Part 2 (1/2)

In the first place, it would be laborious beyond measure for me, and dreary beyond measure for you. For example, the bottom stone in the foundation of the sub-bas.e.m.e.nt of the Marxian edifice is the proposition that the equation

X commodity A=y commodity B essentially differs from the equation

y Commodity B=X Commodity A.

Now, a discussion whether there is between these two equations a difference which it is Socially necessary to take account of, is a thing to be put into books where it can be skipped, and not imposed in cold blood even on intellectual enemies. Personally I do not believe there is, for I do not think that Social phenomena can be dealt with by the rigorous methods of mathematics. One can never be sure that the unknown quant.i.ties are all accounted for. But whether this or similar propositions are essential to the discussion of the theory of surplus value or not, I do not describe them because they are of no particular importance.

Socialism is not based upon the Marxian theory of value, but the Marxian theory of value was evolved in an endeavor to fix a scientific basis for a popular movement already fully under way. Socialism is not based on reason, but emotion; not on reflection, but desire; it is not scientific, but popular. If every Socialist on earth should concede that the Marxian theory of surplus value had been knocked into smithereens, it would have no more effect on the progress of Socialism than the gentle zephyr of a June day on the hide of a rhinoceros. Socialism must be attacked in the derived propositions about which popular discussion centers, and the a.s.sault must be, not to prove that the doctrines are scientifically unsound, but that they tend to the impoverishment and debas.e.m.e.nt of the ma.s.ses. These propositions are three, and I lay down as my thesis--for I abhor defensive warfare--that

Rent is right, Interest is right, Profits are right,

and that they are all three ethically and economically justified, and are in fact essential to the happiness and progress of the race, and more especially to those who labor with their hands.

Now, first, rent: I confess that I have no patience with any one who claims, as an inherent right, the exclusive owners.h.i.+p of any part of the earth. He might as well claim owners.h.i.+p in a section of air. In this I am very certain that I have the hearty concurrence of every member of this Club. I am so sure of this, in fact, that I am going to make that a.s.sumption, in which we all agree, the starting point of a little dialogue, in which, after the manner of Plato, I will put Socrates at one end of the discussion, and some of his friends, whom we will suppose to be Phaedo, and Crito, and Simmias, and the rest at the other, and we will let Socrates and Phaedo carry on the conversation, which might run as follows:

SOCRATES--We are agreed, then, that no man has any right inherent in himself to the owners.h.i.+p of land.

PHAEDO--Certainly, we agree to that. Such a thing is absurd, for the earth is a gift to the human race, and not to particular men.

SOCRATES--I am glad that you think so, and am sure we shall continue to agree. And if no one man has any right to exclusive owners.h.i.+p of land, neither have any two men, since it is plain that neither could convey to himself and another any right which he did not possess, nor could two men together by any means get lawful t.i.tle to what neither was ent.i.tled to hold.

PHAEDO--You are doubtless right, Socrates. I do not think any man could dispute that.

SOCRATES--And if neither one man nor two men can acquire lawful t.i.tle to land, neither for the same reason could any number, no matter how great, acquire lawful t.i.tle.

PHAEDO--That certainly follows from what we have already agreed to.

SOCRATES--And it makes no difference how small or how great a portion of land may be. No man and no number of men can acquire lawful owners.h.i.+p of it.

PHAEDO--That is also so plainly true that it seems hardly worth while to say it. It certainly makes no difference whether the land be a square furlong or a continent.

SOCRATES--As you say, Phaedo, that is very evident. The earth belongs to mankind, and all men are by nature sharers in its benefits.

PHAEDO--I trust that you will understand that I agree with you in that, and so make an end of it.

SOCRATES--It is perhaps best that we be very sure that we agree as we go on, so that if we should at any time disagree, we do not need to go far back to find where our difference began. The earth is the property of men in common, and each has an undivided share in its possession.

PHAEDO--That is another thing too plain to be disputed.

SOCRATES--And when men hold property in common, each has as much right to all parts of it as another.

PHAEDO--To be sure. I do not see why we need waste time in mentioning things so plain and so trivial.

SOCRATES--And when men own property they may do with it as they please, and property which men own jointly they may visit and remain upon, the one as much as the other.

PHAEDO--Unquestionably that is so, and we should do better to go to sleep in the shade somewhere, than to spend time in repeating things so simple.

SOCRATES--Be patient, Phaedo, and in time we may find somewhat wherein we do not so perfectly agree. But, whatever property men have the right to visit and remain upon, they are always free to use in common with their fellow owners.

PHAEDO--Certainly. Will you never, O Socrates, have done with this?