If men, like snails1, lived in complete isolation2, if they did not exchange their ideas and exertions3, and had no bargain or transactions with each other, we might have multitudes, indeed—human units—individuals living in juxtaposition—but we could not have Society.
Nay5, we should not even have individuals. To man isolation is death. But then, if he cannot live out of society, the legitimate6 conclusion is that the social state is his natural state.
All the sciences tend to establish this truth, which was so little understood by the men of the eighteenth century that they founded morals and politics on the contrary assertion. They were not content with placing the state of nature in opposition7 to the social state—they gave the first a decided8 preference. “Men were blessed,” said Montaigne, “when they lived without bonds, without laws, without language, without religion.” And we know that the system of Rousseau, which exercised, and still exercises, so powerful an influence over opinions and facts, rests altogether on this hypothesis—that men, unhappily, agreed one fine morning to abandon the innocent state of nature for the stormy state of society.
It is not the design of this chapter to bring together all possible refutations of this fundamental error, the most fatal which has ever infested9 the political sciences; for if society is the fruit of invention and convention, it follows that every one may propose a new model, and this, since Rousseau’s time, has in fact been the [p098] direction in which men’s minds have tended. I could easily demonstrate, I believe, that isolation excludes language, as the absence of language excludes thought; and man, deprived of thought, instead of being a child of nature, ceases to be man at all.
But a peremptory10 refutation of the idea upon which Rousseau’s doctrine11 reposes12, flows naturally from some considerations on Exchange.
Want, Effort, Satisfaction,—such is man in an economical point of view.
We have seen that the two extreme terms are essentially14 intransmissible, for they terminate in sensation, they are sensation, which is the most personal thing in the world, as well the sensation which precedes the effort and determines it, as the sensation which follows the effort and rewards it.
It is then the Effort which is exchanged; indeed, it cannot be otherwise, since exchange implies action, and Effort alone manifests the principle of activity. We cannot suffer or enjoy for one another, unless we could experience personally the pains and pleasures of others. But we can assist each other, work for one another, render reciprocal services, and place our faculties17, or the results of their exercise, at the disposal of others, in consideration of a return. This is society. The causes, the effects, the laws, of these exchanges constitute the subject of political and social economy.
We not only can exchange efforts and render reciprocal services, but we do so necessarily. What I affirm is this, that our organization is such that we are obliged to work for one another under pain of death, of instant death. If it be so, society is our state of nature, since it is the only state in which we can live at all.
There is one observation which I have to make upon the equilibrium18 between our wants and our faculties, an observation which has always led me to admire the providential plan which regulates our destinies:—
In the state of isolation our wants exceed our powers;
In the social state our powers exceed our wants.
Hence it follows that man in an isolated19 state cannot subsist20, whilst in the social state his most imperious wants give place to desires of a higher order, and continue to do so in an ascending21 career of progress and improvement to which it is impossible to set limits.
This is not declamation22, but an assertion capable of being [p099] rigorously demonstrated by reasoning and analogy, if not by experience. And why can it not be demonstrated by experience, by direct observation? Precisely23 because it is true—precisely because, man not being able to exist in a state of isolation, it becomes impossible to exhibit in actual nature the effects of absolute solitude24. You cannot lay hold of a nonentity25. You can prove to me that a triangle never has four sides, but you cannot, in support of your demonstration26, place before my eyes a tetragonal triangle. If you could, the exhibition of such a triangle would disprove your assertion. In the same way, to ask me for experimental proof, to ask me to study the effects of isolation in actual nature, is to palm a contradiction upon me; for life and isolation being incompatible27, we have never seen, and never shall see, men without social relations.
If there are animals (of which I am ignorant) destined28 by their organization to make the round of their existence in absolute isolation, it is very clear that nature must exactly proportion their wants and their powers. It is possible to conceive that their powers have the superiority, in which case these animals would be progressive and capable of improvement. An equilibrium of wants and powers would render them stationary29 beings; but the superiority of their wants to their powers it is impossible to conceive. From their birth, from their first appearance in life, their faculties must be complete—relatively30 to the wants for which they have to provide, or at least both must be developed in just proportion. Otherwise the species would die the moment they came into existence, and, consequently, could not be the subject of our observation.
Of all the species of living beings which surround us, undoubtedly31 none have so many wants as man. In none is infancy32 so long, so feeble, and so helpless—in none is maturity33 loaded with so much responsibility—in none is old age so frail34 and so liable to suffering. And, as if we had not enough of wants, man has tastes also, the satisfaction of which exercises his faculties quite as much as his wants. Scarcely has he appeased35 his hunger than he begins to pamper36 himself with dainties—no sooner has he clothed himself than he sighs for finery—no sooner has he obtained shelter than he proceeds to embellish37 and decorate his residence. His mind is as restless as his body is exacting38. He seeks to fathom40 the secrets of nature, to tame animals, to control the elements, to dive into the bowels41 of the earth, to traverse broad seas, to soar above the clouds, to annihilate42 time and space. He desires to know the motions, the springs, the laws, of his mind and heart—to [p100] control his passions—to conquer immortality—to become a god—to bring all things into subjection; nature, his fellow-men, himself. In a word, his desires and aspirations43 expand continually, and tend towards the infinite.
Thus, in no other species are the faculties so susceptible45 of vast development as in man. It is his alone to compare and to judge, to reason and to speak, to foresee, to sacrifice the present to the future. He alone can transmit, from generation to generation, his works, his thoughts, the treasures of his experience. He alone is capable of a perfectibility which is indefinite, which forms a chain the countless46 links of which would seem to stretch beyond the limits of the present world.
Let me here set down an observation which belongs properly to Political Economy. However extended may be the domain47 of our faculties, they do not reach the length of creating anything. Man cannot, in truth, augment48 or diminish the number of existing particles of matter. His action is limited to subjecting the substances which he finds around him to modifications49 and combinations which fit them for his use.25
To modify substances, so as to increase their utility in relation to us, is to produce, or rather it is one mode of producing. From this I conclude that value (as we shall afterwards more fully50 explain) does not reside in these substances themselves, but in the effort which intervenes in order to modify them, and which exchange brings into comparison with other analogous51 efforts. This is the reason why value is simply the appreciation52 of services exchanged, whether a material commodity does or does not intervene. As regards the notion of value, it is a matter of perfect indifference53 whether I render to another a direct service, as, for example, in performing for him a surgical54 operation, or an indirect service, in preparing for him a curative substance. In this last case the utility is in the substance, but the value is in the service, in the effort, intellectual and muscular, made by one man for the benefit of another. It is by a pure metonymy that we attribute value to the material substance itself, and here, as on many other occasions, metaphor55 leads science astray.
I return to the subject of man’s organization. If we adhere to the preceding notions, he differs from other animals only in the greater extent of his wants, and the superiority of his powers. All, in fact, are subject to the one and provided with the other. A bird undertakes long journeys in search of the temperature which suits it best—the beaver56 crosses the river on a bridge of [p101] his own construction—the hawk57 pursues his prey58 openly—the cat watches for it with patience—the spider prepares a snare—all labour in order to live and multiply.
But while Nature has established an exact proportion between the wants of animals and their faculties, if she has treated man with greater bounty59 and munificence60, if, in order to force him to be sociable61, she has decreed that in a state of isolation his wants should surpass his faculties, whilst, on the contrary, in the social state, his powers, superior to his wants, open to him an unlimited62 field for nobler enjoyments63, we ought to acknowledge that, as in his relation with the Creator man is elevated above the beasts by the religious sentiment, in his relations with his fellow-creatures by his sense of justice, in his relations with himself by the moral principle—in like manner, in relation to the means of living and multiplying, he is distinguished65 by a remarkable66 phenomenon, namely, Exchange.
Shall I essay to paint the state of poverty, of destitution67, and of ignorance, in which, but for the power of exchanging, the human species would have been sunk, had it not, indeed, as is more likely, disappeared altogether.
One of the most popular philosophers, in a romance which has been the charm of the young from generation to generation, has shown us man surmounting68 by his energy, his activity, his intelligence, the difficulties of absolute solitude. For the purpose of setting clearly before us what are the resources of that noble creature, the author has exhibited him as accidentally cut off from civilisation69. It was part of Defoe’s plan to throw Robinson Crusoe into the Island of Juan Fernandez alone, naked, deprived of all that the union of efforts, the division of employments, exchange, society, add to the human powers.
And yet, although the fancied obstacles are but imaginary, Defoe would have taken away from his tale even the shadow of probability if, too faithful to the thought which he wished to develop, he had not made forced concessions70 to the social state, by admitting that his hero had saved from shipwreck71 some indispensable things, such as provisions, gunpowder72, a gun, a hatchet73, a knife, cords, planks74, iron, etc.; a decisive proof that society is the necessary medium in which man lives, and out of which not even a romance writer could figure him as existing.
And, observe, that Robinson Crusoe carried with him into solitude another social treasure, a thousand times more precious than all these, and which the waves could not engulf75, I mean his ideas, his recollections, his experience, above all, his language, [p102] without which he would not have been able to hold converse76 with himself, that is to say, to think.
We have the unfortunate and unreasonable77 habit of attributing to the social state the sufferings which we see around us. We are right so far, if our object be to compare society with itself in different degrees of advancement78 and improvement; but we are wrong if our object be to compare the social state, however imperfect, with a state of isolation. To authorize79 us to assert that society impairs80 the condition, I do not say of man in general, but of some men, and these the poorest and most wretched of the species, we must begin by proving that the worst provided of our fellow-creatures have to support in the social state a heavier load of privations and sufferings than the man whose lot has been cast in solitude. Now, examine the life of the humblest day-labourer. Pass in review, in all their details, the articles of his daily consumption. He is covered with some coarse clothing, he eats a little common bread, he sleeps under shelter, and on boards, at least, if he has no better couch. Now, let us ask if man in a state of isolation, deprived of the resources of Exchange, could by any possibility procure82 for himself that coarse clothing, that common bread, that rude bed, that humble81 shelter? Rousseau himself, the passionate83 enthusiast84 of the state of nature, avows85 the utter impossibility of it. Men dispensed86 with everything, he says; they went naked, they slept in the open air. Thus Rousseau, to exalt88 the state of nature, was led to make happiness consist in privation. And yet I affirm that this negative happiness is a chimera89, and that man in a state of isolation would infallibly perish in a very few hours. Perhaps Rousseau would have gone to the length of saying that that would have been the perfection of his system; and he would have been consistent, for if privation be happiness, death is perfection.
I trust the reader will not conclude from what precedes that we are insensible to the social sufferings of our fellow-men. Because these sufferings are less even in an imperfect state of society than in a state of isolation, it does not follow that we should not invoke90, with all earnestness, that progress which constantly diminishes them. But if isolation is something worse than all that is bad in the social state, then I am justified91 in saying that it places our wants, even the most imperious, far above our faculties and our means of providing for wants.
In what way does Exchange advantageously reverse all this, and place our faculties above our wants?
And first this is proved by the very fact of civilisation. If our [p103] wants surpassed our faculties, we should be beings invincibly93 retrograde; if there were an equilibrium between them, we should be invincibly stationary. But we advance; which shows that at every stage of social life, as compared with the period that preceded it, a certain portion of our powers, relatively to a given amount of satisfactions, is left disposable. We shall endeavour to explain this marvellous phenomenon.
The explanation which Condillac has given appears to me to be quite unsatisfactory and empirical—in fact, it explains nothing. “From the very fact,” he says, “that an exchange is made, it follows that there must be profit for the two contracting parties, for otherwise it would not take place. Then each exchange includes two gains for humanity.”
Holding this proposition as true, we see in it only the statement of a result. It is in this way that the Malade Imaginaire explains the narcotic94 virtue95 of opium:—
Quia est in eo
Virtus dormitiva
Qu? facit dormire.
Exchange includes two gains, you say. How? Why? It results from the fact that it takes place. But why does it take place? What motive96 has induced the contracting parties to effect the exchange? Has Exchange in itself a mysterious virtue, necessarily beneficial, and incapable97 of explanation?
Others make the advantage consist in this, that the one gives away a commodity of which he has too much in order to receive another of which he has too little. Exchange, they say, is a barter98 of the superfluous99 for the necessary. This is contradicted by facts which pass under our own eyes; for who can say that the peasant, in giving away the corn which he has raised, but which he is never to eat, gives away a superfluity? I see in this axiom very clearly how two men may make an accidental arrangement, but I see no explanation of progress.
Observation gives us a more satisfactory explanation of the power of Exchange.
Exchange has two manifestations—namely, union of forces, and separation of occupations.
It is very clear that in many cases the united force of several men is superior, all things considered, to the sum of their individual forces. Suppose that what is wanted is to remove a heavy load. Where a thousand men in succession may fail, it is possible that four men may succeed by uniting their efforts. Just let us reflect how few things were ever accomplished100 in this world without union! [p104]
And yet this is only the concurrence101 of muscular forces in a common design. Nature has endued103 us with very varied104 physical, intellectual, and moral faculties. There are in the co-operation of these faculties endless combinations. Is it wished to accomplish a useful work, like the construction of a road, or the defence of a country? One gives the community the benefit of his strength, another of his agility105, another of his courage, another of his experience, foresight106, imagination, even of his reputation. It is easy to comprehend that the same men acting39 singly could not have attained107, or even conceived, the same results.
Now, union of forces implies Exchange. To induce men to co-operate, they have the prospect108 of participating in the benefit to be obtained. Each makes the other profit by his Efforts, and he profits by the other’s Efforts in return, which is Exchange.
We see how Exchange in this way augments109 our Satisfactions. The benefit consists in this, that efforts of equal intensity110 tend, by the mere111 fact of their union, to superior results. There is here no trace of the pretended barter of the superfluous for the necessary, any more than of the double and empirical profit alleged112 by Condillac.
The same remark applies to division of labour. Indeed, if we regard the matter more closely, we shall be convinced that the separation of employments is only another and more permanent manner of uniting our forces—of co-operating, of associating; and it is quite correct to say, as we shall afterwards demonstrate, that the present social organization, provided Exchange is left free and unfettered, is itself a vast and beautiful association—a marvellous association, very different, indeed, from that dreamt of by the Socialists114, since, by an admirable mechanism115, it is in perfect accordance with individual independence. Every one can enter and leave it at any moment which suits his convenience. He contributes to it voluntarily, and reaps a satisfaction superior to his contribution, and always increasing—a satisfaction determined116 by the laws of justice and the nature of things, not by the arbitrary will of a chief. But this is anticipating. All we have to do at present is to explain how the division of labour increases our power.
Without dwelling117 much on this subject, as it is one of the few which do not give rise to controversy118, a remark or two may not be out of place. Its importance has perhaps been somewhat disparaged119. In order to demonstrate the powerful effects of the Division of Labour, it has been usual to describe its marvellous results in certain manufactures—in the making of pins, for [p105] example. But the subject admits of being viewed in a more general and philosophical120 light. The force of habit has the singular effect of concealing121 from us, and rendering122 us unconscious of, the phenomena123 in the midst of which we live and move. No saying is more profoundly true than that of Rousseau, “Much philosophy is needed for the observation of what we see every day.” It may not then be without use to recall what we owe to Exchange, without perceiving it.
In what way has the power of exchanging elevated mankind to the height of civilisation we have now attained? I answer, by the influence which it exerts on Labour, upon the co-operation of natural agents, upon the powers and faculties of man, and upon Capital.
Adam Smith has clearly demonstrated its influence on Labour.
“The great increase in the quantity of work, which, in consequence of the division of labour, the same number of people are capable of performing, is owing to three circumstances,” says that celebrated124 Economist125: “First, to the increase of dexterity126 in every particular workman; secondly127, to the saving of time which is commonly lost in passing from one species of work to another; thirdly, to this, that men are much more likely to discover easier and readier methods of attaining128 an object when the whole attention of their minds is directed to that single object, than when it is dissipated among a great variety of things.”
Those who, like Adam Smith, see in Labour the exclusive source of wealth, confine themselves to inquiring in what way the division of labour increases its efficiency. But we have seen in the preceding chapter that labour is not the sole agent in procuring129 us satisfaction. Natural forces co-operate. That is beyond doubt.
Thus, in agriculture, the action of the sun and of the rain, the moisture of the earth, and the gases diffused130 in the atmosphere, are undoubtedly agents which co-operate with human labour in the production of vegetable substances.
Manufacturing industry owes analogous services to the chemical qualities of certain substances, to water-power, to the elasticity131 of steam, to gravitation, to electricity.
Commerce has turned to the profit of man the vigour132 and instincts of certain races of animals, the force of the winds which fill the sails of his ships, the laws of magnetism133, which, acting on the compass, direct the course of these ships through the pathless ocean.
There are two verities134 which are beyond all dispute. The [p106] first is, that the more man avails himself of the forces of nature, the better he is provided with everything he requires.
It is sufficiently135 evident that, with equal exertion4, we obtain more corn from a rich loamy soil than from sterile136 rocks or arid137 sands.
The second is, that natural agents are unequally diffused over the various countries of the world.
Who would venture to maintain that all soils are equally well fitted for all kinds of culture, or all countries for the same description of manufactures?
Now, if it be true on the one hand that natural forces are unequally diffused in the different countries of the world, and on the other that men are richer in proportion as they avail themselves of them, it follows that the faculty138 of Exchange immeasurably augments the useful co-operation of these forces.
And here we recur139 once more to gratuitous140 and onerous141 utility, the former being substituted for the latter by virtue of Exchange. Is it not very clear, that if men were deprived of the power of Exchange, and were obliged to produce ice under the equator, and sugar at the poles, they must spend much pains in doing what heat and cold do gratuitously142, and that for them an immense proportion of the Forces of nature would remain inoperative? Thanks to Exchange, these forces are rendered useful to us wherever we encounter them. Corn land is sown with wheat—in wine-growing countries the land is planted with vines—there are fishermen on the coasts, and wood-cutters among the mountains. In one place a wheel which does the work of ten men is set in motion by water—in another, by wind. Nature becomes a slave, whom we have neither to feed, nor to clothe, nor to pay—who costs nothing either to our purse or our conscience.26 The same amount of human efforts, that is to say, the same services, the same value, realizes a constantly increasing amount of utility. For each given result a certain portion only of human exertion is absorbed; the remainder, by means of the intervention143 of natural Forces, is rendered disposable, and it sets to work to overcome new obstacles, to minister to new desires, to realize new utilities.
The effects of Exchange upon our intellectual Faculties are so great, that we can scarcely even imagine their extent.
“Knowledge,” says M. de Tracy, “is the most precious of all our acquisition, since it directs and governs the employment of our forces, and renders them more prolific144, in proportion as it is sounder and more extensive. No man can himself observe [p107] everything, and it is much easier to learn than to invent. But when several men communicate with each other, what is observed by one is soon known to the rest; and if there be among them but one person of superior ingenuity145, precious discoveries speedily become the property of all. In such circumstances, knowledge is much more rapidly increased than it could be in a state of isolation, without taking into account the power of preserving it, and consequently of accumulating it from one generation to another.”
If the resources which nature has accumulated around man and placed at his disposal are varied, the human faculties themselves are not less so. We are not all equally endowed with strength, courage, intelligence, patience, or with artistic146, literary, and industrial aptitudes147. Without exchange, this diversity, far from contributing to our well-being148, would contribute to our misery149, each feeling less the advantage of those Faculties he possessed150 than the deprivation151 of those he wanted. Thanks to exchange, a man possessed of bodily strength may, up to a certain point, dispense87 with genius, and a man of intelligence with bodily strength; for by the admirable community which the power of exchange establishes among men, each individual participates in the distinctive152 qualities of his neighbours.
In order to obtain the satisfactions he desires, it is not enough, in most cases, to work—to exercise his faculties upon, or by means of, natural agents. He requires also to have tools, instruments, machines, provisions—in a word, Capital. Suppose a small tribe, composed of ten families, each, in working exclusively for itself, being obliged to engage in ten different employments. In that case each family must have ten sets of industrial apparatus153. The tribe would require to possess ten ploughs, ten teams of oxen, ten forges, ten joiner’s and carpenter’s workshops, ten looms155, etc.; while, with the power of exchange, a single plough, a single team, a single forge, a single loom154, would be sufficient. It is impossible to conceive the economy of Capital which we owe to exchange.
The reader now sees clearly what constitutes the true power of exchange. It is not, as Condillac says, that it implies two gains, because of each of the contracting parties valuing more highly what he receives than what he gives. Neither is it that each gives away what is superfluous for what is necessary. It lies simply in this, that when one man says to another, “Do you only this, and I shall do only that, and we shall divide,” there is a better and more advantageous92 employment of labour, of faculties, of natural agents, of capital, and consequently there is more to divide. And these results take place to a still greater extent when [p108] three, ten, a hundred, a thousand, or several millions of men enter into the association.
The two propositions which I have laid down, then, are rigorously true, viz.:—
In isolation our wants exceed our powers;
In society our powers exceed our wants.
The first is true, seeing that the whole surface of our country would not maintain one man in a state of absolute isolation.
The second is true, seeing that, in fact, the population which is spread over that same surface multiplies and grows richer.
Progress of Exchange.—The primitive156 form of exchange is Barter. Two persons, one of whom desires an object, and is possessed of an object which the other desires, agree to cede16 these objects reciprocally, or they agree to work separately, each at one thing, but for the purpose of dividing the total product of their labour in arranged proportions. This is Barter, which is, as the Socialists would say, Exchange, traffic, commerce in embryo157. We observe here two Desires as motives158—two Efforts as means—two Satisfactions as results, or as the termination and completion of the entire cycle; and this evolution is not essentially different from the same evolution accomplished in a state of isolation, except that the desires and satisfactions have, as their nature requires, remained intransmissible, and that Efforts alone have been exchanged. In other words, the two persons have worked for each other, and have rendered each other reciprocal services.
It is at this point that Political Economy truly begins, for it is here that value first makes its appearance. Barter takes place only after an arrangement, a discussion. Each of the contracting parties is governed by considerations of self-interest. Each of them makes a calculation, which in effect comes to this, “I shall barter if the barter procures159 me the satisfaction I desire with a less Effort.” It is certainly a marvellous phenomenon that diminished efforts can yet keep pace with undiminished desires and satisfactions; and this is explained by the considerations which I have presented in the first part of this chapter. When two commodities or two services are bartered160, we may conclude that they are of equal value. We shall have to analyze161 afterwards the notion of value, but this vague definition is sufficient for the present.
We may suppose a round-about barter, including three contracting parties. Paul renders a service to Peter, who renders an equivalent service to James, who in turn renders an equivalent service to Paul, by means of which all is balanced. I need not say that this round-about transaction only takes place because it [p109] suits all the parties, without changing either the nature or the consequences of barter.
The essence of Barter is discovered in all its purity even when the number of contracting parties is greater. In my commune the vine-dresser pays with wine for the services of the blacksmith, the barber, the tailor, the beadle, the curate, the grocer; while the blacksmith, the barber, the tailor, in turn deliver to the grocer, for the commodities consumed during the year, the wine which they have received from the vine-dresser.
This round-about Barter, I cannot too often repeat, does not change in the least degree the primary notions explained in the preceding chapters. When the evolution is complete, each of those who have had part in it presents still the triple phenomenon, want, effort, satisfaction. We have but to add, the exchange of efforts, the transmission of services, the separation of employments, with all their resulting advantages—advantages to which every one of the parties has contributed, seeing that isolated individual labour is a pis aller, always reserved, and which is only renounced162 in consideration of a certain advantage.
It is easy to comprehend that Barter in kind, especially the indirect and round-about barter which I have described, cannot be much extended, and it is unnecessary to dwell upon the obstacles which set limits to it. How could he manage, for example, who wished to exchange his house against the thousand articles which enter into his annual consumption? In any case, Barter could never take place but among the few persons who happen to be acquainted with each other. Progress and the Division of Labour would soon reach their limits if mankind had not discovered the means of facilitating exchanges.
This is the reason why men, from the earliest ages of society, have employed an intermediate commodity to effect their transactions—corn, wine, animals, and almost always, the precious metals. Such commodities perform this function of facilitating exchanges more or less conveniently; still any one of them can perform it, provided that, in the transaction, Effort is represented by value, the transmission of which is the thing to be effected.
When recourse is had to an intermediate commodity, two economic phenomena make their appearance, which we denominate Sale and Purchase. It is evident that the idea of sale and purchase is not included in direct Barter, or even in round-about Barter. When a man gives another something to drink, in consideration of receiving from him something to eat, we have a [p110] simple fact which we cannot analyze farther. Now, what we must remark in the very outset of the science is, that exchanges which are effected by means of an intermediate commodity do not lose the nature, the essence, the quality of barter—only the barter is no longer simple, but compound. To borrow the very judicious164 and profound observation of J. B. Say, it is a barter of two factors [troc à deux facteurs], of which the one is called sale and the other purchase—factors whose union is indispensable in order to constitute a complete barter.
In truth, this discovery of a convenient means of effecting exchanges makes no alteration165 in the nature either of men or of things. We have still in every case the want which determines the effort, and the satisfaction which rewards it. The Exchange is complete only when the man who has made an effort in favour of another has obtained from him an equivalent service, that is to say, satisfaction. To effect this, he sells his service for the intermediate commodity, and then with that intermediate commodity he purchases equivalent services, when the two factors bring back the transaction to simple barter.
Take the case of a physician, for instance. For many years he has devoted166 his time and his faculties to the study of diseases and their remedies. He has visited patients, he has prescribed for them, in a word, he has rendered services. Instead of receiving compensation from his patients in direct services, which would have constituted simple barter, he receives from them an intermediate commodity, the precious metals, wherewith he purchases the satisfactions which were the ultimate object he had in view. His patients have not furnished him with bread, wine, or other goods, but they have furnished him with the value of these. They could not have given him money unless they had themselves rendered services. As far as they are concerned, therefore, there is a balance of services, and there is also a balance as regards the physician; and could we in thought follow this circulation of services out and out, we should see that Exchange carried on by the intervention of money resolves itself into a multitude of acts of simple barter.
In the case of simple barter, value is the appreciation of two services exchanged and directly compared with each other. In the case of Compound Exchange the two services measure each other’s value, not directly, but by comparison with this mean term, this intermediate commodity, which is called Money. We shall see by-and-by what difficulties, what errors, have sprung from this complication. At present it is sufficient to remark that [p111] the intervention of this intermediate commodity makes no change whatever in the notion of value.
Only admit that exchange is at once the cause and the effect of the division of labour and the separation of employments; only admit that the separation of occupations multiplies satisfactions in proportion to efforts, for the reasons explained at the beginning of this chapter, and you will comprehend at once the services which Money has rendered to mankind, by the simple fact that it facilitates Exchanges. By means of Money, Exchange is indefinitely extended and developed. Each man casts his services into the common fund, without knowing who is to enjoy the satisfactions which they are calculated to procure. In the same way he obtains from society, not immediate167 services, but money with which he can afterwards purchase services, where, when, and how it may best suit him. In this way the ultimate transactions occur at various times and places, between people totally unacquainted with each other, and in the greater number of cases no one knows by whose efforts his wants will be satisfied, or to the satisfaction of whose desires his own efforts will contribute. Exchange, by the intervention of Money, resolves itself into innumerable acts of barter, of which the contracting parties themselves are ignorant.
Exchange, however, confers so great a benefit on society (is it not society itself?) that it facilitates and extends it by other means besides the introduction of money. In logical order, after Want and Satisfaction united in the same individual with isolated Effort—after simple barter—after barter à deux facteurs, or Exchange composed of sale and purchase—come other transactions, extended farther over time and space by means of credit, mortgages, bills of exchange, bank notes, etc. By means of this wondrous168 machinery169, the result of civilisation, the improver of civilisation, and itself becoming more perfect at the same time, an exertion made at the present hour in Paris may contribute to the satisfaction and enjoyment64 of an unknown stranger, separated from us by oceans and centuries; and he who makes the exertion will not the less receive for it a present recompense, through the intervention of persons who advance the remuneration, and wait to be reimbursed170 in a distant country or at a future day. Marvellous and astonishing complication! which, when subjected to analysis, shows us finally the accomplishment171 of the entire economic cycle—want, effort, satisfaction, taking place in each individual, according to a just law.
Limits of Exchange.—The general character of Exchange is to diminish the proportion which the Effort bears to the satisfaction. Between our wants and our satisfactions obstacles are interposed, [p112] which we succeed in diminishing by the union of forces or the division of occupations, that is to say, by Exchange. But Exchange itself encounters obstacles and demands efforts. The proof of this is the immense amount of human labour which it sets in motion. The precious metals, roads, canals, railways, wheeled carriages, ships—all these things absorb a considerable portion of human activity. Observe, besides, how many men are exclusively occupied in facilitating exchanges—how many bankers, merchants, shopkeepers, brokers172, carriers, sailors! This vast and costly173 apparatus shows us, better than any reasoning, how much efficacy there is in the power of Exchange, for why otherwise should society be encumbered174 with it?
Since it is the nature of Exchange to save efforts and to exact them, it is easy to understand what are its natural limits. In virtue of that motive which urges man to choose always the least of two evils, Exchange will go on extending itself indefinitely as long as the effort it exacts is less than the effort which it saves. And its extension will stop naturally when, upon the whole, the aggregate175 of satisfactions obtained by the division of labour becomes less, by reason of the increasing difficulties attending Exchange, than if we procured176 them by direct production.
Suppose the case of a small tribe. If they desire to procure themselves satisfactions they must make an effort. They may address themselves to another tribe, and say to them, “Make this effort for us, and we shall make another for you.” The stipulation177 may suit all parties, if, for example, the second tribe is in a situation to obtain greater assistance than the other from natural and gratuitous forces. In that case it may be able to realize the result with an effort equal to eight, while the first could only accomplish it by an effort equal to twelve. There is thus an economy equal to four for the first. But then come the cost of transport, the remuneration of intermediate agents, in a word, the effort exacted by the machinery of Exchange. This cost must, then, clearly be added to the figure eight. Exchange will continue to take place as long as the Exchange itself does not cost four. The moment it reaches that figure it will stop. It is quite unnecessary to make laws on this subject; for either the law intervenes before this level is attained, and then it is injurious—it prevents an economy of efforts—or it comes after it, and then it is useless, like an ordinance178 forbidding people to light their lamps at noonday.
When Exchange is thus arrested from ceasing to be advantageous, the slightest improvement in the commercial apparatus gives it a new activity. Between Orleans and Angoulême a certain [p113] number of transactions take place. These towns effect an Exchange as often as they can obtain a greater amount of enjoyments by that means than by direct production. They stop short the moment the cost of obtaining commodities by means of exchange, aggravated179 by the cost of effecting the exchange itself, surpasses, or reaches, that of obtaining them by means of direct production. In these circumstances, if we improve the conditions under which Exchanges are effected—if the merchants’ profits are diminished, or the means of transport facilitated—if roads and railways are made, mountains levelled, and bridges thrown over rivers—in a word, if obstacles are removed, the number of Exchanges will be increased; for men are always desirous to avail themselves of the great advantages which we have ascribed to Exchange, and to substitute gratuitous for onerous utility. The improvement of the commercial apparatus, then, is equivalent to bringing two cities locally nearer to each other. Whence it follows that bringing men physically180, locally, nearer each other is equivalent to improving the conditions of exchange. This is very important. It is, in fact, the solution of the problem of population; and this is precisely the element in that great problem that Malthus has neglected. Where Malthus saw Discordance181, attention to this element enables us to discover Harmony.
When men effect an exchange, it is because they succeed by that means in obtaining an equal amount of satisfaction at a less expense of effort; and the reason of this is, that on both sides services are rendered which are the means of procuring a greater proportion of what we have termed gratuitous utility.
Now, you have always a greater number of exchanges in proportion as you remove the obstacles which impede182 exchanges, and diminish the efforts which these exchanges exact.
And Exchange encounters fewer obstacles, and exacts fewer efforts, just in proportion as you bring men nearer each other, and mass them more together. A greater density183 of population, then, is accompanied by a greater proportion of gratuitous utility. That density imparts greater power to the machinery of exchange; it sets free and renders disposable a portion of human efforts; it is a cause of progress.
Now, if you please, let us leave generalities and look at facts.
Does not a street of equal length render more service in Paris than in a remote village? Is not a mile of railway of more use in the Department of the Seine than in the Department of the Landes? Is not a London merchant content with smaller profits [p114] on account of the greater amount of business which he transacts184? In everything we shall discover two sets of exchange agencies at work, which although identical in kind, act very differently, according as they operate in a densely185 or a thinly peopled locality.
The density of population not only enables us to reap more advantage from the machinery of exchange, it permits us to improve that machinery, and increase its power. Where the population is condensed, these improvements are advantageous, because they save us more efforts than they exact; but where the population is scattered186 and thin-spread, they exact more efforts than they save.
On leaving the metropolis187 for a time, and going to reside in a small provincial188 town, one is astonished to find that in many instances the most ordinary services can only be obtained at great expense, and with time and difficulty.
It is not the material part of the commercial mechanism only which is turned to account and improved by the single circumstance of the density of population, but the moral part also. When men are massed together, they have more facility in dividing their employments, in uniting their powers, and in combining to found churches and schools, to provide for their common security, to establish banks and insurance companies, in a word, to procure themselves all the common enjoyments with a much smaller proportion of efforts.
We shall revert189 to these considerations when we come to enter on the subject of Population. At present we shall make only this remark:—
Exchange enables men to turn their faculties to better account, to economize190 capital, to obtain more assistance from the gratuitous agencies of nature, to increase the proportion of gratuitous to onerous utility, to diminish, consequently, the ratio of efforts to results, and to leave at their disposal a part of their forces, so that they may withdraw a greater and greater portion of them from the business of providing for their primary and more imperious wants, and devote them to procuring enjoyments of a higher and higher order.
If Exchange saves efforts, it also exacts them. It extends, and spreads, and increases, up to the point at which the effort it exacts becomes equal to the effort which it saves, and it stops there until, by the improvement of the commercial apparatus, or by the circumstance exclusively of the condensation191 of population, and bringing men together in masses, it again returns to the conditions which are essential to its onward192 and ascending march. [p115] Whence it follows that laws which limit or hamper193 Exchanges are always either hurtful or superfluous.
Governments which persuade themselves that nothing good can be done but through their instrumentality, refuse to acknowledge this harmonic law.
Exchange develops itself NATURALLY until it becomes more onerous than useful, and at that point it NATURALLY stops.
In consequence, we find governments everywhere busying themselves in favouring or restraining trade.
In order to carry it beyond its natural limits, they set to conquering colonies and opening new markets. In order to confine it within its natural bounds, they invent all sorts of restrictions194 and fetters195.
This intervention of Force in human transactions is the source of innumerable evils.
The Increase of this force itself is an evil to begin with; for it is very evident that the State cannot make conquests, retain distant countries under its rule, or divert the natural course of trade by the action of tariffs196, without greatly increasing the number of its agents.
The Diversion of the public Force from its legitimate functions is an evil still greater than its Increase. Its rational mission was to protect Liberty and Property; and here you have it violating Liberty and Property. All just notions and principles are thus effaced198 from men’s minds. The moment you admit that Oppression and Spoliation are legitimate, provided they are legal—provided they interfere199 only by means of the Law or public Force, you find by degrees each class of citizens demanding that the interest of every other class should be sacrificed to it.
This intervention of Force in the business of Exchanges, whether it succeeds in promoting or in restraining them, cannot fail to occasion both the Loss and Displacement200 of labour and capital, and, of consequence, a disturbance201 of the natural distribution of the population. On one side, natural interests disappear, on the other, artificial interests are created, and men are forced to follow the course of these interests. It is thus we see important branches of industry established where they ought not to be. France makes sugar; England spins cotton, brought from the plains of India. Centuries of war, torrents202 of blood, the dissipation of vast treasures, have brought about these results, and the effect has been to substitute in Europe sickly and precarious203 for sound and healthy enterprises, and to open the door to commercial crises, to stoppages, to instability, and finally to Pauperism204.
But I find I am anticipating. What we ought first to do is to [p116] acquaint ourselves with the free and natural development of human societies, and then investigate the Disturbances205.
Moral Force of Exchange.—We must repeat, at the risk of wounding modern sentimentalism, that Political Economy belongs to the region of business, and business is transacted206 under the influence of personal interest. In vain the puritans of socialism cry out, “This is frightful207; we shall change all this.” Such declamations involve a flat contradiction. Do we make purchases on the Quai Voltaire in the name of Fraternity?
It would be to fall into another kind of declamation to attribute morality to acts determined and governed by self-interest. But a good and wise Providence208 may so have arranged the social order that these very acts, destitute209 of morality in their motives, may nevertheless tend to moral results. Is it not so in the case of labour? Now, I maintain that Exchange, whether in the incipient210 state of simple barter, or expanded into a vast and complicated commerce, develops in society tendencies more noble than the motive which gives rise to it.
I have certainly no wish to attribute to only one of our powers all that constitutes the grandeur211, the glory, and the charm of our existence. As there are two forces in the material world—one which goes from the circumference212 to the centre, the other from the centre to the circumference—there are also two principles in the social world, self-interest and sympathy. It were a misfortune indeed did we fail to recognise the benefits and joys of the sympathetic principle, as manifested in friendship, love, filial piety213, parental214 tenderness, charity, patriotism215, religion, enthusiasm for the good and the beautiful. Some have maintained that the sympathetic principle is only a magnificent form of self-love, that to love others is at bottom only an intelligent way of loving ourselves. This is not the place to enter on the solution of that problem. Whether these two native energies are distinct or confounded, it is enough for us to know that, far from being antagonistic216, as is constantly said, they act in combination, and concur102 in the realization217 of one and the same result, the general good.
I have established these two propositions:—
In a state of isolation, our wants exceed our powers;
In consequence of Exchange, our powers exceed our wants.
These propositions show the end and purpose of society. There are two others which guarantee its indefinite improvement:—
In a state of isolation the gain of one may be the loss of another;
In consequence of Exchange, the gain of each is the gain of all.
Is it necessary to prove that, if nature had destined man to a [p117] solitary218 life, the prosperity of one would have been incompatible with that of another, and the more numerous men had been, the less chance would they have had of attaining prosperity? At all events, we see clearly in what way numbers might have been injurious, and we do not see how they could have been beneficial. And then, I would ask, under what form could the principle of sympathy have manifested itself? How, or on what occasion, could it have been called forth220? Could we have even comprehended it?
But men exchange, and Exchange, as we have seen, implies the separation of employments. It gives birth to professions and trades. Each man sets himself to overcome a certain class of obstacles, for the benefit of the Community. Each makes it his business to render a certain description of services. Now, a complete analysis of value demonstrates that each service has value in the first instance in proportion to its intrinsic utility, and afterwards in proportion to the wealth of those to whom it is furnished—that is to say, in proportion as the community to whom the service is rendered has a greater demand for it, and is in a better situation to pay for it. Experience shows us that the artizan, the physician, the lawyer, the merchant, the carrier, the professor, the savant, derive221 greater returns from their services in Paris, in London, or at New York, than in the Landes of Gascony, or the mountains of Wales, or the prairies of the Far West. And does not this confirm the truth, that each man is more likely to prosper219 in proportion to the general prosperity of the community in which he lives?
Of all the harmonies which have come under my observation, this is beyond doubt the most important, the finest, the most decisive, the most suggestive. It sums up and includes all the others. This is why I can give only a very incomplete demonstration of it in this place. The whole scope and spirit of this work will establish it; and I shall deem it a fortunate thing if its probability at least is made so apparent as to induce the reader to convince himself of its truth by farther inquiry222 and reflection.
For it is beyond question that on this turns our decision between natural and artificial Organizations—that on this, and this alone, hangs the solution of the Social Problem. If the prosperity of all be the condition of the prosperity of each, then we can repose13 with confidence not only on the economic power of free trade, but on its moral force. If men only understood their true interests, restrictions, mercantile jealousies223, commercial wars, monopolies, would go down under the influence of public opinion; [p118] and before soliciting224 the interposition of government in any case, the question would be, not “How am I to be benefited by it?” but “What advantage is likely to result from it to the community?” This last question, I grant, is sometimes elicited225 by the principle of sympathy; but let men be once enlightened, and it will be called forth by Self-interest. Then we shall be enabled to say with truth that the two motive principles of our nature tend towards the same result—the General Good; and it will be impossible to deny Moral Power to self-interest, and the transactions which spring from it, as far at least as their effects are concerned.
Consider the relations of man to man, family to family, province to province, nation to nation, hemisphere to hemisphere, capitalist to labourer, the man of property to the man of no property,—it seems evident to me that it is impossible to resolve the social problem from any one of these points of view, or even to enter upon its solution, before choosing between these two maxims:—
The profit of one is the loss of another;
The profit of one is the gain of another.
For if nature has arranged matters so that antagonism227 is the law of free transactions, our only resource is to vanquish228 nature and stifle229 Freedom. If, on the other hand, these free transactions are harmonious230, that is to say, if they tend to ameliorate and equalize the conditions of men, our efforts must be confined to allowing nature to act, and maintaining the rights of human Liberty.
This is the reason why I conjure231 the young people to whom this work is dedicated232 to scrutinize233 with care the formulas which it lays down, and to analyze the peculiar234 nature and effects of Exchange. I hope yet to find at least one among them who will be able to demonstrate rigorously this proposition: “The good of each tends to the good of all, as the good of all tends to the good of each;” and who will, moreover, be able to impress this truth upon men’s minds by rendering the proof of it simple, lucid235, and irrefragable. The man who does this will have resolved the social problem, and be the benefactor236 of the human race.
Depend upon it, that according as this axiom is true or false, the natural laws of society are harmonious or antagonistic; and that according as they are harmonious or antagonistic, it is our interest to conform to them or to deviate237 from them. Were it once thoroughly238 demonstrated, then, that under the empire of freedom men’s interests harmonize and favour each other, all the efforts which we now see governments making to disturb the [p119] action of these natural social laws we should see directed to giving them force, or rather, no efforts whatever would then be necessary, and all they would have to do would be to abstain239 from interfering240. In what does the restraining action of governments consist? We may infer it from the design they have in view. What is that design? To remedy the inequality which is supposed to spring from Liberty. Now, there is only one way of re-establishing the equilibrium, namely, to take from one in order to give to another. Such, in fact, is the mission which governments have arrogated241 to themselves, or have received; and it is a rigorous consequence of the formula, that the gain of one is the loss of another. If that axiom be true, Force must repair the evils of Liberty. Thus governments, instituted for the protection of liberty and property, have undertaken the task of violating liberty and property in every shape; and they have done so consistently, if it be in liberty and property that the germ and principle of evil reside. Hence we see them everywhere engaged in the artificial displacement and redistribution of labour, capital, and responsibility.
On the other hand, an incalculable amount of intellectual force is thrown away in the pursuit of artificial social organizations. To take from one in order to give to another, to violate both liberty and property, is a very simple design, but the means of carrying out that design may be varied to infinity242. Hence arise multitudes of systems, which strike the producing classes with terror, since from the very nature of the object they have in view, they menace all existing interests.
Thus arbitrary and complex systems of government, the negation243 of liberty and property, the antagonism of classes and nations, all these are logically included in the axiom, that the gain of one is the loss of another. And, for the same reason, simplicity244 in government, respect for individual dignity, freedom of labour and exchange, peace among nations, security for person and property, are all contained and shut up in this truth—Interests are harmonious. They are so, however, only on one condition, which is, that this truth should be generally admitted.
But it is very far from being so. On reading what I have said on this subject many people will be led to say, You break through an open door. Who ever thought of contesting seriously the superiority of Exchange to Isolation? In what book, unless indeed in the works of Rousseau, have you encountered this strange paradox245?
Those who stop me with this reflection forget only two things, two [p120] symptoms, or rather two aspects of modern society, the doctrines246 with which theorists inundate247 us, and the practice which governments impose on us. It is quite impossible that the harmony of interests can be universally recognised, since, on the one hand, public force is constantly engaged in interfering to disturb natural combinations, while, on the other, the great complaint which is made against the ruling power is, that it does not interfere enough.
The question is this, Are the evils (I do not speak here of evils which arise from our native infirmity)—are the evils to which society is subject imputable248 to the action of natural social laws, or to our disturbance of that action?
Now, here we have two co-existent facts, Evil,—and Public Force, engaged to counteract249 the natural social laws. Is the first of these facts the consequence of the second? For my own part, I believe so; I should even say, I am certain of it. But at the same time I can attest250 this, that in proportion as evil is developed, governments invariably seek for a remedy in new disturbances of the natural laws, and theorists reproach them with not going far enough. Am I not thence entitled to conclude that they have but little confidence in these laws?
Undoubtedly, if the question is between Isolation and Exchange we are at one. But if the question be between free and compulsory251 exchange, does the same thing hold? Is there nothing forced, factitious, restrained, constrained252, in France, in the manner in which services which have relation to trade, to credit, to conveyances253, to the arts, to education, to religion, are exchanged? Are labour and capital distributed naturally between agriculture and manufactures? When existing interests are disturbed, are they allowed of their own accord to return to their natural channels? Do we not encounter trammels and obstacles on all sides? Are there not a hundred professions which are interdicted254 to the majority of the people? Is the Roman-catholic not forced to pay for the services of the Jewish Rabbi, and the Jew for the services of the Catholic priest? Is there a single man in France who has received the education which his parents would have given him had they been free? Are not our minds, our manners, our ideas, our employments, fashioned under the régime of the arbitrary, or at least of the artificial? Now, I ask, whether thus to disturb the free exchange of services is not to abjure255 and deny the harmony of interests? On what ground am I robbed of my liberty, unless it be that it is judged hurtful to others? Is it pretended that it is injurious to myself? This would be but to add one antagonism the more. And only think! in what a situation [p121] should we find ourselves if nature had placed in each man’s heart a permanent irrepressible spring of action, urging him to injure those around him, and at the same time to injure himself?
Alas256! we have tried everything—when shall we make trial of the simplest thing of all—Liberty. Liberty in all that does not offend against justice—liberty to live, advance, improve—the free exercise of our faculties—the free interchange of services. A beautiful and solemn spectacle it would have been, had the Power which sprang from the revolution of February thus addressed our citizens:—
“You have invested me with the public Force. I shall apply it exclusively to those things in which the intervention of Force is permissible257, and there is but one—Justice. I shall force every one to confine himself within the bounds of right. You may work freely and as you please during the day, and sleep in peace at night. I have taken under my charge the security of person and property—that is my mission, and I will fulfil it—but I accept no other. Let there then be no longer any misunderstanding between us. Henceforth you shall pay me only the light tribute which is necessary for the maintenance of order and the administration of justice. Keep in mind that henceforth every man must depend upon himself for his subsistence and advancement. Turn no longer your longing258 eyes to me. Ask me no longer for wealth, for employment, for credit, for education, for religion, for morality. Never forget that the mainspring of your development is in yourselves. As for me, I never act but through the intervention of force. I have nothing, absolutely nothing, but what I derive from you, and for this reason I cannot confer even the smallest advantage on one except at the expense of another. Cultivate your fields, then, manufacture and export your products, carry on trade, afford each other credit, render and receive services freely, educate your children, set them out in life, cultivate the arts, improve your minds, refine and purify your tastes and sentiments, unite, form industrial and charitable associations, join your efforts for your individual good and that of the public, follow your inclinations259, fulfil your destinies by the free exercise of your powers, your ideas, and your foresight. Expect from me only two things—Liberty and Security—and depend upon it you cannot ask me for a third without losing the other two.”
I am thoroughly persuaded that if the revolution of February had proclaimed these principles we never should have had another revolution. Is it possible to conceive that citizens, left perfectly260 free in all other respects, would conspire261 to overturn a Power [p122] whose action was limited to the satisfaction of the most pressing, the most deeply felt of all our social requirements, the requirements of Justice?
But it was unfortunately impossible for the National Assembly to adopt this course, or make these sentiments heard. They were not in accordance either with the ideas of the Assembly or the expectations of the public. They would have terrified society as much as the proclamation of Communism. To be responsible to ourselves, forsooth! To trust to the State only for the maintenance of order and peace! To expect from it neither wealth nor knowledge! To be able no longer to make it responsible for our faults, our folly262, our imprudence! To trust only to ourselves for the means of subsistence and physical amelioration, or moral and intellectual improvement! What on earth is to become of us? Is not society on the eve of being invaded by poverty, ignorance, error, irreligion, and perversity264?
We allow that such undoubtedly would have been the fears which would have manifested themselves on all sides had the revolution of February proclaimed Liberty, that is to say, the reign265 of the natural laws of society. Then we were either unacquainted with these laws, or we wanted confidence in them. We could not get rid of the idea that the motives and springs of action which God has implanted in the mind of man are essentially perverse266; that rectitude resides nowhere but in the views and intentions of the governing power; that the tendencies of human nature lead to disorganization, to anarchy,—in a word, we believed in the inevitable267 antagonism of interests.
So far was the revolution of February from displaying any tendency towards a natural organization, that never were the hopes and ideas of French society so decidedly turned to artificial combinations as at that epoch268. Which of these combinations was in most favour? I really cannot very well tell. The business, in the language of the day, was to make experiments—Faciamus experimentum in corpore vili. Such was their contempt for individuality, so thoroughly did they assimilate human nature to inert269 matter, that they talked of making social experiments with men, just as we make chemical experiments with acids and alkalies. The first tentative was begun at the Luxembourg, we know with what success. Erelong the Constituent270 Assembly instituted a Committee of Labour, in which a thousand social schemes were engulfed271 and swallowed up. A Fourierist representative seriously demanded lands and money (he would soon have asked for men also) to enable him to manipulate his model society. Another [p123] Egalitaire representative offered his recipe, which was rejected. The manufacturers were more lucky, and succeeded in maintaining theirs. In the meantime, the Legislative272 Assembly named a commission to organize “assistance.”
Now, what strikes us with surprise in all this is, that the Ruling Power, for the sake of its own stability, did not from time to time thus enter its protest:—“You are habituating thirty-six millions of men to regard the State as responsible for all the good or evil that may befall them in this world. At this rate, Government is impossible.”
At any rate, if these various social inventions, dignified273 with the high sounding title of organization, differ from each other in their manner of proceeding274, they are all founded on the same principle: Take from one to give to another. Now such a principle clearly could not meet with such universal sympathy from the people, unless they were thoroughly convinced that men’s interests are naturally antagonistic, and that the tendencies of human nature are essentially perverse.
To take from one to give to another! I know well that things have gone on in this way for a long time. But before you set yourselves to imagine various means of realizing this whimsical principle for the remedy of existing distress275, would it not be well to inquire whether that distress has not proceeded from the very fact that this principle in a certain form has been realized already? Before seeking a remedy in new disturbances of the natural social laws, should you not make sure that such perturbations do not themselves constitute the very evil from which society suffers, and which it is your object to cure?
To take from one in order to give to another! Just allow me to mark here the danger and the absurdity276, in an economical point of view, of this so-called social aspiration44, which, fermenting277 among the masses of our population, broke forth with so terrific a force in the revolution of February.27
Where society consists of several grades, we are apt to think that people of the highest rank enjoy Privileges or Monopolies at the expense of all the other members of the community. This is odious278, but it is not absurd.
The second grade, the class immediately below the first, will not fail to attack and batter279 down monopolies; and, with the assistance of the masses, they will succeed sooner or later in bringing about a Revolution. In that case, power passes into their hands, and they still think that power implies Monopoly. [p124] This is still odious, but it is not absurd, at least it is not impracticable; for Monopolies are possible as long as there is, below the grade which enjoys them, a lower stratum280—namely, the public at large, which supports and feeds them. If the third and fourth grade succeed, in their turn, in effecting a revolution, they will, if they can, so arrange as to make the most of the masses, by means of privileges or monopolies skilfully281 combined. But then the masses, emaciated282, ground down, trampled283 upon, must also have their revolution. Why? What are they going to do? You think, perhaps, that they are going to abolish all monopolies and privileges, and to inaugurate the reign of universal justice; that they are about to exclaim—away with restrictions—away with shackles284 and trammels—away with monopolies—away with Government interferences for the profit of certain classes; begone taxes and grinding impositions; down with political and diplomatic intrigues285? Not at all. They have quite another aim. They become their own solicitors286, and in their turn demand to be privileged! The public at large, imitating their superiors, ask for monopolies! They urge their right to employment, their right to credit, their right to education, their right to assistance! But at whose expense? They are easy on that score. They feel only that, if they are ensured employment, credit, education for their children, repose for their old days, and all gratis287, they will be exceedingly happy; and, truly, no one disputes it. But is it possible? Alas! no; and this is the reason why I say that here the odious disappears, and the absurd has reached its climax288.
Monopolies to the masses! Good people, reflect a little on the vicious circle in which you are placing yourselves. Monopoly implies some one to enjoy it, and some one to pay for it. We can understand a privileged man, or a privileged class, but not a privileged people. Is there below you a still lower stratum of society upon which you can throw back the burden? Will you never comprehend the whimsical mystification of which you are the dupes? Will you never understand that the state can give you nothing with the one hand but what it has taken from you with the other? that, far from there being for you in this combination any possible increase of prosperity, the final result of the operation must be an arbitrary Government, more vexatious, more exacting, more uncertain, more expensive;—heavier taxes,—more injustice289, more offensive favouritism,—liberty more restrained,—power thrown away,—occupations, labour, and capital displaced,—covetousness excited,—discontent provoked,—and individual energy extinguished? [p125]
The upper classes have got alarmed, and not without reason, at this unhappy disposition290 of the masses. They see in it the germ of incessant291 revolutions; for what Government can hold together which has ventured to say—“I am in possession of force, and I will employ it to support everybody at the expense of everybody? I undertake to become responsible for the general happiness.” But is not the alarm which has seized these classes a just and merited punishment? Have they not themselves set the people the fatal example of that grasping disposition of which they now complain? Have they not had their own eyes perpetually turned to the treasury292? Have they ever failed to secure some monopoly, some privilege, great or small, to manufactures, to banks, to mines, to landed property, to the arts, even to the means of diversion, to the ballet, to the opera, to everything and everybody, in short; except to the industry of the people—to manual labour? Have they not multiplied beyond bounds public employments, in order to increase, at the expense of the people, their own resources? and is there at this day a single head of a family in France who is not on the outlook for a place for his son? Have they ever endeavoured to get rid of any one of the acknowledged inequalities of taxation293? Have they not for a long time turned to account everything, even the electoral franchise294? And yet they are astonished and horrified295 that the people should adopt the same course. When the spirit of mendicity has so long infected the wealthy orders, how can we suppose that it will not penetrate296 to the heart of the suffering masses?
However, a great revolution has taken place. Political power, the power of making the laws, the disposal of the public force, has passed virtually, if not yet in fact, into the hands of the people along with universal suffrage297. Thus the people, who have proposed the problem for solution, will be called upon to solve it themselves: and woe298 to the country, if, following the example which has been set them, they seek its solution in Privilege, which is always an invasion of another’s rights. They will find themselves mistaken, and the mistake will bring with it a great lesson; for if it be possible to violate the rights of the many for the benefit of the few, how can we violate the rights of all for the benefit of all? But at what cost will this lesson be taught us? And, in order to obviate299 so frightful a danger, what ought the upper classes to do? Two things—renounce163 all privileges and monopolies themselves, and enlighten the masses, for there are only two things which can save society—Justice and Knowledge. They ought to inquire with earnestness whether they do not enjoy [p126] some monopoly or other, in order that they may renounce it—whether they do not profit by some artificial inequalities, in order that they may efface197 them—whether Pauperism is not in some measure attributable to a disturbance of the natural social laws, in order that they may put an end to it. They should be able to hold out their hands to the people, and say to them, These hands are full, but they are clean. Is this what they actually do? If I am not very much mistaken, they do just the reverse. They begin by guarding their monopolies, and we have seen them even turning the revolution to profit by attempting to extend these monopolies. After having deprived themselves of even the possibility of speaking the truth and appealing to principles, they endeavour to vindicate300 their consistency301 by engaging to treat the people as they have treated themselves, and dazzle them with the bait of Privilege. Only, they think themselves very knowing in conceding at present only a small privilege, the right to “assistance,” in the hope of diverting them from demanding a greater one—the right to employment. They do not perceive that to extend and systematize more and more the maxim226, “Take from one to give to another,” is only to strengthen the illusion which creates difficulties for the present and dangers for the future.
We must not exaggerate, however. When the superior classes seek in privilege a remedy for the evils which privilege has caused, they are sincere, and act, I am convinced, rather from ignorance than from any desire to commit injustice. It is an irreparable misfortune that the governments which have succeeded each other in France have invariably discouraged the teaching of Political Economy. And it is a still greater misfortune that University Education fills all our heads with Roman prejudices; in other words, with all that is repugnant to social truth. This is what leads the upper classes astray. It is the fashion at present to declaim against these classes. For my own part, I believe that at no period have their intentions been more benevolent302. I believe that they ardently303 desire to solve the social Problem. I believe that they would do more than renounce their privileges,—that they would sacrifice willingly, in works of charity, a part of the property they have acquired, if by that means they were satisfied that an end could be put to the sufferings of the working classes. It may be said, no doubt, that they are actuated by interest or fear, and that it is no great generosity305 to abandon a part of their fortune to save the remainder,—that it is, in fact, but the vulgar prudence263 of a man who insures his property against fire. But let us not thus calumniate306 human nature. Why should we refuse to [p127] recognise a motive less egotistical? Is it not very natural that the democratic sentiments which prevail in our country should render men alive to the sufferings of their brethren? But whatever may be the dominant307 sentiment, it cannot be denied that everything by which public opinion is influenced—philosophy, literature, poetry, the drama, the pulpit, the tribune, the daily press,—all these organs of opinion reveal not only a desire, but an ardent304 longing, on the part of the wealthier classes to resolve the great problem. Why, then, is there no movement on the part of our Legislative Assemblies? Because they are ignorant. Political Economy proposes to them this solution:—Public Justice,—Private Charity. But they go off upon a wrong scent308, and, obeying socialist113 influences, without being aware of the fact, they give charity a place in the statute-book, thereby309 banishing310 justice from it, and destroying by the same act private charity, which is ever prompt to recede15 before a compulsory poor-rate.
Why, then, do our legislators thus run counter to all sound notions? Why do they not leave things in their proper place,—Sympathy in its natural domain, which is Liberty,—Justice in its own, which is Law? Why do they not leave law to do its own exclusive work in furthering justice? Is it that they have no love of justice? No; it is that they have no confidence in it. Justice is Liberty and Property. But they are socialists without knowing it; and for the progressive diminution311 of poverty, and the indefinite expansion of wealth, let them say what they will, they have no faith either in liberty or property, nor, consequently, in justice. This is why we see them, in the sincerity312 of their hearts, seeking the realization of what is Good by the perpetual violation313 of what is Right.
Natural social laws are the phenomena, taken in the aggregate, and considered in reference both to their motives and their results, which govern the transactions of men in a state of freedom.
That being granted, the question is, Are we to allow these laws to act, or are we to hinder them from acting?
The question, in fact, comes to this:
Are we to leave every man master of his liberty and property, his right to produce, and exchange his produce, as he chooses, whether to his benefit or detriment314; or are we to interfere by means of law, which is Force, for the protection of these rights? Or, can we hope to secure a greater amount of social happiness by violating liberty and property, by interfering with and regulating labour, by disturbing exchanges, and shifting responsibility?
In other words: [p128]
Is Law to enforce rigorous Justice, or to be the instrument of Spoliation, organized with more or less adroitness315?
It is very evident that the solution of these questions depends upon our knowledge and study of the natural laws of society. We cannot pronounce conclusively316 upon them until we have discovered whether property, liberty, the combination of services freely and voluntarily exchanged, lead to improvement and material prosperity, as the economists317 believe, or to ruin and degradation318, as the socialists affirm.
In the first case, social evils must be attributed to disturbances of the natural laws, to legal violations319 of liberty and property, and these disturbances and violations must be put an end to. In that case Political Economy is right.
In the second case, it may be said, we have not yet had enough of Government interference. Forced and factitious combinations have not yet sufficiently superseded320 free and natural combinations. These three fatal principles, Justice, Liberty, Property, have still too powerful a sway. Our legislators have not yet attacked them boldly enough. We have not yet acted sufficiently on the maxim of taking from one in order to give to another. Hitherto we have taken from the many to give to the few. Now, we must take from all to give to all. In a word, we must organize Spoliation, and from Socialism must come our salvation321.28
Fatal Illusions which spring from Exchange.—Exchange is society. Consequently, economic truth consists in a complete view of Exchange; economic error in a partial view of it.
If man did not exchange, each economic phenomenon would be accomplished in a single individual, and it would be very easy to discover from observation its good and its bad effects.
But Exchange has given rise to the separation of occupations, or, in other words, to the establishment of trades and professions. Each service (or each product) has, then, two relations, one with the person who furnishes it, and the other with the person who receives it.
Undoubtedly, at the end of the evolution, man in a social state, like man in a state of isolation, is at once producer and consumer, but we must see clearly the difference. Man in an isolated state is always the producer of the very thing he consumes, which almost never happens with man in the social state. This is an unquestionable fact, which every one can verify for himself. It [p129] follows, moreover, from this that the social state consists in an interchange of services.
We are all producers and consumers, not of the thing, but of the value, that we have produced. In exchanging commodities we remain always possessed of their value.
It is this which gives rise to all economic errors and illusions, and it may not be useless to mark here the progress of the human mind in this respect.
We give the general name of obstacle to everything which, being interposed between our wants and our satisfactions, calls for the intervention of our efforts.
The relations of these four elements—want, obstacle, effort, satisfaction—are quite apparent, and easily understood in isolated man. We should never think of saying—
“It is a pity that Robinson Crusoe did not encounter more obstacles, for in that case he would have had more opportunities of exerting his energies—he would have been richer.”
“It is unfortunate that the sea should have cast upon the shore of the desert island useful articles, such as timber, provisions, arms, books; for this deprived him of the opportunity of exerting himself—it made him less rich.”
“It is to be regretted that Robinson invented nets to take fish and game, for that diminished by so much his efforts in relation to each given result—it made him less rich.”
“It is a pity that Robinson was not more frequently sick, for then he must have set to doctoring himself, which is labour; and as all wealth comes from labour, he would have been more wealthy on that account.”
“It is a pity that he succeeded in extinguishing the fire which threatened his cabin. He lost thus a precious opportunity of work—and was so much the poorer.”
“It is unfortunate that in the desert island the soil was not more ungrateful, the spring at a greater distance, the day shorter. For then Robinson must have exerted himself more to procure food, drink, and light, and he would have been so much the richer by the exertion.”
I say that no one in his senses would ever think of putting forth as oracles322 of truth propositions so absurd. It would be too glaring an evidence that wealth does not depend upon the intensity of the effort in proportion to the satisfaction obtained, and that it is just the contrary which is true. We should then understand that wealth consists neither in the Want, nor in the Obstacle, nor in the Effort, but in the Satisfaction; and we should not hesitate to [p130] acknowledge that, although Robinson Crusoe was both producer and consumer, yet, in order to judge of his progress, we must have reference, not to his labour, but to its results. In short, in laying down the axiom that “the paramount323 interest is that of the consumer,” we believe we are merely giving utterance324 to a truism.
Happy will it be for nations when they discern clearly how and why what we have found true or false of man in a state of isolation is equally true or false of man in his social state!
It is absolutely certain, however, that the five or six propositions which have appeared to us not only false, but absurd, when applied325 to the island of Juan Fernandez, appear, when applied to our own country, so incontestably true, that they serve as the basis of our whole economic legislation. On the other hand, the axiom which appears to us to be truth itself when applied to an individual, is never invoked326 in the name of society without calling forth a smile of contempt.
Is it true, then, that Exchange so alters our individual organization that what makes individual poverty constitutes social riches?
Society consists in this—that we work for one another. The more services we render, the more services we receive, and we receive more in proportion as our own are more appreciated—more in demand. On the other hand, the separation of occupations, the division of labour, causes each of us to apply his efforts to the removal of obstacles which stand in the way of the enjoyments of others. The agricultural labourer combats the obstacle called hunger—the physician, the obstacle called disease—the clergyman, the obstacle called vice—the author, the obstacle called ignorance—the coal miner, the obstacle called cold, etc., etc.
And as those around us are more disposed to remunerate our services in proportion as they feel more keenly the particular obstacle which stands in their own way, it follows that we are all disposed, in this point of view, and as producers, to magnify the obstacle which it is our peculiar business to overcome. We consider ourselves richer if such obstacles are multiplied, and we reason from particulars to generals—from our own individual advantage to the public good.29 . . . .
点击收听单词发音
1 snails | |
n.蜗牛;迟钝的人;蜗牛( snail的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
2 isolation | |
n.隔离,孤立,分解,分离 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
3 exertions | |
n.努力( exertion的名词复数 );费力;(能力、权力等的)运用;行使 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
4 exertion | |
n.尽力,努力 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
5 nay | |
adv.不;n.反对票,投反对票者 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
6 legitimate | |
adj.合法的,合理的,合乎逻辑的;v.使合法 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
7 opposition | |
n.反对,敌对 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
8 decided | |
adj.决定了的,坚决的;明显的,明确的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
9 infested | |
adj.为患的,大批滋生的(常与with搭配)v.害虫、野兽大批出没于( infest的过去式和过去分词 );遍布于 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
10 peremptory | |
adj.紧急的,专横的,断然的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
11 doctrine | |
n.教义;主义;学说 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
12 reposes | |
v.将(手臂等)靠在某人(某物)上( repose的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
13 repose | |
v.(使)休息;n.安息 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
14 essentially | |
adv.本质上,实质上,基本上 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
15 recede | |
vi.退(去),渐渐远去;向后倾斜,缩进 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
16 cede | |
v.割让,放弃 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
17 faculties | |
n.能力( faculty的名词复数 );全体教职员;技巧;院 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
18 equilibrium | |
n.平衡,均衡,相称,均势,平静 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
19 isolated | |
adj.与世隔绝的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
20 subsist | |
vi.生存,存在,供养 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
21 ascending | |
adj.上升的,向上的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
22 declamation | |
n. 雄辩,高调 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
23 precisely | |
adv.恰好,正好,精确地,细致地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
24 solitude | |
n. 孤独; 独居,荒僻之地,幽静的地方 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
25 nonentity | |
n.无足轻重的人 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
26 demonstration | |
n.表明,示范,论证,示威 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
27 incompatible | |
adj.不相容的,不协调的,不相配的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
28 destined | |
adj.命中注定的;(for)以…为目的地的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
29 stationary | |
adj.固定的,静止不动的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
30 relatively | |
adv.比较...地,相对地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
31 undoubtedly | |
adv.确实地,无疑地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
32 infancy | |
n.婴儿期;幼年期;初期 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
33 maturity | |
n.成熟;完成;(支票、债券等)到期 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
34 frail | |
adj.身体虚弱的;易损坏的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
35 appeased | |
安抚,抚慰( appease的过去式和过去分词 ); 绥靖(满足另一国的要求以避免战争) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
36 pamper | |
v.纵容,过分关怀 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
37 embellish | |
v.装饰,布置;给…添加细节,润饰 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
38 exacting | |
adj.苛求的,要求严格的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
39 acting | |
n.演戏,行为,假装;adj.代理的,临时的,演出用的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
40 fathom | |
v.领悟,彻底了解 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
41 bowels | |
n.肠,内脏,内部;肠( bowel的名词复数 );内部,最深处 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
42 annihilate | |
v.使无效;毁灭;取消 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
43 aspirations | |
强烈的愿望( aspiration的名词复数 ); 志向; 发送气音; 发 h 音 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
44 aspiration | |
n.志向,志趣抱负;渴望;(语)送气音;吸出 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
45 susceptible | |
adj.过敏的,敏感的;易动感情的,易受感动的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
46 countless | |
adj.无数的,多得不计其数的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
47 domain | |
n.(活动等)领域,范围;领地,势力范围 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
48 augment | |
vt.(使)增大,增加,增长,扩张 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
49 modifications | |
n.缓和( modification的名词复数 );限制;更改;改变 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
50 fully | |
adv.完全地,全部地,彻底地;充分地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
51 analogous | |
adj.相似的;类似的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
52 appreciation | |
n.评价;欣赏;感谢;领会,理解;价格上涨 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
53 indifference | |
n.不感兴趣,不关心,冷淡,不在乎 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
54 surgical | |
adj.外科的,外科医生的,手术上的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
55 metaphor | |
n.隐喻,暗喻 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
56 beaver | |
n.海狸,河狸 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
57 hawk | |
n.鹰,骗子;鹰派成员 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
58 prey | |
n.被掠食者,牺牲者,掠食;v.捕食,掠夺,折磨 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
59 bounty | |
n.慷慨的赠予物,奖金;慷慨,大方;施与 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
60 munificence | |
n.宽宏大量,慷慨给与 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
61 sociable | |
adj.好交际的,友好的,合群的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
62 unlimited | |
adj.无限的,不受控制的,无条件的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
63 enjoyments | |
愉快( enjoyment的名词复数 ); 令人愉快的事物; 享有; 享受 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
64 enjoyment | |
n.乐趣;享有;享用 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
65 distinguished | |
adj.卓越的,杰出的,著名的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
66 remarkable | |
adj.显著的,异常的,非凡的,值得注意的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
67 destitution | |
n.穷困,缺乏,贫穷 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
68 surmounting | |
战胜( surmount的现在分词 ); 克服(困难); 居于…之上; 在…顶上 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
69 civilisation | |
n.文明,文化,开化,教化 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
70 concessions | |
n.(尤指由政府或雇主给予的)特许权( concession的名词复数 );承认;减价;(在某地的)特许经营权 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
71 shipwreck | |
n.船舶失事,海难 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
72 gunpowder | |
n.火药 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
73 hatchet | |
n.短柄小斧;v.扼杀 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
74 planks | |
(厚)木板( plank的名词复数 ); 政纲条目,政策要点 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
75 engulf | |
vt.吞没,吞食 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
76 converse | |
vi.谈话,谈天,闲聊;adv.相反的,相反 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
77 unreasonable | |
adj.不讲道理的,不合情理的,过度的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
78 advancement | |
n.前进,促进,提升 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
79 authorize | |
v.授权,委任;批准,认可 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
80 impairs | |
v.损害,削弱( impair的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
81 humble | |
adj.谦卑的,恭顺的;地位低下的;v.降低,贬低 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
82 procure | |
vt.获得,取得,促成;vi.拉皮条 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
83 passionate | |
adj.热情的,热烈的,激昂的,易动情的,易怒的,性情暴躁的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
84 enthusiast | |
n.热心人,热衷者 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
85 avows | |
v.公开声明,承认( avow的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
86 dispensed | |
v.分配( dispense的过去式和过去分词 );施与;配(药) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
87 dispense | |
vt.分配,分发;配(药),发(药);实施 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
88 exalt | |
v.赞扬,歌颂,晋升,提升 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
89 chimera | |
n.神话怪物;梦幻 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
90 invoke | |
v.求助于(神、法律);恳求,乞求 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
91 justified | |
a.正当的,有理的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
92 advantageous | |
adj.有利的;有帮助的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
93 invincibly | |
adv.难战胜地,无敌地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
94 narcotic | |
n.麻醉药,镇静剂;adj.麻醉的,催眠的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
95 virtue | |
n.德行,美德;贞操;优点;功效,效力 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
96 motive | |
n.动机,目的;adv.发动的,运动的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
97 incapable | |
adj.无能力的,不能做某事的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
98 barter | |
n.物物交换,以货易货,实物交易 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
99 superfluous | |
adj.过多的,过剩的,多余的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
100 accomplished | |
adj.有才艺的;有造诣的;达到了的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
101 concurrence | |
n.同意;并发 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
102 concur | |
v.同意,意见一致,互助,同时发生 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
103 endued | |
v.授予,赋予(特性、才能等)( endue的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
104 varied | |
adj.多样的,多变化的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
105 agility | |
n.敏捷,活泼 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
106 foresight | |
n.先见之明,深谋远虑 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
107 attained | |
(通常经过努力)实现( attain的过去式和过去分词 ); 达到; 获得; 达到(某年龄、水平、状况) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
108 prospect | |
n.前景,前途;景色,视野 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
109 augments | |
增加,提高,扩大( augment的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
110 intensity | |
n.强烈,剧烈;强度;烈度 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
111 mere | |
adj.纯粹的;仅仅,只不过 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
112 alleged | |
a.被指控的,嫌疑的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
113 socialist | |
n.社会主义者;adj.社会主义的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
114 socialists | |
社会主义者( socialist的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
115 mechanism | |
n.机械装置;机构,结构 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
116 determined | |
adj.坚定的;有决心的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
117 dwelling | |
n.住宅,住所,寓所 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
118 controversy | |
n.争论,辩论,争吵 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
119 disparaged | |
v.轻视( disparage的过去式和过去分词 );贬低;批评;非难 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
120 philosophical | |
adj.哲学家的,哲学上的,达观的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
121 concealing | |
v.隐藏,隐瞒,遮住( conceal的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
122 rendering | |
n.表现,描写 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
123 phenomena | |
n.现象 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
124 celebrated | |
adj.有名的,声誉卓著的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
125 economist | |
n.经济学家,经济专家,节俭的人 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
126 dexterity | |
n.(手的)灵巧,灵活 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
127 secondly | |
adv.第二,其次 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
128 attaining | |
(通常经过努力)实现( attain的现在分词 ); 达到; 获得; 达到(某年龄、水平、状况) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
129 procuring | |
v.(努力)取得, (设法)获得( procure的现在分词 );拉皮条 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
130 diffused | |
散布的,普及的,扩散的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
131 elasticity | |
n.弹性,伸缩力 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
132 vigour | |
(=vigor)n.智力,体力,精力 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
133 magnetism | |
n.磁性,吸引力,磁学 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
134 verities | |
n.真实( verity的名词复数 );事实;真理;真实的陈述 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
135 sufficiently | |
adv.足够地,充分地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
136 sterile | |
adj.不毛的,不孕的,无菌的,枯燥的,贫瘠的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
137 arid | |
adj.干旱的;(土地)贫瘠的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
138 faculty | |
n.才能;学院,系;(学院或系的)全体教学人员 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
139 recur | |
vi.复发,重现,再发生 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
140 gratuitous | |
adj.无偿的,免费的;无缘无故的,不必要的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
141 onerous | |
adj.繁重的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
142 gratuitously | |
平白 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
143 intervention | |
n.介入,干涉,干预 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
144 prolific | |
adj.丰富的,大量的;多产的,富有创造力的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
145 ingenuity | |
n.别出心裁;善于发明创造 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
146 artistic | |
adj.艺术(家)的,美术(家)的;善于艺术创作的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
147 aptitudes | |
(学习方面的)才能,资质,天资( aptitude的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
148 well-being | |
n.安康,安乐,幸福 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
149 misery | |
n.痛苦,苦恼,苦难;悲惨的境遇,贫苦 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
150 possessed | |
adj.疯狂的;拥有的,占有的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
151 deprivation | |
n.匮乏;丧失;夺去,贫困 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
152 distinctive | |
adj.特别的,有特色的,与众不同的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
153 apparatus | |
n.装置,器械;器具,设备 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
154 loom | |
n.织布机,织机;v.隐现,(危险、忧虑等)迫近 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
155 looms | |
n.织布机( loom的名词复数 )v.隐约出现,阴森地逼近( loom的第三人称单数 );隐约出现,阴森地逼近 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
156 primitive | |
adj.原始的;简单的;n.原(始)人,原始事物 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
157 embryo | |
n.胚胎,萌芽的事物 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
158 motives | |
n.动机,目的( motive的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
159 procures | |
v.(努力)取得, (设法)获得( procure的第三人称单数 );拉皮条 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
160 bartered | |
v.作物物交换,以货换货( barter的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
161 analyze | |
vt.分析,解析 (=analyse) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
162 renounced | |
v.声明放弃( renounce的过去式和过去分词 );宣布放弃;宣布与…决裂;宣布摒弃 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
163 renounce | |
v.放弃;拒绝承认,宣布与…断绝关系 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
164 judicious | |
adj.明智的,明断的,能作出明智决定的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
165 alteration | |
n.变更,改变;蚀变 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
166 devoted | |
adj.忠诚的,忠实的,热心的,献身于...的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
167 immediate | |
adj.立即的;直接的,最接近的;紧靠的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
168 wondrous | |
adj.令人惊奇的,奇妙的;adv.惊人地;异乎寻常地;令人惊叹地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
169 machinery | |
n.(总称)机械,机器;机构 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
170 reimbursed | |
v.偿还,付还( reimburse的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
171 accomplishment | |
n.完成,成就,(pl.)造诣,技能 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
172 brokers | |
n.(股票、外币等)经纪人( broker的名词复数 );中间人;代理商;(订合同的)中人v.做掮客(或中人等)( broker的第三人称单数 );作为权力经纪人进行谈判;以中间人等身份安排… | |
参考例句: |
|
|
173 costly | |
adj.昂贵的,价值高的,豪华的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
174 encumbered | |
v.妨碍,阻碍,拖累( encumber的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
175 aggregate | |
adj.总计的,集合的;n.总数;v.合计;集合 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
176 procured | |
v.(努力)取得, (设法)获得( procure的过去式和过去分词 );拉皮条 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
177 stipulation | |
n.契约,规定,条文;条款说明 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
178 ordinance | |
n.法令;条令;条例 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
179 aggravated | |
使恶化( aggravate的过去式和过去分词 ); 使更严重; 激怒; 使恼火 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
180 physically | |
adj.物质上,体格上,身体上,按自然规律 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
181 discordance | |
n.不调和,不和,不一致性;不整合;假整合 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
182 impede | |
v.妨碍,阻碍,阻止 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
183 density | |
n.密集,密度,浓度 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
184 transacts | |
v.办理(业务等)( transact的第三人称单数 );交易,谈判 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
185 densely | |
ad.密集地;浓厚地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
186 scattered | |
adj.分散的,稀疏的;散步的;疏疏落落的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
187 metropolis | |
n.首府;大城市 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
188 provincial | |
adj.省的,地方的;n.外省人,乡下人 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
189 revert | |
v.恢复,复归,回到 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
190 economize | |
v.节约,节省 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
191 condensation | |
n.压缩,浓缩;凝结的水珠 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
192 onward | |
adj.向前的,前进的;adv.向前,前进,在先 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
193 hamper | |
vt.妨碍,束缚,限制;n.(有盖的)大篮子 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
194 restrictions | |
约束( restriction的名词复数 ); 管制; 制约因素; 带限制性的条件(或规则) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
195 fetters | |
n.脚镣( fetter的名词复数 );束缚v.给…上脚镣,束缚( fetter的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
196 tariffs | |
关税制度; 关税( tariff的名词复数 ); 关税表; (旅馆或饭店等的)收费表; 量刑标准 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
197 efface | |
v.擦掉,抹去 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
198 effaced | |
v.擦掉( efface的过去式和过去分词 );抹去;超越;使黯然失色 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
199 interfere | |
v.(in)干涉,干预;(with)妨碍,打扰 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
200 displacement | |
n.移置,取代,位移,排水量 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
201 disturbance | |
n.动乱,骚动;打扰,干扰;(身心)失调 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
202 torrents | |
n.倾注;奔流( torrent的名词复数 );急流;爆发;连续不断 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
203 precarious | |
adj.不安定的,靠不住的;根据不足的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
204 pauperism | |
n.有被救济的资格,贫困 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
205 disturbances | |
n.骚乱( disturbance的名词复数 );打扰;困扰;障碍 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
206 transacted | |
v.办理(业务等)( transact的过去式和过去分词 );交易,谈判 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
207 frightful | |
adj.可怕的;讨厌的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
208 providence | |
n.深谋远虑,天道,天意;远见;节约;上帝 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
209 destitute | |
adj.缺乏的;穷困的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
210 incipient | |
adj.起初的,发端的,初期的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
211 grandeur | |
n.伟大,崇高,宏伟,庄严,豪华 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
212 circumference | |
n.圆周,周长,圆周线 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
213 piety | |
n.虔诚,虔敬 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
214 parental | |
adj.父母的;父的;母的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
215 patriotism | |
n.爱国精神,爱国心,爱国主义 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
216 antagonistic | |
adj.敌对的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
217 realization | |
n.实现;认识到,深刻了解 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
218 solitary | |
adj.孤独的,独立的,荒凉的;n.隐士 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
219 prosper | |
v.成功,兴隆,昌盛;使成功,使昌隆,繁荣 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
220 forth | |
adv.向前;向外,往外 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
221 derive | |
v.取得;导出;引申;来自;源自;出自 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
222 inquiry | |
n.打听,询问,调查,查问 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
223 jealousies | |
n.妒忌( jealousy的名词复数 );妒羡 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
224 soliciting | |
v.恳求( solicit的现在分词 );(指娼妇)拉客;索求;征求 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
225 elicited | |
引出,探出( elicit的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
226 maxim | |
n.格言,箴言 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
227 antagonism | |
n.对抗,敌对,对立 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
228 vanquish | |
v.征服,战胜;克服;抑制 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
229 stifle | |
vt.使窒息;闷死;扼杀;抑止,阻止 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
230 harmonious | |
adj.和睦的,调和的,和谐的,协调的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
231 conjure | |
v.恳求,祈求;变魔术,变戏法 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
232 dedicated | |
adj.一心一意的;献身的;热诚的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
233 scrutinize | |
n.详细检查,细读 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
234 peculiar | |
adj.古怪的,异常的;特殊的,特有的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
235 lucid | |
adj.明白易懂的,清晰的,头脑清楚的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
236 benefactor | |
n. 恩人,行善的人,捐助人 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
237 deviate | |
v.(from)背离,偏离 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
238 thoroughly | |
adv.完全地,彻底地,十足地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
239 abstain | |
v.自制,戒绝,弃权,避免 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
240 interfering | |
adj. 妨碍的 动词interfere的现在分词 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
241 arrogated | |
v.冒称,妄取( arrogate的过去式和过去分词 );没来由地把…归属(于) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
242 infinity | |
n.无限,无穷,大量 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
243 negation | |
n.否定;否认 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
244 simplicity | |
n.简单,简易;朴素;直率,单纯 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
245 paradox | |
n.似乎矛盾却正确的说法;自相矛盾的人(物) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
246 doctrines | |
n.教条( doctrine的名词复数 );教义;学说;(政府政策的)正式声明 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
247 inundate | |
vt.淹没,泛滥,压倒 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
248 imputable | |
adj.可归罪的,可归咎的,可归因的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
249 counteract | |
vt.对…起反作用,对抗,抵消 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
250 attest | |
vt.证明,证实;表明 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
251 compulsory | |
n.强制的,必修的;规定的,义务的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
252 constrained | |
adj.束缚的,节制的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
253 conveyances | |
n.传送( conveyance的名词复数 );运送;表达;运输工具 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
254 interdicted | |
v.禁止(行动)( interdict的过去式和过去分词 );禁用;限制 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
255 abjure | |
v.发誓放弃 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
256 alas | |
int.唉(表示悲伤、忧愁、恐惧等) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
257 permissible | |
adj.可允许的,许可的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
258 longing | |
n.(for)渴望 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
259 inclinations | |
倾向( inclination的名词复数 ); 倾斜; 爱好; 斜坡 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
260 perfectly | |
adv.完美地,无可非议地,彻底地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
261 conspire | |
v.密谋,(事件等)巧合,共同导致 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
262 folly | |
n.愚笨,愚蠢,蠢事,蠢行,傻话 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
263 prudence | |
n.谨慎,精明,节俭 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
264 perversity | |
n.任性;刚愎自用 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
265 reign | |
n.统治时期,统治,支配,盛行;v.占优势 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
266 perverse | |
adj.刚愎的;坚持错误的,行为反常的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
267 inevitable | |
adj.不可避免的,必然发生的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
268 epoch | |
n.(新)时代;历元 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
269 inert | |
adj.无活动能力的,惰性的;迟钝的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
270 constituent | |
n.选民;成分,组分;adj.组成的,构成的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
271 engulfed | |
v.吞没,包住( engulf的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
272 legislative | |
n.立法机构,立法权;adj.立法的,有立法权的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
273 dignified | |
a.可敬的,高贵的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
274 proceeding | |
n.行动,进行,(pl.)会议录,学报 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
275 distress | |
n.苦恼,痛苦,不舒适;不幸;vt.使悲痛 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
276 absurdity | |
n.荒谬,愚蠢;谬论 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
277 fermenting | |
v.(使)发酵( ferment的现在分词 );(使)激动;骚动;骚扰 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
278 odious | |
adj.可憎的,讨厌的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
279 batter | |
v.接连重击;磨损;n.牛奶面糊;击球员 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
280 stratum | |
n.地层,社会阶层 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
281 skilfully | |
adv. (美skillfully)熟练地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
282 emaciated | |
adj.衰弱的,消瘦的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
283 trampled | |
踩( trample的过去式和过去分词 ); 践踏; 无视; 侵犯 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
284 shackles | |
手铐( shackle的名词复数 ); 脚镣; 束缚; 羁绊 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
285 intrigues | |
n.密谋策划( intrigue的名词复数 );神秘气氛;引人入胜的复杂情节v.搞阴谋诡计( intrigue的第三人称单数 );激起…的好奇心 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
286 solicitors | |
初级律师( solicitor的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
287 gratis | |
adj.免费的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
288 climax | |
n.顶点;高潮;v.(使)达到顶点 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
289 injustice | |
n.非正义,不公正,不公平,侵犯(别人的)权利 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
290 disposition | |
n.性情,性格;意向,倾向;排列,部署 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
291 incessant | |
adj.不停的,连续的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
292 treasury | |
n.宝库;国库,金库;文库 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
293 taxation | |
n.征税,税收,税金 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
294 franchise | |
n.特许,特权,专营权,特许权 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
295 horrified | |
a.(表现出)恐惧的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
296 penetrate | |
v.透(渗)入;刺入,刺穿;洞察,了解 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
297 suffrage | |
n.投票,选举权,参政权 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
298 woe | |
n.悲哀,苦痛,不幸,困难;int.用来表达悲伤或惊慌 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
299 obviate | |
v.除去,排除,避免,预防 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
300 vindicate | |
v.为…辩护或辩解,辩明;证明…正确 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
301 consistency | |
n.一贯性,前后一致,稳定性;(液体的)浓度 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
302 benevolent | |
adj.仁慈的,乐善好施的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
303 ardently | |
adv.热心地,热烈地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
304 ardent | |
adj.热情的,热烈的,强烈的,烈性的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
305 generosity | |
n.大度,慷慨,慷慨的行为 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
306 calumniate | |
v.诬蔑,中伤 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
307 dominant | |
adj.支配的,统治的;占优势的;显性的;n.主因,要素,主要的人(或物);显性基因 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
308 scent | |
n.气味,香味,香水,线索,嗅觉;v.嗅,发觉 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
309 thereby | |
adv.因此,从而 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
310 banishing | |
v.放逐,驱逐( banish的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
311 diminution | |
n.减少;变小 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
312 sincerity | |
n.真诚,诚意;真实 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
313 violation | |
n.违反(行为),违背(行为),侵犯 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
314 detriment | |
n.损害;损害物,造成损害的根源 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
315 adroitness | |
参考例句: |
|
|
316 conclusively | |
adv.令人信服地,确凿地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
317 economists | |
n.经济学家,经济专家( economist的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
318 degradation | |
n.降级;低落;退化;陵削;降解;衰变 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
319 violations | |
违反( violation的名词复数 ); 冒犯; 违反(行为、事例); 强奸 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
320 superseded | |
[医]被代替的,废弃的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
321 salvation | |
n.(尤指基督)救世,超度,拯救,解困 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
322 oracles | |
神示所( oracle的名词复数 ); 神谕; 圣贤; 哲人 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
323 paramount | |
a.最重要的,最高权力的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
324 utterance | |
n.用言语表达,话语,言语 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
325 applied | |
adj.应用的;v.应用,适用 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
326 invoked | |
v.援引( invoke的过去式和过去分词 );行使(权利等);祈求救助;恳求 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
327 plausible | |
adj.似真实的,似乎有理的,似乎可信的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
欢迎访问英文小说网 |