He has forgotten that the ability of the whole nation toincrease the sum of its material capital consists mainly in thepossibility of converting unused natural powers into materialcapital, into valuable and income-producing instruments, and thatin the case of the merely agricultural nation a mass of naturalpowers lies idle or dead which can bequickened into activity onlyby manufactures.He has not considered the influence ofmanufactures on the internal and external commerce, on thecivilisation and power of the nation, and on the maintenance of itsindependence, as well as on the capability arising from these ofgaining material wealth.
He has e.g.not taken into consideration what a mass of capitalthe English have obtained by means of colonisation (Martinestimates the amount of this at more than two and a half milliardsof pounds sterling).
He, who nevertheless elsewhere proves so clearly that thecapital employed in intermediate commerce is not to be regarded asbelonging to any given nation, so long as it is not equallyembodied in that nation's land, has here not duly considered thatthe nationalisation of such capital is most effectually realised byfavouring the nation's inland manufactures.
He has not taken into account, that by the policy of favouringnative manufacture a mass of foreign capital, mental as well asmaterial, is attracted into the country.
He falsely maintains that these manufactures have originated inthe natural course of things and of their own accord;notwithstanding that in every nation the political power interferesto give to this so-called natural course an artificial directionfor the nation's own special advantage.
He has illustrated his argument, founded on an ambiguousexpression and consequently fundamentally wrong, by a fundamentallywrong example, in seeking to prove that because it would be foolishto produce wine in Scotland by artificial methods, therefore itwould be foolish to establish manufactures by artificial methods.
He reduces the process of the formation of capital in thenation to the operation of a private rentier, whose income isdetermined by the value of his material capital, and who can onlyincrease his income by savings which he again turns into capital.
He does not consider that this theory of savings, which in themerchant's office is quite correct, if followed by a whole nationmust lead to poverty, barbarism, powerlessness, and decay ofnational progress.Where everyone saves and economises as much ashe possibly can, no motive can exist for production.Where everyonemerely takes thought for the accumulation of values of exchange,the mental power required for production vanishes.A nationconsisting of such insane misers would give up the defence of thenation from fear of the expenses of war, and would only learn thetruth after all its property had been sacrificed to foreignextortion, that the wealth of nations is to be attained in a mannerdifferent to that of the private rentier.
The private rentier himself, as the father of a family, mustfollow a totally different theory to the shopkeeper theory of thematerial values of exchange which is here set up.He must at leastexpend on the education of his heirs as much value of exchange aswill enable them to administer the property which is some day tofall to their lot.
The building up of the material national capital takes place inquite another manner than by mere saving as in the case of therentier, namely, in the same manner as the building up of theproductive powers, chiefly by means of the reciprocal actionbetween the mental and material national capital, and between theagricultural, manufacturing, and commercial capital.
The augmentation of the national material capital is dependenton the augmentation of the national mental capital, and vice vers?
The formation of the material agricultural capital is dependenton the formation of the material manufacturing capital, and vicevers?
The material commercial capital acts everywhere as anintermediary, helping and compensating between both.
In the uncivilised state, in the state of the hunter and thefisher, the powers of nature yield almost everything, capital isalmost nil.Foreign commerce increases the latter, but also in sodoing (through fire-arms, powder, lead) totally destroys theproductiveness of the former.The theory of savings cannot profitthe hunter; he must be ruined or become a shepherd.
In the pastoral state the material capital increases quickly,but only so far as the powers of nature afford spontaneouslynourishment to the cattle.The increase of population, however,follows closely upon the increase of flocks and herds and of themeans of subsistence.On the one hand, the flocks and herds as wellas pastures become divided into smaller shares; on the other hand,foreign commerce offers inducements to consumption.It would be invain to preach to the pastoral nation the theory of savings; itmust sink into poverty or pass over into the agricultural State.
To the agricultural nation is open an immense, but at the sametime limited, field for enriching itself by utilising the dormantpowers of nature.
The agriculturist for himself alone can save provisions,improve his fields, increase his cattle; but the increase of themeans of subsistence always follows the increase of population.Thematerial capital (namely, cultivated land and cattle), inproportion as the former becomes more fertile and the latterincrease, becomes divided among a larger number of persons.
