第 5 节
作者:翱翔1981      更新:2021-02-19 18:34      字数:9322
  allows his men to feel; as a father would in a famine; shipwreck;
  or battle; sacrifice himself for his son。
  All which sounds very strange: the only real strangeness in
  the matter being; nevertheless; that it should so sound。 For all
  this is true; and that not partially nor theoretically; but
  everlastingly and practically: all other doctrine than this
  respecting matters political being false in premises; absurd in
  deduction; and impossible in practice; consistently with any
  progressive state of national life; all the life which we now
  possess as a nation showing itself in the resolute denial and
  scorn; by a few strong minds and faithful hearts; of the economic
  principles taught to our multitudes; which principles; so far as
  accepted; lead straight to national destruction。 Respecting the
  modes and forms of destruction to which they lead; and; on the
  other hand; respecting the farther practical working of true
  polity; I hope to reason farther in a following paper。
  The Veins of Wealth
  The answer which would be made by any ordinary political
  economist to the statements contained in the preceding paper; is
  in few words as follows:
  〃It is indeed true that certain advantages of a general
  nature may be obtained by the development of social affections。
  But political economists never professed; nor profess; to take
  advantages of a general nature into consideration。 Our science is
  simply the science of getting rich。 So far from being a
  fallacious or visionary one; it is found by experience to be
  practically effective。 Persons who follow its precepts do
  actually become rich; and persons who disobey them become poor。
  Every capitalist of Europe has acquired his fortune by following
  the known laws of our science; and increases his capital daily by
  an adherence to them。 It is vain to bring forward tricks of
  logic; against the force of accomplished facts。 Every man of
  business knows by experience how money is made; and how it is
  lost。〃
  Pardon me。 Men of business do indeed know how they themselves
  made their money; or how; on occasion; they lost it。 Playing a
  long…practised game; they are familiar with the chances of its
  cards; and can rightly explain their losses and gains。 But they
  neither know who keeps the bank of the gambling…house; nor what
  other games may be played with the same cards; nor what other
  losses and gains; far away among the dark streets; are
  essentially; though invisibly; dependent on theirs in the lighted
  rooms。 They have learned a few; and only a few; of the laws of
  mercantile economy; but not one of those of political economy。
  Primarily; which is very notable and curious; I observe that
  men of business rarely know the meaning of the word 〃rich。〃 At
  least; if they know; they do not in their reasonings allow for
  the fact; that it is a relative word; implying its opposite
  〃poor〃 as positively as the word 〃north〃 implies its opposite
  〃south。〃 Men nearly always speak and write as if riches were
  absolute; and it were possible; by following certain scientific
  precepts; for everybody to be rich。 Whereas riches are a power
  like that of electricity; acting only through inequalities or
  negations of itself。 The force of the guinea you have in your
  pocket depends wholly on the default of a guinea in your
  neighbour's pocket。 If he did not want it; it would be of no use
  to you; the degree of power it possesses depends accurately upon
  the need or desire he has for it;  and the art of making
  yourself rich; in the ordinary mercantile economist's sense; is
  therefore equally and necessarily the art of keeping your
  neighbour poor。
  I would not contend in this matter (and rarely in any matter)
  for the acceptance of terms。 But I wish the reader clearly and
  deeply to understand the difference between the two economies; to
  which the terms 〃Political〃 and 〃Mercantile〃 might not
  unadvisedly be attached。
  Political economy (the economy of a State; or of citizens)
  consists simply in the production; preservation; and
  distribution; at fittest time and place; of useful or pleasurable
  things。 The farmer who cuts his hay at the right time; the
  shipwright who drives his bolts well home in sound wood; the
  builder who lays good bricks in well…tempered mortar; the
  housewife who takes care of her furniture in the parlour; and
  guards against all waste in her kitchen; and the singer who
  rightly disciplines; and never overstrains her voice; are all
  political economists in the true and final sense: adding
  continually to the riches and well…being of the nation to which
  they belong。
  But mercantile economy; the economy of 〃merces〃 or of 〃pay;〃
  signifies the accumulation; in the hands of individuals; of legal
  or moral claim upon; or power over; the labour of others; every
  such claim implying precisely as much poverty or debt on one
  side; as it implies riches or right on the other。
  It does not; therefore; necessarily involve an addition to
  the actual property; or well…being; of the State in which it
  exists。 But since this commercial wealth; or power over labour;
  is nearly always convertible at once into real property; while
  real property is not always convertible at once into power over
  labour; the idea of riches among active men in civilized nations;
  generally refers to commercial wealth; and in estimating their
  possessions; they rather calculate the value of their horses and
  fields by the number of guineas they could get for them; than the
  value of their guineas by the number of horses and fields they
  could buy with them。
  There is; however; another reason for this habit of mind;
  namely; that an accumulation of real property is of little use to
  its owner; unless; together with it; he has commercial power over
  labour。 Thus; suppose any person to be put in possession of a
  large estate of fruitful land; with rich beds of gold in its
  gravel; countless herds of cattle in its pastures; houses; and
  gardens; and storehouses full of useful stores; but suppose;
  after all; that he could get no servants? In order that he may be
  able to have servants; some one in his neighbourhood must be
  poor; and in want of his gold  or his corn。 Assume that no one
  is in want of either; and that no servants are to be had。 He
  must; therefore; bake his own bread; make his own clothes; plough
  his own ground; and shepherd his own flocks。 His gold will be as
  useful to him as any other yellow pebbles on his estate。 His
  stores must rot; for he cannot consume them。 He can eat no more
  than another man could eat; and wear no more than another man
  could wear。 He must lead a life of severe and common labour to
  procure even ordinary comforts; he will be ultimately unable to
  keep either houses in repair; or fields in cultivation; and
  forced to content himself with a poor man's portion of cottage
  and garden; in the midst of a desert of waste land; trampled by
  wild cattle; and encumbered by ruins of palaces; which he will
  hardly mock at himself by calling 〃his own。〃
  The most covetous of mankind would; with small exultation; I
  presume; accept riches of this kind on these terms。 What is
  really desired; under the name of riches; is essentially; power
  over men; in its simplest sense; the power of obtaining for our
  own advantage the labour of servant; tradesman; and artist; in
  wider sense; authority of directing large masses of the nation to
  various ends (good; trivial or hurtful; according to the mind of
  the rich person)。 And this power of wealth of course is greater
  or less in direct proportion to the poverty of the men over whom
  it is exercised; and in inverse proportion to the number of
  persons who are as rich as ourselves; and who are ready to give
  the same price for an article of which the supply is limited。 If
  the musician is poor; he will sing for small pay; as long as
  there is only one person who can pay him; but if there be two or
  three; he will sing for the one who offers him most。 And thus the
  power of the riches of the patron (always imperfect and doubtful;
  as we shall see presently; even when most authoritative) depends
  first on the poverty of the artist; and then on the limitation of
  the number of equally wealthy persons; who also want seats at the
  concert。 So that; as above stated; the art of becoming 〃rich;〃 in
  the common sense; is not absolutely nor finally the art of
  accumulating much money for ourselv