◆¹ As soon as we realise that this is what the argument means, its apparent plausibility turns into a sort of absurdity which common sense rejects, even before seeing why it does so. We will not, however, be content with dismissing the argument as absurd: there is an idea at the back of it which requires and deserves to be examined. It is an idea which rests upon the fact already alluded to, that though Ability can make nothing without Labour, Labour can make something without Ability; and that thus the labourers who work under the direction of an able man each contribute a kind of exertion more essential to the result than he does. Each can say to him, “I am something without you. You, on the contrary, are nothing without me.” Thus there arises a more or less conscious idea of Labour as a force which, if only properly organised, will be able at any moment, by refusing to exert itself, to render Ability helpless, and so bring it to terms and become its master, instead of being, as now, its servant. [Sidenote ◆1 But in it there is, indeed, a plausible view as to Labour, which must be refuted, not only ridiculed. According to this view, Labour can always bring Ability to terms by refusing to exert itself.] [Sidenote ◆2 But Labour cannot refuse to exert itself for long, and never except with the assistance of Capital.] [Sidenote ◆3 Nature, not the men of ability, forces the majority of men to Labour.]