按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
this striving is wrong。 〃Shall we；〃 we hear from this quartet；
〃censure our God； that He so frequently interferes unjustly？
Shall we prescribe to Him where His lightnings shall strike and
where He shall permit the bullets to hit？ Shall we quarrel with
nature because she grants the delicious fruits of the south and
an olympic existence to one race； while she banishes another to
the reeking hovels of the arctic？〃
We will not dismiss this conception of things by the
accusation of materialism； for； though materialistic； it
nevertheless has the merit of being realistic and of having
further detailed investigation in certain directions。 But
whatever its merits in this direction； our question is not really
touched at all by these arguments。 The individual scholar who； in
his researches； considers only forces； proportions； demand and
supply； and endeavors to grasp them； may ignore the question
whether the result be just； but the popular mind will always
repeat the question as long as it sees before it human actions。
But only to this extent and always to this extent； and
furthermore the uncertain results of fortune and the course of
natural processes also will appear just or unjust to him who
believes that they are governed by a just Providence ruling
analogously to human actions； may the compensation only occur in
another world； it is expected and demanded by the soul。
When on the other hand the intellect sees but blind forces；
it consoles itself with the argument that it is not the task of
humanity to master them； then he will no longer demand justice
from the flashing lightning； from the hostile bullet from the
demon of cholera and the sunny zephyrs； but always from all
conscious actions of human beings。
The distinction is therefore not； as has been claimed；
between State and chance； State and free intercourse；
governmental distribution and distribution by demand and supply；
but the antithesis is this： As far as human action governs and
influences the distribution of incomes； so far this action will
create the psychological processes whose final result is the
judgment which finds the distribution just or unjust； so far as
blind extra…human causes interfere； reasonable reflection will
demand that men should submit to them with resignation。
If it is objected that demand and supply distribute incomes；
we reply in the first instance： Are demand and supply blind
powers independent of human influence？ This year's crops depend
on rain and sunshine； but the average results of our crops are a
product of our cultivation。 Demand and supply are summary terms
for the magnitudes of opposing groups of human wills。 The causes
and conditions of these magnitudes are partly natural； mostly
however； human relations and powers； human deliberations and
actions。
If it is objected that nature conditions the wealth of a
nation； we answer： She certainly does in part； and as far as she
does； no one thinks it unjust that one nation is rich and the
other poor。 But when one nation enslaves； plunders and keeps in
subjection another； we immediately find the wealth of the former
and the poverty of the latter unjust。
If it is objected that the one man is wealthier than the
other because he was not compelled to divide his inheritance with
brother and sister； that the one has the good fortune to possess
a healthy wife； the other not； we answer： No normal feeling of
right wishes to do away with such chance of fortune。 But the
question is； if such effects of nature； not subject to our
influence； which we call fortune or chance； are indeed the
essential causes of the distribution of incomes and wealth。 In
such a case there could be no science of political economy or
social policy； for the irregular game of chance cannot be brought
under general points of view。
If it is objected that labor and not the State distributes
incomes； we answer that this is a surprising objection in the
mouth of one who declares strength and fortune both at the same
time to be the causes of distribution。 For the objection has
meaning only when it signifies that different labor and different
accomplishments produce correspondingly different compensation。
In our eyes； labor produces goods； builds houses； bakes bread；
but it does not directly distribute incomes。 The different kinds
of labor will affect distribution only by their different
valuations in society。 The demand for this or that labor will
influence its market price； but the moral valuation of this or
that labor will influence the judgment whether this price is
just。 Thus labor influences； indirectly it is true； the
distribution of incomes； but in such a case； and so far as it
does so； it excludes the notion of luck or chance。
Both assertions； however； confine themselves too closely to
the individual distribution of incomes； whereas for the economist
the essential point is the distribution among the classes of
society。 For every more general scientific or practical inquiry
it is not the important point whether Tom； the day laborer； has
more than Dick or Harry； whether the grocer； Jones； earns more
than Brown； whether the banker； Bleichroder； has better luck in
his speculations than the banker； Hanseman； about this general
judgments will only occasionally be formed。 The average wages of
the day laborer； the average condition of domestic workers； the
average profits of the class of promoters； the average profits of
grocers； of landed proprietors； of farmers on the other hand are
considered by public opinion and judged to be justified or not。
And these earnings are surely not dependent on fortune or chance；
they are the result of the average qualities of the respective
classes in connection with their relations to the other classes
of society； they are in the main the result of human
institutions。
The prevailing rights of property； inheritance and contract
form the centre of the institutions which govern the distribution
of incomes。 Their forms for the time being determine a democratic
or aristocratic distribution of wealth。 Who； for instance； has
made the division of landed property； which generally determines
the distribution of both wealth and income？ Is it nature； luck or
chance； or demand and supply？ No； in the first place the social
and agrarian institutions of the past and present。 Wherever small
peasant proprietorship prevails to…day； it is derived from the
mediaeval village community system and the law of peasant
succession。 Wherever we meet with a system of large estates we
see a result of the baronial and feudal system； of the later
manorial regime and of the system of estates； at present the
institutions of mortgages and leases play a part； the legislation
touching the commutation of tenures and system of cultivation
were of the same importance to Germany as the colonial system of
other governments to their colonies。 In the distribution of
personal property individual qualities are more prevalent than in
that of real estate。 But nevertheless the institutions of ancient
and modern times seem to us the most important。 The forms of
undertakings and the legal status of the laboring c