RAW MATERIAL.
It is said that the most advantageous commerce consists in the
exchange of manufactured goods for raw material, because this raw
material is a spur to _national labor_.
And then the conclusion is drawn, that the best custom-house
regulation would be that which should give the utmost possible
facility to the entry of _raw material_, and oppose the greatest
obstacles to articles which have received their first manipulation by
labor.
No sophism of political economy is more widely spread than the
foregoing. It supports not only the protectionists, but, much more,
and above all, the pretended liberalists. This is to be regretted; for
the worst which can happen to a good cause is not to be severely
attacked, but to be badly defended.
Commercial freedom will probably have the fate of all freedom; it will
not be introduced into our laws until after it has taken possession of
our minds. But if it be true that a reform must be generally
understood, in order that it may be solidly established, it follows
that nothing can retard it so much as that which misleads public
opinion; and what is more likely to mislead it than those writings
which seem to favor freedom by upholding the doctrines of monopoly?
Several years ago, three large cities of France--Lyons, Bordeaux, and
Havre--were greatly agitated against the restrictive policy. The
nation, and indeed all Europe, was moved at seeing a banner raised,
which they supposed to be that of free trade. Alas! it was still the
banner of monopoly; of a monopoly a little more niggardly, and a great
deal more absurd, than that which they appeared to wish to overturn.
Owing to the sophism which we are about to unveil, the petitioners
merely reproduced the doctrine of _protection to national labor_,
adding to it, however, another folly.
What is, in effect, the prohibitive system? Let us listen to the
protectionist: "Labor constitutes the wealth of a people, because it
alone creates those material things which our necessities demand, and
because general comfort depends upon these."
This is the principle.
"But this abundance must be the product of _national labor_. Should it
be the product of foreign labor, national labor would stop at once."
This is the mistake. (See the close of the last chapter.)
"What shall be done, then, in an agricultural and manufacturing
country?"
This is the question.
"Restrict its market to the products of its own soil, and its own
industry."
This is the end proposed.
"And for this end, restrain by prohibitive duties the entrance of the
products of the industry of other nations."
These are the means.
Let us reconcile with this system that of the petition from Bordeaux.
It divided merchandise into three classes:
"The first includes articles of food, and _raw material free from all
human labor. A wise economy would require that this class should not
be taxed_."
Here there is no labor; consequently no protection.
"The second is composed of articles which have undergone _some
preparation_. This preparation warrants us _in charging it with some
tax_."
Here protection commences, because, according to the petitioners,
_national labor_ commences.
"The third comprises perfected articles which can in no way serve
national labor; we consider these the most taxable."
Here, labor, and with it protection, reach their maximum.
The petitioners assert that foreign labor injures national labor; this
is _the error_ of the prohibitive school.
They demanded that the French market should be restricted to French
_labor_; this is the _end_ of the prohibitive system.
They insisted that foreign labor should be subject to restriction and
taxation; these are the _means_ of the prohibitive system.
What difference, then, is it possible to discover between the
petitioners of Bordeaux and the advocate of American restriction? One
alone: the greater or less extent given to the word _labor_.
The protectionist extends it to everything--so he wishes to _protect_
everything.
"Labor constitutes _all_ the wealth of a people," says he; "to
protect national industry, _all_ national industry, manufacturing
industry, _all_ manufacturing industry, is the idea which should
always be kept before the people." The petitioners saw no labor
excepting that of manufacturers; so they would admit that alone to the
favors of protection. They said:
"Raw material is _devoid of all human labor_. For that reason we
should not tax it. Fabricated articles can no longer occupy national
labor. We consider them the most taxable."
We are not inquiring whether protection to national labor is
reasonable. The protectionist and the Bordelais agree upon this point,
and we, as has been seen in the preceding chapters, differ from both.
The question is to ascertain which of the two--the protectionists or
the raw-materialists of Bordeaux--give its just acceptation to the
word "labor."
Now, upon this ground, it must be said, the protectionist is, by all
odds, right; for observe the dialogue which might take place between
them:
The PROTECTIONIST: "You agree that national labor ought to be
protected. You agree that no foreign labor can be introduced into our
market without destroying therein an equal amount of our national
labor. Yet you assert that there is a host of merchandise possessed of
_value_ (since it sells), which is, however, free from _human labor_.
And, among other things, you name wheat, corn, meats, cattle, lard,
salt, iron, brass, lead, coal, wool, furs, seeds, etc. If you can
prove to me that the value of these things is not due to labor, I will
agree that it is useless to protect them. But, again, if I demonstrate
to you that there is as much labor in a hundred dollars' worth of
wool as in a hundred dollars' worth of cloth, you must acknowledge
that protection is as much due to the one as to the other. Now, why is
this bag of wool worth a hundred dollars? Is it not because that sum
is the price of production? And is the price of production anything
but that which it has been necessary to distribute in wages, salaries,
manual labor, interest, to all the workmen and capitalists who have
concurred in producing the article?"
The RAW-MATERIALIST: "It is true, that in regard to wool, you
may be right. But a bag of wheat, an ingot of iron, a quintal of
coal--are they the produce of labor? Did not Nature create them?"
The PROTECTIONIST: "Without doubt Nature _creates_ the
_elements_ of all things; but it is labor which produces their
_value_. I was wrong myself in saying that labor creates material
objects, and this faulty phrase has led the way to many other errors.
It does not belong to man, either manufacturer or cultivator, to
_create_, to make something out of nothing; if, by _production_, we
understand _creation_, all our labors will be unproductive; that of
merchants more so than any other, except, perhaps, that of law-makers.
The farmer has no claim to have _created_ wheat, but he may claim to
have created its _value_: he has transformed into wheat substances
which in no wise resembled it, by his own labor with that of his
ploughmen and reapers. What more does the miller effect who converts
it into flour, the baker who turns it into bread? Because man must
clothe himself in cloth, a host of operations is necessary. Before the
intervention of any human labor, the true raw materials of this
product (cloth) are air, water, gas, light, the chemical substances
which must enter into its composition. These are truly the raw
materials which are _untouched by human labor_; therefore, they are of
no _value_, and I do not think of protecting them. But a first labor
converts these substances into hay, straw, etc., a second into wool, a
third into thread, a fourth into cloth, a fifth into clothing--who
will dare to say that every step in this work is not _labor_, from the
first stroke of the plough, which begins, to the last stroke of the
needle, which terminates it? And because, in order to secure more
celerity and perfection in the accomplishment of a definite work, such
as a garment, the labors are divided among several classes of
industry, you wish, by an arbitrary distinction, that the order of
succession of these labors should be the only reason for their
importance; so much so that the first shall not deserve even the name
of labor, and that the last work pre-eminently, shall alone be worthy
of the favors of protection!"
The RAW-MATERIALIST: "Yes, we begin to see that wheat no more
than wool is entirely devoid of human labor; but, at least, the
agriculturist has not, like the manufacturer, done all by himself and
his workmen; Nature aids him, and if there is labor, it is not all
labor in the wheat."
The PROTECTIONIST: "But all its _value_ is in the labor it
has cost. I admit that Nature has assisted in the material formation
of wheat. I admit even that it may be exclusively her work; but
confess that I have controlled it by my labor; and when I sell you
some wheat, observe this well: that it is not the work of _Nature_ for
which I make you pay, but _my own_; and, on your supposition,
manufactured articles would be no more the product of labor than
agricultural ones. Does not the manufacturer, too, rely upon Nature to
second him? Does he not avail himself of the weight of the atmosphere
in aid of the steam-engine, as I avail myself of its humidity in aid
of the plough? Did he create the laws of gravitation, of correlation
of forces, of affinities?"
The RAW-MATERIALIST: "Come, let the wool go too. But coal is
assuredly the work, and the exclusive work, of Nature, _unaided by any
human labor_."
The PROTECTIONIST: "Yes, Nature made coal, but _labor_ makes
its value. Coal had no _value_ during the thousands of years during
which it was hidden, unknown, a hundred feet below the soil. It was
necessary to look for it there--that is a _labor_: it was necessary to
transport it to market; that is another _labor_: and once more, the
price which you pay for it in the market is nothing else than the
remuneration for these labors of digging and transportation."
We see that thus far the protectionist has all the advantage on his
side; that the value of raw material, as well as that of manufactured
material, represents the expense of production, that is to say, of
_labor_; that it is impossible to conceive of a material possessed of
value while totally unindebted to human labor; that the distinction
which the raw-materialists make is wholly futile, in theory; that, as
a basis for an unequal division of _favors_, it would be iniquitous in
practice; because the result would be that one-third of the people,
engaged in manufactures, would obtain the sweets of monopoly, for the
reason that they produced _by labor_, while the other two-thirds,
that is to say the agriculturists, would be abandoned to competition,
under pretext that they produced without labor.
It will be urged that it is of more advantage to a nation to import
the materials called raw, whether they are or are not the product of
labor, and to export manufactured articles.
This is a strongly accredited opinion.
"The more abundant raw materials are," said the petition from
Bordeaux, "the more manufactories are multiplied and extended." It
said again, that "raw material opens an unlimited field of labor to
the inhabitants of the country from which it is imported."
"Raw material," said the other petition, that from Havre, "being the
aliment of labor, must be submitted to a _different system_, and
admitted at once at the lowest duty." The same petition would have the
protection on manufactured articles reduced, not one after another,
but at an undetermined time; not to the lowest duty, but to twenty per
cent.
"Among other articles which necessity requires to be abundant and
cheap," said the third petition, that from Lyons, "the manufacturers
name all raw material."
This all rests on an illusion. We have seen that all _value_
represents labor. Now, it is true that labor increases ten-fold,
sometimes a hundred-fold, the value of a rough product, that is to
say, expands ten-fold, a hundred-fold, the products of a nation.
Thence it is reasoned, "The production of a bale of cotton causes
workmen of all classes to earn one hundred dollars only. The
conversion of this bale into lace collars raises their profits to ten
thousand dollars; and will you dare to say that the nation is not
more interested in encouraging labor worth ten thousand than that
worth one hundred dollars?"
We forget that international exchanges, no more than individual
exchanges, work by weight or measure. We do not exchange a bale of
cotton for a bale of lace collars, nor a pound of wool in the grease
for a pound of wool in cashmere; but a certain value of one of these
things _for an equal value_ of the other. Now to barter equal value
against equal value is to barter equal work against equal work. It is
not true, then, that the nation which gives for a hundred dollars
cashmere or collars, gains more than the nation which delivers for a
hundred dollars wool or cotton.
In a country where no law can be adopted, no impost established,
without the consent of those whom this law is to govern, the public
cannot be robbed without being first deceived. Our ignorance is the
"raw material" of all extortion which is practised upon us, and we may
be sure in advance that every sophism is the forerunner of a
spoliation. Good public, when you see a sophism, clap your hand on
your pocket; for that is certainly the point at which it aims. What
was the secret thought which the shipowners of Bordeaux and of Havre,
and the manufacturers of Lyons, conceived in this distinction between
agricultural products and manufactured articles?
"It is principally in this first class (that which comprehends raw
material _unmodified by human labor_)," said the Raw-Materialists of
Bordeaux, "that the chief aliment of our merchant marine is found. At
the outset, a wise economy would require that this class should not
be taxed. The second (articles which have received some preparation)
may be charged; the third (articles on which no more work has to be
done) we consider the most taxable."
"Consider," said those of Havre, "that it is indispensable to reduce
all raw materials one after another to the lowest rate, in order that
industry may successively bring into operation the naval forces which
will furnish to it its first and indispensable means of labor." The
manufacturers could not in exchange of politeness be behind the
ship-owners; so the petition from Lyons demanded the free introduction
of raw material, "in order to prove," said they, "that the interests
of manufacturing towns are not always opposed to those of maritime
ones!"
True; but it must be said that both interests were, understood as the
petitioners understood them, terribly opposed to the interests of the
country, of agriculture, and of consumers.
See, then, where you would come out! See the end of these subtle
economical distinctions! You would legislate against allowing
_perfected_ produce to traverse the ocean, in order that the much more
expensive transportation of rough materials, dirty, loaded with waste
matter, may offer more employment to our merchant service, and put our
naval force into wider operation. This is what these petitioners
termed _a wise economy_. Why did they not demand that the firs of
Russia should be brought to them with their branches, bark, and roots;
the gold of California in its mineral state, and the hides from Buenos
Ayres still attached to the bones of the tainted skeleton?
Industry, the navy, labor, have for their end, the general good, the
public good. To create a useless industry, in order to favor
superfluous transportation; to feed superfluous labor, not for the
good of the public, but for the expense of the public--this is to
realize a veritable begging the question. Work, in itself, is not a
desirable thing; its result is; all work without result is a loss. To
pay sailors for carrying useless waste matter across the sea is like
paying them for skipping stones across the surface of the water. So we
arrive at this result: that all economical sophisms, despite their
infinite variety, have this in common, that they confound the means
with the end, and develop one at the expense of the other.