[383] § 12. Open and closed resources.

We have said that among agricultural peoples slavery, as an industrial system, only exists where there is still free land; it disappears as soon as all land has been appropiated. We have also seen that slavery does not prevail to any considerable extent where subsistence is dependent on capital. [The reader will remember that there are tribes among which land is abundant, but nobody can live upon land and human labour only: the possession of capital is necessary, and those destitute of capital have to apply to the owners for employment. The best instance is furnished by the pastoral tribes.

We have purposely avoided speaking of countries in which all land has been appropriated and capital also plays a great part, as it is the case in the manufacturing countries of modern Europe. Here the structure of society is very complicated and difficult to disentangle. We think, however, that here also the most important fact is the appropriation of the soil.] We may [384] now combine these two conclusions into this general rule: slavery, as an industrial system, is not likely to exist where subsistence depends on material resources which are present in limited quantity.

A tribe or nation cannot subsist without labour (though the amount of labour required is sometimes small); but, besides this, material resources are always necessary. The resources which man uses to procure his subsistence are of two kinds: gifts of nature, and products of human labour. The latter arc commonly termed capital; their supply is always limited. Most of the former (air, water, the heat of the sun, etc) exist in unlimited quantity, i. e. there is so much of them that nobody wants to appropriate them. Land is also a gift of nature, and in some very thinly peopled countries, where there is much more fertile ground than can be cultivated, it has not any more value than air and water. But as all land has not the same properties, it soon comes to pass that the most fertile and most favourably situated land is appropriated by some men to the exclusion of others. This is the origin of rent. Finally, when the less valuable grounds have also been appropriated, free land no longer exists; there is no piece of land but has its definite owner. ["The earth, as we have already seen, is not the only agent of nature, which has a productive power; but it is the only one, or nearly so, that one set of men take to themselves, to the exclusion of others; and of which, consequently, they can appropriato the benefits. The waters of rivers, and of the sea, by the power which they have of giving movement to our machines, carrying our boats, nourishing our fish, have also a productive power; the wind which turns our mills, and even the heat of the sun, work for us; but happily no one has yet been able to say, the wind and the sun are mine, and the service which they render must be paid for." J. B. Say, Economie Politique, as quoted by Ricardo, p. 35.] This last state of things has social consequences very similar to those which exist where subsistence depends on capital. In both cases indispensable means of production are in the hands of definite persons; therefore a man destitute either of land or of capital (according as subsistence depends on the former or the latter), cannot subsist independently of the owners, but has to apply to them for employment. [385] Moreover, in both cases more than a limited quantity of labour cannot be profitably employed: the owner of capital, or of a limited space of land, cannot derive any profit from employing more than a certain number of labourers. Therefore in either case slavery, as an industrial system, is not likely to exist.

These considerations lead us to an important conclusion. All the peoples of the earth, whether they subsist by hunting, fishing, cattle-breeding, agriculture, trade or manufactures, may be divided into two categories. Among the peoples of the first category the means of subsistence are open to all; every one who is able-bodied and not defective in mind can provide for himself independently of any capitalist or landlord. Among some of these peoples capital is of some use, and some valuable lands are already held as property; but those who are destitute of such advantages can perfectly well do without them, for there are still abundant natural supplies open to them. Among the peoples of the other category subsistence depends on resources of which the supply is limited, and therefore people destitute of these resources are dependent on the owners. It may be convenient to suggest technical names for these two categories. We shall speak of peoples with open resources and peoples with closed resources. We think the meaning of these terms is clear, and they may be convenient for use. The distinction is an important one. We suppose we have sufficiently proved that the relations between the social classes differ largely, according as resources are open or closed: only among peoples with open resources can slavery and serfdom exist, whereas free labourers dependent on wages are only found among peoples with closed resources. [This is the general rule. We are fully aware that there are exceptions due to secondary causes, internal and external. Moreover, open resources do not necessarily lead to slavery or serfdom: there are many simple societies in which there are no labouring, as opposed to ruling classes, everybody, or nearly everybody, working for his own wants (e. g. among many hunters, fishers, and hunting agriculturists).] Our distinction may prove valuable in other respects also, e. g. over-population and lack of employment are unknown among peoples with open resources; war, which, when resources are open, has sometimes rather the character of a sport, becomes more serious when resources have become closed, for then its object is to extend the supply [386] of land or capital at the cost of the enemy [Malthus (p. 453), speaking of war, says: "One of its first causes and most powerful impulses was undoubtedly an insufficiency of room and food".]; pessimism is more likely to prevail among peoples with closed than among peoples with open resources, etc. [See Wakefield, pp. 126-134, on the happiness of settlers in new countries.] We shall not, however, enlarge upon these points any further.

Most savage tribes have open resources. All hunters have (with the exception, perhaps, of some Australians): neither the game nor the hunting territories are held as property. Further, most fishers: fishing is carried on in a simple manner and does not yet require capital. And finally, most agricultural tribes; among them superest ager, as Tacitus says of the ancient Germans. [A good instance is afforded by the Angoni as described by Wiese. Their king, he tells us, subjected neighbouring tribes and brought them to his own country. "He did not care for the territory deserted by these tribes. It was his chief aim to have the people; to landed property he attached little value" (Wiese, p. 197).]

Savage tribes with closed resources are:

1. possibly some Australian hunters, if it is true that among them every inch of ground is held as property,
2. the Eskimos (fishers), who cannot get on without a boat, or a sledge and dogs,
3. all pastoral tribes,
4. the agricultural tribes inhabiting most of the Polynesian and Micronesian islands, the Fijians and perhaps a few agricultural tribes outside Oceania.

We shall not inquire whether the civilized nations of ancient and modern times have, or had, open or closed resources. We will only remark that in Western Europe resources, from open, have become closed. Yet they are not altogether closed, as long as there are still thinly peopled countries open for emigration. Whether the white races will still have room for expansion for a considerable time, we cannot know.

When we were preparing the first edition of this work, we thought the distinction between countries with open and with closed resources had not been made before. Since we read Lange's book on the labour problem and saw that the author speaks in the same sense of open and closed countries or open and closed economy. We give here the passages of most interest, bearing on the subject.

"There is a great difference between [387] the economy of open and closed civilized countries. In the former there is still an abundance of land fit for cultivation, of which every labourer has the free use; in the latter all land has been taken into cultivation and appropriated. This difference is so fundamental, that it would be best to formulate a separate economic theory for either of the two cases and then, in applying the theory to the facts, to examine how far, in every instance, the characteristics of open or closed economy are present. The latter proceeding is always necessary; for the important distinction we have made is a relative one, no country presenting exclusively the conditions of either open or closed culture."

In another chapter the author dwells more at length on the idea, laid down in the last sentence.

"The earth still contains large territories, not yet taken into cultivation, which in a certain sense are open to every one; but there are such factors as habits, prejudices, etc., which bind people to their own country, and there are further material impediments to emigration from old civilized countries, which are so great, that the economy of such countries may practically be regarded as closed, without being such in an absolute sense. On the other hand, even in the most open colonial country there are always circumstances which make the occupation of uncultivated land difficult and so the economy of such a country presents some characteristics of a closed economy. Between these two types there are numberless intermediate stages and therefore economic life is in reality subject to the influences of both open and closed economy. But in theory a sharp line of demarcation must be drawn between these two states of society; for only so can we attain to a right understanding of real economic life". [Lange, Die Arbeiterfrage, pp. 199, 334.]

 

In the following paragraphs we shall speak of the effect of secondary causes among agricultural tribes. We shall not, however, enter into many details. The difficulty, in our branch of science, is always, that we have so few works of predecessors to rely upon. For instance, we shall speak of the influence of trade among agricultural tribes. Now, if any accurate [388] researches had been made into the general effects of trade, we should be able to conclude that trade having been proved to have such general effects, it must have such an influence on slavery. But as such is not the case, we should be obliged, if we were thoroughly to investigate the subject, to inquire what are the general effects of trade. An equally close study of militarism, of the condition of women, etc., would be required. And as in this way our book would never come to an end, we shall content ourselves with giving a few outlines, which we hope may turn the attention of other ethnologists to the important problems which the ensuing paragraphs will contain.