evolution and ethics and other essays-第31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！


　　　　　　　　　　　include；　not　merely　the　passing　from　hand　to　hand；　but
　　　　　　　　　　　also　such　transmutations　as　occur　when　the　reproductive
　　　　　　　　　　　or　transforming　forces　of　nature　are　utilised　for　the
　　　　　　　　　　　increase　of　wealth〃　（p。　32）。

　　　　*　The　italics　are　the　author's。

But　if　too　much　pondering　over　the　possible　senses　and　scope　of　these
definitions　should　weary　the　reader；　he　will　be　relieved　by　the
following　acknowledgment：

　　　　　。　。　。　〃Nor　is　the　definition　of　capital　I　have　suggested　of
　　　　　　　　　　　any　importance〃　（p。　33）。

The　author　informs　us；　in　fact；　that　he　is　〃not　writing　a　text…book；〃
thereby　intimating　his　opinion　that　it　is　less　important　to　be　clear
and　accurate　when　you　are　trying　to　bring　about　a　political　revolution
than　when　a　merely　academic　interest　attaches　to　the　subject　treated。
But　he　is　not　busy　about　anything　so　serious　as　a　textbook：　no；　he　〃is
only　attempting　to　discover　the　laws　which　control　a　great　social
problem〃a　mode　of　expression　which　indicates　perhaps　the　high…water
mark　of　intellectual　muddlement。　I　have　heard；　in　my　time；　of　〃laws〃
which　control　other　〃laws〃；　but　this　is　the　first　occasion　on　which
〃laws〃　which　〃control　a　problem〃　have　come　under　my　notice。　Even　the
disquisitions　〃of　＇173＇　those　flabby　writers　who　have　burdened　the
press　and　darkened　counsel　by　numerous　volumes　which　are　dubbed
political　economy〃　（p。　28）　could　hardly　furnish　their　critics　with　a
finer　specimen　of　that　which　a　hero　of　the　〃Dunciad；〃　by　the　one　flash
of　genius　recorded　of　him；　called　〃clotted　nonsense。〃

Doubtless　it　is　a　sign　of　grace　that　the　author　of　these　definitions
should　attach　no　importance　to　any　of　them；　but　since；　unfortunately；
his　whole　argument　turns　upon　the　tacit　assumption　that　they　are
important；　I　may　not　pass　them　over　so　lightly。　The　third　I　give　up。
Why　anything　should　be　capital　when　it　is　〃in　course　of　exchange；〃　and
not　be　capital　under　other　circumstances；　passes　my　understanding。　We
are　told　that　〃that　part　of　a　farmer's　crop　held　for　sale　or　for　seed；
or　to　feed　his　help；　in　part　payment　of　wages；　would　be　accounted
capital；　that　held　for　the　care　of　his　family　would　not　be〃　（p。　31）。
But　I　fail　to　discover　any　ground　of　reason　or　authority　for　the
doctrine　that　it　is　only　when　a　crop　is　about　to　be　sold　or　sown；　or
given　as　wages；　that　it　may　be　called　capital。　On　the　contrary；
whether　we　consider　custom　or　reason；　so　much　of　it　as　is　stored　away
in　ricks　and　barns　during　harvest；　and　remains　there　to　be　used　in　any
of　these　ways　months　or　years　afterwards；　is　customarily　and　rightly
termed　capital。　　Surely；　the　meaning　of　the　clumsy　phrase　that　capital
is　〃wealth　in　the　＇174＇　course　of　exchange〃　must　be　that　it　is　〃wealth
capable　of　being　exchanged〃　against　labour　or　anything　else。　That；　in
fact；　is　the　equivalent　of　the　second　definition；　that　capital　is
〃that　part　of　wealth　which　is　devoted　to　the　aid　of　production。〃
Obviously；　if　you　possess　that　for　which　men　will　give　labour；　you　can
aid　production　by　means　of　that　labour。　And；　again；　it　agrees　with　the
first　definition　（borrowed　from　Adam　Smith）　that　capital　is　〃that　part
of　a　man's　stock　which　he　expects　to　yield　him　a　revenue。〃　For　a
revenue　is　both　etymologically　and　in　sense　a　〃return。〃　A　man　gives
his　labour　in　sowing　grain；　or　in　tending　cattle；　because　he　expects　a
〃return〃a　〃revenue〃in　the　shape　of　the　increase　of　the　grain　or　of
the　herd；　and　also；　in　the　latter　case；　in　the　shape　of　their　labour
and　manure　which　〃aid　the　production〃　of　such　increase。　The　grain　and
cattle　of　which　he　is　possessed　immediately　after　harvest　is　his
capital；　and　his　revenue　for　the　twelvemonth；　until　the　next　harvest；
is　the　surplus　of　grain　and　cattle　over　and　above　the　amount　with
which　he　started。　This　is　disposable　for　any　purpose　for　which　he　may
desire　to　use　it；　leaving　him　just　as　well　off　as　he　was　at　the
beginning　of　the　year。　Whether　the　man　keeps　the　surplus　grain　for
sowing　more　land；　and　the　surplus　cattle　for　occupying　more　pasture；
whether　he　exchanges　them　for　other　commodities；　such　as　the　use　of
the　land　（as　rent）；　or　labour　（as　＇175＇　wages）；　or　whether　he　feeds
himself　and　his　family；　in　no　way　alters　their　nature　as　revenue；　or
affects　the　fact　that　this　revenue　is　merely　disposable　capital。

That　（even　apart　from　etymology）　cattle　are　typical　examples　of
capital　cannot　be　denied　（〃Progress　and　Poverty；〃　p。　25）；　and　if　we
seek　for　that　particular　quality　of　cattle　which　makes　them　〃capital；〃
neither　has　the　author　of　〃Progress　and　Poverty〃　supplied；　nor　is　any
one　else　very　likely　to　supply；　a　better　account　of　the　matter　than
Adam　Smith　has　done。　Cattle　are　〃capital〃　because　they　are　〃stock
which　yields　revenue。〃　That　is　to　say；　they　afford　to　their　owner　a
supply　of　that　which　he　desires　to　possess。　　And；　in　this　particular
case；　the　〃revenue〃　is　not　only　desirable；　but　of　supreme　importance；
inasmuch　as　it　is　capable　of　maintaining　human　life。　The　herd　yields　a
revenue　of　food…stuffs　as　milk　and　meat；　a　revenue　of　skins；　a　revenue
of　manure；　a　revenue　of　labour；　a　revenue　of　exchangeable　commodities
in　the　shape　of　these　things；　as　well　as　in　that　of　live　cattle。　　In
each　and　all　of　these　capacities　cattle　are　capital；　and；　conversely；
things　which　possess　any　or　all　of　these　capacities　are　capital。

Therefore　what　we　find　at　page　25　of　〃Progress　and　Poverty〃　must　be
regarded　as　a　welcome　lapse　into　clearness　of　apprehension：

〃A　fertile　field；　a　rich　vein　of　ore；　a　falling　stream　which　supplies
power；　may　give　the　possessor　advantages　＇176＇　equivalent　to　the
possession　of　capital；　but　to　class　such　things　as　capital　would　be　to
put　an　end　to　the　distinction　between　land　and　capital。〃

Just　so。　But　the　fatal　truth　is　that　these　things　are　capital；　and
that　there　really　is　no　fundamental　distinction　between　land　and
capital。　Is　it　denied　that　a　fertile　field；　a　rich　vein　of　ore；　or　a
falling　stream；　may　form　part　of　a　man's　stock；　and　that；　if　they　do；
they　are　capable　of　yielding　revenue？　Will　not　somebody　pay　a　share　of
the　produce　in　kind；　or　in　money；　for　the　privilege　of　cultivating　the
first　royalties　for　that　of　working　the　second；　and　a　like　equivalent
for　that　of　erecting　a　mill　on　the　third？　In　what　sense；　then；　are
these　things　less　〃capital〃　than　the　buildings　and　tools　which　on　page
27　of　〃Progress　and　Poverty〃　are　admitted　to　be　capital？　Is　it　not
plain　that　if　these　things　confer　〃advantages　equivalent　to　the
possession　of　capital；〃　and　if　the　〃advantage〃　of　capital　is　nothing
but　the　yielding　of　revenue；　then　the　denial　that　they　are　capital　is
merely　a　roundabout　way　of　self…contradiction？

All　this　confused　talk　about　capital；　however；　is　lucidity　itself
compared　with　the　exposition　of　the　remarkable　thesis；　〃Wages　not
drawn　from　capital；　but　produced　by　labour；〃　which　occupies　the　third
chapter　of　〃Progress　and　Poverty。〃

〃If；　for　instance；　I　devote　my　labour　to　gathering　birds'　eggs　or
picking　wild　berries；　the　eggs　or　berries　I　thus　＇177＇　get　are　my
wages。　Surely　no　one　will　contend　that；　in　such　a　case；　wages　are
drawn　from　capital。　There　is　no　capital　in　the　case〃　（p。　34