DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.61217#0174
162
JOHN RUSKIN.
to quote. To this section belongs the singularly
interesting sentence on consumption as the end, crown,
and perfection of production. Ruskin and Mill agree
mainly in regard to the impoverishing political effect
of the consumption of the unproductive classes and
of the vain or vicious consumption of the productive
classes; but pure consumption Mill inclines to treat as
though there were, at any rate, no good in it, whereas
Ruskin declares it to be in itself good. I own that
Mill seems to me on this point more logical; that
Ruskin’s estimate is rather of the joy and happiness
whereof consumption is the cost than of consumption
itself; and that it is scientific to treat consumption
as losSj necessary loss or unnecessary, but still loss.
Obviously if men could live for a generation without
food all granaries might overflow; and eating gives
pleasure, but the pleasure does not consist in eating
as an act of destruction. Ruskin, however, seems to
speak more indisputably when he declares all wealth
to be measured by this human capacity of consumption,
and shows good measures of consumption to be as
worthy of an economist’s study as good measures of
production. He next opposes Mill’s assertion that
“ A demand for commodities is not a demand for
labour.” It is one of the knotty points. Near this
follows a fine passage on wars of capitalists and on
the taxing of future generations.
In a word, the book is part of the perpetual plea
of righteousness against blind self - interest, and the
JOHN RUSKIN.
to quote. To this section belongs the singularly
interesting sentence on consumption as the end, crown,
and perfection of production. Ruskin and Mill agree
mainly in regard to the impoverishing political effect
of the consumption of the unproductive classes and
of the vain or vicious consumption of the productive
classes; but pure consumption Mill inclines to treat as
though there were, at any rate, no good in it, whereas
Ruskin declares it to be in itself good. I own that
Mill seems to me on this point more logical; that
Ruskin’s estimate is rather of the joy and happiness
whereof consumption is the cost than of consumption
itself; and that it is scientific to treat consumption
as losSj necessary loss or unnecessary, but still loss.
Obviously if men could live for a generation without
food all granaries might overflow; and eating gives
pleasure, but the pleasure does not consist in eating
as an act of destruction. Ruskin, however, seems to
speak more indisputably when he declares all wealth
to be measured by this human capacity of consumption,
and shows good measures of consumption to be as
worthy of an economist’s study as good measures of
production. He next opposes Mill’s assertion that
“ A demand for commodities is not a demand for
labour.” It is one of the knotty points. Near this
follows a fine passage on wars of capitalists and on
the taxing of future generations.
In a word, the book is part of the perpetual plea
of righteousness against blind self - interest, and the