unto this last-第5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！





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　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　b