Perhaps I can make the evil effects of capital more apparent by another sort of example.The real price of a coat or a pair of shoes or a loaf of bread,all which nature demands from man in order that he may have either of these very useful articles,is a certain quantity of labour;how much it is almost impossible to say,from the manufacture of a coat,a pair of shoes or a loaf of bread being completed by many persons.But for the labourer to have either of these articles he must give over and above the quantity of labour nature demands from him,a still large quantity to the capitalist.Before he can have a coat,he must pay interest for the farmer's sheep,interest on the wool after it has got into the hands of the wool merchant,interest for this same wool as raw material,after it is in the hands of the manufacturer,interest on all buildings and tools he uses,and interest on all the wages he pays his men.Moreover,he must pay interest or profit on the tailor's stock,both fixed and circulating,and this rate of interest is increased in all these instances by something more being always necessary to pay the rent of all these different capitalists.In the same manner before a labourer can have a loaf of bread he must give a quantity of labour more than the loaf costs,by all that quantity which pays the profit of the farmer,the corn dealer,the miller and the baker,with profit on all the buildings they use;and he must,moreover,pay with the produce of his labour the rent of the landlord.How much more labour a labourer must give to have a loaf of bread than that loaf costs,it is impossible for me to say.I should probably underrate it were I to state it at six times;or were I to say that the real cost of that loaf,for which the labourer must give sixpence,is one penny.Of this,however,I am quite certain,that the Corn Laws,execrable as they are in principle,and mischievous as they are to the whole community,do not impose anything like so heavy a tax on the labourer as capital.Indeed,however injurious they may be to the capitalist,it may be doubted whether they are so to the labourer.They diminish the rate of profit,but they do not in the end lower the wages of labour.Whether there are Corn Laws or not,the capitalist must allow the labourer to subsist,and as long as his claims are granted and acted on he will never allow him to do more.In other words,the labourer will always have to give much about the same quantity of labour to the capitalist for a loaf,whether that loaf be the produce of one hour's or one day's labour.Knowing the vast influence capitalists have in society,one is not surprised at the anathemas which have of late been hurled against the Corn Laws,nor at the silence which has been preserved with respect to their more mighty and,to the labourer,more mischievous exactions.
What the capitalist really puts out to interest,however,is not gold or money,but food,clothing and instruments;and his demand is always to have more food,clothing and instruments produced than he puts out.No productive power can answer this demand,and both the capitalists and political economists find fault with the wisdom of Nature,because she refuses to minister to the avarice of the former,and does not exactly square in her proceedings with the wishes of the latter.
Of course the ultimate term to which compound interest tends can never be reached.Its progress is gradually but perpetually checked,and it is obliged to stop far short of the desired goal.
Accordingly,in most books on Political Economy,one or the other of two causes is assigned for the constant falling off of profit in the progress of society.The political economists either say,with Adam Smith,that the accumulation of capital lowers profits,or,with Mr Ricardo,that profits are lowered by the increasing difficulty of procuring subsistence.Neither of them has assigned it to the right cause,the impossibility of the labourer answering the demands of the capitalist.A mere glance must satisfy every mind that simple profit does not decrease but increase in the progress of society--that is,the same quantity of labour which at any former period produced 100 quarters of wheat and 100 steam engines will now produce somewhat more,or the value of somewhat more,which the same thing:or where is the utility of all our boasted improvements?In fact,also,we find that a much greater number of persons now live in opulence on profit in this country than formerly.
It is clear,however,that no labour,no productive power,no ingenuity and no art can answer the overwhelming demands of compound interest.But all saving is made from the revenue of the capitalist,so that actually these demands are constantly made,and as constantly the productive power of labour refuse to satisfy them.A sort of balance is,therefore,constantly struck.
The capitalists permit the labourers to have the means of subsistence because they cannot do without labour,contenting themselves very generously with taking every particle of produce not necessary to this purpose.It is the overwhelming nature of the demands of capital sanctioned by the laws of society,sanctioned by the customs of men,enforced by the legislature,and warmly defended by political economists,which keep,which every have kept,and which ever will keep,as long as they are allowed and acquiesced in,the labourer in poverty and misery.
