426 THE QUESTIONS OF THE DAY. 



numberless schools into which those who call themselves 

 Socialists are constantly dividing, I follow Karl Marx— I 

 suppose they are to be met in this way: the first we should 

 deny on the ground that great ability is the gift of nature to 

 the individual and not to the race, and that the individual is 

 entitled to the reward which it brings, and that therefore one 

 day's work is not like all other days' works, as Marx holds, 

 with the value of the average as the measure of payment, but 

 the work of the exceptionally able is entitled to extra pay- 

 ment; that society needs this work, can afford to pay for it, 

 and will gain a greater aggregate of satisfactions for general 

 distribution if it is paid for. We should, however, agree that 

 society is not bound to pay the possessor of exceptional 

 qualities his own price for their use, and that we are prepared 

 to join in such measures as shall assure the use of ability at 

 a fair compensation. The second we should also deny on the 

 ground that industry and prudence are entitled to reward; 

 that often this can be given only in the form of interest; and 

 that society can afford to and justly should pay interest for 

 the use of savings. If a man builds a mill, and, falling sick, 

 can not use it, those who do use it should pay him interest; so, 

 also, if he has saved the money to build a mill ; and, still 

 further, if, having worked, he now chooses to rest. We would 

 further insist that if he uses the mill, and so takes the risk of 

 production, he is entitled to what will pay for the risk, in 

 addition to the interest which he might have had without 

 risk, in other words, to profit. There is no objection, however, 

 as to some classes of enterprises, for the state to regulate profit 

 upon the basis of corresponding guarantee against loss. Profit 

 is the pay for risk. Socialism proposes that the state shall 

 assume risk and abolish profit. We are convinced that such 

 a course would result in a diminution of divisible satisfactions. 

 To the third proposition we should heartily assent. No 

 wise man will now attempt to defend private ownership of 

 land or water as a natural right. It is often based, in old 

 countries, on ancient plunder of the weak by the strong. In 

 new countries, however, where the state was once in as full 

 possession as any Socialist could desire, private ownership is 



