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