Reflections on the Formation
and Distribution of Wealth
Anne Robert Jacques Turgot
[London: Printed by E. Spragg, For J. Good,
Bookseller, No. 159, New Bond Street; John Anderson, No. 62, Holborn
Hill; and W. Richardson, Royal Exchange. 1793 / Part 1 of 5]
"This Essay May be Considered as the Germ
of the Treatise on "The Wealth of Nations, Written by the
Celebrated Smith." (Condorcet's Life of Turgot)
|
- 1. The impossibility of the existence of Commerce upon the
supposition of an equal division of lands, where every man should
possess only what is necessary for his own support.
If the land was divided among all the inhabitants of a country,
so that each of them possessed precisely the quantity necessary
for his support, and nothing more; it is evident that all of them
being equal, no one would work for another. Neither would any of
them possess wherewith to pay another for his labour, for each
person having only such a quantity of land as was necessary to
produce a subsistence, would consume all he should gather, and
would not have any thing to give in exchange for the labour of
others.
- The above hypothesis neither has existed nor could continue.
The diversity of soils and multiplicity of wants, compel an
exchange of the productions of the earth, against other
productions.
This hypothesis never can have existed, because the earth has
been cultivated before it has been divided; the cultivation itself
having been the only motive for a division, and for that law which
secures to every one his property. For the first persons who have
employed themselves in cultivation, have probably worked as much
land as their strength would permit, and, consequently, more than
was necessary for their own nourishment.
If this state could have existed, it could not possibly be
durable; each one gathering from his field only a subsistence, and
not having wherewith to pay others for their labour, would not be
enabled to supply his other wants of lodging, clothing, &c. &c.,
except by the labour of his hands, which would be nearly
impossible, as every soil does not produce every material.
The man whose land was only fit to produce grain, and would
neither bring forth cotton or flax, would want linen to cloth him.
Another would have ground proper for cotton, which would not yield
grain. One would want wood for his fire, and another be destitute
of corn to support him. Experience would soon teach every one what
species of productions his land was best adapted to, and he would
confine himself to the cultivation of it; in order to procure
himself those things he stood in need of, by an exchange with his
neighbours, who, having on their part acquired the same
experience, would have cultivated those productions which were
best suited to their fields, and would have abandoned the
cultivation of any other.
- The productions of the earth require long and difficult
preparations, before they are rendered fit to supply the wants of
men.
The productions which the earth supplies to satisfy the different
wants of man, will not, for the most part, administer to those
wants, in the state nature affords them; it is necessary they
should undergo different operations, and be prepared by art. Wheat
must be converted into flour, then into bread; hides must be
dressed or tanned; wool and cotton must be spun; silk must be
taken from the cod; hemp and flax must be soaked, peeled, spun,
and wove into different textures; then cut and sewed together
again to make garments, &c. If the same man who cultivates on
his own land these different articles, and who raises them to
supply his wants, was obliged to perform all the intermediate
operations himself, it is certain he would succeed very badly. The
greater part of these preparations require care, attention, and a
long experience; all which are only to be acquired by progressive
labour, and that on a great quantity of materials. Let us refer,
for example, to the preparation of hides: what labourer can pursue
all the particular things necessary to those operations, which
continue several months, sometimes several years? If he is able to
do it, can he do it with a single hide? What a loss of time, of
room, and of materials, which might be employed, either at the
same time or successively, to tan a large quantity of skins! But
should he even succeed in manning a single skin, and wants one
pair of shoes, what will he do with the remainder? Will he kill an
ox to make this pair of shoes? Will he cut down a tree to make a
pair of wooden shoes? We may say the same thing of every other
want of every other man, who, if he was reduced to his field, and
the labour of his own hands, would waste much time, take much
trouble, be very badly equipped in every respect, and would also
cultivate his lands very ill.
- The necessity of these preparations, bring on the exchange of
productions for labour.
The same motive which has established the exchange of commodity
for commodity, between the cultivators of lands of different
natures, has also necessarily brought on the exchange of
commodities for labour, between the cultivators and another
portion of society, who shall have preferred the occupation of
preparing and completing the productions of the earth, to the
cultivation of it. Every one profits by this arrangement, for
every one attaching himself to a peculiar species of labour,
succeeds much better therein. The husbandman draws from his field
the greatest quantity it is able to produce, and procures to
himself, with greater facility, all the other objects of his
wants, by an exchange of his superflux, than he could have done by
his own labour. The shoemaker, by making shoes for the husbandman,
secures to himself a portion of the harvest of the latter. Every
workman labours for the wants of the workmen of every other trade,
who, on their side, toil also for him.
- Pre-eminence of the husbandman who produces, over the artificer
who prepares. The husbandman is the first mover in the circulation
of labour: it is he who causes the earth to produce the wages of
every artificer.
It must, however, be observed that the husbandman, finishing
every one with the most important and the most considerable
objects of their consumption (I mean their food, and the materials
of almost all manufactures) has the advantage of a greater degree
of independence. His labour, among the different species of
labour, appropriated to the different members of society, supports
the same pre-eminence and priority, as the procuring of food did
among the different works he was obliged, in his solitary state,
to employ himself in, in order to minister to his wants of every
kind. This is not a pre-eminence of honour or of dignity, but of
physical necessity. The husbandman can, generally speaking,
subsist without the labour of other workmen; but no other workmen
can labour, if the husbandman does not provide him wherewith to
exist. It is this circulation, which, by a reciprocal exchange of
wants, renders mankind necessary to each other, and which forms
the bond of society: it is therefore the labour of the husbandman
which gives the first movement. What his industry causes the earth
to produce beyond his personal wants, is the only fund for the
wages, which all the other members of society receive in
recompence for their toil. The latter, by availing themselves of
the produce of this exchange, to purchase in their turn the
commodities of the husbandman, only return to him precisely what
they have received. There is here a very essential difference
between these two species of labour, on which it is necessary to
reflect, and to be well assured of the ground on which they stand,
before we trust to the innumerable consequences which flow from
them.
- The wages of the workman is limited by the competition among
those who work for a subsistence. He only gains a livelihood.
The mere workman, who depends only on his Lands and his industry,
has nothing but such part of his labour as he is able to dispose
of to others. He sells it at a cheaper or a dearer price; but this
high or low price does not depend on himself alone; it results
from the agreement he has made with the person who employs him.
The latter pays him as little as he can help, and as he has the
choice from among a great number of workmen, he prefers the person
who works cheapest. The workmen are therefore obliged to lower
their price in opposition to each other. In every species of
labour it must, and, in effect, it does happen, that the wages of
the workman is confined merely to what is necessary to procure him
a subsistence.
- The husbandman is the only one whose industry produces more
than the wages of his labour. He, therefore, is the only source of
all Wealth.
The situation of the husbandman is materially different. The
soil, independent of any other man, or of any agreement, pays him
immediately the price of his toil. Nature does not bargain with
him, or compel him to content himself with what is absolutely
necessary. What she grants is neither limited to his wants, nor to
a conditional valuation of the price of his day's work. It is a
physical consequence of the fertility of the soil, and of justice,
rather than of the difficulty of the means, which he has employed
to render the soil fruitful. As soon as the labour of the
husbandman produces more than sufficient for his necessities, he
can, with the excess which nature affords him of pure freewill
beyond the wages of his toil, purchase the labour of other members
of society, The latter, in selling to him, only procures a
livelihood; but the husbandman, besides his subsistence, collects
an independent wealth at his disposal, which he has not purchased,
but which he can sell. He is, therefore, the only source of all
those riches which, by their circulation, animates the labours of
society: because he is the only one whose labour produces more
than the wages of his toil.
- First division of society into two classes, the one productive,
or the cultivators, the other stipendiary, or the artificers.
Here then is the whole society divided, by a necessity founded on
the nature of things, into two classes, both industrious, one of
which, by its labour, produces, or father draws from the earth,
riches continually renewing, which supply the whole society with
subsistence, and with materials for all its wants; while the other
is employed in giving to the said materials such preparations and
forms as render them proper for the use of man, sells his labour
to the first, and receives in return a subsistence. The first may
be called the productive, the latter the stipendiary class.
- In the first ages of society, the proprietors could not be
distinguished from the cultivators.
Hitherto we have not distinguished the husbandman from the
proprietor of the land; and in the first origin they were not in
fact so distinguished. It is by the labour of those who have first
cultivated the fields, and who have inclosed them to secure their
harvest, that all land has ceased to be common, and that a
property in the soil has been established. Until societies have
been formed, and until the pubic strength, or the laws, becoming
superior to the force of individuals, have been able to guarantee
to every one the tranquil possession of his property, against all
invasion from without; the property in a field could only be
secured as it had been acquired, by continuing to cultivate it;
the proprietor could not be assured of having his field cultivated
by the help of another; and that person taking all the trouble,
could not easily have comprehended that the whole harvest did not
belong to him. On the other hand, in this early age, when every
industrious man would find as much land as he wanted, he would not
be tempted to labour for another. It necessarily follows, that
every proprietor must cultivate his own field or abandon it
entirely.
- Progress of society; all lands have an owner.
But the land begins to people, and to be cleared more and more.
The best lands are in process of time fully occupied. There
remains only for those who come last, nothing but barren land,
rejected by the first occupants. But at last, every spot has found
a master, and those who cannot gain a property therein, have no
other resource but to exchange the labour of their hands in some
of the employments of the stipendiary clasS, for the excess of
commodities possessed by the cultivating proprietor.
- The proprietors begin to be able to ease themselves of the
labour of cultivation, by the help of hired cultivators.
Mean time, since the earth produces to the proprietor who
cultivates it, not a subsistence only, not only wherewith to
procure himself by way of exchange, what he otherwise wants, but
also a considerable superfluity; he is enabled with this
superfluity, to pay other men to cultivate his land. For among
those who live by wages, as many are content to labour in this
employment as in any other. The proprietor, therefore, might then
be eased of the labour of culture, and he soon was so.
- Inequality in the division of property: causes which render
that inevitable.
The original proprietors would (as I have already mentioned)
occupy as much land as their strength would permit them with their
families to cultivate. A man of greater strength, more laborious,
more attentive about the future, would occupy more than a man of a
contrary character. He, whose family is the most numerous having
greater wants and more hands, extends his possessions further;
this is a first cause of inequality.
-- Every piece of ground is not equally fertile; two men with the
same extent of land, may reap a very different harvest; this is a
second source of inequality. Property in descending from fathers
to their children, divides into greater or less portions,
according as the descendants are more or less numerous, and as one
generation succeeds another, sometimes the inheritances again
subdivide, and sometimes re-unite again by the extinction of some
of the branches; this is a third source of inequality. The
difference of knowledge, of activity, and, above all, the economy
of some, contrasted with the indolence, inaction, and dissipation
of others, is a fourth principle of inequality, and the most
powerful of all: the negligent and inattentive proprietor, who
cultivates badly, who in a fruitful year consumes in frivolous
things the whole of his superfluity, finds himself reduced on the
least accident to request assistance from his more provident
neighbour, and to live by borrowing. If by any new accident, or by
a continuation of his negligence, he finds himself not in a
condition to repay, he is obliged to have recourse to new loans,
and at last has no other resource but to abandon a part, or even
the whole of his property to his creditor, who receives it as an
equivalent; or to assign it to another, in exchange for other
valuables with which he discharges his obligation to his creditor.
- Consequences of this inequality: The cultivator distinguished
from the proprietor.
Thus is the property in the soil made subject to purchase and
sale. The portion of the dissipating or unfortunate, increases the
share of the more happy or industrious proprietor; and in this
infinite variety of possessions, it is not possible but a great
number of proprietors must possess more than they can cultivate.
Besides, it is very natural for a rich man to wish for a tranquil
enjoyment of his property, and instead of employing his whole time
in toilsome labour, he rather prefers giving a part of his
superfluity to people to work for him.
- Division of the produce between the cultivator and the
proprietor. Net Produce, or revenue.
By this new arrangement, the produce of the land divides into two
parts. The one comprehends the subsistence and the profits of the
husbandman, which are the rewards for his labour, and the
conditions on which he agrees to cultivate the field of the
proprietor; the other which remains, is that independent and
disposable part, which the earth produces as a free gift to the
proprietor over and above what he has disbursed; and it is out of
this share of the proprietor's, or what is called the revenue,
that he is enabled to live without labour, and which he can carry
wherever he will.
- A new division of society into three classes. Cultivators,
Artificers, and Proprietors, or the productive, stipendiary, and
disposible classes.
We now behold society divided into three branches; the class of
husbandmen, whom we may denominate cultivators; the class of
artificers and others, who work for hire upon the productions of
the earth; and the class of proprietors, the only one which, not
being confined by a want of support to a particular species of
labour, may be employed in the general service of society, as for
war, and the administration of justice, either by a personal
service, or by the payment of a part of their revenue, with which
the state may hire others to fill these employments. The
appellation which suits the best with this division, for this
reason, is that of the disposable class.
- Resemblance between the two laborious classes.
The two classes of cultivators and artificers, resemble each
other in many respects, and particularly that those who compose
them do not possess any revenue, and both equally subsist on the
wages which are paid them out of the productions of the earth.
Both have also this circumstance in common, that they only gain
the price of their labour and their disbursements, and that this
price is nearly the same in the two classes. The proprietor
agreeing with those who cultivate his ground to pay them as small
a part as possible of its produce, in the same manner as he
bargains with the shoemaker to buy his shoes as cheap as he can.
In a word, neither the cultivator, nor the artificer receives more
than a bare recompense for his labour.
- Essential difference between the two laborious classes.
But there is this difference between the two species of labour;
that the work of the cultivator produces not only his own wages,
but also that revenue which serves to pay all the different
classes of artificers, and other stipendiaries their salaries:
whereas the artificers receive simply their salary, that is to
say, their part of the productions of the earth, in exchange for
their labour, and which does not produce any increase. The
proprietor enjoys nothing but by the labour of the cultivator. He
receives from him his subsistence, and wherewith to pay for the
labour of the other stipendiaries. He has need of the cultivator
by the necessity arising from the physical order of things, by
which necessity the earth is not fruitful without labour; but the
cultivator has no need of the proprietor but by virtue of human
conventions, and of those civil laws which have guaranteed to the
first cultivators and their heirs, the property in the lands they
had occupied, even after they ceased to cultivate them. But these
laws can only secure to the idle man, that part of the production
of his land which it produces beyond the retribution due to the
cultivators. The cultivator, confined as he is to a stipend for
his labour, still preserves that natural and physical priority
which renders him the first mover of the whole machine of society,
and which causes both the subsistence and wealth of the
proprietor, and the salaries paid for every other species of
labour, to depend on his industry. The artificer, on the contrary,
receives his wages either of the proprietor or of the cultivator,
and only gives them in exchange for his stipend, an equivalent in
labour, and nothing more.
Thus, although neither the cultivator and artificer gain more
than a recompence for their toil; yet the labour of the cultivator
produces besides that recompense, a revenue to the proprietor,
while the artificer does not produce any revenue either for
himself or others.
- This difference authorises another distinction into the
productive and barren classes.
We may then distinguish the two classes not disposable into the
productive class, which is that of the cultivators, or the barren
class, which comprehends all the other stipendiary members of
society.
- How the proprietors may draw a revenue from their lands.
The proprietors who do not cultivate their lands themselves, may
adopt different methods of cultivating them, or make different
agreements with those who cultivate them.
- First method, or cultivation by labourers on wages.
They may, in the first place, pay men by the day or the year, to
work their fields, and reserve to themselves the whole of the
produce; this includes a supposition that the proprietor pays all
advances, both for seed, and the wages of the labourers, until
after the harvest. But this method requires great labour and
assiduity on the part of the proprietor, who alone can direct his
men in their labour, see that they employ their time well, and
watch over their fidelity, that they shall not carry away any part
of the produce. It is true that he may pay a man of more
knowledge, and whose fidelity he knows, who, in quality of manager
and conductor, may direct the workmen, and keep an account of the
produce; but he will be always subject to fraud. Besides, this
method is extremely expensive, unless a large population, or want
of employ in other species of labour, forces the workmen to
content themselves with very low salaries.
NEXT
|
