The Summary Cause for the
Stability or Downfall of Human Societies
Appendix
1. (35)
I would like to make other observations about Romagnosi’s Memoria, to which I have already referred.
1. Unlike Romagnosi, we must be careful not to confuse two totally distinct questions. The first is a universal but merely theoretical question: `Is it true that population, of its nature, grows in geometrical progression, but that the means of subsistence can grow only in arithmetical progression, and even this in a limited way? According to the physical law governing growth, does population really grow more rapidly than the means of subsistence? Consequently, is it true that, wherever moral causes do not curb procreation, the population will eventually exceed the means of subsistence and succumb to misery?’ This is the first question. The second, a purely factual question, asks: `Is it true that the population of this country at the moment exceeds the means of subsistence?’ The answer to the first question must certainly be affirmative. In the case of the second, all the facts must be carefully assembled and a decision made in accordance with them. But Romagnosi confuses the two questions by applying to the first arguments which are valid only for the second.
2. In addition, he says: `If Malthus and his school show me that the social commandment of the divine Kingdom and its justice has taken effect there (in Ireland and England), we can indeed discuss whether the sufferings of so many unfortunate people should be ended.’ Frankly, these words are ill-considered and out of place. No matter how oppressive the rich may be, or how unfairly possessions divided, do we have to wait until the rich are more sympathetic and possessions better shared on earth before we try to remedy the sufferings of the poor? It is utterly pointless to declaim against the rich and the estate owners. What we need to know, granted that at the moment no one has the power to abolish poverty, is whether the number of poor is excessive.
My opinion is this: there are poor people precisely because the kingdom of God is not yet perfect and universal on earth. And while the poor are among us, we must think of alleviating, if not ending, their suffering. The problem is how to do all this with justice and real charity.
2. (121).
This [an economic description of nations] is Gioia’s definition of statistics (Filosofia della statistica, t. 1, Discorso elementare). Romagnosi has a much higher concept of statistics, at least as regards method. But relative to evaluating the elements necessarily present in statistics, an accurate criterion cannot be determined by any author who, basing himself on the doctrine of sensist and utilitarian philosophers, declares that `the apex of the true civilization of human associations consists in free and guaranteed economic competition’ (Sulla crescente popolazione, Memoria of G. D. Romagnosi, Milan, 1830). Whatever importance is given to economic matters, it will never be true that the apex of human associations consists in economy. Romagnosi’s merit lies indisputably in his method, not in his content. The value of his ideas about statistical method is that he takes a more complex view than his predecessors, and feels the need to accept and take account of all elements. His description of the political power of a State confirms this. We can easily see that he makes great efforts to assemble all the elements of this power: `The political power of a State consists in the degree of culture, patriotism and population in a country adapted to communal living, and in the union of the means originating from these causes. This must naturally give birth to the common security and satisfaction of a people living in political society’ (Questioni sull’ordinamento delle statistiche, Question 6). But despite his effort to detail what he has to say, the three words culture, patriotism and population are clearly too vague to indicate exactly the elements of a nation’s internal power. Not every culture makes a nation stronger; patriotism must be enlightened; the population must be not only proportionate to the means of subsistence but uniform and united. Thus the determined degree of the three things mentioned by Romagnosi is not sufficient to form a satisfying, secure community. In addition to the degree, account must be taken of the quality of things. Furthermore, granted the common security and satisfaction of the people, internal power will vary according to the degree of strength of the organism, the degree of wealth and its disposability by the government, the ability of outstanding people in the nation, and many other circumstances. Finally, Romagnosi entirely omits the supreme force of moral principles, which is not always in proportion to culture, patriotism and population. These principles are at times fresh and active in people’s minds; at other times sluggish and ineffective. However, as Romagnosi himself says so well, it is always true that `this power must be considered as a solid, single product of all the contributing, associated causes’ (ibid.).