86 



SCWJSTCU. 



[Vol. VIlI., No. 181 



purposes when stated less absolutely. One great 

 cause of the revolt agauist the old political econ- 

 omy was that it apparently taught the necessary 

 misery of the greater part of the community. 

 The socialists gladly seized on the ' iron ' law of 

 wages, and told the workingmen that either the 

 political economy which taught it must be false, 

 or that the civilization to which such political 

 economy was applicable deserved only to be over- 

 thrown. A science which teaches that a great 

 portion of mankind is destined to be miserable 

 may not, for that reason, be unscientific ; but it 

 certainly ought to be very sure of its premises, 

 and it cannot expect to be eagerly accepted. It 

 may be a comfortable doctrine for capitahsts, that 

 strikes can, under no circumstances, permanently 

 raise the rate of wages, and that factory-laws are 

 destructive to the prosperity of industry ; and 

 they may utilize such doctrines to carry out their 

 own selfish purposes. But it is a mistake to 

 formulate scientific principles so absolutely that 

 they can be used in this way. Under the old 

 political economy, this was constantly being done. 

 English factory-owners appealed to the principles 

 of political economy against that legislation which 

 is now universally admitted to be for the interests 

 of the community. Free trade as much as pro- 

 tection has been the struggle of selfish interests. 

 Even the skilful pen of Morley is not able to 

 make of Richard Cobden any thing more than a 

 ' Philistine ' hero. We have at the present time 

 editors of influential papers who see with iU-con- 

 cealed satisfaction ignorant workingmen dash 

 themselves against the stone wall of economic 

 axioms. It is true, again, in physics, that, if you 

 dash your head against a stone wall, you will get 

 hurt. But the question is. Cannot the stone wall 

 be removed ? Is it necessarily and forever there ? 

 The absolute formulation of principles prevents 

 even the asking such questions. It is for this rea- 

 son that the inductive method appears much more 

 reasonable. Political economy is neither a re- 

 ligious creed to be used to excommunicate aU 

 heretics, nor a legal code by which to condemn 

 malefactors, but a body of experience to guide us 

 in the conduct of social economic life. The in- 

 ductive method forbids its being used for the pri- 

 vate purposes of the priesthood or the judges, for 

 new experience may teach us new solutions and 

 new expedients. 



Political economy and social science. 



It has long been recognized that political econo- 

 my is only one branch of social science, and it is 

 an important question what its exact relation to 

 the other branches of social science is. Social 

 science as a whole may be defined as treating of 



human life in all its manifestations in society. It 

 has numerous subdivisions (or, if you choose, 

 you may say there are numerous social sciences), 

 the principal of which are political science, juris' 

 prudence, and political economy. The first treats 

 of the governmental organization ; the second, of 

 the definition of rights and the conflict of wills ; 

 the third, of the satisfaction of material wants. 

 The basis of the social organization is the econom- 

 ic ; for man can reach no high development, 

 either in state or law, until the material wants are 

 satisfied. But the three sciences are intimately 

 connected. The particular form of a state, nomadic 

 chieftainship, monarchy, republic, etc., is com- 

 monly determined by the economic condition of 

 the people ; and law is often only the expression 

 of such economic condition. Slavery is at the 

 same time a political, a legal, and an economic 

 institution. We cannot, therefore, cultivate politi- 

 cal economy without at the same time cultivat- 

 ing the other branches of social science, especially 

 political science and jurisprudence. 



Such being the close connection between politi- 

 cal economy and social science, it is an important 

 question whether our method in political economy 

 aids or hinders this correlation. The abstract 

 method desires to put aside all this connection, 

 and isolate the science of political economy. It 

 expresses this desire in various ways. Commonly 

 it formulates its theory as pure theory, and re- 

 gards all other influences — political, legal, or 

 social — as hinderances. The common analogy is 

 taken from mechanics, the law of dynamics, 

 which teaches that a body once set in motion will 

 continue on in a straight line forever. But in 

 practical life this is never realized, because there 

 are always opposing forces, friction, etc. So the 

 abstract 'economic man' would follow such and 

 such a course of conduct, were it not for political, 

 legal, and social influences. The artificiality of a 

 scheme which treats the most powerful influences 

 of human society — viz., those which hold men 

 together in a state, and subject them to law, not to 

 speak of family and social influences — as friction 

 is at once evident. Another device is to say that 

 there is a pure ' science ' of political economy 

 which treats only of the economic man, and that 

 it belongs to the ' art ' of political economy to 

 consider these other influences. The trouble here, 

 again, is, that, in the separation of the art from 

 the science, the latter is almost sure to lose its 

 vitality. Especially is it fatal when we try to con- 

 nect political economy with politics and law, 

 which have no sympathy with pure abstractions. 



The inductive method avoids this artificial 

 separation and distinction, this ruptm-e between 

 the theoretical and the real. It studies the facts 



