按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
As between the different districts of one and the same country；
so does the division of labour and the co…operation of the
productive powers operate between the various nations of the earth。
The former is conducted by internal or national； the latter by
international commerce。 The international co…operation of
productive powers is； however； a very imperfect one； inasmuch as it
may be frequently interrupted by wars； political regulations；
commercial crises； &c。 Although it is the most important in one
sense； inasmuch as by it the various nations of the earth are
connected with one another； it is nevertheless the least important
with regard to the prosperity of any separate nation which is
already far advanced in civilisation。 This is admitted by writers
of the popular school； who declare that the home market of a nation
is without comparison more important than its foreign market。 It
follows from this； that it is the interest of every great nation to
make the national confederation of its productive powers the main
object of its exertions； and to consider their international
confederation as second in importance to it。
Both international and national division of labour are chiefly
determined by climate and by Nature herself。 We cannot produce in
every country tea as in China； spices as in Java； cotton as in
Louisiana； or corn； wool； fruit； and manufactured goods as in the
countries of the temperate zone。 It would be folly for a nation to
attempt to supply itself by means of national division of labour
（i。e。 by home production） with articles for the production of which
it is not favoured by nature； and which it can procure better and
cheaper by means of international division of labour （i。e。 through
foreign commerce）。 And just as much does it betoken a want of
national intelligence or national industry if a nation does not
employ all the natural powers which it possesses in order to
satisfy its own internal wants； and then by means of the surplus of
its own productions to purchase those necessary articles which
nature has forbidden it to produce on its own territory。
The countries of the world most favoured by nature； with regard
to both national and international division of labour； are
evidently those whose soil brings forth the most common necessaries
of life of the best quality and in the largest quantity； and whose
climate is most conducive to bodily and mental exertion； and these
are the countries of the temperate zone； for in these countries the
manufacturing power especially prospers； by means of which the
nation not merely attains to the highest degree of mental and
social development and of political power； but is also enabled to
make the countries of tropical climates and of inferior
civilisation tributary in a certain measure to itself。 The
countries of the temperate zone therefore are above all others
called upon to bring their own national division of labour to the
highest perfection； and to use the international division of labour
for their enrichment。
NOTES：
1。 Wealth of Nations； Book I。 chap。 i。
2。 Wealth of Nations； Book I。 chap。 i。
Chapter 14
Private Economy and National Economy
We have proved historically that the unity of the nation forms
the fundamental condition of lasting national prosperity； and we
have shown that only where the interest of individuals has been
subordinated to those of the nation； and where successive
generations have striven for one and the same object； the nations
have been brought to harmonious development of their productive
powers； and how little private industry can prosper without the
united efforts both of the individuals who are living at the time；
and of successive generations directed to one common object。 We
have further tried to prove in the last chapter how the law of
union of powers exhibits its beneficial operation in the individual
manufactory； and how it acts with equal power on the industry of
whole nations。 In the present chapter we have now to demonstrate
how the popular school has concealed its misunderstanding of the
national interests and of the effects of national union of powers；
by confounding the principles of private economy with those of
national economy。
'What is prudence in the conduct of every private family；' says
Adam Smith；（1*） 'can scarce be folly in that of a great kingdom。'
Every individual in pursuing his own interests necessarily promotes
thereby also the interests of the community。 It is evident that
every individual； inasmuch as he knows his own local circumstances
best and pays most attention to his occupation； is far better able
to judge than the statesman or legislator how his capital can most
profitably be invested。 He who would venture to give advice to the
people how to invest their capital would not merely take upon
himself a useless task； but would also assume to himself an
authority which belongs solely to the producer； and which can be
entrusted to those persons least of all who consider themselves
equal to so difficult a task。 Adam Smith concludes from this：
'Restrictions on trade imposed on the behalf of the internal
industry of a country； are mere folly； every nation； like every
individual； ought to buy articles where they can be procured the
cheapest； in order to attain to the highest degree of national
prosperity； we have simply to follow the maxim of letting things
alone （laisser faire et laisser aller）。' Smith and Say compare a
nation which seeks to promote its industry by protective duties； to
a tailor who wants to make his own boots； and to a bootmaker who
would impose a toll on those who enter his door； in order to
promote his prosperity。 As in all errors of the popular school； so
also in this one does Thomas Cooper go to extremes in his book（2*）
which is directed against the American system of protection。
'Political economy；' he alleges； 'is almost synonymous with the
private economy of all individuals； politics are no essential
ingredient of political economy； it is folly to suppose that the
community is something quite different from the individuals of whom
it is composed。 Every individual knows best how to invest his
labour and his capital。 The wealth of the community is nothing else
than the aggregate of the wealth of all its individual members； and
if every individual can provide best for himself； that nation must
be the richest in which every individual is most left to himself。'
The adherents of the American system of protection had opposed
themselves to this argument； which had formerly been adduced by
importing merchants in favour of free trade； the American
navigation laws had greatly increased the carrying trade； the
foreign commerce； and fisheries of the United States； and for the
mere protection of their mercantile marine millions had been
annually expended on their fleet； according to his theory those
laws and this expense also would be as reprehensible as protective
duties。 ' In any case；' exclaims Mr Cooper； 'no commerce by sea is
worth a naval war； the merchants may be left to protect
themselves。'
Thus the popular school； which had begun by ignoring the
principles of nationality and national interests； finally comes to
the point of altogether denying their existence； and of leaving
individuals to defend them as they may solely by their own
individual powers。
How？ Is the wisdom of private economy； also wisdom in national
economy？ Is it in the nature of individuals to take into
consideration the wants of future centuries； as those concern the
nature of the nation and the State？ Let us consider only the first
beginning of an American town； every individual left to himself
would care merely for his own wants； or at the most for those of
his nearest successors； whereas all individuals united in one
community provide for the convenience and the wants of the most
distant generations； they subject the present generation for this
object to privations and sacrifices which no reasonable person
could expect from individuals。 Can the individual further take into
consideration in promoting his private economy； the defence of the
country； public security and the thousand other objects which can
only be attained by the aid of the whole community？ Does not the
State require individuals to limit their private liberty according