[189-3] The most recent relapse into the old error of the unproductiveness of capital, viz.: that of Karl Marx (Das Kapital; Kritik der polit. Oekonomie, I, 167) is a turning round and round of the author in the vicious circle of his demonstration. If the value of every commodity depends simply on the labor necessary to bring it into existence, or on the time of labor required to produce it, it is self-evident that the value of the capital consumed for the purpose of its production, can at most be only preserved in the new product, and that all the additional value (Mehrwerth) of the latter should be ascribed to labor. (172, and passim.) Hence, strictly speaking, the capitalist who advances capital to workmen, is still bound in duty to be grateful to the latter when the value of his advance is preserved to him undiminished, (§ 173) and all interest levied by him should be considered as a payment towards the extinguishment of the capital [debt] itself. (556.) Relying on such theories, many socialists admit private property and even the right of inheritance to means of enjoyment and use capital (Gebrauchskapitalien) provided only that land and productive capital should pass over into the "collective property" of society, with compensation, however, to their former owners. Considering the short duration of most goods used in enjoyment or consumed, the evil consequences of a community of goods mentioned in § 81, could not be avoided to any extent by this means.
How entirely fallacious the above assumption is, is seen most strikingly in the case of such goods as cigars, wine, cheese, etc., which, without the least addition of labor, by merely postponing the consumption of them, obtain a much larger value both in exchange and in use. Or, how would it be possible, for instance, to reduce the value of a hundred-year-old tree, over and above the cost of planting it, to labor alone? Similarly, the fact that on a Chilian hacienda, 25 per cent. of the cattle can be slaughtered and no diminution of the herd take place. (Wappäus, M. und S. Amerika, 784.) Strassburger rightly inquires: if all the profit of capital is based on a cheating of workmen by capitalists, who is cheated in the case in which a manufacturer without workmen earns more with an increased capital than before with a small capital? (Hildebrand's Jahrb., I, 103.)
[189-4] In a time full of nabobism and pauperism, when some can, without the least abstinence, make immense savings, and others none at all even with the greatest abstinence, we may comprehend where the socialists find food for their derision of the expression, "reward of abstinence."
INTEREST-POLICY.—AVERSION TO INTEREST.
At the same time, there is a strong aversion to the taking of interest prevalent among nations in a low stage of civilization. Industrial enterprises of any importance do not as yet exist here at all, and agriculture is most advantageously carried on by means of a great many parcels of land, but with little capital. The purchase of land is so rare, and hampered by legal restrictions to such a degree, that loans for that purpose are almost unheard of. And just as seldom does it happen, by reason of the superabundance of land, that the heir of a landowner borrows capital to effect an adjustment with his co-heirs, and thus enter alone into the possession of the estate. Here, as a rule, only absolute want leads to loaning.[190-1] If, in addition to this, we consider the natural height of the rate of wages in such times, the small number and importance of the capitalist class (§ 201), the tardy insight of man into the course and nature of economic production,[190-2] it will not be hard to understand the odium attached in the middle age of every nation to so-called interest-usury[190-3] (Zinswucher).
Most religions, the Christian excepted (the universal religion!), have been founded in the earlier stages of the nations who profess them, and have there, at least outwardly, exercised their greatest influence. No wonder, therefore, that so many religions have prohibited the taking of interest. Thus, for instance, the Jewish which, indeed, allows interest to be taken from foreigners, but raises loaning without interest among Jews in their commerce with one another, to the dignity of a duty binding on the conscience of the beneficent rich.[190-4] [190-5] Similarly in the Koran.[190-6] The Fathers of the Church, also, on the whole, look with disfavor on the taking of interest, relying upon well-known passages in the Old Testament, and, in part, on misunderstood expressions in the New.[190-7] This is especially true of the Fathers of the Church from the beginning of the fourth century, when the Roman empire was frightfully impoverished by the devastations of the barbarians, and as a consequence the conditions as to interest which prevail in the lowest stages of civilization had returned. Mercy towards the poor usually occupies the foreground in the demonstrations of the Fathers.[190-8]
[190-1] Distress-debts in contradistinction to acquisition-debts. (Schmalz, Staatswirthsch. Lehre in Briefen, I, 227.) Compare Hesiod., Opp., 647; also Herodot., I, 138.
[190-2] Thus Aristotle, calls the taking of interest a gain against nature, since money is only a medium of exchange, and cannot produce its like. (Polit., 3, 23, Schn.) Similarly, Plato, De Legg., V, 742, and Seneca, De Benef., VII, 10. Compare, however, Tacit., Annal, XIII, 42 seq. As late a writer as Forbonnais, 1754, accounts for interest thus: Some people hoard their money instead of spending it; hence a scarcity or want of money, and those who need it are obliged, in order to draw it out, to promise to pay interest. (Eléments de Commerce, II, 92 ff.)
[190-3] Numerous disturbances on account of debt, during the first centuries of the Roman Republic, until finally (compare Livy, VII, 42), the taking of interest was in the year 349 (?) before Christ, entirely prohibited. (Tacit., Annal. VI, 16.) The public opinion in such matters may be understood from the words of Cato: majores ita in legibus posuerunt, furem dupli condemnari, foeneratorem quadrupli. (De Re rust.) The foenerari compared with the hominem occidere. (Cato, in Cicero, De Off., II, 25.) In the higher stages of civilization little heed was paid to the law, in practice (compare Livy, XXXV, 7; Plut., Cato, I, 21.), although the democratic party always held fast to the legal perpetuation of the prohibition of interest. (Mommsen, Römisch. Gesch., III, 493.)