At the present day the school of Smith and Say has beenexploded in France， and the rigid and spiritless influence of theTheory of Exchangeable Values has been succeeded by a revolutionand an anarchy which neither M.Rossi nor M.Blanqui are able toexorcise.The Saint-Simonians and the Fourrierists， with remarkabletalent at their head， instead of reforming the old doctrines， havecast them entirely aside， and have framed for themselves a Utopiansystem.Quite recently the most ingenious persons among them havebeen seeking to discover the connection of their doctrines withthose of the previous schools， and to make their ideas compatiblewith existing circumstances.Important results may be expected fromtheir labours， especially from those of the talented MichelChevalier.The amount of truth， and of what is practicallyapplicable in our day which their doctrines contain， consistschiefly in their expounding the principle of the confederation andthe harmony of the productive powers.Their annihilation ofindividual freedom and independence is their weak side； with themthe individual is entirely absorbed in the community， in directcontradiction to the Theory of Exchangeable Values， according towhich the individual ought to be everything and the State nothing.
It may be that the spirit of the world is tending to therealisation of the state of things which these sects dream of orprognosticate； in any case， however， I believe that many centuriesmust elapse before that can be possible.It is given to no mortalto estimate the progress of future centuries in discoveries and inthe condition of society.Even the mind of a Plato could not haveforetold that after the lapse of thousands of years the instrumentswhich do the work of society would be constructed of iron， steel，and brass， nor could that of a Cicero have foreseen that theprinting press would render it possible to extend therepresentative system over whole kingdoms， perhaps over wholequarters of the globe， and over the entire human race.If meanwhileit is given to only a few great minds to foresee a few instances ofthe progress of future thousands of years， yet to every age isassigned its own special task.But the task of the age in which welive appears not to be to break up mankind into Fourrierist'phalanst鑢es，' in order to give each individual as nearly aspossible an equal share of mental and bodily enjoyments， but toperfect the productive powers， the mental culture， the politicalcondition， and the power of whole nationalities， and by equalisingthem in these respects as far as is possible， to prepare thembeforehand for universal union.For even if we admit that under theexisting circumstances of the world the immediate object which itsapostles had in view could be attained by each 'phalanst鑢e，' whatwould be its effect on the power and independence of the nation？
And would not the nation which was broken up into 'phalanst鑢es，'
run the risk of being conquered by some less advanced nation whichcontinued to live in the old way， and of thus having its prematureinstitutions destroyed together with its entire nationality？ Atpresent the Theory of Exchangeable Values has so completely lostits influence， that it is almost exclusively occupied withinquiries into the nature of Rent， and that Ricardo in his'Principles of Political Economy' could write， 'The chief object ofpolitical economy is to determine the laws by which the produce ofthe soil ought to be shared between the landowner， the farmer， andthe labourer.'
While some persons are firmly convinced that this science iscomplete， and that nothing essential can further be added to it，those， on the other hand， who read these writings withphilosophical or practical insight， maintain， that as yet there isno political economy at all， that that science has yet to beconstructed； that until it is so， what goes by its name is merelyan astrology， but that it is both possible and desirable out of itto produce an astronomy.
Finally， we must remark， in order not to be misunderstood， thatour criticism of the writings alike of J.B.Say and of hispredecessors and successors refers only to their national andinternational bearing； and that we recognise their value asexpositions of subordinate doctrines.It is evident that an authormay form very valuable views and inductions on individual branchesof a science， while all the while the basis of his system may beentirely erroneous.
NOTES：
1.Louis Say， Etudes sur la Richesse des Nations， Preface， p.iv.
2.The following are the actual words of Louis Say (p.10)： 'Larichesse ne consiste pas dans les choses qui satisfont nos besoinsou nos go鹴s， mais dans le pouvoir d'en jouir annuellement.' Andfurther (pp.14 to 15)： 'Le faux syst鑝e mercantil， fond？sur larichesse en m閠aux pr閏ieux， a 閠？remplac？par un autre fond？surla richesse en vaieurs v閚ales ou 閏hangeables， qui consiste ？
n'関aiuer ce qui compose la richesse d'une nation que comme le faitun marchand.' And (note， p.14)： 'L'閏ole moderne qui refute lesyst鑝e mercantil a elle-m阭e cr殚 un syst鑝e qui lui-m阭e doit阾re appel？le syst鑝e mercantil.'
3.Etudes sur la Richesse des Nations， p.36 (quoting J.B.Say'swords)： 'Que cette m閠hode 閠ait loin d'阾re bonne， mais que ladifficult？閠ait d'en trouvor une meilleure.'
4.Say， Cours complet d'Economie politique pratique， vii.p.378.
End Fourth Book
The Politics
