THE BRAIN WORKER, OR INVENTOR
It has, I think, never been denied that much wealth goes to the
capitalist, but it has been claimed that the capitalist deserves all he
gets because wealth is produced by capital. And although this is as
foolish as to say that the tool does the work and not the hand that
wields it, yet books have been written to convince the people that it is
true.
Some of these books try to deceive us into supposing that capital and
ability are interchangeable terms. That is to say, that "capital," which
means "stock," is the same thing as "ability," which means cleverness or
skill. We might as well believe that a machine is the same thing as the
brain that invented it. But there is a trick in it. The trick lies in
first declaring that the bulk of the national wealth is produced by
"ability," and then confusing the word "ability" with the word
"capital."
But it is one thing to say that wealth is due to the man who _invented_
a machine, and it is quite another thing to say that wealth is due to
the man who _owns_ the machine.
In his book called _Labour and the Popular Welfare_, Mr. Mallock assures
us that ability produces more wealth than is produced by labour.
He says that two-thirds of the national wealth are due to ability and
only one-third to labour. A hundred years ago, Mr. Mallock says, the
population of this country was 10,000,000 and the wealth produced
yearly; L140,000,000, giving an average of L14 a head.
The recent production is L350,000,000 for every 10,000,000 of the
population, or L35 a head.
The argument is that _labour_ is only able to produce as much now as it
could produce a hundred years ago, for labour does not vary. Therefore,
the increase from L14 a head to L35 a head is not due to labour but to
machinery.
Now, we owe this machinery, not to labour, but to invention. Therefore
the various inventors have enabled the people to produce more than twice
as much as they produced a century back.
Therefore, according to Mr. Mallock, all the extra wealth, amounting to
L800,000,000 a year, is earned by the _machines_, and ought to be paid
to the men who _own_ the machines.
Pretty reasoning, isn't it? And Mr. Mallock is one of those who talk
about the inaccurate thinking of Socialists.
Let us see what it comes to. John Smith invents a machine which makes
three yards of calico where one was made by hand. Tom Jones buys the
machine, or the patent, to make calico. Which of these men is the cause
of the calico output being multiplied by three? Is it the man who owns
the patent, or the man who invented the machine? It is the man who
invented the machine. It is the ability of John Smith which caused the
increase in the calico output. It is, therefore, the ability of John
Smith which earns the extra wealth. Tom Jones, who bought the machines,
is no more the producer of that _extra_ wealth than are the spinners and
weavers he employs.
To whom, then, should the extra wealth belong? To the man who creates
it? or to the man who does not create it? Clearly the wealth should
belong to the man who creates it. Therefore, the whole of the extra
wealth should go to the inventor, to whose ability it is due, and _not_
to the mere capitalist, who only uses the machine.
"But," you may say, "Jones bought the patent from Smith." He did. And he
also buys their labour and skill from the spinners and weavers who work
for him, and in all three cases he pays less than the thing he buys is
worth.
Mr. Mallock makes a great point of telling us that men are not equally
clever, that cleverness produces more wealth than labour produces, and
that one man is worth more than another to the nation.
Labour, he says, is common to all men, but ability is the monopoly of
the few. The bulk of the wealth is produced by the few, and ought by
them to be enjoyed.
But I don't think any Socialist ever claimed that all men were of equal
value to the nation, nor that any one man could produce just as much
wealth as any other. We know that one man is stronger than another, that
one is cleverer than another, and that an inventor or thinker may design
or invent some machine or process which will enable the workers to
produce more wealth in one year than they could by their own methods
produce in twenty.
Now, before we go into the matter of the inventor, or of the value of
genius to the nation, let us test these ideas of Mr. W. H. Mallock's and
see what they lead to.
A man invents a machine which does the work of ten handloom weavers. He
is therefore worth more, as a weaver, than the ordinary weaver who
invents nothing. How much more?
If his machine does the work of ten men, you might think he was worth
ten men. But he is worth very much more.
Suppose there are 10,000 weavers, and all of them use his machine. They
will produce not 10,000 men's work, but 100,000 men's work. Here, then,
our inventor is equal to 90,000 weavers. That is to say, that his
thought, his idea, his labour _produces_ as much wealth as could be
produced by 100,000 weavers without it.
On no theory of value, and on no grounds of reason that I know, can we
claim that this inventor is of no more value, as a producer, than an
ordinary, average handloom weaver.
Granting the claim of the non-Socialist, that every man belongs to
himself; and granting the claim of Mr. Mallock, that two-thirds of our
national wealth are produced by inventors; and granting the demand of
exact mathematical justice, that every man shall receive the exact value
of the wealth he produces; it would follow that two-thirds of the
wealth of this nation would be paid yearly to the inventors, or to their
heirs or assigns.
The wealth is _not_ to be paid to labour; that is Mr. Mallock's claim.
And it is not to be paid to labour because it has been earned by
ability. And Mr. Mallock tells us that labour does not vary nor increase
in its productive power. Good.
Neither does the landlord nor the capitalist increase his productive
power. Therefore it is not the landlord nor the capitalist who earns--or
produces--this extra wealth; it is the inventor.
And since the labourer is not to have the wealth, because he does not
produce it, neither should the landlord or capitalist have it, because
he does not produce it.
So much for the _right_ of the thing. Mr. Mallock shows that the
inventor creates all this extra wealth; he shows that the inventor ought
to have it. Good.
Now, how is it that the inventor does _not_ get it, and how is it that
the landlord and the capitalist _do_ get it?
Just because the laws, which have been made by landlords and
capitalists, enable these men to rob the inventor and the labourer with
impunity.
Thus: A man owns a piece of land in a town. As the town increases its
business and population, the owner of the land raises the rent. He can
get double the rent because the town has doubled its trade, and the land
is worth more for business purposes or for houses. Has the landlord
increased the value? Not at all. He has done nothing but draw the rent.
The increase of value is due to the industry or ability of the people
who live and work in the town, chiefly, as Mr. Mallock claims, to
different inventors. Do these inventors get the increased rent? No. Do
the workers in the town get it? No. The landlord demands this extra
rent, and the law empowers him to evict if the rent is not paid.
Next, let us see how the inventor is treated. If a man invents a machine
and patents it, the law allows him to charge a royalty for its use for
the space of fourteen years.
At the end of that time the patent lapses, and the invention may be
worked by anyone.
Observe here the difference of the treatment given to the inventor and
the landlord.
The landlord does not make the land, he does not till the land, he does
not improve the land; he only draws the rent, and he draws that _for
ever_. _His_ patent never lapses; and the harder the workers work, and
the more wealth inventors and workers produce, the more rent he
draws--for nothing.
The inventor _does_ make his invention. He is, upon Mr. Mallock's
showing, the creator of immense wealth. And, even if he is lucky, he can
only draw rent on his ability for fourteen years.
But suppose the inventor is a poor man--and a great many inventors are
poor men--his chance of getting paid for his ability is very small.
Because, to begin with, he has to pay a good deal to patent his
invention, and then, often enough, he needs capital to work the patent,
and has none.
What is he to do? He must find a capitalist to work the patent for him,
or he must find a man rich enough to buy it from him.
And it very commonly happens, either that the poor man cannot pay the
renewal fees for his patent, and so loses it entirely, or that the
capitalist buys it out and out for an old song, or that the capitalist
obliges him to accept terms which give a huge profit to the capitalist
and a small royalty to the inventor.
The patent laws are so constructed as to make the poor inventor an easy
prey to the capitalist.
Many inventors die poor, many are robbed by agents or capitalists, many
lose their patents because they cannot pay the renewal fees. Even when
an inventor is lucky he can only draw rent for fourteen years. We see,
then, that the men who make most of the wealth are hindered and robbed
by the law, and we know that the law has been made by capitalists and
landlords.
Apply the same law to land that is applied to patents, and the whole
land of England would be public property in fourteen years.
Apply the same law to patents that is applied to land, and every
article we use would be increased in price, and we should still be
paying royalties to the descendants, or to their assigns, of James Watt,
George Stephenson, and ten thousand other inventors.
And now will some non-Socialist, Mr. Mallock or another, write a nice
new book, and explain to us upon what rules of justice or of reason the
present unequal treatment of the useless, idle landlord and the valuable
and industrious inventor can be defended?