prel-第1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！



applications　to　social　philosophy

by　John　Stuart　Mill





Preliminary　Remarks



　　　　In　every　department　of　human　affairs；　Practice　long　precedes

Science　systematic　enquiry　into　the　modes　of　action　of　the　powers

of　nature；　is　the　tardy　product　of　a　long　course　of　efforts　to

use　those　powers　for　practical　ends。　The　conception；　accordingly；

of　Political　Economy　as　a　branch　of　science　is　extremely　modern；

but　the　subject　with　which　its　enquiries　are　conversant　has　in

all　ages　necessarily　constituted　one　of　the　chief　practical

interests　of　mankind；　and；　in　some；　a　most　unduly　engrossing　one。

　　　　That　subject　is　Wealth。　Writers　on　Political　Economy　profess

to　teach；　or　to　investigate；　the　nature　of　Wealth；　and　the　laws

of　its　production　and　distribution：　including；　directly　or

remotely；　the　operation　of　all　the　causes　by　which　the　condition

of　mankind；　or　of　any　society　of　human　beings；　in　respect　to　this

universal　object　of　human　desire；　is　made　prosperous　or　the

reverse。　Not　that　any　treatise　on　Political　Economy　can　discuss

or　even　enumerate　all　these　causes；　but　it　undertakes　to　set

forth　as　much　as　is　known　of　the　laws　and　principles　according　to

which　they　operate。

　　　　Every　one　has　a　notion；　sufficiently　correct　for　common

purposes；　of　what　is　meant　by　wealth。　The　enquiries　which　relate

to　it　are　in　no　danger　of　being　confounded　with　those　relating　to

any　other　of　the　great　human　interests。　All　know　that　it　is　one

thing　to　be　rich；　another　thing　to　be　enlightened；　brave；　or

humane；　that　the　questions　how　a　nation　is　made　wealthy；　and　how

it　is　made　free；　or　virtuous；　or　eminent　in　literature；　in　the

fine　arts；　in　arms；　or　in　polity；　are　totally　distinct　enquiries。

Those　things；　indeed；　are　all　indirectly　connected；　and　react

upon　one　another。　A　people　has　sometimes　become　free；　because　it

had　first　grown　wealthy；　or　wealthy；　because　it　had　first　become

free。　The　creed　and　laws　of　a　people　act　powerfully　upon　their

economical　condition；　and　this　again；　by　its　influence　on　their

mental　development　and　social　relations；　reacts　upon　their　creed

and　laws。　But　though　the　subjects　are　in　very　close　contact；　they

are　essentially　different；　and　have　never　been　supposed　to　be

otherwise。

　　　　It　is　no　part　of　the　design　of　this　treatise　to　aim　at

metaphysical　nicety　of　definition；　where　the　ideas　suggested　by　a

term　are　already　as　determinate　as　practical　purposes　require。

But；　little　as　it　might　be　expected　that　any　mischievous

confusion　of　ideas　could　take　pLace　on　a　subject　so　simple　as　the

question；　what　is　to　be　considered　as　weaLth；　it　is　matter　of

history；　that　such　confusion　of　ideas　has　existed…that　theorists

and　practical　poLiticians　have　been　equally　and　at　one　period

universally；　infected　by　it；　and　that　for　many　generations　it

gave　a　thoroughly　faLse　direction　to　the　policy　of　Europe。　I

refer　to　the　set　of　doctrines　designated；　since　the　time　of　Adam

Smith；　by　the　appellation　of　the　Mercantile　System。

　　　　While　this　system　prevailed；　it　was　assumed；　either　expressly

or　tacitly；　in　the　whole　policy　of　nations；　that　wealth　consisted

solely　of　money；　or　of　the　precious　metals；　which；　when　not

already　in　the　state　of　money；　are　capable　of　being　directly

converted　into　it。　According　to　the　doctrines　then　prevalent；

whatever　tended　to　heap　up　money　or　bullion　in　a　country　added　to

its　wealth。　Whatever　sent　the　precious　metals　out　of　a　country

impoverished　it。　If　a　country　possessed　no　gold　or　silver　mines；

the　only　industry　by　which　it　could　be　enriched　was　foreign

trade；　being　the　only　one　which　could　bring　in　money。　Any　branch

of　trade　which　was　supposed　to　send　out　more　money　than　it

brought　in；　however　ample　and　valuable　might　be　the　returns　in

another　shape；　was　looked　upon　as　a　losing　trade。　Exportation　of

goods　was　favoured　and　encouraged　（even　by　means　extremely

onerous　to　the　real　resources　of　the　country）；　because；　the

exported　goods　being　stipulated　to　be　paid　for　in　money；　it　was

hoped　that　the　returns　would　actually　be　made　in　gold　and　silver。

Importation　of　anything；　other　than　the　precious　metals；　was

regarded　as　a　loss　to　the　nation　of　the　whole　price　of　the　things

imported；　unless　they　were　brought　in　to　be　re…exported　at　a

profit；　or　unless；　being　the　materials　or　instruments　of　some

industry　practised　in　the　country　itself；　they　gave　the　power　of

producing　exportable　articles　at　smaller　cost；　and　thereby

effecting　a　larger　exportation。　The　commerce　of　the　world　was

looked　upon　as　a　struggle　among　nations；　which　could　draw　to

itself　the　largest　share　of　the　gold　and　silver　in　existence；　and

in　this　competition　no　nation　could　gain　anything；　except　by

making　others　lose　as　much；　or；　at　the　least；　preventing　them

from　gaining　it。

　　　　It　often　happens　that　the　universal　belief　of　one　age　of

mankind…a　belief　from　which　no　one　was；　nor　without　an

extraordinary　effort　of　genius　and　courage；　could　at　that　time　be

free…becomes　to　a　subsequent　age　so　palpable　an　absurdity；　that

the　only　difficulty　then　is　to　imagine　how　such　a　thing　can　ever

have　appeared　credible。　It　has　so　happened　with　the　doctrine　that

money　is　synonymous　with　wealth。　The　conceit　seems　too

preposterous　to　be　thought　of　as　a　serious　opinion。　It　looks　like

one　of　the　crude　fancies　of　childhood；　instantly　corrected　by　a

word　from　any　grown　person。　But　let　no　one　feel　confident　that　he

would　have　escaped　the　delusion　if　he　had　lived　at　the　time　when

it　prevailed。　All　the　associations　engendered　by　common　life；　and

by　the　ordinary　course　of　business；　concurred　in　promoting　it。　So

Long　as　those　associations　were　the　only　medium　through　which　the

subject　was　looked　at；　what　we　now　think　so　gross　an　absurdity

seemed　a　truism。　Once　questioned；　indeed；　it　was　doomed；　but　no

one　was　likely　to　think　of　questioning　it　whose　mind　had　not

become　familiar　with　certain　modes　of　stating　and　of

contemplating　economical　phenomena；　which　have　only　found　their

way　into　the　general　understanding　through　the　influence　of　Adam

Smith　and　of　his　expositors。

　　　　In　common　discourse；　wealth　is　always　expressed　in　money。　If

you　ask　how　rich　a　person　is；　you　are　answered　that　he　has　so

many　thousand　pounds。　All　income　and　expenditure；　all　gains　and

losses；　everything　by　which　one　becomes　richer　or　poorer；　are

reckoned　as　the　coming　in　or　going　out　of　so　much　money。　It　is

true　that　in　the　inventory　of　a　person's　fortune　are　included；

not　only　the　money　in　his　actual　possession；　or　due　to　him；　but

all　other　articles　of　value。　These；　however；　enter；　not　in　their

own　character；　but　in　virtue　of　the　sums　of　money　which　they

would　sell　for；　and　if　they　would　sell　for　less；　their　owner　is

reputed　less　rich；　though　the　things　themselves　are　precisely　the

same。　It　is　true；　also；　that　people　do　not　grow　rich　by　keeping

their　money　unused；　and　that　they　must　be　willing　to　spend　in

order　to　gain。　Those　who　enrich　themselves　by　commerce；　do　so　by

giving　money　for　goods　as　well　as　goods　for　money；　and　the　first

is　as　necessary　a　part　of　the　process　as　the　last。　But　a　person

who　buys　goods　for　purposes　of　gain；　does　so　to　sell　them　again

for　money；　and　in　the　expectation　of　receiving　more　money　than　he

laid　out：　to　get　money；　therefore；　seems　even　to　the　person

himself　the　ultimate　end　of　the　whole。　It　often　happens　that　he

is　not　paid　in　money；　but　in　something　else；　having　bought　goods

to　a　value　equivalent；　which　are　set　off　against　those　he　sold。

But　he　accepted　these　at　a　money　valuation；　and　in　the　belief

that　they　would　bring　in　more　money　eventually　than　the　price　at

which　they　were　made　over　to　him。　A　dealer　doing　a　large　amount

of　business；　and　turning　over　his　capital　rapidly；　has　but　a

small　portion　of　it　in　ready　money　at　any　one　time。　But　he　only

feels　it　valuable　to　him　as　it　is　convertible　into　money：　he

considers　no　transaction　closed　until　the　net　result　is　either

paid　or　credited　in　money。。　when　he　retires　from　business　it　is

into　money　that　he　converts　the　whole；　and　not　until　then　does　he

deem　himself　to　have　realized　his　gains：　just　as　if　money　were

the　only　wealth；　and　money's　worth　were　only　the　means　of

attaining　it。　If　it　be　now　asked　for　what　end　money　is　desirable；

unless　to　supply　the　wants　or　pleasures　of　oneself　or　others；　the

champion　of　the　system　would　not　be　at　all　embarrassed　by　the

question。　True；　he　would　say；　these　are　the　uses　of　wealth；　and

very　laudable　uses　while　confined　to　domestic　commodities；

because　in　that　case；　by　exactly　the　amount　which　you　expend；　you

enrich　others　of　your　countrymen。　Spend　your　wealth；　if　you

please；　in　whatever　indulgences　you　have　a　taste　for。　but　your

wealth　is　not　the　indulgences；　it　is　the　sum　of　money；　or　the

annual　money　income；　with　which　you　purchase　them。

　　　　While　there　were　so　many　things　to　render　the　assumption

which　is　the　basis　of　the　mercantile　system　plausible；　there　is

also　some　small　foundation　in　reason；　though　a　very　insufficient

one；　for　the　distinction　which　that　system　so　emphatically　draws

between　money　and　every　other　kind　of　valuable　possession。　We

really；　and　justly；　look　upon　a　person　as　possessing　the

advantages　of　wealth；　not　in　proportion　to　the　useful　and

agreeable　things　of　which　he　is　in　the　actual　enjoyment；　but　to

his　command　over　the　general　fund　of　things　useful　and　agreeable；

the　power　he　possesses　of　providing　for　any　exigency；　or

obtaining　any　object　of　desire。　Now；　money　is　itself　that　power；

while　all　other　things；　in　a　civilized　state；　seem　to　confer　it

only　by　their　capacity　of　being　exchanged　for　money。　To　possess

any　other　article　of　wealth；　is　to　possess　that　particular　thing；

and　nothing　else：　if　you　wish　for　another　thing　instead　of　it；

you　have　first　to　sell　it；　or　to　submit　to　the　inconvenience　and

delay　（if　not　the　impossibility）　of　finding　some　one　who　has　what

you　want；　and　is　willing　to　barter　it　for　what　y