This question is of the greatest interest at a time when no one seems to doubt that in the field of industry, as on that of battle, the stronger crushes the weaker.
This must result from the discovery of some sad and discouraging analogy between labor, which exercises itself on things, and violence, which exercises itself on men; for how could these two things be identical in their effects, if they were opposed in their nature?
And if it is true that in manufacturing as in war, supremacy is the necessary result of superiority, why need we occupy ourselves with progress or social economy, since we are in a world where all has been so arranged by Providence4 that one and the same result, oppression, necessarily flows from the most antagonistic5 principles?
Referring to the new policy toward which commercial freedom is drawing England, many persons make this objection, which, I admit, occupies the sincerest minds. "Is England doing anything more than pursuing the same end by different means? Does she not constantly aspire6 to universal supremacy? Sure of the superiority of her capital and labor, does she not call in free competition to stifle7 the industry of the continent, reign8 as a sovereign, and conquer the privilege of feeding and clothing the ruined peoples?"
It would be easy for me to demonstrate that these alarms are chimerical9; that our pretended inferiority is greatly exaggerated; that all our great branches of industry not only resist foreign competition, but develop themselves under its influence, and that its infallible effect is to bring about an increase in general consumption capable of absorbing both foreign and domestic products.
To-day I desire to attack this objection directly, leaving it all its power and the advantage of the ground it has chosen. Putting English and French on one side, I will try to find out in a general way, if, even though by superiority in one branch of industry, one nation has crushed out similar industrial pursuits in another one, this nation has made a step toward supremacy, and that one toward dependence10; in other words, if both do not gain by the operation, and if the conquered do not gain the most by it.
If we see in any product but a cause of labor, it is certain that the alarm of the protectionists is well founded. If we consider iron, for instance, only in connection with the masters of forges, it might be feared that the competition of a country where iron was a gratuitous11 gift of nature, would extinguish the furnaces of another country, where ore and fuel were scarce.
But is this a complete view of the subject? Are there relations only between iron and those who make it? Has it none with those who use it? Is its definite and only destination to be produced? And if it is useful, not on account of the labor which it causes, but on account of the qualities which it possesses, and the numerous services for which its hardness and malleability12 fit it, does it not follow that foreigners cannot reduce its price, even so far as to prevent its production among us, without doing us more good, under the last statement of the case, than it injures us, under the first?
Please consider well that there are many things which foreigners, owing to the natural advantages which surround them, hinder us from producing directly, and in regard to which we are placed, in reality, in the hypothetical position which we examined relative to iron. We produce at home neither tea, coffee, gold nor silver. Does it follow that our labor, as a whole, is thereby13 diminished? No; only to create the equivalent of these things, to acquire them by way of exchange, we detach from our general labor a smaller portion than we would require to produce them ourselves. More remains14 to us to use for other things. We are so much the richer and stronger. All that external rivalry15 can do, even in cases where it absolutely keeps us from any certain form of labor, is to encourage our labor, and increase our productive power. Is that the road to supremacy, for foreigners?
If a mine of gold were to be discovered in France, it does not follow that it would be for our interests to work it. It is even certain that the enterprise ought to be neglected, if each ounce of gold absorbed more of our labor than an ounce of gold bought in Mexico with cloth. In this case, it would be better to keep on seeing our mines in our manufactories. What is true of gold is true of iron.
The illusion comes from the fact that one thing is not seen. That is, that foreign superiority prevents national labor, only under some certain form, and makes it superfluous16 under this form, but by putting at our disposal the very result of the labor thus annihilated18. If men lived in diving-bells, under the water, and had to provide themselves with air by the use of pumps, there would be an immense source of labor. To destroy this labor, leaving men in this condition, would be to do them a terrible injury. But if labor ceases, because the necessity for it has gone; because men are placed in another position, where air reaches their lungs without an effort, then the loss of this labor is not to be regretted, except in the eyes of those who appreciate in labor, only the labor itself.
It is exactly this sort of labor which machines, commercial freedom, and progress of all sorts, gradually annihilate17; not useful labor, but labor which has become superfluous, supernumerary, objectless, and without result. On the other hand, protection restores it to activity; it replaces us under the water, so as to give us an opportunity of pumping; it forces us to ask for gold from the inaccessible19 national mine, rather than from our national manufactories. All its effect is summed up in this phrase—loss of power.
It must be understood that I speak here of general effects, and not of the temporary disturbances20 occasioned by the transition from a bad to a good system. A momentary21 disarrangement necessarily accompanies all progress. This may be a reason for making the transition a gentle one, but not for systematically22 interdicting23 all progress, and still less for misunderstanding it.
They represent industry to us as a conflict. This is not true; or is true only when you confine yourself to considering each branch of industry in its effects on some similar branch—in isolating24 both, in the mind, from the rest of humanity. But there is something else; there are its effects on consumption, and the general well-being25.
This is the reason why it is not allowable to assimilate labor to war as they do.
In war, the strongest overwhelms the weakest.
Though the English are strong and skilled; possess immense invested capital, and have at their disposal the two great powers of production, iron and fire, all this is converted into the cheapness of the product; and who gains by the cheapness of the product?—he who buys it.
It is not in their power to absolutely annihilate any portion of our labor. All that they can do is to make it superfluous through some result acquired—to give air at the same time that they suppress the pump; to increase thus the force at our disposal, and, which is a remarkable27 thing, to render their pretended supremacy more impossible, as their superiority becomes more undeniable.
Thus, by a rigorous and consoling demonstration28, we reach this conclusion: That labor and violence, so opposed in their nature, are, whatever socialists29 and protectionists may say, no less so in their effects.
All we required, to do that, was to distinguish between annihilated labor and economized30 labor.
Having less iron because one works less, or having more iron although one works less, are things which are more than different,—they are opposites. The protectionists confound them; we do not. That is all.
Be convinced of one thing. If the English bring into play much activity, labor, capital, intelligence, and natural force, it is not for the love of us. It is to give themselves many comforts in exchange for their products. They certainly desire to receive at least as much as they give, and they make at home the payment for that which they buy elsewhere. If then, they inundate31 us with their products, it is because they expect to be inundated32 with ours. In this case, the best way to have much for ourselves is to be free to choose between these two methods of production: direct production or indirect production. All the British Machiavelism cannot lead us to make a bad choice.
Let us then stop assimilating industrial competition with war; a false assimilation, which is specious33 only when two rival branches of industry are isolated34, in order to judge of the effects of competition. As soon as the effect produced on the general well-being is taken into consideration, the analogy disappears.
In a battle, he who is killed is thoroughly35 killed, and the army is weakened just that much. In manufactures, one manufactory succumbs36 only so far as the total of national labor replaces what it produced, with an excess. Imagine a state of affairs where for one man, stretched on the plain, two spring up full of force and vigor37. If there is a planet where such things happen, it must be admitted that war is carried on there under conditions so different from those which obtain here below, that it does not even deserve that name.
Now, this is the distinguishing character of what they have so inappropriately called an industrial war.
Let the Belgians and English reduce the price of their iron, if they can, and keep on reducing it, until they bring it down to nothing. They may thereby put out one of our furnaces—kill one of our soldiers; but I defy them to hinder a thousand other industries, more profitable than the disabled one, immediately, and, as a necessary consequence of this very cheapness, resuscitating38 and developing themselves.
Let us decide that supremacy by labor is impossible and contradictory39, since all superiority which manifests itself among a people is converted into cheapness, and results only in giving force to all others. Let us, then, banish40 from political economy all these expressions borrowed from the vocabulary of battles: to struggle with equal arms, to conquer, to crush out, to stifle, to be beaten, invasion, tribute. What do these words mean? Squeeze them, and nothing comes out of them. We are mistaken; there come from them absurd errors and fatal prejudices. These are the words which stop the blending of peoples, their peaceful, universal, indissoluble alliance, and the progress of humanity.

点击
收听单词发音

1
supremacy
![]() |
|
n.至上;至高权力 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
2
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: |
|
|
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
providence
![]() |
|
n.深谋远虑,天道,天意;远见;节约;上帝 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
5
antagonistic
![]() |
|
adj.敌对的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
6
aspire
![]() |
|
vi.(to,after)渴望,追求,有志于 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
7
stifle
![]() |
|
vt.使窒息;闷死;扼杀;抑止,阻止 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
8
reign
![]() |
|
n.统治时期,统治,支配,盛行;v.占优势 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
9
chimerical
![]() |
|
adj.荒诞不经的,梦幻的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
10
dependence
![]() |
|
n.依靠,依赖;信任,信赖;隶属 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
11
gratuitous
![]() |
|
adj.无偿的,免费的;无缘无故的,不必要的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
12
malleability
![]() |
|
n.可锻性,可塑性,延展性 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
13
thereby
![]() |
|
adv.因此,从而 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
14
remains
![]() |
|
n.剩余物,残留物;遗体,遗迹 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
15
rivalry
![]() |
|
n.竞争,竞赛,对抗 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
16
superfluous
![]() |
|
adj.过多的,过剩的,多余的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
17
annihilate
![]() |
|
v.使无效;毁灭;取消 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
18
annihilated
![]() |
|
v.(彻底)消灭( annihilate的过去式和过去分词 );使无效;废止;彻底击溃 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
19
inaccessible
![]() |
|
adj.达不到的,难接近的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
20
disturbances
![]() |
|
n.骚乱( disturbance的名词复数 );打扰;困扰;障碍 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
21
momentary
![]() |
|
adj.片刻的,瞬息的;短暂的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
22
systematically
![]() |
|
adv.有系统地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
23
interdicting
![]() |
|
v.禁止(行动)( interdict的现在分词 );禁用;限制 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
24
isolating
![]() |
|
adj.孤立的,绝缘的v.使隔离( isolate的现在分词 );将…剔出(以便看清和单独处理);使(某物质、细胞等)分离;使离析 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
25
well-being
![]() |
|
n.安康,安乐,幸福 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
26
radically
![]() |
|
ad.根本地,本质地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
27
remarkable
![]() |
|
adj.显著的,异常的,非凡的,值得注意的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
28
demonstration
![]() |
|
n.表明,示范,论证,示威 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
29
socialists
![]() |
|
社会主义者( socialist的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
30
economized
![]() |
|
v.节省,减少开支( economize的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
31
inundate
![]() |
|
vt.淹没,泛滥,压倒 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
32
inundated
![]() |
|
v.淹没( inundate的过去式和过去分词 );(洪水般地)涌来;充满;给予或交予(太多事物)使难以应付 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
33
specious
![]() |
|
adj.似是而非的;adv.似是而非地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
34
isolated
![]() |
|
adj.与世隔绝的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
35
thoroughly
![]() |
|
adv.完全地,彻底地,十足地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
36
succumbs
![]() |
|
不再抵抗(诱惑、疾病、攻击等)( succumb的第三人称单数 ); 屈从; 被压垮; 死 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
37
vigor
![]() |
|
n.活力,精力,元气 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
38
resuscitating
![]() |
|
v.使(某人或某物)恢复知觉,苏醒( resuscitate的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
39
contradictory
![]() |
|
adj.反驳的,反对的,抗辩的;n.正反对,矛盾对立 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
40
banish
![]() |
|
vt.放逐,驱逐;消除,排除 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
欢迎访问英文小说网 |