On this page
-
Text (1)
-
Untitled Article
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
-
-
Transcript
-
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.
Untitled Article
till the appropriate seed has ripened into the appointed harvest . " " Patient because eternal . " All this is excellently said . Let us pursue the enquiry on those conditions ; I invite you to do it . But if you do so you will find that your claim on behalf of the " thinkers , " or the ceconomisls of the old school , as contradistinguished from the ** feelers" or the Communists , is Very inaccurate . Contrasting the ' * feelers ** with the ** thinkers /* you say : ± - ¦ '
•• Far diflfereti ' t is the course of the latter class : their life is spent iri a laborious research into remote and hidden causes ^ in -a patient and painful analysia of the operation of--principles froth the misapplication or forgetfulness of which our social disorders have sprung ; in sowing seed ? and . elucidating laws , that are to destroy the evil at a distant date which they themselves may never Bee , —ifhile sortie ' tiities its pressure may be aggravated during the p « ribd which ; they do see . . . . . . .
«< Little do the mer ^ e impulsive philanthropists-know , and ill can they appreciate , ' the strenuous effort , the stern and systematic self-control by which the votary of ceconomic science , the benevolent man of principle , keeps his head cool and clear i « the midst , of the miseries he is called upon to contemplate ; and the resolute nerve which is needed to throw cold water on the mischievous jsohemes of sanguine , and compassionate contrivers . While these men' rush , fiercely ( ra , social evils , fancying it possible to sweep them 'away by a coup de main , and always insist , upon scrambling , out of the bog on the wrong side simply because it is the nearest , "
¦ . Jfow .. J for one , assureyoja that I never rushed fiercely on a social . ey ^ 'A ; nor " insisted upon scrambling oui ; of the bog on the , wrong side * . Yau da not seem to be awafq of the fact that many Communists at tie present day hayie been stuae ^ ts , of Political ( Economy ; that there are some of us , indeed , whotrace our theoretical pedigree , not less than yourseif , ; up J » . Adam Smith .. To use your own words , yjuu shqu , ld have t ^ k ^ n " due pains in the first instance , to as * i » re yourselfv , of | he unexaggerated correctiiesig iQf . thes ^ f ^ cts . " And you might usefully urge that injunction upon many of your brother ceconornists ; tor you are mistaken if you think that they uniformly follow that rule : in
Head , for example ,, what . Mr ^ Porter says his Progress of ike Nation , nofpigeon-breeding . and idleness as fertile causes of , ( he poverty in Spitalfiejds ! I will not ,. however , make you answerable for the , rashness and imperfect logic of all standard ceconomists ; and you . will yourself ; outgrow the habit of doing so in regard to Communists when you have become a little more familiar with , the subst 4 nce , the , i / i / iny which , they are endeavouring to make out , and are less daazled « r diverted from your purpose by the mere trivialities , or laxities in what they sap . As to "due pairs '' of every kind , we may . all of . us improve ; and you and I , who are aware ' of these necessities , ought especially to beware of rashness in judgment .
We are , however , making decided progress . You and I—to borrow your ow * l words—agree « that the world caanevttr have been intended to be , and will not long remain , what it is . " You admit ' the associative principlo . sofnrasit iaapplied to working associations , and 8 © Jong as "these schemes are not announced a » great discoveries and mighty ' engines for the rescue and redemption of « ociety "; and you allow more generally that' " the doctrines of Com * nmnisMi or Sociulism have acquired an importance , and spread to an extent which entitle them to Berious and uispassipiutto consideration . " What I should most , . desire atudents , bo ; earnest and candid
as yourself to dp would be , nof . to , discuss the " right" or " wrong ?' , as ^ matter of controversy between you . and , jm « jr-w ; haj ; duet * it matter which of us shftfl bo ' \' n ^ , Xhq r ' mhV ' ' l—UvtiXo cwmceutrate your attention upon the great social question—What is the necessity which impels inea to these Communistic imprife ; what'it ! th'd na ture of the sense which . suggests CouuuuujIkw us ajL-emudy for social « ViJh ? , 'A'he coiifirnoatioU ' qv refutation of
Coinujunitm i must equally lie in the un * iw « r to thoao two < fuestioria . That there in , some distinct motive , apart frorn " warit , " whicj * has not sriggegtud the jjoetririe ; in tre ^ ihu , ' c > r from mere , tyranny , which has not inade 0 ommunUite of the artisan * in Egypt , is apparent from i « ueh facts . The want , whatever it i » , tlrnn f * h by largo and emnreaahig numbers , not < mly tunou ^ tbb bookmen qt London , Vwy , uud iVow Ymk , but . . muong the peoples of Kngliuui , 1 ' rauce , Gonnivuy , aud tho United . States * must indicate . * hia one remedy . You suy thut that remedy is wrongj y adumbrated by SoicMliuin j but you
might very usefull y employ your labours in extract nig frtuu !(} i ( B uiasM of ^ UcurUy and orrov U »« true Uuuif midemeutb , the subtelw * of that orro * nemis doctrine . > You who s ' o , heartily ^ mt , the evfa ^ d Uw inevitable change , cannot seriously take the
remedies which you indicate here and there as sufficient . You propose that some ** lady or gentleman , " instead of " rushing wildly to join or found a society for sending distressed needlewomen out of the country , should take in hand the individual case , * ' and put these poor girls in the way of regular employment . You " advise that " each lady who subscribes a hundred pounds to Governess's Benevolent Institutions " should "keep her eye fixed upon two or three individual governesses" instead . You also appear to have in view ** a remodelling of human nature by Divine or Christian influences ;
and , " you add in italic type , " when this remodel ling has been achieved , all systems will become indifferent , for the evils of all systems will be wiped away . " It appears to me , from the context , that you indicate some millennial state of things , worked out through Political CEconomy of the old School and Christianity : now , are the two compatible ? You will not accuse me of resorting to cant when I say that the whole spirit of the hard self-reliance dogma of Political ( Economy , and the whole spirit
of the religion preached by Jesus , whose teachers and whose disciples were actually Communists in practice , are so incompatible , that no one man can , in sane reason , adhere to both—you must give up Christianity or that imperfect Political CEconomy . If Political CEconomy is true , Jesus preached what is not sense . I grant that the practice of English statesmen is more guided by the doctrine of Scotch philosophy than that of Jesus ; but how do you , who stand upon logic , stick to both ?
I observe , however , that you place Political CEconomy in a curious position . You emphatically deny that it " has hitherto had it all its own way , " and you have a page to show that in practical life , and , in fact , Political CEconomy , has not ruled " this anomalous and enigmatic world . " "It is difficult , " you say , "to name a single precept of that science which has not been lost sight of or habitually contravened . " You , therefore , place Political CEeonomy on an equality with Communism , a 3 a theory in books which has never yet been carried out in the practice of life ; a theory , in fact , which
is competing on equal terms with the opposite theory . You assert , indeed , that the truth of " those principles of purely ceconomic science is confirmed alike by every instance of conformity , and every instance of disobedience "; but , unless you were to explain clearly and fully some anomalies that we Communists observe in practical life , you cannot expect this assertion to be taken for granted . Can you tell by what specific breach of ceconomical laws Paisley sank again to poverty , after recovering from its depression on the demand for Paisley shawls ? You may say ihat Paisley , in the first instance , bad been " over-peopled *'; but ,
if we are to trust to the laws of supply and demand , the demand for Paisley shawls justified the amount of population in Paisley ; and we do not know by what fault of the Paisley people they lost their commerce , since they could not see that capricious Fashion , the instigator of " demand , " would suddenly transfer its passion from eober grey to the more lively Yorkshire shawl . Did it never occur to you that there is some striking significance in this fact , which you so candidly mention — the " systematic violation of the principles of Political ( Economy" ? Possibly it might be that the theoretical laws of that science are not workable .
Any laws advocated with so much ability and so much consentaneouaness in the influential clans of public writers as Political ( Keonomy has been , could scarcely have been so systematically neglected and violated unlesa there had been some oasential impracticability ; and what I contend is , that the imperfect Political ( Economy of your school is essentially impracticable and imperfect . It calls upon us to abrogate the most powerful natural inntinctK , uhd it teaches us to convert commerce into a
struggle between nation and nation , between man and man , instead of cultivating a common understanding , a concert in labour . It is counter to nature , and rude in its advice . You are very much mistaken , however , in supposing that Cunuuuuism is sorriething opposed or adverse to real Political ( Economy ; an « 3 the supposition is one of the strong pumuinptionu which pervade your excellently intended If view it in
paper . you a less prejudiced point of view , you will perceive that , right or wrong , Communism Jb a cliapter added to the old book oi Political ( Economy . When we had advanced no further than the writers who have followed Adam Smith , Free Trade was properly the ultimate condition of the science ; and it \ h perfectly tiut ; thut trade ow / kc to bo free , liut it i « Uii c . vca « Uiutfly crude notion of uicononiy thut trade cun he the
general regulator of practical life , of the intercourse between individuals and nations , and even of industry . Trade relates solely to exchanges , and although the laws of trade must harmonize with those of production and Bupply , they must be in point of fact subordinate to the vital conditions and to the industrial faculties of mankind . We can have industry and provision for human wants without trade . Such things have been in the world ; and although commerce is a facility , it is as little a final law as it is a final end . Even partial truth , however , will accord with whole truth ;
and Communism does not gainsay that trade should be free , as trade . Communism , in fact , would carry freedom a great deal further r it would contend that there has been too much lawmaking in society , and that we may revert with advantage to simpler and more primitive master laws . It would argue that not only should trade be free but also the two great sources of trade , land and labour ; not only trade which is the active process of distribution , but also that other passive half of distribu * tion , property . Habituated to carry it out , in theory , •' all their own way" —for the Protection theory was an adversary not worth counting—the (
Economists of the old school have so far fallen asleep over their materials as to forget that much of what they see around them is not natural but artificial— - that the exclusion of the People from the land , for example , is not a natural , but an artificial result of laws ; that the labourer is labouring under laws that force him to work yet fetter him in his mode of working ; and that even the laws that erect pio « perty into an institution are artificial . A sense that Political CEconomy has hitherto been imperfect has been marked in some of its most distinguished professors , especially among the younger ; and the tendency of all these most cultivated enquirers is to make additions to the old book of Political
CEconomy drawn from the suggestions of Communism . William Thornton clean departs from the simple reliance on trade , and demands oeconomical arrangements specially devised for the benefit of the living men and women in a land . He says , indeed , that the cultivation of small farms is good ceconomy ; but it is a great departure from the old ideas of were free trade . John Stuart Mill has made still more striking innovations upon the old doctrine : it was a great innovation to recognize " custom" as one of the chief instigators of industry , besides the spur of necessity or want ; and Mill positively advocates association . Kdward
Gibbon Wakefield , who has surveyed the doctrines of oeconomy and the field of active life in the comprehensive glance of a statesman , has declared , in writing , that the day will tome for Chartism and Socialism ; and he has been heard to remark , with his characteristic sagacity , that the Communists were wrong in arguing their doctrine on the basis of systems , for that they ought to turn their energies upon the discussion of the fundamental prin ~ cip le from which Communism takes its rise . This ia precisely what the Communists of our day are beginning to do , and the lidhdmnjh Review is very usefully following and aiding them in the
discus-. You qnote a passage from what I say on the principle of concert in the division of employments , and you accuse me of " mixing up things totally distinct , as the produce of labour with the distribution of that produce " : this is an interesting example of the the habit of thinking , according to a certain fashion , that makes ho acute a writer as yourself unable to look at . simple realities , until they are translated for you into the jargon of y our school , or into scientific diagrams totally . stripped of original living nature—poor nature , by which Fuseli and Political ( Economists have been so
" put out 1 My fundamental position is thin : — The firKt thing for us to consider is the well hdng , in body and feeling , of the living crcatin-cN who are born to the earth ; and we must consider that substantial well-being in body and heart bd ' oie " the advancement ol the nation , " which generally weans the luxury and dignity of particular classes ; or " the advancement of commerce , " which nieann the multiplication of goods , many of them not a I , all necessary . An Englishman ou his piece of land is able to provide for himself , mate , and
progeny , us we see in other quarters oi the globe : when hi » industry produces its fruitn , h « lias a . right to retain thottc fruits until the equivnleot'W ^ rendered to him ; and while artificial hiws ,, tk ^ mit » n > i iCnglidluniin from Ktiuiding on hi * l » n < f / 'HMmgf l »* Aj ' hands upon it . and grasping iH MUM ^ thW list , Society in bound to provide lnm miii-th « J «|« ri <* . ' valent—the opportunity of obtaining- subsistence
Untitled Article
Jan . 25 , 1 & 51 . ] * Wtit 3 L tditt . . . 83
-
-
Citation
-
Leader (1850-1860), Jan. 25, 1851, page 83, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/l/issues/vm2-ncseproduct1867/page/11/
-