diff options
| author | Roger Frank <rfrank@pglaf.org> | 2025-10-15 05:14:50 -0700 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | Roger Frank <rfrank@pglaf.org> | 2025-10-15 05:14:50 -0700 |
| commit | 28f3a8aaa9bca769ef75ae5133956afaff26fa95 (patch) | |
| tree | e288fee26f6bf7746084e0c7ac69e71f94a520c3 /360-h | |
Diffstat (limited to '360-h')
| -rw-r--r-- | 360-h/360-h.htm | 18408 |
1 files changed, 18408 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/360-h/360-h.htm b/360-h/360-h.htm new file mode 100644 index 0000000..463b07c --- /dev/null +++ b/360-h/360-h.htm @@ -0,0 +1,18408 @@ +<?xml version="1.0" encoding="us-ascii"?> + +<!DOCTYPE html + PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" + "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd" > + +<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" lang="en"> + <head> + <title> + What is Property?, by P. J. Proudhon + </title> + <style type="text/css" xml:space="preserve"> + + body { margin:5%; background:#faebd0; text-align:justify} + P { text-indent: 1em; margin-top: .25em; margin-bottom: .25em; } + H1,H2,H3,H4,H5,H6 { text-align: center; margin-left: 15%; margin-right: 15%; } + hr { width: 50%; text-align: center;} + .foot { margin-left: 20%; margin-right: 20%; text-align: justify; text-indent: -3em; font-size: 90%; } + blockquote {font-size: 97%; font-style: italic; margin-left: 10%; margin-right: 10%;} + .mynote {background-color: #DDE; color: #000; padding: .5em; margin-left: 10%; margin-right: 10%; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 95%;} + .toc { margin-left: 10%; margin-bottom: .75em;} + .toc2 { margin-left: 20%;} + div.fig { display:block; margin:0 auto; text-align:center; } + div.middle { margin-left: 20%; margin-right: 20%; text-align: justify; } + .figleft {float: left; margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 1%;} + .figright {float: right; margin-right: 0%; margin-left: 1%;} + .pagenum {display:inline; font-size: 70%; font-style:normal; + margin: 0; padding: 0; position: absolute; right: 1%; + text-align: right;} + pre { font-style: italic; font-size: 90%; margin-left: 10%;} + +</style> + </head> + <body> +<pre xml:space="preserve"> + +The Project Gutenberg EBook of What is Property?, by P. J. Proudhon + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + + +Title: What is Property? + An Inquiry into the Principle of Right and of Government + +Author: P. J. Proudhon + +Release Date: July 10, 2008 [EBook #360] +Last Updated: February 4, 2013 + +Language: English + +Character set encoding: ASCII + +*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK WHAT IS PROPERTY? *** + + + + +Produced by Mike Lough, and David Widger + + + + + +</pre> + <p> + <br /><br /> + </p> + <h1> + WHAT IS PROPERTY? + </h1> + <h2> + AN INQUIRY INTO THE PRINCIPLE <br /> OF RIGHT AND OF GOVERNMENT + </h2> + <p> + <br /> + </p> + <h2> + By P. J. Proudhon + </h2> + <p> + <br /> <br /> + </p> + <hr /> + <p> + <br /> <br /> + </p> +<pre xml:space="preserve"> + DETAILED CONTENTS + + </pre> +<pre xml:space="preserve"> + P. J. PROUDHON: HIS LIFE AND HIS WORKS + + PREFACE + + FIRST MEMOIR + + CHAPTER I. + + METHOD PURSUED IN THIS WORK.—THE IDEA OF A REVOLUTION + </pre> +<pre xml:space="preserve"> + CHAPTER II. + + PROPERTY CONSIDERED AS A NATURAL RIGHT.—OCCUPATION AND CIVIL LAW + AS EFFICIENT BASES OF PROPERTY.—DEFINITIONS + % 1. Property as a Natural Right. + % 2. Occupation as the Title to Property. + % 3. Civil Law as the Foundation and Sanction of Property. + </pre> +<pre xml:space="preserve"> + CHAPTER III. + + LABOR AS THE EFFICIENT CAUSE OF THE DOMAIN OF PROPERTY + % 1. The Land cannot be appropriated. + % 2. Universal Consent no Justification of Property. + % 3. Prescription gives no Title to Property. + % 4. Labor.—That Labor has no Inherent Power to appropriate + Natural Wealth. + % 5. That Labor leads to Equality of Property. + % 6. That in Society all Wages are Equal. + % 7. That Inequality of Powers is the Necessary Condition of + Equality of Fortunes. + % 8. That, from the stand-point of Justice, Labor destroys + Property. + </pre> +<pre xml:space="preserve"> + CHAPTER IV. + + THAT PROPERTY IS IMPOSSIBLE + + DEMONSTRATION. AXIOM. + + Property is the Right of Increase claimed by the Proprietor over + any thing which he has stamped as his own. + + FIRST PROPOSITION. + Property is Impossible, because it demands Something for Nothing. + + SECOND PROPOSITION. + Property is Impossible, because, wherever it exists, Production + costs more than it is worth. + + THIRD PROPOSITION. + Property is Impossible, because, with a given Capital, Production + is proportional to Labor, not to Property. + + FOURTH PROPOSITION. + Property is Impossible, because it is Homicide. + + FIFTH PROPOSITION. + Property is Impossible, because, if it exists, Society devours itself. + + Appendix to the Fifth Proposition. + + SIXTH PROPOSITION. + Property is Impossible, because it is the Mother of Tyranny. + + SEVENTH PROPOSITION. + Property is Impossible, because, in consuming its Receipts, it + loses them; in hoarding them, it nullifies them; and, in + using them as Capital, it turns them against Production. + + EIGHTH PROPOSITION. + Property is Impossible, because its Power of Accumulation is + infinite, and is exercised only over Finite Quantities. + + NINTH PROPOSITION + Property is Impossible, because it is powerless against Property. + + TENTH PROPOSITION. + Property is Impossible, because it is the Negation of Equality. + </pre> +<pre xml:space="preserve"> + CHAPTER V. + PSYCHOLOGICAL EXPOSITION OF THE IDEA OF JUSTICE AND IN JUSTICE, + AND A DETERMINATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF GOVERNMENT AND OF RIGHT. + + PART 1. + + % 1. Of the Moral Sense in Man and the Animals. + % 2. Of the First and Second Degrees of Sociability. + % 3. Of the Third Degree of Sociability. + + PART I 1. + % 1. Of the Causes of our Mistakes. The Origin of Property. + % 2. Characteristics of Communism and of Property. + % 3. Determination of the Third Form of Society. Conclusion. + </pre> +<pre xml:space="preserve"> + SECOND MEMOIR + LETTER TO M. BLANQUI ON PROPERTY + </pre> + <p> + <br /> <br /> + </p> + <hr /> + <p> + <br /> <br /> + </p> + <h2> + Linked Contents + </h2> + <table summary="" style="margin-right: auto; margin-left: auto"> + <tr> + <td> + <p class="toc"> + <a href="#link2H_4_0001"> P. J. PROUDHON: HIS LIFE AND HIS WORKS. + </a> + </p> + <p class="toc"> + <a href="#link2H_PREF"> PREFACE. </a> + </p> + <p class="toc"> + <a href="#link2H_4_0003"> WHAT IS PROPERTY? OR, </a> + </p> + <p class="toc"> + <a href="#link2H_4_0004"> FIRST MEMOIR. </a> + </p> + <p class="toc"> + <a href="#link2HCH0001"> CHAPTER I. METHOD PURSUED IN THIS WORK.—THE + IDEA OF A REVOLUTION. </a> + </p> + <p class="toc"> + <a href="#link2HCH0002"> CHAPTER II. PROPERTY CONSIDERED AS A + NATURAL RIGHT </a> + </p> + <p class="toc"> + <a href="#link2HCH0003"> CHAPTER III. LABOR AS THE EFFICIENT CAUSE + OF THE DOMAIN OF PROPERTY. </a> + </p> + <p class="toc"> + <a href="#link2HCH0004"> CHAPTER IV. THAT PROPERTY IS IMPOSSIBLE. + </a> + </p> + <p class="toc"> + <a href="#link2H_APPE"> APPENDIX TO THE FIFTH PROPOSITION. </a> + </p> + <p class="toc"> + <a href="#link2HCH0005"> CHAPTER V. PSYCHOLOGICAL EXPOSITION OF THE + IDEA OF JUSTICE </a> + </p> + <p class="toc"> + <a href="#link2H_PART"> PART FIRST. </a> + </p> + <p class="toc"> + <a href="#link2H_PART2"> PART SECOND. </a> + </p> + <p class="toc"> + <a href="#link2H_4_0013"> WHAT IS PROPERTY? </a> + </p> + <p class="toc"> + <a href="#link2H_4_0014"> SECOND MEMOIR. </a> + </p> + <p class="toc"> + <a href="#link2H_CONC"> Conclusion.—"The results of the labor + performed by this generation are </a> + </p> + <p class="toc"> + <a href="#link2H_FOOT"> FOOTNOTES: </a> + </p> + </td> + </tr> + </table> + <p> + <br /> <br /> + </p> + <hr /> + <p> + <br /> <br /> <a name="link2H_4_0001" id="link2H_4_0001"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <h2> + P. J. PROUDHON: HIS LIFE AND HIS WORKS. + </h2> + <p> + The correspondence <a href="#linknote-1" name="linknoteref-1" + id="linknoteref-1"><small>1</small></a> of P. J. Proudhon, the first + volumes of which we publish to-day, has been collected since his death by + the faithful and intelligent labors of his daughter, aided by a few + friends. It was incomplete when submitted to Sainte Beuve, but the portion + with which the illustrious academician became acquainted was sufficient to + allow him to estimate it as a whole with that soundness of judgment which + characterized him as a literary critic. + </p> + <p> + He would, however, caution readers against accepting the biographer's + interpretation of the author's views as in any sense authoritative; + advising them, rather, to await the publication of the remainder of + Proudhon's writings, that they may form an opinion for themselves.—Translator. + </p> + <p> + In an important work, which his habitual readers certainly have not + forgotten, although death did not allow him to finish it, Sainte Beuve + thus judges the correspondence of the great publicist:— + </p> + <p> + "The letters of Proudhon, even outside the circle of his particular + friends, will always be of value; we can always learn something from them, + and here is the proper place to determine the general character of his + correspondence. + </p> + <p> + "It has always been large, especially since he became so celebrated; and, + to tell the truth, I am persuaded that, in the future, the correspondence + of Proudhon will be his principal, vital work, and that most of his books + will be only accessory to and corroborative of this. At any rate, his + books can be well understood only by the aid of his letters and the + continual explanations which he makes to those who consult him in their + doubt, and request him to define more clearly his position. + </p> + <p> + "There are, among celebrated people, many methods of correspondence. There + are those to whom letter-writing is a bore, and who, assailed with + questions and compliments, reply in the greatest haste, solely that the + job may be over with, and who return politeness for politeness, mingling + it with more or less wit. This kind of correspondence, though coming from + celebrated people, is insignificant and unworthy of collection and + classification. + </p> + <p> + "After those who write letters in performance of a disagreeable duty, and + almost side by side with them in point of insignificance, I should put + those who write in a manner wholly external, wholly superficial, devoted + only to flattery, lavishing praise like gold, without counting it; and + those also who weigh every word, who reply formally and pompously, with a + view to fine phrases and effects. They exchange words only, and choose + them solely for their brilliancy and show. You think it is you, + individually, to whom they speak; but they are addressing themselves in + your person to the four corners of Europe. Such letters are empty, and + teach as nothing but theatrical execution and the favorite pose of their + writers. + </p> + <p> + "I will not class among the latter the more prudent and sagacious authors + who, when writing to individuals, keep one eye on posterity. We know that + many who pursue this method have written long, finished, charming, + flattering, and tolerably natural letters. Beranger furnishes us with the + best example of this class. + </p> + <p> + "Proudhon, however, is a man of entirely different nature and habits. In + writing, he thinks of nothing but his idea and the person whom he + addresses: ad rem et ad hominem. A man of conviction and doctrine, to + write does not weary him; to be questioned does not annoy him. When + approached, he cares only to know that your motive is not one of futile + curiosity, but the love of truth; he assumes you to be serious, he + replies, he examines your objections, sometimes verbally, sometimes in + writing; for, as he remarks, 'if there be some points which correspondence + can never settle, but which can be made clear by conversation in two + minutes, at other times just the opposite is the case: an objection + clearly stated in writing, a doubt well expressed, which elicits a direct + and positive reply, helps things along more than ten hours of oral + intercourse!' In writing to you he does not hesitate to treat the subject + anew; he unfolds to you the foundation and superstructure of his thought: + rarely does he confess himself defeated—it is not his way; he holds + to his position, but admits the breaks, the variations, in short, the + EVOLUTION of his mind. The history of his mind is in his letters; there it + must be sought. + </p> + <p> + "Proudhon, whoever addresses him, is always ready; he quits the page of + the book on which he is at work to answer you with the same pen, and that + without losing patience, without getting confused, without sparing or + complaining of his ink; he is a public man, devoted to the propagation of + his idea by all methods, and the best method, with him, is always the + present one, the latest one. His very handwriting, bold, uniform, legible, + even in the most tiresome passages, betrays no haste, no hurry to finish. + Each line is accurate: nothing is left to chance; the punctuation, very + correct and a little emphatic and decided, indicates with precision and + delicate distinction all the links in the chain of his argument. He is + devoted entirely to you, to his business and yours, while writing to you, + and never to anything else. All the letters of his which I have seen are + serious: not one is commonplace. + </p> + <p> + "But at the same time he is not at all artistic or affected; he does not + CONSTRUCT his letters, he does not revise them, he spends no time in + reading them over; we have a first draught, excellent and clear, a jet + from the fountain-head, but that is all. The new arguments, which he + discovers in support of his ideas and which opposition suggests to him, + are an agreeable surprise, and shed a light which we should vainly search + for even in his works. His correspondence differs essentially from his + books, in that it gives you no uneasiness; it places you in the very heart + of the man, explains him to you, and leaves you with an impression of + moral esteem and almost of intellectual security. We feel his sincerity. I + know of no one to whom he can be more fitly compared in this respect than + George Sand, whose correspondence is large, and at the same time full of + sincerity. His role and his nature correspond. If he is writing to a young + man who unbosoms himself to him in sceptical anxiety, to a young woman who + asks him to decide delicate questions of conduct for her, his letter takes + the form of a short moral essay, of a father-confessor's advice. Has he + perchance attended the theatre (a rare thing for him) to witness one of + Ponsart's comedies, or a drama of Charles Edmond's, he feels bound to give + an account of his impressions to the friend to whom he is indebted for + this pleasure, and his letter becomes a literary and philosophical + criticism, full of sense, and like no other. His familiarity is suited to + his correspondent; he affects no rudeness. The terms of civility or + affection which he employs towards his correspondents are sober, measured, + appropriate to each, and honest in their simplicity and cordiality. When + he speaks of morals and the family, he seems at times like the patriarchs + of the Bible. His command of language is complete, and he never fails to + avail himself of it. Now and then a coarse word, a few personalities, too + bitter and quite unjust or injurious, will have to be suppressed in + printing; time, however, as it passes away, permits many things and + renders them inoffensive. Am I right in saying that Proudhon's + correspondence, always substantial, will one day be the most accessible + and attractive portion of his works?" + </p> + <p> + Almost the whole of Proudhon's real biography is included in his + correspondence. Up to 1837, the date of the first letter which we have + been able to collect, his life, narrated by Sainte Beuve, from whom we + make numerous extracts, may be summed up in a few pages. + </p> + <p> + Pierre Joseph Proudhon was born on the 15th of January, 1809, in a suburb + of Besancon, called Mouillere. His father and mother were employed in the + great brewery belonging to M. Renaud. His father, though a cousin of the + jurist Proudhon, the celebrated professor in the faculty of Dijon, was a + journeyman brewer. His mother, a genuine peasant, was a common servant. + She was an orderly person of great good sense; and, as they who knew her + say, a superior woman of HEROIC character,—to use the expression of + the venerable M. Weiss, the librarian at Besancon. She it was especially + that Proudhon resembled: she and his grandfather Tournesi, the soldier + peasant of whom his mother told him, and whose courageous deeds he has + described in his work on "Justice." Proudhon, who always felt a great + veneration for his mother Catharine, gave her name to the elder of his + daughters. In 1814, when Besancon was blockaded, Mouillere, which stood in + front of the walls of the town, was destroyed in the defence of the place; + and Proudhon's father established a cooper's shop in a suburb of Battant, + called Vignerons. Very honest, but simple-minded and short-sighted, this + cooper, the father of five children, of whom Pierre Joseph was the eldest, + passed his life in poverty. At eight years of age, Proudhon either made + himself useful in the house, or tended the cattle out of doors. No one + should fail to read that beautiful and precious page of his work on + "Justice," in which he describes the rural sports which he enjoyed when a + neatherd. At the age of twelve, he was a cellar-boy in an inn. This, + however, did not prevent him from studying. + </p> + <p> + His mother was greatly aided by M. Renaud, the former owner of the + brewery, who had at that time retired from business, and was engaged in + the education of his children. + </p> + <p> + Proudhon entered school as a day-scholar in the sixth class. He was + necessarily irregular in his attendance; domestic cares and restraints + sometimes kept him from his classes. He succeeded nevertheless in his + studies; he showed great perseverance. His family were so poor that they + could not afford to furnish him with books; he was obliged to borrow them + from his comrades, and copy the text of his lessons. He has himself told + us that he was obliged to leave his wooden shoes outside the door, that he + might not disturb the classes with his noise; and that, having no hat, he + went to school bareheaded. One day, towards the close of his studies, on + returning from the distribution of the prizes, loaded with crowns, he + found nothing to eat in the house. + </p> + <p> + "In his eagerness for labor and his thirst for knowledge, Proudhon," says + Sainte Beuve, "was not content with the instruction of his teachers. From + his twelfth to his fourteenth year, he was a constant frequenter of the + town library. One curiosity led to another, and he called for book after + book, sometimes eight or ten at one sitting. The learned librarian, the + friend and almost the brother of Charles Nodier, M. Weiss, approached him + one day, and said, smiling, 'But, my little friend, what do you wish to do + with all these books?' The child raised his head, eyed his questioner, and + replied: 'What's that to you?' And the good M. Weiss remembers it to this + day." + </p> + <p> + Forced to earn his living, Proudhon could not continue his studies. He + entered a printing-office in Besancon as a proof-reader. Becoming, soon + after, a compositor, he made a tour of France in this capacity. At Toulon, + where he found himself without money and without work, he had a scene with + the mayor, which he describes in his work on "Justice." + </p> + <p> + Sainte Beuve says that, after his tour of France, his service book being + filled with good certificates, Proudhon was promoted to the position of + foreman. But he does not tell us, for the reason that he had no knowledge + of a letter written by Fallot, of which we never heard until six months + since, that the printer at that time contemplated quitting his trade in + order to become a teacher. + </p> + <p> + Towards 1829, Fallot, who was a little older than Proudhon, and who, after + having obtained the Suard pension in 1832, died in his twenty-ninth year, + while filling the position of assistant librarian at the Institute, was + charged, Protestant though he was, with the revisal of a "Life of the + Saints," which was published at Besancon. The book was in Latin, and + Fallot added some notes which also were in Latin. + </p> + <p> + "But," says Sainte Beuve, "it happened that some errors escaped his + attention, which Proudhon, then proof-reader in the printing office, did + not fail to point out to him. Surprised at finding so good a Latin scholar + in a workshop, he desired to make his acquaintance; and soon there sprung + up between them a most earnest and intimate friendship: a friendship of + the intellect and of the heart." + </p> + <p> + Addressed to a printer between twenty-two and twenty-three years of age, + and predicting in formal terms his future fame, Fallot's letter seems to + us so interesting that we do not hesitate to reproduce it entire. + </p> + <p> + "PARIS, December 5, 1831. + </p> + <p> + "MY DEAR PROUDHON,—YOU have a right to be surprised at, and even + dissatisfied with, my long delay in replying to your kind letter; I will + tell you the cause of it. It became necessary to forward an account of + your ideas to M. J. de Gray; to hear his objections, to reply to them, and + to await his definitive response, which reached me but a short time ago; + for M. J. is a sort of financial king, who takes no pains to be punctual + in dealing with poor devils like ourselves. I, too, am careless in matters + of business; I sometimes push my negligence even to disorder, and the + metaphysical musings which continually occupy my mind, added to the + amusements of Paris, render me the most incapable man in the world for + conducting a negotiation with despatch. + </p> + <p> + "I have M. Jobard's decision; here it is: In his judgment, you are too + learned and clever for his children; he fears that you could not + accommodate your mind and character to the childish notions common to + their age and station. In short, he is what the world calls a good father; + that is, he wants to spoil his children, and, in order to do this easily, + he thinks fit to retain his present instructor, who is not very learned, + but who takes part in their games and joyous sports with wonderful + facility, who points out the letters of the alphabet to the little girl, + who takes the little boys to mass, and who, no less obliging than the + worthy Abbe P. of our acquaintance, would readily dance for Madame's + amusement. Such a profession would not suit you, you who have a free, + proud, and manly soul: you are refused; let us dismiss the matter from our + minds. Perhaps another time my solicitude will be less unfortunate. I can + only ask your pardon for having thought of thus disposing of you almost + without consulting you. I find my excuse in the motives which guided me; I + had in view your well-being and advancement in the ways of this world. + </p> + <p> + "I see in your letter, my comrade, through its brilliant witticisms and + beneath the frank and artless gayety with which you have sprinkled it, a + tinge of sadness and despondency which pains me. You are unhappy, my + friend: your present situation does not suit you; you cannot remain in it, + it was not made for you, it is beneath you; you ought, by all means, to + leave it, before its injurious influence begins to affect your faculties, + and before you become settled, as they say, in the ways of your + profession, were it possible that such a thing could ever happen, which I + flatly deny. You are unhappy; you have not yet entered upon the path which + Nature has marked out for you. But, faint-hearted soul, is that a cause + for despondency? Ought you to feel discouraged? Struggle, morbleu, + struggle persistently, and you will triumph. J. J. Rousseau groped about + for forty years before his genius was revealed to him. You are not J. J + Rousseau; but listen: I know not whether I should have divined the author + of "Emile" when he was twenty years of age, supposing that I had been his + contemporary, and had enjoyed the honor of his acquaintance. But I have + known you, I have loved you, I have divined your future, if I may venture + to say so; for the first time in my life, I am going to risk a prophecy. + Keep this letter, read it again fifteen or twenty years hence, perhaps + twenty-five, and if at that time the prediction which I am about to make + has not been fulfilled, burn it as a piece of folly out of charity and + respect for my memory. This is my prediction: you will be, Proudhon, in + spite of yourself, inevitably, by the fact of your destiny, a writer, an + author; you will be a philosopher; you will be one of the lights of the + century, and your name will occupy a place in the annals of the nineteenth + century, like those of Gassendi, Descartes, Malebranche, and Bacon in the + seventeenth, and those of Diderot, Montesquieu, Helvetius. Locke, Hume, + and Holbach in the eighteenth. Such will be your lot! Do now what you + will, set type in a printing-office, bring up children, bury yourself in + deep seclusion, seek obscure and lonely villages, it is all one to me; you + cannot escape your destiny; you cannot divest yourself of your noblest + feature, that active, strong, and inquiring mind, with which you are + endowed; your place in the world has been appointed, and it cannot remain + empty. Go where you please, I expect you in Paris, talking philosophy and + the doctrines of Plato; you will have to come, whether you want to or not. + I, who say this to you, must feel very sure of it in order to be willing + to put it upon paper, since, without reward for my prophetic skill,—to + which, I assure you, I make not the slightest claim,—I run the risk + of passing for a hare-brained fellow, in case I prove to be mistaken: he + plays a bold game who risks his good sense upon his cards, in return for + the very trifling and insignificant merit of having divined a young man's + future. + </p> + <p> + "When I say that I expect you in Paris, I use only a proverbial phrase + which you must not allow to mislead you as to my projects and plans. To + reside in Paris is disagreeable to me, very much so; and when this + fine-art fever which possesses me has left me, I shall abandon the place + without regret to seek a more peaceful residence in a provincial town, + provided always the town shall afford me the means of living, bread, a + bed, books, rest, and solitude. How I miss, my good Proudhon, that dark, + obscure, smoky chamber in which I dwelt in Besancon, and where we spent so + many pleasant hours in the discussion of philosophy! Do you remember it? + But that is now far away. Will that happy time ever return? Shall we one + day meet again? Here my life is restless, uncertain, precarious, and, what + is worse, indolent, illiterate, and vagrant. I do no work, I live in + idleness, I ramble about; I do not read, I no longer study; my books are + forsaken; now and then I glance over a few metaphysical works, and after a + days walk through dirty, filthy, crowded streets. I lie down with empty + head and tired body, to repeat the performance on the following day. What + is the object of these walks, you will ask. I make visits, my friend; I + hold interviews with stupid people. Then a fit of curiosity seizes me, the + least inquisitive of beings: there are museums, libraries, assemblies, + churches, palaces, gardens, and theatres to visit. I am fond of pictures, + fond of music, fond of sculpture; all these are beautiful and good, but + they cannot appease hunger, nor take the place of my pleasant readings of + Bailly, Hume, and Tennemann, which I used to enjoy by my fireside when I + was able to read. + </p> + <p> + "But enough of complaints. Do not allow this letter to affect you too + much, and do not think that I give way to dejection or despondency; no, I + am a fatalist, and I believe in my star. I do not know yet what my calling + is, nor for what branch of polite literature I am best fitted; I do not + even know whether I am, or ever shall be, fitted for any: but what matters + it? I suffer, I labor, I dream, I enjoy, I think; and, in a word, when my + last hour strikes, I shall have lived. + </p> + <p> + "Proudhon, I love you, I esteem you; and, believe me, these are not mere + phrases. What interest could I have in flattering and praising a poor + printer? Are you rich, that you may pay for courtiers? Have you a + sumptuous table, a dashing wife, and gold to scatter, in order to attract + them to your suite? Have you the glory, honors, credit, which would render + your acquaintance pleasing to their vanity and pride? No; you are poor, + obscure, abandoned; but, poor, obscure, and abandoned, you have a friend, + and a friend who knows all the obligations which that word imposes upon + honorable people, when they venture to assume it. That friend is myself: + put me to the test. + </p> + <p> + "GUSTAVE FALLOT." + </p> + <p> + It appears from this letter that if, at this period, Proudhon had already + exhibited to the eyes of a clairvoyant friend his genius for research and + investigation, it was in the direction of philosophical, rather than of + economical and social, questions. + </p> + <p> + Having become foreman in the house of Gauthier & Co., who carried on a + large printing establishment at Besancon, he corrected the proofs of + ecclesiastical writers, the Fathers of the Church. As they were printing a + Bible, a Vulgate, he was led to compare the Latin with the original + Hebrew. + </p> + <p> + "In this way," says Sainte Beuve, "he learned Hebrew by himself, and, as + everything was connected in his mind, he was led to the study of + comparative philology. As the house of Gauthier published many works on + Church history and theology, he came also to acquire, through this desire + of his to investigate everything, an extensive knowledge of theology, + which afterwards caused misinformed persons to think that he had been in + an ecclesiastical seminary." + </p> + <p> + Towards 1836, Proudhon left the house of Gauthier, and, in company with an + associate, established a small printing-office in Besancon. His + contribution to the partnership consisted, not so much in capital, as in + his knowledge of the trade. His partner committing suicide in 1838, + Proudhon was obliged to wind up the business, an operation which he did + not accomplish as quickly and as easily as he hoped. He was then urged by + his friends to enter the ranks of the competitors for the Suard pension. + This pension consisted of an income of fifteen hundred francs bequeathed + to the Academy of Besancon by Madame Suard, the widow of the academician, + to be given once in three years to the young man residing in the + department of Doubs, a bachelor of letters or of science, and not + possessing a fortune, whom the Academy of Besancon SHOULD DEEM BEST FITTED + FOR A LITERARY OR SCIENTIFIC CAREER, OR FOR THE STUDY OF LAW OR OF + MEDICINE. The first to win the Suard pension was Gustave Fallot. Mauvais, + who was a distinguished astronomer in the Academy of Sciences, was the + second. Proudhon aspired to be the third. To qualify himself, he had to be + received as a bachelor of letters, and was obliged to write a letter to + the Academy of Besancon. In a phrase of this letter, the terms of which he + had to modify, though he absolutely refused to change its spirit, Proudhon + expressed his firm resolve to labor for the amelioration of the condition + of his brothers, the working-men. + </p> + <p> + The only thing which he had then published was an "Essay on General + Grammar," which appeared without the author's signature. While reprinting, + at Besancon, the "Primitive Elements of Languages, Discovered by the + Comparison of Hebrew roots with those of the Latin and French," by the + Abbe Bergier, Proudhon had enlarged the edition of his "Essay on General + Grammar." + </p> + <p> + The date of the edition, 1837, proves that he did not at that time think + of competing for the Suard pension. In this work, which continued and + completed that of the Abbe Bergier, Proudhon adopted the same point of + view, that of Moses and of Biblical tradition. Two years later, in + February, 1839, being already in possession of the Suard pension, he + addressed to the Institute, as a competitor for the Volney prize, a memoir + entitled: "Studies in Grammatical Classification and the Derivation of + some French words." It was his first work, revised and presented in + another form. Four memoirs only were sent to the Institute, none of which + gained the prize. Two honorable mentions were granted, one of them to + memoir No. 4; that is, to P. J. Proudhon, printer at Besancon. The judges + were MM. Amedde Jaubert, Reinaud, and Burnouf. + </p> + <p> + "The committee," said the report presented at the annual meeting of the + five academies on Thursday, May 2, 1839, "has paid especial attention to + manuscripts No. 1 and No. 4. Still, it does not feel able to grant the + prize to either of these works, because they do not appear to be + sufficiently elaborated. The committee, which finds in No. 4 some + ingenious analyses, particularly in regard to the mechanism of the Hebrew + language, regrets that the author has resorted to hazardous conjectures, + and has sometimes forgotten the special recommendation of the committee to + pursue the experimental and comparative method." + </p> + <p> + Proudhon remembered this. He attended the lectures of Eugene Burnouf, and, + as soon as he became acquainted with the labors and discoveries of Bopp + and his successors, he definitively abandoned an hypothesis which had been + condemned by the Academy of Inscriptions and Belles-lettres. He then sold, + for the value of the paper, the remaining copies of the "Essay" published + by him in 1837. In 1850, they were still lying in a grocer's back-shop. + </p> + <p> + A neighboring publisher then placed the edition on the market, with the + attractive name of Proudhon upon it. A lawsuit ensued, in which the author + was beaten. His enemies, and at that time there were many of them, would + have been glad to have proved him a renegade and a recanter. Proudhon, in + his work on "Justice," gives some interesting details of this lawsuit. + </p> + <p> + In possession of the Suard pension, Proudhon took part in the contest + proposed by the Academy of Besancon on the question of the utility of the + celebration of Sunday. His memoir obtained honorable mention, together + with a medal which was awarded him, in open session, on the 24th of + August, 1839. The reporter of the committee, the Abbe Doney, since made + Bishop of Montauban, called attention to the unquestionable superiority of + his talent. + </p> + <p> + "But," says Sainte Beuve, "he reproached him with having adopted dangerous + theories, and with having touched upon questions of practical politics and + social organization, where upright intentions and zeal for the public + welfare cannot justify rash solutions." + </p> + <p> + Was it policy, we mean prudence, which induced Proudhon to screen his + ideas of equality behind the Mosaic law? Sainte Beuve, like many others, + seems to think so. But we remember perfectly well that, having asked + Proudhon, in August, 1848, if he did not consider himself indebted in some + respects to his fellow-countryman, Charles Fourier, we received from him + the following reply: "I have certainly read Fourier, and have spoken of + him more than once in my works; but, upon the whole, I do not think that I + owe anything to him. My real masters, those who have caused fertile ideas + to spring up in my mind, are three in number: first, the Bible; next, Adam + Smith; and last, Hegel." + </p> + <p> + Freely confessed in the "Celebration of Sunday," the influence of the + Bible on Proudhon is no less manifest in his first memoir on property. + Proudhon undoubtedly brought to this work many ideas of his own; but is + not the very foundation of ancient Jewish law to be found in its + condemnation of usurious interest and its denial of the right of personal + appropriation of land? + </p> + <p> + The first memoir on property appeared in 1840, under the title, "What is + Property? or an Inquiry into the Principle of Right and of Government." + Proudhon dedicated it, in a letter which served as the preface, to the + Academy of Besancon. The latter, finding itself brought to trial by its + pensioner, took the affair to heart, and evoked it, says Sainte Beuve, + with all possible haste. + </p> + <p> + The pension narrowly escaped being immediately withdrawn from the bold + defender of the principle of equality of conditions. M. Vivien, then + Minister of Justice, who was earnestly solicited to prosecute the author, + wished first to obtain the opinion of the economist, Blanqui, a member of + the Academy of Moral and Political Sciences. Proudhon having presented to + this academy a copy of his book, M. Blanqui was appointed to review it. + This review, though it opposed Proudhon's views, shielded him. Treated as + a savant by M. Blanqui, the author was not prosecuted. He was always + grateful to MM. Blanqui and Vivien for their handsome conduct in the + matter. + </p> + <p> + M. Blanqui's review, which was partially reproduced by "Le Moniteur," on + the 7th of September, 1840, naturally led Proudhon to address to him, in + the form of a letter, his second memoir on property, which appeared in + April, 1841. Proudhon had endeavored, in his first memoir, to demonstrate + that the pursuit of equality of conditions is the true principle of right + and of government. In the "Letter to M. Blanqui," he passes in review the + numerous and varied methods by which this principle gradually becomes + realized in all societies, especially in modern society. + </p> + <p> + In 1842, a third memoir appeared, entitled, "A Notice to Proprietors, or a + Letter to M. Victor Considerant, Editor of 'La Phalange,' in Reply to a + Defence of Property." Here the influence of Adam Smith manifested itself, + and was frankly admitted. Did not Adam Smith find, in the principle of + equality, the first of all the laws which govern wages? There are other + laws, undoubtedly; but Proudhon considers them all as springing from the + principle of property, as he defined it in his first memoir. Thus, in + humanity, there are two principles,—one which leads us to equality, + another which separates us from it. By the former, we treat each other as + associates; by the latter, as strangers, not to say enemies. This + distinction, which is constantly met with throughout the three memoirs, + contained already, in germ, the idea which gave birth to the "System of + Economical Contradictions," which appeared in 1846, the idea of antinomy + or contre-loi. + </p> + <p> + The "Notice to Proprietors" was seized by the magistrates of Besancon; and + Proudhon was summoned to appear before the assizes of Doubs within a week. + He read his written defence to the jurors in person, and was acquitted. + The jury, like M. Blanqui, viewed him only as a philosopher, an inquirer, + a savant. + </p> + <p> + In 1843, Proudhon published the "Creation of Order in Humanity," a large + volume, which does not deal exclusively with questions of social economy. + Religion, philosophy, method, certainty, logic, and dialectics are treated + at considerable length. + </p> + <p> + Released from his printing-office on the 1st of March of the same year, + Proudhon had to look for a chance to earn his living. Messrs. Gauthier + Bros., carriers by water between Mulhouse and Lyons, the eldest of whom + was Proudhon's companion in childhood, conceived the happy thought of + employing him, of utilizing his ability in their business, and in settling + the numerous points of difficulty which daily arose. Besides the large + number of accounts which his new duties required him to make out, and + which retarded the publication of the "System of Economical + Contradictions," until October, 1846, we ought to mention a work, which, + before it appeared in pamphlet form, was published in the "Revue des + Economistes,"—"Competition between Railroads and Navigable Ways." + </p> + <p> + "Le Miserere, or the Repentance of a King," which he published in March, + 1845, in the "Revue Independante," during that Lenten season when + Lacordaire was preaching in Lyons, proves that, though devoting himself + with ardor to the study of economical problems, Proudhon had not lost his + interest in questions of religious history. Among his writings on these + questions, which he was unfortunately obliged to leave unfinished, we may + mention a nearly completed history of the early Christian heresies, and of + the struggle of Christianity against Caesarism. + </p> + <p> + We have said that, in 1848, Proudhon recognized three masters. Having no + knowledge of the German language, he could not have read the works of + Hegel, which at that time had not been translated into French. It was + Charles Grun, a German, who had come to France to study the various + philosophical and socialistic systems, who gave him the substance of the + Hegelian ideas. During the winter of 1844-45, Charles Grun had some long + conversations with Proudhon, which determined, very decisively, not the + ideas, which belonged exclusively to the bisontin thinker, but the form of + the important work on which he labored after 1843, and which was published + in 1846 by Guillaumin. + </p> + <p> + Hegel's great idea, which Proudhon appropriated, and which he demonstrates + with wonderful ability in the "System of Economical Contradictions," is as + follows: Antinomy, that is, the existence of two laws or tendencies which + are opposed to each other, is possible, not only with two different + things, but with one and the same thing. Considered in their thesis, that + is, in the law or tendency which created them, all the economical + categories are rational,—competition, monopoly, the balance of + trade, and property, as well as the division of labor, machinery, + taxation, and credit. But, like communism and population, all these + categories are antinomical; all are opposed, not only to each other, but + to themselves. All is opposition, and disorder is born of this system of + opposition. Hence, the sub-title of the work,—"Philosophy of + Misery." No category can be suppressed; the opposition, antinomy, or + contre-tendance, which exists in each of them, cannot be suppressed. + </p> + <p> + Where, then, lies the solution of the social problem? Influenced by the + Hegelian ideas, Proudhon began to look for it in a superior synthesis, + which should reconcile the thesis and antithesis. Afterwards, while at + work upon his book on "Justice," he saw that the antinomical terms do not + cancel each other, any more than the opposite poles of an electric pile + destroy each other; that they are the procreative cause of motion, life, + and progress; that the problem is to discover, not their fusion, which + would be death, but their equilibrium,—an equilibrium for ever + unstable, varying with the development of society. + </p> + <p> + On the cover of the "System of Economical Contradictions," Proudhon + announced, as soon to appear, his "Solution of the Social Problem." This + work, upon which he was engaged when the Revolution of 1848 broke out, had + to be cut up into pamphlets and newspaper articles. The two pamphlets, + which he published in March, 1848, before he became editor of "Le + Representant du Peuple," bear the same title,—"Solution of the + Social Problem." The first, which is mainly a criticism of the early acts + of the provisional government, is notable from the fact that in it + Proudhon, in advance of all others, energetically opposed the + establishment of national workshops. The second, "Organization of Credit + and Circulation," sums up in a few pages his idea of economical progress: + a gradual reduction of interest, profit, rent, taxes, and wages. All + progress hitherto has been made in this manner; in this manner it must + continue to be made. Those workingmen who favor a nominal increase of + wages are, unconsciously following a back-track, opposed to all their + interests. + </p> + <p> + After having published in "Le Representant du Peuple," the statutes of the + Bank of Exchange,—a bank which was to make no profits, since it was + to have no stockholders, and which, consequently, was to discount + commercial paper with out interest, charging only a commission sufficient + to defray its running expenses,—Proudhon endeavored, in a number of + articles, to explain its mechanism and necessity. These articles have been + collected in one volume, under the double title, "Resume of the Social + Question; Bank of Exchange." His other articles, those which up to + December, 1848, were inspired by the progress of events, have been + collected in another volume,—"Revolutionary Ideas." + </p> + <p> + Almost unknown in March, 1848, and struck off in April from the list of + candidates for the Constituent Assembly by the delegation of workingmen + which sat at the Luxembourg, Proudhon had but a very small number of votes + at the general elections of April. At the complementary elections, which + were held in the early days of June, he was elected in Paris by + seventy-seven thousand votes. + </p> + <p> + After the fatal days of June, he published an article on le terme, which + caused the first suspension of "Le Representant du Peuple." It was at that + time that he introduced a bill into the Assembly, which, being referred to + the Committee on the Finances, drew forth, first, the report of M. Thiers, + and then the speech which Proudhon delivered, on the 31st of July, in + reply to this report. "Le Representant du Peuple," reappearing a few days + later, he wrote, a propos of the law requiring journals to give bonds, his + famous article on "The Malthusians" (August 10, 1848). + </p> + <p> + Ten days afterwards, "Le Representant du Peuple," again suspended, + definitively ceased to appear. "Le Peuple," of which he was the + editor-in-chief, and the first number of which was issued in the early + part of September, appeared weekly at first, for want of sufficient bonds; + it afterwards appeared daily, with a double number once a week. Before "Le + Peuple" had obtained its first bond, Proudhon published a remarkable + pamphlet on the "Right to Labor,"—a right which he denied in the + form in which it was then affirmed. It was during the same period that he + proposed, at the Poissonniere banquet, his Toast to the Revolution. + </p> + <p> + Proudhon, who had been asked to preside at the banquet, refused, and + proposed in his stead, first, Ledru-Rollin, and then, in view of the + reluctance of the organizers of the banquet, the illustrious president of + the party of the Mountain, Lamennais. It was evidently his intention to + induce the representatives of the Extreme Left to proclaim at last with + him the Democratic and Social Republic. Lamennais being accepted by the + organizers, the Mountain promised to be present at the banquet. The night + before, all seemed right, when General Cavaignac replaced Minister Senart + by Minister Dufaure-Vivien. The Mountain, questioning the government, + proposed a vote of confidence in the old minister, and, tacitly, of want + of confidence in the new. Proudhon abstained from voting on this + proposition. The Mountain declared that it would not attend the banquet, + if Proudhon was to be present. Five Montagnards, Mathieu of Drome at their + head, went to the temporary office of "Le Peuple" to notify him of this. + "Citizen Proudhon," said they to the organizers in his presence, "in + abstaining from voting to-day on the proposition of the Mountain, has + betrayed the Republican cause." Proudhon, vehemently questioned, began his + defence by recalling, on the one hand, the treatment which he had received + from the dismissed minister; and, on the other, the impartial conduct + displayed towards him in 1840 by M. Vivien, the new minister. He then + attacked the Mountain by telling its delegates that it sought only a + pretext, and that really, in spite of its professions of Socialism in + private conversation, whether with him or with the organizers of the + banquet, it had not the courage to publicly declare itself Socialist. + </p> + <p> + On the following day, in his Toast to the Revolution, a toast which was + filled with allusions to the exciting scene of the night before, Proudhon + commenced his struggle against the Mountain. His duel with Felix Pyat was + one of the episodes of this struggle, which became less bitter on + Proudhon's side after the Mountain finally decided to publicly proclaim + the Democratic and Social Republic. The campaign for the election of a + President of the Republic had just begun. Proudhon made a very sharp + attack on the candidacy of Louis Bonaparte in a pamphlet which is regarded + as one of his literary chefs-d'oeuvre: the "Pamphlet on the Presidency." + An opponent of this institution, against which he had voted in the + Constituent Assembly, he at first decided to take no part in the campaign. + But soon seeing that he was thus increasing the chances of Louis + Bonaparte, and that if, as was not at all probable, the latter should not + obtain an absolute majority of the votes, the Assembly would not fail to + elect General Cavaignac, he espoused, for the sake of form, the candidacy + of Raspail, who was supported by his friends in the Socialist Committee. + Charles Delescluze, the editor-in-chief of "La Revolution Democratique et + Sociale," who could not forgive him for having preferred Raspail to + Ledru-Rollin, the candidate of the Mountain, attacked him on the day after + the election with a violence which overstepped all bounds. At first, + Proudhon had the wisdom to refrain from answering him. At length, driven + to an extremity, he became aggressive himself, and Delescluze sent him his + seconds. This time, Proudhon positively refused to fight; he would not + have fought with Felix Pyat, had not his courage been called in question. + </p> + <p> + On the 25th of January, 1849, Proudhon, rising from a sick bed, saw that + the existence of the Constituent Assembly was endangered by the coalition + of the monarchical parties with Louis Bonaparte, who was already planning + his coup d'Etat. He did not hesitate to openly attack the man who had just + received five millions of votes. He wanted to break the idol; he succeeded + only in getting prosecuted and condemned himself. The prosecution demanded + against him was authorized by a majority of the Constituent Assembly, in + spite of the speech which he delivered on that occasion. Declared guilty + by the jury, he was sentenced, in March, 1849, to three years' + imprisonment and the payment of a fine of ten thousand francs. + </p> + <p> + Proudhon had not abandoned for a single moment his project of a Bank of + Exchange, which was to operate without capital with a sufficient number of + merchants and manufacturers for adherents. This bank, which he then called + the Bank of the People, and around which he wished to gather the numerous + working-people's associations which had been formed since the 24th of + February, 1848, had already obtained a certain number of subscribers and + adherents, the latter to the number of thirty-seven thousand. It was about + to commence operations, when Proudhon's sentence forced him to choose + between imprisonment and exile. He did not hesitate to abandon his project + and return the money to the subscribers. He explained the motives which + led him to this decision in an article in "Le Peuple." + </p> + <p> + Having fled to Belgium, he remained there but a few days, going thence to + Paris, under an assumed name, to conceal himself in a house in the Rue de + Chabrol. From his hiding-place he sent articles almost every day, signed + and unsigned, to "Le Peuple." In the evening, dressed in a blouse, he went + to some secluded spot to take the air. Soon, emboldened by habit, he + risked an evening promenade upon the Boulevards, and afterwards carried + his imprudence so far as to take a stroll by daylight in the neighborhood + of the Gare du Nord. It was not long before he was recognized by the + police, who arrested him on the 6th of June, 1849, in the Rue du + Faubourg-Poissonniere. + </p> + <p> + Taken to the office of the prefect of police, then to Sainte-Pelagie, he + was in the Conciergerie on the day of the 13th of June, 1849, which ended + with the violent suppression of "Le Peuple." He then began to write the + "Confessions of a Revolutionist," published towards the end of the year. + He had been again transferred to Sainte-Pelagie, when he married, in + December, 1849, Mlle. Euphrasie Piegard, a young working girl whose hand + he had requested in 1847. Madame Proudhon bore him four daughters, of whom + but two, Catherine and Stephanie, survived their father. Stephanie died in + 1873. + </p> + <p> + In October, 1849, "Le Peuple" was replaced by a new journal, "La Voix du + Peuple," which Proudhon edited from his prison cell. In it were published + his discussions with Pierre Leroux and Bastiat. + </p> + <p> + The political articles which he sent to "La Voix du Peuple" so displeased + the government finally, that it transferred him to Doullens, where he was + secretly confined for some time. Afterwards taken back to Paris, to appear + before the assizes of the Seine in reference to an article in "La Voix du + Peuple," he was defended by M. Cremieux and acquitted. From the + Conciergerie he went again to Sainte-Pelagie, where he ended his three + years in prison on the 6th of June, 1852. + </p> + <p> + "La Voix du Peuple," suppressed before the promulgation of the law of the + 31st of May, had been replaced by a weekly sheet, "Le Peuple" of 1850. + Established by the aid of the principal members of the Mountain, this + journal soon met with the fate of its predecessors. + </p> + <p> + In 1851, several months before the coup d'Etat, Proudhon published the + "General Idea of the Revolution of the Nineteenth Century," in which, + after having shown the logical series of unitary governments,—from + monarchy, which is the first term, to the direct government of the people, + which is the last,—he opposes the ideal of an-archy or + self-government to the communistic or governmental ideal. + </p> + <p> + At this period, the Socialist party, discouraged by the elections of 1849, + which resulted in a greater conservative triumph than those of 1848, and + justly angry with the national representative body which had just passed + the law of the 31st of May, 1850, demanded direct legislation and direct + government. Proudhon, who did not want, at any price, the plebiscitary + system which he had good reason to regard as destructive of liberty, did + not hesitate to point out, to those of his friends who expected every + thing from direct legislation, one of the antinomies of universal + suffrage. In so far as it is an institution intended to achieve, for the + benefit of the greatest number, the social reforms to which landed + suffrage is opposed, universal suffrage is powerless; especially if it + pretends to legislate or govern directly. For, until the social reforms + are accomplished, the greatest number is of necessity the least + enlightened, and consequently the least capable of understanding and + effecting reforms. In regard to the antinomy, pointed out by him, of + liberty and government,—whether the latter be monarchic, + aristocratic, or democratic in form,—Proudhon, whose chief desire + was to preserve liberty, naturally sought the solution in the free + contract. But though the free contract may be a practical solution of + purely economical questions, it cannot be made use of in politics. + Proudhon recognized this ten years later, when his beautiful study on "War + and Peace" led him to find in the FEDERATIVE PRINCIPLE the exact + equilibrium of liberty and government. + </p> + <p> + "The Social Revolution Demonstrated by the Coup d' Etat" appeared in 1852, + a few months after his release from prison. At that time, terror prevailed + to such an extent that no one was willing to publish his book without + express permission from the government. He succeeded in obtaining this + permission by writing to Louis Bonaparte a letter which he published at + the same time with the work. The latter being offered for sale, Proudhon + was warned that he would not be allowed to publish any more books of the + same character. At that time he entertained the idea of writing a + universal history entitled "Chronos." This project was never fulfilled. + </p> + <p> + Already the father of two children, and about to be presented with a + third, Proudhon was obliged to devise some immediate means of gaining a + living; he resumed his labors, and published, at first anonymously, the + "Manual of a Speculator in the Stock-Exchange." Later, in 1857, after + having completed the work, he did not hesitate to sign it, acknowledging + in the preface his indebtedness to his collaborator, G. Duchene. + </p> + <p> + Meantime, he vainly sought permission to establish a journal, or review. + This permission was steadily refused him. The imperial government always + suspected him after the publication of the "Social Revolution Demonstrated + by the Coup d'Etat." + </p> + <p> + Towards the end of 1853, Proudhon issued in Belgium a pamphlet entitled + "The Philosophy of Progress." Entirely inoffensive as it was, this + pamphlet, which he endeavored to send into France, was seized on the + frontier. Proudhon's complaints were of no avail. + </p> + <p> + The empire gave grants after grants to large companies. A financial + society, having asked for the grant of a railroad in the east of France, + employed Proudhon to write several memoirs in support of this demand. The + grant was given to another company. The author was offered an indemnity as + compensation, to be paid (as was customary in such cases) by the company + which received the grant. It is needless to say that Proudhon would accept + nothing. Then, wishing to explain to the public, as well as to the + government, the end which he had in view, he published the work entitled + "Reforms to be Effected in the Management of Railroads." + </p> + <p> + Towards the end of 1854, Proudhon had already begun his book on "Justice," + when he had a violent attack of cholera, from which he recovered with + great difficulty. Ever afterwards his health was delicate. + </p> + <p> + At last, on the 22d of April, 1858, he published, in three large volumes, + the important work upon which he had labored since 1854. This work had two + titles: the first, "Justice in the Revolution and in the Church;" the + second, "New Principles of Practical Philosophy, addressed to His Highness + Monseigneur Mathieu, Cardinal-Archbishop of Besancon." On the 27th of + April, when there had scarcely been time to read the work, an order was + issued by the magistrate for its seizure; on the 28th the seizure was + effected. To this first act of the magistracy, the author of the + incriminated book replied on the 11th of May in a strongly-motived + petition, demanding a revision of the concordat of 1802; or, in other + words, a new adjustment of the relations between Church and State. At + bottom, this petition was but the logical consequence of the work itself. + An edition of a thousand copies being published on the 17th of May, the + "Petition to the Senate" was regarded by the public prosecutor as an + aggravation of the offence or offences discovered in the body of the work + to which it was an appendix, and was seized in its turn on the 23d. On the + first of June, the author appealed to the Senate in a second "Petition," + which was deposited with the first in the office of the Secretary of the + Assembly, the guardian and guarantee, according to the constitution of + 1852, of the principles of '89. On the 2d of June, the two processes being + united, Proudhon appeared at the bar with his publisher, the printer of + the book, and the printer of the petition, to receive the sentence of the + police magistrate, which condemned him to three years' imprisonment, a + fine of four thousand francs, and the suppression of his work. It is + needless to say that the publisher and printers were also condemned by the + sixth chamber. + </p> + <p> + Proudhon lodged an appeal; he wrote a memoir which the law of 1819, in the + absence of which he would have been liable to a new prosecution, gave him + the power to publish previous to the hearing. Having decided to make use + of the means which the law permitted, he urged in vain the printers who + were prosecuted with him to lend him their aid. He then demanded of + Attorney-General Chaix d'Est Ange a statement to the effect that the + twenty-third article of the law of the 17th of May, 1819, allows a written + defence, and that a printer runs no risk in printing it. The + attorney-general flatly refused. Proudhon then started for Belgium, where + he printed his defence, which could not, of course, cross the French + frontier. This memoir is entitled to rank with the best of Beaumarchais's; + it is entitled: "Justice prosecuted by the Church; An Appeal from the + Sentence passed upon P. J. Proudhon by the Police Magistrate of the Seine, + on the 2d of June, 1858." A very close discussion of the grounds of the + judgment of the sixth chamber, it was at the same time an excellent resume + of his great work. + </p> + <p> + Once in Belgium, Proudhon did not fail to remain there. In 1859, after the + general amnesty which followed the Italian war, he at first thought + himself included in it. But the imperial government, consulted by his + friends, notified him that, in its opinion, and in spite of the contrary + advice of M. Faustin Helie, his condemnation was not of a political + character. Proudhon, thus classed by the government with the authors of + immoral works, thought it beneath his dignity to protest, and waited + patiently for the advent of 1863 to allow him to return to France. + </p> + <p> + In Belgium, where he was not slow in forming new friendships, he published + in 1859-60, in separate parts, a new edition of his great work on + "Justice." Each number contained, in addition to the original text + carefully reviewed and corrected, numerous explanatory notes and some + "Tidings of the Revolution." In these tidings, which form a sort of review + of the progress of ideas in Europe, Proudhon sorrowfully asserts that, + after having for a long time marched at the head of the progressive + nations, France has become, without appearing to suspect it, the most + retrogressive of nations; and he considers her more than once as seriously + threatened with moral death. + </p> + <p> + The Italian war led him to write a new work, which he published in 1861, + entitled "War and Peace." This work, in which, running counter to a + multitude of ideas accepted until then without examination, he pronounced + for the first time against the restoration of an aristocratic and priestly + Poland, and against the establishment of a unitary government in Italy, + created for him a multitude of enemies. Most of his friends, disconcerted + by his categorical affirmation of a right of force, notified him that they + decidedly disapproved of his new publication. "You see," triumphantly + cried those whom he had always combated, "this man is only a sophist." + </p> + <p> + Led by his previous studies to test every thing by the question of right, + Proudhon asks, in his "War and Peace," whether there is a real right of + which war is the vindication, and victory the demonstration. This right, + which he roughly calls the right of the strongest or the right of force, + and which is, after all, only the right of the most worthy to the + preference in certain definite cases, exists, says Proudhon, independently + of war. It cannot be legitimately vindicated except where necessity + clearly demands the subordination of one will to another, and within the + limits in which it exists; that is, without ever involving the enslavement + of one by the other. Among nations, the right of the majority, which is + only a corollary of the right of force, is as unacceptable as universal + monarchy. Hence, until equilibrium is established and recognized between + States or national forces, there must be war. War, says Proudhon, is not + always necessary to determine which side is the strongest; and he has no + trouble in proving this by examples drawn from the family, the workshop, + and elsewhere. Passing then to the study of war, he proves that it by no + means corresponds in practice to that which it ought to be according to + his theory of the right of force. The systematic horrors of war naturally + lead him to seek a cause for it other than the vindication of this right; + and then only does the economist take it upon himself to denounce this + cause to those who, like himself, want peace. The necessity of finding + abroad a compensation for the misery resulting in every nation from the + absence of economical equilibrium, is, according to Proudhon, the ever + real, though ever concealed, cause of war. The pages devoted to this + demonstration and to his theory of poverty, which he clearly distinguishes + from misery and pauperism, shed entirely new light upon the philosophy of + history. As for the author's conclusion, it is a very simple one. Since + the treaty of Westphalia, and especially since the treaties of 1815, + equilibrium has been the international law of Europe. It remains now, not + to destroy it, but, while maintaining it, to labor peacefully, in every + nation protected by it, for the equilibrium of economical forces. The last + line of the book, evidently written to check imperial ambition, is: + "Humanity wants no more war." + </p> + <p> + In 1861, after Garibaldi's expedition and the battle of Castelfidardo, + Proudhon immediately saw that the establishment of Italian unity would be + a severe blow to European equilibrium. It was chiefly in order to maintain + this equilibrium that he pronounced so energetically in favor of Italian + federation, even though it should be at first only a federation of + monarchs. In vain was it objected that, in being established by France, + Italian unity would break European equilibrium in our favor. Proudhon, + appealing to history, showed that every State which breaks the equilibrium + in its own favor only causes the other States to combine against it, and + thereby diminishes its influence and power. He added that, nations being + essentially selfish, Italy would not fail, when opportunity offered, to + place her interest above her gratitude. + </p> + <p> + To maintain European equilibrium by diminishing great States and + multiplying small ones; to unite the latter in organized federations, not + for attack, but for defence; and with these federations, which, if they + were not republican already, would quickly become so, to hold in check the + great military monarchies,—such, in the beginning of 1861, was the + political programme of Proudhon. + </p> + <p> + The object of the federations, he said, will be to guarantee, as far as + possible, the beneficent reign of peace; and they will have the further + effect of securing in every nation the triumph of liberty over despotism. + Where the largest unitary State is, there liberty is in the greatest + danger; further, if this State be democratic, despotism without the + counterpoise of majorities is to be feared. With the federation, it is not + so. The universal suffrage of the federal State is checked by the + universal suffrage of the federated States; and the latter is offset in + its turn by PROPERTY, the stronghold of liberty, which it tends, not to + destroy, but to balance with the institutions of MUTUALISM. + </p> + <p> + All these ideas, and many others which were only hinted at in his work on + "War and Peace," were developed by Proudhon in his subsequent + publications, one of which has for its motto, "Reforms always, Utopias + never." The thinker had evidently finished his evolution. + </p> + <p> + The Council of State of the canton of Vaud having offered prizes for + essays on the question of taxation, previously discussed at a congress + held at Lausanne, Proudhon entered the ranks and carried off the first + prize. His memoir was published in 1861 under the title of "The Theory of + Taxation." + </p> + <p> + About the same time, he wrote at Brussels, in "L'Office de Publicite," + some remarkable articles on the question of literary property, which was + discussed at a congress held in Belgium, These articles must not be + confounded with "Literary Majorats," a more complete work on the same + subject, which was published in 1863, soon after his return to France. + </p> + <p> + Arbitrarily excepted from the amnesty in 1859, Proudhon was pardoned two + years later by a special act. He did not wish to take advantage of this + favor, and seemed resolved to remain in Belgium until the 2d of June, + 1863, the time when he was to acquire the privilege of prescription, when + an absurd and ridiculous riot, excited in Brussels by an article published + by him on federation and unity in Italy, induced him to hasten his return + to France. Stones were thrown against the house in which he lived, in the + Faubourg d'Ixelles. After having placed his wife and daughters in safety + among his friends at Brussels, he arrived in Paris in September, 1862, and + published there, "Federation and Italian Unity," a pamphlet which + naturally commences with the article which served as a pretext for the + rioters in Brussels. + </p> + <p> + Among the works begun by Proudhon while in Belgium, which death did not + allow him to finish, we ought to mention a "History of Poland," which will + be published later; and, "The Theory of Property," which appeared in 1865, + before "The Gospels Annotated," and after the volume entitled "The + Principle of Art and its Social Destiny." + </p> + <p> + The publications of Proudhon, in 1863, were: 1. "Literary Majorats: An + Examination of a Bill having for its object the Creation of a Perpetual + Monopoly for the Benefit of Authors, Inventors, and Artists;" 2. "The + Federative Principle and the Necessity of Re-establishing the + Revolutionary party;" 3. "The Sworn Democrats and the Refractories;" 4. + "Whether the Treaties of 1815 have ceased to exist? Acts of the Future + Congress." + </p> + <p> + The disease which was destined to kill him grew worse and worse; but + Proudhon labored constantly!... A series of articles, published in 1864 in + "Le Messager de Paris," have been collected in a pamphlet under the title + of "New Observations on Italian Unity." He hoped to publish during the + same year his work on "The Political Capacity of the Working Classes," but + was unable to write the last chapter.... He grew weaker continually. His + doctor prescribed rest. In the month of August he went to Franche-Comte, + where he spent a month. Having returned to Paris, he resumed his labor + with difficulty.... From the month of December onwards, the heart disease + made rapid progress; the oppression became insupportable, his legs were + swollen, and he could not sleep.... + </p> + <p> + On the 19th of January, 1865, he died, towards two o'clock in the morning, + in the arms of his wife, his sister-in-law, and the friend who writes + these lines.... + </p> + <p> + The publication of his correspondence, to which his daughter Catherine is + faithfully devoted, will tend, no doubt, to increase his reputation as a + thinker, as a writer, and as an honest man. + </p> + <p> + J. A. LANGLOIS. <a name="link2H_PREF" id="link2H_PREF"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /><br /><br /><br /> + </div> + <h2> + PREFACE. + </h2> + <p> + The following letter served as a preface to the first edition of this + memoir:— + </p> + <p> + "To the Members of the Academy of Besancon + </p> + <p> + "PARIS, June 30, 1840. + </p> + <p> + "GENTLEMEN,—In the course of your debate of the 9th of May, 1833, in + regard to the triennial pension established by Madame Suard, you expressed + the following wish:— + </p> + <p> + "'The Academy requests the titulary to present it annually, during the + first fortnight in July, with a succinct and logical statement of the + various studies which he has pursued during the year which has just + expired.' + </p> + <p> + "I now propose, gentlemen, to discharge this duty. + </p> + <p> + "When I solicited your votes, I boldly avowed my intention to bend my + efforts to the discovery of some means of AMELIORATING THE PHYSICAL, + MORAL, AND INTELLECTUAL CONDITION OF THE MERE NUMEROUS AND POORER CLASSES. + This idea, foreign as it may have seemed to the object of my candidacy, + you received favorably; and, by the precious distinction with which it has + been your pleasure to honor me, you changed this formal offer into an + inviolable and sacred obligation. Thenceforth I understood with how worthy + and honorable a society I had to deal: my regard for its enlightenment, my + recognition of its benefits, my enthusiasm for its glory, were unbounded. + </p> + <p> + "Convinced at once that, in order to break loose from the beaten paths of + opinions and systems, it was necessary to proceed in my study of man and + society by scientific methods, and in a rigorous manner, I devoted one + year to philology and grammar; linguistics, or the natural history of + speech, being, of all the sciences, that which was best suited to the + character of my mind, seemed to bear the closest relation to the + researches which I was about to commence. A treatise, written at this + period upon one of the most interesting questions of comparative grammar,<a + href="#linknote-2" name="linknoteref-2" id="linknoteref-2"><small>2</small></a> + if it did not reveal the astonishing success, at least bore witness to the + thoroughness, of my labors. + </p> + <p> + "Since that time, metaphysics and moral science have been my only studies; + my perception of the fact that these sciences, though badly defined as to + their object and not confined to their sphere, are, like the natural + sciences, susceptible of demonstration and certainty, has already rewarded + my efforts. + </p> + <p> + "But, gentlemen, of all the masters whom I have followed, to none do I owe + so much as to you. Your co-operation, your programmes, your instructions, + in agreement with my secret wishes and most cherished hopes, have at no + time failed to enlighten me and to point out my road; this memoir on + property is the child of your thought. + </p> + <p> + "In 1838, the Academy of Besancon proposed the following question: TO WHAT + CAUSES MUST WE ATTRIBUTE THE CONTINUALLY INCREASING NUMBER OF SUICIDES, + AND WHAT ARE THE PROPER MEANS FOR ARRESTING THE EFFECTS OF THIS MORAL + CONTAGION? + </p> + <p> + "Thereby it asked, in less general terms, what was the cause of the social + evil, and what was its remedy? You admitted that yourselves, gentlemen + when your committee reported that the competitors had enumerated with + exactness the immediate and particular causes of suicide, as well as the + means of preventing each of them; but that from this enumeration, + chronicled with more or less skill, no positive information had been + gained, either as to the primary cause of the evil, or as to its remedy. + </p> + <p> + "In 1839, your programme, always original and varied in its academical + expression, became more exact. The investigations of 1838 had pointed out, + as the causes or rather as the symptoms of the social malady, the neglect + of the principles of religion and morality, the desire for wealth, the + passion for enjoyment, and political disturbances. All these data were + embodied by you in a single proposition: <i>THE UTILITY OF THE CELEBRATION + OF SUNDAY AS REGARDS HYGIENE, MORALITY, AND SOCIAL AND POLITICAL RELATION</i>. + </p> + <p> + "In a Christian tongue you asked, gentlemen, what was the true system of + society. A competitor <a href="#linknote-3" name="linknoteref-3" + id="linknoteref-3"><small>3</small></a> dared to maintain, and believed + that he had proved, that the institution of a day of rest at weekly + intervals is inseparably bound up with a political system based on the + equality of conditions; that without equality this institution is an + anomaly and an impossibility: that equality alone can revive this ancient + and mysterious keeping of the seventh day. This argument did not meet with + your approbation, since, without denying the relation pointed out by the + competitor, you judged, and rightly gentlemen, that the principle of + equality of conditions not being demonstrated, the ideas of the author + were nothing more than hypotheses. + </p> + <p> + "Finally, gentlemen, this fundamental principle of equality you presented + for competition in the following terms: THE ECONOMICAL AND MORAL + CONSEQUENCES IN FRANCE UP TO THE PRESENT TIME, AND THOSE WHICH SEEM LIKELY + TO APPEAR IN FUTURE, OF THE LAW CONCERNING THE EQUAL DIVISION OF + HEREDITARY PROPERTY BETWEEN THE CHILDREN. + </p> + <p> + "Instead of confining one to common places without breadth or + significance, it seems to me that your question should be developed as + follows:— + </p> + <p> + "If the law has been able to render the right of heredity common to all + the children of one father, can it not render it equal for all his + grandchildren and great-grandchildren? + </p> + <p> + "If the law no longer heeds the age of any member of the family, can it + not, by the right of heredity, cease to heed it in the race, in the tribe, + in the nation? + </p> + <p> + "Can equality, by the right of succession, be preserved between citizens, + as well as between cousins and brothers? In a word, can the principle of + succession become a principle of equality? + </p> + <p> + "To sum up all these ideas in one inclusive question: What is the + principle of heredity? What are the foundations of inequality? What is + property? + </p> + <p> + "Such, gentlemen, is the object of the memoir that I offer you to day. + </p> + <p> + "If I have rightly grasped the object of your thought; if I succeed in + bringing to light a truth which is indisputable, but, from causes which I + am bold enough to claim to have explained, has always been misunderstood; + if by an infallible method of investigation, I establish the dogma of + equality of conditions; if I determine the principle of civil law, the + essence of justice, and the form of society; if I annihilate property + forever,—to you, gentlemen, will redound all the glory, for it is to + your aid and your inspiration that I owe it. + </p> + <p> + "My purpose in this work is the application of method to the problems of + philosophy; every other intention is foreign to and even abusive of it. + </p> + <p> + "I have spoken lightly of jurisprudence: I had the right; but I should be + unjust did I not distinguish between this pretended science and the men + who practise it. Devoted to studies both laborious and severe, entitled in + all respects to the esteem of their fellow-citizens by their knowledge and + eloquence our legists deserve but one reproach, that of an excessive + deference to arbitrary laws. + </p> + <p> + "I have been pitiless in my criticism of the economists: for them I + confess that, in general, I have no liking. The arrogance and the + emptiness of their writings, their impertinent pride and their unwarranted + blunders, have disgusted me. Whoever, knowing them, pardons them, may read + them. + </p> + <p> + "I have severely blamed the learned Christian Church: it was my duty. This + blame results from the facts which I call attention to: why has the Church + decreed concerning things which it does not understand? The Church has + erred in dogma and in morals; physics and mathematics testify against her. + It may be wrong for me to say it, but surely it is unfortunate for + Christianity that it is true. To restore religion, gentlemen, it is + necessary to condemn the Church. + </p> + <p> + "Perhaps you will regret, gentlemen, that, in giving all my attention to + method and evidence, I have too much neglected form and style: in vain + should I have tried to do better. Literary hope and faith I have none. The + nineteenth century is, in my eyes, a genesic era, in which new principles + are elaborated, but in which nothing that is written shall endure. That is + the reason, in my opinion, why, among so many men of talent, France to-day + counts not one great writer. In a society like ours, to seek for literary + glory seems to me an anachronism. Of what use is it to invoke an ancient + sibyl when a muse is on the eve of birth? Pitiable actors in a tragedy + nearing its end, that which it behooves us to do is to precipitate the + catastrophe. The most deserving among us is he who plays best this part. + Well, I no longer aspire to this sad success! + </p> + <p> + "Why should I not confess it, gentlemen? I have aspired to your suffrages + and sought the title of your pensioner, hating all which exists and full + of projects for its destruction; I shall finish this investigation in a + spirit of calm and philosophical resignation. I have derived more peace + from the knowledge of the truth, than anger from the feeling of + oppression; and the most precious fruit that I could wish to gather from + this memoir would be the inspiration of my readers with that tranquillity + of soul which arises from the clear perception of evil and its cause, and + which is much more powerful than passion and enthusiasm. My hatred of + privilege and human authority was unbounded; perhaps at times I have been + guilty, in my indignation, of confounding persons and things; at present I + can only despise and complain; to cease to hate I only needed to know. + </p> + <p> + "It is for you now, gentlemen, whose mission and character are the + proclamation of the truth, it is for you to instruct the people, and to + tell them for what they ought to hope and what they ought to fear. The + people, incapable as yet of sound judgment as to what is best for them, + applaud indiscriminately the most opposite ideas, provided that in them + they get a taste of flattery: to them the laws of thought are like the + confines of the possible; to-day they can no more distinguish between a + savant and a sophist, than formerly they could tell a physician from a + sorcerer. 'Inconsiderately accepting, gathering together, and accumulating + everything that is new, regarding all reports as true and indubitable, at + the breath or ring of novelty they assemble like bees at the sound of a + basin.' <a href="#linknote-4" name="linknoteref-4" id="linknoteref-4"><small>4</small></a> + </p> + <p> + "May you, gentlemen, desire equality as I myself desire it; may you, for + the eternal happiness of our country, become its propagators and its + heralds; may I be the last of your pensioners! Of all the wishes that I + can frame, that, gentlemen, is the most worthy of you and the most + honorable for me. + </p> + <p> + "I am, with the profoundest respect and the most earnest gratitude, + </p> + <p> + "Your pensioner, + </p> + <p> + "P. J. PROUDHON." + </p> + <p> + Two months after the receipt of this letter, the Academy, in its debate of + August 24th, replied to the address of its pensioner by a note, the text + of which I give below:— + </p> + <p> + "A member calls the attention of the Academy to a pamphlet, published last + June by the titulary of the Suard pension, entitled, "What is property?" + and dedicated by the author to the Academy. He is of the opinion that the + society owes it to justice, to example, and to its own dignity, to + publicly disavow all responsibility for the anti-social doctrines + contained in this publication. In consequence he demands: + </p> + <p> + "1. That the Academy disavow and condemn, in the most formal manner, the + work of the Suard pensioner, as having been published without its assent, + and as attributing to it opinions diametrically opposed to the principles + of each of its members; + </p> + <p> + "2. That the pensioner be charged, in case he should publish a second + edition of his book, to omit the dedication; + </p> + <p> + "3. That this judgment of the Academy be placed upon the records. + </p> + <p> + "These three propositions, put to vote, are adopted." + </p> + <p> + After this ludicrous decree, which its authors thought to render powerful + by giving it the form of a contradiction, I can only beg the reader not to + measure the intelligence of my compatriots by that of our Academy. + </p> + <p> + While my patrons in the social and political sciences were fulminating + anathemas against my brochure, a man, who was a stranger to Franche-Comte, + who did not know me, who might even have regarded himself as personally + attacked by the too sharp judgment which I had passed upon the economists, + a publicist as learned as he was modest, loved by the people whose sorrows + he felt, honored by the power which he sought to enlighten without + flattering or disgracing it, M. Blanqui—member of the Institute, + professor of political economy, defender of property—took up my + defence before his associates and before the ministry, and saved me from + the blows of a justice which is always blind, because it is always + ignorant. + </p> + <p> + It seems to me that the reader will peruse with pleasure the letter which + M. Blanqui did me the honor to write to me upon the publication of my + second memoir, a letter as honorable to its author as it is flattering to + him to whom it is addressed. + </p> + <p> + "PARIS, May 1, 1841. + </p> + <p> + "MONSIEUR,—I hasten to thank you for forwarding to me your second + memoir upon property. I have read it with all the interest that an + acquaintance with the first would naturally inspire. I am very glad that + you have modified somewhat the rudeness of form which gave to a work of + such gravity the manner and appearance of a pamphlet; for you quite + frightened me, sir, and your talent was needed to reassure me in regard to + your intentions. One does not expend so much real knowledge with the + purpose of inflaming his country. This proposition, now coming into notice—PROPERTY + IS ROBBERY!—was of a nature to repel from your book even those + serious minds who do not judge by appearances, had you persisted in + maintaining it in its rude simplicity. But if you have softened the form, + you are none the less faithful to the ground-work of your doctrines; and + although you have done me the honor to give me a share in this perilous + teaching, I cannot accept a partnership which, as far as talent goes, + would surely be a credit to me, but which would compromise me in all other + respects. + </p> + <p> + "I agree with you in one thing only; namely, that all kinds of property + get too frequently abused in this world. But I do not reason from the + abuse to the abolition,—an heroic remedy too much like death, which + cures all evils. I will go farther: I will confess that, of all abuses, + the most hateful to me are those of property; but once more, there is a + remedy for this evil without violating it, all the more without destroying + it. If the present laws allow abuse, we can reconstruct them. Our civil + code is not the Koran; it is not wrong to examine it. Change, then, the + laws which govern the use of property, but be sparing of anathemas; for, + logically, where is the honest man whose hands are entirely clean? Do you + think that one can be a robber without knowing it, without wishing it, + without suspecting it? Do you not admit that society in its present state, + like every man, has in its constitution all kinds of virtues and vices + inherited from our ancestors? Is property, then, in your eyes a thing so + simple and so abstract that you can re-knead and equalize it, if I may so + speak, in your metaphysical mill? One who has said as many excellent and + practical things as occur in these two beautiful and paradoxical + improvisations of yours cannot be a pure and unwavering utopist. You are + too well acquainted with the economical and academical phraseology to play + with the hard words of revolutions. I believe, then, that you have handled + property as Rousseau, eighty years ago, handled letters, with a + magnificent and poetical display of wit and knowledge. Such, at least, is + my opinion. + </p> + <p> + "That is what I said to the Institute at the time when I presented my + report upon your book. I knew that they wished to proceed against you in + the courts; you perhaps do not know by how narrow a chance I succeeded in + preventing them. <a href="#linknote-5" name="linknoteref-5" + id="linknoteref-5"><small>5</small></a> What chagrin I should always have + felt, if the king's counsel, that is to say, the intellectual executioner, + had followed in my very tracks to attack your book and annoy your person! + I actually passed two terrible nights, and I succeeded in restraining the + secular arm only by showing that your book was an academical dissertation, + and not the manifesto of an incendiary. Your style is too lofty ever to be + of service to the madmen who in discussing the gravest questions of our + social order, use paving-stones as their weapons. But see to it, sir, that + ere long they do not come, in spite of you, to seek for ammunition in this + formidable arsenal, and that your vigorous metaphysics falls not into the + hands of some sophist of the market-place, who might discuss the question + in the presence of a starving audience: we should have pillage for + conclusion and peroration. + </p> + <p> + "I feel as deeply as you, sir, the abuses which you point out; but I have + so great an affection for order,—not that common and strait-laced + order with which the police are satisfied, but the majestic and imposing + order of human societies,—that I sometimes find myself embarrassed + in attacking certain abuses. I like to rebuild with one hand when I am + compelled to destroy with the other. In pruning an old tree, we guard + against destruction of the buds and fruit. You know that as well as any + one. You are a wise and learned man; you have a thoughtful mind. The terms + by which you characterize the fanatics of our day are strong enough to + reassure the most suspicious imaginations as to your intentions; but you + conclude in favor of the abolition of property! You wish to abolish the + most powerful motor of the human mind; you attack the paternal sentiment + in its sweetest illusions; with one word you arrest the formation of + capital, and we build henceforth upon the sand instead of on a rock. That + I cannot agree to; and for that reason I have criticised your book, so + full of beautiful pages, so brilliant with knowledge and fervor! + </p> + <p> + "I wish, sir, that my impaired health would permit me to examine with you, + page by page, the memoir which you have done me the honor to address to me + publicly and personally; I think I could offer some important criticisms. + For the moment, I must content myself with thanking you for the kind words + in which you have seen fit to speak of me. We each possess the merit of + sincerity; I desire also the merit of prudence. You know how deep-seated + is the disease under which the working-people are suffering; I know how + many noble hearts beat under those rude garments, and I feel an + irresistible and fraternal sympathy with the thousands of brave people who + rise early in the morning to labor, to pay their taxes, and to make our + country strong. I try to serve and enlighten them, whereas some endeavor + to mislead them. You have not written directly for them. You have issued + two magnificent manifestoes, the second more guarded than the first; issue + a third more guarded than the second, and you will take high rank in + science, whose first precept is calmness and impartiality. + </p> + <p> + "Farewell, sir! No man's esteem for another can exceed mine for you. + </p> + <p> + "BLANQUI." + </p> + <p> + I should certainly take some exceptions to this noble and eloquent letter; + but I confess that I am more inclined to realize the prediction with which + it terminates than to augment needlessly the number of my antagonists. So + much controversy fatigues and wearies me. The intelligence expended in the + warfare of words is like that employed in battle: it is intelligence + wasted. M. Blanqui acknowledges that property is abused in many harmful + ways; I call PROPERTY the sum these abuses exclusively. To each of us + property seems a polygon whose angles need knocking off; but, the + operation performed, M. Blanqui maintains that the figure will still be a + polygon (an hypothesis admitted in mathematics, although not proven), + while I consider that this figure will be a circle. Honest people can at + least understand one another. + </p> + <p> + For the rest, I allow that, in the present state of the question, the mind + may legitimately hesitate before deciding in favor of the abolition of + property. To gain the victory for one's cause, it does not suffice simply + to overthrow a principle generally recognized, which has the indisputable + merit of systematically recapitulating our political theories; it is also + necessary to establish the opposite principle, and to formulate the system + which must proceed from it. Still further, it is necessary to show the + method by which the new system will satisfy all the moral and political + needs which induced the establishment of the first. On the following + conditions, then, of subsequent evidence, depends the correctness of my + preceding arguments:— + </p> + <p> + The discovery of a system of absolute equality in which all existing + institutions, save property, or the sum of the abuses of property, not + only may find a place, but may themselves serve as instruments of + equality: individual liberty, the division of power, the public ministry, + the jury system, administrative and judicial organization, the unity and + completeness of instruction, marriage, the family, heredity in direct and + collateral succession, the right of sale and exchange, the right to make a + will, and even birthright,—a system which, better than property, + guarantees the formation of capital and keeps up the courage of all; + which, from a superior point of view, explains, corrects, and completes + the theories of association hitherto proposed, from Plato and Pythagoras + to Babeuf, Saint Simon, and Fourier; a system, finally, which, serving as + a means of transition, is immediately applicable. + </p> + <p> + A work so vast requires, I am aware, the united efforts of twenty + Montesquieus; nevertheless, if it is not given to a single man to finish, + a single one can commence, the enterprise. The road that he shall traverse + will suffice to show the end and assure the result. + </p> + <p> + <a name="link2H_4_0003" id="link2H_4_0003"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /><br /><br /><br /> + </div> + <h2> + WHAT IS PROPERTY? OR, + </h2> + <h3> + AN INQUIRY INTO THE PRINCIPLE OF RIGHT AND OF GOVERNMENT. + </h3> + <p> + <a name="link2H_4_0004" id="link2H_4_0004"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /><br /><br /><br /> + </div> + <h2> + FIRST MEMOIR. + </h2> +<pre xml:space="preserve"> + <i>Adversus hostem aeterna auctertas esto.</i> + + Against the enemy, revendication is eternal. LAW OF THE + TWELVE TABLES. +</pre> + <p> + <a name="link2HCH0001" id="link2HCH0001"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /><br /><br /><br /> + </div> + <h2> + CHAPTER I. METHOD PURSUED IN THIS WORK.—THE IDEA OF A REVOLUTION. + </h2> + <p> + If I were asked to answer the following question: WHAT IS SLAVERY? and I + should answer in one word, IT IS MURDER, my meaning would be understood at + once. No extended argument would be required to show that the power to + take from a man his thought, his will, his personality, is a power of life + and death; and that to enslave a man is to kill him. Why, then, to this + other question: WHAT IS PROPERTY! may I not likewise answer, IT IS + ROBBERY, without the certainty of being misunderstood; the second + proposition being no other than a transformation of the first? + </p> + <p> + I undertake to discuss the vital principle of our government and our + institutions, property: I am in my right. I may be mistaken in the + conclusion which shall result from my investigations: I am in my right. I + think best to place the last thought of my book first: still am I in my + right. + </p> + <p> + Such an author teaches that property is a civil right, born of occupation + and sanctioned by law; another maintains that it is a natural right, + originating in labor,—and both of these doctrines, totally opposed + as they may seem, are encouraged and applauded. I contend that neither + labor, nor occupation, nor law, can create property; that it is an effect + without a cause: am I censurable? + </p> + <p> + But murmurs arise! + </p> + <p> + PROPERTY IS ROBBERY! That is the war-cry of '93! That is the signal of + revolutions! + </p> + <p> + Reader, calm yourself: I am no agent of discord, no firebrand of sedition. + I anticipate history by a few days; I disclose a truth whose development + we may try in vain to arrest; I write the preamble of our future + constitution. This proposition which seems to you blasphemous—PROPERTY + IS ROBBERY—would, if our prejudices allowed us to consider it, be + recognized as the lightning-rod to shield us from the coming thunderbolt; + but too many interests stand in the way!... Alas! philosophy will not + change the course of events: destiny will fulfill itself regardless of + prophecy. Besides, must not justice be done and our education be finished? + </p> + <p> + PROPERTY IS ROBBERY!... What a revolution in human ideas! PROPRIETOR and + ROBBER have been at all times expressions as contradictory as the beings + whom they designate are hostile; all languages have perpetuated this + opposition. On what authority, then, do you venture to attack universal + consent, and give the lie to the human race? Who are you, that you should + question the judgment of the nations and the ages? + </p> + <p> + Of what consequence to you, reader, is my obscure individuality? I live, + like you, in a century in which reason submits only to fact and to + evidence. My name, like yours, is TRUTH-SEEKER. <a href="#linknote-6" + name="linknoteref-6" id="linknoteref-6"><small>6</small></a> My mission is + written in these words of the law: SPEAK WITHOUT HATRED AND WITHOUT FEAR; + TELL THAT WHICH THOU KNOWEST! The work of our race is to build the temple + of science, and this science includes man and Nature. Now, truth reveals + itself to all; to-day to Newton and Pascal, tomorrow to the herdsman in + the valley and the journeyman in the shop. Each one contributes his stone + to the edifice; and, his task accomplished, disappears. Eternity precedes + us, eternity follows us: between two infinites, of what account is one + poor mortal that the century should inquire about him? + </p> + <p> + Disregard then, reader, my title and my character, and attend only to my + arguments. It is in accordance with universal consent that I undertake to + correct universal error; from the OPINION of the human race I appeal to + its FAITH. Have the courage to follow me; and, if your will is + untrammelled, if your conscience is free, if your mind can unite two + propositions and deduce a third therefrom, my ideas will inevitably become + yours. In beginning by giving you my last word, it was my purpose to warn + you, not to defy you; for I am certain that, if you read me, you will be + compelled to assent. The things of which I am to speak are so simple and + clear that you will be astonished at not having perceived them before, and + you will say: "I have neglected to think." Others offer you the spectacle + of genius wresting Nature's secrets from her, and unfolding before you her + sublime messages; you will find here only a series of experiments upon + JUSTICE and RIGHT a sort of verification of the weights and measures of + your conscience. The operations shall be conducted under your very eyes; + and you shall weigh the result. + </p> + <p> + Nevertheless, I build no system. I ask an end to privilege, the abolition + of slavery, equality of rights, and the reign of law. Justice, nothing + else; that is the alpha and omega of my argument: to others I leave the + business of governing the world. + </p> + <p> + One day I asked myself: Why is there so much sorrow and misery in society? + Must man always be wretched? And not satisfied with the explanations given + by the reformers,—these attributing the general distress to + governmental cowardice and incapacity, those to conspirators and emeutes, + still others to ignorance and general corruption,—and weary of the + interminable quarrels of the tribune and the press, I sought to fathom the + matter myself. I have consulted the masters of science; I have read a + hundred volumes of philosophy, law, political economy, and history: would + to God that I had lived in a century in which so much reading had been + useless! I have made every effort to obtain exact information, comparing + doctrines, replying to objections, continually constructing equations and + reductions from arguments, and weighing thousands of syllogisms in the + scales of the most rigorous logic. In this laborious work, I have + collected many interesting facts which I shall share with my friends and + the public as soon as I have leisure. But I must say that I recognized at + once that we had never understood the meaning of these words, so common + and yet so sacred: JUSTICE, EQUITY, LIBERTY; that concerning each of these + principles our ideas have been utterly obscure; and, in fact, that this + ignorance was the sole cause, both of the poverty that devours us, and of + all the calamities that have ever afflicted the human race. + </p> + <p> + My mind was frightened by this strange result: I doubted my reason. What! + said I, that which eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor insight + penetrated, you have discovered! Wretch, mistake not the visions of your + diseased brain for the truths of science! Do you not know (great + philosophers have said so) that in points of practical morality universal + error is a contradiction? + </p> + <p> + I resolved then to test my arguments; and in entering upon this new labor + I sought an answer to the following questions: Is it possible that + humanity can have been so long and so universally mistaken in the + application of moral principles? How and why could it be mistaken? How can + its error, being universal, be capable of correction? + </p> + <p> + These questions, on the solution of which depended the certainty of my + conclusions, offered no lengthy resistance to analysis. It will be seen, + in chapter V. of this work, that in morals, as in all other branches of + knowledge, the gravest errors are the dogmas of science; that, even in + works of justice, to be mistaken is a privilege which ennobles man; and + that whatever philosophical merit may attach to me is infinitely small. To + name a thing is easy: the difficulty is to discern it before its + appearance. In giving expression to the last stage of an idea,—an + idea which permeates all minds, which to-morrow will be proclaimed by + another if I fail to announce it to-day,—I can claim no merit save + that of priority of utterance. Do we eulogize the man who first perceives + the dawn? + </p> + <p> + Yes: all men believe and repeat that equality of conditions is identical + with equality of rights; that PROPERTY and ROBBERY are synonymous terms; + that every social advantage accorded, or rather usurped, in the name of + superior talent or service, is iniquity and extortion. All men in their + hearts, I say, bear witness to these truths; they need only to be made to + understand it. + </p> + <p> + Before entering directly upon the question before me, I must say a word of + the road that I shall traverse. When Pascal approached a geometrical + problem, he invented a method of solution; to solve a problem in + philosophy a method is equally necessary. Well, by how much do the + problems of which philosophy treats surpass in the gravity of their + results those discussed by geometry! How much more imperatively, then, do + they demand for their solution a profound and rigorous analysis! + </p> + <p> + It is a fact placed for ever beyond doubt, say the modern psychologists, + that every perception received by the mind is determined by certain + general laws which govern the mind; is moulded, so to speak, in certain + types pre-existing in our understanding, and which constitutes its + original condition. Hence, say they, if the mind has no innate IDEAS, it + has at least innate FORMS. Thus, for example, every phenomenon is of + necessity conceived by us as happening in TIME and SPACE,—that + compels us to infer a CAUSE of its occurrence; every thing which exists + implies the ideas of SUBSTANCE, MODE, RELATION, NUMBER, &C.; in a + word, we form no idea which is not related to some one of the general + principles of reason, independent of which nothing exists. + </p> + <p> + These axioms of the understanding, add the psychologists, these + fundamental types, by which all our judgments and ideas are inevitably + shaped, and which our sensations serve only to illuminate, are known in + the schools as CATEGORIES. Their primordial existence in the mind is + to-day demonstrated; they need only to be systematized and catalogued. + Aristotle recognized ten; Kant increased the number to fifteen; M. Cousin + has reduced it to three, to two, to one; and the indisputable glory of + this professor will be due to the fact that, if he has not discovered the + true theory of categories, he has, at least, seen more clearly than any + one else the vast importance of this question,—the greatest and + perhaps the only one with which metaphysics has to deal. + </p> + <p> + I confess that I disbelieve in the innateness, not only of IDEAS, but also + of FORMS or LAWS of our understanding; and I hold the metaphysics of Reid + and Kant to be still farther removed from the truth than that of + Aristotle. However, as I do not wish to enter here into a discussion of + the mind, a task which would demand much labor and be of no interest to + the public, I shall admit the hypothesis that our most general and most + necessary ideas—such as time, space, substance, and cause—exist + originally in the mind; or, at least, are derived immediately from its + constitution. + </p> + <p> + But it is a psychological fact none the less true, and one to which the + philosophers have paid too little attention, that habit, like a second + nature, has the power of fixing in the mind new categorical forms derived + from the appearances which impress us, and by them usually stripped of + objective reality, but whose influence over our judgments is no less + predetermining than that of the original categories. Hence we reason by + the ETERNAL and ABSOLUTE laws of our mind, and at the same time by the + secondary rules, ordinarily faulty, which are suggested to us by imperfect + observation. This is the most fecund source of false prejudices, and the + permanent and often invincible cause of a multitude of errors. The bias + resulting from these prejudices is so strong that often, even when we are + fighting against a principle which our mind thinks false, which is + repugnant to our reason, and which our conscience disapproves, we defend + it without knowing it, we reason in accordance with it, and we obey it + while attacking it. Enclosed within a circle, our mind revolves about + itself, until a new observation, creating within us new ideas, brings to + view an external principle which delivers us from the phantom by which our + imagination is possessed. + </p> + <p> + Thus, we know to-day that, by the laws of a universal magnetism whose + cause is still unknown, two bodies (no obstacle intervening) tend to unite + by an accelerated impelling force which we call GRAVITATION. It is + gravitation which causes unsupported bodies to fall to the ground, which + gives them weight, and which fastens us to the earth on which we live. + Ignorance of this cause was the sole obstacle which prevented the ancients + from believing in the antipodes. "Can you not see," said St. Augustine + after Lactantius, "that, if there were men under our feet, their heads + would point downward, and that they would fall into the sky?" The bishop + of Hippo, who thought the earth flat because it appeared so to the eye, + supposed in consequence that, if we should connect by straight lines the + zenith with the nadir in different places, these lines would be parallel + with each other; and in the direction of these lines he traced every + movement from above to below. Thence he naturally concluded that the stars + were rolling torches set in the vault of the sky; that, if left to + themselves, they would fall to the earth in a shower of fire; that the + earth was one vast plain, forming the lower portion of the world, &c. + If he had been asked by what the world itself was sustained, he would have + answered that he did not know, but that to God nothing is impossible. Such + were the ideas of St. Augustine in regard to space and movement, ideas + fixed within him by a prejudice derived from an appearance, and which had + become with him a general and categorical rule of judgment. Of the reason + why bodies fall his mind knew nothing; he could only say that a body falls + because it falls. + </p> + <p> + With us the idea of a fall is more complex: to the general ideas of space + and movement which it implies, we add that of attraction or direction + towards a centre, which gives us the higher idea of cause. But if physics + has fully corrected our judgment in this respect, we still make use of the + prejudice of St. Augustine; and when we say that a thing has FALLEN, we do + not mean simply and in general that there has been an effect of + gravitation, but specially and in particular that it is towards the earth, + and FROM ABOVE TO BELOW, that this movement has taken place. Our mind is + enlightened in vain; the imagination prevails, and our language remains + forever incorrigible. To DESCEND FROM HEAVEN is as incorrect an expression + as to MOUNT TO HEAVEN; and yet this expression will live as long as men + use language. + </p> + <p> + All these phrases—FROM ABOVE TO BELOW; TO DESCEND FROM HEAVEN; TO + FALL FROM THE CLOUDS, &C.—are henceforth harmless, because we + know how to rectify them in practice; but let us deign to consider for a + moment how much they have retarded the progress of science. If, indeed, it + be a matter of little importance to statistics, mechanics, hydrodynamics, + and ballistics, that the true cause of the fall of bodies should be known, + and that our ideas of the general movements in space should be exact, it + is quite otherwise when we undertake to explain the system of the + universe, the cause of tides, the shape of the earth, and its position in + the heavens: to understand these things we must leave the circle of + appearances. In all ages there have been ingenious mechanicians, excellent + architects, skilful artillerymen: any error, into which it was possible + for them to fall in regard to the rotundity of the earth and gravitation, + in no wise retarded the development of their art; the solidity of their + buildings and accuracy of their aim was not affected by it. But sooner or + later they were forced to grapple with phenomena, which the supposed + parallelism of all perpendiculars erected from the earth's surface + rendered inexplicable: then also commenced a struggle between the + prejudices, which for centuries had sufficed in daily practice, and the + unprecedented opinions which the testimony of the eyes seemed to + contradict. + </p> + <p> + Thus, on the one hand, the falsest judgments, whether based on isolated + facts or only on appearances, always embrace some truths whose sphere, + whether large or small, affords room for a certain number of inferences, + beyond which we fall into absurdity. The ideas of St. Augustine, for + example, contained the following truths: that bodies fall towards the + earth, that they fall in a straight line, that either the sun or the earth + moves, that either the sky or the earth turns, &c. These general facts + always have been true; our science has added nothing to them. But, on the + other hand, it being necessary to account for every thing, we are obliged + to seek for principles more and more comprehensive: that is why we have + had to abandon successively, first the opinion that the world was flat, + then the theory which regards it as the stationary centre of the universe, + &c. + </p> + <p> + If we pass now from physical nature to the moral world, we still find + ourselves subject to the same deceptions of appearance, to the same + influences of spontaneity and habit. But the distinguishing feature of + this second division of our knowledge is, on the one hand, the good or the + evil which we derive from our opinions; and, on the other, the obstinacy + with which we defend the prejudice which is tormenting and killing us. + </p> + <p> + Whatever theory we embrace in regard to the shape of the earth and the + cause of its weight, the physics of the globe does not suffer; and, as for + us, our social economy can derive therefrom neither profit nor damage. But + it is in us and through us that the laws of our moral nature work; now, + these laws cannot be executed without our deliberate aid, and, + consequently, unless we know them. If, then, our science of moral laws is + false, it is evident that, while desiring our own good, we are + accomplishing our own evil; if it is only incomplete, it may suffice for a + time for our social progress, but in the long run it will lead us into a + wrong road, and will finally precipitate us into an abyss of calamities. + </p> + <p> + Then it is that we need to exercise our highest judgments; and, be it said + to our glory, they are never found wanting: but then also commences a + furious struggle between old prejudices and new ideas. Days of + conflagration and anguish! We are told of the time when, with the same + beliefs, with the same institutions, all the world seemed happy: why + complain of these beliefs; why banish these institutions? We are slow to + admit that that happy age served the precise purpose of developing the + principle of evil which lay dormant in society; we accuse men and gods, + the powers of earth and the forces of Nature. Instead of seeking the cause + of the evil in his mind and heart, man blames his masters, his rivals, his + neighbors, and himself; nations arm themselves, and slay and exterminate + each other, until equilibrium is restored by the vast depopulation, and + peace again arises from the ashes of the combatants. So loath is humanity + to touch the customs of its ancestors, and to change the laws framed by + the founders of communities, and confirmed by the faithful observance of + the ages. + </p> + <p> + <i>Nihil motum ex antiquo probabile est</i>: Distrust all innovations, + wrote Titus Livius. Undoubtedly it would be better were man not compelled + to change: but what! because he is born ignorant, because he exists only + on condition of gradual self-instruction, must he abjure the light, + abdicate his reason, and abandon himself to fortune? Perfect health is + better than convalescence: should the sick man, therefore, refuse to be + cured? Reform, reform! cried, ages since, John the Baptist and Jesus + Christ. Reform, reform! cried our fathers, fifty years ago; and for a long + time to come we shall shout, Reform, reform! + </p> + <p> + Seeing the misery of my age, I said to myself: Among the principles that + support society, there is one which it does not understand, which its + ignorance has vitiated, and which causes all the evil that exists. This + principle is the most ancient of all; for it is a characteristic of + revolutions to tear down the most modern principles, and to respect those + of long-standing. Now the evil by which we suffer is anterior to all + revolutions. This principle, impaired by our ignorance, is honored and + cherished; for if it were not cherished it would harm nobody, it would be + without influence. + </p> + <p> + But this principle, right in its purpose, but misunderstood: this + principle, as old as humanity, what is it? Can it be religion? + </p> + <p> + All men believe in God: this dogma belongs at once to their conscience and + their mind. To humanity God is a fact as primitive, an idea as inevitable, + a principle as necessary as are the categorical ideas of cause, substance, + time, and space to our understanding. God is proven to us by the + conscience prior to any inference of the mind; just as the sun is proven + to us by the testimony of the senses prior to all the arguments of + physics. We discover phenomena and laws by observation and experience; + only this deeper sense reveals to us existence. Humanity believes that God + is; but, in believing in God, what does it believe? In a word, what is + God? + </p> + <p> + The nature of this notion of Divinity,—this primitive, universal + notion, born in the race,—the human mind has not yet fathomed. At + each step that we take in our investigation of Nature and of causes, the + idea of God is extended and exalted; the farther science advances, the + more God seems to grow and broaden. Anthropomorphism and idolatry + constituted of necessity the faith of the mind in its youth, the theology + of infancy and poesy. A harmless error, if they had not endeavored to make + it a rule of conduct, and if they had been wise enough to respect the + liberty of thought. But having made God in his own image, man wished to + appropriate him still farther; not satisfied with disfiguring the + Almighty, he treated him as his patrimony, his goods, his possessions. + God, pictured in monstrous forms, became throughout the world the property + of man and of the State. Such was the origin of the corruption of morals + by religion, and the source of pious feuds and holy wars. Thank Heaven! we + have learned to allow every one his own beliefs; we seek for moral laws + outside the pale of religion. Instead of legislating as to the nature and + attributes of God, the dogmas of theology, and the destiny of our souls, + we wisely wait for science to tell us what to reject and what to accept. + God, soul, religion,—eternal objects of our unwearied thought and + our most fatal aberrations, terrible problems whose solution, for ever + attempted, for ever remains unaccomplished,—concerning all these + questions we may still be mistaken, but at least our error is harmless. + With liberty in religion, and the separation of the spiritual from the + temporal power, the influence of religious ideas upon the progress of + society is purely negative; no law, no political or civil institution + being founded on religion. Neglect of duties imposed by religion may + increase the general corruption, but it is not the primary cause; it is + only an auxiliary or result. It is universally admitted, and especially in + the matter which now engages our attention, that the cause of the + inequality of conditions among men—of pauperism, of universal + misery, and of governmental embarrassments—can no longer be traced + to religion: we must go farther back, and dig still deeper. + </p> + <p> + But what is there in man older and deeper than the religious sentiment? + </p> + <p> + There is man himself; that is, volition and conscience, free-will and law, + eternally antagonistic. Man is at war with himself: why? + </p> + <p> + "Man," say the theologians, "transgressed in the beginning; our race is + guilty of an ancient offence. For this transgression humanity has fallen; + error and ignorance have become its sustenance. Read history, you will + find universal proof of this necessity for evil in the permanent misery of + nations. Man suffers and always will suffer; his disease is hereditary and + constitutional. Use palliatives, employ emollients; there is no remedy." + </p> + <p> + Nor is this argument peculiar to the theologians; we find it expressed in + equivalent language in the philosophical writings of the materialists, + believers in infinite perfectibility. Destutt de Tracy teaches formally + that poverty, crime, and war are the inevitable conditions of our social + state; necessary evils, against which it would be folly to revolt. So, + call it NECESSITY OF EVIL or ORIGINAL DEPRAVITY, it is at bottom the same + philosophy. + </p> + <p> + "The first man transgressed." If the votaries of the Bible interpreted it + faithfully, they would say: MAN ORIGINALLY TRANSGRESSED, that is, made a + mistake; for TO TRANSGRESS, TO FAIL, TO MAKE A MISTAKE, all mean the same + thing. + </p> + <p> + "The consequences of Adam's transgression are inherited by the race; the + first is ignorance." Truly, the race, like the individual, is born + ignorant; but, in regard to a multitude of questions, even in the moral + and political spheres, this ignorance of the race has been dispelled: who + says that it will not depart altogether? Mankind makes continual progress + toward truth, and light ever triumphs over darkness. Our disease is not, + then, absolutely incurable, and the theory of the theologians is worse + than inadequate; it is ridiculous, since it is reducible to this + tautology: "Man errs, because he errs." While the true statement is this: + "Man errs, because he learns." + </p> + <p> + Now, if man arrives at a knowledge of all that he needs to know, it is + reasonable to believe that, ceasing to err, he will cease to suffer. + </p> + <p> + But if we question the doctors as to this law, said to be engraved upon + the heart of man, we shall immediately see that they dispute about a + matter of which they know nothing; that, concerning the most important + questions, there are almost as many opinions as authors; that we find no + two agreeing as to the best form of government, the principle of + authority, and the nature of right; that all sail hap-hazard upon a + shoreless and bottomless sea, abandoned to the guidance of their private + opinions which they modestly take to be right reason. And, in view of this + medley of contradictory opinions, we say: "The object of our + investigations is the law, the determination of the social principle. Now, + the politicians, that is, the social scientists, do not understand each + other; then the error lies in themselves; and, as every error has a + reality for its object, we must look in their books to find the truth + which they have unconsciously deposited there." + </p> + <p> + Now, of what do the lawyers and the publicists treat? Of JUSTICE, EQUITY, + LIBERTY, NATURAL LAW, CIVIL LAWS, &c. But what is justice? What is its + principle, its character, its formula? To this question our doctors + evidently have no reply; for otherwise their science, starting with a + principle clear and well defined, would quit the region of probabilities, + and all disputes would end. + </p> + <p> + What is justice? The theologians answer: "All justice comes from God." + That is true; but we know no more than before. + </p> + <p> + The philosophers ought to be better informed: they have argued so much + about justice and injustice! Unhappily, an examination proves that their + knowledge amounts to nothing, and that with them—as with the savages + whose every prayer to the sun is simply <i>O! O!</i>—it is a cry of + admiration, love, and enthusiasm; but who does not know that the sun + attaches little meaning to the interjection O! That is exactly our + position toward the philosophers in regard to justice. Justice, they say, + is a DAUGHTER OF HEAVEN; A LIGHT WHICH ILLUMINES EVERY MAN THAT COMES INTO + THE WORLD; THE MOST BEAUTIFUL PREROGATIVE OF OUR NATURE; THAT WHICH + DISTINGUISHES US FROM THE BEASTS AND LIKENS US TO GOD—and a thousand + other similar things. What, I ask, does this pious litany amount to? To + the prayer of the savages: O! + </p> + <p> + All the most reasonable teachings of human wisdom concerning justice are + summed up in that famous adage: DO UNTO OTHERS THAT WHICH YOU WOULD THAT + OTHERS SHOULD DO UNTO YOU; DO NOT UNTO OTHERS THAT WHICH YOU WOULD NOT + THAT OTHERS SHOULD DO UNTO YOU. But this rule of moral practice is + unscientific: what have I a right to wish that others should do or not do + to me? It is of no use to tell me that my duty is equal to my right, + unless I am told at the same time what my right is. + </p> + <p> + Let us try to arrive at something more precise and positive. + </p> + <p> + Justice is the central star which governs societies, the pole around which + the political world revolves, the principle and the regulator of all + transactions. Nothing takes place between men save in the name of RIGHT; + nothing without the invocation of justice. Justice is not the work of the + law: on the contrary, the law is only a declaration and application of + JUSTICE in all circumstances where men are liable to come in contact. If, + then, the idea that we form of justice and right were ill-defined, if it + were imperfect or even false, it is clear that all our legislative + applications would be wrong, our institutions vicious, our politics + erroneous: consequently there would be disorder and social chaos. + </p> + <p> + This hypothesis of the perversion of justice in our minds, and, as a + necessary result, in our acts, becomes a demonstrated fact when it is + shown that the opinions of men have not borne a constant relation to the + notion of justice and its applications; that at different periods they + have undergone modifications: in a word, that there has been progress in + ideas. Now, that is what history proves by the most overwhelming + testimony. + </p> + <p> + Eighteen Hundred years ago, the world, under the rule of the Caesars, + exhausted itself in slavery, superstition, and voluptuousness. The people—intoxicated + and, as it were, stupefied by their long-continued orgies—had lost + the very notion of right and duty: war and dissipation by turns swept them + away; usury and the labor of machines (that is of slaves), by depriving + them of the means of subsistence, hindered them from continuing the + species. Barbarism sprang up again, in a hideous form, from this mass of + corruption, and spread like a devouring leprosy over the depopulated + provinces. The wise foresaw the downfall of the empire, but could devise + no remedy. What could they think indeed? To save this old society it would + have been necessary to change the objects of public esteem and veneration, + and to abolish the rights affirmed by a justice purely secular; they said: + "Rome has conquered through her politics and her gods; any change in + theology and public opinion would be folly and sacrilege. Rome, merciful + toward conquered nations, though binding them in chains, spared their + lives; slaves are the most fertile source of her wealth; freedom of the + nations would be the negation of her rights and the ruin of her finances. + Rome, in fact, enveloped in the pleasures and gorged with the spoils of + the universe, is kept alive by victory and government; her luxury and her + pleasures are the price of her conquests: she can neither abdicate nor + dispossess herself." Thus Rome had the facts and the law on her side. Her + pretensions were justified by universal custom and the law of nations. Her + institutions were based upon idolatry in religion, slavery in the State, + and epicurism in private life; to touch those was to shake society to its + foundations, and, to use our modern expression, to open the abyss of + revolutions. So the idea occurred to no one; and yet humanity was dying in + blood and luxury. + </p> + <p> + All at once a man appeared, calling himself The Word of God. It is not + known to this day who he was, whence he came, nor what suggested to him + his ideas. He went about proclaiming everywhere that the end of the + existing society was at hand, that the world was about to experience a new + birth; that the priests were vipers, the lawyers ignoramuses, and the + philosophers hypocrites and liars; that master and slave were equals, that + usury and every thing akin to it was robbery, that proprietors and idlers + would one day burn, while the poor and pure in heart would find a haven of + peace. + </p> + <p> + This man—The Word of God—was denounced and arrested as a + public enemy by the priests and the lawyers, who well understood how to + induce the people to demand his death. But this judicial murder, though it + put the finishing stroke to their crimes, did not destroy the doctrinal + seeds which The Word of God had sown. After his death, his original + disciples travelled about in all directions, preaching what they called + the GOOD NEWS, creating in their turn millions of missionaries; and, when + their task seemed to be accomplished, dying by the sword of Roman justice. + This persistent agitation, the war of the executioners and martyrs, lasted + nearly three centuries, ending in the conversion of the world. Idolatry + was destroyed, slavery abolished, dissolution made room for a more austere + morality, and the contempt for wealth was sometimes pushed almost to + privation. + </p> + <p> + Society was saved by the negation of its own principles, by a revolution + in its religion, and by violation of its most sacred rights. In this + revolution, the idea of justice spread to an extent that had not before + been dreamed of, never to return to its original limits. Heretofore + justice had existed only for the masters; <a href="#linknote-7" + name="linknoteref-7" id="linknoteref-7"><small>7</small></a> it then + commenced to exist for the slaves. + </p> + <p> + Nevertheless, the new religion at that time had borne by no means all its + fruits. There was a perceptible improvement of the public morals, and a + partial release from oppression; but, other than that, the SEEDS SOWN BY + THE SON OF MAN, having fallen into idolatrous hearts, had produced nothing + save innumerable discords and a quasi-poetical mythology. Instead of + developing into their practical consequences the principles of morality + and government taught by The Word of God, his followers busied themselves + in speculations as to his birth, his origin, his person, and his actions; + they discussed his parables, and from the conflict of the most extravagant + opinions upon unanswerable questions and texts which no one understood, + was born THEOLOGY,—which may be defined as the SCIENCE OF THE + INFINITELY ABSURD. + </p> + <p> + The truth of CHRISTIANITY did not survive the age of the apostles; the + GOSPEL, commented upon and symbolized by the Greeks and Latins, loaded + with pagan fables, became literally a mass of contradictions; and to this + day the reign of the INFALLIBLE CHURCH has been a long era of darkness. It + is said that the GATES OF HELL will not always prevail, that THE WORD OF + GOD will return, and that one day men will know truth and justice; but + that will be the death of Greek and Roman Catholicism, just as in the + light of science disappeared the caprices of opinion. + </p> + <p> + The monsters which the successors of the apostles were bent on destroying, + frightened for a moment, reappeared gradually, thanks to the crazy + fanaticism, and sometimes the deliberate connivance, of priests and + theologians. The history of the enfranchisement of the French communes + offers constantly the spectacle of the ideas of justice and liberty + spreading among the people, in spite of the combined efforts of kings, + nobles, and clergy. In the year 1789 of the Christian era, the French + nation, divided by caste, poor and oppressed, struggled in the triple net + of royal absolutism, the tyranny of nobles and parliaments, and priestly + intolerance. There was the right of the king and the right of the priest, + the right of the patrician and the right of the plebeian; there were the + privileges of birth, province, communes, corporations, and trades; and, at + the bottom of all, violence, immorality, and misery. For some time they + talked of reformation; those who apparently desired it most favoring it + only for their own profit, and the people who were to be the gainers + expecting little and saying nothing. For a long time these poor people, + either from distrust, incredulity, or despair, hesitated to ask for their + rights: it is said that the habit of serving had taken the courage away + from those old communes, which in the middle ages were so bold. + </p> + <p> + Finally a book appeared, summing up the whole matter in these two + propositions: WHAT IS THE THIRD ESTATE?—NOTHING. WHAT OUGHT IT TO + BE?—EVERY THING. Some one added by way of comment: WHAT IS THE KING?—THE + SERVANT OF THE PEOPLE. + </p> + <p> + This was a sudden revelation: the veil was torn aside, a thick bandage + fell from all eyes. The people commenced to reason thus:— + </p> + <p> + If the king is our servant, he ought to report to us; + </p> + <p> + If he ought to report to us, he is subject to control; + </p> + <p> + If he can be controlled, he is responsible; + </p> + <p> + If he is responsible, he is punishable; + </p> + <p> + If he is punishable, he ought to be punished according to his merits; + </p> + <p> + If he ought to be punished according to his merits, he can be punished + with death. + </p> + <p> + Five years after the publication of the brochure of Sieyes, the third + estate was every thing; the king, the nobility, the clergy, were no more. + In 1793, the nation, without stopping at the constitutional fiction of the + inviolability of the sovereign, conducted Louis XVI. to the scaffold; in + 1830, it accompanied Charles X. to Cherbourg. In each case, it may have + erred, in fact, in its judgment of the offence; but, in right, the logic + which led to its action was irreproachable. The people, in punishing their + sovereign, did precisely that which the government of July was so severely + censured for failing to do when it refused to execute Louis Bonaparte + after the affair of Strasburg: they struck the true culprit. It was an + application of the common law, a solemn decree of justice enforcing the + penal laws. <a href="#linknote-8" name="linknoteref-8" id="linknoteref-8"><small>8</small></a> + </p> + <p> + The spirit which gave rise to the movement of '89 was a spirit of + negation; that, of itself, proves that the order of things which was + substituted for the old system was not methodical or well-considered; + that, born of anger and hatred, it could not have the effect of a science + based on observation and study; that its foundations, in a word, were not + derived from a profound knowledge of the laws of Nature and society. Thus + the people found that the republic, among the so-called new institutions, + was acting on the very principles against which they had fought, and was + swayed by all the prejudices which they had intended to destroy. We + congratulate ourselves, with inconsiderate enthusiasm, on the glorious + French Revolution, the regeneration of 1789, the great changes that have + been effected, and the reversion of institutions: a delusion, a delusion! + </p> + <p> + When our ideas on any subject, material, intellectual, or social, undergo + a thorough change in consequence of new observations, I call that movement + of the mind REVOLUTION. If the ideas are simply extended or modified, + there is only PROGRESS. Thus the system of Ptolemy was a step in + astronomical progress, that of Copernicus was a revolution. So, in 1789, + there was struggle and progress; revolution there was none. An examination + of the reforms which were attempted proves this. + </p> + <p> + The nation, so long a victim of monarchical selfishness, thought to + deliver itself for ever by declaring that it alone was sovereign. But what + was monarchy? The sovereignty of one man. What is democracy? The + sovereignty of the nation, or, rather, of the national majority. But it + is, in both cases, the sovereignty of man instead of the sovereignty of + the law, the sovereignty of the will instead of the sovereignty of the + reason; in one word, the passions instead of justice. Undoubtedly, when a + nation passes from the monarchical to the democratic state, there is + progress, because in multiplying the sovereigns we increase the + opportunities of the reason to substitute itself for the will; but in + reality there is no revolution in the government, since the principle + remains the same. Now, we have the proof to-day that, with the most + perfect democracy, we cannot be free. <a href="#linknote-9" + name="linknoteref-9" id="linknoteref-9"><small>9</small></a> + </p> + <p> + Nor is that all. The nation-king cannot exercise its sovereignty itself; + it is obliged to delegate it to agents: this is constantly reiterated by + those who seek to win its favor. Be these agents five, ten, one hundred, + or a thousand, of what consequence is the number; and what matters the + name? It is always the government of man, the rule of will and caprice. I + ask what this pretended revolution has revolutionized? + </p> + <p> + We know, too, how this sovereignty was exercised; first by the Convention, + then by the Directory, afterwards confiscated by the Consul. As for the + Emperor, the strong man so much adored and mourned by the nation, he never + wanted to be dependent on it; but, as if intending to set its sovereignty + at defiance, he dared to demand its suffrage: that is, its abdication, the + abdication of this inalienable sovereignty; and he obtained it. + </p> + <p> + But what is sovereignty? It is, they say, the POWER TO MAKE LAW. <a + href="#linknote-10" name="linknoteref-10" id="linknoteref-10"><small>10</small></a> + Another absurdity, a relic of despotism. The nation had long seen kings + issuing their commands in this form: FOR SUCH IS OUR PLEASURE; it wished + to taste in its turn the pleasure of making laws. For fifty years it has + brought them forth by myriads; always, be it understood, through the + agency of representatives. The play is far from ended. + </p> + <p> + The definition of sovereignty was derived from the definition of the law. + The law, they said, is THE EXPRESSION OF THE WILL OF THE SOVEREIGN: then, + under a monarchy, the law is the expression of the will of the king; in a + republic, the law is the expression of the will of the people. Aside from + the difference in the number of wills, the two systems are exactly + identical: both share the same error, namely, that the law is the + expression of a will; it ought to be the expression of a fact. Moreover + they followed good leaders: they took the citizen of Geneva for their + prophet, and the contrat social for their Koran. + </p> + <p> + Bias and prejudice are apparent in all the phrases of the new legislators. + The nation had suffered from a multitude of exclusions and privileges; its + representatives issued the following declaration: ALL MEN ARE EQUAL BY + NATURE AND BEFORE THE LAW; an ambiguous and redundant declaration. MEN ARE + EQUAL BY NATURE: does that mean that they are equal in size, beauty, + talents, and virtue? No; they meant, then, political and civil equality. + Then it would have been sufficient to have said: ALL MEN ARE EQUAL BEFORE + THE LAW. + </p> + <p> + But what is equality before the law? Neither the constitution of 1790, nor + that of '93, nor the granted charter, nor the accepted charter, have + defined it accurately. All imply an inequality in fortune and station + incompatible with even a shadow of equality in rights. In this respect it + may be said that all our constitutions have been faithful expressions of + the popular will: I am going, to prove it. + </p> + <p> + Formerly the people were excluded from civil and military offices; it was + considered a wonder when the following high-sounding article was inserted + in the Declaration of Rights: "All citizens are equally eligible to + office; free nations know no qualifications in their choice of officers + save virtues and talents." + </p> + <p> + They certainly ought to have admired so beautiful an idea: they admired a + piece of nonsense. Why! the sovereign people, legislators, and reformers, + see in public offices, to speak plainly, only opportunities for pecuniary + advancement. And, because it regards them as a source of profit, it + decrees the eligibility of citizens. For of what use would this precaution + be, if there were nothing to gain by it? No one would think of ordaining + that none but astronomers and geographers should be pilots, nor of + prohibiting stutterers from acting at the theatre and the opera. The + nation was still aping the kings: like them it wished to award the + lucrative positions to its friends and flatterers. Unfortunately, and this + last feature completes the resemblance, the nation did not control the + list of livings; that was in the hands of its agents and representatives. + They, on the other hand, took care not to thwart the will of their + gracious sovereign. + </p> + <p> + This edifying article of the Declaration of Rights, retained in the + charters of 1814 and 1830, implies several kinds of civil inequality; that + is, of inequality before the law: inequality of station, since the public + functions are sought only for the consideration and emoluments which they + bring; inequality of wealth, since, if it had been desired to equalize + fortunes, public service would have been regarded as a duty, not as a + reward; inequality of privilege, the law not stating what it means by + TALENTS and VIRTUES. Under the empire, virtue and talent consisted simply + in military bravery and devotion to the emperor; that was shown when + Napoleon created his nobility, and attempted to connect it with the + ancients. To-day, the man who pays taxes to the amount of two hundred + francs is virtuous; the talented man is the honest pickpocket: such truths + as these are accounted trivial. + </p> + <p> + The people finally legalized property. God forgive them, for they knew not + what they did! For fifty years they have suffered for their miserable + folly. But how came the people, whose voice, they tell us, is the voice of + God, and whose conscience is infallible,—how came the people to err? + How happens it that, when seeking liberty and equality, they fell back + into privilege and slavery? Always through copying the ancient regime. + </p> + <p> + Formerly, the nobility and the clergy contributed towards the expenses of + the State only by voluntary aid and gratuitous gift; their property could + not be seized even for debt,—while the plebeian, overwhelmed by + taxes and statute-labor, was continually tormented, now by the king's + tax-gatherers, now by those of the nobles and clergy. He whose possessions + were subject to mortmain could neither bequeath nor inherit property; he + was treated like the animals, whose services and offspring belong to their + master by right of accession. The people wanted the conditions of + OWNERSHIP to be alike for all; they thought that every one should ENJOY + AND FREELY DISPOSE OF HIS POSSESSIONS HIS INCOME AND THE FRUIT OF HIS + LABOR AND INDUSTRY. The people did not invent property; but as they had + not the same privileges in regard to it, which the nobles and clergy + possessed, they decreed that the right should be exercised by all under + the same conditions. The more obnoxious forms of property—statute-labor, + mortmain, maitrise, and exclusion from public office—have + disappeared; the conditions of its enjoyment have been modified: the + principle still remains the same. There has been progress in the + regulation of the right; there has been no revolution. + </p> + <p> + These, then, are the three fundamental principles of modern society, + established one after another by the movements of 1789 and 1830: 1. + SOVEREIGNTY OF THE HUMAN WILL; in short, DESPOTISM. 2. INEQUALITY OF + WEALTH AND RANK. 3. PROPERTY—above JUSTICE, always invoked as the + guardian angel of sovereigns, nobles, and proprietors; JUSTICE, the + general, primitive, categorical law of all society. + </p> + <p> + We must ascertain whether the ideas of DESPOTISM, CIVIL INEQUALITY and + PROPERTY, are in harmony with the primitive notion of JUSTICE, and + necessarily follow from it,—assuming various forms according to the + condition, position, and relation of persons; or whether they are not + rather the illegitimate result of a confusion of different things, a fatal + association of ideas. And since justice deals especially with the + questions of government, the condition of persons, and the possession of + things, we must ascertain under what conditions, judging by universal + opinion and the progress of the human mind, government is just, the + condition of citizens is just, and the possession of things is just; then, + striking out every thing which fails to meet these conditions, the result + will at once tell us what legitimate government is, what the legitimate + condition of citizens is, and what the legitimate possession of things is; + and finally, as the last result of the analysis, what JUSTICE is. + </p> + <p> + Is the authority of man over man just? + </p> + <p> + Everybody answers, "No; the authority of man is only the authority of the + law, which ought to be justice and truth." The private will counts for + nothing in government, which consists, first, in discovering truth and + justice in order to make the law; and, second, in superintending the + execution of this law. I do not now inquire whether our constitutional + form of government satisfies these conditions; whether, for example, the + will of the ministry never influences the declaration and interpretation + of the law; or whether our deputies, in their debates, are more intent on + conquering by argument than by force of numbers: it is enough for me that + my definition of a good government is allowed to be correct. This idea is + exact. Yet we see that nothing seems more just to the Oriental nations + than the despotism of their sovereigns; that, with the ancients and in the + opinion of the philosophers themselves, slavery was just; that in the + middle ages the nobles, the priests, and the bishops felt justified in + holding slaves; that Louis XIV. thought that he was right when he said, + "The State! I am the State;" and that Napoleon deemed it a crime for the + State to oppose his will. The idea of justice, then, applied to + sovereignty and government, has not always been what it is to-day; it has + gone on developing and shaping itself by degrees, until it has arrived at + its present state. But has it reached its last phase? I think not: only, + as the last obstacle to be overcome arises from the institution of + property which we have kept intact, in order to finish the reform in + government and consummate the revolution, this very institution we must + attack. + </p> + <p> + Is political and civil inequality just? + </p> + <p> + Some say yes; others no. To the first I would reply that, when the people + abolished all privileges of birth and caste, they did it, in all + probability, because it was for their advantage; why then do they favor + the privileges of fortune more than those of rank and race? Because, say + they, political inequality is a result of property; and without property + society is impossible: thus the question just raised becomes a question of + property. To the second I content myself with this remark: If you wish to + enjoy political equality, abolish property; otherwise, why do you + complain? + </p> + <p> + Is property just? + </p> + <p> + Everybody answers without hesitation, "Yes, property is just." I say + everybody, for up to the present time no one who thoroughly understood the + meaning of his words has answered no. For it is no easy thing to reply + understandingly to such a question; only time and experience can furnish + an answer. Now, this answer is given; it is for us to understand it. I + undertake to prove it. + </p> + <p> + We are to proceed with the demonstration in the following order:— + </p> + <p> + I. We dispute not at all, we refute nobody, we deny nothing; we accept as + sound all the arguments alleged in favor of property, and confine + ourselves to a search for its principle, in order that we may then + ascertain whether this principle is faithfully expressed by property. In + fact, property being defensible on no ground save that of justice, the + idea, or at least the intention, of justice must of necessity underlie all + the arguments that have been made in defence of property; and, as on the + other hand the right of property is only exercised over those things which + can be appreciated by the senses, justice, secretly objectifying itself, + so to speak, must take the shape of an algebraic formula. + </p> + <p> + By this method of investigation, we soon see that every argument which has + been invented in behalf of property, WHATEVER IT MAY BE, always and of + necessity leads to equality; that is, to the negation of property. + </p> + <p> + The first part covers two chapters: one treating of occupation, the + foundation of our right; the other, of labor and talent, considered as + causes of property and social inequality. + </p> + <p> + The first of these chapters will prove that the right of occupation + OBSTRUCTS property; the second that the right of labor DESTROYS it. + </p> + <p> + II. Property, then, being of necessity conceived as existing only in + connection with equality, it remains to find out why, in spite of this + necessity of logic, equality does not exist. This new investigation also + covers two chapters: in the first, considering the fact of property in + itself, we inquire whether this fact is real, whether it exists, whether + it is possible; for it would imply a contradiction, were these two + opposite forms of society, equality and inequality, both possible. Then we + discover, singularly enough, that property may indeed manifest itself + accidentally; but that, as an institution and principle, it is + mathematically impossible. So that the axiom of the school—ab actu + ad posse valet consecutio: from the actual to the possible the inference + is good—is given the lie as far as property is concerned. + </p> + <p> + Finally, in the last chapter, calling psychology to our aid, and probing + man's nature to the bottom, we shall disclose the principle of JUSTICE—its + formula and character; we shall state with precision the organic law of + society; we shall explain the origin of property, the causes of its + establishment, its long life, and its approaching death; we shall + definitively establish its identity with robbery. And, after having shown + that these three prejudices—THE SOVEREIGNTY OF MAN, THE INEQUALITY + OF CONDITIONS, AND PROPERTY—are one and the same; that they may be + taken for each other, and are reciprocally convertible,—we shall + have no trouble in inferring therefrom, by the principle of contradiction, + the basis of government and right. There our investigations will end, + reserving the right to continue them in future works. + </p> + <p> + The importance of the subject which engages our attention is recognized by + all minds. + </p> + <p> + "Property," says M. Hennequin, "is the creative and conservative principle + of civil society. Property is one of those basic institutions, new + theories concerning which cannot be presented too soon; for it must not be + forgotten, and the publicist and statesman must know, that on the answer + to the question whether property is the principle or the result of social + order, whether it is to be considered as a cause or an effect, depends all + morality, and, consequently, all the authority of human institutions." + </p> + <p> + These words are a challenge to all men of hope and faith; but, although + the cause of equality is a noble one, no one has yet picked up the + gauntlet thrown down by the advocates of property; no one has been + courageous enough to enter upon the struggle. The spurious learning of + haughty jurisprudence, and the absurd aphorisms of a political economy + controlled by property have puzzled the most generous minds; it is a sort + of password among the most influential friends of liberty and the + interests of the people that EQUALITY IS A CHIMERA! So many false theories + and meaningless analogies influence minds otherwise keen, but which are + unconsciously controlled by popular prejudice. Equality advances every day—fit + aequalitas. Soldiers of liberty, shall we desert our flag in the hour of + triumph? + </p> + <p> + A defender of equality, I shall speak without bitterness and without + anger; with the independence becoming a philosopher, with the courage and + firmness of a free man. May I, in this momentous struggle, carry into all + hearts the light with which I am filled; and show, by the success of my + argument, that equality failed to conquer by the sword only that it might + conquer by the pen! + </p> + <p> + <a name="link2HCH0002" id="link2HCH0002"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /><br /><br /><br /> + </div> + <h2> + CHAPTER II. PROPERTY CONSIDERED AS A NATURAL RIGHT + </h2> +<pre xml:space="preserve"> + PROPERTY CONSIDERED AS A NATURAL RIGHT.—OCCUPATION AND + CIVIL LAW AS EFFICIENT BASES OF PROPERTY. DEFINITIONS. +</pre> + <p> + The Roman law defined property as the right to use and abuse one's own + within the limits of the law—jus utendi et abutendi re sua, quatenus + juris ratio patitur. A justification of the word ABUSE has been attempted, + on the ground that it signifies, not senseless and immoral abuse, but only + absolute domain. Vain distinction! invented as an excuse for property, and + powerless against the frenzy of possession, which it neither prevents nor + represses. The proprietor may, if he chooses, allow his crops to rot under + foot; sow his field with salt; milk his cows on the sand; change his + vineyard into a desert, and use his vegetable-garden as a park: do these + things constitute abuse, or not? In the matter of property, use and abuse + are necessarily indistinguishable. + </p> + <p> + According to the Declaration of Rights, published as a preface to the + Constitution of '93, property is "the right to enjoy and dispose at will + of one's goods, one's income, and the fruit of one's labor and industry." + </p> + <p> + Code Napoleon, article 544: "Property is the right to enjoy and dispose of + things in the most absolute manner, provided we do not overstep the limits + prescribed by the laws and regulations." + </p> + <p> + These two definitions do not differ from that of the Roman law: all give + the proprietor an absolute right over a thing; and as for the restriction + imposed by the code,—PROVIDED WE DO NOT OVERSTEP THE LIMITS + PRESCRIBED BY THE LAWS AND REGULATIONS,—its object is not to limit + property, but to prevent the domain of one proprietor from interfering + with that of another. That is a confirmation of the principle, not a + limitation of it. + </p> + <p> + There are different kinds of property: 1. Property pure and simple, the + dominant and seigniorial power over a thing; or, as they term it, NAKED + PROPERTY. 2. POSSESSION. "Possession," says Duranton, "is a matter of + fact, not of right." Toullier: "Property is a right, a legal power; + possession is a fact." The tenant, the farmer, the commandite, the + usufructuary, are possessors; the owner who lets and lends for use, the + heir who is to come into possession on the death of a usufructuary, are + proprietors. If I may venture the comparison: a lover is a possessor, a + husband is a proprietor. + </p> + <p> + This double definition of property—domain and possession—is of + the highest importance; and it must be clearly understood, in order to + comprehend what is to follow. + </p> + <p> + From the distinction between possession and property arise two sorts of + rights: the jus in re, the right in a thing, the right by which I may + reclaim the property which I have acquired, in whatever hands I find it; + and the jus ad rem, the right TO a thing, which gives me a claim to become + a proprietor. Thus the right of the partners to a marriage over each + other's person is the jus in re; that of two who are betrothed is only the + jus ad rem. In the first, possession and property are united; the second + includes only naked property. With me who, as a laborer, have a right to + the possession of the products of Nature and my own industry,—and + who, as a proletaire, enjoy none of them,—it is by virtue of the jus + ad rem that I demand admittance to the jus in re. + </p> + <p> + This distinction between the jus in re and the jus ad rem is the basis of + the famous distinction between possessoire and petitoire,—actual + categories of jurisprudence, the whole of which is included within their + vast boundaries. Petitoire refers to every thing relating to property; + possessoire to that relating to possession. In writing this memoir against + property, I bring against universal society an action petitoire: I prove + that those who do not possess to-day are proprietors by the same title as + those who do possess; but, instead of inferring therefrom that property + should be shared by all, I demand, in the name of general security, its + entire abolition. If I fail to win my case, there is nothing left for us + (the proletarian class and myself) but to cut our throats: we can ask + nothing more from the justice of nations; for, as the code of procedure + (art 26) tells us in its energetic style, THE PLAINTIFF WHO HAS BEEN + NON-SUITED IN AN ACTION PETITOIRE, IS DEBARRED THEREBY FROM BRINGING AN + ACTION POSSESSOIRE. If, on the contrary, I gain the case, we must then + commence an action possessoire, that we may be reinstated in the enjoyment + of the wealth of which we are deprived by property. I hope that we shall + not be forced to that extremity; but these two actions cannot be + prosecuted at once, such a course being prohibited by the same code of + procedure. + </p> + <p> + Before going to the heart of the question, it will not be useless to offer + a few preliminary remarks. + </p> + <p> + % 1.—Property as a Natural Right. + </p> + <p> + The Declaration of Rights has placed property in its list of the natural + and inalienable rights of man, four in all: LIBERTY, EQUALITY, PROPERTY, + SECURITY. What rule did the legislators of '93 follow in compiling this + list? None. They laid down principles, just as they discussed sovereignty + and the laws; from a general point of view, and according to their own + opinion. They did every thing in their own blind way. + </p> + <p> + If we can believe Toullier: "The absolute rights can be reduced to three: + SECURITY, LIBERTY, PROPERTY." Equality is eliminated by the Rennes + professor; why? Is it because LIBERTY implies it, or because property + prohibits it? On this point the author of "Droit Civil Explique" is + silent: it has not even occurred to him that the matter is under + discussion. + </p> + <p> + Nevertheless, if we compare these three or four rights with each other, we + find that property bears no resemblance whatever to the others; that for + the majority of citizens it exists only potentially, and as a dormant + faculty without exercise; that for the others, who do enjoy it, it is + susceptible of certain transactions and modifications which do not + harmonize with the idea of a natural right; that, in practice, + governments, tribunals, and laws do not respect it; and finally that + everybody, spontaneously and with one voice, regards it as chimerical. + </p> + <p> + Liberty is inviolable. I can neither sell nor alienate my liberty; every + contract, every condition of a contract, which has in view the alienation + or suspension of liberty, is null: the slave, when he plants his foot upon + the soil of liberty, at that moment becomes a free man. When society + seizes a malefactor and deprives him of his liberty, it is a case of + legitimate defence: whoever violates the social compact by the commission + of a crime declares himself a public enemy; in attacking the liberty of + others, he compels them to take away his own. Liberty is the original + condition of man; to renounce liberty is to renounce the nature of man: + after that, how could we perform the acts of man? + </p> + <p> + Likewise, equality before the law suffers neither restriction nor + exception. All Frenchmen are equally eligible to office: consequently, in + the presence of this equality, condition and family have, in many cases, + no influence upon choice. The poorest citizen can obtain judgment in the + courts against one occupying the most exalted station. Let the + millionaire, Ahab, build a chateau upon the vineyard of Naboth: the court + will have the power, according to the circumstances, to order the + destruction of the chateau, though it has cost millions; and to force the + trespasser to restore the vineyard to its original state, and pay the + damages. The law wishes all property, that has been legitimately acquired, + to be kept inviolate without regard to value, and without respect for + persons. + </p> + <p> + The charter demands, it is true, for the exercise of certain political + rights, certain conditions of fortune and capacity; but all publicists + know that the legislator's intention was not to establish a privilege, but + to take security. Provided the conditions fixed by law are complied with, + every citizen may be an elector, and every elector eligible. The right, + once acquired, is the same for all; the law compares neither persons nor + votes. I do not ask now whether this system is the best; it is enough + that, in the opinion of the charter and in the eyes of every one, equality + before the law is absolute, and, like liberty, admits of no compromise. + </p> + <p> + It is the same with the right of security. Society promises its members no + half-way protection, no sham defence; it binds itself to them as they bind + themselves to it. It does not say to them, "I will shield you, provided it + costs me nothing; I will protect you, if I run no risks thereby." It says, + "I will defend you against everybody; I will save and avenge you, or + perish myself." + </p> + <p> + The whole strength of the State is at the service of each citizen; the + obligation which binds them together is absolute. + </p> + <p> + How different with property! Worshipped by all, it is acknowledged by + none: laws, morals, customs, public and private conscience, all plot its + death and ruin. + </p> + <p> + To meet the expenses of government, which has armies to support, tasks to + perform, and officers to pay, taxes are needed. Let all contribute to + these expenses: nothing more just. But why should the rich pay more than + the poor? That is just, they say, because they possess more. I confess + that such justice is beyond my comprehension. + </p> + <p> + Why are taxes paid? To protect all in the exercise of their natural rights—liberty, + equality, security, and property; to maintain order in the State; to + furnish the public with useful and pleasant conveniences. + </p> + <p> + Now, does it cost more to defend the rich man's life and liberty than the + poor man's? Who, in time of invasion, famine, or plague, causes more + trouble,—the large proprietor who escapes the evil without the + assistance of the State, or the laborer who sits in his cottage + unprotected from danger? + </p> + <p> + Is public order endangered more by the worthy citizen, or by the artisan + and journeyman? Why, the police have more to fear from a few hundred + laborers, out of work, than from two hundred thousand electors! + </p> + <p> + Does the man of large income appreciate more keenly than the poor man + national festivities, clean streets, and beautiful monuments? + </p> + <p> + Why, he prefers his country-seat to all the popular pleasures; and when he + wants to enjoy himself, he does not wait for the greased pole! + </p> + <p> + One of two things is true: either the proportional tax affords greater + security to the larger tax-payers, or else it is a wrong. + </p> + <p> + Because, if property is a natural right, as the Declaration of '93 + declares, all that belongs to me by virtue of this right is as sacred as + my person; it is my blood, my life, myself: whoever touches it offends the + apple of my eye. My income of one hundred thousand francs is as inviolable + as the grisette's daily wage of seventy-five centimes; her attic is no + more sacred than my suite of apartments. The tax is not levied in + proportion to strength, size, or skill: no more should it be levied in + proportion to property. + </p> + <p> + If, then, the State takes more from me, let it give me more in return, or + cease to talk of equality of rights; for otherwise, society is + established, not to defend property, but to destroy it. The State, through + the proportional tax, becomes the chief of robbers; the State sets the + example of systematic pillage: the State should be brought to the bar of + justice at the head of those hideous brigands, that execrable mob which it + now kills from motives of professional jealousy. + </p> + <p> + But, they say, the courts and the police force are established to restrain + this mob; government is a company, not exactly for insurance, for it does + not insure, but for vengeance and repression. The premium which this + company exacts, the tax, is divided in proportion to property; that is, in + proportion to the trouble which each piece of property occasions the + avengers and repressers paid by the government. + </p> + <p> + This is any thing but the absolute and inalienable right of property. + Under this system the poor and the rich distrust, and make war upon, each + other. But what is the object of the war? Property. So that property is + necessarily accompanied by war upon property. The liberty and security of + the rich do not suffer from the liberty and security of the poor; far from + that, they mutually strengthen and sustain each other. The rich man's + right of property, on the contrary, has to be continually defended against + the poor man's desire for property. What a contradiction! In England they + have a poor-rate: they wish me to pay this tax. But what relation exists + between my natural and inalienable right of property and the hunger from + which ten million wretched people are suffering? When religion commands us + to assist our fellows, it speaks in the name of charity, not in the name + of law. The obligation of benevolence, imposed upon me by Christian + morality, cannot be imposed upon me as a political tax for the benefit of + any person or poor-house. I will give alms when I see fit to do so, when + the sufferings of others excite in me that sympathy of which philosophers + talk, and in which I do not believe: I will not be forced to bestow them. + No one is obliged to do more than comply with this injunction: IN THE + EXERCISE OF YOUR OWN RIGHTS DO NOT ENCROACH UPON THE RIGHTS OF ANOTHER; an + injunction which is the exact definition of liberty. Now, my possessions + are my own; no one has a claim upon them: I object to the placing of the + third theological virtue in the order of the day. + </p> + <p> + Everybody, in France, demands the conversion of the five per cent. bonds; + they demand thereby the complete sacrifice of one species of property. + They have the right to do it, if public necessity requires it; but where + is the just indemnity promised by the charter? Not only does none exist, + but this indemnity is not even possible; for, if the indemnity were equal + to the property sacrificed, the conversion would be useless. + </p> + <p> + The State occupies the same position to-day toward the bondholders that + the city of Calais did, when besieged by Edward III, toward its notables. + The English conqueror consented to spare its inhabitants, provided it + would surrender to him its most distinguished citizens to do with as he + pleased. Eustache and several others offered themselves; it was noble in + them, and our ministers should recommend their example to the bondholders. + But had the city the right to surrender them? Assuredly not. The right to + security is absolute; the country can require no one to sacrifice himself. + The soldier standing guard within the enemy's range is no exception to + this rule. Wherever a citizen stands guard, the country stands guard with + him: to-day it is the turn of the one, to-morrow of the other. When danger + and devotion are common, flight is parricide. No one has the right to flee + from danger; no one can serve as a scapegoat. The maxim of Caiaphas—IT + IS RIGHT THAT A MAN SHOULD DIE FOR HIS NATION—is that of the + populace and of tyrants; the two extremes of social degradation. + </p> + <p> + It is said that all perpetual annuities are essentially redeemable. This + maxim of civil law, applied to the State, is good for those who wish to + return to the natural equality of labor and wealth; but, from the point of + view of the proprietor, and in the mouth of conversionists, it is the + language of bankrupts. The State is not only a borrower, it is an insurer + and guardian of property; granting the best of security, it assures the + most inviolable possession. How, then, can it force open the hands of its + creditors, who have confidence in it, and then talk to them of public + order and security of property? The State, in such an operation, is not a + debtor who discharges his debt; it is a stock-company which allures its + stockholders into a trap, and there, contrary to its authentic promise, + exacts from them twenty, thirty, or forty per cent. of the interest on + their capital. + </p> + <p> + That is not all. The State is a university of citizens joined together + under a common law by an act of society. This act secures all in the + possession of their property; guarantees to one his field, to another his + vineyard, to a third his rents, and to the bondholder, who might have + bought real estate but who preferred to come to the assistance of the + treasury, his bonds. The State cannot demand, without offering an + equivalent, the sacrifice of an acre of the field or a corner of the + vineyard; still less can it lower rents: why should it have the right to + diminish the interest on bonds? This right could not justly exist, unless + the bondholder could invest his funds elsewhere to equal advantage; but + being confined to the State, where can he find a place to invest them, + since the cause of conversion, that is, the power to borrow to better + advantage, lies in the State? That is why a government, based on the + principle of property, cannot redeem its annuities without the consent of + their holders. + </p> + <p> + The money deposited with the republic is property which it has no right to + touch while other kinds of property are respected; to force their + redemption is to violate the social contract, and outlaw the bondholders. + </p> + <p> + The whole controversy as to the conversion of bonds finally reduces itself + to this:— + </p> + <p> + QUESTION. Is it just to reduce to misery forty-five thousand families who + derive an income from their bonds of one hundred francs or less? + </p> + <p> + ANSWER. Is it just to compel seven or eight millions of tax-payers to pay + a tax of five francs, when they should pay only three? It is clear, in the + first place, that the reply is in reality no reply; but, to make the wrong + more apparent, let us change it thus: Is it just to endanger the lives of + one hundred thousand men, when we can save them by surrendering one + hundred heads to the enemy? Reader, decide! + </p> + <p> + All this is clearly understood by the defenders of the present system. + Yet, nevertheless, sooner or later, the conversion will be effected and + property be violated, because no other course is possible; because + property, regarded as a right, and not being a right, must of right + perish; because the force of events, the laws of conscience, and physical + and mathematical necessity must, in the end, destroy this illusion of our + minds. + </p> + <p> + To sum up: liberty is an absolute right, because it is to man what + impenetrability is to matter,—a sine qua non of existence; equality + is an absolute right, because without equality there is no society; + security is an absolute right, because in the eyes of every man his own + liberty and life are as precious as another's. These three rights are + absolute; that is, susceptible of neither increase nor diminution; because + in society each associate receives as much as he gives,—liberty for + liberty, equality for equality, security for security, body for body, soul + for soul, in life and in death. + </p> + <p> + But property, in its derivative sense, and by the definitions of law, is a + right outside of society; for it is clear that, if the wealth of each was + social wealth, the conditions would be equal for all, and it would be a + contradiction to say: PROPERTY IS A MAN'S RIGHT TO DISPOSE AT WILL OF + SOCIAL PROPERTY. Then if we are associated for the sake of liberty, + equality, and security, we are not associated for the sake of property; + then if property is a NATURAL right, this natural right is not SOCIAL, but + ANTI-SOCIAL. Property and society are utterly irreconcilable institutions. + It is as impossible to associate two proprietors as to join two magnets by + their opposite poles. Either society must perish, or it must destroy + property. + </p> + <p> + If property is a natural, absolute, imprescriptible, and inalienable + right, why, in all ages, has there been so much speculation as to its + origin?—for this is one of its distinguishing characteristics. The + origin of a natural right! Good God! who ever inquired into the origin of + the rights of liberty, security, or equality? They exist by the same right + that we exist; they are born with us, they live and die with us. With + property it is very different, indeed. By law, property can exist without + a proprietor, like a quality without a subject. It exists for the human + being who as yet is not, and for the octogenarian who is no more. And yet, + in spite of these wonderful prerogatives which savor of the eternal and + the infinite, they have never found the origin of property; the doctors + still disagree. On one point only are they in harmony: namely, that the + validity of the right of property depends upon the authenticity of its + origin. But this harmony is their condemnation. Why have they acknowledged + the right before settling the question of origin? + </p> + <p> + Certain classes do not relish investigation into the pretended titles to + property, and its fabulous and perhaps scandalous history. They wish to + hold to this proposition: that property is a fact; that it always has + been, and always will be. With that proposition the savant Proudhon <a + href="#linknote-11" name="linknoteref-11" id="linknoteref-11"><small>11</small></a> + commenced his "Treatise on the Right of Usufruct," regarding the origin of + property as a useless question. Perhaps I would subscribe to this + doctrine, believing it inspired by a commendable love of peace, were all + my fellow-citizens in comfortable circumstances; but, no! I will not + subscribe to it. + </p> + <p> + The titles on which they pretend to base the right of property are two in + number: OCCUPATION and LABOR. I shall examine them successively, under all + their aspects and in detail; and I remind the reader that, to whatever + authority we appeal, I shall prove beyond a doubt that property, to be + just and possible, must necessarily have equality for its condition. + </p> + <p> + % 2.—Occupation, as the Title to Property. + </p> + <p> + It is remarkable that, at those meetings of the State Council at which the + Code was discussed, no controversy arose as to the origin and principle of + property. All the articles of Vol. II., Book 2, concerning property and + the right of accession, were passed without opposition or amendment. + Bonaparte, who on other questions had given his legists so much trouble, + had nothing to say about property. Be not surprised at it: in the eyes of + that man, the most selfish and wilful person that ever lived, property was + the first of rights, just as submission to authority was the most holy of + duties. + </p> + <p> + The right of OCCUPATION, or of the FIRST OCCUPANT, is that which results + from the actual, physical, real possession of a thing. I occupy a piece of + land; the presumption is, that I am the proprietor, until the contrary is + proved. We know that originally such a right cannot be legitimate unless + it is reciprocal; the jurists say as much. + </p> + <p> + Cicero compares the earth to a vast theatre: <i>Quemadmodum theatrum cum + commune sit, recte tamen dici potest ejus esse eum locum quem quisque + occuparit</i>. + </p> + <p> + This passage is all that ancient philosophy has to say about the origin of + property. + </p> + <p> + The theatre, says Cicero, is common to all; nevertheless, the place that + each one occupies is called HIS OWN; that is, it is a place POSSESSED, not + a place APPROPRIATED. This comparison annihilates property; moreover, it + implies equality. Can I, in a theatre, occupy at the same time one place + in the pit, another in the boxes, and a third in the gallery? Not unless I + have three bodies, like Geryon, or can exist in different places at the + same time, as is related of the magician Apollonius. + </p> + <p> + According to Cicero, no one has a right to more than he needs: such is the + true interpretation of his famous axiom—<i>suum quidque cujusque sit</i>, + to each one that which belongs to him—an axiom that has been + strangely applied. That which belongs to each is not that which each MAY + possess, but that which each HAS A RIGHT to possess. Now, what have we a + right to possess? That which is required for our labor and consumption; + Cicero's comparison of the earth to a theatre proves it. According to + that, each one may take what place he will, may beautify and adorn it, if + he can; it is allowable: but he must never allow himself to overstep the + limit which separates him from another. The doctrine of Cicero leads + directly to equality; for, occupation being pure toleration, if the + toleration is mutual (and it cannot be otherwise) the possessions are + equal. + </p> + <p> + Grotius rushes into history; but what kind of reasoning is that which + seeks the origin of a right, said to be natural, elsewhere than in Nature? + This is the method of the ancients: the fact exists, then it is necessary, + then it is just, then its antecedents are just also. Nevertheless, let us + look into it. + </p> + <p> + "Originally, all things were common and undivided; they were the property + of all." Let us go no farther. Grotius tells us how this original + communism came to an end through ambition and cupidity; how the age of + gold was followed by the age of iron, &c. So that property rested + first on war and conquest, then on treaties and agreements. But either + these treaties and agreements distributed wealth equally, as did the + original communism (the only method of distribution with which the + barbarians were acquainted, and the only form of justice of which they + could conceive; and then the question of origin assumes this form: how did + equality afterwards disappear?)—or else these treaties and + agreements were forced by the strong upon the weak, and in that case they + are null; the tacit consent of posterity does not make them valid, and we + live in a permanent condition of iniquity and fraud. + </p> + <p> + We never can conceive how the equality of conditions, having once existed, + could afterwards have passed away. What was the cause of such + degeneration? The instincts of the animals are unchangeable, as well as + the differences of species; to suppose original equality in human society + is to admit by implication that the present inequality is a degeneration + from the nature of this society,—a thing which the defenders of + property cannot explain. But I infer therefrom that, if Providence placed + the first human beings in a condition of equality, it was an indication of + its desires, a model that it wished them to realize in other forms; just + as the religious sentiment, which it planted in their hearts, has + developed and manifested itself in various ways. Man has but one nature, + constant and unalterable: he pursues it through instinct, he wanders from + it through reflection, he returns to it through judgment; who shall say + that we are not returning now? According to Grotius, man has abandoned + equality; according to me, he will yet return to it. How came he to + abandon it? Why will he return to it? These are questions for future + consideration. + </p> + <p> + Reid writes as follows:— + </p> + <p> + "The right of property is not innate, but acquired. It is not grounded + upon the constitution of man, but upon his actions. Writers on + jurisprudence have explained its origin in a manner that may satisfy every + man of common understanding. + </p> + <p> + "The earth is given to men in common for the purposes of life, by the + bounty of Heaven. But to divide it, and appropriate one part of its + produce to one, another part to another, must be the work of men who have + power and understanding given them, by which every man may accommodate + himself, WITHOUT HURT TO ANY OTHER. + </p> + <p> + "This common right of every man to what the earth produces, before it be + occupied and appropriated by others, was, by ancient moralists, very + properly compared to the right which every citizen had to the public + theatre, where every man that came might occupy an empty seat, and thereby + acquire a right to it while the entertainment lasted; but no man had a + right to dispossess another. + </p> + <p> + "The earth is a great theatre, furnished by the Almighty, with perfect + wisdom and goodness, for the entertainment and employment of all mankind. + Here every man has a right to accommodate himself as a spectator, and to + perform his part as an actor; but without hurt to others." + </p> + <p> + Consequences of Reid's doctrine. + </p> + <p> + 1. That the portion which each one appropriates may wrong no one, it must + be equal to the quotient of the total amount of property to be shared, + divided by the number of those who are to share it; + </p> + <p> + 2. The number of places being of necessity equal at all times to that of + the spectators, no spectator can occupy two places, nor can any actor play + several parts; + </p> + <p> + 3. Whenever a spectator comes in or goes out, the places of all contract + or enlarge correspondingly: for, says Reid, "THE RIGHT OF PROPERTY IS NOT + INNATE, BUT ACQUIRED;" consequently, it is not absolute; consequently, the + occupancy on which it is based, being a conditional fact, cannot endow + this right with a stability which it does not possess itself. This seems + to have been the thought of the Edinburgh professor when he added:— + </p> + <p> + "A right to life implies a right to the necessary means of life; and that + justice, which forbids the taking away the life of an innocent man, + forbids no less the taking from him the necessary means of life. He has + the same right to defend the one as the other. To hinder another man's + innocent labor, or to deprive him of the fruit of it, is an injustice of + the same kind, and has the same effect as to put him in fetters or in + prison, and is equally a just object of resentment." + </p> + <p> + Thus the chief of the Scotch school, without considering at all the + inequality of skill or labor, posits a priori the equality of the means of + labor, abandoning thereafter to each laborer the care of his own person, + after the eternal axiom: WHOSO DOES WELL, SHALL FARE WELL. + </p> + <p> + The philosopher Reid is lacking, not in knowledge of the principle, but in + courage to pursue it to its ultimate. If the right of life is equal, the + right of labor is equal, and so is the right of occupancy. Would it not be + criminal, were some islanders to repulse, in the name of property, the + unfortunate victims of a shipwreck struggling to reach the shore? The very + idea of such cruelty sickens the imagination. The proprietor, like + Robinson Crusoe on his island, wards off with pike and musket the + proletaire washed overboard by the wave of civilization, and seeking to + gain a foothold upon the rocks of property. "Give me work!" cries he with + all his might to the proprietor: "don't drive me away, I will work for you + at any price." "I do not need your services," replies the proprietor, + showing the end of his pike or the barrel of his gun. "Lower my rent at + least." "I need my income to live upon." "How can I pay you, when I can + get no work?" "That is your business." Then the unfortunate proletaire + abandons himself to the waves; or, if he attempts to land upon the shore + of property, the proprietor takes aim, and kills him. + </p> + <p> + We have just listened to a spiritualist; we will now question a + materialist, then an eclectic: and having completed the circle of + philosophy, we will turn next to law. + </p> + <p> + According to Destutt de Tracy, property is a necessity of our nature. That + this necessity involves unpleasant consequences, it would be folly to + deny. But these consequences are necessary evils which do not invalidate + the principle; so that it is as unreasonable to rebel against property on + account of the abuses which it generates, as to complain of life because + it is sure to end in death. This brutal and pitiless philosophy promises + at least frank and close reasoning. Let us see if it keeps its promise. + </p> + <p> + "We talk very gravely about the conditions of property,... as if it was + our province to decide what constitutes property.... It would seem, to + hear certain philosophers and legislators, that at a certain moment, + spontaneously and without cause, people began to use the words THINE and + MINE; and that they might have, or ought to have, dispensed with them. But + THINE and MINE were never invented." + </p> + <p> + A philosopher yourself, you are too realistic. THINE and MINE do not + necessarily refer to self, as they do when I say your philosophy, and my + equality; for your philosophy is you philosophizing, and my equality is I + professing equality. THINE and MINE oftener indicate a relation,—YOUR + country, YOUR parish, YOUR tailor, YOUR milkmaid; MY chamber, MY seat at + the theatre, MY company and MY battalion in the National Guard. In the + former sense, we may sometimes say MY labor, MY skill, MY virtue; never MY + grandeur nor MY majesty: in the latter sense only, MY field, MY house, MY + vineyard, MY capital,—precisely as the banker's clerk says MY + cash-box. In short, THINE and MINE are signs and expressions of personal, + but equal, rights; applied to things outside of us, they indicate + possession, function, use, not property. + </p> + <p> + It does not seem possible, but, nevertheless, I shall prove, by + quotations, that the whole theory of our author is based upon this paltry + equivocation. + </p> + <p> + "Prior to all covenants, men are, not exactly, as Hobbes says, in a state + of HOSTILITY, but of ESTRANGEMENT. In this state, justice and injustice + are unknown; the rights of one bear no relation to the rights of another. + All have as many rights as needs, and all feel it their duty to satisfy + those needs by any means at their command." + </p> + <p> + Grant it; whether true or false, it matters not. Destutt de Tracy cannot + escape equality. On this theory, men, while in a state of ESTRANGEMENT, + are under no obligations to each other; they all have the right to satisfy + their needs without regard to the needs of others, and consequently the + right to exercise their power over Nature, each according to his strength + and ability. That involves the greatest inequality of wealth. Inequality + of conditions, then, is the characteristic feature of estrangement or + barbarism: the exact opposite of Rousseau's idea. + </p> + <p> + But let us look farther:— + </p> + <p> + "Restrictions of these rights and this duty commence at the time when + covenants, either implied or expressed, are agreed upon. Then appears for + the first time justice and injustice; that is, the balance between the + rights of one and the rights of another, which up to that time were + necessarily equal." + </p> + <p> + Listen: RIGHTS WERE EQUAL; that means that each individual had the right + to SATISFY HIS NEEDS WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE NEEDS OF OTHERS. In other + words, that all had the right to injure each other; that there was no + right save force and cunning. They injured each other, not only by war and + pillage, but also by usurpation and appropriation. Now, in order to + abolish this equal right to use force and stratagem,—this equal + right to do evil, the sole source of the inequality of benefits and + injuries,—they commenced to make COVENANTS EITHER IMPLIED OR + EXPRESSED, and established a balance. Then these agreements and this + balance were intended to secure to all equal comfort; then, by the law of + contradictions, if isolation is the principle of inequality, society must + produce equality. The social balance is the equalization of the strong and + the weak; for, while they are not equals, they are strangers; they can + form no associations,—they live as enemies. Then, if inequality of + conditions is a necessary evil, so is isolation, for society and + inequality are incompatible with each other. Then, if society is the true + condition of man's existence, so is equality also. This conclusion cannot + be avoided. + </p> + <p> + This being so, how is it that, ever since the establishment of this + balance, inequality has been on the increase? How is it that justice and + isolation always accompany each other? Destutt de Tracy shall reply:— + </p> + <p> + "NEEDS and MEANS, RIGHTS and DUTIES, are products of the will. If man + willed nothing, these would not exist. But to have needs and means, rights + and duties, is to HAVE, to POSSESS, something. They are so many kinds of + property, using the word in its most general sense: they are things which + belong to us." + </p> + <p> + Shameful equivocation, not justified by the necessity for generalization! + The word PROPERTY has two meanings: 1. It designates the quality which + makes a thing what it is; the attribute which is peculiar to it, and + especially distinguishes it. We use it in this sense when we say THE + PROPERTIES OF THE TRIANGLE or of NUMBERS; THE PROPERTY OF THE MAGNET, + &c. 2. It expresses the right of absolute control over a thing by a + free and intelligent being. It is used in this sense by writers on + jurisprudence. Thus, in the phrase, IRON ACQUIRES THE PROPERTY OF A + MAGNET, the word PROPERTY does not convey the same idea that it does in + this one: <i>I HAVE ACQUIRED THIS MAGNET AS MY PROPERTY</i>. To tell a + poor man that he HAS property because he HAS arms and legs,—that the + hunger from which he suffers, and his power to sleep in the open air are + his property,—is to play upon words, and to add insult to injury. + </p> + <p> + "The sole basis of the idea of property is the idea of personality. As + soon as property is born at all, it is born, of necessity, in all its + fulness. As soon as an individual knows HIMSELF,—his moral + personality, his capacities of enjoyment, suffering, and action,—he + necessarily sees also that this SELF is exclusive proprietor of the body + in which it dwells, its organs, their powers, faculties, &c.... + Inasmuch as artificial and conventional property exists, there must be + natural property also; for nothing can exist in art without its + counterpart in Nature." + </p> + <p> + We ought to admire the honesty and judgment of philosophers! Man has + properties; that is, in the first acceptation of the term, faculties. He + has property; that is, in its second acceptation, the right of domain. He + has, then, the property of the property of being proprietor. How ashamed I + should be to notice such foolishness, were I here considering only the + authority of Destutt de Tracy! But the entire human race, since the + origination of society and language, when metaphysics and dialectics were + first born, has been guilty of this puerile confusion of thought. All + which man could call his own was identified in his mind with his person. + He considered it as his property, his wealth; a part of himself, a member + of his body, a faculty of his mind. The possession of things was likened + to property in the powers of the body and mind; and on this false analogy + was based the right of property,—THE IMITATION OF NATURE BY ART, as + Destutt de Tracy so elegantly puts it. + </p> + <p> + But why did not this ideologist perceive that man is not proprietor even + of his own faculties? Man has powers, attributes, capacities; they are + given him by Nature that he may live, learn, and love: he does not own + them, but has only the use of them; and he can make no use of them that + does not harmonize with Nature's laws. If he had absolute mastery over his + faculties, he could avoid hunger and cold; he could eat unstintedly, and + walk through fire; he could move mountains, walk a hundred leagues in a + minute, cure without medicines and by the sole force of his will, and + could make himself immortal. He could say, "I wish to produce," and his + tasks would be finished with the words; he could say. "I wish to know," + and he would know; "I love," and he would enjoy. What then? Man is not + master of himself, but may be of his surroundings. Let him use the wealth + of Nature, since he can live only by its use; but let him abandon his + pretensions to the title of proprietor, and remember that he is called so + only metaphorically. + </p> + <p> + To sum up: Destutt de Tracy classes together the external PRODUCTIONS of + nature and art, and the POWERS or FACULTIES of man, making both of them + species of property; and upon this equivocation he hopes to establish, so + firmly that it can never be disturbed, the right of property. But of these + different kinds of property some are INNATE, as memory, imagination, + strength, and beauty; while others are ACQUIRED, as land, water, and + forests. In the state of Nature or isolation, the strongest and most + skilful (that is, those best provided with innate property) stand the best + chance of obtaining acquired property. Now, it is to prevent this + encroachment and the war which results therefrom, that a balance (justice) + has been employed, and covenants (implied or expressed) agreed upon: it is + to correct, as far as possible, inequality of innate property by equality + of acquired property. As long as the division remains unequal, so long the + partners remain enemies; and it is the purpose of the covenants to reform + this state of things. Thus we have, on the one hand, isolation, + inequality, enmity, war, robbery, murder; on the other, society, equality, + fraternity, peace, and love. Choose between them! + </p> + <p> + M. Joseph Dutens—a physician, engineer, and geometrician, but a very + poor legist, and no philosopher at all—is the author of a + "Philosophy of Political Economy," in which he felt it his duty to break + lances in behalf of property. His reasoning seems to be borrowed from + Destutt de Tracy. He commences with this definition of property, worthy of + Sganarelle: "Property is the right by which a thing is one's own." + Literally translated: Property is the right of property. + </p> + <p> + After getting entangled a few times on the subjects of will, liberty, and + personality; after having distinguished between IMMATERIAL-NATURAL + property, and MATERIAL-NATURAL property, a distinction similar to Destutt + de Tracy's of innate and acquired property,—M. Joseph Dutens + concludes with these two general propositions: 1. Property is a natural + and inalienable right of every man; 2. Inequality of property is a + necessary result of Nature,—which propositions are convertible into + a simpler one: All men have an equal right of unequal property. + </p> + <p> + He rebukes M. de Sismondi for having taught that landed property has no + other basis than law and conventionality; and he says himself, speaking of + the respect which people feel for property, that "their good sense reveals + to them the nature of the ORIGINAL CONTRACT made between society and + proprietors." + </p> + <p> + He confounds property with possession, communism with equality, the just + with the natural, and the natural with the possible. Now he takes these + different ideas to be equivalents; now he seems to distinguish between + them, so much so that it would be infinitely easier to refute him than to + understand him. Attracted first by the title of the work, "Philosophy of + Political Economy," I have found, among the author's obscurities, only the + most ordinary ideas. For that reason I will not speak of him. + </p> + <p> + M. Cousin, in his "Moral Philosophy," page 15, teaches that all morality, + all laws, all rights are given to man with this injunction: "FREE BEING, + REMAIN FREE." Bravo! master; I wish to remain free if I can. He continues:— + </p> + <p> + "Our principle is true; it is good, it is social. Do not fear to push it + to its ultimate. + </p> + <p> + "1. If the human person is sacred, its whole nature is sacred; and + particularly its interior actions, its feelings, its thoughts, its + voluntary decisions. This accounts for the respect due to philosophy, + religion, the arts industry, commerce, and to all the results of liberty. + I say respect, not simply toleration; for we do not tolerate a right, we + respect it." + </p> + <p> + I bow my head before this philosophy. + </p> + <p> + "2. My liberty, which is sacred, needs for its objective action an + instrument which we call the body: the body participates then in the + sacredness of liberty; it is then inviolable. This is the basis of the + principle of individual liberty. + </p> + <p> + "3. My liberty needs, for its objective action, material to work upon; in + other words, property or a thing. This thing or property naturally + participates then in the inviolability of my person. For instance, I take + possession of an object which has become necessary and useful in the + outward manifestation of my liberty. I say, 'This object is mine since it + belongs to no one else; consequently, I possess it legitimately.' So the + legitimacy of possession rests on two conditions. First, I possess only as + a free being. Suppress free activity, you destroy my power to labor. Now + it is only by labor that I can use this property or thing, and it is only + by using it that I possess it. Free activity is then the principle of the + right of property. But that alone does not legitimate possession. All men + are free; all can use property by labor. Does that mean that all men have + a right to all property? Not at all. To possess legitimately, I must not + only labor and produce in my capacity of a free being, but I must also be + the first to occupy the property. In short, if labor and production are + the principle of the right of property, the fact of first occupancy is its + indispensable condition. + </p> + <p> + "4. I possess legitimately: then I have the right to use my property as I + see fit. I have also the right to give it away. I have also the right to + bequeath it; for if I decide to make a donation, my decision is as valid + after my death as during my life." + </p> + <p> + In fact, to become a proprietor, in M. Cousin's opinion, one must take + possession by occupation and labor. I maintain that the element of time + must be considered also; for if the first occupants have occupied every + thing, what are the new comers to do? What will become of them, having an + instrument with which to work, but no material to work upon? Must they + devour each other? A terrible extremity, unforeseen by philosophical + prudence; for the reason that great geniuses neglect little things. + </p> + <p> + Notice also that M. Cousin says that neither occupation nor labor, taken + separately, can legitimate the right of property; and that it is born only + from the union of the two. This is one of M. Cousin's eclectic turns, + which he, more than any one else, should take pains to avoid. Instead of + proceeding by the method of analysis, comparison, elimination, and + reduction (the only means of discovering the truth amid the various forms + of thought and whimsical opinions), he jumbles all systems together, and + then, declaring each both right and wrong, exclaims: "There you have the + truth." + </p> + <p> + But, adhering to my promise, I will not refute him. I will only prove, by + all the arguments with which he justifies the right of property, the + principle of equality which kills it. As I have already said, my sole + intent is this: to show at the bottom of all these positions that + inevitable major, EQUALITY; hoping hereafter to show that the principle of + property vitiates the very elements of economical, moral, and governmental + science, thus leading it in the wrong direction. + </p> + <p> + Well, is it not true, from M. Cousin's point of view, that, if the liberty + of man is sacred, it is equally sacred in all individuals; that, if it + needs property for its objective action, that is, for its life, the + appropriation of material is equally necessary for all; that, if I wish to + be respected in my right of appropriation, I must respect others in + theirs; and, consequently, that though, in the sphere of the infinite, a + person's power of appropriation is limited only by himself, in the sphere + of the finite this same power is limited by the mathematical relation + between the number of persons and the space which they occupy? Does it not + follow that if one individual cannot prevent another—his fellow-man—from + appropriating an amount of material equal to his own, no more can he + prevent individuals yet to come; because, while individuality passes away, + universality persists, and eternal laws cannot be determined by a partial + view of their manifestations? Must we not conclude, therefore, that + whenever a person is born, the others must crowd closer together; and, by + reciprocity of obligation, that if the new comer is afterwards to become + an heir, the right of succession does not give him the right of + accumulation, but only the right of choice? + </p> + <p> + I have followed M. Cousin so far as to imitate his style, and I am ashamed + of it. Do we need such high-sounding terms, such sonorous phrases, to say + such simple things? Man needs to labor in order to live; consequently, he + needs tools to work with and materials to work upon. His need to produce + constitutes his right to produce. Now, this right is guaranteed him by his + fellows, with whom he makes an agreement to that effect. One hundred + thousand men settle in a large country like France with no inhabitants: + each man has a right to 1/100,000 of the land. If the number of possessors + increases, each one's portion diminishes in consequence; so that, if the + number of inhabitants rises to thirty-four millions, each one will have a + right only to 1/34,000,000. Now, so regulate the police system and the + government, labor, exchange, inheritance, &c., that the means of labor + shall be shared by all equally, and that each individual shall be free; + and then society will be perfect. + </p> + <p> + Of all the defenders of property, M. Cousin has gone the farthest. He has + maintained against the economists that labor does not establish the right + of property unless preceded by occupation, and against the jurists that + the civil law can determine and apply a natural right, but cannot create + it. In fact, it is not sufficient to say, "The right of property is + demonstrated by the existence of property; the function of the civil law + is purely declaratory." To say that, is to confess that there is no reply + to those who question the legitimacy of the fact itself. Every right must + be justifiable in itself, or by some antecedent right; property is no + exception. For this reason, M. Cousin has sought to base it upon the + SANCTITY of the human personality, and the act by which the will + assimilates a thing. "Once touched by man," says one of M. Cousin's + disciples, "things receive from him a character which transforms and + humanizes them." I confess, for my part, that I have no faith in this + magic, and that I know of nothing less holy than the will of man. But this + theory, fragile as it seems to psychology as well as jurisprudence, is + nevertheless more philosophical and profound than those theories which are + based upon labor or the authority of the law. Now, we have just seen to + what this theory of which we are speaking leads,—to the equality + implied in the terms of its statement. + </p> + <p> + But perhaps philosophy views things from too lofty a standpoint, and is + not sufficiently practical; perhaps from the exalted summit of speculation + men seem so small to the metaphysician that he cannot distinguish between + them; perhaps, indeed, the equality of conditions is one of those + principles which are very true and sublime as generalities, but which it + would be ridiculous and even dangerous to attempt to rigorously apply to + the customs of life and to social transactions. Undoubtedly, this is a + case which calls for imitation of the wise reserve of moralists and + jurists, who warn us against carrying things to extremes, and who advise + us to suspect every definition; because there is not one, they say, which + cannot be utterly destroyed by developing its disastrous results—<i>Omnis + definitio in jure civili periculosa est: parum est enim ut non subverti + possit</i>. Equality of conditions,—a terrible dogma in the ears of + the proprietor, a consoling truth at the poor-man's sick-bed, a frightful + reality under the knife of the anatomist,—equality of conditions, + established in the political, civil, and industrial spheres, is only an + alluring impossibility, an inviting bait, a satanic delusion. + </p> + <p> + It is never my intention to surprise my reader. I detest, as I do death, + the man who employs subterfuge in his words and conduct. From the first + page of this book, I have expressed myself so plainly and decidedly that + all can see the tendency of my thought and hopes; and they will do me the + justice to say, that it would be difficult to exhibit more frankness and + more boldness at the same time. I do not hesitate to declare that the time + is not far distant when this reserve, now so much admired in philosophers—this + happy medium so strongly recommended by professors of moral and political + science—will be regarded as the disgraceful feature of a science + without principle, and as the seal of its reprobation. In legislation and + morals, as well as in geometry, axioms are absolute, definitions are + certain; and all the results of a principle are to be accepted, provided + they are logically deduced. Deplorable pride! We know nothing of our + nature, and we charge our blunders to it; and, in a fit of unaffected + ignorance, cry out, "The truth is in doubt, the best definition defines + nothing!" We shall know some time whether this distressing uncertainty of + jurisprudence arises from the nature of its investigations, or from our + prejudices; whether, to explain social phenomena, it is not enough to + change our hypothesis, as did Copernicus when he reversed the system of + Ptolemy. + </p> + <p> + But what will be said when I show, as I soon shall, that this same + jurisprudence continually tries to base property upon equality? What reply + can be made? + </p> + <p> + % 3.—Civil Law as the Foundation and Sanction of Property. + </p> + <p> + Pothier seems to think that property, like royalty, exists by divine + right. He traces back its origin to God himself—ab Jove principium. + He begins in this way:— + </p> + <p> + "God is the absolute ruler of the universe and all that it contains: <i>Domini + est terra et plenitudo ejus, orbis et universi qui habitant in eo</i>. For + the human race he has created the earth and all its creatures, and has + given it a control over them subordinate only to his own. 'Thou madest him + to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things + under his feet,' says the Psalmist. God accompanied this gift with these + words, addressed to our first parents after the creation: 'Be fruitful, + and multiply and replenish the earth,'" &c. + </p> + <p> + After this magnificent introduction, who would refuse to believe the human + race to be an immense family living in brotherly union, and under the + protection of a venerable father? But, heavens! are brothers enemies? Are + fathers unnatural, and children prodigal? + </p> + <p> + GOD GAVE THE EARTH TO THE HUMAN RACE: why then have I received none? HE + HAS PUT ALL THINGS UNDER MY FEET,—and I have not where to lay my + head! MULTIPLY, he tells us through his interpreter, Pothier. Ah, learned + Pothier! that is as easy to do as to say; but you must give moss to the + bird for its nest. + </p> + <p> + "The human race having multiplied, men divided among themselves the earth + and most of the things upon it; that which fell to each, from that time + exclusively belonged to him. That was the origin of the right of + property." + </p> + <p> + Say, rather, the right of possession. Men lived in a state of communism; + whether positive or negative it matters little. Then there was no + property, not even private possession. The genesis and growth of + possession gradually forcing people to labor for their support, they + agreed either formally or tacitly,—it makes no difference which,—that + the laborer should be sole proprietor of the fruit of his labor; that is, + they simply declared the fact that thereafter none could live without + working. It necessarily followed that, to obtain equality of products, + there must be equality of labor; and that, to obtain equality of labor, + there must be equality of facilities for labor. Whoever without labor got + possession, by force or by strategy, of another's means of subsistence, + destroyed equality, and placed himself above or outside of the law. + Whoever monopolized the means of production on the ground of greater + industry, also destroyed equality. Equality being then the expression of + right, whoever violated it was UNJUST. + </p> + <p> + Thus, labor gives birth to private possession; the right in a thing—jus + in re. But in what thing? Evidently IN THE PRODUCT, not IN THE SOIL. So + the Arabs have always understood it; and so, according to Caesar and + Tacitus, the Germans formerly held. "The Arabs," says M. de Sismondi, "who + admit a man's property in the flocks which he has raised, do not refuse + the crop to him who planted the seed; but they do not see why another, his + equal, should not have a right to plant in his turn. The inequality which + results from the pretended right of the first occupant seems to them to be + based on no principle of justice; and when all the land falls into the + hands of a certain number of inhabitants, there results a monopoly in + their favor against the rest of the nation, to which they do not wish to + submit." + </p> + <p> + Well, they have shared the land. I admit that therefrom results a more + powerful organization of labor; and that this method of distribution, + fixed and durable, is advantageous to production: but how could this + division give to each a transferable right of property in a thing to which + all had an inalienable right of possession? In the terms of jurisprudence, + this metamorphosis from possessor to proprietor is legally impossible; it + implies in the jurisdiction of the courts the union of possessoire and + petitoire; and the mutual concessions of those who share the land are + nothing less than traffic in natural rights. The original cultivators of + the land, who were also the original makers of the law, were not as + learned as our legislators, I admit; and had they been, they could not + have done worse: they did not foresee the consequences of the + transformation of the right of private possession into the right of + absolute property. But why have not those, who in later times have + established the distinction between jus in re and jus ad rem, applied it + to the principle of property itself? + </p> + <p> + Let me call the attention of the writers on jurisprudence to their own + maxims. + </p> + <p> + The right of property, provided it can have a cause, can have but one—<i>Dominium + non potest nisi ex una causa contingere</i>. I can possess by several + titles; I can become proprietor by only one—<i>Non ut ex pluribus + causis idem nobis deberi potest, ita ex pluribus causis idem potest + nostrum esse</i>. The field which I have cleared, which I cultivate, on + which I have built my house, which supports myself, my family, and my + livestock, I can possess: 1st. As the original occupant; 2d. As a laborer; + 3d. By virtue of the social contract which assigns it to me as my share. + </p> + <p> + But none of these titles confer upon me the right of property. For, if I + attempt to base it upon occupancy, society can reply, "I am the original + occupant." If I appeal to my labor, it will say, "It is only on that + condition that you possess." If I speak of agreements, it will respond, + "These agreements establish only your right of use." Such, however, are + the only titles which proprietors advance. They never have been able to + discover any others. Indeed, every right—it is Pothier who says it—supposes + a producing cause in the person who enjoys it; but in man who lives and + dies, in this son of earth who passes away like a shadow, there exists, + with respect to external things, only titles of possession, not one title + of property. Why, then, has society recognized a right injurious to + itself, where there is no producing cause? Why, in according possession, + has it also conceded property? Why has the law sanctioned this abuse of + power? + </p> + <p> + The German Ancillon replies thus:— + </p> + <p> + "Some philosophers pretend that man, in employing his forces upon a + natural object,—say a field or a tree,—acquires a right only + to the improvements which he makes, to the form which he gives to the + object, not to the object itself. Useless distinction! If the form could + be separated from the object, perhaps there would be room for question; + but as this is almost always impossible, the application of man's strength + to the different parts of the visible world is the foundation of the right + of property, the primary origin of riches." + </p> + <p> + Vain pretext! If the form cannot be separated from the object, nor + property from possession, possession must be shared; in any case, society + reserves the right to fix the conditions of property. Let us suppose that + an appropriated farm yields a gross income of ten thousand francs; and, as + very seldom happens, that this farm cannot be divided. Let us suppose + farther that, by economical calculation, the annual expenses of a family + are three thousand francs: the possessor of this farm should be obliged to + guard his reputation as a good father of a family, by paying to society + ten thousand francs,—less the total costs of cultivation, and the + three thousand francs required for the maintenance of his family. This + payment is not rent, it is an indemnity. + </p> + <p> + What sort of justice is it, then, which makes such laws as this:— + </p> + <p> + "Whereas, since labor so changes the form of a thing that the form and + substance cannot be separated without destroying the thing itself, either + society must be disinherited, or the laborer must lose the fruit of his + labor; and + </p> + <p> + "Whereas, in every other case, property in raw material would give a title + to added improvements, minus their cost; and whereas, in this instance, + property in improvements ought to give a title to the principal; + </p> + <p> + "Therefore, the right of appropriation by labor shall never be admitted + against individuals, but only against society." + </p> + <p> + In such a way do legislators always reason in regard to property. + </p> + <p> + The law is intended to protect men's mutual rights,—that is, the + rights of each against each, and each against all; and, as if a proportion + could exist with less than four terms, the law-makers always disregard the + latter. As long as man is opposed to man, property offsets property, and + the two forces balance each other; as soon as man is isolated, that is, + opposed to the society which he himself represents, jurisprudence is at + fault: Themis has lost one scale of her balance. + </p> + <p> + Listen to the professor of Rennes, the learned Toullier:— + </p> + <p> + "How could this claim, made valid by occupation, become stable and + permanent property, which might continue to stand, and which might be + reclaimed after the first occupant had relinquished possession? + </p> + <p> + "Agriculture was a natural consequence of the multiplication of the human + race, and agriculture, in its turn, favors population, and necessitates + the establishment of permanent property; for who would take the trouble to + plough and sow, if he were not certain that he would reap?" + </p> + <p> + To satisfy the husbandman, it was sufficient to guarantee him possession + of his crop; admit even that he should have been protected in his right of + occupation of land, as long as he remained its cultivator. That was all + that he had a right to expect; that was all that the advance of + civilization demanded. But property, property! the right of escheat over + lands which one neither occupies nor cultivates,—who had authority + to grant it? who pretended to have it? + </p> + <p> + "Agriculture alone was not sufficient to establish permanent property; + positive laws were needed, and magistrates to execute them; in a word, the + civil State was needed. + </p> + <p> + "The multiplication of the human race had rendered agriculture necessary; + the need of securing to the cultivator the fruit of his labor made + permanent property necessary, and also laws for its protection. So we are + indebted to property for the creation of the civil State." + </p> + <p> + Yes, of our civil State, as you have made it; a State which, at first, was + despotism, then monarchy, then aristocracy, today democracy, and always + tyranny. + </p> + <p> + "Without the ties of property it never would have been possible to + subordinate men to the wholesome yoke of the law; and without permanent + property the earth would have remained a vast forest. Let us admit, then, + with the most careful writers, that if transient property, or the right of + preference resulting from occupation, existed prior to the establishment + of civil society, permanent property, as we know it to-day, is the work of + civil law. It is the civil law which holds that, when once acquired, + property can be lost only by the action of the proprietor, and that it + exists even after the proprietor has relinquished possession of the thing, + and it has fallen into the hands of a third party. + </p> + <p> + "Thus property and possession, which originally were confounded, became + through the civil law two distinct and independent things; two things + which, in the language of the law, have nothing whatever in common. In + this we see what a wonderful change has been effected in property, and to + what an extent Nature has been altered by the civil laws." + </p> + <p> + Thus the law, in establishing property, has not been the expression of a + psychological fact, the development of a natural law, the application of a + moral principle. It has literally CREATED a right outside of its own + province. It has realized an abstraction, a metaphor, a fiction; and that + without deigning to look at the consequences, without considering the + disadvantages, without inquiring whether it was right or wrong. + </p> + <p> + It has sanctioned selfishness; it has indorsed monstrous pretensions; it + has received with favor impious vows, as if it were able to fill up a + bottomless pit, and to satiate hell! Blind law; the law of the ignorant + man; a law which is not a law; the voice of discord, deceit, and blood! + This it is which, continually revived, reinstated, rejuvenated, restored, + re-enforced—as the palladium of society—has troubled the + consciences of the people, has obscured the minds of the masters, and has + induced all the catastrophes which have befallen nations. + </p> + <p> + This it is which Christianity has condemned, but which its ignorant + ministers deify; who have as little desire to study Nature and man, as + ability to read their Scriptures. + </p> + <p> + But, indeed, what guide did the law follow in creating the domain of + property? What principle directed it? What was its standard? + </p> + <p> + Would you believe it? It was equality. + </p> + <p> + Agriculture was the foundation of territorial possession, and the original + cause of property. It was of no use to secure to the farmer the fruit of + his labor, unless the means of production were at the same time secured to + him. To fortify the weak against the invasion of the strong, to suppress + spoliation and fraud, the necessity was felt of establishing between + possessors permanent lines of division, insuperable obstacles. Every year + saw the people multiply, and the cupidity of the husbandman increase: it + was thought best to put a bridle on ambition by setting boundaries which + ambition would in vain attempt to overstep. Thus the soil came to be + appropriated through need of the equality which is essential to public + security and peaceable possession. Undoubtedly the division was never + geographically equal; a multitude of rights, some founded in Nature, but + wrongly interpreted and still more wrongly applied, inheritance, gift, and + exchange; others, like the privileges of birth and position, the + illegitimate creations of ignorance and brute force,—all operated to + prevent absolute equality. But, nevertheless, the principle remained the + same: equality had sanctioned possession; equality sanctioned property. + </p> + <p> + The husbandman needed each year a field to sow; what more convenient and + simple arrangement for the barbarians,—instead of indulging in + annual quarrels and fights, instead of continually moving their houses, + furniture, and families from spot to spot,—than to assign to each + individual a fixed and inalienable estate? + </p> + <p> + It was not right that the soldier, on returning from an expedition, should + find himself dispossessed on account of the services which he had just + rendered to his country; his estate ought to be restored to him. It + became, therefore, customary to retain property by intent alone—<i>nudo + animo;</i> it could be sacrificed only with the consent and by the action + of the proprietor. + </p> + <p> + It was necessary that the equality in the division should be kept up from + one generation to another, without a new distribution of the land upon the + death of each family; it appeared therefore natural and just that children + and parents, according to the degree of relationship which they bore to + the deceased, should be the heirs of their ancestors. Thence came, in the + first place, the feudal and patriarchal custom of recognizing only one + heir; then, by a quite contrary application of the principle of equality, + the admission of all the children to a share in their father's estate, + and, very recently also among us, the definitive abolition of the right of + primogeniture. + </p> + <p> + But what is there in common between these rude outlines of instinctive + organization and the true social science? How could these men, who never + had the faintest idea of statistics, valuation, or political economy, + furnish us with principles of legislation? + </p> + <p> + "The law," says a modern writer on jurisprudence, "is the expression of a + social want, the declaration of a fact: the legislator does not make it, + he declares it. 'This definition is not exact. The law is a method by + which social wants must be satisfied; the people do not vote it, the + legislator does not express it: the savant discovers and formulates it." + But in fact, the law, according to M. Ch. Comte, who has devoted half a + volume to its definition, was in the beginning only the EXPRESSION OF A + WANT, and the indication of the means of supplying it; and up to this time + it has been nothing else. The legists—with mechanical fidelity, full + of obstinacy, enemies of philosophy, buried in literalities—have + always mistaken for the last word of science that which was only the + inconsiderate aspiration of men who, to be sure, were well-meaning, but + wanting in foresight. + </p> + <p> + They did not foresee, these old founders of the domain of property, that + the perpetual and absolute right to retain one's estate,—a right + which seemed to them equitable, because it was common,—involves the + right to transfer, sell, give, gain, and lose it; that it tends, + consequently, to nothing less than the destruction of that equality which + they established it to maintain. And though they should have foreseen it, + they disregarded it; the present want occupied their whole attention, and, + as ordinarily happens in such cases, the disadvantages were at first + scarcely perceptible, and they passed unnoticed. + </p> + <p> + They did not foresee, these ingenuous legislators, that if property is + retainable by intent alone—<i>nudo animo</i>—it carries with + it the right to let, to lease, to loan at interest, to profit by exchange, + to settle annuities, and to levy a tax on a field which intent reserves, + while the body is busy elsewhere. + </p> + <p> + They did not foresee, these fathers of our jurisprudence, that, if the + right of inheritance is any thing other than Nature's method of preserving + equality of wealth, families will soon become victims of the most + disastrous exclusions; and society, pierced to the heart by one of its + most sacred principles, will come to its death through opulence and + misery. <a href="#linknote-12" name="linknoteref-12" id="linknoteref-12"><small>12</small></a> + </p> + <p> + Under whatever form of government we live, it can always be said that <i>le + mort saisit le vif;</i> that is, that inheritance and succession will last + for ever, whoever may be the recognized heir. But the St. Simonians wish + the heir to be designated by the magistrate; others wish him to be chosen + by the deceased, or assumed by the law to be so chosen: the essential + point is that Nature's wish be satisfied, so far as the law of equality + allows. + </p> + <p> + To-day the real controller of inheritance is chance or caprice; now, in + matters of legislation, chance and caprice cannot be accepted as guides. + It is for the purpose of avoiding the manifold disturbances which follow + in the wake of chance that Nature, after having created us equal, suggests + to us the principle of heredity; which serves as a voice by which society + asks us to choose, from among all our brothers, him whom we judge best + fitted to complete our unfinished work. + </p> + <p> + They did not foresee.... But why need I go farther? + </p> + <p> + The consequences are plain enough, and this is not the time to criticise + the whole Code. + </p> + <p> + The history of property among the ancient nations is, then, simply a + matter of research and curiosity. It is a rule of jurisprudence that the + fact does not substantiate the right. Now, property is no exception to + this rule: then the universal recognition of the right of property does + not legitimate the right of property. Man is mistaken as to the + constitution of society, the nature of right, and the application of + justice; just as he was mistaken regarding the cause of meteors and the + movement of the heavenly bodies. His old opinions cannot be taken for + articles of faith. Of what consequence is it to us that the Indian race + was divided into four classes; that, on the banks of the Nile and the + Ganges, blood and position formerly determined the distribution of the + land; that the Greeks and Romans placed property under the protection of + the gods; that they accompanied with religious ceremonies the work of + partitioning the land and appraising their goods? The variety of the forms + of privilege does not sanction injustice. The faith of Jupiter, the + proprietor, <a href="#linknote-13" name="linknoteref-13" + id="linknoteref-13"><small>13</small></a> proves no more against the + equality of citizens, than do the mysteries of Venus, the wanton, against + conjugal chastity. + </p> + <p> + The authority of the human race is of no effect as evidence in favor of + the right of property, because this right, resting of necessity upon + equality, contradicts its principle; the decision of the religions which + have sanctioned it is of no effect, because in all ages the priest has + submitted to the prince, and the gods have always spoken as the + politicians desired; the social advantages, attributed to property, cannot + be cited in its behalf, because they all spring from the principle of + equality of possession. + </p> + <p> + What means, then, this dithyramb upon property? + </p> + <p> + "The right of property is the most important of human institutions."... + </p> + <p> + Yes; as monarchy is the most glorious. + </p> + <p> + "The original cause of man's prosperity upon earth." + </p> + <p> + Because justice was supposed to be its principle. + </p> + <p> + "Property became the legitimate end of his ambition, the hope of his + existence, the shelter of his family; in a word, the corner-stone of the + domestic dwelling, of communities, and of the political State." + </p> + <p> + Possession alone produced all that. + </p> + <p> + "Eternal principle,—" + </p> + <p> + Property is eternal, like every negation,— + </p> + <p> + "Of all social and civil institutions." + </p> + <p> + For that reason, every institution and every law based on property will + perish. + </p> + <p> + "It is a boon as precious as liberty." + </p> + <p> + For the rich proprietor. + </p> + <p> + "In fact, the cause of the cultivation of the habitable earth." + </p> + <p> + If the cultivator ceased to be a tenant, would the land be worse cared + for? + </p> + <p> + "The guarantee and the morality of labor." + </p> + <p> + Under the regime of property, labor is not a condition, but a privilege. + </p> + <p> + "The application of justice." + </p> + <p> + What is justice without equality of fortunes? A balance with false + weights. + </p> + <p> + "All morality,—" + </p> + <p> + A famished stomach knows no morality,— + </p> + <p> + "All public order,—" + </p> + <p> + Certainly, the preservation of property,— + </p> + <p> + "Rest on the right of property." <a href="#linknote-14" + name="linknoteref-14" id="linknoteref-14"><small>14</small></a> + </p> + <p> + Corner-stone of all which is, stumbling-block of all which ought to be,—such + is property. + </p> + <p> + To sum up and conclude:— + </p> + <p> + Not only does occupation lead to equality, it PREVENTS property. For, + since every man, from the fact of his existence, has the right of + occupation, and, in order to live, must have material for cultivation on + which he may labor; and since, on the other hand, the number of occupants + varies continually with the births and deaths,—it follows that the + quantity of material which each laborer may claim varies with the number + of occupants; consequently, that occupation is always subordinate to + population. Finally, that, inasmuch as possession, in right, can never + remain fixed, it is impossible, in fact, that it can ever become property. + </p> + <p> + Every occupant is, then, necessarily a possessor or usufructuary,—a + function which excludes proprietorship. Now, this is the right of the + usufructuary: he is responsible for the thing entrusted to him; he must + use it in conformity with general utility, with a view to its preservation + and development; he has no power to transform it, to diminish it, or to + change its nature; he cannot so divide the usufruct that another shall + perform the labor while he receives the product. In a word, the + usufructuary is under the supervision of society, submitted to the + condition of labor and the law of equality. + </p> + <p> + Thus is annihilated the Roman definition of property—THE RIGHT OF + USE AND ABUSE—an immorality born of violence, the most monstrous + pretension that the civil laws ever sanctioned. Man receives his usufruct + from the hands of society, which alone is the permanent possessor. The + individual passes away, society is deathless. + </p> + <p> + What a profound disgust fills my soul while discussing such simple truths! + Do we doubt these things to-day? Will it be necessary to again take arms + for their triumph? And can force, in default of reason, alone introduce + them into our laws? + </p> + <p> + ALL HAVE AN EQUAL RIGHT OF OCCUPANCY. + </p> + <p> + THE AMOUNT OCCUPIED BEING MEASURED, NOT BY THE WILL, BUT BY THE VARIABLE + CONDITIONS OF SPACE AND NUMBER, PROPERTY CANNOT EXIST. + </p> + <p> + This no code has ever expressed; this no constitution can admit! These are + axioms which the civil law and the law of nations deny!..... + </p> + <p> + But I hear the exclamations of the partisans of another system: "Labor, + labor! that is the basis of property!" + </p> + <p> + Reader, do not be deceived. This new basis of property is worse than the + first, and I shall soon have to ask your pardon for having demonstrated + things clearer, and refuted pretensions more unjust, than any which we + have yet considered. + </p> + <p> + <a name="link2HCH0003" id="link2HCH0003"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /><br /><br /><br /> + </div> + <h2> + CHAPTER III. LABOR AS THE EFFICIENT CAUSE OF THE DOMAIN OF PROPERTY. + </h2> + <p> + Nearly all the modern writers on jurisprudence, taking their cue from the + economists, have abandoned the theory of first occupancy as a too + dangerous one, and have adopted that which regards property as born of + labor. In this they are deluded; they reason in a circle. To labor it is + necessary to occupy, says M. Cousin. + </p> + <p> + Consequently, I have added in my turn, all having an equal right of + occupancy, to labor it is necessary to submit to equality. "The rich," + exclaims Jean Jacques, "have the arrogance to say, 'I built this wall; I + earned this land by my labor.' Who set you the tasks? we may reply, and by + what right do you demand payment from us for labor which we did not impose + upon you?" All sophistry falls to the ground in the presence of this + argument. + </p> + <p> + But the partisans of labor do not see that their system is an absolute + contradiction of the Code, all the articles and provisions of which + suppose property to be based upon the fact of first occupancy. If labor, + through the appropriation which results from it, alone gives birth to + property, the Civil Code lies, the charter is a falsehood, our whole + social system is a violation of right. To this conclusion shall we come, + at the end of the discussion which is to occupy our attention in this + chapter and the following one, both as to the right of labor and the fact + of property. We shall see, on the one hand, our legislation in opposition + to itself; and, on the other hand, our new jurisprudence in opposition + both to its own principle and to our legislation. + </p> + <p> + I have asserted that the system which bases property upon labor implies, + no less than that which bases it upon occupation, the equality of + fortunes; and the reader must be impatient to learn how I propose to + deduce this law of equality from the inequality of skill and faculties: + directly his curiosity shall be satisfied. But it is proper that I should + call his attention for a moment to this remarkable feature of the process; + to wit, the substitution of labor for occupation as the principle of + property; and that I should pass rapidly in review some of the prejudices + to which proprietors are accustomed to appeal, which legislation has + sanctioned, and which the system of labor completely overthrows. + </p> + <p> + Reader, were you ever present at the examination of a criminal? Have you + watched his tricks, his turns, his evasions, his distinctions, his + equivocations? Beaten, all his assertions overthrown, pursued like a + fallow deer by the in exorable judge, tracked from hypothesis to + hypothesis,—he makes a statement, he corrects it, retracts it, + contradicts it, he exhausts all the tricks of dialectics, more subtle, + more ingenious a thousand times than he who invented the seventy-two forms + of the syllogism. So acts the proprietor when called upon to defend his + right. At first he refuses to reply, he exclaims, he threatens, he defies; + then, forced to accept the discussion, he arms himself with chicanery, he + surrounds himself with formidable artillery,—crossing his fire, + opposing one by one and all together occupation, possession, limitation, + covenants, immemorial custom, and universal consent. Conquered on this + ground, the proprietor, like a wounded boar, turns on his pursuers. "I + have done more than occupy," he cries with terrible emotion; "I have + labored, produced, improved, transformed, CREATED. This house, these + fields, these trees are the work of my hands; I changed these brambles + into a vineyard, and this bush into a fig-tree; and to-day I reap the + harvest of my labors. I have enriched the soil with my sweat; I have paid + those men who, had they not had the work which I gave them, would have + died of hunger. No one shared with me the trouble and expense; no one + shall share with me the benefits." + </p> + <p> + You have labored, proprietor! why then do you speak of original occupancy? + What, were you not sure of your right, or did you hope to deceive men, and + make justice an illusion? Make haste, then, to acquaint us with your mode + of defence, for the judgment will be final; and you know it to be a + question of restitution. + </p> + <p> + You have labored! but what is there in common between the labor which duty + compels you to perform, and the appropriation of things in which there is + a common interest? Do you not know that domain over the soil, like that + over air and light, cannot be lost by prescription? + </p> + <p> + You have labored! have you never made others labor? Why, then, have they + lost in laboring for you what you have gained in not laboring for them? + </p> + <p> + You have labored! very well; but let us see the results of your labor. We + will count, weigh, and measure them. It will be the judgment of Balthasar; + for I swear by balance, level, and square, that if you have appropriated + another's labor in any way whatsoever, you shall restore it every stroke. + </p> + <p> + Thus, the principle of occupation is abandoned; no longer is it said, "The + land belongs to him who first gets possession of it." Property, forced + into its first intrenchment, repudiates its old adage; justice, ashamed, + retracts her maxims, and sorrow lowers her bandage over her blushing + cheeks. And it was but yesterday that this progress in social philosophy + began: fifty centuries required for the extirpation of a lie! During this + lamentable period, how many usurpations have been sanctioned, how many + invasions glorified, how many conquests celebrated! The absent + dispossessed, the poor banished, the hungry excluded by wealth, which is + so ready and bold in action! Jealousies and wars, incendiarism and + bloodshed, among the nations! But henceforth, thanks to the age and its + spirit, it is to be admitted that the earth is not a prize to be won in a + race; in the absence of any other obstacle, there is a place for everybody + under the sun. Each one may harness his goat to the bearn, drive his + cattle to pasture, sow a corner of a field, and bake his bread by his own + fireside. + </p> + <p> + But, no; each one cannot do these things. I hear it proclaimed on all + sides, "Glory to labor and industry! to each according to his capacity; to + each capacity according to its results!" And I see three-fourths of the + human race again despoiled, the labor of a few being a scourge to the + labor of the rest. + </p> + <p> + "The problem is solved," exclaims M. Hennequin. "Property, the daughter of + labor, can be enjoyed at present and in the future only under the + protection of the laws. It has its origin in natural law; it derives its + power from civil law; and from the union of these two ideas, LABOR and + PROTECTION, positive legislation results."... + </p> + <p> + Ah! THE PROBLEM IS SOLVED! PROPERTY IS THE DAUGHTER OF LABOR! What, then, + is the right of accession, and the right of succession, and the right of + donation, &c., if not the right to become a proprietor by simple + occupancy? What are your laws concerning the age of majority, + emancipation, guardianship, and interdiction, if not the various + conditions by which he who is already a laborer gains or loses the right + of occupancy; that is, property? + </p> + <p> + Being unable, at this time, to enter upon a detailed discussion of the + Code, I shall content myself with examining the three arguments oftenest + resorted to in support of property. 1. APPROPRIATION, or the formation of + property by possession; 2. THE CONSENT OF MANKIND; 3. PRESCRIPTION. I + shall then inquire into the effects of labor upon the relative condition + of the laborers and upon property. + </p> + <p> + % 1.—The Land cannot be Appropriated. + </p> + <p> + "It would seem that lands capable of cultivation ought to be regarded as + natural wealth, since they are not of human creation, but Nature's + gratuitous gift to man; but inasmuch as this wealth is not fugitive, like + the air and water,—inasmuch as a field is a fixed and limited space + which certain men have been able to appropriate, to the exclusion of all + others who in their turn have consented to this appropriation,—the + land, which was a natural and gratuitous gift, has become social wealth, + for the use of which we ought to pay."—SAY: POLITICAL ECONOMY. + </p> + <p> + Was I wrong in saying, at the beginning of this chapter, that the + economists are the very worst authorities in matters of legislation and + philosophy? It is the FATHER of this class of men who clearly states the + question, How can the supplies of Nature, the wealth created by + Providence, become private property? and who replies by so gross an + equivocation that we scarcely know which the author lacks, sense or + honesty. What, I ask, has the fixed and solid nature of the earth to do + with the right of appropriation? I can understand that a thing LIMITED and + STATIONARY, like the land, offers greater chances for appropriation than + the water or the sunshine; that it is easier to exercise the right of + domain over the soil than over the atmosphere: but we are not dealing with + the difficulty of the thing, and Say confounds the right with the + possibility. We do not ask why the earth has been appropriated to a + greater extent than the sea and the air; we want to know by what right man + has appropriated wealth WHICH HE DID NOT CREATE, AND WHICH NATURE GAVE TO + HIM GRATUITOUSLY. + </p> + <p> + Say, then, did not solve the question which he asked. But if he had solved + it, if the explanation which he has given us were as satisfactory as it is + illogical, we should know no better than before who has a right to exact + payment for the use of the soil, of this wealth which is not man's + handiwork. Who is entitled to the rent of the land? The producer of the + land, without doubt. Who made the land? God. Then, proprietor, retire! + </p> + <p> + But the creator of the land does not sell it: he gives it; and, in giving + it, he is no respecter of persons. Why, then, are some of his children + regarded as legitimate, while others are treated as bastards? If the + equality of shares was an original right, why is the inequality of + conditions a posthumous right? + </p> + <p> + Say gives us to understand that if the air and the water were not of a + FUGITIVE nature, they would have been appropriated. Let me observe in + passing that this is more than an hypothesis; it is a reality. Men have + appropriated the air and the water, I will not say as often as they could, + but as often as they have been allowed to. + </p> + <p> + The Portuguese, having discovered the route to India by the Cape of Good + Hope, pretended to have the sole right to that route; and Grotius, + consulted in regard to this matter by the Dutch who refused to recognize + this right, wrote expressly for this occasion his treatise on the "Freedom + of the Seas," to prove that the sea is not liable to appropriation. + </p> + <p> + The right to hunt and fish used always to be confined to lords and + proprietors; to-day it is leased by the government and communes to whoever + can pay the license-fee and the rent. To regulate hunting and fishing is + an excellent idea, but to make it a subject of sale is to create a + monopoly of air and water. + </p> + <p> + What is a passport? A universal recommendation of the traveller's person; + a certificate of security for himself and his property. The treasury, + whose nature it is to spoil the best things, has made the passport a means + of espionage and a tax. Is not this a sale of the right to travel? + </p> + <p> + Finally, it is permissible neither to draw water from a spring situated in + another's grounds without the permission of the proprietor, because by the + right of accession the spring belongs to the possessor of the soil, if + there is no other claim; nor to pass a day on his premises without paying + a tax; nor to look at a court, a garden, or an orchard, without the + consent of the proprietor; nor to stroll in a park or an enclosure against + the owner's will: every one is allowed to shut himself up and to fence + himself in. All these prohibitions are so many positive interdictions, not + only of the land, but of the air and water. We who belong to the + proletaire class: property excommunicates us! <i>Terra, et aqua, et aere, + et igne interdicti sumus</i>. + </p> + <p> + Men could not appropriate the most fixed of all the elements without + appropriating the three others; since, by French and Roman law, property + in the surface carries with it property from zenith to nadir—<i>Cujus + est solum, ejus est usque ad caelum</i>. Now, if the use of water, air, + and fire excludes property, so does the use of the soil. This chain of + reasoning seems to have been presented by M. Ch. Comte, in his "Treatise + on Property," chap. 5. + </p> + <p> + "If a man should be deprived of air for a few moments only, he would cease + to exist, and a partial deprivation would cause him severe suffering; a + partial or complete deprivation of food would produce like effects upon + him though less suddenly; it would be the same, at least in certain + climates! were he deprived of all clothing and shelter.... To sustain + life, then, man needs continually to appropriate many different things. + But these things do not exist in like proportions. Some, such as the light + of the stars, the atmosphere of the earth, the water composing the seas + and oceans, exist in such large quantities that men cannot perceive any + sensible increase or diminution; each one can appropriate as much as his + needs require without detracting from the enjoyment of others, without + causing them the least harm. Things of this sort are, so to speak, the + common property of the human race; the only duty imposed upon each + individual in this regard is that of infringing not at all upon the rights + of others." + </p> + <p> + Let us complete the argument of M. Ch. Comte. A man who should be + prohibited from walking in the highways, from resting in the fields, from + taking shelter in caves, from lighting fires, from picking berries, from + gathering herbs and boiling them in a bit of baked clay,—such a man + could not live. Consequently the earth—like water, air, and light—is + a primary object of necessity which each has a right to use freely, + without infringing another's right. Why, then, is the earth appropriated? + M. Ch. Comte's reply is a curious one. Say pretends that it is because it + is not FUGITIVE; M. Ch. Comte assures us that it is because it is not + INFINITE. The land is limited in amount. Then, according to M. Ch. Comte, + it ought to be appropriated. It would seem, on the contrary, that he ought + to say, Then it ought not to be appropriated. Because, no matter how large + a quantity of air or light any one appropriates, no one is damaged + thereby; there always remains enough for all. With the soil, it is very + different. Lay hold who will, or who can, of the sun's rays, the passing + breeze, or the sea's billows; he has my consent, and my pardon for his bad + intentions. But let any living man dare to change his right of territorial + possession into the right of property, and I will declare war upon him, + and wage it to the death! + </p> + <p> + M. Ch. Comte's argument disproves his position. "Among the things + necessary to the preservation of life," he says, "there are some which + exist in such large quantities that they are inexhaustible; others which + exist in lesser quantities, and can satisfy the wants of only a certain + number of persons. The former are called COMMON, the latter PRIVATE." + </p> + <p> + This reasoning is not strictly logical. Water, air, and light are COMMON + things, not because they are INEXHAUSTIBLE, but because they are + INDISPENSABLE; and so indispensable that for that very reason Nature has + created them in quantities almost infinite, in order that their + plentifulness might prevent their appropriation. Likewise the land is + indispensable to our existence,—consequently a common thing, + consequently insusceptible of appropriation; but land is much scarcer than + the other elements, therefore its use must be regulated, not for the + profit of a few, but in the interest and for the security of all. + </p> + <p> + In a word, equality of rights is proved by equality of needs. Now, + equality of rights, in the case of a commodity which is limited in amount, + can be realized only by equality of possession. An agrarian law underlies + M. Ch. Comte's arguments. + </p> + <p> + From whatever point we view this question of property—provided we go + to the bottom of it—we reach equality. I will not insist farther on + the distinction between things which can, and things which cannot, be + appropriated. On this point, economists and legists talk worse than + nonsense. The Civil Code, after having defined property, says nothing + about susceptibility of appropriation; and if it speaks of things which + are in THE MARKET, it always does so without enumerating or describing + them. However, light is not wanting. There are some few maxims such as + these: <i>Ad reges potestas omnium pertinet, ad singulos proprietas; Omnia + rex imperio possidet, singula dominio</i>. Social sovereignty opposed to + private property!—might not that be called a prophecy of equality, a + republican oracle? Examples crowd upon us: once the possessions of the + church, the estates of the crown, the fiefs of the nobility were + inalienable and imprescriptible. If, instead of abolishing this privilege, + the Constituent had extended it to every individual; if it had declared + that the right of labor, like liberty, can never be forfeited,—at + that moment the revolution would have been consummated, and we could now + devote ourselves to improvement in other directions. + </p> + <p> + % 2.—Universal Consent no Justification of Property. + </p> + <p> + In the extract from Say, quoted above, it is not clear whether the author + means to base the right of property on the stationary character of the + soil, or on the consent which he thinks all men have granted to this + appropriation. His language is such that it may mean either of these + things, or both at once; which entitles us to assume that the author + intended to say, "The right of property resulting originally from the + exercise of the will, the stability of the soil permitted it to be applied + to the land, and universal consent has since sanctioned this application." + </p> + <p> + However that may be, can men legitimate property by mutual consent? I say, + no. Such a contract, though drafted by Grotius, Montesquieu, and J. J. + Rousseau, though signed by the whole human race, would be null in the eyes + of justice, and an act to enforce it would be illegal. Man can no more + give up labor than liberty. Now, to recognize the right of territorial + property is to give up labor, since it is to relinquish the means of + labor; it is to traffic in a natural right, and divest ourselves of + manhood. + </p> + <p> + But I wish that this consent, of which so much is made, had been given, + either tacitly or formally. What would have been the result? Evidently, + the surrenders would have been reciprocal; no right would have been + abandoned without the receipt of an equivalent in exchange. We thus come + back to equality again,—the sine qua non of appropriation; so that, + after having justified property by universal consent, that is, by + equality, we are obliged to justify the inequality of conditions by + property. Never shall we extricate ourselves from this dilemma. Indeed, + if, in the terms of the social compact, property has equality for its + condition, at the moment when equality ceases to exist, the compact is + broken and all property becomes usurpation. We gain nothing, then, by this + pretended consent of mankind. + </p> + <p> + % 3.—Prescription Gives No Title to Property. + </p> + <p> + The right of property was the origin of evil on the earth, the first link + in the long chain of crimes and misfortunes which the human race has + endured since its birth. The delusion of prescription is the fatal charm + thrown over the intellect, the death sentence breathed into the + conscience, to arrest man's progress towards truth, and bolster up the + worship of error. + </p> + <p> + The Code defines prescription thus: "The process of gaining and losing + through the lapse of time." In applying this definition to ideas and + beliefs, we may use the word PRESCRIPTION to denote the everlasting + prejudice in favor of old superstitions, whatever be their object; the + opposition, often furious and bloody, with which new light has always been + received, and which makes the sage a martyr. Not a principle, not a + discovery, not a generous thought but has met, at its entrance into the + world, with a formidable barrier of preconceived opinions, seeming like a + conspiracy of all old prejudices. Prescriptions against reason, + prescriptions against facts, prescriptions against every truth hitherto + unknown,—that is the sum and substance of the <i>statu quo</i> + philosophy, the watchword of conservatives throughout the centuries. + </p> + <p> + When the evangelical reform was broached to the world, there was + prescription in favor of violence, debauchery, and selfishness; when + Galileo, Descartes, Pascal, and their disciples reconstructed philosophy + and the sciences, there was prescription in favor of the Aristotelian + philosophy; when our fathers of '89 demanded liberty and equality, there + was prescription in favor of tyranny and privilege. "There always have + been proprietors and there always will be:" it is with this profound + utterance, the final effort of selfishness dying in its last ditch, that + the friends of social inequality hope to repel the attacks of their + adversaries; thinking undoubtedly that ideas, like property, can be lost + by prescription. + </p> + <p> + Enlightened to-day by the triumphal march of science, taught by the most + glorious successes to question our own opinions, we receive with favor and + applause the observer of Nature, who, by a thousand experiments based upon + the most profound analysis, pursues a new principle, a law hitherto + undiscovered. We take care to repel no idea, no fact, under the pretext + that abler men than ourselves lived in former days, who did not notice the + same phenomena, nor grasp the same analogies. Why do we not preserve a + like attitude towards political and philosophical questions? Why this + ridiculous mania for affirming that every thing has been said, which means + that we know all about mental and moral science? Why is the proverb, THERE + IS NOTHING NEW UNDER THE SUN, applied exclusively to metaphysical + investigations? + </p> + <p> + Because we still study philosophy with the imagination, instead of by + observation and method; because fancy and will are universally regarded as + judges, in the place of arguments and facts,—it has been impossible + to this day to distinguish the charlatan from the philosopher, the savant + from the impostor. Since the days of Solomon and Pythagoras, imagination + has been exhausted in guessing out social and psychological laws; all + systems have been proposed. Looked at in this light, it is probably true + that EVERY THING HAS BEEN SAID; but it is no less true that EVERY THING + REMAINS TO BE PROVED. In politics (to take only this branch of + philosophy), in politics every one is governed in his choice of party by + his passion and his interests; the mind is submitted to the impositions of + the will,—there is no knowledge, there is not even a shadow of + certainty. In this way, general ignorance produces general tyranny; and + while liberty of thought is written in the charter, slavery of thought, + under the name of MAJORITY RULE, is decreed by the charter. + </p> + <p> + In order to confine myself to the civil prescription of which the Code + speaks, I shall refrain from beginning a discussion upon this worn-out + objection brought forward by proprietors; it would be too tiresome and + declamatory. Everybody knows that there are rights which cannot be + prescribed; and, as for those things which can be gained through the lapse + of time, no one is ignorant of the fact that prescription requires certain + conditions, the omission of one of which renders it null. If it is true, + for example, that the proprietor's possession has been CIVIL, PUBLIC, + PEACEABLE, and UNINTERRUPTED, it is none the less true that it is not + based on a just title; since the only titles which it can show—occupation + and labor—prove as much for the proletaire who demands, as for the + proprietor who defends. Further, this possession is DISHONEST, since it is + founded on a violation of right, which prevents prescription, according to + the saying of St. Paul—<i>Nunquam in usucapionibus juris error + possessori prodest</i>. The violation of right lies either in the fact + that the holder possesses as proprietor, while he should possess only as + usufructuary; or in the fact that he has purchased a thing which no one + had a right to transfer or sell. + </p> + <p> + Another reason why prescription cannot be adduced in favor of property (a + reason borrowed from jurisprudence) is that the right to possess real + estate is a part of a universal right which has never been totally + destroyed even at the most critical periods; and the proletaire, in order + to regain the power to exercise it fully, has only to prove that he has + always exercised it in part. + </p> + <p> + He, for example, who has the universal right to possess, give, exchange, + loan, let, sell, transform, or destroy a thing, preserves the integrity of + this right by the sole act of loaning, though he has never shown his + authority in any other manner. Likewise we shall see that EQUALITY OF + POSSESSIONS, EQUALITY OF RIGHTS, LIBERTY, WILL, PERSONALITY, are so many + identical expressions of one and the same idea,—the RIGHT OF + PRESERVATION and DEVELOPMENT; in a word, the right of life, against which + there can be no prescription until the human race has vanished from the + face of the earth. + </p> + <p> + Finally, as to the time required for prescription, it would be superfluous + to show that the right of property in general cannot be acquired by simple + possession for ten, twenty, a hundred, a thousand, or one hundred thousand + years; and that, so long as there exists a human head capable of + understanding and combating the right of property, this right will never + be prescribed. For principles of jurisprudence and axioms of reason are + different from accidental and contingent facts. One man's possession can + prescribe against another man's possession; but just as the possessor + cannot prescribe against himself, so reason has always the faculty of + change and reformation. Past error is not binding on the future. Reason is + always the same eternal force. The institution of property, the work of + ignorant reason, may be abrogated by a more enlightened reason. + Consequently, property cannot be established by prescription. This is so + certain and so true, that on it rests the maxim that in the matter of + prescription a violation of right goes for nothing. + </p> + <p> + But I should be recreant to my method, and the reader would have the right + to accuse me of charlatanism and bad faith, if I had nothing further to + advance concerning prescription. I showed, in the first place, that + appropriation of land is illegal; and that, supposing it to be legal, it + must be accompanied by equality of property. I have shown, in the second + place, that universal consent proves nothing in favor of property; and + that, if it proves any thing, it proves equality of property. I have yet + to show that prescription, if admissible at all, presupposes equality of + property. + </p> + <p> + This demonstration will be neither long nor difficult. I need only to call + attention to the reasons why prescription was introduced. + </p> + <p> + "Prescription," says Dunod, "seems repugnant to natural equity, which + permits no one either to deprive another of his possessions without his + knowledge and consent, or to enrich himself at another's expense. But as + it might often happen, in the absence of prescription, that one who had + honestly earned would be ousted after long possession; and even that he + who had received a thing from its rightful owner, or who had been + legitimately relieved from all obligations, would, on losing his title, be + liable to be dispossessed or subjected again,—the public welfare + demanded that a term should be fixed, after the expiration of which no one + should be allowed to disturb actual possessors, or reassert rights too + long neglected.... The civil law, in regulating prescription, has aimed, + then, only to perfect natural law, and to supplement the law of nations; + and as it is founded on the public good, which should always be considered + before individual welfare,—<i>bono publico usucapio introducta est</i>,—it + should be regarded with favor, provided the conditions required by the law + are fulfilled." + </p> + <p> + Toullier, in his "Civil Law," says: "In order that the question of + proprietorship may not remain too long unsettled, and thereby injure the + public welfare, disturbing the peace of families and the stability of + social transactions, the law has fixed a time when all claims shall be + cancelled, and possession shall regain its ancient prerogative through its + transformation into property." + </p> + <p> + Cassiodorus said of property, that it was the only safe harbor in which to + seek shelter from the tempests of chicanery and the gales of avarice—<i>Hic + unus inter humanas pro cellas portus, quem si homines fervida voluntate + praeterierint; in undosis semper jurgiis errabunt</i>. + </p> + <p> + Thus, in the opinion of the authors, prescription is a means of preserving + public order; a restoration in certain cases of the original mode of + acquiring property; a fiction of the civil law which derives all its force + from the necessity of settling differences which otherwise would never + end. For, as Grotius says, time has no power to produce effects; all + things happen in time, but nothing is done by time. Prescription, or the + right of acquisition through the lapse of time, is, therefore, a fiction + of the law, conventionally adopted. + </p> + <p> + But all property necessarily originated in prescription, or, as the Latins + say, in <i>usucapion;</i> that is, in continued possession. + </p> + <p> + I ask, then, in the first place, how possession can become property by the + lapse of time? Continue possession as long as you wish, continue it for + years and for centuries, you never can give duration—which of itself + creates nothing, changes nothing, modifies nothing—the power to + change the usufructuary into a proprietor. Let the civil law secure + against chance-comers the honest possessor who has held his position for + many years,—that only confirms a right already respected; and + prescription, applied in this way, simply means that possession which has + continued for twenty, thirty, or a hundred years shall be retained by the + occupant. But when the law declares that the lapse of time changes + possessor into proprietor, it supposes that a right can be created without + a producing cause; it unwarrantably alters the character of the subject; + it legislates on a matter not open to legislation; it exceeds its own + powers. Public order and private security ask only that possession shall + be protected. Why has the law created property? Prescription was simply + security for the future; why has the law made it a matter of privilege? + </p> + <p> + Thus the origin of prescription is identical with that of property itself; + and since the latter can legitimate itself only when accompanied by + equality, prescription is but another of the thousand forms which the + necessity of maintaining this precious equality has taken. And this is no + vain induction, no far-fetched inference. The proof is written in all the + codes. + </p> + <p> + And, indeed, if all nations, through their instinct of justice and their + conservative nature, have recognized the utility and the necessity of + prescription; and if their design has been to guard thereby the interests + of the possessor,—could they not do something for the absent + citizen, separated from his family and his country by commerce, war, or + captivity, and in no position to exercise his right of possession? No. + Also, at the same time that prescription was introduced into the laws, it + was admitted that property is preserved by intent alone,—<i>nudo + animo</i>. Now, if property is preserved by intent alone, if it can be + lost only by the action of the proprietor, what can be the use of + prescription? How does the law dare to presume that the proprietor, who + preserves by intent alone, intended to abandon that which he has allowed + to be prescribed? What lapse of time can warrant such a conjecture; and by + what right does the law punish the absence of the proprietor by depriving + him of his goods? What then! we found but a moment since that prescription + and property were identical; and now we find that they are mutually + destructive! + </p> + <p> + Grotius, who perceived this difficulty, replied so singularly that his + words deserve to be quoted: <i>Bene sperandum de hominibus, ac propterea + non putandum eos hoc esse animo ut, rei caducae causa, hominem alterum + velint in perpetuo peccato versari, quo d evitari saepe non poterit sine + tali derelictione</i>. + </p> + <p> + "Where is the man," he says, "with so unchristian a soul that, for a + trifle, he would perpetuate the trespass of a possessor, which would + inevitably be the result if he did not consent to abandon his right?" By + the Eternal! I am that man. Though a million proprietors should burn for + it in hell, I lay the blame on them for depriving me of my portion of this + world's goods. To this powerful consideration Grotius rejoins, that it is + better to abandon a disputed right than to go to law, disturb the peace of + nations, and stir up the flames of civil war. I accept, if you wish it, + this argument, provided you indemnify me. But if this indemnity is refused + me, what do I, a proletaire, care for the tranquillity and security of the + rich? I care as little for PUBLIC ORDER as for the proprietor's safety. I + ask to live a laborer; otherwise I will die a warrior. + </p> + <p> + Whichever way we turn, we shall come to the conclusion that prescription + is a contradiction of property; or rather that prescription and property + are two forms of the same principle, but two forms which serve to correct + each other; and ancient and modern jurisprudence did not make the least of + its blunders in pretending to reconcile them. Indeed, if we see in the + institution of property only a desire to secure to each individual his + share of the soil and his right to labor; in the distinction between naked + property and possession only an asylum for absentees, orphans, and all who + do not know, or cannot maintain, their rights; in prescription only a + means, either of defence against unjust pretensions and encroachments, or + of settlement of the differences caused by the removal of possessors,—we + shall recognize in these various forms of human justice the spontaneous + efforts of the mind to come to the aid of the social instinct; we shall + see in this protection of all rights the sentiment of equality, a constant + levelling tendency. And, looking deeper, we shall find in the very + exaggeration of these principles the confirmation of our doctrine; + because, if equality of conditions and universal association are not soon + realized, it will be owing to the obstacle thrown for the time in the way + of the common sense of the people by the stupidity of legislators and + judges; and also to the fact that, while society in its original state was + illuminated with a flash of truth, the early speculations of its leaders + could bring forth nothing but darkness. + </p> + <p> + After the first covenants, after the first draughts of laws and + constitutions, which were the expression of man's primary needs, the + legislator's duty was to reform the errors of legislation; to complete + that which was defective; to harmonize, by superior definitions, those + things which seemed to conflict. Instead of that, they halted at the + literal meaning of the laws, content to play the subordinate part of + commentators and scholiasts. Taking the inspirations of the human mind, at + that time necessarily weak and faulty, for axioms of eternal and + unquestionable truth,—influenced by public opinion, enslaved by the + popular religion,—they have invariably started with the principle + (following in this respect the example of the theologians) that that is + infallibly true which has been admitted by all persons, in all places, and + at all times—<i>quod ab omnibus, quod ubique, quod semper;</i> as if + a general but spontaneous opinion was any thing more than an indication of + the truth. Let us not be deceived: the opinion of all nations may serve to + authenticate the perception of a fact, the vague sentiment of a law; it + can teach us nothing about either fact or law. The consent of mankind is + an indication of Nature; not, as Cicero says, a law of Nature. Under the + indication is hidden the truth, which faith can believe, but only thought + can know. Such has been the constant progress of the human mind in regard + to physical phenomena and the creations of genius: how can it be otherwise + with the facts of conscience and the rules of human conduct? + </p> + <p> + % 4.—Labor—That Labor Has No Inherent Power to Appropriate + Natural Wealth. + </p> + <p> + We shall show by the maxims of political economy and law, that is, by the + authorities recognized by property,— + </p> + <p> + 1. That labor has no inherent power to appropriate natural wealth. + </p> + <p> + 2. That, if we admit that labor has this power, we are led directly to + equality of property,—whatever the kind of labor, however scarce the + product, or unequal the ability of the laborers. + </p> + <p> + 3. That, in the order of justice, labor DESTROYS property. + </p> + <p> + Following the example of our opponents, and that we may leave no obstacles + in the path, let us examine the question in the strongest possible light. + </p> + <p> + M. Ch. Comte says, in his "Treatise on Property:"— + </p> + <p> + "France, considered as a nation, has a territory which is her own." + </p> + <p> + France, as an individuality, possesses a territory which she cultivates; + it is not her property. Nations are related to each other as individuals + are: they are commoners and workers; it is an abuse of language to call + them proprietors. The right of use and abuse belongs no more to nations + than to men; and the time will come when a war waged for the purpose of + checking a nation in its abuse of the soil will be regarded as a holy war. + </p> + <p> + Thus, M. Ch. Comte—who undertakes to explain how property comes into + existence, and who starts with the supposition that a nation is a + proprietor—falls into that error known as BEGGING THE QUESTION; a + mistake which vitiates his whole argument. + </p> + <p> + If the reader thinks it is pushing logic too far to question a nation's + right of property in the territory which it possesses, I will simply + remind him of the fact that at all ages the results of the fictitious + right of national property have been pretensions to suzerainty, tributes, + monarchical privileges, statute-labor, quotas of men and money, supplies + of merchandise, &c.; ending finally in refusals to pay taxes, + insurrections, wars, and depopulations. + </p> + <p> + "Scattered through this territory are extended tracts of land, which have + not been converted into individual property. These lands, which consist + mainly of forests, belong to the whole population, and the government, + which receives the revenues, uses or ought to use them in the interest of + all." + </p> + <p> + OUGHT TO USE is well said: a lie is avoided thereby. + </p> + <p> + "Let them be offered for sale...." + </p> + <p> + Why offered for sale? Who has a right to sell them? Even were the nation + proprietor, can the generation of to-day dispossess the generation of + to-morrow? The nation, in its function of usufructuary, possesses them; + the government rules, superintends, and protects them. If it also granted + lands, it could grant only their use; it has no right to sell them or + transfer them in any way whatever. Not being a proprietor, how can it + transmit property? + </p> + <p> + "Suppose some industrious man buys a portion, a large swamp for example. + This would be no usurpation, since the public would receive the exact + value through the hands of the government, and would be as rich after the + sale as before." + </p> + <p> + How ridiculous! What! because a prodigal, imprudent, incompetent official + sells the State's possessions, while I, a ward of the State,—I who + have neither an advisory nor a deliberative voice in the State councils,—while + I am allowed to make no opposition to the sale, this sale is right and + legal! The guardians of the nation waste its substance, and it has no + redress! I have received, you tell me, through the hands of the government + my share of the proceeds of the sale: but, in the first place, I did not + wish to sell; and, had I wished to, I could not have sold. I had not the + right. And then I do not see that I am benefited by the sale. My guardians + have dressed up some soldiers, repaired an old fortress, erected in their + pride some costly but worthless monument,—then they have exploded + some fireworks and set up a greased pole! What does all that amount to in + comparison with my loss? + </p> + <p> + The purchaser draws boundaries, fences himself in, and says, "This is + mine; each one by himself, each one for himself." Here, then, is a piece + of land upon which, henceforth, no one has a right to step, save the + proprietor and his friends; which can benefit nobody, save the proprietor + and his servants. Let these sales multiply, and soon the people—who + have been neither able nor willing to sell, and who have received none of + the proceeds of the sale—will have nowhere to rest, no place of + shelter, no ground to till. They will die of hunger at the proprietor's + door, on the edge of that property which was their birthright; and the + proprietor, watching them die, will exclaim, "So perish idlers and + vagrants!" + </p> + <p> + To reconcile us to the proprietor's usurpation, M. Ch. Comte assumes the + lands to be of little value at the time of sale. + </p> + <p> + "The importance of these usurpations should not be exaggerated: they + should be measured by the number of men which the occupied land would + support, and by the means which it would furnish them. + </p> + <p> + "It is evident, for instance, that if a piece of land which is worth + to-day one thousand francs was worth only five centimes when it was + usurped, we really lose only the value of five centimes. A square league + of earth would be hardly sufficient to support a savage in distress; + to-day it supplies one thousand persons with the means of existence. Nine + hundred and ninety-nine parts of this land is the legitimate property of + the possessors; only one-thousandth of the value has been usurped." + </p> + <p> + A peasant admitted one day, at confession, that he had destroyed a + document which declared him a debtor to the amount of three hundred + francs. Said the father confessor, "You must return these three hundred + francs." "No," replied the peasant, "I will return a penny to pay for the + paper." + </p> + <p> + M. Ch. Comte's logic resembles this peasant's honesty. The soil has not + only an integrant and actual value, it has also a potential value,—a + value of the future,—which depends on our ability to make it + valuable, and to employ it in our work. Destroy a bill of exchange, a + promissory note, an annuity deed,—as a paper you destroy almost no + value at all; but with this paper you destroy your title, and, in losing + your title, you deprive yourself of your goods. Destroy the land, or, what + is the same thing, sell it,—you not only transfer one, two, or + several crops, but you annihilate all the products that you could derive + from it; you and your children and your children's children. + </p> + <p> + When M. Ch. Comte, the apostle of property and the eulogist of labor, + supposes an alienation of the soil on the part of the government, we must + not think that he does so without reason and for no purpose; it is a + necessary part of his position. As he rejected the theory of occupancy, + and as he knew, moreover, that labor could not constitute the right in the + absence of a previous permission to occupy, he was obliged to connect this + permission with the authority of the government, which means that property + is based upon the sovereignty of the people; in other words, upon + universal consent. This theory we have already considered. + </p> + <p> + To say that property is the daughter of labor, and then to give labor + material on which to exercise itself, is, if I am not mistaken, to reason + in a circle. Contradictions will result from it. + </p> + <p> + "A piece of land of a certain size produces food enough to supply a man + for one day. If the possessor, through his labor, discovers some method of + making it produce enough for two days, he doubles its value. This new + value is his work, his creation: it is taken from nobody; it is his + property." + </p> + <p> + I maintain that the possessor is paid for his trouble and industry in his + doubled crop, but that he acquires no right to the land. "Let the laborer + have the fruits of his labor." Very good; but I do not understand that + property in products carries with it property in raw material. Does the + skill of the fisherman, who on the same coast can catch more fish than his + fellows, make him proprietor of the fishing-grounds? Can the expertness of + a hunter ever be regarded as a property-title to a game-forest? The + analogy is perfect,—the industrious cultivator finds the reward of + his industry in the abundancy and superiority of his crop. If he has made + improvements in the soil, he has the possessor's right of preference. + Never, under any circumstances, can he be allowed to claim a + property-title to the soil which he cultivates, on the ground of his skill + as a cultivator. + </p> + <p> + To change possession into property, something is needed besides labor, + without which a man would cease to be proprietor as soon as he ceased to + be a laborer. Now, the law bases property upon immemorial, unquestionable + possession; that is, prescription. Labor is only the sensible sign, the + physical act, by which occupation is manifested. If, then, the cultivator + remains proprietor after he has ceased to labor and produce; if his + possession, first conceded, then tolerated, finally becomes inalienable,—it + happens by permission of the civil law, and by virtue of the principle of + occupancy. So true is this, that there is not a bill of sale, not a farm + lease, not an annuity, but implies it. I will quote only one example. + </p> + <p> + How do we measure the value of land? By its product. If a piece of land + yields one thousand francs, we say that at five per cent. it is worth + twenty thousand francs; at four per cent. twenty-five thousand francs, + &c.; which means, in other words, that in twenty or twenty-five years' + time the purchaser would recover in full the amount originally paid for + the land. If, then, after a certain length of time, the price of a piece + of land has been wholly recovered, why does the purchaser continue to be + proprietor? Because of the right of occupancy, in the absence of which + every sale would be a redemption. + </p> + <p> + The theory of appropriation by labor is, then, a contradiction of the + Code; and when the partisans of this theory pretend to explain the laws + thereby, they contradict themselves. + </p> + <p> + "If men succeed in fertilizing land hitherto unproductive, or even + death-producing, like certain swamps, they create thereby property in all + its completeness." + </p> + <p> + What good does it do to magnify an expression, and play with + equivocations, as if we expected to change the reality thereby? THEY + CREATE PROPERTY IN ALL ITS COMPLETENESS. You mean that they create a + productive capacity which formerly did not exist; but this capacity cannot + be created without material to support it. The substance of the soil + remains the same; only its qualities and modifications are changed. Man + has created every thing—every thing save the material itself. Now, I + maintain that this material he can only possess and use, on condition of + permanent labor,—granting, for the time being, his right of property + in things which he has produced. + </p> + <p> + This, then, is the first point settled: property in product, if we grant + so much, does not carry with it property in the means of production; that + seems to me to need no further demonstration. There is no difference + between the soldier who possesses his arms, the mason who possesses the + materials committed to his care, the fisherman who possesses the water, + the hunter who possesses the fields and forests, and the cultivator who + possesses the lands: all, if you say so, are proprietors of their products—not + one is proprietor of the means of production. The right to product is + exclusive—jus in re; the right to means is common—jus ad rem. + </p> + <p> + % 5.—That Labor leads to Equality of Property. + </p> + <p> + Admit, however, that labor gives a right of property in material. + </p> + <p> + Why is not this principle universal? Why is the benefit of this pretended + law confined to a few and denied to the mass of laborers? A philosopher, + arguing that all animals sprang up formerly out of the earth warmed by the + rays of the sun, almost like mushrooms, on being asked why the earth no + longer yielded crops of that nature, replied: "Because it is old, and has + lost its fertility." Has labor, once so fecund, likewise become sterile? + Why does the tenant no longer acquire through his labor the land which was + formerly acquired by the labor of the proprietor? + </p> + <p> + "Because," they say, "it is already appropriated." That is no answer. A + farm yields fifty bushels per hectare; the skill and labor of the tenant + double this product: the increase is created by the tenant. Suppose the + owner, in a spirit of moderation rarely met with, does not go to the + extent of absorbing this product by raising the rent, but allows the + cultivator to enjoy the results of his labor; even then justice is not + satisfied. The tenant, by improving the land, has imparted a new value to + the property; he, therefore, has a right to a part of the property. If the + farm was originally worth one hundred thousand francs, and if by the labor + of the tenant its value has risen to one hundred and fifty thousand + francs, the tenant, who produced this extra value, is the legitimate + proprietor of one-third of the farm. M. Ch. Comte could not have + pronounced this doctrine false, for it was he who said:— + </p> + <p> + "Men who increase the fertility of the earth are no less useful to their + fellow-men, than if they should create new land." + </p> + <p> + Why, then, is not this rule applicable to the man who improves the land, + as well as to him who clears it? The labor of the former makes the land + worth one; that of the latter makes it worth two: both create equal + values. Why not accord to both equal property? I defy any one to refute + this argument, without again falling back on the right of first occupancy. + </p> + <p> + "But," it will be said, "even if your wish should be granted, property + would not be distributed much more evenly than now. Land does not go on + increasing in value for ever; after two or three seasons it attains its + maximum fertility. That which is added by the agricultural art results + rather from the progress of science and the diffusion of knowledge, than + from the skill of the cultivator. Consequently, the addition of a few + laborers to the mass of proprietors would be no argument against + property." + </p> + <p> + This discussion would, indeed, prove a well-nigh useless one, if our + labors culminated in simply extending land-privilege and industrial + monopoly; in emancipating only a few hundred laborers out of the millions + of proletaires. But this also is a misconception of our real thought, and + does but prove the general lack of intelligence and logic. + </p> + <p> + If the laborer, who adds to the value of a thing, has a right of property + in it, he who maintains this value acquires the same right. For what is + maintenance? It is incessant addition,—continuous creation. What is + it to cultivate? It is to give the soil its value every year; it is, by + annually renewed creation, to prevent the diminution or destruction of the + value of a piece of land. Admitting, then, that property is rational and + legitimate,—admitting that rent is equitable and just,—I say + that he who cultivates acquires property by as good a title as he who + clears, or he who improves; and that every time a tenant pays his rent, he + obtains a fraction of property in the land entrusted to his care, the + denominator of which is equal to the proportion of rent paid. Unless you + admit this, you fall into absolutism and tyranny; you recognize class + privileges; you sanction slavery. + </p> + <p> + Whoever labors becomes a proprietor—this is an inevitable deduction + from the acknowledged principles of political economy and jurisprudence. + And when I say proprietor, I do not mean simply (as do our hypocritical + economists) proprietor of his allowance, his salary, his wages,—I + mean proprietor of the value which he creates, and by which the master + alone profits. + </p> + <p> + As all this relates to the theory of wages and of the distribution of + products,—and as this matter never has been even partially cleared + up,—I ask permission to insist on it: this discussion will not be + useless to the work in hand. Many persons talk of admitting working-people + to a share in the products and profits; but in their minds this + participation is pure benevolence: they have never shown—perhaps + never suspected—that it was a natural, necessary right, inherent in + labor, and inseparable from the function of producer, even in the lowest + forms of his work. + </p> + <p> + This is my proposition: THE LABORER RETAINS, EVEN AFTER HE HAS RECEIVED + HIS WAGES, A NATURAL RIGHT OF PROPERTY IN THE THING WHICH HE HAS PRODUCED. + </p> + <p> + I again quote M. Ch. Comte:— + </p> + <p> + "Some laborers are employed in draining marshes, in cutting down trees and + brushwood,—in a word, in cleaning up the soil. They increase the + value, they make the amount of property larger; they are paid for the + value which they add in the form of food and daily wages: it then becomes + the property of the capitalist." + </p> + <p> + The price is not sufficient: the labor of the workers has created a value; + now this value is their property. But they have neither sold nor exchanged + it; and you, capitalist, you have not earned it. That you should have a + partial right to the whole, in return for the materials that you have + furnished and the provisions that you have supplied, is perfectly just. + You contributed to the production, you ought to share in the enjoyment. + But your right does not annihilate that of the laborers, who, in spite of + you, have been your colleagues in the work of production. Why do you talk + of wages? The money with which you pay the wages of the laborers + remunerates them for only a few years of the perpetual possession which + they have abandoned to you. Wages is the cost of the daily maintenance and + refreshment of the laborer. You are wrong in calling it the price of a + sale. The workingman has sold nothing; he knows neither his right, nor the + extent of the concession which he has made to you, nor the meaning of the + contract which you pretend to have made with him. On his side, utter + ignorance; on yours, error and surprise, not to say deceit and fraud. + </p> + <p> + Let us make this clearer by another and more striking example. + </p> + <p> + No one is ignorant of the difficulties that are met with in the conversion + of untilled land into arable and productive land. These difficulties are + so great, that usually an isolated man would perish before he could put + the soil in a condition to yield him even the most meagre living. To that + end are needed the united and combined efforts of society, and all the + resources of industry. M. Ch. Comte quotes on this subject numerous and + well-authenticated facts, little thinking that he is amassing testimony + against his own system. + </p> + <p> + Let us suppose that a colony of twenty or thirty families establishes + itself in a wild district, covered with underbrush and forests; and from + which, by agreement, the natives consent to withdraw. Each one of these + families possesses a moderate but sufficient amount of capital, of such a + nature as a colonist would be apt to choose,—animals, seeds, tools, + and a little money and food. The land having been divided, each one + settles himself as comfortably as possible, and begins to clear away the + portion allotted to him. But after a few weeks of fatigue, such as they + never before have known, of inconceivable suffering, of ruinous and almost + useless labor, our colonists begin to complain of their trade; their + condition seems hard to them; they curse their sad existence. + </p> + <p> + Suddenly, one of the shrewdest among them kills a pig, cures a part of the + meat; and, resolved to sacrifice the rest of his provisions, goes to find + his companions in misery. "Friends," he begins in a very benevolent tone, + "how much trouble it costs you to do a little work and live uncomfortably! + A fortnight of labor has reduced you to your last extremity!... Let us + make an arrangement by which you shall all profit. I offer you provisions + and wine: you shall get so much every day; we will work together, and, + zounds! my friends, we will be happy and contented!" + </p> + <p> + Would it be possible for empty stomachs to resist such an invitation? The + hungriest of them follow the treacherous tempter. They go to work; the + charm of society, emulation, joy, and mutual assistance double their + strength; the work can be seen to advance. Singing and laughing, they + subdue Nature. In a short time, the soil is thoroughly changed; the + mellowed earth waits only for the seed. That done, the proprietor pays his + laborers, who, on going away, return him their thanks, and grieve that the + happy days which they have spent with him are over. + </p> + <p> + Others follow this example, always with the same success. Then, these + installed, the rest disperse,—each one returns to his grubbing. But, + while grubbing, it is necessary to live. While they have been clearing + away for their neighbor, they have done no clearing for themselves. One + year's seed-time and harvest is already gone. They had calculated that in + lending their labor they could not but gain, since they would save their + own provisions; and, while living better, would get still more money. + False calculation! they have created for another the means wherewith to + produce, and have created nothing for themselves. The difficulties of + clearing remain the same; their clothing wears out, their provisions give + out; soon their purse becomes empty for the profit of the individual for + whom they have worked, and who alone can furnish the provisions which they + need, since he alone is in a position to produce them. Then, when the poor + grubber has exhausted his resources, the man with the provisions (like the + wolf in the fable, who scents his victim from afar) again comes forward. + One he offers to employ again by the day; from another he offers to buy at + a favorable price a piece of his bad land, which is not, and never can be, + of any use to him: that is, he uses the labor of one man to cultivate the + field of another for his own benefit. So that at the end of twenty years, + of thirty individuals originally equal in point of wealth, five or six + have become proprietors of the whole district, while the rest have been + philanthropically dispossessed! + </p> + <p> + In this century of bourgeoisie morality, in which I have had the honor to + be born, the moral sense is so debased that I should not be at all + surprised if I were asked, by many a worthy proprietor, what I see in this + that is unjust and illegitimate? Debased creature! galvanized corpse! how + can I expect to convince you, if you cannot tell robbery when I show it to + you? A man, by soft and insinuating words, discovers the secret of taxing + others that he may establish himself; then, once enriched by their united + efforts, he refuses, on the very conditions which he himself dictated, to + advance the well-being of those who made his fortune for him: and you ask + how such conduct is fraudulent! Under the pretext that he has paid his + laborers, that he owes them nothing more, that he has nothing to gain by + putting himself at the service of others, while his own occupations claim + his attention,—he refuses, I say, to aid others in getting a + foothold, as he was aided in getting his own; and when, in the impotence + of their isolation, these poor laborers are compelled to sell their + birthright, he—this ungrateful proprietor, this knavish upstart—stands + ready to put the finishing touch to their deprivation and their ruin. And + you think that just? Take care! + </p> + <p> + I read in your startled countenance the reproach of a guilty conscience, + much more clearly than the innocent astonishment of involuntary ignorance. + </p> + <p> + "The capitalist," they say, "has paid the laborers their DAILY WAGES." To + be accurate, it must be said that the capitalist has paid as many times + one day's wage as he has employed laborers each day,—which is not at + all the same thing. For he has paid nothing for that immense power which + results from the union and harmony of laborers, and the convergence and + simultaneousness of their efforts. Two hundred grenadiers stood the + obelisk of Luxor upon its base in a few hours; do you suppose that one man + could have accomplished the same task in two hundred days? Nevertheless, + on the books of the capitalist, the amount of wages paid would have been + the same. Well, a desert to prepare for cultivation, a house to build, a + factory to run,—all these are obelisks to erect, mountains to move. + The smallest fortune, the most insignificant establishment, the setting in + motion of the lowest industry, demand the concurrence of so many different + kinds of labor and skill, that one man could not possibly execute the + whole of them. It is astonishing that the economists never have called + attention to this fact. Strike a balance, then, between the capitalist's + receipts and his payments. + </p> + <p> + The laborer needs a salary which will enable him to live while he works; + for unless he consumes, he cannot produce. Whoever employs a man owes him + maintenance and support, or wages enough to procure the same. That is the + first thing to be done in all production. I admit, for the moment, that in + this respect the capitalist has discharged his duty. + </p> + <p> + It is necessary that the laborer should find in his production, in + addition to his present support, a guarantee of his future support; + otherwise the source of production would dry up, and his productive + capacity would become exhausted: in other words, the labor accomplished + must give birth perpetually to new labor—such is the universal law + of reproduction. In this way, the proprietor of a farm finds: 1. In his + crops, means, not only of supporting himself and his family, but of + maintaining and improving his capital, of feeding his live-stock—in + a word, means of new labor and continual reproduction; 2. In his ownership + of a productive agency, a permanent basis of cultivation and labor. + </p> + <p> + But he who lends his services,—what is his basis of cultivation? + </p> + <p> + The proprietor's presumed need of him, and the unwarranted supposition + that he wishes to employ him. Just as the commoner once held his land by + the munificence and condescension of the lord, so to-day the working-man + holds his labor by the condescension and necessities of the master and + proprietor: that is what is called possession by a precarious <a + href="#linknote-15" name="linknoteref-15" id="linknoteref-15"><small>15</small></a> + title. But this precarious condition is an injustice, for it implies an + inequality in the bargain. The laborer's wages exceed but little his + running expenses, and do not assure him wages for to-morrow; while the + capitalist finds in the instrument produced by the laborer a pledge of + independence and security for the future. + </p> + <p> + Now, this reproductive leaven—this eternal germ of life, this + preparation of the land and manufacture of implements for production—constitutes + the debt of the capitalist to the producer, which he never pays; and it is + this fraudulent denial which causes the poverty of the laborer, the luxury + of idleness, and the inequality of conditions. This it is, above all other + things, which has been so fitly named the exploitation of man by man. + </p> + <p> + One of three things must be done. Either the laborer must be given a + portion of the product in addition to his wages; or the employer must + render the laborer an equivalent in productive service; or else he must + pledge himself to employ him for ever. Division of the product, + reciprocity of service, or guarantee of perpetual labor,—from the + adoption of one of these courses the capitalist cannot escape. But it is + evident that he cannot satisfy the second and third of these conditions—he + can neither put himself at the service of the thousands of working-men, + who, directly or indirectly, have aided him in establishing himself, nor + employ them all for ever. He has no other course left him, then, but a + division of the property. But if the property is divided, all conditions + will be equal—there will be no more large capitalists or large + proprietors. + </p> + <p> + Consequently, when M. Ch. Comte—following out his hypothesis—shows + us his capitalist acquiring one after another the products of his + employees' labor, he sinks deeper and deeper into the mire; and, as his + argument does not change, our reply of course remains the same. + </p> + <p> + "Other laborers are employed in building: some quarry the stone, others + transport it, others cut it, and still others put it in place. Each of + them adds a certain value to the material which passes through his hands; + and this value, the product of his labor, is his property. He sells it, as + fast as he creates it, to the proprietor of the building, who pays him for + it in food and wages." + </p> + <p> + <i>Divide et impera</i>—divide, and you shall command; divide, and + you shall grow rich; divide, and you shall deceive men, you shall daze + their minds, you shall mock at justice! Separate laborers from each other, + perhaps each one's daily wage exceeds the value of each individual's + product; but that is not the question under consideration. A force of one + thousand men working twenty days has been paid the same wages that one + would be paid for working fifty-five years; but this force of one thousand + has done in twenty days what a single man could not have accomplished, + though he had labored for a million centuries. Is the exchange an + equitable one? Once more, no; when you have paid all the individual + forces, the collective force still remains to be paid. + </p> + <p> + Consequently, there remains always a right of collective property which + you have not acquired, and which you enjoy unjustly. + </p> + <p> + Admit that twenty days' wages suffice to feed, lodge, and clothe this + multitude for twenty days: thrown out of employment at the end of that + time, what will become of them, if, as fast as they create, they abandon + their creations to the proprietors who will soon discharge them? While the + proprietor, firm in his position (thanks to the aid of all the laborers), + dwells in security, and fears no lack of labor or bread, the laborer's + only dependence is upon the benevolence of this same proprietor, to whom + he has sold and surrendered his liberty. If, then, the proprietor, + shielding himself behind his comfort and his rights, refuses to employ the + laborer, how can the laborer live? He has ploughed an excellent field, and + cannot sow it; he has built an elegant and commodious house, and cannot + live in it; he has produced all, and can enjoy nothing. + </p> + <p> + Labor leads us to equality. Every step that we take brings us nearer to + it; and if laborers had equal strength, diligence, and industry, clearly + their fortunes would be equal also. Indeed, if, as is pretended,—and + as we have admitted,—the laborer is proprietor of the value which he + creates, it follows:— + </p> + <p> + 1. That the laborer acquires at the expense of the idle proprietor; + </p> + <p> + 2. That all production being necessarily collective, the laborer is + entitled to a share of the products and profits commensurate with his + labor; + </p> + <p> + 3. That all accumulated capital being social property, no one can be its + exclusive proprietor. + </p> + <p> + These inferences are unavoidable; these alone would suffice to + revolutionize our whole economical system, and change our institutions and + our laws. Why do the very persons, who laid down this principle, now + refuse to be guided by it? Why do the Says, the Comtes, the Hennequins, + and others—after having said that property is born of labor—seek + to fix it by occupation and prescription? + </p> + <p> + But let us leave these sophists to their contradictions and blindness. The + good sense of the people will do justice to their equivocations. Let us + make haste to enlighten it, and show it the true path. Equality + approaches; already between it and us but a short distance intervenes: + to-morrow even this distance will have been traversed. + </p> + <p> + % 6.—That in Society all Wages are Equal. + </p> + <p> + When the St. Simonians, the Fourierists, and, in general, all who in our + day are connected with social economy and reform, inscribe upon their + banner,— + </p> + <p> + "TO EACH ACCORDING TO HIS CAPACITY, TO EACH CAPACITY ACCORDING TO ITS + RESULTS" (St. Simon); + </p> + <p> + "TO EACH ACCORDING TO HIS CAPITAL, HIS LABOR, AND HIS SKILL" (Fourier),— + </p> + <p> + they mean—although they do not say so in so many words—that + the products of Nature procured by labor and industry are a reward, a + palm, a crown offered to all kinds of preeminence and superiority. They + regard the land as an immense arena in which prizes are contended for,—no + longer, it is true, with lances and swords, by force and by treachery; but + by acquired wealth, by knowledge, talent, and by virtue itself. In a word, + they mean—and everybody agrees with them—that the greatest + capacity is entitled to the greatest reward; and, to use the mercantile + phraseology,—which has, at least, the merit of being + straightforward,—that salaries must be governed by capacity and its + results. + </p> + <p> + The disciples of these two self-styled reformers cannot deny that such is + their thought; for, in doing so, they would contradict their official + interpretations, and would destroy the unity of their systems. + Furthermore, such a denial on their part is not to be feared. The two + sects glory in laying down as a principle inequality of conditions,—reasoning + from Nature, who, they say, intended the inequality of capacities. They + boast only of one thing; namely, that their political system is so + perfect, that the social inequalities always correspond with the natural + inequalities. They no more trouble themselves to inquire whether + inequality of conditions—I mean of salaries—is possible, than + they do to fix a measure of capacity.[*] + </p> +<pre xml:space="preserve"> + * In St. Simon's system, the St.-Simonian priest determines the + capacity of each by virtue of his pontifical infallibility, in imitation + of the Roman Church: in Fourier's, the ranks and merits are decided by + vote, in imitation of the constitutional regime. +</pre> + <p> + Clearly, the great man is an object of ridicule to the reader; he did not + mean to tell his secret. + </p> + <p> + "To each according to his capacity, to each capacity according to its + results." + </p> + <p> + "To each according to his capital, his labor, and his skill." + </p> + <p> + Since the death of St. Simon and Fourier, not one among their numerous + disciples has attempted to give to the public a scientific demonstration + of this grand maxim; and I would wager a hundred to one that no Fourierist + even suspects that this biform aphorism is susceptible of two + interpretations. + </p> + <p> + "To each according to his capacity, to each capacity according to its + results." + </p> + <p> + "To each according to his capital, his labor, and his skill." + </p> + <p> + This proposition, taken, as they say, <i>in sensu obvio</i>—in the + sense usually attributed to it—is false, absurd, unjust, + contradictory, hostile to liberty, friendly to tyranny, anti-social, and + was unluckily framed under the express influence of the property idea. + </p> + <p> + And, first, CAPITAL must be crossed off the list of elements which are + entitled to a reward. The Fourierists—as far as I have been able to + learn from a few of their pamphlets—deny the right of occupancy, and + recognize no basis of property save labor. Starting with a like premise, + they would have seen—had they reasoned upon the matter—that + capital is a source of production to its proprietor only by virtue of the + right of occupancy, and that this production is therefore illegitimate. + Indeed, if labor is the sole basis of property, I cease to be proprietor + of my field as soon as I receive rent for it from another. This we have + shown beyond all cavil. It is the same with all capital; so that to put + capital in an enterprise, is, by the law's decision, to exchange it for an + equivalent sum in products. I will not enter again upon this now useless + discussion, since I propose, in the following chapter, to exhaust the + subject of PRODUCTION BY CAPITAL. + </p> + <p> + Thus, capital can be exchanged, but cannot be a source of income. + </p> + <p> + LABOR and SKILL remain; or, as St. Simon puts it, RESULTS and CAPACITIES. + I will examine them successively. + </p> + <p> + Should wages be governed by labor? In other words, is it just that he who + does the most should get the most? I beg the reader to pay the closest + attention to this point. + </p> + <p> + To solve the problem with one stroke, we have only to ask ourselves the + following question: "Is labor a CONDITION or a STRUGGLE?" The reply seems + plain. + </p> + <p> + God said to man, "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread,"—that + is, thou shalt produce thy own bread: with more or less ease, according to + thy skill in directing and combining thy efforts, thou shalt labor. God + did not say, "Thou shalt quarrel with thy neighbor for thy bread;" but, + "Thou shalt labor by the side of thy neighbor, and ye shall dwell together + in harmony." Let us develop the meaning of this law, the extreme + simplicity of which renders it liable to misconstruction. + </p> + <p> + In labor, two things must be noticed and distinguished: ASSOCIATION and + AVAILABLE MATERIAL. + </p> + <p> + In so far as laborers are associated, they are equal; and it involves a + contradiction to say that one should be paid more than another. For, as + the product of one laborer can be paid for only in the product of another + laborer, if the two products are unequal, the remainder—or the + difference between the greater and the smaller—will not be acquired + by society; and, therefore, not being exchanged, will not affect the + equality of wages. There will result, it is true, in favor of the stronger + laborer a natural inequality, but not a social inequality; no one having + suffered by his strength and productive energy. In a word, society + exchanges only equal products—that is, rewards no labor save that + performed for her benefit; consequently, she pays all laborers equally: + with what they produce outside of her sphere she has no more to do, than + with the difference in their voices and their hair. + </p> + <p> + I seem to be positing the principle of inequality: the reverse of this is + the truth. The total amount of labor which can be performed for society + (that is, of labor susceptible of exchange), being, within a given space, + as much greater as the laborers are more numerous, and as the task + assigned to each is less in magnitude,—it follows that natural + inequality neutralizes itself in proportion as association extends, and as + the quantity of consumable values produced thereby increases. So that in + society the only thing which could bring back the inequality of labor + would be the right of occupancy,—the right of property. + </p> + <p> + Now, suppose that this daily social task consists in the ploughing, + hoeing, or reaping of two square decameters, and that the average time + required to accomplish it is seven hours: one laborer will finish it in + six hours, another will require eight; the majority, however, will work + seven. But provided each one furnishes the quantity of labor demanded of + him, whatever be the time he employs, they are entitled to equal wages. + </p> + <p> + Shall the laborer who is capable of finishing his task in six hours have + the right, on the ground of superior strength and activity, to usurp the + task of the less skilful laborer, and thus rob him of his labor and bread? + Who dares maintain such a proposition? He who finishes before the others + may rest, if he chooses; he may devote himself to useful exercise and + labors for the maintenance of his strength, and the culture of his mind, + and the pleasure of his life. This he can do without injury to any one: + but let him confine himself to services which affect him solely. Vigor, + genius, diligence, and all the personal advantages which result therefrom, + are the work of Nature and, to a certain extent, of the individual; + society awards them the esteem which they merit: but the wages which it + pays them is measured, not by their power, but by their production. Now, + the product of each is limited by the right of all. + </p> + <p> + If the soil were infinite in extent, and the amount of available material + were exhaustless, even then we could not accept this maxim,—TO EACH + ACCORDING TO HIS LABOR. And why? Because society, I repeat, whatever be + the number of its subjects, is forced to pay them all the same wages, + since she pays them only in their own products. Only, on the hypothesis + just made, inasmuch as the strong cannot be prevented from using all their + advantages, the inconveniences of natural inequality would reappear in the + very bosom of social equality. But the land, considering the productive + power of its inhabitants and their ability to multiply, is very limited; + further, by the immense variety of products and the extreme division of + labor, the social task is made easy of accomplishment. Now, through this + limitation of things producible, and through the ease of producing them, + the law of absolute equality takes effect. + </p> + <p> + Yes, life is a struggle. But this struggle is not between man and man—it + is between man and Nature; and it is each one's duty to take his share in + it. If, in the struggle, the strong come to the aid of the weak, their + kindness deserves praise and love; but their aid must be accepted as a + free gift,—not imposed by force, nor offered at a price. All have + the same career before them, neither too long nor too difficult; whoever + finishes it finds his reward at the end: it is not necessary to get there + first. + </p> + <p> + In printing-offices, where the laborers usually work by the job, the + compositor receives so much per thousand letters set; the pressman so much + per thousand sheets printed. There, as elsewhere, inequalities of talent + and skill are to be found. When there is no prospect of dull times (for + printing and typesetting, like all other trades, sometimes come to a + stand-still), every one is free to work his hardest, and exert his + faculties to the utmost: he who does more gets more; he who does less gets + less. When business slackens, compositors and pressmen divide up their + labor; all monopolists are detested as no better than robbers or traitors. + </p> + <p> + There is a philosophy in the action of these printers, to which neither + economists nor legists have ever risen. If our legislators had introduced + into their codes the principle of distributive justice which governs + printing-offices; if they had observed the popular instincts,—not + for the sake of servile imitation, but in order to reform and generalize + them,—long ere this liberty and equality would have been established + on an immovable basis, and we should not now be disputing about the right + of property and the necessity of social distinctions. + </p> + <p> + It has been calculated that if labor were equally shared by the whole + number of able-bodied individuals, the average working-day of each + individual, in France, would not exceed five hours. This being so, how can + we presume to talk of the inequality of laborers? It is the LABOR of + Robert Macaire that causes inequality. + </p> + <p> + The principle, TO EACH ACCORDING TO HIS LABOR, interpreted to mean, WHO + WORKS MOST SHOULD RECEIVE MOST, is based, therefore, on two palpable + errors: one, an error in economy, that in the labor of society tasks must + necessarily be unequal; the other, an error in physics, that there is no + limit to the amount of producible things. + </p> + <p> + "But," it will be said, "suppose there are some people who wish to perform + only half of their task?"... Is that very embarrassing? Probably they are + satisfied with half of their salary. Paid according to the labor that they + had performed, of what could they complain? and what injury would they do + to others? In this sense, it is fair to apply the maxim,—TO EACH + ACCORDING TO HIS RESULTS. It is the law of equality itself. + </p> + <p> + Further, numerous difficulties, relative to the police system and the + organization of industry, might be raised here. I will reply to them all + with this one sentence,—that they must all be solved by the + principle of equality. Thus, some one might observe, "Here is a task which + cannot be postponed without detriment to production. Ought society to + suffer from the negligence of a few? and will she not venture—out of + respect for the right of labor—to assure with her own hands the + product which they refuse her? In such a case, to whom will the salary + belong?" + </p> + <p> + To society; who will be allowed to perform the labor, either herself, or + through her representatives, but always in such a way that the general + equality shall never be violated, and that only the idler shall be + punished for his idleness. Further, if society may not use excessive + severity towards her lazy members, she has a right, in self-defence, to + guard against abuses. + </p> + <p> + But every industry needs—they will add—leaders, instructors, + superintendents, &c. Will these be engaged in the general task? No; + since their task is to lead, instruct, and superintend. But they must be + chosen from the laborers by the laborers themselves, and must fulfil the + conditions of eligibility. It is the same with all public functions, + whether of administration or instruction. + </p> + <p> + Then, article first of the universal constitution will be:— + </p> + <p> + "The limited quantity of available material proves the necessity of + dividing the labor among the whole number of laborers. The capacity, given + to all, of accomplishing a social task,—that is, an equal task,—and + the impossibility of paying one laborer save in the products of another, + justify the equality of wages." + </p> + <p> + % 7.—That Inequality of Powers is the Necessary Condition of + Equality of Fortunes. + </p> + <p> + It is objected,—and this objection constitutes the second part of + the St. Simonian, and the third part of the Fourierstic, maxims,— + </p> + <p> + "That all kinds of labor cannot be executed with equal ease. Some require + great superiority of skill and intelligence; and on this superiority is + based the price. The artist, the savant, the poet, the statesman, are + esteemed only because of their excellence; and this excellence destroys + all similitude between them and other men: in the presence of these + heights of science and genius the law of equality disappears. Now, if + equality is not absolute, there is no equality. From the poet we descend + to the novelist; from the sculptor to the stonecutter; from the architect + to the mason; from the chemist to the cook, &c. Capacities are + classified and subdivided into orders, genera, and species. The extremes + of talent are connected by intermediate talents. Humanity is a vast + hierarchy, in which the individual estimates himself by comparison, and + fixes his price by the value placed upon his product by the public." + </p> + <p> + This objection always has seemed a formidable one. It is the + stumbling-block of the economists, as well as of the defenders of + equality. It has led the former into egregious blunders, and has caused + the latter to utter incredible platitudes. Gracchus Babeuf wished all + superiority to be STRINGENTLY REPRESSED, and even PERSECUTED AS A SOCIAL + CALAMITY. To establish his communistic edifice, he lowered all citizens to + the stature of the smallest. Ignorant eclectics have been known to object + to the inequality of knowledge, and I should not be surprised if some one + should yet rebel against the inequality of virtue. Aristotle was banished, + Socrates drank the hemlock, Epaminondas was called to account, for having + proved superior in intelligence and virtue to some dissolute and foolish + demagogues. Such follies will be re-enacted, so long as the inequality of + fortunes justifies a populace, blinded and oppressed by the wealthy, in + fearing the elevation of new tyrants to power. + </p> + <p> + Nothing seems more unnatural than that which we examine too closely, and + often nothing seems less like the truth than the truth itself. On the + other hand, according to J. J. Rousseau, "it takes a great deal of + philosophy to enable us to observe once what we see every day;" and, + according to d'Alembert, "the ordinary truths of life make but little + impression on men, unless their attention is especially called to them." + The father of the school of economists (Say), from whom I borrow these two + quotations, might have profited by them; but he who laughs at the blind + should wear spectacles, and he who notices him is near-sighted. + </p> + <p> + Strange! that which has frightened so many minds is not, after all, an + objection to equality—it is the very condition on which equality + exists!... + </p> + <p> + Natural inequality the condition of equality of fortunes!... What a + paradox!... I repeat my assertion, that no one may think I have blundered—inequality + of powers is the sine qua non of equality of fortunes. + </p> + <p> + There are two things to be considered in society—FUNCTIONS and + RELATIONS. + </p> + <p> + I. FUNCTIONS. Every laborer is supposed to be capable of performing the + task assigned to him; or, to use a common expression, "every workman must + know his trade." The workman equal to his work,—there is an equation + between functionary and function. + </p> + <p> + In society, functions are not alike; there must be, then, different + capacities. Further,—certain functions demand greater intelligence + and powers; then there are people of superior mind and talent. For the + performance of work necessarily involves a workman: from the need springs + the idea, and the idea makes the producer. We only know what our senses + long for and our intelligence demands; we have no keen desire for things + of which we cannot conceive, and the greater our powers of conception, the + greater our capabilities of production. + </p> + <p> + Thus, functions arising from needs, needs from desires, and desires from + spontaneous perception and imagination, the same intelligence which + imagines can also produce; consequently, no labor is superior to the + laborer. In a word, if the function calls out the functionary, it is + because the functionary exists before the function. + </p> + <p> + Let us admire Nature's economy. With regard to these various needs which + she has given us, and which the isolated man cannot satisfy unaided, + Nature has granted to the race a power refused to the individual. This + gives rise to the principle of the DIVISION OF LABOR,—a principle + founded on the SPECIALITY OF VOCATIONS. + </p> + <p> + The satisfaction of some needs demands of man continual creation; while + others can, by the labor of a single individual, be satisfied for millions + of men through thousands of centuries. For example, the need of clothing + and food requires perpetual reproduction; while a knowledge of the system + of the universe may be acquired for ever by two or three highly-gifted + men. The perpetual current of rivers supports our commerce, and runs our + machinery; but the sun, alone in the midst of space, gives light to the + whole world. Nature, who might create Platos and Virgils, Newtons and + Cuviers, as she creates husbandmen and shepherds, does not see fit to do + so; choosing rather to proportion the rarity of genius to the duration of + its products, and to balance the number of capacities by the competency of + each one of them. + </p> + <p> + I do not inquire here whether the distance which separates one man from + another, in point of talent and intelligence, arises from the deplorable + condition of civilization, nor whether that which is now called the + INEQUALITY OF POWERS would be in an ideal society any thing more than a + DIVERSITY OF POWERS. I take the worst view of the matter; and, that I may + not be accused of tergiversation and evasion of difficulties, I + acknowledge all the inequalities that any one can desire. <a + href="#linknote-16" name="linknoteref-16" id="linknoteref-16"><small>16</small></a> + </p> + <p> + Certain philosophers, in love with the levelling idea, maintain that all + minds are equal, and that all differences are the result of education. I + am no believer, I confess, in this doctrine; which, even if it were true, + would lead to a result directly opposite to that desired. For, if + capacities are equal, whatever be the degree of their power (as no one can + be coerced), there are functions deemed coarse, low, and degrading, which + deserve higher pay,—a result no less repugnant to equality than to + the principle, TO EACH CAPACITY ACCORDING TO ITS RESULTS. Give me, on the + contrary, a society in which every kind of talent bears a proper numerical + relation to the needs of the society, and which demands from each producer + only that which his special function requires him to produce; and, without + impairing in the least the hierarchy of functions, I will deduce the + equality of fortunes. + </p> + <p> + This is my second point. + </p> + <p> + II. RELATIONS. In considering the element of labor, I have shown that in + the same class of productive services, the capacity to perform a social + task being possessed by all, no inequality of reward can be based upon an + inequality of individual powers. However, it is but fair to say that + certain capacities seem quite incapable of certain services; so that, if + human industry were entirely confined to one class of products, numerous + incapacities would arise, and, consequently, the greatest social + inequality. But every body sees, without any hint from me, that the + variety of industries avoids this difficulty; so clear is this that I + shall not stop to discuss it. We have only to prove, then, that functions + are equal to each other; just as laborers, who perform the same function, + are equal to each other. + </p> + <p> + Property makes man a eunuch, and then reproaches him for being nothing but + dry wood, a decaying tree. + </p> + <p> + Are you astonished that I refuse to genius, to knowledge, to courage,—in + a word, to all the excellences admired by the world,—the homage of + dignities, the distinctions of power and wealth? It is not I who refuse + it: it is economy, it is justice, it is liberty. Liberty! for the first + time in this discussion I appeal to her. Let her rise in her own defence, + and achieve her victory. + </p> + <p> + Every transaction ending in an exchange of products or services may be + designated as a COMMERCIAL OPERATION. + </p> + <p> + Whoever says commerce, says exchange of equal values; for, if the values + are not equal, and the injured party perceives it, he will not consent to + the exchange, and there will be no commerce. + </p> + <p> + Commerce exists only among free men. Transactions may be effected between + other people by violence or fraud, but there is no commerce. + </p> + <p> + A free man is one who enjoys the use of his reason and his faculties; who + is neither blinded by passion, nor hindered or driven by oppression, nor + deceived by erroneous opinions. + </p> + <p> + So, in every exchange, there is a moral obligation that neither of the + contracting parties shall gain at the expense of the other; that is, that, + to be legitimate and true, commerce must be exempt from all inequality. + This is the first condition of commerce. Its second condition is, that it + be voluntary; that is, that the parties act freely and openly. + </p> + <p> + I define, then, commerce or exchange as an act of society. + </p> + <p> + The negro who sells his wife for a knife, his children for some bits of + glass, and finally himself for a bottle of brandy, is not free. The dealer + in human flesh, with whom he negotiates, is not his associate; he is his + enemy. + </p> + <p> + The civilized laborer who bakes a loaf that he may eat a slice of bread, + who builds a palace that he may sleep in a stable, who weaves rich fabrics + that he may dress in rags, who produces every thing that he may dispense + with every thing,—is not free. His employer, not becoming his + associate in the exchange of salaries or services which takes place + between them, is his enemy. + </p> + <p> + The soldier who serves his country through fear instead of through love is + not free; his comrades and his officers, the ministers or organs of + military justice, are all his enemies. + </p> + <p> + The peasant who hires land, the manufacturer who borrows capital, the + tax-payer who pays tolls, duties, patent and license fees, personal and + property taxes, &c., and the deputy who votes for them,—all act + neither intelligently nor freely. Their enemies are the proprietors, the + capitalists, the government. + </p> + <p> + Give men liberty, enlighten their minds that they may know the meaning of + their contracts, and you will see the most perfect equality in exchanges + without regard to superiority of talent and knowledge; and you will admit + that in commercial affairs, that is, in the sphere of society, the word + superiority is void of sense. + </p> + <p> + Let Homer sing his verse. I listen to this sublime genius in comparison + with whom I, a simple herdsman, an humble farmer, am as nothing. What, + indeed,—if product is to be compared with product,—are my + cheeses and my beans in the presence of his "Iliad"? But, if Homer wishes + to take from me all that I possess, and make me his slave in return for + his inimitable poem, I will give up the pleasure of his lays, and dismiss + him. I can do without his "Iliad," and wait, if necessary, for the + "AEneid." + </p> + <p> + Homer cannot live twenty-four hours without my products. Let him accept, + then, the little that I have to offer; and then his muse may instruct, + encourage, and console me. + </p> + <p> + "What! do you say that such should be the condition of one who sings of + gods and men? Alms, with the humiliation and suffering which they bring + with them!—what barbarous generosity!"... Do not get excited, I beg + of you. Property makes of a poet either a Croesus or a beggar; only + equality knows how to honor and to praise him. What is its duty? To + regulate the right of the singer and the duty of the listener. Now, notice + this point, which is a very important one in the solution of this + question: both are free, the one to sell, the other to buy. Henceforth + their respective pretensions go for nothing; and the estimate, whether + fair or unfair, that they place, the one upon his verse, the other upon + his liberality, can have no influence upon the conditions of the contract. + We must no longer, in making our bargains, weigh talent; we must consider + products only. + </p> + <p> + In order that the bard of Achilles may get his due reward, he must first + make himself wanted: that done, the exchange of his verse for a fee of any + kind, being a free act, must be at the same time a just act; that is, the + poet's fee must be equal to his product. Now, what is the value of this + product? + </p> + <p> + Let us suppose, in the first place, that this "Iliad"—this chef-d' + oeuvre that is to be equitably rewarded—is really above price, that + we do not know how to appraise it. If the public, who are free to purchase + it, refuse to do so, it is clear that, the poem being unexchangeable, its + intrinsic value will not be diminished; but that its exchangeable value, + or its productive utility, will be reduced to zero, will be nothing at + all. Then we must seek the amount of wages to be paid between infinity on + the one hand and nothing on the other, at an equal distance from each, + since all rights and liberties are entitled to equal respect; in other + words, it is not the intrinsic value, but the relative value, of the thing + sold that needs to be fixed. The question grows simpler: what is this + relative value? To what reward does a poem like the "Iliad" entitle its + author? + </p> + <p> + The first business of political economy, after fixing its definitions, was + the solution of this problem; now, not only has it not been solved, but it + has been declared insoluble. According to the economists, the relative or + exchangeable value of things cannot be absolutely determined; it + necessarily varies. + </p> + <p> + "The value of a thing," says Say, "is a positive quantity, but only for a + given moment. It is its nature to perpetually vary, to change from one + point to another. Nothing can fix it absolutely, because it is based on + needs and means of production which vary with every moment. These + variations complicate economical phenomena, and often render them very + difficult of observation and solution. I know no remedy for this; it is + not in our power to change the nature of things." + </p> + <p> + Elsewhere Say says, and repeats, that value being based on utility, and + utility depending entirely on our needs, whims, customs, &c., value is + as variable as opinion. Now, political economy being the science of + values, of their production, distribution, exchange, and consumption,—if + exchangeable value cannot be absolutely determined, how is political + economy possible? How can it be a science? How can two economists look + each other in the face without laughing? How dare they insult + metaphysicians and psychologists? What! that fool of a Descartes imagined + that philosophy needed an immovable base—an <i>aliquid inconcussum</i>—on + which the edifice of science might be built, and he was simple enough to + search for it! And the Hermes of economy, Trismegistus Say, devoting half + a volume to the amplification of that solemn text, <i>political economy is + a science</i>, has the courage to affirm immediately afterwards that this + science cannot determine its object,—which is equivalent to saying + that it is without a principle or foundation! He does not know, then, the + illustrious Say, the nature of a science; or rather, he knows nothing of + the subject which he discusses. + </p> + <p> + Say's example has borne its fruits. Political economy, as it exists at + present, resembles ontology: discussing effects and causes, it knows + nothing, explains nothing, decides nothing. The ideas honored with the + name of economic laws are nothing more than a few trifling generalities, + to which the economists thought to give an appearance of depth by clothing + them in high-sounding words. As for the attempts that have been made by + the economists to solve social problems, all that can be said of them is, + that, if a glimmer of sense occasionally appears in their lucubrations, + they immediately fall back into absurdity. For twenty-five years political + economy, like a heavy fog, has weighed upon France, checking the efforts + of the mind, and setting limits to liberty. + </p> + <p> + Has every creation of industry a venal, absolute, unchangeable, and + consequently legitimate and true value?—Yes. + </p> + <p> + Can every product of man be exchanged for some other product of man?—Yes, + again. + </p> + <p> + How many nails is a pair of shoes worth? + </p> + <p> + If we can solve this appalling problem, we shall have the key of the + social system for which humanity has been searching for six thousand + years. In the presence of this problem, the economist recoils confused; + the peasant who can neither read nor write replies without hesitation: "As + many as can be made in the same time, and with the same expense." + </p> + <p> + The absolute value of a thing, then, is its cost in time and expense. How + much is a diamond worth which costs only the labor of picking it up?—Nothing; + it is not a product of man. How much will it be worth when cut and + mounted?—The time and expense which it has cost the laborer. Why, + then, is it sold at so high a price?—Because men are not free. + Society must regulate the exchange and distribution of the rarest things, + as it does that of the most common ones, in such a way that each may share + in the enjoyment of them. What, then, is that value which is based upon + opinion?—Delusion, injustice, and robbery. + </p> + <p> + By this rule, it is easy to reconcile every body. If the mean term, which + we are searching for, between an infinite value and no value at all is + expressed in the case of every product, by the amount of time and expense + which the product cost, a poem which has cost its author thirty years of + labor and an outlay of ten thousand francs in journeys, books, &c., + must be paid for by the ordinary wages received by a laborer during thirty + years, PLUS ten thousand francs indemnity for expense incurred. Suppose + the whole amount to be fifty thousand francs; if the society which gets + the benefit of the production include a million of men, my share of the + debt is five centimes. + </p> + <p> + This gives rise to a few observations. + </p> + <p> + 1. The same product, at different times and in different places, may cost + more or less of time and outlay; in this view, it is true that value is a + variable quantity. But this variation is not that of the economists, who + place in their list of the causes of the variation of values, not only the + means of production, but taste, caprice, fashion, and opinion. In short, + the true value of a thing is invariable in its algebraic expression, + although it may vary in its monetary expression. + </p> + <p> + 2. The price of every product in demand should be its cost in time and + outlay—neither more nor less: every product not in demand is a loss + to the producer—a commercial non-value. + </p> + <p> + 3. The ignorance of the principle of evaluation, and the difficulty under + many circumstances of applying it, is the source of commercial fraud, and + one of the most potent causes of the inequality of fortunes. + </p> + <p> + 4. To reward certain industries and pay for certain products, a society is + needed which corresponds in size with the rarity of talents, the + costliness of the products, and the variety of the arts and sciences. If, + for example, a society of fifty farmers can support a schoolmaster, it + requires one hundred for a shoemaker, one hundred and fifty for a + blacksmith, two hundred for a tailor, &c. If the number of farmers + rises to one thousand, ten thousand, one hundred thousand, &c., as + fast as their number increases, that of the functionaries which are + earliest required must increase in the same proportion; so that the + highest functions become possible only in the most powerful societies. <a + href="#linknote-17" name="linknoteref-17" id="linknoteref-17"><small>17</small></a> + That is the peculiar feature of capacities; the character of genius, the + seal of its glory, cannot arise and develop itself, except in the bosom of + a great nation. But this physiological condition, necessary to the + existence of genius, adds nothing to its social rights: far from that,—the + delay in its appearance proves that, in economical and civil affairs, the + loftiest intelligence must submit to the equality of possessions; an + equality which is anterior to it, and of which it constitutes the crown. + </p> + <p> + This is severe on our pride, but it is an inexorable truth. And here + psychology comes to the aid of social economy, giving us to understand + that talent and material recompense have no common measure; that, in this + respect, the condition of all producers is equal: consequently, that all + comparison between them, and all distinction in fortunes, is impossible. + </p> + <p> + In fact, every work coming from the hands of man—compared with the + raw material of which it is composed—is beyond price. In this + respect, the distance is as great between a pair of wooden shoes and the + trunk of a walnut-tree, as between a statue by Scopas and a block of + marble. The genius of the simplest mechanic exerts as much influence over + the materials which he uses, as does the mind of a Newton over the inert + spheres whose distances, volumes, and revolutions he calculates. You ask + for talent and genius a corresponding degree of honor and reward. Fix for + me the value of a wood-cutter's talent, and I will fix that of Homer. If + any thing can reward intelligence, it is intelligence itself. That is what + happens, when various classes of producers pay to each other a reciprocal + tribute of admiration and praise. But if they contemplate an exchange of + products with a view to satisfying mutual needs, this exchange must be + effected in accordance with a system of economy which is indifferent to + considerations of talent and genius, and whose laws are deduced, not from + vague and meaningless admiration, but from a just balance between DEBIT + and CREDIT; in short, from commercial accounts. + </p> + <p> + Now, that no one may imagine that the liberty of buying and selling is the + sole basis of the equality of wages, and that society's sole protection + against superiority of talent lies in a certain force of inertia which has + nothing in common with right, I shall proceed to explain why all + capacities are entitled to the same reward, and why a corresponding + difference in wages would be an injustice. I shall prove that the + obligation to stoop to the social level is inherent in talent; and on this + very superiority of genius I will found the equality of fortunes. I have + just given the negative argument in favor of rewarding all capacities + alike; I will now give the direct and positive argument. + </p> + <p> + Listen, first, to the economist: it is always pleasant to see how he + reasons, and how he understands justice. Without him, moreover, without + his amusing blunders and his wonderful arguments, we should learn nothing. + Equality, so odious to the economist, owes every thing to political + economy. + </p> + <p> + "When the parents of a physician [the text says a lawyer, which is not so + good an example] have expended on his education forty thousand francs, + this sum may be regarded as so much capital invested in his head. It is + therefore permissible to consider it as yielding an annual income of four + thousand francs. If the physician earns thirty thousand, there remains an + income of twenty-six thousand francs due to the personal talents given him + by Nature. This natural capital, then, if we assume ten per cent. as the + rate of interest, amounts to two hundred and sixty thousand francs; and + the capital given him by his parents, in defraying the expenses of his + education, to forty thousand francs. The union of these two kinds of + capital constitutes his fortune."—Say: Complete Course, &c. + </p> + <p> + Say divides the fortune of the physician into two parts: one is composed + of the capital which went to pay for his education, the other represents + his personal talents. This division is just; it is in conformity with the + nature of things; it is universally admitted; it serves as the major + premise of that grand argument which establishes the inequality of + capacities. I accept this premise without qualification; let us look at + the consequences. + </p> + <p> + 1. Say CREDITS the physician with forty thousand francs,—the cost of + his education. This amount should be entered upon the DEBIT side of the + account. For, although this expense was incurred for him, it was not + incurred by him. Then, instead of appropriating these forty thousand + francs, the physician should add them to the price of his product, and + repay them to those who are entitled to them. Notice, further, that Say + speaks of INCOME instead of REIMBURSEMENT; reasoning on the false + principle of the productivity of capital. The expense of educating a + talent is a debt contracted by this talent. From the very fact of its + existence, it becomes a debtor to an amount equal to the cost of its + production. This is so true and simple that, if the education of some one + child in a family has cost double or triple that of its brothers, the + latter are entitled to a proportional amount of the property previous to + its division. There is no difficulty about this in the case of + guardianship, when the estate is administered in the name of the minors. + </p> + <p> + 2. That which I have just said of the obligation incurred by talent of + repaying the cost of its education does not embarrass the economist. The + man of talent, he says, inheriting from his family, inherits among other + things a claim to the forty thousand francs which his education costs; and + he becomes, in consequence, its proprietor. But this is to abandon the + right of talent, and to fall back upon the right of occupancy; which again + calls up all the questions asked in Chapter II. What is the right of + occupancy? what is inheritance? Is the right of succession a right of + accumulation or only a right of choice? how did the physician's father get + his fortune? was he a proprietor, or only a usufructuary? If he was rich, + let him account for his wealth; if he was poor, how could he incur so + large an expense? If he received aid, what right had he to use that aid to + the disadvantage of his benefactors, &c.? + </p> + <p> + 3. "There remains an income of twenty-six thousand francs due to the + personal talents given him by Nature." (Say,—as above quoted.) + Reasoning from this premise, Say concludes that our physician's talent is + equivalent to a capital of two hundred and sixty thousand francs. This + skilful calculator mistakes a consequence for a principle. The talent must + not be measured by the gain, but rather the gain by the talent; for it may + happen, that, notwithstanding his merit, the physician in question will + gain nothing at all, in which case will it be necessary to conclude that + his talent or fortune is equivalent to zero? To such a result, however, + would Say's reasoning lead; a result which is clearly absurd. + </p> + <p> + Now, it is impossible to place a money value on any talent whatsoever, + since talent and money have no common measure. On what plausible ground + can it be maintained that a physician should be paid two, three, or a + hundred times as much as a peasant? An unavoidable difficulty, which has + never been solved save by avarice, necessity, and oppression. It is not + thus that the right of talent should be determined. But how is it to be + determined? + </p> + <p> + 4. I say, first, that the physician must be treated with as much favor as + any other producer, that he must not be placed below the level of others. + This I will not stop to prove. But I add that neither must he be lifted + above that level; because his talent is collective property for which he + did not pay, and for which he is ever in debt. + </p> + <p> + Just as the creation of every instrument of production is the result of + collective force, so also are a man's talent and knowledge the product of + universal intelligence and of general knowledge slowly accumulated by a + number of masters, and through the aid of many inferior industries. When + the physician has paid for his teachers, his books, his diplomas, and all + the other items of his educational expenses, he has no more paid for his + talent than the capitalist pays for his house and land when he gives his + employees their wages. The man of talent has contributed to the production + in himself of a useful instrument. He has, then, a share in its + possession; he is not its proprietor. There exist side by side in him a + free laborer and an accumulated social capital. As a laborer, he is + charged with the use of an instrument, with the superintendence of a + machine; namely, his capacity. As capital, he is not his own master; he + uses himself, not for his own benefit, but for that of others. + </p> + <p> + Even if talent did not find in its own excellence a reward for the + sacrifices which it costs, still would it be easier to find reasons for + lowering its reward than for raising it above the common level. Every + producer receives an education; every laborer is a talent, a capacity,—that + is, a piece of collective property. But all talents are not equally + costly. It takes but few teachers, but few years, and but little study, to + make a farmer or a mechanic: the generative effort and—if I may + venture to use such language—the period of social gestation are + proportional to the loftiness of the capacity. But while the physician, + the poet, the artist, and the savant produce but little, and that slowly, + the productions of the farmer are much less uncertain, and do not require + so long a time. Whatever be then the capacity of a man,—when this + capacity is once created,—it does not belong to him. Like the + material fashioned by an industrious hand, it had the power of BECOMING, + and society has given it BEING. Shall the vase say to the potter, "I am + that I am, and I owe you nothing"? + </p> + <p> + The artist, the savant, and the poet find their just recompense in the + permission that society gives them to devote themselves exclusively to + science and to art: so that in reality they do not labor for themselves, + but for society, which creates them, and requires of them no other duty. + Society can, if need be, do without prose and verse, music and painting, + and the knowledge of the movements of the moon and stars; but it cannot + live a single day without food and shelter. + </p> + <p> + Undoubtedly, man does not live by bread alone; he must, also (according to + the Gospel), LIVE BY THE WORD OF GOD; that is, he must love the good and + do it, know and admire the beautiful, and study the marvels of Nature. But + in order to cultivate his mind, he must first take care of his body,—the + latter duty is as necessary as the former is noble. If it is glorious to + charm and instruct men, it is honorable as well to feed them. When, then, + society—faithful to the principle of the division of labor—intrusts + a work of art or of science to one of its members, allowing him to abandon + ordinary labor, it owes him an indemnity for all which it prevents him + from producing industrially; but it owes him nothing more. If he should + demand more, society should, by refusing his services, annihilate his + pretensions. Forced, then, in order to live, to devote himself to labor + repugnant to his nature, the man of genius would feel his weakness, and + would live the most distasteful of lives. + </p> + <p> + They tell of a celebrated singer who demanded of the Empress of Russia + (Catherine II) twenty thousand roubles for his services: "That is more + than I give my field-marshals," said Catherine. "Your majesty," replied + the other, "has only to make singers of her field-marshals." + </p> + <p> + If France (more powerful than Catherine II) should say to Mademoiselle + Rachel, "You must act for one hundred louis, or else spin cotton;" to M. + Duprez, "You must sing for two thousand four hundred francs, or else work + in the vineyard,"—do you think that the actress Rachel, and the + singer Duprez, would abandon the stage? If they did, they would be the + first to repent it. + </p> + <p> + Mademoiselle Rachel receives, they say, sixty thousand francs annually + from the Comedie-Francaise. For a talent like hers, it is a slight fee. + Why not one hundred thousand francs, two hundred thousand francs? Why! not + a civil list? What meanness! Are we really guilty of chaffering with an + artist like Mademoiselle Rachel? + </p> + <p> + It is said, in reply, that the managers of the theatre cannot give more + without incurring a loss; that they admit the superior talent of their + young associate; but that, in fixing her salary, they have been compelled + to take the account of the company's receipts and expenses into + consideration also. + </p> + <p> + That is just, but it only confirms what I have said; namely, that an + artist's talent may be infinite, but that its mercenary claims are + necessarily limited,—on the one hand, by its usefulness to the + society which rewards it; on the other, by the resources of this society: + in other words, that the demand of the seller is balanced by the right of + the buyer. + </p> + <p> + Mademoiselle Rachel, they say, brings to the treasury of the + Theatre-Francais more than sixty thousand francs. I admit it; but then I + blame the theatre. From whom does the Theatre-Francais take this money? + From some curious people who are perfectly free. Yes; but the workingmen, + the lessees, the tenants, those who borrow by pawning their possessions, + from whom these curious people recover all that they pay to the theatre,—are + they free? And when the better part of their products are consumed by + others at the play, do you assure me that their families are not in want? + Until the French people, reflecting on the salaries paid to all artists, + savants, and public functionaries, have plainly expressed their wish and + judgment as to the matter, the salaries of Mademoiselle Rachel and all her + fellow-artists will be a compulsory tax extorted by violence, to reward + pride, and support libertinism. + </p> + <p> + It is because we are neither free nor sufficiently enlightened, that we + submit to be cheated in our bargains; that the laborer pays the duties + levied by the prestige of power and the selfishness of talent upon the + curiosity of the idle, and that we are perpetually scandalized by these + monstrous inequalities which are encouraged and applauded by public + opinion. + </p> + <p> + The whole nation, and the nation only, pays its authors, its savants, its + artists, its officials, whatever be the hands through which their salaries + pass. On what basis should it pay them? On the basis of equality. I have + proved it by estimating the value of talent. I shall confirm it in the + following chapter, by proving the impossibility of all social inequality. + </p> + <p> + What have we shown so far? Things so simple that really they seem silly:— + </p> + <p> + That, as the traveller does not appropriate the route which he traverses, + so the farmer does not appropriate the field which he sows; + </p> + <p> + That if, nevertheless, by reason of his industry, a laborer may + appropriate the material which he employs, every employer of material + becomes, by the same title, a proprietor; + </p> + <p> + That all capital, whether material or mental, being the result of + collective labor, is, in consequence, collective property; + </p> + <p> + That the strong have no right to encroach upon the labor of the weak, nor + the shrewd to take advantage of the credulity of the simple; + </p> + <p> + Finally, that no one can be forced to buy that which he does not want, + still less to pay for that which he has not bought; and, consequently, + that the exchangeable value of a product, being measured neither by the + opinion of the buyer nor that of the seller, but by the amount of time and + outlay which it has cost, the property of each always remains the same. + </p> + <p> + Are not these very simple truths? Well, as simple as they seem to you, + reader, you shall yet see others which surpass them in dullness and + simplicity. For our course is the reverse of that of the geometricians: + with them, the farther they advance, the more difficult their problems + become; we, on the contrary, after having commenced with the most abstruse + propositions, shall end with the axioms. + </p> + <p> + But I must close this chapter with an exposition of one of those startling + truths which never have been dreamed of by legists or economists. + </p> + <p> + % 8.—That, from the Stand-point of Justice, Labor destroys Property. + </p> + <p> + This proposition is the logical result of the two preceding sections, + which we have just summed up. + </p> + <p> + The isolated man can supply but a very small portion of his wants; all his + power lies in association, and in the intelligent combination of universal + effort. The division and co-operation of labor multiply the quantity and + the variety of products; the individuality of functions improves their + quality. + </p> + <p> + There is not a man, then, but lives upon the products of several thousand + different industries; not a laborer but receives from society at large the + things which he consumes, and, with these, the power to reproduce. Who, + indeed, would venture the assertion, "I produce, by my own effort, all + that I consume; I need the aid of no one else"? The farmer, whom the early + economists regarded as the only real producer—the farmer, housed, + furnished, clothed, fed, and assisted by the mason, the carpenter, the + tailor, the miller, the baker, the butcher, the grocer, the blacksmith, + &c.,—the farmer, I say, can he boast that he produces by his own + unaided effort? + </p> + <p> + The various articles of consumption are given to each by all; + consequently, the production of each involves the production of all. One + product cannot exist without another; an isolated industry is an + impossible thing. What would be the harvest of the farmer, if others did + not manufacture for him barns, wagons, ploughs, clothes, &c.? Where + would be the savant without the publisher; the printer without the + typecaster and the machinist; and these, in their turn, without a + multitude of other industries?... Let us not prolong this catalogue—so + easy to extend—lest we be accused of uttering commonplaces. All + industries are united by mutual relations in a single group; all + productions do reciprocal service as means and end; all varieties of + talent are but a series of changes from the inferior to the superior. + </p> + <p> + Now, this undisputed and indisputable fact of the general participation in + every species of product makes all individual productions common; so that + every product, coming from the hands of the producer, is mortgaged in + advance by society. The producer himself is entitled to only that portion + of his product, which is expressed by a fraction whose denominator is + equal to the number of individuals of which society is composed. It is + true that in return this same producer has a share in all the products of + others, so that he has a claim upon all, just as all have a claim upon + him; but is it not clear that this reciprocity of mortgages, far from + authorizing property, destroys even possession? The laborer is not even + possessor of his product; scarcely has he finished it, when society claims + it. + </p> + <p> + "But," it will be answered, "even if that is so—even if the product + does not belong to the producer—still society gives each laborer an + equivalent for his product; and this equivalent, this salary, this reward, + this allowance, becomes his property. Do you deny that this property is + legitimate? And if the laborer, instead of consuming his entire wages, + chooses to economize,—who dare question his right to do so?" + </p> + <p> + The laborer is not even proprietor of the price of his labor, and cannot + absolutely control its disposition. Let us not be blinded by a spurious + justice. That which is given the laborer in exchange for his product is + not given him as a reward for past labor, but to provide for and secure + future labor. We consume before we produce. The laborer may say at the end + of the day, "I have paid yesterday's expenses; to-morrow I shall pay those + of today." At every moment of his life, the member of society is in debt; + he dies with the debt unpaid:—how is it possible for him to + accumulate? + </p> + <p> + They talk of economy—it is the proprietor's hobby. Under a system of + equality, all economy which does not aim at subsequent reproduction or + enjoyment is impossible—why? Because the thing saved, since it + cannot be converted into capital, has no object, and is without a FINAL + CAUSE. This will be explained more fully in the next chapter. + </p> + <p> + To conclude:— + </p> + <p> + The laborer, in his relation to society, is a debtor who of necessity dies + insolvent. The proprietor is an unfaithful guardian who denies the receipt + of the deposit committed to his care, and wishes to be paid for his + guardianship down to the last day. + </p> + <p> + Lest the principles just set forth may appear to certain readers too + metaphysical, I shall reproduce them in a more concrete form, intelligible + to the dullest brains, and pregnant with the most important consequences. + </p> + <p> + Hitherto, I have considered property as a power of EXCLUSION; hereafter, I + shall examine it as a power of INVASION. + </p> + <p> + <a name="link2HCH0004" id="link2HCH0004"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /><br /><br /><br /> + </div> + <h2> + CHAPTER IV. THAT PROPERTY IS IMPOSSIBLE. + </h2> + <p> + The last resort of proprietors,—the overwhelming argument whose + invincible potency reassures them,—is that, in their opinion, + equality of conditions is impossible. "Equality of conditions is a + chimera," they cry with a knowing air; "distribute wealth equally to-day—to-morrow + this equality will have vanished." + </p> + <p> + To this hackneyed objection, which they repeat everywhere with the most + marvellous assurance, they never fail to add the following comment, as a + sort of GLORY BE TO THE FATHER: "If all men were equal, nobody would + work." This anthem is sung with variations. + </p> + <p> + "If all were masters, nobody would obey." + </p> + <p> + "If nobody were rich, who would employ the poor?" + </p> + <p> + And, "If nobody were poor, who would labor for the rich?" + </p> + <p> + But let us have done with invective—we have better arguments at our + command. + </p> + <p> + If I show that property itself is impossible—that it is property + which is a contradiction, a chimera, a utopia; and if I show it no longer + by metaphysics and jurisprudence, but by figures, equations, and + calculations,—imagine the fright of the astounded proprietor! And + you, reader; what do you think of the retort? + </p> + <p> + Numbers govern the world—mundum regunt numeri. This proverb applies + as aptly to the moral and political, as to the sidereal and molecular, + world. The elements of justice are identical with those of algebra; + legislation and government are simply the arts of classifying and + balancing powers; all jurisprudence falls within the rules of arithmetic. + This chapter and the next will serve to lay the foundations of this + extraordinary doctrine. Then will be unfolded to the reader's vision an + immense and novel career; then shall we commence to see in numerical + relations the synthetic unity of philosophy and the sciences; and, filled + with admiration and enthusiasm for this profound and majestic simplicity + of Nature, we shall shout with the apostle: "Yes, the Eternal has made all + things by number, weight, and measure!" We shall understand not only that + equality of conditions is possible, but that all else is impossible; that + this seeming impossibility which we charge upon it arises from the fact + that we always think of it in connection either with the proprietary or + the communistic regime,—political systems equally irreconcilable + with human nature. We shall see finally that equality is constantly being + realized without our knowledge, even at the very moment when we are + pronouncing it incapable of realization; that the time draws near when, + without any effort or even wish of ours, we shall have it universally + established; that with it, in it, and by it, the natural and true + political order must make itself manifest. + </p> + <p> + It has been said, in speaking of the blindness and obstinacy of the + passions, that, if man had any thing to gain by denying the truths of + arithmetic, he would find some means of unsettling their certainty: here + is an opportunity to try this curious experiment. I attack property, no + longer with its own maxims, but with arithmetic. Let the proprietors + prepare to verify my figures; for, if unfortunately for them the figures + prove accurate, the proprietors are lost. + </p> + <p> + In proving the impossibility of property, I complete the proof of its + injustice. In fact,— + </p> + <p> + That which is JUST must be USEFUL; + </p> + <p> + That which is useful must be TRUE; + </p> + <p> + That which is true must be POSSIBLE; + </p> + <p> + Therefore, every thing which is impossible is untrue, useless, unjust. + Then,—a priori,—we may judge of the justice of any thing by + its possibility; so that if the thing were absolutely impossible, it would + be absolutely unjust. + </p> + <p> + PROPERTY IS PHYSICALLY AND MATHEMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE. DEMONSTRATION. + </p> + <p> + AXIOM.—Property is the Right of Increase claimed by the Proprietor + over any thing which he has stamped as his own. + </p> + <p> + This proposition is purely an axiom, because,— + </p> + <p> + 1. It is not a definition, since it does not express all that is included + in the right of property—the right of sale, of exchange, of gift; + the right to transform, to alter, to consume, to destroy, to use and + abuse, &c. All these rights are so many different powers of property, + which we may consider separately; but which we disregard here, that we may + devote all our attention to this single one,—the right of increase. + </p> + <p> + 2. It is universally admitted. No one can deny it without denying the + facts, without being instantly belied by universal custom. + </p> + <p> + 3. It is self-evident, since property is always accompanied (either + actually or potentially) by the fact which this axiom expresses; and + through this fact, mainly, property manifests, establishes, and asserts + itself. + </p> + <p> + 4. Finally, its negation involves a contradiction. The right of increase + is really an inherent right, so essential a part of property, that, in its + absence, property is null and void. + </p> + <p> + OBSERVATIONS.—Increase receives different names according to the + thing by which it is yielded: if by land, FARM-RENT; if by houses and + furniture, RENT; if by life-investments, REVENUE; if by money, INTEREST; + if by exchange, ADVANTAGE, GAIN, PROFIT (three things which must not be + confounded with the wages or legitimate price of labor). + </p> + <p> + Increase—a sort of royal prerogative, of tangible and consumable + homage—is due to the proprietor on account of his nominal and + metaphysical occupancy. His seal is set upon the thing; that is enough to + prevent any one else from occupying it without HIS permission. + </p> + <p> + This permission to use his things the proprietor may, if he chooses, + freely grant. Commonly he sells it. This sale is really a stellionate and + an extortion; but by the legal fiction of the right of property, this same + sale, severely punished, we know not why, in other cases, is a source of + profit and value to the proprietor. + </p> + <p> + The amount demanded by the proprietor, in payment for this permission, is + expressed in monetary terms by the dividend which the supposed product + yields in nature. So that, by the right of increase, the proprietor reaps + and does not plough; gleans and does not till; consumes and does not + produce; enjoys and does not labor. Very different from the idols of the + Psalmist are the gods of property: the former had hands and felt not; the + latter, on the contrary, <i>manus habent et palpabunt</i>. The right of + increase is conferred in a very mysterious and supernatural manner. The + inauguration of a proprietor is accompanied by the awful ceremonies of an + ancient initiation. First, comes the CONSECRATION of the article; a + consecration which makes known to all that they must offer up a suitable + sacrifice to the proprietor, whenever they wish, by his permission + obtained and signed, to use his article. + </p> + <p> + Second, comes the ANATHEMA, which prohibits—except on the conditions + aforesaid—all persons from touching the article, even in the + proprietor's absence; and pronounces every violator of property + sacrilegious, infamous, amenable to the secular power, and deserving of + being handed over to it. + </p> + <p> + Finally, the DEDICATION, which enables the proprietor or patron saint—the + god chosen to watch over the article—to inhabit it mentally, like a + divinity in his sanctuary. By means of this dedication, the substance of + the article—so to speak—becomes converted into the person of + the proprietor, who is regarded as ever present in its form. + </p> + <p> + This is exactly the doctrine of the writers on jurisprudence. "Property," + says Toullier, "is a MORAL QUALITY inherent in a thing; AN ACTUAL BOND + which fastens it to the proprietor, and which cannot be broken save by his + act." Locke humbly doubted whether God could make matter INTELLIGENT. + Toullier asserts that the proprietor renders it MORAL. How much does he + lack of being a God? These are by no means exaggerations. + </p> + <p> + PROPERTY IS THE RIGHT OF INCREASE; that is, the power to produce without + labor. Now, to produce without labor is to make something from nothing; in + short, to create. Surely it is no more difficult to do this than to + moralize matter. The jurists are right, then, in applying to proprietors + this passage from the Scriptures,—<i>Ego dixi: Dii estis et filii + Excelsi omnes</i>,—"I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are + children of the Most High." + </p> + <p> + PROPERTY IS THE RIGHT OF INCREASE. To us this axiom shall be like the name + of the beast in the Apocalypse,—a name in which is hidden the + complete explanation of the whole mystery of this beast. It was known that + he who should solve the mystery of this name would obtain a knowledge of + the whole prophecy, and would succeed in mastering the beast. Well! by the + most careful interpretation of our axiom we shall kill the sphinx of + property. + </p> + <p> + Starting from this eminently characteristic fact—the RIGHT OF + INCREASE—we shall pursue the old serpent through his coils; we shall + count the murderous entwinings of this frightful taenia, whose head, with + its thousand suckers, is always hidden from the sword of its most violent + enemies, though abandoning to them immense fragments of its body. It + requires something more than courage to subdue this monster. It was + written that it should not die until a proletaire, armed with a magic + wand, had fought with it. + </p> + <p> + COROLLARIES.—1. THE AMOUNT OF INCREASE IS PROPORTIONAL TO THE THING + INCREASED. Whatever be the rate of interest,—whether it rise to + three, five, or ten per cent., or fall to one-half, one-fourth, one-tenth,—it + does not matter; the law of increase remains the same. The law is as + follows:— + </p> + <p> + All capital—the cash value of which can be estimated—may be + considered as a term in an arithmetical series which progresses in the + ratio of one hundred, and the revenue yielded by this capital as the + corresponding term of another arithmetical series which progresses in a + ratio equal to the rate of interest. Thus, a capital of five hundred + francs being the fifth term of the arithmetical progression whose ratio is + one hundred, its revenue at three per cent. will be indicated by the fifth + term of the arithmetical progression whose ratio is three:— + </p> +<pre xml:space="preserve"> + 100 . 200 . 300 . 400 . 500. + 3 . 6 . 9 . 12 . 15. +</pre> + <p> + An acquaintance with this sort of LOGARITHMS—tables of which, + calculated to a very high degree, are possessed by proprietors—will + give us the key to the most puzzling problems, and cause us to experience + a series of surprises. + </p> + <p> + By this LOGARITHMIC theory of the right of increase, a piece of property, + together with its income, may be defined as A NUMBER WHOSE LOGARITHM IS + EQUAL TO THE SUM OF ITS UNITS DIVIDED BY ONE HUNDRED, AND MULTIPLIED BY + THE RATE OF INTEREST. For instance; a house valued at one hundred thousand + francs, and leased at five per cent., yields a revenue of five thousand + francs, according to the formula 100,000 x 5 / 100 = five thousand. Vice + versa, a piece of land which yields, at two and a half per cent., a + revenue of three thousand francs is worth one hundred and twenty thousand + francs, according to this other formula; 3,000 x 100/ 2 1/2 = one hundred + and twenty thousand. + </p> + <p> + In the first case, the ratio of the progression which marks the increase + of interest is five; in the second, it is two and a half. + </p> + <p> + OBSERVATION.—The forms of increase known as farm-rent, income, and + interest are paid annually; rent is paid by the week, the month, or the + year; profits and gains are paid at the time of exchange. Thus, the amount + of increase is proportional both to the thing increased, and the time + during which it increases; in other words, usury grows like a cancer—<i>foenus + serpit sicut cancer</i>. + </p> + <p> + 2. THE INCREASE PAID TO THE PROPRIETOR BY THE OCCUPANT IS A DEAD LOSS TO + THE LATTER. For if the proprietor owed, in exchange for the increase which + he receives, some thing more than the permission which he grants, his + right of property would not be perfect—he would not possess <i>jure + optimo, jure perfecto;</i> that is, he would not be in reality a + proprietor. Then, all which passes from the hands of the occupant into + those of the proprietor in the name of increase, and as the price of the + permission to occupy, is a permanent gain for the latter, and a dead loss + and annihilation for the former; to whom none of it will return, save in + the forms of gift, alms, wages paid for his services, or the price of + merchandise which he has delivered. In a word, increase perishes so far as + the borrower is concerned; or to use the more energetic Latin phrase,—<i>res + perit solventi</i>. + </p> + <p> + 3. THE RIGHT OF INCREASE OPPRESSES THE PROPRIETOR AS WELL AS THE STRANGER. + The master of a thing, as its proprietor, levies a tax for the use of his + property upon himself as its possessor, equal to that which he would + receive from a third party; so that capital bears interest in the hands of + the capitalist, as well as in those of the borrower and the commandite. + If, indeed, rather than accept a rent of five hundred francs for my + apartment, I prefer to occupy and enjoy it, it is clear that I shall + become my own debtor for a rent equal to that which I deny myself. This + principle is universally practised in business, and is regarded as an + axiom by the economists. Manufacturers, also, who have the advantage of + being proprietors of their floating capital, although they owe no interest + to any one, in calculating their profits subtract from them, not only + their running expenses and the wages of their employees, but also the + interest on their capital. For the same reason, money-lenders retain in + their own possession as little money as possible; for, since all capital + necessarily bears interest, if this interest is supplied by no one, it + comes out of the capital, which is to that extent diminished. Thus, by the + right of increase, capital eats itself up. This is, doubtless, the idea + that Papinius intended to convey in the phrase, as elegant as it is + forcible—<i>Foenus mordet solidam</i>. I beg pardon for using Latin + so frequently in discussing this subject; it is an homage which I pay to + the most usurious nation that ever existed. + </p> + <p> + FIRST PROPOSITION. + </p> + <p> + Property is impossible, because it demands Something for Nothing. + </p> + <p> + The discussion of this proposition covers the same ground as that of the + origin of farm-rent, which is so much debated by the economists. When I + read the writings of the greater part of these men, I cannot avoid a + feeling of contempt mingled with anger, in view of this mass of nonsense, + in which the detestable vies with the absurd. It would be a repetition of + the story of the elephant in the moon, were it not for the atrocity of the + consequences. To seek a rational and legitimate origin of that which is, + and ever must be, only robbery, extortion, and plunder—that must be + the height of the proprietor's folly; the last degree of bedevilment into + which minds, otherwise judicious, can be thrown by the perversity of + selfishness. + </p> + <p> + "A farmer," says Say, "is a wheat manufacturer who, among other tools + which serve him in modifying the material from which he makes the wheat, + employs one large tool, which we call a field. If he is not the proprietor + of the field, if he is only a tenant, he pays the proprietor for the + productive service of this tool. The tenant is reimbursed by the + purchaser, the latter by another, until the product reaches the consumer; + who redeems the first payment, PLUS all the others, by means of which the + product has at last come into his hands." + </p> + <p> + Let us lay aside the subsequent payments by which the product reaches the + consumer, and, for the present, pay attention only to the first one of + all,—the rent paid to the proprietor by the tenant. On what ground, + we ask, is the proprietor entitled to this rent? + </p> + <p> + According to Ricardo, MacCulloch, and Mill, farm-rent, properly speaking, + is simply the EXCESS OF THE PRODUCT OF THE MOST FERTILE LAND OVER THAT OF + LANDS OF AN INFERIOR QUALITY; so that farm-rent is not demanded for the + former until the increase of population renders necessary the cultivation + of the latter. + </p> + <p> + It is difficult to see any sense in this. How can a right to the land be + based upon a difference in the quality of the land? How can varieties of + soil engender a principle of legislation and politics? This reasoning is + either so subtle, or so stupid, that the more I think of it, the more + bewildered I become. Suppose two pieces of land of equal area; the one, A, + capable of supporting ten thousand inhabitants; the other, B, capable of + supporting nine thousand only: when, owing to an increase in their number, + the inhabitants of A shall be forced to cultivate B, the landed + proprietors of A will exact from their tenants in A a rent proportional to + the difference between ten and nine. So say, I think, Ricardo, MacCulloch, + and Mill. But if A supports as many inhabitants as it can contain,—that + is, if the inhabitants of A, by our hypothesis, have only just enough land + to keep them alive,—how can they pay farm-rent? + </p> + <p> + If they had gone no farther than to say that the difference in land has + OCCASIONED farm-rent, instead of CAUSED it, this observation would have + taught us a valuable lesson; namely, that farm-rent grew out of a desire + for equality. Indeed, if all men have an equal right to the possession of + good land, no one can be forced to cultivate bad land without + indemnification. Farm-rent—according to Ricardo, MacCulloch, and + Mill—would then have been a compensation for loss and hardship. This + system of practical equality is a bad one, no doubt; but it sprang from + good intentions. What argument can Ricardo, MacCulloch, and Mill develop + therefrom in favor of property? Their theory turns against themselves, and + strangles them. + </p> + <p> + Malthus thinks that farm-rent has its source in the power possessed by + land of producing more than is necessary to supply the wants of the men + who cultivate it. I would ask Malthus why successful labor should entitle + the idle to a portion of the products? + </p> + <p> + But the worthy Malthus is mistaken in regard to the fact. Yes; land has + the power of producing more than is needed by those who cultivate it, if + by CULTIVATORS is meant tenants only. The tailor also makes more clothes + than he wears, and the cabinet-maker more furniture than he uses. But, + since the various professions imply and sustain one another, not only the + farmer, but the followers of all arts and trades—even to the doctor + and the school-teacher—are, and ought to be, regarded as CULTIVATORS + OF THE LAND. Malthus bases farm-rent upon the principle of commerce. Now, + the fundamental law of commerce being equivalence of the products + exchanged, any thing which destroys this equivalence violates the law. + There is an error in the estimate which needs to be corrected. + </p> + <p> + Buchanan—a commentator on Smith—regarded farm-rent as the + result of a monopoly, and maintained that labor alone is productive. + Consequently, he thought that, without this monopoly, products would rise + in price; and he found no basis for farm-rent save in the civil law. This + opinion is a corollary of that which makes the civil law the basis of + property. But why has the civil law—which ought to be the written + expression of justice—authorized this monopoly? Whoever says + monopoly, necessarily excludes justice. Now, to say that farm-rent is a + monopoly sanctioned by the law, is to say that injustice is based on + justice,—a contradiction in terms. + </p> + <p> + Say answers Buchanan, that the proprietor is not a monopolist, because a + monopolist "is one who does not increase the utility of the merchandise + which passes through his hands." + </p> + <p> + How much does the proprietor increase the utility of his tenant's + products? Has he ploughed, sowed, reaped, mowed, winnowed, weeded? These + are the processes by which the tenant and his employees increase the + utility of the material which they consume for the purpose of + reproduction. + </p> + <p> + "The landed proprietor increases the utility of products by means of his + implement, the land. This implement receives in one state, and returns in + another the materials of which wheat is composed. The action of the land + is a chemical process, which so modifies the material that it multiplies + it by destroying it. The soil is then a producer of utility; and when it + [the soil?] asks its pay in the form of profit, or farm rent, for its + proprietor, it at the same time gives something to the consumer in + exchange for the amount which the consumer pays it. It gives him a + produced utility; and it is the production of this utility which warrants + us in calling land productive, as well as labor." + </p> + <p> + Let us clear up this matter. + </p> + <p> + The blacksmith who manufactures for the farmer implements of husbandry, + the wheelwright who makes him a cart, the mason who builds his barn, the + carpenter, the basket-maker, &c.,—all of whom contribute to + agricultural production by the tools which they provide,—are + producers of utility; consequently, they are entitled to a part of the + products. + </p> + <p> + "Undoubtedly," says Say; "but the land also is an implement whose service + must be paid for, then...." + </p> + <p> + I admit that the land is an implement; but who made it? Did the + proprietor? Did he—by the efficacious virtue of the right of + property, by this MORAL QUALITY infused into the soil—endow it with + vigor and fertility? Exactly there lies the monopoly of the proprietor; in + the fact that, though he did not make the implement, he asks pay for its + use. When the Creator shall present himself and claim farm-rent, we will + consider the matter with him; or even when the proprietor—his + pretended representative—shall exhibit his power-of-attorney. + </p> + <p> + "The proprietor's service," adds Say, "is easy, I admit." + </p> + <p> + It is a frank confession. + </p> + <p> + "But we cannot disregard it. Without property, one farmer would contend + with another for the possession of a field without a proprietor, and the + field would remain uncultivated...." + </p> + <p> + Then the proprietor's business is to reconcile farmers by robbing them. O + logic! O justice! O the marvellous wisdom of economists! The proprietor, + if they are right, is like Perrin-Dandin who, when summoned by two + travellers to settle a dispute about an oyster, opened it, gobbled it, and + said to them:— + </p> + <p> + "The Court awards you each a shell." + </p> + <p> + Could any thing worse be said of property? + </p> + <p> + Will Say tell us why the same farmers, who, if there were no proprietors, + would contend with each other for possession of the soil, do not contend + to-day with the proprietors for this possession? Obviously, because they + think them legitimate possessors, and because their respect for even an + imaginary right exceeds their avarice. I proved, in Chapter II., that + possession is sufficient, without property, to maintain social order. + Would it be more difficult, then, to reconcile possessors without masters + than tenants controlled by proprietors? Would laboring men, who respect—much + to their own detriment—the pretended rights of the idler, violate + the natural rights of the producer and the manufacturer? What! if the + husbandman forfeited his right to the land as soon as he ceased to occupy + it, would he become more covetous? And would the impossibility of + demanding increase, of taxing another's labor, be a source of quarrels and + law-suits? The economists use singular logic. But we are not yet through. + Admit that the proprietor is the legitimate master of the land. + </p> + <p> + "The land is an instrument of production," they say. That is true. But + when, changing the noun into an adjective, they alter the phrase, thus, + "The land is a productive instrument," they make a wicked blunder. + </p> + <p> + According to Quesnay and the early economists, all production comes from + the land. Smith, Ricardo, and de Tracy, on the contrary, say that labor is + the sole agent of production. Say, and most of his successors, teach that + BOTH land AND labor AND capital are productive. The latter constitute the + eclectic school of political economy. The truth is, that NEITHER land NOR + labor NOR capital is productive. Production results from the co-operation + of these three equally necessary elements, which, taken separately, are + equally sterile. + </p> + <p> + Political economy, indeed, treats of the production, distribution, and + consumption of wealth or values. But of what values? Of the values + produced by human industry; that is, of the changes made in matter by man, + that he may appropriate it to his own use, and not at all of Nature's + spontaneous productions. Man's labor consists in a simple laying on of + hands. When he has taken that trouble, he has produced a value. Until + then, the salt of the sea, the water of the springs, the grass of the + fields, and the trees of the forests are to him as if they were not. The + sea, without the fisherman and his line, supplies no fish. The forest, + without the wood-cutter and his axe, furnishes neither fuel nor timber. + The meadow, without the mower, yields neither hay nor aftermath. Nature is + a vast mass of material to be cultivated and converted into products; but + Nature produces nothing for herself: in the economical sense, her + products, in their relation to man, are not yet products. + </p> + <p> + Capital, tools, and machinery are likewise unproductive. The hammer and + the anvil, without the blacksmith and the iron, do not forge. The mill, + without the miller and the grain, does not grind, &c. Bring tools and + raw material together; place a plough and some seed on fertile soil; enter + a smithy, light the fire, and shut up the shop,—you will produce + nothing. The following remark was made by an economist who possessed more + good sense than most of his fellows: "Say credits capital with an active + part unwarranted by its nature; left to itself, it is an idle tool." (J. + Droz: Political Economy.) + </p> + <p> + Finally, labor and capital together, when unfortunately combined, produce + nothing. Plough a sandy desert, beat the water of the rivers, pass type + through a sieve,—you will get neither wheat, nor fish, nor books. + Your trouble will be as fruitless as was the immense labor of the army of + Xerxes; who, as Herodotus says, with his three million soldiers, scourged + the Hellespont for twenty-four hours, as a punishment for having broken + and scattered the pontoon bridge which the great king had thrown across + it. + </p> + <p> + Tools and capital, land and labor, considered individually and abstractly, + are not, literally speaking, productive. The proprietor who asks to be + rewarded for the use of a tool, or the productive power of his land, takes + for granted, then, that which is radically false; namely, that capital + produces by its own effort,—and, in taking pay for this imaginary + product, he literally receives something for nothing. + </p> + <p> + OBJECTION.—But if the blacksmith, the wheelwright, all manufacturers + in short, have a right to the products in return for the implements which + they furnish; and if land is an implement of production,—why does + not this implement entitle its proprietor, be his claim real or imaginary, + to a portion of the products; as in the case of the manufacturers of + ploughs and wagons? + </p> + <p> + REPLY.—Here we touch the heart of the question, the mystery of + property; which we must clear up, if we would understand any thing of the + strange effects of the right of increase. + </p> + <p> + He who manufactures or repairs the farmer's tools receives the price ONCE, + either at the time of delivery, or in several payments; and when this + price is once paid to the manufacturer, the tools which he has delivered + belong to him no more. Never does he claim double payment for the same + tool, or the same job of repairs. If he annually shares in the products of + the farmer, it is owing to the fact that he annually makes something for + the farmer. + </p> + <p> + The proprietor, on the contrary, does not yield his implement; eternally + he is paid for it, eternally he keeps it. + </p> + <p> + In fact, the rent received by the proprietor is not intended to defray the + expense of maintaining and repairing the implement; this expense is + charged to the borrower, and does not concern the proprietor except as he + is interested in the preservation of the article. If he takes it upon + himself to attend to the repairs, he takes care that the money which he + expends for this purpose is repaid. + </p> + <p> + This rent does not represent the product of the implement, since of itself + the implement produces nothing; we have just proved this, and we shall + prove it more clearly still by its consequences. + </p> + <p> + Finally, this rent does not represent the participation of the proprietor + in the production; since this participation could consist, like that of + the blacksmith and the wheelwright, only in the surrender of the whole or + a part of his implement, in which case he would cease to be its + proprietor, which would involve a contradiction of the idea of property. + </p> + <p> + Then, between the proprietor and his tenant there is no exchange either of + values or services; then, as our axiom says, farm-rent is real increase,—an + extortion based solely upon fraud and violence on the one hand, and + weakness and ignorance upon the other. PRODUCTS say the economists, ARE + BOUGHT ONLY BY PRODUCTS. This maxim is property's condemnation. The + proprietor, producing neither by his own labor nor by his implement, and + receiving products in exchange for nothing, is either a parasite or a + thief. Then, if property can exist only as a right, property is + impossible. + </p> + <p> + COROLLARIES.—1. The republican constitution of 1793, which defined + property as "the right to enjoy the fruit of one's labor," was grossly + mistaken. It should have said, "Property is the right to enjoy and dispose + at will of another's goods,—the fruit of another's industry and + labor." + </p> + <p> + 2. Every possessor of lands, houses, furniture, machinery, tools, money, + &c., who lends a thing for a price exceeding the cost of repairs (the + repairs being charged to the lender, and representing products which he + exchanges for other products), is guilty of swindling and extortion. In + short, all rent received (nominally as damages, but really as payment for + a loan) is an act of property,—a robbery. + </p> + <p> + HISTORICAL COMMENT.—The tax which a victorious nation levies upon a + conquered nation is genuine farm-rent. The seigniorial rights abolished by + the Revolution of 1789,—tithes, mortmain, statute-labor, &c.,—were + different forms of the rights of property; and they who under the titles + of nobles, seigneurs, prebendaries, &c. enjoyed these rights, were + neither more nor less than proprietors. To defend property to-day is to + condemn the Revolution. + </p> + <p> + SECOND PROPOSITION. + </p> + <p> + Property is impossible because wherever it exists Production costs more + than it is worth. + </p> + <p> + The preceding proposition was legislative in its nature; this one is + economical. It serves to prove that property, which originates in + violence, results in waste. + </p> + <p> + "Production," says Say, "is exchange on a large scale. To render the + exchange productive the value of the whole amount of service must be + balanced by the value of the product. If this condition is not complied + with, the exchange is unequal; the producer gives more than he receives." + </p> + <p> + Now, value being necessarily based upon utility, it follows that every + useless product is necessarily valueless,—that it cannot be + exchanged; and, consequently, that it cannot be given in payment for + productive services. + </p> + <p> + Then, though production may equal consumption, it never can exceed it; for + there is no real production save where there is a production of utility, + and there is no utility save where there is a possibility of consumption. + Thus, so much of every product as is rendered by excessive abundance + inconsumable, becomes useless, valueless, unexchangeable,—consequently, + unfit to be given in payment for any thing whatever, and is no longer a + product. + </p> + <p> + Consumption, on the other hand, to be legitimate,—to be true + consumption,—must be reproductive of utility; for, if it is + unproductive, the products which it destroys are cancelled values—things + produced at a pure loss; a state of things which causes products to + depreciate in value. Man has the power to destroy, but he consumes only + that which he reproduces. Under a right system of economy, there is then + an equation between production and consumption. + </p> + <p> + These points established, let us suppose a community of one thousand + families, enclosed in a territory of a given circumference, and deprived + of foreign intercourse. Let this community represent the human race, + which, scattered over the face of the earth, is really isolated. In fact, + the difference between a community and the human race being only a + numerical one, the economical results will be absolutely the same in each + case. + </p> + <p> + Suppose, then, that these thousand families, devoting themselves + exclusively to wheat-culture, are obliged to pay to one hundred + individuals, chosen from the mass, an annual revenue of ten per cent. on + their product. It is clear that, in such a case, the right of increase is + equivalent to a tax levied in advance upon social production. Of what use + is this tax? + </p> + <p> + It cannot be levied to supply the community with provisions, for between + that and farm-rent there is nothing in common; nor to pay for services and + products,—for the proprietors, laboring like the others, have + labored only for themselves. Finally, this tax is of no use to its + recipients who, having harvested wheat enough for their own consumption, + and not being able in a society without commerce and manufactures to + procure any thing else in exchange for it, thereby lose the advantage of + their income. + </p> + <p> + In such a society, one-tenth of the product being inconsumable, one-tenth + of the labor goes unpaid—production costs more than it is worth. + </p> + <p> + Now, change three hundred of our wheat-producers into artisans of all + kinds: one hundred gardeners and wine-growers, sixty shoemakers and + tailors, fifty carpenters and blacksmiths, eighty of various professions, + and, that nothing may be lacking, seven school-masters, one mayor, one + judge, and one priest; each industry furnishes the whole community with + its special product. Now, the total production being one thousand, each + laborer's consumption is one; namely, wheat, meat, and grain, 0.7; wine + and vegetables, 0.1; shoes and clothing, 0.06; iron-work and furniture, + 0.05; sundries, 0.08; instruction, 0.007; administration, 0.002; mass, + 0.001, Total 1. + </p> + <p> + But the community owes a revenue of ten per cent.; and it matters little + whether the farmers alone pay it, or all the laborers are responsible for + it,—the result is the same. The farmer raises the price of his + products in proportion to his share of the debt; the other laborers follow + his example. Then, after some fluctuations, equilibrium is established, + and all pay nearly the same amount of the revenue. It would be a grave + error to assume that in a nation none but farmers pay farm-rent—the + whole nation pays it. + </p> + <p> + I say, then, that by this tax of ten per cent. each laborer's consumption + is reduced as follows: wheat, 0.63; wine and vegetables, 0.09; clothing + and shoes, 0.054; furniture and iron-work, 0.045; other products, 0.072; + schooling, 0.0063; administration, 0.0018; mass, 0.0009. Total 0.9. + </p> + <p> + The laborer has produced 1; he consumes only 0.9. He loses, then, + one-tenth of the price of his labor; his production still costs more than + it is worth. On the other hand, the tenth received by the proprietors is + no less a waste; for, being laborers themselves, they, like the others, + possess in the nine-tenths of their product the wherewithal to live: they + want for nothing. Why should they wish their proportion of bread, wine, + meat, clothes, shelter, &c., to be doubled, if they can neither + consume nor exchange them? Then farm-rent, with them as with the rest of + the laborers, is a waste, and perishes in their hands. Extend the + hypothesis, increase the number and variety of the products, you still + have the same result. + </p> + <p> + Hitherto, we have considered the proprietor as taking part in the + production, not only (as Say says) by the use of his instrument, but in an + effective manner and by the labor of his hands. Now, it is easy to see + that, under such circumstances, property will never exist. What happens? + </p> + <p> + The proprietor—an essentially libidinous animal, without virtue or + shame—is not satisfied with an orderly and disciplined life. He + loves property, because it enables him to do at leisure what he pleases + and when he pleases. Having obtained the means of life, he gives himself + up to trivialities and indolence; he enjoys, he fritters away his time, he + goes in quest of curiosities and novel sensations. Property—to enjoy + itself—has to abandon ordinary life, and busy itself in luxurious + occupations and unclean enjoyments. + </p> + <p> + Instead of giving up a farm-rent, which is perishing in their hands, and + thus lightening the labor of the community, our hundred proprietors prefer + to rest. In consequence of this withdrawal,—the absolute production + being diminished by one hundred, while the consumption remains the same,—production + and consumption seem to balance. But, in the first place, since the + proprietors no longer labor, their consumption is, according to economical + principles, unproductive; consequently, the previous condition of the + community—when the labor of one hundred was rewarded by no products—is + superseded by one in which the products of one hundred are consumed + without labor. The deficit is always the same, whichever the column of the + account in which it is expressed. Either the maxims of political economy + are false, or else property, which contradicts them, is impossible. + </p> + <p> + The economists—regarding all unproductive consumption as an evil, as + a robbery of the human race—never fail to exhort proprietors to + moderation, labor, and economy; they preach to them the necessity of + making themselves useful, of remunerating production for that which they + receive from it; they launch the most terrible curses against luxury and + laziness. Very beautiful morality, surely; it is a pity that it lacks + common sense. The proprietor who labors, or, as the economists say, WHO + MAKES HIMSELF USEFUL, is paid for this labor and utility; is he, + therefore, any the less idle as concerns the property which he does not + use, and from which he receives an income? His condition, whatever he may + do, is an unproductive and FELONIOUS one; he cannot cease to waste and + destroy without ceasing to be a proprietor. + </p> + <p> + But this is only the least of the evils which property engenders. + </p> + <p> + Society has to maintain some idle people, whether or no. It will always + have the blind, the maimed, the insane, and the idiotic. It can easily + support a few sluggards. At this point, the impossibilities thicken and + become complicated. + </p> + <p> + THIRD PROPOSITION. + </p> + <p> + Property is impossible, because, with a given capital, Production is + proportional to labor, not to property. + </p> + <p> + To pay a farm-rent of one hundred at the rate of ten per cent. of the + product, the product must be one thousand; that the product may be one + thousand, a force of one thousand laborers is needed. It follows, that in + granting a furlough, as we have just done, to our one hundred + laborer-proprietors, all of whom had an equal right to lead the life of + men of income,—we have placed ourselves in a position where we are + unable to pay their revenues. In fact, the productive power, which at + first was one thousand, being now but nine hundred, the production is also + reduced to nine hundred, one-tenth of which is ninety. Either, then, ten + proprietors out of the one hundred cannot be paid,—provided the + remaining ninety are to get the whole amount of their farm-rent,—or + else all must consent to a decrease of ten per cent. For it is not for the + laborer, who has been wanting in no particular, who has produced as in the + past, to suffer by the withdrawal of the proprietor. The latter must take + the consequences of his own idleness. But, then, the proprietor becomes + poorer for the very reason that he wishes to enjoy; by exercising his + right, he loses it; so that property seems to decrease and vanish in + proportion as we try to lay hold of it,—the more we pursue it, the + more it eludes our grasp. What sort of a right is that which is governed + by numerical relations, and which an arithmetical calculation can destroy? + </p> + <p> + The laborer-proprietor received, first, as laborer, 0.9 in wages; second, + as proprietor, 1 in farm-rent. He said to himself, "My farm-rent is + sufficient; I have enough and to spare without my labor." And thus it is + that the income upon which he calculated gets diminished by one-tenth,—he + at the same time not even suspecting the cause of this diminution. By + taking part in the production, he was himself the creator of this tenth + which has vanished; and while he thought to labor only for himself, he + unwittingly suffered a loss in exchanging his products, by which he was + made to pay to himself one-tenth of his own farm-rent. Like every one + else, he produced 1, and received but 0.9 + </p> + <p> + If, instead of nine hundred laborers, there had been but five hundred, the + whole amount of farm-rent would have been reduced to fifty; if there had + been but one hundred, it would have fallen to ten. We may posit, then, the + following axiom as a law of proprietary economy: INCREASE MUST DIMINISH AS + THE NUMBER OF IDLERS AUGMENTS. + </p> + <p> + This first result will lead us to another more surprising still. Its + effect is to deliver us at one blow from all the evils of property, + without abolishing it, without wronging proprietors, and by a highly + conservative process. + </p> + <p> + We have just proved that, if the farm-rent in a community of one thousand + laborers is one hundred, that of nine hundred would be ninety, that of + eight hundred, eighty, that of one hundred, ten, &c. So that, in a + community where there was but one laborer, the farm-rent would be but 0.1; + no matter how great the extent and value of the land appropriated. + Therefore, WITH A GIVEN LANDED CAPITAL, PRODUCTION IS PROPORTIONAL TO + LABOR, NOT TO PROPERTY. + </p> + <p> + Guided by this principle, let us try to ascertain the maximum increase of + all property whatever. + </p> + <p> + What is, essentially, a farm-lease? It is a contract by which the + proprietor yields to a tenant possession of his land, in consideration of + a portion of that which it yields him, the proprietor. If, in consequence + of an increase in his household, the tenant becomes ten times as strong as + the proprietor, he will produce ten times as much. Would the proprietor in + such a case be justified in raising the farm-rent tenfold? His right is + not, The more you produce, the more I demand. It is, The more I sacrifice, + the more I demand. The increase in the tenant's household, the number of + hands at his disposal, the resources of his industry,—all these + serve to increase production, but bear no relation to the proprietor. His + claims are to be measured by his own productive capacity, not that of + others. Property is the right of increase, not a poll-tax. How could a + man, hardly capable of cultivating even a few acres by himself, demand of + a community, on the ground of its use of ten thousand acres of his + property, ten thousand times as much as he is incapable of producing from + one acre? Why should the price of a loan be governed by the skill and + strength of the borrower, rather than by the utility sacrificed by the + proprietor? We must recognize, then, this second economical law: INCREASE + IS MEASURED BY A FRACTION OF THE PROPRIETORS PRODUCTION. + </p> + <p> + Now, this production, what is it? In other words, What can the lord and + master of a piece of land justly claim to have sacrificed in lending it to + a tenant? + </p> + <p> + The productive capacity of a proprietor, like that of any laborer, being + one, the product which he sacrifices in surrendering his land is also one. + If, then, the rate of increase is ten per cent., the maximum increase is + 0.1. + </p> + <p> + But we have seen that, whenever a proprietor withdraws from production, + the amount of products is lessened by 1. Then the increase which accrues + to him, being equal to 0.1 while he remains among the laborers, will be + equal after his withdrawal, by the law of the decrease of farm-rent, to + 0.09. Thus we are led to this final formula: THE MAXIMUM INCOME OF A + PROPRIETOR IS EQUAL TO THE SQUARE ROOT OF THE PRODUCT OF ONE LABORER (some + number being agreed upon to express this product). THE DIMINUTION WHICH + THIS INCOME SUFFERS, IF THE PROPRIETOR IS IDLE, IS EQUAL TO A FRACTION + WHOSE NUMERATOR IS 1, AND WHOSE DENOMINATOR IS THE NUMBER WHICH EXPRESSES + THE PRODUCT. + </p> + <p> + Thus the maximum income of an idle proprietor, or of one who labors in his + own behalf outside of the community, figured at ten per cent. on an + average production of one thousand francs per laborer, would be ninety + francs. If, then, there are in France one million proprietors with an + income of one thousand francs each, which they consume unproductively, + instead of the one thousand millions which are paid them annually, they + are entitled in strict justice, and by the most accurate calculation, to + ninety millions only. + </p> + <p> + It is something of a reduction, to take nine hundred and ten millions from + the burdens which weigh so heavily upon the laboring class! Nevertheless, + the account is not finished, and the laborer is still ignorant of the full + extent of his rights. + </p> + <p> + What is the right of increase when confined within just limits? A + recognition of the right of occupancy. But since all have an equal right + of occupancy, every man is by the same title a proprietor. Every man has a + right to an income equal to a fraction of his product. If, then, the + laborer is obliged by the right of property to pay a rent to the + proprietor, the proprietor is obliged by the same right to pay the same + amount of rent to the laborer; and, since their rights balance each other, + the difference between them is zero. + </p> + <p> + <i>Scholium</i>.—If farm-rent is only a fraction of the supposed + product of the proprietor, whatever the amount and value of the property, + the same is true in the case of a large number of small and distinct + proprietors. For, although one man may use the property of each + separately, he cannot use the property of all at the same time. + </p> + <p> + To sum up. The right of increase, which can exist only within very narrow + limits, defined by the laws of production, is annihilated by the right of + occupancy. Now, without the right of increase, there is no property. Then + property is impossible. + </p> + <p> + FOURTH PROPOSITION. + </p> + <p> + Property is impossible, because it is Homicide. + </p> + <p> + If the right of increase could be subjected to the laws of reason and + justice, it would be reduced to an indemnity or reward whose MAXIMUM never + could exceed, for a single laborer, a certain fraction of that which he is + capable of producing. This we have just shown. But why should the right of + increase—let us not fear to call it by its right name, the right of + robbery—be governed by reason, with which it has nothing in common? + The proprietor is not content with the increase allotted him by good sense + and the nature of things: he demands ten times, a hundred times, a + thousand times, a million times as much. By his own labor, his property + would yield him a product equal only to one; and he demands of society, no + longer a right proportional to his productive capacity, but a per capita + tax. He taxes his fellows in proportion to their strength, their number, + and their industry. A son is born to a farmer. "Good!" says the + proprietor; "one more chance for increase!" By what process has farm-rent + been thus changed into a poll-tax? Why have our jurists and our + theologians failed, with all their shrewdness, to check the extension of + the right of increase? + </p> + <p> + The proprietor, having estimated from his own productive capacity the + number of laborers which his property will accommodate, divides it into as + many portions, and says: "Each one shall yield me revenue." To increase + his income, he has only to divide his property. Instead of reckoning the + interest due him on his labor, he reckons it on his capital; and, by this + substitution, the same property, which in the hands of its owner is + capable of yielding only one, is worth to him ten, a hundred, a thousand, + a million. Consequently, he has only to hold himself in readiness to + register the names of the laborers who apply to him—his task + consists in drafting leases and receipts. + </p> + <p> + Not satisfied with the lightness of his duties, the proprietor does not + intend to bear even the deficit resulting from his idleness; he throws it + upon the shoulders of the producer, of whom he always demands the same + reward. When the farm-rent of a piece of land is once raised to its + highest point, the proprietor never lowers it; high prices, the scarcity + of labor, the disadvantages of the season, even pestilence itself, have no + effect upon him—why should he suffer from hard times when he does + not labor? + </p> + <p> + Here commences a new series of phenomena. + </p> + <p> + Say—who reasons with marvellous clearness whenever he assails + taxation, but who is blind to the fact that the proprietor, as well as the + tax-gatherer, steals from the tenant, and in the same manner—says in + his second letter to Malthus:— + </p> + <p> + "If the collector of taxes and those who employ him consume one-sixth of + the products, they thereby compel the producers to feed, clothe, and + support themselves on five-sixths of what they produce. They admit this, + but say at the same time that it is possible for each one to live on + five-sixths of what he produces. + </p> + <p> + "I admit that, if they insist upon it; but I ask if they believe that the + producer would live as well, in case they demanded of him, instead of + one-sixth, two-sixths, or one-third, of their products? No; but he would + still live. Then I ask whether he would still live, in case they should + rob him of two-thirds,... then three-quarters? But I hear no reply." + </p> + <p> + If the master of the French economists had been less blinded by his + proprietary prejudices, he would have seen that farm-rent has precisely + the same effect. + </p> + <p> + Take a family of peasants composed of six persons,—father, mother, + and four children,—living in the country, and cultivating a small + piece of ground. Let us suppose that by hard labor they manage, as the + saying is, to make both ends meet; that, having lodged, warmed, clothed, + and fed themselves, they are clear of debt, but have laid up nothing. + Taking the years together, they contrive to live. If the year is + prosperous, the father drinks a little more wine, the daughters buy + themselves a dress, the sons a hat; they eat a little cheese, and, + occasionally, some meat. I say that these people are on the road to wreck + and ruin. + </p> + <p> + For, by the third corollary of our axiom, they owe to themselves the + interest on their own capital. Estimating this capital at only eight + thousand francs at two and a half per cent., there is an annual interest + of two hundred francs to be paid. If, then, these two hundred francs, + instead of being subtracted from the gross product to be saved and + capitalized, are consumed, there is an annual deficit of two hundred + francs in the family assets; so that at the end of forty years these good + people, without suspecting it, will have eaten up their property and + become bankrupt! + </p> + <p> + This result seems ridiculous—it is a sad reality. + </p> + <p> + The conscription comes. What is the conscription? An act of property + exercised over families by the government without warning—a robbery + of men and money. The peasants do not like to part with their sons,—in + that I do not think them wrong. It is hard for a young man of twenty to + gain any thing by life in the barracks; unless he is depraved, he detests + it. You can generally judge of a soldier's morality by his hatred of his + uniform. Unfortunate wretches or worthless scamps,—such is the + make-up of the French army. This ought not to be the case,—but so it + is. Question a hundred thousand men, and not one will contradict my + assertion. + </p> + <p> + Our peasant, in redeeming his two conscripted sons, expends four thousand + francs, which he borrows for that purpose; the interest on this, at five + per cent., is two hundred francs;—a sum equal to that referred to + above. If, up to this time, the production of the family, constantly + balanced by its consumption, has been one thousand two hundred francs, or + two hundred francs per persons—in order to pay this interest, either + the six laborers must produce as much as seven, or must consume as little + as five. + </p> + <p> + Curtail consumption they cannot—how can they curtail necessity? To + produce more is impossible; they can work neither harder nor longer. Shall + they take a middle course, and consume five and a half while producing six + and a half? They would soon find that with the stomach there is no + compromise—that beyond a certain degree of abstinence it is + impossible to go—that strict necessity can be curtailed but little + without injury to the health; and, as for increasing the product,—there + comes a storm, a drought, an epizootic, and all the hopes of the farmer + are dashed. In short, the rent will not be paid, the interest will + accumulate, the farm will be seized, and the possessor ejected. + </p> + <p> + Thus a family, which lived in prosperity while it abstained from + exercising the right of property, falls into misery as soon as the + exercise of this right becomes a necessity. Property requires of the + husbandman the double power of enlarging his land, and fertilizing it by a + simple command. While a man is simply possessor of the land, he finds in + it means of subsistence; as soon as he pretends to proprietorship, it + suffices him no longer. Being able to produce only that which he consumes, + the fruit of his labor is his recompense for his trouble—nothing is + left for the instrument. + </p> + <p> + Required to pay what he cannot produce,—such is the condition of the + tenant after the proprietor has retired from social production in order to + speculate upon the labor of others by new methods. + </p> + <p> + Let us now return to our first hypothesis. + </p> + <p> + The nine hundred laborers, sure that their future production will equal + that of the past, are quite surprised, after paying their farm-rent, to + find themselves poorer by one-tenth than they were the previous year. In + fact, this tenth—which was formerly produced and paid by the + proprietor-laborer who then took part in the production, and paid part of + the—public expenses—now has not been produced, and has been + paid. It must then have been taken from the producer's consumption. To + choke this inexplicable deficit, the laborer borrows, confident of his + intention and ability to return,—a confidence which is shaken the + following year by a new loan, PLUS the interest on the first. From whom + does he borrow? From the proprietor. The proprietor lends his surplus to + the laborer; and this surplus, which he ought to return, becomes—being + lent at interest—a new source of profit to him. Then debts increase + indefinitely; the proprietor makes advances to the producer who never + returns them; and the latter, constantly robbed and constantly borrowing + from the robbers, ends in bankruptcy, defrauded of all that he had. + </p> + <p> + Suppose that the proprietor—who needs his tenant to furnish him with + an income—then releases him from his debts. He will thus do a very + benevolent deed, which will procure for him a recommendation in the + curate's prayers; while the poor tenant, overwhelmed by this unstinted + charity, and taught by his catechism to pray for his benefactors, will + promise to redouble his energy, and suffer new hardships that he may + discharge his debt to so kind a master. + </p> + <p> + This time he takes precautionary measures; he raises the price of grains. + The manufacturer does the same with his products. The reaction comes, and, + after some fluctuation, the farm-rent—which the tenant thought to + put upon the manufacturer's shoulders—becomes nearly balanced. So + that, while he is congratulating himself upon his success, he finds + himself again impoverished, but to an extent somewhat smaller than before. + For the rise having been general, the proprietor suffers with the rest; so + that the laborers, instead of being poorer by one-tenth, lose only + nine-hundredths. But always it is a debt which necessitates a loan, the + payment of interest, economy, and fasting. Fasting for the nine-hundredths + which ought not to be paid, and are paid; fasting for the redemption of + debts; fasting to pay the interest on them. Let the crop fail, and the + fasting becomes starvation. They say, "IT IS NECESSARY TO WORK MORE." That + means, obviously, that IT IS NECESSARY TO PRODUCE MORE. By what conditions + is production effected? By the combined action of labor, capital, and + land. As for the labor, the tenant undertakes to furnish it; but capital + is formed only by economy. Now, if the tenant could accumulate any thing, + he would pay his debts. But granting that he has plenty of capital, of + what use would it be to him if the extent of the land which he cultivates + always remained the same? He needs to enlarge his farm. + </p> + <p> + Will it be said, finally, that he must work harder and to better + advantage? But, in our estimation of farm-rent, we have assumed the + highest possible average of production. Were it not the highest, the + proprietor would increase the farm-rent. Is not this the way in which the + large landed proprietors have gradually raised their rents, as fast as + they have ascertained by the increase in population and the development of + industry how much society can produce from their property? The proprietor + is a foreigner to society; but, like the vulture, his eyes fixed upon his + prey, he holds himself ready to pounce upon and devour it. + </p> + <p> + The facts to which we have called attention, in a community of one + thousand persons, are reproduced on a large scale in every nation and + wherever human beings live, but with infinite variations and in + innumerable forms, which it is no part of my intention to describe. + </p> + <p> + In fine, property—after having robbed the laborer by usury—murders + him slowly by starvation. Now, without robbery and murder, property cannot + exist; with robbery and murder, it soon dies for want of support. + Therefore it is impossible. + </p> + <p> + FIFTH PROPOSITION. + </p> + <p> + Property is impossible, because, if it exists, Society devours itself. + </p> + <p> + When the ass is too heavily loaded, he lies down; man always moves on. + Upon this indomitable courage, the proprietor—well knowing that it + exists—bases his hopes of speculation. The free laborer produces + ten; for me, thinks the proprietor, he will produce twelve. + </p> + <p> + Indeed,—before consenting to the confiscation of his fields, before + bidding farewell to the paternal roof,—the peasant, whose story we + have just told, makes a desperate effort; he leases new land; he will sow + one-third more; and, taking half of this new product for himself, he will + harvest an additional sixth, and thereby pay his rent. What an evil! To + add one-sixth to his production, the farmer must add, not one-sixth, but + two-sixths to his labor. At such a price, he pays a farm-rent which in + God's eyes he does not owe. + </p> + <p> + The tenant's example is followed by the manufacturer. The former tills + more land, and dispossesses his neighbors; the latter lowers the price of + his merchandise, and endeavors to monopolize its manufacture and sale, and + to crush out his competitors. To satisfy property, the laborer must first + produce beyond his needs. Then, he must produce beyond his strength; for, + by the withdrawal of laborers who become proprietors, the one always + follows from the other. But to produce beyond his strength and needs, he + must invade the production of another, and consequently diminish the + number of producers. Thus the proprietor—after having lessened + production by stepping outside—lessens it still further by + encouraging the monopoly of labor. Let us calculate it. + </p> + <p> + The laborer's deficit, after paying his rent, being, as we have seen, + one-tenth, he tries to increase his production by this amount. He sees no + way of accomplishing this save by increasing his labor: this also he does. + The discontent of the proprietors who have not received the full amount of + their rent; the advantageous offers and promises made them by other + farmers, whom they suppose more diligent, more industrious, and more + reliable; the secret plots and intrigues,—all these give rise to a + movement for the re-division of labor, and the elimination of a certain + number of producers. Out of nine hundred, ninety will be ejected, that the + production of the others may be increased one-tenth. But will the total + product be increased? Not in the least: there will be eight hundred and + ten laborers producing as nine hundred, while, to accomplish their + purpose, they would have to produce as one thousand. Now, it having been + proved that farm-rent is proportional to the landed capital instead of to + labor, and that it never diminishes, the debts must continue as in the + past, while the labor has increased. Here, then, we have a society which + is continually decimating itself, and which would destroy itself, did not + the periodical occurrence of failures, bankruptcies, and political and + economical catastrophes re-establish equilibrium, and distract attention + from the real causes of the universal distress. + </p> + <p> + The monopoly of land and capital is followed by economical processes which + also result in throwing laborers out of employment. Interest being a + constant burden upon the shoulders of the farmer and the manufacturer, + they exclaim, each speaking for himself, "I should have the means + wherewith to pay my rent and interest, had I not to pay so many hands." + Then those admirable inventions, intended to assure the easy and speedy + performance of labor, become so many infernal machines which kill laborers + by thousands. + </p> + <p> + "A few years ago, the Countess of Strafford ejected fifteen thousand + persons from her estate, who, as tenants, added to its value. This act of + private administration was repeated in 1820, by another large Scotch + proprietor, towards six hundred tenants and their families."—Tissot: + on Suicide and Revolt. + </p> + <p> + The author whom I quote, and who has written eloquent words concerning the + revolutionary spirit which prevails in modern society, does not say + whether he would have disapproved of a revolt on the part of these exiles. + For myself, I avow boldly that in my eyes it would have been the first of + rights, and the holiest of duties; and all that I desire to-day is that my + profession of faith be understood. + </p> + <p> + Society devours itself,—1. By the violent and periodical sacrifice + of laborers: this we have just seen, and shall see again; 2. By the + stoppage of the producer's consumption caused by property. These two modes + of suicide are at first simultaneous; but soon the first is given + additional force by the second, famine uniting with usury to render labor + at once more necessary and more scarce. + </p> + <p> + By the principles of commerce and political economy, that an industrial + enterprise may be successful, its product must furnish,—1. The + interest on the capital employed; 2. Means for the preservation of this + capital; 3. The wages of all the employees and contractors. Further, as + large a profit as possible must be realized. + </p> + <p> + The financial shrewdness and rapacity of property is worthy of admiration. + Each different name which increase takes affords the proprietor an + opportunity to receive it,—1. In the form of interest; 2. In the + form of profit. For, it says, a part of the income derived from + manufactures consists of interest on the capital employed. If one hundred + thousand francs have been invested in a manufacturing enterprise, and in a + year's time five thousand francs have been received therefrom in addition + to the expenses, there has been no profit, but only interest on the + capital. Now, the proprietor is not a man to labor for nothing. Like the + lion in the fable, he gets paid in each of his capacities; so that, after + he has been served, nothing is left for his associates. + </p> +<pre xml:space="preserve"> + <i>Ego primam tollo, nominor quia leo. + Secundam quia sum fortis tribuctis mihi. + Tum quia plus valeo, me sequetur tertia. + Malo adficietur, si quis quartam tetigerit.</i> +</pre> + <p> + I know nothing prettier than this fable. + </p> +<pre xml:space="preserve"> + "I am the contractor. I take the first share. + I am the laborer, I take the second. + I am the capitalist, I take the third. + I am the proprietor, I take the whole." +</pre> + <p> + In four lines, Phaedrus has summed up all the forms of property. + </p> + <p> + I say that this interest, all the more then this profit, is impossible. + </p> + <p> + What are laborers in relation to each other? So many members of a large + industrial society, to each of whom is assigned a certain portion of the + general production, by the principle of the division of labor and + functions. Suppose, first, that this society is composed of but three + individuals,—a cattle-raiser, a tanner, and a shoemaker. The social + industry, then, is that of shoemaking. If I should ask what ought to be + each producer's share of the social product, the first schoolboy whom I + should meet would answer, by a rule of commerce and association, that it + should be one-third. But it is not our duty here to balance the rights of + laborers conventionally associated: we have to prove that, whether + associated or not, our three workers are obliged to act as if they were; + that, whether they will or no, they are associated by the force of things, + by mathematical necessity. + </p> + <p> + Three processes are required in the manufacture of shoes,—the + rearing of cattle, the preparation of their hides, and the cutting and + sewing. If the hide, on leaving the farmer's stable, is worth one, it is + worth two on leaving the tanner's pit, and three on leaving the + shoemaker's shop. Each laborer has produced a portion of the utility; so + that, by adding all these portions together, we get the value of the + article. To obtain any quantity whatever of this article, each producer + must pay, then, first for his own labor, and second for the labor of the + other producers. Thus, to obtain as many shoes as can be made from ten + hides, the farmer will give thirty raw hides, and the tanner twenty tanned + hides. For, the shoes that are made from ten hides are worth thirty raw + hides, in consequence of the extra labor bestowed upon them; just as + twenty tanned hides are worth thirty raw hides, on account of the tanner's + labor. But if the shoemaker demands thirty-three in the farmer's product, + or twenty-two in the tanner's, for ten in his own, there will be no + exchange; for, if there were, the farmer and the tanner, after having paid + the shoemaker ten for his labor, would have to pay eleven for that which + they had themselves sold for ten,—which, of course, would be + impossible. <a href="#linknote-18" name="linknoteref-18" + id="linknoteref-18"><small>18</small></a> + </p> + <p> + Well, this is precisely what happens whenever an emolument of any kind is + received; be it called revenue, farm-rent, interest, or profit. In the + little community of which we are speaking, if the shoemaker—in order + to procure tools, buy a stock of leather, and support himself until he + receives something from his investment—borrows money at interest, it + is clear that to pay this interest he will have to make a profit off the + tanner and the farmer. But as this profit is impossible unless fraud is + used, the interest will fall back upon the shoulders of the unfortunate + shoemaker, and ruin him. + </p> + <p> + I have imagined a case of unnatural simplicity. There is no human society + but sustains more than three vocations. The most uncivilized society + supports numerous industries; to-day, the number of industrial functions + (I mean by industrial functions all useful functions) exceeds, perhaps, a + thousand. However numerous the occupations, the economic law remains the + same,—THAT THE PRODUCER MAY LIVE, HIS WAGES MUST REPURCHASE HIS + PRODUCT. + </p> + <p> + The economists cannot be ignorant of this rudimentary principle of their + pretended science: why, then, do they so obstinately defend property, and + inequality of wages, and the legitimacy of usury, and the honesty of + profit,—all of which contradict the economic law, and make exchange + impossible? A contractor pays one hundred thousand francs for raw + material, fifty thousand francs in wages, and then expects to receive a + product of two hundred thousand francs,—that is, expects to make a + profit on the material and on the labor of his employees; but if the + laborers and the purveyor of the material cannot, with their combined + wages, repurchase that which they have produced for the contractor, how + can they live? I will develop my question. Here details become necessary. + </p> + <p> + If the workingman receives for his labor an average of three francs per + day, his employer (in order to gain any thing beyond his own salary, if + only interest on his capital) must sell the day's labor of his employee, + in the form of merchandise, for more than three francs. The workingman + cannot, then, repurchase that which he has produced for his master. It is + thus with all trades whatsoever. The tailor, the hatter, the + cabinet-maker, the blacksmith, the tanner, the mason, the jeweller, the + printer, the clerk, &c., even to the farmer and wine-grower, cannot + repurchase their products; since, producing for a master who in one form + or another makes a profit, they are obliged to pay more for their own + labor than they get for it. + </p> + <p> + In France, twenty millions of laborers, engaged in all the branches of + science, art, and industry, produce every thing which is useful to man. + Their annual wages amount, it is estimated to twenty thousand millions; + but, in consequence of the right of property, and the multifarious forms + of increase, premiums, tithes, interests, fines, profits, farm-rents, + house-rents, revenues, emoluments of every nature and description, their + products are estimated by the proprietors and employers at twenty-five + thousand millions. What does that signify? That the laborers, who are + obliged to repurchase these products in order to live, must either pay + five for that which they produced for four, or fast one day in five. + </p> + <p> + If there is an economist in France able to show that this calculation is + false, I summon him to appear; and I promise to retract all that I have + wrongfully and wickedly uttered in my attacks upon property. + </p> + <p> + Let us now look at the results of this profit. + </p> + <p> + If the wages of the workingmen were the same in all pursuits, the deficit + caused by the proprietor's tax would be felt equally everywhere; but also + the cause of the evil would be so apparent, that it would soon be + discovered and suppressed. But, as there is the same inequality of wages + (from that of the scavenger up to that of the minister of state) as of + property, robbery continually rebounds from the stronger to the weaker; so + that, since the laborer finds his hardships increase as he descends in the + social scale, the lowest class of people are literally stripped naked and + eaten alive by the others. + </p> + <p> + The laboring people can buy neither the cloth which they weave, nor the + furniture which they manufacture, nor the metal which they forge, nor the + jewels which they cut, nor the prints which they engrave. They can procure + neither the wheat which they plant, nor the wine which they grow, nor the + flesh of the animals which they raise. They are allowed neither to dwell + in the houses which they build, nor to attend the plays which their labor + supports, nor to enjoy the rest which their body requires. And why? + Because the right of increase does not permit these things to be sold at + the cost-price, which is all that laborers can afford to pay. On the signs + of those magnificent warehouses which he in his poverty admires, the + laborer reads in large letters: "This is thy work, and thou shalt not have + it." <i>Sic vos non vobis</i>! + </p> + <p> + Every manufacturer who employs one thousand laborers, and gains from them + daily one sou each, is slowly pushing them into a state of misery. Every + man who makes a profit has entered into a conspiracy with famine. But the + whole nation has not even this labor, by means of which property starves + it. And why? Because the workers are forced by the insufficiency of their + wages to monopolize labor; and because, before being destroyed by dearth, + they destroy each other by competition. Let us pursue this truth no + further. + </p> + <p> + If the laborer's wages will not purchase his product, it follows that the + product is not made for the producer. For whom, then, is it intended? For + the richer consumer; that is, for only a fraction of society. But when the + whole society labors, it produces for the whole society. If, then, only a + part of society consumes, sooner or later a part of society will be idle. + Now, idleness is death, as well for the laborer as for the proprietor. + </p> + <p> + This conclusion is inevitable. + </p> + <p> + The most distressing spectacle imaginable is the sight of producers + resisting and struggling against this mathematical necessity, this power + of figures to which their prejudices blind them. + </p> + <p> + If one hundred thousand printers can furnish reading-matter enough for + thirty-four millions of men, and if the price of books is so high that + only one-third of that number can afford to buy them, it is clear that + these one hundred thousand printers will produce three times as much as + the booksellers can sell. That the products of the laborers may never + exceed the demands of the consumers, the laborers must either rest two + days out of three, or, separating into three groups, relieve each other + three times a week, month, or quarter; that is, during two-thirds of their + life they must not live. But industry, under the influence of property, + does not proceed with such regularity. It endeavors to produce a great + deal in a short time, because the greater the amount of products, and the + shorter the time of production, the less each product costs. As soon as a + demand begins to be felt, the factories fill up, and everybody goes to + work. Then business is lively, and both governors and governed rejoice. + But the more they work to-day, the more idle will they be hereafter; the + more they laugh, the more they shall weep. Under the rule of property, the + flowers of industry are woven into none but funeral wreaths. The laborer + digs his own grave. + </p> + <p> + If the factory stops running, the manufacturer has to pay interest on his + capital the same as before. He naturally tries, then, to continue + production by lessening expenses. Then comes the lowering of wages; the + introduction of machinery; the employment of women and children to do the + work of men; bad workmen, and wretched work. They still produce, because + the decreased cost creates a larger market; but they do not produce long, + because, the cheapness being due to the quantity and rapidity of + production, the productive power tends more than ever to outstrip + consumption. It is when laborers, whose wages are scarcely sufficient to + support them from one day to another, are thrown out of work, that the + consequences of the principle of property become most frightful. They have + not been able to economize, they have made no savings, they have + accumulated no capital whatever to support them even one day more. Today + the factory is closed. To-morrow the people starve in the streets. Day + after tomorrow they will either die in the hospital, or eat in the jail. + </p> + <p> + And still new misfortunes come to complicate this terrible situation. In + consequence of the cessation of business, and the extreme cheapness of + merchandise, the manufacturer finds it impossible to pay the interest on + his borrowed capital; whereupon his frightened creditors hasten to + withdraw their funds. Production is suspended, and labor comes to a + standstill. Then people are astonished to see capital desert commerce, and + throw itself upon the Stock Exchange; and I once heard M. Blanqui bitterly + lamenting the blind ignorance of capitalists. The cause of this movement + of capital is very simple; but for that very reason an economist could not + understand it, or rather must not explain it. The cause lies solely in + COMPETITION. + </p> + <p> + I mean by competition, not only the rivalry between two parties engaged in + the same business, but the general and simultaneous effort of all kinds of + business to get ahead of each other. This effort is to-day so strong, that + the price of merchandise scarcely covers the cost of production and + distribution; so that, the wages of all laborers being lessened, nothing + remains, not even interest for the capitalists. + </p> + <p> + The primary cause of commercial and industrial stagnations is, then, + interest on capital,—that interest which the ancients with one + accord branded with the name of usury, whenever it was paid for the use of + money, but which they did not dare to condemn in the forms of house-rent, + farm-rent, or profit: as if the nature of the thing lent could ever + warrant a charge for the lending; that is, robbery. + </p> + <p> + In proportion to the increase received by the capitalist will be the + frequency and intensity of commercial crises,—the first being given, + we always can determine the two others; and vice versa. Do you wish to + know the regulator of a society? Ascertain the amount of active capital; + that is, the capital bearing interest, and the legal rate of this + interest. The course of events will be a series of overturns, whose number + and violence will be proportional to the activity of capital. + </p> + <p> + In 1839, the number of failures in Paris alone was one thousand and + sixty-four. This proportion was kept up in the early months of 1840; and, + as I write these lines, the crisis is not yet ended. It is said, further, + that the number of houses which have wound up their business is greater + than the number of declared failures. By this flood, we may judge of the + waterspout's power of suction. + </p> + <p> + The decimation of society is now imperceptible and permanent, now + periodical and violent; it depends upon the course which property takes. + In a country where the property is pretty evenly distributed, and where + little business is done,—the rights and claims of each being + balanced by those of others,—the power of invasion is destroyed. + There—it may be truly said—property does not exist, since the + right of increase is scarcely exercised at all. The condition of the + laborers—as regards security of life—is almost the same as if + absolute equality prevailed among them. They are deprived of all the + advantages of full and free association, but their existence is not + endangered in the least. With the exception of a few isolated victims of + the right of property—of this misfortune whose primary cause no one + perceives—the society appears to rest calmly in the bosom of this + sort of equality. But have a care; it is balanced on the edge of a sword: + at the slightest shock, it will fall and meet with death! + </p> + <p> + Ordinarily, the whirlpool of property localizes itself. On the one hand, + farm-rent stops at a certain point; on the other, in consequence of + competition and over-production, the price of manufactured goods does not + rise,—so that the condition of the peasant varies but little, and + depends mainly on the seasons. The devouring action of property bears, + then, principally upon business. We commonly say COMMERCIAL CRISES, not + AGRICULTURAL CRISES; because, while the farmer is eaten up slowly by the + right of increase, the manufacturer is swallowed at a single mouthful. + This leads to the cessation of business, the destruction of fortunes, and + the inactivity of the working people; who die one after another on the + highways, and in the hospitals, prisons, and galleys. + </p> + <p> + To sum up this proposition:— + </p> + <p> + Property sells products to the laborer for more than it pays him for them; + therefore it is impossible. + </p> + <p> + <a name="link2H_APPE" id="link2H_APPE"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /><br /><br /><br /> + </div> + <h2> + APPENDIX TO THE FIFTH PROPOSITION. + </h2> + <p> + I. Certain reformers, and even the most of the publicists—who, + though belonging to no particular school, busy themselves in devising + means for the amelioration of the lot of the poorer and more numerous + class—lay much stress now-a-days on a better organization of labor. + The disciples of Fourier, especially, never stop shouting, "ON TO THE + PHALANX!" declaiming in the same breath against the foolishness and + absurdity of other sects. + </p> + <p> + They consist of half-a-dozen incomparable geniuses who have discovered + that FIVE AND FOUR MAKE NINE; TAKE TWO AWAY, AND NINE REMAIN,—and + who weep over the blindness of France, who refuses to believe in this + astonishing arithmetic. [*] + </p> +<pre xml:space="preserve"> + * Fourier, having to multiply a whole number by a fraction, + never failed, they say, to obtain a product much greater than the + multiplicand. He affirmed that under his system of harmony the mercury + would solidify when the temperature was above zero. He might as well + have said that the Harmonians would make burning ice. I once asked an + intelligent phalansterian what he thought of such physics. "I do not + know," he answered; "but I believe." And yet the same man disbelieved in + the doctrine of the Real Presence. +</pre> + <p> + In fact, the Fourierists proclaim themselves, on the one hand, defenders + of property, of the right of increase, which they have thus formulated: TO + EACH ACCORDING TO HIS CAPITAL, HIS LABOR, AND HIS SKILL. On the other + hand, they wish the workingman to come into the enjoyment of all the + wealth of society; that is,—abridging the expression,—into the + undivided enjoyment of his own product. Is not this like saying to the + workingman, "Labor, you shall have three francs per day; you shall live on + fifty-five sous; you shall give the rest to the proprietor, and thus you + will consume three francs"? + </p> + <p> + If the above speech is not an exact epitome of Charles Fourier's system, I + will subscribe to the whole phalansterian folly with a pen dipped in my + own blood. + </p> + <p> + Of what use is it to reform industry and agriculture,—of what use, + indeed, to labor at all,—if property is maintained, and labor can + never meet its expenses? Without the abolition of property, the + organization of labor is neither more nor less than a delusion. If + production should be quadrupled,—a thing which does not seem to me + at all impossible,—it would be labor lost: if the additional product + was not consumed, it would be of no value, and the proprietor would + decline to receive it as interest; if it was consumed, all the + disadvantages of property would reappear. It must be confessed that the + theory of passional attraction is gravely at fault in this particular, and + that Fourier, when he tried to harmonize the PASSION for property,—a + bad passion, whatever he may say to the contrary,—blocked his own + chariot-wheels. + </p> + <p> + The absurdity of the phalansterian economy is so gross, that many people + suspect Fourier, in spite of all the homage paid by him to proprietors, of + having been a secret enemy of property. This opinion might be supported by + plausible arguments; still it is not mine. Charlatanism was too important + a part for such a man to play, and sincerity too insignificant a one. I + would rather think Fourier ignorant (which is generally admitted) than + disingenuous. As for his disciples, before they can formulate any opinion + of their own, they must declare once for all, unequivocally and with no + mental reservation, whether they mean to maintain property or not, and + what they mean by their famous motto,—"To each according to his + capital, his labor, and his skill." + </p> + <p> + II. But, some half-converted proprietor will observe, "Would it not be + possible, by suppressing the bank, incomes, farm-rent, house-rent, usury + of all kinds, and finally property itself, to proportion products to + capacities? That was St. Simon's idea; it was also Fourier's; it is the + desire of the human conscience; and no decent person would dare maintain + that a minister of state should live no better than a peasant." + </p> + <p> + O Midas! your ears are long! What! will you never understand that + disparity of wages and the right of increase are one and the same? + Certainly, St. Simon, Fourier, and their respective flocks committed a + serious blunder in attempting to unite, the one, inequality and communism; + the other, inequality and property: but you, a man of figures, a man of + economy,—you, who know by heart your LOGARITHMIC tables,—how + can you make so stupid a mistake? + </p> + <p> + Does not political economy itself teach you that the product of a man, + whatever be his individual capacity, is never worth more than his labor, + and that a man's labor is worth no more than his consumption? You remind + me of that great constitution-framer, poor Pinheiro-Ferreira, the Sieyes + of the nineteenth century, who, dividing the citizens of a nation into + twelve classes,—or, if you prefer, into twelve grades,—assigned + to some a salary of one hundred thousand francs each; to others, eighty + thousand; then twenty-five thousand, fifteen thousand, ten thousand, &c., + down to one thousand five hundred, and one thousand francs, the minimum + allowance of a citizen. Pinheiro loved distinctions, and could no more + conceive of a State without great dignitaries than of an army without + drum-majors; and as he also loved, or thought he loved, liberty, equality, + and fraternity, he combined the good and the evil of our old society in an + eclectic philosophy which he embodied in a constitution. Excellent + Pinheiro! Liberty even to passive submission, fraternity even to identity + of language, equality even in the jury-box and at the guillotine,—such + was his ideal republic. Unappreciated genius, of whom the present century + was unworthy, but whom the future will avenge! + </p> + <p> + Listen, proprietor. Inequality of talent exists in fact; in right it is + not admissible, it goes for nothing, it is not thought of. One Newton in a + century is equal to thirty millions of men; the psychologist admires the + rarity of so fine a genius, the legislator sees only the rarity of the + function. Now, rarity of function bestows no privilege upon the + functionary; and that for several reasons, all equally forcible. + </p> + <p> + 1. Rarity of genius was not, in the Creator's design, a motive to compel + society to go down on its knees before the man of superior talents, but a + providential means for the performance of all functions to the greatest + advantage of all. + </p> + <p> + 2. Talent is a creation of society rather than a gift of Nature; it is an + accumulated capital, of which the receiver is only the guardian. Without + society,—without the education and powerful assistance which it + furnishes,—the finest nature would be inferior to the most ordinary + capacities in the very respect in which it ought to shine. The more + extensive a man's knowledge, the more luxuriant his imagination, the more + versatile his talent,—the more costly has his education been, the + more remarkable and numerous were his teachers and his models, and the + greater is his debt. The farmer produces from the time that he leaves his + cradle until he enters his grave: the fruits of art and science are late + and scarce; frequently the tree dies before the fruit ripens. Society, in + cultivating talent, makes a sacrifice to hope. + </p> + <p> + 3. Capacities have no common standard of comparison: the conditions of + development being equal, inequality of talent is simply speciality of + talent. + </p> + <p> + 4. Inequality of wages, like the right of increase, is economically + impossible. Take the most favorable case,—that where each laborer + has furnished his maximum production; that there may be an equitable + distribution of products, the share of each must be equal to the quotient + of the total production divided by the number of laborers. This done, what + remains wherewith to pay the higher wages? Nothing whatever. + </p> + <p> + Will it be said that all laborers should be taxed? But, then, their + consumption will not be equal to their production, their wages will not + pay for their productive service, they will not be able to repurchase + their product, and we shall once more be afflicted with all the calamities + of property. I do not speak of the injustice done to the defrauded + laborer, of rivalry, of excited ambition, and burning hatred,—these + may all be important considerations, but they do not hit the point. + </p> + <p> + On the one hand, each laborer's task being short and easy, and the means + for its successful accomplishment being equal in all cases, how could + there be large and small producers? On the other hand, all functions being + equal, either on account of the actual equivalence of talents and + capacities, or on account of social co-operation, how could a functionary + claim a salary proportional to the worth of his genius? + </p> + <p> + But, what do I say? In equality wages are always proportional to talents. + What is the economical meaning of wages? The reproductive consumption of + the laborer. The very act by which the laborer produces constitutes, then, + this consumption, exactly equal to his production, of which we are + speaking. When the astronomer produces observations, the poet verses, or + the savant experiments, they consume instruments, books, travels, &c., + &c.; now, if society supplies this consumption, what more can the + astronomer, the savant, or the poet demand? We must conclude, then, that + in equality, and only in equality, St. Simon's adage—TO EACH + ACCORDING TO HIS CAPACITY TO EACH CAPACITY ACCORDING TO ITS RESULTS—finds + its full and complete application. + </p> + <p> + III. The great evil—the horrible and ever-present evil—arising + from property, is that, while property exists, population, however + reduced, is, and always must be, over-abundant. Complaints have been made + in all ages of the excess of population; in all ages property has been + embarrassed by the presence of pauperism, not perceiving that it caused + it. Further,—nothing is more curious than the diversity of the plans + proposed for its extermination. Their atrocity is equalled only by their + absurdity. + </p> + <p> + The ancients made a practice of abandoning their children. The wholesale + and retail slaughter of slaves, civil and foreign wars, also lent their + aid. In Rome (where property held full sway), these three means were + employed so effectively, and for so long a time, that finally the empire + found itself without inhabitants. When the barbarians arrived, nobody was + to be found; the fields were no longer cultivated; grass grew in the + streets of the Italian cities. + </p> + <p> + In China, from time immemorial, upon famine alone has devolved the task of + sweeping away the poor. The people living almost exclusively upon rice, if + an accident causes the crop to fail, in a few days hunger kills the + inhabitants by myriads; and the Chinese historian records in the annals of + the empire, that in such a year of such an emperor twenty, thirty, fifty, + one hundred thousand inhabitants died of starvation. Then they bury the + dead, and recommence the production of children until another famine leads + to the same result. Such appears to have been, in all ages, the Confucian + economy. + </p> + <p> + I borrow the following facts from a modern economist:— + </p> + <p> + "Since the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, England has been preyed + upon by pauperism. At that time beggars were punished by law." + Nevertheless, she had not one-fourth as large a population as she has + to-day. + </p> + <p> + "Edward prohibits alms-giving, on pain of imprisonment.... The laws of + 1547 and 1656 prescribe a like punishment, in case of a second offence. + Elizabeth orders that each parish shall support its own paupers. But what + is a pauper? Charles II. decides that an UNDISPUTED residence of forty + days constitutes a settlement in a parish; but, if disputed, the new-comer + is forced to pack off. James II. modifies this decision, which is again + modified by William. In the midst of trials, reports, and modifications, + pauperism increases, and the workingman languishes and dies. + </p> + <p> + "The poor-tax in 1774 exceeded forty millions of francs; in 1783-4-5, it + averaged fifty-three millions; 1813, more than a hundred and eighty-seven + millions five hundred thousand francs; 1816, two hundred and fifty + millions; in 1817, it is estimated at three hundred and seventeen + millions. + </p> + <p> + "In 1821, the number of paupers enrolled upon the parish lists was + estimated at four millions, nearly one-third of the population. + </p> + <p> + "FRANCE. In 1544, Francis I. establishes a compulsory tax in behalf of the + poor. In 1566 and 1586, the same principle is applied to the whole + kingdom. + </p> + <p> + "Under Louis XIV., forty thousand paupers infested the capital [as many in + proportion as to-day]. Mendicity was punished severely. In 1740, the + Parliament of Paris re-establishes within its own jurisdiction the + compulsory assessment. + </p> + <p> + "The Constituent Assembly, frightened at the extent of the evil and the + difficulty of curing it, ordains the <i>statu quo</i>. + </p> + <p> + "The Convention proclaims assistance of the poor to be a NATIONAL DEBT. + Its law remains unexecuted. + </p> + <p> + "Napoleon also wishes to remedy the evil: his idea is imprisonment. 'In + that way,' said he, 'I shall protect the rich from the importunity of + beggars, and shall relieve them of the disgusting sight of abject + poverty.'" O wonderful man! + </p> + <p> + From these facts, which I might multiply still farther, two things are to + be inferred,—the one, that pauperism is independent of population; + the other, that all attempts hitherto made at its extermination have + proved abortive. + </p> + <p> + Catholicism founds hospitals and convents, and commands charity; that is, + she encourages mendicity. That is the extent of her insight as voiced by + her priests. + </p> + <p> + The secular power of Christian nations now orders taxes on the rich, now + banishment and imprisonment for the poor; that is, on the one hand, + violation of the right of property, and, on the other, civil death and + murder. + </p> + <p> + The modern economists—thinking that pauperism is caused by the + excess of population, exclusively—have devoted themselves to + devising checks. Some wish to prohibit the poor from marrying; thus,—having + denounced religious celibacy,—they propose compulsory celibacy, + which will inevitably become licentious celibacy. + </p> + <p> + Others do not approve this method, which they deem too violent; and which, + they say, deprives the poor man of THE ONLY PLEASURE WHICH HE KNOWS IN + THIS WORLD. They would simply recommend him to be PRUDENT. This opinion is + held by Malthus, Sismondi, Say, Droz, Duchatel, &c. But if the poor + are to be PRUDENT, the rich must set the example. Why should the + marriageable age of the latter be fixed at eighteen years, while that of + the former is postponed until thirty? + </p> + <p> + Again, they would do well to explain clearly what they mean by this + matrimonial prudence which they so urgently recommend to the laborer; for + here equivocation is especially dangerous, and I suspect that the + economists are not thoroughly understood. "Some half-enlightened + ecclesiastics are alarmed when they hear prudence in marriage advised; + they fear that the divine injunction—INCREASE AND MULTIPLY—is + to be set aside. To be logical, they must anathematize bachelors." (J. + Droz: Political Economy.) + </p> + <p> + M. Droz is too honest a man, and too little of a theologian, to see why + these casuists are so alarmed; and this chaste ignorance is the very best + evidence of the purity of his heart. Religion never has encouraged early + marriages; and the kind of PRUDENCE which it condemns is that described in + this Latin sentence from Sanchez,—<i>An licet ob metum liberorum + semen extra vas ejicere</i>? + </p> + <p> + Destutt de Tracy seems to dislike prudence in either form. He says: "I + confess that I no more share the desire of the moralists to diminish and + restrain our pleasures, than that of the politicians to increase our + procreative powers, and accelerate reproduction." He believes, then, that + we should love and marry when and as we please. Widespread misery results + from love and marriage, but this our philosopher does not heed. True to + the dogma of the necessity of evil, to evil he looks for the solution of + all problems. He adds: "The multiplication of men continuing in all + classes of society, the surplus members of the upper classes are supported + by the lower classes, and those of the latter are destroyed by poverty." + This philosophy has few avowed partisans; but it has over every other the + indisputable advantage of demonstration in practice. Not long since France + heard it advocated in the Chamber of Deputies, in the course of the + discussion on the electoral reform,—POVERTY WILL ALWAYS EXIST. That + is the political aphorism with which the minister of state ground to + powder the arguments of M. Arago. POVERTY WILL ALWAYS EXIST! Yes, so long + as property does. + </p> + <p> + The Fourierists—INVENTORS of so many marvellous contrivances—could + not, in this field, belie their character. They invented four methods of + checking increase of population at will. + </p> + <p> + 1. THE VIGOR OF WOMEN. On this point they are contradicted by experience; + for, although vigorous women may be less likely to conceive, nevertheless + they give birth to the healthiest children; so that the advantage of + maternity is on their side. + </p> + <p> + 2. INTEGRAL EXERCISE, or the equal development of all the physical powers. + If this development is equal, how is the power of reproduction lessened? + </p> + <p> + 3. THE GASTRONOMIC REGIME; or, in plain English, the philosophy of the + belly. The Fourierists say, that abundance of rich food renders women + sterile; just as too much sap—while enhancing the beauty of flowers—destroys + their reproductive capacity. But the analogy is a false one. Flowers + become sterile when the stamens—or male organs—are changed + into petals, as may be seen by inspecting a rose; and when through + excessive dampness the pollen loses its fertilizing power. Then,—in + order that the gastronomic regime may produce the results claimed for it,—not + only must the females be fattened, but the males must be rendered + impotent. + </p> + <p> + 4. PHANEROGAMIC MORALITY, or public concubinage. I know not why the + phalansterians use Greek words to convey ideas which can be expressed so + clearly in French. This method—like the preceding one—is + copied from civilized customs. Fourier, himself, cites the example of + prostitutes as a proof. Now we have no certain knowledge yet of the facts + which he quotes. So states Parent Duchatelet in his work on + "Prostitution." + </p> + <p> + From all the information which I have been able to gather, I find that all + the remedies for pauperism and fecundity—sanctioned by universal + practice, philosophy, political economy, and the latest reformers—may + be summed up in the following list: masturbation, onanism, <a + href="#linknote-19" name="linknoteref-19" id="linknoteref-19"><small>19</small></a> + sodomy, tribadie, polyandry, <a href="#linknote-20" name="linknoteref-20" + id="linknoteref-20"><small>20</small></a> prostitution, castration, + continence, abortion, and infanticide. <a href="#linknote-21" + name="linknoteref-21" id="linknoteref-21"><small>21</small></a> + </p> + <p> + All these methods being proved inadequate, there remains proscription. + </p> + <p> + Unfortunately, proscription, while decreasing the number of the poor, + increases their proportion. If the interest charged by the proprietor upon + the product is equal only to one-twentieth of the product (by law it is + equal to one-twentieth of the capital), it follows that twenty laborers + produce for nineteen only; because there is one among them, called + proprietor, who eats the share of two. Suppose that the twentieth laborer—the + poor one—is killed: the production of the following year will be + diminished one-twentieth; consequently the nineteenth will have to yield + his portion, and perish. For, since it is not one-twentieth of the product + of nineteen which must be paid to the proprietor, but one-twentieth of the + product of twenty (see third proposition), each surviving laborer must + sacrifice one-twentieth PLUS one four-hundredth of his product; in other + words, one man out of nineteen must be killed. Therefore, while property + exists, the more poor people we kill, the more there are born in + proportion. + </p> + <p> + Malthus, who proved so clearly that population increases in geometrical + progression, while production increases only in arithmetical progression, + did not notice this PAUPERIZING power of property. Had he observed this, + he would have understood that, before trying to check reproduction, the + right of increase should be abolished; because, wherever that right is + tolerated, there are always too many inhabitants, whatever the extent or + fertility of the soil. + </p> + <p> + It will be asked, perhaps, how I would maintain a balance between + population and production; for sooner or later this problem must be + solved. The reader will pardon me, if I do not give my method here. For, + in my opinion, it is useless to say a thing unless we prove it. Now, to + explain my method fully would require no less than a formal treatise. It + is a thing so simple and so vast, so common and so extraordinary, so true + and so misunderstood, so sacred and so profane, that to name it without + developing and proving it would serve only to excite contempt and + incredulity. One thing at a time. Let us establish equality, and this + remedy will soon appear; for truths follow each other, just as crimes and + errors do. + </p> + <p> + SIXTH PROPOSITION. + </p> + <p> + Property is impossible, because it is the Mother of Tyranny. + </p> + <p> + What is government? Government is public economy, the supreme + administrative power over public works and national possessions. + </p> + <p> + Now, the nation is like a vast society in which all the citizens are + stockholders. Each one has a deliberative voice in the assembly; and, if + the shares are equal, has one vote at his disposal. But, under the regime + of property, there is great inequality between the shares of the + stockholders; therefore, one may have several hundred votes, while another + has only one. If, for example, I enjoy an income of one million; that is, + if I am the proprietor of a fortune of thirty or forty millions well + invested, and if this fortune constitutes 1/30000 of the national capital,—it + is clear that the public administration of my property would form 1/30000 + of the duties of the government; and, if the nation had a population of + thirty-four millions, that I should have as many votes as one thousand one + hundred and thirty-three simple stockholders. + </p> + <p> + Thus, when M. Arago demands the right of suffrage for all members of the + National Guard, he is perfectly right; since every citizen is enrolled for + at least one national share, which entitles him to one vote. But the + illustrious orator ought at the same time to demand that each elector + shall have as many votes as he has shares; as is the case in commercial + associations. For to do otherwise is to pretend that the nation has a + right to dispose of the property of individuals without consulting them; + which is contrary to the right of property. In a country where property + exists, equality of electoral rights is a violation of property. + </p> + <p> + Now, if each citizen's sovereignty must and ought to be proportional to + his property, it follows that the small stock holders are at the mercy of + the larger ones; who will, as soon as they choose, make slaves of the + former, marry them at pleasure, take from them their wives, castrate their + sons, prostitute their daughters, throw the aged to the sharks,—and + finally will be forced to serve themselves in the same way, unless they + prefer to tax themselves for the support of their servants. In such a + condition is Great Britain to-day. John Bull—caring little for + liberty, equality, or dignity—prefers to serve and beg. But you, + bonhomme Jacques? + </p> + <p> + Property is incompatible with political and civil equality; then property + is impossible. + </p> + <p> + HISTORICAL COMMENTS.—1. When the vote of the third estate was + doubled by the States-General of 1789, property was grossly violated. The + nobility and the clergy possessed three-fourths of the soil of France; + they should have controlled three-fourths of the votes in the national + representation. To double the vote of the third estate was just, it is + said, since the people paid nearly all the taxes. This argument would be + sound, if there were nothing to be voted upon but taxes. But it was a + question at that time of reforming the government and the constitution; + consequently, the doubling of the vote of the third estate was a + usurpation, and an attack on property. + </p> + <p> + 2. If the present representatives of the radical opposition should come + into power, they would work a reform by which every National Guard should + be an elector, and every elector eligible for office,—an attack on + property. + </p> + <p> + They would lower the rate of interest on public funds,—an attack on + property. + </p> + <p> + They would, in the interest of the public, pass laws to regulate the + exportation of cattle and wheat,—an attack on property. + </p> + <p> + They would alter the assessment of taxes,—an attack on property. + </p> + <p> + They would educate the people gratuitously,—a conspiracy against + property. + </p> + <p> + They would organize labor; that is, they would guarantee labor to the + workingman, and give him a share in the profits,—the abolition of + property. + </p> + <p> + Now, these same radicals are zealous defenders of property,—a + radical proof that they know not what they do, nor what they wish. + </p> + <p> + 3. Since property is the grand cause of privilege and despotism, the form + of the republican oath should be changed. Instead of, "I swear hatred to + royalty," henceforth the new member of a secret society should say, "I + swear hatred to property." + </p> + <p> + SEVENTH PROPOSITION. + </p> + <p> + <i>Property is impossible, because, in consuming its Receipts, it loses + them; in hoarding them, it nullifies them; and in using them as Capital, + it turns them against Production</i>. + </p> + <p> + I. If, with the economists, we consider the laborer as a living machine, + we must regard the wages paid to him as the amount necessary to support + this machine, and keep it in repair. The head of a manufacturing + establishment—who employs laborers at three, five, ten, and fifteen + francs per day, and who charges twenty francs for his superintendence—does + not regard his disbursements as losses, because he knows they will return + to him in the form of products. Consequently, LABOR and REPRODUCTIVE + CONSUMPTION are identical. + </p> + <p> + What is the proprietor? He is a machine which does not work; or, which + working for its own pleasure, and only when it sees fit, produces nothing. + </p> + <p> + What is it to consume as a proprietor? It is to consume without working, + to consume without reproducing. For, once more, that which the proprietor + consumes as a laborer comes back to him; he does not give his labor in + exchange for his property, since, if he did, he would thereby cease to be + a proprietor. In consuming as a laborer, the proprietor gains, or at least + does not lose, since he recovers that which he consumes; in consuming as a + proprietor, he impoverishes himself. To enjoy property, then, it is + necessary to destroy it; to be a real proprietor, one must cease to be a + proprietor. + </p> + <p> + The laborer who consumes his wages is a machine which destroys and + reproduces; the proprietor who consumes his income is a bottomless gulf,—sand + which we water, a stone which we sow. So true is this, that the proprietor—neither + wishing nor knowing how to produce, and perceiving that as fast as he uses + his property he destroys it for ever—has taken the precaution to + make some one produce in his place. That is what political economy, + speaking in the name of eternal justice, calls PRODUCING BY HIS CAPITAL,—PRODUCING + BY HIS TOOLS. And that is what ought to be called PRODUCING BY A SLAVE—PRODUCING + AS A THIEF AND AS A TYRANT. He, the proprietor, produce!... The robber + might say, as well: "I produce." + </p> + <p> + The consumption of the proprietor has been styled luxury, in opposition to + USEFUL consumption. From what has just been said, we see that great luxury + can prevail in a nation which is not rich,—that poverty even + increases with luxury, and vice versa. The economists (so much credit must + be given them, at least) have caused such a horror of luxury, that to-day + a very large number of proprietors—not to say almost all—ashamed + of their idleness—labor, economize, and capitalize. They have jumped + from the frying-pan into the fire. + </p> + <p> + I cannot repeat it too often: the proprietor who thinks to deserve his + income by working, and who receives wages for his labor, is a functionary + who gets paid twice; that is the only difference between an idle + proprietor and a laboring proprietor. By his labor, the proprietor + produces his wages only—not his income. And since his condition + enables him to engage in the most lucrative pursuits, it may be said that + the proprietor's labor harms society more than it helps it. Whatever the + proprietor does, the consumption of his income is an actual loss, which + his salaried functions neither repair nor justify; and which would + annihilate property, were it not continually replenished by outside + production. + </p> + <p> + II. Then, the proprietor who consumes annihilates the product: he does + much worse if he lays it up. The things which he lays by pass into another + world; nothing more is seen of them, not even the <i>caput mortuum</i>,—the + smoke. If we had some means of transportation by which to travel to the + moon, and if the proprietors should be seized with a sudden fancy to carry + their savings thither, at the end of a certain time our terraqueous planet + would be transported by them to its satellite! + </p> + <p> + The proprietor who lays up products will neither allow others to enjoy + them, nor enjoy them himself; for him there is neither possession nor + property. Like the miser, he broods over his treasures: he does not use + them. He may feast his eyes upon them; he may lie down with them; he may + sleep with them in his arms: all very fine, but coins do not breed coins. + No real property without enjoyment; no enjoyment without consumption; no + consumption without loss of property,—such is the inflexible + necessity to which God's judgment compels the proprietor to bend. A curse + upon property! + </p> + <p> + III. The proprietor who, instead of consuming his income, uses it as + capital, turns it against production, and thereby makes it impossible for + him to exercise his right. For the more he increases the amount of + interest to be paid upon it, the more he is compelled to diminish wages. + Now, the more he diminishes wages,—that is, the less he devotes to + the maintenance and repair of the machines,—the more he diminishes + the quantity of labor; and with the quantity of labor the quantity of + product, and with the quantity of product the very source of his income. + This is clearly shown by the following example:— + </p> + <p> + Take an estate consisting of arable land, meadows, and vineyards, + containing the dwellings of the owner and the tenant; and worth, together + with the farming implements, one hundred thousand francs, the rate of + increase being three per cent. If, instead of consuming his revenue, the + proprietor uses it, not in enlarging but in beautifying his estate, can he + annually demand of his tenant an additional ninety francs on account of + the three thousand francs which he has thus added to his capital? + Certainly not; for on such conditions the tenant, though producing no more + than before, would soon be obliged to labor for nothing,—what do I + say? to actually suffer loss in order to hold his lease. + </p> + <p> + In fact, revenue can increase only as productive soil increases: it is + useless to build walls of marble, and work with plows of gold. But, since + it is impossible to go on acquiring for ever, to add estate to estate, to + CONTINUE ONE'S POSSESSIONS, as the Latins said; and since, moreover, the + proprietor always has means wherewith to capitalize,—it follows that + the exercise of his right finally becomes impossible. + </p> + <p> + Well, in spite of this impossibility, property capitalizes, and in + capitalizing increases its revenue; and, without stopping to look at the + particular cases which occur in commerce, manufacturing operations, and + banking, I will cite a graver fact,—one which directly affects all + citizens. I mean the indefinite increase of the budget. + </p> + <p> + The taxes increase every year. It would be difficult to tell in which + department of the government the expenses increase; for who can boast of + any knowledge as to the budget? On this point, the ablest financiers + continually disagree. What is to be thought, I ask, of the science of + government, when its professors cannot understand one another's figures? + Whatever be the immediate causes of this growth of the budget, it is + certain that taxation increases at a rate which causes everybody to + despair. Everybody sees it, everybody acknowledges it; but nobody seems to + understand the primary cause.[*] Now, I say that it cannot be otherwise,—that + it is necessary and inevitable. + </p> +<pre xml:space="preserve"> + * "The financial situation of the English government was shown up + in the House of Lords during the session of January 23. It is not + an encouraging one. For several years the expenses have exceeded the + receipts, and the Minister has been able to re-establish the balance + only by loans renewed annually. The combined deficits of the years 1838 + and 1839 amount to forty-seven million five hundred thousand francs. In + 1840, the excess of expenses over receipts is expected to be twenty-two + million five hundred thousand francs. Attention was called to these + figures by Lord Ripon. Lord Melbourne replied: 'The noble earl unhappily + was right in declaring that the public expenses continually increase, + and with him I must say that there is no room for hope that they can be + diminished or met in any way.'"—National: January 26, 1840. +</pre> + <p> + A nation is the tenant of a rich proprietor called the GOVERNMENT, to whom + it pays, for the use of the soil, a farm-rent called a tax. Whenever the + government makes war, loses or gains a battle, changes the outfit of its + army, erects a monu-ment, digs a canal, opens a road, or builds a railway, + it borrows money, on which the tax-payers pay interest; that is, the + government, without adding to its productive capacity, increases its + active capital,—in a word, capitalizes after the manner of the + proprietor of whom I have just spoken. + </p> + <p> + Now, when a governmental loan is once contracted, and the interest is once + stipulated, the budget cannot be reduced. For, to accomplish that, either + the capitalists must relinquish their interest, which would involve an + abandonment of property; or the government must go into bankruptcy, which + would be a fraudulent denial of the political principle; or it must pay + the debt, which would require another loan; or it must reduce expenses, + which is impossible, since the loan was contracted for the sole reason + that the ordinary receipts were insufficient; or the money expended by the + government must be reproductive, which requires an increase of productive + capacity,—a condition excluded by our hypothesis; or, finally, the + tax-payers must submit to a new tax in order to pay the debt,—an + impossible thing. For, if this new tax were levied upon all citizens + alike, half, or even more, of the citizens would be unable to pay it; if + the rich had to bear the whole, it would be a forced contribution,—an + invasion of property. Long financial experience has shown that the method + of loans, though exceedingly dangerous, is much surer, more convenient, + and less costly than any other method; consequently the government + borrows,—that is, goes on capitalizing,—and increases the + budget. + </p> + <p> + Then, a budget, instead of ever diminishing, must necessarily and + continually increase. It is astonishing that the economists, with all + their learning, have failed to perceive a fact so simple and so evident. + If they have perceived it, why have they neglected to condemn it? + </p> + <p> + HISTORICAL COMMENT.—Much interest is felt at present in a financial + operation which is expected to result in a reduction of the budget. It is + proposed to change the present rate of increase, five per cent. Laying + aside the politico-legal question to deal only with the financial + question,—is it not true that, when five per cent. is changed to + four per cent., it will then be necessary, for the same reasons, to change + four to three; then three to two, then two to one, and finally to sweep + away increase altogether? But that would be the advent of equality of + conditions and the abolition of property. Now it seems to me, that an + intelligent nation should voluntarily meet an inevitable revolution half + way, instead of suffering itself to be dragged after the car of inflexible + necessity. + </p> + <p> + EIGHTH PROPOSITION. + </p> + <p> + Property is impossible, because its power of Accumulation is infinite, and + is exercised only over finite quantities. + </p> + <p> + If men, living in equality, should grant to one of their number the + exclusive right of property; and this sole proprietor should lend one + hundred francs to the human race at compound interest, payable to his + descendants twenty-four generations hence,—at the end of six hundred + years this sum of one hundred francs, at five per cent., would amount to + 107,854,010,777,600 francs; two thousand six hundred and ninety-six and + one-third times the capital of France (supposing her capital to be + 40,000,000,000), or more than twenty times the value of the terrestrial + globe! + </p> + <p> + Suppose that a man, in the reign of St. Louis, had borrowed one hundred + francs, and had refused,—he and his heirs after him,—to return + it. Even though it were known that the said heirs were not the rightful + possessors, and that prescription had been interrupted always at the right + moment,—nevertheless, by our laws, the last heir would be obliged to + return the one hundred francs with interest, and interest on the interest; + which in all would amount, as we have seen, to nearly one hundred and + eight thousand billions. + </p> + <p> + Every day, fortunes are growing in our midst much more rapidly than this. + The preceding example supposed the interest equal to one-twentieth of the + capital,—it often equals one-tenth, one-fifth, one-half of the + capital; and sometimes the capital itself. + </p> + <p> + The Fourierists—irreconcilable enemies of equality, whose partisans + they regard as SHARKS—intend, by quadrupling production, to satisfy + all the demands of capital, labor, and skill. But, should production be + multiplied by four, ten, or even one hundred, property would soon absorb, + by its power of accumulation and the effects of its capitalization, both + products and capital, and the land, and even the laborers. Is the + phalanstery to be prohibited from capitalizing and lending at interest? + Let it explain, then, what it means by property. + </p> + <p> + I will carry these calculations no farther. They are capable of infinite + variation, upon which it would be puerile for me to insist. I only ask by + what standard judges, called upon to decide a suit for possession, fix the + interest? And, developing the question, I ask,— + </p> + <p> + Did the legislator, in introducing into the Republic the principle of + property, weigh all the consequences? Did he know the law of the possible? + If he knew it, why is it not in the Code? Why is so much latitude allowed + to the proprietor in accumulating property and charging interest,—to + the judge in recognizing and fixing the domain of property,—to the + State in its power to levy new taxes continually? At what point is the + nation justified in repudiating the budget, the tenant his farm-rent, and + the manufacturer the interest on his capital? How far may the idler take + advantage of the laborer? Where does the right of spoliation begin, and + where does it end? When may the producer say to the proprietor, "I owe you + nothing more"? When is property satisfied? When must it cease to steal? + </p> + <p> + If the legislator did know the law of the possible, and disregarded it, + what must be thought of his justice? If he did not know it, what must be + thought of his wisdom? Either wicked or foolish, how can we recognize his + authority? + </p> + <p> + If our charters and our codes are based upon an absurd hypothesis, what is + taught in the law-schools? What does a judgment of the Court of Appeal + amount to? About what do our Chambers deliberate? What is POLITICS? What + is our definition of a STATESMAN? What is the meaning of JURISPRUDENCE? + Should we not rather say JURISIGNORANCE? + </p> + <p> + If all our institutions are based upon an error in calculation, does it + not follow that these institutions are so many shams? And if the entire + social structure is built upon this absolute impossibility of property, is + it not true that the government under which we live is a chimera, and our + present society a utopia? + </p> + <p> + NINTH PROPOSITION. + </p> + <p> + Property is impossible, because it is powerless against Property. + </p> + <p> + I. By the third corollary of our axiom, interest tells against the + proprietor as well as the stranger. This economical principle is + universally admitted. Nothing simpler at first blush; yet, nothing more + absurd, more contradictory in terms, or more absolutely impossible. + </p> + <p> + The manufacturer, it is said, pays himself the rent on his house and + capital. HE PAYS HIMSELF; that is, he gets paid by the public who buy his + products. For, suppose the manufacturer, who seems to make this profit on + his property, wishes also to make it on his merchandise, can he then pay + himself one franc for that which cost him ninety centimes, and make money + by the operation? No: such a transaction would transfer the merchant's + money from his right hand to his left, but without any profit whatever. + </p> + <p> + Now, that which is true of a single individual trading with himself is + true also of the whole business world. Form a chain of ten, fifteen, + twenty producers; as many as you wish. If the producer A makes a profit + out of the producer B. B's loss must, according to economical principles, + be made up by C, C's by D; and so on through to Z. + </p> + <p> + But by whom will Z be paid for the loss caused him by the profit charged + by A in the beginning? BY THE CONSUMER, replies Say. Contemptible + equivocation! Is this consumer any other, then, than A, B. C, D, &c., + or Z? By whom will Z be paid? If he is paid by A, no one makes a profit; + consequently, there is no property. If, on the contrary, Z bears the + burden himself, he ceases to be a member of society; since it refuses him + the right of property and profit, which it grants to the other associates. + </p> + <p> + Since, then, a nation, like universal humanity, is a vast industrial + association which cannot act outside of itself, it is clear that no man + can enrich himself without impoverishing another. For, in order that the + right of property, the right of increase, may be respected in the case of + A, it must be denied to Z; thus we see how equality of rights, separated + from equality of conditions, may be a truth. The iniquity of political + economy in this respect is flagrant. "When I, a manufacturer, purchase the + labor of a workingman, I do not include his wages in the net product of my + business; on the contrary, I deduct them. But the workingman includes them + in his net product.... "(Say: Political Economy.) + </p> + <p> + That means that all which the workingman gains is NET PRODUCT; but that + only that part of the manufacturer's gains is NET PRODUCT, which remains + after deducting his wages. But why is the right of profit confined to the + manufacturer? Why is this right, which is at bottom the right of property + itself, denied to the workingman? In the terms of economical science, the + workingman is capital. Now, all capital, beyond the cost of its + maintenance and repair, must bear interest. This the proprietor takes care + to get, both for his capital and for himself. Why is the workingman + prohibited from charging a like interest for his capital, which is + himself? + </p> + <p> + Property, then, is inequality of rights; for, if it were not inequality of + rights, it would be equality of goods,—in other words, it would not + exist. Now, the charter guarantees to all equality of rights. Then, by the + charter, property is impossible. + </p> + <p> + II. Is A, the proprietor of an estate, entitled by the fact of his + proprietorship to take possession of the field belonging to B. his + neighbor? "No," reply the proprietors; "but what has that to do with the + right of property?" That I shall show you by a series of similar + propositions. + </p> + <p> + Has C, a hatter, the right to force D, his neighbor and also a hatter, to + close his shop, and cease his business? Not the least in the world. + </p> + <p> + But C wishes to make a profit of one franc on every hat, while D is + content with fifty centimes. It is evident that D's moderation is + injurious to C's extravagant claims. Has the latter a right to prevent D + from selling? Certainly not. + </p> + <p> + Since D is at liberty to sell his hats fifty centimes cheaper than C if he + chooses, C in his turn is free to reduce his price one franc. Now, D is + poor, while C is rich; so that at the end of two or three years D is + ruined by this intolerable competition, and C has complete control of the + market. Can the proprietor D get any redress from the proprietor C? Can he + bring a suit against him to recover his business and property? No; for D + could have done the same thing, had he been the richer of the two. + </p> + <p> + On the same ground, the large proprietor A may say to the small proprietor + B: "Sell me your field, otherwise you shall not sell your wheat,"—and + that without doing him the least wrong, or giving him ground for + complaint. So that A can devour B if he likes, for the very reason that A + is stronger than B. Consequently, it is not the right of property which + enables A and C to rob B and D, but the right of might. By the right of + property, neither the two neighbors A and B, nor the two merchants C and + D, could harm each other. They could neither dispossess nor destroy one + another, nor gain at one another's expense. The power of invasion lies in + superior strength. + </p> + <p> + But it is superior strength also which enables the manufacturer to reduce + the wages of his employees, and the rich merchant and well-stocked + proprietor to sell their products for what they please. The manufacturer + says to the laborer, "You are as free to go elsewhere with your services + as I am to receive them. I offer you so much." The merchant says to the + customer, "Take it or leave it; you are master of your money, as I am of + my goods. I want so much." Who will yield? The weaker. + </p> + <p> + Therefore, without force, property is powerless against property, since + without force it has no power to increase; therefore, without force, + property is null and void. + </p> + <p> + HISTORICAL COMMENT.—The struggle between colonial and native sugars + furnishes us a striking example of this impossibility of property. Leave + these two industries to themselves, and the native manufacturer will be + ruined by the colonist. To maintain the beet-root, the cane must be taxed: + to protect the property of the one, it is necessary to injure the property + of the other. The most remarkable feature of this business is precisely + that to which the least attention is paid; namely, that, in one way or + another, property has to be violated. Impose on each industry a + proportional tax, so as to preserve a balance in the market, and you + create a MAXIMUM PRICE,—you attack property in two ways. On the one + hand, your tax interferes with the liberty of trade; on the other, it does + not recognize equality of proprietors. Indemnify the beet-root, you + violate the property of the tax-payer. Cultivate the two varieties of + sugar at the nation's expense, just as different varieties of tobacco are + cultivated,—you abolish one species of property. This last course + would be the simpler and better one; but, to induce the nations to adopt + it, requires such a co-operation of able minds and generous hearts as is + at present out of the question. + </p> + <p> + Competition, sometimes called liberty of trade,—in a word, property + in exchange,—will be for a long time the basis of our commercial + legislation; which, from the economical point of view, embraces all civil + laws and all government. Now, what is competition? A duel in a closed + field, where arms are the test of right. + </p> + <p> + "Who is the liar,—the accused or the accuser?" said our barbarous + ancestors. "Let them fight it out," replied the still more barbarous + judge; "the stronger is right." + </p> + <p> + Which of us two shall sell spices to our neighbor? "Let each offer them + for sale," cries the economist; "the sharper, or the more cunning, is the + more honest man, and the better merchant." + </p> + <p> + Such is the exact spirit of the Code Napoleon. + </p> + <p> + TENTH PROPOSITION. + </p> + <p> + Property is impossible, because it is the Negation of equality. + </p> + <p> + The development of this proposition will be the resume of the preceding + ones. + </p> + <p> + 1. It is a principle of economical justice, that PRODUCTS ARE BOUGHT ONLY + BY PRODUCTS. Property, being capable of defence only on the ground that it + produces utility, is, since it produces nothing, for ever condemned. + </p> + <p> + 2. It is an economical law, that LABOR MUST BE BALANCED BY PRODUCT. It is + a fact that, with property, production costs more than it is worth. + </p> + <p> + 3. Another economical law: THE CAPITAL BEING GIVEN, PRODUCTION IS + MEASURED, NOT BY THE AMOUNT OF CAPITAL, BUT BY PRODUCTIVE CAPACITY. + Property, requiring income to be always proportional to capital without + regard to labor, does not recognize this relation of equality between + effect and cause. + </p> + <p> + 4 and 5. Like the insect which spins its silk, the laborer never produces + for himself alone. Property, demanding a double product and unable to + obtain it, robs the laborer, and kills him. + </p> + <p> + 6. Nature has given to every man but one mind, one heart, one will. + Property, granting to one individual a plurality of votes, supposes him to + have a plurality of minds. + </p> + <p> + 7. All consumption which is not reproductive of utility is destruction. + Property, whether it consumes or hoards or capitalizes, is productive of + INUTILITY,—the cause of sterility and death. + </p> + <p> + 8. The satisfaction of a natural right always gives rise to an equation; + in other words, the right to a thing is necessarily balanced by the + possession of the thing. Thus, between the right to liberty and the + condition of a free man there is a balance, an equation; between the right + to be a father and paternity, an equation; between the right to security + and the social guarantee, an equation. But between the right of increase + and the receipt of this increase there is never an equation; for every new + increase carries with it the right to another, the latter to a third, and + so on for ever. Property, never being able to accomplish its object, is a + right against Nature and against reason. + </p> + <p> + 9. Finally, property is not self-existent. An extraneous cause—either + FORCE or FRAUD—is necessary to its life and action. In other words, + property is not equal to property: it is a negation—a delusion—NOTHING. + </p> + <p> + <a name="link2HCH0005" id="link2HCH0005"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /><br /><br /><br /> + </div> + <h2> + CHAPTER V. PSYCHOLOGICAL EXPOSITION OF THE IDEA OF JUSTICE + </h2> +<pre xml:space="preserve"> + PSYCHOLOGICAL EXPOSITION OF THE IDEA OF JUSTICE AND + INJUSTICE, AND A DETERMINATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF + GOVERNMENT AND OF RIGHT. +</pre> + <p> + Property is impossible; equality does not exist. We hate the former, and + yet wish to possess it; the latter rules all our thoughts, yet we know not + how to reach it. Who will explain this profound antagonism between our + conscience and our will? Who will point out the causes of this pernicious + error, which has become the most sacred principle of justice and society? + </p> + <p> + I am bold enough to undertake the task, and I hope to succeed. + </p> + <p> + But before explaining why man has violated justice, it is necessary to + determine what justice is. + </p> + <p> + <a name="link2H_PART" id="link2H_PART"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /><br /><br /><br /> + </div> + <h2> + PART FIRST. + </h2> + <p> + % 1.—Of the Moral Sense in Man and the Animals. + </p> + <p> + The philosophers have endeavored often to locate the line which separates + man's intelligence from that of the brutes; and, according to their + general custom, they gave utterance to much foolishness before resolving + upon the only course possible for them to take,—observation. It was + reserved for an unpretending savant—who perhaps did not pride + himself on his philosophy—to put an end to the interminable + controversy by a simple distinction; but one of those luminous + distinctions which are worth more than systems. Frederic Cuvier separated + INSTINCT from INTELLIGENCE. + </p> + <p> + But, as yet, no one has proposed this question:— + </p> + <p> + IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MAN'S MORAL SENSE AND THAT OF THE BRUTE A + DIFFERENCE IN KIND OR ONLY IN DEGREE? + </p> + <p> + If, hitherto, any one had dared to maintain the latter alternative, his + arguments would have seemed scandalous, blasphemous, and offensive to + morality and religion. The ecclesiastical and secular tribunals would have + condemned him with one voice. And, mark the style in which they would have + branded the immoral paradox! "Conscience,"—they would have cried,—"conscience, + man's chief glory, was given to him exclusively; the notion of justice and + injustice, of merit and demerit, is his noble privilege; to man, alone,—the + lord of creation,—belongs the sublime power to resist his worldly + propensities, to choose between good and evil, and to bring himself more + and more into the resemblance of God through liberty and justice.... No; + the holy image of virtue was never graven save on the heart of man." Words + full of feeling, but void of sense. + </p> + <p> + Man is a rational and social animal—{GREEK ' c g}—said + Aristotle. This definition is worth more than all which have been given + since. I do not except even M. de Bonald's celebrated definition,—MAN + IS AN INTELLECT SERVED BY ORGANS—a definition which has the double + fault of explaining the known by the unknown; that is, the living being by + the intellect; and of neglecting man's essential quality,—animality. + </p> + <p> + Man, then, is an animal living in society. Society means the sum total of + relationships; in short, system. Now, all systems exist only on certain + conditions. What, then, are the conditions, the LAWS, of human society? + </p> + <p> + What are the RIGHTS of men with respect to each other; what is JUSTICE? + </p> + <p> + It amounts to nothing to say,—with the philosophers of various + schools,—"It is a divine instinct, an immortal and heavenly voice, a + guide given us by Nature, a light revealed unto every man on coming into + the world, a law engraved upon our hearts; it is the voice of conscience, + the dictum of reason, the inspiration of sentiment, the penchant of + feeling; it is the love of self in others; it is enlightened + self-interest; or else it is an innate idea, the imperative command of + applied reason, which has its source in the concepts of pure reason; it is + a passional attraction," &c., &c. This may be as true as it seems + beautiful; but it is utterly meaningless. Though we should prolong this + litany through ten pages (it has been filtered through a thousand + volumes), we should be no nearer to the solution of the question. + </p> + <p> + "Justice is public utility," says Aristotle. That is true, but it is a + tautology. "The principle that the public welfare ought to be the object + of the legislator"—says M. Ch. Comte in his "Treatise on + Legislation"—"cannot be overthrown. But legislation is advanced no + farther by its announcement and demonstration, than is medicine when it is + said that it is the business of physicians to cure the sick." + </p> + <p> + Let us take another course. RUGHT is the sum total of the principles which + govern society. Justice, in man, is the respect and observation of those + principles. To practise justice is to obey the social instinct; to do an + act of justice is to do a social act. If, then, we watch the conduct of + men towards each other under different circumstances, it will be easy for + us to distinguish between the presence and absence of society; from the + result we may inductively infer the law. + </p> + <p> + Let us commence with the simplest and least doubtful cases. + </p> + <p> + The mother, who protects her son at the peril of her life, and sacrifices + every thing to his support, is in society with him—she is a good + mother. She, on the contrary, who abandons her child, is unfaithful to the + social instinct,—maternal love being one of its many features; she + is an unnatural mother. + </p> + <p> + If I plunge into the water to rescue a drowning man, I am his brother, his + associate; if, instead of aiding him, I sink him, I am his enemy, his + murderer. + </p> + <p> + Whoever bestows alms treats the poor man as his associate; not thoroughly, + it is true, but only in respect to the amount which he shares with him. + Whoever takes by force or stratagem that which is not the product of his + labor, destroys his social character—he is a brigand. + </p> + <p> + The Samaritan who relieves the traveller lying by the wayside, dresses his + wounds, comforts him, and supplies him with money, thereby declares + himself his associate—his neighbor; the priest, who passes by on the + other side, remains unassociated, and is his enemy. + </p> + <p> + In all these cases, man is moved by an internal attraction towards his + fellow, by a secret sympathy which causes him to love, congratulate, and + condole; so that, to resist this attraction, his will must struggle + against his nature. + </p> + <p> + But in these respects there is no decided difference between man and the + animals. With them, as long as the weakness of their young endears them to + their mothers,—in a word, associates them with their mothers,—the + latter protect the former, at the peril of their lives, with a courage + which reminds us of our heroes dying for their country. Certain species + unite for hunting purposes, seek each other, call each other (a poet would + say invite each other), to share their prey; in danger they aid, protect, + and warn each other. The elephant knows how to help his companion out of + the ditch into which the latter has fallen. Cows form a circle, with their + horns outward and their calves in the centre, in order to repel the + attacks of wolves. Horses and pigs, on hearing a cry of distress from one + of their number, rush to the spot whence it comes. What descriptions I + might give of their marriages, the tenderness of the males towards the + females, and the fidelity of their loves! Let us add, however,—to be + entirely just—that these touching demonstrations of society, + fraternity, and love of neighbor, do not prevent the animals from + quarrelling, fighting, and outrageously abusing one another while gaining + their livelihood and showing their gallantry; the resemblance between them + and ourselves is perfect. + </p> + <p> + The social instinct, in man and beast, exists to a greater or less degree—its + nature is the same. Man has the greater need of association, and employs + it more; the animal seems better able to endure isolation. In man, social + needs are more imperative and complex; in the beast, they seem less + intense, less diversified, less regretted. Society, in a word, aims, in + the case of man, at the preservation of the race and the individual; with + the animals, its object is more exclusively the preservation of the race. + </p> + <p> + As yet, we have met with no claim which man can make for himself alone. + The social instinct and the moral sense he shares with the brutes; and + when he thinks to become god-like by a few acts of charity, justice, and + devotion, he does not perceive that in so acting he simply obeys an + instinct wholly animal in its nature. As we are good, loving, tender, + just, so we are passionate, greedy, lewd, and vindictive; that is, we are + like the beasts. Our highest virtues appear, in the last analysis, as + blind, impulsive instincts. What subjects for canonization and apotheosis! + </p> + <p> + There is, however, a difference between us two-handed bipeds and other + living creatures—what is it? + </p> + <p> + A student of philosophy would hasten to reply: "This difference lies in + the fact that we are conscious of our social faculty, while the animals + are unconscious of theirs—in the fact that while we reflect and + reason upon the operation of our social instinct, the animals do nothing + of the kind." + </p> + <p> + I will go farther. It is by our reflective and reasoning powers, with + which we seem to be exclusively endowed, that we know that it is + injurious, first to others and then to ourselves, to resist the social + instinct which governs us, and which we call JUSTICE. It is our reason + which teaches us that the selfish man, the robber, the murderer—in a + word, the traitor to society—sins against Nature, and is guilty with + respect to others and himself, when he does wrong wilfully. Finally, it is + our social sentiment on the one hand, and our reason on the other, which + cause us to think that beings such as we should take the responsibility of + their acts. Such is the principle of remorse, revenge, and penal justice. + </p> + <p> + But this proves only an intellectual diversity between the animals and + man, not at all an affectional one; for, although we reason upon our + relations with our fellows, we likewise reason upon our most trivial + actions,—such as drinking, eating, choosing a wife, or selecting a + dwelling-place. We reason upon things earthly and things heavenly; there + is nothing to which our reasoning powers are not applicable. Now, just as + the knowledge of external phenomena, which we acquire, has no influence + upon their causes and laws, so reflection, by illuminating our instinct, + enlightens us as to our sentient nature, but does not alter its character; + it tells us what our morality is, but neither changes nor modifies it. Our + dissatisfaction with ourselves after doing wrong, the indignation which we + feel at the sight of injustice, the idea of deserved punishment and due + remuneration, are effects of reflection, and not immediate effects of + instinct and emotion. Our appreciation (I do not say exclusive + appreciation, for the animals also realize that they have done wrong, and + are indignant when one of their number is attacked, but), our infinitely + superior appreciation of our social duties, our knowledge of good and + evil, does not establish, as regards morality, any vital difference + between man and the beasts. + </p> + <p> + % 2.—Of the first and second degrees of Sociability. + </p> + <p> + I insist upon the fact, which I have just pointed out, as one of the most + important facts of anthropology. + </p> + <p> + The sympathetic attraction, which causes us to associate, is, by reason of + its blind, unruly nature, always governed by temporary impulse, without + regard to higher rights, and without distinction of merit or priority. The + bastard dog follows indifferently all who call it; the suckling child + regards every man as its father and every woman as its nurse; every living + creature, when deprived of the society of animals of its species, seeks + companionship in its solitude. This fundamental characteristic of the + social instinct renders intolerable and even hateful the friendship of + frivolous persons, liable to be infatuated with every new face, + accommodating to all whether good or bad, and ready to sacrifice, for a + passing liaison, the oldest and most honorable affections. The fault of + such beings is not in the heart—it is in the judgment. Sociability, + in this degree, is a sort of magnetism awakened in us by the contemplation + of a being similar to ourselves, but which never goes beyond the person + who feels it; it may be reciprocated, but not communicated. Love, + benevolence, pity, sympathy, call it what you will, there is nothing in it + which deserves esteem,—nothing which lifts man above the beast. + </p> + <p> + The second degree of sociability is justice, which may be defined as the + RECOGNITION OF THE EQUALITY BETWEEN ANOTHER'S PERSONALITY AND OUR OWN. The + sentiment of justice we share with the animals; we alone can form an exact + idea of it; but our idea, as has been said already, does not change its + nature. We shall soon see how man rises to a third degree of sociability + which the animals are incapable of reaching. But I must first prove by + metaphysics that SOCIETY, JUSTICE, and EQUALITY, are three equivalent + terms,—three expressions meaning the same thing,—whose mutual + conversion is always allowable. + </p> + <p> + If, amid the confusion of a shipwreck, having escaped in a boat with some + provisions, I see a man struggling with the waves, am I bound to go to his + assistance? Yes, I am bound under penalty of being adjudged guilty of + murder and treason against society. + </p> + <p> + But am I also bound to share with him my provisions? + </p> + <p> + To settle this question, we must change the phraseology. If society is + binding on the boat, is it also binding on the provisions? Undoubtedly. + The duty of an associate is absolute. Man's occupancy succeeds his social + nature, and is subordinate to it; possession can become exclusive only + when permission to occupy is granted to all alike. That which in this + instance obscures our duty is our power of foresight, which, causing us to + fear an eventual danger, impels us to usurpation, and makes us robbers and + murderers. Animals do not calculate the duty of instinct any more than the + disadvantages resulting to those who exercise it; it would be strange if + the intellect of man—the most sociable of animals—should lead + him to disobey the law. + </p> + <p> + He betrays society who attempts to use it only for his own advantage; + better that God should deprive us of prudence, if it is to serve as the + tool of our selfishness. + </p> + <p> + "What!" you will say, "must I share my bread, the bread which I have + earned and which belongs to me, with the stranger whom I do not know; whom + I may never see again, and who, perhaps, will reward me with ingratitude? + If we had earned this bread together, if this man had done something to + obtain it, he might demand his share, since his co-operation would entitle + him to it; but as it is, what claim has he on me? We have not produced + together—we shall not eat together." + </p> + <p> + The fallacy in this argument lies in the false supposition, that each + producer is not necessarily associated with every other producer. + </p> + <p> + When two or more individuals have regularly organized a society,—when + the contracts have been agreed upon, drafted, and signed,—there is + no difficulty about the future. Everybody knows that when two men + associate—for instance—in order to fish, if one of them + catches no fish, he is none the less entitled to those caught by his + associate. If two merchants form a partnership, while the partnership + lasts, the profits and losses are divided between them; since each + produces, not for himself, but for the society: when the time of + distribution arrives, it is not the producer who is considered, but the + associate. That is why the slave, to whom the planter gives straw and + rice; and the civilized laborer, to whom the capitalist pays a salary + which is always too small,—not being associated with their + employers, although producing with them,—are disregarded when the + product is divided. Thus, the horse who draws our coaches, and the ox who + draws our carts produce with us, but are not associated with us; we take + their product, but do not share it with them. The animals and laborers + whom we employ hold the same relation to us. Whatever we do for them, we + do, not from a sense of justice, but out of pure benevolence. <a + href="#linknote-22" name="linknoteref-22" id="linknoteref-22"><small>22</small></a> + </p> + <p> + But is it possible that we are not all associated? Let us call to mind + what was said in the last two chapters, That even though we do not want to + be associated, the force of things, the necessity of consumption, the laws + of production, and the mathematical principle of exchange combine to + associate us. There is but a single exception to this rule,—that of + the proprietor, who, producing by his right of increase, is not associated + with any one, and consequently is not obliged to share his product with + any one; just as no one else is bound to share with him. With the + exception of the proprietor, we labor for each other; we can do nothing by + ourselves unaided by others, and we continually exchange products and + services with each other. If these are not social acts, what are they? + </p> + <p> + Now, neither a commercial, nor an industrial, nor an agricultural + association can be conceived of in the absence of equality; equality is + its sine qua non. So that, in all matters which concern this association, + to violate society is to violate justice and equality. Apply this + principle to humanity at large. + </p> + <p> + After what has been said, I assume that the reader has sufficient insight + to enable him to dispense with any aid of mine. + </p> + <p> + By this principle, the man who takes possession of a field, and says, + "This field is mine," will not be unjust so long as every one else has an + equal right of possession; nor will he be unjust, if, wishing to change + his location, he exchanges this field for an equivalent. But if, putting + another in his place, he says to him, "Work for me while I rest," he then + becomes unjust, unassociated, UNEQUAL. He is a proprietor. + </p> + <p> + Reciprocally, the sluggard, or the rake, who, without performing any + social task, enjoys like others—and often more than others—the + products of society, should be proceeded against as a thief and a + parasite. We owe it to ourselves to give him nothing; but, since he must + live, to put him under supervision, and compel him to labor. + </p> + <p> + Sociability is the attraction felt by sentient beings for each other. + Justice is this same attraction, accompanied by thought and knowledge. But + under what general concept, in what category of the understanding, is + justice placed? In the category of equal quantities. Hence, the ancient + definition of justice—<i>Justum aequale est, injustum inaequale</i>. + What is it, then, to practise justice? It is to give equal wealth to each, + on condition of equal labor. It is to act socially. Our selfishness may + complain; there is no escape from evidence and necessity. + </p> + <p> + What is the right of occupancy? It is a natural method of dividing the + earth, by reducing each laborer's share as fast as new laborers present + themselves. This right disappears if the public interest requires it; + which, being the social interest, is also that of the occupant. + </p> + <p> + What is the right of labor? It is the right to obtain one's share of + wealth by fulfilling the required conditions. It is the right of society, + the right of equality. + </p> + <p> + Justice, which is the product of the combination of an idea and an + instinct, manifests itself in man as soon as he is capable of feeling, and + of forming ideas. Consequently, it has been regarded as an innate and + original sentiment; but this opinion is logically and chronologically + false. But justice, by its composition hybrid—if I may use the term,—justice, + born of emotion and intellect combined, seems to me one of the strongest + proofs of the unity and simplicity of the ego; the organism being no more + capable of producing such a mixture by itself, than are the combined + senses of hearing and sight of forming a binary sense, half auditory and + half visual. + </p> + <p> + This double nature of justice gives us the definitive basis of all the + demonstrations in Chapters II., III., and IV. On the one hand, the idea of + JUSTICE being identical with that of society, and society necessarily + implying equality, equality must underlie all the sophisms invented in + defence of property; for, since property can be defended only as a just + and social institution, and property being inequality, in order to prove + that property is in harmony with society, it must be shown that injustice + is justice, and that inequality is equality,—a contradiction in + terms. On the other hand, since the idea of equality—the second + element of justice—has its source in the mathematical proportions of + things; and since property, or the unequal distribution of wealth among + laborers, destroys the necessary balance between labor, production, and + consumption,—property must be impossible. + </p> + <p> + All men, then, are associated; all are entitled to the same justice; all + are equal. Does it follow that the preferences of love and friendship are + unjust? + </p> + <p> + This requires explanation. I have already supposed the case of a man in + peril, I being in a position to help him. Now, I suppose myself appealed + to at the same time by two men exposed to danger. + </p> + <p> + Am I not allowed—am I not commanded even—to rush first to the + aid of him who is endeared to me by ties of blood, friendship, + acquaintance, or esteem, at the risk of leaving the other to perish? Yes. + And why? Because within universal society there exist for each of us as + many special societies as there are individuals; and we are bound, by the + principle of sociability itself, to fulfil the obligations which these + impose upon us, according to the intimacy of our relations with them. + Therefore we must give our father, mother, children, friends, relatives, + &c., the preference over all others. But in what consists this + preference? + </p> + <p> + A judge has a case to decide, in which one of the parties is his friend, + and the other his enemy. Should he, in this instance, prefer his INTIMATE + ASSOCIATE to his DISTANT ASSOCIATE; and decide the case in favor of his + friend, in spite of evidence to the contrary? No: for, if he should favor + his friend's injustice, he would become his accomplice in his violation of + the social compact; he would form with him a sort of conspiracy against + the social body. Preference should be shown only in personal matters, such + as love, esteem, confidence, or intimacy, when all cannot be considered at + once. Thus, in case of fire, a father would save his own child before + thinking of his neighbor's; but the recognition of a right not being an + optional matter with a judge, he is not at liberty to favor one person to + the detriment of another. + </p> + <p> + The theory of these special societies—which are formed + concentrically, so to speak, by each of us inside of the main body—gives + the key to all the problems which arise from the opposition and conflict + of the different varieties of social duty,—problems upon which the + ancient tragedies are based. + </p> + <p> + The justice practised among animals is, in a certain degree, negative. + With the exception of protecting their young, hunting and plundering in + troops, uniting for common defence and sometimes for individual + assistance, it consists more in prevention than in action. A sick animal + who cannot arise from the ground, or an imprudent one who has fallen over + a precipice, receives neither medicine nor nourishment. If he cannot cure + himself, nor relieve himself of his trouble, his life is in danger: he + will neither be cared for in bed, nor fed in a prison. + </p> + <p> + Their neglect of their fellows arises as much from the weakness of their + intellect as from their lack of resources. Still, the degrees of intimacy + common among men are not unknown to the animals. They have friendships of + habit and of choice; friendships neighborly, and friendships parental. In + comparison with us, they have feeble memories, sluggish feelings, and are + almost destitute of intelligence; but the identity of these faculties is + preserved to some extent, and our superiority in this respect arises + entirely from our understanding. + </p> + <p> + It is our strength of memory and penetration of judgment which enable us + to multiply and combine the acts which our social instinct impels us to + perform, and which teaches us how to render them more effective, and how + to distribute them justly. The beasts who live in society practise + justice, but are ignorant of its nature, and do not reason upon it; they + obey their instinct without thought or philosophy. They know not how to + unite the social sentiment with the idea of equality, which they do not + possess; this idea being an abstract one. We, on the contrary, starting + with the principle that society implies equality, can, by our reasoning + faculty, understand and agree with each other in settling our rights; we + have even used our judgment to a great extent. But in all this our + conscience plays a small part, as is proved by the fact that the idea of + RIGHT—of which we catch a glimpse in certain animals who approach + nearer than any others to our standard of intelligence—seems to + grow, from the low level at which it stands in savages, to the lofty + height which it reaches in a Plato or a Franklin. If we trace the + development of the moral sense in individuals, and the progress of laws in + nations, we shall be convinced that the ideas of justice and legislative + perfection are always proportional to intelligence. The notion of justice—which + has been regarded by some philosophers as simple—is then, in + reality, complex. It springs from the social instinct on the one hand, and + the idea of equality on the other; just as the notion of guilt arises from + the feeling that justice has been violated, and from the idea of + free-will. + </p> + <p> + In conclusion, instinct is not modified by acquaintance with its nature; + and the facts of society, which we have thus far observed, occur among + beasts as well as men. We know the meaning of justice; in other words, of + sociability viewed from the standpoint of equality. We have met with + nothing which separates us from the animals. + </p> + <p> + % 3.—Of the third degree of Sociability. + </p> + <p> + The reader, perhaps, has not forgotten what was said in the third chapter + concerning the division of labor and the speciality of talents. The sum + total of the talents and capacities of the race is always the same, and + their nature is always similar. We are all born poets, mathematicians, + philosophers, artists, artisans, or farmers, but we are not born equally + endowed; and between one man and another in society, or between one + faculty and another in the same individual, there is an infinite + difference. This difference of degree in the same faculties, this + predominance of talent in certain directions, is, we have said, the very + foundation of our society. Intelligence and natural genius have been + distributed by Nature so economically, and yet so liberally, that in + society there is no danger of either a surplus or a scarcity of special + talents; and that each laborer, by devoting himself to his function, may + always attain to the degree of proficiency necessary to enable him to + benefit by the labors and discoveries of his fellows. Owing to this simple + and wise precaution of Nature, the laborer is not isolated by his task. He + communicates with his fellows through the mind, before he is united with + them in heart; so that with him love is born of intelligence. + </p> + <p> + It is not so with societies of animals. In every species, the aptitudes of + all the individuals—though very limited—are equal in number + and (when they are not the result of instinct) in intensity. Each one does + as well as all the others what all the others do; provides his food, + avoids the enemy, burrows in the earth, builds a nest, &c. No animal, + when free and healthy, expects or requires the aid of his neighbor; who, + in his turn, is equally independent. + </p> + <p> + Associated animals live side by side without any intellectual intercourse + or intimate communication,—all doing the same things, having nothing + to learn or to remember; they see, feel, and come in contact with each + other, but never penetrate each other. Man continually exchanges with man + ideas and feelings, products and services. Every discovery and act in + society is necessary to him. But of this immense quantity of products and + ideas, that which each one has to produce and acquire for himself is but + an atom in the sun. Man would not be man were it not for society, and + society is supported by the balance and harmony of the powers which + compose it. + </p> + <p> + Society, among the animals, is SIMPLE; with man it is COMPLEX. Man is + associated with man by the same instinct which associates animal with + animal; but man is associated differently from the animal, and it is this + difference in association which constitutes the difference in morality. + </p> + <p> + I have proved,—at too great length, perhaps,—both by the + spirit of the laws which regard property as the basis of society, and by + political economy, that inequality of conditions is justified neither by + priority of occupation nor superiority of talent, service, industry, and + capacity. But, although equality of conditions is a necessary consequence + of natural right, of liberty, of the laws of production, of the capacity + of physical nature, and of the principle of society itself,—it does + not prevent the social sentiment from stepping over the boundaries of DEBT + and CREDIT. The fields of benevolence and love extend far beyond; and when + economy has adjusted its balance, the mind begins to benefit by its own + justice, and the heart expands in the boundlessness of its affection. + </p> + <p> + The social sentiment then takes on a new character, which varies with + different persons. In the strong, it becomes the pleasure of generosity; + among equals, frank and cordial friendship; in the weak, the pleasure of + admiration and gratitude. + </p> + <p> + The man who is superior in strength, skill, or courage, knows that he owes + all that he is to society, without which he could not exist. He knows + that, in treating him precisely as it does the lowest of its members, + society discharges its whole duty towards him. But he does not underrate + his faculties; he is no less conscious of his power and greatness; and it + is this voluntary reverence which he pays to humanity, this avowal that he + is but an instrument of Nature,—who is alone worthy of glory and + worship,—it is, I say, this simultaneous confession of the heart and + the mind, this genuine adoration of the Great Being, that distinguishes + and elevates man, and lifts him to a degree of social morality to which + the beast is powerless to attain. Hercules destroying the monsters and + punishing brigands for the safety of Greece, Orpheus teaching the rough + and wild Pelasgians,—neither of them putting a price upon their + services,—there we see the noblest creations of poetry, the loftiest + expression of justice and virtue. + </p> + <p> + The joys of self-sacrifice are ineffable. + </p> + <p> + If I were to compare human society to the old Greek tragedies, I should + say that the phalanx of noble minds and lofty souls dances the strophe, + and the humble multitude the antistrophe. Burdened with painful and + disagreeable tasks, but rendered omnipotent by their number and the + harmonic arrangement of their functions, the latter execute what the + others plan. Guided by them, they owe them nothing; they honor them, + however, and lavish upon them praise and approbation. + </p> + <p> + Gratitude fills people with adoration and enthusiasm. + </p> + <p> + But equality delights my heart. Benevolence degenerates into tyranny, and + admiration into servility. Friendship is the daughter of equality. O my + friends! may I live in your midst without emulation, and without glory; + let equality bring us together, and fate assign us our places. May I die + without knowing to whom among you I owe the most esteem! + </p> + <p> + Friendship is precious to the hearts of the children of men. + </p> + <p> + Generosity, gratitude (I mean here only that gratitude which is born of + admiration of a superior power), and friendship are three distinct shades + of a single sentiment which I will call equite, or SOCIAL PROPORTIONALITY. + <a href="#linknote-23" name="linknoteref-23" id="linknoteref-23"><small>23</small></a> + Equite does not change justice: but, always taking equite for the base, it + superadds esteem, and thereby forms in man a third degree of sociability. + Equite makes it at once our duty and our pleasure to aid the weak who have + need of us, and to make them our equals; to pay to the strong a just + tribute of gratitude and honor, without enslaving ourselves to them; to + cherish our neighbors, friends, and equals, for that which we receive from + them, even by right of exchange. Equite is sociability raised to its ideal + by reason and justice; its commonest manifestation is URBANITY or + POLITENESS, which, among certain nations, sums up in a single word nearly + all the social duties. + </p> + <p> + It is the just distribution of social sympathy and universal love. + </p> + <p> + Now, this feeling is unknown among the beasts, who love and cling to each + other, and show their preferences, but who cannot conceive of esteem, and + who are incapable of generosity, admiration, or politeness. + </p> + <p> + This feeling does not spring from intelligence, which calculates, + computes, and balances, but does not love; which sees, but does not feel. + As justice is the product of social instinct and reflection combined, so + equite is a product of justice and taste combined—that is, of our + powers of judging and of idealizing. + </p> + <p> + This product—the third and last degree of human sociability—is + determined by our complex mode of association; in which inequality, or + rather the divergence of faculties, and the speciality of functions—tending + of themselves to isolate laborers—demand a more active sociability. + </p> + <p> + That is why the force which oppresses while protecting is execrable; why + the silly ignorance which views with the same eye the marvels of art, and + the products of the rudest industry, excites unutterable contempt; why + proud mediocrity, which glories in saying, "I have paid you—I owe + you nothing," is especially odious. + </p> + <p> + SOCIABILITY, JUSTICE, EQUITE—such, in its triplicity, is the exact + definition of the instinctive faculty which leads us into communication + with our fellows, and whose physical manifestation is expressed by the + formula: EQUALITY IN NATURAL WEALTH, AND THE PRODUCTS OF LABOR. + </p> + <p> + These three degrees of sociability support and imply each other. + </p> + <p> + Equite cannot exist without justice; society without justice is a + solecism. If, in order to reward talent, I take from one to give to + another, in unjustly stripping the first, I do not esteem his talent as I + ought; if, in society, I award more to myself than to my associate, we are + not really associated. Justice is sociability as manifested in the + division of material things, susceptible of weight and measure; equite is + justice accompanied by admiration and esteem,—things which cannot be + measured. + </p> + <p> + From this several inferences may be drawn. + </p> + <p> + 1. Though we are free to grant our esteem to one more than to another, and + in all possible degrees, yet we should give no one more than his + proportion of the common wealth; because the duty of justice, being + imposed upon us before that of equite, must always take precedence of it. + The woman honored by the ancients, who, when forced by a tyrant to choose + between the death of her brother and that of her husband, sacrificed the + latter on the ground that she could find another husband but not another + brother,—that woman, I say, in obeying her sense of equite, failed + in point of justice, and did a bad deed, because conjugal association is a + closer relation than fraternal association, and because the life of our + neighbor is not our property. + </p> + <p> + By the same principle, inequality of wages cannot be admitted by law on + the ground of inequality of talents; because the just distribution of + wealth is the function of economy,—not of enthusiasm. + </p> + <p> + Finally, as regards donations, wills, and inheritance, society, careful + both of the personal affections and its own rights, must never permit love + and partiality to destroy justice. And, though it is pleasant to think + that the son, who has been long associated with his father in business, is + more capable than any one else of carrying it on; and that the citizen, + who is surprised in the midst of his task by death, is best fitted, in + consequence of his natural taste for his occupation, to designate his + successor; and though the heir should be allowed the right of choice in + case of more than one inheritance,—nevertheless, society can + tolerate no concentration of capital and industry for the benefit of a + single man, no monopoly of labor, no encroachment. <a href="#linknote-24" + name="linknoteref-24" id="linknoteref-24"><small>24</small></a> + </p> + <p> + "Suppose that some spoils, taken from the enemy, and equal to twelve, are + to be divided between Achilles and Ajax. If the two persons were equal, + their respective shares would be arithmetically equal: Achilles would have + six, Ajax six. And if we should carry out this arithmetical equality, + Thersites would be entitled to as much as Achilles, which would be unjust + in the extreme. To avoid this injustice, the worth of the persons should + be estimated, and the spoils divided accordingly. Suppose that the worth + of Achilles is double that of Ajax: the former's share is eight, the + latter four. There is no arithmetical equality, but a proportional + equality. It is this comparison of merits, rationum, that Aristotle calls + distributive justice. It is a geometrical proportion."—Toullier: + French Law according to the Code. + </p> + <p> + Are Achilles and Ajax associated, or are they not? Settle that, and you + settle the whole question. If Achilles and Ajax, instead of being + associated, are themselves in the service of Agamemnon who pays them, + there is no objection to Aristotle's method. The slave-owner, who controls + his slaves, may give a double allowance of brandy to him who does double + work. That is the law of despotism; the right of slavery. + </p> + <p> + But if Achilles and Ajax are associated, they are equals. What matters it + that Achilles has a strength of four, while that of Ajax is only two? The + latter may always answer that he is free; that if Achilles has a strength + of four, five could kill him; finally, that in doing personal service he + incurs as great a risk as Achilles. The same argument applies to + Thersites. If he is unable to fight, let him be cook, purveyor, or butler. + If he is good for nothing, put him in the hospital. In no case wrong him, + or impose upon him laws. + </p> + <p> + Man must live in one of two states: either in society, or out of it. In + society, conditions are necessarily equal, except in the degree of esteem + and consideration which each one may receive. Out of society, man is so + much raw material, a capitalized tool, and often an incommodious and + useless piece of furniture. + </p> + <p> + 2. Equite, justice, and society, can exist only between individuals of the + same species. They form no part of the relations of different races to + each other,—for instance, of the wolf to the goat, of the goat to + man, of man to God, much less of God to man. The attribution of justice, + equity, and love to the Supreme Being is pure anthropomorphism; and the + adjectives just, merciful, pitiful, and the like, should be stricken from + our litanies. God can be regarded as just, equitable, and good, only to + another God. Now, God has no associate; consequently, he cannot experience + social affections,—such as goodness, equite, and justice. Is the + shepherd said to be just to his sheep and his dogs? No: and if he saw fit + to shear as much wool from a lamb six months old, as from a ram of two + years; or, if he required as much work from a young dog as from an old + one,—they would say, not that he was unjust, but that he was + foolish. Between man and beast there is no society, though there may be + affection. Man loves the animals as THINGS,—as SENTIENT THINGS, if + you will,—but not as PERSONS. Philosophy, after having eliminated + from the idea of God the passions ascribed to him by superstition, will + then be obliged to eliminate also the virtues which our liberal piety + awards to him. <a href="#linknote-25" name="linknoteref-25" + id="linknoteref-25"><small>25</small></a> + </p> + <p> + The rights of woman and her relations with man are yet to be determined + Matrimonial legislation, like civil legislation, is a matter for the + future to settle. + </p> + <p> + If God should come down to earth, and dwell among us, we could not love + him unless he became like us; nor give him any thing unless he produced + something; nor listen to him unless he proved us mistaken; nor worship him + unless he manifested his power. All the laws of our nature, affectional, + economical, and intellectual, would prevent us from treating him as we + treat our fellow-men,—that is, according to reason, justice, and + equite. + </p> + <p> + I infer from this that, if God should wish ever to put himself into + immediate communication with man, he would have to become a man. + </p> + <p> + Now, if kings are images of God, and executors of his will, they cannot + receive love, wealth, obedience, and glory from us, unless they consent to + labor and associate with us—produce as much as they consume, reason + with their subjects, and do wonderful things. Still more; if, as some + pretend, kings are public functionaries, the love which is due them is + measured by their personal amiability; our obligation to obey them, by the + wisdom of their commands; and their civil list, by the total social + production divided by the number of citizens. + </p> + <p> + Thus, jurisprudence, political economy, and psychology agree in admitting + the law of equality. Right and duty—the due reward of talent and + labor—the outbursts of love and enthusiasm,—all are regulated + in advance by an invariable standard; all depend upon number and balance. + Equality of conditions is the law of society, and universal solidarity is + the ratification of this law. + </p> + <p> + Equality of conditions has never been realized, thanks to our passions and + our ignorance; but our opposition to this law has made it all the more a + necessity. To that fact history bears perpetual testimony, and the course + of events reveals it to us. Society advances from equation to equation. To + the eyes of the economist, the revolutions of empires seem now like the + reduction of algebraical quantities, which are inter-deducible; now like + the discovery of unknown quantities, induced by the inevitable influence + of time. Figures are the providence of history. Undoubtedly there are + other elements in human progress; but in the multitude of hidden causes + which agitate nations, there is none more powerful or constant, none less + obscure, than the periodical explosions of the proletariat against + property. Property, acting by exclusion and encroachment, while population + was increasing, has been the life-principle and definitive cause of all + revolutions. Religious wars, and wars of conquest, when they have stopped + short of the extermination of races, have been only accidental + disturbances, soon repaired by the mathematical progression of the life of + nations. The downfall and death of societies are due to the power of + accumulation possessed by property. + </p> + <p> + In the middle ages, take Florence,—a republic of merchants and + brokers, always rent by its well-known factions, the Guelphs and + Ghibellines, who were, after all, only the people and the proprietors + fighting against each other,—Florence, ruled by bankers, and borne + down at last by the weight of her debts; <a href="#linknote-26" + name="linknoteref-26" id="linknoteref-26"><small>26</small></a> in ancient + times, take Rome, preyed upon from its birth by usury, flourishing, + nevertheless, as long as the known world furnished its terrible + proletaires with LABOR stained with blood by civil war at every interval + of rest, and dying of exhaustion when the people lost, together with their + former energy, their last spark of moral sense; Carthage, a commercial and + financial city, continually divided by internal competition; Tyre, Sidon, + Jerusalem, Nineveh, Babylon, ruined, in turn, by commercial rivalry and, + as we now express it, by panics in the market,—do not these famous + examples show clearly enough the fate which awaits modern nations, unless + the people, unless France, with a sudden burst of her powerful voice, + proclaims in thunder-tones the abolition of the regime of property? + </p> + <p> + Here my task should end. I have proved the right of the poor; I have shown + the usurpation of the rich. I demand justice; it is not my business to + execute the sentence. If it should be argued—in order to prolong for + a few years an illegitimate privilege—that it is not enough to + demonstrate equality, that it is necessary also to organize it, and above + all to establish it peacefully, I might reply: The welfare of the + oppressed is of more importance than official composure. Equality of + conditions is a natural law upon which public economy and jurisprudence + are based. The right to labor, and the principle of equal distribution of + wealth, cannot give way to the anxieties of power. It is not for the + proletaire to reconcile the contradictions of the codes, still less to + suffer for the errors of the government. On the contrary, it is the duty + of the civil and administrative power to reconstruct itself on the basis + of political equality. An evil, when known, should be condemned and + destroyed. The legislator cannot plead ignorance as an excuse for + upholding a glaring iniquity. Restitution should not be delayed. Justice, + justice! recognition of right! reinstatement of the proletaire!—when + these results are accomplished, then, judges and consuls, you may attend + to your police, and provide a government for the Republic! + </p> + <p> + For the rest, I do not think that a single one of my readers accuses me of + knowing how to destroy, but of not knowing how to construct. In + demonstrating the principle of equality, I have laid the foundation of the + social structure I have done more. I have given an example of the true + method of solving political and legislative problems. Of the science + itself, I confess that I know nothing more than its principle; and I know + of no one at present who can boast of having penetrated deeper. Many + people cry, "Come to me, and I will teach you the truth!" These people + mistake for the truth their cherished opinion and ardent conviction, which + is usually any thing but the truth. The science of society—like all + human sciences—will be for ever incomplete. The depth and variety of + the questions which it embraces are infinite. We hardly know the A B C of + this science, as is proved by the fact that we have not yet emerged from + the period of systems, and have not ceased to put the authority of the + majority in the place of facts. A certain philological society decided + linguistic questions by a plurality of votes. Our parliamentary debates—were + their results less pernicious—would be even more ridiculous. The + task of the true publicist, in the age in which we live, is to close the + mouths of quacks and charlatans, and to teach the public to demand + demonstrations, instead of being contented with symbols and programmes. + Before talking of the science itself, it is necessary to ascertain its + object, and discover its method and principle. The ground must be cleared + of the prejudices which encumber it. Such is the mission of the nineteenth + century. + </p> + <p> + For my part, I have sworn fidelity to my work of demolition, and I will + not cease to pursue the truth through the ruins and rubbish. I hate to see + a thing half done; and it will be believed without any assurance of mine, + that, having dared to raise my hand against the Holy Ark, I shall not rest + contented with the removal of the cover. The mysteries of the sanctuary of + iniquity must be unveiled, the tables of the old alliance broken, and all + the objects of the ancient faith thrown in a heap to the swine. A charter + has been given to us,—a resume of political science, the monument of + twenty legislatures. A code has been written,—the pride of a + conqueror, and the summary of ancient wisdom. Well! of this charter and + this code not one article shall be left standing upon another! The time + has come for the wise to choose their course, and prepare for + reconstruction. + </p> + <p> + But, since a destroyed error necessarily implies a counter-truth, I will + not finish this treatise without solving the first problem of political + science,—that which receives the attention of all minds. + </p> + <p> + WHEN PROPERTY IS ABOLISHED, WHAT WILL BE THE FORM OF SOCIETY! WILL IT BE + COMMUNISM? + </p> + <p> + <a name="link2H_PART2" id="link2H_PART2"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /><br /><br /><br /> + </div> + <h2> + PART SECOND. + </h2> + <p> + % 1.—Of the Causes of our Mistakes. The Origin of Property. + </p> + <p> + The true form of human society cannot be determined until the following + question has been solved:— + </p> + <p> + Property not being our natural condition, how did it gain a foothold? Why + has the social instinct, so trustworthy among the animals, erred in the + case of man? Why is man, who was born for society, not yet associated? + </p> + <p> + I have said that human society is COMPLEX in its nature. Though this + expression is inaccurate, the fact to which it refers is none the less + true; namely, the classification of talents and capacities. But who does + not see that these talents and capacities, owing to their infinite + variety, give rise to an infinite variety of wills, and that the + character, the inclinations, and—if I may venture to use the + expression—the form of the ego, are necessarily changed; so that in + the order of liberty, as in the order of intelligence, there are as many + types as individuals, as many characters as heads, whose tastes, fancies, + and propensities, being modified by dissimilar ideas, must necessarily + conflict? Man, by his nature and his instinct, is predestined to society; + but his personality, ever varying, is adverse to it. + </p> + <p> + In societies of animals, all the members do exactly the same things. The + same genius directs them; the same will animates them. A society of beasts + is a collection of atoms, round, hooked, cubical, or triangular, but + always perfectly identical. These personalities do not vary, and we might + say that a single ego governs them all. The labors which animals perform, + whether alone or in society, are exact reproductions of their character. + Just as the swarm of bees is composed of individual bees, alike in nature + and equal in value, so the honeycomb is formed of individual cells, + constantly and invariably repeated. + </p> + <p> + But man's intelligence, fitted for his social destiny and his personal + needs, is of a very different composition, and therefore gives rise to a + wonderful variety of human wills. In the bee, the will is constant and + uniform, because the instinct which guides it is invariable, and + constitutes the animal's whole life and nature. In man, talent varies, and + the mind wavers; consequently, his will is multiform and vague. He seeks + society, but dislikes constraint and monotony; he is an imitator, but fond + of his own ideas, and passionately in love with his works. + </p> + <p> + If, like the bees, every man were born possessed of talent, perfect + knowledge of certain kinds, and, in a word, an innate acquaintance with + the functions he has to perform, but destitute of reflective and reasoning + faculties, society would organize itself. We should see one man plowing a + field, another building houses; this one forging metals, that one cutting + clothes; and still others storing the products, and superintending their + distribution. Each one, without inquiring as to the object of his labor, + and without troubling himself about the extent of his task, would obey + orders, bring his product, receive his salary, and would then rest for a + time; keeping meanwhile no accounts, envious of nobody, and satisfied with + the distributor, who never would be unjust to any one. Kings would govern, + but would not reign; for to reign is to be a <i>proprietor a l'engrais</i>, + as Bonaparte said: and having no commands to give, since all would be at + their posts, they would serve rather as rallying centres than as + authorities or counsellors. It would be a state of ordered communism, but + not a society entered into deliberately and freely. + </p> + <p> + But man acquires skill only by observation and experiment. He reflects, + then, since to observe and experiment is to reflect; he reasons, since he + cannot help reasoning. In reflecting, he becomes deluded; in reasoning, he + makes mistakes, and, thinking himself right, persists in them. He is + wedded to his opinions; he esteems himself, and despises others. + Consequently, he isolates himself; for he could not submit to the majority + without renouncing his will and his reason,—that is, without + disowning himself, which is impossible. And this isolation, this + intellectual egotism, this individuality of opinion, lasts until the truth + is demonstrated to him by observation and experience. A final illustration + will make these facts still clearer. + </p> + <p> + If to the blind but convergent and harmonious instincts of a swarm of bees + should be suddenly added reflection and judgment, the little society could + not long exist. In the first place, the bees would not fail to try some + new industrial process; for instance, that of making their cells round or + square. All sorts of systems and inventions would be tried, until long + experience, aided by geometry, should show them that the hexagonal shape + is the best. Then insurrections would occur. The drones would be told to + provide for themselves, and the queens to labor; jealousy would spread + among the laborers; discords would burst forth; soon each one would want + to produce on his own account; and finally the hive would be abandoned, + and the bees would perish. Evil would be introduced into the + honey-producing republic by the power of reflection,—the very + faculty which ought to constitute its glory. + </p> + <p> + Thus, moral evil, or, in this case, disorder in society, is naturally + explained by our power of reflection. The mother of poverty, crime, + insurrection, and war was inequality of conditions; which was the daughter + of property, which was born of selfishness, which was engendered by + private opinion, which descended in a direct line from the autocracy of + reason. Man, in his infancy, is neither criminal nor barbarous, but + ignorant and inexperienced. Endowed with imperious instincts which are + under the control of his reasoning faculty, at first he reflects but + little, and reasons inaccurately; then, benefiting by his mistakes, he + rectifies his ideas, and perfects his reason. In the first place, it is + the savage sacrificing all his possessions for a trinket, and then + repenting and weeping; it is Esau selling his birthright for a mess of + pottage, and afterwards wishing to cancel the bargain; it is the civilized + workman laboring in insecurity, and continually demanding that his wages + be increased, neither he nor his employer understanding that, in the + absence of equality, any salary, however large, is always insufficient. + Then it is Naboth dying to defend his inheritance; Cato tearing out his + entrails that he might not be enslaved; Socrates drinking the fatal cup in + defence of liberty of thought; it is the third estate of '89 reclaiming + its liberty: soon it will be the people demanding equality of wages and an + equal division of the means of production. + </p> + <p> + Man is born a social being,—that is, he seeks equality and justice + in all his relations, but he loves independence and praise. The difficulty + of satisfying these various desires at the same time is the primary cause + of the despotism of the will, and the appropriation which results from it. + On the other hand, man always needs a market for his products; unable to + compare values of different kinds, he is satisfied to judge approximately, + according to his passion and caprice; and he engages in dishonest + commerce, which always results in wealth and poverty. Thus, the greatest + evils which man suffers arise from the misuse of his social nature, of + this same justice of which he is so proud, and which he applies with such + deplorable ignorance. + </p> + <p> + The practice of justice is a science which, when once discovered and + diffused, will sooner or later put an end to social disorder, by teaching + us our rights and duties. + </p> + <p> + This progressive and painful education of our instinct, this slow and + imperceptible transformation of our spontaneous perceptions into + deliberate knowledge, does not take place among the animals, whose + instincts remain fixed, and never become enlightened. + </p> + <p> + "According to Frederic Cuvier, who has so clearly distinguished between + instinct and intelligence in animals, 'instinct is a natural and inherent + faculty, like feeling, irritability, or intelligence. The wolf and the fox + who recognize the traps in which they have been caught, and who avoid + them; the dog and the horse, who understand the meaning of several of our + words, and who obey us,—thereby show <i>intelligence</i>. The dog + who hides the remains of his dinner, the bee who constructs his cell, the + bird who builds his nest, act only from <i>instinct</i>. Even man has + instincts: it is a special instinct which leads the new-born child to + suck. But, in man, almost every thing is accomplished by intelligence; and + intelligence supplements instinct. The opposite is true of animals: their + instinct is given them as a supplement to their intelligence.'"—Flourens: + Analytical Summary of the Observations of F. Cuvier. + </p> + <p> + "We can form a clear idea of instinct only by admitting that animals have + in their <i>sensorium</i>, images or innate and constant sensations, which + influence their actions in the same manner that ordinary and accidental + sensations commonly do. It is a sort of dream, or vision, which always + follows them and in all which relates to instinct they may be regarded as + somnambulists."—F. Cuvier: Introduction to the Animal Kingdom. + </p> + <p> + Intelligence and instinct being common, then, though in different degrees, + to animals and man, what is the distinguishing characteristic of the + latter? According to F. Cuvier, it is REFLECTION OR THE POWER OF + INTELLECTUALLY CONSIDERING OUR OWN MODIFICATIONS BY A SURVEY OF OURSELVES. + This lacks clearness, and requires an explanation. + </p> + <p> + If we grant intelligence to animals, we must also grant them, in some + degree, reflection; for, the first cannot exist without the second, as F. + Cuvier himself has proved by numerous examples. But notice that the + learned observer defines the kind of reflection which distinguishes us + from the animals as the POWER OF CONSIDERING OUR OWN MODIFICATIONS. This I + shall endeavour to interpret, by developing to the best of my ability the + laconism of the philosophical naturalist. + </p> + <p> + The intelligence acquired by animals never modifies the operations which + they perform by instinct: it is given them only as a provision against + unexpected accidents which might disturb these operations. In man, on the + contrary, instinctive action is constantly changing into deliberate + action. Thus, man is social by instinct, and is every day becoming social + by reflection and choice. At first, he formed his words by instinct; [*] + he was a poet by inspiration: to-day, he makes grammar a science, and + poetry an art. His conception of God and a future life is spontaneous and + instinctive, and his expressions of this conception have been, by turns, + monstrous, eccentric, beautiful, comforting, and terrible. All these + different creeds, at which the frivolous irreligion of the eighteenth + century mocked, are modes of expression of the religious sentiment. Some + day, man will explain to himself the character of the God whom he believes + in, and the nature of that other world to which his soul aspires. + </p> +<pre xml:space="preserve"> + * "The problem of the origin of language is solved by the distinction + made by Frederic Cuvier between instinct and intelligence. Language + is not a premeditated, arbitrary, or conventional device; nor is it + communicated or revealed to us by God. Language is an instinctive and + unpremeditated creation of man, as the hive is of the bee. In this + sense, it may be said that language is not the work of man, since it is + not the work of his mind. Further, the mechanism of language seems + more wonderful and ingenious when it is not regarded as the result of + reflection. This fact is one of the most curious and indisputable which + philology has observed. See, among other works, a Latin essay by F. G. + Bergmann (Strasbourg, 1839), in which the learned author explains how + the phonetic germ is born of sensation; how language passes through + three successive stages of development; why man, endowed at birth with + the instinctive faculty of creating a language, loses this faculty + as fast as his mind develops; and that the study of languages is real + natural history,—in fact, a science. France possesses to-day several + philologists of the first rank, endowed with rare talents and deep + philosophic insight,—modest savants developing a science almost without + the knowledge of the public; devoting themselves to studies which are + scornfully looked down upon, and seeming to shun applause as much as + others seek it." +</pre> + <p> + All that he does from instinct man despises; or, if he admires it, it is + as Nature's work, not as his own. This explains the obscurity which + surrounds the names of early inventors; it explains also our indifference + to religious matters, and the ridicule heaped upon religious customs. Man + esteems only the products of reflection and of reason. The most wonderful + works of instinct are, in his eyes, only lucky GOD-SENDS; he reserves the + name DISCOVERY—I had almost said creation—for the works of + intelligence. Instinct is the source of passion and enthusiasm; it is + intelligence which causes crime and virtue. + </p> + <p> + In developing his intelligence, man makes use of not only his own + observations, but also those of others. He keeps an account of his + experience, and preserves the record; so that the race, as well as the + individual, becomes more and more intelligent. The animals do not transmit + their knowledge; that which each individual accumulates dies with him. + </p> + <p> + It is not enough, then, to say that we are distinguished from the animals + by reflection, unless we mean thereby the CONSTANT TENDENCY OF OUR + INSTINCT TO BECOME INTELLIGENCE. While man is governed by instinct, he is + unconscious of his acts. He never would deceive himself, and never would + be troubled by errors, evils, and disorder, if, like the animals, instinct + were his only guide. But the Creator has endowed us with reflection, to + the end that our instinct might become intelligence; and since this + reflection and resulting knowledge pass through various stages, it happens + that in the beginning our instinct is opposed, rather than guided, by + reflection; consequently, that our power of thought leads us to act in + opposition to our nature and our end; that, deceiving ourselves, we do and + suffer evil, until instinct which points us towards good, and reflection + which makes us stumble into evil, are replaced by the science of good and + evil, which invariably causes us to seek the one and avoid the other. + </p> + <p> + Thus, evil—or error and its consequences—is the firstborn son + of the union of two opposing faculties, instinct and reflection; good, or + truth, must inevitably be the second child. Or, to again employ the + figure, evil is the product of incest between adverse powers; good will + sooner or later be the legitimate child of their holy and mysterious + union. + </p> + <p> + Property, born of the reasoning faculty, intrenches itself behind + comparisons. But, just as reflection and reason are subsequent to + spontaneity, observation to sensation, and experience to instinct, so + property is subsequent to communism. Communism—or association in a + simple form—is the necessary object and original aspiration of the + social nature, the spontaneous movement by which it manifests and + establishes itself. It is the first phase of human civilization. In this + state of society,—which the jurists have called NEGATIVE COMMUNISM—man + draws near to man, and shares with him the fruits of the field and the + milk and flesh of animals. Little by little this communism—negative + as long as man does not produce—tends to become positive and organic + through the development of labor and industry. But it is then that the + sovereignty of thought, and the terrible faculty of reasoning logically or + illogically, teach man that, if equality is the sine qua non of society, + communism is the first species of slavery. To express this idea by an + Hegelian formula, I will say: + </p> + <p> + Communism—the first expression of the social nature—is the + first term of social development,—the THESIS; property, the reverse + of communism, is the second term,—the ANTITHESIS. When we have + discovered the third term, the SYNTHESIS, we shall have the required + solution. Now, this synthesis necessarily results from the correction of + the thesis by the antithesis. Therefore it is necessary, by a final + examination of their characteristics, to eliminate those features which + are hostile to sociability. The union of the two remainders will give us + the true form of human association. + </p> + <p> + % 2.—Characteristics of Communism and of Property. + </p> + <p> + I. I ought not to conceal the fact that property and communism have been + considered always the only possible forms of society. This deplorable + error has been the life of property. The disadvantages of communism are so + obvious that its critics never have needed to employ much eloquence to + thoroughly disgust men with it. The irreparability of the injustice which + it causes, the violence which it does to attractions and repulsions, the + yoke of iron which it fastens upon the will, the moral torture to which it + subjects the conscience, the debilitating effect which it has upon + society; and, to sum it all up, the pious and stupid uniformity which it + enforces upon the free, active, reasoning, unsubmissive personality of + man, have shocked common sense, and condemned communism by an irrevocable + decree. + </p> + <p> + The authorities and examples cited in its favor disprove it. The + communistic republic of Plato involved slavery; that of Lycurgus employed + Helots, whose duty it was to produce for their masters, thus enabling the + latter to devote themselves exclusively to athletic sports and to war. + Even J. J. Rousseau—confounding communism and equality—has + said somewhere that, without slavery, he did not think equality of + conditions possible. The communities of the early Church did not last the + first century out, and soon degenerated into monasteries. In those of the + Jesuits of Paraguay, the condition of the blacks is said by all travellers + to be as miserable as that of slaves; and it is a fact that the good + Fathers were obliged to surround themselves with ditches and walls to + prevent their new converts from escaping. The followers of Baboeuf—guided + by a lofty horror of property rather than by any definite belief—were + ruined by exaggeration of their principles; the St. Simonians, lumping + communism and inequality, passed away like a masquerade. The greatest + danger to which society is exposed to-day is that of another shipwreck on + this rock. + </p> + <p> + Singularly enough, systematic communism—the deliberate negation of + property—is conceived under the direct influence of the proprietary + prejudice; and property is the basis of all communistic theories. + </p> + <p> + The members of a community, it is true, have no private property; but the + community is proprietor, and proprietor not only of the goods, but of the + persons and wills. In consequence of this principle of absolute property, + labor, which should be only a condition imposed upon man by Nature, + becomes in all communities a human commandment, and therefore odious. + Passive obedience, irreconcilable with a reflecting will, is strictly + enforced. Fidelity to regulations, which are always defective, however + wise they may be thought, allows of no complaint. Life, talent, and all + the human faculties are the property of the State, which has the right to + use them as it pleases for the common good. Private associations are + sternly prohibited, in spite of the likes and dislikes of different + natures, because to tolerate them would be to introduce small communities + within the large one, and consequently private property; the strong work + for the weak, although this ought to be left to benevolence, and not + enforced, advised, or enjoined; the industrious work for the lazy, + although this is unjust; the clever work for the foolish, although this is + absurd; and, finally, man—casting aside his personality, his + spontaneity, his genius, and his affections—humbly annihilates + himself at the feet of the majestic and inflexible Commune! + </p> + <p> + Communism is inequality, but not as property is. Property is the + exploitation of the weak by the strong. Communism is the exploitation of + the strong by the weak. In property, inequality of conditions is the + result of force, under whatever name it be disguised: physical and mental + force; force of events, chance, FORTUNE; force of accumulated property, + &c. In communism, inequality springs from placing mediocrity on a + level with excellence. This damaging equation is repellent to the + conscience, and causes merit to complain; for, although it may be the duty + of the strong to aid the weak, they prefer to do it out of generosity,—they + never will endure a comparison. Give them equal opportunities of labor, + and equal wages, but never allow their jealousy to be awakened by mutual + suspicion of unfaithfulness in the performance of the common task. + </p> + <p> + Communism is oppression and slavery. Man is very willing to obey the law + of duty, serve his country, and oblige his friends; but he wishes to labor + when he pleases, where he pleases, and as much as he pleases. He wishes to + dispose of his own time, to be governed only by necessity, to choose his + friendships, his recreation, and his discipline; to act from judgment, not + by command; to sacrifice himself through selfishness, not through servile + obligation. Communism is essentially opposed to the free exercise of our + faculties, to our noblest desires, to our deepest feelings. Any plan which + could be devised for reconciling it with the demands of the individual + reason and will would end only in changing the thing while preserving the + name. Now, if we are honest truth-seekers, we shall avoid disputes about + words. + </p> + <p> + Thus, communism violates the sovereignty of the conscience, and equality: + the first, by restricting spontaneity of mind and heart, and freedom of + thought and action; the second, by placing labor and laziness, skill and + stupidity, and even vice and virtue on an equality in point of comfort. + For the rest, if property is impossible on account of the desire to + accumulate, communism would soon become so through the desire to shirk. + </p> + <p> + II. Property, in its turn, violates equality by the rights of exclusion + and increase, and freedom by despotism. The former effect of property + having been sufficiently developed in the last three chapters, I will + content myself here with establishing by a final comparison, its perfect + identity with robbery. + </p> + <p> + The Latin words for robber are <i>fur</i> and <i>latro;</i> the former + taken from the Greek {GREEK m }, from {GREEK m }, Latin <i>fero</i>, I + carry away; the latter from {GREEK 'i }, I play the part of a brigand, + which is derived from {GREEK i }, Latin <i>lateo</i>, I conceal myself. + The Greeks have also {GREEK ncg }, from {GREEK ncg }, I filch, whose + radical consonants are the same as those of {GREEK ' cg }, I cover, I + conceal. Thus, in these languages, the idea of a robber is that of a man + who conceals, carries away, or diverts, in any manner whatever, a thing + which does not belong to him. + </p> + <p> + The Hebrews expressed the same idea by the word <i>gannab</i>,—robber,—from + the verb <i>ganab</i>, which means to put away, to turn aside: <i>lo + thi-gnob (Decalogue: Eighth Commandment</i>), thou shalt not steal,—that + is, thou shalt not hold back, thou shalt not put away any thing for + thyself. That is the act of a man who, on entering into a society into + which he agrees to bring all that he has, secretly reserves a portion, as + did the celebrated disciple Ananias. + </p> + <p> + The etymology of the French verb <i>voler</i> is still more significant. + <i>Voler</i>, or <i>faire la vole</i> (from the Latin <i>vola</i>, palm of + the hand), means to take all the tricks in a game of ombre; so that <i>le + voleur</i>, the robber, is the capitalist who takes all, who gets the + lion's share. Probably this verb <i>voler</i> had its origin in the + professional slang of thieves, whence it has passed into common use, and, + consequently into the phraseology of the law. + </p> + <p> + Robbery is committed in a variety of ways, which have been very cleverly + distinguished and classified by legislators according to their heinousness + or merit, to the end that some robbers may be honored, while others are + punished. + </p> + <p> + We rob,—1. By murder on the highway; 2. Alone, or in a band; 3. By + breaking into buildings, or scaling walls; 4. By abstraction; 5. By + fraudulent bankruptcy; 6. By forgery of the handwriting of public + officials or private individuals; 7. By manufacture of counterfeit money. + </p> +<pre xml:space="preserve"> +This species includes all robbers who practise their profession with no +other aid than force and open fraud. Bandits, brigands, pirates, rovers +by land and sea,—these names were gloried in by the ancient heroes, who +thought their profession as noble as it was lucrative. Nimrod, Theseus, +Jason and his Argonauts; Jephthah, David, Cacus, Romulus, Clovis and +all his Merovingian descendants; Robert Guiscard, Tancred de Hauteville, +Bohemond, and most of the Norman heroes,—were brigands and robbers. The +heroic character of the robber is expressed in this line from Horace, in +reference to Achilles,— + + <i>"Jura neget sibi nata, nihil non arroget armis</i>," <a + href="#linknote-27" name="linknoteref-27" id="linknoteref-27">27</a> +and by this sentence from the dying words of Jacob (Gen. xlviii.), which +the Jews apply to David, and the Christians to their Christ: <i>Manus ejus +contra omnes</i>. In our day, the robber—the warrior of the ancients—is +pursued with the utmost vigor. His profession, in the language of the +code, entails ignominious and corporal penalties, from imprisonment to +the scaffold. A sad change in opinions here below! +</pre> + <p> + We rob,—8. By cheating; 9. By swindling; 10. By abuse of trust; 11. + By games and lotteries. + </p> + <p> + This second species was encouraged by the laws of Lycurgus, in order to + sharpen the wits of the young. It is the kind practised by Ulysses, Solon, + and Sinon; by the ancient and modern Jews, from Jacob down to Deutz; and + by the Bohemians, the Arabs, and all savage tribes. Under Louis XIII. and + Louis XIV., it was not considered dishonorable to cheat at play. To do so + was a part of the game; and many worthy people did not scruple to correct + the caprice of Fortune by dexterous jugglery. To-day even, and in all + countries, it is thought a mark of merit among peasants, merchants, and + shopkeepers to KNOW HOW TO MAKE A BARGAIN,—that is, to deceive one's + man. This is so universally accepted, that the cheated party takes no + offence. It is known with what reluctance our government resolved upon the + abolition of lotteries. It felt that it was dealing a stab thereby at + property. The pickpocket, the blackleg, and the charlatan make especial + use of their dexterity of hand, their subtlety of mind, the magic power of + their eloquence, and their great fertility of invention. Sometimes they + offer bait to cupidity. Therefore the penal code—which much prefers + intelligence to muscular vigor—has made, of the four varieties + mentioned above, a second category, liable only to correctional, not to + Ignominious, punishments. + </p> + <p> + Let them now accuse the law of being materialistic and atheistic. + </p> + <p> + We rob,—12. By usury. + </p> + <p> + This species of robbery, so odious and so severely punished since the + publication of the Gospel, is the connecting link between forbidden and + authorized robbery. Owing to its ambiguous nature, it has given rise to a + multitude of contradictions in the laws and in morals,—contradictions + which have been very cleverly turned to account by lawyers, financiers, + and merchants. Thus the usurer, who lends on mortgage at ten, twelve, and + fifteen per cent., is heavily fined when detected; while the banker, who + receives the same interest (not, it is true, upon a loan, but in the way + of exchange or discount,—that is, of sale), is protected by royal + privilege. But the distinction between the banker and the usurer is a + purely nominal one. Like the usurer, who lends on property, real or + personal, the banker lends on business paper; like the usurer, he takes + his interest in advance; like the usurer, he can recover from the borrower + if the property is destroyed (that is, if the note is not redeemed),—a + circumstance which makes him a money-lender, not a money-seller. But the + banker lends for a short time only, while the usurer's loan may be for + one, two, three, or more years. Now, a difference in the duration of the + loan, or the form of the act, does not alter the nature of the + transaction. As for the capitalists who invest their money, either with + the State or in commercial operations, at three, four, and five per cent.,—that + is, who lend on usury at a little lower rate than the bankers and usurers,—they + are the flower of society, the cream of honesty! Moderation in robbery is + the height of virtue! <a href="#linknote-28" name="linknoteref-28" + id="linknoteref-28"><small>28</small></a> + </p> + <p> + But what, then, is usury? Nothing is more amusing than to see these + INSTRUCTORS OF NATIONS hesitate between the authority of the Gospel, + which, they say, NEVER CAN HAVE SPOKEN IN VAIN, and the authority of + economical demonstrations. Nothing, to my mind, is more creditable to the + Gospel than this old infidelity of its pretended teachers. Salmasius, + having assimilated interest to rent, was REFUTED by Grotius, Pufendorf, + Burlamaqui, Wolf, and Heineccius; and, what is more curious still, + Salmasius ADMITTED HIS ERROR. Instead of inferring from this doctrine of + Salmasius that all increase is illegitimate, and proceeding straight on to + the demonstration of Gospel equality, they arrived at just the opposite + conclusion; namely, that since everybody acknowledges that rent is + permissible, if we allow that interest does not differ from rent, there is + nothing left which can be called usury, and, consequently, that the + commandment of Jesus Christ is an ILLUSION, and amounts to NOTHING, which + is an impious conclusion. + </p> + <p> + If this memoir had appeared in the time of Bossuet, that great theologian + would have PROVED by scripture, the fathers, traditions, councils, and + popes, that property exists by Divine right, while usury is an invention + of the devil; and the heretical work would have been burned, and the + author imprisoned. + </p> + <p> + We rob,—13. By farm-rent, house-rent, and leases of all kinds. + </p> + <p> + The author of the "Provincial Letters" entertained the honest Christians + of the seventeenth century at the expense of Escobar, the Jesuit, and the + contract Mohatra. "The contract Mohatra," said Escobar, "is a contract by + which goods are bought, at a high price and on credit, to be again sold at + the same moment to the same person, cash down, and at a lower price." + Escobar found a way to justify this kind of usury. Pascal and all the + Jansenists laughed at him. But what would the satirical Pascal, the + learned Nicole, and the invincible Arnaud have said, if Father Antoine + Escobar de Valladolid had answered them thus: "A lease is a contract by + which real estate is bought, at a high price and on credit, to be again + sold, at the expiration of a certain time, to the same person, at a lower + price; only, to simplify the transaction, the buyer is content to pay the + difference between the first sale and the second. Either deny the identity + of the lease and the contract Mohatra, and then I will annihilate you in a + moment; or, if you admit the similarity, admit also the soundness of my + doctrine: otherwise you proscribe both interest and rent at one blow"? + </p> + <p> + In reply to this overwhelming argument of the Jesuit, the sire of Montalte + would have sounded the tocsin, and would have shouted that society was in + peril,—that the Jesuits were sapping its very foundations. + </p> + <p> + We rob,—14. By commerce, when the profit of the merchant exceeds his + legitimate salary. + </p> + <p> + Everybody knows the definition of commerce—THE ART OF BUYING FOR + THREE FRANCS THAT WHICH IS WORTH SIX, AND OF SELLING FOR SIX THAT WHICH IS + WORTH THREE. Between commerce thus defined and <i>vol a l'americaine</i>, + the only difference is in the relative proportion of the values exchanged,—in + short, in the amount of the profit. + </p> + <p> + We rob,—15. By making profit on our product, by accepting sinecures, + and by exacting exorbitant wages. + </p> + <p> + The farmer, who sells a certain amount of corn to the consumer, and who + during the measurement thrusts his hand into the bushel and takes out a + handful of grains, robs; the professor, whose lectures are paid for by the + State, and who through the intervention of a bookseller sells them to the + public a second time, robs; the sinecurist, who receives an enormous + product in exchange for his vanity, robs; the functionary, the laborer, + whatever he may be, who produces only one and gets paid four, one hundred, + or one thousand, robs; the publisher of this book, and I, its author,—we + rob, by charging for it twice as much as it is worth. + </p> + <p> + In recapitulation:— + </p> + <p> + Justice, after passing through the state of negative communism, called by + the ancient poets the AGE OF GOLD, commences as the right of the + strongest. In a society which is trying to organize itself, inequality of + faculties calls up the idea of merit; equite suggests the plan of + proportioning not only esteem, but also material comforts, to personal + merit; and since the highest and almost the only merit then recognized is + physical strength, the strongest, {GREEK ' eg }, and consequently the + best, {GREEK ' eg }, is entitled to the largest share; and if it is + refused him, he very naturally takes it by force. From this to the + assumption of the right of property in all things, it is but one step. + </p> + <p> + Such was justice in the heroic age, preserved, at least by tradition, + among the Greeks and Romans down to the last days of their republics. + Plato, in the "Gorgias," introduces a character named Callicles, who + spiritedly defends the right of the strongest, which Socrates, the + advocate of equality, {GREEK g e }, seriously refutes. It is related of + the great Pompey, that he blushed easily, and, nevertheless, these words + once escaped his lips: "Why should I respect the laws, when I have arms in + my hand?" This shows him to have been a man in whom the moral sense and + ambition were struggling for the mastery, and who sought to justify his + violence by the motto of the hero and the brigand. + </p> + <p> + From the right of the strongest springs the exploitation of man by man, or + bondage; usury, or the tribute levied upon the conquered by the conqueror; + and the whole numerous family of taxes, duties, monarchical prerogatives, + house-rents, farm-rents, &c.; in one word,—property. + </p> + <p> + Force was followed by artifice, the second manifestation of justice, which + was detested by the ancient heroes, who, not excelling in that direction, + were heavy losers by it. Force was still employed, but mental force + instead of physical. Skill in deceiving an enemy by treacherous + propositions seemed deserving of reward; nevertheless, the strong always + prided themselves upon their honesty. In those days, oaths were observed + and promises kept according to the letter rather than the spirit: <i>Uti + lingua nuncupassit, ita jus esto</i>,—"As the tongue has spoken, so + must the right be," says the law of the Twelve Tables. Artifice, or rather + perfidy, was the main element in the politics of ancient Rome. Among other + examples, Vico cites the following, also quoted by Montesquieu: The Romans + had guaranteed to the Carthaginians the preservation of their goods and + their CITY,—intentionally using the word civitas, that is, the + society, the State; the Carthaginians, on the contrary, understood them to + mean the material city, urbs, and accordingly began to rebuild their + walls. They were immediately attacked on account of their violation of the + treaty, by the Romans, who, acting upon the old heroic idea of right, did + not imagine that, in taking advantage of an equivocation to surprise their + enemies, they were waging unjust war. + </p> + <p> + From artifice sprang the profits of manufactures, commerce, and banking, + mercantile frauds, and pretensions which are honored with the beautiful + names of TALENT and GENIUS, but which ought to be regarded as the last + degree of knavery and deception; and, finally, all sorts of social + inequalities. + </p> + <p> + In those forms of robbery which are prohibited by law, force and artifice + are employed alone and undisguised; in the authorized forms, they conceal + themselves within a useful product, which they use as a tool to plunder + their victim. + </p> + <p> + The direct use of violence and stratagem was early and universally + condemned; but no nation has yet got rid of that kind of robbery which + acts through talent, labor, and possession, and which is the source of all + the dilemmas of casuistry and the innumerable contradictions of + jurisprudence. + </p> + <p> + The right of force and the right of artifice—glorified by the + rhapsodists in the poems of the "Iliad" and the "Odyssey"—inspired + the legislation of the Greeks and Romans, from which they passed into our + morals and codes. Christianity has not changed at all. The Gospel should + not be blamed, because the priests, as stupid as the legists, have been + unable either to expound or to understand it. The ignorance of councils + and popes upon all questions of morality is equal to that of the + market-place and the money-changers; and it is this utter ignorance of + right, justice, and society, which is killing the Church, and discrediting + its teachings for ever. The infidelity of the Roman church and other + Christian churches is flagrant; all have disregarded the precept of Jesus; + all have erred in moral and doctrinal points; all are guilty of teaching + false and absurd dogmas, which lead straight to wickedness and murder. Let + it ask pardon of God and men,—this church which called itself + infallible, and which has grown so corrupt in morals; let its reformed + sisters humble themselves,... and the people, undeceived, but still + religious and merciful, will begin to think. <a href="#linknote-29" + name="linknoteref-29" id="linknoteref-29"><small>29</small></a> + </p> + <p> + One of the main causes of Ireland's poverty to-day is the immense revenues + of the English clergy. So heretics and orthodox—Protestants and + Papists—cannot reproach each other. All have strayed from the path + of justice; all have disobeyed the eighth commandment of the Decalogue: + "Thou shalt not steal." + </p> + <p> + The development of right has followed the same order, in its various + expressions, that property has in its forms. Every where we see justice + driving robbery before it and confining it within narrower and narrower + limits. Hitherto the victories of justice over injustice, and of equality + over inequality, have been won by instinct and the simple force of things; + but the final triumph of our social nature will be due to our reason, or + else we shall fall back into feudal chaos. Either this glorious height is + reserved for our intelligence, or this miserable depth for our baseness. + </p> + <p> + The second effect of property is despotism. Now, since despotism is + inseparably connected with the idea of legitimate authority, in explaining + the natural causes of the first, the principle of the second will appear. + </p> + <p> + What is to be the form of government in the future? hear some of my + younger readers reply: "Why, how can you ask such a question? + </p> + <p> + "You are a republican." "A republican! Yes; but that word specifies + nothing. <i>Res publica;</i> that is, the public thing. Now, whoever is + interested in public affairs—no matter under what form of government—may + call himself a republican. Even kings are republicans."— + </p> + <p> + "Well! you are a democrat?"—"No."—"What! you would have a + monarchy."—"No."—"A constitutionalist?"—"God forbid!"—"You + are then an aristocrat?"—"Not at all."—"You want a mixed + government?"—"Still less."—"What are you, then?"—"I am + an anarchist." + </p> + <p> + "Oh! I understand you; you speak satirically. This is a hit at the + government."—"By no means. I have just given you my serious and + well-considered profession of faith. Although a firm friend of order, I am + (in the full force of the term) an anarchist. Listen to me." + </p> + <p> + In all species of sociable animals, "the weakness of the young is the + principle of their obedience to the old," who are strong; and from habit, + which is a kind of conscience with them, the power remains with the + oldest, although he finally becomes the weakest. + </p> + <p> + Whenever the society is under the control of a chief, this chief is almost + always the oldest of the troop. I say almost always, because the + established order may be disturbed by violent outbreaks. Then the + authority passes to another; and, having been re-established by force, it + is again maintained by habit. Wild horses go in herds: they have a chief + who marches at their head, whom they confidently follow, and who gives the + signal for flight or battle. + </p> + <p> + "The sheep which we have raised follows us, but it follows in company with + the flock in the midst of which it was born. It regards man AS THE CHIEF + OF ITS FLOCK.... Man is regarded by domestic animals as a member of their + society. All that he has to do is to get himself accepted by them as an + associate: he soon becomes their chief, in consequence of his superior + intelligence. He does not, then, change the NATURAL CONDITION of these + animals, as Buffon has said. On the contrary, he uses this natural + condition to his own advantage; in other words, he finds SOCIABLE animals, + and renders them DOMESTIC by becoming their associate and chief. Thus, the + DOMESTICITY of animals is only a special condition, a simple modification, + a definitive consequence of their SOCIABILITY. All domestic animals are by + nature sociable animals."...—Flourens: Summary of the Observations + of F. Cuvier. + </p> + <p> + Sociable animals follow their chief by INSTINCT; but take notice of the + fact (which F. Cuvier omitted to state), that the function of the chief is + altogether one of INTELLIGENCE. The chief does not teach the others to + associate, to unite under his lead, to reproduce their kind, to take to + flight, or to defend themselves. Concerning each of these particulars, his + subordinates are as well informed as he. But it is the chief who, by his + accumulated experience, provides against accidents; he it is whose private + intelligence supplements, in difficult situations, the general instinct; + he it is who deliberates, decides, and leads; he it is, in short, whose + enlightened prudence regulates the public routine for the greatest good of + all. + </p> + <p> + Man (naturally a sociable being) naturally follows a chief. Originally, + the chief is the father, the patriarch, the elder; in other words, the + good and wise man, whose functions, consequently, are exclusively of a + reflective and intellectual nature. The human race—like all other + races of sociable animals—has its instincts, its innate faculties, + its general ideas, and its categories of sentiment and reason. Its chiefs, + legislators, or kings have devised nothing, supposed nothing, imagined + nothing. They have only guided society by their accumulated experience, + always however in conformity with opinions and beliefs. + </p> + <p> + Those philosophers who (carrying into morals and into history their gloomy + and factious whims) affirm that the human race had originally neither + chiefs nor kings, know nothing of the nature of man. Royalty, and absolute + royalty, is—as truly and more truly than democracy—a primitive + form of government. Perceiving that, in the remotest ages, crowns and + kingships were worn by heroes, brigands, and knight-errants, they confound + the two things,—royalty and despotism. But royalty dates from the + creation of man; it existed in the age of negative communism. Ancient + heroism (and the despotism which it engendered) commenced only with the + first manifestation of the idea of justice; that is, with the reign of + force. As soon as the strongest, in the comparison of merits, was decided + to be the best, the oldest had to abandon his position, and royalty became + despotic. + </p> + <p> + The spontaneous, instinctive, and—so to speak—physiological + origin of royalty gives it, in the beginning, a superhuman character. The + nations connected it with the gods, from whom they said the first kings + descended. This notion was the origin of the divine genealogies of royal + families, the incarnations of gods, and the messianic fables. From it + sprang the doctrine of divine right, which is still championed by a few + singular characters. + </p> + <p> + Royalty was at first elective, because—at a time when man produced + but little and possessed nothing—property was too weak to establish + the principle of heredity, and secure to the son the throne of his father; + but as soon as fields were cleared, and cities built, each function was, + like every thing else, appropriated, and hereditary kingships and + priesthoods were the result. The principle of heredity was carried into + even the most ordinary professions,—a circumstance which led to + class distinctions, pride of station, and abjection of the common people, + and which confirms my assertion, concerning the principle of patrimonial + succession, that it is a method suggested by Nature of filling vacancies + in business, and completing unfinished tasks. + </p> + <p> + From time to time, ambition caused usurpers, or SUPPLANTERS of kings, to + start up; and, in consequence, some were called kings by right, or + legitimate kings, and others TYRANTS. But we must not let these names + deceive us. There have been execrable kings, and very tolerable tyrants. + Royalty may always be good, when it is the only possible form of + government; legitimate it is never. Neither heredity, nor election, nor + universal suffrage, nor the excellence of the sovereign, nor the + consecration of religion and of time, can make royalty legitimate. + Whatever form it takes,—monarchic, oligarchic, or democratic,—royalty, + or the government of man by man, is illegitimate and absurd. + </p> + <p> + Man, in order to procure as speedily as possible the most thorough + satisfaction of his wants, seeks RULE. In the beginning, this rule is to + him living, visible, and tangible. It is his father, his master, his king. + The more ignorant man is, the more obedient he is, and the more absolute + is his confidence in his guide. But, it being a law of man's nature to + conform to rule,—that is, to discover it by his powers of reflection + and reason,—man reasons upon the commands of his chiefs. Now, such + reasoning as that is a protest against authority,—a beginning of + disobedience. At the moment that man inquires into the motives which + govern the will of his sovereign,—at that moment man revolts. If he + obeys no longer because the king commands, but because the king + demonstrates the wisdom of his commands, it may be said that henceforth he + will recognize no authority, and that he has become his own king. Unhappy + he who shall dare to command him, and shall offer, as his authority, only + the vote of the majority; for, sooner or later, the minority will become + the majority, and this imprudent despot will be overthrown, and all his + laws annihilated. + </p> + <p> + In proportion as society becomes enlightened, royal authority diminishes. + That is a fact to which all history bears witness. At the birth of + nations, men reflect and reason in vain. Without methods, without + principles, not knowing how to use their reason, they cannot judge of the + justice of their conclusions. Then the authority of kings is immense, no + knowledge having been acquired with which to contradict it. But, little by + little, experience produces habits, which develop into customs; then the + customs are formulated in maxims, laid down as principles,—in short, + transformed into laws, to which the king, the living law, has to bow. + There comes a time when customs and laws are so numerous that the will of + the prince is, so to speak, entwined by the public will; and that, on + taking the crown, he is obliged to swear that he will govern in conformity + with established customs and usages; and that he is but the executive + power of a society whose laws are made independently of him. + </p> + <p> + Up to this point, all is done instinctively, and, as it were, + unconsciously; but see where this movement must end. + </p> + <p> + By means of self-instruction and the acquisition of ideas, man finally + acquires the idea of SCIENCE,—that is, of a system of knowledge in + harmony with the reality of things, and inferred from observation. He + searches for the science, or the system, of inanimate bodies,—the + system of organic bodies, the system of the human mind, and the system of + the universe: why should he not also search for the system of society? + But, having reached this height, he comprehends that political truth, or + the science of politics, exists quite independently of the will of + sovereigns, the opinion of majorities, and popular beliefs,—that + kings, ministers, magistrates, and nations, as wills, have no connection + with the science, and are worthy of no consideration. He comprehends, at + the same time, that, if man is born a sociable being, the authority of his + father over him ceases on the day when, his mind being formed and his + education finished, he becomes the associate of his father; that his true + chief and his king is the demonstrated truth; that politics is a science, + not a stratagem; and that the function of the legislator is reduced, in + the last analysis, to the methodical search for truth. + </p> + <p> + Thus, in a given society, the authority of man over man is inversely + proportional to the stage of intellectual development which that society + has reached; and the probable duration of that authority can be calculated + from the more or less general desire for a true government,—that is, + for a scientific government. And just as the right of force and the right + of artifice retreat before the steady advance of justice, and must finally + be extinguished in equality, so the sovereignty of the will yields to the + sovereignty of the reason, and must at last be lost in scientific + socialism. Property and royalty have been crumbling to pieces ever since + the world began. As man seeks justice in equality, so society seeks order + in anarchy. + </p> + <p> + ANARCHY,—the absence of a master, of a sovereign, <a + href="#linknote-30" name="linknoteref-30" id="linknoteref-30"><small>30</small></a>—such + is the form of government to which we are every day approximating, and + which our accustomed habit of taking man for our rule, and his will for + law, leads us to regard as the height of disorder and the expression of + chaos. The story is told, that a citizen of Paris in the seventeenth + century having heard it said that in Venice there was no king, the good + man could not recover from his astonishment, and nearly died from laughter + at the mere mention of so ridiculous a thing. So strong is our prejudice. + As long as we live, we want a chief or chiefs; and at this very moment I + hold in my hand a brochure, whose author—a zealous communist—dreams, + like a second Marat, of the dictatorship. The most advanced among us are + those who wish the greatest possible number of sovereigns,—their + most ardent wish is for the royalty of the National Guard. Soon, + undoubtedly, some one, jealous of the citizen militia, will say, + "Everybody is king." But, when he has spoken, I will say, in my turn, + "Nobody is king; we are, whether we will or no, associated." Every + question of domestic politics must be decided by departmental statistics; + every question of foreign politics is an affair of international + statistics. The science of government rightly belongs to one of the + sections of the Academy of Sciences, whose permanent secretary is + necessarily prime minister; and, since every citizen may address a memoir + to the Academy, every citizen is a legislator. But, as the opinion of no + one is of any value until its truth has been proven, no one can substitute + his will for reason,—nobody is king. + </p> + <p> + All questions of legislation and politics are matters of science, not of + opinion. The legislative power belongs only to the reason, methodically + recognized and demonstrated. To attribute to any power whatever the right + of veto or of sanction, is the last degree of tyranny. Justice and + legality are two things as independent of our approval as is mathematical + truth. To compel, they need only to be known; to be known, they need only + to be considered and studied. What, then, is the nation, if it is not the + sovereign,—if it is not the source of the legislative power? + </p> + <p> + The nation is the guardian of the law—the nation is the EXECUTIVE + POWER. Every citizen may assert: "This is true; that is just;" but his + opinion controls no one but himself. That the truth which he proclaims may + become a law, it must be recognized. Now, what is it to recognize a law? + It is to verify a mathematical or a metaphysical calculation; it is to + repeat an experiment, to observe a phenomenon, to establish a fact. Only + the nation has the right to say, "Be it known and decreed." + </p> + <p> + I confess that this is an overturning of received ideas, and that I seem + to be attempting to revolutionize our political system; but I beg the + reader to consider that, having begun with a paradox, I must, if I reason + correctly, meet with paradoxes at every step, and must end with paradoxes. + For the rest, I do not see how the liberty of citizens would be endangered + by entrusting to their hands, instead of the pen of the legislator, the + sword of the law. The executive power, belonging properly to the will, + cannot be confided to too many proxies. That is the true sovereignty of + the nation. <a href="#linknote-31" name="linknoteref-31" + id="linknoteref-31"><small>31</small></a> + </p> + <p> + The proprietor, the robber, the hero, the sovereign—for all these + titles are synonymous—imposes his will as law, and suffers neither + contradiction nor control; that is, he pretends to be the legislative and + the executive power at once. Accordingly, the substitution of the + scientific and true law for the royal will is accomplished only by a + terrible struggle; and this constant substitution is, after property, the + most potent element in history, the most prolific source of political + disturbances. Examples are too numerous and too striking to require + enumeration. + </p> + <p> + Now, property necessarily engenders despotism,—the government of + caprice, the reign of libidinous pleasure. That is so clearly the essence + of property that, to be convinced of it, one need but remember what it is, + and observe what happens around him. Property is the right to USE and + ABUSE. If, then, government is economy,—if its object is production + and consumption, and the distribution of labor and products,—how is + government possible while property exists? And if goods are property, why + should not the proprietors be kings, and despotic kings—kings in + proportion to their <i>facultes bonitaires</i>? And if each proprietor is + sovereign lord within the sphere of his property, absolute king throughout + his own domain, how could a government of proprietors be any thing but + chaos and confusion? + </p> + <p> + % 3.—Determination of the third form of Society. Conclusion. + </p> + <p> + Then, no government, no public economy, no administration, is possible, + which is based upon property. + </p> + <p> + Communism seeks EQUALITY and LAW. Property, born of the sovereignty of the + reason, and the sense of personal merit, wishes above all things + INDEPENDENCE and PROPORTIONALITY. + </p> + <p> + But communism, mistaking uniformity for law, and levelism for equality, + becomes tyrannical and unjust. Property, by its despotism and + encroachments, soon proves itself oppressive and anti-social. + </p> + <p> + The objects of communism and property are good—their results are + bad. And why? Because both are exclusive, and each disregards two elements + of society. Communism rejects independence and proportionality; property + does not satisfy equality and law. + </p> + <p> + Now, if we imagine a society based upon these four principles,—equality, + law, independence, and proportionality,—we find:— + </p> + <p> + 1. That EQUALITY, consisting only in EQUALITY OF CONDITIONS, that is, OF + MEANS, and not in EQUALITY OF COMFORT,—which it is the business of + the laborers to achieve for themselves, when provided with equal means,—in + no way violates justice and equite. + </p> + <p> + 2. That LAW, resulting from the knowledge of facts, and consequently based + upon necessity itself, never clashes with independence. + </p> + <p> + 3. That individual INDEPENDENCE, or the autonomy of the private reason, + originating in the difference in talents and capacities, can exist without + danger within the limits of the law. + </p> + <p> + 4. That PROPORTIONALITY, being admitted only in the sphere of intelligence + and sentiment, and not as regards material objects, may be observed + without violating justice or social equality. + </p> + <p> + This third form of society, the synthesis of communism and property, we + will call LIBERTY. <a href="#linknote-32" name="linknoteref-32" + id="linknoteref-32"><small>32</small></a> + </p> + <p> + In determining the nature of liberty, we do not unite communism and + property indiscriminately; such a process would be absurd eclecticism. We + search by analysis for those elements in each which are true, and in + harmony with the laws of Nature and society, disregarding the rest + altogether; and the result gives us an adequate expression of the natural + form of human society,—in one word, liberty. + </p> + <p> + Liberty is equality, because liberty exists only in society; and in the + absence of equality there is no society. + </p> + <p> + Liberty is anarchy, because it does not admit the government of the will, + but only the authority of the law; that is, of necessity. + </p> + <p> + Liberty is infinite variety, because it respects all wills within the + limits of the law. + </p> + <p> + Liberty is proportionality, because it allows the utmost latitude to the + ambition for merit, and the emulation of glory. + </p> + <p> + We can now say, in the words of M. Cousin: "Our principle is true; it is + good, it is social; let us not fear to push it to its ultimate." + </p> + <p> + Man's social nature becoming JUSTICE through reflection, EQUITE through + the classification of capacities, and having LIBERTY for its formula, is + the true basis of morality,—the principle and regulator of all our + actions. This is the universal motor, which philosophy is searching for, + which religion strengthens, which egotism supplants, and whose place pure + reason never can fill. DUTY and RIGHT are born of NEED, which, when + considered in connection with others, is a RIGHT, and when considered in + connection with ourselves, a DUTY. + </p> + <p> + We need to eat and sleep. It is our right to procure those things which + are necessary to rest and nourishment. It is our duty to use them when + Nature requires it. + </p> + <p> + We need to labor in order to live. To do so is both our right and our + duty. + </p> + <p> + We need to love our wives and children. It is our duty to protect and + support them. It is our right to be loved in preference to all others. + Conjugal fidelity is justice. Adultery is high treason against society. + </p> + <p> + We need to exchange our products for other products. It is our right that + this exchange should be one of equivalents; and since we consume before we + produce, it would be our duty, if we could control the matter, to see to + it that our last product shall follow our last consumption. Suicide is + fraudulent bankruptcy. + </p> + <p> + We need to live our lives according to the dictates of our reason. It is + our right to maintain our freedom. It is our duty to respect that of + others. + </p> + <p> + We need to be appreciated by our fellows. It is our duty to deserve their + praise. It is our right to be judged by our works. + </p> + <p> + Liberty is not opposed to the rights of succession and bequest. It + contents itself with preventing violations of equality. "Choose," it tells + us, "between two legacies, but do not take them both." All our legislation + concerning transmissions, entailments, adoptions, and, if I may venture to + use such a word, COADJUTORERIES, requires remodelling. + </p> + <p> + Liberty favors emulation, instead of destroying it. In social equality, + emulation consists in accomplishing under like conditions; it is its own + reward. No one suffers by the victory. + </p> + <p> + Liberty applauds self-sacrifice, and honors it with its votes, but it can + dispense with it. Justice alone suffices to maintain the social + equilibrium. Self-sacrifice is an act of supererogation. Happy, however, + the man who can say, "I sacrifice myself." <a href="#linknote-33" + name="linknoteref-33" id="linknoteref-33"><small>33</small></a> + </p> + <p> + Liberty is essentially an organizing force. To insure equality between men + and peace among nations, agriculture and industry, and the centres of + education, business, and storage, must be distributed according to the + climate and the geographical position of the country, the nature of the + products, the character and natural talents of the inhabitants, &c., + in proportions so just, so wise, so harmonious, that in no place shall + there ever be either an excess or a lack of population, consumption, and + products. There commences the science of public and private right, the + true political economy. It is for the writers on jurisprudence, henceforth + unembarrassed by the false principle of property, to describe the new + laws, and bring peace upon earth. Knowledge and genius they do not lack; + the foundation is now laid for them. <a href="#linknote-34" + name="linknoteref-34" id="linknoteref-34"><small>34</small></a> + </p> + <p> + I have accomplished my task; property is conquered, never again to arise. + Wherever this work is read and discussed, there will be deposited the germ + of death to property; there, sooner or later, privilege and servitude will + disappear, and the despotism of will will give place to the reign of + reason. What sophisms, indeed, what prejudices (however obstinate) can + stand before the simplicity of the following propositions:— + </p> + <p> + I. Individual POSSESSION <a href="#linknote-35" name="linknoteref-35" + id="linknoteref-35"><small>35</small></a> is the condition of social life; + five thousand years of property demonstrate it. PROPERTY is the suicide of + society. Possession is a right; property is against right. Suppress + property while maintaining possession, and, by this simple modification of + the principle, you will revolutionize law, government, economy, and + institutions; you will drive evil from the face of the earth. + </p> + <p> + II. All having an equal right of occupancy, possession varies with the + number of possessors; property cannot establish itself. + </p> + <p> + III. The effect of labor being the same for all, property is lost in the + common prosperity. + </p> + <p> + IV. All human labor being the result of collective force, all property + becomes, in consequence, collective and unitary. To speak more exactly, + labor destroys property. + </p> + <p> + V. Every capacity for labor being, like every instrument of labor, an + accumulated capital, and a collective property, inequality of wages and + fortunes (on the ground of inequality of capacities) is, therefore, + injustice and robbery. + </p> + <p> + VI. The necessary conditions of commerce are the liberty of the + contracting parties and the equivalence of the products exchanged. Now, + value being expressed by the amount of time and outlay which each product + costs, and liberty being inviolable, the wages of laborers (like their + rights and duties) should be equal. + </p> + <p> + VII. Products are bought only by products. Now, the condition of all + exchange being equivalence of products, profit is impossible and unjust. + Observe this elementary principle of economy, and pauperism, luxury, + oppression, vice, crime, and hunger will disappear from our midst. + </p> + <p> + VIII. Men are associated by the physical and mathematical law of + production, before they are voluntarily associated by choice. Therefore, + equality of conditions is demanded by justice; that is, by strict social + law: esteem, friendship, gratitude, admiration, all fall within the domain + of EQUITABLE or PROPORTIONAL law only. + </p> + <p> + IX. Free association, liberty—whose sole function is to maintain + equality in the means of production and equivalence in exchanges—is + the only possible, the only just, the only true form of society. + </p> + <p> + X. Politics is the science of liberty. The government of man by man (under + whatever name it be disguised) is oppression. Society finds its highest + perfection in the union of order with anarchy. + </p> + <p> + The old civilization has run its race; a new sun is rising, and will soon + renew the face of the earth. Let the present generation perish, let the + old prevaricators die in the desert! the holy earth shall not cover their + bones. Young man, exasperated by the corruption of the age, and absorbed + in your zeal for justice!—if your country is dear to you, and if you + have the interests of humanity at heart, have the courage to espouse the + cause of liberty! Cast off your old selfishness, and plunge into the + rising flood of popular equality! There your regenerate soul will acquire + new life and vigor; your enervated genius will recover unconquerable + energy; and your heart, perhaps already withered, will be rejuvenated! + Every thing will wear a different look to your illuminated vision; new + sentiments will engender new ideas within you; religion, morality, poetry, + art, language will appear before you in nobler and fairer forms; and + thenceforth, sure of your faith, and thoughtfully enthusiastic, you will + hail the dawn of universal regeneration! + </p> + <p> + And you, sad victims of an odious law!—you, whom a jesting world + despoils and outrages!—you, whose labor has always been fruitless, + and whose rest has been without hope,—take courage! your tears are + numbered! The fathers have sown in affliction, the children shall reap in + rejoicings! + </p> + <p> + O God of liberty! God of equality! Thou who didst place in my heart the + sentiment of justice, before my reason could comprehend it, hear my ardent + prayer! Thou hast dictated all that I have written; Thou hast shaped my + thought; Thou hast directed my studies; Thou hast weaned my mind from + curiosity and my heart from attachment, that I might publish Thy truth to + the master and the slave. I have spoken with what force and talent Thou + hast given me: it is Thine to finish the work. Thou knowest whether I seek + my welfare or Thy glory, O God of liberty! Ah! perish my memory, and let + humanity be free! Let me see from my obscurity the people at last + instructed; let noble teachers enlighten them; let generous spirits guide + them! Abridge, if possible, the time of our trial; stifle pride and + avarice in equality; annihilate this love of glory which enslaves us; + teach these poor children that in the bosom of liberty there are neither + heroes nor great men! Inspire the powerful man, the rich man, him whose + name my lips shall never pronounce in Thy presence, with a horror of his + crimes; let him be the first to apply for admission to the redeemed + society; let the promptness of his repentance be the ground of his + forgiveness! Then, great and small, wise and foolish, rich and poor, will + unite in an ineffable fraternity; and, singing in unison a new hymn, will + rebuild Thy altar, O God of liberty and equality! + </p> + <p> + END OF FIRST MEMOIR. <a name="link2H_4_0013" id="link2H_4_0013"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /><br /><br /><br /> + </div> + <h2> + WHAT IS PROPERTY? SECOND MEMOIR + </h2> + <h3> + A LETTER TO M. BLANQUI. + </h3> + <p> + <a name="link2H_4_0014" id="link2H_4_0014"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /><br /><br /><br /> + </div> + <h2> + SECOND MEMOIR. + </h2> + <p> + PARIS, April 1, 1841. + </p> + <p> + MONSIEUR,— + </p> + <p> + Before resuming my "Inquiries into Government and Property," it is + fitting, for the satisfaction of some worthy people, and also in the + interest of order, that I should make to you a plain, straightforward + explanation. In a much-governed State, no one would be allowed to attack + the external form of the society, and the groundwork of its institutions, + until he had established his right to do so,—first, by his morality; + second, by his capacity; and, third, by the purity of his intentions. Any + one who, wishing to publish a treatise upon the constitution of the + country, could not satisfy this threefold condition, would be obliged to + procure the endorsement of a responsible patron possessing the requisite + qualifications. + </p> + <p> + But we Frenchmen have the liberty of the press. This grand right—the + sword of thought, which elevates the virtuous citizen to the rank of + legislator, and makes the malicious citizen an agent of discord—frees + us from all preliminary responsibility to the law; but it does not release + us from our internal obligation to render a public account of our + sentiments and thoughts. I have used, in all its fulness, and concerning + an important question, the right which the charter grants us. I come + to-day, sir, to submit my conscience to your judgment, and my feeble + insight to your discriminating reason. You have criticised in a kindly + spirit—I had almost said with partiality for the writer—a work + which teaches a doctrine that you thought it your duty to condemn. "The + Academy of Moral and Political Sciences," said you in your report, "can + accept the conclusions of the author only as far as it likes." I venture + to hope, sir, that, after you have read this letter, if your prudence + still restrains you, your fairness will induce you to do me justice. + </p> + <p> + MEN, EQUAL IN THE DIGNITY OF THEIR PERSONS AND EQUAL BEFORE THE LAW, + SHOULD BE EQUAL IN THEIR CONDITIONS,—such is the thesis which I + maintained and developed in a memoir bearing the title, "What is Property? + or, An Inquiry into the Principle of Right and of Government." + </p> + <p> + The idea of social equality, even in individual fortunes, has in all ages + besieged, like a vague presentiment, the human imagination. Poets have + sung of it in their hymns; philosophers have dreamed of it in their + Utopias; priests teach it, but only for the spiritual world. The people, + governed by it, never have had faith in it; and the civil power is never + more disturbed than by the fables of the age of gold and the reign of + Astrea. A year ago, however, this idea received a scientific + demonstration, which has not yet been satisfactorily answered, and, permit + me to add, never will be. This demonstration, owing to its slightly + impassioned style, its method of reasoning,—which was so at variance + with that employed by the generally recognized authorities,—and the + importance and novelty of its conclusions, was of a nature to cause some + alarm; and might have been dangerous, had it not been—as you, sir, + so well said—a sealed letter, so far as the general public was + concerned, addressed only to men of intelligence. I was glad to see that + through its metaphysical dress you recognized the wise foresight of the + author; and I thank you for it. May God grant that my intentions, which + are wholly peaceful, may never be charged upon me as treasonable! + </p> + <p> + Like a stone thrown into a mass of serpents, the First Memoir on Property + excited intense animosity, and aroused the passions of many. But, while + some wished the author and his work to be publicly denounced, others found + in them simply the solution of the fundamental problems of society; a few + even basing evil speculations upon the new light which they had obtained. + It was not to be expected that a system of inductions abstractly gathered + together, and still more abstractly expressed, would be understood with + equal accuracy in its ensemble and in each of its parts. + </p> + <p> + To find the law of equality, no longer in charity and self-sacrifice + (which are not binding in their nature), but in justice; to base equality + of functions upon equality of persons; to determine the absolute principle + of exchange; to neutralize the inequality of individual faculties by + collective force; to establish an equation between property and robbery; + to change the law of succession without destroying the principle; to + maintain the human personality in a system of absolute association, and to + save liberty from the chains of communism; to synthetize the monarchical + and democratic forms of government; to reverse the division of powers; to + give the executive power to the nation, and to make legislation a + positive, fixed, and absolute science,—what a series of paradoxes! + what a string of delusions! if I may not say, what a chain of truths! But + it is not my purpose here to pass upon the theory of the right of + possession. I discuss no dogmas. My only object is to justify my views, + and to show that, in writing as I did, I not only exercised a right, but + performed a duty. + </p> + <p> + Yes, I have attacked property, and shall attack it again; but, sir, before + demanding that I shall make the amende honorable for having obeyed my + conscience and spoken the exact truth, condescend, I beg of you, to cast a + glance at the events which are happening around us; look at our deputies, + our magistrates, our philosophers, our ministers, our professors, and our + publicists; examine their methods of dealing with the matter of property; + count up with me the restrictions placed upon it every day in the name of + the public welfare; measure the breaches already made; estimate those + which society thinks of making hereafter; add the ideas concerning + property held by all theories in common; interrogate history, and then + tell me what will be left, half a century hence, of this old right of + property; and, thus perceiving that I have so many accomplices, you will + immediately declare me innocent. + </p> + <p> + What is the law of expropriation on the ground of public utility, which + everybody favors, and which is even thought too lenient? <a + href="#linknote-36" name="linknoteref-36" id="linknoteref-36"><small>36</small></a> + </p> + <p> + A flagrant violation of the right of property. Society indemnifies, it is + said, the dispossessed proprietor; but does it return to him the + traditional associations, the poetic charm, and the family pride which + accompany property? Naboth, and the miller of Sans-Souci, would have + protested against French law, as they protested against the caprice of + their kings. "It is the field of our fathers," they would have cried, "and + we will not sell it!" Among the ancients, the refusal of the individual + limited the powers of the State. The Roman law bowed to the will of the + citizen, and an emperor—Commodus, if I remember rightly—abandoned + the project of enlarging the forum out of respect for the rights of the + occupants who refused to abdicate. Property is a real right, <i>jus</i> <i>in + re</i>,—a right inherent in the thing, and whose principle lies in + the external manifestation of man's will. Man leaves his imprint, stamps + his character, upon the objects of his handiwork. This plastic force of + man, as the modern jurists say, is the seal which, set upon matter, makes + it holy. Whoever lays hands upon it, against the proprietor's will, does + violence to the latter's personality. And yet, when an administrative + committee saw fit to declare that public utility required it, property had + to give way to the general will. Soon, in the name of public utility, + methods of cultivation and conditions of enjoyment will be prescribed; + inspectors of agriculture and manufactures will be appointed; property + will be taken away from unskilful hands, and entrusted to laborers who are + more deserving of it; and a general superintendence of production will be + established. It is not two years since I saw a proprietor destroy a forest + more than five hundred acres in extent. If public utility had interfered, + that forest—the only one for miles around—would still be + standing. + </p> + <p> + But, it is said, expropriation on the ground of public utility is only an + exception which confirms the principle, and bears testimony in favor of + the right. Very well; but from this exception we will pass to another, + from that to a third, and so on from exceptions to exceptions, until we + have reduced the rule to a pure abstraction. + </p> + <p> + How many supporters do you think, sir, can be claimed for the project of + the conversion of the public funds? I venture to say that everybody favors + it, except the fund-holders. Now, this so-called conversion is an + extensive expropriation, and in this case with no indemnity whatever. The + public funds are so much real estate, the income from which the proprietor + counts upon with perfect safety, and which owes its value to the tacit + promise of the government to pay interest upon it at the established rate, + until the fund-holder applies for redemption. For, if the income is liable + to diminution, it is less profitable than house-rent or farm-rent, whose + rates may rise or fall according to the fluctuations in the market; and in + that case, what inducement has the capitalist to invest his money in the + State? When, then, you force the fund-holder to submit to a diminution of + interest, you make him bankrupt to the extent of the diminution; and + since, in consequence of the conversion, an equally profitable investment + becomes impossible, you depreciate his property. + </p> + <p> + That such a measure may be justly executed, it must be generalized; that + is, the law which provides for it must decree also that interest on sums + lent on deposit or on mortgage throughout the realm, as well as house and + farm-rents, shall be reduced to three per cent. This simultaneous + reduction of all kinds of income would be not a whit more difficult to + accomplish than the proposed conversion; and, further, it would offer the + advantage of forestalling at one blow all objections to it, at the same + time that it would insure a just assessment of the land-tax. See! If at + the moment of conversion a piece of real estate yields an income of one + thousand francs, after the new law takes effect it will yield only six + hundred francs. Now, allowing the tax to be an aliquot part—one-fourth + for example—of the income derived from each piece of property, it is + clear on the one hand that the proprietor would not, in order to lighten + his share of the tax, underestimate the value of his property; since, + house and farm-rents being fixed by the value of the capital, and the + latter being measured by the tax, to depreciate his real estate would be + to reduce his revenue. On the other hand, it is equally evident that the + same proprietors could not overestimate the value of their property, in + order to increase their incomes beyond the limits of the law, since the + tenants and farmers, with their old leases in their hands, would enter a + protest. + </p> + <p> + Such, sir, must be the result sooner or later of the conversion which has + been so long demanded; otherwise, the financial operation of which we are + speaking would be a crying injustice, unless intended as a stepping-stone. + This last motive seems the most plausible one; for in spite of the clamors + of interested parties, and the flagrant violation of certain rights, the + public conscience is bound to fulfil its desire, and is no more affected + when charged with attacking property, than when listening to the + complaints of the bondholders. In this case, instinctive justice belies + legal justice. + </p> + <p> + Who has not heard of the inextricable confusion into which the Chamber of + Deputies was thrown last year, while discussing the question of colonial + and native sugars? Did they leave these two industries to themselves? The + native manufacturer was ruined by the colonist. To maintain the beet-root, + the cane had to be taxed. To protect the property of the one, it became + necessary to violate the property of the other. The most remarkable + feature of this business was precisely that to which the least attention + was paid; namely, that, in one way or another, property had to be + violated. Did they impose on each industry a proportional tax, so as to + preserve a balance in the market? They created a maximum PRICE for each + variety of sugar; and, as this maximum PRICE was not the same, they + attacked property in two ways,—on the one hand, interfering with the + liberty of trade; on the other, disregarding the equality of proprietors. + Did they suppress the beet-root by granting an indemnity to the + manufacturer? They sacrificed the property of the tax-payer. Finally, did + they prefer to cultivate the two varieties of sugar at the nation's + expense, just as different varieties of tobacco are cultivated? They + abolished, so far as the sugar industry was concerned, the right of + property. This last course, being the most social, would have been + certainly the best; but, if property is the necessary basis of + civilization, how is this deep-seated antagonism to be explained? <a + href="#linknote-37" name="linknoteref-37" id="linknoteref-37"><small>37</small></a> + </p> + <p> + Not satisfied with the power of dispossessing a citizen on the ground of + public utility, they want also to dispossess him on the ground of PRIVATE + UTILITY. For a long time, a revision of the law concerning mortgages was + clamored for; a process was demanded, in behalf of all kinds of credit and + in the interest of even the debtors themselves, which would render the + expropriation of real estate as prompt, as easy, and as effective as that + which follows a commercial protest. The Chamber of Deputies, in the early + part of this year, 1841, discussed this project, and the law was passed + almost unanimously. There is nothing more just, nothing more reasonable, + nothing more philosophical apparently, than the motives which gave rise to + this reform. + </p> + <p> + I. Formerly, the small proprietor whose obligation had arrived at + maturity, and who found himself unable to meet it, had to employ all that + he had left, after being released from his debt, in defraying the legal + costs. Henceforth, the promptness of expropriation will save him from + total ruin. 2. The difficulties in the way of payment arrested credit, and + prevented the employment of capital in agricultural enterprises. This + cause of distrust no longer existing, capitalists will find new markets, + agriculture will rapidly develop, and farmers will be the first to enjoy + the benefit of the new law. 3. Finally, it was iniquitous and absurd, + that, on account of a protested note, a poor manufacturer should see in + twenty-four hours his business arrested, his labor suspended, his + merchandise seized, his machinery sold at auction, and finally himself led + off to prison, while two years were sometimes necessary to expropriate the + most miserable piece of real estate. + </p> + <p> + These arguments, and others besides, you clearly stated, sir, in your + first lectures of this academic year. + </p> + <p> + But, when stating these excellent arguments, did you ask yourself, sir, + whither would tend such a transformation of our system of mortgages?... To + monetize, if I may say so, landed property; to accumulate it within + portfolios; to separate the laborer from the soil, man from Nature; to + make him a wanderer over the face of the earth; to eradicate from his + heart every trace of family feeling, national pride, and love of country; + to isolate him more and more; to render him indifferent to all around him; + to concentrate his love upon one object,—money; and, finally, by the + dishonest practices of usury, to monopolize the land to the profit of a + financial aristocracy,—a worthy auxiliary of that industrial + feudality whose pernicious influence we begin to feel so bitterly. Thus, + little by little, the subordination of the laborer to the idler, the + restoration of abolished castes, and the distinction between patrician and + plebeian, would be effected; thus, thanks to the new privileges granted to + the property of the capitalists, that of the small and intermediate + proprietors would gradually disappear, and with it the whole class of free + and honest laborers. This certainly is not my plan for the abolition of + property. Far from mobilizing the soil, I would, if possible, immobilize + even the functions of pure intelligence, so that society might be the + fulfilment of the intentions of Nature, who gave us our first possession, + the land. For, if the instrument or capital of production is the mark of + the laborer, it is also his pedestal, his support, his country, and, as + the Psalmist says, THE PLACE OF HIS ACTIVITY AND HIS REST. <a + href="#linknote-38" name="linknoteref-38" id="linknoteref-38"><small>38</small></a> + </p> + <p> + Let us examine more closely still the inevitable and approaching result of + the last law concerning judicial sales and mortgages. Under the system of + competition which is killing us, and whose necessary expression is a + plundering and tyrannical government, the farmer will need always capital + in order to repair his losses, and will be forced to contract loans. + Always depending upon the future for the payment of his debts, he will be + deceived in his hope, and surprised by maturity. For what is there more + prompt, more unexpected, more abbreviatory of space and time, than the + maturity of an obligation? I address this question to all whom this + pitiless Nemesis pursues, and even troubles in their dreams. Now, under + the new law, the expropriation of a debtor will be effected a hundred + times more rapidly; then, also, spoliation will be a hundred times surer, + and the free laborer will pass a hundred times sooner from his present + condition to that of a serf attached to the soil. Formerly, the length of + time required to effect the seizure curbed the usurer's avidity, gave the + borrower an opportunity to recover himself, and gave rise to a transaction + between him and his creditor which might result finally in a complete + release. Now, the debtor's sentence is irrevocable: he has but a few days + of grace. + </p> + <p> + And what advantages are promised by this law as an offset to this sword of + Damocles, suspended by a single hair over the head of the unfortunate + husbandman? The expenses of seizure will be much less, it is said; but + will the interest on the borrowed capital be less exorbitant? For, after + all, it is interest which impoverishes the peasant and leads to his + expropriation. That the law may be in harmony with its principle, that it + may be truly inspired by that spirit of justice for which it is commended, + it must—while facilitating expropriation—lower the legal price + of money. Otherwise, the reform concerning mortgages is but a trap set for + small proprietors,—a legislative trick. + </p> + <p> + Lower interest on money! But, as we have just seen, that is to limit + property. Here, sir, you shall make your own defence. More than once, in + your learned lectures, I have heard you deplore the precipitancy of the + Chambers, who, without previous study and without profound knowledge of + the subject, voted almost unanimously to maintain the statutes and + privileges of the Bank. Now these privileges, these statutes, this vote of + the Chambers, mean simply this,—that the market price of specie, at + five or six per cent., is not too high, and that the conditions of + exchange, discount, and circulation, which generally double this interest, + are none too severe. So the government thinks. M. Blanqui—a + professor of political economy, paid by the State—maintains the + contrary, and pretends to demonstrate, by decisive arguments, the + necessity of a reform. Who, then, best understands the interests of + property,—the State, or M. Blanqui? + </p> + <p> + If specie could be borrowed at half the present rate, the revenues from + all sorts of property would soon be reduced one-half also. For example: + when it costs less to build a house than to hire one, when it is cheaper + to clear a field than to procure one already cleared, competition + inevitably leads to a reduction of house and farm-rents, since the surest + way to depreciate active capital is to increase its amount. But it is a + law of political economy that an increase of production augments the mass + of available capital, consequently tends to raise wages, and finally to + annihilate interest. Then, proprietors are interested in maintaining the + statutes and privileges of the Bank; then, a reform in this matter would + compromise the right of increase; then, the peers and deputies are better + informed than Professor Blanqui. + </p> + <p> + But these same deputies,—so jealous of their privileges whenever the + equalizing effects of a reform are within their intellectual horizon,—what + did they do a few days before they passed the law concerning judicial + sales? They formed a conspiracy against property! Their law to regulate + the labor of children in factories will, without doubt, prevent the + manufacturer from compelling a child to labor more than so many hours a + day; but it will not force him to increase the pay of the child, nor that + of its father. To-day, in the interest of health, we diminish the + subsistence of the poor; to-morrow it will be necessary to protect them by + fixing their MINIMUM wages. But to fix their minimum wages is to compel + the proprietor, is to force the master to accept his workman as an + associate, which interferes with freedom and makes mutual insurance + obligatory. Once entered upon this path, we never shall stop. Little by + little the government will become manufacturer, commission-merchant, and + retail dealer. + </p> + <p> + It will be the sole proprietor. Why, at all epochs, have the ministers of + State been so reluctant to meddle with the question of wages? Why have + they always refused to interfere between the master and the workman? + Because they knew the touchy and jealous nature of property, and, + regarding it as the principle of all civilization, felt that to meddle + with it would be to unsettle the very foundations of society. Sad + condition of the proprietary regime,—one of inability to exercise + charity without violating justice! <a href="#linknote-39" + name="linknoteref-39" id="linknoteref-39"><small>39</small></a> + </p> + <p> + And, sir, this fatal consequence which necessity forces upon the State is + no mere imagination. Even now the legislative power is asked, no longer + simply to regulate the government of factories, but to create factories + itself. Listen to the millions of voices shouting on all hands for THE + ORGANISATION OF LABOR, THE CREATION OF NATIONAL WORKSHOPS! The whole + laboring class is agitated: it has its journals, organs, and + representatives. To guarantee labor to the workingman, to balance + production with sale, to harmonize industrial proprietors, it advocates + to-day—as a sovereign remedy—one sole head, one national + wardenship, one huge manufacturing company. For, sir, all this is included + in the idea of national workshops. On this subject I wish to quote, as + proof, the views of an illustrious economist, a brilliant mind, a + progressive intellect, an enthusiastic soul, a true patriot, and yet an + official defender of the right of property. <a href="#linknote-40" + name="linknoteref-40" id="linknoteref-40"><small>40</small></a> + </p> + <p> + The honorable professor of the Conservatory proposes then,— + </p> + <p> + 1. TO CHECK THE CONTINUAL EMIGRATION OF LABORERS FROM THE COUNTRY INTO THE + CITIES. + </p> + <p> + But, to keep the peasant in his village, his residence there must be made + endurable: to be just to all, the proletaire of the country must be + treated as well as the proletaire of the city. Reform is needed, then, on + farms as well as in factories; and, when the government enters the + workshop, the government must seize the plough! What becomes, during this + progressive invasion, of independent cultivation, exclusive domain, + property? + </p> + <p> + 2. TO FIX FOR EACH PROFESSION A MODERATE SALARY, VARYING WITH TIME AND + PLACE AND BASED UPON CERTAIN DATA. + </p> + <p> + The object of this measure would be to secure to laborers their + subsistence, and to proprietors their profits, while obliging the latter + to sacrifice from motives of prudence, if for no other reason, a portion + of their income. Now, I say, that this portion, in the long run, would + swell until at last there would be an equality of enjoyment between the + proletaire and the proprietor. For, as we have had occasion to remark + several times already, the interest of the capitalist—in other words + the increase of the idler—tends, on account of the power of labor, + the multiplication of products and exchanges, to continually diminish, + and, by constant reduction, to disappear. So that, in the society proposed + by M. Blanqui, equality would not be realized at first, but would exist + potentially; since property, though outwardly seeming to be industrial + feudality, being no longer a principle of exclusion and encroachment, but + only a privilege of division, would not be slow, thanks to the + intellectual and political emancipation of the proletariat, in passing + into absolute equality,—as absolute at least as any thing can be on + this earth. + </p> + <p> + I omit, for the sake of brevity, the numerous considerations which the + professor adduces in support of what he calls, too modestly in my opinion, + his Utopia. They would serve only to prove beyond all question that, of + all the charlatans of radicalism who fatigue the public ear, no one + approaches, for depth and clearness of thought, the audacious M. Blanqui. + </p> + <p> + 3. NATIONAL WORKSHOPS SHOULD BE IN OPERATION ONLY DURING PERIODS OF + STAGNATION IN ORDINARY INDUSTRIES; AT SUCH TIMES THEY SHOULD BE OPENED AS + VAST OUTLETS TO THE FLOOD OF THE LABORING POPULATION. + </p> + <p> + But, sir, the stoppage of private industry is the result of + over-production, and insufficient markets. If, then, production continues + in the national workshops, how will the crisis be terminated? Undoubtedly, + by the general depreciation of merchandise, and, in the last analysis, by + the conversion of private workshops into national workshops. On the other + hand, the government will need capital with which to pay its workmen; now, + how will this capital be obtained? By taxation. And upon what will the tax + be levied? Upon property. Then you will have proprietary industry + sustaining against itself, and at its own expense, another industry with + which it cannot compete. What, think you, will become, in this fatal + circle, of the possibility of profit,—in a word, of property? + </p> + <p> + Thank Heaven! equality of conditions is taught in the public schools; let + us fear revolutions no longer. The most implacable enemy of property could + not, if he wished to destroy it, go to work in a wiser and more effective + way. Courage, then, ministers, deputies, economists! make haste to seize + this glorious initiative; let the watchwords of equality, uttered from the + heights of science and power, be repeated in the midst of the people; let + them thrill the breasts of the proletaires, and carry dismay into the + ranks of the last representatives of privilege! + </p> + <p> + The tendency of society in favor of compelling proprietors to support + national workshops and public manufactories is so strong that for several + years, under the name of ELECTORAL REFORM, it has been exclusively the + question of the day. What is, after all, this electoral reform which the + people grasp at, as if it were a bait, and which so many ambitious persons + either call for or denounce? It is the acknowledgment of the right of the + masses to a voice in the assessment of taxes, and the making of the laws; + which laws, aiming always at the protection of material interests, affect, + in a greater or less degree, all questions of taxation or wages. Now the + people, instructed long since by their journals, their dramas, <a + href="#linknote-41" name="linknoteref-41" id="linknoteref-41"><small>41</small></a> + and their songs, <a href="#linknote-42" name="linknoteref-42" + id="linknoteref-42"><small>42</small></a> know to-day that taxation, to be + equitably divided, must be graduated, and must be borne mainly by the + rich,—that it must be levied upon luxuries, &c. And be sure that + the people, once in the majority in the Chamber, will not fail to apply + these lessons. Already we have a minister of public works. National + workshops will follow; and soon, as a consequence, the excess of the + proprietor's revenue over the workingman's wages will be swallowed up in + the coffers of the laborers of the State. Do you not see that in this way + property is gradually reduced, as nobility was formerly, to a nominal + title, to a distinction purely honorary in its nature? + </p> + <p> + Either the electoral reform will fail to accomplish that which is hoped + from it, and will disappoint its innumerable partisans, or else it will + inevitably result in a transformation of the absolute right under which we + live into a right of possession; that is, that while, at present, property + makes the elector, after this reform is accomplished, the citizen, the + producer will be the possessor. <a href="#linknote-43" + name="linknoteref-43" id="linknoteref-43"><small>43</small></a> + Consequently, the radicals are right in saying that the electoral reform + is in their eyes only a means; but, when they are silent as to the end, + they show either profound ignorance, or useless dissimulation. There + should be no secrets or reservations from peoples and powers. He disgraces + himself and fails in respect for his fellows, who, in publishing his + opinions, employs evasion and cunning. Before the people act, they need to + know the whole truth. Unhappy he who shall dare to trifle with them! For + the people are credulous, but they are strong. Let us tell them, then, + that this reform which is proposed is only a means,—a means often + tried, and hitherto without effect,—but that the logical object of + the electoral reform is equality of fortunes; and that this equality + itself is only a new means having in view the superior and definitive + object of the salvation of society, the restoration of morals and + religion, and the revival of poetry and art. + </p> + <p> + This assertion of M. Rossi is not borne out by history. Property is the + cause of the electoral right, not as a PRESUMPTION OF CAPACITY,—an + idea which never prevailed until lately, and which is extremely absurd,—but + as a GUARANTEE OF DEVOTION TO THE ESTABLISHED ORDER. The electoral body is + a league of those interested in the maintenance of property, against those + not interested. There are thousands of documents, even official documents, + to prove this, if necessary. For the rest, the present system is only a + continuation of the municipal system, which, in the middle ages, sprang up + in connection with feudalism,—an oppressive, mischief-making system, + full of petty passions and base intrigues. + </p> + <p> + It would be an abuse of the reader's patience to insist further upon the + tendency of our time towards equality. There are, moreover, so many people + who denounce the present age, that nothing is gained by exposing to their + view the popular, scientific, and representative tendencies of the nation. + </p> + <p> + Prompt to recognize the accuracy of the inferences drawn from observation, + they confine themselves to a general censure of the facts, and an absolute + denial of their legitimacy. "What wonder," they say, "that this atmosphere + of equality intoxicates us, considering all that has been said and done + during the past ten years!... Do you not see that society is dissolving, + that a spirit of infatuation is carrying us away? All these hopes of + regeneration are but forebodings of death; your songs of triumph are like + the prayers of the departing, your trumpet peals announce the baptism of a + dying man. Civilization is falling in ruin: <i>Imus, imus, praecipites</i>!" + </p> + <p> + Such people deny God. I might content myself with the reply that the + spirit of 1830 was the result of the maintenance of the violated charter; + that this charter arose from the Revolution of '89; that '89 implies the + States-General's right of remonstrance, and the enfranchisement of the + communes; that the communes suppose feudalism, which in its turn supposes + invasion, Roman law, Christianity, &c. + </p> + <p> + But it is necessary to look further. We must penetrate to the very heart + of ancient institutions, plunge into the social depths, and uncover this + indestructible leaven of equality which the God of justice breathed into + our souls, and which manifests itself in all our works. + </p> + <p> + Labor is man's contemporary; it is a duty, since it is a condition of + existence: "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread." It is more + than a duty, it is a mission: "God put the man into the garden to dress + it." I add that labor is the cause and means of equality. + </p> + <p> + Cast away upon a desert island two men: one large, strong, and active; the + other weak, timid, and domestic. The latter will die of hunger; while the + other, a skilful hunter, an expert fisherman, and an indefatigable + husbandman, will overstock himself with provisions. What greater + inequality, in this state of Nature so dear to the heart of Jean Jacques, + could be imagined! But let these two men meet and associate themselves: + the second immediately attends to the cooking, takes charge of the + household affairs, and sees to the provisions, beds, and clothes; provided + the stronger does not abuse his superiority by enslaving and ill-treating + his companion, their social condition will be perfectly equal. Thus, + through exchange of services, the inequalities of Nature neutralize each + other, talents associate, and forces balance. Violence and inertia are + found only among the poor and the aristocratic. And in that lies the + philosophy of political economy, the mystery of human brotherhood. <i>Hic + est sapientia</i>. Let us pass from the hypothetical state of pure Nature + into civilization. + </p> + <p> + The proprietor of the soil, who produces, I will suppose with the + economists, by lending his instrument, receives at the foundation of a + society so many bushels of grain for each acre of arable land. As long as + labor is weak, and the variety of its products small, the proprietor is + powerful in comparison with the laborers; he has ten times, one hundred + times, the portion of an honest man. But let labor, by multiplying its + inventions, multiply its enjoyments and wants, and the proprietor, if he + wishes to enjoy the new products, will be obliged to reduce his income + every day; and since the first products tend rather to depreciate than to + rise in value,—in consequence of the continual addition of the new + ones, which may be regarded as supplements of the first ones,—it + follows that the idle proprietor grows poor as fast as public prosperity + increases. "Incomes" (I like to quote you, sir, because it is impossible + to give too good an authority for these elementary principles of economy, + and because I cannot express them better myself), "incomes," you have + said, "tend to disappear as capital increases. He who possesses to-day an + income of twenty thousand pounds is not nearly as rich as he who possessed + the same amount fifty years ago. The time is coming when all property will + be a burden to the idle, and will necessarily pass into the hands of the + able and industrious. <a href="#linknote-44" name="linknoteref-44" + id="linknoteref-44"><small>44</small></a>..." + </p> + <p> + In order to live as a proprietor, or to consume without producing, it is + necessary, then, to live upon the labor of another; in other words, it is + necessary to kill the laborer. It is upon this principle that proprietors + of those varieties of capital which are of primary necessity increase + their farm-rents as fast as industry develops, much more careful of their + privileges in that respect, than those economists who, in order to + strengthen property, advocate a reduction of interest. But the crime is + unavailing: labor and production increase; soon the proprietor will be + forced to labor, and then property is lost. + </p> + <p> + The proprietor is a man who, having absolute control of an instrument of + production, claims the right to enjoy the product of the instrument + without using it himself. To this end he lends it; and we have just seen + that from this loan the laborer derives a power of exchange, which sooner + or later will destroy the right of increase. In the first place, the + proprietor is obliged to allow the laborer a portion of the product, for + without it the laborer could not live. Soon the latter, through the + development of his industry, finds a means of regaining the greater + portion of that which he gives to the proprietor; so that at last, the + objects of enjoyment increasing continually, while the income of the idler + remains the same, the proprietor, having exhausted his resources, begins + to think of going to work himself. Then the victory of the producer is + certain. Labor commences to tip the balance towards its own side, and + commerce leads to equilibrium. + </p> + <p> + Man's instinct cannot err; as, in liberty, exchange of functions leads + inevitably to equality among men, so commerce—or exchange of + products, which is identical with exchange of functions—is a new + cause of equality. As long as the proprietor does not labor, however small + his income, he enjoys a privilege; the laborer's welfare may be equal to + his, but equality of conditions does not exist. But as soon as the + proprietor becomes a producer,—since he can exchange his special + product only with his tenant or his <i>commandite</i>,—sooner or + later this tenant, this <i>exploited</i> man, if violence is not done him, + will make a profit out of the proprietor, and will oblige him to restore—in + the exchange of their respective products—the interest on his + capital. So that, balancing one injustice by another, the contracting + parties will be equal. Labor and exchange, when liberty prevails, lead, + then, to equality of fortunes; mutuality of services neutralizes + privilege. That is why despots in all ages and countries have assumed + control of commerce; they wished to prevent the labor of their subjects + from becoming an obstacle to the rapacity of tyrants. + </p> + <p> + Up to this point, all takes place in the natural order; there is no + premeditation, no artifice. The whole proceeding is governed by the laws + of necessity alone. Proprietors and laborers act only in obedience to + their wants. Thus, the exercise of the right of increase, the art of + robbing the producer, depends—during this first period of + civilization—upon physical violence, murder, and war. + </p> + <p> + But at this point a gigantic and complicated conspiracy is hatched against + the capitalists. The weapon of the EXPLOITERS is met by the EXPLOITED with + the instrument of commerce,—a marvellous invention, denounced at its + origin by the moralists who favored property, but inspired without doubt + by the genius of labor, by the Minerva of the proletaires. + </p> + <p> + The principal cause of the evil lay in the accumulation and immobility of + capital of all sorts,—an immobility which prevented labor, enslaved + and subalternized by haughty idleness, from ever acquiring it. The + necessity was felt of dividing and mobilizing wealth, of rendering it + portable, of making it pass from the hands of the possessor into those of + the worker. Labor invented MONEY. Afterwards, this invention was revived + and developed by the BILL OF EXCHANGE and the BANK. For all these things + are substantially the same, and proceed from the same mind. The first man + who conceived the idea of representing a value by a shell, a precious + stone, or a certain weight of metal, was the real inventor of the Bank. + What is a piece of money, in fact? It is a bill of exchange written upon + solid and durable material, and carrying with it its own redemption. By + this means, oppressed equality was enabled to laugh at the efforts of the + proprietors, and the balance of justice was adjusted for the first time in + the tradesman's shop. The trap was cunningly set, and accomplished its + purpose so thoroughly that in idle hands money became only dissolving + wealth, a false symbol, a shadow of riches. An excellent economist and + profound philosopher was that miser who took as his motto, "WHEN A GUINEA + IS EXCHANGED, IT EVAPORATES." So it may be said, "When real estate is + converted into money, it is lost." This explains the constant fact of + history, that the nobles—the unproductive proprietors of the soil—have + every where been dispossessed by industrial and commercial plebeians. Such + was especially the case in the formation of the Italian republics, born, + during the middle ages, of the impoverishment of the seigniors. I will not + pursue the interesting considerations which this matter suggests; I could + only repeat the testimony of historians, and present economical + demonstrations in an altered form. + </p> + <p> + The greatest enemy of the landed and industrial aristocracy to-day, the + incessant promoter of equality of fortunes, is the BANKER. Through him + immense plains are divided, mountains change their positions, forests are + grown upon the public squares, one hemisphere produces for another, and + every corner of the globe has its usufructuaries. By means of the Bank new + wealth is continually created, the use of which (soon becoming + indispensable to selfishness) wrests the dormant capital from the hands of + the jealous proprietor. The banker is at once the most potent creator of + wealth, and the main distributor of the products of art and Nature. And + yet, by the strangest antinomy, this same banker is the most relentless + collector of profits, increase, and usury ever inspired by the demon of + property. The importance of the services which he renders leads us to + endure, though not without complaint, the taxes which he imposes. + Nevertheless, since nothing can avoid its providential mission, since + nothing which exists can escape the end for which it exists the banker + (the modern Croesus) must some day become the restorer of equality. And + following in your footsteps, sir, I have already given the reason; namely, + that profit decreases as capital multiplies, since an increase of capital—calling + for more laborers, without whom it remains unproductive—always + causes an increase of wages. Whence it follows that the Bank, to-day the + suction-pump of wealth, is destined to become the steward of the human + race. + </p> + <p> + The phrase EQUALITY OF FORTUNES chafes people, as if it referred to a + condition of the other world, unknown here below. There are some persons, + radicals as well as moderates, whom the very mention of this idea fills + with indignation. Let, then, these silly aristocrats abolish mercantile + societies and insurance companies, which are founded by prudence for + mutual assistance. For all these social facts, so spontaneous and free + from all levelling intentions, are the legitimate fruits of the instinct + of equality. + </p> + <p> + When the legislator makes a law, properly speaking he does not MAKE it,—he + does not CREATE it: he DESCRIBES it. In legislating upon the moral, civil, + and political relations of citizens, he does not express an arbitrary + notion: he states the general idea,—the higher principle which + governs the matter which he is considering; in a word, he is the + proclaimer, not the inventor, of the law. So, when two or more men form + among themselves, by synallagmatic contract, an industrial or an insurance + association, they recognize that their interests, formerly isolated by a + false spirit of selfishness and independence, are firmly connected by + their inner natures, and by the mutuality of their relations. They do not + really bind themselves by an act of their private will: they swear to + conform henceforth to a previously existing social law hitherto + disregarded by them. And this is proved by the fact that these same men, + could they avoid association, would not associate. Before they can be + induced to unite their interests, they must acquire full knowledge of the + dangers of competition and isolation; hence the experience of evil is the + only thing which leads them into society. + </p> + <p> + Now I say that, to establish equality among men, it is only necessary to + generalize the principle upon which insurance, agricultural, and + commercial associations are based. I say that competition, isolation of + interests, monopoly, privilege, accumulation of capital, exclusive + enjoyment, subordination of functions, individual production, the right of + profit or increase, the exploitation of man by man, and, to sum up all + these species under one head, that PROPERTY is the principal cause of + misery and crime. And, for having arrived at this offensive and + anti-proprietary conclusion, I am an abhorred monster; radicals and + conservatives alike point me out as a fit subject for prosecution; the + academies shower their censures upon me; the most worthy people regard me + as mad; and those are excessively tolerant who content themselves with the + assertion that I am a fool. Oh, unhappy the writer who publishes the truth + otherwise than as a performance of a duty! If he has counted upon the + applause of the crowd; if he has supposed that avarice and self-interest + would forget themselves in admiration of him; if he has neglected to + encase himself within three thicknesses of brass,—he will fail, as + he ought, in his selfish undertaking. The unjust criticisms, the sad + disappointments, the despair of his mistaken ambition, will kill him. + </p> + <p> + But, if I am no longer permitted to express my own personal opinion + concerning this interesting question of social equilibrium, let me, at + least, make known the thought of my masters, and develop the doctrines + advocated in the name of the government. + </p> + <p> + It never has been my intention, sir, in spite of the vigorous censure + which you, in behalf of your academy, have pronounced upon the doctrine of + equality of fortunes, to contradict and cope with you. In listening to + you, I have felt my inferiority too keenly to permit me to enter upon such + a discussion. And then,—if it must be said,—however different + your language is from mine, we believe in the same principles; you share + all my opinions. I do not mean to insinuate thereby, sir, that you have + (to use the phraseology of the schools) an ESOTERIC and an EXOTERIC + doctrine,—that, secretly believing in equality, you defend property + only from motives of prudence and by command. I am not rash enough to + regard you as my colleague in my revolutionary projects; and I esteem you + too highly, moreover, to suspect you of dissimulation. I only mean that + the truths which methodical investigation and laborious metaphysical + speculation have painfully demonstrated to me, a profound acquaintance + with political economy and a long experience reveal to you. While I have + reached my belief in equality by long reflection, and almost in spite of + my desires, you hold yours, sir, with all the zeal of faith,—with + all the spontaneity of genius. That is why your course of lectures at the + Conservatory is a perpetual war upon property and inequality of fortunes; + that is why your most learned investigations, your most ingenious + analyses, and your innumerable observations always conclude in a formula + of progress and equality; that is why, finally, you are never more admired + and applauded than at those moments of inspiration when, borne upon the + wings of science, you ascend to those lofty truths which cause plebeian + hearts to beat with enthusiasm, and which chill with horror men whose + intentions are evil. How many times, from the place where I eagerly drank + in your eloquent words, have I inwardly thanked Heaven for exempting you + from the judgment passed by St. Paul upon the philosophers of his time,—"They + have known the truth, and have not made it known"! How many times have I + rejoiced at finding my own justification in each of your discourses! No, + no; I neither wish nor ask for any thing which you do not teach yourself. + I appeal to your numerous audience; let it belie me if, in commenting upon + you, I pervert your meaning. + </p> + <p> + A disciple of Say, what in your eyes is more anti-social than the + custom-houses; or, as you correctly call them, the barriers erected by + monopoly between nations? What is more annoying, more unjust, or more + absurd, than this prohibitory system which compels us to pay forty sous in + France for that which in England or Belgium would bring us but fifteen? It + is the custom-house, you once said, <a href="#linknote-45" + name="linknoteref-45" id="linknoteref-45"><small>45</small></a> which + arrests the development of civilization by preventing the specialization + of industries; it is the custom-house which enriches a hundred monopolists + by impoverishing millions of citizens; it is the custom-house which + produces famine in the midst of abundance, which makes labor sterile by + prohibiting exchange, and which stifles production in a mortal embrace. It + is the custom-house which renders nations jealous of, and hostile to, each + other; four-fifths of the wars of all ages were caused originally by the + custom-house. And then, at the highest pitch of your enthusiasm, you + shouted: "Yes, if to put an end to this hateful system, it should become + necessary for me to shed the last drop of my blood, I would joyfully + spring into the gap, asking only time enough to give thanks to God for + having judged me worthy of martyrdom!" + </p> + <p> + And, at that solemn moment, I said to myself: "Place in every department + of France such a professor as that, and the revolution is avoided." + </p> + <p> + But, sir, by this magnificent theory of liberty of commerce you render + military glory impossible,—you leave nothing for diplomacy to do; + you even take away the desire for conquest, while abolishing profit + altogether. What matters it, indeed, who restores Constantinople, + Alexandria, and Saint Jean d'Acre, if the Syrians, Egyptians, and Turks + are free to choose their masters; free to exchange their products with + whom they please? Why should Europe get into such a turmoil over this + petty Sultan and his old Pasha, if it is only a question whether we or the + English shall civilize the Orient,—shall instruct Egypt and Syria in + the European arts, and shall teach them to construct machines, dig canals, + and build railroads? For, if to national independence free trade is added, + the foreign influence of these two countries is thereafter exerted only + through a voluntary relationship of producer to producer, or apprentice to + journeyman. + </p> + <p> + Alone among European powers, France cheerfully accepted the task of + civilizing the Orient, and began an invasion which was quite apostolic in + its character,—so joyful and high-minded do noble thoughts render + our nation! But diplomatic rivalry, national selfishness, English avarice, + and Russian ambition stood in her way. To consummate a long-meditated + usurpation, it was necessary to crush a too generous ally: the robbers of + the Holy Alliance formed a league against dauntless and blameless France. + Consequently, at the news of this famous treaty, there arose among us a + chorus of curses upon the principle of property, which at that time was + acting under the hypocritical formulas of the old political system. The + last hour of property seemed to have struck by the side of Syria; from the + Alps to the ocean, from the Rhine to the Pyrenees, the popular conscience + was aroused. All France sang songs of war, and the coalition turned pale + at the sound of these shuddering cries: "War upon the autocrat, who wishes + to be proprietor of the old world! War upon the English perjurer, the + devourer of India, the poisoner of China, the tyrant of Ireland, and the + eternal enemy of France! War upon the allies who have conspired against + liberty and equality! War! war! war upon property!" + </p> + <p> + By the counsel of Providence the emancipation of the nations is postponed. + France is to conquer, not by arms, but by example. Universal reason does + not yet understand this grand equation, which, commencing with the + abolition of slavery, and advancing over the ruins of aristocracies and + thrones, must end in equality of rights and fortunes; but the day is not + far off when the knowledge of this truth will be as common as that of + equality of origin. Already it seems to be understood that the Oriental + question is only a question of custom-houses. Is it, then, so difficult + for public opinion to generalize this idea, and to comprehend, finally, + that if the suppression of custom-houses involves the abolition of + national property, it involves also, as a consequence, the abolition of + individual property? + </p> + <p> + In fact, if we suppress the custom-houses, the alliance of the nations is + declared by that very act; their solidarity is recognized, and their + equality proclaimed. If we suppress the custom-houses, the principle of + association will not be slow in reaching from the State to the province, + from the province to the city, and from the city to the workshop. But, + then, what becomes of the privileges of authors and artists? Of what use + are the patents for invention, imagination, amelioration, and improvement? + When our deputies write a law of literary property by the side of a law + which opens a large breach in the custom-house they contradict themselves, + indeed, and pull down with one hand what they build up with the other. + Without the custom-house, literary property does not exist, and the hopes + of our starving authors are frustrated. For, certainly you do not expect, + with the good man Fourier, that literary property will exercise itself in + China to the profit of a French writer; and that an ode of Lamartine, sold + by privilege all over the world, will bring in millions to its author! The + poet's work is peculiar to the climate in which he lives; every where else + the reproduction of his works, having no market value, should be frank and + free. But what! will it be necessary for nations to put themselves under + mutual surveillance for the sake of verses, statues, and elixirs? We shall + always have, then, an excise, a city-toll, rights of entrance and transit, + custom-houses finally; and then, as a reaction against privilege, + smuggling. + </p> + <p> + Smuggling! That word reminds me of one of the most horrible forms of + property. "Smuggling," you have said, sir, <a href="#linknote-46" + name="linknoteref-46" id="linknoteref-46"><small>46</small></a> "is an + offence of political creation; it is the exercise of natural liberty, + defined as a crime in certain cases by the will of the sovereign. The + smuggler is a gallant man,—a man of spirit, who gaily busies himself + in procuring for his neighbor, at a very low price, a jewel, a shawl, or + any other object of necessity or luxury, which domestic monopoly renders + excessively dear." Then, to a very poetical monograph of the smuggler, you + add this dismal conclusion,—that the smuggler belongs to the family + of Mandrin, and that the galleys should be his home! + </p> + <p> + But, sir, you have not called attention to the horrible exploitation which + is carried on in this way in the name of property. + </p> + <p> + It is said,—and I give this report only as an hypothesis and an + illustration, for I do not believe it,—it is said that the present + minister of finances owes his fortune to smuggling. M. Humann, of + Strasbourg, sent out of France, it is said, enormous quantities of sugar, + for which he received the bounty on exportation promised by the State; + then, smuggling this sugar back again, he exported it anew, receiving the + bounty on exportation a second time, and so on. Notice, sir, that I do not + state this as a fact; I give it only as it is told, not endorsing or even + believing it. My sole design is to fix the idea in the mind by an example. + If I believed that a minister had committed such a crime, that is, if I + had personal and authentic knowledge that he had, I would denounce M. + Humann, the minister of finances, to the Chamber of Deputies, and would + loudly demand his expulsion from the ministry. + </p> + <p> + But that which is undoubtedly false of M. Humann is true of many others, + as rich and no less honorable than he. Smuggling, organized on a large + scale by the eaters of human flesh, is carried on to the profit of a few + pashas at the risk and peril of their imprudent victims. The inactive + proprietor offers his merchandise for sale; the actual smuggler risks his + liberty, his honor, and his life. If success crowns the enterprise, the + courageous servant gets paid for his journey; the profit goes to the + coward. If fortune or treachery delivers the instrument of this execrable + traffic into the hands of the custom-house officer, the master-smuggler + suffers a loss which a more fortunate voyage will soon repair. The agent, + pronounced a scoundrel, is thrown into prison in company with robbers; + while his glorious patron, a juror, elector, deputy, or minister, makes + laws concerning expropriation, monopoly, and custom-houses! + </p> + <p> + I promised, at the beginning of this letter, that no attack on property + should escape my pen, my only object being to justify myself before the + public by a general recrimination. But I could not refrain from branding + so odious a mode of exploitation, and I trust that this short digression + will be pardoned. Property does not avenge, I hope, the injuries which + smuggling suffers. + </p> + <p> + The conspiracy against property is general; it is flagrant; it takes + possession of all minds, and inspires all our laws; it lies at the bottom + of all theories. Here the proletaire pursues property in the street, there + the legislator lays an interdict upon it; now, a professor of political + economy or of industrial legislation, <a href="#linknote-47" + name="linknoteref-47" id="linknoteref-47"><small>47</small></a> paid to + defend it, undermines it with redoubled blows; at another—time, an + academy calls it in question, <a href="#linknote-48" name="linknoteref-48" + id="linknoteref-48"><small>48</small></a> or inquires as to the progress + of its demolition. <a href="#linknote-49" name="linknoteref-49" + id="linknoteref-49"><small>49</small></a> To-day there is not an idea, not + an opinion, not a sect, which does not dream of muzzling property. None + confess it, because none are yet conscious of it; there are too few minds + capable of grasping spontaneously this ensemble of causes and effects, of + principles and consequences, by which I try to demonstrate the approaching + disappearance of property; on the other hand, the ideas that are generally + formed of this right are too divergent and too loosely determined to allow + an admission, so soon, of the contrary theory. Thus, in the middle and + lower ranks of literature and philosophy, no less than among the common + people, it is thought that, when property is abolished, no one will be + able to enjoy the fruit of his labor; that no one will have any thing + peculiar to himself, and that tyrannical communism will be established on + the ruins of family and liberty!—chimeras, which are to support for + a little while longer the cause of privilege. + </p> + <p> + But, before determining precisely the idea of property, before seeking + amid the contradictions of systems for the common element which must form + the basis of the new right, let us cast a rapid glance at the changes + which, at the various periods of history, property has undergone. The + political forms of nations are the expression of their beliefs. The + mobility of these forms, their modification and their destruction, are + solemn experiences which show us the value of ideas, and gradually + eliminate from the infinite variety of customs the absolute, eternal, and + immutable truth. Now, we shall see that every political institution tends, + necessarily, and on pain of death, to equalize conditions; that every + where and always equality of fortunes (like equality of rights) has been + the social aim, whether the plebeian classes have endeavored to rise to + political power by means of property, or whether—rulers already—they + have used political power to overthrow property. We shall see, in short, + by the progress of society, that the consummation of justice lies in the + extinction of individual domain. + </p> + <p> + For the sake of brevity, I will disregard the testimony of ecclesiastical + history and Christian theology: this subject deserves a separate treatise, + and I propose hereafter to return to it. Moses and Jesus Christ + proscribed, under the names of usury and inequality, <a href="#linknote-50" + name="linknoteref-50" id="linknoteref-50"><small>50</small></a> all sorts + of profit and increase. The church itself, in its purest teachings, has + always condemned property; and when I attacked, not only the authority of + the church, but also its infidelity to justice, I did it to the glory of + religion. I wanted to provoke a peremptory reply, and to pave the way for + Christianity's triumph, in spite of the innumerable attacks of which it is + at present the object. I hoped that an apologist would arise forthwith, + and, taking his stand upon the Scriptures, the Fathers, the canons, and + the councils and constitutions of the Popes, would demonstrate that the + church always has maintained the doctrine of equality, and would attribute + to temporary necessity the contradictions of its discipline. Such a labor + would serve the cause of religion as well as that of equality. We must + know, sooner or later, whether Christianity is to be regenerated in the + church or out of it, and whether this church accepts the reproaches cast + upon it of hatred to liberty and antipathy to progress. Until then we will + suspend judgment, and content ourselves with placing before the clergy the + teachings of history. + </p> + <p> + When Lycurgus undertook to make laws for Sparta, in what condition did he + find this republic? On this point all historians agree. The people and the + nobles were at war. The city was in a confused state, and divided by two + parties,—the party of the poor, and the party of the rich. Hardly + escaped from the barbarism of the heroic ages, society was rapidly + declining. The proletariat made war upon property, which, in its turn, + oppressed the proletariat. What did Lycurgus do? His first measure was one + of general security, at the very idea of which our legislators would + tremble. He abolished all debts; then, employing by turns persuasion and + force, he induced the nobles to renounce their privileges, and + re-established equality. + </p> + <p> + Lycurgus, in a word, hunted property out of Lacedaemon, seeing no other + way to harmonize liberty, equality, and law. I certainly should not wish + France to follow the example of Sparta; but it is remarkable that the most + ancient of Greek legislators, thoroughly acquainted with the nature and + needs of the people, more capable than any one else of appreciating the + legitimacy of the obligations which he, in the exercise of his absolute + authority, cancelled; who had compared the legislative systems of his + time, and whose wisdom an oracle had proclaimed,—it is remarkable, I + say, that Lycurgus should have judged the right of property incompatible + with free institutions, and should have thought it his duty to preface his + legislation by a coup d'etat which destroyed all distinctions of fortune. + </p> + <p> + Lycurgus understood perfectly that the luxury, the love of enjoyments, and + the inequality of fortunes, which property engenders, are the bane of + society; unfortunately the means which he employed to preserve his + republic were suggested to him by false notions of political economy, and + by a superficial knowledge of the human heart. Accordingly, property, + which this legislator wrongly confounded with wealth, reentered the city + together with the swarm of evils which he was endeavoring to banish; and + this time Sparta was hopelessly corrupted. + </p> + <p> + "The introduction of wealth," says M. Pastoret, "was one of the principal + causes of the misfortunes which they experienced. Against these, however, + the laws had taken extraordinary precautions, the best among which was the + inculcation of morals which tended to suppress desire." + </p> + <p> + The best of all precautions would have been the anticipation of desire by + satisfaction. Possession is the sovereign remedy for cupidity, a remedy + which would have been the less perilous to Sparta because fortunes there + were almost equal, and conditions were nearly alike. As a general thing, + fasting and abstinence are bad teachers of moderation. + </p> + <p> + "There was a law," says M. Pastoret again, "to prohibit the rich from + wearing better clothing than the poor, from eating more delicate food, and + from owning elegant furniture, vases, carpets, fine houses," &c. + Lycurgus hoped, then, to maintain equality by rendering wealth useless. + How much wiser he would have been if, in accordance with his military + discipline, he had organized industry and taught the people to procure by + their own labor the things which he tried in vain to deprive them of. In + that case, enjoying happy thoughts and pleasant feelings, the citizen + would have known no other desire than that with which the legislator + endeavored to inspire him,—love of honor and glory, the triumphs of + talent and virtue. + </p> + <p> + "Gold and all kinds of ornaments were forbidden the women." Absurd. After + the death of Lycurgus, his institutions became corrupted; and four + centuries before the Christian era not a vestige remained of the former + simplicity. Luxury and the thirst for gold were early developed among the + Spartans in a degree as intense as might have been expected from their + enforced poverty and their inexperience in the arts. Historians have + accused Pausanias, Lysander, Agesilaus, and others of having corrupted the + morals of their country by the introduction of wealth obtained in war. It + is a slander. The morals of the Spartans necessarily grew corrupt as soon + as the Lacedaemonian poverty came in contact with Persian luxury and + Athenian elegance. Lycurgus, then, made a fatal mistake in attempting to + inspire generosity and modesty by enforcing vain and proud simplicity. + </p> + <p> + "Lycurgus was not frightened at idleness! A Lacedemonian, happening to be + in Athens (where idleness was forbidden) during the punishment of a + citizen who had been found guilty, asked to see the Athenian thus + condemned for having exercised the rights of a free man.... It was one of + the principles of Lycurguss, acted upon for several centuries, that free + men should not follow lucrative professions.... The women disdained + domestic labor; they did not spin their wool themselves, as did the other + Greeks [they did not, then, read Homer!]; they left their slaves to make + their clothing for them."—Pastoret: History of Legislation. + </p> + <p> + Could any thing be more contradictory? Lycurgus proscribed property among + the citizens, and founded the means of subsistence on the worst form of + property,—on property obtained by force. What wonder, after that, + that a lazy city, where no industry was carried on, became a den of + avarice? The Spartans succumbed the more easily to the allurements of + luxury and Asiatic voluptuousness, being placed entirely at their mercy by + their own coarseness. The same thing happened to the Romans, when military + success took them out of Italy,—a thing which the author of the + prosopopoeia of Fabricius could not explain. It is not the cultivation of + the arts which corrupts morals, but their degradation, induced by inactive + and luxurious opulence. The instinct of property is to make the industry + of Daedalus, as well as the talent of Phidias, subservient to its own + fantastic whims and disgraceful pleasures. Property, not wealth, ruined + the Spartans. + </p> + <p> + When Solon appeared, the anarchy caused by property was at its height in + the Athenian republic. "The inhabitants of Attica were divided among + themselves as to the form of government. Those who lived on the mountains + (the poor) preferred the popular form; those of the plain (the middle + class), the oligarchs; those by the sea coast, a mixture of oligarchy and + democracy. Other dissensions were arising from the inequality of fortunes. + The mutual antagonism of the rich and poor had become so violent, that the + one-man power seemed the only safe-guard against the revolution with which + the republic was threatened." (Pastoret: History of Legislation.) + </p> + <p> + Quarrels between the rich and the poor, which seldom occur in monarchies, + because a well established power suppresses dissensions, seem to be the + life of popular governments. Aristotle had noticed this. The oppression of + wealth submitted to agrarian laws, or to excessive taxation; the hatred of + the lower classes for the upper class, which is exposed always to + libellous charges made in hopes of confiscation,—these were the + features of the Athenian government which were especially revolting to + Aristotle, and which caused him to favor a limited monarchy. Aristotle, if + he had lived in our day, would have supported the constitutional + government. But, with all deference to the Stagirite, a government which + sacrifices the life of the proletaire to that of the proprietor is quite + as irrational as one which supports the former by robbing the latter; + neither of them deserve the support of a free man, much less of a + philosopher. + </p> + <p> + Solon followed the example of Lycurgus. He celebrated his legislative + inauguration by the abolition of debts,—that is, by bankruptcy. In + other words, Solon wound up the governmental machine for a longer or + shorter time depending upon the rate of interest. Consequently, when the + spring relaxed and the chain became unwound, the republic had either to + perish, or to recover itself by a second bankruptcy. This singular policy + was pursued by all the ancients. After the captivity of Babylon, Nehemiah, + the chief of the Jewish nation, abolished debts; Lycurgus abolished debts; + Solon abolished debts; the Roman people, after the expulsion of the kings + until the accession of the Caesars, struggled with the Senate for the + abolition of debts. Afterwards, towards the end of the republic, and long + after the establishment of the empire, agriculture being abandoned, and + the provinces becoming depopulated in consequence of the excessive rates + of interest, the emperors freely granted the lands to whoever would + cultivate them,—that is, they abolished debts. No one, except + Lycurgus, who went to the other extreme, ever perceived that the great + point was, not to release debtors by a coup d'etat, but to prevent the + contraction of debts in future. + </p> + <p> + On the contrary, the most democratic governments were always exclusively + based upon individual property; so that the social element of all these + republics was war between the citizens. + </p> + <p> + Solon decreed that a census should be taken of all fortunes, regulated + political rights by the result, granted to the larger proprietors more + influence, established the balance of powers,—in a word, inserted in + the constitution the most active leaven of discord; as if, instead of a + legislator chosen by the people, he had been their greatest enemy. Is it + not, indeed, the height of imprudence to grant equality of political + rights to men of unequal conditions? If a manufacturer, uniting all his + workmen in a joint-stock company, should give to each of them a + consultative and deliberative voice,—that is, should make all of + them masters,—would this equality of mastership secure continued + inequality of wages? That is the whole political system of Solon, reduced + to its simplest expression. + </p> + <p> + "In giving property a just preponderance," says M. Pastoret, "Solon + repaired, as far as he was able, his first official act,—the + abolition of debts.... He thought he owed it to public peace to make this + great sacrifice of acquired rights and natural equity. But the violation + of individual property and written contracts is a bad preface to a public + code." + </p> + <p> + In fact, such violations are always cruelly punished. In '89 and '93, the + possessions of the nobility and the clergy were confiscated, the clever + proletaires were enriched; and to-day the latter, having become + aristocrats, are making us pay dearly for our fathers' robbery. What, + therefore, is to be done now? It is not for us to violate right, but to + restore it. Now, it would be a violation of justice to dispossess some and + endow others, and then stop there. We must gradually lower the rate of + interest, organize industry, associate laborers and their functions, and + take a census of the large fortunes, not for the purpose of granting + privileges, but that we may effect their redemption by settling a + life-annuity upon their proprietors. We must apply on a large scale the + principle of collective production, give the State eminent domain over all + capital! make each producer responsible, abolish the custom-house, and + transform every profession and trade into a public function. Thereby large + fortunes will vanish without confiscation or violence; individual + possession will establish itself, without communism, under the inspection + of the republic; and equality of conditions will no longer depend simply + on the will of citizens. + </p> + <p> + Of the authors who have written upon the Romans, Bossuet and Montesquieu + occupy prominent positions in the first rank; the first being generally + regarded as the father of the philosophy of history, and the second as the + most profound writer upon law and politics. Nevertheless, it could be + shown that these two great writers, each of them imbued with the + prejudices of their century and their cloth, have left the question of the + causes of the rise and fall of the Romans precisely where they found it. + </p> + <p> + Bossuet is admirable as long as he confines himself to description: + witness, among other passages, the picture which he has given us of Greece + before the Persian War, and which seems to have inspired "Telemachus;" the + parallel between Athens and Sparta, drawn twenty times since Bossuet; the + description of the character and morals of the ancient Romans; and, + finally, the sublime peroration which ends the "Discourse on Universal + History." But when the famous historian deals with causes, his philosophy + is at fault. + </p> + <p> + "The tribunes always favored the division of captured lands, or the + proceeds of their sale, among the citizens. The Senate steadfastly opposed + those laws which were damaging to the State, and wanted the price of lands + to be awarded to the public treasury." + </p> + <p> + Thus, according to Bossuet, the first and greatest wrong of civil wars was + inflicted upon the people, who, dying of hunger, demanded that the lands, + which they had shed their blood to conquer, should be given to them for + cultivation. The patricians, who bought them to deliver to their slaves, + had more regard for justice and the public interests. How little affects + the opinions of men! If the roles of Cicero and the Gracchi had been + inverted, Bossuet, whose sympathies were aroused by the eloquence of the + great orator more than by the clamors of the tribunes, would have viewed + the agrarian laws in quite a different light. He then would have + understood that the interest of the treasury was only a pretext; that, + when the captured lands were put up at auction, the patricians hastened to + buy them, in order to profit by the revenues from them,—certain, + moreover, that the price paid would come back to them sooner or later, in + exchange either for supplies furnished by them to the republic, or for the + subsistence of the multitude, who could buy only of them, and whose + services at one time, and poverty at another, were rewarded by the State. + For a State does not hoard; on the contrary, the public funds always + return to the people. If, then, a certain number of men are the sole + dealers in articles of primary necessity, it follows that the public + treasury, in passing and repassing through their hands, deposits and + accumulates real property there. + </p> + <p> + When Menenius related to the people his fable of the limbs and the + stomach, if any one had remarked to this story-teller that the stomach + freely gives to the limbs the nourishment which it freely receives, but + that the patricians gave to the plebeians only for cash, and lent to them + only at usury, he undoubtedly would have silenced the wily senator, and + saved the people from a great imposition. The Conscript Fathers were + fathers only of their own line. As for the common people, they were + regarded as an impure race, exploitable, taxable, and workable at the + discretion and mercy of their masters. + </p> + <p> + As a general thing, Bossuet shows little regard for the people. His + monarchical and theological instincts know nothing but authority, + obedience, and alms-giving, under the name of charity. + </p> + <p> + This unfortunate disposition constantly leads him to mistake symptoms for + causes; and his depth, which is so much admired, is borrowed from his + authors, and amounts to very little, after all. + </p> + <p> + When he says, for instance, that "the dissensions in the republic, and + finally its fall, were caused by the jealousies of its citizens, and their + love of liberty carried to an extreme and intolerable extent," are we not + tempted to ask him what caused those JEALOUSIES?—what inspired the + people with that LOVE OF LIBERTY, EXTREME AND INTOLERABLE? It would be + useless to reply, The corruption of morals; the disregard for the ancient + poverty; the debaucheries, luxury, and class jealousies; the seditious + character of the Gracchi, &c. Why did the morals become corrupt, and + whence arose those eternal dissensions between the patricians and the + plebeians? + </p> + <p> + In Rome, as in all other places, the dissension between the rich and the + poor was not caused directly by the desire for wealth (people, as a + general thing, do not covet that which they deem it illegitimate to + acquire), but by a natural instinct of the plebeians, which led them to + seek the cause of their adversity in the constitution of the republic. So + we are doing to-day; instead of altering our public economy, we demand an + electoral reform. The Roman people wished to return to the social compact; + they asked for reforms, and demanded a revision of the laws, and a + creation of new magistracies. The patricians, who had nothing to complain + of, opposed every innovation. Wealth always has been conservative. + Nevertheless, the people overcame the resistance of the Senate; the + electoral right was greatly extended; the privileges of the plebeians were + increased,—they had their representatives, their tribunes, and their + consuls; but, notwithstanding these reforms, the republic could not be + saved. When all political expedients had been exhausted, when civil war + had depleted the population, when the Caesars had thrown their bloody + mantle over the cancer which was consuming the empire,—inasmuch as + accumulated property always was respected, and since the fire never + stopped, the nation had to perish in the flames. The imperial power was a + compromise which protected the property of the rich, and nourished the + proletaires with wheat from Africa and Sicily: a double error, which + destroyed the aristocrats by plethora and the commoners by famine. At last + there was but one real proprietor left,—the emperor,—whose + dependent, flatterer, parasite, or slave, each citizen became; and when + this proprietor was ruined, those who gathered the crumbs from under his + table, and laughed when he cracked his jokes, perished also. + </p> + <p> + Montesquieu succeeded no better than Bossuet in fathoming the causes of + the Roman decline; indeed, it may be said that the president has only + developed the ideas of the bishop. If the Romans had been more moderate in + their conquests, more just to their allies, more humane to the vanquished; + if the nobles had been less covetous, the emperors less lawless, the + people less violent, and all classes less corrupt; if... &c.,—perhaps + the dignity of the empire might have been preserved, and Rome might have + retained the sceptre of the world! That is all that can be gathered from + the teachings of Montesquieu. But the truth of history does not lie there; + the destinies of the world are not dependent upon such trivial causes. The + passions of men, like the contingencies of time and the varieties of + climate, serve to maintain the forces which move humanity and produce all + historical changes; but they do not explain them. The grain of sand of + which Pascal speaks would have caused the death of one man only, had not + prior action ordered the events of which this death was the precursor. + </p> + <p> + Montesquieu has read extensively; he knows Roman history thoroughly, is + perfectly well acquainted with the people of whom he speaks, and sees very + clearly why they were able to conquer their rivals and govern the world. + While reading him we admire the Romans, but we do not like them; we + witness their triumphs without pleasure, and we watch their fall without + sorrow. Montesquieu's work, like the works of all French writers, is + skilfully composed,—spirited, witty, and filled with wise + observations. He pleases, interests, instructs, but leads to little + reflection; he does not conquer by depth of thought; he does not exalt the + mind by elevated reason or earnest feeling. In vain should we search his + writings for knowledge of antiquity, the character of primitive society, + or a description of the heroic ages, whose morals and prejudices lived + until the last days of the republic. Vico, painting the Romans with their + horrible traits, represents them as excusable, because he shows that all + their conduct was governed by preexisting ideas and customs, and that they + were informed, so to speak, by a superior genius of which they were + unconscious; in Montesquieu, the Roman atrocity revolts, but is not + explained. Therefore, as a writer, Montesquieu brings greater credit upon + French literature; as a philosopher, Vico bears away the palm. + </p> + <p> + Originally, property in Rome was national, not private. Numa was the first + to establish individual property by distributing the lands captured by + Romulus. What was the dividend of this distribution effected by Numa? What + conditions were imposed upon individuals, what powers reserved to the + State? None whatever. Inequality of fortunes, absolute abdication by the + republic of its right of eminent domain over the property of citizens,—such + were the first results of the division of Numa, who justly may be regarded + as the originator of Roman revolutions. He it was who instituted the + worship of the god Terminus,—the guardian of private possession, and + one of the most ancient gods of Italy. It was Numa who placed property + under the protection of Jupiter; who, in imitation of the Etrurians, + wished to make priests of the land-surveyors; who invented a liturgy for + cadastral operations, and ceremonies of consecration for the marking of + boundaries,—who, in short, made a religion of property. <a + href="#linknote-51" name="linknoteref-51" id="linknoteref-51"><small>51</small></a> + All these fancies would have been more beneficial than dangerous, if the + holy king had not forgotten one essential thing; namely, to fix the amount + that each citizen could possess, and on what conditions he could possess + it. For, since it is the essence of property to continually increase by + accession and profit, and since the lender will take advantage of every + opportunity to apply this principle inherent in property, it follows that + properties tend, by means of their natural energy and the religious + respect which protects them, to absorb each other, and fortunes to + increase or diminish to an indefinite extent,—a process which + necessarily results in the ruin of the people, and the fall of the + republic. Roman history is but the development of this law. + </p> + <p> + Scarcely had the Tarquins been banished from Rome and the monarchy + abolished, when quarrels commenced between the orders. In the year 494 + B.C., the secession of the commonalty to the Mons Sacer led to the + establishment of the tribunate. Of what did the plebeians complain? That + they were poor, exhausted by the interest which they paid to the + proprietors,—<i>foeneratoribus;</i> that the republic, administered + for the benefit of the nobles, did nothing for the people; that, delivered + over to the mercy of their creditors, who could sell them and their + children, and having neither hearth nor home, they were refused the means + of subsistence, while the rate of interest was kept at its highest point, + &c. For five centuries, the sole policy of the Senate was to evade + these just complaints; and, notwithstanding the energy of the tribunes, + notwithstanding the eloquence of the Gracchi, the violence of Marius, and + the triumph of Caesar, this execrable policy succeeded only too well. The + Senate always temporized; the measures proposed by the tribunes might be + good, but they were inopportune. It admitted that something should be + done; but first it was necessary that the people should resume the + performance of their duties, because the Senate could not yield to + violence, and force must be employed only by the law. If the people—out + of respect for legality—took this beautiful advice, the Senate + conjured up a difficulty; the reform was postponed, and that was the end + of it. On the contrary, if the demands of the proletaires became too + pressing, it declared a foreign war, and neighboring nations were deprived + of their liberty, to maintain the Roman aristocracy. + </p> + <p> + But the toils of war were only a halt for the plebeians in their onward + march towards pauperism. The lands confiscated from the conquered nations + were immediately added to the domain of the State, to the ager publicus; + and, as such, cultivated for the benefit of the treasury; or, as was more + often the case, they were sold at auction. None of them were granted to + the proletaires, who, unlike the patricians and knights, were not supplied + by the victory with the means of buying them. War never enriched the + soldier; the extensive plundering has been done always by the generals. + The vans of Augereau, and of twenty others, are famous in our armies; but + no one ever heard of a private getting rich. Nothing was more common in + Rome than charges of peculation, extortion, embezzlement, and brigandage, + carried on in the provinces at the head of armies, and in other public + capacities. All these charges were quieted by intrigue, bribery of the + judges, or desistance of the accuser. The culprit was allowed always in + the end to enjoy his spoils in peace; his son was only the more respected + on account of his father's crimes. And, in fact, it could not be + otherwise. What would become of us, if every deputy, peer, or public + functionary should be called upon to show his title to his fortune! + </p> + <p> + "The patricians arrogated the exclusive enjoyment of the ager publicus; + and, like the feudal seigniors, granted some portions of their lands to + their dependants,—a wholly precarious concession, revocable at the + will of the grantor. The plebeians, on the contrary, were entitled to the + enjoyment of only a little pasture-land left to them in common: an utterly + unjust state of things, since, in consequence of it, taxation—<i>census</i>—weighed + more heavily upon the poor than upon the rich. The patrician, in fact, + always exempted himself from the tithe which he owed as the price and as + the acknowledgment of the concession of domain; and, on the other hand, + paid no taxes on his POSSESSIONS, if, as there is good reason to believe, + only citizens' property was taxed."—Laboulaye: History of Property. + </p> + <p> + In order thoroughly to understand the preceding quotation, we must know + that the estates of CITIZENS—that is, estates independent of the + public domain, whether they were obtained in the division of Numa, or had + since been sold by the questors—were alone regarded as PROPERTY; + upon these a tax, or <i>cense</i>, was imposed. On the contrary, the + estates obtained by concessions of the public domain, of the ager publicus + (for which a light rent was paid), were called POSSESSIONS. Thus, among + the Romans, there was a RIGHT OF PROPERTY and a RIGHT OF POSSESSION + regulating the administration of all estates. Now, what did the + proletaires wish? That the jus possessionis—the simple right of + possession—should be extended to them at the expense, as is evident, + not of private property, but of the public domain,—agri publici. The + proletaires, in short, demanded that they should be tenants of the land + which they had conquered. This demand, the patricians in their avarice + never would accede to. Buying as much of this land as they could, they + afterwards found means of obtaining the rest as POSSESSIONS. Upon this + land they employed their slaves. The people, who could not buy, on account + of the competition of the rich, nor hire, because—cultivating with + their own hands—they could not promise a rent equal to the revenue + which the land would yield when cultivated by slaves, were always deprived + of possession and property. + </p> + <p> + Civil wars relieved, to some extent, the sufferings of the multitude. "The + people enrolled themselves under the banners of the ambitious, in order to + obtain by force that which the law refused them,—property. A colony + was the reward of a victorious legion. But it was no longer the ager + publicus only; it was all Italy that lay at the mercy of the legions. The + ager publicus disappeared almost entirely,... but the cause of the evil—accumulated + property—became more potent than ever." (Laboulaye: History of + Property.) + </p> + <p> + The author whom I quote does not tell us why this division of territory + which followed civil wars did not arrest the encroachments of accumulated + property; the omission is easily supplied. Land is not the only requisite + for cultivation; a working-stock is also necessary,—animals, tools, + harnesses, a house, an advance, &c. Where did the colonists, + discharged by the dictator who rewarded them, obtain these things? From + the purse of the usurers; that is, of the patricians, to whom all these + lands finally returned, in consequence of the rapid increase of usury, and + the seizure of estates. Sallust, in his account of the conspiracy of + Catiline, tells us of this fact. The conspirators were old soldiers of + Sylla, who, as a reward for their services, had received from him lands in + Cisalpine Gaul, Tuscany, and other parts of the peninsula Less than twenty + years had elapsed since these colonists, free of debt, had left the + service and commenced farming; and already they were crippled by usury, + and almost ruined. The poverty caused by the exactions of creditors was + the life of this conspiracy which well-nigh inflamed all Italy, and which, + with a worthier chief and fairer means, possibly would have succeeded. In + Rome, the mass of the people were favorable to the conspirators—<i>cuncta + plebes Catilinae incepta probabat;</i> the allies were weary of the + patricians' robberies; deputies from the Allobroges (the Savoyards) had + come to Rome to appeal to the Senate in behalf of their fellow-citizens + involved in debt; in short, the complaint against the large proprietors + was universal. "We call men and gods to witness," said the soldiers of + Catiline, who were Roman citizens with not a slave among them, "that we + have taken arms neither against the country, nor to attack any one, but in + defence of our lives and liberties. Wretched, poor, most of us deprived of + country, all of us of fame and fortune, by the violence and cruelty of + usurers, we have no rights, no property, no liberty." <a + href="#linknote-52" name="linknoteref-52" id="linknoteref-52"><small>52</small></a> + </p> + <p> + The bad reputation of Catiline, and his atrocious designs, the imprudence + of his accomplices, the treason of several, the strategy of Cicero, the + angry outbursts of Cato, and the terror of the Senate, baffled this + enterprise, which, in furnishing a precedent for expeditions against the + rich, would perhaps have saved the republic, and given peace to the world. + But Rome could not evade her destiny; the end of her expiations had not + come. A nation never was known to anticipate its punishment by a sudden + and unexpected conversion. Now, the long-continued crimes of the Eternal + City could not be atoned for by the massacre of a few hundred patricians. + Catiline came to stay divine vengeance; therefore his conspiracy failed. + </p> + <p> + The encroachment of large proprietors upon small proprietors, by the aid + of usury, farm-rent, and profits of all sorts, was common throughout the + empire. The most honest citizens invested their money at high rates of + interest. <a href="#linknote-53" name="linknoteref-53" id="linknoteref-53"><small>53</small></a> + Cato, Cicero, Brutus, all the stoics so noted for their frugality, <i>viri + frugi</i>,—Seneca, the teacher of virtue,—levied enormous + taxes in the provinces, under the name of usury; and it is something + remarkable, that the last defenders of the republic, the proud Pompeys, + were all usurious aristocrats, and oppressors of the poor. But the battle + of Pharsalus, having killed men only, without touching institutions, the + encroachments of the large domains became every day more active. Ever + since the birth of Christianity, the Fathers have opposed this invasion + with all their might. Their writings are filled with burning curses upon + this crime of usury, of which Christians are not always innocent. + </p> + <p> + St. Cyprian complains of certain bishops of his time, who, absorbed in + disgraceful stock-jobbing operations, abandoned their churches, and went + about the provinces appropriating lands by artifice and fraud, while + lending money and piling up interests upon interests. <a + href="#linknote-54" name="linknoteref-54" id="linknoteref-54"><small>54</small></a> + Why, in the midst of this passion for accumulation, did not the possession + of the public land, like private property, become concentrated in a few + hands? + </p> + <p> + By law, the domain of the State was inalienable, and consequently + possession was always revocable; but the edict of the praetor continued it + indefinitely, so that finally the possessions of the patricians were + transformed into absolute property, though the name, possessions, was + still applied to them. This conversion, instigated by senatorial avarice; + owed its accomplishment to the most deplorable and indiscreet policy. If, + in the time of Tiberius Gracchus, who wished to limit each citizen's + possession of the ager publicus to five hundred acres, the amount of this + possession had been fixed at as much as one family could cultivate, and + granted on the express condition that the possessor should cultivate it + himself, and should lease it to no one, the empire never would have been + desolated by large estates; and possession, instead of increasing + property, would have absorbed it. On what, then, depended the + establishment and maintenance of equality in conditions and fortunes? On a + more equitable division of the ager publicus, a wiser distribution of the + right of possession. + </p> + <p> + I insist upon this point, which is of the utmost importance, because it + gives us an opportunity to examine the history of this individual + possession, of which I said so much in my first memoir, and which so few + of my readers seem to have understood. The Roman republic—having, as + it did, the power to dispose absolutely of its territory, and to impose + conditions upon possessors—was nearer to liberty and equality than + any nation has been since. If the Senate had been intelligent and just,—if, + at the time of the retreat to the Mons Sacer, instead of the ridiculous + farce enacted by Menenius Agrippa, a solemn renunciation of the right to + acquire had been made by each citizen on attaining his share of + possessions,—the republic, based upon equality of possessions and + the duty of labor, would not, in attaining its wealth, have degenerated in + morals; Fabricius would have enjoyed the arts without controlling artists; + and the conquests of the ancient Romans would have been the means of + spreading civilization, instead of the series of murders and robberies + that they were. + </p> + <p> + But property, having unlimited power to amass and to lease, was daily + increased by the addition of new possessions. From the time of Nero, six + individuals were the sole proprietors of one-half of Roman Africa. In the + fifth century, the wealthy families had incomes of no less than two + millions: some possessed as many as twenty thousand slaves. All the + authors who have written upon the causes of the fall of the Roman republic + concur. + </p> + <p> + M. Giraud of Aix <a href="#linknote-55" name="linknoteref-55" + id="linknoteref-55"><small>55</small></a> quotes the testimony of Cicero, + Seneca, Plutarch, Olympiodorus, and Photius. Under Vespasian and Titus, + Pliny, the naturalist, exclaimed: "Large estates have ruined Italy, and + are ruining the provinces." + </p> + <p> + But it never has been understood that the extension of property was + effected then, as it is to-day, under the aegis of the law, and by virtue + of the constitution. When the Senate sold captured lands at auction, it + was in the interest of the treasury and of public welfare. When the + patricians bought up possessions and property, they realized the purpose + of the Senate's decrees; when they lent at high rates of interest, they + took advantage of a legal privilege. "Property," said the lender, "is the + right to enjoy even to the extent of abuse, <i>jus utendi et abutendi</i>; + that is, the right to lend at interest,—to lease, to acquire, and + then to lease and lend again." But property is also the right to exchange, + to transfer, and to sell. If, then, the social condition is such that the + proprietor, ruined by usury, may be compelled to sell his possession, the + means of his subsistence, he will sell it; and, thanks to the law, + accumulated property—devouring and anthropophagous property—will + be established.<a href="#linknote-56" name="linknoteref-56" + id="linknoteref-56"><small>56</small></a> + </p> + <p> + The immediate and secondary cause of the decline of the Romans was, then, + the internal dissensions between the two orders of the republic,—the + patricians and the plebeians,—dissensions which gave rise to civil + wars, proscriptions, and loss of liberty, and finally led to the empire; + but the primary and mediate cause of their decline was the establishment + by Numa of the institution of property. + </p> + <p> + I end with an extract from a work which I have quoted several times + already, and which has recently received a prize from the Academy of Moral + and Political Sciences:— + </p> + <p> + "The concentration of property," says M. Laboulaye, "while causing extreme + poverty, forced the emperors to feed and amuse the people, that they might + forget their misery. <i>Panem et circenses:</i> that was the Roman law in + regard to the poor; a dire and perhaps a necessary evil wherever a landed + aristocracy exists. + </p> + <p> + "To feed these hungry mouths, grain was brought from Africa and the + provinces, and distributed gratuitously among the needy. In the time of + Caesar, three hundred and twenty thousand people were thus fed. Augustus + saw that such a measure led directly to the destruction of husbandry; but + to abolish these distributions was to put a weapon within the reach of the + first aspirant for power. + </p> + <p> + "The emperor shrank at the thought. + </p> + <p> + "While grain was gratuitous, agriculture was impossible. Tillage gave way + to pasturage, another cause of depopulation, even among slaves. + </p> + <p> + "Finally, luxury, carried further and further every day, covered the soil + of Italy with elegant villas, which occupied whole cantons. Gardens and + groves replaced the fields, and the free population fled to the towns. + Husbandry disappeared almost entirely, and with husbandry the husbandman. + Africa furnished the wheat, and Greece the wine. Tiberius complained + bitterly of this evil, which placed the lives of the Roman people at the + mercy of the winds and waves: that was his anxiety. One day later, and + three hundred thousand starving men walked the streets of Rome: that was a + revolution. + </p> + <p> + "This decline of Italy and the provinces did not stop. After the reign of + Nero, depopulation commenced in towns as noted as Antium and Tarentum. + Under the reign of Pertinax, there was so much desert land that the + emperor abandoned it, even that which belonged to the treasury, to whoever + would cultivate it, besides exempting the farmers from taxation for a + period of ten years. Senators were compelled to invest one-third of their + fortunes in real estate in Italy; but this measure served only to increase + the evil which they wished to cure. To force the rich to possess in Italy + was to increase the large estates which had ruined the country. And must I + say, finally, that Aurelian wished to send the captives into the desert + lands of Etruria, and that Valentinian was forced to settle the Alamanni + on the fertile banks of the Po?" + </p> + <p> + If the reader, in running through this book, should complain of meeting + with nothing but quotations from other works, extracts from journals and + public lectures, comments upon laws, and interpretations of them, I would + remind him that the very object of this memoir is to establish the + conformity of my opinion concerning property with that universally held; + that, far from aiming at a paradox, it has been my main study to follow + the advice of the world; and, finally, that my sole pretension is to + clearly formulate the general belief. I cannot repeat it too often,—and + I confess it with pride,—I teach absolutely nothing that is new; and + I should regard the doctrine which I advocate as radically erroneous, if a + single witness should testify against it. + </p> + <p> + Let us now trace the revolutions in property among the Barbarians. + </p> + <p> + As long as the German tribes dwelt in their forests, it did not occur to + them to divide and appropriate the soil. The land was held in common: each + individual could plow, sow, and reap. But, when the empire was once + invaded, they bethought themselves of sharing the land, just as they + shared spoils after a victory. "Hence," says M. Laboulaye, "the + expressions <i>sortes Burgundiorum Gothorum</i> and {GREEK, ' k }; hence + the German words <i>allod</i>, allodium, and <i>loos</i>, lot, which are + used in all modern languages to designate the gifts of chance." + </p> + <p> + Allodial property, at least with the mass of coparceners, was originally + held, then, in equal shares; for all of the prizes were equal, or, at + least, equivalent. This property, like that of the Romans, was wholly + individual, independent, exclusive, transferable, and consequently + susceptible of accumulation and invasion. But, instead of its being, as + was the case among the Romans, the large estate which, through increase + and usury, subordinated and absorbed the small one, among the Barbarians—fonder + of war than of wealth, more eager to dispose of persons than to + appropriate things—it was the warrior who, through superiority of + arms, enslaved his adversary. The Roman wanted matter; the Barbarian + wanted man. Consequently, in the feudal ages, rents were almost nothing,—simply + a hare, a partridge, a pie, a few pints of wine brought by a little girl, + or a Maypole set up within the suzerain's reach. In return, the vassal or + incumbent had to follow the seignior to battle (a thing which happened + almost every day), and equip and feed himself at his own expense. "This + spirit of the German tribes—this spirit of companionship and + association—governed the territory as it governed individuals. The + lands, like the men, were secured to a chief or seignior by a bond of + mutual protection and fidelity. This subjection was the labor of the + German epoch which gave birth to feudalism. By fair means or foul, every + proprietor who could not be a chief was forced to be a vassal." + (Laboulaye: History of Property.) + </p> + <p> + By fair means or foul, every mechanic who cannot be a master has to be a + journeyman; every proprietor who is not an invader will be invaded; every + producer who cannot, by the exploitation of other men, furnish products at + less than their proper value, will lose his labor. Corporations and + masterships, which are hated so bitterly, but which will reappear if we + are not careful, are the necessary results of the principle of competition + which is inherent in property; their organization was patterned formerly + after that of the feudal hierarchy, which was the result of the + subordination of men and possessions. + </p> + <p> + The times which paved the way for the advent of feudalism and the + reappearance of large proprietors were times of carnage and the most + frightful anarchy. Never before had murder and violence made such havoc + with the human race. The tenth century, among others, if my memory serves + me rightly, was called the CENTURY OF IRON. His property, his life, and + the honor of his wife and children always in danger the small proprietor + made haste to do homage to his seignior, and to bestow something on the + church of his freehold, that he might receive protection and security. + </p> + <p> + "Both facts and laws bear witness that from the sixth to the tenth century + the proprietors of small freeholds were gradually plundered, or reduced by + the encroachments of large proprietors and counts to the condition of + either vassals or tributaries. The Capitularies are full of repressive + provisions; but the incessant reiteration of these threats only shows the + perseverance of the evil and the impotency of the government. Oppression, + moreover, varies but little in its methods. The complaints of the free + proprietors, and the groans of the plebeians at the time of the Gracchi, + were one and the same. It is said that, whenever a poor man refused to + give his estate to the bishop, the curate, the count, the judge, or the + centurion, these immediately sought an opportunity to ruin him. They made + him serve in the army until, completely ruined, he was induced, by fair + means or foul, to give up his freehold."—Laboulaye: History of + Property. + </p> + <p> + How many small proprietors and manufacturers have not been ruined by large + ones through chicanery, law-suits, and competition? Strategy, violence, + and usury,—such are the proprietor's methods of plundering the + laborer. + </p> + <p> + Thus we see property, at all ages and in all its forms, oscillating by + virtue of its principle between two opposite terms,—extreme division + and extreme accumulation. + </p> + <p> + Property, at its first term, is almost null. Reduced to personal + exploitation, it is property only potentially. At its second term, it + exists in its perfection; then it is truly property. + </p> + <p> + When property is widely distributed, society thrives, progresses, grows, + and rises quickly to the zenith of its power. Thus, the Jews, after + leaving Babylon with Esdras and Nehemiah, soon became richer and more + powerful than they had been under their kings. Sparta was in a strong and + prosperous condition during the two or three centuries which followed the + death of Lycurgus. The best days of Athens were those of the Persian war; + Rome, whose inhabitants were divided from the beginning into two classes,—the + exploiters and the exploited,—knew no such thing as peace. + </p> + <p> + When property is concentrated, society, abusing itself, polluted, so to + speak, grows corrupt, wears itself out—how shall I express this + horrible idea?—plunges into long-continued and fatal luxury. + </p> + <p> + When feudalism was established, society had to die of the same disease + which killed it under the Caesars,—I mean accumulated property. But + humanity, created for an immortal destiny, is deathless; the revolutions + which disturb it are purifying crises, invariably followed by more + vigorous health. In the fifth century, the invasion of the Barbarians + partially restored the world to a state of natural equality. In the + twelfth century, a new spirit pervading all society gave the slave his + rights, and through justice breathed new life into the heart of nations. + It has been said, and often repeated, that Christianity regenerated the + world. That is true; but it seems to me that there is a mistake in the + date. Christianity had no influence upon Roman society; when the + Barbarians came, that society had disappeared. For such is God's curse + upon property; every political organization based upon the exploitation of + man, shall perish: slave-labor is death to the race of tyrants. The + patrician families became extinct, as the feudal families did, and as all + aristocracies must. + </p> + <p> + It was in the middle ages, when a reactionary movement was beginning to + secretly undermine accumulated property, that the influence of + Christianity was first exercised to its full extent. + </p> + <p> + The destruction of feudalism, the conversion of the serf into the + commoner, the emancipation of the communes, and the admission of the Third + Estate to political power, were deeds accomplished by Christianity + exclusively. I say Christianity, not ecclesiasticism; for the priests and + bishops were themselves large proprietors, and as such often persecuted + the villeins. Without the Christianity of the middle ages, the existence + of modern society could not be explained, and would not be possible. + </p> + <p> + The truth of this assertion is shown by the very facts which M. Laboulaye + quotes, although this author inclines to the opposite opinion. <a + href="#linknote-57" name="linknoteref-57" id="linknoteref-57"><small>57</small></a> + </p> + <p> + Now, we did not commence to love God and to think of our salvation until + after the promulgation of the Gospel. + </p> + <p> + 1. Slavery among the Romans.—"The Roman slave was, in the eyes of + the law, only a thing,—no more than an ox or a horse. He had neither + property, family, nor personality; he was defenceless against his master's + cruelty, folly, or cupidity. 'Sell your oxen that are past use,' said + Cato, 'sell your calves, your lambs, your wool, your hides, your old + ploughs, your old iron, your old slave, and your sick slave, and all that + is of no use to you.' When no market could be found for the slaves that + were worn out by sickness or old age, they were abandoned to starvation. + Claudius was the first defender of this shameful practice." + </p> + <p> + "Discharge your old workman," says the economist of the proprietary + school; "turn off that sick domestic, that toothless and worn-out servant. + Put away the unserviceable beauty; to the hospital with the useless + mouths!" + </p> + <p> + "The condition of these wretched beings improved but little under the + emperors; and the best that can be said of the goodness of Antoninus is + that he prohibited intolerable cruelty, as an ABUSE OF PROPERTY. <i>Expedit + enim reipublicae ne quis re re sua male utatur</i>, says Gaius. + </p> + <p> + "As soon as the Church met in council, it launched an anathema against the + masters who had exercised over their slaves this terrible right of life + and death. Were not the slaves, thanks to the right of sanctuary and to + their poverty, the dearest proteges of religion? Constantine, who embodied + in the laws the grand ideas of Christianity, valued the life of a slave as + highly as that of a freeman, and declared the master, who had + intentionally brought death upon his slave, guilty of murder. Between this + law and that of Antoninus there is a complete revolution in moral ideas: + the slave was a thing; religion has made him a man." + </p> + <p> + Note the last words: "Between the law of the Gospel and that of Antoninus + there is a complete revolution in moral ideas: the slave was a thing; + religion has made him a man." The moral revolution which transformed the + slave into a citizen was effected, then, by Christianity before the + Barbarians set foot upon the soil of the empire. We have only to trace the + progress of this MORAL revolution in the PERSONNEL of society. "But," M. + Laboulaye rightly says, "it did not change the condition of men in a + moment, any more than that of things; between slavery and liberty there + was an abyss which could not be filled in a day; the transitional step was + servitude." + </p> + <p> + Now, what was servitude? In what did it differ from Roman slavery, and + whence came this difference? Let the same author answer. + </p> + <p> + 2. Of servitude.—"I see, in the lord's manor, slaves charged with + domestic duties. Some are employed in the personal service of the master; + others are charged with household cares. The women spin the wool; the men + grind the grain, make the bread, or practise, in the interest of the + seignior, what little they know of the industrial arts. The master + punishes them when he chooses, kills them with impunity, and sells them + and theirs like so many cattle. The slave has no personality, and + consequently no <i>wehrgeld</i> <a href="#linknote-58" + name="linknoteref-58" id="linknoteref-58"><small>58</small></a> peculiar + to himself: he is a thing. The <i>wehrgeld</i> belongs to the master as a + compensation for the loss of his property. Whether the slave is killed or + stolen, the indemnity does not change, for the injury is the same; but the + indemnity increases or diminishes according to the value of the serf. In + all these particulars Germanic slavery and Roman servitude are alike." + </p> + <p> + This similarity is worthy of notice. Slavery is always the same, whether + in a Roman villa or on a Barbarian farm. The man, like the ox and the ass, + is a part of the live-stock; a price is set upon his head; he is a tool + without a conscience, a chattel without personality, an impeccable, + irresponsible being, who has neither rights nor duties. + </p> + <p> + Why did his condition improve? + </p> + <p> + "In good season..." [when?] "the serf began to be regarded as a man; and, + as such, the law of the Visigoths, under the influence of Christian ideas, + punished with fine or banishment any one who maimed or killed him." + </p> + <p> + Always Christianity, always religion, though we should like to speak of + the laws only. Did the philanthropy of the Visigoths make its first + appearance before or after the preaching of the Gospel? This point must be + cleared up. + </p> + <p> + "After the conquest, the serfs were scattered over the large estates of + the Barbarians, each having his house, his lot, and his peculium, in + return for which he paid rent and performed service. They were rarely + separated from their homes when their land was sold; they and all that + they had became the property of the purchaser. The law favored this + realization of the serf, in not allowing him to be sold out of the + country." + </p> + <p> + What inspired this law, destructive not only of slavery, but of property + itself? For, if the master cannot drive from his domain the slave whom he + has once established there, it follows that the slave is proprietor, as + well as the master. + </p> + <p> + "The Barbarians," again says M. Laboulaye, "were the first to recognize + the slave's rights of family and property,—two rights which are + incompatible with slavery." + </p> + <p> + But was this recognition the necessary result of the mode of servitude in + vogue among the Germanic nations previous to their conversion to + Christianity, or was it the immediate effect of that spirit of justice + infused with religion, by which the seignior was forced to respect in the + serf a soul equal to his own, a brother in Jesus Christ, purified by the + same baptism, and redeemed by the same sacrifice of the Son of God in the + form of man? For we must not close our eyes to the fact that, though the + Barbarian morals and the ignorance and carelessness of the seigniors, who + busied themselves mainly with wars and battles, paying little or no + attention to agriculture, may have been great aids in the emancipation of + the serfs, still the vital principle of this emancipation was essentially + Christian. Suppose that the Barbarians had remained Pagans in the midst of + a Pagan world. As they did not change the Gospel, so they would not have + changed the polytheistic customs; slavery would have remained what it was; + they would have continued to kill the slaves who were desirous of liberty, + family, and property; whole nations would have been reduced to the + condition of Helots; nothing would have changed upon the terrestrial + stage, except the actors. The Barbarians were less selfish, less + imperious, less dissolute, and less cruel than the Romans. Such was the + nature upon which, after the fall of the empire and the renovation of + society, Christianity was to act. But this nature, grounded as in former + times upon slavery and war, would, by its own energy, have produced + nothing but war and slavery. + </p> + <p> + "GRADUALLY the serfs obtained the privilege of being judged by the same + standard as their masters...." + </p> + <p> + When, how, and by what title did they obtain this privilege? + </p> + <p> + "GRADUALLY their duties were regulated." + </p> + <p> + Whence came the regulations? Who had the authority to introduce them? + </p> + <p> + "The master took a part of the labor of the serf,—three days, for + instance,—and left the rest to him. As for Sunday, that belonged to + God." + </p> + <p> + And what established Sunday, if not religion? Whence I infer, that the + same power which took it upon itself to suspend hostilities and to lighten + the duties of the serf was also that which regulated the judiciary and + created a sort of law for the slave. + </p> + <p> + But this law itself, on what did it bear?—what was its principle?—what + was the philosophy of the councils and popes with reference to this + matter? The reply to all these questions, coming from me alone, would be + distrusted. The authority of M. Laboulaye shall give credence to my words. + This holy philosophy, to which the slaves were indebted for every thing, + this invocation of the Gospel, was an anathema against property. + </p> + <p> + The proprietors of small freeholds, that is, the freemen of the middle + class, had fallen, in consequence of the tyranny of the nobles, into a + worse condition than that of the tenants and serfs. "The expenses of war + weighed less heavily upon the serf than upon the freeman; and, as for + legal protection, the seigniorial court, where the serf was judged by his + peers, was far preferable to the cantonal assembly. It was better to have + a noble for a seignior than for a judge." + </p> + <p> + So it is better to-day to have a man of large capital for an associate + than for a rival. The honest tenant—the laborer who earns weekly a + moderate but constant salary—is more to be envied than the + independent but small farmer, or the poor licensed mechanic. + </p> + <p> + At that time, all were either seigniors or serfs, oppressors or oppressed. + "Then, under the protection of convents, or of the seigniorial turret, new + societies were formed, which silently spread over the soil made fertile by + their hands, and which derived their power from the annihilation of the + free classes whom they enlisted in their behalf. As tenants, these men + acquired, from generation to generation, sacred rights over the soil which + they cultivated in the interest of lazy and pillaging masters. As fast as + the social tempest abated, it became necessary to respect the union and + heritage of these villeins, who by their labor had truly prescribed the + soil for their own profit." + </p> + <p> + I ask how prescription could take effect where a contrary title and + possession already existed? M. Laboulaye is a lawyer. Where, then, did he + ever see the labor of the slave and the cultivation by the tenant + prescribe the soil for their own profit, to the detriment of a recognized + master daily acting as a proprietor? Let us not disguise matters. As fast + as the tenants and the serfs grew rich, they wished to be independent and + free; they commenced to associate, unfurl their municipal banners, raise + belfries, fortify their towns, and refuse to pay their seigniorial dues. + In doing these things they were perfectly right; for, in fact, their + condition was intolerable. But in law—I mean in Roman and Napoleonic + law—their refusal to obey and pay tribute to their masters was + illegitimate. + </p> + <p> + Now, this imperceptible usurpation of property by the commonalty was + inspired by religion. + </p> + <p> + The seignior had attached the serf to the soil; religion granted the serf + rights over the soil. The seignior imposed duties upon the serf; religion + fixed their limits. The seignior could kill the serf with impunity, could + deprive him of his wife, violate his daughter, pillage his house, and rob + him of his savings; religion checked his invasions: it excommunicated the + seignior. Religion was the real cause of the ruin of feudal property. Why + should it not be bold enough to-day to resolutely condemn capitalistic + property? Since the middle ages, there has been no change in social + economy except in its forms; its relations remain unaltered. + </p> + <p> + The only result of the emancipation of the serfs was that property changed + hands; or, rather, that new proprietors were created. Sooner or later the + extension of privilege, far from curing the evil, was to operate to the + disadvantage of the plebeians. Nevertheless, the new social organization + did not meet with the same end in all places. In Lombardy, for example, + where the people rapidly growing rich through commerce and industry soon + conquered the authorities, even to the exclusion of the nobles,—first, + the nobility became poor and degraded, and were forced, in order to live + and maintain their credit, to gain admission to the guilds; then, the + ordinary subalternization of property leading to inequality of fortunes, + to wealth and poverty, to jealousies and hatreds, the cities passed + rapidly from the rankest democracy under the yoke of a few ambitious + leaders. Such was the fate of most of the Lombardic cities,—Genoa, + Florence, Bologna, Milan, Pisa, &c,.—which afterwards changed + rulers frequently, but which have never since risen in favor of liberty. + The people can easily escape from the tyranny of despots, but they do not + know how to throw off the effects of their own despotism; just as we avoid + the assassin's steel, while we succumb to a constitutional malady. As soon + as a nation becomes proprietor, either it must perish, or a foreign + invasion must force it again to begin its evolutionary round. <a + href="#linknote-59" name="linknoteref-59" id="linknoteref-59"><small>59</small></a> + </p> + <p> + "The communes once organized, the kings treated them as superior vassals. + Now, just as the under vassal had no communication with the king except + through the direct vassal, so also the commoners could enter no complaints + except through the commune. + </p> + <p> + "Like causes produce like effects. Each commune became a small and + separate State, governed by a few citizens, who sought to extend their + authority over the others; who, in their turn, revenged themselves upon + the unfortunate inhabitants who had not the right of citizenship. + Feudalism in unemancipated countries, and oligarchy in the communes, made + nearly the same ravages. There were sub-associations, fraternities, + tradesmen's associations in the communes, and colleges in the + universities. The oppression was so great, that it was no rare thing to + see the inhabitants of a commune demanding its suppression...."—Meyer: + Judicial Institutions of Europe. + </p> + <p> + In France, the Revolution was much more gradual. The communes, in taking + refuge under the protection of the kings, had found them masters rather + than protectors. Their liberty had long since been lost, or, rather, their + emancipation had been suspended, when feudalism received its death-blow at + the hand of Richelieu. Then liberty halted; the prince of the feudatories + held sole and undivided sway. The nobles, the clergy, the commoners, the + parliaments, every thing in short except a few seeming privileges, were + controlled by the king; who, like his early predecessors, consumed + regularly, and nearly always in advance, the revenues of his domain,—and + that domain was France. + </p> + <p> + Finally, '89 arrived; liberty resumed its march; a century and a half had + been required to wear out the last form of feudal property,—monarchy. + </p> + <p> + The French Revolution may be defined as <i>the substitution of real right + for personal right;</i> that is to say, in the days of feudalism, the + value of property depended upon the standing of the proprietor, while, + after the Revolution, the regard for the man was proportional to his + property. Now, we have seen from what has been said in the preceding + pages, that this recognition of the right of laborers had been the + constant aim of the serfs and communes, the secret motive of their + efforts. The movement of '89 was only the last stage of that long + insurrection. But it seems to me that we have not paid sufficient + attention to the fact that the Revolution of 1789, instigated by the same + causes, animated by the same spirit, triumphing by the same struggles, was + consummated in Italy four centuries ago. Italy was the first to sound the + signal of war against feudalism; France has followed; Spain and England + are beginning to move; the rest still sleep. If a grand example should be + given to the world, the day of trial would be much abridged. + </p> + <p> + Note the following summary of the revolutions of property, from the days + of the Roman Empire down to the present time:— + </p> + <p> + 1. Fifth century.—Barbarian invasions; division of the lands of the + empire into independent portions or freeholds. + </p> + <p> + 2. From the fifth to the eighth century.—Gradual concentration of + freeholds, or transformation of the small freeholds into fiefs, feuds, + tenures, &c. Large properties, small possessions. Charlemagne + (771-814) decrees that all freeholds are dependent upon the king of + France. + </p> + <p> + 3. From the eighth to the tenth century.—The relation between the + crown and the superior dependents is broken; the latter becoming + freeholders, while the smaller dependents cease to recognize the king, and + adhere to the nearest suzerain. Feudal system. + </p> + <p> + 4. Twelfth century.—Movement of the serfs towards liberty; + emancipation of the communes. + </p> + <p> + 5. Thirteenth century.—Abolition of personal right, and of the + feudal system in Italy. Italian Republics. + </p> + <p> + 6. Seventeenth century.—Abolition of feudalism in France during + Richelieu's ministry. Despotism. + </p> + <p> + 7. 1789.—Abolition of all privileges of birth, caste, provinces, and + corporations; equality of persons and of rights. French democracy. + </p> + <p> + 8. 1830.—The principle of concentration inherent in individual + property is REMARKED. Development of the idea of association. + </p> + <p> + The more we reflect upon this series of transformations and changes, the + more clearly we see that they were necessary in their principle, in their + manifestations, and in their result. + </p> + <p> + It was necessary that inexperienced conquerors, eager for liberty, should + divide the Roman Empire into a multitude of estates, as free and + independent as themselves. + </p> + <p> + It was necessary that these men, who liked war even better than liberty, + should submit to their leaders; and, as the freehold represented the man, + that property should violate property. + </p> + <p> + It was necessary that, under the rule of a nobility always idle when not + fighting, there should grow up a body of laborers, who, by the power of + production, and by the division and circulation of wealth, would gradually + gain control over commerce, industry, and a portion of the land, and who, + having become rich, would aspire to power and authority also. + </p> + <p> + It was necessary, finally, that liberty and equality of rights having been + achieved, and individual property still existing, attended by robbery, + poverty, social inequality, and oppression, there should be an inquiry + into the cause of this evil, and an idea of universal association formed, + whereby, on condition of labor, all interests should be protected and + consolidated. + </p> + <p> + "Evil, when carried too far," says a learned jurist, "cures itself; and + the political innovation which aims to increase the power of the State, + finally succumbs to the effects of its own work. The Germans, to secure + their independence, chose chiefs; and soon they were oppressed by their + kings and noblemen. The monarchs surrounded themselves with volunteers, in + order to control the freemen; and they found themselves dependent upon + their proud vassals. The <i>missi dominici</i> were sent into the + provinces to maintain the power of the emperors, and to protect the people + from the oppressions of the noblemen; and not only did they usurp the + imperial power to a great extent, but they dealt more severely with the + inhabitants. The freemen became vassals, in order to get rid of military + service and court duty; and they were immediately involved in all the + personal quarrels of their seigniors, and compelled to do jury duty in + their courts.... The kings protected the cities and the communes, in the + hope of freeing them from the yoke of the grand vassals, and of rendering + their own power more absolute; and those same communes have, in several + European countries, procured the establishment of a constitutional power, + are now holding royalty in check, and are giving rise to a universal + desire for political reform."—Meyer: Judicial Institutions of + Europe. + </p> + <p> + In recapitulation. + </p> + <p> + What was feudalism? A confederation of the grand seign iors against the + villeins, and against the king. <a href="#linknote-60" + name="linknoteref-60" id="linknoteref-60"><small>60</small></a> What is + constitutional government? A confederation of the bourgeoisie against the + laborers, and against the king. <a href="#linknote-61" + name="linknoteref-61" id="linknoteref-61"><small>61</small></a> + </p> + <p> + How did feudalism end? In the union of the communes and the royal + authority. How will the bourgeoisie aristocracy end? In the union of the + proletariat and the sovereign power. + </p> + <p> + What was the immediate result of the struggle of the communes and the king + against the seigniors? The monarchical unity of Louis XIV. What will be + the result of the struggle of the proletariat and the sovereign power + combined against the bourgeoisie? The absolute unity of the nation and the + government. + </p> + <p> + It remains to be seen whether the nation, one and supreme, will be + represented in its executive and central power by ONE, by FIVE, by ONE + HUNDRED, or ONE THOUSAND; that is, it remains to be seen, whether the + royalty of the barricades intends to maintain itself by the people, or + without the people, and whether Louis Philippe wishes his reign to be the + most famous in all history. + </p> + <p> + I have made this statement as brief, but at the same time as accurate as I + could, neglecting facts and details, that I might give the more attention + to the economical relations of society. For the study of history is like + the study of the human organism; just as the latter has its system, its + organs, and its functions, which can be treated separately, so the former + has its ensemble, its instruments, and its causes. Of course I do not + pretend that the principle of property is a complete resume of all the + social forces; but, as in that wonderful machine which we call our body, + the harmony of the whole allows us to draw a general conclusion from the + consideration of a single function or organ, so, in discussing historical + causes, I have been able to reason with absolute accuracy from a single + order of facts, certain as I was of the perfect correlation which exists + between this special order and universal history. As is the property of a + nation, so is its family, its marriage, its religion, its civil and + military organization, and its legislative and judicial institutions. + History, viewed from this standpoint, is a grand and sublime psychological + study. + </p> + <p> + Well, sir, in writing against property, have I done more than quote the + language of history? I have said to modern society,—the daughter and + heiress of all preceding societies,—<i>Age guod agis:</i> complete + the task which for six thousand years you have been executing under the + inspiration and by the command of God; hasten to finish your journey; turn + neither to the right nor the left, but follow the road which lies before + you. You seek reason, law, unity, and discipline; but hereafter you can + find them only by stripping off the veils of your infancy, and ceasing to + follow instinct as a guide. Awaken your sleeping conscience; open your + eyes to the pure light of reflection and science; behold the phantom which + troubled your dreams, and so long kept you in a state of unutterable + anguish. Know thyself, O long-deluded society, know thy enemy!... And I + have denounced property. + </p> + <p> + We often hear the defenders of the right of domain quote in defence of + their views the testimony of nations and ages. We can judge, from what has + just been said, how far this historical argument conforms to the real + facts and the conclusions of science. + </p> + <p> + To complete this apology, I must examine the various theories. + </p> + <p> + Neither politics, nor legislation, nor history, can be explained and + understood, without a positive theory which defines their elements, and + discovers their laws; in short, without a philosophy. Now, the two + principal schools, which to this day divide the attention of the world, do + not satisfy this condition. + </p> + <p> + The first, essentially PRACTICAL in its character, confined to a statement + of facts, and buried in learning, cares very little by what laws humanity + develops itself. To it these laws are the secret of the Almighty, which no + one can fathom without a commission from on high. In applying the facts of + history to government, this school does not reason; it does not + anticipate; it makes no comparison of the past with the present, in order + to predict the future. In its opinion, the lessons of experience teach us + only to repeat old errors, and its whole philosophy consists in + perpetually retracing the tracks of antiquity, instead of going straight + ahead forever in the direction in which they point. + </p> + <p> + The second school may be called either FATALISTIC or PANTHEISTIC. To it + the movements of empires and the revolutions of humanity are the + manifestations, the incarnations, of the Almighty. The human race, + identified with the divine essence, wheels in a circle of appearances, + informations, and destructions, which necessarily excludes the idea of + absolute truth, and destroys providence and liberty. + </p> + <p> + Corresponding to these two schools of history, there are two schools of + jurisprudence, similarly opposed, and possessed of the same peculiarities. + </p> + <p> + 1. The practical and conventional school, to which the law is always a + creation of the legislator, an expression of his will, a privilege which + he condescends to grant,—in short, a gratuitous affirmation to be + regarded as judicious and legitimate, no matter what it declares. + </p> + <p> + 2. The fatalistic and pantheistic school, sometimes called the historical + school, which opposes the despotism of the first, and maintains that law, + like literature and religion, is always the expression of society,—its + manifestation, its form, the external realization of its mobile spirit and + its ever-changing inspirations. + </p> + <p> + Each of these schools, denying the absolute, rejects thereby all positive + and a priori philosophy. + </p> + <p> + Now, it is evident that the theories of these two schools, whatever view + we take of them, are utterly unsatisfactory: for, opposed, they form no + dilemma,—that is, if one is false, it does not follow that the other + is true; and, united, they do not constitute the truth, since they + disregard the absolute, without which there is no truth. They are + respectively a THESIS and an ANTITHESIS. There remains to be found, then, + a SYNTHESIS, which, predicating the absolute, justifies the will of the + legislator, explains the variations of the law, annihilates the theory of + the circular movement of humanity, and demonstrates its progress. + </p> + <p> + The legists, by the very nature of their studies and in spite of their + obstinate prejudices, have been led irresistibly to suspect that the + absolute in the science of law is not as chimerical as is commonly + supposed; and this suspicion arose from their comparison of the various + relations which legislators have been called upon to regulate. + </p> + <p> + M. Laboulaye, the laureate of the Institute, begins his "History of + Property" with these words:— + </p> + <p> + "While the law of contract, which regulates only the mutual interests of + men, has not varied for centuries (except in certain forms which relate + more to the proof than to the character of the obligation), the civil law + of property, which regulates the mutual relations of citizens, has + undergone several radical changes, and has kept pace in its variations + with all the vicissitudes of society. The law of contract, which holds + essentially to those principles of eternal justice which are engraven upon + the depths of the human heart, is the immutable element of jurisprudence, + and, in a certain sense, its philosophy. Property, on the contrary, is the + variable element of jurisprudence, its history, its policy." + </p> + <p> + Marvellous! There is in law, and consequently in politics, something + variable and something invariable. The invariable element is obligation, + the bond of justice, duty; the variable element is property,—that + is, the external form of law, the subject-matter of the contract. Whence + it follows that the law can modify, change, reform, and judge property. + Reconcile that, if you can, with the idea of an eternal, absolute, + permanent, and indefectible right. + </p> + <p> + However, M. Laboulaye is in perfect accord with himself when he adds, + "Possession of the soil rests solely upon force until society takes it in + hand, and espouses the cause of the possessor;" <a href="#linknote-62" + name="linknoteref-62" id="linknoteref-62"><small>62</small></a> and, a + little farther, "The right of property is not natural, but social. The + laws not only protect property: they give it birth," &c. Now, that + which the law has made the law can unmake; especially since, according to + M. Laboulaye,—an avowed partisan of the historical or pantheistic + school,—the law is not absolute, is not an idea, but a form. + </p> + <p> + But why is it that property is variable, and, unlike obligation, incapable + of definition and settlement? Before affirming, somewhat boldly without + doubt, that in right there are no absolute principles (the most dangerous, + most immoral, most tyrannical—in a word, most anti-social—assertion + imaginable), it was proper that the right of property should be subjected + to a thorough examination, in order to put in evidence its variable, + arbitrary, and contingent elements, and those which are eternal, + legitimate, and absolute; then, this operation performed, it became easy + to account for the laws, and to correct all the codes. + </p> + <p> + Now, this examination of property I claim to have made, and in the fullest + detail; but, either from the public's lack of interest in an unrecommended + and unattractive pamphlet, or—which is more probable—from the + weakness of exposition and want of genius which characterize the work, the + First Memoir on Property passed unnoticed; scarcely would a few + communists, having turned its leaves, deign to brand it with their + disapprobation. You alone, sir, in spite of the disfavor which I showed + for your economical predecessors in too severe a criticism of them,—you + alone have judged me justly; and although I cannot accept, at least + literally, your first judgment, yet it is to you alone that I appeal from + a decision too equivocal to be regarded as final. + </p> + <p> + It not being my intention to enter at present into a discussion of + principles, I shall content myself with estimating, from the point of view + of this simple and intelligible absolute, the theories of property which + our generation has produced. + </p> + <p> + The most exact idea of property is given us by the Roman law, faithfully + followed in this particular by the ancient legists. It is the absolute, + exclusive, autocratic domain of a man over a thing,—a domain which + begins by USUCAPTION, is maintained by POSSESSION, and finally, by the aid + of PRESCRIPTION, finds its sanction in the civil law; a domain which so + identifies the man with the thing, that the proprietor can say, "He who + uses my field, virtually compels me to labor for him; therefore he owes me + compensation." + </p> + <p> + I pass in silence the secondary modes by which property can be acquired,—<i>tradition, + sale, exchange, inheritance</i>, &c.,—which have nothing in + common with the origin of property. + </p> + <p> + Accordingly, Pothier said THE DOMAIN OF PROPERTY, and not simply PROPERTY. + And the most learned writers on jurisprudence—in imitation of the + Roman praetor who recognized a RIGHT OF PROPERTY and a RIGHT OF POSSESSION—have + carefully distinguished between the DOMAIN and the right of USUFRUCT, USE, + and HABITATION, which, reduced to its natural limits, is the very + expression of justice; and which is, in my opinion, to supplant domanial + property, and finally form the basis of all jurisprudence. + </p> + <p> + But, sir, admire the clumsiness of systems, or rather the fatality of + logic! While the Roman law and all the savants inspired by it teach that + property in its origin is the right of first occupancy sanctioned by law, + the modern legists, dissatisfied with this brutal definition, claim that + property is based upon LABOR. Immediately they infer that he who no longer + labors, but makes another labor in his stead, loses his right to the + earnings of the latter. It is by virtue of this principle that the serfs + of the middle ages claimed a legal right to property, and consequently to + the enjoyment of political rights; that the clergy were despoiled in '89 + of their immense estates, and were granted a pension in exchange; that at + the restoration the liberal deputies opposed the indemnity of one billion + francs. "The nation," said they, "has acquired by twenty-five years of + labor and possession the property which the emigrants forfeited by + abandonment and long idleness: why should the nobles be treated with more + favor than the priests?" <a href="#linknote-63" name="linknoteref-63" + id="linknoteref-63"><small>63</small></a> + </p> + <p> + This position is quite in harmony with my principles, and I heartily + applaud the indignation of M. Lerminier; but I do not know that a + proprietor was ever deprived of his property because UNWORTHY; and as + reasonable, social, and even useful as the thing may seem, it is quite + contrary to the uses and customs of property. + </p> + <p> + All usurpations, not born of war, have been caused and supported by labor. + All modern history proves this, from the end of the Roman empire down to + the present day. And as if to give a sort of legal sanction to these + usurpations, the doctrine of labor, subversive of property, is professed + at great length in the Roman law under the name of PRESCRIPTION. + </p> + <p> + The man who cultivates, it has been said, makes the land his own; + consequently, no more property. This was clearly seen by the old jurists, + who have not failed to denounce this novelty; while on the other hand the + young school hoots at the absurdity of the first-occupant theory. Others + have presented themselves, pretending to reconcile the two opinions by + uniting them. They have failed, like all the <i>juste-milieux</i> of the + world, and are laughed at for their eclecticism. At present, the alarm is + in the camp of the old doctrine; from all sides pour IN DEFENCES OF + PROPERTY, STUDIES REGARDING PROPERTY, THEORIES OF PROPERTY, each one of + which, giving the lie to the rest, inflicts a fresh wound upon property. + </p> + <p> + Consider, indeed, the inextricable embarrassments, the contradictions, the + absurdities, the incredible nonsense, in which the bold defenders of + property so lightly involve themselves. I choose the eclectics, because, + those killed, the others cannot survive. + </p> + <p> + M. Troplong, jurist, passes for a philosopher in the eyes of the editors + of "Le Droit." I tell the gentlemen of "Le Droit" that, in the judgment of + philosophers, M. Troplong is only an advocate; and I prove my assertion. + </p> + <p> + M. Troplong is a defender of progress. "The words of the code," says he, + "are fruitful sap with which the classic works of the eighteenth century + overflow. To wish to suppress them... is to violate the law of progress, + and to forget that a science which moves is a science which grows." <a + href="#linknote-64" name="linknoteref-64" id="linknoteref-64"><small>64</small></a> + </p> + <p> + Now, the only mutable and progressive portion of law, as we have already + seen, is that which concerns property. If, then, you ask what reforms are + to be introduced into the right of property? M. Troplong makes no reply; + what progress is to be hoped for? no reply; what is to be the destiny of + property in case of universal association? no reply; what is the absolute + and what the contingent, what the true and what the false, in property? no + reply. M. Troplong favors quiescence and <i>in statu quo</i> in regard to + property. What could be more unphilosophical in a progressive philosopher? + </p> + <p> + Nevertheless, M. Troplong has thought about these things. "There are," he + says, "many weak points and antiquated ideas in the doctrines of modern + authors concerning property: witness the works of MM. Toullier and + Duranton." The doctrine of M. Troplong promises, then, strong points, + advanced and progressive ideas. Let us see; let us examine:— + </p> + <p> + "Man, placed in the presence of matter, is conscious of a power over it, + which has been given to him to satisfy the needs of his being. King of + inanimate or unintelligent nature, he feels that he has a right to modify + it, govern it, and fit it for his use. There it is, the subject of + property, which is legitimate only when exercised over things, never when + over persons." + </p> + <p> + M. Troplong is so little of a philosopher, that he does not even know the + import of the philosophical terms which he makes a show of using. He says + of matter that it is the SUBJECT of property; he should have said the + OBJECT. M. Troplong uses the language of the anatomists, who apply the + term SUBJECT to the human matter used in their experiments. + </p> + <p> + This error of our author is repeated farther on: "Liberty, which overcomes + matter, the subject of property, &c." The SUBJECT of property is man; + its OBJECT is matter. But even this is but a slight mortification; + directly we shall have some crucifixions. + </p> + <p> + Thus, according to the passage just quoted, it is in the conscience and + personality of man that the principle of property must be sought. Is there + any thing new in this doctrine? Apparently it never has occurred to those + who, since the days of Cicero and Aristotle, and earlier, have maintained + that THINGS BELONG TO THE FIRST OCCUPANT, that occupation may be exercised + by beings devoid of conscience and personality. The human personality, + though it may be the principle or the subject of property, as matter is + the object, is not the CONDITION. Now, it is this condition which we most + need to know. So far, M. Troplong tells us no more than his masters, and + the figures with which he adorns his style add nothing to the old idea. + </p> + <p> + Property, then, implies three terms: The subject, the object, and the + condition. There is no difficulty in regard to the first two terms. As to + the third, the condition of property down to this day, for the Greek as + for the Barbarian, has been that of first occupancy. What now would you + have it, progressive doctor? + </p> + <p> + "When man lays hands for the first time upon an object without a master, + he performs an act which, among individuals, is of the greatest + importance. The thing thus seized and occupied participates, so to speak, + in the personality of him who holds it. It becomes sacred, like himself. + It is impossible to take it without doing violence to his liberty, or to + remove it without rashly invading his person. Diogenes did but express + this truth of intuition, when he said: 'Stand out of my light!'" + </p> + <p> + Very good! but would the prince of cynics, the very personal and very + haughty Diogenes, have had the right to charge another cynic, as rent for + this same place in the sunshine, a bone for twenty-four hours of + possession? It is that which constitutes the proprietor; it is that which + you fail to justify. In reasoning from the human personality and + individuality to the right of property, you unconsciously construct a + syllogism in which the conclusion includes more than the premises, + contrary to the rules laid down by Aristotle. The individuality of the + human person proves INDIVIDUAL POSSESSION, originally called <i>proprietas</i>, + in opposition to collective possession, <i>communio</i>. + </p> + <p> + It gives birth to the distinction between THINE and MINE, true signs of + equality, not, by any means, of subordination. "From equivocation to + equivocation," says M. Michelet, <a href="#linknote-65" + name="linknoteref-65" id="linknoteref-65"><small>65</small></a> "property + would crawl to the end of the world; man could not limit it, were not he + himself its limit. Where they clash, there will be its frontier." In + short, individuality of being destroys the hypothesis of communism, but it + does not for that reason give birth to domain,—that domain by virtue + of which the holder of a thing exercises over the person who takes his + place a right of prestation and suzerainty, that has always been + identified with property itself. + </p> + <p> + Further, that he whose legitimately acquired possession injures nobody + cannot be nonsuited without flagrant injustice, is a truth, not of + INTUITION, as M. Troplong says, but of INWARD SENSATION, <a + href="#linknote-66" name="linknoteref-66" id="linknoteref-66"><small>66</small></a> + which has nothing to do with property. + </p> + <p> + M. Troplong admits, then, occupancy as a condition of property. In that, + he is in accord with the Roman law, in accord with MM. Toullier and + Duranton; but in his opinion this condition is not the only one, and it is + in this particular that his doctrine goes beyond theirs. + </p> + <p> + "But, however exclusive the right arising from sole occupancy, does it not + become still more so, when man has moulded matter by his labor; when he + has deposited in it a portion of himself, re-creating it by his industry, + and setting upon it the seal of his intelligence and activity? Of all + conquests, that is the most legitimate, for it is the price of labor. + </p> + <p> + "He who should deprive a man of the thing thus remodelled, thus humanized, + would invade the man himself, and would inflict the deepest wounds upon + his liberty." + </p> + <p> + I pass over the very beautiful explanations in which M. Troplong, + discussing labor and industry, displays the whole wealth of his eloquence. + M. Troplong is not only a philosopher, he is an orator, an artist. HE + ABOUNDS WITH APPEALS TO THE CONSCIENCE AND THE PASSIONS. I might make sad + work of his rhetoric, should I undertake to dissect it; but I confine + myself for the present to his philosophy. + </p> + <p> + If M. Troplong had only known how to think and reflect, before abandoning + the original fact of occupancy and plunging into the theory of labor, he + would have asked himself: "What is it to occupy?" And he would have + discovered that OCCUPANCY is only a generic term by which all modes of + possession are expressed,—seizure, station, immanence, habitation, + cultivation, use, consumption, &c.; that labor, consequently, is but + one of a thousand forms of occupancy. He would have understood, finally, + that the right of possession which is born of labor is governed by the + same general laws as that which results from the simple seizure of things. + What kind of a legist is he who declaims when he ought to reason, who + continually mistakes his metaphors for legal axioms, and who does not so + much as know how to obtain a universal by induction, and form a category? + </p> + <p> + If labor is identical with occupancy, the only benefit which it secures to + the laborer is the right of individual possession of the object of his + labor; if it differs from occupancy, it gives birth to a right equal only + to itself,—that is, a right which begins, continues, and ends, with + the labor of the occupant. It is for this reason, in the words of the law, + that one cannot acquire a just title to a thing by labor alone. He must + also hold it for a year and a day, in order to be regarded as its + possessor; and possess it twenty or thirty years, in order to become its + proprietor. + </p> + <p> + These preliminaries established, M. Troplong's whole structure falls of + its own weight, and the inferences, which he attempts to draw, vanish. + </p> + <p> + "Property once acquired by occupation and labor, it naturally preserves + itself, not only by the same means, but also by the refusal of the holder + to abdicate; for from the very fact that it has risen to the height of a + right, it is its nature to perpetuate itself and to last for an indefinite + period.... Rights, considered from an ideal point of view, are + imperishable and eternal; and time, which affects only the contingent, can + no more disturb them than it can injure God himself." It is astonishing + that our author, in speaking of the IDEAL, TIME, and ETERNITY, did not + work into his sentence the DIVINE WINGS of Plato,—so fashionable + to-day in philosophical works. + </p> + <p> + With the exception of falsehood, I hate nonsense more than any thing else + in the world. PROPERTY ONCE ACQUIRED! Good, if it is acquired; but, as it + is not acquired, it cannot be preserved. RIGHTS ARE ETERNAL! Yes, in the + sight of God, like the archetypal ideas of the Platonists. But, on the + earth, rights exist only in the presence of a subject, an object, and a + condition. Take away one of these three things, and rights no longer + exist. Thus, individual possession ceases at the death of the subject, + upon the destruction of the object, or in case of exchange or abandonment. + </p> + <p> + Let us admit, however, with M. Troplong, that property is an absolute and + eternal right, which cannot be destroyed save by the deed and at the will + of the proprietor. What are the consequences which immediately follow from + this position? + </p> + <p> + To show the justice and utility of prescription, M. Troplong supposes the + case of a bona fide possessor whom a proprietor, long since forgotten or + even unknown, is attempting to eject from his possession. "At the start, + the error of the possessor was excusable but not irreparable. Pursuing its + course and growing old by degrees, it has so completely clothed itself in + the colors of truth, it has spoken so loudly the language of right, it has + involved so many confiding interests, that it fairly may be asked whether + it would not cause greater confusion to go back to the reality than to + sanction the fictions which it (an error, without doubt) has sown on its + way? Well, yes; it must be confessed, without hesitation, that the remedy + would prove worse than the disease, and that its application would lead to + the most outrageous injustice." + </p> + <p> + How long since utility became a principle of law? When the Athenians, by + the advice of Aristides, rejected a proposition eminently advantageous to + their republic, but also utterly unjust, they showed finer moral + perception and greater clearness of intellect than M. Troplong. Property + is an eternal right, independent of time, indestructible except by the act + and at the will of the proprietor; and here this right is taken from the + proprietor, and on what ground? Good God! on the ground of ABSENCE! Is it + not true that legists are governed by caprice in giving and taking away + rights? When it pleases these gentlemen, idleness, unworthiness, or + absence can invalidate a right which, under quite similar circumstances, + labor, residence, and virtue are inadequate to obtain. Do not be + astonished that legists reject the absolute. Their good pleasure is law, + and their disordered imaginations are the real cause of the EVOLUTIONS in + jurisprudence. + </p> + <p> + "If the nominal proprietor should plead ignorance, his claim would be none + the more valid. Indeed, his ignorance might arise from inexcusable + carelessness, etc." + </p> + <p> + What! in order to legitimate dispossession through prescription, you + suppose faults in the proprietor! You blame his absence,—which may + have been involuntary; his neglect,—not knowing what caused it; his + carelessness,—a gratuitous supposition of your own! It is absurd. + One very simple observation suffices to annihilate this theory. Society, + which, they tell us, makes an exception in the interest of order in favor + of the possessor as against the old proprietor, owes the latter an + indemnity; since the privilege of prescription is nothing but + expropriation for the sake of public utility. + </p> + <p> + But here is something stronger:— + </p> + <p> + "In society a place cannot remain vacant with impunity. A new man arises + in place of the old one who disappears or goes away; he brings here his + existence, becomes entirely absorbed, and devotes himself to this post + which he finds abandoned. Shall the deserter, then, dispute the honor of + the victory with the soldier who fights with the sweat standing on his + brow, and bears the burden of the day, in behalf of a cause which he deems + just?" + </p> + <p> + When the tongue of an advocate once gets in motion, who can tell where it + will stop? M. Troplong admits and justifies usurpation in case of the + ABSENCE of the proprietor, and on a mere presumption of his CARELESSNESS. + But when the neglect is authenticated; when the abandonment is solemnly + and voluntarily set forth in a contract in the presence of a magistrate; + when the proprietor dares to say, "I cease to labor, but I still claim a + share of the product,"—then the absentee's right of property is + protected; the usurpation of the possessor would be criminal; farm-rent is + the reward of idleness. Where is, I do not say the consistency, but, the + honesty of this law? + </p> + <p> + Prescription is a result of the civil law, a creation of the legislator. + Why has not the legislator fixed the conditions differently?—why, + instead of twenty and thirty years, is not a single year sufficient to + prescribe?—why are not voluntary absence and confessed idleness as + good grounds for dispossession as involuntary absence, ignorance, or + apathy? + </p> + <p> + But in vain should we ask M. Troplong, the philosopher, to tell us the + ground of prescription. Concerning the code, M. Troplong does not reason. + "The interpreter," he says, "must take things as they are, society as it + exists, laws as they are made: that is the only sensible starting-point." + Well, then, write no more books; cease to reproach your predecessors—who, + like you, have aimed only at interpretation of the law—for having + remained in the rear; talk no more of philosophy and progress, for the lie + sticks in your throat. + </p> + <p> + M. Troplong denies the reality of the right of possession; he denies that + possession has ever existed as a principle of society; and he quotes M. de + Savigny, who holds precisely the opposite position, and whom he is content + to leave unanswered. At one time, M. Troplong asserts that possession and + property are CONTEMPORANEOUS, and that they exist AT THE SAME TIME, which + implies that the RIGHT of property is based on the FACT of possession,—a + conclusion which is evidently absurd; at another, he denies that + possession HAD ANY HISTORICAL EXISTENCE PRIOR TO PROPERTY,—an + assertion which is contradicted by the customs of many nations which + cultivate the land without appropriating it; by the Roman law, which + distinguished so clearly between POSSESSION and PROPERTY; and by our code + itself, which makes possession for twenty or thirty years the condition of + property. Finally, M. Troplong goes so far as to maintain that the Roman + maxim, <i>Nihil comune habet proprietas cum possessione</i>—which + contains so striking an allusion to the possession of the <i>ager publicus</i>, + and which, sooner or later, will be again accepted without qualification—expresses + in French law only a judicial axiom, a simple rule forbidding the union of + an <i>action possessoire</i> with an <i>action petitoire</i>,—an + opinion as retrogressive as it is unphilosophical. + </p> + <p> + In treating of <i>actions possessoires</i>, M. Troplong is so unfortunate + or awkward that he mutilates economy through failure to grasp its meaning + "Just as property," he writes, "gave rise to the action for revendication, + so possession—the <i>jus possessionis</i>—was the cause of + possessory interdicts.... There were two kinds of interdicts,—the + interdict <i>recuperandae possessionis</i>, and the interdict <i>retinendae + possessionis</i>,—which correspond to our <i>complainte en cas de + saisine et nouvelete</i>. There is also a third,—<i>adipiscendae + possessionis</i>,—of which the Roman law-books speak in connection + with the two others. But, in reality, this interdict is not possessory: + for he who wishes to acquire possession by this means does not possess, + and has not possessed; and yet acquired possession is the condition of + possessory interdicts." Why is not an action to acquire possession equally + conceivable with an action to be reinstated in possession? When the Roman + plebeians demanded a division of the conquered territory; when the + proletaires of Lyons took for their motto, <i>Vivre en travaillant, ou + mourir en combattant</i> (to live working, or die fighting); when the most + enlightened of the modern economists claim for every man the right to + labor and to live,—they only propose this interdict, <i>adipiscendae + possessionis</i>, which embarrasses M. Troplong so seriously. And what is + my object in pleading against property, if not to obtain possession? How + is it that M. Troplong—the legist, the orator, the philosopher—does + not see that logically this interdict must be admitted, since it is the + necessary complement of the two others, and the three united form an + indivisible trinity,—to RECOVER, to MAINTAIN, to ACQUIRE? To break + this series is to create a blank, destroy the natural synthesis of things, + and follow the example of the geometrician who tried to conceive of a + solid with only two dimensions. But it is not astonishing that M. Troplong + rejects the third class of <i>actions possessoires</i>, when we consider + that he rejects possession itself. He is so completely controlled by his + prejudices in this respect, that he is unconsciously led, not to unite + (that would be horrible in his eyes), but to identify the <i>action + possessoire</i> with the <i>action petitoire</i>. This could be easily + proved, were it not too tedious to plunge into these metaphysical + obscurities. + </p> + <p> + As an interpreter of the law, M. Troplong is no more successful than as a + philosopher. One specimen of his skill in this direction, and I am done + with him:— + </p> + <p> + Code of Civil Procedure, Art. 23: "<i>Actions possessoires</i> are only + when commenced within the year of trouble by those who have held + possession for at least a year by an irrevocable title." + </p> + <p> + M. Troplong's comments:— + </p> + <p> + "Ought we to maintain—as Duparc, Poullain, and Lanjuinais would have + us—the rule <i>spoliatus ante omnia restituendus</i>, when an + individual, who is neither proprietor nor annual possessor, is expelled by + a third party, who has no right to the estate? I think not. Art. 23 of the + Code is general: it absolutely requires that the plaintiff in <i>actions + possessoires</i> shall have been in peaceable possession for a year at + least. That is the invariable principle: it can in no case be modified. + And why should it be set aside? The plaintiff had no seisin; he had no + privileged possession; he had only a temporary occupancy, insufficient to + warrant in his favor the presumption of property, which renders the annual + possession so valuable. Well! this <i>ae facto</i> occupancy he has lost; + another is invested with it: possession is in the hands of this new-comer. + Now, is not this a case for the application of the principle, <i>In</i> <i>pari + causa possesser potior habetur</i>? Should not the actual possessor be + preferred to the evicted possessor? Can he not meet the complaint of his + adversary by saying to him: 'Prove that you were an annual possessor + before me, for you are the plaintiff. As far as I am concerned, it is not + for me to tell you how I possess, nor how long I have possessed. <i>Possideo + quia possideo</i>. I have no other reply, no other defence. When you have + shown that your action is admissible, then we will see whether you are + entitled to lift the veil which hides the origin of my possession.'" + </p> + <p> + And this is what is honored with the name of jurisprudence and philosophy,—the + restoration of force. What! when I have "moulded matter by my labor" [I + quote M. Troplong]; when I have "deposited in it a portion of myself" [M. + Troplong]; when I have "re-created it by my industry, and set upon it the + seal of my intelligence" [M. Troplong],—on the ground that I have + not possessed it for a year, a stranger may dispossess me, and the law + offers me no protection! And if M. Troplong is my judge, M. Troplong will + condemn me! And if I resist my adversary,—if, for this bit of mud + which I may call MY FIELD, and of which they wish to rob me, a war breaks + out between the two competitors,—the legislator will gravely wait + until the stronger, having killed the other, has had possession for a + year! No, no, Monsieur Troplong! you do not understand the words of the + law; for I prefer to call in question your intelligence rather than the + justice of the legislator. You are mistaken in your application of the + principle, <i>In pari causa possessor potior habetur:</i> the actuality of + possession here refers to him who possessed at the time when the + difficulty arose, not to him who possesses at the time of the complaint. + And when the code prohibits the reception of <i>actions possessoires</i>, + in cases where the possession is not of a year's duration, it simply means + that if, before a year has elapsed, the holder relinquishes possession, + and ceases actually to occupy <i>in propria persona</i>, he cannot avail + himself of an <i>action possessoire</i> against his successor. In a word, + the code treats possession of less than a year as it ought to treat all + possession, however long it has existed,—that is, the condition of + property ought to be, not merely seisin for a year, but perpetual seisin. + </p> + <p> + I will not pursue this analysis farther. When an author bases two volumes + of quibbles on foundations so uncertain, it may be boldly declared that + his work, whatever the amount of learning displayed in it, is a mess of + nonsense unworthy a critic's attention. + </p> + <p> + At this point, sir, I seem to hear you reproaching me for this conceited + dogmatism, this lawless arrogance, which respects nothing, claims a + monopoly of justice and good sense, and assumes to put in the pillory any + one who dares to maintain an opinion contrary to its own. This fault, they + tell me, more odious than any other in an author, was too prominent a + characteristic of my First Memoir, and I should do well to correct it. + </p> + <p> + It is important to the success of my defence, that I should vindicate + myself from this reproach; and since, while perceiving in myself other + faults of a different character, I still adhere in this particular to my + disputatious style, it is right that I should give my reasons for my + conduct. I act, not from inclination, but from necessity. + </p> + <p> + I say, then, that I treat my authors as I do for two reasons: a REASON OF + RIGHT, and a REASON OF INTENTION; both peremptory. + </p> + <p> + 1. Reason of right. When I preach equality of fortunes, I do not advance + an opinion more or less probable, a utopia more or less ingenious, an idea + conceived within my brain by means of imagination only. I lay down an + absolute truth, concerning which hesitation is impossible, modesty + superfluous, and doubt ridiculous. + </p> + <p> + But, do you ask, what assures me that that which I utter is true? + </p> + <p> + What assures me, sir? The logical and metaphysical processes which I use, + the correctness of which I have demonstrated by a priori reasoning; the + fact that I possess an infallible method of investigation and verification + with which my authors are unacquainted; and finally, the fact that for all + matters relating to property and justice I have found a formula which + explains all legislative variations, and furnishes a key for all problems. + Now, is there so much as a shadow of method in M. Toullier, M. Troplong, + and this swarm of insipid commentators, almost as devoid of reason and + moral sense as the code itself? Do you give the name of method to an + alphabetical, chronological, analogical, or merely nominal classification + of subjects? Do you give the name of method to these lists of paragraphs + gathered under an arbitrary head, these sophistical vagaries, this mass of + contradictory quotations and opinions, this nauseous style, this spasmodic + rhetoric, models of which are so common at the bar, though seldom found + elsewhere? Do you take for philosophy this twaddle, this intolerable + pettifoggery adorned with a few scholastic trimmings? No, no! a writer who + respects himself, never will consent to enter the balance with these + manipulators of law, misnamed JURISTS; and for my part I object to a + comparison. + </p> + <p> + 2. Reason of intention. As far as I am permitted to divulge this secret, I + am a conspirator in an immense revolution, terrible to charlatans and + despots, to all exploiters of the poor and credulous, to all salaried + idlers, dealers in political panaceas and parables, tyrants in a word of + thought and of opinion. I labor to stir up the reason of individuals to + insurrection against the reason of authorities. + </p> + <p> + According to the laws of the society of which I am a member, all the evils + which afflict humanity arise from faith in external teachings and + submission to authority. And not to go outside of our own century, is it + not true, for instance, that France is plundered, scoffed at, and + tyrannized over, because she speaks in masses, and not by heads? The + French people are penned up in three or four flocks, receiving their + signal from a chief, responding to the voice of a leader, and thinking + just as he says. A certain journal, it is said, has fifty thousand + subscribers; assuming six readers to every subscriber, we have three + hundred thousand sheep browsing and bleating at the same cratch. Apply + this calculation to the whole periodical press, and you find that, in our + free and intelligent France, there are two millions of creatures receiving + every morning from the journals spiritual pasturage. Two millions! In + other words, the entire nation allows a score of little fellows to lead it + by the nose. + </p> + <p> + By no means, sir, do I deny to journalists talent, science, love of truth, + patriotism, and what you please. They are very worthy and intelligent + people, whom I undoubtedly should wish to resemble, had I the honor to + know them. That of which I complain, and that which has made me a + conspirator, is that, instead of enlightening us, these gentlemen command + us, impose upon us articles of faith, and that without demonstration or + verification. When, for example, I ask why these fortifications of Paris, + which, in former times, under the influence of certain prejudices, and by + means of a concurrence of extraordinary circumstances supposed for the + sake of the argument to have existed, may perhaps have served to protect + us, but which it is doubtful whether our descendants will ever use,—when + I ask, I say, on what grounds they assimilate the future to a hypothetical + past, they reply that M. Thiers, who has a great mind, has written upon + this subject a report of admirable elegance and marvellous clearness. At + this I become angry, and reply that M. Thiers does not know what he is + talking about. Why, having wanted no detached forts seven years ago, do we + want them to-day? + </p> + <p> + "Oh! damn it," they say, "the difference is great; the first forts were + too near to us; with these we cannot be bombarded." You cannot be + bombarded; but you can be blockaded, and will be, if you stir. What! to + obtain blockade forts from the Parisians, it has sufficed to prejudice + them against bombardment forts! And they thought to outwit the government! + Oh, the sovereignty of the people!... + </p> + <p> + "Damn it! M. Thiers, who is wiser than you, says that it would be absurd + to suppose a government making war upon citizens, and maintaining itself + by force and in spite of the will of the people. That would be absurd!" + Perhaps so: such a thing has happened more than once, and may happen + again. Besides, when despotism is strong, it appears almost legitimate. + However that may be, they lied in 1833, and they lie again in 1841,—those + who threaten us with the bomb-shell. And then, if M. Thiers is so well + assured of the intentions of the government, why does he not wish the + forts to be built before the circuit is extended? Why this air of + suspicion of the government, unless an intrigue has been planned between + the government and M. Thiers? + </p> + <p> + "Damn it! we do not wish to be again invaded. If Paris had been fortified + in 1815, Napoleon would not have been conquered!" But I tell you that + Napoleon was not conquered, but sold; and that if, in 1815, Paris had had + fortifications, it would have been with them as with the thirty thousand + men of Grouchy, who were misled during the battle. It is still easier to + surrender forts than to lead soldiers. Would the selfish and the cowardly + ever lack reasons for yielding to the enemy? + </p> + <p> + "But do you not see that the absolutist courts are provoked at our + fortifications?—a proof that they do not think as you do." You + believe that; and, for my part, I believe that in reality they are quite + at ease about the matter; and, if they appear to tease our ministers, they + do so only to give the latter an opportunity to decline. The absolutist + courts are always on better terms with our constitutional monarchy, than + our monarchy with us. Does not M. Guizot say that France needs to be + defended within as well as without? Within! against whom? Against France. + O Parisians! it is but six months since you demanded war, and now you want + only barricades. Why should the allies fear your doctrines, when you + cannot even control yourselves?... How could you sustain a siege, when you + weep over the absence of an actress? + </p> + <p> + "But, finally, do you not understand that, by the rules of modern warfare, + the capital of a country is always the objective point of its assailants? + Suppose our army defeated on the Rhine, France invaded, and defenceless + Paris falling into the hands of the enemy. It would be the death of the + administrative power; without a head it could not live. The capital taken, + the nation must submit. What do you say to that?" + </p> + <p> + The reply is very simple. Why is society constituted in such a way that + the destiny of the country depends upon the safety of the capital? Why, in + case our territory be invaded and Paris besieged, cannot the legislative, + executive, and military powers act outside of Paris? Why this localization + of all the vital forces of France?... Do not cry out upon + decentralization. This hackneyed reproach would discredit only your own + intelligence and sincerity. It is not a question of decentralization; it + is your political fetichism which I attack. Why should the national unity + be attached to a certain place, to certain functionaries, to certain + bayonets? Why should the Place Maubert and the Palace of the Tuileries be + the palladium of France? + </p> + <p> + Now let me make an hypothesis. + </p> + <p> + Suppose it were written in the charter, "In case the country be again + invaded, and Paris forced to surrender, the government being annihilated + and the national assembly dissolved, the electoral colleges shall + reassemble spontaneously and without other official notice, for the + purpose of appointing new deputies, who shall organize a provisional + government at Orleans. + </p> + <p> + "If Orleans succumbs, the government shall reconstruct itself in the same + way at Lyons; then at Bordeaux, then at Bayonne, until all France be + captured or the enemy driven from the land. For the government may perish, + but the nation never dies. The king, the peers, and the deputies + massacred, VIVE LA FRANCE!" + </p> + <p> + Do you not think that such an addition to the charter would be a better + safeguard for the liberty and integrity of the country than walls and + bastions around Paris? Well, then! do henceforth for administration, + industry, science, literature, and art that which the charter ought to + prescribe for the central government and common defence. Instead of + endeavoring to render Paris impregnable, try rather to render the loss of + Paris an insignificant matter. Instead of accumulating about one point + academies, faculties, schools, and political, administrative, and judicial + centres; instead of arresting intellectual development and weakening + public spirit in the provinces by this fatal agglomeration,—can you + not, without destroying unity, distribute social functions among places as + well as among persons? Such a system—in allowing each province to + participate in political power and action, and in balancing industry, + intelligence, and strength in all parts of the country—would equally + secure, against enemies at home and enemies abroad, the liberty of the + people and the stability of the government. + </p> + <p> + Discriminate, then, between the centralization of functions and the + concentration of organs; between political unity and its material symbol. + </p> + <p> + "Oh! that is plausible; but it is impossible!"—which means that the + city of Paris does not intend to surrender its privileges, and that there + it is still a question of property. + </p> + <p> + Idle talk! The country, in a state of panic which has been cleverly worked + upon, has asked for fortifications. I dare to affirm that it has abdicated + its sovereignty. All parties are to blame for this suicide,—the + conservatives, by their acquiescence in the plans of the government; the + friends of the dynasty, because they wish no opposition to that which + pleases them, and because a popular revolution would annihilate them; the + democrats, because they hope to rule in their turn. <a href="#linknote-67" + name="linknoteref-67" id="linknoteref-67"><small>67</small></a> That which + all rejoice at having obtained is a means of future repression. As for the + defence of the country, they are not troubled about that. The idea of + tyranny dwells in the minds of all, and brings together into one + conspiracy all forms of selfishness. We wish the regeneration of society, + but we subordinate this desire to our ideas and convenience. That our + approaching marriage may take place, that our business may succeed, that + our opinions may triumph, we postpone reform. Intolerance and selfishness + lead us to put fetters upon liberty; and, because we cannot wish all that + God wishes, we would, if it rested with us, stay the course of destiny + rather than sacrifice our own interests and self-love. Is not this an + instance where the words of Solomon apply,—"<i>L'iniquite a menti a + elle-meme</i>"? + </p> + <p> + It is said that on this question of the fortification of Paris the staff + of "Le National" are not agreed. This would prove, if proof were needed, + that a journal may blunder and falsify, without entitling any one to + accuse its editors. A journal is a metaphysical being, for which no one is + really responsible, and which owes its existence solely to mutual + concessions. This idea ought to frighten those worthy citizens who, + because they borrow their opinions from a journal, imagine that they + belong to a political party, and who have not the faintest suspicion that + they are really without a head. + </p> + <p> + For this reason, sir, I have enlisted in a desperate war against every + form of authority over the multitude. Advance sentinel of the proletariat, + I cross bayonets with the celebrities of the day, as well as with spies + and charlatans. Well, when I am fighting with an illustrious adversary, + must I stop at the end of every phrase, like an orator in the tribune, to + say "the learned author," "the eloquent writer," "the profound publicist," + and a hundred other platitudes with which it is fashionable to mock + people? These civilities seem to me no less insulting to the man attacked + than dishonorable to the aggressor. But when, rebuking an author, I say to + him, "Citizen, your doctrine is absurd, and, if to prove my assertion is + an offence against you, I am guilty of it," immediately the listener opens + his ears; he is all attention; and, if I do not succeed in convincing him, + at least I give his thought an impulse, and set him the wholesome example + of doubt and free examination. + </p> + <p> + Then do not think, sir, that, in tripping up the philosophy of your very + learned and very estimable confrere, M. Troplong, I fail to appreciate his + talent as a writer (in my opinion, he has too much for a jurist); nor his + knowledge, though it is too closely confined to the letter of the law, and + the reading of old books. In these particulars, M. Troplong offends on the + side of excess rather than deficiency. Further, do not believe that I am + actuated by any personal animosity towards him, or that I have the + slightest desire to wound his self-love. I know M. Troplong only by his + "Treatise on Prescription," which I wish he had not written; and as for my + critics, neither M. Troplong, nor any of those whose opinion I value, will + ever read me. Once more, my only object is to prove, as far as I am able, + to this unhappy French nation, that those who make the laws, as well as + those who interpret them, are not infallible organs of general, + impersonal, and absolute reason. + </p> + <p> + I had resolved to submit to a systematic criticism the semi-official + defence of the right of property recently put forth by M. Wolowski, your + colleague at the Conservatory. With this view, I had commenced to collect + the documents necessary for each of his lectures, but, soon perceiving + that the ideas of the professor were incoherent, that his arguments + contradicted each other, that one affirmation was sure to be overthrown by + another, and that in M. Wolowski's lucubrations the good was always + mingled with the bad, and being by nature a little suspicious, it suddenly + occurred to me that M. Wolowski was an advocate of equality in disguise, + thrown in spite of himself into the position in which the patriarch Jacob + pictures one of his sons,—<i>inter duas clitellas</i>, between two + stools, as the proverb says. In more parliamentary language, I saw clearly + that M. Wolowski was placed between his profound convictions on the one + hand and his official duties on the other, and that, in order to maintain + his position, he had to assume a certain slant. Then I experienced great + pain at seeing the reserve, the circumlocution, the figures, and the irony + to which a professor of legislation, whose duty it is to teach dogmas with + clearness and precision, was forced to resort; and I fell to cursing the + society in which an honest man is not allowed to say frankly what he + thinks. Never, sir, have you conceived of such torture: I seemed to be + witnessing the martyrdom of a mind. I am going to give you an idea of + these astonishing meetings, or rather of these scenes of sorrow. + </p> + <p> + Monday, Nov. 20, 1840.—The professor declares, in brief,—1. + That the right of property is not founded upon occupation, but upon the + impress of man; 2. That every man has a natural and inalienable right to + the use of matter. + </p> + <p> + Now, if matter can be appropriated, and if, notwithstanding, all men + retain an inalienable right to the use of this matter, what is property?—and + if matter can be appropriated only by labor, how long is this + appropriation to continue?—questions that will confuse and confound + all jurists whatsoever. + </p> + <p> + Then M. Wolowski cites his authorities. Great God! what witnesses he + brings forward! First, M. Troplong, the great metaphysician, whom we have + discussed; then, M. Louis Blanc, editor of the "Revue du Progres," who + came near being tried by jury for publishing his "Organization of Labor," + and who escaped from the clutches of the public prosecutor only by a + juggler's trick; <a href="#linknote-68" name="linknoteref-68" + id="linknoteref-68"><small>68</small></a> Corinne,—I mean Madame de + Stael,—who, in an ode, making a poetical comparison of the land with + the waves, of the furrow of a plough with the wake of a vessel, says "that + property exists only where man has left his trace," which makes property + dependent upon the solidity of the elements; Rousseau, the apostle of + liberty and equality, but who, according to M. Wolowski, attacked property + only AS A JOKE, and in order to point a paradox; Robespierre, who + prohibited a division of the land, because he regarded such a measure as a + rejuvenescence of property, and who, while awaiting the definitive + organization of the republic, placed all property in the care?? of the + people,—that is, transferred the right of eminent domain from the + individual to society; Babeuf, who wanted property for the nation, and + communism for the citizens; M. Considerant, who favors a division of + landed property into shares,—that is, who wishes to render property + nominal and fictitious: the whole being intermingled with jokes and + witticisms (intended undoubtedly to lead people away from the HORNETS' + NESTS) at the expense of the adversaries of the right of property! + </p> + <p> + November 26.—M. Wolowski supposes this objection: Land, like water, + air, and light, is necessary to life, therefore it cannot be appropriated; + and he replies: The importance of landed property diminishes as the power + of industry increases. + </p> + <p> + Good! this importance DIMINISHES, but it does not DISAPPEAR; and this, of + itself, shows landed property to be illegitimate. Here M. Wolowski + pretends to think that the opponents of property refer only to property in + land, while they merely take it as a term of comparison; and, in showing + with wonderful clearness the absurdity of the position in which he places + them, he finds a way of drawing the attention of his hearers to another + subject without being false to the truth which it is his office to + contradict. + </p> + <p> + "Property," says M. Wolowski, "is that which distinguishes man from the + animals." That may be; but are we to regard this as a compliment or a + satire? + </p> + <p> + "Mahomet," says M. Wolowski, "decreed property." And so did Genghis Khan, + and Tamerlane, and all the ravagers of nations. What sort of legislators + were they? + </p> + <p> + "Property has been in existence ever since the origin of the human race." + Yes, and so has slavery, and despotism also; and likewise polygamy and + idolatry. But what does this antiquity show? + </p> + <p> + The members of the Council of the State—M. Portalis at their head—did + not raise, in their discussion of the Code, the question of the legitimacy + of property. "Their silence," says M. Wolowski, "is a precedent in favor + of this right." I may regard this reply as personally addressed to me, + since the observation belongs to me. I reply, "As long as an opinion is + universally admitted, the universality of belief serves of itself as + argument and proof. When this same opinion is attacked, the former faith + proves nothing; we must resort to reason. Ignorance, however old and + pardonable it may be, never outweighs reason." + </p> + <p> + Property has its abuses, M. Wolowski confesses. "But," he says, "these + abuses gradually disappear. To-day their cause is known. They all arise + from a false theory of property. In principle, property is inviolable, but + it can and must be checked and disciplined." Such are the conclusions of + the professor. + </p> + <p> + When one thus remains in the clouds, he need not fear to equivocate. + Nevertheless, I would like him to define these ABUSES of property, to show + their cause, to explain this true theory from which no abuse is to spring; + in short, to tell me how, without destroying property, it can be governed + for the greatest good of all. "Our civil code," says M. Wolowski, in + speaking of this subject, "leaves much to be desired." I think it leaves + every thing undone. + </p> + <p> + Finally, M. Wolowski opposes, on the one hand, the concentration of + capital, and the absorption which results therefrom; and, on the other, he + objects to the extreme division of the land. Now I think that I have + demonstrated in my First Memoir, that large accumulation and minute + division are the first two terms of an economical trinity,—a THESIS + and an ANTITHESIS. But, while M. Wolowski says nothing of the third term, + the SYNTHESIS, and thus leaves the inference in suspense, I have shown + that this third term is ASSOCIATION, which is the annihilation of + property. + </p> + <p> + November 30.—LITERARY PROPERTY. M. Wolowski grants that it is just + to recognize the rights of talent (which is not in the least hostile to + equality); but he seriously objects to perpetual and absolute property in + the works of genius, to the profit of the authors' heirs. His main + argument is, that society has a right of collective production over every + creation of the mind. Now, it is precisely this principle of collective + power that I developed in my "Inquiries into Property and Government," and + on which I have established the complete edifice of a new social + organization. M. Wolowski is, as far as I know, the first jurist who has + made a legislative application of this economical law. Only, while I have + extended the principle of collective power to every sort of product, M. + Wolowski, more prudent than it is my nature to be, confines it to neutral + ground. So, that that which I am bold enough to say of the whole, he is + contented to affirm of a part, leaving the intelligent hearer to fill up + the void for himself. However, his arguments are keen and close. One feels + that the professor, finding himself more at ease with one aspect of + property, has given the rein to his intellect, and is rushing on towards + liberty. + </p> + <p> + 1. Absolute literary property would hinder the activity of other men, and + obstruct the development of humanity. It would be the death of progress; + it would be suicide. What would have happened if the first inventions,—the + plough, the level, the saw, &c.,—had been appropriated? + </p> + <p> + Such is the first proposition of M. Wolowski. + </p> + <p> + I reply: Absolute property in land and tools hinders human activity, and + obstructs progress and the free development of man. + </p> + <p> + What happened in Rome, and in all the ancient nations? What occurred in + the middle ages? What do we see to-day in England, in consequence of + absolute property in the sources of production? + </p> + <p> + The suicide of humanity. + </p> + <p> + 2. Real and personal property is in harmony with the social interest. In + consequence of literary property, social and individual interests are + perpetually in conflict. + </p> + <p> + The statement of this proposition contains a rhetorical figure, common + with those who do not enjoy full and complete liberty of speech. This + figure is the <i>anti-phrasis</i> or <i>contre-verite</i>. It consists, + according to Dumarsais and the best humanists, in saying one thing while + meaning another. M. Wolowski's proposition, naturally expressed, would + read as follows: "Just as real and personal property is essentially + hostile to society, so, in consequence of literary property, social and + individual interests are perpetually in conflict." + </p> + <p> + 3. M. de Montalembert, in the Chamber of Peers, vehemently protested + against the assimilation of authors to inventors of machinery; an + assimilation which he claimed to be injurious to the former. M. Wolowski + replies, that the rights of authors, without machinery, would be nil; + that, without paper-mills, type foundries, and printing-offices, there + could be no sale of verse and prose; that many a mechanical invention,—the + compass, for instance, the telescope, or the steam-engine,—is quite + as valuable as a book. + </p> + <p> + Prior to M. Montalembert, M. Charles Comte had laughed at the inference in + favor of mechanical inventions, which logical minds never fail to draw + from the privileges granted to authors. "He," says M. Comte, "who first + conceived and executed the idea of transforming a piece of wood into a + pair of sabots, or an animal's hide into a pair of sandals, would thereby + have acquired an exclusive right to make shoes for the human race!" + Undoubtedly, under the system of property. For, in fact, this pair of + sabots, over which you make so merry, is the creation of the shoemaker, + the work of his genius, the expression of his thought; to him it is his + poem, quite as much as "Le Roi s'amuse," is M. Victor Hugo's drama. + Justice for all alike. If you refuse a patent to a perfecter of boots, + refuse also a privilege to a maker of rhymes. + </p> + <p> + 4. That which gives importance to a book is a fact external to the author + and his work. Without the intelligence of society, without its + development, and a certain community of ideas, passions, and interests + between it and the authors, the works of the latter would be worth + nothing. The exchangeable value of a book is due even more to the SOCIAL + CONDITION than to the talent displayed in it. + </p> + <p> + Indeed, it seems as if I were copying my own words. This proposition of M. + Wolowski contains a special expression of a general and absolute idea, one + of the strongest and most conclusive against the right of property. Why do + artists, like mechanics, find the means to live? Because society has made + the fine arts, like the rudest industries, objects of consumption and + exchange, governed consequently by all the laws of commerce and political + economy. Now, the first of these laws is the equipoise of functions; that + is, the equality of associates. + </p> + <p> + 5. M. Wolowski indulges in sarcasm against the petitioners for literary + property. "There are authors," he says, "who crave the privileges of + authors, and who for that purpose point out the power of the melodrama. + They speak of the niece of Corneille, begging at the door of a theatre + which the works of her uncle had enriched.... To satisfy the avarice of + literary people, it would be necessary to create literary majorats, and + make a whole code of exceptions." + </p> + <p> + I like this virtuous irony. But M. Wolowski has by no means exhausted the + difficulties which the question involves. And first, is it just that MM. + Cousin, Guizot, Villemain, Damiron, and company, paid by the State for + delivering lectures, should be paid a second time through the booksellers?—that + I, who have the right to report their lectures, should not have the right + to print them? Is it just that MM. Noel and Chapsal, overseers of the + University, should use their influence in selling their selections from + literature to the youth whose studies they are instructed to superintend + in consideration of a salary? And, if that is not just, is it not proper + to refuse literary property to every author holding public offices, and + receiving pensions or sinecures? + </p> + <p> + Again, shall the privilege of the author extend to irreligious and immoral + works, calculated only to corrupt the heart, and obscure the + understanding? To grant this privilege is to sanction immorality by law; + to refuse it is to censure the author. And since it is impossible, in the + present imperfect state of society, to prevent all violations of the moral + law, it will be necessary to open a license-office for books as well as + morals. But, then, three-fourths of our literary people will be obliged to + register; and, recognized thenceforth on their own declaration as + PROSTITUTES, they will necessarily belong to the public. We pay toll to + the prostitute; we do not endow her. + </p> + <p> + Finally, shall plagiarism be classed with forgery? If you reply "Yes," you + appropriate in advance all the subjects of which books treat; if you say + "No," you leave the whole matter to the decision of the judge. Except in + the case of a clandestine reprint, how will he distinguish forgery from + quotation, imitation, plagiarism, or even coincidence? A savant spends two + years in calculating a table of logarithms to nine or ten decimals. He + prints it. A fortnight after his book is selling at half-price; it is + impossible to tell whether this result is due to forgery or competition. + What shall the court do? In case of doubt, shall it award the property to + the first occupant? As well decide the question by lot. + </p> + <p> + These, however, are trifling considerations; but do we see that, in + granting a perpetual privilege to authors and their heirs, we really + strike a fatal blow at their interests? We think to make booksellers + dependent upon authors,—a delusion. The booksellers will unite + against works, and their proprietors. Against works, by refusing to push + their sale, by replacing them with poor imitations, by reproducing them in + a hundred indirect ways; and no one knows how far the science of + plagiarism, and skilful imitation may be carried. Against proprietors. Are + we ignorant of the fact, that a demand for a dozen copies enables a + bookseller to sell a thousand; that with an edition of five hundred he can + supply a kingdom for thirty years? What will the poor authors do in the + presence of this omnipotent union of booksellers? I will tell them what + they will do. They will enter the employ of those whom they now treat as + pirates; and, to secure an advantage, they will become wage laborers. A + fit reward for ignoble avarice, and insatiable pride. <a + href="#linknote-69" name="linknoteref-69" id="linknoteref-69"><small>69</small></a> + </p> + <p> + Contradictions of contradictions! "Genius is the great leveller of the + world," cries M. de Lamartine; "then genius should be a proprietor. + Literary property is the fortune of democracy." This unfortunate poet + thinks himself profound when he is only puffed up. His eloquence consists + solely in coupling ideas which clash with each other: ROUND SQUARE, DARK + SUN, FALLEN ANGEL, PRIEST and LOVE, THOUGHT and POETRY, GUNIUS {???}, and + FORTUNE, LEVELING and PROPERTY. Let us tell him, in reply, that his mind + is a dark luminary; that each of his discourses is a disordered harmony; + and that all his successes, whether in verse or prose, are due to the use + of the extraordinary in the treatment of the most ordinary subjects. + </p> + <p> + "Le National," in reply to the report of M. Lamartine, endeavors to prove + that literary property is of quite a different nature from landed + property; as if the nature of the right of property depended on the object + to which it is applied, and not on the mode of its exercise and the + condition of its existence. But the main object of "Le National" is to + please a class of proprietors whom an extension of the right of property + vexes: that is why "Le National" opposes literary property. Will it tell + us, once for all, whether it is for equality or against it? + </p> + <p> + 6. OBJECTION.—Property in occupied land passes to the heirs of the + occupant. "Why," say the authors, "should not the work of genius pass in + like manner to the heirs of the man of genius?" M. Wolowski's reply: + "Because the labor of the first occupant is continued by his heirs, while + the heirs of an author neither change nor add to his works. In landed + property, the continuance of labor explains the continuance of the right." + </p> + <p> + Yes, when the labor is continued; but if the labor is not continued, the + right ceases. Thus is the right of possession, founded on personal labor, + recognized by M. Wolowski. + </p> + <p> + M. Wolowski decides in favor of granting to authors property in their + works for a certain number of years, dating from the day of their first + publication. + </p> + <p> + The succeeding lectures on patents on inventions were no less instructive, + although intermingled with shocking contradictions inserted with a view to + make the useful truths more palatable. The necessity for brevity compels + me to terminate this examination here, not without regret. + </p> + <p> + Thus, of two eclectic jurists, who attempt a defence of property, one is + entangled in a set of dogmas without principle or method, and is + constantly talking nonsense; and the other designedly abandons the cause + of property, in order to present under the same name the theory of + individual possession. Was I wrong in claiming that confusion reigned + among legists, and ought I to be legally prosecuted for having said that + their science henceforth stood convicted of falsehood, its glory eclipsed? + </p> + <p> + The ordinary resources of the law no longer sufficing, philosophy, + political economy, and the framers of systems have been consulted. All the + oracles appealed to have been discouraging. + </p> + <p> + The philosophers are no clearer to-day than at the time of the eclectic + efflorescence; nevertheless, through their mystical apothegms, we can + distinguish the words PROGRESS, UNITY, ASSOCIATION, SOLIDARITY, + FRATERNITY, which are certainly not reassuring to proprietors. One of + these philosophers, M. Pierre Leroux, has written two large books, in + which he claims to show by all religious, legislative, and philosophical + systems that, since men are responsible to each other, equality of + conditions is the final law of society. It is true that this philosopher + admits a kind of property; but as he leaves us to imagine what property + would become in presence of equality, we may boldly class him with the + opponents of the right of increase. + </p> + <p> + I must here declare freely—in order that I may not be suspected of + secret connivance, which is foreign to my nature—that M. Leroux has + my full sympathy. Not that I am a believer in his quasi-Pythagorean + philosophy (upon this subject I should have more than one observation to + submit to him, provided a veteran covered with stripes would not despise + the remarks of a conscript); not that I feel bound to this author by any + special consideration for his opposition to property. In my opinion, M. + Leroux could, and even ought to, state his position more explicitly and + logically. But I like, I admire, in M. Leroux, the antagonist of our + philosophical demigods, the demolisher of usurped reputations, the + pitiless critic of every thing that is respected because of its antiquity. + Such is the reason for my high esteem of M. Leroux; such would be the + principle of the only literary association which, in this century of + coteries, I should care to form. We need men who, like M. Leroux, call in + question social principles,—not to diffuse doubt concerning them, + but to make them doubly sure; men who excite the mind by bold negations, + and make the conscience tremble by doctrines of annihilation. Where is the + man who does not shudder on hearing M. Leroux exclaim, "There is neither a + paradise nor a hell; the wicked will not be punished, nor the good + rewarded. Mortals! cease to hope and fear; you revolve in a circle of + appearances; humanity is an immortal tree, whose branches, withering one + after another, feed with their debris the root which is always young!" + Where is the man who, on hearing this desolate confession of faith, does + not demand with terror, "Is it then true that I am only an aggregate of + elements organized by an unknown force, an idea realized for a few + moments, a form which passes and disappears? Is it true that my mind is + only a harmony, and my soul a vortex? What is the ego? what is God? what + is the sanction of society?" + </p> + <p> + In former times, M. Leroux would have been regarded as a great culprit, + worthy only (like Vanini) of death and universal execration. To-day, M. + Leroux is fulfilling a mission of salvation, for which, whatever he may + say, he will be rewarded. Like those gloomy invalids who are always + talking of their approaching death, and who faint when the doctor's + opinion confirms their pretence, our materialistic society is agitated and + loses countenance while listening to this startling decree of the + philosopher, "Thou shalt die!" Honor then to M. Leroux, who has revealed + to us the cowardice of the Epicureans; to M. Leroux, who renders new + philosophical solutions necessary! Honor to the anti-eclectic, to the + apostle of equality! + </p> + <p> + In his work on "Humanity," M. Leroux commences by positing the necessity + of property: "You wish to abolish property; but do you not see that + thereby you would annihilate man and even the name of man?... You wish to + abolish property; but could you live without a body? I will not tell you + that it is necessary to support this body;... I will tell you that this + body is itself a species of property." + </p> + <p> + In order clearly to understand the doctrine of M. Leroux, it must be borne + in mind that there are three necessary and primitive forms of society,—communism, + property, and that which to-day we properly call association. M. Leroux + rejects in the first place communism, and combats it with all his might. + Man is a personal and free being, and therefore needs a sphere of + independence and individual activity. M. Leroux emphasizes this in adding: + "You wish neither family, nor country, nor property; therefore no more + fathers, no more sons, no more brothers. Here you are, related to no being + in time, and therefore without a name; here you are, alone in the midst of + a billion of men who to-day inhabit the earth. How do you expect me to + distinguish you in space in the midst of this multitude?" + </p> + <p> + If man is indistinguishable, he is nothing. Now, he can be distinguished, + individualized, only through a devotion of certain things to his use,—such + as his body, his faculties, and the tools which he uses. "Hence," says M. + Leroux, "the necessity of appropriation;" in short, property. + </p> + <p> + But property on what condition? Here M. Leroux, after having condemned + communism, denounces in its turn the right of domain. His whole doctrine + can be summed up in this single proposition,—<i>Man may be made by + property a slave or a despot by turns</i>. + </p> + <p> + That posited, if we ask M. Leroux to tell us under what system of property + man will be neither a slave nor a despot, but free, just, and a citizen, + M. Leroux replies in the third volume of his work on "Humanity:"— + </p> + <p> + "There are three ways of destroying man's communion with his fellows and + with the universe:... 1. By separating man in time; 2. by separating him + in space; 3. by dividing the land, or, in general terms, the instruments + of production; by attaching men to things, by subordinating man to + property, by making man a proprietor." + </p> + <p> + This language, it must be confessed, savors a little too strongly of the + metaphysical heights which the author frequents, and of the school of M. + Cousin. Nevertheless, it can be seen, clearly enough it seems to me, that + M. Leroux opposes the exclusive appropriation of the instruments of + production; only he calls this non-appropriation of the instruments of + production a NEW METHOD of establishing property, while I, in accordance + with all precedent, call it a destruction of property. In fact, without + the appropriation of instruments, property is nothing. + </p> + <p> + "Hitherto, we have confined ourselves to pointing out and combating the + despotic features of property, by considering property alone. We have + failed to see that the despotism of property is a correlative of the + division of the human race;... that property, instead of being organized + in such a way as to facilitate the unlimited communion of man with his + fellows and with the universe, has been, on the contrary, turned against + this communion." + </p> + <p> + Let us translate this into commercial phraseology. In order to destroy + despotism and the inequality of conditions, men must cease from + competition and must associate their interests. Let employer and employed + (now enemies and rivals) become associates. + </p> + <p> + Now, ask any manufacturer, merchant, or capitalist, whether he would + consider himself a proprietor if he were to share his revenue and profits + with this mass of wage-laborers whom it is proposed to make his + associates. + </p> + <p> + "Family, property, and country are finite things, which ought to be + organized with a view to the infinite. For man is a finite being, who + aspires to the infinite. To him, absolute finiteness is evil. The infinite + is his aim, the indefinite his right." + </p> + <p> + Few of my readers would understand these hierophantic words, were I to + leave them unexplained. M. Leroux means, by this magnificent formula, that + humanity is a single immense society, which, in its collective unity, + represents the infinite; that every nation, every tribe, every commune, + and every citizen are, in different degrees, fragments or finite members + of the infinite society, the evil in which results solely from + individualism and privilege,—in other words, from the subordination + of the infinite to the finite; finally, that, to attain humanity's end and + aim, each part has a right to an indefinitely progressive development. + </p> + <p> + "All the evils which afflict the human race arise from caste. The family + is a blessing; the family caste (the nobility) is an evil. Country is a + blessing; the country caste (supreme, domineering, conquering) is an evil; + property (individual possession) is a blessing; the property caste (the + domain of property of Pothier, Toullier, Troplong, &c.) is an evil." + </p> + <p> + Thus, according to M. Leroux, there is property and property,—the + one good, the other bad. Now, as it is proper to call different things by + different names, if we keep the name "property" for the former, we must + call the latter robbery, rapine, brigandage. If, on the contrary, we + reserve the name "property" for the latter, we must designate the former + by the term POSSESSION, or some other equivalent; otherwise we should be + troubled with an unpleasant synonymy. + </p> + <p> + What a blessing it would be if philosophers, daring for once to say all + that they think, would speak the language of ordinary mortals! Nations and + rulers would derive much greater profit from their lectures, and, applying + the same names to the same ideas, would come, perhaps, to understand each + other. I boldly declare that, in regard to property, I hold no other + opinion than that of M. Leroux; but, if I should adopt the style of the + philosopher, and repeat after him, "Property is a blessing, but the + property caste—the <i>statu quo</i> of property—is an evil," I + should be extolled as a genius by all the bachelors who write for the + reviews. <a href="#linknote-70" name="linknoteref-70" id="linknoteref-70"><small>70</small></a> + If, on the contrary, I prefer the classic language of Rome and the civil + code, and say accordingly, "Possession is a blessing, but property is + robbery," immediately the aforesaid bachelors raise a hue and cry against + the monster, and the judge threatens me. Oh, the power of language! + </p> + <p> + "Le National," on the other hand, has laughed at M. Leroux and his ideas + on property, charging him with TAUTOLOGY and CHILDISHNESS. "Le National" + does not wish to understand. Is it necessary to remind this journal that + it has no right to deride a dogmatic philosopher, because it is without a + doctrine itself? From its foundation, "Le National" has been a nursery of + intriguers and renegades. From time to time it takes care to warn its + readers. Instead of lamenting over all its defections, the democratic + sheet would do better to lay the blame on itself, and confess the + shallowness of its theories. When will this organ of popular interests and + the electoral reform cease to hire sceptics and spread doubt? I will + wager, without going further, that M. Leon Durocher, the critic of M. + Leroux, is an anonymous or pseudonymous editor of some bourgeois, or even + aristocratic, journal. + </p> + <p> + The economists, questioned in their turn, propose to associate capital and + labor. You know, sir, what that means. If we follow out the doctrine, we + soon find that it ends in an absorption of property, not by the community, + but by a general and indissoluble commandite, so that the condition of the + proprietor would differ from that of the workingman only in receiving + larger wages. This system, with some peculiar additions and + embellishments, is the idea of the phalanstery. But it is clear that, if + inequality of conditions is one of the attributes of property, it is not + the whole of property. That which makes property a DELIGHTFUL THING, as + some philosopher (I know not who) has said, is the power to dispose at + will, not only of one's own goods, but of their specific nature; to use + them at pleasure; to confine and enclose them; to excommunicate mankind, + as M. Pierre Leroux says; in short, to make such use of them as passion, + interest, or even caprice, may suggest. What is the possession of money, a + share in an agricultural or industrial enterprise, or a government-bond + coupon, in comparison with the infinite charm of being master of one's + house and grounds, under one's vine and fig-tree? "<i>Beati possidentes</i>!" + says an author quoted by M. Troplong. Seriously, can that be applied to a + man of income, who has no other possession under the sun than the market, + and in his pocket his money? As well maintain that a trough is a coward. A + nice method of reform! They never cease to condemn the thirst for gold, + and the growing individualism of the century; and yet, most inconceivable + of contradictions, they prepare to turn all kinds of property into one,—property + in coin. + </p> + <p> + I must say something further of a theory of property lately put forth with + some ado: I mean the theory of M. Considerant. + </p> + <p> + The Fourierists are not men who examine a doctrine in order to ascertain + whether it conflicts with their system. On the contrary, it is their + custom to exult and sing songs of triumph whenever an adversary passes + without perceiving or noticing them. + </p> + <p> + These gentlemen want direct refutations, in order that, if they are + beaten, they may have, at least, the selfish consolation of having been + spoken of. Well, let their wish be gratified. + </p> + <p> + M. Considerant makes the most lofty pretensions to logic. His method of + procedure is always that of MAJOR, MINOR, AND CONCLUSION. He would + willingly write upon his hat, "<i>Argumentator in barbara</i>." But M. + Considerant is too intelligent and quick-witted to be a good logician, as + is proved by the fact that he appears to have taken the syllogism for + logic. + </p> + <p> + The syllogism, as everybody knows who is interested in philosophical + curiosities, is the first and perpetual sophism of the human mind,—the + favorite tool of falsehood, the stumbling-block of science, the advocate + of crime. The syllogism has produced all the evils which the fabulist so + eloquently condemned, and has done nothing good or useful: it is as devoid + of truth as of justice. We might apply to it these words of Scripture: "<i>Celui + qui met en lui sa confiance, perira</i>." Consequently, the best + philosophers long since condemned it; so that now none but the enemies of + reason wish to make the syllogism its weapon. + </p> + <p> + M. Considerant, then, has built his theory of property upon a syllogism. + Would he be disposed to stake the system of Fourier upon his arguments, as + I am ready to risk the whole doctrine of equality upon my refutation of + that system? Such a duel would be quite in keeping with the warlike and + chivalric tastes of M. Considerant, and the public would profit by it; + for, one of the two adversaries falling, no more would be said about him, + and there would be one grumbler less in the world. + </p> + <p> + The theory of M. Considerant has this remarkable feature, that, in + attempting to satisfy at the same time the claims of both laborers and + proprietors, it infringes alike upon the rights of the former and the + privileges of the latter. In the first place, the author lays it down as a + principle: "1. That the use of the land belongs to each member of the + race; that it is a natural and imprescriptible right, similar in all + respects to the right to the air and the sunshine. 2. That the right to + labor is equally fundamental, natural, and imprescriptible." I have shown + that the recognition of this double right would be the death of property. + I denounce M. Considerant to the proprietors! + </p> + <p> + But M. Considerant maintains that the right to labor creates the right of + property, and this is the way he reasons:— + </p> + <p> + Major Premise.—"Every man legitimately possesses the thing which his + labor, his skill,—or, in more general terms, his action,—has + created." + </p> + <p> + To which M. Considerant adds, by way of comment: "Indeed, the land not + having been created by man, it follows from the fundamental principle of + property, that the land, being given to the race in common, can in no wise + be the exclusive and legitimate property of such and such individuals, who + were not the creators of this value." + </p> + <p> + If I am not mistaken, there is no one to whom this proposition, at first + sight and in its entirety, does not seem utterly irrefutable. Reader, + distrust the syllogism. + </p> + <p> + First, I observe that the words LEGITIMATELY POSSESSES signify to the + author's mind is <i>LEGITIMATE PROPRIETOR;</i> otherwise the argument, + being intended to prove the legitimacy of property, would have no meaning. + I might here raise the question of the difference between property and + possession, and call upon M. Considerant, before going further, to define + the one and the other; but I pass on. + </p> + <p> + This first proposition is doubly false. 1. In that it asserts the act of + CREATION to be the only basis of property. 2. In that it regards this act + as sufficient in all cases to authorize the right of property. + </p> + <p> + And, in the first place, if man may be proprietor of the game which he + does not create, but which he KILLS; of the fruits which he does not + create, but which he GATHERS; of the vegetables which he does not create, + but which he PLANTS; of the animals which he does not create, but which he + REARS,—it is conceivable that men may in like manner become + proprietors of the land which they do not create, but which they clear and + fertilize. The act of creation, then, is not NECESSARY to the acquisition + of the right of property. I say further, that this act alone is not always + sufficient, and I prove it by the second premise of M. Considerant:— + </p> + <p> + Minor Premise.—"Suppose that on an isolated island, on the soil of a + nation, or over the whole face of the earth (the extent of the scene of + action does not affect our judgment of the facts), a generation of human + beings devotes itself for the first time to industry, agriculture, + manufactures, &c. This generation, by its labor, intelligence, and + activity, creates products, develops values which did not exist on the + uncultivated land. Is it not perfectly clear that the property of this + industrious generation will stand on a basis of right, if the value or + wealth produced by the activity of all be distributed among the producers, + according to each one's assistance in the creation of the general wealth? + That is unquestionable." + </p> + <p> + That is quite questionable. For this value or wealth, PRODUCED BY THE + ACTIVITY OF ALL, is by the very fact of its creation COLLECTIVE wealth, + the use of which, like that of the land, may be divided, but which as + property remains UNDIVIDED. And why this undivided ownership? Because the + society which creates is itself indivisible,—a permanent unit, + incapable of reduction to fractions. And it is this unity of society which + makes the land common property, and which, as M. Considerant says, renders + its use imprescriptible in the case of every individual. Suppose, indeed, + that at a given time the soil should be equally divided; the very next + moment this division, if it allowed the right of property, would become + illegitimate. Should there be the slightest irregularity in the method of + transfer, men, members of society, imprescriptible possessors of the land, + might be deprived at one blow of property, possession, and the means of + production. In short, property in capital is indivisible, and consequently + inalienable, not necessarily when the capital is UNCREATED, but when it is + COMMON or COLLECTIVE. + </p> + <p> + I confirm this theory against M. Considerant, by the third term of his + syllogism:— + </p> + <p> + <a name="link2H_CONC" id="link2H_CONC"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /><br /><br /><br /> + </div> + <h2> + Conclusion.—"The results of the labor performed by this generation + are + </h2> + <p> + divisible into two classes, between which it is important clearly to + distinguish. The first class includes the products of the soil which + belong to this first generation in its usufructuary capacity, augmented, + improved and refined by its labor and industry. These products consist + either of objects of consumption or instruments of labor. It is clear that + these products are the legitimate property of those who have created them + by their activity.... Second class.—Not only has this generation + created the products just mentioned (objects of consumption and + instruments of labor), but it has also added to the original value of the + soil by cultivation, by the erection of buildings, by all the labor + producing permanent results, which it has performed. This additional value + evidently constitutes a product—a value created by the activity of + the first generation; and if, BY ANY MEANS WHATEVER, the ownership of this + value be distributed among the members of society equitably,—that + is, in proportion to the labor which each has performed,—each will + legitimately possess the portion which he receives. He may then dispose of + this legitimate and private property as he sees fit,—exchange it, + give it away, or transfer it; and no other individual, or collection of + other individuals,—that is, society,—can lay any claim to + these values." + </p> + <p> + Thus, by the distribution of collective capital, to the use of which each + associate, either in his own right or in right of his authors, has an + imprescriptible and undivided title, there will be in the phalanstery, as + in the France of 1841, the poor and the rich; some men who, to live in + luxury, have only, as Figaro says, to take the trouble to be born, and + others for whom the fortune of life is but an opportunity for + long-continued poverty; idlers with large incomes, and workers whose + fortune is always in the future; some privileged by birth and caste, and + others pariahs whose sole civil and political rights are THE RIGHT TO + LABOR, AND THE RIGHT TO LAND. For we must not be deceived; in the + phalanstery every thing will be as it is to-day, an object of property,—machines, + inventions, thought, books, the products of art, of agriculture, and of + industry; animals, houses, fences, vineyards, pastures, forests, fields,—every + thing, in short, except the UNCULTIVATED LAND. Now, would you like to know + what uncultivated land is worth, according to the advocates of property? + "A square league hardly suffices for the support of a savage," says M. + Charles Comte. Estimating the wretched subsistence of this savage at three + hundred francs per year, we find that the square league necessary to his + life is, relatively to him, faithfully represented by a rent of fifteen + francs. In France there are twenty-eight thousand square leagues, the + total rent of which, by this estimate, would be four hundred and twenty + thousand francs, which, when divided among nearly thirty-four millions of + people, would give each an INCOME OF A CENTIME AND A QUARTER. That is the + new right which the great genius of Fourier has invented IN BEHALF OF THE + FRENCH PEOPLE, and with which his first disciple hopes to reform the + world. I denounce M. Considerant to the proletariat! + </p> + <p> + If the theory of M. Considerant would at least really guarantee this + property which he cherishes so jealously, I might pardon him the flaws in + his syllogism, certainly the best one he ever made in his life. But, no: + that which M. Considerant takes for property is only a privilege of extra + pay. In Fourier's system, neither the created capital nor the increased + value of the soil are divided and appropriated in any effective manner: + the instruments of labor, whether created or not, remain in the hands of + the phalanx; the pretended proprietor can touch only the income. He is + permitted neither to realize his share of the stock, nor to possess it + exclusively, nor to administer it, whatever it be. The cashier throws him + his dividend; and then, proprietor, eat the whole if you can! + </p> + <p> + The system of Fourier would not suit the proprietors, since it takes away + the most delightful feature of property,—the free disposition of + one's goods. It would please the communists no better, since it involves + unequal conditions. It is repugnant to the friends of free association and + equality, in consequence of its tendency to wipe out human character and + individuality by suppressing possession, family, and country,—the + threefold expression of the human personality. + </p> + <p> + Of all our active publicists, none seem to me more fertile in resources, + richer in imagination, more luxuriant and varied in style, than M. + Considerant. Nevertheless, I doubt if he will undertake to reestablish his + theory of property. If he has this courage, this is what I would say to + him: "Before writing your reply, consider well your plan of action; do not + scour the country; have recourse to none of your ordinary expedients; no + complaints of civilization; no sarcasms upon equality; no glorification of + the phalanstery. Leave Fourier and the departed in peace, and endeavor + only to re-adjust the pieces of your syllogism. To this end, you ought, + first, to analyze closely each proposition of your adversary; second, to + show the error, either by a direct refutation, or by proving the converse; + third, to oppose argument to argument, so that, objection and reply + meeting face to face, the stronger may break down the weaker, and shiver + it to atoms. By that method only can you boast of having conquered, and + compel me to regard you as an honest reasoner, and a good artillery-man." + </p> + <p> + I should have no excuse for tarrying longer with these phalansterian + crotchets, if the obligation which I have imposed upon myself of making a + clean sweep, and the necessity of vindicating my dignity as a writer, did + not prevent me from passing in silence the reproach uttered against me by + a correspondent of "La Phalange." "We have seen but lately," says this + journalist, <a href="#linknote-71" name="linknoteref-71" + id="linknoteref-71"><small>71</small></a> "that M. Proudhon, enthusiast as + he has been for the science created by Fourier, is, or will be, an + enthusiast for any thing else whatsoever." + </p> + <p> + If ever sectarians had the right to reproach another for changes in his + beliefs, this right certainly does not belong to the disciples of Fourier, + who are always so eager to administer the phalansterian baptism to the + deserters of all parties. But why regard it as a crime, if they are + sincere? Of what consequence is the constancy or inconstancy of an + individual to the truth which is always the same? It is better to + enlighten men's minds than to teach them to be obstinate in their + prejudices. Do we not know that man is frail and fickle, that his heart is + full of delusions, and that his lips are a distillery of falsehood? <i>Omnis + homo meudax</i>. Whether we will or no, we all serve for a time as + instruments of this truth, whose kingdom comes every day. + </p> + <p> + God alone is immutable, because he is eternal. + </p> + <p> + That is the reply which, as a general rule, an honest man is entitled + always to make, and which I ought perhaps to be content to offer as an + excuse; for I am no better than my fathers. But, in a century of doubt and + apostasy like ours, when it is of importance to set the small and the weak + an example of strength and honesty of utterance, I must not suffer my + character as a public assailant of property to be dishonored. I must + render an account of my old opinions. + </p> + <p> + Examining myself, therefore, upon this charge of Fourierism, and + endeavoring to refresh my memory, I find that, having been connected with + the Fourierists in my studies and my friendships, it is possible that, + without knowing it, I have been one of Fourier's partisans. Jerome Lalande + placed Napoleon and Jesus Christ in his catalogue of atheists. The + Fourierists resemble this astronomer: if a man happens to find fault with + the existing civilization, and to admit the truth of a few of their + criticisms, they straightway enlist him, willy-nilly, in their school. + Nevertheless, I do not deny that I have been a Fourierist; for, since they + say it, of course it may be so. But, sir, that of which my ex-associates + are ignorant, and which doubtless will astonish you, is that I have been + many other things,—in religion, by turns a Protestant, a Papist, an + Arian and Semi-Arian, a Manichean, a Gnostic, an Adamite even and a + Pre-Adamite, a Sceptic, a Pelagian, a Socinian, an Anti-Trinitarian, and a + Neo-Christian; <a href="#linknote-72" name="linknoteref-72" + id="linknoteref-72"><small>72</small></a> in philosophy and politics, an + Idealist, a Pantheist, a Platonist, a Cartesian, an Eclectic (that is, a + sort of <i>juste-milieu</i>), a Monarchist, an Aristocrat, a + Constitutionalist, a follower of Babeuf, and a Communist. I have wandered + through a whole encyclopaedia of systems. Do you think it surprising, sir, + that, among them all, I was for a short time a Fourierist? + </p> + <p> + For my part, I am not at all surprised, although at present I have no + recollection of it. One thing is sure,—that my superstition and + credulity reached their height at the very period of my life which my + critics reproachfully assign as the date of my Fourieristic beliefs. Now I + hold quite other views. My mind no longer admits that which is + demonstrated by syllogisms, analogies, or metaphors, which are the methods + of the phalanstery, but demands a process of generalization and induction + which excludes error. Of my past OPINIONSS I retain absolutely none. I + have acquired some KNOWLEDGE. I no longer BELIEVE. I either KNOW, or am + IGNORANT. In a word, in seeking for the reason of things, I saw that I was + a RATIONALIST. + </p> + <p> + Undoubtedly, it would have been simpler to begin where I have ended. But + then, if such is the law of the human mind; if all society, for six + thousand years, has done nothing but fall into error; if all mankind are + still buried in the darkness of faith, deceived by their prejudices and + passions, guided only by the instinct of their leaders; if my accusers, + themselves, are not free from sectarianism (for they call themselves + FOURIERISTS),—am I alone inexcusable for having, in my inner self, + at the secret tribunal of my conscience, begun anew the journey of our + poor humanity? + </p> + <p> + I would by no means, then, deny my errors; but, sir, that which + distinguishes me from those who rush into print is the fact that, though + my thoughts have varied much, my writings do not vary. To-day, even, and + on a multitude of questions, I am beset by a thousand extravagant and + contradictory opinions; but my opinions I do not print, for the public has + nothing to do with them. Before addressing my fellow-men, I wait until + light breaks in upon the chaos of my ideas, in order that what I may say + may be, not the whole truth (no man can know that), but nothing but the + truth. + </p> + <p> + This singular disposition of my mind to first identify itself with a + system in order to better understand it, and then to reflect upon it in + order to test its legitimacy, is the very thing which disgusted me with + Fourier, and ruined in my esteem the societary school. To be a faithful + Fourierist, in fact, one must abandon his reason and accept every thing + from a master,—doctrine, interpretation, and application. M. + Considerant, whose excessive intolerance anathematizes all who do not + abide by his sovereign decisions, has no other conception of Fourierism. + Has he not been appointed Fourier's vicar on earth and pope of a Church + which, unfortunately for its apostles, will never be of this world? + Passive belief is the theological virtue of all sectarians, especially of + the Fourierists. + </p> + <p> + Now, this is what happened to me. While trying to demonstrate by argument + the religion of which I had become a follower in studying Fourier, I + suddenly perceived that by reasoning I was becoming incredulous; that on + each article of the creed my reason and my faith were at variance, and + that my six weeks' labor was wholly lost. I saw that the Fourierists—in + spite of their inexhaustible gabble, and their extravagant pretension to + decide in all things—were neither savants, nor logicians, nor even + believers; that they were SCIENTIFIC QUACKS, who were led more by their + self-love than their conscience to labor for the triumph of their sect, + and to whom all means were good that would reach that end. I then + understood why to the Epicureans they promised women, wine, music, and a + sea of luxury; to the rigorists, maintenance of marriage, purity of + morals, and temperance; to laborers, high wages; to proprietors, large + incomes; to philosophers, solutions the secret of which Fourier alone + possessed; to priests, a costly religion and magnificent festivals; to + savants, knowledge of an unimaginable nature; to each, indeed, that which + he most desired. In the beginning, this seemed to me droll; in the end, I + regarded it as the height of impudence. No, sir; no one yet knows of the + foolishness and infamy which the phalansterian system contains. That is a + subject which I mean to treat as soon as I have balanced my accounts with + property. <a href="#linknote-73" name="linknoteref-73" id="linknoteref-73"><small>73</small></a> + </p> + <p> + It is rumored that the Fourierists think of leaving France and going to + the new world to found a phalanstery. When a house threatens to fall, the + rats scamper away; that is because they are rats. Men do better; they + rebuild it. Not long since, the St. Simonians, despairing of their country + which paid no heed to them, proudly shook the dust from their feet, and + started for the Orient to fight the battle of free woman. Pride, + wilfulness, mad selfishness! True charity, like true faith, does not + worry, never despairs; it seeks neither its own glory, nor its interest, + nor empire; it does every thing for all, speaks with indulgence to the + reason and the will, and desires to conquer only by persuasion and + sacrifice. Remain in France, Fourierists, if the progress of humanity is + the only thing which you have at heart! There is more to do here than in + the new world. Otherwise, go! you are nothing but liars and hypocrites! + </p> + <p> + The foregoing statement by no means embraces all the political elements, + all the opinions and tendencies, which threaten the future of property; + but it ought to satisfy any one who knows how to classify facts, and to + deduce their law or the idea which governs them. Existing society seems + abandoned to the demon of falsehood and discord; and it is this sad sight + which grieves so deeply many distinguished minds who lived too long in a + former age to be able to understand ours. Now, while the short-sighted + spectator begins to despair of humanity, and, distracted and cursing that + of which he is ignorant, plunges into scepticism and fatalism, the true + observer, certain of the spirit which governs the world, seeks to + comprehend and fathom Providence. The memoir on "Property," published last + year by the pensioner of the Academy of Besancon, is simply a study of + this nature. + </p> + <p> + The time has come for me to relate the history of this unlucky treatise, + which has already caused me so much chagrin, and made me so unpopular; but + which was on my part so involuntary and unpremeditated, that I would dare + to affirm that there is not an economist, not a philosopher, not a jurist, + who is not a hundred times guiltier than I. There is something so singular + in the way in which I was led to attack property, that if, on hearing my + sad story, you persist, sir, in your blame, I hope at least you will be + forced to pity me. + </p> + <p> + I never have pretended to be a great politician; far from that, I always + have felt for controversies of a political nature the greatest aversion; + and if, in my "Essay on Property," I have sometimes ridiculed our + politicians, believe, sir, that I was governed much less by my pride in + the little that I know, than by my vivid consciousness of their ignorance + and excessive vanity. Relying more on Providence than on men; not + suspecting at first that politics, like every other science, contained an + absolute truth; agreeing equally well with Bossuet and Jean Jacques,—I + accepted with resignation my share of human misery, and contented myself + with praying to God for good deputies, upright ministers, and an honest + king. By taste as well as by discretion and lack of confidence in my + powers, I was slowly pursuing some commonplace studies in philology, + mingled with a little metaphysics, when I suddenly fell upon the greatest + problem that ever has occupied philosophical minds: I mean the criterion + of certainty. + </p> + <p> + Those of my readers who are unacquainted with the philosophical + terminology will be glad to be told in a few words what this criterion is, + which plays so great a part in my work. + </p> + <p> + The criterion of certainty, according to the philosophers, will be, when + discovered, an infallible method of establishing the truth of an opinion, + a judgment, a theory, or a system, in nearly the same way as gold is + recognized by the touchstone, as iron approaches the magnet, or, better + still, as we verify a mathematical operation by applying the PROOF. TIME + has hitherto served as a sort of criterion for society. Thus, the + primitive men—having observed that they were not all equal in + strength, beauty, and labor—judged, and rightly, that certain ones + among them were called by nature to the performance of simple and common + functions; but they concluded, and this is where their error lay, that + these same individuals of duller intellect, more restricted genius, and + weaker personality, were predestined to SERVE the others; that is, to + labor while the latter rested, and to have no other will than theirs: and + from this idea of a natural subordination among men sprang domesticity, + which, voluntarily accepted at first, was imperceptibly converted into + horrible slavery. Time, making this error more palpable, has brought about + justice. Nations have learned at their own cost that the subjection of man + to man is a false idea, an erroneous theory, pernicious alike to master + and to slave. And yet such a social system has stood several thousand + years, and has been defended by celebrated philosophers; even to-day, + under somewhat mitigated forms, sophists of every description uphold and + extol it. But experience is bringing it to an end. + </p> + <p> + Time, then, is the criterion of societies; thus looked at, history is the + demonstration of the errors of humanity by the argument <i>reductio ad + absurdum</i>. + </p> + <p> + Now, the criterion sought for by metaphysicians would have the advantage + of discriminating at once between the true and the false in every opinion; + so that in politics, religion, and morals, for example, the true and the + useful being immediately recognized, we should no longer need to await the + sorrowful experience of time. Evidently such a secret would be death to + the sophists,—that cursed brood, who, under different names, excite + the curiosity of nations, and, owing to the difficulty of separating the + truth from the error in their artistically woven theories, lead them into + fatal ventures, disturb their peace, and fill them with such extraordinary + prejudice. + </p> + <p> + Up to this day, the criterion of certainty remains a mystery; this is + owing to the multitude of criteria that have been successively proposed. + Some have taken for an absolute and definite criterion the testimony of + the senses; others intuition; these evidence; those argument. M. Lamennais + affirms that there is no other criterion than universal reason. Before + him, M. de Bonald thought he had discovered it in language. Quite + recently, M. Buchez has proposed morality; and, to harmonize them all, the + eclectics have said that it was absurd to seek for an absolute criterion, + since there were as many criteria as special orders of knowledge. + </p> + <p> + Of all these hypotheses it may be observed, That the testimony of the + senses is not a criterion, because the senses, relating us only to + phenomena, furnish us with no ideas; that intuition needs external + confirmation or objective certainty; that evidence requires proof, and + argument verification; that universal reason has been wrong many a time; + that language serves equally well to express the true or the false; that + morality, like all the rest, needs demonstration and rule; and finally, + that the eclectic idea is the least reasonable of all, since it is of no + use to say that there are several criteria if we cannot point out one. I + very much fear that it will be with the criterion as with the + philosopher's stone; that it will finally be abandoned, not only as + insolvable, but as chimerical. Consequently, I entertain no hopes of + having found it; nevertheless, I am not sure that some one more skilful + will not discover it. + </p> + <p> + Be it as it may with regard to a criterion or criteria, there are methods + of demonstration which, when applied to certain subjects, may lead to the + discovery of unknown truths, bring to light relations hitherto + unsuspected, and lift a paradox to the highest degree of certainty. In + such a case, it is not by its novelty, nor even by its content, that a + system should be judged, but by its method. The critic, then, should + follow the example of the Supreme Court, which, in the cases which come + before it, never examines the facts, but only the form of procedure. Now, + what is the form of procedure? A method. + </p> + <p> + I then looked to see what philosophy, in the absence of a criterion, had + accomplished by the aid of special methods, and I must say that I could + not discover—in spite of the loudly-proclaimed pretensions of some—that + it had produced any thing of real value; and, at last, wearied with the + philosophical twaddle, I resolved to make a new search for the criterion. + I confess it, to my shame, this folly lasted for two years, and I am not + yet entirely rid of it. It was like seeking a needle in a haystack. I + might have learned Chinese or Arabic in the time that I have lost in + considering and reconsidering syllogisms, in rising to the summit of an + induction as to the top of a ladder, in inserting a proposition between + the horns of a dilemma, in decomposing, distinguishing, separating, + denying, affirming, admitting, as if I could pass abstractions through a + sieve. + </p> + <p> + I selected justice as the subject-matter of my experiments. Finally, after + a thousand decompositions, recompositions, and double compositions, I + found at the bottom of my analytical crucible, not the criterion of + certainty, but a metaphysico-economico-political treatise, whose + conclusions were such that I did not care to present them in a more + artistic or, if you will, more intelligible form. The effect which this + work produced upon all classes of minds gave me an idea of the spirit of + our age, and did not cause me to regret the prudent and scientific + obscurity of my style. How happens it that to-day I am obliged to defend + my intentions, when my conduct bears the evident impress of such lofty + morality? + </p> + <p> + You have read my work, sir, and you know the gist of my tedious and + scholastic lucubrations. Considering the revolutions of humanity, the + vicissitudes of empires, the transformations of property, and the + innumerable forms of justice and of right, I asked, "Are the evils which + afflict us inherent in our condition as men, or do they arise only from an + error? This inequality of fortunes which all admit to be the cause of + society's embarrassments, is it, as some assert, the effect of Nature; or, + in the division of the products of labor and the soil, may there not have + been some error in calculation? Does each laborer receive all that is due + him, and only that which is due him? In short, in the present conditions + of labor, wages, and exchange, is no one wronged?—are the accounts + well kept?—is the social balance accurate?" + </p> + <p> + Then I commenced a most laborious investigation. It was necessary to + arrange informal notes, to discuss contradictory titles, to reply to + captious allegations, to refute absurd pretensions, and to describe + fictitious debts, dishonest transactions, and fraudulent accounts. In + order to triumph over quibblers, I had to deny the authority of custom, to + examine the arguments of legislators, and to oppose science with science + itself. Finally, all these operations completed, I had to give a judicial + decision. + </p> + <p> + I therefore declared, my hand upon my heart, before God and men, that the + causes of social inequality are three in number: 1. GRATUITOUS + APPROPRIATION OF COLLECTIVE WEALTH; 2. INEQUALITY IN EXCHANGE; 3. THE + RIGHT OF PROFIT OR INCREASE. + </p> + <p> + And since this threefold method of extortion is the very essence of the + domain of property, I denied the legitimacy of property, and proclaimed + its identity with robbery. + </p> + <p> + That is my only offence. I have reasoned upon property; I have searched + for the criterion of justice; I have demonstrated, not the possibility, + but the necessity, of equality of fortunes; I have allowed myself no + attack upon persons, no assault upon the government, of which I, more than + any one else, am a provisional adherent. If I have sometimes used the word + PROPRIETOR, I have used it as the abstract name of a metaphysical being, + whose reality breathes in every individual,—not alone in a + privileged few. + </p> + <p> + Nevertheless, I acknowledge—for I wish my confession to be sincere—that + the general tone of my book has been bitterly censured. They complain of + an atmosphere of passion and invective unworthy of an honest man, and + quite out of place in the treatment of so grave a subject. + </p> + <p> + If this reproach is well founded (which it is impossible for me either to + deny or admit, because in my own cause I cannot be judge),—if, I + say, I deserve this charge, I can only humble myself and acknowledge + myself guilty of an involuntary wrong; the only excuse that I could offer + being of such a nature that it ought not to be communicated to the public. + All that I can say is, that I understand better than any one how the anger + which injustice causes may render an author harsh and violent in his + criticisms. When, after twenty years of labor, a man still finds himself + on the brink of starvation, and then suddenly discovers in an + equivocation, an error in calculation, the cause of the evil which + torments him in common with so many millions of his fellows, he can + scarcely restrain a cry of sorrow and dismay. + </p> + <p> + But, sir, though pride be offended by my rudeness, it is not to pride that + I apologize, but to the proletaires, to the simple-minded, whom I perhaps + have scandalized. My angry dialectics may have produced a bad effect on + some peaceable minds. Some poor workingman—more affected by my + sarcasm than by the strength of my arguments—may, perhaps, have + concluded that property is the result of a perpetual Machiavelianism on + the part of the governors against the governed,—a deplorable error + of which my book itself is the best refutation. I devoted two chapters to + showing how property springs from human personality and the comparison of + individuals. Then I explained its perpetual limitation; and, following out + the same idea, I predicted its approaching disappearance. How, then, could + the editors of the "Revue Democratique," after having borrowed from me + nearly the whole substance of their economical articles, dare to say: "The + holders of the soil, and other productive capital, are more or less wilful + accomplices in a vast robbery, they being the exclusive receivers and + sharers of the stolen goods"? + </p> + <p> + The proprietors WILFULLY guilty of the crime of robbery! Never did that + homicidal phrase escape my pen; never did my heart conceive the frightful + thought. Thank Heaven! I know not how to calumniate my kind; and I have + too strong a desire to seek for the reason of things to be willing to + believe in criminal conspiracies. The millionnaire is no more tainted by + property than the journeyman who works for thirty sous per day. On both + sides the error is equal, as well as the intention. The effect is also the + same, though positive in the former, and negative in the latter. I accused + property; I did not denounce the proprietors, which would have been + absurd: and I am sorry that there are among us wills so perverse and minds + so shattered that they care for only so much of the truth as will aid them + in their evil designs. Such is the only regret which I feel on account of + my indignation, which, though expressed perhaps too bitterly, was at least + honest, and legitimate in its source. + </p> + <p> + However, what did I do in this essay which I voluntarily submitted to the + Academy of Moral Sciences? Seeking a fixed axiom amid social + uncertainties, I traced back to one fundamental question all the secondary + questions over which, at present, so keen and diversified a conflict is + raging This question was the right of property. Then, comparing all + existing theories with each other, and extracting from them that which is + common to them all, I endeavored to discover that element in the idea of + property which is necessary, immutable, and absolute; and asserted, after + authentic verification, that this idea is reducible to that of INDIVIDUAL + AND TRANSMISSIBLE POSSESSION; SUSCEPTIBLE OF EXCHANGE, BUT NOT OF + ALIENATION; FOUNDED ON LABOR, AND NOT ON FICTITIOUS OCCUPANCY, OR IDLE + CAPRICE. I said, further, that this idea was the result of our + revolutionary movements,—the culminating point towards which all + opinions, gradually divesting themselves of their contradictory elements, + converge. And I tried to demonstrate this by the spirit of the laws, by + political economy, by psychology and history. + </p> + <p> + A Father of the Church, finishing a learned exposition of the Catholic + doctrine, cried, in the enthusiasm of his faith, <i>"Domine, si error est, + a te decepti sumus</i> (if my religion is false, God is to blame)." I, as + well as this theologian, can say, "If equality is a fable, God, through + whom we act and think and are; God, who governs society by eternal laws, + who rewards just nations, and punishes proprietors,—God alone is the + author of evil; God has lied. The fault lies not with me." + </p> + <p> + But, if I am mistaken in my inferences, I should be shown my error, and + led out of it. It is surely worth the trouble, and I think I deserve this + honor. There is no ground for proscription. + </p> + <p> + For, in the words of that member of the Convention who did not like the + guillotine, <i>to kill is not to reply</i>. Until then, I persist in + regarding my work as useful, social, full of instruction for public + officials,—worthy, in short, of reward and encouragement. + </p> + <p> + For there is one truth of which I am profoundly convinced,—nations + live by absolute ideas, not by approximate and partial conceptions; + therefore, men are needed who define principles, or at least test them in + the fire of controversy. Such is the law,—the idea first, the pure + idea, the understanding of the laws of God, the theory: practice follows + with slow steps, cautious, attentive to the succession of events; sure to + seize, towards this eternal meridian, the indications of supreme reason. + </p> + <p> + The co-operation of theory and practice produces in humanity the + realization of order,—the absolute truth. <a href="#linknote-74" + name="linknoteref-74" id="linknoteref-74"><small>74</small></a> + </p> + <p> + All of us, as long as we live, are called, each in proportion to his + strength, to this sublime work. The only duty which it imposes upon us is + to refrain from appropriating the truth to ourselves, either by concealing + it, or by accommodating it to the temper of the century, or by using it + for our own interests. This principle of conscience, so grand and so + simple, has always been present in my thought. + </p> + <p> + Consider, in fact, sir, that which I might have done, but did not wish to + do. I reason on the most honorable hypothesis. What hindered me from + concealing, for some years to come, the abstract theory of the equality of + fortunes, and, at the same time, from criticising constitutions and codes; + from showing the absolute and the contingent, the immutable and the + ephemeral, the eternal and the transitory, in laws present and past; from + constructing a new system of legislation, and establishing on a solid + foundation this social edifice, ever destroyed and as often rebuilt? Might + I not, taking up the definitions of casuists, have clearly shown the cause + of their contradictions and uncertainties, and supplied, at the same time, + the inadequacies of their conclusions? Might I not have confirmed this + labor by a vast historical exposition, in which the principle of + exclusion, and of the accumulation of property, the appropriation of + collective wealth, and the radical vice in exchanges, would have figured + as the constant causes of tyranny, war, and revolution? + </p> + <p> + "It should have been done," you say. Do not doubt, sir, that such a task + would have required more patience than genius. With the principles of + social economy which I have analyzed, I would have had only to break the + ground, and follow the furrow. The critic of laws finds nothing more + difficult than to determine justice: the labor alone would have been + longer. Oh, if I had pursued this glittering prospect, and, like the man + of the burning bush, with inspired countenance and deep and solemn voice, + had presented myself some day with new tables, there would have been found + fools to admire, boobies to applaud, and cowards to offer me the + dictatorship; for, in the way of popular infatuations, nothing is + impossible. + </p> + <p> + But, sir, after this monument of insolence and pride, what should I have + deserved in your opinion, at the tribunal of God, and in the judgment of + free men? Death, sir, and eternal reprobation! + </p> + <p> + I therefore spoke the truth as soon as I saw it, waiting only long enough + to give it proper expression. I pointed out error in order that each might + reform himself, and render his labors more useful. I announced the + existence of a new political element, in order that my associates in + reform, developing it in concert, might arrive more promptly at that unity + of principles which alone can assure to society a better day. I expected + to receive, if not for my book, at least for my commendable conduct, a + small republican ovation. And, behold! journalists denounce me, + academicians curse me, political adventurers (great God!) think to make + themselves tolerable by protesting that they are not like me! I give the + formula by which the whole social edifice may be scientifically + reconstructed, and the strongest minds reproach me for being able only to + destroy. The rest despise me, because I am unknown. When the "Essay on + Property" fell into the reformatory camp, some asked: "Who has spoken? Is + it Arago? Is it Lamennais? Michel de Bourges or Garnier-Pages?" + </p> + <p> + And when they heard the name of a new man: "We do not know him," they + would reply. Thus, the monopoly of thought, property in reason, oppresses + the proletariat as well as the <i>bourgeoisie</i>. The worship of the + infamous prevails even on the steps of the tabernacle. + </p> + <p> + But what am I saying? May evil befall me, if I blame the poor creatures! + Oh! let us not despise those generous souls, who in the excitement of + their patriotism are always prompt to identify the voice of their chiefs + with the truth. Let us encourage rather their simple credulity, enlighten + complacently and tenderly their precious sincerity, and reserve our shafts + for those vain-glorious spirits who are always admiring their genius, and, + in different tongues, caressing the people in order to govern them. + </p> + <p> + These considerations alone oblige me to reply to the strange and + superficial conclusions of the "Journal du Peuple" (issue of Oct. 11, + 1840), on the question of property. I leave, therefore, the journalist to + address myself only to his readers. I hope that the self-love of the + writer will not be offended, if, in the presence of the masses, I ignore + an individual. + </p> + <p> + You say, proletaires of the "Peuple," "For the very reason that men and + things exist, there always will be men who will possess things; nothing, + therefore, can destroy property." + </p> + <p> + In speaking thus, you unconsciously argue exactly after the manner of M. + Cousin, who always reasons from <i>possession</i> to PROPERTY. This + coincidence, however, does not surprise me. M. Cousin is a philosopher of + much mind, and you, proletaires, have still more. Certainly it is + honorable, even for a philosopher, to be your companion in error. + </p> + <p> + Originally, the word PROPERTY was synonymous with PROPER or INDIVIDUAL + POSSESSION. It designated each individual's special right to the use of a + thing. But when this right of use, inert (if I may say so) as it was with + regard to the other usufructuaries, became active and paramount,—that + is, when the usufructuary converted his right to personally use the thing + into the right to use it by his neighbor's labor,—then property + changed its nature, and its idea became complex. The legists knew this + very well, but instead of opposing, as they ought, this accumulation of + profits, they accepted and sanctioned the whole. And as the right of + farm-rent necessarily implies the right of use,—in other words, as + the right to cultivate land by the labor of a slave supposes one's power + to cultivate it himself, according to the principle that the greater + includes the less,—the name property was reserved to designate this + double right, and that of possession was adopted to designate the right of + use. + </p> + <p> + Whence property came to be called the perfect right, the right of domain, + the eminent right, the heroic or <i>quiritaire</i> right,—in Latin, + <i>jus perfectum, jus optimum, jus quiritarium, jus dominii</i>,—while + possession became assimilated to farm-rent. + </p> + <p> + Now, that individual possession exists of right, or, better, from natural + necessity, all philosophers admit, and can easily e demonstrated; but + when, in imitation of M. Cousin, we assume it to be the basis of the + domain of property, we fall into the sophism called <i>sophisma + amphiboliae vel ambiguitatis</i>, which consists in changing the meaning + by a verbal equivocation. + </p> + <p> + People often think themselves very profound, because, by the aid of + expressions of extreme generality, they appear to rise to the height of + absolute ideas, and thus deceive inexperienced minds; and, what is worse, + this is commonly called EXAMINING ABSTRACTIONS. But the abstraction formed + by the comparison of identical facts is one thing, while that which is + deduced from different acceptations of the same term is quite another. The + first gives the universal idea, the axiom, the law; the second indicates + the order of generation of ideas. All our errors arise from the constant + confusion of these two kinds of abstractions. In this particular, + languages and philosophies are alike deficient. The less common an idiom + is, and the more obscure its terms, the more prolific is it as a source of + error: a philosopher is sophistical in proportion to his ignorance of any + method of neutralizing this imperfection in language. If the art of + correcting the errors of speech by scientific methods is ever discovered, + then philosophy will have found its criterion of certainty. + </p> + <p> + Now, then, the difference between property and possession being well + established, and it being settled that the former, for the reasons which I + have just given, must necessarily disappear, is it best, for the slight + advantage of restoring an etymology, to retain the word PROPERTY? My + opinion is that it would be very unwise to do so, and I will tell why. I + quote from the "Journal du Peuple:"— + </p> + <p> + "To the legislative power belongs the right to regulate property, to + prescribe the conditions of acquiring, possessing, and transmitting it... + It cannot be denied that inheritance, assessment, commerce, industry, + labor, and wages require the most important modifications." + </p> + <p> + You wish, proletaires, to REGULATE PROPERTY; that is, you wish to destroy + it and reduce it to the right of possession. For to regulate property + without the consent of the proprietors is to deny the right OF DOMAIN; to + associate employees with proprietors is to destroy the EMINENT right; to + suppress or even reduce farm-rent, house-rent, revenue, and increase + generally, is to annihilate PERFECT property. Why, then, while laboring + with such laudable enthusiasm for the establishment of equality, should + you retain an expression whose equivocal meaning will always be an + obstacle in the way of your success? + </p> + <p> + There you have the first reason—a wholly philosophical one—for + rejecting not only the thing, but the name, property. Here now is the + political, the highest reason. + </p> + <p> + Every social revolution—M. Cousin will tell you—is effected + only by the realization of an idea, either political, moral, or religious. + When Alexander conquered Asia, his idea was to avenge Greek liberty + against the insults of Oriental despotism; when Marius and Caesar + overthrew the Roman patricians, their idea was to give bread to the + people; when Christianity revolutionized the world, its idea was to + emancipate mankind, and to substitute the worship of one God for the + deities of Epicurus and Homer; when France rose in '89, her idea was + liberty and equality before the law. There has been no true revolution, + says M. Cousin, with out its idea; so that where an idea does not exist, + or even fails of a formal expression, revolution is impossible. There are + mobs, conspirators, rioters, regicides. There are no revolutionists. + Society, devoid of ideas, twists and tosses about, and dies in the midst + of its fruitless labor. + </p> + <p> + Nevertheless, you all feel that a revolution is to come, and that you + alone can accomplish it. What, then, is the idea which governs you, + proletaires of the nineteenth century?—for really I cannot call you + revolutionists. What do you think?—what do you believe?—what + do you want? Be guarded in your reply. I have read faithfully your + favorite journals, your most esteemed authors. I find everywhere only vain + and puerile <i>entites</i>; nowhere do I discover an idea. + </p> + <p> + I will explain the meaning of this word <i>entite</i>,—new, without + doubt, to most of you. + </p> + <p> + By <i>entite</i> is generally understood a substance which the imagination + grasps, but which is incognizable by the senses and the reason. Thus the + SOPORIFIC POWER of opium, of which Sganarelle speaks, and the PECCANT + HUMORS of ancient medicine, are <i>entites</i>. The <i>entite</i> is the + support of those who do not wish to confess their ignorance. It is + incomprehensible; or, as St. Paul says, the <i>argumentum non apparentium</i>. + In philosophy, the <i>entite</i> is often only a repetition of words which + add nothing to the thought. + </p> + <p> + For example, when M. Pierre Leroux—who says so many excellent + things, but who is too fond, in my opinion, of his Platonic formulas—assures + us that the evils of humanity are due to our IGNORANCE OF LIFE, M. Pierre + Leroux utters an <i>entite;</i> for it is evident that if we are evil it + is because we do not know how to live; but the knowledge of this fact is + of no value to us. + </p> + <p> + When M. Edgar Quinet declares that France suffers and declines because + there is an ANTAGONISM of men and of interests, he declares an <i>entite;</i> + for the problem is to discover the cause of this antagonism. + </p> + <p> + When M. Lamennais, in thunder tones, preaches self-sacrifice and love, he + proclaims two <i>entites</i>; for we need to know on what conditions + self-sacrifice and love can spring up and exist. + </p> + <p> + So also, proletaires, when you talk of LIBERTY, PROGRESS, and THE + SOVEREIGNTY OF THE PEOPLE, you make of these naturally intelligible things + so many <i>entites</i> in space: for, on the one hand, we need a new + definition of liberty, since that of '89 no longer suffices; and, on the + other, we must know in what direction society should proceed in order to + be in progress. As for the sovereignty of the people, that is a grosser <i>entite</i> + than the sovereignty of reason; it is the <i>entite</i> of <i>entites</i>. + In fact, since sovereignty can no more be conceived of outside of the + people than outside of reason, it remains to be ascertained who, among the + people, shall exercise the sovereignty; and, among so many minds, which + shall be the sovereigns. To say that the people should elect their + representatives is to say that the people should recognize their + sovereigns, which does not remove the difficulty at all. + </p> + <p> + But suppose that, equal by birth, equal before the law, equal in + personality, equal in social functions, you wish also to be equal in + conditions. + </p> + <p> + Suppose that, perceiving all the mutual relations of men, whether they + produce or exchange or consume, to be relations of commutative justice,—in + a word, social relations; suppose, I say, that, perceiving this, you wish + to give this natural society a legal existence, and to establish the fact + by law,— + </p> + <p> + I say that then you need a clear, positive, and exact expression of your + whole idea,—that is, an expression which states at once the + principle, the means, and the end; and I add that that expression is + ASSOCIATION. + </p> + <p> + And since the association of the human race dates, at least rightfully, + from the beginning of the world, and has gradually established and + perfected itself by successively divesting itself of its negative + elements, slavery, nobility, despotism, aristocracy, and feudalism,—I + say that, to eliminate the last negation of society, to formulate the last + revolutionary idea, you must change your old rallying-cries, NO MORE + ABSOLUTISM, NO MORE NOBILITY, NO MORE SLAVES! into that of NO MORE + PROPERTY!... + </p> + <p> + But I know what astonishes you, poor souls, blasted by the wind of + poverty, and crushed by your patrons' pride: it is EQUALITY, whose + consequences frighten you. How, you have said in your journal,—how + can we "dream of a level which, being unnatural, is therefore unjust? How + shall we pay the day's labor of a Cormenin or a Lamennais?" + </p> + <p> + Plebeians, listen! When, after the battle of Salamis, the Athenians + assembled to award the prizes for courage, after the ballots had been + collected, it was found that each combatant had one vote for the first + prize, and Themistocles all the votes for the second. The people of + Minerva were crowned by their own hands. Truly heroic souls! all were + worthy of the olive-branch, since all had ventured to claim it for + themselves. Antiquity praised this sublime spirit. Learn, proletaires, to + esteem yourselves, and to respect your dignity. You wish to be free, and + you know not how to be citizens. Now, whoever says "citizens" necessarily + says equals. + </p> + <p> + If I should call myself Lamennais or Cormenin, and some journal, speaking + of me, should burst forth with these hyperboles, INCOMPARABLE GENIUS, + SUPERIOR MIND, CONSUMMATE VIRTUE, NOBLE CHARACTER, I should not like it, + and should complain,—first, because such eulogies are never + deserved; and, second, because they furnish a bad example. But I wish, in + order to reconcile you to equality, to measure for you the greatest + literary personage of our century. Do not accuse me of envy, proletaires, + if I, a defender of equality, estimate at their proper value talents which + are universally admired, and which I, better than any one, know how to + recognize. A dwarf can always measure a giant: all that he needs is a + yardstick. + </p> + <p> + You have seen the pretentious announcements of "L'Esquisse d'une + Philosophie," and you have admired the work on trust; for either you have + not read it, or, if you have, you are incapable of judging it. Acquaint + yourselves, then, with this speculation more brilliant than sound; and, + while admiring the enthusiasm of the author, cease to pity those useful + labors which only habit and the great number of the persons engaged in + them render contemptible. I shall be brief; for, notwithstanding the + importance of the subject and the genius of the author, what I have to say + is of but little moment. + </p> + <p> + M. Lamennais starts with the existence of God. How does he demonstrate it? + By Cicero's argument,—that is, by the consent of the human race. + There is nothing new in that. We have still to find out whether the belief + of the human race is legitimate; or, as Kant says, whether our subjective + certainty of the existence of God corresponds with the objective truth. + This, however, does not trouble M. Lamennais. He says that, if the human + race believes, it is because it has a reason for believing. + </p> + <p> + Then, having pronounced the name of God, M. Lamennais sings a hymn; and + that is his demonstration! + </p> + <p> + This first hypothesis admitted, M. Lamennais follows it with a second; + namely, that there are three persons in God. But, while Christianity + teaches the dogma of the Trinity only on the authority of revelation, M. + Lamennais pretends to arrive at it by the sole force of argument; and he + does not perceive that his pretended demonstration is, from beginning to + end, anthropomorphism,—that is, an ascription of the faculties of + the human mind and the powers of nature to the Divine substance. New + songs, new hymns! + </p> + <p> + God and the Trinity thus DEMONSTRATED, the philosopher passes to the + creation,—a third hypothesis, in which M. Lamennais, always + eloquent, varied, and sublime, DEMONSTRATES that God made the world + neither of nothing, nor of something, nor of himself; that he was free in + creating, but that nevertheless he could not but create; that there is in + matter a matter which is not matter; that the archetypal ideas of the + world are separated from each other, in the Divine mind, by a division + which is obscure and unintelligible, and yet substantial and real, which + involves intelligibility, &c. We meet with like contradictions + concerning the origin of evil. To explain this problem,—one of the + profoundest in philosophy,—M. Lamennais at one time denies evil, at + another makes God the author of evil, and at still another seeks outside + of God a first cause which is not God,—an amalgam of <i>entites</i> + more or less incoherent, borrowed from Plato, Proclus, Spinoza, I might + say even from all philosophers. + </p> + <p> + Having thus established his trinity of hypotheses, M. Lamennais deduces + therefrom, by a badly connected chain of analogies, his whole philosophy. + And it is here especially that we notice the syncretism which is peculiar + to him. The theory of M. Lamennais embraces all systems, and supports all + opinions. Are you a materialist? Suppress, as useless <i>entites</i>, the + three persons in God; then, starting directly from heat, light, and + electro-magnetism,—which, according to the author, are the three + original fluids, the three primary external manifestations of Will, + Intelligence, and Love,—you have a materialistic and atheistic + cosmogony. On the contrary, are you wedded to spiritualism? With the + theory of the immateriality of the body, you are able to see everywhere + nothing but spirits. Finally, if you incline to pantheism, you will be + satisfied by M. Lamennais, who formally teaches that the world is not an + EMANATION from Divinity,—which is pure pantheism,—but a FLOW + of Divinity. + </p> + <p> + I do not pretend, however, to deny that "L'Esquisse" contains some + excellent things; but, by the author's declaration, these things are not + original with him; it is the system which is his. That is undoubtedly the + reason why M. Lamennais speaks so contemptuously of his predecessors in + philosophy, and disdains to quote his originals. He thinks that, since + "L'Esquisse" contains all true philosophy, the world will lose nothing + when the names and works of the old philosophers perish. M. Lamennais, who + renders glory to God in beautiful songs, does not know how as well to + render justice to his fellows. His fatal fault is this appropriation of + knowledge, which the theologians call the PHILOSOPHICAL SIN, or the SIN + AGAINST THE HOLY GHOST—a sin which will not damn you, proletaires, + nor me either. + </p> + <p> + In short, "L'Esquisse," judged as a system, and divested of all which its + author borrows from previous systems, is a commonplace work, whose method + consists in constantly explaining the known by the unknown, and in giving + entites for abstractions, and tautologies for proofs. Its whole theodicy + is a work not of genius but of imagination, a patching up of neo-Platonic + ideas. The psychological portion amounts to nothing, M. Lamennais openly + ridiculing labors of this character, without which, however, metaphysics + is impossible. The book, which treats of logic and its methods, is weak, + vague, and shallow. Finally, we find in the physical and physiological + speculations which M. Lamennais deduces from his trinitarian cosmogony + grave errors, the preconceived design of accommodating facts to theory, + and the substitution in almost every case of hypothesis for reality. The + third volume on industry and art is the most interesting to read, and the + best. It is true that M. Lamennais can boast of nothing but his style. As + a philosopher, he has added not a single idea to those which existed + before him. + </p> + <p> + Why, then, this excessive mediocrity of M. Lamennais considered as a + thinker, a mediocrity which disclosed itself at the time of the + publication of the "Essai sur l'Indifference!"? It is because (remember + this well, proletaires!) Nature makes no man truly complete, and because + the development of certain faculties almost always excludes an equal + development of the opposite faculties; it is because M. Lamennais is + preeminently a poet, a man of feeling and sentiment. Look at his style,—exuberant, + sonorous, picturesque, vehement, full of exaggeration and invective,—and + hold it for certain that no man possessed of such a style was ever a true + metaphysician. This wealth of expression and illustration, which everybody + admires, becomes in M Lamennais the incurable cause of his philosophical + impotence. His flow of language, and his sensitive nature misleading his + imagination, he thinks that he is reasoning when he is only repeating + himself, and readily takes a description for a logical deduction. Hence + his horror of positive ideas, his feeble powers of analysis, his + pronounced taste for indefinite analogies, verbal abstractions, + hypothetical generalities, in short, all sorts of entites. + </p> + <p> + Further, the entire life of M. Lamennais is conclusive proof of his + anti-philosophical genius. Devout even to mysticism, an ardent + ultramontane, an intolerant theocrat, he at first feels the double + influence of the religious reaction and the literary theories which marked + the beginning of this century, and falls back to the middle ages and + Gregory VII.; then, suddenly becoming a progressive Christian and a + democrat, he gradually leans towards rationalism, and finally falls into + deism. At present, everybody waits at the trap-door. As for me, though I + would not swear to it, I am inclined to think that M. Lamennais, already + taken with scepticism, will die in a state of indifference. He owes to + individual reason and methodical doubt this expiation of his early essays. + </p> + <p> + It has been pretended that M. Lamennais, preaching now a theocracy, now + universal democracy, has been always consistent; that, under different + names, he has sought invariably one and the same thing,—unity. + Pitiful excuse for an author surprised in the very act of contradiction! + What would be thought of a man who, by turns a servant of despotism under + Louis XVI, a demagogue with Robespierre, a courtier of the Emperor, a + bigot during fifteen years of the Restoration, a conservative since 1830, + should dare to say that he ever had wished for but one thing,—public + order? Would he be regarded as any the less a renegade from all parties? + Public order, unity, the world's welfare, social harmony, the union of the + nations,—concerning each of these things there is no possible + difference of opinion. Everybody wishes them; the character of the + publicist depends only upon the means by which he proposes to arrive at + them. But why look to M. Lamennais for a steadfastness of opinion, which + he himself repudiates? Has he not said, "The mind has no law; that which I + believe to-day, I did not believe yesterday; I do not know that I shall + believe it to-morrow"? + </p> + <p> + No; there is no real superiority among men, since all talents and + capacities are combined never in one individual. This man has the power of + thought, that one imagination and style, still another industrial and + commercial capacity. By our very nature and education, we possess only + special aptitudes which are limited and confined, and which become + consequently more necessary as they gain in depth and strength. Capacities + are to each other as functions and persons; who would dare to classify + them in ranks? The finest genius is, by the laws of his existence and + development, the most dependent upon the society which creates him. Who + would dare to make a god of the glorious child? + </p> + <p> + "It is not strength which makes the man," said a Hercules of the + market-place to the admiring crowd; "it is character." That man, who had + only his muscles, held force in contempt. The lesson is a good one, + proletaires; we should profit by it. It is not talent (which is also a + force), it is not knowledge, it is not beauty which makes the man. It is + heart, courage, will, virtue. Now, if we are equal in that which makes us + men, how can the accidental distribution of secondary faculties detract + from our manhood? + </p> + <p> + Remember that privilege is naturally and inevitably the lot of the weak; + and do not be misled by the fame which accompanies certain talents whose + greatest merit consists in their rarity, and a long and toilsome + apprenticeship. It is easier for M. Lamennais to recite a philippic, or + sing a humanitarian ode after the Platonic fashion, than to discover a + single useful truth; it is easier for an economist to apply the laws of + production and distribution than to write ten lines in the style of M. + Lamennais; it is easier for both to speak than to act. You, then, who put + your hands to the work, who alone truly create, why do you wish me to + admit your inferiority? But, what am I saying? + </p> + <p> + Yes, you are inferior, for you lack virtue and will! Ready for labor and + for battle, you have, when liberty and equality are in question, neither + courage nor character! + </p> + <p> + In the preface to his pamphlet on "Le Pays et le Gouvernement," as well as + in his defence before the jury, M. Lamennais frankly declared himself an + advocate of property. Out of regard for the author and his misfortune, I + shall abstain from characterizing this declaration, and from examining + these two sorrowful performances. M. Lamennais seems to be only the tool + of a quasi-radical party, which flatters him in order to use him, without + respect for a glorious, but hence forth powerless, old age. What means + this profession of faith? From the first number of "L'Avenir" to + "L'Esquisse d'une Philosophie," M. Lamennais always favors equality, + association, and even a sort of vague and indefinite communism. M. + Lamennais, in recognizing the right of property, gives the lie to his past + career, and renounces his most generous tendencies. Can it, then, be true + that in this man, who has been too roughly treated, but who is also too + easily flattered, strength of talent has already outlived strength of + will? + </p> + <p> + It is said that M. Lamennais has rejected the offers of several of his + friends to try to procure for him a commutation of his sentence. M. + Lamennais prefers to serve out his time. May not this affectation of a + false stoicism come from the same source as his recognition of the right + of property? The Huron, when taken prisoner, hurls insults and threats at + his conqueror,—that is the heroism of the savage; the martyr prays + for his executioners, and is willing to receive from them his life,—that + is the heroism of the Christian. Why has the apostle of love become an + apostle of anger and revenge? Has, then, the translator of "L'Imitation" + forgotten that he who offends charity cannot honor virtue? Galileo, + retracting on his knees before the tribunal of the inquisition his heresy + in regard to the movement of the earth, and recovering at that price his + liberty, seems to me a hundred times grander than M. Lamennais. What! if + we suffer for truth and justice, must we, in retaliation, thrust our + persecutors outside the pale of human society; and, when sentenced to an + unjust punishment, must we decline exemption if it is offered to us, + because it pleases a few base satellites to call it a pardon? Such is not + the wisdom of Christianity. But I forgot that in the presence of M. + Lamennais this name is no longer pronounced. May the prophet of "L'Avenir" + be soon restored to liberty and his friends; but, above all, may he + henceforth derive his inspiration only from his genius and his heart! + </p> + <p> + O proletaires, proletaires! how long are you to be victimized by this + spirit of revenge and implacable hatred which your false friends kindle, + and which, perhaps, has done more harm to the development of reformatory + ideas than the corruption, ignorance, and malice of the government? + Believe me, at the present time everybody is to blame. In fact, in + intention, or in example, all are found wanting; and you have no right to + accuse any one. The king himself (God forgive me! I do not like to justify + a king),—the king himself is, like his predecessors, only the + personification of an idea, and an idea, proletaires, which possesses you + yet. His greatest wrong consists in wishing for its complete realization, + while you wish it realized only partially,—consequently, in being + logical in his government; while you, in your complaints, are not at all + so. You clamor for a second regicide. He that is without sin among you,—let + him cast at the prince of property the first stone! + </p> + <p> + How successful you would have been if, in order to influence men, you had + appealed to the self-love of men,—if, in order to alter the + constitution and the law, you had placed yourselves within the + constitution and the law! Fifty thousand laws, they say, make up our + political and civil codes. Of these fifty thousand laws, twenty-five + thousand are for you, twenty-five thousand against you. Is it not clear + that your duty is to oppose the former to the latter, and thus, by the + argument of contradiction, drive privilege into its last ditch? This + method of action is henceforth the only useful one, being the only moral + and rational one. + </p> + <p> + For my part, if I had the ear of this nation, to which I am attached by + birth and predilection, with no intention of playing the leading part in + the future republic, I would instruct the laboring masses to conquer + property through institutions and judicial pleadings; to seek auxiliaries + and accomplices in the highest ranks of society, and to ruin all + privileged classes by taking advantage of their common desire for power + and popularity. + </p> + <p> + The petition for the electoral reform has already received two hundred + thousand signatures, and the illustrious Arago threatens us with a + million. Surely, that will be well done; but from this million of + citizens, who are as willing to vote for an emperor as for equality, could + we not select ten thousand signatures—I mean bona fide signatures—whose + authors can read, write, cipher, and even think a little, and whom we + could invite, after due perusal and verbal explanation, to sign such a + petition as the following:— + </p> + <p> + "TO HIS EXCELLENCY THE MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:— + </p> + <p> + "MONSIEUR LE MINISTRE,—On the day when a royal ordinance, decreeing + the establishment of model national workshops, shall appear in the + 'Moniteur,' the undersigned, to the number of TEN THOUSAND, will repair to + the Palace of the Tuileries, and there, with all the power of their lungs, + will shout, 'Long live Louis Philippe!' + </p> + <p> + "On the day when the 'Moniteur' shall inform the public that this petition + is refused, the undersigned, to the number of TEN THOUSAND, will say + secretly in their hearts, 'Down with Louis Philippe!'" + </p> + <p> + If I am not mistaken, such a petition would have some effect. <a + href="#linknote-75" name="linknoteref-75" id="linknoteref-75"><small>75</small></a> + The pleasure of a popular ovation would be well worth the sacrifice of a + few millions. They sow so much to reap unpopularity! Then, if the nation, + its hopes of 1830 restored, should feel it its duty to keep its promise,—and + it would keep it, for the word of the nation is, like that of God, sacred,—if, + I say, the nation, reconciled by this act with the public-spirited + monarchy, should bear to the foot of the throne its cheers and its vows, + and should at that solemn moment choose me to speak in its name, the + following would be the substance of my speech:— + </p> + <p> + "SIRE,—This is what the nation wishes to say to your Majesty:— + </p> + <p> + "O King! you see what it costs to gain the applause of the citizens. Would + you like us henceforth to take for our motto: 'Let us help the King, the + King will help us'? Do you wish the people to cry: 'THE KING AND THE + FRENCH NATION'? Then abandon these grasping bankers, these quarrelsome + lawyers, these miserable bourgeois, these infamous writers, these + dishonored men. All these, Sire, hate you, and continue to support you + only because they fear us. Finish the work of our kings; wipe out + aristocracy and privilege; consult with these faithful proletaires, with + the nation, which alone can honor a sovereign and sincerely shout, 'Long + live the king!'" + </p> + <p> + The rest of what I have to say, sir, is for you alone; others would not + understand me. You are, I perceive, a republican as well as an economist, + and your patriotism revolts at the very idea of addressing to the + authorities a petition in which the government of Louis Philippe should be + tacitly recognized. "National workshops! it were well to have such + institutions established," you think; "but patriotic hearts never will + accept them from an aristocratic ministry, nor by the courtesy of a king." + Already, undoubtedly, your old prejudices have returned, and you now + regard me only as a sophist, as ready to flatter the powers that be as to + dishonor, by pushing them to an extreme, the principles of equality and + universal fraternity. + </p> + <p> + What shall I say to you?... That I should so lightly compromise the future + of my theories, either this clever sophistry which is attributed to me + must be at bottom a very trifling affair, or else my convictions must be + so firm that they deprive me of free-will. + </p> + <p> + But, not to insist further on the necessity of a compromise between the + executive power and the people, it seems to me, sir, that, in doubting my + patriotism, you reason very capriciously, and that your judgments are + exceedingly rash. You, sir, ostensibly defending government and property, + are allowed to be a republican, reformer, phalansterian, any thing you + wish; I, on the contrary, demanding distinctly enough a slight reform in + public economy, am foreordained a conservative, and likewise a friend of + the dynasty. I cannot explain myself more clearly. So firm a believer am I + in the philosophy of accomplished facts and the <i>statu quo</i> of + governmental forms that, instead of destroying that which exists and + beginning over again the past, I prefer to render every thing legitimate + by correcting it. It is true that the corrections which I propose, though + respecting the form, tend to finally change the nature of the things + corrected. Who denies it? But it is precisely that which constitutes my + system of <i>statu quo</i>. I make no war upon symbols, figures, or + phantoms. I respect scarecrows, and bow before bugbears. I ask, on the one + hand, that property be left as it is, but that interest on all kinds of + capital be gradually lowered and finally abolished; on the other hand, + that the charter be maintained in its present shape, but that method be + introduced into administration and politics. That is all. Nevertheless, + submitting to all that is, though not satisfied with it, I endeavor to + conform to the established order, and to render unto Caesar the things + that are Caesar's. Is it thought, for instance, that I love property?... + Very well; I am myself a proprietor and do homage to the right of + increase, as is proved by the fact that I have creditors to whom I + faithfully pay, every year, a large amount of interest. The same with + politics. Since we are a monarchy, I would cry, "LONG LIVE THE KING," + rather than suffer death; which does not prevent me, however, from + demanding that the irremovable, inviolable, and hereditary representative + of the nation shall act with the proletaires against the privileged + classes; in a word, that the king shall become the leader of the radical + party. Thereby we proletaires would gain every thing; and I am sure that, + at this price, Louis Philippe might secure to his family the perpetual + presidency of the republic. And this is why I think so. + </p> + <p> + If there existed in France but one great functional inequality, the duty + of the functionary being, from one end of the year to the other, to hold + full court of savants, artists, soldiers, deputies, inspectors, &c., + it is evident that the expenses of the presidency then would be the + national expenses; and that, through the reversion of the civil list to + the mass of consumers, the great inequality of which I speak would form an + exact equation with the whole nation. Of this no economist needs a + demonstration. Consequently, there would be no more fear of cliques, + courtiers, and appanages, since no new inequality could be established. + The king, as king, would have friends (unheard-of thing), but no family. + His relatives or kinsmen,—<i>agnats et cognats</i>,—if they + were fools, would be nothing to him; and in no case, with the exception of + the heir apparent, would they have, even in court, more privileges than + others. No more nepotism, no more favor, no more baseness. No one would go + to court save when duty required, or when called by an honorable + distinction; and as all conditions would be equal and all functions + equally honored, there would be no other emulation than that of merit and + virtue. I wish the king of the French could say without shame, "My brother + the gardener, my sister-in-law the milk-maid, my son the prince-royal, and + my son the blacksmith." His daughter might well be an artist. That would + be beautiful, sir; that would be royal; no one but a buffoon could fail to + understand it. + </p> + <p> + In this way, I have come to think that the forms of royalty may be made to + harmonize with the requirements of equality, and have given a monarchical + form to my republican spirit. I have seen that France contains by no means + as many democrats as is generally supposed, and I have compromised with + the monarchy. I do not say, however, that, if France wanted a republic, I + could not accommodate myself equally well, and perhaps better. By nature, + I hate all signs of distinction, crosses of honor, gold lace, liveries, + costumes, honorary titles, &c., and, above all, parades. If I had my + way, no general should be distinguished from a soldier, nor a peer of + France from a peasant. Why have I never taken part in a review? for I am + happy to say, sir, that I am a national guard; I have nothing else in the + world but that. Because the review is always held at a place which I do + not like, and because they have fools for officers whom I am compelled to + obey. You see,—and this is not the best of my history,—that, + in spite of my conservative opinions, my life is a perpetual sacrifice to + the republic. + </p> + <p> + Nevertheless, I doubt if such simplicity would be agreeable to French + vanity, to that inordinate love of distinction and flattery which makes + our nation the most frivolous in the world. M. Lamartine, in his grand + "Meditation on Bonaparte," calls the French A NATION OF BRUTUSES. We are + merely a nation of Narcissuses. Previous to '89, we had the aristocracy of + blood; then every bourgeois looked down upon the commonalty, and wished to + be a nobleman. Afterwards, distinction was based on wealth, and the + bourgeoisie jealous of the nobility, and proud of their money, used 1830 + to promote, not liberty by any means, but the aristocracy of wealth. When, + through the force of events, and the natural laws of society, for the + development of which France offers such free play, equality shall be + established in functions and fortunes, then the beaux and the belles, the + savants and the artists, will form new classes. There is a universal and + innate desire in this Gallic country for fame and glory. We must have + distinctions, be they what they may,—nobility, wealth, talent, + beauty, or dress. I suspect MM. Arage and Garnier-Pages of having + aristocratic manners, and I picture to myself our great journalists, in + their columns so friendly to the people, administering rough kicks to the + compositors in their printing offices. + </p> + <p> + "This man," once said "Le National" in speaking of Carrel, "whom we had + proclaimed FIRST CONSUL!... Is it not true that the monarchical principle + still lives in the hearts of our democrats, and that they want universal + suffrage in order to make themselves kings? Since "Le National" prides + itself on holding more fixed opinions than "Le Journal des Debats," I + presume that, Armand Carrel being dead, M. Armand Marrast is now first + consul, and M. Garnier-Pages second consul. In every thing the deputy must + give way to the journalist. I do not speak of M. Arago, whom I believe to + be, in spite of calumny, too learned for the consulship. Be it so. Though + we have consuls, our position is not much altered. I am ready to yield my + share of sovereignty to MM. Armand Marrast and Garnier-Pages, the + appointed consuls, provided they will swear on entering upon the duties of + their office, to abolish property and not be haughty. + </p> + <p> + Forever promises! Forever oaths! Why should the people trust in tribunes, + when kings perjure themselves? Alas! truth and honesty are no longer, as + in the days of King John, in the mouth of princes. A whole senate has been + convicted of felony, and, the interest of the governors always being, for + some mysterious reason, opposed to the interest of the governed, + parliaments follow each other while the nation dies of hunger. No, no! No + more protectors, no more emperors, no more consuls. Better manage our + affairs ourselves than through agents. Better associate our industries + than beg from monopolies; and, since the republic cannot dispense with + virtues, we should labor for our reform. + </p> + <p> + This, therefore, is my line of conduct. I preach emancipation to the + proletaires; association to the laborers; equality to the wealthy. I push + forward the revolution by all means in my power,—the tongue, the + pen, the press, by action, and example. My life is a continual + apostleship. + </p> + <p> + Yes, I am a reformer; I say it as I think it, in good faith, and that I + may be no longer reproached for my vanity. I wish to convert the world. + Very likely this fancy springs from an enthusiastic pride which may have + turned to delirium; but it will be admitted at least that I have plenty of + company, and that my madness is not monomania. At the present day, + everybody wishes to be reckoned among the lunatics of Beranger. To say + nothing of the Babeufs, the Marats, and the Robespierres, who swarm in our + streets and workshops, all the great reformers of antiquity live again in + the most illustrious personages of our time. One is Jesus Christ, another + Moses, a third Mahomet; this is Orpheus, that Plato, or Pythagoras. + Gregory VII., himself, has risen from the grave together with the + evangelists and the apostles; and it may turn out that even I am that + slave who, having escaped from his master's house, was forthwith made a + bishop and a reformer by St. Paul. As for the virgins and holy women, they + are expected daily; at present, we have only Aspasias and courtesans. + </p> + <p> + Now, as in all diseases, the diagnostic varies according to the + temperament, so my madness has its peculiar aspects and distinguishing + characteristic. + </p> + <p> + Reformers, as a general thing, are jealous of their role; they suffer no + rivals, they want no partners; they have disciples, but no co-laborers. It + is my desire, on the contrary, to communicate my enthusiasm, and to make + it, as far as I can, epidemic. I wish that all were, like myself, + reformers, in order that there might be no more sects; and that Christs, + Anti-Christs, and false Christs might be forced to understand and agree + with each other. + </p> + <p> + Again, every reformer is a magician, or at least desires to become one. + Thus Moses, Jesus Christ, and the apostles, proved their mission by + miracles. Mahomet ridiculed miracles after having endeavored to perform + them. Fourier, more cunning, promises us wonders when the globe shall be + covered with phalansteries. For myself, I have as great a horror of + miracles as of authorities, and aim only at logic. That is why I + continually search after the criterion of certainty. I work for the + reformation of ideas. Little matters it that they find me dry and austere. + I mean to conquer by a bold struggle, or die in the attempt; and whoever + shall come to the defence of property, I swear that I will force him to + argue like M. Considerant, or philosophize like M. Troplong. + </p> + <p> + Finally,—and it is here that I differ most from my compeers,—I + do not believe it necessary, in order to reach equality, to turn every + thing topsy-turvy. To maintain that nothing but an overturn can lead to + reform is, in my judgment, to construct a syllogism, and to look for the + truth in the regions of the unknown. Now, I am for generalization, + induction, and progress. I regard general disappropriation as impossible: + attacked from that point, the problem of universal association seems to me + insolvable. Property is like the dragon which Hercules killed: to destroy + it, it must be taken, not by the head, but by the tail,—that is, by + profit and interest. + </p> + <p> + I stop. I have said enough to satisfy any one who can read and understand. + The surest way by which the government can baffle intrigues and break up + parties is to take possession of science, and point out to the nation, at + an already appreciable distance, the rising oriflamme of equality; to say + to those politicians of the tribune and the press, for whose fruitless + quarrels we pay so dearly, "You are rushing forward, blind as you are, to + the abolition of property; but the government marches with its eyes open. + You hasten the future by unprincipled and insincere controversy; but the + government, which knows this future, leads you thither by a happy and + peaceful transition. The present generation will not pass away before + France, the guide and model of civilized nations, has regained her rank + and legitimate influence." + </p> + <p> + But, alas! the government itself,—who shall enlighten it? Who can + induce it to accept this doctrine of equality, whose terrible but decisive + formula the most generous minds hardly dare to acknowledge?... I feel my + whole being tremble when I think that the testimony of three men—yes, + of three men who make it their business to teach and define—would + suffice to give full play to public opinion, to change beliefs, and to fix + destinies. Will not the three men be found?... + </p> + <p> + May we hope, or not? What must we think of those who govern us? In the + world of sorrow in which the proletaire moves, and where nothing is known + of the intentions of power, it must be said that despair prevails. But + you, sir,—you, who by function belong to the official world; you, in + whom the people recognize one of their noblest friends, and property its + most prudent adversary,—what say you of our deputies, our ministers, + our king? Do you believe that the authorities are friendly to us? Then let + the government declare its position; let it print its profession of faith + in equality, and I am dumb. Otherwise, I shall continue the war; and the + more obstinacy and malice is shown, the oftener will I redouble my energy + and audacity. I have said before, and I repeat it,—I have sworn, not + on the dagger and the death's-head, amid the horrors of a catacomb, and in + the presence of men besmeared with blood; but I have sworn on my + conscience to pursue property, to grant it neither peace nor truce, until + I see it everywhere execrated. I have not yet published half the things + that I have to say concerning the right of domain, nor the best things. + Let the knights of property, if there are any who fight otherwise than by + retreating, be prepared every day for a new demonstration and accusation; + let them enter the arena armed with reason and knowledge, not wrapped up + in sophisms, for justice will be done. + </p> + <p> + "To become enlightened, we must have liberty. That alone suffices; but it + must be the liberty to use the reason in regard to all public matters. + </p> + <p> + "And yet we hear on every hand authorities of all kinds and degrees + crying: 'Do not reason!' + </p> + <p> + "If a distinction is wanted, here is one:— + </p> + <p> + "The PUBLIC use of the reason always should be free, but the PRIVATE use + ought always to be rigidly restricted. By public use, I mean the + scientific, literary use; by private, that which may be taken advantage of + by civil officials and public functionaries. Since the governmental + machinery must be kept in motion, in order to preserve unity and attain + our object, we must not reason; we must obey. But the same individual who + is bound, from this point of view, to passive obedience, has the right to + speak in his capacity of citizen and scholar. He can make an appeal to the + public, submit to it his observations on events which occur around him and + in the ranks above him, taking care, however, to avoid offences which are + punishable. + </p> + <p> + "Reason, then, as much as you like; only, obey."—Kant: Fragment on + the Liberty of Thought and of the Press. Tissot's Translation. + </p> + <p> + These words of the great philosopher outline for me my duty. I have + delayed the reprint of the work entitled "What is Property?" in order that + I might lift the discussion to the philosophical height from which + ridiculous clamor has dragged it down; and that, by a new presentation of + the question, I might dissipate the fears of good citizens. I now reenter + upon the public use of my reason, and give truth full swing. The second + edition of the First Memoir on Property will immediately follow the + publication of this letter. Before issuing any thing further, I shall + await the observations of my critics, and the co-operation of the friends + of the people and of equality. + </p> + <p> + Hitherto, I have spoken in my own name, and on my own personal + responsibility. It was my duty. I was endeavoring to call attention to + principles which antiquity could not discover, because it knew nothing of + the science which reveals them,—political economy. I have, then, + testified as to FACTS; in short, I have been a WITNESS. Now my role + changes. It remains for me to deduce the practical consequences of the + facts proclaimed. The position of PUBLIC PROSECUTOR is the only one which + I am henceforth fitted to fill, and I shall sum up the case in the name of + the PEOPLE. + </p> + <p> + I am, sir, with all the consideration that I owe to your talent and your + character, + </p> + <p> + Your very humble and most obedient servant, + </p> + <p> + P. J. PROUDHON, + </p> + <p> + Pensioner of the Academy of Besancon. + </p> + <p> + P.S. During the session of April 2, the Chamber of Deputies rejected, by a + very large majority, the literary-property bill, BECAUSE IT DID NOT + UNDERSTAND IT. Nevertheless, literary property is only a special form of + the right of property, which everybody claims to understand. Let us hope + that this legislative precedent will not be fruitless for the cause of + equality. The consequence of the vote of the Chamber is the abolition of + capitalistic property,—property incomprehensible, contradictory, + impossible, and absurd. + </p> + <p> + <a name="link2H_FOOT" id="link2H_FOOT"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /><br /><br /><br /> + </div> + <h2> + FOOTNOTES: + </h2> + <p> + <a name="linknote-1" id="linknote-1"> + <!-- Note --></a> + </p> + <p class="foot"> + 1 (<a href="#linknoteref-1">return</a>)<br /> [ In the French edition of + Proudhon's works, the above sketch of his life is prefixed to the first + volume of his correspondence, but the translator prefers to insert it here + as the best method of introducing the author to the American public.] + </p> + <p> + <a name="linknote-2" id="linknote-2"> + <!-- Note --></a> + </p> + <p class="foot"> + 2 (<a href="#linknoteref-2">return</a>)<br /> [ "An Inquiry into + Grammatical Classifications." By P. J. Proudhon. A treatise which received + honorable mention from the Academy of Inscriptions, May 4, 1839. Out of + print.] + </p> + <p> + <a name="linknote-3" id="linknote-3"> + <!-- Note --></a> + </p> + <p class="foot"> + 3 (<a href="#linknoteref-3">return</a>)<br /> [ "The Utility of the + Celebration of Sunday," &c. By P. J. Proudhon. Besancon, 1839, 12mo; + 2d edition, Paris, 1841, 18mo.] + </p> + <p> + <a name="linknote-4" id="linknote-4"> + <!-- Note --></a> + </p> + <p class="foot"> + 4 (<a href="#linknoteref-4">return</a>)<br /> [ Charron, on "Wisdom," + Chapter xviii.] + </p> + <p> + <a name="linknote-5" id="linknote-5"> + <!-- Note --></a> + </p> + <p class="foot"> + 5 (<a href="#linknoteref-5">return</a>)<br /> [ M. Vivien, Minister of + Justice, before commencing proceedings against the "Memoir upon Property," + asked the opinion of M. Blanqui; and it was on the strength of the + observations of this honorable academician that he spared a book which had + already excited the indignation of the magistrates. M. Vivien is not the + only official to whom I have been indebted, since my first publication, + for assistance and protection; but such generosity in the political arena + is so rare that one may acknowledge it graciously and freely. I have + always thought, for my part, that bad institutions made bad magistrates; + just as the cowardice and hypocrisy of certain bodies results solely from + the spirit which governs them. Why, for instance, in spite of the virtues + and talents for which they are so noted, are the academies generally + centres of intellectual repression, stupidity, and base intrigue? That + question ought to be proposed by an academy: there would be no lack of + competitors.] + </p> + <p> + <a name="linknote-6" id="linknote-6"> + <!-- Note --></a> + </p> + <p class="foot"> + 6 (<a href="#linknoteref-6">return</a>)<br /> [ In Greek, {GREEK e ncg } + examiner; a philosopher whose business is to seek the truth.] + </p> + <p> + <a name="linknote-7" id="linknote-7"> + <!-- Note --></a> + </p> + <p class="foot"> + 7 (<a href="#linknoteref-7">return</a>)<br /> [ Religion, laws, marriage, + were the privileges of freemen, and, in the beginning, of nobles only. Dii + majorum gentium—gods of the patrician families; jus gentium—right + of nations; that is, of families or nobles. The slave and the plebeian had + no families; their children were treated as the offspring of animals. + BEASTS they were born, BEASTS they must live.] + </p> + <p> + <a name="linknote-8" id="linknote-8"> + <!-- Note --></a> + </p> + <p class="foot"> + 8 (<a href="#linknoteref-8">return</a>)<br /> [ If the chief of the + executive power is responsible, so must the deputies be also. It is + astonishing that this idea has never occurred to any one; it might be made + the subject of an interesting essay. But I declare that I would not, for + all the world, maintain it; the people are yet much too logical for me to + furnish them with arguments.] + </p> + <p> + <a name="linknote-9" id="linknote-9"> + <!-- Note --></a> + </p> + <p class="foot"> + 9 (<a href="#linknoteref-9">return</a>)<br /> [ See De Tocqueville, + "Democracy in the United States;" and Michel Chevalier, "Letters on North + America." Plutarch tells us, "Life of Pericles," that in Athens honest + people were obliged to conceal themselves while studying, fearing they + would be regarded as aspirants for office.] + </p> + <p> + <a name="linknote-10" id="linknote-10"> + <!-- Note --></a> + </p> + <p class="foot"> + 10 (<a href="#linknoteref-10">return</a>)<br /> [ "Sovereignty," according + to Toullier, "is human omnipotence." A materialistic definition: if + sovereignty is any thing, it is a RIGHT not a FORCE or a faculty. And what + is human omnipotence?] + </p> + <p> + <a name="linknote-11" id="linknote-11"> + <!-- Note --></a> + </p> + <p class="foot"> + 11 (<a href="#linknoteref-11">return</a>)<br /> [ The Proudhon here + referred to is J. B. V. Proudhon; a distinguished French jurist, and + distant relative of the Translator.] + </p> + <p> + <a name="linknote-12" id="linknote-12"> + <!-- Note --></a> + </p> + <p class="foot"> + 12 (<a href="#linknoteref-12">return</a>)<br /> [ Here, especially, the + simplicity of our ancestors appears in all its rudeness. After having made + first cousins heirs, where there were no legitimate children, they could + not so divide the property between two different branches as to prevent + the simultaneous existence of extreme wealth and extreme poverty in the + same family. For example:— James, dying, leaves two sons, Peter and + John, heirs of his fortune: James's property is divided equally between + them. But Peter has only one daughter, while John, his brother, leaves six + sons. It is clear that, to be true to the principle of equality, and at + the same time to that of heredity, the two estates must be divided in + seven equal portions among the children of Peter and John; for otherwise a + stranger might marry Peter's daughter, and by this alliance half of the + property of James, the grandfather, would be transferred to another + family, which is contrary to the principle of heredity. Furthermore, + John's children would be poor on account of their number, while their + cousin, being an only child, would be rich, which is contrary to the + principle of equality. If we extend this combined application of two + principles apparently opposed to each other, we shall become convinced + that the right of succession, which is assailed with so little wisdom in + our day, is no obstacle to the maintenance of equality.] + </p> + <p> + <a name="linknote-13" id="linknote-13"> + <!-- Note --></a> + </p> + <p class="foot"> + 13 (<a href="#linknoteref-13">return</a>)<br /> [ <i>Zeus klesios</i>.] + </p> + <p> + <a name="linknote-14" id="linknote-14"> + <!-- Note --></a> + </p> + <p class="foot"> + 14 (<a href="#linknoteref-14">return</a>)<br /> [ Giraud, "Investigations + into the Right of Property among the Romans."] + </p> + <p> + <a name="linknote-15" id="linknote-15"> + <!-- Note --></a> + </p> + <p class="foot"> + 15 (<a href="#linknoteref-15">return</a>)<br /> [ Precarious, from precor, + "I pray;" because the act of concession expressly signified that the lord, + in answer to the prayers of his men or slaves, had granted them permission + to labor.] + </p> + <p> + <a name="linknote-16" id="linknote-16"> + <!-- Note --></a> + </p> + <p class="foot"> + 16 (<a href="#linknoteref-16">return</a>)<br /> [ I cannot conceive how any + one dares to justify the inequality of conditions, by pointing to the base + inclinations and propensities of certain men. Whence comes this shameful + degradation of heart and mind to which so many fall victims, if not from + the misery and abjection into which property plunges them?] + </p> + <p> + <a name="linknote-17" id="linknote-17"> + <!-- Note --></a> + </p> + <p class="foot"> + 17 (<a href="#linknoteref-17">return</a>)<br /> [ How many citizens are + needed to support a professor of philosophy?—Thirty-five millions. + How many for an economist?—Two billions. And for a literary man, who + is neither a savant, nor an artist, nor a philosopher, nor an economist, + and who writes newspaper novels?—None.] + </p> + <p> + <a name="linknote-18" id="linknote-18"> + <!-- Note --></a> + </p> + <p class="foot"> + 18 (<a href="#linknoteref-18">return</a>)<br /> [ There is an error in the + author's calculation here; but the translator, feeling sure that the + reader will understand Proudhon's meaning, prefers not to alter his + figures.—Translator.] + </p> + <p> + <a name="linknote-19" id="linknote-19"> + <!-- Note --></a> + </p> + <p class="foot"> + 19 (<a href="#linknoteref-19">return</a>)<br /> [ <i>Hoc inter se differunt + onanismus et manuspratio, nempe quod haec a solitario exercetur, ille + autem a duobus reciprocatur, masculo scilicet et faemina. Porro foedam + hanc onanismi venerem ludentes uxoria mariti habent nunc omnigm + suavissimam</i>] + </p> + <p> + <a name="linknote-20" id="linknote-20"> + <!-- Note --></a> + </p> + <p class="foot"> + 20 (<a href="#linknoteref-20">return</a>)<br /> [ Polyandry,—plurality + of husbands.] + </p> + <p> + <a name="linknote-21" id="linknote-21"> + <!-- Note --></a> + </p> + <p class="foot"> + 21 (<a href="#linknoteref-21">return</a>)<br /> [ Infanticide has just been + publicly advocated in England, in a pamphlet written by a disciple of + Malthus. He proposes an ANNUAL MASSACRE OF THE INNOCENTS in all families + containing more children than the law allows; and he asks that a + magnificent cemetery, adorned with statues, groves, fountains, and + flowers, be set apart as a special burying-place for the superfluous + children. Mothers would resort to this delightful spot to dream of the + happiness of these little angels, and would return, quite comforted, to + give birth to others, to be buried in their turn.] + </p> + <p> + <a name="linknote-22" id="linknote-22"> + <!-- Note --></a> + </p> + <p class="foot"> + 22 (<a href="#linknoteref-22">return</a>)<br /> [ To perform an act of + benevolence towards one's neighbor is called, in Hebrew, to do justice; in + Greek, to take compassion or pity ({GREEK n n f e },from which is derived + the French <i>aumone</i>); in Latin, to perform an act of love or charity; + in French, give alms. We can trace the degradation of this principle + through these various expressions: the first signifies duty; the second + only sympathy; the third, affection, a matter of choice, not an + obligation; the fourth, caprice.] + </p> + <p> + <a name="linknote-23" id="linknote-23"> + <!-- Note --></a> + </p> + <p class="foot"> + 23 (<a href="#linknoteref-23">return</a>)<br /> [ I mean here by equite + what the Latins called humanitas,— that is, the kind of sociability + which is peculiar to man. Humanity, gentle and courteous to all, knows how + to distinguish ranks, virtues, and capacities without injury to any.] + </p> + <p> + <a name="linknote-24" id="linknote-24"> + <!-- Note --></a> + </p> + <p class="foot"> + 24 (<a href="#linknoteref-24">return</a>)<br /> [ Justice and equite never + have been understood.] + </p> + <p> + <a name="linknote-25" id="linknote-25"> + <!-- Note --></a> + </p> + <p class="foot"> + 25 (<a href="#linknoteref-25">return</a>)<br /> [ Between woman and man + there may exist love, passion, ties of custom, and the like; but there is + no real society. Man and woman are not companions. The difference of the + sexes places a barrier between them, like that placed between animals by a + difference of race. Consequently, far from advocating what is now called + the emancipation of woman, I should incline, rather, if there were no + other alternative, to exclude her from society.] + </p> + <p> + <a name="linknote-26" id="linknote-26"> + <!-- Note --></a> + </p> + <p class="foot"> + 26 (<a href="#linknoteref-26">return</a>)<br /> [ "The strong-box of Cosmo + de Medici was the grave of Florentine liberty," said M. Michelet to the + College of France.] + </p> + <p> + <a name="linknote-27" id="linknote-27"> + <!-- Note --></a> + </p> + <p class="foot"> + 27 (<a href="#linknoteref-27">return</a>)<br /> [ "My right is my lance and + my buckler." General de Brossard said, like Achilles: "I get wine, gold, + and women with my lance and my buckler."] + </p> + <p> + <a name="linknote-28" id="linknote-28"> + <!-- Note --></a> + </p> + <p class="foot"> + 28 (<a href="#linknoteref-28">return</a>)<br /> [ It would be interesting + and profitable to review the authors who have written on usury, or, to use + the gentler expression which some prefer, lendingat interest. The + theologians always have opposed usury; but, since they have admitted + always the legitimacy of rent, and since rent is evidently identical with + interest, they have lost themselves in a labyrinth of subtle distinctions, + and have finally reached a pass where they do not know what to think of + usury. The Church—the teacher of morality, so jealous and so proud + of the purity of her doctrine—has always been ignorant of the real + nature of property and usury. She even has proclaimed through her pontiffs + the most deplorable errors. <i>Non potest mutuum</i>, said Benedict XIV., + <i>locationi ullo pacto comparari</i>. "Rent," says Bossuet, "is as far + from usury as heaven is from the earth." How, on{sic} such a doctrine, + condemn lending at interest? how justify the Gospel, which expressly + forbids usury? The difficulty of theologians is a very serious one. Unable + to refute the economical demonstrations, which rightly assimilate interest + to rent, they no longer dare to condemn interest, and they can say only + that there must be such a thing as usury, since the Gospel forbids it.] + </p> + <p> + <a name="linknote-29" id="linknote-29"> + <!-- Note --></a> + </p> + <p class="foot"> + 29 (<a href="#linknoteref-29">return</a>)<br /> [ "I preach the Gospel, I + live by the Gospel," said the Apostle; meaning thereby that he lived by + his labor. The Catholic clergy prefer to live by property. The struggles + in the communes of the middle ages between the priests and bishops and the + large proprietors and seigneurs are famous. The papal excommunications + fulminated in defence of ecclesiastical revenues are no less so. Even + to-day, the official organs of the Gallican clergy still maintain that the + pay received by the clergy is not a salary, but an indemnity for goods of + which they were once proprietors, and which were taken from them in '89 by + the Third Estate. The clergy prefer to live by the right of increase + rather than by labor.] + </p> + <p> + <a name="linknote-30" id="linknote-30"> + <!-- Note --></a> + </p> + <p class="foot"> + 30 (<a href="#linknoteref-30">return</a>)<br /> [ The meaning ordinarily + attached to the word "anarchy" is absence of principle, absence of rule; + consequently, it has been regarded as synonymous with "disorder."] + </p> + <p> + <a name="linknote-31" id="linknote-31"> + <!-- Note --></a> + </p> + <p class="foot"> + 31 (<a href="#linknoteref-31">return</a>)<br /> [ If such ideas are ever + forced into the minds of the people, it will be by representative + government and the tyranny of talkers. Once science, thought, and speech + were characterized by the same expression. To designate a thoughtful and a + learned man, they said, "a man quick to speak and powerful in discourse." + For a long time, speech has been abstractly distinguished from science and + reason. Gradually, this abstraction is becoming realized, as the logicians + say, in society; so that we have to-day savants of many kinds who talk but + little, and TALKERS who are not even savants in the science of speech. + Thus a philosopher is no longer a savant: he is a talker. Legislators and + poets were once profound and sublime characters: now they are talkers. A + talker is a sonorous bell, whom the least shock suffices to set in + perpetual motion. With the talker, the flow of speech is always directly + proportional to the poverty of thought. Talkers govern the world; they + stun us, they bore us, they worry us, they suck our blood, and laugh at + us. As for the savants, they keep silence: if they wish to say a word, + they are cut short. Let them write.] + </p> + <p> + <a name="linknote-32" id="linknote-32"> + <!-- Note --></a> + </p> + <p class="foot"> + 32 (<a href="#linknoteref-32">return</a>)<br /> [ <i>libertas, librare, + libratio, libra</i>,—liberty, to liberate, libration, balance + (pound),—words which have a common derivation. Liberty is the + balance of rights and duties. To make a man free is to balance him with + others,—that is, to put him or their level.] + </p> + <p> + <a name="linknote-33" id="linknote-33"> + <!-- Note --></a> + </p> + <p class="foot"> + 33 (<a href="#linknoteref-33">return</a>)<br /> [ In a monthly publication, + the first number of which has just appeared under the name of + "L'Egalitaire," self-sacrifice is laid down as a principle of equality. + This is a confusion of ideas. Self- sacrifice, taken alone, is the last + degree of inequality. To seek equality in self-sacrifice is to confess + that equality is against nature. Equality must be based upon justice, upon + strict right, upon the principles invoked by the proprietor himself; + otherwise it will never exist. Self-sacrifice is superior to justice; but + it cannot be imposed as law, because it is of such a nature as to admit of + no reward. It is, indeed, desirable that everybody shall recognize the + necessity of self- sacrifice, and the idea of "L'Egalitaire" is an + excellent example. Unfortunately, it can have no effect. What would you + reply, indeed, to a man who should say to you, "I do not want to sacrifice + myself"? Is he to be compelled to do so? When self-sacrifice is forced, it + becomes oppression, slavery, the exploitation of man by man. Thus have the + proletaires sacrificed themselves to property.] + </p> + <p> + <a name="linknote-34" id="linknote-34"> + <!-- Note --></a> + </p> + <p class="foot"> + 34 (<a href="#linknoteref-34">return</a>)<br /> [ The disciples of Fourier + have long seemed to me the most advanced of all modern socialists, and + almost the only ones worthy of the name. If they had understood the nature + of their task, spoken to the people, awakened their sympathies, and kept + silence when they did not understand; if they had made less extravagant + pretensions, and had shown more respect for public intelligence,—perhaps + the reform would now, thanks to them, be in progress. But why are these + earnest reformers continually bowing to power and wealth,—that is, + to all that is anti- reformatory? How, in a thinking age, can they fail to + see that the world must be converted by DEMONSTRATION, not by myths and + allegories? Why do they, the deadly enemies of civilization, borrow from + it, nevertheless, its most pernicious fruits,—property, inequality + of fortune and rank, gluttony, concubinage, prostitution, what do I know? + theurgy, magic, and sorcery? Why these endless denunciations of morality, + metaphysics, and psychology, when the abuse of these sciences, which they + do not understand, constitutes their whole system? Why this mania for + deifying a man whose principal merit consisted in talking nonsense about + things whose names, even, he did not know, in the strongest language ever + put upon paper? Whoever admits the infallibility of a man becomes thereby + incapable of instructing others. Whoever denies his own reason will soon + proscribe free thought. The phalansterians would not fail to do it if they + had the power. Let them condescend to reason, let them proceed + systematically, let them give us demonstrations instead of revelations, + and we will listen willingly. Then let them organize manufactures, + agriculture, and commerce; let them make labor attractive, and the most + humble functions honorable, and our praise shall be theirs. Above all, let + them throw off that Illuminism which gives them the appearance of + impostors or dupes, rather than believers and apostles.] + </p> + <p> + <a name="linknote-35" id="linknote-35"> + <!-- Note --></a> + </p> + <p class="foot"> + 35 (<a href="#linknoteref-35">return</a>)<br /> [ Individual possession is + no obstacle to extensive cultivation and unity of exploitation. If I have + not spoken of the drawbacks arising from small estates, it is because I + thought it useless to repeat what so many others have said, and what by + this time all the world must know. But I am surprised that the economists, + who have so clearly shown the disadvantages of spade-husbandry, have + failed to see that it is caused entirely by property; above all, that they + have not perceived that their plan for mobilizing the soil is a first step + towards the abolition of property.] + </p> + <p> + <a name="linknote-36" id="linknote-36"> + <!-- Note --></a> + </p> + <p class="foot"> + 36 (<a href="#linknoteref-36">return</a>)<br /> [ In the Chamber of + Deputies, during the session of the fifth of January, 1841, M. Dufaure + moved to renew the expropriation bill, on the ground of public utility.] + </p> + <p> + <a name="linknote-37" id="linknote-37"> + <!-- Note --></a> + </p> + <p class="foot"> + 37 (<a href="#linknoteref-37">return</a>)<br /> [ "What is Property?" Chap. + IV., Ninth Proposition.] + </p> + <p> + <a name="linknote-38" id="linknote-38"> + <!-- Note --></a> + </p> + <p class="foot"> + 38 (<a href="#linknoteref-38">return</a>)<br /> [ <i>Tu cognovisti + sessionem meam et resurrectionem meam</i>. Psalm 139.] + </p> + <p> + <a name="linknote-39" id="linknote-39"> + <!-- Note --></a> + </p> + <p class="foot"> + 39 (<a href="#linknoteref-39">return</a>)<br /> [ The emperor Nicholas has + just compelled all the manufacturers in his empire to maintain, at their + own expense, within their establishments, small hospitals for the + reception of sick workmen,—the number of beds in each being + proportional to the number of laborers in the factory. "You profit by + man's labor," the Czar could have said to his proprietors; "you shall be + responsible for man's life." M. Blanqui has said that such a measure could + not succeed in France. It would be an attack upon property,—a thing + hardly conceivable even in Russia, Scythia, or among the Cossacks; but + among us, the oldest sons of civilization!... I fear very much that this + quality of age may prove in the end a mark of decrepitude.] + </p> + <p> + <a name="linknote-40" id="linknote-40"> + <!-- Note --></a> + </p> + <p class="foot"> + 40 (<a href="#linknoteref-40">return</a>)<br /> [ Course of M. Blanqui. + Lecture of Nov. 27,1840.] + </p> + <p> + <a name="linknote-41" id="linknote-41"> + <!-- Note --></a> + </p> + <p class="foot"> + 41 (<a href="#linknoteref-41">return</a>)<br /> [ In "Mazaniello," the + Neapolitan fisherman demands, amid the applause of the galleries, that a + tax be levied upon luxuries.] + </p> + <p> + <a name="linknote-42" id="linknote-42"> + <!-- Note --></a> + </p> + <p class="foot"> + 42 (<a href="#linknoteref-42">return</a>)<br /> [ <i>Seme le champ, + proletaire; C'est l l'oisif qui recoltera</i>.] + </p> + <p> + <a name="linknote-43" id="linknote-43"> + <!-- Note --></a> + </p> + <p class="foot"> + 43 (<a href="#linknoteref-43">return</a>)<br /> [ "In some countries, the + enjoyment of certain political rights depends upon the amount of property. + But, in these same countries, property is expressive, rather than + attributive, of the qualifications necessary to the exercise of these + rights. It is rather a conjectural proof than the cause of these + qualifications."—Rossi: Treatise on Penal Law.] + </p> + <p> + <a name="linknote-44" id="linknote-44"> + <!-- Note --></a> + </p> + <p class="foot"> + 44 (<a href="#linknoteref-44">return</a>)<br /> [ Lecture of December 22.] + </p> + <p> + <a name="linknote-45" id="linknote-45"> + <!-- Note --></a> + </p> + <p class="foot"> + 45 (<a href="#linknoteref-45">return</a>)<br /> [ Lecture of Jan. 15, + 1841.] + </p> + <p> + <a name="linknote-46" id="linknote-46"> + <!-- Note --></a> + </p> + <p class="foot"> + 46 (<a href="#linknoteref-46">return</a>)<br /> [ Lecture of Jan. 15, + 1841.] + </p> + <p> + <a name="linknote-47" id="linknote-47"> + <!-- Note --></a> + </p> + <p class="foot"> + 47 (<a href="#linknoteref-47">return</a>)<br /> [ MM. Blanqui and + Wolowski.] + </p> + <p> + <a name="linknote-48" id="linknote-48"> + <!-- Note --></a> + </p> + <p class="foot"> + 48 (<a href="#linknoteref-48">return</a>)<br /> [ Subject proposed by the + Fourth Class of the Institute, the Academy of Moral and Political + Sciences: "What would be the effect upon the working-class of the + organization of labor, according to the modern ideas of association?"] + </p> + <p> + <a name="linknote-49" id="linknote-49"> + <!-- Note --></a> + </p> + <p class="foot"> + 49 (<a href="#linknoteref-49">return</a>)<br /> [ Subject proposed by the + Academy of Besancon: "The economical and moral consequences in France, up + to the present time, and those which seem likely to appear in future, of + the law concerning the equal division of hereditary property between the + children."] + </p> + <p> + <a name="linknote-50" id="linknote-50"> + <!-- Note --></a> + </p> + <p class="foot"> + 50 (<a href="#linknoteref-50">return</a>)<br /> [ {GREEK, ?n n '},—greater + property. The Vulgate translates it avaritia.] + </p> + <p> + <a name="linknote-51" id="linknote-51"> + <!-- Note --></a> + </p> + <p class="foot"> + 51 (<a href="#linknoteref-51">return</a>)<br /> [ Similar or analogous + customs have existed among all nations. Consult, among other works, + "Origin of French Law," by M. Michelet; and "Antiquities of German Law," + by Grimm.] + </p> + <p> + <a name="linknote-52" id="linknote-52"> + <!-- Note --></a> + </p> + <p class="foot"> + 52 (<a href="#linknoteref-52">return</a>)<br /> [ <i>Dees hominesque + testamur, nos arma neque contra patriam cepisse neque quo periculum aliis + faceremus, sed uti corpora nostra ab injuria tuta forent, qui miseri, + egentes, violentia atque crudelitate foeneraterum, plerique patriae, sed + omncsfarna atque fortunis expertes sumus; neque cuiquam nostrum licuit, + more majorum, lege uti, neque, amisso patrimonio, libferum corpus habere.</i>—Sallus: + Bellum Catilinarium.] + </p> + <p> + <a name="linknote-53" id="linknote-53"> + <!-- Note --></a> + </p> + <p class="foot"> + 53 (<a href="#linknoteref-53">return</a>)<br /> [ Fifty, sixty, and eighty + per cent.—Course of M. Blanqui.] + </p> + <p> + <a name="linknote-54" id="linknote-54"> + <!-- Note --></a> + </p> + <p class="foot"> + 54 (<a href="#linknoteref-54">return</a>)<br /> [ <i>Episcopi plurimi, quos + et hortamento esse oportet caeteris et exemplo, divina prouratione + contempta, procuratores rerum saeularium fieri, derelicta cathedra, plebe + leserta, per alienas provincias oberrantes, negotiationis quaestuosae + nundinas au uucu-, pari, esurientibus in ecclesia fratribus habere + argentum largitur velle, fundos insidi.sis fraudibus rapere, usuris + multiplicantibus faenus augere.</i>—Cyprian: De Lapsis. {—NOTE: + what does this refer to? This is at bottom of pg 341 in MS} In this + passage, St. Cyprian alludes to lending on mortgages and to compound + interest.] + </p> + <p> + <a name="linknote-55" id="linknote-55"> + <!-- Note --></a> + </p> + <p class="foot"> + 55 (<a href="#linknoteref-55">return</a>)<br /> [ "Inquiries concerning + Property among the Romans."] + </p> + <p> + <a name="linknote-56" id="linknote-56"> + <!-- Note --></a> + </p> + <p class="foot"> + 56 (<a href="#linknoteref-56">return</a>)<br /> [ "Its acquisitive nature + works rapidly in the sleep of the law. It is ready, at the word, to absorb + every thing. Witness the famous equivocation about the ox-hide which, when + cut up into thongs, was large enough to enclose the site of Carthage.... + The legend has reappeared several times since Dido.... Such is the love of + man for the land. Limited by tombs, measured by the members of the human + body, by the thumb, the foot, and the arm, it harmonizes, as far as + possible, with the very proportions of man. Nor is he satisfied yet: he + calls Heaven to witness that it is his; he tries to or his land, to give + it the form of heaven.... In his titanic intoxication, he describes + property in the very terms which he employs in describing the Almighty—<i>fundus</i> + <i>optimus maximus</i>.... He shall make it his couch, and they shall be + separated no more,—{GREEK, ' nf g h g g."}—Michelet:Origin of + French Law.] + </p> + <p> + <a name="linknote-57" id="linknote-57"> + <!-- Note --></a> + </p> + <p class="foot"> + 57 (<a href="#linknoteref-57">return</a>)<br /> [ M. Guizot denies that + Christianity alone is entitled to the glory of the abolition of slavery. + "To this end," he says, "many causes were necessary,—the evolution + of other ideas and other principles of civilization." So general an + assertion cannot be refuted. Some of these ideas and causes should have + been pointed out, that we might judge whether their source was not wholly + Christian, or whether at least the Christian spirit had not penetrated and + thus fructified them. Most of the emancipation charters begin with these + words: "For the love of God and the salvation of my soul."] + </p> + <p> + <a name="linknote-58" id="linknote-58"> + <!-- Note --></a> + </p> + <p class="foot"> + 58 (<a href="#linknoteref-58">return</a>)<br /> [ <i>Weregild</i>,—the + fine paid for the murder of a man. So much for a count, so much for a + baron, so much for a freeman, so much for a priest; for a slave, nothing. + His value was restored to the proprietor.] + </p> + <p> + <a name="linknote-59" id="linknote-59"> + <!-- Note --></a> + </p> + <p class="foot"> + 59 (<a href="#linknoteref-59">return</a>)<br /> [ The spirit of despotism + and monopoly which animated the communes has not escaped the attention of + historians. "The formation of the commoners' associations," says Meyer, + "did not spring from the true spirit of liberty, but from the desire for + exemption from the charges of the seigniors, from individual interests, + and jealousy of the welfare of others.... Each commune or corporation + opposed the creation of every other; and this spirit increased to such an + extent that the King of England, Henry V., having established a university + at Caen, in 1432, the city and university of Paris opposed the + registration of the edict."] + </p> + <p> + <a name="linknote-60" id="linknote-60"> + <!-- Note --></a> + </p> + <p class="foot"> + 60 (<a href="#linknoteref-60">return</a>)<br /> [ Feudalism was, in spirit + and in its providential destiny, a long protest of the human personality + against the monkish communism with which Europe, in the middle ages, was + overrun. After the orgies of Pagan selfishness, society—carried to + the opposite extreme by the Christian religion—risked its life by + unlimited self-denial and absolute indifference to the pleasures of the + world. Feudalism was the balance-weight which saved Europe from the + combined influence of the religious communities and the Manlchean sects + which had sprung up since the fourth century under different names and in + different countries. Modern civilization is indebted to feudalism for the + definitive establishment of the person, of marriage, of the family, and of + country. (See, on this subject, Guizot, "History of Civilization in + Europe.")] + </p> + <p> + <a name="linknote-61" id="linknote-61"> + <!-- Note --></a> + </p> + <p class="foot"> + 61 (<a href="#linknoteref-61">return</a>)<br /> [ This was made evident in + July, 1830, and the years which followed it, when the electoral + bourgeoisie effected a revolution in order to get control over the king, + and suppressed the emeutes in order to restrain the people. The + bourgeoisie, through the jury, the magistracy, its position in the army, + and its municipal despotism, governs both royalty and the people. It is + the bourgeoisie which, more than any other class, is conservative and + retrogressive. It is the bourgeoisie which makes and unmakes ministries. + It is the bourgeoisie which has destroyed the influence of the Upper + Chamber, and which will dethrone the King whenever he shall become + unsatisfactory to it. It is to please the bourgeoisie that royalty makes + itself unpopular. It is the bourgeoisie which is troubled at the hopes of + the people, and which hinders reform. The journals of the bourgeoisie are + the ones which preach morality and religion to us, while reserving + scepticism and indifference for themselves; which attack personal + government, and favor the denial of the electoral privilege to those who + have no property. The bourgeoisie will accept any thing rather than the + emancipation of the proletariat. As soon as it thinks its privileges + threatened, it will unite with royalty; and who does not know that at this + very moment these two antagonists have suspended their quarrels?... It has + been a question of property.] + </p> + <p> + <a name="linknote-62" id="linknote-62"> + <!-- Note --></a> + </p> + <p class="foot"> + 62 (<a href="#linknoteref-62">return</a>)<br /> [ The same opinion was + recently expressed from the tribune by one of our most honorable Deputies, + M. Gauguier. "Nature," said he, "has not endowed man with landed + property." Changing the adjective LANDED, which designates only a species + into CAPITALISTIC, which denotes the genus,—M. Gauguier made an + egalitaire profession of faith.] + </p> + <p> + <a name="linknote-63" id="linknote-63"> + <!-- Note --></a> + </p> + <p class="foot"> + 63 (<a href="#linknoteref-63">return</a>)<br /> [ A professor of + comparative legislation, M. Lerminier, has gone still farther. He has + dared to say that the nation took from the clergy all their possessions, + not because of IDLENESS, but because of UNWORTHINESS. "You have civilized + the world," cries this apostle of equality, speaking to the priests; "and + for that reason your possessions were given you. In your hands they were + at once an instrument and a reward. But you do not now deserve them, for + you long since ceased to civilize any thing whatever...."] + </p> + <p> + <a name="linknote-64" id="linknote-64"> + <!-- Note --></a> + </p> + <p class="foot"> + 64 (<a href="#linknoteref-64">return</a>)<br /> [ "Treatise on + Prescription."] + </p> + <p> + <a name="linknote-65" id="linknote-65"> + <!-- Note --></a> + </p> + <p class="foot"> + 65 (<a href="#linknoteref-65">return</a>)<br /> [ "Origin of French Law."] + </p> + <p> + <a name="linknote-66" id="linknote-66"> + <!-- Note --></a> + </p> + <p class="foot"> + 66 (<a href="#linknoteref-66">return</a>)<br /> [ To honor one's parents, + to be grateful to one's benefactors, to neither kill nor steal,—truths + of inward sensation. To obey God rather than men, to render to each that + which is his; the whole is greater than a part, a straight line is the + shortest road from one point to another,—truths of intuition. All + are a priori but the first are felt by the conscience, and imply only a + simple act of the soul; the second are perceived by the reason, and imply + comparison and relation. In short, the former are sentiments, the latter + are ideas.] + </p> + <p> + <a name="linknote-67" id="linknote-67"> + <!-- Note --></a> + </p> + <p class="foot"> + 67 (<a href="#linknoteref-67">return</a>)<br /> [ Armand Carrel would have + favored the fortification of the capital. "Le National" has said, again + and again, placing the name of its old editor by the side of the names of + Napoleon and Vauban. What signifies this exhumation of an anti-popular + politician? It signifies that Armand Carrel wished to make government an + individual and irremovable, but elective, property, and that he wished + this property to be elected, not by the people, but by the army. The + political system of Carrel was simply a reorganization of the pretorian + guards. Carrel also hated the <i>pequins</i>. That which he deplored in + the revolution of July was not, they say, the insurrection of the people, + but the victory of the people over the soldiers. That is the reason why + Carrel, after 1830, would never support the patriots. "Do you answer me + with a few regiments?" he asked. Armand Carrel regarded the army—the + military power—as the basis of law and government. This man + undoubtedly had a moral sense within him, but he surely had no sense of + justice. Were he still in this world, I declare it boldly, liberty would + have no greater enemy than Carrel.] + </p> + <p> + <a name="linknote-68" id="linknote-68"> + <!-- Note --></a> + </p> + <p class="foot"> + 68 (<a href="#linknoteref-68">return</a>)<br /> [ In a very short article, + which was read by M. Wolowski, M. Louis Blanc declares, in substance, that + he is not a communist (which I easily believe); that one must be a fool to + attack property (but he does not say why); and that it is very necessary + to guard against confounding property with its abuses. When Voltaire + overthrew Christianity, he repeatedly avowed that he had no spite against + religion, but only against its abuses.] + </p> + <p> + <a name="linknote-69" id="linknote-69"> + <!-- Note --></a> + </p> + <p class="foot"> + 69 (<a href="#linknoteref-69">return</a>)<br /> [ The property fever is at + its height among writers and artists, and it is curious to see the + complacency with which our legislators and men of letters cherish this + devouring passion. An artist sells a picture, and then, the merchandise + delivered, assumes to prevent the purchaser from selling engravings, under + the pretext that he, the painter, in selling the original, has not sold + his DESIGN. A dispute arises between the amateur and the artist in regard + to both the fact and the law. M. Villemain, the Minister of Public + Instruction, being consulted as to this particular case, finds that the + painter is right; only the property in the design should have been + specially reserved in the contract: so that, in reality, M. Villemain + recognizes in the artist a power to surrender his work and prevent its + communication; thus contradicting the legal axiom, One CANNOT GIVE AND + KEEP AT THE SAME TIME. A strange reasoner is M. Villemain! An ambiguous + principle leads to a false conclusion. Instead of rejecting the principle, + M. Villemain hastens to admit the conclusion. With him the <i>reductio ad + absurdum</i> is a convincing argument. Thus he is made official defender + of literary property, sure of being understood and sustained by a set of + loafers, the disgrace of literature and the plague of public morals. Why, + then, does M. Villemain feel so strong an interest in setting himself up + as the chief of the literary classes, in playing for their benefit the + role of Trissotin in the councils of the State, and in becoming the + accomplice and associate of a band of profligates,—<i>soi-disant</i> + men of letters,—who for more than ten years have labored with such + deplorable success to ruin public spirit, and corrupt the heart by warping + the mind?] + </p> + <p> + <a name="linknote-70" id="linknote-70"> + <!-- Note --></a> + </p> + <p class="foot"> + 70 (<a href="#linknoteref-70">return</a>)<br /> [ M. Leroux has been highly + praised in a review for having defended property. I do not know whether + the industrious encyclopedist is pleased with the praise, but I know very + well that in his place I should mourn for reason and for truth.] + </p> + <p> + <a name="linknote-71" id="linknote-71"> + <!-- Note --></a> + </p> + <p class="foot"> + 71 (<a href="#linknoteref-71">return</a>)<br /> [ "Impartial," of + Besancon.] + </p> + <p> + <a name="linknote-72" id="linknote-72"> + <!-- Note --></a> + </p> + <p class="foot"> + 72 (<a href="#linknoteref-72">return</a>)<br /> [ The Arians deny the + divinity of Christ. The Semi-Arians differ from the Arians only by a few + subtle distinctions. M. Pierre Leroux, who regards Jesus as a man, but + claims that the Spirit of God was infused into him, is a true Semi-Arian. + </p> + <p> + The Manicheans admit two co-existent and eternal principles,—God and + matter, spirit and flesh, light and darkness, good and evil; but, unlike + the Phalansterians, who pretend to reconcile the two, the Manicheans make + war upon matter, and labor with all their might for the destruction of the + flesh, by condemning marriage and forbidding reproduction,—which + does not prevent them, however, from indulging in all the carnal pleasures + which the intensest lust can conceive of. In this last particular, the + tendency of the Fourieristic morality is quite Manichean. + </p> + <p> + The Gnostics do not differ from the early Christians. As their name + indicates, they regarded themselves as inspired. Fourier, who held + peculiar ideas concerning the visions of somnambulists, and who believed + in the possibility of developing the magnetic power to such an extent as + to enable us to commune with invisible beings, might, if he were living, + pass also for a Gnostic. + </p> + <p> + The Adamites attend mass entirely naked, from motives of chastity. Jean + Jacques Rousseau, who took the sleep of the senses for chastity, and who + saw in modesty only a refinement of pleasure, inclined towards Adamism. I + know such a sect, whose members usually celebrate their mysteries in the + costume of Venus coming from the bath. + </p> + <p> + The Pre-Adamites believe that men existed before the first man. I once met + a Pre-Adamite. True, he was deaf and a Fourierist. + </p> + <p> + The Pelagians deny grace, and attribute all the merit of good works to + liberty. The Fourierists, who teach that man's nature and passions are + good, are reversed Pelagians; they give all to grace, and nothing to + liberty. + </p> + <p> + The Socinians, deists in all other respects, admit an original revelation. + Many people are Socinians to-day, who do not suspect it, and who regard + their opinions as new. + </p> + <p> + The Neo-Christians are those simpletons who admire Christianity because it + has produced bells and cathedrals. Base in soul, corrupt in heart, + dissolute in mind and senses, the Neo-Christians seek especially after the + external form, and admire religion, as they love women, for its physical + beauty. They believe in a coming revelation, as well as a transfiguration + of Catholicism. They will sing masses at the grand spectacle in the + phalanstery.] + </p> + <p> + <a name="linknote-73" id="linknote-73"> + <!-- Note --></a> + </p> + <p class="foot"> + 73 (<a href="#linknoteref-73">return</a>)<br /> [ It should be understood + that the above refers only to the moral and political doctrines of + Fourier,—doctrines which, like all philosophical and religious + systems, have their root and <i>raison d'existence</i> in society itself, + and for this reason deserve to be examined. The peculiar speculations of + Fourier and his sect concerning cosmogony, geology, natural history, + physiology, and psychology, I leave to the attention of those who would + think it their duty to seriously refute the fables of Blue Beard and the + Ass's Skin.] + </p> + <p> + <a name="linknote-74" id="linknote-74"> + <!-- Note --></a> + </p> + <p class="foot"> + 74 (<a href="#linknoteref-74">return</a>)<br /> [ A writer for the radical + press, M. Louis Raybaud, said, in the preface to his "Studies of + Contemporary Reformers:" "Who does not know that morality is relative? + Aside from a few grand sentiments which are strikingly instinctive, the + measure of human acts varies with nations and climates, and only + civilization—the progressive education of the race—can lead to + a universal morality.... The absolute escapes our contingent and finite + nature; the absolute is the secret of God." God keep from evil M. Louis + Raybaud! But I cannot help remarking that all political apostates begin by + the negation of the absolute, which is really the negation of truth. What + can a writer, who professes scepticism, have in common with radical views? + What has he to say to his readers? What judgment is he entitled to pass + upon contemporary reformers? M. Raybaud thought it would seem wise to + repeat an old impertinence of the legist, and that may serve him for an + excuse. We all have these weaknesses. But I am surprised that a man of so + much intelligence as M. Raybaud, who STUDIES SYSTEMS, fails to see the + very thing he ought first to recognize,—namely, that systems are the + progress of the mind towards the absolute.] + </p> + <p> + <a name="linknote-75" id="linknote-75"> + <!-- Note --></a> + </p> + <p class="foot"> + 75 (<a href="#linknoteref-75">return</a>)<br /> [ The electoral reform, it + is continually asserted, is not an END, but a MEANS. Undoubtedly; but + what, then, is the end? Why not furnish an unequivocal explanation of its + object? How can the people choose their representatives, unless they know + in advance the purpose for which they choose them, and the object of the + commission which they entrust to them? But, it is said, the very business + of those chosen by the people is to find out the object of the reform. + That is a quibble. What is to hinder these persons, who are to be elected + in future, from first seeking for this object, and then, when they have + found it, from communicating it to the people? The reformers have well + said, that, while the object of the electoral reform remains in the least + indefinite, it will be only a means of transferring power from the hands + of petty tyrants to the hands of other tyrants. We know already how a + nation may be oppressed by being led to believe that it is obeying only + its own laws. The history of universal suffrage, among all nations, is the + history of the restrictions of liberty by and in the name of the + multitude. Still, if the electoral reform, in its present shape, were + rational, practical, acceptable to clean consciences and upright minds, + perhaps one might be excused, though ignorant of its object, for + supporting it. But, no; the text of the petition determines nothing, makes + no distinctions, requires no conditions, no guarantee; it establishes the + right without the duty. "Every Frenchman is a voter, and eligible to + office." As well say: "Every bayonet is intelligent, every savage is + civilized, every slave is free." In its vague generality, the reformatory + petition is the weakest of abstractions, or the highest form of political + treason. Consequently, the enlightened patriots distrust and despise each + other. The most radical writer of the time,—he whose economical and + social theories are, without comparison, the most advanced,—M. + Leroux, has taken a bold stand against universal suffrage and democratic + government, and has written an exceedingly keen criticism of J. J. + Rousseau. That is undoubtedly the reason why M. Leroux is no longer the + philosopher of "Le National." That journal, like Napoleon, does not like + men of ideas. Nevertheless, "Le National" ought to know that he who fights + against ideas will perish by ideas.] + </p> + <p> + <br /><br /> + </p> +<pre xml:space="preserve"> + + + + + +End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of What is Property?, by P. J. Proudhon + +*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK WHAT IS PROPERTY? *** + +***** This file should be named 360-h.htm or 360-h.zip ***** +This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: + http://www.gutenberg.org/3/6/360/ + +Produced by Mike Lough, and David Widger + +Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions +will be renamed. + +Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no +one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation +(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without +permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, +set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to +copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to +protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark. Project +Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you +charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you +do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the +rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose +such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and +research. They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do +practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks. Redistribution is +subject to the trademark license, especially commercial +redistribution. + + + +*** START: FULL LICENSE *** + +THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE +PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK + +To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free +distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work +(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project +Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project +Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at +http://gutenberg.org/license). + + +Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic works + +1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to +and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property +(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all +the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy +all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession. +If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the +terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or +entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8. + +1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be +used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who +agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few +things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works +even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See +paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement +and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. See paragraph 1.E below. + +1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation" +or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the +collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an +individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are +located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from +copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative +works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg +are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project +Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by +freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of +this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with +the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by +keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project +Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others. + +1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern +what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in +a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check +the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement +before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or +creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project +Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning +the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United +States. + +1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: + +1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate +access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently +whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the +phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project +Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, +copied or distributed: + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + +1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived +from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is +posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied +and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees +or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work +with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the +work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 +through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the +Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or +1.E.9. + +1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted +with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution +must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional +terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked +to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the +permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work. + +1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this +work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. + +1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this +electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without +prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with +active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project +Gutenberg-tm License. + +1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, +compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any +word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or +distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than +"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version +posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org), +you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a +copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon +request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other +form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. + +1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, +performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works +unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. + +1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing +access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided +that + +- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from + the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method + you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is + owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he + has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the + Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments + must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you + prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax + returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and + sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the + address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to + the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation." + +- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies + you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he + does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm + License. You must require such a user to return or + destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium + and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of + Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any + money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the + electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days + of receipt of the work. + +- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free + distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set +forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from +both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael +Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the +Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. + +1.F. + +1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable +effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread +public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm +collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain +"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or +corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual +property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a +computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by +your equipment. + +1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right +of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project +Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all +liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal +fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT +LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE +PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH F3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE +TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE +LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR +INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH +DAMAGE. + +1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a +defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can +receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a +written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you +received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with +your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with +the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a +refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity +providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to +receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy +is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further +opportunities to fix the problem. + +1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth +in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER +WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO +WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. + +1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied +warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. +If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the +law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be +interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by +the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any +provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions. + +1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the +trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone +providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance +with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, +promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works, +harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, +that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do +or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm +work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any +Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause. + + +Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm + +Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of +electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers +including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists +because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from +people in all walks of life. + +Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the +assistance they need, is critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's +goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will +remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure +and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations. +To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation +and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 +and the Foundation web page at http://www.pglaf.org. + + +Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive +Foundation + +The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit +501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the +state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal +Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification +number is 64-6221541. Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at +http://pglaf.org/fundraising. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent +permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. + +The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S. +Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered +throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at +809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email +business@pglaf.org. Email contact links and up to date contact +information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official +page at http://pglaf.org + +For additional contact information: + Dr. Gregory B. Newby + Chief Executive and Director + gbnewby@pglaf.org + + +Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation + +Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide +spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of +increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be +freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest +array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations +($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt +status with the IRS. + +The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating +charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United +States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a +considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up +with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations +where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To +SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any +particular state visit http://pglaf.org + +While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we +have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition +against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who +approach us with offers to donate. + +International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make +any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from +outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. + +Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation +methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other +ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. +To donate, please visit: http://pglaf.org/donate + + +Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. + +Professor Michael S. Hart is the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm +concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared +with anyone. For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project +Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support. + + +Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed +editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S. +unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily +keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition. + + +Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility: + + http://www.gutenberg.org + +This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, +including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary +Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to +subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. + + +</pre> + </body> +</html> |