資本論 CHAPTER 33: THE MODERN THEORY OF COLONISATION1

Political

economy

confuses

on

principle

two

very

different

kinds

of

private

property,

of

which

one

rests

on

the

producers'

own

labour,

the

other

on

the

employment

of

the

labour

of

others.

It

forgets

that

the

latter

not

only

is

the

direct

antithesis

of

the

former,

but

absolutely

grows

on

its

tomb

only.In

Western

Europe,

the

home

of

Political

Economy,the

process

of

primitive

accumulation

is

more

of

less

accomplished.

Here

the

capitalist

regime

has

either

directly

conquered

the

whole

domain

of

national

production,

or,

where

economic

conditions

are

less

developed,

it,

at

least,

indirectly

controls

those

strata

of

society

which,

though

belonging

to

the

antiquated

mode

of

production,

continue

to

exist

side

by

side

with

it

in

gradual

decay.

To

this

ready-made

world

of

capital,

the

political

economist

applies

the

notions

of

law

and

of

property

inherited

from

a

pre-capitalistic

world

with

all

the

more

anxious

zeal

and

all

the

greater

unction,

the

more

loudly

the

facts

cry

out

in

the

face

of

his

ideology.

It

is

otherwise

in

the

colonies.There

the

capitalist

regime

everywhere

comes

into

collision

with

the

resistance

of

the

producer,

who,as

owner

of

his

own

conditions

of

labour,

employs

that

labour

to

enrich

himself,

instead

of

the

capitalist.The

contradiction

of

these

two

diametrically

opposed

economic

systems,

manifests

itself

here

practically

in

a

struggle

between

them.

Where

the

capitalist

has

at

his

back

the

power

of

the

mother-country,

he

tries

to

clear

out

of

his

way

by

force

the

modes

of

production

and

appropriation

based

on

the

independent

labour

of

the

producer.

The

same

interest,

which

compels

the

sycophant

of

capital,

the

political

economist,

in

the

mother-country,

to

proclaim

the

theoretical

identity

of

the

capitalist

mode

of

production

with

its

contrary,that

same

interest

compels

him

in

the

colonies

to

make

a

clean

breast

of

it,

and

to

proclaim

aloud

the

antagonism

of

the

two

modes

of

production.

To

this

end,

he

proves

how

the

development

of

the

social

productive

power

of

labour,

co-operation,

division

of

labour,

use

of

machinery

on

a

large

scale,

&c.,

are

impossible

without

the

expropriation

of

the

labourers,and

the

corresponding

transformation

of

their

means

of

production

into

capital.

In

the

interest

of

the

so

called

national

wealth,

he

seeks

for

artificial

means

to

ensure

the

poverty

of

the

people.

Here

his

apologetic

armor

crumbles

off,

bit

by

bit,

like

rotten

touchwood.It

is

the

great

merit

of

E.G.

Wakefield

to

have

discovered,

not

anything

new

about

the

Colonies2,but

to

have

discovered

in

the

Colonies

the

truth

as

to

the

conditions

of

capitalist

production

in

the

mother

country.

As

the

system

of

protection

at

its

origin3attempted

to

manufacture

capitalists

artificially

in

the

mother-country,

so

Wakefield's

colonisation

theory,which

England

tried

for

a

time

to

enforce

by

Acts

of

Parliament,

attempted

to

effect

the

manufacture

of

wage-workers

in

the

Colonies.

This

he

calls\"systematic

colonisation.\"

First

of

all,

Wakefield

discovered

that

in

the

Colonies,property

in

money,

means

of

subsistence,

machines,and

other

means

of

production,

does

not

as

yet

stamp

a

man

as

a

capitalist

if

there

be

wanting

the

correlative–

the

wage-worker,

the

other

man

who

is

compelled

to

sell

himself

of

his

own

free

will.

He

discovered

that

capital

is

not

a

thing,

but

a

social

relation

between

persons,

established

by

the

instrumentality

of

things.4Mr.

Peel,

he

moans,

took

with

him

from

England

to

Swan

River,

West

Australia,

means

of

subsistence

and

of

production

to

the

amount

of

￡50,000.

Mr.

Peel

had

the

foresight

to

bring

with

him,

besides,

300

persons

of

the

working

class,

men,

women,

and

children.

Once

arrived

at

his

destination,

\"Mr.

Peel

was

left

without

a

servant

to

make

his

bed

or

fetch

him

water

from

the

river.\"5Unhappy

Mr.

Peel

who

provided

for

everything

except

the

export

of

English

modes

of

production

to

Swan

River!

For

the

understanding

of

the

following

discoveries

of

Wakefield,

two

preliminary

remarks:

We

know

that

the

means

of

production

and

subsistence,

while

they

remain

the

property

of

the

immediate

producer,

are

not

capital.

They

become

capital

only

under

circumstances

in

which

they

serve

at

the

same

time

as

means

of

exploitation

and

subjection

of

the

labourer.

But

this

capitalist

soul

of

theirs

is

so

intimately

wedded,

in

the

head

of

the

political

economist,

to

their

material

substance,

that

he

christens

them

capital

under

all

circumstances,

even

when

they

are

its

exact

opposite.Thus

is

it

with

Wakefield.

Further:

the

splitting

up

of

the

means

of

production

into

the

individual

property

of

many

independent

labourers,

working

on

their

own

account,

he

calls

equal

division

of

capital.

It

is

with

the

political

economist

as

with

the

feudal

jurist.

The

latter

stuck

on

to

pure

monetary

relations

the

labels

supplied

by

feudal

law.

\"If,\"

says

Wakefield,

\"all

members

of

the

society

are

supposed

to

possess

equal

portions

of

capital...

no

man

would

have

a

motive

for

accumulating

more

capital

than

he

could

use

with

his

own

hands.

This

is

to

some

extent

the

case

in

new

American

settlements,

where

a

passion

for

owning

land

prevents

the

existence

of

a

class

of

labourers

for

hire.\"6So

long,

therefore,

as

the

labourer

can

accumulate

for

himself

–

and

this

he

can

do

so

long

as

he

remains

possessor

of

his

means

of

production

–

capitalist

accumulation

and

the

capitalistic

mode

of

production

are

impossible.

The

class

of

wage

labourers,

essential

to

these,

is

wanting.How,

then,

in

old

Europe,

was

the

expropriation

of

the

labourer

from

his

conditions

of

labour,

i.e.,

the

co

existence

of

capital

and

wage

labour,

brought

aboutBy

a

social

contract

of

a

quite

original

kind.

\"Mankind

have

adopted

a...

simple

contrivance

for

promoting

the

accumulation

of

capital,\"

which,

of

course,

since

the

time

of

Adam,

floated

in

their

imagination,

floated

in

their

imagination

as

the

sole

and

final

end

of

their

existence:

\"they

have

divided

themselves

into

owners

of

capital

and

owners

of

labour....

The

division

was

the

result

of

concert

and

combination.\"7In

one

word:the

mass

of

mankind

expropriated

itself

in

honour

of

the

\"accumulation

of

capital.\"

Now,

one

would

think

that

this

instinct

of

self-denying

fanaticism

would

give

itself

full

fling

especially

in

the

Colonies,

where

alone

exist

the

men

and

conditions

that

could

turn

a

social

contract

from

a

dream

to

a

reality.

But

why,then,

should

\"systematic

colonisation\"

be

called

in

to

replace

its

opposite,

spontaneous,

unregulated

colonisation

But

—

but

—

\"In

the

Northern

States

of

the

American

Union;

it

may

be

doubted

whether

so

many

as

a

tenth

of

the

people

would

fall

under

the

description

of

hired

labourers....

In

England...

the

labouring

class

compose

the

bulk

of

the

people.\"8Nay,

the

impulse

to

self-expropriation

on

the

part

of

labouring

humanity

for

the

glory

of

capital,

exists

so

little

that

slavery,

according

to

Wakefield

himself,is

the

sole

natural

basis

of

Colonial

wealth.

His

systematic

colonisation

is

a

mere

pis

aller,

since

he

unfortunately

has

to

do

with

free

men,

not

with

slaves.\"The

first

Spanish

settlers

in

Saint

Domingo

did

not

obtain

labourers

from

Spain.

But,

without

labourers,their

capital

must

have

perished,

or

at

least,

must

soon

have

been

diminished

to

that

small

amount

which

each

individual

could

employ

with

his

own

hands.

This

has

actually

occurred

in

the

last

Colony

founded

by

England

–

the

Swan

River

Settlement

–

where

a

great

mass

of

capital,

of

seeds,

implements,

and

cattle,

has

perished

for

want

of

labourers

to

use

it,

and

where

no

settler

has

preserved

much

more

capital

than

he

can

employ

with

his

own

hands.\"

9

We

have

seen

that

the

expropriation

of

the

mass

of

the

people

from

the

soil

forms

the

basis

of

the

capitalist

mode

of

production.

The

essence

of

a

free

colony,

on

the

contrary,

consists

in

this

–

that

the

bulk

of

the

soil

is

still

public

property,

and

every

settler

on

it

therefore

can

turn

part

of

it

into

his

private

property

and

individual

means

of

production,

without

hindering

the

later

settlers

in

the

same

operation.10This

is

the

secret

both

of

the

prosperity

of

the

colonies

and

of

their

inveterate

vice

–

opposition

to

the

establishment

of

capital.

\"Where

land

is

very

cheap

and

all

men

are

free,

where

every

one

who

so

pleases

can

easily

obtain

a

piece

of

land

for

himself,

not

only

is

labour

very

dear,

as

respects

the

labourer's

share

of

the

produce,but

the

difficulty

is

to

obtain

combined

labour

at

any

price.\"11

As

in

the

colonies

the

separation

of

the

labourer

from

the

conditions

of

labour

and

their

root,

the

soil,does

not

exist,

or

only

sporadically,

or

on

too

limited

a

scale,

so

neither

does

the

separation

of

agriculture

from

industry

exist,

nor

the

destruction

of

the

household

industry

of

the

peasantry.

Whence

then

is

to

come

the

internal

market

for

capital

\"No

part

of

the

population

of

America

is

exclusively

agricultural,excepting

slaves

and

their

employers

who

combine

capital

and

labour

in

particular

works.

Free

Americans,who

cultivate

the

soil,

follow

many

other

occupations.Some

portion

of

the

furniture

and

tools

which

they

use

is

commonly

made

by

themselves.

They

frequently

build

their

own

houses,

and

carry

to

market,

at

whatever

distance,

the

produce

of

their

own

industry.They

are

spinners

and

weavers;

they

make

soap

and

candles,

as

well

as,

in

many

cases,

shoes

and

clothes

for

their

own

use.

In

America

the

cultivation

of

land

is

often

the

secondary

pursuit

of

a

blacksmith,

a

miller

or

a

shopkeeper.\"12With

such

queer

people

as

these,where

is

the

\"field

of

abstinence\"

for

the

capitalists

The

great

beauty

of

capitalist

production

consists

in

this

–

that

it

not

only

constantly

reproduces

the

wage-worker

as

wage-worker,

but

produces

always,in

proportion

to

the

accumulation

of

capital,

a

relative

surplus-population

of

wage-workers.

Thus

the

law

of

supply

and

demand

of

labour

is

kept

in

the

right

rut,

the

oscillation

of

wages

is

penned

within

limits

satisfactory

to

capitalist

exploitation,

and

lastly,

the

social

dependence

of

the

labourer

on

the

capitalist,

that

indispensable

requisite,

is

secured;

an

unmistakable

relation

of

dependence,

which

the

smug

political

economist,

at

home,

in

the

mother-country,can

transmogrify

into

one

of

free

contract

between

buyer

and

seller,

between

equally

independent

owners

of

commodities,

the

owner

of

the

commodity

capital

and

the

owner

of

the

commodity

labour.

But

in

the

colonies,

this

pretty

fancy

is

torn

asunder.

The

absolute

population

here

increases

much

more

quickly

than

in

the

mother-country,

because

many

labourers

enter

this

world

as

ready-made

adults,

and

yet

the

labour-market

is

always

understocked.

The

law

of

supply

and

demand

of

labour

falls

to

pieces.

On

the

one

hand,

the

old

world

constantly

throws

in

capital,thirsting

after

exploitation

and

\"abstinence\";

on

the

other,

the

regular

reproduction

of

the

wage

labourer

as

wage

labourer

comes

into

collision

with

impediments

the

most

impertinent

and

in

part

invincible.

What

becomes

of

the

production

of

wage-labourers,supernumerary

in

proportion

to

the

accumulation

of

capital

The

wage-worker

of

to-day

is

to-morrow

an

independent

peasant,

or

artisan,

working

for

himself.He

vanishes

from

the

labour-market,

but

not

into

the

workhouse.

This

constant

transformation

of

the

wage-labourers

into

independent

producers,

who

work

for

themselves

instead

of

for

capital,

and

enrich

themselves

instead

of

the

capitalist

gentry,

reacts

in

its

turn

very

perversely

on

the

conditions

of

the

labour

market.

Not

only

does

the

degree

of

exploitation

of

the

wage

labourer

remain

indecently

low.

The

wage

labourer

loses

into

the

bargain,

along

with

the

relation

of

dependence,

also

the

sentiment

of

dependence

on

the

abstemious

capitalist.

Hence

all

the

inconveniences

that

our

E.

G.

Wakefield

pictures

so

doughtily,

so

eloquently,

so

pathetically.

The

supply

of

wage

labour,he

complains,

is

neither

constant,

nor

regular,

nor

sufficient.

\"The

supply

of

labour

is

always

not

only

small

but

uncertain.\"13\"Though

the

produce

divided

between

the

capitalist

and

the

labourer

be

large,

the

labourer

takes

so

great

a

share

that

he

soon

becomes

a

capitalist....

Few,

even

those

whose

lives

are

unusually

long,

can

accumulate

great

masses

of

wealth.\"14The

labourers

most

distinctly

decline

to

allow

the

capitalist

to

abstain

from

the

payment

of

the

greater

part

of

their

labour.

It

avails

him

nothing,

if

he

is

so

cunning

as

to

import

from

Europe,

with

his

own

capital,

his

own

wage-workers.

They

soon

\"cease...

to

be

labourers

for

hire;

they...

become

independent

landowners,

if

not

competitors

with

their

former

masters

in

the

labour

market.\"15Think

of

the

horror!

The

excellent

capitalist

has

imported

bodily

from

Europe,

with

his

own

good

money,

his

own

competitors!

The

end

of

the

world

has

come!

No

wonder

Wakefield

laments

the

absence

of

all

dependence

and

of

all

sentiment

of

dependence

on

the

part

of

the

wage-workers

in

the

colonies.

On

account

of

the

high

wages,

says

his

disciple,

Merivale,there

is

in

the

colonies

\"the

urgent

desire

for

cheaper

and

more

subservient

labourers

–

for

a

class

to

whom

the

capitalist

might

dictate

terms,

instead

of

being

dictated

to

by

them....

In

ancient

civilised

countries

the

labourer,

though

free,

is

by

a

law

of

Nature

dependent

on

capitalists;

in

colonies

this

dependence

must

be

created

by

artificial

means.\"16

What

is

now,

according

to

Wakefield,

the

consequence

of

this

unfortunate

state

of

things

in

the

colonies

A

\"barbarising

tendency

of

dispersion\"

of

producers

and

national

wealth.17The

parcelling-out

of

the

means

of

production

among

innumerable

owners,working

on

their

own

account,

annihilates,

along

with

the

centralisation

of

capital,

all

the

foundation

of

combined

labour.

Every

long-winded

undertaking,extending

over

several

years

and

demanding

outlay

of

fixed

capital,

is

prevented

from

being

carried

out.

In

Europe,

capital

invests

without

hesitating

a

moment,

for

the

working

class

constitutes

its

living

appurtenance,

always

in

excess,

always

at

disposal.But

in

the

colonies!

Wakefield

tells

an

extremely

doleful

anecdote.

He

was

talking

with

some

capitalists

of

Canada

and

the

state

of

New

York,

where

the

immigrant

wave

often

becomes

stagnant

and

deposits

a

sediment

of

\"supernumerary\"

labourers.

\"Our

capital,\"

says

one

of

the

characters

in

the

melodrama,\"was

ready

for

many

operations

which

require

a

considerable

period

of

time

for

their

completion;

but

we

could

not

begin

such

operations

with

labour

which,we

knew,

would

soon

leave

us.

If

we

had

been

sure

of

retaining

the

labour

of

such

emigrants,

we

should

have

been

glad

to

have

engaged

it

at

once,

and

for

a

high

price:

and

we

should

have

engaged

it,

even

though

we

had

been

sure

it

would

leave

us,

provided

we

had

been

sure

of

a

fresh

supply

whenever

we

might

need

it.\"18

After

Wakefield

has

constructed

the

English

capitalist

agriculture

and

its

\"combined\"

labour

with

the

scattered

cultivation

of

American

peasants,he

unwittingly

gives

us

a

glimpse

at

the

reverse

of

the

medal.

He

depicts

the

mass

of

the

American

people

as

well-to-do,

independent,

enterprising,and

comparatively

cultured,

whilst

\"the

English

agricultural

labourer

is

miserable

wretch,

a

pauper....In

what

country,

except

North

America

and

some

new

colonies,

do

the

wages

of

free

labour

employed

in

agriculture

much

exceed

a

bare

subsistence

for

the

labourer

...

Undoubtedly

,

farm-horses

in

England,being

a

valuable

property,

are

better

fed

than

English

peasants.\"19But,

never

mind,

national

wealth

is,

once

again,

by

its

very

nature,

identical

with

misery

of

the

people.

How,

then,

to

heal

the

anti-capitalistic

cancer

of

the

colonies

If

men

were

willing,

at

a

blow,

to

turn

all

the

soil

from

public

into

private

property,

they

would

destroy

certainly

the

root

of

the

evil,

but

also

–

the

colonies.

The

trick

is

how

to

kill

two

birds

with

one

stone.

Let

the

Government

put

upon

the

virgin

soil

an

artificial

price,

independent

of

the

law

of

supply

and

demand,

a

price

that

compels

the

immigrant

to

work

a

long

time

for

wages

before

he

can

earn

enough

money

to

buy

land,

and

turn

himself

into

an

independent

peasant.20The

fund

resulting

from

the

sale

of

land

at

a

price

relatively

prohibitory

for

the

wage-workers,

this

fund

of

money

extorted

from

the

wages

of

labour

by

violation

of

the

sacred

law

of

supply

and

demand,

the

Government

is

to

employ,

on

the

other

hand,

in

proportion

as

it

grows;

to

import

have-nothings

from

Europe

into

the

colonies,

and

thus

keep

the

wage

labour

market

full

for

the

capitalists.Under

these

circumstances,

tout

sera

pour

le

mieux

dans

le

meilleur

des

mondes

possibles.

This

is

the

great

secret

of

\"systematic

colonisation.\"

By

this

plan,Wakefield

cries

in

triumph,

\"the

supply

of

labour

must

be

constant

and

regular,

because,

first,

as

no

labourer

would

be

able

to

procure

land

until

he

had

worked

for

money,

all

immigrant

labourers,

working

for

a

time

for

wages

and

in

combination,

would

produce

capital

for

the

employment

of

more

labourers;

secondly,because

every

labourer

who

left

off

working

for

wages

and

became

a

landowner

would,

by

purchasing

land,provide

a

fund

for

bringing

fresh

labour

to

the

colony.\"21The

price

of

the

soil

imposed

by

the

State

must,

of

course,

be

a

\"sufficient

price\"

–

i.e.,

so

high

\"as

to

prevent

the

labourers

from

becoming

independent

landowners

until

others

had

followed

to

take

their

place.\"22This

\"sufficient

price

for

the

land\"

is

nothing

but

a

euphemistic

circumlocution

for

the

ransom

which

the

labourer

pays

to

the

capitalist

for

leave

to

retire

from

the

wage

labour

market

to

the

land.

First,he

must

create

for

the

capitalist

\"capital,\"

with

which

the

latter

may

be

able

to

exploit

more

labourers;then

he

must

place,

at

his

own

expense,

a

locumtenens

[placeholder]

on

the

labour

market,

whom

the

Government

forwards

across

the

sea

for

the

benefit

of

his

old

master,

the

capitalist.

It

is

very

characteristic

that

the

English

Government

for

years

practised

this

method

of

\"primitive

accumulation\"

prescribed

by

Mr.

Wakefield

expressly

for

the

use

of

the

colonies.

The

fiasco

was,

of

course,as

complete

as

that

of

Sir

Robert

Peel's

Bank

Act.The

stream

of

emigration

was

only

diverted

from

the

English

colonies

to

the

United

States.

Meanwhile,the

advance

of

capitalistic

production

in

Europe,accompanied

by

increasing

Government

pressure,has

rendered

Wakefield's

recipe

superfluous.

On

the

one

hand,

the

enormous

and

ceaseless

stream

of

men,year

after

year

driven

upon

America,

leaves

behind

a

stationary

sediment

in

the

east

of

the

United

States,the

wave

of

immigration

from

Europe

throwing

men

on

the

labour-market

there

more

rapidly

than

the

wave

of

emigration

westwards

can

wash

them

away.

On

the

other

hand,

the

American

Civil

War

brought

in

its

train

a

colossal

national

debt,

and,

with

it,

pressure

of

taxes,

the

rise

of

the

vilest

financial

aristocracy,the

squandering

of

a

huge

part

of

the

public

land

on

speculative

companies

for

the

exploitation

of

railways,mines,

&c.,

in

brief,

the

most

rapid

centralisation

of

capital.

The

great

republic

has,

therefore,

ceased

to

be

the

promised

land

for

emigrant

labourers.

Capitalistic

production

advances

there

with

giant

strides,

even

though

the

lowering

of

wages

and

the

dependence

of

the

wage-worker

are

yet

far

from

being

brought

down

to

the

normal

European

level.

The

shameless

lavishing

of

uncultivated

colonial

land

on

aristocrats

and

capitalists

by

the

Government,

so

loudly

denounced

even

by

Wakefield,

has

produced,

especially

in

Australia23,

in

conjunction

with

the

stream

of

men

that

the

gold

diggings

attract,

and

with

the

competition

that

the

importation

of

English-commodities

causes

even

to

the

smallest

artisan,

an

ample

\"relative

surplus

labouring

population,\"

so

that

almost

every

mail

brings

the

Job's

news

of

a

\"glut

of

the

Australia

labour

market,\"

and

the

prostitution

in

some

places

flourishes

as

wantonly

as

in

the

London

Haymarket.

However,

we

are

not

concerned

here

with

the

conditions

of

the

colonies.

The

only

thing

that

interests

us

is

the

secret

discovered

in

the

new

world

by

the

Political

Economy

of

the

old

world,

and

proclaimed

on

the

housetops:

that

the

capitalist

mode

of

production

and

accumulation,

and

therefore

capitalist

private

property,

have

for

their

fundamental

condition

the

annihilation

of

self-earned

private

property;

in

other

words,

the

expropriation

of

the

labourer.

NOTES:

1We

treat

here

of

real

Colonies,

virgins

soils,

colonized

by

free

immigrants.

The

United

States

are,

speaking

economically,still

only

a

Colony

of

Europe.

Besides,

to

this

category

belong

such

old

plantations

as

those

in

which

the

abolition

of

slavery

has

completely

altered

the

earlier

conditions.

2Wakefield's

few

glimpses

on

the

subject

of

Modern

Colonisation

are

fully

anticipated

by

Mirabeau

Pere,

the

physiocrat,

and

even

much

earlier

by

English

economists.

3Later,

it

became

a

temporary

necessity

in

the

international

competitive

struggle.

But,

whatever

its

motive,

the

consequences

remain

the

same.

4\"A

negro

is

a

negro.

In

certain

circumstances

he

becomes

a

slave.

A

mule

is

a

machine

for

spinning

cotton.

Only

under

certain

circumstances

does

it

become

capital.

Outside

these

circumstances,

it

is

no

more

capital

than

gold

is

intrinsically

money,

or

sugar

is

the

price

of

sugar....

Capital

is

a

social

relation

of

production.

It

is

a

historical

relation

of

production.\"(Karl

Marx,

\"Lohnarbeit

und

Kapital,\"

N.

Rh.

Z.,

No.266,

April

7,

1849.)

5E.

G.

Wakefield:

\"England

and

America,\"

vol.ii.

p.33.

6l.c.,

p.17.

7l.c.,

vol.i,

p.18.

8l.c.,

pp.42,

43,

44.

9l.c.,

vol.ii,

p.5.

10\"Land,

to

be

an

element

of

colonisation,

must

not

only

be

waste,

but

it

must

be

public

property,

liable

to

be

converted

into

private

property.\"

(l.c.,

Vol.II,

p.125.)

11l.c.,

Vol.I,

p.247.

12l.c.,

pp.21,

22.

13l.c.,

Vol.II,

p.116

14l.c.,

Vol.I,

p.131.

15l.c.,

Vol.II,

p.5.

16Merivale,

l.c.,

Vol.II,

pp.235-314

passim.

Even

the

mild,

Free

Trade,

vulgar

economist,

Molinari,

says:

\"Dans

les

colonies

où

l'esclavage

a

été

aboli

sans

que

le

travail

forcé

se

trouvait

remplacé

par

une

quantité

équivalente

de

travail

libre,

on

a

vu

s'opérer

la

contre-partie

du

fait

qui

se

réalise

tous

les

jours

sous

nos

yeux.

On

a

vu

les

simples

travailleurs

exploiter

à

leur

tour

les

entrepreneurs

d'industrie,

exiger

d'eux

des

salaires

hors

de

toute

proportion

avec

la

part

légitime

qui

leur

revenait

dans

le

produit.

Les

planteurs,

ne

pouvant

obtenir

de

leurs

sucres

un

prix

suffisant

pour

couvrir

la

hausse

de

salaire,

ont

été

obligés

de

fournir

l'excédant,

d'abord

sur

leurs

profits,

ensuite

sur

leurs

capitaux

mêmes.

Une

foule

de

planteurs

ont

été

ruinés

de

la

sorte,

d'autres

ont

fermé

leurs

ateliers

pour

échapper

à

une

ruine

imminente....

Sans

doute,

il

vaut

mieux

voir

périr

des

accumulations

de

capitaux

que

des

générations

d'hommes

[how

generous

Mr.

Molinari!]:

mais

ne

vaudrait-il

pas

mieux

que

ni

les

uns

ni

les

autres

périssent[In

the

colonies

where

slavery

has

been

abolished

without

the

compulsory

labour

being

replaced

with

an

equivalent

quantity

of

free

labour,

there

has

occurred

the

opposite

of

what

happens

every

day

before

our

eyes.

Simple

workers

have

been

seen

to

exploit

in

their

turn

the

industrial

entrepreneurs,

demanding

from

them

wages

which

bear

absolutely

no

relation

to

the

legitimate

share

in

the

product

which

they

ought

to

receive.The

planters

were

unable

to

obtain

for

their

sugar

for

a

sufficent

price

to

cover

the

increase

in

wages,

and

were

obliged

to

furnish

the

extra

amount,

at

first

out

of

their

profits,

and

then

out

of

their

very

capital.

A

considerable

amount

of

planters

have

been

ruined

as

a

result,

while

others

have

closed

down

their

businesses

in

order

to

avoid

the

ruin

which

threatened

them

...

It

is

doubtless

better

that

these

accumulations

of

capital

should

be

destroyed

than

that

generations

of

men

should

perish...

but

would

it

not

be

better

if

both

survived]

(Molinari,

l.c.,pp.51,52.)

Mr.

Molinari,

Mr.

Molinari!

What

then

becomes

of

the

ten

commandments,

of

Moses

and

the

prophets,

of

the

law

of

supply

and

demand,

if

in

Europe

the

\"entrepreneur\"

can

cut

down

the

labourer's

legitimate

part,

and

in

the

West

Indies,

the

labourer

can

cut

down

the

entrepreneur's

And

what,

if

you

please,

is

this

\"legitimate

part,\"

which

on

your

own

showing

the

capitalist

in

Europe

daily

neglects

to

pay

Over

yonder,

in

the

colonies

where

the

labourers

are

so

\"simple\"

as

to

\"exploit\"the

capitalist,

Mr.

Molinari

feels

a

strong

itching

to

set

the

law

of

supply

and

demand,

that

works

elsewhere

automatically,

on

the

right

road

by

means

of

the

police.

17Wakefield,

l.c.,

Vol.II,

p.52.

18l.c.,

pp.191,

192.

19l.c.,

Vol.I,

p.47,

246.

20\"C'est,

ajoutez-vous,

grace

à

l'appropriation

du

sol

et

des

capitaux

que

l'homme,

qui

n'a

que

ses

bras,

trouve

de

l'occupation

et

se

fait

un

revenu...

c'est

au

contraire,

grace

à

l'appropriation

individuelle

du

sol

qu'il

se

trouve

des

hommes

n'ayant

que

leurs

bras....

Quand

vous

mettez

un

homme

dans

le

vide,

vous

vous

emparez

de

l'atmosphère.

Ainsi

faites-vous,quand

vous

vous

emparez

du

sol....

C'est

le

mettre

dans

le

vide

le

richesses,

pour

ne

la

laisser

vivre

qu'à

votre

volonté.\"

[It

is,you

add,

a

result

of

the

appropriation

of

the

soil

and

of

capital

that

the

man

who

has

nothing

but

the

strength

of

his

arms

finds

employment

and

creates

an

income

for

himself

...

but

the

opposite

is

true,

it

is

thanks

to

the

individual

appropriation

of

the

soil

that

there

exist

men

who

only

possess

the

strength

of

their

arms.

...

When

you

put

a

man

in

a

vacuum,

you

rob

him

of

the

air.

You

do

the

same,

when

you

take

away

the

soil

from

him

...

for

you

are

putting

him

in

a

space

void

of

wealth,

so

as

to

leave

him

no

way

of

living

except

according

to

your

wishes](Collins,

l.c.

t.III,

pp.268-71,

passim.)

21Wakefield,

l.c.,

Vol.II,

p.192.

22l.c.,

p.45.

23As

soon

as

Australia

became

her

own

law-giver,

she

passed,

of

course,

laws

favorable

to

the

settlers,

but

the

squandering

of

the

land,

already

accomplished

by

the

English

Government,

stands

in

the

way.

\"The

first

and

main

object

at

which

new

Land

Act

of

1862

aims

is

to

give

increased

facilities

for

the

settlement

of

the

people.\"

(\"The

Land

Law

of

Victoria,\"by

the

Hon.

C.

G.

Duffy,

Minister

of

Public

Lands,

Lond.,1862.)

The

End