list2-第7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！
hears the report of the explosion； the fragments fall down in other
countries； and if their inhabitants complain of bloody heads； the
intermediate merchants and dealers say； 'The crisis has done it
all！' If we consider how often by such crises the whole
manufacturing power； the system of credit； nay the agriculture； and
generally the whole economical system of the nations who are placed
in free competition with England； are shaken to their foundations；
and that these nations have afterwards notwithstanding richly to
recompense the English manufacturers by higher prices； ought we not
then to become very sceptical as to the propriety； of the
commercial conditions of nations being regulated according to the
mere theory of values and according to cosmopolitical principles？
The prevailing economical school has never deemed it expedient to
elucidate the causes and effects of such commercial crises。
The great statesmen of all modern nations； almost without
exception； have comprehended the great influence of manufactures
and manufactories on the wealth； civilisation； and power of
nations； and the necessity of protecting them。 Edward III
comprehended this like Elizabeth； Frederick the Great like Joseph
II； Washington like Napoleon。 Without entering into the depths of
the industry theory； their foreseeing minds comprehended the nature
of in its entirety； and appreciated it correctly。 It was reserved
for the school of physiocrats to regard this nature from another
point of view in consequence of a sophistical line of reasoning。
Their castle in the air has disappeared； the more modern economical
school itself has destroyed it； but even the latter has also not
disentangled itself from the original errors； but has merely
advanced somewhat farther from them。 Since it did not recognise the
difference between productive power and mere values of exchange；
and did not investigate the former independently of the latter； but
subordinated it to the theory of values of exchange； it was
impossible for that school to arrive at the perception how greatly
the nature of the agricultural productive power differs from the
nature of the manufacturing productive power。 It does not discern
that through the development of a manufacturing industry in an
agricultural nation a mass of mental and bodily powers； of natural
powers and natural resources； and of instrumental powers too （which
latter the prevailing school terms 'capital'）； is brought to bear；
and brought into use； which had not previously been active； and
would never have come into activity but for the formation and
development of an internal manufacturing power； it imagines that by
the establishment of manufacturing industry these forces must be
taken away from agriculture； and transferred to manufacture；
whereas the latter to a great extent is a perfectly new and
additional power； which； very far indeed from increasing at the
expense of the agricultural interest； is often the means of helping
that interest to attain a higher degree of prosperity and
development。
NOTES：
1。 This is true respecting Spain up to the period of her invasion
by Napoleon； but not subsequently。 Our author's conclusions are；
however； scarcely invalidated by that exception。 TR。
2。 Say states in his Economie Politique Pratique； vol。 iii。 p。 242；
'Les lois ne peuvent pas cr閑r des richesses。' Certainly they
cannot do this； but they create productive power； which is more
important than riches； i。e。 than possession of values of exchange。
3。 Wealth of Nations； Book IV。 chap。 ii。
4。 From the great number of passages wherein J。 B。 Say explains
this view； we merely quote the newest from the sixth volume of
Economie Politique Pratique； p。 307： 'Le talent d'un avocat； d'un
m閐ecin； qui a 閠椤cquis au prix de quelque sacrifice et qui
produit un revenu； est une valeur capitale； non transmissible 唷a
v閞it椋弧ais qui r閟ide n閍nmoins dans un corps visible； celui de
la personne qui le poss鑔e。'
Chapter 13
The National Division of Commercial Operations and the
Confederation of the National Productive Forces
The school is indebted to its renowned founder for the
discovery of that natural law which it calls 'division of labour；'
but neither Adam Smith nor any of his successors have thoroughly
investigated its essential nature and character； or followed it out
to its most important consequences。
The expression 'division of labour' is an indefinite one； and
must necessarily produce a false or indefinite idea。
It is 'division of labour' if one savage on one and the same
day goes hunting or fishing； cuts down wood； repairs his wigwam；
and prepares arrows； nets； and clothes； but it is also 'division of
labour' if （as Adam Smith mentions as an example） ten different
persons share in the different occupations connected with the
manufacture of a pin： the former is an objective； and the latter a
subjective division of labour； the former hinders； the latter
furthers production。 The essential difference between both is； that
in the former instance one person divides his work so as to produce
various objects； while in the latter several persons share in the
production of a single object。
Both operations； on the other hand； may be called with equal
correctness a union of labour； the savage unites various tasks in
his person； while in the case of the pin manufacture various
persons are united in one work of production in common。
The essential character of the natural law from which the
popular school explains such important phenomena in social economy；
is evidently not merely a division of labour； but a division of
different commercial operations between several individuals； and at
the same time a confederation or union of various energies；
intelligences； and powers on behalf of a common production。 The
cause of the productiveness of these operations is not merely that
division； but essentially this union。 Adam Smith well perceives
this himself when he states； 'The necessaries of life of the lowest
members of society are a product of joint labour and of the
co…operation of a number of individuals。'（1*） What a pity that he
did not follow out this idea （which he so clearly expresses） of
united labour。
If we continue to consider the example of the pin manufacture
adduced by Adam Smith in illustration of the advantages of division
of labour； and seek for the causes of the phenomenon that ten
persons united in that manufacture can produce an infinitely larger
number of pins than if every one carried on the entire pin
manufacture separately； we find that the division of commercial
operations without combination of the productive powers towards one
common object could but little further this production。
In order to create such a result； the different individuals
must co…operate bodily as well as mentally； and work together。 The
one who makes the heads of the pins must be certain of the co
operation of the one who makes the points if he does not want to
run the risk of producing pin heads in vain。 The labour operations
of all must be in the proper proportion to one another； the workmen
must live as near to one another as possible； and their
co…operation must be insured。 Let us suppose e。g。 that every one of
these ten workmen lives in a different country； how often might
their co…operation be interrupted by wars； interruptions of
transport； commercial crises； &c。； how greatly would the cost of
the product be increased； and consequently the advantage of the
division of operation diminished； and would not the separation or
secession of a single person from the union； throw all the others
out of work？
The popular school； because it has regarded the division of
operation alone as the essence of this natural law； has committed
the error of applying it merely to the separate manufactory or
farm； it has not perceived that the same law extends its action
especially over the whole manufacturing and agricultural power；
over the whole economy of the nation。
As the pin manufactory only prospers by the confederation of
the productive force of the individuals； so does every kind of
manufacture prosper only by the confederation of its productive
forces with those of all other kinds of manufacture。 For the
success of a machine manufactory； for instance； it is necessary
that the mines and metal works should furnish it with the necessary
materials； and that all the hundred different sorts of
manufactories which require machines； should buy their products
from it。 Without machine manufactories； a nation would in time of
war be exposed to the danger of losing the greater portion of its
manufacturing power。
In like manner the entire manufacturing industry of a State in
connection with its agricultural interest； and the latter in
connection with the former； will prosper the more the nearer they
are placed to one another； and the less they are interrupted in
their mutual exchanges with one another。 The advantages of their
confederation under one and the same political Power in times of
war； of national differences； of commercial crises； failure of
crops； &c。； are not less perceptible than are the advantages of the
union of the persons belonging to a pin manufactory under one and
the same roof。
Smith affirms that the division of labour is less applicable to
agriculture than to manufactures。（2*） Smith had in view only the
separate manufactory and the separate farm。 He has； however；
neglected to extend his principle over whole districts and
provinces。 Nowhere has the division of commercial operations and
the confederation of the productive powers greater influence than
where every district and every province is in a position to devote
itself exclusively； or at least chiefly； to those branches of
agricultural production for which they are mostly fitted by nature。
In one district corn and hops chiefly thrive； in another vines and
fruit； in a third timber production and cattle rearing； &c。 If
every district is devoted to all these branches of production； it
is clear that its labour and its land cannot be nearly so
productive as if every separate district w
