The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1874-07-20
Ruskhn-FIis POIemics Against the
Economists.

Here I come to that part of Mr.. Ruskin's
teaching which, to my mind, is the most un-
fortunate. There is modern gospel which
shows, as he thinks, plain traces of a diaboic
origin. His general view may be sufficiently
indicated BIZ the statement that he utterly
abures Mr.. Mills's Liberty, and holds Mr..
CARLYLE to be the one true teacher OF modern
times. Bur Dr. Ruskin carries his teaching
further. The pet objects of bis antipathy are
the political economists. He believes that his
own writings on political economy are in.
comparably the greatest service which he has
rendered to mankind, and to establish
his own system is to annihilate Ri
cardo, Mill, and Professor Fawcett.
10 give any fair account of bis
views would be to go too fur into very
proftless discussion. This much, however,
must venture to say Mir. Ruskin's pole
mics against the economists on their own
ground appear to me to imply series OF
misconceptions. He is, for example, very
fond Of attacking a doctrine, fully explained
las should say, demonstrated) by Mr. Mill,
that demand for commodities is not demand
for labor. | confess that l am unable 10
understand the reasons for his indiSna.
ton against this unfortunate theorum;
and the more so because it seems to me to
be at once the most moral doctrine of polltl-
cal economy, and that which MIR. Ruskln
should be most anxious tn establish. 1t is
simply the right answer to that most endu-
ring fallacy that rich man benefits his
neighbors by prohigate luxury. Mandeville's
sophistry rcappears in Protean shapes to the
present day. People still maintain in sub
stance that man supports the poor as we'll
as peases himself by spending money on his
own personal enjoyment. In this form. in
deed, Mr.. Ruskin accepts the sound doctrine;
but when clothed in the technical language
of economists it seems to act upon him like
the prover5ial red rag. He is always flying at
it and denouncing the palpable blunders of
men whose reputation for logical clearness is
certainly as good as his own. His indigna-
ton seems to blind him, and is the source of
a series Of questionable statements, which l
cannot here attempt to unrayel. His attack
upon the economists Is thus diverted into an
unfortunate direction. Political economy Is,
or ought to be, an accurate description OF the
actual phenomena OF the Industrial organi-
Zation of society. 1t assumes that, as q mat
ter Of fact, the great moving force is compe-
tition and traces among men the various
consequences of that struggle for existence
of which Darwin has describedsce re-
of trade has been developed out Of, the saw
age simplicity by internal pressure, much as
species on the Darwinian hypothesis have
been developed out of more homogeneous
races. Now, it is perfectly open for any
BODY to say that the conditions thus pro-
duced are unfayorable to morality at the
present day, and that we should look for
ward to organizing society on diSerent prin-
ciples. IL Mr.. Ruskin had said SO much, he
would have found allies instead of enemies
among the best political economists. Mr.
Mill agrees, for instance, with Compile, and
therefore with Mt. Ruskip, thati a perfectly
satisfactory social state capitalists would con-
slider themselves as trustees for public benefit
of the wealth at their disposal. They would
be captains in an industrial array, and be no
more governed by the desire Of profit than
general by desire for prize.money. TO
bring about such state of things requires
cultivation or the "altruistico impulses,
which must be the work of many genera
lions TO come. But Mr.. Ruskin In his wrath
attributes to all economists the vulgar inter
pretation of their doctrines. He calmly as
sumes that political economists regard thslr
( own science as a body of |" directions fof the
| gaining Of wealth, irrespectiyely Of The con
Islderation Of itamoIal sources, bic spppposei