Steuart, who in some respects was in opposition to the 18th century, and, as an aristocrat, tended rather to regard things from a historical standpoint, avoided this naive view. The further back we trace the course of history, the more does the individual, and accordingly also the producing individual, appear to be dependent and to belong to a larger whole. It is not until the 18th century that, in the bourgeois society, the various forms of the social texture confront the individual as merely means toward his private ends, as external necessity. It is unnecessary to dwell upon this point further. It need not have been mentioned at all, if this inanity, which had rhyme and reason in the works of 18th century writers, were not expressly introduced once more into modern political economy by Bastiat, Carey, Proudhon, etc.
Some elements are found in all epochs, others are common to a few epochs.
Production without them is inconceivable. But, although the most highly-developed languages have laws and categories in common with the most primitive languages, it is precisely their divergence from these general and common features which constitutes their development. For instance, on failure to perceive this fact depends the entire wisdom of modern economists who prove the eternity and harmony of existing social relations. For example, no production is possible without an instrument of production, even if this instrument is simply the hand. It is not possible without past, accumulated labor, even if this labor is only the skill acquired by repeated practice and concentrated in the hand of a savage.