The enterpriser,at the same time that he productively consumes the capital,also productively consumes the service of the capital.The lender,on his part,who has sold the service of his capital,unproductively consumes the interest of it,which is a material value,given in exchange for the immaterial service of the capital.It is astonishing that there is a double consumption:that of the enterpriser to make his produce,and that of the capitalist to satisfy his wants,since there are the two terms of one exchange,two values proceeding from two different funds,bartered,and both consumable?
You say,Sir,that the distinction between productive and unproductive labor is the earner stone of Adam Smith's work,and that to call,as I have done,that labor productive which is not fixed in any material object,is to overthrow his work from top to bottom.No,Sir,this is not the earner stone of Adam Smith's work,since,that stone being shaken,the edifice is imperfect without being less stable.What will eternally support that excellent work is,that it proclaims in all its pages,that the changeable value of things is the foundation of all wealth.
It is from that time that political economy is become a positive science;for the price-current of each thing is a determined quantity,the elements of which may be analised,the causes assigned,the bearings studied,and the changes foreseen.By taking away from the definition of wealth this essential character,allow me to inform you,Sir,we replunge the science into the surge,and drive it back.
Far from undermining the celebrated inquiries into the Wealth of Nations,I support them in all their essential parts;but at the stone time,I think Adam Smith has misconceived real exchangeable value,by forgetting that which is attached to productive service,which leaves no trace behind,because the whole of it is consumed.I think he has also forgotten real services,which even leave traces behind them,in material productions such as service of capital,consumed,independently of the capital itself.
I think he has got into infinite obscurity,for want of having distinguished the consumption of the industrious services of an enterpriser,from the services of his capital --a distinction so real,however,that there is scarcely any commercial house that does not keep these accounts under distinct heads.
I revere Adam Smith,--he is my master.At the commencement of my career in Political Economy,whilst yet tottering,and driven on the one hand by the Doctors of the Balance of Trade,and on the other by the Doctors of Net Proceeds,I stumbled at every step,he showed me the fight road.
Leaning upon his Wealth of Nations ,which at the same time discovers to us the wealth of his genius,I learned to go alone.Now I no longer belong to any school,and shall not share the ridicule of the Reverend Jesuit Fathers who translated Newton's Elements,with notes.They felt that the laws of natural philosophy did not well accord with those of Loyola;they also took care to inform the public by an Advertisement,that although they had apparently shown the motion of the Earth,in order to complete the development of celestial philosophy,they were not less under subjection to the decrees of the Pope,who did not admit this motion.
I am only under the subjection of the decrees of eternal Reason,and Iam not afraid to say so.Adam Smith has not embraced the whole of the phenomenon of the production and consumption of wealth,but he has done so much that we ought to feel grateful to him.Thanks to him,the most vague,the most obscure of sciences will soon become the most precise,and that which of all others will leave the fewest points unexplained.
Let us figure to ourselves,producers (and under this name I comprise as well the possessors of capitals and lands,as the possessors of industrious powers,)let us fancy them advancing,to meet each other with their productive services,or the profit which has resulted from them (an immaterial quality).
This profit is their produce.Sometimes it is fixed on an immaterial object,which is transmitted with the immaterial produce,but which in itself is of no importance,is nothing,in political Economy:for matter,dispossessed of value,is not wealth.Sometimes it is transmitted,is sold by one,and bought by another,without being fixed in any matter.It is the advice of the Doctor or the Lawyer,the service of the Soldier or the public Officer.
Every one exchanges the utility he produces against that which is produced by others,and in every one of these exchanges,which are carried to account in a book of competition,as the utility offered by Paul is more or less in demand than that offered by Jacques ,it sells dearer or cheaper --that is to say,that it obtains in exchange more or less of the utility offered by the latter.It is in this sense that the influence of the demand and supply must be understood.(8)This,Sir,is not a doctrine advanced by way of afterthought;it is to be found in sundry parts of my Treatise on Political Economy ;(9)and by the help of my Epitome its coincidence with every other principle of the science,and with all the facts which serve for its basis,is fundamentally the same.It is already professed in many parts of Europe;but I earnestly desire that it may succeed in convincing you,and that it may appear to you to be worthy of being introduced into the chair,which you fill with so much eclat.
After these necessary explanations,you will not accuse me of finesse if I rest upon those laws which I have shown to be rounded on the nature of things and on the facts which issue from them.
Commodities,you say,are only exchanged for commodities:they are also exchanged for labor.If this labor be a produce that some persons sell,that others buy,and that the latter consume,it will cost me very little to call it a Commodity ,and it will cost vou very little more to assimilate other commodities to it,for they are also produce..Then comprising both under the generic name of Produce ,you may perhaps admit that produce is bought only with produce.
