Updates from May, 2011 Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • rogerglewis 7:30 am on May 31, 2011 Permalink | Reply  

    >A Springboard from Which to Explore and Ask Why? 

    >

    So where is the Corporate Raid going to be, My guess Iran needs to Look out? Libya is a Sorbet after the Iraqi Starter a clearing of the pallette ahead of the Entre that is Iran.
    This strangulation of the money supply By the Banks is fully Government backed, Ellen Brown is very persuasive in the Banking aspects of Libya, then take Pakistani policy and China Trade.
     
  • rogerglewis 6:25 am on May 31, 2011 Permalink | Reply  

    >A journey around Connectivity and Is the BBC biased we’re All Anti Fragile Now! 

    >

    Good Article. Robert Peston is a good egg in my book sadly hemmed in by the censorious excesses of the Beeb.
    nef has been shining the light on monetary reform for some time now (see previous blogs on the topic) so it was gratifying to see Robert Peston opening last night’s BBC documentary on the banks examining this bigger picture question. Sadly, he d
    Contrast With and so on Back to the elephant and eventualy busy fools ending up with the,
    The BBC does seem to have undergone something of a face lift in the past few years its corporatisation is a very bad thing, the same thing has happened at Universities and most other institutions. He who pays the piper calls the tune has never had more resonance.
    I worked for Shell UK in the mid 80’s when the Piper Alpha Disaster happened, I enjoyed my time there and made some lasting friendships in the bubble of the big corporation you do get a bit Stepford Wife about the whole thing and certainly do not get to see the whole picture far from it, and the dazzling cult of the corporate bosom certainly smothers much of a chance of getting an independent overview.
    It does seem a strange way to answer a question with a question or accusation. The BBC is very bad on Libya and the Obama and Royal Wedding stuff was sycophantic. I am an ex pat living in Sweden now and hardly bother with the Today Program no question according to this adopted Viking the BBC has been nobbled.
    –Previous Message–
    : The BBC’s Middle East Bureau Chief, Paul
    : Danahar, shares senior editorial
    : responsibility for ensuring balanced and
    : impartial BBC News coverage from Israel and
    : Palestine. Rather than provide substantive
    : answers to the serious questions raised in
    : our latest media alert, he apparently first
    : requires a ‘mea culpa’ from David Cromwell
    : making clear that DC ‘deeply regrets his
    : actions, or lack of them’ in working for
    : Shell in the Netherlands between 1989-1993.
    : What could possibly justify such a slippery
    : response from a senior BBC editor?
    :
    : There’s a lot that could be said about this.
    : But the issue of supposed hypocrisy is a red
    : herring based on a fundamental
    : misunderstanding of our argument. Most of us
    : work for corporations, most of us buy their
    : products and services, and most of us pay
    : taxes that feed the war machine. We all
    : began life as infant narcissists. We are all
    : still prone to the self-interested, greedy,
    : egotistic, angry thoughts that are
    : entrenched in our destructive society. We
    : could all be doing more to make the world a
    : better place. None of us is beyond blame.
    : But then blame has never been the issue for
    : us. The issue is that we should all be
    : challenging each other – challenging,
    : listening and changing – in order to make
    : the world a saner, less destructive place.
    : We have to because the world is rapidly
    : going to hell in a handcart.
    :
    : We are not pretending that we are paragons
    : of virtue and we are not saying that Paul
    : Danahar is a ‘bad man’ for working at the
    : BBC. We are saying that we believe that BBC
    : News offers a biased version of events
    : favouring the powerful on Israel-Palestine
    : and many other key issues. And we’re
    : offering solid and ample evidence, arguments
    : and sources in support of our claims. We’re
    : asking Paul Danahar and the BBC to respond
    : rationally to our arguments so that people
    : can make up their own minds on who is making
    : most sense. Then it’s up to the public, and
    : indeed BBC journalists, how they want to
    : respond. We don’t ask the BBC or readers to
    : respond on the basis that we are teetering
    : on the edge of Enlightenment. We ask them to
    : respond if they think our arguments are
    : reasonable and important. Frankly, we could
    : be complete moral reprobates. But if our
    : arguments make sense, and if people think
    : the oppression of Palestinians matters, then
    : they should still think about how things
    : might be improved to relieve suffering. It
    : is the arguments that matter, and the
    : suffering, not whether DC is a virtuous
    : individual.
    Contrast With,
    Good Article. Robert Peston is a good egg in my book sadly hemmed in by the censorious excesses of the Beeb.
    nef has been shining the light on monetary reform for some time now (see previous blogs on the topic) so it was gratifying to see Robert Peston opening last night’s BBC documentary on the banks examining this bigger picture question. Sadly, he d
    :
    :
    Wonderful Term, “DEAD TREE AUTHORS”
    Hey Alan, under what name was Harvat’s physics thesis written? — goethean 21:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
    Hi Goethean. I’m not sure, I could probably find out, but I don’t think there is anything notable about the thesis.
    I checked the nomination for deletion page and there are 4 delete votes so far – (3 for speedy), so i guess the article will be deleted. I’ll copy the latest version to the Integralwiki project so it won’t be lost. M Alan Kazlev 21:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
    Well, if the thesis was published, that could be a reason to keep the article. Dead tree-published authors are usually considered inherently notable. Web-published authors, not so. Also, the article-for-deletion doesn’t work on a majoritarian basis; there must be consensus in order to delete. — goethean 16:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
    M Alen Kazlev, some reading to do here for sure.
    Found following a link fro the Positive Money Web Site.
    by RogerGLewis » Wed 25th May, 2011 (10:44)
    Uncertainty and Algorithms and other statistical devices are used to control our expectations and mould our perceptions ,
    Banking is no less manipulative of its own narrative.
    I did this brief blog which for me represents a video representation of the abstractions we accept as empirical.
    by whaha » Tue 10th May, 2011 (05:34)
    I have been searching for a some sort of Dutch Monetary Reform for a while now, but sadly enough I haven’t found one.
    Therefore I’m conducting a research in to the possiblities of creating one.
    Is there anyone here who would like to join me or can guide me in the right direction?
    I’ll add more information to this topic when available.
     
    Posts: 1
    Joined: Tue 10th May, 2011 (05:23)
     
  • rogerglewis 3:56 am on May 31, 2011 Permalink | Reply  

    >Rhetoric Propaganda" The Industrial Monetary Complex" 

    >

    Rhetoric Propaganda” The Industrial Monetary Complex”

    Postby RogerGLewis » Wed 25th May, 2011 (05:58)
    For the past Two years I have followed with increasing amazement the sheer un evenness of the Debate on Climate Change by any stretch for research science it is almost completely one sided. The money is backing the CO2 side of the debate and they have the PR budgets sewn up as well as most of the research money. I am an Environmentalist probably what some might even describe as being of a Tree Hugging bent I find the Notion of Carbon Trading highly suspect my preferred solution is to Tax the Polluter at source and provide disincentives to creating unnecessary demand. Typical chicken and egg stuff but consumerism is the invention of capitalism in my own world view( YMMV ) That wonderful internetism “Your Mileage May Vary”. is applicable to to all statements one might make of opinion or indeed apparent empirical notions.
    So why is it relevant, well cue music. Sleepers Awake, J. S Bach, Black Beauty or Llyods TSB Theme Tune. To challenge the hugely profitable vested interests. That what is proposed challenges this, is just one example of the ingrained acceptance of their existence and safeness conditioned into all of our psyches they have the Right to be the custodians of their System which is for our benefit how dare we question.

    The Economist is running discussion on whether Banking is now safe, This was posted in the discussion this morning.

    Abraham Baeza • Yes it’s safe and will continue to do so for the next few years. Sure some banks will be sacrificed and millions of jobs, assets and money will be lost with new schemes and complex investments, but it’s naive to consider a world without banks or financial institutions. I’m pretty sure the banking system will remain stable as long as there’s need for capital and money supply.

    I replied.

    Roger Lewis • Abraham, No one in the preceding comments even hints at a world without Banks or Financial institutions. As for the notion of sacrificing some banks and blithe acceptance of new schemes and complex investments I wonder at which school of comic / tradgedy you took the unit on? Perhaps it was Ironic observational deconstructionism, taught by a certain M Freidman at Chicago. 
    The banking system is a feral WMD and systemically unstable What Nassim N Taleb calls 
    “epistemic arrogance” typifies the Arrogance of the System and this is not safe.

    http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/tenprinciples.pdf

    You can join in the discussion here.
    http://www.linkedin.com/groupItem?view= … D_40191302

    There are other examples of the well meaning Group Think that will be encountered there are evangelical believers in the Status quo and it is this army of footsoldiers who will be motivated into getting the Vote Out against the “Deniers” “Flat Earthers” ” Tin Foil Hatters” we may as well choose a perjorative we also find amusing right now and try and introduce it as the common coinage of phrase. Something that conjures up the idea of Profligate scroungers would be ideal maybe “the Rakes”. Anyway I think you can see where I’m going with this. Heres the communication strategy for the Climate Carbon Trading Lobby this is what we will be up against.
    https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid= … 3&hl=en_US

    Anyway I thought a communication/ PR strategy would be a sensible discussion to start.

    All the Best

    Roger
    Heres a web site link to Futerra the PR/AD agency behind the Rules of the Game document. The Banks will have lots of Futerra’s

    http://www.futerra.co.uk/revolution/leading_thinking

    I used to employ PR, Advertising and Political lobbyist firms in my own Businesses. These guys lie for a living, can be reasonable fun at Lunch but quite honestly their far from the wildest creatures in the Zoo of commerce.
     
  • rogerglewis 7:13 pm on May 30, 2011 Permalink | Reply  

    >Derivatives 101, Some stuff on Calculus. 

    >

    Calculus , Derivatives, Assumptions and so on an so forth.
    Here are some notes and links of some of my reading and watching this morning.
     I have spent this afternoon doing some mowing of the lawn Washing up and also some routine maintainence on My Mac and Net Book both of which have been getting a little clogged up and doing strange things into the bargain, all fixed now.

    Very much a stream of consciousness but all the videos linked are very accessible and very basic with further links on the you tube pages to greater complexity as required.

    Remember non of this is rocket science and everything is comprehensible and accessible if broken down to its components and an understanding built from the ground up.

    p { margin-bottom: 0.21cm; }a:link { }

    Derivatives 101.
    Watch Listen Learn always Question?.
    Why is the most important question, ( Sometimes) is the most important qualification.
    Never is a very dangerous Answer.
    The Governement and the Banks Know whats going on but tell us one thing meaning another
    When I say they know whats going on that is only up to a point they haven’t factored in the variable
    that great un known of how many of the people you can fool for some of the time Barnumomics meets Obabama nomics meets Balmynomics.
    A variable in Climate, Layers of the Earth.
    article Physics and the solar wind.
    I’ll be doing something more structured in Due course. I am trying to get my Calculus up to snuff for a pamphlet I plan on Publish regarding reform of Mortgage Finance in disfunctional markets, like we have now.

     

     
  • rogerglewis 5:14 am on May 30, 2011 Permalink | Reply  

    >Don’t Look Back, Pillars of Salt. 

    >

    Some Old Blog Posts and Links.
    RogerGLewis posted
    Why Not. I believe there are shared ownership agreements which can be provided by your solicitor setting out the terms of agreement with your joint investors. Any collective investment vehicle will involve accommodating your investment partners changing circumstances over time.
    My own view is if you have the finance then with a long term view your running yield from the investment you make and overall returns including capital returns over even a 5 to 10 year period would be much better than most buy to let landlords have had for most of the 2000’s.( the capital returns are unlikely to be better than those who sold up before mid 2007, your rental yield almost certainly will be though)
    Obviously you should invest bearing in mind potential rental voids and make provision for those. If you approach it in a professional manner with strict investment criteria I think you and your friends could do very well.
    Posted on 18 January 2009 |
    Dear Mr D’Arcy,
    I am interested that your analysis completely ignores any supply side to the equation.
    It is true that there is less mortgage finance available than for some time and also that the Market has taken a substantial Hit, not all home owners are in trouble however and indeed many are very comfortable with the historically low interest rates. At prices below sellers expectations there will be less sellers which will balance the lower demand. Further lack of funding of new development will further restrict supply. Adam Smiths invisible Hand is at work here the supply curve will shift as indeed the demand curve has at a point prices will not fall further, when will that point be?
    Personally I think your article calls it wrong.
    Anyone thinking of Buying Buy now get a big deposit borrow it from your parents , Grand Parents aunts uncles older siblings get them to increase their mortgages to borrow against the substantial equity that a large number of we older fortunate people have and are still sitting on. Get in there now there wont be a better chance than this for another 25 years.
    There are two sides to every equation at least and Mr D’arcy by neglecting the supply side of this one is doing you a disservice if he is discouraging you from doing what it takes to get yourself a bargain now. Make sure you can pay the mortgage you commit to when rates go back up to 5% in two years time or so.
    Just My opinion but I am a Chartered surveyor and Property Developer that Retired from the London Docklands Market in 2003, having banked substantial profits made from 1989 thru to 2003, I know what I am talking about.But don’t take my advice think it through and satisfy yourself of all the facts.
    Reporton 15 January 2009  |  Love  0 love
    Just re read this whole debate from January 2009 on House prices. It’s strange even though I now believ the Banking System has to be reformed root and branch and the intervening 2 years or so has brought to light a hell of a lot of stuff about liquidity ratios at Banks going beserk I wonder How positions on this discussinon would now change.
    My philosophical outlook has changed markedly and my world view is certainly one that yes as an earlier poster in this discussion pointed out perhaps my own timing and decisions were more due to luck than Judgement. I would have to agree with those sentiments absolutely , perhaps for different reasons than the comment might have been implying, but I see the observation as very wise non the less. It also reminds me of where I first came across the Elephant tale.
    Just re visited this after a very long couple of years and placed this observation in a blog I am writing.
    Heres my Full Comment I hope to re kindle the discussion for some further thoughts.
    Just re read this whole debate from January 2009 on House prices. It’s strange even though I now believe the Banking System has to be reformed root and branch and the intervening 2 years or so has brought to light a hell of a lot of stuff about liquidity ratios at Banks going berserk I wonder How positions on this discussion would now change?
    My philosophical outlook has changed markedly and my world view is certainly one that, yes, as an earlier poster in this discussion pointed out , “perhaps my own timing and decisions were more due to luck than Judgement”. I would have to agree with those sentiments absolutely , perhaps for different reasons than the comment might have been implying, but I see the observation as very wise non the less. It also reminds me of where I first came across the Elephant tale.
    I would be interested to know if anyone did buy after reading this article and how it worked out. I currently writing an a pamphlet suggesting reform to the valuation of property by Mortgagees in possession to take account of Economic replacement costs
    as I believe the potential for a devastating Crash is a very real and present danger
    There is a very strong undercurrent in the geo political/economic out look that requires a paradigm shift in thought and deed.
    Anyway hello to anyone who contributed to this discussion would be great to have a re unioun discussion so to speak and reflect on what we were thinking back then and what we think now , that would be a very useful thing I think.
     
  • rogerglewis 4:04 am on May 30, 2011 Permalink | Reply  

    >A post about Spin 

    >


    rogerglewis
    I think personally that most of the above analysis misses the point Labour has to be handed back to the Grass roots and the corporate agenda and tactics of spin abandoned. New Labour New Tories New Lib Dem they are as we see in America all lobbyist fodder now.
    Local Labour Parties should re select all member and perspective candidates and establish their own media outlet free of contributions or any patronage on the Internet. Give the ideas and policies back to the membership for the people.
    The concept of , “If you cant beat them join them” has not worked the wholesale adoption of the Precautionary Principle over rational discussion has divorced our Government from the people. What the Labour Party Has to do is divorce itself from the game of Spin and PR and try some good old fashioned truth and real democracy.
    People will soon catch on, acquiescing in the continued Hijack of government by the Corporate State what Mrs Thatcher ( Then) used to Call GB Limited is a busted Flush.
    There is a need for real Radicalism to find the real solutions to our Political Economy.
    I think a Walk out or some sort of disruption of the Business of the House of commons should be devised to demonstrate the lack of validity to what we call our Government.
    More smoked filled rooms and beer a sandwiches less of the Latte and Croissant’s more substance and less packaging this whole Brand leveraging nonsense has to stop.
    May 8, 2011 at 4:45 pm 

    I found a google search of my Gravataar address threw up some posts in various blog discussions that I had made, I’m just refreshing my memory of some old reference points
    and ideas so I can revisit and re interpet.
    As Lord Keynes said, “If the facts change then so might my opinion” ( approx recollection)
     
  • rogerglewis 3:54 am on May 30, 2011 Permalink | Reply  

    >I alluded to this Elephant Proverb. 

    >

    I used to post on a popular Finance Blog on the property Market.
    I alluded to this proverb the other day and find it’s not the first time I thought it apt
    when generalising on the broad church that is punditry of any kind.

    RogerGLewis said

    John Godfrey Saxe’s ( 1816-1887) version of the famous Indian legend,
    It was six men of Indostan
    To learning much inclined,
    Who went to see the Elephant
    (Though all of them were blind),
    That each by observation
    Might satisfy his mind.
    The First approach’d the Elephant,
    And happening to fall
    Against his broad and sturdy side,
    At once began to bawl:
    “God bless me! but the Elephant
    Is very like a wall!”
    The Second, feeling of the tusk,
    Cried, -“Ho! what have we here
    So very round and smooth and sharp?
    To me ’tis mighty clear
    This wonder of an Elephant
    Is very like a spear!”
    The Third approached the animal,
    And happening to take
    The squirming trunk within his hands,
    Thus boldly up and spake:
    “I see,” quoth he, “the Elephant
    Is very like a snake!”
    The Fourth reached out his eager hand,
    And felt about the knee.
    “What most this wondrous beast is like
    Is mighty plain,” quoth he,
    “‘Tis clear enough the Elephant
    Is very like a tree!”
    The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,
    Said: “E’en the blindest man
    Can tell what this resembles most;
    Deny the fact who can,
    This marvel of an Elephant
    Is very like a fan!”
    The Sixth no sooner had begun
    About the beast to grope,
    Then, seizing on the swinging tail
    That fell within his scope,
    “I see,” quoth he, “the Elephant
    Is very like a rope!”
    And so these men of Indostan
    Disputed loud and long,
    Each in his own opinion
    Exceeding stiff and strong,
    Though each was partly in the right,
    And all were in the wrong!
    MORAL.
    So oft in theologic wars,
    The disputants, I ween,
    Rail on in utter ignorance
    Of what each other mean,
    And prate about an Elephant
    Not one of them has seen!

    Reporton 08 February 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 love
    http://www.lovemoney.com/news/property-and-mortgages/house-prices/2325/why-house-prices-will-fall-this-year

     
  • rogerglewis 5:35 pm on May 29, 2011 Permalink | Reply  

    >Spanish Protests 

    >Spanish Protests

    The suppression of peaceful protest in Spain against the Austerity measures of an unpopular government is very worrying. Similar suppression of protest against the recent royal Wedding makes one wonder what the public will face when the UK governments austerity measures gain full momentum. Portugal , Ireland Iceland and Greece are all being given the sort of treatment usually meted out to what are called 3rd world countries the outlook is truly alarming.
    The Banking System is the garrotte around the throats of all of us and in the uK we can start to do something positive about it by showing solidarity to a campaign called one good cut which is run by Positive money.org. In the States there is an organisation called the Public Finance institute seeking to reform banking at a state level in the USA circumventing the Fed,
    I wanted to start a discussion to coalesce different campaigns oin the various different countries where oppression is on the increase so we can show solidarity by pooling experience and intellectual capital to direct knowledge against the modern day Ceasars.
    Just message me on face book for links to different writers and bloggers I have been following. I am new to the Activism world but I am keen to help out where I can with helping with setting up mirror sites and and data hosting etc, If a crack down on the internet happens it is important to diversify sources of information into many locations so it can be re distributed and kept flowing between those of us who wish to keep an uncensored view point in the discourse of the real politik.
    Good Luck to all of thise brave and committed people standing up to Tyranny in Spain and in the other places mentioned above and the many other places under the cosh.
    Solidarity!
     
  • rogerglewis 3:48 pm on May 29, 2011 Permalink | Reply  

    >Carbon Taxing and the Reform of the Banks. 

    >

    Climate Change Modelling.
    I have been getting into the extreme detail following up on Climate Gate. It isn’t a closed book and is not settled!
    Evidence ; the treatment of Data , the amateurish coding used in the modelling the reconstruction of the base work on the models by a PHD student by Harry. Well I was reading through the Harry notes on the model and looking at various issues but a google search throws up a lot of work that has already gone before me so here are the links.
    This was the search I Made initially a code index from the Harry/mitchell climate change emails from Wikileaks. http://www.google.com/search?q=crua6++code&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t
    Here are the links, I had started another blog but the search engine crashed and whilst I started this as a written narrative I have decided just to go with a note format that I can refer back to later to source context for the highlighted points.
    For instance initial treatment of sun spot and solar activity and the link with cloud formation both areas which I have been reading recently, these we learn were fudged in the initial modelling. (Just reading this through as a rough my computer has crashed 3 more times this morning probably just a coincidence.)
    I have the whole original of this document this is a partial extract.There are of course the e mails as well.
    Insight into Carbon Trading Market, Petro Dollar ( Carbon Dollar ) money supply.
    I made this as a comment on the Select committee appearance of Proffessor Phil Jones appearance before the UK parliamentary select committee. And had this thought whilst writing that comment.
    Less than 10,000 views and 31 comments, There are multiple copies of this on the web some with quite high figures but very low in the context of mainstream media viewing data where this issue gets very little exposure and largely puts out the message that there is a worldwide consensus and anthropogenic climate Change is real.
    My own views on modelling in science as a predictive tool especially on such an important matter as this ( The Taxation aspects are mind boggling and could fix the financial system, which in itself is a bad thing as that needs reform as well) I am struck by the work of Taleb ,( Anti Fragility) and his views on selection bias in data parameter setting in statistical analysis in financial modelling the techniques are interchangeable and also the Carbon Trading, World financial system ( Taxation supports government debt equals money supply.) In the absences of a petro dollar maybe we get a Carbon Dollar?
    Back to the e mails sunspots magnetic fields, Haarp, Clouds and cosmic rays.

    “It might seem that thoughts are jumping around a little But The Climate Change debates, The concepts of Plurality the scientific method empirisism , Creationist ( 1. Singularity, Singular ) and Evolutionist (2 or more Singularities , Pluralist ) are very important when considering control of Markets, Statistical data sets and so on and so forth. See also the Blog on Dangerous Knowledge Cantor et al and work on infinity ( Big and Small ) and the perfect ratio. All of this is a distillation of the work of people like Alan Watt on the nature of randomness unpredictability and the Human need for a feeling of safety in an uncertain and fundamentally random world. Scientific detachment is great but one can not detach the esoteric and spiritual aspects of randomness the Creationist versus the Evolutionary view point is the most succinct evocation of the fundamental question of why are we here. The continuum is infinite without beginning or end for the evolutionist for the creationist the continuum has a beginning and an end and thus must be predictable.
    This is a note I wrote in an economics discussion on the nature of Client bias in measures such as GDP, John Rankin is altogether more on the money but these themes are with thinkers such as Taleb whose star is bright right now. James Burke is very good on the dangers of specialisation especially in mental processes , Blind man and the elephant proverb deserves a google , Anyone reading this might remember the analogy.”

    Roger Lewis, May 29th 2011.
    Note to James.
    “I have been interested in the suns magnetic field and sun spot activity and climate change which pointed me to some cosmology stuff put together with some new work on the shape of electrons and hey presto good old Pythagorus is the main man. Really cool given our discussion on Harmony.
    Heres a cut and paste blog of bits and pieces”.
    Anyway thanks for the heads up and hope we can be connected best wishes
    • Roger Lewis

    Reification (fallacy)

    My morning has taken a slight detour while I wait for the full Phil Jones select committee interview to down load. Burying bad news and distracting from news that beats the filters and gets out is an age old propaganda techniques and the modern communications machines are
    very very good at selecting what is put in front of us and what is re in-forced. Neitzches views on Tribalism and how lonely it is to step out side of the crowd become very apt in this Group Think world. A big hit in Sweden at the moment is “I will be popular” by a teen idol called Eric Saader. My 5 year old daughter thinks he’s great she and two friends sang it at a Jam at a party we were at last night with friends. What do we take from these lyrics in the context of modern group think and asking the question Why? Children ask it all the time and we should continiue to ask it all of our lives it is the most important thing we should always ask those who would be Caesar.
    WHY! WHY? WTF, Does What count as why what is it for?Why is it so?YMMV, your mileage may vary with these lyrics lets read them together and I’ll make my observations at the end.
    Anyone reading this will get an equivalent real time impression if you read the lyrics and then continue to read.
    Popular, 
    Swedens Eurovision entry this year.
    Eric Sadde, Written By Frericke Kempe.

    Stop don’t say that it’s impossible
    ’cos I know
    It’s possible
    Though I know
    You never look my way
    I can say
    You will one day
    I can say
    You will one day

    I will be Popular
    I will be popular
    I’m gonna get there popular
    My body wants you girl
    My body wants you girl
    I’ll get ya when I’m popular
    I’ll put my hands up in the lights
    You’ll see me dancing for my life
    I will be Popular
    I will be popular
    I’m gonna get there popular
    OOO OOO
    OO Popular


    OOO OOO

    Spread the news – I’m gonna take the fight
    (For) the spotlight
    Day and night
    I can take this to the number one
    Be someone
    Before you’re gone
    Be someone before you’re gone

    OOO OOO
    OO POPULAR

    I will be Popular
    I will be popular
    I’m gonna get there popular
    My body wants you girl
    My body wants you girl
    I’ll get ya when I’m popular
    I’ll put my hands up in the lights
    You’ll see me dancing for my life
    I will be Popular
    I will be popular
    Popular

    Oh just when we do this exercise which unhappily shows that Sweden is infected by this interminable bullshit too. heres Eric’s 2007 Classic “Man Boy” another Number we were treated to at last nights soiree.
    Man Boy.
    Sadde written by the same guy as Popular.by


    You’ve got the looks
    You’ve got the beauty inside
    You’ve got the looks that money can’t buy
    You wanna live like all the stars on TV
    You wanna love with someone like me

    Give me love
    Give me love
    And don’t go
    Give me love
    Give me, give me lo-o-o-ove

    Manboy, manboy
    You can call me manboy
    I don’t care I’ll show you how to love
    There’s no halo ’round my head, no
    There’s no angels here
    Manboy, manboy
    You can call me manboy
    Oh oh oh oh oh
    Manboy

    You’re gonna see
    You’re gonna know what I mean
    ‘Cause I am more than you believe
    I know they’re strong
    The feelings I have for you
    I know they’re strong
    I’ll show they are true

    Give me love
    Give me love
    And don’t go
    Give me love
    Give me, give me lo-o-o-ove

    Manboy, manboy
    You can call me manboy
    I don’t care I’ll show you how to love
    There’s no halo ’round my head, no
    There’s no angels here
    Manboy, manboy
    You can call me manboy
    Oh oh oh oh oh
    Manboy

    Manboy, manboy
    You can call me manboy
    Oh oh oh oh

    Manboy, manboy
    You can call me manboy
    I don’t care I’ll show you how to love
    There’s no halo ’round my head, no
    There’s no angels here
    Manboy, manboy
    You can call me manboy
    Oh oh oh oh oh
    Manboy 

    My main observation what an absolute bunch of drivel.!
    My view It’s religion not science! and its about Banking and not the environment.
    There is science but its findings do not provide an easy solution for taxing the people over the corporations. Stop polluting , Carbon Trading doesn’t address that problem it taxes a very inelastic demand curve which is great like Alcohol and cigarettes( if you are the Government and Corporations with a globalist agenda that is.).
     
  • rogerglewis 9:59 am on May 28, 2011 Permalink | Reply  

    Ruskins Critique of Classical Political Economy. 

    Ruskins Critique of Classical Political Economy.
    & Ghandis Translation.

    This essay is widely published on the Web but I am reproducing both it and Ghandis Translation here
    The Economic Reforms needed today are similar in root to the pivotal moments of History from the Fall of Rome through to the Levellers in the English Civil War, The American Revolution, The Great Depression, The Post 1st World War and Second World War, Post the 1974 Oil Crisis and Vietnam War and the , Monetarist Dogma and Milton Freidmans Chicago School adopted so damagingly and devastatingly by Reagan and Thatcher from 1979 onwards.

    What is striking is the level of intellectual vigour with which the present hegemony is challenged in the poplar and main stream press would suggest a huge decline in the intellectual effectiveness of those opposed to the hegemony one would even question whether there is any intellectual opposition not so much polarisation but  homogenisation of the real politick on the dawning of the age of Aquarius.

    The internet happily informs us if we are persistent that  there is a considerable body of thought and opinion not in the main stream narrative that shows the sham of the post 9/11 War on terrorism and Climate change / Globalisation consensus to be a huge sham and confidence trick.

    In a busy world I am reminded of the old saying about Busy Fools at least I strain to recall it and call again on the wonders of Google to assist my often feeble powers of recall.

    And the fourth class: busy fool. Busy fool is very dangerous. They are so busy, but because they are fools, therefore they are creating problems.

    Lecture on SB 1.16.23 — Hawaii, January 19, 1974

    We are all born foolish. So if we are not properly educated, then we remain fools and rascals, and the activities of fools and rascals, this is simply waste of time. Because… What is called? Busy rascals, busy rascal. If a rascal is busy, that means he’s simply spoiling the energy. Just like monkey. Monkey is very busy. Of course, according to Mr. Darwin, they are coming from monkey. So monkey’s business is simply waste of time. He’s very busy. You’ll find always busy. So the busy fool is dangerous. There are four classes of men: lazy intelligent, busy intelligent, lazy fool and busy fool. (laughter) So first-class man is lazy intelligent. Just like you’ll see the high-court judges. They’re very lazy and most intelligent. That is first-class man. They are doing everything very soberly. And the next class: busy intelligent. Intelligence should be used very soberly. And the third class: lazy fool-lazy, at the same time, fool. And the fourth class: busy foolBusy fool is very dangerous. So all these people, they’re busy. Even in this country, everywhere, all over the world, not this country or that country. They have discovered this horseless carriage—very busy. “Ons, ons,” (imitates cars’ noise) this way this way, this way. But actually, they are not intelligent. Busy fool. Therefore they are creating problems after problems. That’s a fact. They are so busy, but because they are fools, therefore they are creating problems. This is fact. Even the animals, lower than the human beings, they have no problem.
    OR.
    busy fool is fitter to be shut up than a downright madman. – George Lord Halifax

    My point is we are all occupied with so much of the mundane so much of it imposed from above there is barely time to enjoy any time with our families and each other in relaxation let alone the luxury to think and reflect to step back and enjoy the over view, the Vista to reflect on the scent of the roses all around. Accident or design?

    And now well heres Our man Ruskin.

         

    Unto This Last
    John Ruskin
    1860



    Essays from the Cornhill Magazine 1860
    reprinted as Unto This Last in 1862

    The Roots of Honour

    Among the delusions which at different periods have possessed
    themselves of the minds of large masses of the human race,
    perhaps the most curious -- certainly the least creditable -- is
    the modern soi-disant science of political economy, based on the
    idea that an advantageous code of social action may be determined
    irrespectively of the influence of social affection.
    Of course, as in the instances of alchemy, astrology,
    witchcraft, and other such popular creeds, political economy, has
    a plausible idea at the root of it. "The social affections," says
    the economist, "are accidental and disturbing elements in human
    nature; but avarice and the desire of progress are constant
    elements. Let us eliminate the inconstants, and, considering the
    human being merely as a covetous machine, examine by what laws of
    labour, purchase, and sale, the greatest accumulative result in
    wealth is obtainable. Those laws once determined, it will be for
    each individual afterwards to introduce as much of the disturbing
    affectionate element as he chooses, and to determine for himself
    the result on the new conditions supposed."
    This would be a perfectly logical and successful method of
    analysis, if the accidentals afterwards to be introduced were of
    the same nature as the powers first examined. Supposing a body in
    motion to be influenced by constant and inconstant forces, it is
    usually the simplest way of examining its course to trace it
    first under the persistent conditions, and afterwards introduce
    the causes of variation. But the disturbing elements in the
    social problem are not of the same nature as the constant ones:
    they alter the essence of the creature under examination the
    moment they are added; they operate, not mathematically, but
    chemically, introducing conditions which render all our previous
    knowledge unavailable. We made learned experiments upon pure
    nitrogen, and have convinced ourselves that it is a very
    manageable gas: but, behold! the thing which we have practically
    to deal with is its chloride; and this, the moment we touch it on
    our established principles, sends us and or apparatus through the
    ceiling.
    Observe, I neither impugn nor doubt the conclusion of the
    science if its terms are accepted. I am simply uninterested in
    then, as I should be in those of a science of gymnastics which
    assumed that men had no skeletons. It might be shown, on that
    supposition, that it would be advantageous to roll the students
    up into pellets, flatten them into cakes, or stretch them into
    cables; and that when these results were effected, the
    re-insertion of the skeleton would be attended with various
    inconveniences to their constitution. The reasoning might be
    admirable, the conclusions true, and the science deficient only
    in applicability. Modern political economy stands on a precisely
    similar basis. Assuming, not that the human being has no
    skeleton, but that it is all skeleton, it founds an ossifiant
    theory of progress on this negation of a soul; and having shown
    the utmost that may be made of bones, and constructed a number of
    interesting geometrical figures with death's-head and humeri,
    successfully proves the inconvenience of the reappearance of a
    soul among these corpuscular structures. I do not deny the truth
    of this theory: I simply deny its applicability to the present
    phase of the world.
    This inapplicability has been curiously manifested during the
    embarrassment caused by the late strikes of our workmen. Here
    occurs one of the simplest cases, in a pertinent and positive
    form, of the first vital problem which political economy has to
    deal with (the relation between employer and employed); and, at a
    severe crisis, when lives in multitudes and wealth in masses are
    at stake, the political economists are helpless -- practically
    mute: no demonstrable solution of the difficulty can be given by
    them, such as may convince or calm the opposing parties.
    Obstinately the masters take one view of the matter. obstinately
    the operatives another; and no political science can set them at
    one.
    It would be strange if it could, it being not by "science" of
    any kind that men were ever intended to be set at one. Disputant
    after disputant vainly strives to show that the interests of the
    masters are, or are not, antagonistic to those of the men: none
    of the pleaders ever seeming to remember that it does not
    absolutely or always follow that the persons must he antagonistic
    because their interests are. If there is only a crust of bread in
    the house, and mother and children are starving, their interests
    are not the same. If the mother eats it, the children want it; if
    the children eat it, the mother must go hungry to her work. yet
    it does not necessarily follow that there will be "antagonism"
    between them, that they will fight for the crust, and that the
    mother, being strongest, will get it, and eat it. Neither, in any
    other case, whatever the relations of the persons may be, can it
    be assumed for certain that, because their interests are diverse,
    they must necessarily regard each other with hostility, and use
    violence or cunning to obtain the advantage.
    Even if this were so, and it were as just as it is convenient
    to consider men as actuated by no other moral influences than
    those which affect rats or swine, the logical conditions of the
    question are still indeterminable. It can never be shown
    generally either that the interests of master and labourer are
    alike, or that they are opposed; for, according to circumstances,
    they may be either. It is, indeed, always the interest of both
    that the work should be rightly done, and a just price obtained
    for it; but, in the division of profits, the gain of the one may
    or may not be the loss of the other. It is not the master's
    interest to pay wages so low as to leave the men sickly and
    depressed, nor the workman's interest to be paid high wages if
    the smallness of the master's profit hinders him from enlarging
    his business, or conducting it in a safe and liberal way. A
    stoker ought not to desire high pay if the company is too poor to
    keep the engine-wheels in repair.
    And the varieties of circumstances which influence these
    reciprocal interests are so endless, that all endeavour to deduce
    rules of action from balance of expediency is in vain. And it is
    meant to be in vain. For no human actions ever were intended by
    the maker of men to be guided by balances of expediency, but by
    balances of justice. He has therefore rendered all endeavours to
    determine expediency futile for evermore. No man ever knew, or
    can know, what will be the ultimate result to himself, or to
    others, of any given line of conduct. But every man may know, and
    most of us do know, what is a just and unjust act. And all of us
    may know also, that the consequences of justice will be
    ultimately the best possible, both to others and ourselves,
    though we can neither say what is best, or how it is likely to
    come to pass.
    I have said balances of justice, meaning, in the term
    justice, to include affection, -- such affection as one man owes
    to another. All right relations between master and operative, and
    all their best interests, ultimately depend on these.
    We shall find the best and simplest illustration of the
    relations of master and operative in the position of domestic
    servants.
    We will suppose that the master of a household desires only
    to get as much work out of his servants as he can, at the rate of
    wages he gives. He never allows them to be idle; feeds them as
    poorly and lodges them as ill as they will endure, and in all
    things pushes his requirements to the exact point beyond which he
    cannot go without forcing the servant to leave him. In doing
    this, there is no violation on his part of what is commonly
    called "justice." He agrees with the domestic for his whole time
    ad service, and takes them; -- the limits of hardship in
    treatment being fixed by the practice of other masters in his
    neighbourhood; that is to say, by the current rate of wages for
    domestic labour. If the servant can get a better place, he is
    free to take one, and the master can only tell what is the real
    market value of his labour, by requiring as much as he will give.
    This is the politico-economical view of the case, according
    to the doctors of that science; who assert that by this procedure
    the greatest average of work will be obtained from the servant,
    and therefore the greatest benefit to the community, and through
    the community, by reversion, to the servant himself.
    That, however, is not so. It would be so if the servant were
    an engine of which the motive power was steam, magnetism,
    gravitation, or any other agent of calculable force. But he
    being, on the contrary, an engine whose motive power is a Soul,
    the force of this very peculiar agent, as an unknown quantity,
    enters into all the political economist's equations, without his
    knowledge, and falsifies every one of their results. The largest
    quantity of work will not be done by this curious engine for pay,
    or under pressure, or by help of any kind of fuel which may be
    supplied by the caldron. It will be done only when the motive
    force, that is to say, the will or spirit of the creature, is
    brought to its greatest strength by its own proper fuel: namely,
    by the affections.
    It may indeed happen, and does happen often, that if the
    master is a man of sense ad energy, a large quantity of material
    work may be done under mechanical pressure, enforced by strong
    will and guided by wise method; also it may happen, and does
    happen often, that if the master is indolent and weak (however
    good-natured), a very small quantity of work, and that bad, may
    be produced by the servant's undirected strength, and
    contemptuous gratitude. But the universal law of the matter is
    that, assuming any given quantity of energy and sense in master
    and servant, the greatest material result obtainable by them will
    be, not through antagonism to each other, but through affection
    for each other; and that if the master, instead of endeavouring
    to get as much work as possible from the servant, seeks rather to
    render his appointed and necessary work beneficial to him, and to
    forward his interests in all just and wholesome ways, the real
    amount of work ultimately done, or of good rendered, by the
    person so cared for, will indeed be the greatest possible.
    Observe, I say, "of good rendered," for a servant's work is
    not necessarily or always the best thing he can give his master.
    But good of all kinds, whether in material service, in protective
    watchfulness of his master's interest and credit, or in joyful
    readiness to seize unexpected and irregular occasions of help.
    Nor is this one whit less generally true because indulgence
    will be frequently abused, and kindness met with ingratitude. For
    the servant who, gently treated, is ungrateful, treated ungently,
    will be revengeful; and the man who is dishonest to a liberal
    master will be injurious to an unjust one.
    In any case, and with any person, this unselfish treatment
    will produce the most effective return. Observe, I am here
    considering the affections wholly as a motive power; not at all
    as things in themselves desirable or noble, or in any other way
    abstractedly good. I look at them simply as an anomalous force,
    rendering every one of the ordinary political economist's
    calculations nugatory; while, even if he desired to introduce
    this new element into his estimates, he has no power of dealing
    with it; for the affections only become a true motive power when
    they ignore every other motive and condition of political
    economy. Treat the servant kindly, with the idea of turning his
    gratitude to account, and you will get, as you deserve, no
    gratitude, nor any value for your kindness; but treat him kindly
    without any economical purpose, and all economical purposes will
    be answered; in this, as in all other matters, whosoever will
    save his life shall lose it, whoso loses it shall find it.(1*)
    The next clearest and simplest example of relation between
    master and operative is that which exists between the commander
    of a regiment and his men.
    Supposing the officer only desires to apply the rules of
    discipline so as, with least trouble to himself, to make the
    regiment most effective, he will not be able, by any rules or
    administration of rules, on this selfish principle, to develop
    the full strength of his subordinates. If a man of sense and
    firmness, he may, as in the former instance, produce a better
    result than would be obtained by the irregular kindness of a weak
    officer; but let the sense and firmness be the same in both
    cases, and assuredly the officer who has the most direct personal
    relations with his men, the most care for their interests, and
    the most value for their lives, will develop their effective
    strength, through their affection for his own person, and trust
    in his character, to a degree wholly unattainable by other means.
    This law applies still more stringently as the numbers concerned
    are larger: a charge may often be successful, though the men
    dislike their officers; a battle has rarely been won, unless they
    loved their general.
    Passing from these simple examples to the more complicated
    relations existing between a manufacturer and his workmen, we are
    met first by certain curious difficulties, resulting, apparently,
    from a harder and colder state of moral elements. It is easy to
    imagine an enthusiastic affection existing among soldiers for the
    colonel. Not so easy to imagine an enthusiastic affection among
    cotton-spinners for the proprietor of the mill. A body of men
    associated for purposes of robbery (as a Highland clan in ancient
    times) shall be animated by perfect affection, and every member
    of it be ready to lay down his life for the life of his chief.
    But a band of men associated for purposes of legal production and
    accumulation is usually animated, it appears, by no such
    emotions, and none of them are in any wise willing to give his
    life for the life of his chief. Not only are we met by this
    apparent anomaly, in moral matters, but by others connected with
    it, in administration of system. For a servant or a soldier is
    engaged at a definite rate of wages, for a definite period; but a
    workman at a rate of wages variable according to the demand for
    labour, and with the risk of being at any time thrown out of his
    situation by chances of trade. Now, as, under these
    contingencies, no action of the affections can take place, but
    only an explosive action of disaffections, two points offer
    themselves for consideration in the matter.
    The first -- How far the rate of wages may be so regulated as
    not to vary with the demand for labour.
    The second -- How far it is possible that bodies of workmen
    may be engaged and maintained at such fixed rate of wages
    (whatever the state of trade may be), without enlarging or
    diminishing their number, so as to give them permanent interest
    in the establishment with which they are connected, like that of
    the domestic servants in an old family, or an esprit de corps,
    like that of the soldiers in a crack regiment.
    The first question is, I say, how far it may be possible to
    fix the rate of wages, irrespectively of the demand for labour.
    Perhaps one of the most curious facts in the history of human
    error is the denial by the common political economist of the
    possibility of thus regulating wages; while, for all the
    important, and much of the unimportant, labour, on the earth,
    wages are already so regulated.
    We do not sell our prime-ministership by Dutch auction; nor,
    on the decease of a bishop, whatever may be the general
    advantages of simony, do we (yet) offer his diocese to the
    clergyman who will take the episcopacy at the lowest contract. We
    (with exquisite sagacity of political economy!) do indeed sell
    commissions; but not openly, generalships: sick, we do not
    inquire for a physician who takes less than a guinea; litigious,
    we never think of reducing six-and-eight-pence to
    four-and-sixpence; caught in a shower, we do not canvass the
    cabmen, to find one who values his driving at less than sixpence
    a mile.
    It is true that in all these cases there is, and in every
    conceivable case there must be, ultimate reference to the
    presumed difficulty of the work, or number of candidates for the
    office. If it were thought that the labour necessary to make a
    good physician would be gone through by a sufficient number of
    students with the prospect of only half-guinea fees, public
    consent would soon withdraw the unnecessary half-guinea. In this
    ultimate sense, the price of labour is indeed always regulated by
    the demand for it; but, so far as the practical and immediate
    administration of the matter is regarded, the best labour always
    has been, and is, as all labour ought to be, paid by an
    invariable standard.
    "What!" the reader perhaps answers amazedly: "pay good and
    bad workmen alike?"
    Certainly. The difference between one prelate's sermons and
    his successor's -- or between one physician's opinion and
    another's -- is far greater, as respects the qualities of mind
    involved, and far more important in result to you personally,
    than the difference between good and bad laying of bricks (though
    that is greater than most people suppose). Yet you pay with equal
    fee, contentedly, the good and bad workmen upon your soul, and
    the good and bad workmen upon your body; much more may you pay,
    contentedly, with equal fees, the good and bad workmen upon your
    house.
    "Nay, but I choose my physician and (?) my clergyman, thus
    indicating my sense of the quality of their work." By all means,
    also, choose your bricklayer; that is the proper reward of the
    good workman, to be "chosen." The natural and right system
    respecting all labour is, that it should be paid at a fixed rate,
    but the good workman employed, and the bad workman unemployed.
    The false, unnatural, and destructive system is when the bad
    workman is allowed to offer his work at half-price, and either
    take the place of the good, or force him by his competition to
    work for an inadequate sum.
    This equality of wages, then, being the first object toward
    which we have to discover the directest available road; the
    second is, as above stated, that of maintaining constant numbers
    of workmen in employment, whatever may be the accidental demand
    for the article they produce.
    I believe the sudden and extensive inequalities of demand,
    which necessarily arise in the mercantile operations of an active
    nation, constitute the only essential difficulty which has to be
    overcome in a just organization of labour. The subject opens into
    too many branches to admit of being investigated in a paper of
    this kind; but the following general facts bearing on it may be
    noted.
    The wages which enable any workman to live are necessarily
    higher, if his work is liable to intermission, than if it is
    assured and continuous; and however severe the struggle for work
    may become, the general law will always hold, that men must get
    more daily pay if, on the average, they can only calculate on
    work three days a week than they would require if they were sure
    of work six days a week. Supposing that a man cannot live on less
    than a shilling a day, his seven shillings he must get, either
    for three days' violent work, or six days' deliberate work. The
    tendency of all modern mercantile operations is to throw both
    wages and trade into the form of a lottery, and to make the
    workman's pay depend on intermittent exertion, and the
    principal's profit on dexterously used chance.
    In what partial degree, I repeat, this may be necessary in
    consequence of the activities of modern trade, I do not here
    investigate; contenting myself with the fact, that in its
    fatalest aspects it is assuredly unnecessary, and results merely
    from love of gambling on the part of the masters, and from
    ignorance and sensuality in the men. The masters cannot bear to
    let any opportunity of gain escape them, and frantically rush at
    every gap and breach in the walls of Fortune, raging to be rich,
    and affronting, with impatient covetousness, every risk of ruin,
    while the men prefer three days of violent labour, and three days
    of drunkenness, to six days of moderate work and wise rest. There
    is no way in which a principal, who really desires to help his
    workmen, may do it more effectually than by checking these
    disorderly habits both in himself and them; keeping his own
    business operations on a scale which will enable him to pursue
    them securely, not yielding to temptations of precarious gain;
    and, at the same time, leading his workmen into regular habits of
    labour and life, either by inducing them rather to take low wages
    in the form of a fixed salary, than high wages, subject to the
    chance of their being thrown out of work; or, if this be
    impossible, by discouraging the system of violent exertion for
    nominally high day wages, and leading the men to take lower pay
    for more regular labour.
    In effecting any radical changes of this kind, doubtless
    there would be great inconvenience and loss incurred by all the
    originators of movement. That which can be done with perfect
    convenience and without loss, is not always the thing that most
    needs to be done, or which we are most imperatively required to
    do.
    I have already alluded to the difference hitherto existing
    between regiments of men associated for purposes of violence, and
    for purposes of manufacture; in that the former appear capable of
    self-sacrifice -- the latter, not; which singular fact is the
    real reason of the general lowness of estimate in which the
    profession of commerce is held, as compared with that of arms.
    Philosophically, it does not, at first sight, appear reasonable
    (many writers have endeavoured to prove it unreasonable) that a
    peaceable and rational person, whose trade is buying and selling,
    should be held in less honour than an unpeaceable and often
    irrational person, whose trade is slaying. Nevertheless, the
    consent of mankind has always, in spite of the philosophers,
    given precedence to the soldier.
    And this is right.
    For the soldier's trade, verily and essentially, is not
    slaying, but being slain. This, without well knowing its own
    meaning, the world honours it for. A bravo's trade is slaying;
    but the world has never respected bravos more than merchants: the
    reason it honours the soldier is, because he holds his life at
    the service of the State. Reckless he may be -- fond of pleasure
    or of adventure-all kinds of bye-motives and mean impulses may
    have determined the choice of his profession, and may affect (to
    all appearance exclusively) his daily conduct in it; but our
    estimate of him is based on this ultimate fact -- of which we are
    well assured -- that put him in a fortress breach, with all the
    pleasures of the world behind him, and only death and his duty in
    front of him, he will keep his face to the front; and he knows
    that his choice may be put to him at any moment -- and has
    beforehand taken his part -- virtually takes such part
    continually -- does, in reality, die daily.
    Not less is the respect we pay to the lawyer and physician,
    founded ultimately on their self-sacrifice. Whatever the learning
    or acuteness of a great lawyer, our chief respect for him depends
    on our belief that, set in a judge's seat, he will strive to
    judge justly, come of it what may. Could we suppose that he would
    take bribes, and use his acuteness and legal knowledge to give
    plausibility to iniquitous decisions, no degree of intellect
    would win for him our respect. Nothing will win it, short of our
    tacit conviction, that in all important acts of his life justice
    is first with him; his own interest, second.
    In the case of a physician, the ground of the honour we
    render him is clearer still. Whatever his science, we would
    shrink from him in horror if we found him regard his patients
    merely as subjects to experiment upon; much more, if we found
    that, receiving bribes from persons interested in their deaths,
    he was using his best skill to give poison in the mask of
    medicine.
    Finally, the principle holds with utmost clearness as it
    respects clergymen. No goodness of disposition will excuse want
    of science in a physician, or of shrewdness in an advocate; but a
    clergyman, even though his power of intellect be small, is
    respected on the presumed ground of his unselfishness and
    serviceableness.
    Now, there can be no question but that the tact, foresight,
    decision, and other mental powers, required for the successful
    management of a large mercantile concern, if not such as could be
    compared with those of a great lawyer, general, or divine, would
    at least match the general conditions of mind required in the
    subordinate officers of a ship, or of a regiment, or in the
    curate of a country parish. If, therefore, all the efficient
    members of the so-called liberal professions are still, somehow,
    in public estimate of honour, preferred before the head of a
    commercial firm, the reason must lie deeper than in the
    measurement of their several powers of mind.
    And the essential reason for such preference will he found to
    lie in the fact that the merchant is presumed to act always
    selfishly. His work may be very necessary to the community. but
    the motive of it is understood to be wholly personal. The
    merchant's first object in all his dealings must be (the public
    believe) to get as much for himself, and leave as little to his
    neighbour (or customer) as possible. Enforcing this upon him, by
    political statute, as the necessary principle of his action;
    recommending it to him on all occasions, and themselves
    reciprocally adopting it, proclaiming vociferously, for law of
    the universe, that a buyer's function is to cheapen, and a
    seller's to cheat, -- the public, nevertheless, involuntarily
    condemn the man of commerce for his compliance with their own
    statement, and stamp him for ever as belonging to an inferior
    grade of human personality.
    This they will find, eventually, they must give up doing.
    They must not cease to condemn selfishness; but they will have to
    discover a kind of commerce which is not exclusively selfish. Or,
    rather, they will have to discover that there never was, or can
    be, any other kind of commerce; that this which they have called
    commerce was not commerce at all, but cozening; and that a true
    merchant differs as much from a merchant according to laws of
    modern political economy, as the hero of the Excursion from
    Autolycus. They will find that commerce is an occupation which
    gentlemen will every day see more need to engage in, rather than
    in the businesses of talking to men, or slaying them; that, in
    true commerce, as in true preaching, or true fighting, it is
    necessary to admit the idea of occasional voluntary loss; -- that
    sixpences have to be lost, as well as lives, under a sense of
    duty. that the market may have its martyrdoms as well as the
    pulpit; and trade its heroisms as well as war.
    May have -- in the final issue, must have-and only has not
    had yet, because men of heroic temper have always been misguided
    in their youth into other fields; not recognising what is in our
    days, perhaps, the most important of all fields; so that, while
    many a jealous person loses his life in trying to teach the form
    of a gospel, very few will lose a hundred pounds in showing the
    practice of one.
    The fact is, that people never have had clearly explained to
    them the true functions of a merchant with respect to other
    people. I should like the reader to be very clear about this.
    Five great intellectual professions, relating to daily
    necessities of life, have hitherto existed -- three exist
    necessarily, in every civilised nation:
    The Soldier's profession is to defend it.
    The Pastor's to teach it.
    The Physician's to keep it in health.
    The lawyer's to enforce justice in it.
    The Merchant's to provide for it.
    And the duty of all these men is, on due occasion, to die for it.
    "On due occasion," namely: -
    The Soldier, rather than leave his post in battle.
    The Physician, rather than leave his post in plague.
    The Pastor, rather than teach Falsehood.
    The lawyer, rather than countenance Injustice.
    The Merchant-what is his "due occasion" of death?
    It is the main question for the merchant, as for all of us.
    For, truly, the man who does not know when to die, does not know
    how to live.
    Observe, the merchant's function (or manufacturer's, for in
    the broad sense in which it is here used the word must be
    understood to include both) is to provide for the nation. It is
    no more his function to get profit for himself out of that
    provision than it is a clergyman's function to get his stipend.
    This stipend is a due and necessary adjunct, but not the object
    of his life, if he be a true clergyman, any more than his fee (or
    honorarium) is the object of life to a true physician. Neither is
    his fee the object of life to a true merchant. All three, if true
    men, have a work to be done irrespective of fee -- to be done
    even at any cost, or for quite the contrary of fee; the pastor's
    function being to teach, the physician's to heal, and the
    merchant's, as I have said, to provide. That is to say, he has to
    understand to their very root the qualities of the thing he deals
    in, and the means of obtaining or producing it; and he has to
    apply all his sagacity and energy to the producing or obtaining
    it in perfect state, and distributing it at the cheapest possible
    price where it is most needed.
    And because the production or obtaining of any commodity
    involves necessarily the agency of many lives and hands, the
    merchant becomes in the course of his business the master and
    governor of large masses of men in a more direct, though less
    confessed way, than a military officer or pastor; so that on him
    falls, in great part, the responsibility for the kind of life
    they lead: and it becomes his duty, not only to be always
    considering how to produce what he sells, in the purest and
    cheapest forms, but how to make the various employments involved
    in the production, or transference of it, most beneficial to the
    men employed.
    And as into these two functions, requiring for their right
    exercise the highest intelligence, as well as patience, kindness,
    and tact, the merchant is bound to put all his energy, so for
    their just discharge he is bound, as soldier or physician is
    bound, to give up, if need be, his life, in such way as it may be
    demanded of him. Two main points he has in his providing function
    to maintain: first, his engagements (faithfulness to engagements
    being the real root of all possibilities, in commerce); and,
    secondly, the perfectness and purity of the thing provided; so
    that, rather than fail in any engagement, or consent to any
    deterioration, adulteration, or unjust and exorbitant price of
    that which he provides, he is bound to meet fearlessly any form
    of distress, poverty, or labour, which may, through maintenance
    of these points, come upon him.
    Again: in his office as governor of the men employed by him,
    the merchant or manufacturer is invested with a distinctly
    paternal authority and responsibility. In most cases, a youth
    entering a commercial establishment is withdrawn altogether from
    home influence; his master must become his father, else he has,
    for practical and constant help, no father at hand: in all cases
    the master's authority, together with the general tone and
    atmosphere of his business, and the character of the men with
    whom the youth is compelled in the course of it to associate,
    have more immediate and pressing weight than the home influence,
    and will usually neutralize it either for good or evil; so that
    the only means which the master has of doing justice to the men
    employed by him is to ask himself sternly whether he is dealing
    with such subordinate as he would with his own son, if compelled
    by circumstances to take such a position.
    Supposing the captain of a frigate saw it right, or were by
    any chance obliged, to place his own son in the position of a
    common sailor: as he would then treat his son, he is bound always
    to treat every one of the men under him. So, also, supposing the
    master of a manufactory saw it right, or were by any chance
    obliged, to place his own son in the position of an ordinary
    workman; as he would then treat his son, he is bound always to
    treat every one of his men. This is the only effective, true, or
    practical Rule which can be given on this point of political
    economy.
    And as the captain of a ship is bound to be the last man to
    leave his ship in case of wreck, and to share his last crust with
    the sailors in case of famine, so the manufacturer, in any
    commercial crisis or distress, is bound to take the suffering of
    it with his men, and even to take more of it for himself than he
    allows his men to feel; as a father would in a famine, shipwreck,
    or battle, sacrifice himself for his son.
    All which sounds very strange: the only real strangeness in
    the matter being, nevertheless, that it should so sound. For all
    this is true, and that not partially nor theoretically, but
    everlastingly and practically: all other doctrine than this
    respecting matters political being false in premises, absurd in
    deduction, and impossible in practice, consistently with any
    progressive state of national life; all the life which we now
    possess as a nation showing itself in the resolute denial and
    scorn, by a few strong minds and faithful hearts, of the economic
    principles taught to our multitudes, which principles, so far as
    accepted, lead straight to national destruction. Respecting the
    modes and forms of destruction to which they lead, and, on the
    other hand, respecting the farther practical working of true
    polity, I hope to reason farther in a following paper.

    The Veins of Wealth

    The answer which would be made by any ordinary political
    economist to the statements contained in the preceding paper, is
    in few words as follows:
    "It is indeed true that certain advantages of a general
    nature may be obtained by the development of social affections.
    But political economists never professed, nor profess, to take
    advantages of a general nature into consideration. Our science is
    simply the science of getting rich. So far from being a
    fallacious or visionary one, it is found by experience to be
    practically effective. Persons who follow its precepts do
    actually become rich, and persons who disobey them become poor.
    Every capitalist of Europe has acquired his fortune by following
    the known laws of our science, and increases his capital daily by
    an adherence to them. It is vain to bring forward tricks of
    logic, against the force of accomplished facts. Every man of
    business knows by experience how money is made, and how it is
    lost."
    Pardon me. Men of business do indeed know how they themselves
    made their money, or how, on occasion, they lost it. Playing a
    long-practised game, they are familiar with the chances of its
    cards, and can rightly explain their losses and gains. But they
    neither know who keeps the bank of the gambling-house, nor what
    other games may be played with the same cards, nor what other
    losses and gains, far away among the dark streets, are
    essentially, though invisibly, dependent on theirs in the lighted
    rooms. They have learned a few, and only a few, of the laws of
    mercantile economy; but not one of those of political economy.
    Primarily, which is very notable and curious, I observe that
    men of business rarely know the meaning of the word "rich." At
    least, if they know, they do not in their reasonings allow for
    the fact, that it is a relative word, implying its opposite
    "poor" as positively as the word "north" implies its opposite
    "south." Men nearly always speak and write as if riches were
    absolute, and it were possible, by following certain scientific
    precepts, for everybody to be rich. Whereas riches are a power
    like that of electricity, acting only through inequalities or
    negations of itself. The force of the guinea you have in your
    pocket depends wholly on the default of a guinea in your
    neighbour's pocket. If he did not want it, it would be of no use
    to you; the degree of power it possesses depends accurately upon
    the need or desire he has for it, -- and the art of making
    yourself rich, in the ordinary mercantile economist's sense, is
    therefore equally and necessarily the art of keeping your
    neighbour poor.
    I would not contend in this matter (and rarely in any matter)
    for the acceptance of terms. But I wish the reader clearly and
    deeply to understand the difference between the two economies, to
    which the terms "Political" and "Mercantile" might not
    unadvisedly be attached.
    Political economy (the economy of a State, or of citizens)
    consists simply in the production, preservation, and
    distribution, at fittest time and place, of useful or pleasurable
    things. The farmer who cuts his hay at the right time; the
    shipwright who drives his bolts well home in sound wood; the
    builder who lays good bricks in well-tempered mortar; the
    housewife who takes care of her furniture in the parlour, and
    guards against all waste in her kitchen; and the singer who
    rightly disciplines, and never overstrains her voice, are all
    political economists in the true and final sense: adding
    continually to the riches and well-being of the nation to which
    they belong.
    But mercantile economy, the economy of "merces" or of "pay,"
    signifies the accumulation, in the hands of individuals, of legal
    or moral claim upon, or power over, the labour of others; every
    such claim implying precisely as much poverty or debt on one
    side, as it implies riches or right on the other.
    It does not, therefore, necessarily involve an addition to
    the actual property, or well-being, of the State in which it
    exists. But since this commercial wealth, or power over labour,
    is nearly always convertible at once into real property, while
    real property is not always convertible at once into power over
    labour, the idea of riches among active men in civilized nations,
    generally refers to commercial wealth; and in estimating their
    possessions, they rather calculate the value of their horses and
    fields by the number of guineas they could get for them, than the
    value of their guineas by the number of horses and fields they
    could buy with them.
    There is, however, another reason for this habit of mind;
    namely, that an accumulation of real property is of little use to
    its owner, unless, together with it, he has commercial power over
    labour. Thus, suppose any person to be put in possession of a
    large estate of fruitful land, with rich beds of gold in its
    gravel, countless herds of cattle in its pastures; houses, and
    gardens, and storehouses full of useful stores; but suppose,
    after all, that he could get no servants? In order that he may be
    able to have servants, some one in his neighbourhood must be
    poor, and in want of his gold -- or his corn. Assume that no one
    is in want of either, and that no servants are to be had. He
    must, therefore, bake his own bread, make his own clothes, plough
    his own ground, and shepherd his own flocks. His gold will be as
    useful to him as any other yellow pebbles on his estate. His
    stores must rot, for he cannot consume them. He can eat no more
    than another man could eat, and wear no more than another man
    could wear. He must lead a life of severe and common labour to
    procure even ordinary comforts; he will be ultimately unable to
    keep either houses in repair, or fields in cultivation; and
    forced to content himself with a poor man's portion of cottage
    and garden, in the midst of a desert of waste land, trampled by
    wild cattle, and encumbered by ruins of palaces, which he will
    hardly mock at himself by calling "his own."
    The most covetous of mankind would, with small exultation, I
    presume, accept riches of this kind on these terms. What is
    really desired, under the name of riches, is essentially, power
    over men; in its simplest sense, the power of obtaining for our
    own advantage the labour of servant, tradesman, and artist; in
    wider sense, authority of directing large masses of the nation to
    various ends (good, trivial or hurtful, according to the mind of
    the rich person). And this power of wealth of course is greater
    or less in direct proportion to the poverty of the men over whom
    it is exercised, and in inverse proportion to the number of
    persons who are as rich as ourselves, and who are ready to give
    the same price for an article of which the supply is limited. If
    the musician is poor, he will sing for small pay, as long as
    there is only one person who can pay him; but if there be two or
    three, he will sing for the one who offers him most. And thus the
    power of the riches of the patron (always imperfect and doubtful,
    as we shall see presently, even when most authoritative) depends
    first on the poverty of the artist, and then on the limitation of
    the number of equally wealthy persons, who also want seats at the
    concert. So that, as above stated, the art of becoming "rich," in
    the common sense, is not absolutely nor finally the art of
    accumulating much money for ourselves, but also of contriving
    that our neighbours shall have less. In accurate terms, it is
    "the art of establishing the maximum inequality in our own
    favour."
    Now, the establishment of such inequality cannot be shown in
    the abstract to be either advantageous or disadvantageous to the
    body of the nation. The rash and absurd assumption that such
    inequalities are necessarily advantageous, lies at the root of
    most of the popular fallacies on the subject of political
    economy. For the eternal and inevitable law in this matter is,
    that the beneficialness of the inequality depends, first, on the
    methods by which it was accomplished; and, secondly, on the
    purposes to which it is applied. Inequalities of wealth, unjustly
    established, have assuredly injured the nation in which they
    exist during their establishment; and, unjustly directed, injure
    it yet more during their existence. But inequalities of wealth,
    justly established, benefit the nation in the course of their
    establishment; and, nobly used, aid it yet more by their
    existence. That is to say, among every active and well-governed
    people, the various strength of individuals, tested by full
    exertion and specially applied to various need, issues in
    unequal, but harmonious results, receiving reward or authority
    according to its class and service;(2*) while, in the inactive or
    ill-governed nation, the gradations of decay and the victories of
    treason work out also their own rugged system of subjection and
    success; and substitute, for the melodious inequalities of
    concurrent power, the iniquitous dominances and depressions of
    guilt and misfortune.
    Thus the circulation of wealth in a nation resembles that of
    the blood in the natural body. There is one quickness of the
    current which comes of cheerful emotion or wholesome exercise;
    and another which comes of shame or of fever. There is a flush of
    the body which is full of warmth and life; and another which will
    pass into putrefaction.
    The analogy will hold down even to minute particulars. For as
    diseased local determination of the blood involves depression of
    the general health of the system, all morbid local action of
    riches will be found ultimately to involve a weakening of the
    resources of the body politic.
    The mode in which this is produced may be at once understood
    by examining one or two instances of the development of wealth in
    the simplest possible circumstances.
    Suppose two sailors cast away on an uninhabited coast, and
    obliged to maintain themselves there by their own labour for a
    series of years.
    If they both kept their health, and worked steadily and in
    amity with each other, they might build themselves a convenient
    house, and in time come to possess a certain quantity of
    cultivated land, together with various stores laid up for future
    use. All these things would be real riches or property; and,
    supposing the men both to have worked equally hard, they would
    each have right to equal share or use of it. Their political
    economy would consist merely in careful preservation and just
    division of these possessions. Perhaps, however, after some time
    one or other might be dissatisfied with the results of their
    common farming; and they might in consequence agree to divide the
    land they had brought under the spade into equal shares, so that
    each might thenceforward work in his own field, and live by it.
    Suppose that after this arrangement had been made, one of them
    were to fall ill, and be unable to work on his land at a critical
    time -- say of sowing or harvest.
    He would naturally ask the other to sow or reap for him.
    Then his companion might say, with perfect justice, "I will
    do this additional work for you; but if I do it, you must promise
    to do as much for me at another time. I will count how many hours
    I spend on your ground, and you shall give me a written promise
    to work for the same number of hours on mine, whenever I need
    your help, and you are able to give it." Suppose the disabled
    man's sickness to continue, and that under various circumstances,
    for several years, requiring the help of the other, he on each
    occasion gave a written pledge to work, as soon as he was able,
    at his companion's orders, for the same number of hours which the
    other had given up to him. What will the positions of the two men
    be when the invalid is able to resume work?
    Considered as a "Polis," or state, they will be poorer than
    they would have been otherwise: poorer by the withdrawal of what
    the sick man's labour would have produced in the interval. His
    friend may perhaps have toiled with an energy quickened by the
    enlarged need, but in the end his own land and property must have
    suffered by the withdrawal of so much of his time and thought
    from them: and the united property of the two men will be
    certainly less than it would have been if both had remained in
    health and activity.
    But the relations in which they stand to each other are also
    widely altered. The sick man has not only pledged his labour for
    some years, but will probably have exhausted his own share of the
    accumulated stores, and will be in consequence for some time
    dependent on the other for food, which he can only "pay" or
    reward him for by yet more deeply pledging his own labour.
    Supposing the written promises to be held entirely valid
    (among civilized nations their validity is secured by legal
    measures(3*)), the person who had hitherto worked for both might
    now, if he chose, rest altogether, and pass his time in idleness,
    not only forcing his companion to redeem all the engagements he
    had already entered into, but exacting from him pledges for
    further labour, to an arbitrary amount, for what food he had to
    advance to him.
    There might not, from first to last, be the least illegality
    (in the ordinary sense of the word) in the arrangement; but if a
    stranger arrived on the coast at this advanced epoch of their
    political economy, he would find one man commercially Rich; the
    other commercially Poor. He would see, perhaps, with no small
    surprise, one passing his days in idleness; the other labouring
    for both, and living sparely, in the hope of recovering his
    independence at some distant period.
    This is, of course, an example of one only out of many ways
    in which inequality of possession may be established between
    different persons, giving rise to the Mercantile forms of Riches
    and Poverty. In the instance before us, one of the men might from
    the first have deliberately chosen to be idle, and to put his
    life in pawn for present ease; or he might have mismanaged his
    land, and been compelled to have recourse to his neighbour for
    food and help, pledging his future labour for it. But what I want
    the reader to note especially is the fact, common to a large
    number of typical cases of this kind, that the establishment of
    the mercantile wealth which consists in a claim upon labour,
    signifies a political diminution of the real wealth which
    consists in substantial possessions.
    Take another example, more consistent with the ordinary
    course of affairs of trade. Suppose that three men, instead of
    two, formed the little isolated republic, and found themselves
    obliged to separate, in order to farm different pieces of land at
    some distance from each other along the coast: each estate
    furnishing a distinct kind of produce, and each more or less in
    need of the material raised on the other. Suppose that the third
    man, in order to save the time of all three, undertakes simply to
    superintend the transference of commodities from one farm to the
    other; on condition of receiving some sufficiently remunerative
    share of every parcel of goods conveyed, or of some other parcel
    received in exchange for it.
    If this carrier or messenger always brings to each estate,
    from the other, what is chiefly wanted, at the right time, the
    operations of the two farmers will go on prosperously, and the
    largest possible result in produce, or wealth, will be attained
    by the little community. But suppose no intercourse between the
    landowners is possible, except through the travelling agent; and
    that, after a time, this agent, watching the course of each man's
    agriculture, keeps back the articles with which he has been
    entrusted until there comes a period of extreme necessity for
    them, on one side or other, and then exacts in exchange for them
    all that the distressed farmer can spare of other kinds of
    produce: it is easy to see that by ingeniously watching his
    opportunities, he might possess himself regularly of the greater
    part of the superfluous produce of the two estates, and at last,
    in some year of severest trial or scarcity, purchase both for
    himself and maintain the former proprietors thenceforward as his
    labourers or servants.
    This would be a case of commercial wealth acquired on the
    exactest principles of modern political economy. But more
    distinctly even than in the former instance, it is manifest in
    this that the wealth of the State, or of the three men considered
    as a society, is collectively less than it would have been had
    the merchant been content with juster profit. The operations of
    the two agriculturists have been cramped to the utmost; and the
    continual limitations of the supply of things they wanted at
    critical times, together with the failure of courage consequent
    on the prolongation of a struggle for mere existence, without any
    sense of permanent gain, must have seriously diminished the
    effective results of their labour; and the stores finally
    accumulated in the merchant's hands will not in any wise be of
    equivalent value to those which, had his dealings been honest,
    would have filled at once the granaries of the farmers and his
    own.
    The whole question, therefore, respecting not only the
    advantage, but even the quantity, of national wealth, resolves
    itself finally into one of abstract justice. It is impossible to
    conclude, of any given mass of acquired wealth, merely by the
    fact of its existence, whether it signifies good or evil to the
    nation in the midst of which it exists. Its real value depends on
    the moral sign attached to it, just as sternly as that of a
    mathematical quantity depends on the algebraical sign attached to
    it. Any given accumulation of commercial wealth may be
    indicative, on the one hand, of faithful industries, progressive
    energies, and productive ingenuities: or, on the other, it may be
    indicative of mortal luxury, merciless tyranny, ruinous chicane.
    Some treasures are heavy with human tears, as an ill-stored
    harvest with untimely rain; and some gold is brighter in sunshine
    than it is in substance.
    And these are not, observe, merely moral or pathetic
    attributes of riches, which the seeker of riches may, if he
    chooses, despise; they are, literally and sternly, material
    attributes of riches, depreciating or exalting, incalculably, the
    monetary signification of the sum in question. One mass of money
    is the outcome of action which has created, another, of action
    which has annihilated, -- ten times as much in the gathering of
    it; such and such strong hands have been paralyzed, as if they
    had been numbed by nightshade: so many strong men's courage
    broken, so many productive operations hindered; this and the
    other false direction given to labour, and lying image of
    prosperity set up, on Dura plains dug into seven-times-heated
    furnaces. That which seems to be wealth may in verity be only the
    gilded index of far-reaching ruin: a wrecker's handful of coin
    gleaned from the beach to which he has beguiled an argosy; a
    camp-follower's bundle of rags unwrapped from the breasts of
    goodly soldiers dead; the purchase-pieces of potter's fields,
    wherein shall be buried together the citizen and the stranger.
    And therefore, the idea that directions can be given for the
    gaining of wealth, irrespectively of the consideration of its
    moral sources, or that any general and technical law of purchase
    and gain can be set down for national practice, is perhaps the
    most insolently futile of all that ever beguiled men through
    their vices. So far as I know, there is not in history record of
    anything so disgraceful to the human intellect as the modern idea
    that the commercial text, "Buy in the cheapest market and sell in
    the dearest," represents, or under any circumstances could
    represent, an available principle of national economy. Buy in the
    cheapest market? yes; but what made your market cheap? Charcoal
    may be cheap among your roof timbers after a fire, and bricks may
    be cheap in your streets after an earthquake; but fire and
    earthquake may not therefore he national benefits. Sell in the
    dearest? -- Yes, truly; but what made your market dear? You sold
    your bread well to-day: was it to a dying man who gave his last
    coin for it, and will never need bread more; or to a rich man who
    to-morrow will buy your farm over your head; or to a soldier on
    his way to pillage the bank in which you have put your fortune?
    None of these things you can know. One thing only you can
    know: namely, whether this dealing of yours is a just and
    faithful one, which is all you need concern yourself about
    respecting it; sure thus to have done your own part in bringing
    about ultimately in the world a state of things which will not
    issue in pillage or in death. And thus every question concerning
    these things merges itself ultimately in the great question of
    justice, which, the ground being thus far cleared for it. I will
    enter upon the next paper, leaving only, in this, three final
    points for the reader's consideration.
    It has been shown that the chief value and virtue of money
    consists in its having power over human beings; that, without
    this power, large material possessions are useless, and to any
    person possessing such power, comparatively unnecessary. But
    power over human beings is attainable by other means than by
    money. As I said a few pages back, the money power is always
    imperfect and doubtful; there are many things which cannot be
    reached with it, others which cannot be retained by it. Many joys
    may be given to men which cannot be bought for gold, and many
    fidelities found in them which cannot be rewarded with it.
    Trite enough, -- the reader thinks. Yes: but it is not so
    trite, -- I wish it were, -- that in this moral power, quite
    inscrutable and immeasurable though it be, there is a monetary
    value just as real as that represented by more ponderous
    currencies. A man's hand may be full of invisible gold, and the
    wave of it, or the grasp, shall do more than another's with a
    shower of bullion. This invisible gold, also, does not
    necessarily diminish in spending. Political economists will do
    well some day to take heed of it, though they cannot take
    measure.
    But farther. Since the essence of wealth consists in its
    authority over men, if the apparent or nominal wealth fail in
    this power, it fails in essence; in fact, ceases to be wealth at
    all. It does not appear lately in England, that our authority
    over men is absolute. The servants show some disposition to rush
    riotously upstairs, under an impression that their wages are not
    regularly paid. We should augur ill of any gentleman's property
    to whom this happened every other day in his drawing-room.
    So, also, the power of our wealth seems limited as respects
    the comfort of the servants, no less than their quietude. The
    persons in the kitchen appear to be ill-dressed, squalid,
    half-starved. One cannot help imagining that the riches of the
    establishment must be of a very theoretical and documentary
    character.
    Finally. Since the essence of wealth consists in power over
    men, will it not follow that the nobler and the more in number
    the persons are over whom it has power, the greater the wealth?
    Perhaps it may even appear, after some consideration, that the
    persons themselves are the wealth that these pieces of gold with
    which we are in the habit of guiding them, are, in fact, nothing
    more than a kind of Byzantine harness or trappings, very
    glittering and beautiful in barbaric sight, wherewith we bridle
    the creatures; but that if these same living creatures could be
    guided without the fretting and jingling of the Byzants in their
    mouths and ears, they might themselves be more valuable than
    their bridles. In fact, it may be discovered that the true veins
    of wealth are purple -- and not in Rock, but in Flesh -- perhaps
    even that the final outcome and consummation of all wealth is in
    the producing as many as possible full-breathed, bright-eyed, and
    happy-hearted human creatures. Our modern wealth, I think, has
    rather a tendency the other way; -- most political economists
    appearing to consider multitudes of human creatures not conducive
    to wealth, or at best conducive to it only by remaining in a
    dim-eyed and narrow-chested state of being.
    Nevertheless, it is open, I repeat, to serious question,
    which I leave to the reader's pondering, whether, among national
    manufactures, that of Souls of a good quality may not at last
    turn out a quite leadingly lucrative one? Nay, in some far-away
    and yet undreamt-of hour, I can even imagine that England may
    cast all thoughts of possessive wealth back to the barbaric
    nations among whom they first arose; and that, while the sands of
    the Indus and adamant of Golconda may yet stiffen the housings of
    the charger, and flash from the turban of the slave, she, as a
    Christian mother, may at last attain to the virtues and the
    treasures of a Heathen one, and be able to lead forth her Sons,
    saying, --
    "These are My Jewels."

    Qui Judicatis Terram

    Some centuries before the Christian era, a Jew merchant
    largely engaged in business on the Gold Coast, and reported to
    have made one of the largest fortunes of his time, (held also in
    repute for much practical sagacity,) left among his ledgers some
    general maxims concerning wealth, which have been preserved,
    strangely enough, even to our own days. They were held in
    considerable respect by the most active traders of the middle
    ages, especially by the Venetians, who even went so far in their
    admiration as to place a statue of the old Jew on the angle of
    one of their principal public buildings. Of late years these
    writings have fallen into disrepute, being opposed in every
    particular to the spirit of modern commerce. Nevertheless I shall
    reproduce a passage or two from them here, partly because they
    may interest the reader by their novelty; and chiefly because
    they will show him that it is possible for a very practical and
    acquisitive tradesman to hold, through a not unsuccessful career,
    that principle of distinction between well-gotten and ill-gotten
    wealth, which, partially insisted on in my last paper, it must be
    our work more completely to examine in this.
    He says, for instance, in one place: "The getting of
    treasures by a lying tongue is a vanity tossed to and fro of them
    that see death: "adding in another, with the same meaning (he has
    a curious way of doubling his sayings): "Treasures of wickedness
    profit nothing: but justice delivers from death." Both these
    passages are notable for their assertion of death as the only
    real issue and sum of attainment by any unjust scheme of wealth.
    If we read, instead of "lying tongue," "lying label, title,
    pretence, or advertisement," we shall more clearly perceive the
    bearing of the words on modern business. The seeking of death is
    a grand expression of the true course of men's toil in such
    business. We usually speak as if death pursued us, and we fled
    from him; but that is only so in rare instances. Ordinarily he
    masks himself -- makes himself beautiful -- all-glorious; not
    like the King's daughter, all-glorious within, but outwardly: his
    clothing of wrought gold. We pursue him frantically all our days,
    he flying or hiding from us. Our crowning success at three-score
    and ten is utterly and perfectly to seize, and hold him in his
    eternal integrity -- robes, ashes, and sting.
    Again: the merchant says, "He that oppresseth the poor to
    increase his riches, shall surely come to want." And again, more
    strongly: "Rob not the poor because he is poor; neither oppress
    the afflicted in the place of business. For God shall spoil the
    soul of those that spoiled them."
    This "robbing the poor because he is poor," is especially the
    mercantile form of theft, consisting in talking advantage of a
    man's necessities in order to obtain his labour or property at a
    reduced price. The ordinary highwayman's opposite form of robbery
    -- of the rich, because he is rich -- does not appear to occur so
    often to the old merchant's mind; probably because, being less
    profitable and more dangerous than the robbery of the poor, it is
    rarely practised by persons of discretion.
    But the two most remarkable passages in their deep general
    significance are the following: --
    "The rich and the poor have met. God is their maker."
    "The rich and the poor have met. God is their light."
    They "have met:" more literally, have stood in each other's
    way (obviaverunt). That is to say, as long as the world lasts,
    the action and counteraction of wealth and poverty, the meeting,
    face to face, of rich and poor, is just as appointed and
    necessary a law of that world as the flow of stream to sea, or
    the interchange of power among the electric clouds: -- "God is
    their maker." But, also, this action may be either gentle and
    just, or convulsive and destructive: it may be by rage of
    devouring flood, or by lapse of serviceable wave; -- in blackness
    of thunderstroke, or continual force of vital fire, soft, and
    shapeable into love-syllables from far away. And which of these
    it shall be depends on both rich and poor knowing that God is
    their light; that in the mystery of human life, there is no other
    light than this by which they can see each other's faces, and
    live; -- light, which is called in another of the books among
    which the merchant's maxims have been preserved, the "sun of
    justice,"(4*) of which it is promised that it shall rise at last
    with "healing" (health-giving or helping, making whole or setting
    at one) in its wings. For truly this healing is only possible by
    means of justice; no love, no faith, no hope will do it; men will
    be unwisely fond-vainly faithful, unless primarily they are just;
    and the mistake of the best men through generation after
    generation, has been that great one of thinking to help the poor
    by almsgiving, and by preaching of patience or of hope, and by
    every other means, emollient or consolatory, except the one thing
    which God orders for them, justice. But this justice, with its
    accompanying holiness or helpfulness, being even by the best men
    denied in its trial time, is by the mass of men hated wherever it
    appears: so that, when the choice was one day fairly put to them,
    they denied the Helpful One and the Just;(5*) and desired a
    murderer, sedition-raiser, and robber, to be gran ted to them; --
    the murderer instead of the Lord of Life, the sedition-raiser
    instead of the Prince of Peace, and the robber instead of the
    Just Judge of all the world.
    I have just spoken of the flowing of streams to the sea as a
    partial image of the action of wealth. In one respect it is not a
    partial, but a perfect image. The popular economist thinks
    himself wise in having discovered that wealth, or the forms of
    property in general, must go where they are required; that where
    demand is, supply must follow. He farther declares that this
    course of demand and supply cannot be forbidden by human laws.
    Precisely in the same sense, and with the same certainty, the
    waters of the world go where they are required. Where the land
    falls, the water flows. The course neither of clouds nor rivers
    can be forbidden by human will. But the disposition and
    administration of them can be altered by human forethought.
    Whether the stream shall be a curse or a blessing, depends upon
    man's labour, and administrating intelligence. For centuries
    after centuries, great districts of the world, rich in soil, and
    favoured in climate, have lain desert under the rage of their own
    rivers; nor only desert, but plague-struck. The stream which,
    rightly directed, would have flowed in soft irrigation from field
    to field -- would have purified the air, given food to man and
    beast, and carried their burdens for them on its bosom -- now
    overwhelms the plain, and poisons the wind; its breath
    pestilence, and its work famine. In like manner this wealth "goes
    where it is required." No human laws can withstand its flow. They
    can only guide it: but this, the lending trench and limiting
    mound can do so thoroughly, that it shall become water of life --
    the riches of the hand of wisdom;(6*) or, on the contrary, by
    leaving it to its own lawless flow, they may make it, what it has
    been too often, the last and deadliest of national plagues: water
    of Marah -- the water which feeds the roots of all evil.
    The necessity of these laws of distribution or restraint is
    curiously over-looked in the ordinary political economist's
    definition of his own "science." He calls it, shortly, the
    "science of getting rich." But there are many sciences, as well
    as many arts, of getting rich. Poisoning people of large estates,
    was one employed largely in the middle ages; adulteration of food
    of people of small estates, is one employed largely now. The
    ancient and honourable Highland method of blackmail; the more
    modern and less honourable system of obtaining goods on credit,
    and the other variously improved methods of appropriation --
    which, in major and minor scales of industry, down to the most
    artistic pocket-picking, we owe to recent genius, -- all come
    under the general head of sciences, or arts, of getting rich.
    So that it is clear the popular economist, in calling his
    science the science par excellence of getting rich, must attach
    some peculiar ideas of limitation to its character. I hope I do
    not misrepresent him, by assuming that he means his science to be
    the science of "getting rich by legal or just means." In this
    definition, is the word "just," or "legal," finally to stand? For
    it is possible among certain nations, or under certain rulers, or
    by help of certain advocates, that proceedings may be legal which
    are by no means just. If, therefore, we leave at last only the
    word "just" in that place of our definition, the insertion of
    this solitary and small word will make a notable difference in
    the grammar of our science. For then it will follow that, in
    order to grow rich scientifically, we must grow rich justly; and,
    therefore, know what is just; so that our economy will no longer
    depend merely on prudence, but on jurisprudence -- and that of
    divine, not human law. Which prudence is indeed of no mean order,
    holding itself, as it were, high in the air of heaven, and gazing
    for ever on the light of the sun of justice; hence the souls
    which have excelled in it are represented by Dante as stars,
    forming in heaven for ever the figure of the eye of an eagle:
    they having been in life the discerners of light from darkness;
    or to the whole human race, as the light of the body, which is
    the eye; while those souls which form the wings of the bird
    (giving power and dominion to justice, "healing in its wings")
    trace also in light the inscription in heaven: "DILIGITE
    JUSTITIAM QUI JUDICATIS TERRAM." "Ye who judge the earth, give"
    (not, observe, merely love, but) "diligent love to justice:" the
    love which seeks diligently, that is to say, choosingly, and by
    preference, to all things else. Which judging or doing judgment
    in the earth is, according to their capacity and position,
    required not of judges only, nor of rulers only, but of all
    men:(7*) a truth sorrowfully lost sight of even by those who are
    ready enough to apply to themselves passages in which Christian
    men are spoken of as called to be "saints" (i.e. to helpful or
    healing functions); and "chosen to be kings" (i.e. to knowing or
    directing functions); the true meaning of these titles having
    been long lost through the pretences of unhelpful and unable
    persons to saintly and kingly character; also through the once
    popular idea that both the sanctity and royalty are to consist in
    wearing long robes and high crowns, instead of in mercy and
    judgment; whereas all true sanctity is saving power, as all true
    royalty is ruling power; and injustice is part and parcel of the
    denial of such power, which "makes men as the creeping things, as
    the fishes of the sea, that have no ruler over them."(8*)
    Absolute justice is indeed no more attainable than absolute
    truth; but the righteous man is distinguished from the
    unrighteous by his desire and hope of justice, as the true man
    from the false by his desire and hope of truth. And though
    absolute justice be unattainable, as much justice as we need for
    all practical use is attainable by all those who make it their
    aim.
    We have to examine, then, in the subject before us, what are
    the laws of justice respecting payment of labour -- no small
    part, these, of the foundations of all jurisprudence.
    I reduced, in my last paper, the idea of money payment to its
    simplest or radical terms. In those terms its nature, and the
    conditions of justice respecting it, can be best ascertained.
    Money payment, as there stated, consists radically in a
    promise to some person working for us, that for the time and
    labour he spends in our service to-day we will give or procure
    equivalent time and labour in his service at any future time when
    he may demand it.(9*)
    If we promise to give him less labour than he has given us,
    we under-pay him. If we promise to give him more labour than he
    has given us, we over-pay him. In practice, according to the laws
    of demand and supply, when two men are ready to do the work, and
    only one man wants to have it done, the two men underbid each
    other for it; and the one who gets it to do, is under-paid. But
    when two men want the work done, and there is only one man ready
    to do it, the two men who want it done over-bid each other, and
    the workman is over-paid.
    I will examine these two points of injustice in succession;
    but first I wish the reader to clearly understand the central
    principle, lying between the two, of right or just payment.
    When we ask a service of any man, he may either give it us
    freely, or demand payment for it. Respecting free gift of
    service, there is no question at present, that being a matter of
    affection -- not of traffic. But if he demand payment for it, and
    we wish to treat him with absolute equity, it is evident that
    this equity can only consist in giving time for time, strength
    for strength, and skill for skill. If a man works an hour for us,
    and we only promise to work half-an-hour for him in return, we
    obtain an unjust advantage. If, on the contrary, we promise to
    work an hour and a half for him in return, he has an unjust
    advantage. The justice consists in absolute exchange; or, if
    there be any respect to the stations of the parties, it will not
    be in favour of the employer: there is certainly no equitable
    reason in a main's being poor, that if he give me a pound of
    bread to-day, I should return him less than a pound of bread
    to-morrow; or any equitable reason in a man's being uneducated,
    that if he uses a certain quantity of skill and knowledge in my
    service, I should use a less quantity of skill and knowledge in
    his. Perhaps, ultimately, it may appear desirable, or, to say the
    least, gracious, that I should give in return somewhat more than
    I received. But at present, we are concerned on the law of
    justice only, which is that of perfect and accurate exchange; --
    one circumstance only interfering with the simplicity of this
    radical idea of just payment -- that inasmuch as labour (rightly
    directed) is fruitful just as seed is, the fruit (or "interest,"
    as it is called) of the labour first given, or "advanced," ought
    to be taken into account, and balanced by an additional quantity
    of labour in the subsequent repayment. Supposing the repayment to
    take place at the end of a year, or of any other given time, this
    calculation could be approximately made; but as money (that is to
    say, cash) payment involves no reference to time (it being
    optional with the person paid to spend what he receives at once
    or after any number of years), we can only assume, generally,
    that some slight advantage must in equity be allowed to the
    person who advances the labour, so that the typical form of
    bargain will be: If you give me an hour to-day, I will give you
    an hour and five minutes on demand. If you give me a pound of
    bread to day, I will give you seventeen ounces on demand, and so
    on. All that it is necessary for the reader to note is, that the
    amount returned is at least in equity not to be less than the
    amount given.
    The abstract idea, then, of just or due wages, as respects
    the labourer, is that they will consist in a sum of money which
    will at any time procure for him at least as much labour as he
    has given, rather more than less. And this equity or justice of
    payment is, observe, wholly independent of any reference to the
    number of men who are willing to do the work. I want a horseshoe
    for my horse. Twenty smiths, or twenty thousand smiths, may be
    ready to forge it; their number does not in one atom's weight
    affect the question of the equitable payment of the one who does
    forge it. It costs him a quarter of an hour of his life, and so
    much skill and strength of arm to make that horseshoe for me.
    Then at some future time I am bound in equity to give a quarter
    of an hour, and some minutes more, of my life (or of some other
    person's at my disposal), and also as much strength of arm and
    skill, and a little more, in making or doing what the smith may
    have need of.
    Such being the abstract theory of just remunerative payment,
    its application is practically modified by the fact that the
    order for labour, given in payment, is general, while labour
    received is special. The current coin or document is practically
    an order on the nation for so much work of any kind; and this
    universal applicability to immediate need renders it so much more
    valuable than special labour can be, that an order for a less
    quantity of this general toil will always be accepted as a just
    equivalent for a greater quantity of special toil. Any given
    craftsman will always be willing to give an hour of his own work
    in order to receive command over half-an-hour, or even much less,
    of national work. This source of uncertainty, together. with the
    difficulty of determining the monetary value of skill,(10*)
    renders the ascertainment (even approximate) of the proper wages
    of any given labour in terms of a currency matter of considerable
    complexity. But they do not affect the principle of exchange. The
    worth of the work may not be easily known; but it has a worth,
    just as fixed and real as the specific gravity of a substance,
    though such specific gravity may not be easily ascertainable when
    the substance is united with many others. Nor is there so much
    difficulty or chance in determining it as in determining the
    ordinary maxima and minima of vulgar political economy. There are
    few bargains in which the buyer can ascertain with anything like
    precision that the seller would have taken no less; -- or the
    seller acquire more than a comfortable faith that the purchaser
    would have given no more. This impossibility of precise knowledge
    prevents neither from striving to attain the desired point of
    greatest vexation and injury to the other, nor from accepting it
    for a scientific principle that he is to buy for the least and
    sell for the most possible, though what the real least or most
    may be he cannot tell. In like manner, a just person lays it down
    for a scientific principle that he is to pay a just price, and,
    without being able precisely to ascertain the limits of such a
    price, will nevertheless strive to attain the closest possible
    approximation to them. A practically serviceable approximation he
    can obtain. It is easier to determine scientifically what a man
    ought to have for his work, than what his necessities will compel
    him to take for it. His necessities can only be ascertained by
    empirical, but his due by analytical, investigation. In the one
    case, you try your answer to the sum like a puzzled schoolboy --
    till you find one that fits; in the other, you bring out your
    result within certain limits, by process of calculation.
    Supposing, then, the just wages of any quantity of given
    labour to have been ascertained, let us examine the first results
    of just and unjust payment, when in favour of the purchaser or
    employer; i.e. when two men are ready to do the work, and only
    one wants to have it done.
    The unjust purchaser forces the two to bid against each other
    till he has reduced their demand to its lowest terms. Let us
    assume that the lowest bidder offers to do the work at half its
    just price.
    The purchaser employs him, and does not employ the other. The
    first or apparent result is, therefore, that one of the two men
    is left out of employ, or to starvation, just as definitely as by
    the just procedure of giving fair price to the best workman. The
    various writers who endeavoured to invalidate the positions of my
    first paper never saw this, and assumed that the unjust hirer
    employed both. He employs both no more than the just hirer. The
    only difference (in the outset, is that the just man pays
    sufficiently, the unjust man insufficiently, for the labour of
    the single person employed.
    I say, "in the outset;" for this first or apparent,
    difference is not the actual difference. By the unjust procedure,
    half the proper price of the work is left in the hands of the
    employer. This enables him to hire another man at the same unjust
    rate, on some other kind of work; and the final result is that he
    has two men working for him at half price, and two are out of
    employ.
    By the just procedure, the whole price of the first piece of
    work goes in the hands of the man who does it. No surplus being
    left in the employer's hands, he cannot hire another man for
    another piece of labour. But by precisely so much as his power is
    diminished, the hired workman's power is increased; that is to
    say, by the additional half of the price he has received; which
    additional half he has the power of using to employ another man
    in his service. I will suppose, for the moment, the least
    favourable, though quite probable, case -- that, though justly
    treated himself, he yet will act unjustly to his subordinate; and
    hire at half-price, if he can. The final result will then be,
    that one man works for the employer, at just price; one for the
    workman, at half-price; and two, as in the first case, are still
    out of employ. These two, as I said before, are out of employ in
    both cases. The difference between the just and unjust procedure
    does not lie in the number of men hired, but in the price paid to
    them, and the persons by whom it is paid. The essential
    difference, that which I want the reader to see clearly, is, that
    in the unjust case, two men work for one, the first hirer. In the
    just case, one man works for the first hirer, one for the person
    hired, and so on, down or up through the various grades of
    service; the influence being carried forward by justice, and
    arrested by injustice. The universal and constant action of
    justice in this matter is therefore to diminish the power oF
    wealth, in the hands of one individual, over masses of men, and
    to distribute it through a chain of men. The actual power exerted
    by the wealth is the same in both cases; but by injustice it is
    put all into one man's hands, so that he directs at once and with
    equal force the labour of a circle of men about him; by the just
    procedure, he is permitted to touch the nearest only, through
    whom, with diminished force, modified by new minds, the energy of
    the wealth passes on to others, and so till it exhausts itself.
    The immediate operation of justice in this respect is
    therefore to diminish the power of wealth, first in acquisition
    of luxury, and, secondly, in exercise of moral influence. The
    employer cannot concentrate so multitudinous labour on his own
    interests, nor can he subdue so multitudinous mind to his own
    will. But the secondary operation of justice is not less
    important. The insufficient payment of the group of men working
    for one, places each under a maximum of difficulty in rising
    above his position. The tendency of the system is to check
    advancement. But the sufficient or just payment, distributed
    through a descending series oF offices or grades or labour,(11*)
    gives each subordinated person fair and sufficient means of
    rising in the social scale, if he chooses to use them; and thus
    not only diminishes the immediate power of wealth, but removes
    the worst disabilities of poverty.
    It is on this vital problem that the entire destiny of the
    labourer is ultimately dependent. Many minor interests may
    sometimes appear to interfere with it, but all branch from it.
    For instance, considerable agitation is often caused in the minds
    of the lower classes when they discover the share which they
    nominally, and to all appearance, actually, pay out of their
    wages in taxation (I believe thirty-five or forty per cent). This
    sounds very grievous; but in reality the labourer does not pay
    it, but his employer. If the workman had not to pay it, his wages
    would be less by just that sum: competition would still reduce
    them to the lowest rate at which life was possible. Similarly the
    lower orders agitated for the repeal of the corn laws,(12*)
    thinking they would be better off if bread were cheaper; never
    perceiving that as soon as bread was permanently cheaper, wages
    would permanently fall in precisely that proportion. The corn
    laws were rightly repealed; not, however, because they directly
    oppressed the poor, but because they indirectly oppressed them in
    causing a large quantity of their labour to be consumed
    unproductively. So also unnecessary taxation oppresses them,
    through destruction of capital, but the destiny of the poor
    depends primarily always on this one question of dueness of
    wages. Their distress (irrespectively of that caused by sloth,
    minor error, or crime) arises on the grand scale from the two
    reacting forces of competition and oppression. There is not yet,
    nor will yet for ages be, any real over-population in the world;
    but a local over-population, or, more accurately, a degree of
    population locally unmanageable under existing circumstances for
    want of forethought and sufficient machinery, necessarily shows
    itself by pressure of competition; and the taking advantage of
    this competition by the purchaser to obtain their labour unjustly
    cheap, consummates at once their suffering and his own; for in
    this (as I believe in every other kind of slavery) the oppressor
    suffers at last more than the oppressed, and those magnificent
    lines of Pope, even in all their force, fall short of the truth
    --

    "Yet, to be just to these poor men of pelf,
    Each does but HATE HIS NEIGHBOUR AS HIMSELF:
    Damned to the mines, an equal fate betides
    The slave that digs it, and the slave that hides."

    The collateral and reversionary operations of justice in this
    matter I shall examine hereafter (it being needful first to
    define the nature of value); proceeding then to consider within
    what practical terms a juster system may be established; and
    ultimately the vexed question of the destinies of the unemployed
    workmen.(13*) Lest, however, the reader should be alarmed at some
    of the issues to which our investigations seem to be tending, as
    if in their bearing against the power of wealth they had
    something in common with those of socialism, I wish him to know
    in accurate terms, one or two of the main points which I have in
    view.
    Whether socialism has made more progress among the army and
    navy (where payment is made on my principles), or among the
    manufacturing operatives (who are paid on my opponents'
    principles), I leave it to those opponents to ascertain and
    declare. Whatever their conclusion may be, I think it necessary
    to answer for myself only this: that if there be any one point
    insisted on throughout my works more frequently than another,
    that one point is the impossibility of Equality. My continual aim
    has been to show the eternal superiority of some men to others,
    sometimes even of one man to all others; and to show also the
    advisability of appointing such persons or person to guide, to
    lead, or on occasion even to compel and subdue, their inferiors,
    according to their own better knowledge and wiser will. My
    principles of Political Economy were all involved in a single
    phrase spoken three years ago at Manchester. "Soldiers of the
    Ploughshare as well as soldiers of the Sword:" and they were all
    summed in a single sentence in the last volume of Modern Painters
    -- "Government and co-operation are in all things the Laws of
    Life; Anarchy and competition the Laws of Death."
    And with respect to the mode in which these general
    principles affect the secure possession of property, so far am I
    from invalidating such security, that the whole gist of these
    papers will be found ultimately to aim at an extension in its
    range; and whereas it has long been known and declared that the
    poor have no right to the property of the rich, I wish it also to
    be known and declared that the rich have no right to the property
    of the poor.
    But that the working of the system which I have undertaken to
    develope would in many ways shorten the apparent and direct,
    though not the unseen and collateral, power, both of wealth, as
    the Lady of Pleasure, and of capital as the Lord of Toil, I do
    not deny on the contrary, I affirm it in all joyfulness; knowing
    that the attraction of riches is already too strong, as their
    authority is already too weighty, for the reason of mankind. I
    said in my last paper that nothing in history had ever been so
    disgraceful to human intellect as the acceptance among us of the
    common doctrines of political economy as a science. I have many
    grounds for saying this, but one of the chief may be given in few
    words. I know no previous instance in history of a nation's
    establishing a systematic disobedience to the first principles of
    its professed religion. The writings which we (verbally) esteem
    as divine, not only denounce the love of money as the source of
    all evil, and as an idolatry abhorred of the Deity, but declare
    mammon service to be the accurate and irreconcileable opposite of
    God's service: and, whenever they speak of riches absolute, and
    poverty absolute, declare woe to the rich, and blessing to the
    poor. Where upon we forthwith investigate a science of becoming
    rich as the shortest road to national prosperity.

    "Tai Cristian dannera l' Etiope,
    Quando si partiranno i due collegi,
    L'UNO IN ETERNO RICCO, E L'ALTRO INOPE."

    Ad Valorem

    We saw that just payment of labour consisted in a sum of
    money which would approximately obtain equivalent labour at a
    future time: we have now to examine the means of obtaining such
    equivalence. Which question involves the definition of Value,
    Wealth, Price, and Produce.
    None of these terms are yet defined so as to be understood by
    the public. But the last, Produce, which one might have thought
    the clearest of all, is, in use, the most ambiguous; and the
    examination of the kind of ambiguity attendant on its present
    employment will best open the way to our work.
    In his chapter on Capital,(14*) Mr J.S. Mill instances, as a
    capitalist, a hardware manufacturer, who, having intended to
    spend a certain portion of the proceeds of his business in buying
    plate and jewels, changes his mind, and, 'pays it as wages to
    additional workpeople." The effect is stated by Mr Mill to be,
    that "more food is appropriated to the consumption of productive
    labourers."
    Now I do not ask, though, had I written this paragraph, it
    would surely have been asked of me, What is to become of the
    silversmiths? If they are truly unproductive persons, we will
    acquiesce in their extinction. And though in another part of the
    same passage, the hardware merchant is supposed also to dispense
    with a number of servants, whose "food is thus set free for
    productive purposes," I do not inquire what will be the effect,
    painful or otherwise, upon the servants, of this emancipation of
    their food. But I very seriously inquire why ironware is produce,
    and silverware is not? That the merchant consumes the one, and
    sells the other, certainly does not constitute the difference,
    unless it can be shown (which, indeed, I perceive it to be
    becoming daily more and more the aim of tradesmen to show) that
    commodities are made to be sold, and not to be consumed. The
    merchant is an agent of conveyance to the consumer in one case,
    and is himself the consumer in the other:(15*) but the labourers
    are in either case equally productive, since they have produced
    goods to the same value, if the hardware and the plate are both
    goods.
    And what distinction separates them? It is indeed possible
    that in the "comparative estimate of the moralist," with which Mr
    Mill says political economy has nothing to do (III. i. 2), a
    steel fork might appear a more substantial production than a
    silver one: we may grant also that knives, no less than forks,
    are good produce; and scythes and ploughshares serviceable
    articles. But, how of bayonets? Supposing the hardware merchant
    to effect large sales of these, by help of the "setting free" of
    the food of his servants and his silversmith, -- is he still
    employing productive labourers, or, in Mr Mill's words, labourers
    who increase "the stock of permanent means of enjoyment" (I. iii.
    4)? Or if, instead of bayonets, he supply bombs, will not the
    absolute and final "enjoyment" of even these energetically
    productive articles (each of which costs ten pounds(16*)) be
    dependent on a proper choice of time and place for their
    enfantement; choice, that is to say, depending on those
    philosophical considerations with which political economy has
    nothing to do?(17*)
    I should have regretted the need of pointing out
    inconsistency in any portion of Mr Mill's work, had not the value
    of his work proceeded from its inconsistencies. He deserves
    honour among economists by inadvertently disclaiming the
    principles which he states, and tacitly introducing the moral
    considerations with which he declares his science has no
    connection. Many of his chapters are, therefore, true and
    valuable; and the only conclusions of his which I have to dispute
    are those which follow from his premises.
    Thus, the idea which lies at the root of the passage we have
    just been examining, namely, that labour applied to produce
    luxuries will not support so many persons as labour applied to
    produce useful articles, is entirely true; but the instance given
    fails -- and in four directions of failure at once-because Mr
    Mill has not defined the real meaning of usefulness. The
    definition which he has given-" capacity to satisfy a desire, or
    serve a purpose" (III. i. 2) -- applies equally to the iron and
    silver. while the true definition which he has not given, but
    which nevertheless underlies the false verbal definition in his
    mind, and comes out once or twice by accident (as in the words
    "any support to life or strength" in I. iii. 5) -- applies to
    some articles of iron, but not to others, and to some articles of
    silver, but not to others. It applies to ploughs, but not to
    bayonets; and to forks, but not to filigree.(18*)
    The eliciting of the true definitions will give us the reply
    to our first question, "What is value?" respecting which,
    however, we must first hear the popular statements.
    "The word 'value,' when used without adjunct, always means,
    in political economy, value in exchange" (Mill, III. i. 2). So
    that, if two ships cannot exchange their rudders, their rudders
    are, in politico-economic language, of no value to either.
    But "the subject of political economy is wealth." --
    (Preliminary remarks, page 1)
    And wealth "consists of all useful and agreeable objects
    which possess exchangeable value." -- (Preliminary remarks, page
    10.)
    It appears, then, according to Mr Mill, that usefulness and
    agreeableness underlie the exchange value, and must be
    ascertained to exist in the thing, before we can esteem it an
    object of wealth.
    Now, the economical usefulness of a thing depends not merely
    on its own nature, but on the number of people who can and will
    use it. A horse is useless, and therefore unsaleable, if no one
    can ride, -- a sword, if no one can strike, and meat, if no one
    can eat. Thus every material utility depends on its relative
    human capacity.
    Similarly: The agreeableness of a thing depends not merely on
    its own likeableness, but on the number of people who can be got
    to like it. The relative agreeableness, and therefore
    saleableness, of "a pot of the smallest ale," and of "Adonis
    painted by a running brook," depends virtually on the opinion of
    Demos, in the shape of Christopher Sly. That is to say, the
    agreeableness of a thing depends on its relatively human
    disposition.(19*) Therefore, political economy, being a science
    of wealth, must be a science respecting human capacities and
    dispositions. But moral considerations have nothing to do with
    political economy (III. i. 2). Therefore, moral considerations
    have nothing to do with human capacities and dispositions.
    I do not wholly like the look of this conclusion from Mr
    Mill's statements: -- let us try Mr Ricardo's.
    "Utility is not the measure of exchangeable value, though it
    is absolutely essential to it." -- (Chap. I. sect. i) essential
    in what degree, Mr Ricardo? There may be greater and less degrees
    of utility. Meat, for instance, may be so good as to be fit for
    any one to eat, or so bad as to be fit for no one to eat. What is
    the exact degree of goodness which is "essential" to its
    exchangeable value, but not "the measure" of it? How good must
    the meat be, in order to possess any exchangeable value; and how
    bad must it be -- (I wish this were a settled question in London
    markets) -- in order to possess none?
    There appears to be some hitch, I think, in the working even
    of Mr. Ricardo's principles; but let him take his own example.
    "Suppose that in the early stages of society the bows and arrows
    of the hunter were of equal value with the implements of the
    fisherman. Under such circumstances the value of the deer, the
    produce of the hunter's day's labour, would be exactly equal to
    the value of the fish, the product of the fisherman's day's
    labour, The comparative value of the fish and game would be
    entirely regulated by the quantity of labour realized in each."
    (Ricardo, chap. iii. On Value).
    Indeed! Therefore, if the fisherman catches one sprat. and
    the huntsman one deer, one sprat will be equal in value to one
    deer but if the fisherman catches no sprat, and the huntsman two
    deer, no sprat will be equal in value to two deer?
    Nay but -- Mr Ricardo's supporters may say -- he means, on an
    average, -if the average product of a day's work of fisher and
    hunter be one fish and one deer, the one fish will always be
    equal in value to the one deer.
    Might I inquire the species of fish? Whale? or
    white-bait?(20*)
    It would be waste of time to purpose these fallacies farther;
    we will seek for a true definition.
    Much store has been set for centuries upon the use of our
    English classical education. It were to be wished that our
    well-educated merchants recalled to mind always this much of
    their latin schooling, -- that the nominative of valorem (a word
    already sufficiently familiar to them) is valor; a word which,
    therefore, ought to be familiar to them. Valor, from valere, to
    be well or strong; -- strong, life (if a man), or valiant;
    strong, for life (if a thing), or valuable. To be "valuable,"
    therefore, is to "avail towards life." A truly valuable or
    availing thing is that which leads to life with its whole
    strength. In proportion as it does not lead to life, or as its
    strength is broken, it is less valuable; in proportion as it
    leads away from life, it is unvaluable or malignant.
    The value of a thing, therefore, is independent of opinion,
    and of quantity. Think what you will of it, gain how much you may
    of it, the value of the thing itself is neither greater nor less.
    For ever it avails, or avails not; no estimate can raise, no
    disdain repress, the power which it holds from the Maker of
    things and of men.
    The real science of political economy, which has yet to be
    distinguished from the bastard science, as medicine from
    witchcraft, and astronomy from astrology, is that which teaches
    nations to desire and labour for the things that lead to life:
    and which teaches them to scorn and destroy the things that lead
    to destruction. And if, in a state of infancy, they supposed
    indifferent things, such as excrescences of shell-fish, and
    pieces of blue and red stone, to be valuable, and spent large
    measures of the labour which ought to be employed for the
    extension and ennobling of life, in diving or digging for them,
    and cutting them into various shapes,or if, in the same state of
    infancy, they imagine precious and beneficent things, such as
    air, light, and cleanliness, to be valueless,-or if, finally,
    they imagine the conditions of their own existence, by which
    alone they can truly possess or use anything, such, for instance,
    as peace, trust, and love, to be prudently exchangeable, when the
    markets offer, for gold, iron, or excresrences of shells -- the
    great and only science of Political Economy teaches them, in all
    these cases, what is vanity, and what substance; and how the
    service of Death, the lord of Waste, and of eternal emptiness,
    differs from the service of Wisdom, the lady of Saving, and of
    eternal fulness; she who has said, "I will cause those that love
    me to inherit SUBSTANCE; and I will FILL their treasures."
    The "Lady of Saving," in a profounder sense than that of the
    savings bank, though that is a good one: Madonna della Salute, --
    Lady of Health, -- which, though commonly spoken of as if
    separate from wealth, is indeed a part of wealth. This word,
    "wealth," it will be remembered, is the next we have to define.
    "To be wealthy" says Mr Mill, "is to have a large stock of
    useful articles." I accept this definition. Only let us perfectly
    understand it. My opponents often lament my not giving them
    enough logic: I fear I must at present use a little more than
    they will like: but this business of Political Economy is no
    light one, and we must allow no loose terms in it.
    We have, therefore, to ascertain in the above definition,
    first, what is the meaning of "having," or the nature of
    Possession. Then what is the meaning of "useful," or the nature
    of Utility.
    And first of possession. At the crossing of the transepts of
    Milan Cathedral has lain, for three hundred years, the embalmed
    body of St. Carlo Borromeo. It holds a golden crosier, and has a
    cross of emeralds on its breast. Admitting the crosier and
    emeralds to be useful articles, is the body to be considered as
    "having" them? Do they, in the politico-economical sense of
    property, belong to it? If not, and if we may, therefore,
    conclude generally that a dead body cannot possess property, what
    degree and period of animation in the body will render possession
    possible?
    As thus: lately in a wreck of a Californian ship, one of the
    passengers fastened a belt about him with two hundred pounds of
    gold in it, with which he was found afterwards at the bottom.
    Now, as he was sinking -- had he the gold? or had the gold
    him?(21*)
    And if, instead of sinking him in the sea by its weight, the
    gold had struck him on the forehead, and thereby caused incurable
    disease -- suppose palsy or insanity, -- would the gold in that
    case have been more a "possession" than in the first? Without
    pressing the inquiry up through instances of gradually increasing
    vital power over the gold (which I will, however, give, if they
    are asked for), I presume the reader will see that possession, or
    "having," is not an absolute, but a gradated, power; and consists
    not only in the quantity or nature of the thing possessed, but
    also (and in a greater degree) in its suitableness to the person
    possessing it and in his vital power to use it.
    And our definition of Wealth, expanded, becomes: "The
    possession of useful articles, which we can use." This is a very
    serious change. For wealth, instead of depending merely on a
    "have," is thus seen to depend on a "can." Gladiator's death, on
    a "habet"; but soldier's victory, and State's salvation, on a
    "quo plurimum posset." (liv. VII. 6.) And what we reasoned of
    only as accumulation of material, is seen to demand also
    accumulation of capacity.
    So much for our verb. Next for our adjective. What is the
    meaning of "useful"?
    The inquiry is closely connected with the last. For what is
    capable of use in the hands of some persons, is capable, in the
    hands of others, of the opposite of use, called commonly
    "from-use," or "ab-use." And it depends on the person, much more
    than on the article, whether its usefulness or ab-usefulness will
    be the quality developed in it. Thus, wine, which the Greeks, in
    their Bacchus, made rightly the type of all passion, and which,
    when used, "cheereth god and man" (that is to say, strengthens
    both the divine life, or reasoning power, and the earthy, or
    carnal power, of man); yet, when abused, becomes "Dionysos,"
    hurtful especially to the divine part of man, or reason. And
    again, the body itself, being equally liable to use and to abuse,
    and, when rightly disciplined, serviceable to the State, both for
    war and labour, -- but when not disciplined, or abused, valueless
    to the State, and capable only of continuing the private or
    single existence of the individual (and that but feebly) -- the
    Greeks called such a body an "idiotic" or "private" body, from
    their word signifying a person employed in no way directly useful
    to the State; whence finally, our "idiot," meaning a person
    entirely occupied with his own concerns.
    Hence, it follows that if a thing is to be useful, it must be
    not only of an availing nature, but in availing hands. Or, in
    accurate terms, usefulness is value in the hands of the valiant;
    so that this science of wealth being, as we have just seen, when
    regarded as the science of Accumulation, accumulative of capacity
    as well as of material, -- when regarded as the Science of
    Distribution, is distribution not absolute, but discriminate; not
    of every thing to every man, but of the right thing to the right
    man. A difficult science, dependent on more than arithmetic.
    Wealth, therefore, is "THE POSSESSION OF THE VALUABLE BY THE
    VALIANT"; and in considering it as a power existing in a nation,
    the two elements, the value of the thing, and the valour of its
    possessor, must be estimated together. Whence it appears that
    many of the persons commonly considered wealthy, are in reality
    no more wealthy than the locks of their own strong boxes are,
    they being inherently and eternally incapable of wealth; and
    operating for the nation, in an economical point of view, either
    as pools of dead water, and eddies in a stream (which, so long as
    the stream flows, are useless, or serve only to drown people, but
    may become of importance in a state of stagnation should the
    stream dry); or else, as dams in a river, of which the ultimate
    service depends not on the dam, but the miller; or else, as mere
    accidental stays and impediments, acting not as wealth, but (for
    we ought to have a correspondent term) as "illth," causing
    various devastation and trouble around them in all directions; or
    lastly, act not at all, but are merely animated conditions of
    delay, (no use being possible of anything they have until they
    are dead,) in which last condition they are nevertheless often
    useful as delays, and "impedimenta," if a nation is apt to move
    too fast.
    This being so, the difficulty of the true science of
    Political Economy lies not merely in the need of developing manly
    character to deal with material value, but in the fact, that
    while the manly character and material value only form wealth by
    their conjunction, they have nevertheless a mutually destructive
    operation on each other. For the manly character is apt to
    ignore, or even cast away, the material value: -- whence that of
    Pope: --
    "Sure, of qualities demanding praise,
    More go to ruin fortunes, than to raise."

    And on the other hand, the material value is apt to undermine the
    manly character; so that it must be our work, in the issue, to
    examine what evidence there is of the effect of wealth on the
    minds of its possessors; also, what kind of person it is who
    usually sets himself to obtain wealth, and succeeds in doing so;
    and whether the world owes more gratitude to rich or to poor men,
    either for their moral influence upon it, or for chief goods,
    discoveries, and practical advancements. I may, however,
    anticipate future conclusions, so far as to state that in a
    community regulated only by laws of demand and supply, but
    protected from open violence, the persons who become rich are,
    generally speaking, industrious, resolute, proud, covetous,
    prompt, methodical, sensible, unimaginative, insensitive, and
    ignorant. The persons who remain poor are the entirely foolish,
    the entirely wise,(22*) the idle, the reckless, the humble, the
    thoughtful, the dull, the imaginative, the sensitive, the
    well-informed, the improvident, the irregularly and impulsively
    wicked, the clumsy knave, the open thief, and the entirely
    merciful, just, and godly person.
    Thus far, then, of wealth. Next, we have to ascertain the
    nature of PRICE; that is to say, of exchange value, and its
    expression by currencies.
    Note first, of exchange, there can be no profit in it. It is
    only in labour there can be profit -- that is to say, a "making
    in advance," or "making in favour of" (from proficio). In
    exchange, there is only advantage, i.e., a bringing of vantage or
    power to the exchanging persons. Thus, one man, by sowing and
    reaping, turns one measure of corn into two measures. That is
    Profit. Another, by digging and forging, turns one spade into two
    spades. That is Profit. But the man who has two measures of corn
    wants sometimes to dig; and the man who has two spades wants
    sometimes to eat:They exchange the gained grain for the gained
    tool; and both are the better for the exchange; but though there
    is much advantage in the transaction, there is no profit. Nothing
    is constructed or produced. Only that which had been before
    constructed is given to the person by whom it can be used. If
    labour is necessary to effect the exchange, that labour is in
    reality involved in the production, and, like all other labour,
    bears profit. Whatever number of men are concerned in the
    manufacture, or in the conveyance, have share in the profit; but
    neither the manufacture nor the conveyance are the exchange, and
    in the exchange itself there is no profit.
    There may, however, be acquisition, which is a very different
    thing. If, in the exchange, one man is able to give what cost him
    little labour for what has cost the other much, he "acquires" a
    certain quantity of the produce of the other's labour. And
    precisely what he acquires, the other loses. In mercantile
    language, the person who thus acquires is commonly said to have
    "made a profit"; and I believe that many of our merchants are
    seriously under the impression that it is possible for everybody,
    somehow, to make a profit in this manner. Whereas, by the
    unfortunate constitution of the world we live in, the laws both
    of matter and motion have quite rigorously forbidden universal
    acquisition of this kind. Profit, or material gain, is attainable
    only by construction or by discovery; not by exchange. Whenever
    material gain follows exchange, for every plus there is a
    precisely equal minus.
    Unhappily for the progress of the science of Political
    Economy, the plus quantities, or, -- if I may be allowed to coin
    an awkward plural -- the pluses, make a very positive and
    venerable appearance in the world, so that every one is eager to
    learn the science which produces results so magnificent; whereas
    the minuses have, on the other hand, a tendency to retire into
    back streets, and other places of shade, -- or even to get
    themselves wholly and finally put out of sight in graves: which
    renders the algebra of this science peculiar, and difficultly
    legible; a large number of its negative signs being written by
    the account-keeper in a kind of red ink, which starvation thins,
    and makes strangely pale, or even quite invisible ink, for the
    present.
    The Science of Exchange, or, as I hear it has been proposed
    to call it, of "Catallactics," considered as one of gain, is,
    therefore, simply nugatory; but considered as one of acquisition,
    it is a very curious science, differing in its data and basis
    from every other science known. Thus: -- if I can exchange a
    needle with a savage for a diamond, my power of doing so depends
    either on the savage's ignorance of social arrangements in
    Europe, or on his want of power to take advantage of them, by
    selling the diamond to any one else for more needles. If,
    farther, I make the bargain as completely advantageous to myself
    as possible, by giving to the savage a needle with no eye in it
    (reaching, thus a sufficiently satisfactory type of the perfect
    operation of catallactic science), the advantage to me in the
    entire transaction depends wholly upon the ignorance,
    powerlessness, or heedlessness of the person dealt with. Do away
    with these, and catallactic advantage becomes impossible. So far,
    therefore, as the science of exchange relates to the advantage of
    one of the exchanging persons only, it is founded on the
    ignorance or incapacity of the opposite person. Where these
    vanish, it also vanishes. It is therefore a science founded on
    nescience, and an art founded on artlessness. But all other
    sciences and arts, except this, have for their object the doing
    away with their opposite nescience and artlessness. This science,
    alone of sciences, must, by all available means, promulgate and
    prolong its opposite nescience; otherwise the science itself is
    impossible. It is, therefore, peculiarly and alone the science of
    darkness; probably a bastard science -- not by any means a divina
    scientia, but one begotten of another father, that father who,
    advising his children to turn stones into bread, is himself
    employed in turning bread into stones, and who, if you ask a fish
    of him (fish not being producible on his estate), can but give
    you a serpent.
    The general law, then, respecting just or economical
    exchange, is simply this: -- There must be advantage on both
    sides (or if only advantage on one, at least no disadvantage on
    the other) to the persons exchanging; and just payment for his
    time, intelligence, and labour, to any intermediate person
    effecting the transaction (commonly called a merchant); and
    whatever advantage there is on either side, and whatever pay is
    given to the intermediate person, should be thoroughly known to
    all concerned. All attempt at concealment implies some practice
    of the opposite, or undivine science, founded on nescience.
    Whence another saying of the Jew merchant's -- "As a nail between
    the stone joints, so doth sin stick fast between buying and
    selling." Which peculiar riveting of stone and timber, in men's
    dealings with each other, is again set forth in the house which
    was to be destroyed -- timber and stones together -- when
    Zechariah's roll (more probably "curved sword") flew over it:
    "the curse that goeth forth over all the earth upon every one
    that stealeth and holdeth himself guiltless," instantly followed
    by the vision of the Great Measure; -- the measure "of the
    injustice of them in all the earth" (auti i adikia auton en pase
    te ge), with the weight of lead for its lid, and the woman, the
    spirit of wickedness, within it; -- that is to say, Wickedness
    hidden by Dulness, and formalized, outwardly, into ponderously
    established cruelty. " It shall be set upon its own base in the
    land of Babel." (23*)
    I have hitherto carefully restricted myself, in speaking of
    exchange, to the use of the term "advantage"; but that term
    includes two ideas; the advantage, namely, of getting what we
    need, and that of getting what we wish for. Three-fourths of the
    demands existing in the world are romantic; founded on visions,
    idealisms, hopes, and affections; and the regulation of the purse
    is, in its essence, regulation of the imagination and the heart.
    Hence, the right discussion of the nature of price is a very high
    metaphysical and psychical problem; sometimes to be solved only
    in a passionate manner, as by David in his counting the price of
    the water of the well by the gate of Bethlehem; but its first
    conditions are the following: -- The price of anything is the
    quantity of labour given by the person desiring it, in order to
    obtain possession of it. This price depends on four variable
    quantities. A. The quantity of wish the purchaser has for the
    thing; opposed to a, the quantity of wish the seller has to keep
    it. B. The quantity of labour the purchaser can afford, to obtain
    the thing opposed to B, the quantity of labour the seller can
    afford, to keep it. These quantities are operative only in
    excess; i.e. the quantity of wish (A) means the quantity of wish
    for this thing, above wish for other things; and the quantity of
    work (B) means the quantity which can be spared to get this thing
    from the quantity needed to get other things.
    Phenomena of price, therefore, are intensely complex,
    curious, and interesting -- too complex, however, to be examined
    yet; every one of them, when traced far enough, showing itself at
    last as a part of the bargain of the Poor of the Flock (or "flock
    of slaughter"), "If ye think good, give ME my price, and if not,
    forbear" Zech. xi. 12; but as the price of everything is to be
    calculated finally in labour, it is necessary to define the
    nature of that standard.
    Labour is the contest of the life of man with an opposite; --
    the term "life" including his intellect, soul, and physical
    power, contending with question, difficulty, trial, or material
    force.
    Labour is of a higher or lower order, as it includes more or
    fewer of the elements of life: and labour of good quality, in any
    kind, includes always as much intellect and feeling as will fully
    and harmoniously regulate the physical force.
    In speaking of the value and price of labour, it is necessary
    always to understand labour of a given rank and quality, as we
    should speak of gold or silver of a given standard. Bad (that is,
    heartless, inexperienced, or senseless) labour cannot be valued;
    it is like gold of uncertain alloy, or flawed iron.(24*)
    The quality and kind of labour being given, its value, like
    that of all other valuable things, is invariable. But the
    quantity of it which must be given for other things is variable:
    and in estimating this variation, the price of other things must
    always be counted by the quantity of labour; not the price of
    labour by the quantity of other things.
    Thus, if we want to plant an apple sapling in rocky ground,
    it may take two hours' work; in soft ground, perhaps only half an
    hour. Grant the soil equally good for the tree in each case. Then
    the value of the sapling planted by two hours' work is nowise
    greater than that of the sapling planted in half an hour. One
    will bear no more fruit than the other. Also, one half-hour of
    work is as valuable as another half-hour; nevertheless the one
    sapling has cost four such pieces of work, the other only one.
    Now the proper statement of this fact is, not that the labour on
    the hard ground is cheaper than on the soft; but that the tree is
    dearer. The exchange value may, or may not, afterwards depend on
    this fact. If other people have plenty of soft ground to plant
    in, they will take no cognizance of our two hours' labour, in the
    price they will offer for the plant on the rock. And if, through
    want of sufficient botanical science, we have planted an upas
    tree instead of an apple, the exchange-value will be a negative
    quantity; still less proportionate to the labour expended.
    What is commonly called cheapness of labour, signifies,
    therefore, in reality, that many obstacles have to be overcome by
    it; so that much labour is required to produce a small result.
    But this should never be spoken of as cheapness of labour, but as
    dearness of the object wrought for. It would be just as rational
    to say that walking was cheap, because we had ten miles to walk
    home to our dinner, as that labour was cheap, because we had to
    work ten hours to earn it.
    The last word which we have to define is "Production."
    I have hitherto spoken of all labour as profitable; because
    it is impossible to consider under one head the quality or value
    of labour, and its aim. But labour of the best quality may be
    various in aim. It may be either constructive ("gathering" from
    con and struo), as agriculture; nugatory, as jewel-cutting; or
    destructive ("scattering," from de and struo), as war. It is not,
    however, always easy to prove labour, apparently nugatory, to be
    actually so;(25*) generally, the formula holds good: "he that
    gathereth not, scattereth"; thus, the jeweller's art is probably
    very harmful in its ministering to a clumsy and inelegant pride.
    So that, finally, I believe nearly all labour may be shortly
    divided into positive and negative labour: positive, that which
    produces life; negative, that which produces death; the most
    directly negative labour being murder, and the most directly
    positive, the bearing and rearing of children; so that in the
    precise degree in which murder is hateful, on the negative side
    of idleness, in the exact degree child-rearing is admirable, on
    the positive side of idleness. For which reason, and because of
    the honour that there is in rearing children,(26*) while the wife
    is said to be as the vine (for cheering), the children are as the
    olive branch, for praise: nor for praise only, but for peace
    (because large families can only be reared in times of peace):
    though since, in their spreading and voyaging in various
    directions, they distribute strength, they are, to the home
    strength, as arrives in the hand of the giant -- striking here,
    and there far away.
    Labour being thus various in its result, the prosperity of
    any nation is in exact proportion to the quantity of labour which
    it spends in obtaining and employing means of life. Observe, -- I
    say, obtaining and employing; that is to say, not merely wisely
    producing, but wisely distributing and consuming. Economists
    usually speak as if there were no good in consumption
    absolute.(27*) So far from this being so, consumption absolute is
    the end, crown, and perfection of production; and wise
    consumption is a far more difficult art than wise production.
    Twenty people can gain money for one who can use it; and the
    vital question, for individual and for nation, is, never "how
    much do they make?" but "to what purpose do they spend?"
    The reader may, perhaps, have been surprised at the slight
    reference I have hitherto made to "capital," and its functions.
    It is here the place to define them.
    Capital signifies "head, or source, or root material" -- it
    is material by which some derivative or secondary good is
    produced. It is only capital proper (caput vivum, not caput
    mortuum) when it is thus producing something different from
    itself. It is a root, which does not enter into vital function
    till it produces something else than a root: namely, fruit. That
    fruit will in time again produce roots; and so all living capital
    issues in reproduction of capital; but capital which produces
    nothing but capital is only root producing root; bulb issuing in
    bulb, never in tulip; seed issuing in seed, never in bread. The
    Political Economy of Europe has hitherto devoted itself wholly to
    the multiplication, or (less even) the aggregation, of bulbs. It
    never saw, nor conceived, such a thing as a tulip. Nay, boiled
    bulbs they might have been -- glass bulbs -- Prince Rupert's
    drops, consummated in powder (well, if it were glass-powder and
    not gunpowder), for any end or meaning the economists had in
    defining the laws of aggregation. We will try and get a clearer
    notion of them.
    The best and simplest general type of capital is a well-made
    ploughshare. Now, if that ploughshare did nothing but beget other
    ploughshares, in a polypous manner, -- however the great cluster
    of polypous plough might glitter in the sun, it would have lost
    its function of capital. It becomes true capital only by another
    kind of splendour, -- when it is seen "splendescere sulco," to
    grow bright in the furrow; rather with diminution of its
    substance, than addition, by the noble friction. And the true
    home question, to every capitalist and to every nation, is not,
    "how many ploughs have you?" but, "where are your furrows?" not
    -- "how quickly will this capital reproduce itself?" -- but,
    "what will it do during reproduction?" What substance will it
    furnish, good for life? what work construct, protective of life?
    if none, its own reproduction is useless -- if worse than none,
    (for capital may destroy life as well as support it), its own
    reproduction is worse than useless; it is merely an advance from
    Tisiphone, on mortgage -- not a profit by any means.
    Not a profit, as the ancients truly saw, and showed in the
    type of Ixion; -- for capital is the head, or fountain head of
    wealth -- the "well-head" of wealth, as the clouds are the
    well-heads of rain; but when clouds are without water, and only
    beget clouds, they issue in wrath at last, instead of rain, and
    in lightning instead of harvest; whence Ixion is said first to
    have invited his guests to a banquet, and then made them fall
    into a pit, (as also Demas' silver mine,) after which, to show
    the rage of riches passing from lust of pleasure to lust of
    power, yet power not truly understood, Ixion is said to have
    desired Juno, and instead, embracing a cloud (or phantasm), to
    have begotten the Centaurs; the power of mere wealth being, in
    itself, as the embrace of a shadow, -- comfortless, (so also
    "Ephraim feedeth on wind and followth after the east wind;" or
    "that which is not" -- Prov. xxiii. 5; and again Dante's Geryon,
    the type of avaricious fraud, as he flies, gathers the air up
    with retractile claws, -- "l'aer a se raccolse"(28*)) but in its
    offspring, a mingling of the brutal with the human nature; human
    in sagacity -- using both intellect and arrow; but brutal in its
    body and hoof, for consuming, and trampling down. For which sin
    Ixion is at last bound upon a wheel -- fiery and toothed, and
    rolling perpetually in the air: -- the type of human labour when
    selfish and fruitless (kept far into the Middle Ages in their
    wheels of fortune); the wheel which has in it no breath or
    spirit, but is whirled by chance only; whereas of all true work
    the Ezekiel vision is true, that the Spirit of the living
    creature is in the wheels, and where the angels go, the wheels go
    by them; but move no otherwise.
    This being the real nature of capital, it follows that there
    are two kinds of true production, always going on in an active
    State: one of seed, and one of food; or production for the
    Ground, and for the Mouth; both of which are by covetous persons
    thought to be production only for the granary; whereas the
    function of the granary is but intermediate and conservative,
    fulfilled in distribution; else it ends in nothing but mildew,
    and nourishment of rats and worms. And since production for the
    Ground is only useful with future hope of harvest, all essential
    production is for the Mouth; and is finally measured by the
    mouth; hence, as I said above, consumption is the crown of
    production; and the wealth of a nation is only to be estimated by
    what it consumes.
    The want of any clear sight of this fact is the capital
    error, issuing in rich interest and revenue of error among the
    political economists. Their minds are continually set on
    money-gain, not on mouth-gain; and they fall into every sort of
    net and snare, dazzled by the coin-glitter as birds by the
    fowler's glass; or rather (for there is not much else like birds
    in them) they are like children trying to jump on the heads of
    their own shadows; the money-gain being only the shadow of the
    true gain, which is humanity.
    The final object of political economy, therefore, is to get
    good method of consumption, and great quantity of consumption: in
    other words, to use everything, and to use it nobly. whether it
    be substance, service, or service perfecting substance. The most
    curious error in Mr Mill's entire work, (provided for him
    originally by Ricardo,) is his endeavour to distinguish between
    direct and indirect service, and consequent assertion that a
    demand for commodities is not demand for labour (I. v. 9, et
    seq.). He distinguishes between labourers employed to lay out
    pleasure grounds, and to manufacture velvet; declaring that it
    makes material difference to the labouring classes in which of
    these two ways a capitalist spends his money; because the
    employment of the gardeners is a demand for labour, but the
    purchase of velvet is not.(29*) Error colossal, as well as
    strange. It will, indeed, make a difference to the labourer
    whether we bid him swing his scythe in the spring winds, or drive
    the loom in pestilential air. but, so far as his pocket is
    concerned, it makes, to him absolutely no difference whether we
    order him to make green velvet, with seed and a scythe, or red
    velvet, with silk and scissors. Neither does it anywise concern
    him whether, when the velvet is made, we consume it by walking on
    it, or wearing it, so long as our consumption of it is wholly
    selfish. But if our consumption is to be in anywise unselfish,
    not only our mode of consuming the articles we require interests
    him, but also the kind of article we require with a view to
    consumption. As thus (returning for a moment to Mr Mill's great
    hardware theory(30*)): it matters, so far as the labourer's
    immediate profit is concerned, not an iron filing whether I
    employ him in growing a peach, or forging a bombshell; but my
    probable mode of consumption of those articles matters seriously.
    Admit that it is to be in both cases "unselfish," and the
    difference, to him, is final, whether when his child is ill, I
    walk into his cottage and give it the peach, or drop the shell
    down his chimney, and blow his roof off.
    The worst of it, for the peasant, is, that the capitalist's
    consumption of the peach is apt to be selfish, and of the shell,
    distributive;(31*) but, in all cases, this is the broad and
    general fact, that on due catallactic commercial principles,
    somebody's roof must go off in fulfilment of the bomb's destiny.
    You may grow for your neighbour, at your liking, grapes or
    grape-shot; he will also, catallactically, grow grapes or
    grape-shot for you, and you will each reap what you have sown.
    It is, therefore, the manner and issue of consumption which
    are the real tests of production. Production does not consist in
    things laboriously made, but in things serviceably consumable;
    and the question for the nation is not how much labour it
    employs, but how much life it produces. For as consumption is the
    end and aim of production, so life is the end and aim of
    consumption.
    I left this question to the reader's thought two months ago,
    choosing rather that he should work it out for himself than have
    it sharply stated to him. But now, the ground being sufficiently
    broken (and the details into which the several questions, here
    opened, must lead us, being too complex for discussion in the
    pages of a periodical, so that I must pursue them elsewhere), I
    desire, in closing the series of introductory papers, to leave
    this one great fact clearly stated. THERE IS NO WEALTH BUT LIFE.
    Life, including all its powers of love, of joy, and of
    admiration. That country is the richest which nourishes the
    greatest number of noble and happy human beings; that man is
    richest who, having perfected the functions of his own life to
    the utmost, has also the widest helpful influence, both personal,
    and by means of his possessions, over the lives of others.
    A strange political economy; the only one, nevertheless, that
    ever was or can be: all political economy founded on
    self-interest(32*) being but the fulfilment of that which once
    brought schism into the Policy of angels, and ruin into the
    Economy of Heaven.
    "The greatest number of human beings noble and happy." But is
    the nobleness consistent with the number? Yes, not only
    consistent with it, but essential to it. The maximum of life can
    only be reached by the maximum of virtue. In this respect the law
    of human population differs wholly from that of animal life. The
    multiplication of animals is checked only by want of food, and by
    the hostility of races; the population of the gnat is restrained
    by the hunger of the swallow, and that of the swallow by the
    scarcity of gnats. Man, considered as an animal, is indeed
    limited by the same laws: hunger, or plague, or war, are the
    necessary and only restraints upon his increase, -- effectual
    restraints hitherto, -- his principal study having been how most
    swiftly to destroy himself, or ravage his dwelling-places, and
    his highest skill directed to give range to the famine, seed to
    the plague, and sway to the sword. But, considered as other than
    an animal, his increase is not limited by these laws. It is
    limited only by the limits of his courage and his love. Both of
    these have their bounds; and ought to have; his race has its
    bounds also; but these have not yet been reached, nor will be
    reached for ages.
    In all the ranges of human thought I know none so melancholy
    as the speculations of political economists on the population
    question. It is proposed to better the condition of the labourer
    by giving him higher wages. "Nay," says the economist, -- "if you
    raise his wages, he will either people down to the same point of
    misery at which you found him, or drink your wages away." He
    will. I know it. Who gave him this will? Suppose it were your own
    son of whom you spoke, declaring to me that you dared not take
    him into your firm, nor even give him his just labourer's wages,
    because if you did he would die of drunkenness, and leave half a
    score of children to the parish. "Who gave your son these
    dispositions?" -- I should enquire. Has he them by inheritance or
    by education? By one or other they must come; and as in him, so
    also in the poor. Either these poor are of a race essentially
    different from ours, and unredeemable (which, however, often
    implied, I have heard none yet openly say), or else by such care
    as we have ourselves received, we may make them continent and
    sober as ourselves-wise and dispassionate as we are models
    arduous of imitation. "But," it is answered, "they cannot receive
    education." Why not? That is precisely the point at issue.
    Charitable persons suppose the worst fault of the rich is to
    refuse the people meat; and the people cry for their meat, kept
    back by fraud, to the Lord of Multitudes.(33*) Alas! it is not
    meat of which the refusal is cruelest, or to which the claim is
    validest. The life is more than the meat. The rich not only
    refuse food to the poor; they refuse wisdom; they refuse virtue;
    they refuse salvation. Ye sheep without shepherd, it is not the
    pasture that has been shut from you, but the Presence. Meat!
    perhaps your right to that may be pleadable; but other rights
    have to be pleaded first. Claim your crumbs from the table, if
    you will; but claim them as children, not as dogs; claim your
    right to be fed, but claim more loudly your right to be holy,
    perfect, and pure.
    Strange words to be used of working people: "What! holy;
    without any long robes nor anointing oils; these rough-jacketed,
    rough-worded persons; set to nameless and dishonoured service?
    Perfect! -- these, with dim eyes and cramped limbs, and slowly
    wakening minds? Pure -- these, with sensual desire and grovelling
    thought; foul of body, and coarse of soul?" It may be so;
    nevertheless, such as they are, they are the holiest, perfectest,
    purest persons the earth can at present show. They may be what
    you have said; but if so, they yet are holier than we, who have
    left them thus.
    But what can be done for them? Who can clothe -- who teach --
    who restrain their multitudes? What end can there he for them at
    last, but to consume one another?
    I hope for another end, though not, indeed, from any of the
    three remedies for over-population commonly suggested by
    economists.
    These three are, in brief -- Colonization; Bringing in of
    waste lands; or Discouragement of Marriage.
    The first and second of these expedients merely evade or
    delay the question. It will, indeed, be long before the world has
    been all colonized, and its deserts all brought under
    cultivation. But the radical question is not how much habitable
    land is in the world, but how many human beings ought to be
    maintained on a given space of habitable land.
    Observe, I say, ought to be, not how many can be. Ricardo,
    with his usual inaccuracy, defines what he calls the "natural
    rate of wages" as "that which will maintain the labourer."
    Maintain him! yes; but how? -- the question was instantly thus
    asked of me by a working girl, to whom I read the passage. I will
    amplify her question for her. "Maintain him, how?" As, first, to
    what length of life? Out of a given number of fed persons how
    many are to be old -- how many young; that is to say, will you
    arrange their maintenance so as to kill them early -- say at
    thirty or thirty-five on the average, including deaths of weakly
    or ill-fed children? -- or so as to enable them to live out a
    natural life? You will feed a greater number, in the first
    case,(34*) by rapidity of succession; probably a happier number
    in the second: which does Mr Ricardo mean to be their natural
    state, and to which state belongs the natural rate of wages?
    Again: A piece of land which will only support ten idle,
    ignorant, and improvident persons, will support thirty or forty
    intelligent and industrious ones. Which of these is their natural
    state, and to which of them belongs the natural rate of wages?
    Again: If a piece of land support forty persons in
    industrious ignorance; and if, tired of this ignorance, they set
    apart ten of their number to study the properties of cones, and
    the sizes of stars; the labour of these ten, being withdrawn from
    the ground, must either tend to the increase of food in some
    transitional manner, or the persons set apart for sidereal and
    conic purposes must starve, or some one else starve instead of
    them. What is, therefore, the natural rate of wages of the
    scientific persons, and how does this rate relate to, or measure,
    their reverted or transitional productiveness?
    Again: If the ground maintains, at first, forty labourers in
    a peaceable and pious state of mind, but they become in a few
    years so quarrelsome and impious that they have to set apart
    five, to meditate upon and settle their disputes; -- ten, armed
    to the teeth with costly instruments, to enforce the decisions;
    and five to remind everybody in an eloquent manner of the
    existence of a God; what will be the result upon the general
    power of production, and what is the "natural rate of wages" of
    the meditative, muscular, and oracular labourers?
    Leaving these questions to be discussed, or waived, at their
    pleasure, by Mr Ricardo's followers, I proceed to state the main
    facts bearing on that probable future of the labouring classes
    which has been partially glanced at by Mr Mill. That chapter and
    the preceding one differ from the common writing of political
    economists in admitting some value in the aspect of nature, and
    expressing regret at the probability of the destruction of
    natural scenery. But we may spare our anxieties, on this head.
    Men can neither drink steam, nor eat stone. The maximum of
    population on a given space of land implies also the relative
    maximum of edible vegetable, whether for men or cattle; it
    implies a maximum of pure air; and of pure water. Therefore: a
    maximum of wood, to transmute the air, and of sloping ground,
    protected by herbage from the extreme heat of the sun, to feed
    the streams. All England may, if it so chooses, become one
    manufacturing town; and Englishmen, sacrificing themselves to the
    good of general humanity, may live diminished lives in the midst
    of noise, of darkness, and of deadly exhalation. But the world
    cannot become a factory, nor a mine. No amount of ingenuity will
    ever make iron digestible by the million, nor substitute hydrogen
    for wine. Neither the avarice nor the rage of men will ever feed
    them, and however the apple of Sodom and the grape of Gomorrah
    may spread their table for a time with dainties of ashes, and
    nectar of asps, -- so long as men live by bread, the far away
    valleys must laugh as they are covered with the gold of God, and
    the shouts of His happy multitudes ring round the wine-press and
    the well.
    Nor need our more sentimental economists fear the too wide
    spread of the formalities of a mechanical agriculture. The
    presence of a wise population implies the search for felicity as
    well as for food; nor can any population reach its maximum but
    through that wisdom which "rejoices" in the habitable parts of
    the earth. The desert has its appointed place and work; the
    eternal engine, whose beam is the earth's axle, whose beat is its
    year, and whose breath is its ocean, will still divide
    imperiously to their desert kingdoms, bound with unfurrowable
    rock, and swept by unarrested sand, their powers of frost and
    fire: but the zones and lands between, habitable, will be
    loveliest in habitation. The desire of the heart is also the
    light of the eyes. No scene is continually and untiringly loved,
    but one rich by joyful human labour; smooth in field; fair in
    garden; full in orchard; trim, sweet, and frequent in homestead;
    ringing with voices of vivid existence. No air is sweet that is
    silent; it is only sweet when full of low currents of under
    sound-triplets of birds, and murmur and chirp of insects, and
    deep-toned words of men, and wayward trebles of childhood. As the
    art of life is learned, it will be found at last that all lovely
    things are also necessary: -- the wild flower by the wayside, as
    well as the tended corn; and the wild birds and creatures of the
    by every wondrous word and unknowable work of God. Happy, in that
    he knew them not, nor did his fathers know; and that round about
    him reaches yet into the infinite, the amazement of his
    existence.
    Note, finally, that all effectual advancement towards this
    true felicity of the human race must be by individual, not public
    effort. Certain general measures may aid, certain revised laws
    guide, such advancement; but the measure and law which have first
    to be determined are those of each man's home. We continually
    hear it recommended by sagacious people to complaining neighbours
    (usually less well placed in the world than themselves), that
    they should "remain content in the station in which Providence
    has placed them." There are perhaps some circumstances of life in
    which Providence has no intention that people should be content.
    Nevertheless, the maxim is on the whole a good one; but it is
    peculiarly for home use. That your neighbour should, or should
    not, remain content with his position, is not your business; but
    it is very much your business to remain content with your own.
    What is chiefly needed in England at the present day is to show
    the quantity of pleasure that may be obtained by a consistent,
    well-administered competence, modest, confessed, and laborious.
    We need examples of people who, leaving Heaven to decide whether
    they are to rise in the world, decide for them selves that they
    will be happy in it, and have resolved to seek-not greater
    wealth, but simpler pleasure; not higher fortune, but deeper
    felicity; making the first of possessions, self-possession; and
    honouring themselves in the harmless pride and calm pursuits of
    piece.
    Of which lowly peace it is written that "justice" and peace
    have kissed each other;" and that the fruit of justice is " sown
    in peace of them that make peace;" not "peace-makers" in the
    common understanding -- reconcilers of quarrels; (though that
    function also follows on the greater one;) but peace-Creators;
    Givers of Calm. Which you cannot give, unless you first gain; nor
    is this gain one which will follow assuredly on any course of
    business, commonly so called. No form of gain is less probable,
    business being (as is shown in the language of all nations --
    polein from pelo, prasis from perao, venire, vendre, and venal,
    from venio, &c.) essentially restless -- and probably
    contentious; -- having a raven-like mind to the motion to and
    fro, as to the carrion food; whereas the olive-feeding and
    bearing birds look for rest for their feet: thus it is said of
    Wisdom that she "hath builded her house, and hewn out her seven
    pillars;" and even when, though apt to wait long at the
    door-posts, she has to leave her house and go abroad, her paths
    are peace also.
    For us, at all events, her work must begin at the entry of
    the doors: all true economy is "Law of the house." Strive to make
    that law strict, simple, generous: waste nothing, and grudge
    nothing. Care in nowise to make more of money, but care to make
    much of it; remembering always the great, palpable, inevitable
    fact -- the rule and root of all economy -- that what one person
    has, another cannot have; and that every atom of substance, of
    whatever kind, used or consumed, is so much human life spent;
    which, if it issue in the saving present life, or gaining more,
    is well spent, but if not, is either so much life prevented, or
    so much slain. In all buying, consider, first, what condition of
    existence you cause in the producers of what you buy; secondly,
    whether the sum you have paid is just to the producer, and in due
    proportion, lodged in his hands;(35*) thirdly, to how much clear
    use, for food, knowledge, or joy, this that you have bought can
    be put; and fourthly, to whom and in what way it can be most
    speedily and serviceably distributed: in all dealings whatsoever
    insisting on entire openness and stern fulfilment; and in all
    doings, on perfection and loveliness of accomplishment;
    especially on fineness and purity of all marketable commodity:
    watching at the same time for all ways of gaining, or teaching,
    powers of simple pleasure, and of showing oson en asphodelps geg
    oneiar -- the sum of enjoyment depending not on the quantity of
    things tasted, but on the vivacity and patience of taste.
    And if, on due and honest thought over these things, it seems
    that the kind of existence to which men are now summoned by every
    plea of pity and claim of right, may, for some time at least, not
    be a luxurious one; -- consider whether, even supposing it
    guiltless, luxury would be desired by any of us, if we saw
    clearly at our sides the suffering which accompanies it in the
    world. Luxury is indeed possible in the future -- innocent and
    exquisite; luxury for all, and by the help of all; but luxury at
    present can only be enjoyed by the ignorant; the cruelest man
    living could not sit at his feast, unless he sat blindfold. Raise
    the veil boldly; face the light; and if, as yet, the light of the
    eye can only be through tears, and the light of the body through
    sackcloth, go thou forth weeping, bearing precious seed, until
    the time come, and the kingdom, when Christ's gift of bread, and
    bequest of peace, shall be "Unto this last as unto thee"; and
    when, for earth's severed multitudes of the wicked and the weary,
    there shall be holier reconciliation than that of the narrow
    home, and calm economy, where the Wicked cease -- not from
    trouble, but from troubling -- and the Weary are at rest.


    NOTES:

    1. The difference between the two modes of treatment, and between
    their effective material results, may be seen very accurately by
    a comparison of the relations of Esther and Charlie in Bleak
    House, with those of Miss Brass and the Marchioness in Master
    Humphrey's Clock.
    The essential value and truth of Dickens's writings have been
    unwisely lost sight of by many thoughtful persons, merely because
    he presents his truth with some colour of caricature. Unwisely,
    because Dickens's caricature, though often gross, is never
    mistaken. Allowing for his manner of telling them, the things he
    tells us are always true. I wish that he could think it right to
    limit his brilliant exaggeration to works written only for public
    amusement; and when he takes up a subject of high national
    importance, such as that which he handled in Hard Times, that he
    would use severer and more accurate analysis. The usefulness of
    that work (to my mind, in several respects, the greatest he has
    written) is with many persons seriously diminished because Mr
    Bounderby is a dramatic monster, instead of a characteristic
    example of a worldly master; and Stephen Blackpool a dramatic
    perfection, instead of a characteristic example of an honest
    workman. But let us not lose the use of Dickens's wit and
    insight, because he chooses to speak in a circle of stage fire.
    He is entirely right in his main drift and purpose in every book
    he has written; and all of them, but especially Hard Times,
    should be studied with close and earnest care by persons
    interested in social questions. They will find much that is
    partial, and, because partial, apparently unjust; but if they
    examine all the evidence on the other side, which Dickens seems
    to overlook, it will appear, after all their trouble, that his
    view was the finally right one, grossly and sharply told.

    2. I have been naturally asked several times, with respect to the
    sentence in the first of these papers, "the bad workmen
    unemployed," "But what are you to do with your bad unemployed
    workmen?" Well, it seems to me the question might have occurred
    to you before. Your housemaid's place is vacant -- you give
    twenty pounds a year-two girls come for it, one neatly dressed,
    the other dirtily; one with good recommendations, the other with
    none. You do not, under these circumstances, usually ask the
    dirty one if she will come for fifteen pounds, or twelve; and, on
    her consenting, take her instead of the well-recommended one.
    Still less do you try to beat both down by making them bid
    against each other, till you can hire both, one at twelve pounds
    a year, and the other at eight. You simply take the one fittest
    for the place, and send away the other, not perhaps concerning
    yourself quite as much as you should with the question which you
    now impatiently put to me, "What is to become of her?" For all
    that I advise you to do, is to deal with workmen as with
    servants; and verily the question is of weight: "Your bad
    workman, idler, and rogue -- what are you to do with him?"
    We will consider of this presently: remember that the
    administration of a complete system of national commerce and
    industry cannot be explained in full detail within the space of
    twelve pages. Meantime, consider whether, there being confessedly
    some difficulty in dealing with rogues and idlers, it may not be
    advisable to produce as few of them as possible. If you examine
    into the history of rogues, you will find they are as truly
    manufactured articles as anything else, and it is just because
    our present system of political economy gives so large a stimulus
    to that manufacture that you may know it to be a false one. We
    had better seek for a system which will develop honest men, than
    for one which will deal cunningly with vagabonds. Let us reform
    our schools, and we shall find little reform needed in our
    prisons.

    3. The disputes which exist respecting the real nature of money
    arise more from the disputants examining its functions on
    different sides, than from any real dissent in their opinions.
    All money, properly so called, is an acknowledgment of debt; but
    as such, it may either be considered to represent the labour and
    property of the creditor, or the idleness and penury of the
    debtor. The intricacy of the question has been much increased by
    the (hitherto necessary) use of marketable commodities, such as
    gold, silver, salt, shells, &c., to give intrinsic value or
    security to currency; but the final and best definition of money
    is that it is a documentary promise ratified and guaranteed by
    the nation to give or find a certain quantity of labour on
    demand. A man's labour for a day is a better standard of value
    than a measure of any produce, because no produce ever maintains
    a consistent rate of productibility.

    4. More accurately, Sun of Justness; but, instead of the harsh
    word "Justness," the old English "Righteousness" being commonly
    employed, has, by getting confused with "godliness," or
    attracting about it various vague and broken meanings. prevented
    most persons from receiving the force of the passages in which it
    occurs. The word "righteousness" properly refers to the justice
    of rule, or right, as distinguished from "equity," which refers
    to the justice of balance. More broadly, Righteousness is King's
    justice; and Equity, Judge's justice; the King guiding or ruling
    all, the Judge dividing or discerning between opposites
    (therefore the double question, "Man, who made me a ruler --
    dikastes -- or a dividermeristes -- over you?") Thus, with
    respect to the Justice of Choice (selection, the feebler and
    passive justice), we have from lego, -- lex, legal, loi, and
    loyal; and with respect to the Justice of Rule (direction, the
    stronger and active justice), we have from rego, -- rex, regal,
    roi, and royal.

    5. In another place written with the same meaning, "Just, and
    having salvation."

    6. "Length of days in her right hand; in her left, riches and
    honour."

    7. I hear that several of our lawyers have been greatly amused by
    the statement in the first of these papers that a lawyer's
    function was to do justice. I did not intend it for a jest;
    nevertheless it will be seen that in the above passage neither
    the determination nor doing of justice are contemplated as
    functions wholly peculiar to the lawyer. Possibly, the more our
    standing armies, whether of soldiers, pastors, or legislators
    (the generic term "pastor" including all teachers, and the
    generic term "lawyer" including makers as well as interpreters of
    law), can be superseded by the force of national heroism, wisdom,
    and honesty, the better it may be for the nation.

    8. It being the privilege of the fishes, as it is of rats and
    wolves, to live by the laws of demand and supply; but the
    distinction of humanity, to live by those of right.

    9. It might appear at first that the market price of labour
    expressed such an exchange: but this is a fallacy, for the market
    price is the momentary price of the kind of labour required, but
    the just price is its equivalent of the productive labour of
    mankind. This difference will be analyzed in its place. It must
    be noted also that I speak here only of the exchangeable value of
    labour, not of that of commodities. The exchangeable value of a
    commodity is that of the labour required to produce it,
    multiplied into the force of the demand for it. If the value of
    the labour = x and the force of demand = y, the exchangeable
    value of the commodity is xy, in which if either x = 0, or y = 0,
    xy = 0.

    10. Under the term "skill" I mean to include the united force of
    experience, intellect, and passion in their operation on manual
    labour: and under the term "passion," to include the entire range
    and agency of the moral feelings; from the simple patience and
    gentleness of mind which will give continuity and fineness to the
    touch, or enable one person to work without fatigue, and with
    good effect, twice as long as another, up to the qualities of
    character which renders science possible -- (the retardation of
    science by envy is one of the most tremendous losses in the
    economy of the present century) -- and to the incommunicable
    emotion and imagination which are the first and mightiest sources
    of all value in art.
    It is highly singular that political economists should not
    yet have perceived, if not the moral, at least the passionate
    element, to be an inextricable quantity in every calculation. I
    cannot conceive, for instance, how it was possible that Mr Mill
    should have followed the true clue so far as to write, -- "No
    limit can be set to the importance -- even in a purely productive
    and material point of view -- of mere thought," without seeing
    that it was logically necessary to add also, "and of mere
    feeling." And this the more, because in his first definition of
    labour he includes in the idea of it "all feelings of a
    disagreeable kind connected with the employment of one's thoughts
    in a particular occupation." True; but why not also, "feelings of
    an agreeable kind?" It can hardly be supposed that the feelings
    which retard labour are more essentially a part of the labour
    than those which accelerate it. The first are paid for as pain,
    the second as power. The workman is merely indemified for the
    first; but the second both produce a part of the exchangeable
    value of the work, and materially increase its actual quantity.
    "Fritz is with us. He is worth fifty thousand men." Truly, a
    large addition to the material force; -- consisting, however, be
    it observed, not more in operations carried on in Fritz's head,
    than in operations carried on in his armies' heart. "No limit can
    be set to the importance of mere thought." Perhaps not! Nay,
    suppose some day it should turn out that "mere" thought was in
    itself a recommendable object of production, and that all
    Material production was only a step towards this more precious
    Immaterial one?

    11. I am sorry to lose time by answering, however curtly, the
    equivocations of the writers who sought to obscure the instances
    given of regulated labour in the first of these papers, by
    confusing kinds, ranks, and quantities of labour with its
    qualities. I never said that a colonel should have the same pay
    as a private, nor a bishop the same pay as a curate. Neither did
    I say that more work ought to be paid as less work (so that the
    curate of a parish of two thousand souls should have no more than
    the curate of a parish of five hundred). But I said that, so far
    as you employ it at all, bad work should be paid no less than
    good work; as a bad clergyman yet takes his tithes, a bad
    physician takes bis fee, and a bad lawyer his costs. And this, as
    will be farther shown in the conclusion, I said, and say, partly
    because the best work never was, nor ever will be, done for money
    at all; but chiefly because, the moment people know they have to
    pay the bad and good alike, they will try to discern the one from
    the other, and not use the bad. A sagacious writer in the
    Scotsman asks me if I should like any common scribbler to be paid
    by Messrs Smith, Elder and Co. as their good authors are. I
    should, if they employed him-but would seriously recommend them,
    for the scribbler's sake, as well as their own, not to employ
    him. The quantity of its money which the country at present
    invests in scribbling is not, in the outcome of it, economically
    spent; and even the highly ingenious person to whom this question
    occurred, might perhaps have been more beneficially employed than
    in printing it.

    12. I have to acknowledge an interesting communication on the
    subject of free trade from Paisley (for a short letter from "A
    Well-wisher" at my thanks are yet more due). But the Scottish
    writer will, I fear, be disagreeably surprised to hear, that I
    am, and always have been, an utterly fearless and unscrupulous
    free-trader. Seven years ago, speaking of the various signs of
    infancy in the European mind (Stones of Venice, vol. iii. p.
    168), I wrote: "The first principles of commerce were
    acknowledged by the English parliament only a few months ago, in
    its free-trade measures, and are still so little understood by
    the million, that no nation dares to abolish its custom-houses."
    It will be observed that I do not admit even the idea of
    reciprocity. Let other nations, if they like, keep their ports
    shut; every wise nation will throw its own open. It is not the
    opening them, but a sudden, inconsiderate, and blunderingly
    experimental manner of opening them, which does the harm. If you
    have been protecting a manufacture for a long series of years,
    you must not take the protection off in a moment, so as to throw
    every one of its operatives at once out of employ, any more than
    you must take all its wrappings off a feeble child at once in
    cold weather, though the cumber of them may have been radically
    injuring its health. Little by little, you must restore it to
    freedom and to air.
    Most people's minds are in curious confusion on the subject
    of free trade, because they suppose it to imply enlarged
    competition. On the contrary, free trade puts an end to all
    competition. "Protection" (among various other mischievous
    functions,) endeavours to enable one country to compete with
    another in the production of an article at a disadvantage. When
    trade is entirely free, no country can be competed with in the
    articles for the production of which it is naturally calculated;
    nor can it compete with any other, in the production of articles
    for which it is not naturally calculated. Tuscany, for instance,
    cannot compete with England in steel, nor England with Tuscany in
    oil. They must exchange their steel and oil. Which exchange
    should be as frank and free as honesty and the sea-winds can make
    it. Competition, indeed, arises at first, and sharply, in order
    to prove which is strongest in any given manufacture possible to
    both; this point once ascertained, competition is at an end.

    13. I should be glad if the reader would first clear the ground
    for himself so far as to determine whether the difficulty lies in
    getting the work or getting the pay for it. Does he consider
    occupation itself to be an expensive luxury, difficult of
    attainment, of which too little is to be found in the world? or
    is it rather that, while in the enjoyment even of the most
    athletic delight, men must nevertheless be maintained, and this
    maintenance is not always forthcoming? We must be clear on this
    head before going farther, as most people are loosely in the
    habit of talking of the difficulty of "finding employment." Is it
    employment that we want to find, or support during employment? Is
    it idleness we wish to put an end to, or hunger? We have to take
    up both questions in succession, only not both at the same time.
    No doubt that work is a luxury, and a very great one. It is,
    indeed, at once a luxury and a necessity; no man can retain
    either health of mind or body without it. So profoundly do I feel
    this, that, as will be seen in the sequel, one of the principal
    objects I would recommend to benevolent and practical persons, is
    to induce rich people to seek for a larger quantity of this
    luxury than they at present possess. Nevertheless, it appears by
    experience that even this healthiest of pleasures may be indulged
    in to excess, and that human beings are just as liable to surfeit
    of labour as to surfeit of meat; so that, as on the one hand, it
    may be charitable to provide, for some people, lighter dinner,
    and more work, for others, it may be equally expedient to provide
    lighter work, and more dinner.

    14. Book I. chap. iv. s. 1. To save space, my future references
    to Mr Mill's work will be by numerals only, as in this instance,
    I. iv. I. Ed. in 2 vols. 8vo. Parker, 1848.

    15. If Mr Mill had wished to show the difference in result
    between consumption and sale, he should have represented the
    hardware merchant as consuming his own goods instead of selling
    them; similarly, the silver merchant as consuming his own goods
    instead of welling them. Had he done this, he would have made his
    position clearer, though less tenable; and perhaps this was the
    position he really intended to take, tacitly involving his
    theory, elsewhere stated, and shown in the sequel of this paper
    to be false, that demand for commodities is not demand for
    labour. But by the most diligent scrutiny of the paragraph now
    under examination, I cannot determine whether it is a fallacy
    pure and simple, or the half of one fallacy supported by the
    whole of a greater one; so that I treat it here on the kinder
    assumption that it is one fallacy only.

    16. I take Mr Helps' estimate in his essay on War.

    17. Also when the wrought silver vases of Spain were dashed to
    fragments by our custom-house officers, because bullion might be
    imported free of duty, but not brains, was the axe that broke
    them productive? -- the artist who wrought them unproductive? Or
    again. If the woodman's axe is productive, is the executioner's?
    as also, if the hemp of a cable be productive, does not the
    productiveness of hemp in a halter depend on its moral more than
    on its material application?

    18. Filigree: that is to say, generally, ornament dependent on
    complexity, not on art.

    19. These statements sound crude in their brevity; but will be
    found of the utmost importance when they are developed. Thus, in
    the above instance, economists have never perceived that
    disposition to buy is a wholly moral element in demand: that is
    to say, when you give a man half-a-crown, it depends on his
    disposition whether he is rich or poor with it -- whether he will
    buy disease, ruin, and hatred, or buy health, advancement, and
    domestic love. And thus the agreeableness or exchange value of
    every offered commodity depends on production, not merely of the
    commodity, but of buyers of it; therefore on the education of
    buyers, and on all the moral elements by which their disposition
    to buy this, or that, is formed. I will illustrate and expand
    into final consequences every one of these definitions in its
    place: at present they can only be given with extremest brevity;
    for in order to put the subject at once in a connected form
    before the reader, I have thrown into one, the opening
    definitions of four chapters; namely, of that on Value ("Ad
    Valorem"); on Price ("Thirty Pieces"); on Production ("Demeter");
    and on Economy ("The Law of the House").

    20. Perhaps it may be said, in farther support of Mr Ricardo,
    that he meant, "when the utility is constant or given, the price
    varies as the quantity of labour." If he meant this, he should
    have said it; but, had he meant it, he could have hardly missed
    the necessary result, that utility would be one measure of price
    (which he expressly denies it to be); and that, to prove
    saleableness, he had to prove a given quantity of utility, as
    well as a given quantity of labour: to wit, in his own instance,
    that the deer and fish would each feed the same number of men,
    for the same number of days, with equal pleasure to their
    palates. The fact is, he did not know what he meant himself. The
    general idea which he had derived from commercial experience,
    without being able to analyze it, was, that when the demand is
    constant, the price varies as the quantity of labour required for
    production; or, -- using the formula I gave in last paper -- when
    y is constant, x y varies as x. But demand never is, nor can be,
    ultimately constant, if x varies distinctly; for, as price rises,
    consumers fall away; and as soon as there is a monopoly (and all
    scarcity is a form of monopoly; so that every commodity is
    affected occasionally by some colour of monopoly), y becomes the
    most influential condition of the price. Thus the price of a
    painting depends less on its merits than on the interest taken in
    it by the public; the price of singing less on the labour of the
    singer than the number of persons who desire to hear him; and the
    price of gold less on the scarcity which affects it in common
    with cerium or iridium, than on the sunlight colour and
    unalterable purity by which it attracts the admiration and
    answers the trust of mankind.
    It must be kept in mind, however, that I use the word
    "demand" in a somewhat different sense from economists usually.
    They mean by it "the quantity of a thing sold." I mean by it "the
    force of the buyer's capable intention to buy." In good English,
    a person's "demand" signifies, not what he gets, but what he asks
    for.
    Economists also do not notice that objects are not valued by
    absolute bulk or weight, but by such bulk and weight as is
    necessary to bring them into use. They say, for instance, that
    water bears no price in the market. It is true that a cupful does
    not, but a lake does; just as a handful of dust does not, but an
    acre does. And were it possible to make even the possession of
    the cupful or handful permanent, (i.e. to find a place for them,)
    the earth and sea would be bought up for handfuls and cupfuls.

    21. Compare George Herbert, The Church Porch, Staza 28.

    22. "O Zeus dipou penetai" -- Arist. Plut. 582. It would but
    weaken the grad words to lean on the preceding ones: -- "Oti tou
    Platon parecho Beltionas, andpas, kai tin gnomen, kai ten idean."

    23. Zech. v. ii.

    24. Labour which is entirely good of its kind, that is to say,
    effective, or efficient, the Greeks called "weighable," or axios,
    translated usually "worthy," and because thus substantial and
    true, they called its price time, the "honourable estimate" of it
    (honorarium): this word being founded on their conception of true
    labour as a divine thing, to be honoured with the kind of honour
    given to the gods; whereas the price of false labour, or of that
    which led away from life, was to be, not honour, but vengeance;
    for which they reserved another word, attributing the exaction of
    such price to a peculiar goddess, called Tisiphone, the "requiter
    (or quittance-taker) of death"; a person versed in the highest
    branches of arithmetic, and punctual in her habits; with whom
    accounts current have been opened also in modern days.

    25. The most accurately nugatory labour is, perhaps, that of
    which not enough is given to answer a purpose effectually, and
    which, therefore, has all to be done over again. Also, labour
    which fails of effect through non-co-operation. The cure of a
    little village near Bellinzona, to whom I had expressed wonder
    that the peasants allowed the Ticino to flood their fields, told
    me that they would not join to build an effectual embankment high
    up the valley, because everybody said "that would help his
    neighbours as much as himself." So every proprietor built a bit
    of low embankment about his own field; and the Ticino, as soon as
    it had a mind, swept away and swallowed all up together.

    26. Observe, I say, rearing," not "begetting." The praise is in
    the seventh season, not in sporitos, nor in phutalia, but in
    opora. It is strange that men always praise enthusiastically any
    person who, by a momentary exertion, saves a life; but praise
    very hesitatingly a person who, by exertion and self-denial
    prolonged through years, creates one. We give the crown "ob civem
    servatum"; -- why not "ob civem natum?" Born, I mean, to the
    full, in soul as well as body. England has oak enough, I think,
    for both chaplets.

    27. When Mr Mill speaks of productive consumption, he only means
    consumption which results in increase of capital, or material
    wealth. See I. iii. 4, and I. iii. 5.

    28. So also in the vision of the women bearing the ephah, before
    quoted, "the wind was in their wings," not wings "of a stork," as
    in our version; but "miivi," of a kite, in the Vulgate, or
    perhaps more accurately still in the Septuagint, "hoopoe," a bird
    connected typically with the power of riches by many traditions,
    of which that of its petition for a crest of gold is perhaps the
    most interesting. The "Birds" of Aristophanes, in which its part
    is principal, are full of them; note especially the
    "fortification of the air with baked bricks, like Babylon," I.
    550; and, again, compare the Plutus of Dante, who (to show the
    influence of riches in destroying the reason) is the only one of
    the powers of the Inferno who cannot speak intelligibly and also
    the cowardliest; he is not merely quelled or restrained, but
    literally "collapses" at a word; the sudden and helpless
    operation of mercantile panic being all told in the brief
    metaphor, "as the sails, swollen with the wind, fall, when the
    mast breaks."

    29. The value of raw material, which has, indeed, to be deducted
    from the price of the labour, is not contemplated in the passages
    referred to, Mr. Mill having fallen into the mistake solely by
    pursuing the collateral results of the payment of wages to
    middlemen. He says" The consumer does not, with his own funds,
    pay the weaver for his day's work. "Pardon me; the consumer of
    the velvet pays the weaver with his own funds as much as he pays
    the gardener. He pays, probably, an intermediate ship-owner,
    velvet merchant, and shopman; pays carriage money, shop rent,
    damage money, time money, and care money; all these are above and
    beside the velvet price, (just as the wages of a head gardener
    would be above the grass price). but the velvet is as much
    produced by the consumer's capital, though he does not pay for it
    till six months after production, as the grass is produced by his
    capital, though he does not pay the man who mowed and rolled it
    on Monday, till Saturday afternoon. I do not know if Mr. Mill's
    conclusion, -- "the capital cannot be dispensed with, the
    purchasers can " (p. 98), has yet been reduced to practice in the
    City on any large scale.

    30. Which, observe, is the precise opposite of the one under
    examination. The hardware theory required us to discharge our
    gardeners and engage manufacturers; the velvet theory requires us
    to discharge our manufacturers and engage gardeners.

    31. It is one very awful form of the operation of wealth in
    Europe that it is entirely capitalists' wealth which supports
    unjust wars. Just wars do not need so much money to support them;
    for most of the men who wage such, wage them gratis; but for an
    unjust war, men's bodies and souls have both to be bought; and
    the best tools of war for them besides; which makes such war
    costly to the maximum; not to speak of the cost of base fear, and
    angry suspicion, between nations which have not grace nor honesty
    enough in all their multitudes to buy an hour's peace of mind
    with: as, at present, France and England, purchasing of each
    other ten millions sterling worth of consternation annually, (a
    remarkably light crop, half thorns and half aspen leaves, --
    sown, reaped, and granaried by the "science" of the modern
    political economist, teaching covetousness instead of truth.) And
    all unjust war being supportable, if not by pillage of the enemy,
    only by loans from capitalists, these loans are repaid by
    subsequent taxation of the people, who appear to have no will in
    the matter, the capitalists' will being the primary root of the
    war; but its real root is the covetousness of the whole nation,
    rendering it incapable of faith, frankness, or justice, and
    bringing about, therefore, in due time, his own separate loss and
    punishment to each person.

    32. "In all reasoning about prices, the proviso must be
    understood, 'supposing all parties to take care of their own
    interest.'" -- Mill, III. i. 5.

    33. James v. 4. Observe, in these statements I am not talking up,
    nor countenancing one whit, the common socialist idea of division
    of property; division of property is its destruction; and with it
    the destruction of all hope, all industry, and all justice: it is
    simply chaos a chaos towards which the believers in modern
    political economy are fast tending, and from which I am striving
    to save them. The rich man does not keep back meat from the poor
    by retaining his riches; but by basely using them. Riches are a
    form of strength; and a strong man does not injure others by
    keeping his strength, but by using it injuriously. The socialist,
    seeing a strong man oppress a weak one, cries out. -- "Break the
    strong man's arms." but I say, "Teach him to use them to better
    purpose." The fortitude and intelligence which acquire riches are
    intended, by the Giver of both, not to scatter, nor to give away,
    but to employ those riches in the service of mankind; in other
    words, in the redemption of the erring and aid of the weak --
    that is to say, there is first to be the work to gain money; then
    the Sabbath of use for it -- the Sabbath, whose law is, not to
    lose life, but to save. It is continually the fault or the folly
    of the poor that they are poor, as it is usually a child's fault
    if it falls into a pond, and a cripple's weakness that slips at a
    crossing; nevertheless, most passers -- by would pull the child
    out, or help up the cripple. Put it at the worst, that all the
    poor of the world are but disobedient children, or careless
    cripples, and that all rich people are wise and strong, and you
    will see at once that neither is the socialist right in desiring
    to make everybody poor, powerless, and foolish as he is himself,
    nor the rich man right in leaving the children in the mire.

    34. The quantity of life is the same in both cases; but it is
    differently allotted.

    35. The proper offices of middle-men, namely, overseers (or
    authoritative workmen), conveyancers (merchants, sailors, retail
    dealers, &c.), and order-takers (persons employed to receive
    directions from the consumer), must, of course, be examined
    before I can enter farther into the question of just payment of
    the first producer. But I have not spoken of them in these
    introductory papers, because the evils attendant on the abuse of
    such intermediate functions result not from any alleged principle
    of modern political economy, but from private carelessness or
    iniquity.
    Ghandis Translation of Ruskin.
    Introduction

    Translator’s Note

    In a chapter in his Autobiography (Part IV, Chapter XVIII) entitled “The Magic Spell of a Book’ Gandhiji tells us how he read Ruskin’s Unto this Last on the twenty-four hours’ journey from Johannesburg to Durban. ‘The train reached there in the evening. I could not get any sleep that night. I determined to change my life in accordance with the ideals of the book. … I translated it later into Gujarati, entitling it Sarvodaya.’
    Sarvodaya is here re-translated into English, Ruskin’s winged words being retained as far as possible.
    At the end of that chapter Gandhiji gives us a summary of the teachings of Unto This Last as he understood it :
    1. The good of the individual is contained in the good of all.
    2. A lawyer’s work has the same value as the barber’s, as all have the same right of earning their livelihood from their work.
    3. A life of labour, i.e. the life of the tiller of the soil and the handicraftsman is the life worth living.
    Nothing more need be said as regards the paraphrase of Ruskin’s four chapters, but Gandhiji’s conclusion (pp. 41-44), written as it was in South Africa long before he returned to India in 1915, is prophetic and fit to be treasured by India for all time to come. And the last paragraph of the booklet is a pearl beyond price.
    Valji Govindji Desai

    To The Reader

    I would like to say to the diligent reader of my writings and to others who are interested in them that I am not at all concerned with appearing to be consistent. In my search after Truth I have discarded many ideas and learnt many new things. Old as I am in age, I have no feeling that I have ceased to grow inwardly or that my growth will stop at the dissolution of the flesh. What I am concerned with is my readiness to obey the call of Truth, my God, from moment to moment, and therefore, when anybody finds any inconsistency between any two writings of mine, if he has still faith in my sanity, he would do well to choose the later of the two on the same subject.
    M.K.Gandhi
    Harijan. 29-4-’33. p.2

    Introduction

    People in the West generally hold that the whole duty of man is to promote the happiness if the majority of mankind, and happiness is supposed to mean only physical happiness and economic prosperity. If the laws of morality city are broken in the conquest of this happiness, it does not matter very much. Again, as the object sought to be attained is the happiness of the majority, Westerners do not think there is any harm if this is secured by sacrificing a minority. The consequences of this line of thinking are writen large on the face of Europe.
    This exclusive search for physical and economic well-being prosecuted in disregard of morality is contrary to divine law, as some wise men in the West have shown. One of these was John Ruskin who contends in Unto This Last that men can be happy only if they obey the moral law.
    We in India are very much given nowadays to an imitation of the West. It is necessary to imitate the virtues of the West, but there is no doubt that Western standards are often bad, and every one will agree that we should shun all evil things.
    The Indians in South Africa are reduced to a sorry plight. We go abroad in order to make money, and in trying to get rich quick, we lose sight of morality and forget that God will judge all our acts. Self-interest absorbs our energies and paralyzes our power of discrimination between good and evil. The result is that instead of gaining anything, we lose a great deal by staying in foreign countries; or at least we fail to derive full benefit from it. Morality is an essential ingredient in all the faiths of the world, but apart from religion, our commonsense indicates the necessity of observing the moral law. Only by observing it can we hope to be happy, as Ruskin shows in the following pages.
    Socrates in Plato’s Apology gives us some idea of our duty as men. And he was as good as his word. I feel that Ruskin’s Unto This Last is an expansion of Socrates’ ideas; he tells us how men in various walks of life should behave if they intend to translate these ideas into action. What follows is not a translation of Unto This Last but a paraphrase, as a translation would not be particularly useful to the readers of Indian Opinion. Even the title has not been translated but paraphrased as Sarvodaya [the welfare of all], as that was what Rusking aimed at in writing this book.
    (1) Gandhiji had published a summary of The Apology in Indian Opinion before Sarvodaya was written. V.G.D.

    Essay I : The Roots of Truth

    Among the delusions which at different periods have afflicted mankind, perhaps the gretest – certainly the least creditable – is modern economics based on the idea that an advantageous code of action may be determined irrespectively of the influence of social affection.
    Of course, as in the case of other delusions, political economy has a plausible idea at the root of it. ‘The social affections,’ says the economist, ‘are accidental and disturbing elements in human nature ; but avarice and the desire for progress are constant elements. Let us eliminate the inconstants, and considering man merely as a money-making machine, examine by what laws of labour, purchase and sale, the greatest amount of wealth can be accumulated. Those laws once determined, it will be for each individual afterwards to introduce as much of the disturbing affectionate element as he chooses.’
    This would be a logical method of analysis if the accidentals afterwards to be introduced were of the same nature as the powers first examined. Supposing a body in motion to be influenced by constant and inconstant forces, it is the simplest way of examining its course to trace it first under the persistent conditions and afterwards introduce the causes of variation. But the disturbing elements in the social problem are not of the same nature as the constant ones; they alter the essence of the creature under examination the moment they are added. They operate not mathematically but chemically, introducing conditions which render all our previous knowledge unavailable.
    I do not doubt the conclusions of the science if its terms are accepted. I am simply uninterested in them, as I should be in those of a science of gymnastics which assumed that men had no skeletons. It might be shown on that supposition that it would be advantageous to roll the students up into pellets, flatten them into cakes, or stretch them into cables; and that when these results were effected, the reinsertion of the skeleton would be attended with various inconveniences to their constitution. The reasoning might be admirable, the conclusions true, and the science deficient only in applicability. Modern political economy stands on a precisely similar basis. It imagines that man has a body but no soul to be taken into account and frames its laws accordingly. How can such laws possibly apply to man in whom the soul is the predominant element?
    Political economy is no science at all. We see how helpless it is when labourers go on a strike. The masters take one view of the matter, the operatives another; and no political economy can set them at one. Disputant after disputant vainly strives to show that the interests of the masters are not antagonistic to those of the men. In fact it does not always follow that the persons must be antagonistic because their interests are. If there is only a crust of bread in the house, and mother and children are starving, their interests are not the same. If the mother eats it, the children want it; if the children eat it, the mother must go hungry to her work. Yet it does not follow that there is antagonism between them, that they will fight for the crust, and the mother, being strongest, will get it and eat it. Similarly it cannot be assumed that because their interests are diverse, persons must regard one another with hostility and use violence or cunning to obtain the advantage.
    Even if we consider men as actuated by no other moral influences than those which affect rats or swine, it can never be shown generally either that the interests of master and labourer are alike or that they are opposed; for according to circumstances they may be either. It is indeed the interest of both that the work should be rightly done and a just price obtained for it ; but in the division of profits, the gain of the one may or may not be the loss of the other. It is not the master’s interest to pay wages so low as to leave the men sickly and depressed, nor the workman’s interest to be paid high wages if the smallness of the master’s profit hinders him from conducting it in a safe and liberal way. A stoker ought not to desire high pay if the company is too poor to keep the engine-wheels in repair.
    All endeavour, therefore, to deduce rules of action from balance of expediency is in vain. And it is meant to be in vain. For no human actions ever were intended by the Maker of men to be guided by balances of expediency but by balances of justice. He has therefore rendered all endeavours to determine expediency futile for evermore. No man can know what will be the ultimate result to himself or others of any given line of conduct. But every man may know and most of us do know what is a just and unjust act. And all of us may know also that the consequences of justice will be ultimately the best possible, both to others and ourselves, though we can neither say what is best, or how it is likely to come about.
    I have meant in the term justice to include affection-such affection as one man owes to another. All right relations between master and operative ultimately depend on this.
    As an illustration let us consider the position of domestic servants.
    We will suppose that the master of a household tries only to get as much work out of his servants as he can, at the rate of wages he gives. He never allows them to be idle ; feeds them as poorly and lodges them as ill as they will endure. In doing this, there is no violation on his part of what is commonly called ‘justice’. He agrees with the domestic for his whole time and service and takes them, the limits of hardship in treatment being fixed by the practice of other masters in the neighbourhood. If the servant can get a better place, he is free to take one.
    This is the politico-economical view of the case according to the doctors of that science who assert that by this procedure the greatest average of work will be obtained from the servant, and therefore the greatest benefit to the community, and through the community, to the servant himself.
    That however is not so. It would be so if the servant were an engine of which the motive power was steam, magnetism or some such agent of calculable force. But on the contrary he is an engine whose motive power is the Soul. Soul force enters into all the economist’s equations without his knowledge and falsifies every one of their results.
    The largest quantity of work will not be done by this curious engine for pay or under pressure. It will be done when the motive force, that is to say, the will or spirit of the creature, is brought to its greatest strength by its own proper fuel, namely by the affections.
    It does happen often that if the master is a man of sense and energy, much material work may be done under pressure ; also it does happen often that if the master is indolent and weak, a small quantity of work, and that bad, may be produced by his servant. But the universal law of the matter is that, assuming any given quantity of energy and sense in master and servant, the greatest material result obtainable by them will be not through antagonism to each other, but through affection for each other.
    Nor is this one whit less generally true because indulgence will be frequently abused, and kindness met with ingratitude. For the servant who, gently treated, is ungrateful, treated ungently, will be revengeful ; and the man who is dishonest to a liberal master will be injurious to an unjust man.
    In any case and with any person, this unselfish treatment will produce the most effective return. I am here considering the affections wholly as a motive power; not at all as things in themselves desirable or noble. I look at them simply as an anomalous force, rendering every one of the ordinary economist’s calculations nugatory. The affections only become a true motive power when they ignore every other motive and condition of economics. Treat the servant kindly with the idea of turning his gratitude to account, and you will get, as you deserve, no gratitude nor any value for your kindness ; but treat him kindly without any economical purpose, and all economical purposes will be answered ; here as elsewhere whoever will save his life shall lose it, whoso loses it shall find it.
    The next simplest example of relation between master and operative is that which exists between the commander of a regiment and his men.
    Supposing the officer only desires to apply the rules of discipline so as, with least trouble to himself, to make the regiment most effective, he will not be able, by any rules, on this selfish principle, to develop the full strength of his subordinates. But if he has the most direct personal relations with his men, the most care for their interests, and the most value for their lives, he will develop their effective strength, through their affection for his own person and trust in his character, to a degree wholly unattainable by other means. This applies more stringently as the numbers concerned are larger : a charge may often be successful though the men dislike their officers ; a battle has rarely been won, unless they loved their general.
    A body of men associated for the purposes of robbery (as a Highland clan in ancient times) shall be animated by perfect affection, and every member of it be ready to lay down his life for the life for the life of his chief. But a band of men associated for purpose of legal production is usually animated by no such emotions, and none of them is willing to give his life for the life of his chief. For a servant or a soldier is engaged at a definite rate of wages for a definite period ; but a workman at a rate of wages variable according to the demand for labour, and with the risk of being at any time thrown out of employment by chances of trade. Now as under these conditions no action of the affections can take place, but only an explosive action of disaffections, two points offer themselves of consideration in the matter :
    1. How far the rate of wages may be so regulated as not to vary with the demand for labour ;
    2. How far it is possible that bodies of workmen may be engaged and maintained at such fixed rate of wages (whatever the state of trade may be), without enlarging or diminishing their number, so as to give them permanent interest in the establishment with which they are connected, like that of the domestic servants in an old family, or an esprit de corps, like that of the soldiers in a crack regiment.
    1. A curious fact in the history of human error is the denial by the economist of the possibility of so regulating wages as not to vary with the demand for labour.
    We do not sell our prime-minister by Dutch auction. Sick, we do not inquire for a physician who takes less than a guinea ; litigious, we never think of reducing six-and-eightpence to four-and-sixpence ; caught in a shower we do not canvass the cabmen to find one who value his driving at less than sixpence a mile.
    The best labour always has been, and is, as all labour ought to be, paid by an invariable standard.
    ‘What !’ the reader perhaps answers amazedly : ‘to pay good and bad workman alike ?’
    Certainly. You pay with equal fee, contentedly, the good and bad preachers (workmen upon your soul) and the good and bad physicians (workmen upon your body) ; much more may you pay, contentedly, with equal fees, the good and bad workmen upon your house.
    ‘Nay, but I choose my physician, thus indicating my sense of the quality of their work.’ By all means choose your bricklayer ; that is the proper reward of the good workman, to be ‘chosen’. The right system respecting all labour is, that it should be paid at a fixed rate, but the good workman employed, and the bad workman unemployed. The false system is when the bad workman is allowed to offer his work at half-price, and either take the place of the good or to force him by his competition to work for an inadequate sum.
    2. This equality of wages, then, being the first object towards which we have to discover the road, the second is that of maintaining constant numbers of workmen in employment, whatever may be the accidental demand for the article they produce.
    The wages which enable any workman to live are necessarily higher if his work is liable to intermission, than if it is assured and continuous. In the latter case he will take low wages in the form of a fixed salary. The provision of regular labour for the workman is good for him as well as for his master in the long run, although he cannot then make large profits or take big risks or indulge in gambling.
    The soldier is ready to lay down his life for his chief and therefore he is held in greater honour than an ordinary workman. Really speaking, the soldier’s trade is not slaying, but being slain in the defence of others. The reason the world honours the soldier is, because he holds his life at the service of the State.
    Not less is the respect we pay to the lawyer, physician and clergyman, founded ultimately on their self-sacrifice. Set in a judge’s seat, the lawyer will strive to judge justly, come of it what may. The physician will treat his patients with care, no matter under what difficulties. The clergyman will similarly instruct his congregation and direct it to the right path.
    All the efficient members of these so-called learned professions are in public estimate of honour preferred before the head of a commercial firm, as the merchant is presumed to act always selfishly. His work may be very necessary to the community ; but the motive of it is understood to be wholly personal. The merchant’s first object in all his dealings must be (the public believe) to get as much for himself and leave as little to his customer as possible. Enforcing this upon him, by political statute, as the necessary principle of his action ; recommending it to him, and themselves reciprocally adopting it, proclaiming for law of the universe that a buyer’s function is to cheapen, and a seller’s to cheat, – the public, nevertheless, involuntarily condemn the man of commerce for his compliance with their own statement, and stamp him for ever as belonging to an inferior grade of human personality.
    This they must give up doing. They will have to discover a kind of commerce which is not excluselfish . Or rather they must discover that there never was or can be any other kind of commerce ; and that this which they have called commerce was not commerce at all but cozening. In true commerce, as in true preaching or true fighting, it is necessary to admit the idea of occasional voluntary loss ;-that sixpences have to be lost, as well as lives, under a sense of duty ; that the market may have its martyrdoms as well as the pulpit ; and trade its heroism as well as war.
    Five great intellectual professions exist in every civilized nation :
    The Soldier’s profession is to defend it.
    The Pastor’s to teach it.
    The Physician’s to keep it in health.
    The Lawyer’s to enforce justice in it.
    The Merchant’s to provide for it.
    And the duty of all these men is on due occasion to die for it. For truly the man who does not know when to die does not know how to live.
    Observe, the merchant’s function is to provide for the nation. It is no more his function to get profit for himself out of that provision than it is a clergyman’s function to get his stipend. This stipend is a necessary adjunct but not the object of his life if he be a true clergyman, any more than his fee (or honorarium) is the object of life to a true physician. Neither is his fee the object of life to a true merchant. All three, if true men, have a work to be done irrespective of fee-to be done even at any cost, or for quite the contrary of fee ; the pastor’s function being to teach, the physician’s to heal and the merchant’s to provide. That is to say, he has to apply all his sagacity and energy to the producing the thing he deals in in perfect state and distributing it at the cheapest possible price where it is most needed.
    And because the production of any commodity involves the agency of many lives and hands, the merchant becomes in the course of his business the master and governor of large masses of men in a more direct way than a military officer or pastor, so that on him falls, in great part, the responsibility for the kind of life they lead ; and it becomes his duty not only to produce goods in the purest and cheapest forms, but also to make the various employments involved in the production most beneficial to the men employed.
    And as into these two functions, requiring for their right exercise the highest intelligence as well as patience, kindness and tact, the merchant is bound to put all his energy, so for their just discharge he is bound, as solier or physican is to give up, if need be, his life, in such way as it may be demanded of him.
    Two main points he has to maintain ; first his engagement ; and secondly the perfectness and purity of the thing provided by him ; so that rather than fail in any engagement or consent to any deterioration, adulteration, or unjust or exorbitant price of that which he provides, he is bound to meet fearlessly any form of distress, poverty or labour which may through maintenance of these points come upon him.
    Again in his office as governor of the men employed by him, the merchant is invested with a paternal authority and responsibility. In most cases a youth entering a commercial establishment is withdrawn altogether from home influence; his master must become his father; else he has, for practical and constant help, no father at hand. So that the only means which the master has of doing justice to the men employed by him is to ask himself sternly whether he is dealing with such subordinate as he would with his own son, if compelled by circumstances to take such a position.
    Supposing the captain of a frigate were obliged to place his own son in the position of a common sailor ; as he would then treat his son, he is bound always to treat every one of the men under him. So also supposing the master of a factory were obliged to place his own son in the position of an ordinary workman ; as he would then treat his son, he is bound always to treat every one of his men. This is the only effective, true or practical Rule which can be given in this point of economics.
    And as the captain of a ship is bound to be the last man to leave his ship in case of wreck and to share his last crust with the sailors in case of famine, so the manufacturer, in any commercial crisis, is bound to take the suffering of it with his men, and even to take more of it for himself than he allows his men to feel ; as a father would in a famine, shipwreck or battle, sacrifice himself for his son.
    All this sounds very strange; the only real strangeness in the matter being, nevertheless, that it should so sound. For all this is true everlastingly and practically ; all other doctrine than this being impossible in practice, consistently with any progressive state of national life ; all the life which we now possess as a nation showing itself in the denial by a few strong minds and faithful hearts of the economic principles taught to our multitudes, which principles, so far as accepted, lead straight to national destruction. Respecting the modes and forms of destruction to which they lead I hope to reason farther in a following paper.

    Essay II : The Veins of Wealth

    The answer which would be made by any ordinary economist to the statement in the preceding papers, is in a few words as follows :
    “It is true that certain advantages of a general nature may be obtained by the development of social affections. But economists never take such advantages into consideration. Our science is simply the science of getting rich. So far from being fallacious, it is found by experience to be practically effective. Persons who follow its precepts do become rich, and persons who disobey them become poor. Every capitalist of Europe has acquired his fortune by following the laws of our science. It is vain to bring forward tricks of logic against the force of accomplished facts. Every man of business knows by experience how money is made and how it is lost.”
    Pardon me. Men of business do indeed make money, but they do not know if they make it by fair means or if their money-making contributes to national welfare. They rarely know the meaning of the word ‘rich’. At least if they know, they do not allow for the fact that it is a relative word, implying its opposite ‘poor’ as positively as the word ‘north’ implies its opposite ‘south’. Men write as if it were possible, by following certain scientific precepts, for everybody to be rich. Whereas riches are a power like that of electricity, acting only through inequalities or negations of itself. The force of the guinea you have in your pocket depends wholly on the default of a guinea in your neighbour’s pocket. If he did not want it, it would be of no use to you ; the degree of power it possesses depends accurately upon the need he has for it, and the art of making yourslf rich, in the ordinary mercantile economist’s sense, is therefore equally and necessarily the art of keeping your neighbour poor.
    I wish the reader clearly to understand the difference between the two economies, to which the terms, ‘political’ and ‘mercantile’ might be attached.
    Political economy consists in simply the production, preservation and distribution, at fittest time and place, of useful or pleasurable things. The farmer who cuts his hay at the right time ; the builder who lays good bricks in well-tempered mortar ; the housewife who takes care of her furniture in the parlour and guards against all waste in her kitchen are all political economists in the true and final sense, adding continually to the riches and well-being of the nation to which they belong.
    But mercantile economy signifies the accumulation in the hands of individuals, of legal claim upon, or power over, the labour of others ; every such claim implying precisely as much poverty or debt on one side as it implies riches or right on the other.
    The idea of riches among active men in civilized nations generally refers to such commercial wealth ; and in estimating their possessions, they rather calculate the value of their horses and fields by the number of guineas they could get for them, than the value of their guineas by the number of horses and fields they could buy with them.
    Real property is of little use to its owner, unless together with it he has commercial power over labour. Thus suppose a man has a large estate of fruitful land with rich beds of gold in its gravel; countless herds of cattle; houses, and gardens and storehouses ; but suppose, after all, that he could get no servants ? In order that he may be able to have servants, some one in his neighbourhood must be poor and in want of his gold or his corn. Assume that no one is in want of either, and that no servants are to be had. He must therefore bake his own bread, make his own clothes, plough his own ground and shepherd his own flocks. His gold will be as useful to him as any other yellow pebbles on his estate. His stores must rot, for he cannot consume them. He can eat no more than another man could eat, and wear no more than another man could wear. He must lead a life of severe and common labour to procure even ordinary comforts.
    The most covetous of mankind would, with small exultation , I presume , accept riches of this kind on these terms. What is really desired, under the name of riches is, essentially, power over men ; in its simplest sense, the power of obtaining for our own advantage the labour of servant, tradesman and artist. And this power of wealth of course is greater or less in direct proportion to the poverty of the men over whom it is exercised and in inverse proportion to the number of persons who are as rich as ourselves, and who are ready to give the same price for an article of which the supply is limited. If the musician is poor, he will sing for small pay, as long as there is only one person who can pay him ; but if there be two or three, he will sing for the one who offers him most. So that the art of becoming ‘rich’ in the common sense is not only the art of accumulating much money for ourselves but also of contriving that our neighbours shall have less. In accurate terms it is ‘the art of establishing the maximum inequality in our own favour’.
    The rash and absurd assumption that such inequalities are necessarily advantageous lies at the root of most of the popular fallacies on the subject of economics. For the beneficialness of the inequality depends first, on the methods by which it was accomplished and secondly, on the purposes to which it is applied. Inequalities of wealth, unjustly established, have assuredly injured the nation in which they exist during their establishment ; and unjustly directed, injure it yet more during their existence. But inequalities of wealth, justly established, benefit the nation in the course of their establishment ; and nobly used, aid it yet more by their existence.
    Thus the circulation of wealth in nation resembles that of the blood in the natural body. There is one quickness of the current which comes of cheerful emotion or wholesome exercise ; and another which comes of shame or of fever. There is a flush of the body which is full of warmth and life ; and another which will pass into putrefaction.
    Again even as diseased local determination of the blood involves depression of the general health of the system, all morbid local action of riches will be found ultimately to involve weakening of the resources of the body politic.
    Suppose two sailors cast away on an uninhabited coast and obliged to maintain themselves there by their own labour for a series of years.
    If they both kept their health, and worked steadily and in amity with each other, they might build themselves a house and in time to come possess some cultivated land together with various stores laid up for future use. All these things would be real riches or property ; and supposing the men both to have worked equally hard, they would each have right to equal share or use of it. Their political economy would consist merely in the careful preservation and just division on these possessions.
    Perhaps however after some time one or other might be dissatisfied with the results of their common farming ; and they might in consequence agree to divide the land into equal shares, so that each might thenceforward work in his own field and live by it. Suppose that after this arrangement had been made, one of them were to fall ill, and be unable to work on his land at a critical time – say of sowing or harvest. He would naturally ask the other to sow or reap for him.
    Then his companion might say, with perfect justice, ‘I will do this additional work for you ; but if I do it, you must promise to do as much for me at another time. I will count how many hours I spend on your ground, and you shall give me a written promise to work for the same number of hours on mine, whenever I need your help, and you are able to give it.’
    Suppose the disabled man’s sickness to continue, and that under various circumstances, for several years, requiring the help of the other, he on each occasion gave a written pledge to work, as soon as he was able, at his companion’s orders, for the same number of hours as the other had given up to him.
    What will the positions of the two men be when the invalid is able to resume work ?
    Considered as polis or state, they will be poorer than they would have been otherwise ; poorer by the withdrawal of what the sick man’s labour would have produced in the interval. His friend may perhaps have toiled with an energy quickened by the enlarged need, but in the end his own land must have suffered by the withdrawal of so much of his time from it; and the united property of the two men will be less than it would have been if both had remained in health and activity.
    But the relations in which they stand to each other are also widely altered. The sick man has not only pledged his labour for some years, but will have exhausted his share of the stores, and will be in consequence for some time dependent on the other for food, for which he can only ‘pay’ him by yet more deeply pledging his own labour.
    Supposing the written promises to be held entirely valid, the person who had hitherto worked for both might now, if he chose, rest altogether, and pass his time in idleness, not only forcing his companion to redeem all his pervious pledges but exacting from him pledges for further labour, to an arbitrary amount, for what food he had to advance to him.
    There might not be the least illegality (in the ordinary sense of the word) in the arrangement ; but if a stranger arrived on the coast at this advanced stage of their political economy, he would find one man commercially Rich ; the other commercially Poor. He would see, with no small surprise, one passing his days in idleness ; the other labouring for both and living sparely, in the hope of recovering his independence at some distant period.
    What I want the reader to note especially is the fact that the establishment of the mercantile wealth which consists in a claim upon labour signifies a political diminution of the real wealth which consists in substantial possessions.
    Take another example, more consistent with the ordinary course of affairs of trade. Suppose that three men, instead of two, formed the little isolated republic, and were obliged to separate, in order to farm different pieces of land at some distance from each other : each estate furnishing a distinct kind of produce and each in need of the material raised on the other. Suppose that the third man, in order to save the time of all three, simply superintends the transference of commodities from one farm to the other, on condition of receiving a share of every parcel of goods conveyed.
    If this carrier always brings to each estate, from the other, what is chiefly wanted, at the right time, the operations of the two farmers will prosper, and the largest possible result in produce or wealth will be attained by the little community. But suppose no intercourse between the landowners is possible, except through the travelling agent ; and that after a time, this agent keeps back the articles with which he has been entrusted until there comes a period of extreme necessity for them, on one side or other, and then exacts in exchange for them all that the distressed farmer can share other kinds of produce ; it is easy to see that by ingeniously watching his opportunities, he might possess himself of the greater part of the surplus produce of the two estates, and at last, in a year of scarcity, purchase both for himself and maintain the former proprietors thenceforward as his labourers or servants.
    This would be a case of commercial wealth acquired on the exactest principles of modern political economy. But it is clear in this instance also that the wealth of the State or of the three men considered as a society, is collectively less than it would have been if the merchant had been content with juster profit. The operations of the two farmers have been cramped to the utmost ; the limitations of the supply of things they wanted at critical times, together with the failure of courage consequent on the prolongation of a struggle for mere existence, must have diminished the effective results of their labour ; and the stores accumulated by the merchant will not be of equivalent value to those which, had he been honest, would have filled the granaries of the farmers and his own.
    The question, therefore, respecting not only the advantage but even the quantity of national wealth, resolves itself finally into one of abstract justice. The real value of acquired wealth depends on the moral sign attached to it, just as sternly as that of a mathematical quantity depends on the algebraical sign attached to it. Any given accumulation of commercial wealth may be indicative, on the one hand, of faithful industries, progressive energies and productive ingenuities ; or on the other hand, it may be indicative of mortal luxury, merciless tyranny, ruinous chicanery.
    And these are not merely moral attributes of riches, which the seeker of riches may, if he chooses, despise ; they are literally material attributes of riches, depreciating or exalting the monetary signification of the sum in question. One mass of money is the outcome of action which has created, – another, of action which has annihilated, – ten times as much in the gathering of it.
    Therefore the idea that directions can be given for the gaining of wealth, irrespectively of the consideration of its moral sources is perhaps the most insolently futile of all that ever beguiled men through their vices. So far as I know, there is not in history record of anything so disgraceful to the human intellect as the modern idea that the commercial text ‘Buy in the cheapest market and sell in the dearest’ represents an available principle of national economy. Buy in the cheapest market ? – yes ; but what made your market cheap ? Charcoal may be cheap among your roof timbers after a fire and bricks may be cheap in your streets after an earthquake ; but fire and earthquake may not therefore be national benefits. Sell in the dearest ? – yes, truly ; but what made your market dear ? You sold your bread well today ; was it to a dying man who gave his last coin for it and will never bread more ; or to a rich man who tomorrow will buy your farm over your head ; or to a soldier on his way to pillage the bank in which you have put your fortune ?
    None of these things you can know. One thing only you can know ; namely whether this dealing of yours is a just and faithful one, which is all you need concern yourself about respecting it ; sure thus to have done your part in bringing about ultimately in the world a state of things which will not issue in pillage or in death.
    It has been shown that the chief value of money consists in its having power over human beings ; that without this power large material possessions are useless, and to a person possessing such power, comparatively unnecessary. But power over human beings is attainable by other means than by money.
    In this moral power there is a monetary value as real as that represented by more ponderous currencies. A man’s hand may be full of invisible gold, and the wave of it or the grasp shall do more than another’s with a shower of bullion.
    But farther. Since the essence of wealth consists in its authority over men, if the apparent wealth fail in this power, it ceases to be wealth at all. It does not appear lately in England that our authority over men is absolute.
    Finally since the essence of wealth consists in power over men, will it not follow that the nobler and the more in number the persons are over whom it has power, the greater the wealth ? Perhaps it may even appear after some consideration that the persons themselves are the wealth ; not gold and silver. The true veins of wealth are purple – and not in Rock but in Flesh. The final consummation of all wealth is in the producing as many as possible full-breathed, bright-eyed and happy-hearted human beings. In some far-away and yet undreamt-of hour I can even imagine that instead of adorning the turbans of her slaves with diamonds from Golkonda and thus showing off her material wealth, England, as a Christian mother, may at last attain to the virtues and the treasures of a non-Christian one and be able to lead forth her Sons, saying,
    “These are MY Jewels.”

    Essay III : Even-Handed Justice

    Some centuries before the Christian era, a Jew merchant, reported to have made one of the largest fortunes of his time (held also in repute for much practical sagacity), left among his ledgers some general maxims which have been preserved even to our own days. They were held in respect by the Venetians who placed a statue of the old Jew on the angle of one of their principal buildings. Of late years these writings have fallen into disrepute, being opposed to the spirit of modern commerce.
    He says for instance in one place : ‘The getting of treasures by a lying tongue is a vanity tossed to and fro of them that seek death’; adding in another, with the same meaning : ‘Treasures of wickedness profit nothing ; but truth delivers from death.’ Both these passages are notable for their assertions of death as the only real issue and sum of attainment by any unjust scheme of wealth. If we read instead of ‘lying tongue’, ‘lying label, title, pretence or advertisement,’ we shall more clearly perceive the bearing of these words on modern business.
    Again the wiseman says: ‘He that oppresseth the poor to increase his riches shall surely come to want.’ And again more strongly: ‘Rob not the poor because he is poor ; neither oppress the afflicted in the place of business. For God shall spoil the soul of those that spoiled them.’
    This ‘robbing the poor because he is poor’ is especially the mercantile form of theft, consisting in taking advantage of a man’s necessities in order to obtain his labour or property at a reduced price. The ordinary highwayman robs the rich, but the trader robs the poor.
    But the two most remarkable passages are the following :
    ‘The rich and the poor have met. God is their maker.’ ‘The rich and the poor have met. God is their light.’
    They ‘have met.’ That is to say, as long as the world lasts the action and counteraction of wealth and poverty is just as appointed a law of the world as the flow of stream to sea : ‘God is their maker.’ But also this action may be either gentle and just, or convulsive and destructive ; it may be by rage of devouring flood or by lapse of serviceable wave. And which of these it shall be, depends on both rich and poor knowing that God is their light.
    The flowing of streams is in one respect a perfect image of the action of wealth. Where the land falls, the water flows. So wealth must go where it is required. But the disposition and administration of rivers can be altered by human forethought. Whether the stream shall be a curse or a blessing depends upon man’s labour and administrating intelligence. For centuries districts of the world, rich in soil and favoured in climate, have lain desert under the rage of their own rivers ; not only desert, but plague-struck. The stream which, rightly directed, would have flowed in soft irrigation from field to field – would have purified the air, given food to man and beast, and carried their burdens for them on its boson – now overwhelms the plain and poisons the wind : its breath pestilence, and its work famine. In like manner human laws can guide the flow of wealth. This the leading trench and limiting mound can do so thoroughly that it shall become water of life – the riches of the hand of wisdom ; or on the contrary, by leaving it to its own lawless flow, they may make it the last and deadliest of national plagues : water of Marah – the water which feeds the roots of all evil.
    The necessity of these laws of distribution or restraint is curiously overlooked in the ordinary economist’s definition of his own ‘science’. He calls it the ‘science of getting rich’. But there are many sciences as well as many arts of getting rich.
    Poisoning people of large estates was one employed largely in the middle ages ; adulteration of food of people of small estates is one employed largely now. All these come under the general head of sciences or arts of getting rich.
    So the economist in calling his science the science of getting rich must attach some ideas of limitation to its character. Let us assume that he means his science to be the science of ‘getting rich by legal or just means’. In this definition is the word ‘just’ or ‘legal’ finally to stand ? For it is possible that proceedings may be legal which are by no means just. If therefore we leave at last only the word ‘just’ in that place of our definition, it follows that in order to grow rich scientifically, we must grow rich justly ; and therefore know what is just. It is the privilege of the fishes, as it is of rats and wolves, to live by the laws of demand and supply ; but it is the distinction of humanity to live by those of right.
    We have to examine then what are the laws of justice respecting payment of labour.
    Money payment, as stated in my last paper, consists redically in a promise to some person working for us, that for the time and labour he spends in our service today we will give or procure equivalent time and labour in his service at any future time when he may demand it.
    If we promise to give him less labour than he has given us, we under-pay him. If we promise to give him more labour than he has given us, we overpay him.
    In practice, when two men are ready to do the work and only one man wants to have it done, the two men underbid each other for it ; and the one who gets it to do is under-paid. But when two men want the work done and there is only one man ready to do it, the two men who want it done overbid each other, and the workman is over-paid. The central principle of right or just payment lies between these two points of injustice.
    Inasmuch as labour rightly directed is fruitful just as seed is, the fruit (or ‘interest’ as it is called) of the labour first given, or ‘advanced’, ought to be taken into account and balanced by an additional quantity of labour in the subsequent repayment. Therefore the typical form of bargain will be: if you give me an hour today, I will give you an hour and five minutes on demand. If you give me a pound of bread today, I will give you seventeen ounces on demand and so on.
    Now if two men are ready to do the work and if I employ one who offers to work at half price he will be half-starved while the other man will be left out of employment. Even if I pay due wages to the workman chosen by me, the other man will be unemployed. But then my workman will not have to starve, and I shall have made a just use of my money. If I pay due wages to my man, I shall not be able to amass unnecessary riches, to waste money on luxuries and to add to the mass of poverty in the world. The workman who receives due wages from me will act justly to his subordinates. Thus the stream of justice will not dry up, but gather strength as it flows onward. And the nation with such a sense of justice will be happy and prosperous.
    We thus find that the economists are wrong in thinking that competition is good for a nation. Competition only enables the purchaser to obtain his labour unjustly cheap, with the result that the rich grow richer and the poor poorer. In the long run it can only lead the nation to ruin. A workman should receive a just wage according to his ability. Even then there will be competition of a sort, but the people will be happy and skilful, because they will not have to underbid one another, but to acquire new skills in order to secure employment. This is the secret of the attractiveness of government services in which salaries are fixed according to the gradation of posts. The candidate for it does not offer to work with a lower salary but only claims that he is abler than his competitors. The same is the case in the army and in the navy, where there is little corruption. But in trade and manufacture there is oppressive competition, which results in fraud, chicanery and theft. Rotten goods are manufactured. The manufacturer, the labourer, the consumer, – each is mindful of his own interest. This poisons all human intercourse. Labourers starve and go on strike. Manufacturers become rogues and consumers too neglect the ethical aspect of their own conduct. One injustice leads to may others, and in the end the employer, the operative and the customer are all unhappy and go to rack and ruin. The very wealth of the people acts among them as a cures.
    Nothing in history has been so disgraceful to human intellect as the acceptance among us of the common doctrines of economics as a science. I know no previous instance in history of a nation’s establishing a systematic disobedience to the first principle of its professed religion.
    The writings which we (verbally) esteem as divine not only denounce the love of money as the source of all evil, and as an idolatry abhorred of the deity, but declare mammon service to be the accurate and irreconcilable opposite of God’s service ; and whenever they speak of riches absolute and poverty absolute, declare woe to the rich and blessing to the poor.
    True economics is the economics of justice.
    People will be happy in so far as they learn to do justice and be righteous. All else is not only vain but leads straight to destruction. To teach the people to get rich by hook or by crook is to do them an immense disservice.

    Essay IV: Ad valorem

    We have seen how the ideas upon which political economy is based are misleading. Translated into action they can only make the individual and the nation unhappy. They make the poor poorer and the rich richer and none are any the happier for it.
    Economics do not take the conduct of men into account but hold that the accumulation of wealth is the sign of prosperity, and that the happiness of nations depends upon their wealth alone. The more factories, the merrier. Thus men leave village farms with their spring winds and coming to cities, live diminished lives in the midst of noise, of darkness, and of deadly exhalation. This leads to deterioration of the national physique, and to increasing avarice and immorality. If some one talks of steps to be taken to eradicate vice, so-called wise men will say that it is of no use at all that the poor should receive education and that it is best to let things alone. They however forget that the rich are responsible for the immorality of the poor, who work like slaves in order to supply them with their luxuries, and have not a moment which they can call their own for self-betterment. Envying the rich, the poor also try to be rich, and when they fail in this effort, they are angry. They then lose their senses, and try to make money by force of fraud. Thus both wealth and labour are barren of all fruit or else are utilized for chicanery.
    Labour in the real sense of the term is that which produces useful articles. Useful articles are those which support human life, such as food, clothes or houses, and enable men to perfect the functions of their own lives to the utmost and also to exercise a helpful influence over the lives of others. The establishment of big factories with a view to getting rich may lead a person into sin. Many people amass riches but few make a good use of it. Accumulated wealth which leads to the destruction of a nation is of no earthly use. The capitalists of modern times are responsible for wide spread and unjust wars which originate from the covetousness of mankind.
    Some people say that it is not possible to impart knowledge so as to ameliorate the condition of the masses ; let us therefore live as seems fit and amass riches. But this is an immoral attitude. For the good man who observes ethical rules and does not give way to greed has a disciplined mind, does not stray from the right path, and influences others by his acts. If the individuals who constitute a nation are immoral, so is the nation too. If we behave as we choose and at the same time take our neighbours to task for their wrongdoing, the results can only be disappointing.
    We thus see that money is only an instrument which makes for misery as well as happiness. In the hands of a good man it helps in the cultivation of land and the harvesting of crops. Cultivators work in innocent contentment and the nation is happy. But in the hands of a bad man, money helps to produce say gunpowder which works havoc among its manufacturers as well as among its victims. Therefore THERE IS NO WEALTH BUT LIFE. That country is the richest which nourishes the greatest number of noble and happy human beings ; that man is richest who, having perfected the functions of his own life to the utmost, has also the widest helpful influence, both personal and by means of his possessions, over the lives of others.
    This is not a time for self-indulgence but for each of us to labour according to our capacity. If one man lives in idleness, another has to put in a double amount of work. This is at the root of the distress of the poor in England. Some so-called work is nugatory as in jewel-cutting and even destructive as in war. It brings about a diminution in the national capital, and is not beneficial to the worker himself. It seems as if men are employed, but really they are idle. The rich oppress the poor by misuse of riches. Employers and employees are at daggers drawn with one another, and men are reduced to the level of beasts.

    Conclusion

    Ruskin’s book thus paraphrased has a lesson for Indians no less than for the Englishmen to whom it was primarily addressed. New ideas are in the air in India. Our young men who have received Western education are full of spirit. This spirit should be directed into the right channels, as otherwise it can only do us harm. ‘Let us have Swaraj’ is one slogan ; ‘Let us industrialize the country’ is another.
    But we hardly understand what Swaraj is. Natal for instance enjoys Swaraj but her Swaraj stinks in our nostrils, for she crushes the negroes, and oppresses the Indians. If by some chance the negroes and the Indians left Natal, its white men would fight among themselves and bring about their own destruction.
    If not like Natal’s will we have Swaraj as in the Transvaal one of whose leaders, General Smuts, breaks his promises, says one thing and does another ? He has dispensed with the services of English policemen and employed Afrikanders instead. I do not think that this is going to help any of the nationalities in the long run. Selfish men will loot their own people, when there are no more ‘outsiders’ left to be looted.
    Thus Swaraj is not enough to make a nation happy. What would be the result of Swaraj being conferred on a band of robbers ? They would be happy only if they were placed under the control of a good man who was not a robber himself. The United States, England and France for instance are powerful States, but there is no reason to think that they are really happy.
    Swaraj really means self-control. Only he is capable of self-control who observes the rules of morality, does not cheat or give up truth, and does his duty to his parents, wife and children, servants and neighbours. Such a man is in enjoyment of Swaraj, no matter where he lives. A state enjoys Swaraj if it can boast of a large number of such good citizens.
    It is not right that one people should rule another. British rule in India is an evil, but let us not run away with the idea that all will be well when the British quit India.
    The existence of British rule in the country is due to our disunity, immorality and ignorance. If these national defects were overcome, not only would the British leave India without a shot being fired but we would be enjoying real Swaraj.
    Some foolish Indians rejoice in bomb-throwing, but if all the Britishers in the country were thus killed, the killers would become the rulers of India who would only have a change of masters. The bomb now thrown at Englishmen will be aimed at Indians after the English are there no longer. It was a Frenchman who murdered the President of the French Republic. It was an American who murdered President Cleveland. Let us not blindly imitate Western people.
    If Swaraj cannot be attained by the sin of killing Englishmen, it cannot be attained either by the erection of huge factories. Gold and silver may be accumulated but they will not lead to the establishment of Swaraj. Ruskin has proved this to the hilt. Western civilization is a mere baby, a hundred or only fifty years old. And yet it has reduced Europe to a sorry plight. Let us pray that India is saved from the fate that has overtaken Europe, where the nations are poised for an attack on one another, and are silent only because of the stockpiling of armaments. Some day there will be an explosion, and then Europe will be a veritable hell on earth. Non-white races are looked upon as legitimate prey by every European state. What else can we expect where covetousness is the ruling passion in the breasts of men ? Europeans pounce upon new territories like crows upon a piece of meat. I am inclined to think that this is due to their mass-production factories.
    India must indeed have Swaraj but she must have it by righteous methods. Our Swaraj must be real Swaraj, which cannot be attained by either violence or industrialization. India was once a golden land, because Indians then had hearts of gold. The land is still the same but it is a desert because we are corrupt. It can become a land of gold again only if the base metal of our present national character is transmuted into gold. The philosopher’s stone which can effect this (1) transformation is a little word of two syllables – Satya (Truth). If every Indian sticks to truth, Swaraj will come to us of its own accord.
    (1) Institutions,’ says Herbert Spencer, ‘are dependent on character ; and however changed in their superficial aspects, cannot be changed in their essential natures faster than character changes.’


     
c
Compose new post
j
Next post/Next comment
k
Previous post/Previous comment
r
Reply
e
Edit
o
Show/Hide comments
t
Go to top
l
Go to login
h
Show/Hide help
shift + esc
Cancel