list2-第8部分

快捷操作: 按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页 按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页 按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部! 如果本书没有阅读完，想下次继续接着阅读，可使用上方 "收藏到我的浏览器" 功能 和 "加入书签" 功能！





and　every　separate　nation　is　productive　only　in　the　proportion　in



which　it　has　known　how　to　appropriate　these　attainments　of　former



generations　and　to　increase　them　by　its　own　acquirements；　in　which



the　natural　capabilities　of　its　territory；　its　extent　and



geographical　position；　its　population　and　political　power；　have



been　able　to　develop　as　completely　and　symmetrically　as　possible



all　sources　of　wealth　within　its　boundaries；　and　to　extend　its



moral；　intellectual；　commercial；　and　political　influence　over　less



advanced　nations　and　especially　over　the　affairs　of　the　world。



　　　　The　popular　school　of　economists　would　have　us　believe　that



politics　and　political　power　cannot　be　taken　into　consideration　in



political　economy。　So　far　as　it　makes　only　values　and　exchange　the



subjects　of　its　investigations；　this　may　be　correct；　we　can　define



the　ideas　of　value　and　capital；　profit；　wages；　and　rent；　we　can



resolve　them　into　their　elements；　and　speculate　on　what　may



influence　their　rising　or　falling；　&c。　without　thereby　taking　into



account　the　political　circumstances　of　the　nation。　Clearly；



however；　these　matters　appertain　as　much　to　private　economy　as　to



the　economy　of　whole　nations。　We　have　merely　to　consider　the



history　of　Venice；　of　the　Hanseatic　League；　of　Portugal；　Holland；



and　England；　in　order　to　perceive　what　reciprocal　influence



material　wealth　and　political　power　exercise　on　each　other。



　　　　The　school　also　always　falls　into　the　strangest　inconsistencies



whenever　this　reciprocal　influence　forces　itself　on　their



consideration。　Let　us　here　only　call　to　mind　the　remarkable　dictum



of　Adam　Smith　on　the　English　Navigation　Laws。（3*）



　　　　The　popular　school；　inasmuch　as　it　does　not　duly　consider　the



nature　of　the　powers　of　production；　and　does　not　take　into　account



the　conditions　of　nations　in　their　aggregate；　disregards　especially



the　importance　of　developing　in　an　equal　ratio　agriculture；



manufactures　and　commerce；　political　power　and　internal　wealth；　and



disregards　especially　the　value　of　a　manufacturing　power　belonging



specially　to　the　nation　and　fully　developed　in　all　its　branches。　It



commits　the　error　of　placing　manufacturing　power　in　the　same



category　with　agricultural　power；　and　of　speaking　of　labour；



natural　power；　capital；　&c。　in　general　terms　without　considering



the　differences　which　exist　between　them。　It　does　not　perceive　that



between　a　State　devoted　merely　to　agriculture　and　a　State



possessing　both　agriculture　and　manufactures；　a　much　greater



difference　exists　than　between　a　pastoral　State　and　an　agricultural



one。　In　a　condition　of　merely　agricultural　industry；　caprice　and



slavery；　superstition　and　ignorance；　want　of　means　of　culture；　of



trade；　and　of　transport；　poverty　and　political　weakness　exist。　In



the　merely　agricultural　State　only　the　least　portion　of　the　mental



and　bodily　powers　existing　in　the　nation　is　awakened　and　developed；



and　only　the　least　part　of　the　powers　and　resources　placed　by



nature　at　its　disposal　can　be　made　use　of；　while　little　or　no



capital　can　be　accumulated。



　　　　Let　us　compare　Poland　with　England：　both　nations　at　one　time



were　in　the　same　stage　of　culture；　and　now　what　a　difference。



Manufactories　and　manufactures　are　the　mothers　and　children　of



municipal　liberty；　of　intelligence；　of　the　arts　and　sciences；　of



internal　and　external　commerce；　of　navigation　and　improvements　in



transport；　of　civilisation　and　political　power。　They　are　the　chief



means　of　liberating　agriculture　from　its　chains；　and　of　elevating



it　to　a　commercial　character　and　to　a　degree　of　art　and　science；　by



which　the　rents；　farming　profits；　and　wages　are　increased；　and



greater　value　is　given　to　landed　property。　The　popular　school　has



attributed　this　civilising　power　to　foreign　trade；　but　in　that　it



has　confounded　the　mere　exchanger　with　the　originator。　Foreign



manufactures　furnish　the　goods　for　the　foreign　trade；　which　the



latter　conveys　to　us；　and　which　occasion　consumption　of　products



and　raw　materials　which　we　give　in　exchange　for　the　goods　in　lieu



of　money　payments。



　　　　If；　however；　trade　in　the　manufactures　of　far　distant　lands



exercises　admittedly　so　beneficial　an　influence　on　our　agricultural



industry；　how　much　more　beneficial　must　the　influence　be　of　those



manufactures　which　are　bound　up　with　us　locally；　commercially；　and



politically；　which　not　only　take　from　us　a　small　portion；　but　the



largest　portion　of　their　requirements　of　food　and　of　raw　materials；



which　are　not　made　dearer　to　us　by　great　costs　of　transport；　our



trade　in　which　cannot　be　interrupted　by　the　chance　of　foreign



manufacturing　nations　learning　to　supply　their　own　wants



themselves；　or　by　wars　and　prohibitory　import　duties？



　　　　We　now　see　into　what　extraordinary　mistakes　and　contradictions



the　popular　school　has　fallen　in　making　material　wealth　or　value　of



exchange　the　sole　object　of　its　investigations；　and　by　regarding



mere　bodily　labour　as　the　sole　productive　power。



　　　　The　man　who　breeds　pigs　is；　according　to　this　school；　a



productive　member　of　the　community；　but　he　who　educates　men　is　a



mere　non…productive。　The　maker　of　bagpipes　or　jews…harps　for　sale



is　a　productive；　while　the　great　composers　and　virtuosos　are



non…productive　simply　because　that　which　they　play　cannot　be



brought　into　the　market。　The　physician　who　saves　the　lives　of　his



patients　does　not　belong　to　the　productive　class；　but　on　the



contrary　the　chemist's　boy　does　so；　although　the　values　of　exchange



（viz。　the　pills）　which　he　produces　may　exist　only　for　a　few　minutes



before　they　pass　into　a　valueless　condition。　A　Newton；　a　Watt；　or



a　Kepler　is　not　so　productive　as　a　donkey；　a　horse；　or　a　draught…ox



（a　class　of　labourers　who　have　been　recently　introduced　by



M'Culloch　into　the　series　of　the　productive　members　of　human



society）。



　　　　We　must　not　believe　that　J。　B。　Say　has　remedied　this　defect　in



the　doctrine　of　Adam　Smith　by　his　fiction　of　'immaterial　goods'　or



products；　he　has　thu　s　merely　somewhat　varnished　over　the　folly　of



its　results；　but　not　raised　it　out　of　its　intrinsic　absurdity。　The



mental　（immaterial）　producers　are　merely　productive；　according　to



his　views；　because　they　are　remunerated　with　values　of　exchange；



and　because　their　attainments　have　been　obtained　by　sacrificing



values　of　exchange；　and　not　because　they　produce　productive



powers。（4*）　They　merely　seem　to　him　an　accumulated　capital。



M'Culloch　goes　still　further；　he　says　that　man　is　as　much　a　product



of　labour　as　the　machine　which　he　produces；　and　it　appears　to　him



that　in　all　economical　investigations　he　must　be　regarded　from