unto this last-第13章

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！









Ad　Valorem







　　　　We　saw　that　just　payment　of　labour　consisted　in　a　sum　of



money　which　would　approximately　obtain　equivalent　labour　at　a



future　time：　we　have　now　to　examine　the　means　of　obtaining　such



equivalence。　Which　question　involves　the　definition　of　Value；



Wealth；　Price；　and　Produce。



　　　　None　of　these　terms　are　yet　defined　so　as　to　be　understood　by



the　public。　But　the　last；　Produce；　which　one　might　have　thought



the　clearest　of　all；　is；　in　use；　the　most　ambiguous；　and　the



examination　of　the　kind　of　ambiguity　attendant　on　its　present



employment　will　best　open　the　way　to　our　work。



　　　　In　his　chapter　on　Capital；（14*）　Mr　J。S。　Mill　instances；　as　a



capitalist；　a　hardware　manufacturer；　who；　having　intended　to



spend　a　certain　portion　of　the　proceeds　of　his　business　in　buying



plate　and　jewels；　changes　his　mind；　and；　'pays　it　as　wages　to



additional　workpeople。〃　The　effect　is　stated　by　Mr　Mill　to　be；



that　〃more　food　is　appropriated　to　the　consumption　of　productive



labourers。〃



　　　　Now　I　do　not　ask；　though；　had　I　written　this　paragraph；　it



would　surely　have　been　asked　of　me；　What　is　to　become　of　the



silversmiths？　If　they　are　truly　unproductive　persons；　we　will



acquiesce　in　their　extinction。　And　though　in　another　part　of　the



same　passage；　the　hardware　merchant　is　supposed　also　to　dispense



with　a　number　of　servants；　whose　〃food　is　thus　set　free　for



productive　purposes；〃　I　do　not　inquire　what　will　be　the　effect；



painful　or　otherwise；　upon　the　servants；　of　this　emancipation　of



their　food。　But　I　very　seriously　inquire　why　ironware　is　produce；



and　silverware　is　not？　That　the　merchant　consumes　the　one；　and



sells　the　other；　certainly　does　not　constitute　the　difference；



unless　it　can　be　shown　（which；　indeed；　I　perceive　it　to　be



becoming　daily　more　and　more　the　aim　of　tradesmen　to　show）　that



commodities　are　made　to　be　sold；　and　not　to　be　consumed。　The



merchant　is　an　agent　of　conveyance　to　the　consumer　in　one　case；



and　is　himself　the　consumer　in　the　other：（15*）　but　the　labourers



are　in　either　case　equally　productive；　since　they　have　produced



goods　to　the　same　value；　if　the　hardware　and　the　plate　are　both



goods。



　　　　And　what　distinction　separates　them？　It　is　indeed　possible



that　in　the　〃comparative　estimate　of　the　moralist；〃　with　which　Mr



Mill　says　political　economy　has　nothing　to　do　（III。　i。　2）；　a



steel　fork　might　appear　a　more　substantial　production　than　a



silver　one：　we　may　grant　also　that　knives；　no　less　than　forks；



are　good　produce；　and　scythes　and　ploughshares　serviceable



articles。　But；　how　of　bayonets？　Supposing　the　hardware　merchant



to　effect　large　sales　of　these；　by　help　of　the　〃setting　free〃　of



the　food　of　his　servants　and　his　silversmith；　　is　he　still



employing　productive　labourers；　or；　in　Mr　Mill's　words；　labourers



who　increase　〃the　stock　of　permanent　means　of　enjoyment〃　（I。　iii。



4）？　Or　if；　instead　of　bayonets；　he　supply　bombs；　will　not　the



absolute　and　final　〃enjoyment〃　of　even　these　energetically



productive　articles　（each　of　which　costs　ten　pounds（16*））　be



dependent　on　a　proper　choice　of　time　and　place　for　their



enfantement；　choice；　that　is　to　say；　depending　on　those



philosophical　considerations　with　which　political　economy　has



nothing　to　do？（17*）



　　　　I　should　have　regretted　the　need　of　pointing　out



inconsistency　in　any　portion　of　Mr　Mill's　work；　had　not　the　value



of　his　work　proceeded　from　its　inconsistencies。　He　deserves



honour　among　economists　by　inadvertently　disclaiming　the



principles　which　he　states；　and　tacitly　introducing　the　moral



considerations　with　which　he　declares　his　science　has　no



connection。　Many　of　his　chapters　are；　therefore；　true　and



valuable；　and　the　only　conclusions　of　his　which　I　have　to　dispute



are　those　which　follow　from　his　premises。



　　　　Thus；　the　idea　which　lies　at　the　root　of　the　passage　we　have



just　been　examining；　namely；　that　labour　applied　to　produce



luxuries　will　not　support　so　many　persons　as　labour　applied　to



produce　useful　articles；　is　entirely　true；　but　the　instance　given



fails　　and　in　four　directions　of　failure　at　once…because　Mr



Mill　has　not　defined　the　real　meaning　of　usefulness。　The



definition　which　he　has　given…〃　capacity　to　satisfy　a　desire；　or



serve　a　purpose〃　（III。　i。　2）　　applies　equally　to　the　iron　and



silver。　while　the　true　definition　which　he　has　not　given；　but



which　nevertheless　underlies　the　false　verbal　definition　in　his



mind；　and　comes　out　once　or　twice　by　accident　（as　in　the　words



〃any　support　to　life　or　strength〃　in　I。　iii。　5）　　applies　to



some　articles　of　iron；　but　not　to　others；　and　to　some　articles　of



silver；　but　not　to　others。　It　applies　to　ploughs；　but　not　to



bayonets；　and　to　forks；　but　not　to　filigree。（18*）



　　　　The　eliciting　of　the　true　definitions　will　give　us　the　reply



to　our　first　question；　〃What　is　value？〃　respecting　which；



however；　we　must　first　hear　the　popular　statements。



　　　　〃The　word　'value；'　when　used　without　adjunct；　always　means；



in　political　economy；　value　in　exchange〃　（Mill；　III。　i。　2）。　So



that；　if　two　ships　cannot　exchange　their　rudders；　their　rudders



are；　in　politico…economic　language；　of　no　value　to　either。



　　　　But　〃the　subject　of　political　economy　is　wealth。〃　



（Preliminary　remarks；　page　1）



　　　　And　wealth　〃consists　of　all　useful　and　agreeable　objects



which　possess　exchangeable　value。〃　　（Preliminary　remarks；　page



10。）



　　　　It　appears；　then；　according　to　Mr　Mill；　that　usefulness　and



agreeableness　underlie　the　exchange　value；　and　must　be



ascertained　to　exist　in　the　thing；　before　we　can　esteem　it　an



object　of　wealth。



　　　　Now；　the　economical　usefulness　of　a　thing　depends　not　merely



on　its　own　nature；　but　on　the　number　of　people　who　can　and　will



use　it。　A　horse　is　useless；　and　therefore　unsaleable；　if　no　one



can　ride；　　a　sword；　if　no　one　can　strike；　and　meat；　if　no　one



can　eat。　Thus　every　material　utility　depends　on　its　relative



human　capacity。



　　　　Similarly：　The　agreeableness　of　a　thing　depends　not　merely　on



its　own　likeableness；　but　on　the　number　of　people　who　can　be　got



to　like　it。　The　relative　agreeableness；　and　therefore



saleableness；　of　〃a　pot　of　the　smallest　ale；〃　and　of　〃Adonis



painted　by　a　running　brook；〃　depends　virtually　on　the　opinion　of



Demos；　in　the　shape　of　Christopher　Sly。　That　is　to　say；　the



agreeableness　of　a　thing　depends　on　its　relatively　human



disposition。（19*）　Therefore；　political　economy；　being　a　science



of　wealth；　must　be　a　science　respecting　human　capacities　and



dispositions。　But　moral　considerations　have　nothing　to　do　with



political　economy　（III。　i。　2）。　Therefore；　moral　considerations



have　nothing　to　do　with　human　capacities　and　dispositions。



　　　　I　do　not　wholly　like　the　look　of　this　conclusion　from　Mr



Mill's　statements：　　let　us　try　Mr　Ricardo's。



　　　　〃Utility　is　not　the　measure　of　exchangeable　value；　though　it



is　absolutely　essential　to　it。〃　　（Chap。　I。　sect。　i）　essential



in　what　degree；　Mr　Ricardo？　There　may　be　greater　and　less　degrees



of　utility。　Meat；　for　instance；　may　be　so　good　as　to　be　fit　for



any　one　to　eat；　or　so　bad　as　to　be　fit　for　no　one　to　eat。　What　is



the　exact　degree　of　goodness　which　is　〃essential〃　to　its



exchangeable　value；　but　not　〃the　measure〃　of　it？　How　good　must



the　meat　be；　in　order　to　possess　any　exchangeable　value；　and　how



bad　must　it　be　　（I　wish　this　were　a　settled　question　in　London



markets）　　in　order　to　possess　none？



　　　　There　appears　to　be　some　hitch；　I　think；　in　the　working　even



of　Mr。　Ricardo's　principles；　but　let　him　take　his　own　exampl