The "Greater Leviathan"
THE famous treatise in which the English philosopher
Hobbes, during the revolt against the tyranny of the
Stuarts in the seventeenth century, sought to give the
sanction of reason to the doctrine of the absolute
authority of kings, is entitled Leviathan. It
thus begins: "Nature, the art whereby God hath made and
governs the world, is by the art of man, as in many other
things, so in this also imitated, that it can make an
artificial animal. . . For by art is created that great
Leviathan called a commonwealth or state, in Latin
civitas, which is but an
artificial man; though of greater stature and strength
than the natural, for whose protection and defense it was
intended. . ."
Without stopping now to comment further on Hobbes's
suggestive analogy, there is, it seems to me, in the
system or arrangement into which men are brought in
social life by the effort to satisfy their material
desires — an integration which goes on as
civilization advances — something which even more
strongly and more clearly suggests the idea of a gigantic
man, formed by the union of individual men, than any
merely political integration. This Greater Leviathan is
to the political structure or conscious commonwealth what
the unconscious functions of the body are to the
conscious activities. It is not made by pact or covenant,
it grows; as the tree grows, as the man himself grows, by
virtue of natural laws inherent in human nature and in
the constitution of things. . . . It is this natural
system or arrangement, this adjustment of means to ends,
of the parts to the whole and the whole to the parts, in
the satisfaction of the material desires of men living in
society, which, in the same sense as that in which we
speak of the economy of the solar system, is the economy
of human society, or what in English we call political
economy. It is as human units, individuals or families,
take their place as integers of this higher man, this
Greater Leviathan, that what we call civilization begins
and advances. . . . The appearance and development of the
body politic, the organized state, the Leviathan of
Hobbes, is the mark of civilization already in existence.
— The Science of Political Economy —
unabridged: Book I, Chapter 3, The Meaning of Political
Economy: How Man's Powers Are Extended •
abridged:
Chapter 2: The Greater Leviathan
IN the economic meaning of the term production, the
transporter or exchanger, or anyone engaged in any
subdivision of those functions, is as truly engaged in
production as is the primary extractor or maker. A
newspaper-carrier or the keeper of a news-stand would,
for instance, in common speech be styled a distributor.
But in economic terminology he is not a distributor of
wealth, but a producer of wealth. Although his part in
the process of producing the newspaper to the final
receiver comes last, not first, he is as much a producer
as the paper-maker or type-founder, the editor, or
compositor, or press-man. For the object of production is
the satisfaction of human desires, that is to say, it is
consumption; and this object is not made capable of
attainment, that is to say, production is not really
complete, until wealth is brought to the place where it
is to be consumed and put at the disposal of him whose
desire it is to satisfy. — The Science of
Political Economy
unabridged: Book III, Chapter 1, The Production of
Wealth: The Meaning of Production • abridged:
Part III, Chapter 1, The Production of Wealth: The
Meaning of Production
PRODUCTION and distribution are not separate things, but
two mentally distinguishable parts of one thing —
the exertion of human labor in the satisfaction of human
desire. Though materially distinguishable, they are as
closely related as the two arms of the syphon. And as it
is the outflow of water at the longer end of the syphon
that is the cause of the inflow of water at the shorter
end, so it is that distribution is really the cause of
production, not production the cause of distribution. In
the ordinary course, things are not distributed because
they have been produced, but are produced in order that
they may be distributed. Thus interference with the
distribution of wealth is interference with the
production of wealth, and shows its effect in lessened
production. — The Science of Political
Economy —
unabridged Book IV, Chapter 2, The Distribution of
Wealth: The Nature of Distribution • abridged
Part IV, Chapter 2, The Distribution of Wealth: The
Nature of Distribution
OUR inquiry into the laws of the distribution of wealth
is not an inquiry into the municipal laws or human
enactments which either here and now, or in any other
time and place, prescribe or have prescribed how wealth
shall be divided among men. With them we have no concern,
unless it may be for purposes of illustration. What we
have to seek are those laws of the distribution of wealth
which belong to the natural order — laws which are
a part of that system or arrangement which constitutes
the social organism or body economic, as distinguished
from the body politic or state, the Greater Leviathan
which makes its appearance with civilization and develops
with its advance. These natural laws are in all times and
places the same, and though they may be crossed by human
enactment, can never be annulled or swerved by it. It is
more needful to call this to mind, because, in what have
passed for systematic treatises on political economy, the
fact that it is with natural laws, not human laws, that
the science of political economy is concerned, has, in
treating of the distribution of wealth, been utterly
ignored, and even flatly denied. — The Science
of Political Economy —
unabridged: Part IV, Chapter 1, The Distribution of
Wealth: The Meaning of Distribution • abridged:
Part IV, Chapter 1, The Distribution of Wealth: The
Meaning of Distribution
THE distinction between the laws of production and the
laws of distribution is not, as is erroneously taught in
the scholastic political economy, that the one set of
laws are natural laws and the other human laws. Both sets
of laws are laws of nature. The real distinction is that
the natural laws of production are physical laws and the
natural laws of distribution are moral laws. . . . The
moment we turn from a consideration of the laws of the
production of wealth to a consideration of the laws of
the distribution of wealth, the idea of ought or duty
becomes primary. All consideration of distribution
involves the ethical principle, is necessarily a
consideration of ought or duty — a consideration in
which the idea of right or justice is from the very first
involved. — The Science of Political
Economy —
unabridged: Book IV, Chapter 4, The Distribution of
Wealth: The Real Difference Between Laws of Production
and of Distribution • abridged:
Part IV, Chapter 3: The Distribution of Wealth: Physical
and Moral Laws
Co-operation — its Two
Modes
ALL increase in the productive power of man over that
with which nature endows the individual comes from the
co-operation of individuals. But there are two ways in
which this co-operation may take place. 1. By the
combination of effort. In this way individuals may
accomplish what exceeds the full power of the individual.
2. By the separation of effort. In this way the
individual may accomplish for more than one what does not
require the full power of the individual. . . . To
illustrate: The first way of co-operation, the
combination of labor, enables a number of men to remove a
rock or to raise a log that would be too heavy for them
separately. In this way men conjoin themselves, as it
were, into one stronger man. Or, to take an example so
common in the early days of American settlement that
"log-rolling" has become a term for legislative
combination: Tom, Dick, Harry and Jim are building near
each other their rude houses in the clearings. Each hews
his own trees, but the logs are too heavy for one man to
get into place. So the four unite their efforts, first
rolling one man's logs into place and then another's,
until, the logs of all four having been placed, the
result is the same as if each had been enabled to
concentrate into one time the force he could exert in
four different times. . . . But, while great advantages
result from the ability of individuals, by the
combination of labor to concentrate themselves, as it
were, into one larger man, there are other times and
other things in which an individual could accomplish more
if he could divide himself, as it were, into a number of
smaller men. . . . What the division of labor does, is to
permit men, as it were, so to divide themselves, thus
enormously increasing their total effectiveness. To
illustrate from the example used before: While at times
Tom, Dick, Harry and Jim might each wish to move logs, at
other times they might each need to get something from a
village distant two days' journey. To satisfy this need
individually would thus require two days' effort on the
part of each. But if Tom alone goes, performing the
errands for all, and the others each do half a days' work
for him, the result is that all get at the expense of
half a day's effort on the part of each what otherwise
would have required two days' effort. — The
Science of Political Economy —
unabridged: Book III, Chapter 9, The Production of
Wealth: Cooperation — Its Two Ways •
abridged:
Part III, Chapter 7, The Production of Wealth:
Co-operation: Its Two Ways
Co-operation — its Two
Kinds
WE have seen that there are two ways or modes in which
co-operation increases productive power. If we ask how
co-operation is itself brought about, we see that there
is in this also a distinction, and that co-operation is
of two essentially different kinds. . .. There is one
kind of co-operation, proceeding, as it were, from
without, which results from the conscious direction of a
controlling will to a definite end. This we may call
directed or conscious co-operation. There is another kind
of co-operation, proceeding, as it were, from within,
which results from a correlation in the actions of
independent wills, each seeking but its own immediate
purpose, and careless, if not indeed ignorant, of the
general result. This we may call spontaneous or
unconscious co-operation. The movement of a great army is
a good type of co-operation of the one kind. Here the
actions of many individuals are subordinated to, and
directed by, one conscious will, they becoming, as it
were, its body and executing its thought. The providing
of a great city with all the manifold things which are
constantly needed by its inhabitants is a good type of
co-operation of the other kind. This kind of co-operation
is far wider, far finer, far more strongly and delicately
organized, than the kind of co-operation involved in the
movements of an army, yet it is brought about not by
subordination to the direction of one conscious will,
which knows the general result at which it aims, but by
the correlation of actions originating in many
independent wills, each aiming at its own small purpose
without care for, or thought of; the general result. The
one kind of co-operation seems to have its analogue in
those related movements of our body which we are able
consciously to direct. The other kind of co-operation
seems to have its analogue in the correlation of the
innumerable movement, of which we are unconscious, that
maintain the bodily frame — motions which in their
complexity, delicacy and precision far transcend our
powers of conscious direction, yet by whose perfect
adjustment to each other and to the purpose of the whole,
that co-operation of part and function, that makes up the
human body and keeps it in life and vigor, is brought
about and supported. — The Science of Political
Economy —
unabridged: Book III, Chapter 10, The Production of
Wealth: Cooperation — Its Two Kinds •
abridged:
Part III, Chapter 8, Cooperation: Its Two Kinds
To attempt to apply that kind of co-operation which
requires direction from without to the work proper for
that kind of co-operation which requires direction from
within, is like asking the carpenter who can build a
chicken-house to build a chicken also. — The
Science of Political Economy —
unabridged: Book III, Chapter 10, The Production of
Wealth: Cooperation — Its Two Kinds •
abridged:
Part III, Chapter 8, Cooperation: Its Two Kinds
ALL living things that we know of co-operate in some
kind and to some degree. So far as we can see, nothing
that lives can live in and for itself alone. But man is
the only one who co-operates by exchanging, and he may be
distinguished from all the numberless tribes that with
him tenant the earth as the exchanging animal. . . .
Exchange is the great agency by which what I have called
the spontaneous or unconscious co-operation of men in the
production of wealth is brought about, and economic units
are welded into that social organism which is the Greater
Leviathan. To this economic body, this Greater Leviathan,
into which it builds the economic units, it is what the
nerves or perhaps the ganglions are to the individual
body. Or, to make use of another illustration, it is to
our material desires and powers of satisfying them what
the switchboard of a telegraph or telephone, or other
electric system, is to that system, a means by which
exertion of one kind in one place may be transmitted into
satisfaction of another kind in another place, and thus
the efforts of individual units be conjoined and
correlated so as to yield satisfactions in most useful
place and form, and to an amount enormously exceeding
what otherwise would be possible. — The Science
of Political Economy —
unabridged: Book III, Chapter 11, The Production of
Wealth: The Office of Exchange in Production •
unabridged
Chapter 9, The Office of Exchange in Production
... go to "Gems
from George"