the produce in kind； or in money； for the privilege of cultivating the
first royalties for that of working the second； and a like equivalent
for that of erecting a mill on the third？ In what sense； then； are
these things less 〃capital〃 than the buildings and tools which on page
27 of 〃Progress and Poverty〃 are admitted to be capital？ Is it not
plain that if these things confer 〃advantages equivalent to the
possession of capital；〃 and if the 〃advantage〃 of capital is nothing
but the yielding of revenue； then the denial that they are capital is
merely a roundabout way of self…contradiction？
All this confused talk about capital； however； is lucidity itself
compared with the exposition of the remarkable thesis； 〃Wages not
drawn from capital； but produced by labour；〃 which occupies the third
chapter of 〃Progress and Poverty。〃
〃If； for instance； I devote my labour to gathering birds' eggs or
picking wild berries； the eggs or berries I thus ＇177＇ get are my
wages。 Surely no one will contend that； in such a case； wages are
drawn from capital。 There is no capital in the case〃 （p。 34）。
Nevertheless； those who have followed what has been said in the first
part of this essay surely neither will； nor can； have any hesitation
about substantially adopting the challenged contention； though they
may possibly have qualms as to the propriety of the use of the term
〃wages。〃* They will have no difficulty in apprehending the fact that
birds' eggs and berries are stores of foodstuffs； or vital capital；
that the man who devotes his labour to getting them does so at the
expense of his personal vital capital； and that； if the eggs and the
berries are 〃wages〃 for his work； they are so because they enable him
to restore to his organism the vital capital which he has consumed in
doing the work of collection。 So that there is really a great deal of
〃capital in the case。〃
* Not merely on the grounds stated below； but on the strength
of Mr。 George's own definition。 Does the gatherer of eggs； or
berries； produce them by his labour？ If so； what do the hens
and the bushes do？
Our author proceeds：
〃An absolutely naked man； thrown on an island where no human being has
before trod； may gather birds' eggs or pick berries〃 （p。 34）。
No doubt。 But those who have followed my argument thus far will be
aware that a man's vital capital does not reside in his clothes； and；
therefore； ＇178＇ they will probably fail； as completely as I do； to
discover the relevancy of the statement。
Again：
。 。 。 Or； if I take a piece of leather and work it up into a
pair of shoes； the shoes are my wagesthe reward of my
exertion。 Surely they are not drawn from capitaleither
my capital or anybody else's capitalbut are brought
into existence by the labour of which they became the
wages； and； in obtaining this pair of shoes as the wages
of my labour； capital is not even momentarily lessened
one iota。 For if we call in the idea of capital； my
capital at the beginning consists of the piece of
leather； the thread； &c。 （p。 34）。
It takes away one's breath to have such a concatenation of fallacies
administered in the space of half a paragraph。 It does not seem to
have occurred to our economical reformer to imagine whence his
〃capital at the beginning；〃 the 〃leather； thread； &c。〃 came。 I venture
to suppose that leather to have been originally cattle…skin； and since
calves and oxen are not flayed alive； the existence of the leather
implies the lessening of that form of capital by a very considerable
iota。 It is； therefore； as sure as anything can be that； in the long
run； the shoes are drawn from that which is capital par excellence； to
wit； cattle。 It is further beyond doubt that the operation of tanning
must involve loss of capital in the shape of bark； to say nothing of
other losses； and that the use of the awls and knives of the shoemaker
involves loss of capital in the shape of the store of ＇179＇ iron；
further； the shoemaker has been enabled to do his work not only by the
vital capital expended during the time occupied in making the pair of
shoes； but by that expended from the time of his birth； up to the time
that he earned wages that would keep him alive。
〃Progress and Poverty〃 continues：
。 。 。 As my labour goes on； value is steadily added until；
when my labour results in the finished shoes； I have my
capital plus the difference in value between the
material and the shoes。 In obtaining this additional
valuemy wageshow is capital； at any time； drawn
upon？ （p； 34）。
In return we may inquire； how can any one propound such a question？
Capital is drawn upon all the time。 Not only when the shoes are
commenced； but while they are being made； and until they are either
used by the shoemaker himself or are purchased by somebody else； that
is； exchanged for a portion of another man's capital。 In fact
（supposing that the shoemaker does not want shoes himself）； it is the
existence of vital capital in the possession of another person and the
willingness of that person to part with more or less of it in exchange
for the shoesit is these two conditions； alone； which prevent the
shoemaker from having consumed his capital unproductively； just as
much as if he had spent his time in chopping up the leather into
minute fragments。
Thus； the examination of the very case selected ＇180＇ by the advocate
of the doctrine that labour bestowed upon manufacture； without any
intervention of capital； can produce wages； proves to be a delusion of
the first magnitude； even though it be supported by the dictum of Adam
Smith which is quoted in its favour （p。 34）
。 。 。 〃The produce of labour constitutes the natural recompense
or wages of labour。 In that original state of things which
precedes both the appropriation of land and the
accumulation of stock； the whole produce of labour belongs
to the labourer。 He has neither landlord nor master to
share with him〃 （〃Wealth of Nations；〃 ch。 viii）。
But the whole of this passage exhibits the influence of the French
Physiocrats by whom Adam Smith was inspired； at their worst； that is to
say； when they most completely forsook the ground of experience for a
priori speculation。 The confident reference to 〃that original state of
things〃 is quite in the manner of the Essai sur l'Inegalie。 Now； the
state of men before the 〃appropriation of land〃 and the 〃accumulation
of stock〃 must surely have been that of purely savage hunters。 As； by
the supposition； nobody would have possessed land； certainly no man
could have had a landlord； and； if there was no accumulation of stock
in a transferable form； as surely there could be no master； in the
sense of hirer。 But hirer and hire （that is； wages） are correlative
terms； like mother and child。 As 〃child〃 implies 〃mother；〃 so does
〃hire〃 or 〃wages〃 imply a ＇181＇ 〃hirer〃 or 〃wage…giver。〃 Therefore；
when a man in 〃the original state of things〃 gathered fruit or killed
game for his own sustenance； the fruit or the game could be called his
〃wages〃 only in a figurative sense； as one sees if the term 〃hire；〃
which has a more limited connotation； is substituted for 〃wage。〃 If
not； it must be assumed that the savage hired himself to get his own
dinner； whereby we are led to the tolerably absurd conclusion that； as
in the 〃state of nature〃 he was his own employer； the 〃master〃 and the
labourer； in that model age； appropriated the produce in equal shares！
And if this should be not enough； it has already been seen that； in
the hunting state； man is not even an accessory of production of vital
capital； he merely consumes what nature produces。
According to the author of 〃Progress and Poverty〃 political economists
have been deluded by a 〃fallacy which has entangled some of the most
acute minds in a web of their own spinning。〃
〃It is in the use of the term capital in two senses。 In the primary
proposition that capital is necessary to the exertion of productive
labour； the term 〃capital〃 is understood as including all food；
clothing； shelter； &c。； whereas in the deductions finally drawn from
it； the term is used in its common and legitimate meaning of wealth
devoted； not to the immediate gratification of desire； but to the
procurement of more wealthof wealth in the hands of employers as
distinguished from labourers〃 （p。 40）。
＇182＇ I am by no means concerned to defend the political economists who
are thus charged with blundering； but I shall be surprised to learn
that any have carried the art of self…entanglement to the degree of
perfection exhibited by this passage。 Who has ever imagined that
wealth which； in the hands of an employer； is capital； ceases to be
capital if it is in the hands of a labourer？ Suppose a workman to be
paid thirty shillings on Saturday evening for six days' labour； that
thirty shillings comes out of the employer's capital； and receives the
name of 〃wages〃 simply because it is exchanged for labour。 In the
workman's pocket； as he goes home； it is a part of