evolution and ethics and other essays-第23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！


further；　the　shoemaker　has　been　enabled　to　do　his　work　not　only　by　the
vital　capital　expended　during　the　time　occupied　in　making　the　pair　of
shoes；　but　by　that　expended　from　the　time　of　his　birth；　up　to　the　time
that　he　earned　wages　that　would　keep　him　alive。

〃Progress　and　Poverty〃　continues：

　　　　　。　。　。　As　my　labour　goes　on；　value　is　steadily　added　until；
　　　　　　　　　　　when　my　labour　results　in　the　finished　shoes；　I　have　my
　　　　　　　　　　　capital　plus　the　difference　in　value　between　the
　　　　　　　　　　　material　and　the　shoes。　In　obtaining　this　additional
　　　　　　　　　　　valuemy　wageshow　is　capital；　at　any　time；　drawn
　　　　　　　　　　　upon？　（p；　34）。

In　return　we　may　inquire；　how　can　any　one　propound　such　a　question？
Capital　is　drawn　upon　all　the　time。　Not　only　when　the　shoes　are
commenced；　but　while　they　are　being　made；　and　until　they　are　either
used　by　the　shoemaker　himself　or　are　purchased　by　somebody　else；　that
is；　exchanged　for　a　portion　of　another　man's　capital。　In　fact
（supposing　that　the　shoemaker　does　not　want　shoes　himself）；　it　is　the
existence　of　vital　capital　in　the　possession　of　another　person　and　the
willingness　of　that　person　to　part　with　more　or　less　of　it　in　exchange
for　the　shoesit　is　these　two　conditions；　alone；　which　prevent　the
shoemaker　from　having　consumed　his　capital　unproductively；　just　as
much　as　if　he　had　spent　his　time　in　chopping　up　the　leather　into
minute　fragments。

Thus；　the　examination　of　the　very　case　selected　＇180＇　by　the　advocate
of　the　doctrine　that　labour　bestowed　upon　manufacture；　without　any
intervention　of　capital；　can　produce　wages；　proves　to　be　a　delusion　of
the　first　magnitude；　even　though　it　be　supported　by　the　dictum　of　Adam
Smith　which　is　quoted　in　its　favour　（p。　34）

　　　　　。　。　。　〃The　produce　of　labour　constitutes　the　natural　recompense
　　　　　　　　　　　or　wages　of　labour。　In　that　original　state　of　things　which
　　　　　　　　　　　precedes　both　the　appropriation　of　land　and　the
　　　　　　　　　　　accumulation　of　stock；　the　whole　produce　of　labour　belongs
　　　　　　　　　　　to　the　labourer。　He　has　neither　landlord　nor　master　to
　　　　　　　　　　　share　with　him〃　（〃Wealth　of　Nations；〃　ch。　viii）。

But　the　whole　of　this　passage　exhibits　the　influence　of　the　French
Physiocrats　by　whom　Adam　Smith　was　inspired；　at　their　worst；　that　is　to
say；　when　they　most　completely　forsook　the　ground　of　experience　for　a
priori　speculation。　The　confident　reference　to　〃that　original　state　of
things〃　is　quite　in　the　manner　of　the　Essai　sur　l'Inegalie。　Now；　the
state　of　men　before　the　〃appropriation　of　land〃　and　the　〃accumulation
of　stock〃　must　surely　have　been　that　of　purely　savage　hunters。　As；　by
the　supposition；　nobody　would　have　possessed　land；　certainly　no　man
could　have　had　a　landlord；　and；　if　there　was　no　accumulation　of　stock
in　a　transferable　form；　as　surely　there　could　be　no　master；　in　the
sense　of　hirer。　But　hirer　and　hire　（that　is；　wages）　are　correlative
terms；　like　mother　and　child。　As　〃child〃　implies　〃mother；〃　so　does
〃hire〃　or　〃wages〃　imply　a　＇181＇　〃hirer〃　or　〃wage…giver。〃　Therefore；
when　a　man　in　〃the　original　state　of　things〃　gathered　fruit　or　killed
game　for　his　own　sustenance；　the　fruit　or　the　game　could　be　called　his
〃wages〃　only　in　a　figurative　sense；　as　one　sees　if　the　term　〃hire；〃
which　has　a　more　limited　connotation；　is　substituted　for　〃wage。〃　If
not；　it　must　be　assumed　that　the　savage　hired　himself　to　get　his　own
dinner；　whereby　we　are　led　to　the　tolerably　absurd　conclusion　that；　as
in　the　〃state　of　nature〃　he　was　his　own　employer；　the　〃master〃　and　the
labourer；　in　that　model　age；　appropriated　the　produce　in　equal　shares！
And　if　this　should　be　not　enough；　it　has　already　been　seen　that；　in
the　hunting　state；　man　is　not　even　an　accessory　of　production　of　vital
capital；　he　merely　consumes　what　nature　produces。

According　to　the　author　of　〃Progress　and　Poverty〃　political　economists
have　been　deluded　by　a　〃fallacy　which　has　entangled　some　of　the　most
acute　minds　in　a　web　of　their　own　spinning。〃

〃It　is　in　the　use　of　the　term　capital　in　two　senses。　In　the　primary
proposition　that　capital　is　necessary　to　the　exertion　of　productive
labour；　the　term　〃capital〃　is　understood　as　including　all　food；
clothing；　shelter；　&c。；　whereas　in　the　deductions　finally　drawn　from
it；　the　term　is　used　in　its　common　and　legitimate　meaning　of　wealth
devoted；　not　to　the　immediate　gratification　of　desire；　but　to　the
procurement　of　more　wealthof　wealth　in　the　hands　of　employers　as
distinguished　from　labourers〃　（p。　40）。

＇182＇　I　am　by　no　means　concerned　to　defend　the　political　economists　who
are　thus　charged　with　blundering；　but　I　shall　be　surprised　to　learn
that　any　have　carried　the　art　of　self…entanglement　to　the　degree　of
perfection　exhibited　by　this　passage。　Who　has　ever　imagined　that
wealth　which；　in　the　hands　of　an　employer；　is　capital；　ceases　to　be
capital　if　it　is　in　the　hands　of　a　labourer？　Suppose　a　workman　to　be
paid　thirty　shillings　on　Saturday　evening　for　six　days'　labour；　that
thirty　shillings　comes　out　of　the　employer's　capital；　and　receives　the
name　of　〃wages〃　simply　because　it　is　exchanged　for　labour。　In　the
workman's　pocket；　as　he　goes　home；　it　is　a　part　of　his　capital；　in
exactly　the　same　sense　as；　half　an　hour　before；　it　was　part　of　the
employer's　capital；　he　is　a　capitalist　just　as　much　as　if　he　were　a
Rothschild。　Suppose　him　to　be　a　single　man；　whose　cooking　and
household　matters　are　attended　to　by　the　people　of　the　house　in　which
he　has　a　room；　then　the　rent　which　he　pays　them　out　of　this　capital
is；　in　part；　wages　for　their　labour；　and　he　is；　so　far；　an　employer。
If　he　saves　one　shilling　out　of　his　thirty；　he　has；　to　that　extent；
added　to　his　capital　when　the　next　Saturday　comes　round。　And　if　he
puts　his　saved　shillings　week　by　week　into　the　Savings　Bank；　the
difference　between　him　and　the　most　bloated　of　bankers　is　simply　one
of　degree。

At　page　42；　we　are　confidently　told　that　＇183＇　〃labourers　by　receiving
wages〃　cannot　lessen　〃even　temporarily〃　the　〃capital　of　the　employer；〃
while　at　page　44　it　is　admitted　that　in　certain　cases　the　capitalist
〃pays　out　capital　in　wages。〃　One　would　think　that　the　〃paying　out〃　of
capital　is　hardly　possible　without　at　least　a　〃temporary〃　diminution
of　the　capital　from　which　payment　is　made。　But　〃Progress　and　Poverty〃
changes　all　that　by　a　little　verbal　legerdemain：

　　　　　。　。　。　〃For　where　wages　are　paid　before　the　object　of　the　labour
　　　　　　　　　　　is　obtained；　or　is　finishedas　in　agriculture；　where
　　　　　　　　　　　ploughing　and　sowing　must　precede　by　several　months　the
　　　　　　　　　　　harvesting　of　the　crop；　as　in　the　erection　of　buildings；
　　　　　　　　　　　the　construction　of　ships；　railroads；　canals；　&c。it　is
　　　　　　　　　　　clear　that　the　owners　of　the　capital　paid　in　wages　cannot
　　　　　　　　　　　expect　an　immediate　return；　but；　as　the　phrase　is；　must
　　　　　　　　　　　〃outlay　it〃　or　〃lie　out　of　it〃　for　a　time　which　sometimes
　　　　　　　　　　　amounts　to　many　years。　And　hence；　if　first　principles　are
　　　　　　　　　　　not　kept　in　mind；　it　is　easy　to　jump　to　the　conclusion
　　　　　　　　　　　that　wages　are　advanced　by　capital〃　（p。　44）。

Those　who　have　paid　attention　to　the　argument　of　former　parts　of　this
paper　may　not　be　able　to　understand　how；　if　sound　〃first　principles
are　kept　in　mind；〃　any　other　conclusion　can　be　reached；　whether　by
jumping；　or　by　any　other　mode　of　logical　progression。　But　the　first
principle　which　our　author　〃keeps　in　mind〃　possesses　just　that　amount
of　ambiguity　which　enables　him　to　play　hocus…pocus　with　it。　It　is
this；　that　〃the　creation　of　value　does　not　depend　upon　the　finishing
of　the　product〃　（p。　44）。

＇184＇　There　is　no　doubt　that；　under　certain　limitations；　this
proposition　is　correct。　It　is　not　true　that　〃labour　always　adds　to
capital　by　its　exertion　before　it　takes　from　capital　its　wages〃　（p。
44）；　but　it　is　true　that　it　may；　and　often　does；　produce　that　effect。

To　take　one　of　the　examples　given；　the　construction　of　a　ship。　The
shaping　of　the　timbers　undoubtedly　gives　them　a　value　（for　a
shipbuilder）　which　they　did　not　possess　before。　When　they　are　put
together　to　constitute　the　framework　of　the　ship；　there　is　a　still
further　addition　of　value　（for　a　shipbuilder）；　and　when　the　outside
planking　is　added；　there　is　another　addition　（for　a　shipbuilder）。
Suppose　everything　else　about　the　hull　is　finished；　except　the　one
little　item　of　caulking　the　seams；　there　is　no　doubt　that　it　has　still
more　value　for　a　shipbuilder。　But　for　whom　else　has　it　any　value；
except　perhaps　for　a　fire…wood　merchant？　What　price　will　any　one　who
wants　a　shipthat　is　to　say；　something　that　will　carry　a　cargo　from
one　port　to　anothergive　for　the　unfinished　vessel　which　would　take
water　in　at　every　seam　and　go　down　in　half　an　hour；　if　she　were
launched？　Suppose　the　shipbuilder's　capital　to　fail　before　the　vessel
is　caulked；　and　that　he　cannot　find　another　shipbuilder　who　cares　to
buy　and　finish　it；　what　sort　of　proportion　does　the　value　created　by
the　labour；　for　which　he　has　paid　out　of　his　capital；　stand　to　that　of
his　advances？

＇185＇　Surely　no　one　will　give　him　one…tenth　of　the　capital　disbursed
in　wages；　perhaps　not　so　much　even　as　the　prime　cost　of　the　raw
materials。　　Therefore；　though　the　assertion　that　〃the　creation　of
value　does　not　depend　on　the　finishing　of　the　product〃　may　be　strictly
true　under　certain　circumstances；　it　need　not　be　and　is　not　always
true。　And；　if　it　is　meant　to　imply　or　suggest　that　the　creation　of
value　in　a　manufactured　article　does　not　depend　upon　the　finishing　of
that　article；　a　more　serious　error　could　hardly　be　propounded。

Is　there　not　a　prodigious　difference　in　the　value　of　an　uncaulked　and
in　that　of　a　finished　ship；　between　the　value　of　a　house　in　which　only
the　tiles　of　the　roof　are　wanting　and　a　finished　house；　between　that
of　a　clock　which　only　lacks　the　escapement　and　a　finished　clock？

As　ships；　house；　and　clock；　the　unfinished　articles　have　no　value
whateverthat　is　to　say；　no　person　who　wanted　to　purchase　one　of
these　things；　for　immediate　use；　would　give　a　farthing　for　either。　The
only　value　they　can　have；　apart　from　that　of　the　materials　they
contain；　is　that　which　they　possess　for　some　one　who　can　finish　them；
or　for　some　one　who　can　make　use　of　parts　of　them　for　the　cons