Sophisms of the Protectionists Part 13

"Labor," he says, "const.i.tutes _the whole_ wealth of a nation.

Protection should be for the agricultural interest, and _the whole_ agricultural interest; for the manufacturing interest, and _the whole_ manufacturing interest; and this principle I will continually endeavor to impress upon this Chamber."

The pet.i.tioners consider no labor but that of the manufacturers, and accordingly, it is that, and that alone, which they would wish to admit to the favors of protection.

"Raw material being entirely _untouched by human labor_, our system should exempt it from taxes. Manufactured articles furnis.h.i.+ng no material for national labor, we consider as the most fit for taxation."

There is no question here as to the propriety of protecting national labor. Mr. de Saint Cricq and the Bordalese agree entirely upon this point. We have, in our preceding chapters, already shown how entirely we differ from both of them.

The question to be determined, is, whether it is Mr. de Saint Cricq, or the Bordalese, who give to the word _labor_ its proper acceptation. And we must confess that Mr. de Saint Cricq is here decidedly in the right.

The following dialogue might be supposed between them:

_Mr. de Saint Cricq._--You agree that national labor ought to be protected. You agree that no foreign labor can be introduced into our market, without destroying an equal quant.i.ty of our national labor. But you contend that there are numerous articles of merchandise possessing _value_, for they are sold, and which are nevertheless _untouched by human labor_. Among these you name corn, flour, meat, cattle, bacon, salt, iron, copper, lead, coal, wool, skins, seeds, etc.

If you can prove to me, that the _value_ of these things is not dependent upon labor, I will agree that it is useless to protect them.

But if I can prove to you that there is as much labor put upon a hundred francs worth of wool, as upon a hundred francs worth of cloth, you ought to acknowledge that protection is the right as much of the one, as of the other.

I ask you then why this bag of wool is worth a hundred francs? Is it not because this is its price of production? And what is the price of production, but the sum which has been distributed in wages for labor, payment of skill, and interest on money, among the various laborers and capitalists, who have a.s.sisted in the production of the article?

_The Pet.i.tioners._--It is true that with regard to wool you may be right; but a bag of corn, a bar of iron, a hundred weight of coal, are these the produce of labor? Is it not nature which _creates_ them?

_Mr. de St. Cricq._--Without doubt, nature _creates_ these substances, but it is labor which gives them their _value_. I have myself, in saying that labor _creates_ material objects, used a false expression, which has led me into many farther errors. No man can _create_. No man can bring any thing from nothing; and if _production_ is used as a synonym for _creation_, then indeed our labor must all be useless.

The agriculturist does not pretend that he has _created_ the corn; but he has given it its _value_. He has by his own labor, and by that of his servants, his laborers, and his reapers, transformed into corn substances which were entirely dissimilar from it. What more is effected by the miller who converts it into flour, or by the baker who makes it into bread?

In order that a man may be dressed in cloth, numerous operations are first necessary. Before the intervention of any human labor, the real _primary materials_ of this article are air, water, heat, gas, light, and the various salts which enter into its composition. These are indeed _untouched by human labor_, for they have no _value_, and I have never dreamed of their needing protection. But a first _labor_ converts these substances into forage; a second into wool; a third into thread; a fourth into cloth; and a fifth into garments. Who can pretend to say, that all these contributions to the work, from the first furrow of the plough, to the last st.i.tch of the needle, are not _labor_?

And because, for the sake of speed and greater perfection in the accomplishment of the final object, these various branches of labor are divided among as many cla.s.ses of workmen, you, by an arbitrary distinction, determine that the order in which the various branches of labor follow each other shall regulate their importance, so that while the first is not allowed to merit the name of labor, the last shall receive all the favors of protection.

_The Pet.i.tioners._--Yes, we begin to understand that neither wool nor corn are entirely _independent of human labor_; but certainly the agriculturist has not, like the manufacturer, had every thing to do by his own labor, and that of his workmen; nature has a.s.sisted him; and if there is some labor, at least all is not labor, in the production of corn.

_Mr. de St. Cricq._--But it is the labor alone which gives it _value_. I grant that nature has a.s.sisted in the production of grain. I will even grant that it is exclusively her work; but I must confess at least that I have constrained her to it by my labor. And remark, moreover, that when I sell my corn, it is not the _work of nature_ which I make you pay for, but _my own_.

You will perceive, also, by following up your manner of arguing, that neither will manufactured articles be the production of labor. Does not the manufacturer also call upon nature to a.s.sist him? Does he not by the a.s.sistance of steam-machinery force into his service the weight of the atmosphere, as I, by the use of the plough, take advantage of its humidity? Is it the cloth-manufacturer who has created the laws of gravitation, transmission of forces and of affinities?

_The Pet.i.tioners._--Well, well, we will give up wool, but a.s.suredly coal is the work, the exclusive work, of nature. This, at least, is _independent of all human labor_.

_Mr. de St. Cricq._--Yes, nature certainly has made coal; but _labor has made its value_. Where was the _value_ of coal during the millions of years when it lay unknown and buried a hundred feet below the surface of the earth? It was necessary to seek it. Here was labor. It was necessary to transport it to a market. Again this was labor. The price which you pay for coal in the market is the remuneration given to these labors of digging and transportation.[13]

[Footnote 13: I do not, for many reasons, make explicit mention of such portion of the remuneration as belongs to the contractor, capitalist, etc. Firstly: because, if the subject be closely looked into, it will be seen that it is always either the reimbursing in advance, or the payment of anterior _labor_. Secondly: because, under the general labor, I include not only the salary of the workmen, but the legitimate payment of all co-operation in the work of production. Thirdly: finally, and above all, because the production of the manufactured articles is, like that of the raw material, burdened with interests and remunerations, entirely independent of _manual labor_; and that the objection, in itself, might be equally applied to the finest manufacture and to the roughest agricultural process.]

We see that, so far, all the advantage is on the side of Mr. de St.

Cricq, and that the _value_ of unmanufactured as of manufactured articles, represents always the expense, or what is the same thing, the _labor_ of production; that it is impossible to conceive of an article bearing a _value, independent of human labor_; that the distinction made by the pet.i.tioners is futile in theory, and, as the basis of an unequal division of favors, would be iniquitous in practice; for it would thence result that the one-third of the French occupied in manufactures, would receive all the benefits of monopoly, because they produce _by labor_; while the two other thirds, formed by the agricultural population, would be left to struggle against compet.i.tion, under pretense that they produce _without labor_.

It will, I know, be insisted that it is advantageous to a nation to import the raw material, whether or not it be the result of labor; and to export manufactured articles. This is a very generally received opinion.

"In proportion," says the pet.i.tion of Bordeaux, "as raw material is abundant, manufactures will increase and flourish."

"The abundance of raw material," it elsewhere says, "gives an unlimited scope to labor in those countries where it prevails."

"Raw material," says the pet.i.tion from Havre, "being the element of labor, should be _regulated on a different system_, and ought to be admitted _immediately_ and at the _lowest rate_."

The same pet.i.tion asks, that the protection of manufactured articles should be reduced, not _immediately_, but at some indeterminate time, not to the _lowest rate_ of entrance, but to twenty per cent.

"Among other articles," says the pet.i.tion of Lyons, "of which the low price and the abundance are necessary, the manufacturers name all _raw material_."

All this is based upon error.

All _value_ is, we have seen, the representative of labor. Now it is undoubtedly true that manufacturing labor increases ten-fold, a hundred-fold, the value of raw material, thus dispensing ten, a hundred-fold increased profits throughout the nation; and from this fact is deduced the following argument: The production of a hundred weight of iron, is the gain of only fifteen francs to the various workers therein engaged. This hundred weight of iron, converted into watch-springs, is increased in value by this process, ten thousand francs. Who can pretend that the nation is not more interested in securing the ten thousand francs, than the fifteen francs worth of labor?

In this reasoning it is forgotten, that international exchanges are, no more than individual exchanges, effected through weight and measure. The exchange is not between a hundred weight of unmanufactured iron, and a hundred weight of watch-springs, nor between a pound of wool just shorn, and a pound of wool just manufactured into cashmere, but between a fixed value in one of these articles, and a fixed equal value in another. To exchange equal value with equal value, is to exchange equal labor with equal labor, and it is therefore not true that the nation which sells its hundred francs worth of cloth or of watch-springs, gains more than the one which furnishes its hundred francs worth of wool or of iron.

In a country where no law can be pa.s.sed, no contribution imposed without the consent of the governed, the public can be robbed, only after it has first been cheated. Our own ignorance is the primary, the _raw material_ of every act of extortion to which we are subjected, and it may safely be predicted of every _Sophism_, that it is the forerunner of an act of Spoliation. Good Public, whenever therefore you detect a Sophism in a pet.i.tion, let me advise you, put your hand upon your pocket, for be a.s.sured, it is that which is particularly the point of attack.

Let us then examine what is the secret design which the s.h.i.+p-owners of Bordeaux and Havre, and the manufacturers of Lyons, would smuggle in upon us by this distinction between agricultural produce and manufactured produce.

"It is," say the pet.i.tioners of Bordeaux, "princ.i.p.ally in this first cla.s.s (that which comprehends raw material, _untouched by human labor_) that we find _the princ.i.p.al encouragement of our merchant vessels_.... A wise system of political economy would require that this cla.s.s should not be taxed.... The second cla.s.s (articles which have received some preparation) may be considered as taxable. The third (articles which have received from labor all the finish of which they are capable) we regard as _most proper for taxation_."

"Considering," say the pet.i.tioners of Havre, "that it is indispensable to reduce _immediately_ and to the _lowest rate_, the raw material, in order that manufacturing industry may give employment to our merchant vessels, which furnish its first and indispensable means of labor."

The manufacturers could not allow themselves to be behindhand in civilities towards the s.h.i.+p-owners, and accordingly the pet.i.tion of Lyons demands the free introduction of raw material, "in order to prove," it remarks, "that the interests of manufacturing towns are not opposed to those of maritime cities."

This may be true enough; but it must be confessed that both, taken in the sense of the pet.i.tioners, are terribly adverse to the interest of agriculture and of consumers.

This, then, gentlemen, is the aim of all your subtle distinctions! You wish the law to oppose the maritime transportation of _manufactured_ articles, in order that the much more expensive transportation of the raw material should, by its larger bulk, in its rough, dirty and unimproved condition, furnish a more extensive business to your _merchant vessels_. And this is what you call a _wise system of political economy_!

Why not also pet.i.tion for a law requiring that fir-trees, imported from Russia, should not be admitted without their branches, bark, and roots; that Mexican gold should be imported in the state of ore, and Buenos Ayres leathers only allowed an entrance into our ports, while still hanging to the dead bones and putrefying bodies to which they belong?

The stockholders of railroads, if they can obtain a majority in the Chambers, will no doubt soon favor us with a law forbidding the manufacture, at Cognac, of the brandy used in Paris. For, surely, they would consider it a wise law, which would, by forcing the transportation of ten casks of wine instead of one of brandy, thus furnish to Parisian industry an _indispensable encouragement to its labor_, and, at the same time, give employment to railroad locomotives!

Until when will we persist in shutting our eyes upon the following simple truth?

Labor and industry, in their general object, have but one legitimate aim, and this is the public good. To create useless industrial pursuits, to favor superfluous transportation, to maintain a superfluous labor, not for the good of the public, but at the expense of the public, is to act upon a _pet.i.tio principii_. For it is the result of labor, and not labor itself, which is a desirable object. All labor, without a result, is clear loss. To pay sailors for transporting rough dirt and filthy refuse across the ocean, is about as reasonable as it would be to engage their services, and pay them for pelting the water with pebbles.

Thus we arrive at the conclusion that _political Sophisms_, notwithstanding their infinite variety, have one point in common, which is the constant confounding of the _means_ with the _end_, and the development of the former at the expense of the latter.

XXII.

METAPHORS.

A Sophism will sometimes expand and extend itself through the whole tissue of a long and tedious theory. Oftener it contracts into a principle, and hides itself in one word.

"Heaven preserve us," said Paul Louis, "from the Devil and from the spirit of metaphor!" And, truly, it might be difficult to determine which of the two sheds the most noxious influence over our planet. The Devil, you will say, because it is he who implants in our hearts the spirit of spoliation. Aye; but he leaves the capacity for checking abuses, by the resistance of those who suffer. It is the genius of Sophism which paralyzes this resistance. The sword which the spirit of evil places in the hands of the aggressor, would fall powerless, if the s.h.i.+eld of him who is attacked were not shattered in his grasp by the spirit of Sophism. Malbranche has, with great truth, inscribed upon the frontispiece of his book this sentence: _Error is the cause of human misery_.

Let us notice what pa.s.ses in the world. Ambitious hypocrites may take a sinister interest in spreading, for instance, the germ of national enmities. The noxious seed may, in its developments, lead to a general conflagration, check civilization, spill torrents of blood, and draw upon the country that most terrible of scourges, _invasion_. Such hateful sentiments cannot fail to degrade, in the opinion of other nations, the people among whom they prevail, and force those who retain some love of justice to blush for their country. These are fearful evils, and it would be enough that the public should have a clear view of them, to induce them to secure themselves against the plotting of those who would expose them to such heavy chances. How, then, are they kept in darkness? How, but by metaphors? The meaning of three or four words is forced, changed, and depraved--and all is said.