WA WA 
— et Se AA AA 
CaRRUTHERS.—On some of the Terms used in Political Economy. 15 
separately from other implements ; nor do trees and grass, which have grown 
without the help of man's labour, differ from those which man has planted or 
sown. 
In Book I., chap. iv., sec. 1, it is thus further defined :—“ What, then, 
is his (the capitalist's) capital?  Precisely that part of his possessions, 
whatever it be, which is to constitute his fund for carrying on fresh 
production. It is of no consequence that a part, or even the whole of it, is 
in a form in which it cannot directly supply the wants oflabourers." And 
again :—'* The distinction between capital and Not-capital does not lie in 
the kind of commodities but in the mind of the capitalist—in his will to 
employ them for one purpose rather than another; and all property, 
however ill-adapted in itself for the use of labourers, is a part of capital, 
so soon as it, or the value to be received from it, is set apart for productive 
re-investment. The sum of all the values so destined by their respective 
possessors, compose the capital of the country.” 
The first objection to these definitions which presents itself, is that they 
would be unmeaning if there were not two classes in the community, one 
to whom the whole of its wealth belongs, and who may or may not, as they 
like, give any of it to the other class, who own no wealth and can only 
procure any by labouring for the wealthy class. The existing social 
arrangements under which this state of things almost necessarily exists, 
are not, however, essential to the production of wealth. The total produce 
of the labour of the community might be equally the property of all; there 
would then be no part set aside for productive re-investment. The whole 
direct wealth would be consumed as it was made, or at least given to the con- 
sumer to put into use. While it was being consumed, the community would 
be at work producing new wealth, which in its turn would be consumed. 
Can any part of this wealth be marked out and said to be the capital of the 
community ? the part on which the production of future wealth depends ? 
Food is, of course, necessary, and if an insufficient quantity were produced 
the community would starve and produce no more wealth; but if by 
capital be meant the necessaries of existence, why use so confusing a 
word when others, about the meaning of which no doubt can arise, 
are at hand? Except implements none of the other articles which 
were consumed or used were more necessary than another to production, 
and all must, therefore, be in the same class, either capital or not- 
capital. 
Implements are essential to production, but no politieal economist has 
defined capital to be the stock of them in the country; land, the most 
important of all, is indeed pointedly excluded, obviously because the land- 
