list2-第5部分

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！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！





individual　thinkers。　It　is　evident　that　Smith　was　too　exclusively



possessed　by　the　cosmopolitical　idea　of　the　physiocrats；　'universal



freedom　of　trade；'　and　by　his　own　great　discovery；　'the　division　of



labour；'　to　follow　up　the　idea　of　the　importance　to　a　nation　of　its



powers　of　production。　However　much　science　may　be　indebted　to　him



in　respect　of　the　remaining　parts　of　his　work；　the　idea　'division



of　labour'　seemed　to　him　his　most　brilliant　thought。　It　was



calculated　to　secure　for　his　book　a　name；　and　for　himself



posthumous　fame。



　　　　He　had　too　much　worldly　wisdom　not　to　perceive　that　whoever



wishes　to　sell　a　precious　jewel　does　not　bring　the　treasure　to



market　most　profitably　by　burying　it　in　a　sack　of　wheat；　however



useful　the　grains　of　wheat　may　be；　but　better　by　exposing　it　at　the



forefront。　He　had　too　much　experience　not　to　know　that　a　d閎utant



（and　he　was　this　as　regards　political　economy　at　the　time　of　the



publication　of　his　work）　who　in　the　first　act　creates　a　furore　is



easily　excused　if　in　the　following　ones　he　only　occasionally　raises



himself　above　mediocrity；　he　had　every　motive　for　making　the



introduction　to　his　book；　the　doctrine　of　division　of　labour。　Smith



has　not　been　mistaken　in　his　calculations；　his　first　chapter　has



made　the　fortune　of　his　book；　and　founded　his　authority　as　an



economist。



　　　　However；　we　on　our　part　believe　ourselves　able　to　prove　that



just　this　zeal　to　put　the　important　discovery　'division　of　labour'



in　an　advantageous　light；　has　hindered　Adam　Smith　from　following　up



the　idea　'productive　power'　（which　has　been　expressed　by　him　in　the



introduction；　and　al　so　frequently　afterwards；　although　merely



incidentally）　and　from　exhibiting　his　doctrines　in　a　much　more



perfect　form。　By　the　great　value　which　he　attached　to　his　idea



'division　of　labour'　he　has　evidently　been　misled　into　representing



labour　itself　as　the　'fund'　of　all　the　wealth　of　nations；　although



he　himself　clearly　perceives　and　also　states　that　the



productiveness　of　labour　principally　depends　on　the　degree　of　skill



and　judgment　with　which　the　labour　is　performed。　We　ask；　can　it　be



deemed　scientific　reasoning　if　we　assign　as　the　cause　of　a



phenomenon　that　which　in　itself　is　the　result　of　a　number　of　deeper



lying　causes？　It　cannot　be　doubted　that　all　wealth　is　obtained　by



means　of　mental　and　bodily　exertions　（labour）；　but　yet　from　that



circumstance　no　reason　is　indicated　from　which　useful　conclusions



may　be　drawn；　for　history　teaches　that　whole　nations　have；　in　spite



of　the　exertions　and　of　the　thrift　of　their　citizens；　fallen　into



poverty　and　misery。　Whoever　desires　to　know　and　investigate　how　one



nation　from　a　state　of　poverty　and　barbarism　has　attained　to　one　of



wealth　and　prosperity；　and　how　another　has　fallen　from　a　condition



of　wealth　and　well…being　into　one　of　poverty　and　misery；　has



always；　after　receiving　the　information　that　labour　is　the　cause　of



wealth　and　idleness　the　cause　of　poverty　（a　remark　which　King



Solomon　made　long　before　Adam　Smith）；　to　put　the　further　question；



what　are　the　causes　of　labour；　and　what　the　causes　of　idleness？



　　　　It　would　be　more　correct　to　describe　the　limbs　of　men　（the



head；　hands；　and　feet）　as　the　causes　of　wealth　（we　should　thus　at



least　approach　far　nearer　to　the　truth）；　and　the　question　then



presents　itself；　what　is　it　that　induces　these　heads；　arms；　and



hands　to　produce；　and　calls　into　activity　these　exertions？　What



else　can　it　be　than　the　spirit　which　animates　the　individuals；　the



social　order　which　renders　their　energy　fruitful；　and　the　powers　of



nature　which　they　are　in　a　position　to　make　use　of？　The　more　a　man



perceives　that　he　must　provide　for　the　future；　the　more　his



intelligence　and　feelings　incite　him　to　secure　the　future　of　his



nearest　connections；　and　to　promote　their　well…being；　the　more　he



has　been　from　his　youth　accustomed　to　forethought　and　activity；　the



more　his　nobler　feelings　have　been　developed；　and　body　and　mind



cultivated；　the　finer　examples　that　he　has　witnessed　from　his



youth；　the　more　opportunities　he　has　had　for　utilising　his　mental



and　bodily　powers　for　the　improvement　of　his　condition；　also　the



less　he　has　been　restrained　in　his　legitimate　activity；　the　more



successful　his　past　endeavours　have　been；　and　the　more　their　fruits



have　been　secured　to　him；　the　more　he　has　been　able　to　obtain



public　recognition　and　esteem　by　orderly　conduct　and　activity；　and



the　less　his　mind　suffers　from　prejudices；　superstition；　false



notions；　and　ignorance；　so　much　the　more　will　he　exert　his　mind　and



limbs　for　the　object　of　production；　so　much　the　more　will　he　be



able　to　accomplish；　and　so　much　the　better　will　he　make　use　of　the



fruits　of　his　labour。　However；　most　depends　in　all　these　respects



on　the　conditions　of　the　society　in　which　the　individual　has　been



brought　up；　and　turns　upon　this；　whether　science　and　arts　flourish；



and　public　institutions　and　laws　tend　to　promote　religious



character；　morality　and　intelligence；　security　for　person　and　for



property；　freedom　and　justice；　whether　in　the　nation　all　the



factors　of　material　prosperity；　agriculture；　manufactures；　and



trade；　have　been　equally　and　harmoniously　cultivated；　whether　the



power　of　the　nation　is　strong　enough　to　secure　to　its　individual



citizens　progress　in　wealth　and　education　from　generation　to



generation；　and　to　enable　them　not　merely　to　utilise　the　natural



powers　of　their　own　country　to　their　fullest　extent；　but　also；　by



foreign　trade　and　the　possession　of　colonies；　to　render　the　natural



powers　of　foreign　countries　serviceable　to　their　own。



　　　　Adam　Smith　has　on　the　whole　recognised　the　nature　of　these



powers　so　little；　that　he　does　not　even　assign　a　productive



character　to　the　mental　labours　of　those　who　maintain　laws　and



order；　and　cultivate　and　promote　instruction；　religion；　science；



and　art。　His　investigations　are　limited　to　that　human　activity



which　creates　material　values。　With　regard　to　this；　he　certainly



recognises　that　its　productiveness　depends　on　the　'skill　and



judgment'　with　which　it　is　exercised；　but　in　his　investigations　as



to　the　causes　of　this　skill　and　judgment；　he　does　not　go　farther



than　the　division　of　labour；　and　that　he　illustrates　solely　by



exchange；　augmentation　of　material　capital；　and　extension　of



markets。　His　doctrine　at　once　sinks　deeper　and　deeper　into



materialism；　particularism；　and　individualism。　If　he　had　followed



up　the　idea　'productive　power'　without　allowing　his　mind　to　be



dominated　by　the　idea　of　'value；'　'exchangeable　value；'　he　would



have　been　led　to　perceive　that　an　independent　theory　of　the



'productive　power；'　must　be　considered　by　the　side　of　a　'theory　of



values'　in　order　to　explain　the　economical　phenomena。　But　he　thus



fell　into　the　mistake　of　explaining　mental　forces　from　material



circumstances　and　conditions；　and　thereby　laid　the　foundation　for



all　the　absurdities　and　contradictions　from　which　his　school　（as　we



propose　to　prove）　suffers　up　to　the　present　day；　and　to　which　alone



it　must　be　attributed　that　the　doctrines　of　political　economy　are



those　which　are　the　least　accessible　to　the　most　intelligent　minds。



That　Smith's　school　teaches　nothing　else　than　the　theory　of　values；



is　not　only　seen　from　the　fact　that　it　bases　its　doctrine



everywhere　on　the　conception　of　'value　of　exchange；'　but　also　from



the　definition　which　it　gives　of　its　doctrine。　It　is　（says　J。　B。



Say）　that　science　which　teaches　how　riches；　or　exchangeable　values；



are　produced；　distributed；　and　consumed。　This　is　undoubtedly　not



the　science　which　teaches　how　the　productive　powers　are　awakened



and　developed；　and　how　they　become　depressed　and　destroyed。



M'Culloch　calls　it　explicitly　'the　science　of　values；'　and　recent



English　writers　'　the　science　of　exchange。'



　　　　Examples　from　private　economy　will　best　illustrate　the



difference　between　the　theory　of　productive　powers　and　the　theory



of　values。



　　　　Let　us　suppose　the　case　of　two　fathers　of　families；　both　being



landed　proprietors；　each　of　whom　saves　yearly　1；000　thalers　and　has



five　sons。　The　one　puts　out　his　savings　at　interest；　and　keeps　his



sons　at　common　hard　work；　while　the　other　employs　his　savings　in



educating　two　of　his　sons　as　skilful　and　intelligent　landowners；



and　in　enabling　the　other　three　to　learn　a　trade　after　their



respective　tastes；　the　former　acts　according　to　the　theory　of



values；　the　latter　according　to　the　theory　of　productive　powers。



The　first　at