safe. It would reward labor more equally, and hence more justly, than does the present system. Rodbertus proposed that all goods should go directly from the farm or manufactory into great magazines; that laborers should receive a kind of paper money representing hours of labor. These they would present at the magazine, and receive whatever they need. The State should be sole producer; all citizens would be workers under this system. If, by the introduction of machinery, the power or productivity of labor was doubled, twice as many goods would go to the magazine, and twice as many would be received for an hour's labor. This, or something like this, is what Socialism seeks. It does not propose an equal number of hours, with equal pay, for all kinds of labor; but it would in some manner, to be ascertained perhaps only after many experiments, apportion the rewards of labor more equally among the people. The method of applying a right principle is of secondary importance. He who would insist on knowing how truth and righteousness are going to work before he adopts them, is a temporizer and a coward. Socialism adopts as a fundamental principle of human society, not individual privilege, but obligation; not liberty, but duty. This is none other than the law of God. "To whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required." This principle plunges a dagger into the heart of individualism; expressed economically, it says, no member of the social body shall use his superior powers to exploit either his neighbor or society, but rather for the good of his fellowmen. If this is Socialism, it is also the original, simple gospel of Jesus Christ. The present economy distributes the necessities, comforts, and luxuries of life to men according to their smartness; and there are sage men who assure us that this is the divinely constituted order. It is, on the contrary, a travesty of the gospel of love; it is thoroughly earthly, sensual, and devilish. Is it forgotten that the holy Scriptures have something to say concerning a general law of wages? Does God reward laborers according to their smartness or talents? In the parable of the talents we read, "Unto one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability." When the pay-day arrives, how are their wages determined? By their talents or ability? Not at all; but by their fidelity. The man with two received as much as 1 Matt. XXV. the man with five talents, because he had done the best he could. But the man who would not do anything is consigned to "outer darkness," where he ought to be. But it is objected, "This parable of the talents is designed to show the state of things in the kingdom of heaven, and not in the kingdom of industrialism." What, now, is the crime of Socialism? That it would introduce the kingdom of God on earth! That it seeks to make heaven begin here below! This divine law of wages is enforced even more strongly in the parable of the vineyard. The owner wants help: he goes out in the morning to hire laborers; the price of one penny per day is agreed upon, and the men go to work. At nine o'clock the employer visited "the market-place," and found others looking for a job, and at once set them at work, promising them "whatsoever is right." At noon, at three o'clock, and even as late as five in the afternoon, he found laborers looking for work, and said to them, "Why stand ye here all the day idle?" They replied, "Because no man hath hired us." Immediately he sets them all at work, promising, as before, to give "whatsoever is right." At night he settles with the laborers, and, "mirabile dictu,” he pays them all alike; the short-time workers receive a penny, and the all-day workers receive no more. "This," exclaims the capitalistic system, " is an unpardonable sin!" The Scriptures reply, "But the poor fellows who came last needed as much, and were as worthy, as those who came first; their families were equally dependent on them; they were willing to labor, but work was scarce, and surely the first have all they expected." Capitalism replies, "But this is revolutionary. What will become of competition and the economic harmonies? We protest in the name of all classical political economy! The law of wages is utterly subverted! If the poor and the weak and the unfortunate have a right to live and be comfortable, my days are numbered. When was my right to all I could get, though thousands starved, ever before called in question? Away with this sentimental nonsense; business is business." Thus speaks the present capitalistic system, upheld and defended even by Christian men, |