evolution and ethics and other essays-第30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！


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　or　otherwise）　bestowed　upon
it；　is　a　fallacy　which　needs　no　further　refutation　than　it　has　already
received。　　The　average　amount　of　labour　bestowed　upon　warming…pans
confers　no　value　upon　them　in　the　eyes　of　a　Gold…Coast　negro；　nor
would　an　Esquimaux　give　a　slice　of　blubber　for　the　most　elaborate　of
ice…machines。

So　much　for　the　doctrine　of　〃Progress　and　Poverty〃　touching　the　nature
of　wealth。　Let　us　now　consider　its　teachings　respecting　capital　as
wealth　or　a　part　of　wealth。　Adam　Smith's　definition　〃that　part　of　a
man's　stock　which　he　expects　to　yield　him　a　revenue　is　called　his
capital〃　is　quoted　with　approval　（p。　32）；　elsewhere　capital　is　said　to
be　that　part　of　wealth　〃which　＇172＇　is　devoted　to　the　aid　of
production〃　（p。　28）；　and　yet　again　it　is　said　to　be

　　　　　。　。　。　〃wealth　in　course　of　exchange；*　understanding　exchange　to
　　　　　　　　　　　include；　not　merely　the　passing　from　hand　to　hand；　but
　　　　　　　　　　　also　such　transmutations　as　occur　when　the　reproductiv