SC I EN C E -Supplement. 



FRIDAY, APRIL 23, 1886. 



CHANGE IN THE TENETS OF POLITICAL 

 ECONOMY WITH TIME. 



"It is incontestable," says Comte, "that con- 

 tinuity and fecundity are the least doubtful symp- 

 toms of all truly scientific conceptions. When 

 each new work on political economy, in lieu of 

 presenting itself as the spontaneous sequence and 

 gradual development of previous works, has an 

 essentially personal character according to its au- 

 thor, so as to repeatedly put in question the most 

 fundamental notions," then we can rest assured 

 that we are not dealing with a science properly 

 so called. 



It is not the intention of the present paper to 

 combat this statement in its entirety ; for the ma- 

 turer judgment of the scientific world has convicted 

 ■Comte of a gross misconception as to the nature 

 of economics. But one charge must be met, — 

 a point that contains the very marrow of the new 

 movement in political economy. What Comte 

 predicated of sociology, but denied in speaking of 

 political economy, and what many of the older 

 school then, as now, often disregarded, is the 

 essential interrelation between economic theories 

 and the changing external conditions of industrial 

 life. The modern school, the historical and criti- 

 cal school, holds that the economic theories of any 

 generation must be regarded primarily as the 

 outgrowth of the peculiar conditions of time, 

 place, and nationality, under which the doctrines 

 were evolved, and that no particular set of tenets 

 can arrogate to itself the claim of immutable 

 truth, or the assumption of universal applicability 

 to all countries or epochs. We do not wish to 

 disparage the work of previous economists ; but, 

 just because of our belief in the relativity and 

 continuity of economic doctrine, we are com- 

 pelled to regard much of what was at the time 

 comparatively correct and feasible, as to-day posi- 

 tively erroneous and misleading. We maintain 

 that Comte's criticism is specious and shallow ; 

 we hold that there is a well-defined thread of con 

 tinuity and gradual development in the history 

 of economic doctrines ; and we assert that each 

 period of economic life must be treated by itself, 

 both in regard to the truth or falsity of the doc- 

 trine itself, and in regard to the applicability of 

 the particular theory in question. Let us, then, 



first give a short sketch of the history, and then 

 draw our conclusions. 



1. The science of political economy in its present 

 form is essentially a creation of modern thought. 

 The conditions that have given rise to its birth are 

 peculiarly the development of the last few cen- 

 turies. Classic antiquity can indeed show us 

 several writers on economic topics ; but a com- 

 plete science, as we understand it, was an im- 

 possibility, because the whole environment was of 

 a nature to preclude speculation of this kind. The 

 one great fact which pervaded the whole national 

 life in Hellenic antiquity, for instance, was the 

 institution of slavery. In Greece the home of 

 almost every rich freeman was a great complex. 

 He owned the land, the house, the slaves ; and 

 he produced at home, on the premises, all the 

 necessary articles of consumption, which again, in 

 cases where exchange was desirable, were taken 

 to market by his own slaves, and sold as his own 

 property. This complex of possessions was called 

 in Greece oinog (originally, 'a house'), and the 

 word ' economics ' (oinog and vo/nbg, ' rule ') primarily 

 denoted the method of managing this property, 

 thus including domestic as well as political econo- 

 my. But there was no fundamental distinction be- 

 tween real and personal property, between mova- 

 bles and immovables, between land and capital, 

 as in modern times, because the same individual 

 always owned both. There was no distinction 

 between labor and capital, because labor was re- 

 garded as a part of capital, because the laborer was 

 property, because the slave was put in the same 

 category as land and other commodities. Land- 

 owner, capitalist, employer of labor, who are to-day 

 sharply distinguished in production, were thrown 

 into one in antiquity. The slave being a part of 

 this complex, no independent theory of wages 

 could arise, since there were no wages ; the land- 

 owner being the capitalist, no theory of rent could 

 arise ; the capitalist being the employer of labor 

 and the transporter of goods to market, no theory 

 of interest and profits, no conception of wages of 

 superintendence as a separate share in distribution, 

 could arise. The oinog is therefore a fact of the 

 most fundamental importance in Greek life, and 

 furnishes the clew to all the theories of Aristotle 

 and Xenophon, which, without it, are incompre- 

 hensible and seemingly illogical. 



The second distinguishing mark of Greek life was 

 the general conception of state. The present cen- 

 tury is the age of individualism : the Hellenic epoch 



