友情提示:如果本网页打开太慢或显示不完整,请尝试鼠标右键“刷新”本网页!
合租小说网 返回本书目录 加入书签 我的书架 我的书签 TXT全本下载 『收藏到我的浏览器』

list3-第6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!





perfectly succeeded; inasmuch as he possessed in a high degree the



gift of systematisation and elucidation。 Nothing new or original is



to be found in his writings; save only that he asserted the



productiveness of mental labours; which Adam Smith denied。 Only;



this view; which is quite correct according to the theory of the



productive powers; stands opposed to the theory of exchangeable



values; and hence Smith is clearly more consistent than Say。 Mental



labourers produce directly no exchangeable values; nay; more; they



diminish by their consumption the total amount of material



productions and savings; and hence the total of material wealth。



Moreover; the ground on which Say from his point of view includes



mental labourers among the productive class; viz。 because they are



paid with exchangeable values; is an utterly baseless one; inasmuch



as those values have been already produced before they reach the



hands of the mental labourers; their possessor alone is changed;



but by that change their amount is not increased。 We can only term



mental labourers productive if we regard the productive powers of



the nation; and not the mere possession of exchangeable values; as



national wealth。 Say found himself opposed to Smith in this



respect; exactly as Smith had found himself opposed to the



physiocrats。



    In order to include manufacturers among the productive class;



Smith had been obliged to enlarge the idea of what constitutes



wealth; and Say on his part had no other alternative than either to



adopt the absurd view that mental labourers are not productive; as



it was handed down to him by Adam Smith; or else to enlarge the



idea of wealth as Adam Smith had done in opposition to the



physiocrats; namely; to make it comprise productive power; and to



argue; national wealth does not consist in the possession of



exchangeable values; but in the possession of power to produce;



just as the wealth of a fisherman does not consist in the



possession of fish; but in the ability and the means of continually



catching fish to satisfy his wants。



    It is noteworthy; and; so far as we are aware; not generally



known; that Jean Baptiste Say had a brother whose plain clear



common sense led him clearly to perceive the fundamental error of



the theory of values; and that J。 B。 Say himself expressed to his



doubting brother doubts as to the soundness of his own doctrine。



    Louis Say wrote from Nantes; that a technical language had



become prevalent in political economy which had led to much false



reasoning; and that his brother Jean himself was not free from



it。(1*) According to Louis Say; the wealth of nations does not



consist in material goods and their value in exchange; but in the



ability continuously to produce such goods。 The exchange theory of



Smith and J。 B。 Say regards wealth from the narrow point of view of



an individual merchant; and this system; which would reform the



(so…called) mercantile system; is itself nothing else than a



restricted mercantile system。(2*) To these doubts and objections J。



B。 Say replied to his brother that 'his (J。 B。 Say's) method



(method?) (viz。 the theory of exchangeable values) was certainly



not the best; but that the difficulty was; to find a better。'(3*)



    What! difficult to find a better? Had not brother Louis; then;



found one? No; the real difficulty was that people had not the



requisite acuteness to grasp and to follow out the idea which the



brother had (certainly only in general terms) expressed; or rather;



perhaps; because it was very distasteful to have to overturn the



already established school; and to have to teach the precise



opposite of the doctrine by which one had acquired celebrity。 The



only original thing in J。 B。 Say's writings is the form of his



system; viz。 that he defined political economy as the science which



shows how material wealth is produced; distributed; and consumed。



It was by this classification and by his exposition of it that J。



B。 Say made his success and also his school; and no wonder: for



here everything lay ready to his hand; he knew how to explain so



clearly and intelligibly the special process of production; and the



individual powers engaged in it; he could set forth so lucidly



(within the limits of his own narrow circle) the principle of the



division of labour; and so clearly expound the trade of



individuals。 Every working potter; every huckster could understand



him; and do so the more readily; the less J。 B。 Say told him that



was new or unknown。 For that in the work of the potter; hands and



skill (labour) must be combined with clay (natural material) in



order by means of the potter's wheel; the oven; and fuel (capital);



to produce pots (valuable products or values in exchange); had been



well known long before in every respectable potter's workshop; only



they had not known how to describe these things in scientific



language; and by means of it to generalise upon them。 Also there



were probably very few hucksters who did not know before J。 B。



Say's time; that by exchange both parties could gain values in



exchange; and that if anyone exported 1;000 thalers' worth of



goods; and got for them 1;500 thalers' worth of other goods from



abroad; he would gain 500 thalers。



    It was also well known before; that work leads to wealth; and



idleness to beggary; that private self…interest is the most



powerful stimulus to active industry; and that he who desires to



obtain young chickens; must not first eat the eggs。 Certainly



people had not known before that all this was political economy;



but they were delighted to be initiated with so little trouble into



the deepest mysteries of the science; and thus to get rid of the



hateful duties which make our favourite luxuries so dear; and to



get perpetual peace; universal brotherhood; and the millennium into



the bargain。 It is also no cause for surprise that so many learned



men and State officials ranked themselves among the admirers of



Smith and Say; for the principle of 'laissez faire et laissez



aller' demands no sagacity from any save those who first introduced



and expounded it; authors who succeeded them had nothing to do but



to reiterate; embellish; and elucidate their argument; and who



might not feel the wish and have the ability to be a great



statesman; if all one had to do was to fold one's hands in one's



bosom? It is a strange peculiarity of these systems; that one need



only adopt their first propositions; and let oneself be led



credulously and confidingly by the hand by the author; through a



few chapters; and One is lost。 We must say to M。 Jean Baptiste Say



at the outset that political economy is not; in our opinion; that



science which teaches only how values in exchange are produced by



individuals; distributed among them; and consumed by them; we say



to him that a statesman will know and must know; over and above



that; how the productive powers of a whole nation can be awakened;



increased; and protected; and how on the other hand they are



weakened; laid to sleep; or utterly destroyed; and how by means of



those national productive powers the national resources can be



utilised in the wisest and best manner so as to produce national



existence; national independence; national prosperity; national



strength; national culture; and a national future。



    This system (of Say) has rushed from one extreme view that the



State can and ought to regulate everything  into the opposite



extreme  that the State can and ought to do nothing: that the



individual is everything; and the State nothing at all。 The opinion



of M。 Say as to the omnipotence of individuals and the impotence of



the State verges on the ridiculous。 Where he cannot forbear from



expressing a word of praise on the efficacy of Colbert's measures



for the industrial education of France; he exclaims; 'One could



hardly have given private persons credit for such a high degree of



wisdom。'



    If we turn our attention from the system to its author; we see



in him a man who; without a comprehensive knowledge of history;



without deep insight into State policy or State administration;



without political or philosophical views; with merely one idea



adopted from others in his head; rummages through history;



politics; statistics; commercial and industrial relations; in order



to discover isolated proofs and facts which may serve to support



his idea。 If anyone will read his remarks on the Navigation Laws;



the Methuen Treaty; the system of Colbert; the Eden Treaty; &c。 he



will find this judgment confirmed。 It did not suit him to follow



out connectedly the commercial and industrial history of nations。



That nations have become rich and mighty under protective tariffs



he admits; only in his opinion they became so in spite of that



system and not in consequence of it; and he requires that we should



believe that conclusion on his word alone。 He maintains that the



Dutch were induced to trade directly with the East Indies; because



Philip II forbade them to enter the harbour of Portugal; as though



the protective system would justify that prohibition; as though the



Dutch would not have found their way to the East Indies without it。



With statistics and politics M。 Say is as dissatisfied as with



history: with the former because no doubt they produce the



inconvenient 'facts which he says 'have so often proved



contradictory of his system'  wit
返回目录 上一页 下一页 回到顶部 0 0
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!
温馨提示: 温看小说的同时发表评论,说出自己的看法和其它小伙伴们分享也不错哦!发表书评还可以获得积分和经验奖励,认真写原创书评 被采纳为精评可以获得大量金币、积分和经验奖励哦!