evolution and ethics and other essays-第19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！


society。　And；　if　the　polity　occupies　a　completely　isolated　area　of　the
earth's　surface；　the　numerical　strength　of　that　polity　can　never
exceed　the　quotient　of　the　maximum　quantity　of　food…stuffs　producible
by　the　green　plants　on　that　area；　in　each　year；　divided　by　the
quantity　necessary　for　the　maintenance　of　each　person　during　the　year。
But；　there　is　a　third　mode　of　existence　possible　to　a　polity；　it　may；
conceivably；　be　neither　purely　pastoral　nor　purely　agricultural；　but
purely　manufacturing。　Let　us　suppose　three　islands；　like　Gran　Canaria；
Teneriffe　and　Lanzerote；　in　the　Canaries；　to　be　quite　cut　off　from　the
rest　of　the　world。　Let　Gran　Canaria　be　＇164＇　inhabited　by
grain…raisers；　Teneriffe　by　cattle…breeders；　while　the　population　of
Lanzerote　（which　we　may　suppose　to　be　utterly　barren）　consists　of
carpenters；　woollen　manufacturers；　and　shoemakers。　Then　the　facts　of
daily　experience　teach　us　that　the　people　of　Lanzerote　could　never
have　existed　unless　they　came　to　the　island　provided　with　a　stock　of
food…stuffs；　and　that　they　could　not　continue　to　exist；　unless　that
stock；　as　it　was　consumed；　was　made　up　by　contributions　from　the　vital
capital　of　either　Gran　Canaria；　or　Teneriffe；　or　both。　Moreover；　the
carpenters　of　Lanzerote　could　do　nothing；　unless　they　were　provided
with　wood　from　the　other　islands；　nor　could　the　wool　spinners　and
weavers　or　the　shoemakers　work　without　wool　and　skins　from　the　same
sources。　The　wood　and　the　wool　and　the　skins　are；　in　fact；　the　capital
without　which　their　work　as　manufacturers　in　their　respective　trades
is　impossibleso　that　the　vital　and　other　capital　supplied　by　Gran
Canaria　and　Teneriffe　is　most　indubitably　the　necessary　antecedent　of
the　industrial　labour　of　Lanzerote。　It　is　perfectly　true　that　by　the
time　the　wood；　the　wool；　and　the　skins　reached　Lanzerote　a　good　deal
of　labour　in　cutting；　shearing；　skinning；　transport；　and　so　on；　would
have　been　spent　upon　them。　But　this　does　not　alter　the　fact　that　the
only　〃production〃　which　is　essential　to　the　existence　of　the
population　of　Teneriffe　and　Gran　Canaria　is　that　effected　by　the　＇165＇
green　plants　in　both　islands；　and　that　all　the　labour　spent　upon　the
raw　produce　useful　in　manufacture；　directly　or　indirectly　yielded　by
themby　the　inhabitants　of　these　islands　and　by　those　of　Lanzerote
into　the　bargainwill　not　provide　one　solitary　Lanzerotian　with　a
dinner；　unless　the　Teneriffians　and　Canariotes　happen　to　want　his
goods　and　to　be　willing　to　give　some　of　their　vital　capital　in
exchange　for　them。

Under　the　circumstances　defined；　if　Teneriffe　and　Gran　Canaria
disappeared；　or　if　their　inhabitants　ceased　to　care　for　carpentry；
clothing；　or　shoes；　the　people　of　Lanzerote　must　starve。　But　if　they
wish　to　buy；　then　the　Lanzerotians；　by　〃cultivating〃　the　buyers；
indirectly　favour　the　cultivation　of　the　produce　of　those　buyers。

Thus；　if　the　question　is　asked　whether　the　labour　employed　in
manufacture　in　Lanzerote　is　〃productive〃　or　〃unproductive〃　there　can
be　only　one　reply。　If　anybody　will　exchange　vital　capital；　or　that
which　can　be　exchanged　for　vital　capital；　for　Lanzerote　goods；　it　is
productive；　if　not；　it　is　unproductive。

In　the　case　of　the　manufacturer；　the　dependence　of　labour　upon　capital
is　still　more　intimate　than　in　that　of　the　herdsman　or　agriculturist。
When　the　latter　are　once　started　they　can　go　on；　without　troubling
themselves　about　the　existence　of　any　other　people。　But　the
manufacturer　depends　on　pre…existing　capital；　not　only　at　the　＇166＇
beginning；　but　at　the　end　of　his　operations。　However　great　the
expenditure　of　his　labour　and　of　his　skill；　the　result；　for　the
purpose　of　maintaining　his　existence；　is　just　the　same　as　if　he　had
done　nothing；　unless　there　is　a　customer　able　and　willing　to　exchange
food…stuffs　for　that　which　his　labour　and　skill　have　achieved。

There　is　another　point　concerning　which　it　is　very　necessary　to　have
clear　ideas。　Suppose　a　carpenter　in　Lanzerote　to　be　engaged　in　making
chests　of　drawers。　Let　us　suppose　that　a；　the　timber；　and　b；　the　grain
and　meat　needful　for　the　man's　sustenance　until　he　can　finish　a　chest
of　drawers；　have　to　be　paid　for　by　that　chest。　Then　the　capital　with
which　he　starts　is　represented　by　a　＋　b。　He　could　not　start　at　all
unless　he　had　it；　day　by　day；　he　must　destroy　more　or　less　of　the
substance　and　of　the　general　adaptability　of　a　in　order　to　work　it　up
into　the　special　forms　needed　to　constitute　the　chest　of　drawers；　and；
day　by　day；　he　must　use　up　at　least　so　much　of　b　as　will　replace　his
loss　of　vital　capital　by　the　work　of　that　day。　　Suppose　it　takes　the
carpenter　and　his　workmen　ten　days　to　saw　up　the　timber；　to　plane　the
boards；　and　to　give　them　the　shape　and　size　proper　for　the　various
parts　of　the　chest　of　drawers。　And　suppose　that　he　then　offers　his
heap　of　boards　to　the　advancer　of　a　＋　b　as　an　equivalent　for　the　wood
＋　ten　days'　supply　of　vital　capital？　The　latter　will　surely　say：　〃No。
＇167＇　I　did　not　ask　for　a　heap　of　boards。　I　asked　for　a　chest　of
drawers。　Up　to　this　time；　so　far　as　I　am　concerned；　you　have　done
nothing　and　are　as　much　in　my　debt　as　ever。〃　And　if　the　carpenter
maintained　that　he　had　〃virtually〃　created　two…thirds　of　a　chest　of
drawers；　inasmuch　as　it　would　take　only　five　days　more　to　put　together
the　pieces　of　wood；　and　that　the　heap　of　boards　ought　to　be　accepted
as　the　equivalent　of　two…thirds　of　his　debt；　I　am　afraid　the　creditor
would　regard　him　as　little　better　than　an　impudent　swindler。　It
obviously　makes　no　sort　of　difference　whether　the　Canariote　or
Teneriffian　buyer　advanced　the　wood　and　the　food…stuffs；　on　which　the
carpenter　had　to　maintain　himself；　or　whether　the　carpenter　had　a　stock
of　both；　the　consumption　of　which　must　be　recouped　by　the　exchange　of
a　chest　of　drawers　for　a　fresh　supply。　In　the　latter　case；　it　is　even
less　doubtful　that；　if　the　carpenter　offered　his　boards　to　the　man　who
wanted　a　chest　of　drawers；　the　latter　would　laugh　in　his　face。　And　if
he　took　the　chest　of　drawers　for　himself；　then　so　much　of　his　vital
capital　would　be　sunk　in　it　past　recovery。　Again；　the　payment　of　goods
in　a　lump；　for　the　chest　of　drawers；　comes　to　the　same　thing　as　the
payment　of　daily　wages　for　the　fifteen　days　that　the　carpenter　was
occupied　in　making　it。　If；　at　the　end　of　each　day；　the　carpenter　chose
to　say　to　himself　〃I　have　'virtually'　created；　by　my　day's　labour；　a
fifteenth　of　what　I　shall　get　for　the　chest　＇168＇　of
drawerstherefore　my　wages　are　the　produce　of　my　day's　labour〃there
is　no　great　harm　in　such　metaphorical　speech；　so　long　as　the　poor　man
does　not　delude　himself　into　the　supposition　that　it　represents　the
exact　truth。　　〃Virtually〃　is　apt　to　cover　more　intellectual　sins　than
〃charity〃　does　moral　delicts。　After　what　has　been　said；　it　surely　must
be　plain　enough　that　each　day's　work　has　involved　the　consumption　of
the　carpenter's　vital　capital；　and　the　fashioning　of　his　timber；　at
the　expense　of　more　or　less　consumption　of　those　forms　of　capital。
Whether　the　a　＋　b　to　be　exchanged　for　the　chest　has　been　advanced　as　a
loan；　or　is　paid　daily　or　weekly　as　wages；　or；　at　some　later　time；　as
the　price　of　a　finished　commoditythe　essential　element　of　the
transaction；　and　the　only　essential　element；　is；　that　it　must；　at
least；　effect　the　replacement　of　the　vital　capital　consumed。　Neither
boards　nor　chest　of　drawers　are　eatable；　and；　so　far　from　the
carpenter　having　produced　the　essential　part　of　his　wages　by　each
day's　labour；　he　has　merely　wasted　that　labour；　unless　somebody　who
happens　to　want　a　chest　of　drawers　offers　to　exchange　vital　capital；
or　something　that　can　procure　it；　equivalent　to　the　amount　consumed
during　the　process　of　manufacture。*

　　　　*　See　the　discussion　of　this　subject　further　on。

That　it　should　be　necessary；　at　this　time　of　day；　to　set　forth　such
elementary　truths　as　these　may　＇169＇　well　seem　strange；　but　no　one　who
consults　that　interesting　museum　of　political　delusions；　〃Progress　and
Poverty；〃　some　of　the　treasures　of　which　I　have　already　brought　to
light；　will　doubt　the　fact；　if　he　bestows　proper　attention　upon　the
first　book　of　that　widely…read　work。　At　page　15　it　is　thus　written：

〃The　proposition　I　shall　endeavour　to　prove　is：　that　wages；　instead　of
being　drawn　from　capital；　are；　in　reality；　drawn　from　the　product　of
the　labour　for　which　they　are　paid。〃

Again　at　page　18：

〃In　every　case　in　which　labour　is　exchanged　for　commodities；
production　really　precedes　enjoyment　。　。　。　wages　are　the
earningsthat　is　to　say；　the　makingsof　labournot　the　advances
of　capital。〃

And　the　proposition　which　the　author　endeavours　to　disprove　is　the
hitherto　generally　accepted　doctrine

　　　　　。。。〃that　labour　is　maintained　and　paid　out　of　existing　capital；
　　　　　　　　before　the　product　which　constitutes　the　ultimate　object　is
　　　　　　　　secured〃　（p。　16）。

The　doctrine　respecting　the　relation　of　capital　and　wages；　which　is
thus　opposed　in　〃Progress　and　Poverty；〃　is　that　illustrated　in　the
foregoing　pages；　the　truth　of　which；　I　conceive；　must　be　plain　to　any
one　who　has　apprehended　the　very　simple　arguments　by　which　I　have
endeavoured　to　＇170＇　demonstrate　it。　One　conclusion　or　the　other　must
be　hopelessly　wrong；　and；　even　at　the　cost　of　going　once　more　over
some　of　the　ground　traversed　in　this　essay　and　that　on　〃Natural　and
Political　Rights；〃*　I　propose　to　show　that　the　error　lies　with
〃Progress　and　Poverty〃；　in　which　work；　so　far　as　political　science　is
concerned；　the　poverty　is；　to　my　eye；　much　more　apparent　than　the
progress。

　　　　*　Collected　Essays；　vol。　i。　pp。　359…382。

To　begin　at　the　beginning。　The　author　propounds　a　definition　of
wealth：　　〃Nothing　which　nature　supplies　to　man　without　his　labour　is
wealth〃　（p。　28）。　　Wealth　consists　of　〃natural　substances　or　products
which　have　been　adapted　by　human　labour　to　human　use　or　gratification；
their　value　depending　upon　the　amount　of　labour　which；　upon　the
average；　would　be　required　to　produce　things　of　like　kind〃　（p。　27）。
The　following　examples　of　wealth　are　given：

　　　　　。　。　。　〃Buildings；　cattle；　tools；　machinery；　agricultural　and
　　　　　　　　　　　mineral　products；　manufactured　goods；　ships；　waggons；
　　　　　　　　　　　furniture；　and　the　like〃　（p。　27）。

I　take　it　that　native　metals；　coal　and　brick　clay；　are　〃mineral
products〃；　and　I　quite　believe　that　they　are　properly　termed　〃wealth。〃
But　when　a　seam　of　coal　crops　out　at　the　surface；　and　lumps　of　coal
are　to　be　had　for　the　picking　up；　or　when　native　copper　lies　about　in
nuggets；　or　＇171＇　when　brick　clay　forms　a　superficial　stratum；　it
appears　to　me　that　these　things　are　supplied　to；　nay　almost　thrust
upon；　man　without　his　labour。　According　to　the　definition；　therefore；
they　are　not　〃wealth。〃　According　to　the　enumeration；　however；　they　are
〃wealth〃：　a　tolerably　fair　specimen　of　a　contradiction　in　terms。　Or
does　〃Progress　and　Poverty〃　really　suggest　that　a　coal　seam　which
crops　out　at　the　surface　is　not　wealth；　but　that　if　somebody　breaks
off　a　piece　and　carries　it　away；　the　bestowal　of　this　amount　of　labour
upon　that　particular　lump　makes　it　wealth；　while　the　rest　remains　〃not
wealth〃？　The　notion　that　the　value　of　a　thing　bears　any　necessary
relation　to　the　amount　of　labour　（average　o