labour defended against the claims of capital-第8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！


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