But by what do we measure our well-being2? By the result of our effort, or by the effort itself? There exists always a proportion between the effort employed and the result obtained. Does progress consist in the relative increase of the second or of the first term of this proportion?
Both propositions have been sustained, and in political economy opinions are divided between them.
According to the first system, riches are the result of labor3. They increase in the same ratio as the result does to the effort. Absolute perfection, of which God is the type, consists in the infinite distance between these two terms in this relation, viz., effort none, result infinite.
The second system maintains that it is the effort itself which forms the measure of, and constitutes, our riches. Progression is the increase of the proportion of the effort to the result. Its ideal extreme may be represented by the eternal and fruitless efforts of Sisyphus.[7]
The first system tends naturally to the encouragement of every thing which diminishes difficulties, and augments5 production,—as powerful machinery6, which adds to the strength of man; the exchange of produce, which allows us to profit by the various natural agents distributed in different degrees over the surface of our globe; the intellect which discovers, experience which proves, and emulation7 which excites.
The second as logically inclines to every thing which can augment4 the difficulty and diminish the product; as privileges, monopolies, restrictions8, prohibitions10, suppression of machinery, sterility11, etc.
It is well to remark here that the universal practice of men is always guided by the principle of the first system. Every workman, whether agriculturist, manufacturer, merchant, soldier, writer or philosopher, devotes the strength of his intellect to do better, to do more quickly, more economically,—in a word, to do more with less.
The opposite doctrine12 is in use with legislators, editors, statesmen, men whose business is to make experiments upon society. And even of these we may observe, that in what personally concerns themselves, they act, like every body else, upon the principle of obtaining from their labor the greatest possible quantity of useful results.
It may be supposed that I exaggerate, and that there are no true Sisyphists.
I grant that in practice the principle is not pushed to its extremest consequences. And this must always be the case when one starts upon a wrong principle, because the absurd and injurious results to which it leads, cannot but check it in its progress. For this reason, practical industry never can admit of Sisyphism. The error is too quickly followed by its punishment to remain concealed13. But in the speculative14 industry of theorists and statesmen, a false principle may be for a long time followed up, before the complication of its consequences, only half understood, can prove its falsity; and even when all is revealed, the opposite principle is acted upon, self is contradicted, and justification15 sought, in the incomparably absurd modern axiom, that in political economy there is no principle universally true.
Let us see then, if the two opposite principles I have laid down do not predominate, each in its turn;—the one in practical industry, the other in industrial legislation.
I have already quoted some words of Mr. Bugeaud; but we must look on Mr. Bugeaud in two separate characters, the agriculturist and the legislator.
As agriculturist, Mr. Bugeaud makes every effort to attain16 the double object of sparing labor, and obtaining bread cheap. When he prefers a good plough to a bad one, when he improves the quality of his manures; when, to loosen his soil, he substitutes as much as possible the action of the atmosphere for that of the hoe or the harrow; when he calls to his aid every improvement that science and experience have revealed, he has, and can have, but one object, viz., to diminish the proportion of the effort to the result. We have indeed no other means of judging of the success of an agriculturist, or of the merits of his system, but by observing how far he has succeeded in lessening17 the one, while he increases the other; and as all the farmers in the world act upon this principle, we may say that all mankind are seeking, no doubt for their own advantage, to obtain at the lowest price, bread, or whatever other article of produce they may need, always diminishing the effort necessary for obtaining any given quantity thereof.
This incontestable tendency of human nature, once proved, would, one might suppose, be sufficient to point out the true principle to the legislator, and to show him how he ought to assist industry (if indeed it is any part of his business to assist it at all), for it would be absurd to say that the laws of men should operate in an inverse18 ratio from those of Providence19.
Yet we have heard Mr. Bugeaud in his character of legislator, exclaim, "I do not understand this theory of cheapness; I would rather see bread dear, and work more abundant." And consequently the deputy from Dordogne votes in favor of legislative20 measures whose effect is to shackle21 and impede22 commerce, precisely23 because by so doing we are prevented from procuring24 by exchange, and at low price, what direct production can only furnish more expensively.
Now it is very evident that the system of Mr. Bugeaud the deputy, is directly opposed to that of Mr. Bugeaud the agriculturist. Were he consistent with himself, he would as legislator vote against all restriction9; or else as farmer, he would practice in his fields the same principle which he proclaims in the public councils. We should then see him sowing his grain in his most sterile25 fields, because he would thus succeed in laboring26 much, to obtain little. We should see him forbidding the use of the plough, because he could, by scratching up the soil with his nails, fully27 gratify his double wish of "dear bread and abundant labor."
Restriction has for its avowed28 object, and acknowledged effect, the augmentation of labor. And again, equally avowed and acknowledged, its object and effect are, the increase of prices;—a synonymous term for scarcity29 of produce. Pushed then to its greatest extreme, it is pure Sisyphism as we have defined it: labor infinite; result nothing.
Baron30 Charles Dupin, who is looked upon as the oracle31 of the peerage in the science of political economy, accuses railroads of injuring shipping32, and it is certainly true that the most perfect means of attaining33 an object must always limit the use of a less perfect means. But railways can only injure shipping by drawing from it articles of transportation; this they can only do by transporting more cheaply; and they can only transport more cheaply, by diminishing the proportion of the effort employed to the result obtained; for it is in this that cheapness consists. When, therefore, Baron Dupin laments34 the suppression of labor in attaining a given result, he maintains the doctrine of Sisyphism. Logically, if he prefers the vessel35 to the railway, he should also prefer the wagon36 to the vessel, the pack-saddle to the wagon, and the wallet to the pack-saddle; for this is, of all known means of transportation, the one which requires the greatest amount of labor, in proportion to the result obtained.
"Labor constitutes the riches of the people," said Mr. de Saint Cricq, a minister who has laid not a few shackles37 upon our commerce. This was no elliptical expression, meaning that the "results of labor constitute the riches of the people." No,—this statesman intended to say, that it is the intensity38 of labor, which measures riches; and the proof of this is, that from step to step, from restriction to restriction, he forced on France (and in so doing believed that he was doing well) to give to the procuring, of, for instance, a certain quantity of iron, double the necessary labor. In England, iron was then at eight francs; in France it cost sixteen. Supposing the day's work to be worth one franc, it is evident that France could, by barter39, procure40 a quintal of iron by eight days' labor taken from the labor of the nation. Thanks to the restrictive measures of Mr. de Saint Cricq, sixteen days' work were necessary to procure it, by direct production. Here then we have double labor for an identical result; therefore double riches; and riches, measured not by the result, but by the intensity of labor. Is not this pure and unadulterated Sisyphism?
That there may be nothing equivocal, the minister carries his idea still farther, and on the same principle that we have heard him call the intensity of labor riches, we will find him calling the abundant results of labor, and the plenty of every thing proper to the satisfying of our wants, poverty. "Every where," he remarks, "machinery has pushed aside manual labor; every where production is superabundant; every where the equilibrium41 is destroyed between the power of production and that of consumption." Here then we see that, according to Mr. de Saint Cricq, if France was in a critical situation, it was because her productions were too abundant; there was too much intelligence, too much efficiency in her national labor. We were too well fed, too well clothed, too well supplied with every thing; the rapid production was more than sufficient for our wants. It was necessary to put an end to this calamity42, and therefore it became needful to force us, by restrictions, to work more, in order to produce less.
I also touched upon an opinion expressed by another minister of commerce, Mr. d'Argout, which is worthy43 of being a little more closely looked into. Wishing to give a death blow to the beet44, he said: "The culture of the beet is undoubtedly45 useful, but this usefulness is limited. It is not capable of the prodigious46 developments which have been predicted of it. To be convinced of this it is enough to remark that the cultivation47 of it must necessarily be confined within the limits of consumption. Double, treble if you will, the present consumption of France, and you will still find that a very small portion of her soil will suffice for this consumption. (Truly a most singular cause of complaint!) Do you wish the proof of this? How many hectares were planted in beets48 in the year 1828? 3,130, which is 1-10540th of our cultivable soil. How many are there at this time, when our domestic sugar supplies one-third of the consumption of the country? 16,700 hectares, or 1-1978th of the cultivable soil, or 45 centiares for each commune. Suppose that our domestic sugar should monopolize49 the supply of the whole consumption, we still would have but 48,000 hectares or 1-689th of our cultivable soil in beets."[8]
There are two things to consider in this quotation50. The facts and the doctrine. The facts go to prove that very little soil, capital, and labor would be necessary for the production of a large quantity of sugar; and that each commune of France would be abundantly provided with it by giving up one hectare to its cultivation. The peculiarity51 of the doctrine consists in the looking upon this facility of production as an unfortunate circumstance, and the regarding the very fruitfulness of this new branch of industry as a limitation to its usefulness.
It is not my purpose here to constitute myself the defender52 of the beet, or the judge of the singular facts stated by Mr. d'Argout, but it is worth the trouble of examining into the doctrines53 of a statesman, to whose judgment54 France, for a long time, confided55 the fate of her agriculture and her commerce.
I began by saying that a variable proportion exists in all industrial pursuits, between the effort and the result. Absolute imperfection consists in an infinite effort, without any result; absolute perfection in an unlimited56 result, without any effort; and perfectibility, in the progressive diminution57 of the effort, compared with the result.
But Mr. d'Argout tells us, that where we looked for life, we shall find only death. The importance of any object of industry is, according to him, in direct proportion to its feebleness. What, for instance, can we expect from the beet? Do you not see that 48,000 hectares of land, with capital and labor in proportion, will suffice to furnish sugar to all France? It is then an object of limited usefulness; limited, be it understood, in the work which it calls for; and this is the sole measure, according to our minister, of the usefulness of any pursuit. This usefulness would be much more limited still, if, thanks to the fertility of the soil, or the richness of the beet, 24,000 hectares would serve instead of 48,000. If there were only needed twenty times, a hundred times more soil, more capital, more labor, to attain the same result—Oh! then some hopes might be founded upon this article of industry; it would be worthy of the protection of the state, for it would open a vast field to national labor. But to produce much with little is a bad example, and the laws ought to set things to rights.
What is true with regard to sugar, cannot be false with regard to bread. If therefore the usefulness of an object of industry is to be calculated, not by the comforts which it can furnish with a certain quantum of labor, but, on the contrary, by the increase of labor which it requires in order to furnish a certain quantity of comforts, it is evident that we ought to desire, that each acre of land should produce little corn, and that each grain of corn should furnish little nutriment; in other words, that our territory should be sterile enough to require a considerably58 larger proportion of soil, capital, and labor to nourish its population. The demand for human labor could not fail to be in direct proportion to this sterility, and then truly would the wishes of Messrs. Bugeaud, Saint Cricq, Dupin, and d'Argout be satisfied; bread would be dear, work abundant, and France would be rich—rich according to the understanding of these gentlemen.
All that we could have further to hope for, would be, that human intellect might sink and become extinct; for, while intellect exists, it can but seek continually to increase the proportion of the end to the means; of the product to the labor. Indeed it is in this continuous effort, and in this alone, that intellect consists.
Sisyphism has then been the doctrine of all those who have been intrusted with the regulation of the industry of our country. It would not be just to reproach them with this; for this principle becomes that of our ministry59, only because it prevails in the chambers60; it prevails in the chambers, only because it is sent there by the electoral body; and the electoral body is imbued61 with it, only because public opinion is filled with it to repletion62.
Let me repeat here, that I do not accuse such men as Messrs. Bugeaud, Dupin, Saint Cricq, and d'Argout, of being absolutely and always Sisyphists. Very certainly they are not such in their personal transactions; very certainly each one of them will procure for himself by barter, what by direct production would be attainable63 only at a higher price. But I maintain that they are Sisyphists when they prevent the country from acting64 upon the same principle.
点击
收听单词发音
收听单词发音 |
1
faculties
|
|
| n.能力( faculty的名词复数 )；全体教职员；技巧；院 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
2
well-being
|
|
| n.安康，安乐，幸福 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
3
labor
|
|
| n.劳动，努力，工作，劳工；分娩；vi.劳动，努力，苦干；vt.详细分析；麻烦 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
4
augment
|
|
| vt.(使)增大，增加，增长，扩张 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
5
augments
|
|
| 增加，提高，扩大( augment的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
6
machinery
|
|
| n.(总称)机械，机器；机构 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
7
emulation
|
|
| n.竞争；仿效 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
8
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： |
|
|
|
|
9
restriction
|
|
| n.限制，约束 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
10
prohibitions
|
|
| 禁令，禁律( prohibition的名词复数 )； 禁酒； 禁例 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
11
sterility
|
|
| n.不生育，不结果，贫瘠，消毒，无菌 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
12
doctrine
|
|
| n.教义；主义；学说 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
13
concealed
|
|
| a.隐藏的，隐蔽的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
14
speculative
|
|
| adj.思索性的，暝想性的，推理的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
15
justification
|
|
| n.正当的理由；辩解的理由 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
16
attain
|
|
| vt.达到，获得，完成 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
17
lessening
|
|
| 减轻，减少，变小 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
18
inverse
|
|
| adj.相反的，倒转的，反转的；n.相反之物；v.倒转 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
19
providence
|
|
| n.深谋远虑，天道，天意；远见；节约；上帝 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
20
legislative
|
|
| n.立法机构，立法权；adj.立法的，有立法权的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
21
shackle
|
|
| n.桎梏，束缚物；v.加桎梏，加枷锁，束缚 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
22
impede
|
|
| v.妨碍，阻碍，阻止 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
23
precisely
|
|
| adv.恰好，正好，精确地，细致地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
24
procuring
|
|
| v.（努力）取得， （设法）获得( procure的现在分词 )；拉皮条 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
25
sterile
|
|
| adj.不毛的，不孕的，无菌的，枯燥的，贫瘠的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
26
laboring
|
|
| n.劳动，操劳v.努力争取(for)( labor的现在分词 )；苦干；详细分析；（指引擎）缓慢而困难地运转 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
27
fully
|
|
| adv.完全地，全部地，彻底地；充分地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
28
avowed
|
|
| adj.公开声明的，承认的v.公开声明，承认( avow的过去式和过去分词) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
29
scarcity
|
|
| n.缺乏，不足，萧条 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
30
baron
|
|
| n.男爵；(商业界等)巨头，大王 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
31
oracle
|
|
| n.神谕，神谕处，预言 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
32
shipping
|
|
| n.船运（发货，运输，乘船） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
33
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： |
|
|
|
|
34
laments
|
|
| n.悲恸，哀歌，挽歌( lament的名词复数 )v.（为…）哀悼，痛哭，悲伤( lament的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
35
vessel
|
|
| n.船舶；容器，器皿；管，导管，血管 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
36
wagon
|
|
| n.四轮马车，手推车，面包车；无盖运货列车 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
37
shackles
|
|
| 手铐( shackle的名词复数 )； 脚镣； 束缚； 羁绊 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
38
intensity
|
|
| n.强烈，剧烈；强度；烈度 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
39
barter
|
|
| n.物物交换，以货易货，实物交易 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
40
procure
|
|
| vt.获得，取得，促成；vi.拉皮条 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
41
equilibrium
|
|
| n.平衡，均衡，相称，均势，平静 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
42
calamity
|
|
| n.灾害，祸患，不幸事件 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
43
worthy
|
|
| adj.(of)值得的，配得上的；有价值的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
44
beet
|
|
| n.甜菜；甜菜根 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
45
undoubtedly
|
|
| adv.确实地，无疑地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
46
prodigious
|
|
| adj.惊人的，奇妙的；异常的；巨大的；庞大的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
47
cultivation
|
|
| n.耕作，培养，栽培（法），养成 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
48
beets
|
|
| 甜菜( beet的名词复数 )； 甜菜根； （因愤怒、难堪或觉得热而）脸红 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
49
monopolize
|
|
| v.垄断，独占，专营 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
50
quotation
|
|
| n.引文，引语，语录；报价，牌价，行情 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
51
peculiarity
|
|
| n.独特性，特色；特殊的东西；怪癖 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
52
defender
|
|
| n.保卫者，拥护者，辩护人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
53
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： |
|
|
|
|
54
judgment
|
|
| n.审判；判断力，识别力，看法，意见 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
55
confided
|
|
| v.吐露（秘密，心事等）( confide的过去式和过去分词 )；（向某人）吐露（隐私、秘密等） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
56
unlimited
|
|
| adj.无限的，不受控制的，无条件的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
57
diminution
|
|
| n.减少；变小 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
58
considerably
|
|
| adv.极大地；相当大地；在很大程度上 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
59
ministry
|
|
| n.(政府的)部；牧师 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
60
chambers
|
|
| n.房间( chamber的名词复数 )；（议会的）议院；卧室；会议厅 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
61
imbued
|
|
| v.使（某人/某事）充满或激起（感情等）( imbue的过去式和过去分词 )；使充满；灌输；激发（强烈感情或品质等） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
62
repletion
|
|
| n.充满，吃饱 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
63
attainable
|
|
| a.可达到的，可获得的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
64
acting
|
|
| n.演戏，行为，假装；adj.代理的，临时的，演出用的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
| 欢迎访问英文小说网 |