176 CAPITAL — THE MOTHER OF LABOUR iv 



possession of capital ; Ijut to class such thiugs as capital would 

 Ise to put an end to the distinction between land and capital. 



Just SO. But the fatal truth is that these things 

 are capital; and that there really is no funda- 

 mental distinction between land and capital. Is 

 it denied that a fertile held, a rich vein of ore, or 

 a falling stream, may form part of a man's stock, 

 and that, if they do, they are caj^able of yielding 

 revenue ? Will not somebody pay a share of 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 get are my wages. 

 Surely no one will contend that, in such a case, wages are 

 diawu from capital. There is no capital in the case (p. 34). 



