THE VALUE OF LABOR.

NZ Truth, Issue 119, 28 September 1907, Page 1

THE VALUE OF LABOR.

Tlie ."Evening Post," m a leading .article on Tuesday last, referring to what it calls the "Labor-value Fallacy," has * tilt at the Wellington Socialists. Of course, no one would ever accuse the "Post" of haying any sympathy with any socialist movement, and it was only to be expected that the argument against the, socialistic platform would be based upon the good old Tory platitudes ithati have grown hoary with the ages and are worn quite thin by lon-.": usage. "It's a pity." says the •"Post," "to see Wellington's Soe(ialists still endeavoring m 1907 to unravel the tangle of labor theories (Which Karl Marx tied m 1867. For this means that some people have wandered for 40 years in* the economic wilderness, and are still roming out on the side they Went m." It would indeed be a pity were, it true, but it is not. Unlike the problem of the universe, over which men may Wrestle and wrangle and get no "forrader," the labor problem is one that can be settled by human agency. The value i of labor and the distribution of' wealth are matters that can be nr•ranged on a general economic b.-i.si". There is no vaerue philosophy about the labor auest-ion, no disputing the fact that a definite solution can be come to if only the prouer remedies be applied. And the Socialists have not wandered m an economic wilderness for fiitv years. They have labored for -forty years m the economic vineyard and have produced such good . fruit, that the status of labor has risen over 100 per cji.t. m •that time. It is the most iu^at ! nonsense and l awdy trash to say ! ■that the labour cause has not ad- 1 vanced since Karl Marx's day or that the leaders of socialistic thought have rambled back into the economic wilderness from which the- r:ncr»eti. Socialistic thought has advanced to such an extent that socialist 1 /.' practices are now admittedly the Teateat successes of the industrial world. •The very embodiment i f the earl^ socialistic principles, preached by the earliest advocates of modern Socialism, are tho ! ' n which the great commercial combines of to-day are based. The Inure American "trusts," "vends," or "combines," are capitalistic succc"--; based upon socialistic principles, with the one ' difference that the capitalist works the combine for his rrn ends instead of far the benefit of all.

Karl Marx is accused of being an iconoclast. He was. but so have j been many other great reformers | .aß.d leaders of new thought. To .the Pharisees Christ was the greatest iconoclast m history. He broke down their laws and their customs ruthlessly, trampled their cherished ideas uiK'.er foot, and stamped out their heresies with an iron heel. But are we to go back to 11 Jewish law on that account? Are we to discard the sermon on the mount because Christ broke up the dogmas of the priests ? What reform "I- can build unless he first play the icono-. clast aad destroy ? Jt is impossible to tiniker with rotten institutions, they must be destroyed and the first principles of the new order installed. Karl Marx most ruthlessly, broke down some of the old theories that had been cherished by capital f r ap:?s, but he done more than break down, v, c supplied a truth m the place of th« old broken fallacy. "He exoour.dod," says the "Post," "the idoa that the development of capitalinn depends upon the aoßropriation of the surplus value of the labor which produces capital. And the Diiacr night Use Wellington Socialists we is still ccntenCiiig for iTisir platform that labor is the .sole source of value, and that them is no raluc m cemmodaties teyond t!:*; 7a!u? cf the lalor which • luces them. It is with the help of thin fthsor-7 that the Socialists lie to csciipc /rcm the old unlucky eurso of Ado^."- Rats ! It if. r.ot't'ie curee oi A Jam that tho Soc;-.lis\: ' enicavcring ti> escape froia, it is the eurso ci' capitalism. It haa iie"ei: b©m proposed by any of tiie leaders of socialistic thougljt, tiiat i+i artist is to hump coal when the wharf Ipborcr rants a rest, ?*A that che wLari laborer is to be Ml I to feel round a <?pcilins canvas %u$ paint because he considers hi™celf ccu.il ij the scheins of things (ri;:.h the artist. It ha- fce*u the duty of the Tory press to draw these scrt of silly comparisons for ages past, and although the-"- have been ridiculed and laughed out of court a thousand times as Toeing no part or parcel of the socialistic propfti^da,

they are still trotted up witlv unblushing regularity, and cried from the hduse-tops as though they were the basis of some newly found divinely inspired truth. The labor which produces capital should appropriate that capita!, but the capital should be distributed according to the labor. The "Post" falls into the error (purposely, let us hope, for the error has been pointed out often enough) of thinking that the socialistic idea of labor does not co beyon -.1 a pair of moleskin trousers and flannel shirt ; and -that m asking for a fair distribution of wealth-' among tho?:o who produce it, no recognition of merit is to be observed. This is an absolute fallac:v. and directl? against the best socialistic teachings. The aim of socialism i?; to so control capital that the very best inducement shall be afforded merit to strain for further success. But the Socialist;;' • estimation of merit and the capitalists' are not Jikeh" to coincide. The Socialist, for instance, doesn't recognise any merit m amassine- wealth by " selling *ood poisons, whether it be sanded sugar, eronk patent medicine, or adultcvat.c! gro?. Capital has- nuitc a Jot of time for this l;in,i c.f merit, rnvel co!!^ the Socialist, an iconoclast because he wants io ' stamp it out.

The "Post" continues m its cheerful, silly way to show that because the Socialist believes m the producer getting the full value cv his labor he really wants to live v.-ithout work-' ins. Such a stupid assertion is not worth serious consideration, but the writ: _• goes on to siry : "There are other specific factor?; of value besides the labor factor. O:u\ for example, I, nature ; another, f.:r example, is brains." He gives three instances of how nature creates wealth.. First, John Smith awakes one morning and finds that a meteor lias fallen m his garden. Meteors being rare are valuable, and John Smith sells hiss meteor to a museum for £20. Wealth without labor. Again Bill Jones has 500 ewes m a* paddock. Those ewes drop 50 per cent, of lambs and Bill is richer by say £iiO. Wealth without labor. And" once more, Henry Brown has 3 000 head of cattle, valued at £5 per head. Climatic, conditions or market conditions bring cattle up to £7 per head, and Henry is worth £2000 more than he was previously. Wealth without labor again. Now, . those instances are all right for a Tory pappr like the "Post" to trot out, but they won't hold water when investigated m the light of fact. In the first place no. one is goin»f to cavil at John Smith because he Jt-.s the good ■■ luck to pick up a meteor m his back garden. Things of that sort are right outside the great labor problem altogether. Anyhow, that meteor is r.ot real wealth. It is of no commercial 'use, and can on./ be used as a curio. Therefore, the man who is lucky enough to. find it is entitled to it, and if curios are not m his line he is at liberty to exchange it for a cash or any other consideration. An incident of that sort h ; no bearing on the labor problem whatever. The cases, of Jones and Brown are almost similar. Jones profits by the natural increase of 1 '-i- flock and Brown profits by a big market price. But what have either of these two cases got to do wii 1 ; the price of labor? But since examples ■'. ..~e been let us give one to prove tho -Socialist cide of the question. We will take the C3.se of Jones and his sheep. His shearing will cost J-i, let us. say, £50, and his c'ip realises £1000. Noxt year he shears the same .fiock at the same price, but vool has gone up 2d per Ij aRd J^es nets another five hundred pounds profit. No 1 ?*, ■L. .wool going , up the shearer has to pay more /or his clothes, but he doesn't get any nore ior his :V~vin~ Which proves that Pltfeough nature is akig lac.or m the creation of wealth, nctiue is always on the side of th 3 man m possession. This is exactly what .the Socialist contends. Wirj should one rtan profit by what nature intends for all ? Why should the fey/ m possession of flocks and herds be the only oncf to profit by a good season ? Ij - - '; the t "i- who niak: the \?oo< j cloth, and twe -dresser of leather w ho makes boots anil shoes for tbo people from the hides < the cattle, just as much (..titled benefit toy a rise iif wool, or a good lambing or good cattle season »s tb^ man who happens to own the beasts ? * * *

So much" for nature. What about brains? Here is the -"Posts" illus-

tration of what brains are worth :— Tom Robinson fits' together a telephone instrument, 'whose parts have been made. jjy= &■ .great, number of workmen. They and Tom . receive wages ; wages are paid to ■the seamen who carry the" instrument to New Zealand,; and to the ■man who fixes ifc up m an office. Hundreds of thousands of telephones are erected all over the world, and the surplus profit goes —not to the laborers they employ, but to the patent controllers. One j reflects that but for Bell, or but for Edison, Tom Robinson and liis fraternity might have been looking * for a job. Bell iind Edison have created a commodity ; they have invented a ncr. r medium of value. Is the surplus profit on Tom's labour due to .Tom, or to them.- . ventors or, their representatives'? j Six. carpenters stand m a bar m Cuba-street (to adopt Ingersoll's illustration) and 'talk, about the iniquity of Capital. Ten years, elapse. [ One of the carpenters has worked j early and late, saved his wages, j gone m for sub-contracting, then for building, and now has a house of his own" and is worth a decent bit of money. The other fellows standing m Cuba-street, v,%ii'cli him drive his wife and youngsters past m a buggy one Saturday afternoon. They adjourn to the bar, agree that 'he. has grown rich entirely by the efforts of his workmen, ami decide that there is an eternal conflict between Capital and Labor. ** ' «

Now, the most rabid Socialist that ever waved a red /las; and howled for the blood' of princes never railed . at' the inventor for getting his fair reward for his labors. Nor did ever true Socialist (not the red flag specimen) ever begrudge the thrifty man his fp.viugs. These things are beyond the 'question altogether. What I!k> Socialist does object to is a ayiv'-.i :-lo of capitalists buying: the rights of an 'invention and making thousands out of the inventor's brains by charging the people an exorbitant prieo for the. new creation. As for the sis carpenters illustration, it is a. dirty one at .the be::l. It insinuates that every carpenter who is not a contractor and cannot drive his wife round m a bu.c;p;r is a pothouse loafer and a malcontent. Such an insinuation is as ridiculous as it

i : ; indecent. It brands tho great army of honest workers as thriftless drunkards and ne'er-do-wells. But, oi course, it pleases capital to talk thus. It would never do to, let it bo known that the kind of Brains that; make wealth are the brains of the cunning, sordid, dirty, smoodging, unscrupulous-; sweater. Tlic man who is dishonest enough to cheat his fellows, either by giving them undervalue for their services, or by selling them something at a false price, and yet clever enough to appear honest, is termed the brainy man, and tiic "Post" would have it that these men are- entitled to so much more wealth than their victims. They arc not producers, they are only blood- suckers. Socialism has no time for such men, and would place them upon the same footing as the common worker and make them do some useful toil for their bread and butter. Socialism has no objection to the honest producer becoming rich— the inventor, the artist, the composer, the man or letters, or any other man who produces something that benefits or gives pleasure to mankind. But as for the "wastrel whose brain only fits him to fatten and batten upon his fellows, Socialism 7X>uld walk into him with a club, and prove an iconoclast indeed. And the world would be much the better for it.