unto this last-第5节

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！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！




allows　his　men　to　feel；　as　a　father　would　in　a　famine；　shipwreck；



or　battle；　sacrifice　himself　for　his　son。



　　　　All　which　sounds　very　strange：　the　only　real　strangeness　in



the　matter　being；　nevertheless；　that　it　should　so　sound。　For　all



this　is　true；　and　that　not　partially　nor　theoretically；　but



everlastingly　and　practically：　all　other　doctrine　than　this



respecting　matters　political　being　false　in　premises；　absurd　in



deduction；　and　impossible　in　practice；　consistently　with　any



progressive　state　of　national　life；　all　the　life　which　we　now



possess　as　a　nation　showing　itself　in　the　resolute　denial　and



scorn；　by　a　few　strong　minds　and　faithful　hearts；　of　the　economic



principles　taught　to　our　multitudes；　which　principles；　so　far　as



accepted；　lead　straight　to　national　destruction。　Respecting　the



modes　and　forms　of　destruction　to　which　they　lead；　and；　on　the



other　hand；　respecting　the　farther　practical　working　of　true



polity；　I　hope　to　reason　farther　in　a　following　paper。







The　Veins　of　Wealth







　　　　The　answer　which　would　be　made　by　any　ordinary　political



economist　to　the　statements　contained　in　the　preceding　paper；　is



in　few　words　as　follows：



　　　　〃It　is　indeed　true　that　certain　advantages　of　a　general



nature　may　be　obtained　by　the　development　of　social　affections。



But　political　economists　never　professed；　nor　profess；　to　take



advantages　of　a　general　nature　into　consideration。　Our　science　is



simply　the　science　of　getting　rich。　So　far　from　being　a



fallacious　or　visionary　one；　it　is　found　by　experience　to　be



practically　effective。　Persons　who　follow　its　precepts　do



actually　become　rich；　and　persons　who　disobey　them　become　poor。



Every　capitalist　of　Europe　has　acquired　his　fortune　by　following



the　known　laws　of　our　science；　and　increases　his　capital　daily　by



an　adherence　to　them。　It　is　vain　to　bring　forward　tricks　of



logic；　against　the　force　of　accomplished　facts。　Every　man　of



business　knows　by　experience　how　money　is　made；　and　how　it　is



lost。〃



　　　　Pardon　me。　Men　of　business　do　indeed　know　how　they　themselves



made　their　money；　or　how；　on　occasion；　they　lost　it。　Playing　a



long…practised　game；　they　are　familiar　with　the　chances　of　its



cards；　and　can　rightly　explain　their　losses　and　gains。　But　they



neither　know　who　keeps　the　bank　of　the　gambling…house；　nor　what



other　games　may　be　played　with　the　same　cards；　nor　what　other



losses　and　gains；　far　away　among　the　dark　streets；　are



essentially；　though　invisibly；　dependent　on　theirs　in　the　lighted



rooms。　They　have　learned　a　few；　and　only　a　few；　of　the　laws　of



mercantile　economy；　but　not　one　of　those　of　political　economy。



　　　　Primarily；　which　is　very　notable　and　curious；　I　observe　that



men　of　business　rarely　know　the　meaning　of　the　word　〃rich。〃　At



least；　if　they　know；　they　do　not　in　their　reasonings　allow　for



the　fact；　that　it　is　a　relative　word；　implying　its　opposite



〃poor〃　as　positively　as　the　word　〃north〃　implies　its　opposite



〃south。〃　Men　nearly　always　speak　and　write　as　if　riches　were



absolute；　and　it　were　possible；　by　following　certain　scientific



precepts；　for　everybody　to　be　rich。　Whereas　riches　are　a　power



like　that　of　electricity；　acting　only　through　inequalities　or



negations　of　itself。　The　force　of　the　guinea　you　have　in　your



pocket　depends　wholly　on　the　default　of　a　guinea　in　your



neighbour's　pocket。　If　he　did　not　want　it；　it　would　be　of　no　use



to　you；　the　degree　of　power　it　possesses　depends　accurately　upon



the　need　or　desire　he　has　for　it；　　and　the　art　of　making



yourself　rich；　in　the　ordinary　mercantile　economist's　sense；　is



therefore　equally　and　necessarily　the　art　of　keeping　your



neighbour　poor。



　　　　I　would　not　contend　in　this　matter　（and　rarely　in　any　matter）



for　the　acceptance　of　terms。　But　I　wish　the　reader　clearly　and



deeply　to　understand　the　difference　between　the　two　economies；　to



which　the　terms　〃Political〃　and　〃Mercantile〃　might　not



unadvisedly　be　attached。



　　　　Political　economy　（the　economy　of　a　State；　or　of　citizens）



consists　simply　in　the　production；　preservation；　and



distribution；　at　fittest　time　and　place；　of　useful　or　pleasurable



things。　The　farmer　who　cuts　his　hay　at　the　right　time；　the



shipwright　who　drives　his　bolts　well　home　in　sound　wood；　the



builder　who　lays　good　bricks　in　well…tempered　mortar；　the



housewife　who　takes　care　of　her　furniture　in　the　parlour；　and



guards　against　all　waste　in　her　kitchen；　and　the　singer　who



rightly　disciplines；　and　never　overstrains　her　voice；　are　all



political　economists　in　the　true　and　final　sense：　adding



continually　to　the　riches　and　well…being　of　the　nation　to　which



they　belong。



　　　　But　mercantile　economy；　the　economy　of　〃merces〃　or　of　〃pay；〃



signifies　the　accumulation；　in　the　hands　of　individuals；　of　legal



or　moral　claim　upon；　or　power　over；　the　labour　of　others；　every



such　claim　implying　precisely　as　much　poverty　or　debt　on　one



side；　as　it　implies　riches　or　right　on　the　other。



　　　　It　does　not；　therefore；　necessarily　involve　an　addition　to



the　actual　property；　or　well…being；　of　the　State　in　which　it



exists。　But　since　this　commercial　wealth；　or　power　over　labour；



is　nearly　always　convertible　at　once　into　real　property；　while



real　property　is　not　always　convertible　at　once　into　power　over



labour；　the　idea　of　riches　among　active　men　in　civilized　nations；



generally　refers　to　commercial　wealth；　and　in　estimating　their



possessions；　they　rather　calculate　the　value　of　their　horses　and



fields　by　the　number　of　guineas　they　could　get　for　them；　than　the



value　of　their　guineas　by　the　number　of　horses　and　fields　they



could　buy　with　them。



　　　　There　is；　however；　another　reason　for　this　habit　of　mind；



namely；　that　an　accumulation　of　real　property　is　of　little　use　to



its　owner；　unless；　together　with　it；　he　has　commercial　power　over



labour。　Thus；　suppose　any　person　to　be　put　in　possession　of　a



large　estate　of　fruitful　land；　with　rich　beds　of　gold　in　its



gravel；　countless　herds　of　cattle　in　its　pastures；　houses；　and



gardens；　and　storehouses　full　of　useful　stores；　but　suppose；



after　all；　that　he　could　get　no　servants？　In　order　that　he　may　be



able　to　have　servants；　some　one　in　his　neighbourhood　must　be



poor；　and　in　want　of　his　gold　　or　his　corn。　Assume　that　no　one



is　in　want　of　either；　and　that　no　servants　are　to　be　had。　He



must；　therefore；　bake　his　own　bread；　make　his　own　clothes；　plough



his　own　ground；　and　shepherd　his　own　flocks。　His　gold　will　be　as



useful　to　him　as　any　other　yellow　pebbles　on　his　estate。　His



stores　must　rot；　for　he　cannot　consume　them。　He　can　eat　no　more



than　another　man　could　eat；　and　wear　no　more　than　another　man



could　wear。　He　must　lead　a　life　of　severe　and　common　labour　to



procure　even　ordinary　comforts；　he　will　be　ultimately　unable　to



keep　either　houses　in　repair；　or　fields　in　cultivation；　and



forced　to　content　himself　with　a　poor　man's　portion　of　cottage



and　garden；　in　the　midst　of　a　desert　of　waste　land；　trampled　by



wild　cattle；　and　encumbered　by　ruins　of　palaces；　which　he　will



hardly　mock　at　himself　by　calling　〃his　own。〃



　　　　The　most　covetous　of　mankind　would；　with　small　exultation；　I



presume；　accept　riches　of　this　kind　on　these　terms。　What　is



really　desired；　under　the　name　of　riches；　is　essentially；　power



over　men；　in　its　simplest　sense；　the　power　of　obtaining　for　our



own　advantage　the　labour　of　servant；　tradesman；　and　artist；　in



wider　sense；　authority　of　directing　large　masses　of　the　nation　to



various　ends　（good；　trivial　or　hurtful；　according　to　the　mind　of



the　rich　person）。　And　this　power　of　wealth　of　course　is　greater



or　less　in　direct　proportion　to　the　poverty　of　the　men　over　whom



it　is　exercised；　and　in　inverse　proportion　to　the　number　of



persons　who　are　as　rich　as　ourselves；　and　who　are　ready　to　give



the　same　price　for　an　article　of　which　the　supply　is　limited。　If



the　musician　is　poor；　he　will　sing　for　small　pay；　as　long　as



there　is　only　one　person　who　can　pay　him；　but　if　there　be　two　or



three；　he　will　sing　for　the　one　who　offers　him　most。　And　thus　the



power　of　the　riches　of　the　patron　（always　imperfect　and　doubtful；



as　we　shall　see　presently；　even　when　most　authoritative）　depends



first　on　the　poverty　of　the　artist；　and　then　on　the　limitation　of



the　number　of　equally　wealthy　persons；　who　also　want　seats　at　the



concert。　So　that；　as　above　stated；　the　art　of　becoming　〃rich；〃　in



the　common　sense；　is　not　absolutely　nor　finally　the　art　of



accumulating　much　money　for　ourselv