unto this last-第5章

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！





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　ourselves；　but　also　of　contriving



that　our　neighbours　shall　have　less。　In　accurate　terms；　it　is



〃the　art　of　establishing　the　maximum　inequality　in　our　own



favour。〃



　　　　Now；　the　establishment　of　such　inequality　cannot　be　shown　in



the　abstract　to　be　either　advantageous　or　disadvantageous　to　the



body　of　the　nation。　The　rash　and　absurd　assumption　that　such



inequalities　are　necessarily　advantageous；　lies　at　the　root　of



most　of　the　popular　fallacies　on　the　subject　of　political



economy。　For　the　eternal　and　inevitable　law　in　this　matter　is；



that　the　beneficialness　of　the　inequality　depends；　first；　on　the



methods　by　which　it　was　accomplished；　and；　secondly；　on　the



purposes　to　which　it　is　applied。　Inequalities　of　wealth；　unjustly



established；　have　assuredly　injured　the　nation　in　which　they



exist　during　their　establishment；　and；　unjustly　directed；　injure



it　yet　more　during　their　existence。　But　inequalities　of　wealth；



justly　established；　benefit　the　nation　in　the　course　of　their



establishment；　and；　nobly　used；　aid　it　yet　more　by　their



existence。　That　is　to　say；　among　every　active　and　well…governed



people；　the　various　strength　of　individuals；　tested　by　full



exertion　and　specially　applied　to　various　need；　issues　in



unequal；　but　harmonious　results；　receiving　reward　or　authority



according　to　its　class　and　service；（2*）　while；　in　the　inactive　or



ill…governed　nation；　the　gradations　of　decay　and　the　victories　of



treason　work　out　also　their　own　rugged　system　of　subjection　and



success；　and　substitute；　for　the　melodious　inequalities　of



concurrent　power；　the　iniquitous　dominances　and　depressions　of



guilt　and　misfortune。



　　　　Thus　the　circulation　of　wealth　in　a　nation　resembles　that　of



the　blood　in　the　natural　body。　There　is　one　quickness　of　the



current　which　comes　of　cheerful　emotion　or　wholesome　exercise；



and　another　which　comes　of　shame　or　of　fever。　There　is　a　flush　of



the　body　which　is　full　of　warmth　and　life；　and　another　which　will



pass　into　putrefaction。



　　　　The　analogy　will　hold　down　even　to　minute　particulars。　For　as



diseased　local　determination　of　the　blood　involves　depression　of



the　general　health　of　the　system；　all　morbid　local　action　of



riches　will　be　found　ultimately　to　involve　a　weakening　of　the



resources　of　the　body　politic。



　　　　The　mode　in　which　this　is　produced　may　be　at　once　understood



by　examining　one　or　two　instances　of　the　development　of　wealth　in



the　simplest　possible　circumstances。



　　　　Suppose　two　sailors　cast　away　on　an　uninhabited　coast；　and



obliged　to　maintain　themselves　there　by　their　own　labour　for　a



series　of　years。



　　　　If　they　both　kept　their　health；　and　worked　steadily　and　in



amity　with　each　other；　they　might　build　themselves　a　convenient



house；　and　in　time　come　to　possess　a　certain　quantity　of



cultivated　land；　together　with　various　stores　laid　up　for　future



use。　All　these　things　would　be　real　riches　or　property；　and；



supposing　the　men　both　to　have　worked　equally　hard；　they　would



each　have　right　to　equal　share　or　use　of　it。　Their　political



economy　would　consist　merely　in　careful　preservation　and　just



division　of　these　possessions。　Perhaps；　however；　after　some　time



one　or　other　might　be　dissatisfied　with　the　results　of　their



common　farming；　and　they　might　in　consequence　agree　to　divide　the



land　they　had　brought　under　the　spade　into　equal　shares；　so　that



each　might　thenceforward　work　in　his　own　field；　and　live　by　it。



Suppose　that　after　this　arrangement　had　been　made；　one　of　them



were　to　fall　ill；　and　be　unable　to　work　on　his　land　at　a　critical



time　　say　of　sowing　or　harvest。



　　　　He　would　naturally　ask　the　other　to　sow　or　reap　for　him。



　　　　Then　his　companion　might　say；　with　perfect　justice；　〃I　will



do　this　additional　work　for　you；　but　if　I　do　it；　you　must　promise



to　do　as　much　for　me　at　another　time。　I　will　count　how　many　hours



I　spend　on　your　ground；　and　you　shall　give　me　a　written　promise



to　work　for　the　same　number　of　hours　on　mine；　whenever　I　need



your　help；　and　you　are　able　to　give　it。〃　Suppose　the　disabled



man's　sickness　to　continue；　and　that　under　various　circumstances；



for　several　years；　requiring　the　help　of　the　other；　he　on　each



occasion　gave　a　written　pledge　to　work；　as　soon　as　he　was　able；



at　his　companion's　orders；　for　the　same　number　of　hours　which　the



other　had　given　up　to　him。　What　will　the　positions　of　the　two　men



be　when　the　invalid　is　able　to　resume　work？



　　　　Considered　as　a　〃Polis；〃　or　state；　they　will　be　poorer　than



they　would　have　been　otherwise：　poorer　by　the　withdrawal　of　what



the　sick　man's　labour　would　have　produced　in　the　interval。　His



friend　may　perhaps　have　toiled　with　an　energy　quickened　by　the



enlarged　need；　but　in　the　end　his　own　land　and　property　must　have



suffered　by　the　withdrawal　of　so　much　of　his　time　and　thought



from　them：　and　the　united　property　of　the　two　men　will　be



certainly　less　than　it　would　have　been　if　both　had　remained　in



health　and　activity。



　　　　But　the　relations　in　which　they　stand　to　each　other　are　also



widely　altered。　The　sick　man　has　not　only　pledged　his　labour　for



some　years；　but　will　probably　have　exhausted　his　own　share　of　the



accumulated　stores；　and　will　be　in　consequence　for　some　time



dependent　on　the　other　for　food；　which　he　can　only　〃pay〃　or



reward　him　for　by　yet　more　deeply　pledging　his　own　labour。



　　　　Supposing　the　written　promises　to　be　held　entirely　valid



（among　civilized　nations　their　validity　is　secured　by　legal



measures（3*））；　the　person　who　had　hitherto　worked　for　both　might



now；　if　he　chose；　rest　altogether；　and　pass　his　time　in　idleness；



not　only　forcing　his　companion　to　redeem　all　the　engagements　he



had　already　entered　into；　but　exacting　from　him　pledges　for



further　labour；　to　an　arbitrary　amount；　for　what　food　he　had　to



advance　to　him。



　　　　There　might　not；　from　first　to　last；　be　the　least　illegality



（in　the　ordinary　sense　of　the　word）　in　the　arrangement；　but　if　a



stranger　arrived　on　the　coast　at　this　advanced　epoch　of　their



political　economy；　he　would　find　one　man　commercially　Rich；　the



other　commercially　Poor。　He　would　see；　perhaps；　with　no　small



surprise；　one　passing　his　days　in　idleness；　the　other　labouring



for　both；　and　living　sparely；　in　the　hope　of　recovering　his



independence　at　some　distant　period。



　　　　This　is；　of　course；　an　example　of　one　only　out　of　many　ways



in　which　inequality　of　possession　may　be　established　between



different　persons；　giving　rise　to　the　Mercantile　forms　of　Riches



and　Poverty。　In　the　instance　before　us；　one　of　the　men　might　from



the　first　have　deliberately　chosen　to　be　idle；　and　to　put　his



life　in　pawn　for　present　ease；　or　he　might　have　mismanaged　his



land；　and　been　compelled　to　have　recourse　to　his　neighbour　for



food　and　help；　pledging　his　future　labour　for　it。　But　what　I　want



the　reader　to　note　especially　is　the　fact；　common　to　a　large



number　of　typical　cases　of　this　kind；　that　the　establishment　of



the　mercantile　wealth　which　consists　in　a　claim　upon　labour；



signifies　a　political　diminution　of　the　real　wealth　which



consists　in　substantial　possessions。



　　　　Take　another　example；　more　consistent　with　the　ordinary



course　of　affairs　of　trade。　Suppose　that　three　men；　instead　of



two；　formed　the　little　isolated　republic；　and　found　themselves



obliged　to　separate；　in　order　to　farm　different　pieces　of　land　at



some　distance　from　each　other　along　the　coast：　each　estate



furnishing　a　distinct　kind　of　produce；　and　each　more　or　less　in



need　of　the　material　raised　on　the　other。　Suppose　that　the　third



man；　in　order　to　save　the　time　of　all　three；　undertakes　simply　to



superintend　the　transference　of　commodities　from　one　farm　to　the



other；　on　condition　of　receiving　some　sufficiently　remunerative



share　of　every　parcel　of　goods　conveyed；　or　of　some　other　parcel



received　in　exchange　for　it。



　　　　If　this　carrier　or　messenger　always　brings　to　each　estate；



from　the　other；　what　is　chiefly　wanted；　at　the　right　time；　the



operations　of　the　two　farmers　will　go　on　prosperously；　and　the



largest　possible　result　in　produce；　or　wealth；　will　be　attained



by　the　little　community。　But　suppose　no　intercourse　between　the



landowners　is　possible；　except　through　the　travelling　agent；　and



that；　after　a　time；　this　agent；　watching　the　course　of　each　man's



agriculture；　keeps　back　the　articles　with　which　he　has　been



entrusted　until　there　comes　a　period　of　extreme　necessity　for



them；　on　one　side　or　other；　and　then　exacts　in　exchange　for　them



all　that　the　distressed　farmer　can　spare　of　other　kinds　of



produce：　it　is　easy　to　see　that　by　ingeniously　watching　his



opportunities；　he　might　possess　himself　regularly　of　the　greater



part　of　the　superfluous　produce　of　the　two　estates；　and　at　last；



in　some　year　of　severest　trial　or　scarcity；　purchase　both　for



himself　and　maintain　the　former　proprietors　thenceforward　as　his



labourers　or　servants。



　　　　This　would　be　a　case　of　commercial　wealth　acquired　on　the



exactest　principles　of　modern　political　economy。　But　more



distinctly　even　than　in　the　former　instance；　it　is　manifest　in



this　that　the　wealth　of　the　State；　or　of　the　three　men　considered



as　a　society；　is　collectively　less　than　it　would　have　been　had



the　merchant　been　content　with　juster　profit。　The　operations　of



the　two　agriculturists　have　been　cramped　to　the　utmost；　and　the