﻿Caekuxhers. 
  — 
  On 
  some 
  of 
  the 
  Terms 
  nsed 
  in 
  Political 
  Economy. 
  15 
  

  

  separately 
  from 
  other 
  implements 
  ; 
  nor 
  do 
  trees 
  and 
  grass, 
  whicliliave 
  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 
  of 
  labourers." 
  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 
  wUl 
  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 
  destmed 
  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 
  w^ealth 
  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 
  political 
  economist 
  has 
  

   defined 
  capital 
  to 
  be 
  the 
  stock 
  of 
  them 
  in 
  the 
  country 
  ; 
  laud, 
  the 
  most 
  

   important 
  of 
  all, 
  is 
  indeed 
  pointedly 
  excluded, 
  obviously 
  because 
  the 
  land- 
  

  

  