530 



TEE POPULAR SCIENCE MOXTELY.— SUPPLEMENT. 



cooperation to business in reference to the source 

 of profit, but to the distribution of the profit. 

 In a store, profit is not divided upon the amount 

 of capital invested, but upon the amount of pur- 

 chases by members. The purchasers are in the 

 place of workers — they cause the profits and get 

 them, while capital, a neutral agent, is paid a 

 fixed interest and no more. On the other hand, 

 productive cooperation is an association of work- 

 ers who unite to obtain profit by their labor, and 

 who divide, or should divide, profit on labor, just 

 as in a store they are divided upon purchases. 

 Mr. Fisher recognizes what I take to be the true 

 theory of productive cooperation — one which pre- 

 sents the advantage of the principle of dividing 

 profits upon labor in a clear form. It is this : 



The workmen should subscribe their own cap- 

 ital, or hire it at the rate at which it can be had 

 in the money-market, at five, seven and a half, or 

 ten per cent., according to the risks of the busi- 

 ness in which it is to be embarked ; then assign 

 to managers, foremen, and each workman of ade- 

 quate experience and capacity, the minimum sala- 

 ries they can command. Out of the gross earn- 

 ings, wages, the hire of labor ; interest, the hire 

 of capital ; all materials, wear and tear, and ex- 

 penses of all kinds, are defrayed. The surplus is 

 profit, and that profit is divided upon the labor ac- 

 cording to its value. Thus, if the profits were ten 

 per cent., and the chief director had twenty pounds 

 a week, and skillful workmen two pounds, the di- 

 rector would take one hundred pounds of the prof- 

 it, and the workmen ten pounds each. The capital, 

 whether owned by the workmen or others, would 

 have received its payment, and could have no claim 

 upon the profits of labor. 



All the dangerous and ceaseless conflicts be- 

 tween capital and labor arise from capital not being 

 content with the payment of its hire. When it has 

 received interest according to its risk and accord- 

 ing to agreement, there should be an end of its 

 claims. Labor then would regard capital as an 

 agent which it must pay; but when labor has 

 earned the wages of capital and paid them, the 

 capitalist account should be closed. Capital can 

 do nothing, can earn nothing of itself; but, em- 

 ployed by labor, the brains and industry of work- 

 men can make it productive. Capital has no 

 brains, and makes no exertions. When capital 

 has received its interest, its claims are ended. 

 Were capital content with this, there could be 

 no conflict with labor. It is capital claiming, or 

 taking without the courtesy of claiming, the prof- 

 its earned by labor, that produces the conflict. 

 It is only cooperation which treats capital as one 



of the natural expenses of production, admitting 

 its right to its proper price and no more ; and by 

 thus limiting its absorbing power puts an end to 

 the eternal conflict which everybody deplores and 

 nobody terminates. In cooperation labor does 

 not consider profit made until capital is fully re- 

 quited for its aid. But that and all other costs 

 of production being paid at market rates, labor 

 claims the residue as its profit. 



A distinguished French writer on association, 

 M. Reclus, says, " Give the capitalist only one- 

 third of the surplus profits, and the worker two- 

 thirds." Mr. Edwin Hill replies : 



" In countries like India, where capital is com- 

 paratively scarce, it can and will command high 

 terms in any agreement it may make with labor ; 

 while hi North America, where labor is scarce, 

 labor can and will command comparatively high 

 terms in its agreement with capital. It would 

 seem a monstrous violation of abstract principle 

 that, while in order to earn fifty guineas a low- 

 class agricultural laborer must work hard for two 

 whole years, Jenny Lind should obtain such a sum 

 for one single song ! But so it is — or rather was ; 

 and why ? but that mere laborers are plentiful, 

 while of Jenny Linds there was but one." 



The argument of this paper is quite indepen- 

 dent of these cases. Workmen will buy capital 

 at its price in the market, which will be ruled by 

 the risks of the enterprise in which they employ 

 it. That they propose to pay, whether at the 

 laborer's rate or at the Jenny Lind rate. When 

 capital came into this field of industry, men were 

 necessitous and ignorant of its capacity for esti- 

 mating its own services. Capitalists, therefore, 

 hired labor, paid it its ordinary price, and took 

 all profits. Cooperative labor proposes to re- 

 verse this process. Its plan is to buy capital, 

 pay its full value, and itself take all profit. It is 

 more reasonable and better for society and prog- 

 ress that men should own capital than that capi- 

 tal should own men. Capital is the servant, men 

 are the masters, and when capital is in its proper 

 place there will be no more discontent, no more 

 conflicts of industry. In competition capital buys 

 labor. In cooperation labor buys capital : the 

 whole distinction of principle lies there. Capital 

 is used in cooperation and honestly paid for ; but 

 the capitalist is excluded. Capital is a commodi- 

 ty, not a person. The worker is the sole person 

 concerned in cooperation. The capitalist sells 

 his commodity to the workers. The capitalist 

 has no position but that of a lender, no claim 

 save for the interests for which he bargains, and, 

 being paid that, he should not be permitted to 



