Accordingly； in most books on Political Economy； one or the other
of two causes is assigned for the constant falling off of profit
in the progress of society。 The political economists either say；
with Adam Smith； that the accumulation of capital lowers profits；
or； with Mr Ricardo； that profits are lowered by the increasing
difficulty of procuring subsistence。 Neither of them has assigned
it to the right cause； the impossibility of the labourer
answering the demands of the capitalist。 A mere glance must
satisfy every mind that simple profit does not decrease but
increase in the progress of society that is； the same quantity
of labour which at any former period produced 100 quarters of
wheat and 100 steam engines will now produce somewhat more； or
the value of somewhat more； which the same thing： or where is the
utility of all our boasted improvements？ In fact； also； we find
that a much greater number of persons now live in opulence on
profit in this country than formerly。
It is clear； however； that no labour； no productive power；
no ingenuity and no art can answer the overwhelming demands of
compound interest。 But all saving is made from the revenue of the
capitalist； so that actually these demands are constantly made；
and as constantly the productive power of labour refuse to
satisfy them。 A sort of balance is； therefore； constantly struck。
The capitalists permit the labourers to have the means of
subsistence because they cannot do without labour； contenting
themselves very generously with taking every particle of produce
not necessary to this purpose。 It is the overwhelming nature of
the demands of capital sanctioned by the laws of society；
sanctioned by the customs of men； enforced by the legislature；
and warmly defended by political economists； which keep； which
every have kept； and which ever will keep； as long as they are
allowed and acquiesced in； the labourer in poverty and misery。
It is the overwhelming and all…engrossing nature of compound
interest； also； which gives to Mr Ricardo's theory and his
definitions； as I have already described them； though this
principle is nowhere brought sufficiently into view in his book；
their mathematical accuracy and truth。 I refer to them； not as
caring much to illustrate the subtleties of that ingenious and
profound writer； but because his theory confirms the observations
I have just made viz。 that the exactions of the capitalist
cause the poverty of the labourer。 It is an admitted principle
that there cannot be two rates of profit in a country； and
therefore the capital of the man who cultivates the best soil of
a country procures of its owner no more than the capital of the
man who cultivates the worst soil。 The superior produce of the
best soil is not； therefore； profit； and Mr Ricardo has called it
rent。 It is a portion of produce over and above the average rate
of profit； and Mr Ricardo has assigned it to the landlords。 The
labourer must； however； live； though the exorbitant claims of
capital allow him only a bare subsistence。 Mr Ricardo has also
been aware of this； and has therefore justly defined the price of
labour to be such a quantity of commodities as will enable the
labourers； one with another； to subsist； and to perpetuate their
race without either increase or diminution。 Such is all which the
nature of profit or interest on capital will allow them to
receive； and such has ever been their reward。 The capitalist must
give the labourers this sum； for it is the condition he must
fulfil in order to obtain labourers； it is the limit which nature
places to his claims； but he will never give； and never has
given； more。 The capitalists； according to Mr Ricardo's theory；
allow the landlords to have just as much as keeps all the
capitalist on a level； the labourers they allow； in the same
theory； barely to subsist。 Thus Mr Ricardo would admit that the
cause of the poverty of the labourer is the engrossing nature of
compound interest； this keeps him poor； and prevents him from
obeying the commands of his Creator； to increase and multiply。
Though the defective nature of the claims of capital may now
be satisfactorily proved； the question as to the wages of labour
is by no means decided。 Political economists； indeed； who have
insisted very strongly on the necessity of giving security to
property； and have ably demonstrated how much that security
promotes general happiness； will not hesitate to agree with me
when I say that whatever labour produces ought to belong to it。
They have always embraced the maxim of permitting those to 〃reap
who sow；〃 and they have maintained that the labour of a man's
body and the work of his hands are to be considered as
exclusively his own。 I take it for granted； therefore； that they
will henceforth maintain that the whole produce of labour ought
to belong to the labourer。 But though this； as a general
proposition； is quite evident； and quite true； there is a
difficulty； in its practical application； which no individual can
surmount。 There is no principle or rule； as far as I know； for
dividing the produce of joint labour among the different
individuals who concur in production； but the judgment of the
individuals themselves； that judgment depending on the value men
may set on different species of labour can never be known； nor
can any rule be given for its application by any single person。
As well might a man say what others shall hate or what they shall
like。
Whatever division of labour exists； and the further it is
carried the more evident does this truth become； scarcely any
individual completes of himself any species of produce。 Almost
any product of art and skill is the result of joint and combined
labour。 So dependent is man on man； and so much does this
dependence increase as society advances； that hardly any labour
of any single individual； however much it may contribute to the
whole produce of society； is of the least value but as forming a
part of the great social task。 In the manufacture of a piece of
cloth； the spinner； the weaver； the bleacher and the dyer are all
different persons。 All of them except the first is dependent for
his supply of materials on him； and of what use would his thread
be unless the others took it from him； and each performed that
part of the task which is necessary to complete the cloth？
Wherever the spinner purchases the cotton or wool； the price
which he can obtain for his thread； over and above what he paid
for the raw material； is the reward of his labour。 But it is
quite plain that the sum the weaver will be disposed to give for
the thread will depend on his view of its utility。 Wherever the
division of labour is introduced； therefore； the judgment of
other men intervenes before the labourer can realise his
earnings； and there is no longer any thing which we can call the
natural reward of individual labour。 Each labourer produces only
some part of a whole； and each part having no value or utility of
itself； there is nothing on which the labourer can seize； and
say： 〃This is my product； this will I keep to myself。〃 Between
the commencement of any joint operation； such as that of making
cloth； and the division of its product among the different
persons whose combined exertions have produced it； the judgment
of men must intervene several times； and the question is； how
much of this joint product should go to each of the individuals
whose united labourers produce it？
I know no way of deciding this but by leaving it to be
settled by the unfettered judgments of the labourers themselves。
If all kinds of labour were perfectly free； if no unfounded
prejudice invested some parts； and perhaps the least useful； of
the social task with great honour； while other parts are very
improperly branded with disgrace； there would be no difficulty on
this point； and the wages of individual labour would be justly
settled by what Dr Smith calls the 〃higgling of the market。〃
Unfortunately； labour is not； in general； free； and；
unfortunately there are a number of prejudices which decree very
different rewards to different species of labour from those which
each of them merits。
Unfortunately； also； there is； I think； in general； a
disposition to restrict the term labour to the operation of the
hands。 But if it should be said that the skill of the practised
labourer is a mere mechanical sort of thing； nobody will deny
that the labour by which he acquired that skill was a mental
exertion。 The exercise of that skill also； as it seems to me；
requiring the constant application of judgment； depends much more
on a mental than on a bodily acquirement。 Probably the mere
capacity of muscular exertion is as great； or greater； among a
tribe of Indians as among the most productive Europeans； and the
superior productive power of Europeans； and of one nation over
another； arise from the different nature of their fixed capital。
But I have shown that the greater efficacy of fixed capital
depends on the skill of the labourer； so that we come to the
conclusion that not mere labour； but mental skill； or the mode in
which labour is directed； determines its productive powers。 I
therefore would