THE WICKED CAPITALIST.

Waikato Times, Volume 106, Issue 17803, 30 August 1929, Page 9

THE WICKED CAPITALIST.

(To the Editor.) Sir, —In your issue of the 23rd inst. there appears a letter headed “Capital, Labour and the Capitalist.” The writer, who names himself ‘A Pioneer, oontends that the capitalist is a public nuisance. If he meant that as a joke he should have put a footnote to that effect. There is not a country on earth, including Soviet Russia, which finds it can do without the assumedly wicked capitalist, and yet thils wouldbe “Pioneer” assures us he is just a public nuisance. In his attempt at pioneering this unfortunate correspondent seems to have lost himself in the darkness of confused abstractions. He writes that his definitions of the words “capital, labour and capitalist” are partly derived from the writings of Sir Leo Chiozza Money, Professor Veblen and Professor Tanssig. He might have added —and partly We do not think any one of these writers would father the definitions as presented by this correspondent. The exercise of ordinary common sense gives us these simple definitions of the words referred to. Labour is the exercise of human powers, whether physical, mental or moral, to the production of wealth. Capital is that part of wealth which is necessary towards the production of more wealth. Capitalist is the owner and controller of capital. The lower forms of human labour are those of physical effort alone, as anyone will realise on giving the matter the least thought.

Capital being an instrument of production, creates more wealth than labour could alone and unaided. The capitalist in controlling and directing capital is increasing the general wealth, in common with labour, and is iherefore a public benefactor rather than a nuisance. It is quite erroneous to think of the capitalist as a predatory power which levies on the wealth produced by labour, as the returns to the capitalist are from the wealth his capital has created. Whether any particular body of capital should be owned privately or by the community, collectively or individually, is a matter for difference of opinion, but it is fully recognised that the owner in all instances is entitled to a return for the use of the capital .supplied, because only by its use can the resultant wealth be produced. Neither Labour nor Capital alone can produce the wealth required, and for that reason it is a rational policy that the respective owners of labour power and capital should co-operate as fully as possible. The idea put forward by some socialists that “employers and workers have nothing in common, is not only false in point of fact but utterly vicious in effect. Those who promulgate such falsehood are really a public nuisance. With the spread of education it is astonishing to find so much ignorance with reference to the functions of capitalists and the rights of owners. This is due in some measure to socialists who, have .clothed fallacies in the garb of attractive slogans. “Labour produces all wealth” is one of these which your correspondent seems to have absorbed. He argues that the capitalist is only an owner by virtue of legal convention. Such an idea is not correct. The first savage who acquired a rude instrument of production had a right to own it and receive. the benefit of its use. Equally go the person or persons who acquire a factory, works, etc., have a right to own, control and receive returns of wealth from the property. The right Is a natural one and the legal documents merely record its existence. That capital and the capitalists only exist by the robbery of labour is the fallacious doctrine of socialist theorists who ignore the facts that saving and the organised use of capital have enriched the workers far beyond what they would have reaohed without such means. —We are, etc., N.Z. WELFARE LEAGUE. August 28, 1929.