{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_360/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_360","id":"gutenberg_360","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/360","summary":null,"tags":["Anarchism","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Politics","Economics","Property"],"text":"Produced by Mike Lough\n\n\n\n\n\nWHAT IS PROPERTY?\n\nAN INQUIRY INTO THE PRINCIPLE OF RIGHT AND OF GOVERNMENT\n\nBy P. J. Proudhon\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS.\n\n\n\n   P. J. PROUDHON:  HIS LIFE AND HIS WORKS\n\n   PREFACE\n\n   FIRST MEMOIR\n\n   CHAPTER I.\n\n   METHOD PURSUED IN THIS WORK.--THE IDEA OF A REVOLUTION\n\n\n   CHAPTER II.\n\n   PROPERTY CONSIDERED AS A NATURAL RIGHT.--OCCUPATION AND CIVIL LAW\n   AS EFFICIENT BASES OF PROPERTY.--DEFINITIONS\n   % 1.  Property as a Natural Right.\n   % 2.  Occupation as the Title to Property.\n   % 3.  Civil Law as the Foundation and Sanction of Property.\n\n\n   CHAPTER III.\n\n   LABOR AS THE EFFICIENT CAUSE OF THE DOMAIN OF PROPERTY\n   % 1.  The Land cannot be appropriated.\n   % 2.  Universal Consent no Justification of Property.\n   % 3.  Prescription gives no Title to Property.\n   % 4.  Labor.--That Labor has no Inherent Power to appropriate\n            Natural Wealth.\n   % 5.  That Labor leads to Equality of Property.\n   % 6.  That in Society all Wages are Equal.\n   % 7.  That Inequality of Powers is the Necessary Condition of\n            Equality of Fortunes.\n   % 8.  That, from the stand-point of Justice, Labor destroys\n            Property.\n\n\n   CHAPTER IV.\n\n   THAT PROPERTY IS IMPOSSIBLE\n\n   DEMONSTRATION.  AXIOM.\n\n   Property is the Right of Increase claimed by the Proprietor over\n   any thing which he has stamped as his own.\n\n   FIRST PROPOSITION.\n   Property is Impossible, because it demands Something for Nothing.\n\n   SECOND PROPOSITION.\n   Property is Impossible, because, wherever it exists, Production\n   costs more than it is worth.\n\n   THIRD PROPOSITION.\n   Property is Impossible, because, with a given Capital, Production\n   is proportional to Labor, not to Property.\n\n   FOURTH PROPOSITION.\n   Property is Impossible, because it is Homicide.\n\n   FIFTH PROPOSITION.\n   Property is Impossible, because, if it exists, Society devours itself.\n\n   Appendix to the Fifth Proposition.\n\n   SIXTH PROPOSITION.\n   Property is Impossible, because it is the Mother of Tyranny.\n\n   SEVENTH PROPOSITION.\n   Property is Impossible, because, in consuming its Receipts, it\n   loses them; in hoarding them, it nullifies them; and, in\n   using them as Capital, it turns them against Production.\n\n   EIGHTH PROPOSITION.\n   Property is Impossible, because its Power of Accumulation is\n   infinite, and is exercised only over Finite Quantities.\n\n   NINTH PROPOSITION\n   Property is Impossible, because it is powerless against Property.\n\n   TENTH PROPOSITION.\n   Property is Impossible, because it is the Negation of Equality.\n\n\n   CHAPTER V.\n   PSYCHOLOGICAL EXPOSITION OF THE IDEA OF JUSTICE AND IN JUSTICE,\n   AND A DETERMINATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF GOVERNMENT AND OF RIGHT.\n\n   PART 1.\n\n   % 1.  Of the Moral Sense in Man and the Animals.\n   % 2.  Of the First and Second Degrees of Sociability.\n   % 3.  Of the Third Degree of Sociability.\n\n   PART I 1.\n   % 1.  Of the Causes of our Mistakes.  The Origin of Property.\n   % 2.  Characteristics of Communism and of Property.\n   % 3.  Determination of the Third Form of Society.  Conclusion.\n\n\n   SECOND MEMOIR\n   LETTER TO M. BLANQUI ON PROPERTY\n\n\n\n\n\nP. J. PROUDHON: HIS LIFE AND HIS WORKS.\n\nThe correspondence [1] of P. J. Proudhon, the first volumes of which we\npublish to-day, has been collected since his death by the faithful\nand intelligent labors of his daughter, aided by a few friends. It was\nincomplete when submitted to Sainte Beuve, but the portion with which\nthe illustrious academician became acquainted was sufficient to allow\nhim to estimate it as a whole with that soundness of judgment which\ncharacterized him as a literary critic.\n\nHe would, however, caution readers against accepting the biographer's\ninterpretation of the author's views as in any sense authoritative;\nadvising them, rather, to await the publication of the remainder\nof Proudhon's writings, that they may form an opinion for\nthemselves.--Translator.\n\n\nIn an important work, which his habitual readers certainly have not\nforgotten, although death did not allow him to finish it, Sainte Beuve\nthus judges the correspondence of the great publicist:--\n\n\"The letters of Proudhon, even outside the circle of his particular\nfriends, will always be of value; we can always learn something from\nthem, and here is the proper place to determine the general character of\nhis correspondence.\n\n\"It has always been large, especially since he became so celebrated;\nand, to tell the truth, I am persuaded that, in the future, the\ncorrespondence of Proudhon will be his principal, vital work, and that\nmost of his books will be only accessory to and corroborative of this.\nAt any rate, his books can be well understood only by the aid of his\nletters and the continual explanations which he makes to those who\nconsult him in their doubt, and request him to define more clearly his\nposition.\n\n\"There are, among celebrated people, many methods of correspondence.\nThere are those to whom letter-writing is a bore, and who, assailed with\nquestions and compliments, reply in the greatest haste, solely that the\njob may be over with, and who return politeness for politeness, mingling\nit with more or less wit. This kind of correspondence, though coming\nfrom celebrated people, is insignificant and unworthy of collection and\nclassification.\n\n\"After those who write letters in performance of a disagreeable duty,\nand almost side by side with them in point of insignificance, I should\nput those who write in a manner wholly external, wholly superficial,\ndevoted only to flattery, lavishing praise like gold, without counting\nit; and those also who weigh every word, who reply formally and\npompously, with a view to fine phrases and effects. They exchange words\nonly, and choose them solely for their brilliancy and show. You think\nit is you, individually, to whom they speak; but they are addressing\nthemselves in your person to the four corners of Europe. Such letters\nare empty, and teach as nothing but theatrical execution and the\nfavorite pose of their writers.\n\n\"I will not class among the latter the more prudent and sagacious\nauthors who, when writing to individuals, keep one eye on posterity.\nWe know that many who pursue this method have written long, finished,\ncharming, flattering, and tolerably natural letters. Beranger furnishes\nus with the best example of this class.\n\n\"Proudhon, however, is a man of entirely different nature and habits.\nIn writing, he thinks of nothing but his idea and the person whom he\naddresses: ad rem et ad hominem. A man of conviction and doctrine, to\nwrite does not weary him; to be questioned does not annoy him. When\napproached, he cares only to know that your motive is not one of futile\ncuriosity, but the love of truth; he assumes you to be serious, he\nreplies, he examines your objections, sometimes verbally, sometimes\nin writing; for, as he remarks, 'if there be some points which\ncorrespondence can never settle, but which can be made clear by\nconversation in two minutes, at other times just the opposite is the\ncase: an objection clearly stated in writing, a doubt well expressed,\nwhich elicits a direct and positive reply, helps things along more than\nten hours of oral intercourse!' In writing to you he does not hesitate\nto treat the subject anew; he unfolds to you the foundation and\nsuperstructure of his thought: rarely does he confess himself\ndefeated--it is not his way; he holds to his position, but admits the\nbreaks, the variations, in short, the EVOLUTION of his mind. The history\nof his mind is in his letters; there it must be sought.\n\n\"Proudhon, whoever addresses him, is always ready; he quits the page\nof the book on which he is at work to answer you with the same pen, and\nthat without losing patience, without getting confused, without\nsparing or complaining of his ink; he is a public man, devoted to the\npropagation of his idea by all methods, and the best method, with him,\nis always the present one, the latest one. His very handwriting, bold,\nuniform, legible, even in the most tiresome passages, betrays no haste,\nno hurry to finish. Each line is accurate: nothing is left to chance;\nthe punctuation, very correct and a little emphatic and decided,\nindicates with precision and delicate distinction all the links in the\nchain of his argument. He is devoted entirely to you, to his business\nand yours, while writing to you, and never to anything else. All the\nletters of his which I have seen are serious: not one is commonplace.\n\n\"But at the same time he is not at all artistic or affected; he does\nnot CONSTRUCT his letters, he does not revise them, he spends no time in\nreading them over; we have a first draught, excellent and clear, a jet\nfrom the fountain-head, but that is all. The new arguments, which he\ndiscovers in support of his ideas and which opposition suggests to\nhim, are an agreeable surprise, and shed a light which we should vainly\nsearch for even in his works. His correspondence differs essentially\nfrom his books, in that it gives you no uneasiness; it places you in\nthe very heart of the man, explains him to you, and leaves you with an\nimpression of moral esteem and almost of intellectual security. We feel\nhis sincerity. I know of no one to whom he can be more fitly compared in\nthis respect than George Sand, whose correspondence is large, and at the\nsame time full of sincerity. His role and his nature correspond. If\nhe is writing to a young man who unbosoms himself to him in sceptical\nanxiety, to a young woman who asks him to decide delicate questions of\nconduct for her, his letter takes the form of a short moral essay, of a\nfather-confessor's advice. Has he perchance attended the theatre (a\nrare thing for him) to witness one of Ponsart's comedies, or a drama of\nCharles Edmond's, he feels bound to give an account of his impressions\nto the friend to whom he is indebted for this pleasure, and his letter\nbecomes a literary and philosophical criticism, full of sense, and like\nno other. His familiarity is suited to his correspondent; he affects no\nrudeness. The terms of civility or affection which he employs towards\nhis correspondents are sober, measured, appropriate to each, and honest\nin their simplicity and cordiality. When he speaks of morals and the\nfamily, he seems at times like the patriarchs of the Bible. His command\nof language is complete, and he never fails to avail himself of it. Now\nand then a coarse word, a few personalities, too bitter and quite unjust\nor injurious, will have to be suppressed in printing; time, however, as\nit passes away, permits many things and renders them inoffensive. Am I\nright in saying that Proudhon's correspondence, always substantial, will\none day be the most accessible and attractive portion of his works?\"\n\n\nAlmost the whole of Proudhon's real biography is included in his\ncorrespondence. Up to 1837, the date of the first letter which we have\nbeen able to collect, his life, narrated by Sainte Beuve, from whom we\nmake numerous extracts, may be summed up in a few pages.\n\nPierre Joseph Proudhon was born on the 15th of January, 1809, in\na suburb of Besancon, called Mouillere. His father and mother were\nemployed in the great brewery belonging to M. Renaud. His father, though\na cousin of the jurist Proudhon, the celebrated professor in the faculty\nof Dijon, was a journeyman brewer. His mother, a genuine peasant, was a\ncommon servant. She was an orderly person of great good sense; and, as\nthey who knew her say, a superior woman of HEROIC character,--to use the\nexpression of the venerable M. Weiss, the librarian at Besancon. She\nit was especially that Proudhon resembled: she and his grandfather\nTournesi, the soldier peasant of whom his mother told him, and whose\ncourageous deeds he has described in his work on \"Justice.\" Proudhon,\nwho always felt a great veneration for his mother Catharine, gave\nher name to the elder of his daughters. In 1814, when Besancon was\nblockaded, Mouillere, which stood in front of the walls of the town, was\ndestroyed in the defence of the place; and Proudhon's father established\na cooper's shop in a suburb of Battant, called Vignerons. Very honest,\nbut simple-minded and short-sighted, this cooper, the father of five\nchildren, of whom Pierre Joseph was the eldest, passed his life in\npoverty. At eight years of age, Proudhon either made himself useful in\nthe house, or tended the cattle out of doors. No one should fail to read\nthat beautiful and precious page of his work on \"Justice,\" in which he\ndescribes the rural sports which he enjoyed when a neatherd. At the age\nof twelve, he was a cellar-boy in an inn. This, however, did not prevent\nhim from studying.\n\nHis mother was greatly aided by M. Renaud, the former owner of the\nbrewery, who had at that time retired from business, and was engaged in\nthe education of his children.\n\nProudhon entered school as a day-scholar in the sixth class. He was\nnecessarily irregular in his attendance; domestic cares and restraints\nsometimes kept him from his classes. He succeeded nevertheless in his\nstudies; he showed great perseverance. His family were so poor that they\ncould not afford to furnish him with books; he was obliged to borrow\nthem from his comrades, and copy the text of his lessons. He has himself\ntold us that he was obliged to leave his wooden shoes outside the door,\nthat he might not disturb the classes with his noise; and that, having\nno hat, he went to school bareheaded. One day, towards the close of his\nstudies, on returning from the distribution of the prizes, loaded with\ncrowns, he found nothing to eat in the house.\n\n\n\"In his eagerness for labor and his thirst for knowledge, Proudhon,\"\nsays Sainte Beuve, \"was not content with the instruction of his\nteachers. From his twelfth to his fourteenth year, he was a constant\nfrequenter of the town library. One curiosity led to another, and he\ncalled for book after book, sometimes eight or ten at one sitting. The\nlearned librarian, the friend and almost the brother of Charles Nodier,\nM. Weiss, approached him one day, and said, smiling, 'But, my little\nfriend, what do you wish to do with all these books?' The child raised\nhis head, eyed his questioner, and replied: 'What's that to you?' And\nthe good M. Weiss remembers it to this day.\"\n\n\nForced to earn his living, Proudhon could not continue his studies. He\nentered a printing-office in Besancon as a proof-reader. Becoming,\nsoon after, a compositor, he made a tour of France in this capacity. At\nToulon, where he found himself without money and without work, he had a\nscene with the mayor, which he describes in his work on \"Justice.\"\n\nSainte Beuve says that, after his tour of France, his service book being\nfilled with good certificates, Proudhon was promoted to the position\nof foreman. But he does not tell us, for the reason that he had no\nknowledge of a letter written by Fallot, of which we never heard until\nsix months since, that the printer at that time contemplated quitting\nhis trade in order to become a teacher.\n\nTowards 1829, Fallot, who was a little older than Proudhon, and\nwho, after having obtained the Suard pension in 1832, died in his\ntwenty-ninth year, while filling the position of assistant librarian at\nthe Institute, was charged, Protestant though he was, with the revisal\nof a \"Life of the Saints,\" which was published at Besancon. The book was\nin Latin, and Fallot added some notes which also were in Latin.\n\n\n\"But,\" says Sainte Beuve, \"it happened that some errors escaped his\nattention, which Proudhon, then proof-reader in the printing office,\ndid not fail to point out to him. Surprised at finding so good a Latin\nscholar in a workshop, he desired to make his acquaintance; and soon\nthere sprung up between them a most earnest and intimate friendship: a\nfriendship of the intellect and of the heart.\"\n\nAddressed to a printer between twenty-two and twenty-three years of age,\nand predicting in formal terms his future fame, Fallot's letter seems to\nus so interesting that we do not hesitate to reproduce it entire.\n\n\n\"PARIS, December 5, 1831.\n\n\"MY DEAR PROUDHON,--YOU have a right to be surprised at, and even\ndissatisfied with, my long delay in replying to your kind letter; I will\ntell you the cause of it. It became necessary to forward an account of\nyour ideas to M. J. de Gray; to hear his objections, to reply to them,\nand to await his definitive response, which reached me but a short time\nago; for M. J. is a sort of financial king, who takes no pains to be\npunctual in dealing with poor devils like ourselves. I, too, am careless\nin matters of business; I sometimes push my negligence even to disorder,\nand the metaphysical musings which continually occupy my mind, added to\nthe amusements of Paris, render me the most incapable man in the world\nfor conducting a negotiation with despatch.\n\n\"I have M. Jobard's decision; here it is: In his judgment, you are\ntoo learned and clever for his children; he fears that you could not\naccommodate your mind and character to the childish notions common\nto their age and station. In short, he is what the world calls a good\nfather; that is, he wants to spoil his children, and, in order to do\nthis easily, he thinks fit to retain his present instructor, who is not\nvery learned, but who takes part in their games and joyous sports with\nwonderful facility, who points out the letters of the alphabet to\nthe little girl, who takes the little boys to mass, and who, no less\nobliging than the worthy Abbe P. of our acquaintance, would readily\ndance for Madame's amusement. Such a profession would not suit you, you\nwho have a free, proud, and manly soul: you are refused; let us dismiss\nthe matter from our minds. Perhaps another time my solicitude will be\nless unfortunate. I can only ask your pardon for having thought of thus\ndisposing of you almost without consulting you. I find my excuse in the\nmotives which guided me; I had in view your well-being and advancement\nin the ways of this world.\n\n\"I see in your letter, my comrade, through its brilliant witticisms and\nbeneath the frank and artless gayety with which you have sprinkled it,\na tinge of sadness and despondency which pains me. You are unhappy, my\nfriend: your present situation does not suit you; you cannot remain in\nit, it was not made for you, it is beneath you; you ought, by all\nmeans, to leave it, before its injurious influence begins to affect your\nfaculties, and before you become settled, as they say, in the ways of\nyour profession, were it possible that such a thing could ever happen,\nwhich I flatly deny. You are unhappy; you have not yet entered upon the\npath which Nature has marked out for you. But, faint-hearted soul, is\nthat a cause for despondency? Ought you to feel discouraged? Struggle,\nmorbleu, struggle persistently, and you will triumph. J. J. Rousseau\ngroped about for forty years before his genius was revealed to him.\nYou are not J. J Rousseau; but listen: I know not whether I should have\ndivined the author of \"Emile\" when he was twenty years of age, supposing\nthat I had been his contemporary, and had enjoyed the honor of his\nacquaintance. But I have known you, I have loved you, I have divined\nyour future, if I may venture to say so; for the first time in my life,\nI am going to risk a prophecy. Keep this letter, read it again fifteen\nor twenty years hence, perhaps twenty-five, and if at that time the\nprediction which I am about to make has not been fulfilled, burn it as\na piece of folly out of charity and respect for my memory. This is my\nprediction: you will be, Proudhon, in spite of yourself, inevitably,\nby the fact of your destiny, a writer, an author; you will be a\nphilosopher; you will be one of the lights of the century, and your name\nwill occupy a place in the annals of the nineteenth century, like those\nof Gassendi, Descartes, Malebranche, and Bacon in the seventeenth, and\nthose of Diderot, Montesquieu, Helvetius. Locke, Hume, and Holbach in\nthe eighteenth. Such will be your lot! Do now what you will, set type in\na printing-office, bring up children, bury yourself in deep seclusion,\nseek obscure and lonely villages, it is all one to me; you cannot escape\nyour destiny; you cannot divest yourself of your noblest feature, that\nactive, strong, and inquiring mind, with which you are endowed; your\nplace in the world has been appointed, and it cannot remain empty. Go\nwhere you please, I expect you in Paris, talking philosophy and the\ndoctrines of Plato; you will have to come, whether you want to or not.\nI, who say this to you, must feel very sure of it in order to be willing\nto put it upon paper, since, without reward for my prophetic skill,--to\nwhich, I assure you, I make not the slightest claim,--I run the risk of\npassing for a hare-brained fellow, in case I prove to be mistaken: he\nplays a bold game who risks his good sense upon his cards, in return\nfor the very trifling and insignificant merit of having divined a young\nman's future.\n\n\"When I say that I expect you in Paris, I use only a proverbial phrase\nwhich you must not allow to mislead you as to my projects and plans.\nTo reside in Paris is disagreeable to me, very much so; and when this\nfine-art fever which possesses me has left me, I shall abandon the place\nwithout regret to seek a more peaceful residence in a provincial town,\nprovided always the town shall afford me the means of living, bread, a\nbed, books, rest, and solitude. How I miss, my good Proudhon, that dark,\nobscure, smoky chamber in which I dwelt in Besancon, and where we spent\nso many pleasant hours in the discussion of philosophy! Do you remember\nit? But that is now far away. Will that happy time ever return? Shall\nwe one day meet again? Here my life is restless, uncertain, precarious,\nand, what is worse, indolent, illiterate, and vagrant. I do no work, I\nlive in idleness, I ramble about; I do not read, I no longer study; my\nbooks are forsaken; now and then I glance over a few metaphysical works,\nand after a days walk through dirty, filthy, crowded streets. I lie\ndown with empty head and tired body, to repeat the performance on the\nfollowing day. What is the object of these walks, you will ask. I make\nvisits, my friend; I hold interviews with stupid people. Then a fit of\ncuriosity seizes me, the least inquisitive of beings: there are museums,\nlibraries, assemblies, churches, palaces, gardens, and theatres to\nvisit. I am fond of pictures, fond of music, fond of sculpture; all\nthese are beautiful and good, but they cannot appease hunger, nor take\nthe place of my pleasant readings of Bailly, Hume, and Tennemann, which\nI used to enjoy by my fireside when I was able to read.\n\n\"But enough of complaints. Do not allow this letter to affect you too\nmuch, and do not think that I give way to dejection or despondency; no,\nI am a fatalist, and I believe in my star. I do not know yet what my\ncalling is, nor for what branch of polite literature I am best fitted;\nI do not even know whether I am, or ever shall be, fitted for any: but\nwhat matters it? I suffer, I labor, I dream, I enjoy, I think; and, in a\nword, when my last hour strikes, I shall have lived.\n\n\"Proudhon, I love you, I esteem you; and, believe me, these are not mere\nphrases. What interest could I have in flattering and praising a poor\nprinter? Are you rich, that you may pay for courtiers? Have you a\nsumptuous table, a dashing wife, and gold to scatter, in order to\nattract them to your suite? Have you the glory, honors, credit, which\nwould render your acquaintance pleasing to their vanity and pride? No;\nyou are poor, obscure, abandoned; but, poor, obscure, and abandoned,\nyou have a friend, and a friend who knows all the obligations which that\nword imposes upon honorable people, when they venture to assume it. That\nfriend is myself: put me to the test.\n\n\"GUSTAVE FALLOT.\"\n\n\nIt appears from this letter that if, at this period, Proudhon had\nalready exhibited to the eyes of a clairvoyant friend his genius for\nresearch and investigation, it was in the direction of philosophical,\nrather than of economical and social, questions.\n\nHaving become foreman in the house of Gauthier & Co., who carried on\na large printing establishment at Besancon, he corrected the proofs of\necclesiastical writers, the Fathers of the Church. As they were printing\na Bible, a Vulgate, he was led to compare the Latin with the original\nHebrew.\n\n\n\"In this way,\" says Sainte Beuve, \"he learned Hebrew by himself, and,\nas everything was connected in his mind, he was led to the study of\ncomparative philology. As the house of Gauthier published many works\non Church history and theology, he came also to acquire, through this\ndesire of his to investigate everything, an extensive knowledge of\ntheology, which afterwards caused misinformed persons to think that he\nhad been in an ecclesiastical seminary.\"\n\n\nTowards 1836, Proudhon left the house of Gauthier, and, in company\nwith an associate, established a small printing-office in Besancon. His\ncontribution to the partnership consisted, not so much in capital, as\nin his knowledge of the trade. His partner committing suicide in 1838,\nProudhon was obliged to wind up the business, an operation which he did\nnot accomplish as quickly and as easily as he hoped. He was then urged\nby his friends to enter the ranks of the competitors for the Suard\npension. This pension consisted of an income of fifteen hundred francs\nbequeathed to the Academy of Besancon by Madame Suard, the widow of the\nacademician, to be given once in three years to the young man residing\nin the department of Doubs, a bachelor of letters or of science, and\nnot possessing a fortune, whom the Academy of Besancon SHOULD DEEM BEST\nFITTED FOR A LITERARY OR SCIENTIFIC CAREER, OR FOR THE STUDY OF LAW\nOR OF MEDICINE. The first to win the Suard pension was Gustave Fallot.\nMauvais, who was a distinguished astronomer in the Academy of Sciences,\nwas the second. Proudhon aspired to be the third. To qualify himself, he\nhad to be received as a bachelor of letters, and was obliged to write a\nletter to the Academy of Besancon. In a phrase of this letter, the terms\nof which he had to modify, though he absolutely refused to change\nits spirit, Proudhon expressed his firm resolve to labor for the\namelioration of the condition of his brothers, the working-men.\n\nThe only thing which he had then published was an \"Essay on General\nGrammar,\" which appeared without the author's signature. While\nreprinting, at Besancon, the \"Primitive Elements of Languages,\nDiscovered by the Comparison of Hebrew roots with those of the Latin and\nFrench,\" by the Abbe Bergier, Proudhon had enlarged the edition of his\n\"Essay on General Grammar.\"\n\nThe date of the edition, 1837, proves that he did not at that time think\nof competing for the Suard pension. In this work, which continued and\ncompleted that of the Abbe Bergier, Proudhon adopted the same point\nof view, that of Moses and of Biblical tradition. Two years later, in\nFebruary, 1839, being already in possession of the Suard pension, he\naddressed to the Institute, as a competitor for the Volney prize,\na memoir entitled: \"Studies in Grammatical Classification and the\nDerivation of some French words.\" It was his first work, revised and\npresented in another form. Four memoirs only were sent to the Institute,\nnone of which gained the prize. Two honorable mentions were granted,\none of them to memoir No. 4; that is, to P. J. Proudhon, printer at\nBesancon. The judges were MM. Amedde Jaubert, Reinaud, and Burnouf.\n\n\n\"The committee,\" said the report presented at the annual meeting of the\nfive academies on Thursday, May 2, 1839, \"has paid especial attention to\nmanuscripts No. 1 and No. 4. Still, it does not feel able to grant\nthe prize to either of these works, because they do not appear to\nbe sufficiently elaborated. The committee, which finds in No. 4 some\ningenious analyses, particularly in regard to the mechanism of the\nHebrew language, regrets that the author has resorted to hazardous\nconjectures, and has sometimes forgotten the special recommendation of\nthe committee to pursue the experimental and comparative method.\"\n\n\nProudhon remembered this. He attended the lectures of Eugene Burnouf,\nand, as soon as he became acquainted with the labors and discoveries of\nBopp and his successors, he definitively abandoned an hypothesis which\nhad been condemned by the Academy of Inscriptions and Belles-lettres.\nHe then sold, for the value of the paper, the remaining copies of the\n\"Essay\" published by him in 1837. In 1850, they were still lying in a\ngrocer's back-shop.\n\nA neighboring publisher then placed the edition on the market, with\nthe attractive name of Proudhon upon it. A lawsuit ensued, in which\nthe author was beaten. His enemies, and at that time there were many of\nthem, would have been glad to have proved him a renegade and a recanter.\nProudhon, in his work on \"Justice,\" gives some interesting details of\nthis lawsuit.\n\nIn possession of the Suard pension, Proudhon took part in the contest\nproposed by the Academy of Besancon on the question of the utility\nof the celebration of Sunday. His memoir obtained honorable mention,\ntogether with a medal which was awarded him, in open session, on the\n24th of August, 1839. The reporter of the committee, the Abbe Doney,\nsince made Bishop of Montauban, called attention to the unquestionable\nsuperiority of his talent.\n\n\n\"But,\" says Sainte Beuve, \"he reproached him with having adopted\ndangerous theories, and with having touched upon questions of practical\npolitics and social organization, where upright intentions and zeal for\nthe public welfare cannot justify rash solutions.\"\n\n\nWas it policy, we mean prudence, which induced Proudhon to screen his\nideas of equality behind the Mosaic law? Sainte Beuve, like many others,\nseems to think so. But we remember perfectly well that, having asked\nProudhon, in August, 1848, if he did not consider himself indebted in\nsome respects to his fellow-countryman, Charles Fourier, we received\nfrom him the following reply: \"I have certainly read Fourier, and have\nspoken of him more than once in my works; but, upon the whole, I do not\nthink that I owe anything to him. My real masters, those who have caused\nfertile ideas to spring up in my mind, are three in number: first, the\nBible; next, Adam Smith; and last, Hegel.\"\n\nFreely confessed in the \"Celebration of Sunday,\" the influence of the\nBible on Proudhon is no less manifest in his first memoir on property.\nProudhon undoubtedly brought to this work many ideas of his own; but\nis not the very foundation of ancient Jewish law to be found in its\ncondemnation of usurious interest and its denial of the right of\npersonal appropriation of land?\n\nThe first memoir on property appeared in 1840, under the title, \"What is\nProperty? or an Inquiry into the Principle of Right and of Government.\"\nProudhon dedicated it, in a letter which served as the preface, to the\nAcademy of Besancon. The latter, finding itself brought to trial by its\npensioner, took the affair to heart, and evoked it, says Sainte Beuve,\nwith all possible haste.\n\nThe pension narrowly escaped being immediately withdrawn from the bold\ndefender of the principle of equality of conditions. M. Vivien, then\nMinister of Justice, who was earnestly solicited to prosecute the\nauthor, wished first to obtain the opinion of the economist, Blanqui, a\nmember of the Academy of Moral and Political Sciences. Proudhon having\npresented to this academy a copy of his book, M. Blanqui was appointed\nto review it. This review, though it opposed Proudhon's views, shielded\nhim. Treated as a savant by M. Blanqui, the author was not prosecuted.\nHe was always grateful to MM. Blanqui and Vivien for their handsome\nconduct in the matter.\n\nM. Blanqui's review, which was partially reproduced by \"Le Moniteur,\" on\nthe 7th of September, 1840, naturally led Proudhon to address to him, in\nthe form of a letter, his second memoir on property, which appeared\nin April, 1841. Proudhon had endeavored, in his first memoir, to\ndemonstrate that the pursuit of equality of conditions is the true\nprinciple of right and of government. In the \"Letter to M. Blanqui,\" he\npasses in review the numerous and varied methods by which this principle\ngradually becomes realized in all societies, especially in modern\nsociety.\n\nIn 1842, a third memoir appeared, entitled, \"A Notice to Proprietors, or\na Letter to M. Victor Considerant, Editor of 'La Phalange,' in Reply\nto a Defence of Property.\" Here the influence of Adam Smith manifested\nitself, and was frankly admitted. Did not Adam Smith find, in the\nprinciple of equality, the first of all the laws which govern wages?\nThere are other laws, undoubtedly; but Proudhon considers them all as\nspringing from the principle of property, as he defined it in his first\nmemoir. Thus, in humanity, there are two principles,--one which leads us\nto equality, another which separates us from it. By the former, we\ntreat each other as associates; by the latter, as strangers, not to say\nenemies. This distinction, which is constantly met with throughout the\nthree memoirs, contained already, in germ, the idea which gave birth to\nthe \"System of Economical Contradictions,\" which appeared in 1846, the\nidea of antinomy or contre-loi.\n\nThe \"Notice to Proprietors\" was seized by the magistrates of Besancon;\nand Proudhon was summoned to appear before the assizes of Doubs within\na week. He read his written defence to the jurors in person, and was\nacquitted. The jury, like M. Blanqui, viewed him only as a philosopher,\nan inquirer, a savant.\n\nIn 1843, Proudhon published the \"Creation of Order in Humanity,\" a\nlarge volume, which does not deal exclusively with questions of social\neconomy. Religion, philosophy, method, certainty, logic, and dialectics\nare treated at considerable length.\n\nReleased from his printing-office on the 1st of March of the same year,\nProudhon had to look for a chance to earn his living. Messrs. Gauthier\nBros., carriers by water between Mulhouse and Lyons, the eldest of whom\nwas Proudhon's companion in childhood, conceived the happy thought\nof employing him, of utilizing his ability in their business, and in\nsettling the numerous points of difficulty which daily arose. Besides\nthe large number of accounts which his new duties required him to make\nout, and which retarded the publication of the \"System of Economical\nContradictions,\" until October, 1846, we ought to mention a work, which,\nbefore it appeared in pamphlet form, was published in the \"Revue des\nEconomistes,\"--\"Competition between Railroads and Navigable Ways.\"\n\n\"Le Miserere, or the Repentance of a King,\" which he published in\nMarch, 1845, in the \"Revue Independante,\" during that Lenten season when\nLacordaire was preaching in Lyons, proves that, though devoting himself\nwith ardor to the study of economical problems, Proudhon had not lost\nhis interest in questions of religious history. Among his writings on\nthese questions, which he was unfortunately obliged to leave unfinished,\nwe may mention a nearly completed history of the early Christian\nheresies, and of the struggle of Christianity against Caesarism.\n\nWe have said that, in 1848, Proudhon recognized three masters. Having\nno knowledge of the German language, he could not have read the works\nof Hegel, which at that time had not been translated into French. It\nwas Charles Grun, a German, who had come to France to study the various\nphilosophical and socialistic systems, who gave him the substance of the\nHegelian ideas. During the winter of 1844-45, Charles Grun had some long\nconversations with Proudhon, which determined, very decisively, not the\nideas, which belonged exclusively to the bisontin thinker, but the form\nof the important work on which he labored after 1843, and which was\npublished in 1846 by Guillaumin.\n\nHegel's great idea, which Proudhon appropriated, and which he\ndemonstrates with wonderful ability in the \"System of Economical\nContradictions,\" is as follows: Antinomy, that is, the existence of two\nlaws or tendencies which are opposed to each other, is possible,\nnot only with two different things, but with one and the same thing.\nConsidered in their thesis, that is, in the law or tendency which\ncreated them, all the economical categories are rational,--competition,\nmonopoly, the balance of trade, and property, as well as the division\nof labor, machinery, taxation, and credit. But, like communism and\npopulation, all these categories are antinomical; all are opposed, not\nonly to each other, but to themselves. All is opposition, and disorder\nis born of this system of opposition. Hence, the sub-title of the\nwork,--\"Philosophy of Misery.\" No category can be suppressed; the\nopposition, antinomy, or contre-tendance, which exists in each of them,\ncannot be suppressed.\n\nWhere, then, lies the solution of the social problem? Influenced by the\nHegelian ideas, Proudhon began to look for it in a superior synthesis,\nwhich should reconcile the thesis and antithesis. Afterwards, while at\nwork upon his book on \"Justice,\" he saw that the antinomical terms do\nnot cancel each other, any more than the opposite poles of an electric\npile destroy each other; that they are the procreative cause of motion,\nlife, and progress; that the problem is to discover, not their fusion,\nwhich would be death, but their equilibrium,--an equilibrium for ever\nunstable, varying with the development of society.\n\nOn the cover of the \"System of Economical Contradictions,\" Proudhon\nannounced, as soon to appear, his \"Solution of the Social Problem.\" This\nwork, upon which he was engaged when the Revolution of 1848 broke\nout, had to be cut up into pamphlets and newspaper articles. The two\npamphlets, which he published in March, 1848, before he became editor\nof \"Le Representant du Peuple,\" bear the same title,--\"Solution of the\nSocial Problem.\" The first, which is mainly a criticism of the early\nacts of the provisional government, is notable from the fact that in\nit Proudhon, in advance of all others, energetically opposed the\nestablishment of national workshops. The second, \"Organization of\nCredit and Circulation,\" sums up in a few pages his idea of economical\nprogress: a gradual reduction of interest, profit, rent, taxes, and\nwages. All progress hitherto has been made in this manner; in this\nmanner it must continue to be made. Those workingmen who favor a nominal\nincrease of wages are, unconsciously following a back-track, opposed to\nall their interests.\n\nAfter having published in \"Le Representant du Peuple,\" the statutes of\nthe Bank of Exchange,--a bank which was to make no profits, since it\nwas to have no stockholders, and which, consequently, was to discount\ncommercial paper with out interest, charging only a commission\nsufficient to defray its running expenses,--Proudhon endeavored, in\na number of articles, to explain its mechanism and necessity. These\narticles have been collected in one volume, under the double title,\n\"Resume of the Social Question; Bank of Exchange.\" His other articles,\nthose which up to December, 1848, were inspired by the progress of\nevents, have been collected in another volume,--\"Revolutionary Ideas.\"\n\nAlmost unknown in March, 1848, and struck off in April from the list of\ncandidates for the Constituent Assembly by the delegation of workingmen\nwhich sat at the Luxembourg, Proudhon had but a very small number of\nvotes at the general elections of April. At the complementary elections,\nwhich were held in the early days of June, he was elected in Paris by\nseventy-seven thousand votes.\n\nAfter the fatal days of June, he published an article on le terme, which\ncaused the first suspension of \"Le Representant du Peuple.\" It was at\nthat time that he introduced a bill into the Assembly, which, being\nreferred to the Committee on the Finances, drew forth, first, the report\nof M. Thiers, and then the speech which Proudhon delivered, on the\n31st of July, in reply to this report. \"Le Representant du Peuple,\"\nreappearing a few days later, he wrote, a propos of the law requiring\njournals to give bonds, his famous article on \"The Malthusians\" (August\n10, 1848).\n\nTen days afterwards, \"Le Representant du Peuple,\" again suspended,\ndefinitively ceased to appear. \"Le Peuple,\" of which he was the\neditor-in-chief, and the first number of which was issued in the early\npart of September, appeared weekly at first, for want of sufficient\nbonds; it afterwards appeared daily, with a double number once a week.\nBefore \"Le Peuple\" had obtained its first bond, Proudhon published a\nremarkable pamphlet on the \"Right to Labor,\"--a right which he denied\nin the form in which it was then affirmed. It was during the same\nperiod that he proposed, at the Poissonniere banquet, his Toast to the\nRevolution.\n\nProudhon, who had been asked to preside at the banquet, refused, and\nproposed in his stead, first, Ledru-Rollin, and then, in view of the\nreluctance of the organizers of the banquet, the illustrious president\nof the party of the Mountain, Lamennais. It was evidently his intention\nto induce the representatives of the Extreme Left to proclaim at last\nwith him the Democratic and Social Republic. Lamennais being accepted by\nthe organizers, the Mountain promised to be present at the banquet. The\nnight before, all seemed right, when General Cavaignac replaced Minister\nSenart by Minister Dufaure-Vivien. The Mountain, questioning the\ngovernment, proposed a vote of confidence in the old minister, and,\ntacitly, of want of confidence in the new. Proudhon abstained from\nvoting on this proposition. The Mountain declared that it would not\nattend the banquet, if Proudhon was to be present. Five Montagnards,\nMathieu of Drome at their head, went to the temporary office of \"Le\nPeuple\" to notify him of this. \"Citizen Proudhon,\" said they to the\norganizers in his presence, \"in abstaining from voting to-day on\nthe proposition of the Mountain, has betrayed the Republican cause.\"\nProudhon, vehemently questioned, began his defence by recalling, on\nthe one hand, the treatment which he had received from the dismissed\nminister; and, on the other, the impartial conduct displayed towards him\nin 1840 by M. Vivien, the new minister. He then attacked the Mountain by\ntelling its delegates that it sought only a pretext, and that really, in\nspite of its professions of Socialism in private conversation, whether\nwith him or with the organizers of the banquet, it had not the courage\nto publicly declare itself Socialist.\n\nOn the following day, in his Toast to the Revolution, a toast which\nwas filled with allusions to the exciting scene of the night before,\nProudhon commenced his struggle against the Mountain. His duel with\nFelix Pyat was one of the episodes of this struggle, which became less\nbitter on Proudhon's side after the Mountain finally decided to publicly\nproclaim the Democratic and Social Republic. The campaign for the\nelection of a President of the Republic had just begun. Proudhon made\na very sharp attack on the candidacy of Louis Bonaparte in a pamphlet\nwhich is regarded as one of his literary chefs-d'oeuvre: the \"Pamphlet\non the Presidency.\" An opponent of this institution, against which he\nhad voted in the Constituent Assembly, he at first decided to take no\npart in the campaign. But soon seeing that he was thus increasing the\nchances of Louis Bonaparte, and that if, as was not at all probable, the\nlatter should not obtain an absolute majority of the votes, the Assembly\nwould not fail to elect General Cavaignac, he espoused, for the sake of\nform, the candidacy of Raspail, who was supported by his friends in\nthe Socialist Committee. Charles Delescluze, the editor-in-chief of\n\"La Revolution Democratique et Sociale,\" who could not forgive him for\nhaving preferred Raspail to Ledru-Rollin, the candidate of the Mountain,\nattacked him on the day after the election with a violence which\noverstepped all bounds. At first, Proudhon had the wisdom to refrain\nfrom answering him. At length, driven to an extremity, he became\naggressive himself, and Delescluze sent him his seconds. This time,\nProudhon positively refused to fight; he would not have fought with\nFelix Pyat, had not his courage been called in question.\n\nOn the 25th of January, 1849, Proudhon, rising from a sick bed, saw\nthat the existence of the Constituent Assembly was endangered by the\ncoalition of the monarchical parties with Louis Bonaparte, who was\nalready planning his coup d'Etat. He did not hesitate to openly attack\nthe man who had just received five millions of votes. He wanted to break\nthe idol; he succeeded only in getting prosecuted and condemned himself.\nThe prosecution demanded against him was authorized by a majority of the\nConstituent Assembly, in spite of the speech which he delivered on that\noccasion. Declared guilty by the jury, he was sentenced, in March, 1849,\nto three years' imprisonment and the payment of a fine of ten thousand\nfrancs.\n\nProudhon had not abandoned for a single moment his project of a Bank of\nExchange, which was to operate without capital with a sufficient number\nof merchants and manufacturers for adherents. This bank, which he then\ncalled the Bank of the People, and around which he wished to gather the\nnumerous working-people's associations which had been formed since\nthe 24th of February, 1848, had already obtained a certain number of\nsubscribers and adherents, the latter to the number of thirty-seven\nthousand. It was about to commence operations, when Proudhon's sentence\nforced him to choose between imprisonment and exile. He did not hesitate\nto abandon his project and return the money to the subscribers. He\nexplained the motives which led him to this decision in an article in\n\"Le Peuple.\"\n\nHaving fled to Belgium, he remained there but a few days, going thence\nto Paris, under an assumed name, to conceal himself in a house in the\nRue de Chabrol. From his hiding-place he sent articles almost every\nday, signed and unsigned, to \"Le Peuple.\" In the evening, dressed in a\nblouse, he went to some secluded spot to take the air. Soon, emboldened\nby habit, he risked an evening promenade upon the Boulevards, and\nafterwards carried his imprudence so far as to take a stroll by daylight\nin the neighborhood of the Gare du Nord. It was not long before he was\nrecognized by the police, who arrested him on the 6th of June, 1849, in\nthe Rue du Faubourg-Poissonniere.\n\nTaken to the office of the prefect of police, then to Sainte-Pelagie,\nhe was in the Conciergerie on the day of the 13th of June, 1849, which\nended with the violent suppression of \"Le Peuple.\" He then began to\nwrite the \"Confessions of a Revolutionist,\" published towards the end\nof the year. He had been again transferred to Sainte-Pelagie, when he\nmarried, in December, 1849, Mlle. Euphrasie Piegard, a young working\ngirl whose hand he had requested in 1847. Madame Proudhon bore him four\ndaughters, of whom but two, Catherine and Stephanie, survived their\nfather. Stephanie died in 1873.\n\nIn October, 1849, \"Le Peuple\" was replaced by a new journal, \"La Voix\ndu Peuple,\" which Proudhon edited from his prison cell. In it were\npublished his discussions with Pierre Leroux and Bastiat.\n\nThe political articles which he sent to \"La Voix du Peuple\" so\ndispleased the government finally, that it transferred him to Doullens,\nwhere he was secretly confined for some time. Afterwards taken back\nto Paris, to appear before the assizes of the Seine in reference to\nan article in \"La Voix du Peuple,\" he was defended by M. Cremieux and\nacquitted. From the Conciergerie he went again to Sainte-Pelagie, where\nhe ended his three years in prison on the 6th of June, 1852.\n\n\"La Voix du Peuple,\" suppressed before the promulgation of the law of\nthe 31st of May, had been replaced by a weekly sheet, \"Le Peuple\" of\n1850. Established by the aid of the principal members of the Mountain,\nthis journal soon met with the fate of its predecessors.\n\nIn 1851, several months before the coup d'Etat, Proudhon published the\n\"General Idea of the Revolution of the Nineteenth Century,\" in which,\nafter having shown the logical series of unitary governments,--from\nmonarchy, which is the first term, to the direct government of the\npeople, which is the last,--he opposes the ideal of an-archy or\nself-government to the communistic or governmental ideal.\n\nAt this period, the Socialist party, discouraged by the elections of\n1849, which resulted in a greater conservative triumph than those of\n1848, and justly angry with the national representative body which\nhad just passed the law of the 31st of May, 1850, demanded direct\nlegislation and direct government. Proudhon, who did not want, at any\nprice, the plebiscitary system which he had good reason to regard as\ndestructive of liberty, did not hesitate to point out, to those of his\nfriends who expected every thing from direct legislation, one of the\nantinomies of universal suffrage. In so far as it is an institution\nintended to achieve, for the benefit of the greatest number, the social\nreforms to which landed suffrage is opposed, universal suffrage is\npowerless; especially if it pretends to legislate or govern directly.\nFor, until the social reforms are accomplished, the greatest number is\nof necessity the least enlightened, and consequently the least capable\nof understanding and effecting reforms. In regard to the antinomy,\npointed out by him, of liberty and government,--whether the latter be\nmonarchic, aristocratic, or democratic in form,--Proudhon, whose chief\ndesire was to preserve liberty, naturally sought the solution in the\nfree contract. But though the free contract may be a practical solution\nof purely economical questions, it cannot be made use of in politics.\nProudhon recognized this ten years later, when his beautiful study on\n\"War and Peace\" led him to find in the FEDERATIVE PRINCIPLE the exact\nequilibrium of liberty and government.\n\n\"The Social Revolution Demonstrated by the Coup d' Etat\" appeared in\n1852, a few months after his release from prison. At that time, terror\nprevailed to such an extent that no one was willing to publish his\nbook without express permission from the government. He succeeded in\nobtaining this permission by writing to Louis Bonaparte a letter which\nhe published at the same time with the work. The latter being offered\nfor sale, Proudhon was warned that he would not be allowed to publish\nany more books of the same character. At that time he entertained the\nidea of writing a universal history entitled \"Chronos.\" This project was\nnever fulfilled.\n\nAlready the father of two children, and about to be presented with a\nthird, Proudhon was obliged to devise some immediate means of gaining a\nliving; he resumed his labors, and published, at first anonymously, the\n\"Manual of a Speculator in the Stock-Exchange.\" Later, in 1857, after\nhaving completed the work, he did not hesitate to sign it, acknowledging\nin the preface his indebtedness to his collaborator, G. Duchene.\n\nMeantime, he vainly sought permission to establish a journal, or review.\nThis permission was steadily refused him. The imperial government\nalways suspected him after the publication of the \"Social Revolution\nDemonstrated by the Coup d'Etat.\"\n\nTowards the end of 1853, Proudhon issued in Belgium a pamphlet entitled\n\"The Philosophy of Progress.\" Entirely inoffensive as it was, this\npamphlet, which he endeavored to send into France, was seized on the\nfrontier. Proudhon's complaints were of no avail.\n\nThe empire gave grants after grants to large companies. A financial\nsociety, having asked for the grant of a railroad in the east of France,\nemployed Proudhon to write several memoirs in support of this demand.\nThe grant was given to another company. The author was offered an\nindemnity as compensation, to be paid (as was customary in such cases)\nby the company which received the grant. It is needless to say that\nProudhon would accept nothing. Then, wishing to explain to the public,\nas well as to the government, the end which he had in view, he\npublished the work entitled \"Reforms to be Effected in the Management of\nRailroads.\"\n\nTowards the end of 1854, Proudhon had already begun his book on\n\"Justice,\" when he had a violent attack of cholera, from which he\nrecovered with great difficulty. Ever afterwards his health was\ndelicate.\n\nAt last, on the 22d of April, 1858, he published, in three large\nvolumes, the important work upon which he had labored since 1854. This\nwork had two titles: the first, \"Justice in the Revolution and in the\nChurch;\" the second, \"New Principles of Practical Philosophy, addressed\nto His Highness Monseigneur Mathieu, Cardinal-Archbishop of Besancon.\"\nOn the 27th of April, when there had scarcely been time to read the\nwork, an order was issued by the magistrate for its seizure; on the\n28th the seizure was effected. To this first act of the magistracy,\nthe author of the incriminated book replied on the 11th of May in a\nstrongly-motived petition, demanding a revision of the concordat of\n1802; or, in other words, a new adjustment of the relations between\nChurch and State. At bottom, this petition was but the logical\nconsequence of the work itself. An edition of a thousand copies being\npublished on the 17th of May, the \"Petition to the Senate\" was regarded\nby the public prosecutor as an aggravation of the offence or offences\ndiscovered in the body of the work to which it was an appendix, and was\nseized in its turn on the 23d. On the first of June, the author appealed\nto the Senate in a second \"Petition,\" which was deposited with the\nfirst in the office of the Secretary of the Assembly, the guardian and\nguarantee, according to the constitution of 1852, of the principles\nof '89. On the 2d of June, the two processes being united, Proudhon\nappeared at the bar with his publisher, the printer of the book, and\nthe printer of the petition, to receive the sentence of the police\nmagistrate, which condemned him to three years' imprisonment, a fine of\nfour thousand francs, and the suppression of his work. It is needless\nto say that the publisher and printers were also condemned by the sixth\nchamber.\n\nProudhon lodged an appeal; he wrote a memoir which the law of 1819, in\nthe absence of which he would have been liable to a new prosecution,\ngave him the power to publish previous to the hearing. Having decided\nto make use of the means which the law permitted, he urged in vain the\nprinters who were prosecuted with him to lend him their aid. He then\ndemanded of Attorney-General Chaix d'Est Ange a statement to the effect\nthat the twenty-third article of the law of the 17th of May, 1819,\nallows a written defence, and that a printer runs no risk in printing\nit. The attorney-general flatly refused. Proudhon then started for\nBelgium, where he printed his defence, which could not, of course, cross\nthe French frontier. This memoir is entitled to rank with the best of\nBeaumarchais's; it is entitled: \"Justice prosecuted by the Church;\nAn Appeal from the Sentence passed upon P. J. Proudhon by the Police\nMagistrate of the Seine, on the 2d of June, 1858.\" A very close\ndiscussion of the grounds of the judgment of the sixth chamber, it was\nat the same time an excellent resume of his great work.\n\nOnce in Belgium, Proudhon did not fail to remain there. In 1859, after\nthe general amnesty which followed the Italian war, he at first thought\nhimself included in it. But the imperial government, consulted by his\nfriends, notified him that, in its opinion, and in spite of the contrary\nadvice of M. Faustin Helie, his condemnation was not of a political\ncharacter. Proudhon, thus classed by the government with the authors\nof immoral works, thought it beneath his dignity to protest, and waited\npatiently for the advent of 1863 to allow him to return to France.\n\nIn Belgium, where he was not slow in forming new friendships, he\npublished in 1859-60, in separate parts, a new edition of his great work\non \"Justice.\" Each number contained, in addition to the original text\ncarefully reviewed and corrected, numerous explanatory notes and some\n\"Tidings of the Revolution.\" In these tidings, which form a sort of\nreview of the progress of ideas in Europe, Proudhon sorrowfully\nasserts that, after having for a long time marched at the head of the\nprogressive nations, France has become, without appearing to suspect it,\nthe most retrogressive of nations; and he considers her more than once\nas seriously threatened with moral death.\n\nThe Italian war led him to write a new work, which he published in 1861,\nentitled \"War and Peace.\" This work, in which, running counter to\na multitude of ideas accepted until then without examination, he\npronounced for the first time against the restoration of an aristocratic\nand priestly Poland, and against the establishment of a unitary\ngovernment in Italy, created for him a multitude of enemies. Most of\nhis friends, disconcerted by his categorical affirmation of a right\nof force, notified him that they decidedly disapproved of his new\npublication. \"You see,\" triumphantly cried those whom he had always\ncombated, \"this man is only a sophist.\"\n\nLed by his previous studies to test every thing by the question of\nright, Proudhon asks, in his \"War and Peace,\" whether there is a real\nright of which war is the vindication, and victory the demonstration.\nThis right, which he roughly calls the right of the strongest or the\nright of force, and which is, after all, only the right of the most\nworthy to the preference in certain definite cases, exists, says\nProudhon, independently of war. It cannot be legitimately vindicated\nexcept where necessity clearly demands the subordination of one will to\nanother, and within the limits in which it exists; that is, without ever\ninvolving the enslavement of one by the other. Among nations, the right\nof the majority, which is only a corollary of the right of force, is\nas unacceptable as universal monarchy. Hence, until equilibrium is\nestablished and recognized between States or national forces, there must\nbe war. War, says Proudhon, is not always necessary to determine which\nside is the strongest; and he has no trouble in proving this by examples\ndrawn from the family, the workshop, and elsewhere. Passing then to the\nstudy of war, he proves that it by no means corresponds in practice to\nthat which it ought to be according to his theory of the right of force.\nThe systematic horrors of war naturally lead him to seek a cause for\nit other than the vindication of this right; and then only does the\neconomist take it upon himself to denounce this cause to those who, like\nhimself, want peace. The necessity of finding abroad a compensation\nfor the misery resulting in every nation from the absence of economical\nequilibrium, is, according to Proudhon, the ever real, though ever\nconcealed, cause of war. The pages devoted to this demonstration and to\nhis theory of poverty, which he clearly distinguishes from misery and\npauperism, shed entirely new light upon the philosophy of history. As\nfor the author's conclusion, it is a very simple one. Since the treaty\nof Westphalia, and especially since the treaties of 1815, equilibrium\nhas been the international law of Europe. It remains now, not to destroy\nit, but, while maintaining it, to labor peacefully, in every nation\nprotected by it, for the equilibrium of economical forces. The last line\nof the book, evidently written to check imperial ambition, is: \"Humanity\nwants no more war.\"\n\nIn 1861, after Garibaldi's expedition and the battle of Castelfidardo,\nProudhon immediately saw that the establishment of Italian unity would\nbe a severe blow to European equilibrium. It was chiefly in order to\nmaintain this equilibrium that he pronounced so energetically in\nfavor of Italian federation, even though it should be at first only\na federation of monarchs. In vain was it objected that, in being\nestablished by France, Italian unity would break European equilibrium in\nour favor. Proudhon, appealing to history, showed that every State which\nbreaks the equilibrium in its own favor only causes the other States to\ncombine against it, and thereby diminishes its influence and power. He\nadded that, nations being essentially selfish, Italy would not fail,\nwhen opportunity offered, to place her interest above her gratitude.\n\nTo maintain European equilibrium by diminishing great States and\nmultiplying small ones; to unite the latter in organized federations,\nnot for attack, but for defence; and with these federations, which, if\nthey were not republican already, would quickly become so, to hold in\ncheck the great military monarchies,--such, in the beginning of 1861,\nwas the political programme of Proudhon.\n\nThe object of the federations, he said, will be to guarantee, as far as\npossible, the beneficent reign of peace; and they will have the\nfurther effect of securing in every nation the triumph of liberty over\ndespotism. Where the largest unitary State is, there liberty is in the\ngreatest danger; further, if this State be democratic, despotism without\nthe counterpoise of majorities is to be feared. With the federation, it\nis not so. The universal suffrage of the federal State is checked by the\nuniversal suffrage of the federated States; and the latter is offset in\nits turn by PROPERTY, the stronghold of liberty, which it tends, not to\ndestroy, but to balance with the institutions of MUTUALISM.\n\nAll these ideas, and many others which were only hinted at in his\nwork on \"War and Peace,\" were developed by Proudhon in his subsequent\npublications, one of which has for its motto, \"Reforms always, Utopias\nnever.\" The thinker had evidently finished his evolution.\n\nThe Council of State of the canton of Vaud having offered prizes for\nessays on the question of taxation, previously discussed at a congress\nheld at Lausanne, Proudhon entered the ranks and carried off the first\nprize. His memoir was published in 1861 under the title of \"The Theory\nof Taxation.\"\n\nAbout the same time, he wrote at Brussels, in \"L'Office de Publicite,\"\nsome remarkable articles on the question of literary property, which\nwas discussed at a congress held in Belgium, These articles must not be\nconfounded with \"Literary Majorats,\" a more complete work on the same\nsubject, which was published in 1863, soon after his return to France.\n\nArbitrarily excepted from the amnesty in 1859, Proudhon was pardoned two\nyears later by a special act. He did not wish to take advantage of this\nfavor, and seemed resolved to remain in Belgium until the 2d of June,\n1863, the time when he was to acquire the privilege of prescription,\nwhen an absurd and ridiculous riot, excited in Brussels by an article\npublished by him on federation and unity in Italy, induced him to hasten\nhis return to France. Stones were thrown against the house in which\nhe lived, in the Faubourg d'Ixelles. After having placed his wife and\ndaughters in safety among his friends at Brussels, he arrived in Paris\nin September, 1862, and published there, \"Federation and Italian Unity,\"\na pamphlet which naturally commences with the article which served as a\npretext for the rioters in Brussels.\n\nAmong the works begun by Proudhon while in Belgium, which death did not\nallow him to finish, we ought to mention a \"History of Poland,\" which\nwill be published later; and, \"The Theory of Property,\" which appeared\nin 1865, before \"The Gospels Annotated,\" and after the volume entitled\n\"The Principle of Art and its Social Destiny.\"\n\nThe publications of Proudhon, in 1863, were: 1. \"Literary Majorats: An\nExamination of a Bill having for its object the Creation of a Perpetual\nMonopoly for the Benefit of Authors, Inventors, and Artists;\" 2.\n\"The Federative Principle and the Necessity of Re-establishing the\nRevolutionary party;\" 3. \"The Sworn Democrats and the Refractories;\" 4.\n\"Whether the Treaties of 1815 have ceased to exist? Acts of the Future\nCongress.\"\n\nThe disease which was destined to kill him grew worse and worse; but\nProudhon labored constantly!... A series of articles, published in 1864\nin \"Le Messager de Paris,\" have been collected in a pamphlet under the\ntitle of \"New Observations on Italian Unity.\" He hoped to publish\nduring the same year his work on \"The Political Capacity of the Working\nClasses,\" but was unable to write the last chapter.... He grew weaker\ncontinually. His doctor prescribed rest. In the month of August he went\nto Franche-Comte, where he spent a month. Having returned to Paris,\nhe resumed his labor with difficulty.... From the month of December\nonwards, the heart disease made rapid progress; the oppression became\ninsupportable, his legs were swollen, and he could not sleep....\n\nOn the 19th of January, 1865, he died, towards two o'clock in the\nmorning, in the arms of his wife, his sister-in-law, and the friend who\nwrites these lines....\n\nThe publication of his correspondence, to which his daughter Catherine\nis faithfully devoted, will tend, no doubt, to increase his reputation\nas a thinker, as a writer, and as an honest man.\n\nJ. A. LANGLOIS.\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE.\n\nThe following letter served as a preface to the first edition of this\nmemoir:--\n\n\n\"To the Members of the Academy of Besancon\n\n\"PARIS, June 30, 1840.\n\n\n\"GENTLEMEN,--In the course of your debate of the 9th of May, 1833,\nin regard to the triennial pension established by Madame Suard, you\nexpressed the following wish:--\n\n\"'The Academy requests the titulary to present it annually, during the\nfirst fortnight in July, with a succinct and logical statement of the\nvarious studies which he has pursued during the year which has just\nexpired.'\n\n\"I now propose, gentlemen, to discharge this duty.\n\n\"When I solicited your votes, I boldly avowed my intention to bend my\nefforts to the discovery of some means of AMELIORATING THE PHYSICAL,\nMORAL, AND INTELLECTUAL CONDITION OF THE MERE NUMEROUS AND POORER\nCLASSES. This idea, foreign as it may have seemed to the object of my\ncandidacy, you received favorably; and, by the precious distinction with\nwhich it has been your pleasure to honor me, you changed this formal\noffer into an inviolable and sacred obligation. Thenceforth I understood\nwith how worthy and honorable a society I had to deal: my regard for\nits enlightenment, my recognition of its benefits, my enthusiasm for its\nglory, were unbounded.\n\n\"Convinced at once that, in order to break loose from the beaten paths\nof opinions and systems, it was necessary to proceed in my study of man\nand society by scientific methods, and in a rigorous manner, I devoted\none year to philology and grammar; linguistics, or the natural history\nof speech, being, of all the sciences, that which was best suited to\nthe character of my mind, seemed to bear the closest relation to the\nresearches which I was about to commence. A treatise, written at\nthis period upon one of the most interesting questions of comparative\ngrammar,[2] if it did not reveal the astonishing success, at least bore\nwitness to the thoroughness, of my labors.\n\n\"Since that time, metaphysics and moral science have been my only\nstudies; my perception of the fact that these sciences, though badly\ndefined as to their object and not confined to their sphere, are, like\nthe natural sciences, susceptible of demonstration and certainty, has\nalready rewarded my efforts.\n\n\"But, gentlemen, of all the masters whom I have followed, to none do\nI owe so much as to you. Your co-operation, your programmes, your\ninstructions, in agreement with my secret wishes and most cherished\nhopes, have at no time failed to enlighten me and to point out my road;\nthis memoir on property is the child of your thought.\n\n\"In 1838, the Academy of Besancon proposed the following question:\nTO WHAT CAUSES MUST WE ATTRIBUTE THE CONTINUALLY INCREASING NUMBER OF\nSUICIDES, AND WHAT ARE THE PROPER MEANS FOR ARRESTING THE EFFECTS OF\nTHIS MORAL CONTAGION?\n\n\"Thereby it asked, in less general terms, what was the cause of the\nsocial evil, and what was its remedy? You admitted that yourselves,\ngentlemen when your committee reported that the competitors had\nenumerated with exactness the immediate and particular causes of\nsuicide, as well as the means of preventing each of them; but that\nfrom this enumeration, chronicled with more or less skill, no positive\ninformation had been gained, either as to the primary cause of the evil,\nor as to its remedy.\n\n\"In 1839, your programme, always original and varied in its academical\nexpression, became more exact. The investigations of 1838 had pointed\nout, as the causes or rather as the symptoms of the social malady,\nthe neglect of the principles of religion and morality, the desire for\nwealth, the passion for enjoyment, and political disturbances. All these\ndata were embodied by you in a single proposition: _THE UTILITY OF THE\nCELEBRATION OF SUNDAY AS REGARDS HYGIENE, MORALITY, AND SOCIAL AND\nPOLITICAL RELATION_.\n\n\"In a Christian tongue you asked, gentlemen, what was the true system\nof society. A competitor [3] dared to maintain, and believed that he\nhad proved, that the institution of a day of rest at weekly intervals\nis inseparably bound up with a political system based on the equality of\nconditions; that without equality this institution is an anomaly and\nan impossibility: that equality alone can revive this ancient and\nmysterious keeping of the seventh day. This argument did not meet with\nyour approbation, since, without denying the relation pointed out by\nthe competitor, you judged, and rightly gentlemen, that the principle of\nequality of conditions not being demonstrated, the ideas of the author\nwere nothing more than hypotheses.\n\n\"Finally, gentlemen, this fundamental principle of equality you\npresented for competition in the following terms: THE ECONOMICAL AND\nMORAL CONSEQUENCES IN FRANCE UP TO THE PRESENT TIME, AND THOSE WHICH\nSEEM LIKELY TO APPEAR IN FUTURE, OF THE LAW CONCERNING THE EQUAL\nDIVISION OF HEREDITARY PROPERTY BETWEEN THE CHILDREN.\n\n\"Instead of confining one to common places without breadth or\nsignificance, it seems to me that your question should be developed as\nfollows:--\n\n\"If the law has been able to render the right of heredity common to\nall the children of one father, can it not render it equal for all his\ngrandchildren and great-grandchildren?\n\n\"If the law no longer heeds the age of any member of the family, can\nit not, by the right of heredity, cease to heed it in the race, in the\ntribe, in the nation?\n\n\"Can equality, by the right of succession, be preserved between\ncitizens, as well as between cousins and brothers? In a word, can the\nprinciple of succession become a principle of equality?\n\n\"To sum up all these ideas in one inclusive question: What is the\nprinciple of heredity? What are the foundations of inequality? What is\nproperty?\n\n\"Such, gentlemen, is the object of the memoir that I offer you to day.\n\n\"If I have rightly grasped the object of your thought; if I succeed in\nbringing to light a truth which is indisputable, but, from causes\nwhich I am bold enough to claim to have explained, has always been\nmisunderstood; if by an infallible method of investigation, I establish\nthe dogma of equality of conditions; if I determine the principle\nof civil law, the essence of justice, and the form of society; if I\nannihilate property forever,--to you, gentlemen, will redound all the\nglory, for it is to your aid and your inspiration that I owe it.\n\n\"My purpose in this work is the application of method to the problems of\nphilosophy; every other intention is foreign to and even abusive of it.\n\n\"I have spoken lightly of jurisprudence: I had the right; but I should\nbe unjust did I not distinguish between this pretended science and\nthe men who practise it. Devoted to studies both laborious and severe,\nentitled in all respects to the esteem of their fellow-citizens by their\nknowledge and eloquence our legists deserve but one reproach, that of an\nexcessive deference to arbitrary laws.\n\n\"I have been pitiless in my criticism of the economists: for them\nI confess that, in general, I have no liking. The arrogance and\nthe emptiness of their writings, their impertinent pride and their\nunwarranted blunders, have disgusted me. Whoever, knowing them, pardons\nthem, may read them.\n\n\"I have severely blamed the learned Christian Church: it was my duty.\nThis blame results from the facts which I call attention to: why has\nthe Church decreed concerning things which it does not understand? The\nChurch has erred in dogma and in morals; physics and mathematics\ntestify against her. It may be wrong for me to say it, but surely it\nis unfortunate for Christianity that it is true. To restore religion,\ngentlemen, it is necessary to condemn the Church.\n\n\"Perhaps you will regret, gentlemen, that, in giving all my attention to\nmethod and evidence, I have too much neglected form and style: in vain\nshould I have tried to do better. Literary hope and faith I have none.\nThe nineteenth century is, in my eyes, a genesic era, in which new\nprinciples are elaborated, but in which nothing that is written shall\nendure. That is the reason, in my opinion, why, among so many men of\ntalent, France to-day counts not one great writer. In a society like\nours, to seek for literary glory seems to me an anachronism. Of what\nuse is it to invoke an ancient sibyl when a muse is on the eve of birth?\nPitiable actors in a tragedy nearing its end, that which it behooves us\nto do is to precipitate the catastrophe. The most deserving among us\nis he who plays best this part. Well, I no longer aspire to this sad\nsuccess!\n\n\"Why should I not confess it, gentlemen? I have aspired to your\nsuffrages and sought the title of your pensioner, hating all which\nexists and full of projects for its destruction; I shall finish this\ninvestigation in a spirit of calm and philosophical resignation. I have\nderived more peace from the knowledge of the truth, than anger from the\nfeeling of oppression; and the most precious fruit that I could wish to\ngather from this memoir would be the inspiration of my readers with that\ntranquillity of soul which arises from the clear perception of evil and\nits cause, and which is much more powerful than passion and enthusiasm.\nMy hatred of privilege and human authority was unbounded; perhaps at\ntimes I have been guilty, in my indignation, of confounding persons and\nthings; at present I can only despise and complain; to cease to hate I\nonly needed to know.\n\n\"It is for you now, gentlemen, whose mission and character are the\nproclamation of the truth, it is for you to instruct the people, and to\ntell them for what they ought to hope and what they ought to fear. The\npeople, incapable as yet of sound judgment as to what is best for them,\napplaud indiscriminately the most opposite ideas, provided that in them\nthey get a taste of flattery: to them the laws of thought are like the\nconfines of the possible; to-day they can no more distinguish between a\nsavant and a sophist, than formerly they could tell a physician from\na sorcerer. 'Inconsiderately accepting, gathering together, and\naccumulating everything that is new, regarding all reports as true and\nindubitable, at the breath or ring of novelty they assemble like bees at\nthe sound of a basin.' [4]\n\n\"May you, gentlemen, desire equality as I myself desire it; may you,\nfor the eternal happiness of our country, become its propagators and its\nheralds; may I be the last of your pensioners! Of all the wishes that\nI can frame, that, gentlemen, is the most worthy of you and the most\nhonorable for me.\n\n\"I am, with the profoundest respect and the most earnest gratitude,\n\n\"Your pensioner,\n\n\"P. J. PROUDHON.\"\n\n\nTwo months after the receipt of this letter, the Academy, in its debate\nof August 24th, replied to the address of its pensioner by a note, the\ntext of which I give below:--\n\n\n\"A member calls the attention of the Academy to a pamphlet, published\nlast June by the titulary of the Suard pension, entitled, \"What is\nproperty?\" and dedicated by the author to the Academy. He is of the\nopinion that the society owes it to justice, to example, and to its\nown dignity, to publicly disavow all responsibility for the anti-social\ndoctrines contained in this publication. In consequence he demands:\n\n\"1. That the Academy disavow and condemn, in the most formal manner,\nthe work of the Suard pensioner, as having been published without its\nassent, and as attributing to it opinions diametrically opposed to the\nprinciples of each of its members;\n\n\"2. That the pensioner be charged, in case he should publish a second\nedition of his book, to omit the dedication;\n\n\"3. That this judgment of the Academy be placed upon the records.\n\n\"These three propositions, put to vote, are adopted.\"\n\n\nAfter this ludicrous decree, which its authors thought to render\npowerful by giving it the form of a contradiction, I can only beg the\nreader not to measure the intelligence of my compatriots by that of our\nAcademy.\n\nWhile my patrons in the social and political sciences were fulminating\nanathemas against my brochure, a man, who was a stranger to\nFranche-Comte, who did not know me, who might even have regarded himself\nas personally attacked by the too sharp judgment which I had passed upon\nthe economists, a publicist as learned as he was modest, loved by the\npeople whose sorrows he felt, honored by the power which he sought to\nenlighten without flattering or disgracing it, M. Blanqui--member of the\nInstitute, professor of political economy, defender of property--took up\nmy defence before his associates and before the ministry, and saved me\nfrom the blows of a justice which is always blind, because it is always\nignorant.\n\nIt seems to me that the reader will peruse with pleasure the letter\nwhich M. Blanqui did me the honor to write to me upon the publication\nof my second memoir, a letter as honorable to its author as it is\nflattering to him to whom it is addressed.\n\n\n\n\"PARIS, May 1, 1841.\n\n\"MONSIEUR,--I hasten to thank you for forwarding to me your second\nmemoir upon property. I have read it with all the interest that an\nacquaintance with the first would naturally inspire. I am very glad that\nyou have modified somewhat the rudeness of form which gave to a work\nof such gravity the manner and appearance of a pamphlet; for you quite\nfrightened me, sir, and your talent was needed to reassure me in regard\nto your intentions. One does not expend so much real knowledge with\nthe purpose of inflaming his country. This proposition, now coming into\nnotice--PROPERTY IS ROBBERY!--was of a nature to repel from your book\neven those serious minds who do not judge by appearances, had you\npersisted in maintaining it in its rude simplicity. But if you have\nsoftened the form, you are none the less faithful to the ground-work\nof your doctrines; and although you have done me the honor to give me a\nshare in this perilous teaching, I cannot accept a partnership which,\nas far as talent goes, would surely be a credit to me, but which would\ncompromise me in all other respects.\n\n\"I agree with you in one thing only; namely, that all kinds of property\nget too frequently abused in this world. But I do not reason from the\nabuse to the abolition,--an heroic remedy too much like death, which\ncures all evils. I will go farther: I will confess that, of all abuses,\nthe most hateful to me are those of property; but once more, there is\na remedy for this evil without violating it, all the more without\ndestroying it. If the present laws allow abuse, we can reconstruct them.\nOur civil code is not the Koran; it is not wrong to examine it. Change,\nthen, the laws which govern the use of property, but be sparing of\nanathemas; for, logically, where is the honest man whose hands are\nentirely clean? Do you think that one can be a robber without knowing\nit, without wishing it, without suspecting it? Do you not admit that\nsociety in its present state, like every man, has in its constitution\nall kinds of virtues and vices inherited from our ancestors? Is\nproperty, then, in your eyes a thing so simple and so abstract that you\ncan re-knead and equalize it, if I may so speak, in your metaphysical\nmill? One who has said as many excellent and practical things as occur\nin these two beautiful and paradoxical improvisations of yours cannot\nbe a pure and unwavering utopist. You are too well acquainted with the\neconomical and academical phraseology to play with the hard words\nof revolutions. I believe, then, that you have handled property as\nRousseau, eighty years ago, handled letters, with a magnificent and\npoetical display of wit and knowledge. Such, at least, is my opinion.\n\n\"That is what I said to the Institute at the time when I presented my\nreport upon your book. I knew that they wished to proceed against you in\nthe courts; you perhaps do not know by how narrow a chance I succeeded\nin preventing them. [5] What chagrin I should always have felt, if\nthe king's counsel, that is to say, the intellectual executioner, had\nfollowed in my very tracks to attack your book and annoy your person! I\nactually passed two terrible nights, and I succeeded in restraining\nthe secular arm only by showing that your book was an academical\ndissertation, and not the manifesto of an incendiary. Your style is too\nlofty ever to be of service to the madmen who in discussing the gravest\nquestions of our social order, use paving-stones as their weapons. But\nsee to it, sir, that ere long they do not come, in spite of you, to\nseek for ammunition in this formidable arsenal, and that your\nvigorous metaphysics falls not into the hands of some sophist of the\nmarket-place, who might discuss the question in the presence of a\nstarving audience: we should have pillage for conclusion and peroration.\n\n\"I feel as deeply as you, sir, the abuses which you point out; but I\nhave so great an affection for order,--not that common and strait-laced\norder with which the police are satisfied, but the majestic and imposing\norder of human societies,--that I sometimes find myself embarrassed\nin attacking certain abuses. I like to rebuild with one hand when I am\ncompelled to destroy with the other. In pruning an old tree, we guard\nagainst destruction of the buds and fruit. You know that as well as any\none. You are a wise and learned man; you have a thoughtful mind. The\nterms by which you characterize the fanatics of our day are strong\nenough to reassure the most suspicious imaginations as to your\nintentions; but you conclude in favor of the abolition of property! You\nwish to abolish the most powerful motor of the human mind; you attack\nthe paternal sentiment in its sweetest illusions; with one word you\narrest the formation of capital, and we build henceforth upon the sand\ninstead of on a rock. That I cannot agree to; and for that reason I\nhave criticised your book, so full of beautiful pages, so brilliant with\nknowledge and fervor!\n\n\"I wish, sir, that my impaired health would permit me to examine with\nyou, page by page, the memoir which you have done me the honor to\naddress to me publicly and personally; I think I could offer some\nimportant criticisms. For the moment, I must content myself with\nthanking you for the kind words in which you have seen fit to speak of\nme. We each possess the merit of sincerity; I desire also the merit\nof prudence. You know how deep-seated is the disease under which the\nworking-people are suffering; I know how many noble hearts beat under\nthose rude garments, and I feel an irresistible and fraternal sympathy\nwith the thousands of brave people who rise early in the morning to\nlabor, to pay their taxes, and to make our country strong. I try to\nserve and enlighten them, whereas some endeavor to mislead them. You\nhave not written directly for them. You have issued two magnificent\nmanifestoes, the second more guarded than the first; issue a third more\nguarded than the second, and you will take high rank in science, whose\nfirst precept is calmness and impartiality.\n\n\"Farewell, sir! No man's esteem for another can exceed mine for you.\n\n\"BLANQUI.\"\n\n\nI should certainly take some exceptions to this noble and eloquent\nletter; but I confess that I am more inclined to realize the prediction\nwith which it terminates than to augment needlessly the number of\nmy antagonists. So much controversy fatigues and wearies me. The\nintelligence expended in the warfare of words is like that employed in\nbattle: it is intelligence wasted. M. Blanqui acknowledges that property\nis abused in many harmful ways; I call PROPERTY the sum these abuses\nexclusively. To each of us property seems a polygon whose angles need\nknocking off; but, the operation performed, M. Blanqui maintains\nthat the figure will still be a polygon (an hypothesis admitted in\nmathematics, although not proven), while I consider that this figure\nwill be a circle. Honest people can at least understand one another.\n\nFor the rest, I allow that, in the present state of the question, the\nmind may legitimately hesitate before deciding in favor of the abolition\nof property. To gain the victory for one's cause, it does not suffice\nsimply to overthrow a principle generally recognized, which has the\nindisputable merit of systematically recapitulating our political\ntheories; it is also necessary to establish the opposite principle, and\nto formulate the system which must proceed from it. Still further, it\nis necessary to show the method by which the new system will satisfy\nall the moral and political needs which induced the establishment of\nthe first. On the following conditions, then, of subsequent evidence,\ndepends the correctness of my preceding arguments:--\n\nThe discovery of a system of absolute equality in which all existing\ninstitutions, save property, or the sum of the abuses of property,\nnot only may find a place, but may themselves serve as instruments\nof equality: individual liberty, the division of power, the public\nministry, the jury system, administrative and judicial organization, the\nunity and completeness of instruction, marriage, the family, heredity\nin direct and collateral succession, the right of sale and exchange, the\nright to make a will, and even birthright,--a system which, better than\nproperty, guarantees the formation of capital and keeps up the courage\nof all; which, from a superior point of view, explains, corrects, and\ncompletes the theories of association hitherto proposed, from Plato\nand Pythagoras to Babeuf, Saint Simon, and Fourier; a system, finally,\nwhich, serving as a means of transition, is immediately applicable.\n\nA work so vast requires, I am aware, the united efforts of twenty\nMontesquieus; nevertheless, if it is not given to a single man to\nfinish, a single one can commence, the enterprise. The road that he\nshall traverse will suffice to show the end and assure the result.\n\n\n\n\n\nWHAT IS PROPERTY? OR,\n\nAN INQUIRY INTO THE PRINCIPLE OF RIGHT AND OF GOVERNMENT.\n\n\n\n\nFIRST MEMOIR.\n\n     _Adversus hostem aeterna auctertas esto._\n\n     Against the enemy, revendication is eternal. LAW OF THE\n     TWELVE TABLES.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I. METHOD PURSUED IN THIS WORK.--THE IDEA OF A REVOLUTION.\n\nIf I were asked to answer the following question: WHAT IS SLAVERY? and I\nshould answer in one word, IT IS MURDER, my meaning would be understood\nat once. No extended argument would be required to show that the power\nto take from a man his thought, his will, his personality, is a power of\nlife and death; and that to enslave a man is to kill him. Why, then, to\nthis other question: WHAT IS PROPERTY! may I not likewise answer, IT\nIS ROBBERY, without the certainty of being misunderstood; the second\nproposition being no other than a transformation of the first?\n\nI undertake to discuss the vital principle of our government and our\ninstitutions, property: I am in my right. I may be mistaken in the\nconclusion which shall result from my investigations: I am in my right.\nI think best to place the last thought of my book first: still am I in\nmy right.\n\nSuch an author teaches that property is a civil right, born of\noccupation and sanctioned by law; another maintains that it is a natural\nright, originating in labor,--and both of these doctrines, totally\nopposed as they may seem, are encouraged and applauded. I contend that\nneither labor, nor occupation, nor law, can create property; that it is\nan effect without a cause: am I censurable?\n\nBut murmurs arise!\n\nPROPERTY IS ROBBERY! That is the war-cry of '93! That is the signal of\nrevolutions!\n\nReader, calm yourself: I am no agent of discord, no firebrand of\nsedition. I anticipate history by a few days; I disclose a truth whose\ndevelopment we may try in vain to arrest; I write the preamble of\nour future constitution. This proposition which seems to you\nblasphemous--PROPERTY IS ROBBERY--would, if our prejudices allowed us\nto consider it, be recognized as the lightning-rod to shield us from the\ncoming thunderbolt; but too many interests stand in the way!... Alas!\nphilosophy will not change the course of events: destiny will fulfill\nitself regardless of prophecy. Besides, must not justice be done and our\neducation be finished?\n\nPROPERTY IS ROBBERY!... What a revolution in human ideas! PROPRIETOR and\nROBBER have been at all times expressions as contradictory as the beings\nwhom they designate are hostile; all languages have perpetuated this\nopposition. On what authority, then, do you venture to attack universal\nconsent, and give the lie to the human race? Who are you, that you\nshould question the judgment of the nations and the ages?\n\nOf what consequence to you, reader, is my obscure individuality? I\nlive, like you, in a century in which reason submits only to fact and\nto evidence. My name, like yours, is TRUTH-SEEKER. [6] My mission is\nwritten in these words of the law: SPEAK WITHOUT HATRED AND WITHOUT\nFEAR; TELL THAT WHICH THOU KNOWEST! The work of our race is to build the\ntemple of science, and this science includes man and Nature. Now, truth\nreveals itself to all; to-day to Newton and Pascal, tomorrow to\nthe herdsman in the valley and the journeyman in the shop. Each one\ncontributes his stone to the edifice; and, his task accomplished,\ndisappears. Eternity precedes us, eternity follows us: between two\ninfinites, of what account is one poor mortal that the century should\ninquire about him?\n\nDisregard then, reader, my title and my character, and attend only to my\narguments. It is in accordance with universal consent that I undertake\nto correct universal error; from the OPINION of the human race I appeal\nto its FAITH. Have the courage to follow me; and, if your will is\nuntrammelled, if your conscience is free, if your mind can unite two\npropositions and deduce a third therefrom, my ideas will inevitably\nbecome yours. In beginning by giving you my last word, it was my purpose\nto warn you, not to defy you; for I am certain that, if you read me, you\nwill be compelled to assent. The things of which I am to speak are so\nsimple and clear that you will be astonished at not having perceived\nthem before, and you will say: \"I have neglected to think.\" Others offer\nyou the spectacle of genius wresting Nature's secrets from her, and\nunfolding before you her sublime messages; you will find here only a\nseries of experiments upon JUSTICE and RIGHT a sort of verification of\nthe weights and measures of your conscience. The operations shall be\nconducted under your very eyes; and you shall weigh the result.\n\nNevertheless, I build no system. I ask an end to privilege, the\nabolition of slavery, equality of rights, and the reign of law. Justice,\nnothing else; that is the alpha and omega of my argument: to others I\nleave the business of governing the world.\n\nOne day I asked myself: Why is there so much sorrow and misery in\nsociety? Must man always be wretched? And not satisfied with the\nexplanations given by the reformers,--these attributing the general\ndistress to governmental cowardice and incapacity, those to conspirators\nand emeutes, still others to ignorance and general corruption,--and\nweary of the interminable quarrels of the tribune and the press, I\nsought to fathom the matter myself. I have consulted the masters of\nscience; I have read a hundred volumes of philosophy, law, political\neconomy, and history: would to God that I had lived in a century in\nwhich so much reading had been useless! I have made every effort to\nobtain exact information, comparing doctrines, replying to objections,\ncontinually constructing equations and reductions from arguments, and\nweighing thousands of syllogisms in the scales of the most rigorous\nlogic. In this laborious work, I have collected many interesting facts\nwhich I shall share with my friends and the public as soon as I have\nleisure. But I must say that I recognized at once that we had never\nunderstood the meaning of these words, so common and yet so sacred:\nJUSTICE, EQUITY, LIBERTY; that concerning each of these principles our\nideas have been utterly obscure; and, in fact, that this ignorance was\nthe sole cause, both of the poverty that devours us, and of all the\ncalamities that have ever afflicted the human race.\n\nMy mind was frightened by this strange result: I doubted my reason.\nWhat! said I, that which eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor insight\npenetrated, you have discovered! Wretch, mistake not the visions of\nyour diseased brain for the truths of science! Do you not know (great\nphilosophers have said so) that in points of practical morality\nuniversal error is a contradiction?\n\nI resolved then to test my arguments; and in entering upon this new\nlabor I sought an answer to the following questions: Is it possible\nthat humanity can have been so long and so universally mistaken in the\napplication of moral principles? How and why could it be mistaken? How\ncan its error, being universal, be capable of correction?\n\nThese questions, on the solution of which depended the certainty of my\nconclusions, offered no lengthy resistance to analysis. It will be seen,\nin chapter V. of this work, that in morals, as in all other branches of\nknowledge, the gravest errors are the dogmas of science; that, even in\nworks of justice, to be mistaken is a privilege which ennobles man; and\nthat whatever philosophical merit may attach to me is infinitely small.\nTo name a thing is easy: the difficulty is to discern it before its\nappearance. In giving expression to the last stage of an idea,--an idea\nwhich permeates all minds, which to-morrow will be proclaimed by another\nif I fail to announce it to-day,--I can claim no merit save that of\npriority of utterance. Do we eulogize the man who first perceives the\ndawn?\n\nYes: all men believe and repeat that equality of conditions is identical\nwith equality of rights; that PROPERTY and ROBBERY are synonymous terms;\nthat every social advantage accorded, or rather usurped, in the name of\nsuperior talent or service, is iniquity and extortion. All men in their\nhearts, I say, bear witness to these truths; they need only to be made\nto understand it.\n\nBefore entering directly upon the question before me, I must say a word\nof the road that I shall traverse. When Pascal approached a geometrical\nproblem, he invented a method of solution; to solve a problem in\nphilosophy a method is equally necessary. Well, by how much do the\nproblems of which philosophy treats surpass in the gravity of their\nresults those discussed by geometry! How much more imperatively, then,\ndo they demand for their solution a profound and rigorous analysis!\n\nIt is a fact placed for ever beyond doubt, say the modern psychologists,\nthat every perception received by the mind is determined by certain\ngeneral laws which govern the mind; is moulded, so to speak, in certain\ntypes pre-existing in our understanding, and which constitutes its\noriginal condition. Hence, say they, if the mind has no innate IDEAS,\nit has at least innate FORMS. Thus, for example, every phenomenon is of\nnecessity conceived by us as happening in TIME and SPACE,--that compels\nus to infer a CAUSE of its occurrence; every thing which exists implies\nthe ideas of SUBSTANCE, MODE, RELATION, NUMBER, &C.; in a word, we form\nno idea which is not related to some one of the general principles of\nreason, independent of which nothing exists.\n\nThese axioms of the understanding, add the psychologists, these\nfundamental types, by which all our judgments and ideas are inevitably\nshaped, and which our sensations serve only to illuminate, are known\nin the schools as CATEGORIES. Their primordial existence in the mind is\nto-day demonstrated; they need only to be systematized and catalogued.\nAristotle recognized ten; Kant increased the number to fifteen; M.\nCousin has reduced it to three, to two, to one; and the indisputable\nglory of this professor will be due to the fact that, if he has not\ndiscovered the true theory of categories, he has, at least, seen more\nclearly than any one else the vast importance of this question,--the\ngreatest and perhaps the only one with which metaphysics has to deal.\n\nI confess that I disbelieve in the innateness, not only of IDEAS, but\nalso of FORMS or LAWS of our understanding; and I hold the metaphysics\nof Reid and Kant to be still farther removed from the truth than that of\nAristotle. However, as I do not wish to enter here into a discussion of\nthe mind, a task which would demand much labor and be of no interest to\nthe public, I shall admit the hypothesis that our most general and\nmost necessary ideas--such as time, space, substance, and cause--exist\noriginally in the mind; or, at least, are derived immediately from its\nconstitution.\n\nBut it is a psychological fact none the less true, and one to which the\nphilosophers have paid too little attention, that habit, like a second\nnature, has the power of fixing in the mind new categorical forms\nderived from the appearances which impress us, and by them usually\nstripped of objective reality, but whose influence over our judgments\nis no less predetermining than that of the original categories. Hence\nwe reason by the ETERNAL and ABSOLUTE laws of our mind, and at the same\ntime by the secondary rules, ordinarily faulty, which are suggested to\nus by imperfect observation. This is the most fecund source of false\nprejudices, and the permanent and often invincible cause of a multitude\nof errors. The bias resulting from these prejudices is so strong that\noften, even when we are fighting against a principle which our mind\nthinks false, which is repugnant to our reason, and which our conscience\ndisapproves, we defend it without knowing it, we reason in accordance\nwith it, and we obey it while attacking it. Enclosed within a circle,\nour mind revolves about itself, until a new observation, creating within\nus new ideas, brings to view an external principle which delivers us\nfrom the phantom by which our imagination is possessed.\n\nThus, we know to-day that, by the laws of a universal magnetism whose\ncause is still unknown, two bodies (no obstacle intervening) tend to\nunite by an accelerated impelling force which we call GRAVITATION. It is\ngravitation which causes unsupported bodies to fall to the ground, which\ngives them weight, and which fastens us to the earth on which we live.\nIgnorance of this cause was the sole obstacle which prevented the\nancients from believing in the antipodes. \"Can you not see,\" said St.\nAugustine after Lactantius, \"that, if there were men under our feet,\ntheir heads would point downward, and that they would fall into the\nsky?\" The bishop of Hippo, who thought the earth flat because it\nappeared so to the eye, supposed in consequence that, if we should\nconnect by straight lines the zenith with the nadir in different places,\nthese lines would be parallel with each other; and in the direction\nof these lines he traced every movement from above to below. Thence he\nnaturally concluded that the stars were rolling torches set in the vault\nof the sky; that, if left to themselves, they would fall to the earth in\na shower of fire; that the earth was one vast plain, forming the lower\nportion of the world, &c. If he had been asked by what the world itself\nwas sustained, he would have answered that he did not know, but that\nto God nothing is impossible. Such were the ideas of St. Augustine in\nregard to space and movement, ideas fixed within him by a prejudice\nderived from an appearance, and which had become with him a general and\ncategorical rule of judgment. Of the reason why bodies fall his mind\nknew nothing; he could only say that a body falls because it falls.\n\nWith us the idea of a fall is more complex: to the general ideas of\nspace and movement which it implies, we add that of attraction or\ndirection towards a centre, which gives us the higher idea of cause. But\nif physics has fully corrected our judgment in this respect, we still\nmake use of the prejudice of St. Augustine; and when we say that a thing\nhas FALLEN, we do not mean simply and in general that there has been\nan effect of gravitation, but specially and in particular that it is\ntowards the earth, and FROM ABOVE TO BELOW, that this movement has taken\nplace. Our mind is enlightened in vain; the imagination prevails, and\nour language remains forever incorrigible. To DESCEND FROM HEAVEN is as\nincorrect an expression as to MOUNT TO HEAVEN; and yet this expression\nwill live as long as men use language.\n\nAll these phrases--FROM ABOVE TO BELOW; TO DESCEND FROM HEAVEN; TO FALL\nFROM THE CLOUDS, &C.--are henceforth harmless, because we know how to\nrectify them in practice; but let us deign to consider for a moment how\nmuch they have retarded the progress of science. If, indeed, it be a\nmatter of little importance to statistics, mechanics, hydrodynamics, and\nballistics, that the true cause of the fall of bodies should be known,\nand that our ideas of the general movements in space should be exact,\nit is quite otherwise when we undertake to explain the system of the\nuniverse, the cause of tides, the shape of the earth, and its position\nin the heavens: to understand these things we must leave the circle\nof appearances. In all ages there have been ingenious mechanicians,\nexcellent architects, skilful artillerymen: any error, into which it was\npossible for them to fall in regard to the rotundity of the earth and\ngravitation, in no wise retarded the development of their art; the\nsolidity of their buildings and accuracy of their aim was not affected\nby it. But sooner or later they were forced to grapple with phenomena,\nwhich the supposed parallelism of all perpendiculars erected from the\nearth's surface rendered inexplicable: then also commenced a struggle\nbetween the prejudices, which for centuries had sufficed in daily\npractice, and the unprecedented opinions which the testimony of the eyes\nseemed to contradict.\n\nThus, on the one hand, the falsest judgments, whether based on isolated\nfacts or only on appearances, always embrace some truths whose sphere,\nwhether large or small, affords room for a certain number of inferences,\nbeyond which we fall into absurdity. The ideas of St. Augustine, for\nexample, contained the following truths: that bodies fall towards the\nearth, that they fall in a straight line, that either the sun or the\nearth moves, that either the sky or the earth turns, &c. These general\nfacts always have been true; our science has added nothing to them. But,\non the other hand, it being necessary to account for every thing, we are\nobliged to seek for principles more and more comprehensive: that is why\nwe have had to abandon successively, first the opinion that the world\nwas flat, then the theory which regards it as the stationary centre of\nthe universe, &c.\n\nIf we pass now from physical nature to the moral world, we still find\nourselves subject to the same deceptions of appearance, to the same\ninfluences of spontaneity and habit. But the distinguishing feature of\nthis second division of our knowledge is, on the one hand, the good\nor the evil which we derive from our opinions; and, on the other, the\nobstinacy with which we defend the prejudice which is tormenting and\nkilling us.\n\nWhatever theory we embrace in regard to the shape of the earth and the\ncause of its weight, the physics of the globe does not suffer; and,\nas for us, our social economy can derive therefrom neither profit nor\ndamage. But it is in us and through us that the laws of our moral nature\nwork; now, these laws cannot be executed without our deliberate aid,\nand, consequently, unless we know them. If, then, our science of moral\nlaws is false, it is evident that, while desiring our own good, we are\naccomplishing our own evil; if it is only incomplete, it may suffice for\na time for our social progress, but in the long run it will lead us\ninto a wrong road, and will finally precipitate us into an abyss of\ncalamities.\n\nThen it is that we need to exercise our highest judgments; and, be it\nsaid to our glory, they are never found wanting: but then also commences\na furious struggle between old prejudices and new ideas. Days of\nconflagration and anguish! We are told of the time when, with the same\nbeliefs, with the same institutions, all the world seemed happy: why\ncomplain of these beliefs; why banish these institutions? We are slow to\nadmit that that happy age served the precise purpose of developing the\nprinciple of evil which lay dormant in society; we accuse men and gods,\nthe powers of earth and the forces of Nature. Instead of seeking the\ncause of the evil in his mind and heart, man blames his masters, his\nrivals, his neighbors, and himself; nations arm themselves, and slay\nand exterminate each other, until equilibrium is restored by the vast\ndepopulation, and peace again arises from the ashes of the combatants.\nSo loath is humanity to touch the customs of its ancestors, and to\nchange the laws framed by the founders of communities, and confirmed by\nthe faithful observance of the ages.\n\n_Nihil motum ex antiquo probabile est_: Distrust all innovations, wrote\nTitus Livius. Undoubtedly it would be better were man not compelled to\nchange: but what! because he is born ignorant, because he exists only\non condition of gradual self-instruction, must he abjure the light,\nabdicate his reason, and abandon himself to fortune? Perfect health is\nbetter than convalescence: should the sick man, therefore, refuse to\nbe cured? Reform, reform! cried, ages since, John the Baptist and Jesus\nChrist. Reform, reform! cried our fathers, fifty years ago; and for a\nlong time to come we shall shout, Reform, reform!\n\nSeeing the misery of my age, I said to myself: Among the principles that\nsupport society, there is one which it does not understand, which its\nignorance has vitiated, and which causes all the evil that exists. This\nprinciple is the most ancient of all; for it is a characteristic of\nrevolutions to tear down the most modern principles, and to respect\nthose of long-standing. Now the evil by which we suffer is anterior to\nall revolutions. This principle, impaired by our ignorance, is honored\nand cherished; for if it were not cherished it would harm nobody, it\nwould be without influence.\n\nBut this principle, right in its purpose, but misunderstood: this\nprinciple, as old as humanity, what is it? Can it be religion?\n\nAll men believe in God: this dogma belongs at once to their conscience\nand their mind. To humanity God is a fact as primitive, an idea as\ninevitable, a principle as necessary as are the categorical ideas of\ncause, substance, time, and space to our understanding. God is proven to\nus by the conscience prior to any inference of the mind; just as the\nsun is proven to us by the testimony of the senses prior to all the\narguments of physics. We discover phenomena and laws by observation and\nexperience; only this deeper sense reveals to us existence. Humanity\nbelieves that God is; but, in believing in God, what does it believe? In\na word, what is God?\n\nThe nature of this notion of Divinity,--this primitive, universal\nnotion, born in the race,--the human mind has not yet fathomed. At each\nstep that we take in our investigation of Nature and of causes, the idea\nof God is extended and exalted; the farther science advances, the more\nGod seems to grow and broaden. Anthropomorphism and idolatry constituted\nof necessity the faith of the mind in its youth, the theology of infancy\nand poesy. A harmless error, if they had not endeavored to make it a\nrule of conduct, and if they had been wise enough to respect the\nliberty of thought. But having made God in his own image, man wished\nto appropriate him still farther; not satisfied with disfiguring the\nAlmighty, he treated him as his patrimony, his goods, his possessions.\nGod, pictured in monstrous forms, became throughout the world the\nproperty of man and of the State. Such was the origin of the corruption\nof morals by religion, and the source of pious feuds and holy wars.\nThank Heaven! we have learned to allow every one his own beliefs; we\nseek for moral laws outside the pale of religion. Instead of legislating\nas to the nature and attributes of God, the dogmas of theology, and\nthe destiny of our souls, we wisely wait for science to tell us what to\nreject and what to accept. God, soul, religion,--eternal objects of\nour unwearied thought and our most fatal aberrations, terrible\nproblems whose solution, for ever attempted, for ever remains\nunaccomplished,--concerning all these questions we may still be\nmistaken, but at least our error is harmless. With liberty in religion,\nand the separation of the spiritual from the temporal power, the\ninfluence of religious ideas upon the progress of society is purely\nnegative; no law, no political or civil institution being founded on\nreligion. Neglect of duties imposed by religion may increase the general\ncorruption, but it is not the primary cause; it is only an auxiliary or\nresult. It is universally admitted, and especially in the matter\nwhich now engages our attention, that the cause of the inequality\nof conditions among men--of pauperism, of universal misery, and of\ngovernmental embarrassments--can no longer be traced to religion: we\nmust go farther back, and dig still deeper.\n\nBut what is there in man older and deeper than the religious sentiment?\n\nThere is man himself; that is, volition and conscience, free-will and\nlaw, eternally antagonistic. Man is at war with himself: why?\n\n\"Man,\" say the theologians, \"transgressed in the beginning; our race\nis guilty of an ancient offence. For this transgression humanity has\nfallen; error and ignorance have become its sustenance. Read history,\nyou will find universal proof of this necessity for evil in the\npermanent misery of nations. Man suffers and always will suffer; his\ndisease is hereditary and constitutional. Use palliatives, employ\nemollients; there is no remedy.\"\n\nNor is this argument peculiar to the theologians; we find it\nexpressed in equivalent language in the philosophical writings of the\nmaterialists, believers in infinite perfectibility. Destutt de Tracy\nteaches formally that poverty, crime, and war are the inevitable\nconditions of our social state; necessary evils, against which it would\nbe folly to revolt. So, call it NECESSITY OF EVIL or ORIGINAL DEPRAVITY,\nit is at bottom the same philosophy.\n\n\"The first man transgressed.\" If the votaries of the Bible interpreted\nit faithfully, they would say: MAN ORIGINALLY TRANSGRESSED, that is,\nmade a mistake; for TO TRANSGRESS, TO FAIL, TO MAKE A MISTAKE, all mean\nthe same thing.\n\n\"The consequences of Adam's transgression are inherited by the race;\nthe first is ignorance.\" Truly, the race, like the individual, is born\nignorant; but, in regard to a multitude of questions, even in the moral\nand political spheres, this ignorance of the race has been dispelled:\nwho says that it will not depart altogether? Mankind makes continual\nprogress toward truth, and light ever triumphs over darkness. Our\ndisease is not, then, absolutely incurable, and the theory of the\ntheologians is worse than inadequate; it is ridiculous, since it is\nreducible to this tautology: \"Man errs, because he errs.\" While the true\nstatement is this: \"Man errs, because he learns.\"\n\nNow, if man arrives at a knowledge of all that he needs to know, it is\nreasonable to believe that, ceasing to err, he will cease to suffer.\n\nBut if we question the doctors as to this law, said to be engraved upon\nthe heart of man, we shall immediately see that they dispute about a\nmatter of which they know nothing; that, concerning the most important\nquestions, there are almost as many opinions as authors; that we find\nno two agreeing as to the best form of government, the principle of\nauthority, and the nature of right; that all sail hap-hazard upon a\nshoreless and bottomless sea, abandoned to the guidance of their private\nopinions which they modestly take to be right reason. And, in view\nof this medley of contradictory opinions, we say: \"The object of our\ninvestigations is the law, the determination of the social principle.\nNow, the politicians, that is, the social scientists, do not understand\neach other; then the error lies in themselves; and, as every error has\na reality for its object, we must look in their books to find the truth\nwhich they have unconsciously deposited there.\"\n\nNow, of what do the lawyers and the publicists treat? Of JUSTICE,\nEQUITY, LIBERTY, NATURAL LAW, CIVIL LAWS, &c. But what is justice?\nWhat is its principle, its character, its formula? To this question our\ndoctors evidently have no reply; for otherwise their science, starting\nwith a principle clear and well defined, would quit the region of\nprobabilities, and all disputes would end.\n\nWhat is justice? The theologians answer: \"All justice comes from God.\"\nThat is true; but we know no more than before.\n\nThe philosophers ought to be better informed: they have argued so much\nabout justice and injustice! Unhappily, an examination proves that their\nknowledge amounts to nothing, and that with them--as with the savages\nwhose every prayer to the sun is simply _O! O!_--it is a cry of\nadmiration, love, and enthusiasm; but who does not know that the sun\nattaches little meaning to the interjection O! That is exactly our\nposition toward the philosophers in regard to justice. Justice, they\nsay, is a DAUGHTER OF HEAVEN; A LIGHT WHICH ILLUMINES EVERY MAN THAT\nCOMES INTO THE WORLD; THE MOST BEAUTIFUL PREROGATIVE OF OUR NATURE;\nTHAT WHICH DISTINGUISHES US FROM THE BEASTS AND LIKENS US TO GOD--and\na thousand other similar things. What, I ask, does this pious litany\namount to? To the prayer of the savages: O!\n\nAll the most reasonable teachings of human wisdom concerning justice are\nsummed up in that famous adage: DO UNTO OTHERS THAT WHICH YOU WOULD THAT\nOTHERS SHOULD DO UNTO YOU; DO NOT UNTO OTHERS THAT WHICH YOU WOULD\nNOT THAT OTHERS SHOULD DO UNTO YOU. But this rule of moral practice is\nunscientific: what have I a right to wish that others should do or not\ndo to me? It is of no use to tell me that my duty is equal to my right,\nunless I am told at the same time what my right is.\n\nLet us try to arrive at something more precise and positive.\n\nJustice is the central star which governs societies, the pole around\nwhich the political world revolves, the principle and the regulator of\nall transactions. Nothing takes place between men save in the name of\nRIGHT; nothing without the invocation of justice. Justice is not the\nwork of the law: on the contrary, the law is only a declaration and\napplication of JUSTICE in all circumstances where men are liable to come\nin contact. If, then, the idea that we form of justice and right were\nill-defined, if it were imperfect or even false, it is clear that all\nour legislative applications would be wrong, our institutions vicious,\nour politics erroneous: consequently there would be disorder and social\nchaos.\n\nThis hypothesis of the perversion of justice in our minds, and, as a\nnecessary result, in our acts, becomes a demonstrated fact when it is\nshown that the opinions of men have not borne a constant relation to the\nnotion of justice and its applications; that at different periods they\nhave undergone modifications: in a word, that there has been progress\nin ideas. Now, that is what history proves by the most overwhelming\ntestimony.\n\nEighteen Hundred years ago, the world, under the rule of the Caesars,\nexhausted itself in slavery, superstition, and voluptuousness. The\npeople--intoxicated and, as it were, stupefied by their long-continued\norgies--had lost the very notion of right and duty: war and dissipation\nby turns swept them away; usury and the labor of machines (that is of\nslaves), by depriving them of the means of subsistence, hindered them\nfrom continuing the species. Barbarism sprang up again, in a hideous\nform, from this mass of corruption, and spread like a devouring leprosy\nover the depopulated provinces. The wise foresaw the downfall of the\nempire, but could devise no remedy. What could they think indeed? To\nsave this old society it would have been necessary to change the objects\nof public esteem and veneration, and to abolish the rights affirmed by\na justice purely secular; they said: \"Rome has conquered through her\npolitics and her gods; any change in theology and public opinion would\nbe folly and sacrilege. Rome, merciful toward conquered nations, though\nbinding them in chains, spared their lives; slaves are the most fertile\nsource of her wealth; freedom of the nations would be the negation of\nher rights and the ruin of her finances. Rome, in fact, enveloped in the\npleasures and gorged with the spoils of the universe, is kept alive by\nvictory and government; her luxury and her pleasures are the price of\nher conquests: she can neither abdicate nor dispossess herself.\"\nThus Rome had the facts and the law on her side. Her pretensions were\njustified by universal custom and the law of nations. Her institutions\nwere based upon idolatry in religion, slavery in the State, and\nepicurism in private life; to touch those was to shake society to its\nfoundations, and, to use our modern expression, to open the abyss of\nrevolutions. So the idea occurred to no one; and yet humanity was dying\nin blood and luxury.\n\nAll at once a man appeared, calling himself The Word of God. It is not\nknown to this day who he was, whence he came, nor what suggested to\nhim his ideas. He went about proclaiming everywhere that the end of the\nexisting society was at hand, that the world was about to experience a\nnew birth; that the priests were vipers, the lawyers ignoramuses,\nand the philosophers hypocrites and liars; that master and slave\nwere equals, that usury and every thing akin to it was robbery, that\nproprietors and idlers would one day burn, while the poor and pure in\nheart would find a haven of peace.\n\nThis man--The Word of God--was denounced and arrested as a public enemy\nby the priests and the lawyers, who well understood how to induce the\npeople to demand his death. But this judicial murder, though it put the\nfinishing stroke to their crimes, did not destroy the doctrinal seeds\nwhich The Word of God had sown. After his death, his original disciples\ntravelled about in all directions, preaching what they called the GOOD\nNEWS, creating in their turn millions of missionaries; and, when their\ntask seemed to be accomplished, dying by the sword of Roman justice.\nThis persistent agitation, the war of the executioners and martyrs,\nlasted nearly three centuries, ending in the conversion of the world.\nIdolatry was destroyed, slavery abolished, dissolution made room for a\nmore austere morality, and the contempt for wealth was sometimes pushed\nalmost to privation.\n\nSociety was saved by the negation of its own principles, by a revolution\nin its religion, and by violation of its most sacred rights. In this\nrevolution, the idea of justice spread to an extent that had not before\nbeen dreamed of, never to return to its original limits. Heretofore\njustice had existed only for the masters; [7] it then commenced to exist\nfor the slaves.\n\nNevertheless, the new religion at that time had borne by no means all\nits fruits. There was a perceptible improvement of the public morals,\nand a partial release from oppression; but, other than that, the SEEDS\nSOWN BY THE SON OF MAN, having fallen into idolatrous hearts, had\nproduced nothing save innumerable discords and a quasi-poetical\nmythology. Instead of developing into their practical consequences the\nprinciples of morality and government taught by The Word of God, his\nfollowers busied themselves in speculations as to his birth, his origin,\nhis person, and his actions; they discussed his parables, and from the\nconflict of the most extravagant opinions upon unanswerable questions\nand texts which no one understood, was born THEOLOGY,--which may be\ndefined as the SCIENCE OF THE INFINITELY ABSURD.\n\nThe truth of CHRISTIANITY did not survive the age of the apostles; the\nGOSPEL, commented upon and symbolized by the Greeks and Latins, loaded\nwith pagan fables, became literally a mass of contradictions; and to\nthis day the reign of the INFALLIBLE CHURCH has been a long era of\ndarkness. It is said that the GATES OF HELL will not always prevail,\nthat THE WORD OF GOD will return, and that one day men will know truth\nand justice; but that will be the death of Greek and Roman Catholicism,\njust as in the light of science disappeared the caprices of opinion.\n\nThe monsters which the successors of the apostles were bent on\ndestroying, frightened for a moment, reappeared gradually, thanks to the\ncrazy fanaticism, and sometimes the deliberate connivance, of priests\nand theologians. The history of the enfranchisement of the French\ncommunes offers constantly the spectacle of the ideas of justice and\nliberty spreading among the people, in spite of the combined efforts of\nkings, nobles, and clergy. In the year 1789 of the Christian era, the\nFrench nation, divided by caste, poor and oppressed, struggled in the\ntriple net of royal absolutism, the tyranny of nobles and parliaments,\nand priestly intolerance. There was the right of the king and the right\nof the priest, the right of the patrician and the right of the plebeian;\nthere were the privileges of birth, province, communes, corporations,\nand trades; and, at the bottom of all, violence, immorality, and misery.\nFor some time they talked of reformation; those who apparently desired\nit most favoring it only for their own profit, and the people who were\nto be the gainers expecting little and saying nothing. For a long\ntime these poor people, either from distrust, incredulity, or despair,\nhesitated to ask for their rights: it is said that the habit of serving\nhad taken the courage away from those old communes, which in the middle\nages were so bold.\n\nFinally a book appeared, summing up the whole matter in these two\npropositions: WHAT IS THE THIRD ESTATE?--NOTHING. WHAT OUGHT IT\nTO BE?--EVERY THING. Some one added by way of comment: WHAT IS THE\nKING?--THE SERVANT OF THE PEOPLE.\n\nThis was a sudden revelation: the veil was torn aside, a thick bandage\nfell from all eyes. The people commenced to reason thus:--\n\nIf the king is our servant, he ought to report to us;\n\nIf he ought to report to us, he is subject to control;\n\nIf he can be controlled, he is responsible;\n\nIf he is responsible, he is punishable;\n\nIf he is punishable, he ought to be punished according to his merits;\n\nIf he ought to be punished according to his merits, he can be punished\nwith death.\n\nFive years after the publication of the brochure of Sieyes, the third\nestate was every thing; the king, the nobility, the clergy, were no\nmore. In 1793, the nation, without stopping at the constitutional\nfiction of the inviolability of the sovereign, conducted Louis XVI. to\nthe scaffold; in 1830, it accompanied Charles X. to Cherbourg. In each\ncase, it may have erred, in fact, in its judgment of the offence; but,\nin right, the logic which led to its action was irreproachable. The\npeople, in punishing their sovereign, did precisely that which the\ngovernment of July was so severely censured for failing to do when it\nrefused to execute Louis Bonaparte after the affair of Strasburg: they\nstruck the true culprit. It was an application of the common law, a\nsolemn decree of justice enforcing the penal laws. [8]\n\nThe spirit which gave rise to the movement of '89 was a spirit of\nnegation; that, of itself, proves that the order of things which was\nsubstituted for the old system was not methodical or well-considered;\nthat, born of anger and hatred, it could not have the effect of a\nscience based on observation and study; that its foundations, in a word,\nwere not derived from a profound knowledge of the laws of Nature and\nsociety. Thus the people found that the republic, among the so-called\nnew institutions, was acting on the very principles against which they\nhad fought, and was swayed by all the prejudices which they had intended\nto destroy. We congratulate ourselves, with inconsiderate enthusiasm,\non the glorious French Revolution, the regeneration of 1789, the great\nchanges that have been effected, and the reversion of institutions: a\ndelusion, a delusion!\n\nWhen our ideas on any subject, material, intellectual, or social,\nundergo a thorough change in consequence of new observations, I call\nthat movement of the mind REVOLUTION. If the ideas are simply extended\nor modified, there is only PROGRESS. Thus the system of Ptolemy was a\nstep in astronomical progress, that of Copernicus was a revolution. So,\nin 1789, there was struggle and progress; revolution there was none. An\nexamination of the reforms which were attempted proves this.\n\nThe nation, so long a victim of monarchical selfishness, thought to\ndeliver itself for ever by declaring that it alone was sovereign. But\nwhat was monarchy? The sovereignty of one man. What is democracy? The\nsovereignty of the nation, or, rather, of the national majority. But it\nis, in both cases, the sovereignty of man instead of the sovereignty of\nthe law, the sovereignty of the will instead of the sovereignty of the\nreason; in one word, the passions instead of justice. Undoubtedly, when\na nation passes from the monarchical to the democratic state, there\nis progress, because in multiplying the sovereigns we increase the\nopportunities of the reason to substitute itself for the will; but in\nreality there is no revolution in the government, since the principle\nremains the same. Now, we have the proof to-day that, with the most\nperfect democracy, we cannot be free. [9]\n\nNor is that all. The nation-king cannot exercise its sovereignty itself;\nit is obliged to delegate it to agents: this is constantly reiterated by\nthose who seek to win its favor. Be these agents five, ten, one hundred,\nor a thousand, of what consequence is the number; and what matters the\nname? It is always the government of man, the rule of will and caprice.\nI ask what this pretended revolution has revolutionized?\n\nWe know, too, how this sovereignty was exercised; first by the\nConvention, then by the Directory, afterwards confiscated by the Consul.\nAs for the Emperor, the strong man so much adored and mourned by the\nnation, he never wanted to be dependent on it; but, as if intending to\nset its sovereignty at defiance, he dared to demand its suffrage: that\nis, its abdication, the abdication of this inalienable sovereignty; and\nhe obtained it.\n\nBut what is sovereignty? It is, they say, the POWER TO MAKE LAW. [10]\nAnother absurdity, a relic of despotism. The nation had long seen kings\nissuing their commands in this form: FOR SUCH IS OUR PLEASURE; it wished\nto taste in its turn the pleasure of making laws. For fifty years it\nhas brought them forth by myriads; always, be it understood, through the\nagency of representatives. The play is far from ended.\n\nThe definition of sovereignty was derived from the definition of the\nlaw. The law, they said, is THE EXPRESSION OF THE WILL OF THE SOVEREIGN:\nthen, under a monarchy, the law is the expression of the will of the\nking; in a republic, the law is the expression of the will of the\npeople. Aside from the difference in the number of wills, the two\nsystems are exactly identical: both share the same error, namely, that\nthe law is the expression of a will; it ought to be the expression of\na fact. Moreover they followed good leaders: they took the citizen of\nGeneva for their prophet, and the contrat social for their Koran.\n\nBias and prejudice are apparent in all the phrases of the new\nlegislators. The nation had suffered from a multitude of exclusions and\nprivileges; its representatives issued the following declaration: ALL\nMEN ARE EQUAL BY NATURE AND BEFORE THE LAW; an ambiguous and redundant\ndeclaration. MEN ARE EQUAL BY NATURE: does that mean that they are equal\nin size, beauty, talents, and virtue? No; they meant, then, political\nand civil equality. Then it would have been sufficient to have said: ALL\nMEN ARE EQUAL BEFORE THE LAW.\n\nBut what is equality before the law? Neither the constitution of 1790,\nnor that of '93, nor the granted charter, nor the accepted charter, have\ndefined it accurately. All imply an inequality in fortune and station\nincompatible with even a shadow of equality in rights. In this respect\nit may be said that all our constitutions have been faithful expressions\nof the popular will: I am going, to prove it.\n\nFormerly the people were excluded from civil and military offices; it\nwas considered a wonder when the following high-sounding article\nwas inserted in the Declaration of Rights: \"All citizens are equally\neligible to office; free nations know no qualifications in their choice\nof officers save virtues and talents.\"\n\nThey certainly ought to have admired so beautiful an idea: they admired\na piece of nonsense. Why! the sovereign people, legislators, and\nreformers, see in public offices, to speak plainly, only opportunities\nfor pecuniary advancement. And, because it regards them as a source of\nprofit, it decrees the eligibility of citizens. For of what use would\nthis precaution be, if there were nothing to gain by it? No one would\nthink of ordaining that none but astronomers and geographers should be\npilots, nor of prohibiting stutterers from acting at the theatre and\nthe opera. The nation was still aping the kings: like them it wished\nto award the lucrative positions to its friends and flatterers.\nUnfortunately, and this last feature completes the resemblance, the\nnation did not control the list of livings; that was in the hands of its\nagents and representatives. They, on the other hand, took care not to\nthwart the will of their gracious sovereign.\n\nThis edifying article of the Declaration of Rights, retained in the\ncharters of 1814 and 1830, implies several kinds of civil inequality;\nthat is, of inequality before the law: inequality of station, since the\npublic functions are sought only for the consideration and emoluments\nwhich they bring; inequality of wealth, since, if it had been desired\nto equalize fortunes, public service would have been regarded as a duty,\nnot as a reward; inequality of privilege, the law not stating what\nit means by TALENTS and VIRTUES. Under the empire, virtue and talent\nconsisted simply in military bravery and devotion to the emperor; that\nwas shown when Napoleon created his nobility, and attempted to connect\nit with the ancients. To-day, the man who pays taxes to the amount\nof two hundred francs is virtuous; the talented man is the honest\npickpocket: such truths as these are accounted trivial.\n\nThe people finally legalized property. God forgive them, for they\nknew not what they did! For fifty years they have suffered for their\nmiserable folly. But how came the people, whose voice, they tell us,\nis the voice of God, and whose conscience is infallible,--how came the\npeople to err? How happens it that, when seeking liberty and equality,\nthey fell back into privilege and slavery? Always through copying the\nancient regime.\n\nFormerly, the nobility and the clergy contributed towards the expenses\nof the State only by voluntary aid and gratuitous gift; their property\ncould not be seized even for debt,--while the plebeian, overwhelmed by\ntaxes and statute-labor, was continually tormented, now by the\nking's tax-gatherers, now by those of the nobles and clergy. He whose\npossessions were subject to mortmain could neither bequeath nor inherit\nproperty; he was treated like the animals, whose services and offspring\nbelong to their master by right of accession. The people wanted the\nconditions of OWNERSHIP to be alike for all; they thought that every one\nshould ENJOY AND FREELY DISPOSE OF HIS POSSESSIONS HIS INCOME AND THE\nFRUIT OF HIS LABOR AND INDUSTRY. The people did not invent property; but\nas they had not the same privileges in regard to it, which the nobles\nand clergy possessed, they decreed that the right should be exercised\nby all under the same conditions. The more obnoxious forms of\nproperty--statute-labor, mortmain, maitrise, and exclusion from public\noffice--have disappeared; the conditions of its enjoyment have been\nmodified: the principle still remains the same. There has been progress\nin the regulation of the right; there has been no revolution.\n\nThese, then, are the three fundamental principles of modern society,\nestablished one after another by the movements of 1789 and 1830: 1.\nSOVEREIGNTY OF THE HUMAN WILL; in short, DESPOTISM. 2. INEQUALITY OF\nWEALTH AND RANK. 3. PROPERTY--above JUSTICE, always invoked as the\nguardian angel of sovereigns, nobles, and proprietors; JUSTICE, the\ngeneral, primitive, categorical law of all society.\n\nWe must ascertain whether the ideas of DESPOTISM, CIVIL INEQUALITY\nand PROPERTY, are in harmony with the primitive notion of JUSTICE, and\nnecessarily follow from it,--assuming various forms according to the\ncondition, position, and relation of persons; or whether they are not\nrather the illegitimate result of a confusion of different things, a\nfatal association of ideas. And since justice deals especially with the\nquestions of government, the condition of persons, and the possession\nof things, we must ascertain under what conditions, judging by universal\nopinion and the progress of the human mind, government is just, the\ncondition of citizens is just, and the possession of things is just;\nthen, striking out every thing which fails to meet these conditions,\nthe result will at once tell us what legitimate government is, what the\nlegitimate condition of citizens is, and what the legitimate possession\nof things is; and finally, as the last result of the analysis, what\nJUSTICE is.\n\nIs the authority of man over man just?\n\nEverybody answers, \"No; the authority of man is only the authority of\nthe law, which ought to be justice and truth.\" The private will counts\nfor nothing in government, which consists, first, in discovering truth\nand justice in order to make the law; and, second, in superintending the\nexecution of this law. I do not now inquire whether our constitutional\nform of government satisfies these conditions; whether, for example, the\nwill of the ministry never influences the declaration and interpretation\nof the law; or whether our deputies, in their debates, are more intent\non conquering by argument than by force of numbers: it is enough for me\nthat my definition of a good government is allowed to be correct. This\nidea is exact. Yet we see that nothing seems more just to the Oriental\nnations than the despotism of their sovereigns; that, with the ancients\nand in the opinion of the philosophers themselves, slavery was just;\nthat in the middle ages the nobles, the priests, and the bishops felt\njustified in holding slaves; that Louis XIV. thought that he was right\nwhen he said, \"The State! I am the State;\" and that Napoleon deemed it\na crime for the State to oppose his will. The idea of justice, then,\napplied to sovereignty and government, has not always been what it is\nto-day; it has gone on developing and shaping itself by degrees, until\nit has arrived at its present state. But has it reached its last phase?\nI think not: only, as the last obstacle to be overcome arises from the\ninstitution of property which we have kept intact, in order to finish\nthe reform in government and consummate the revolution, this very\ninstitution we must attack.\n\nIs political and civil inequality just?\n\nSome say yes; others no. To the first I would reply that, when the\npeople abolished all privileges of birth and caste, they did it, in all\nprobability, because it was for their advantage; why then do they favor\nthe privileges of fortune more than those of rank and race? Because, say\nthey, political inequality is a result of property; and without property\nsociety is impossible: thus the question just raised becomes a question\nof property. To the second I content myself with this remark: If you\nwish to enjoy political equality, abolish property; otherwise, why do\nyou complain?\n\nIs property just?\n\nEverybody answers without hesitation, \"Yes, property is just.\" I say\neverybody, for up to the present time no one who thoroughly understood\nthe meaning of his words has answered no. For it is no easy thing to\nreply understandingly to such a question; only time and experience can\nfurnish an answer. Now, this answer is given; it is for us to understand\nit. I undertake to prove it.\n\nWe are to proceed with the demonstration in the following order:--\n\nI. We dispute not at all, we refute nobody, we deny nothing; we accept\nas sound all the arguments alleged in favor of property, and confine\nourselves to a search for its principle, in order that we may then\nascertain whether this principle is faithfully expressed by property. In\nfact, property being defensible on no ground save that of justice, the\nidea, or at least the intention, of justice must of necessity underlie\nall the arguments that have been made in defence of property; and, as on\nthe other hand the right of property is only exercised over those things\nwhich can be appreciated by the senses, justice, secretly objectifying\nitself, so to speak, must take the shape of an algebraic formula.\n\nBy this method of investigation, we soon see that every argument which\nhas been invented in behalf of property, WHATEVER IT MAY BE, always and\nof necessity leads to equality; that is, to the negation of property.\n\nThe first part covers two chapters: one treating of occupation, the\nfoundation of our right; the other, of labor and talent, considered as\ncauses of property and social inequality.\n\nThe first of these chapters will prove that the right of occupation\nOBSTRUCTS property; the second that the right of labor DESTROYS it.\n\nII. Property, then, being of necessity conceived as existing only in\nconnection with equality, it remains to find out why, in spite of this\nnecessity of logic, equality does not exist. This new investigation also\ncovers two chapters: in the first, considering the fact of property in\nitself, we inquire whether this fact is real, whether it exists, whether\nit is possible; for it would imply a contradiction, were these two\nopposite forms of society, equality and inequality, both possible. Then\nwe discover, singularly enough, that property may indeed manifest\nitself accidentally; but that, as an institution and principle, it is\nmathematically impossible. So that the axiom of the school--ab actu ad\nposse valet consecutio: from the actual to the possible the inference is\ngood--is given the lie as far as property is concerned.\n\nFinally, in the last chapter, calling psychology to our aid, and\nprobing man's nature to the bottom, we shall disclose the principle of\nJUSTICE--its formula and character; we shall state with precision the\norganic law of society; we shall explain the origin of property, the\ncauses of its establishment, its long life, and its approaching death;\nwe shall definitively establish its identity with robbery. And, after\nhaving shown that these three prejudices--THE SOVEREIGNTY OF MAN, THE\nINEQUALITY OF CONDITIONS, AND PROPERTY--are one and the same; that they\nmay be taken for each other, and are reciprocally convertible,--we\nshall have no trouble in inferring therefrom, by the principle\nof contradiction, the basis of government and right. There our\ninvestigations will end, reserving the right to continue them in future\nworks.\n\nThe importance of the subject which engages our attention is recognized\nby all minds.\n\n\n\"Property,\" says M. Hennequin, \"is the creative and conservative\nprinciple of civil society. Property is one of those basic institutions,\nnew theories concerning which cannot be presented too soon; for it must\nnot be forgotten, and the publicist and statesman must know, that on the\nanswer to the question whether property is the principle or the result\nof social order, whether it is to be considered as a cause or an effect,\ndepends all morality, and, consequently, all the authority of human\ninstitutions.\"\n\n\nThese words are a challenge to all men of hope and faith; but, although\nthe cause of equality is a noble one, no one has yet picked up the\ngauntlet thrown down by the advocates of property; no one has been\ncourageous enough to enter upon the struggle. The spurious learning of\nhaughty jurisprudence, and the absurd aphorisms of a political economy\ncontrolled by property have puzzled the most generous minds; it is a\nsort of password among the most influential friends of liberty and\nthe interests of the people that EQUALITY IS A CHIMERA! So many false\ntheories and meaningless analogies influence minds otherwise keen,\nbut which are unconsciously controlled by popular prejudice. Equality\nadvances every day--fit aequalitas. Soldiers of liberty, shall we desert\nour flag in the hour of triumph?\n\nA defender of equality, I shall speak without bitterness and without\nanger; with the independence becoming a philosopher, with the courage\nand firmness of a free man. May I, in this momentous struggle, carry\ninto all hearts the light with which I am filled; and show, by the\nsuccess of my argument, that equality failed to conquer by the sword\nonly that it might conquer by the pen!\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II. PROPERTY CONSIDERED AS A NATURAL RIGHT\n\n     PROPERTY CONSIDERED AS A NATURAL RIGHT.--OCCUPATION AND\n     CIVIL LAW AS EFFICIENT BASES OF PROPERTY. DEFINITIONS.\n\nThe Roman law defined property as the right to use and abuse one's own\nwithin the limits of the law--jus utendi et abutendi re sua, quatenus\njuris ratio patitur. A justification of the word ABUSE has been\nattempted, on the ground that it signifies, not senseless and immoral\nabuse, but only absolute domain. Vain distinction! invented as an excuse\nfor property, and powerless against the frenzy of possession, which it\nneither prevents nor represses. The proprietor may, if he chooses, allow\nhis crops to rot under foot; sow his field with salt; milk his cows\non the sand; change his vineyard into a desert, and use his\nvegetable-garden as a park: do these things constitute abuse, or not? In\nthe matter of property, use and abuse are necessarily indistinguishable.\n\nAccording to the Declaration of Rights, published as a preface to the\nConstitution of '93, property is \"the right to enjoy and dispose at\nwill of one's goods, one's income, and the fruit of one's labor and\nindustry.\"\n\nCode Napoleon, article 544: \"Property is the right to enjoy and dispose\nof things in the most absolute manner, provided we do not overstep the\nlimits prescribed by the laws and regulations.\"\n\nThese two definitions do not differ from that of the Roman law: all\ngive the proprietor an absolute right over a thing; and as for the\nrestriction imposed by the code,--PROVIDED WE DO NOT OVERSTEP THE LIMITS\nPRESCRIBED BY THE LAWS AND REGULATIONS,--its object is not to limit\nproperty, but to prevent the domain of one proprietor from interfering\nwith that of another. That is a confirmation of the principle, not a\nlimitation of it.\n\nThere are different kinds of property: 1. Property pure and simple, the\ndominant and seigniorial power over a thing; or, as they term it, NAKED\nPROPERTY. 2. POSSESSION. \"Possession,\" says Duranton, \"is a matter of\nfact, not of right.\" Toullier: \"Property is a right, a legal power;\npossession is a fact.\" The tenant, the farmer, the commandite, the\nusufructuary, are possessors; the owner who lets and lends for use, the\nheir who is to come into possession on the death of a usufructuary, are\nproprietors. If I may venture the comparison: a lover is a possessor, a\nhusband is a proprietor.\n\nThis double definition of property--domain and possession--is of the\nhighest importance; and it must be clearly understood, in order to\ncomprehend what is to follow.\n\nFrom the distinction between possession and property arise two sorts of\nrights: the jus in re, the right in a thing, the right by which I may\nreclaim the property which I have acquired, in whatever hands I find\nit; and the jus ad rem, the right TO a thing, which gives me a claim to\nbecome a proprietor. Thus the right of the partners to a marriage over\neach other's person is the jus in re; that of two who are betrothed is\nonly the jus ad rem. In the first, possession and property are united;\nthe second includes only naked property. With me who, as a laborer,\nhave a right to the possession of the products of Nature and my own\nindustry,--and who, as a proletaire, enjoy none of them,--it is by\nvirtue of the jus ad rem that I demand admittance to the jus in re.\n\nThis distinction between the jus in re and the jus ad rem is the basis\nof the famous distinction between possessoire and petitoire,--actual\ncategories of jurisprudence, the whole of which is included within their\nvast boundaries. Petitoire refers to every thing relating to property;\npossessoire to that relating to possession. In writing this memoir\nagainst property, I bring against universal society an action petitoire:\nI prove that those who do not possess to-day are proprietors by the same\ntitle as those who do possess; but, instead of inferring therefrom\nthat property should be shared by all, I demand, in the name of general\nsecurity, its entire abolition. If I fail to win my case, there is\nnothing left for us (the proletarian class and myself) but to cut our\nthroats: we can ask nothing more from the justice of nations; for, as\nthe code of procedure (art 26) tells us in its energetic style, THE\nPLAINTIFF WHO HAS BEEN NON-SUITED IN AN ACTION PETITOIRE, IS DEBARRED\nTHEREBY FROM BRINGING AN ACTION POSSESSOIRE. If, on the contrary, I gain\nthe case, we must then commence an action possessoire, that we may be\nreinstated in the enjoyment of the wealth of which we are deprived by\nproperty. I hope that we shall not be forced to that extremity; but\nthese two actions cannot be prosecuted at once, such a course being\nprohibited by the same code of procedure.\n\nBefore going to the heart of the question, it will not be useless to\noffer a few preliminary remarks.\n\n% 1.--Property as a Natural Right.\n\nThe Declaration of Rights has placed property in its list of the natural\nand inalienable rights of man, four in all: LIBERTY, EQUALITY, PROPERTY,\nSECURITY. What rule did the legislators of '93 follow in compiling\nthis list? None. They laid down principles, just as they discussed\nsovereignty and the laws; from a general point of view, and according to\ntheir own opinion. They did every thing in their own blind way.\n\nIf we can believe Toullier: \"The absolute rights can be reduced to\nthree: SECURITY, LIBERTY, PROPERTY.\" Equality is eliminated by the\nRennes professor; why? Is it because LIBERTY implies it, or because\nproperty prohibits it? On this point the author of \"Droit Civil\nExplique\" is silent: it has not even occurred to him that the matter is\nunder discussion.\n\nNevertheless, if we compare these three or four rights with each other,\nwe find that property bears no resemblance whatever to the others;\nthat for the majority of citizens it exists only potentially, and as a\ndormant faculty without exercise; that for the others, who do enjoy it,\nit is susceptible of certain transactions and modifications which do\nnot harmonize with the idea of a natural right; that, in practice,\ngovernments, tribunals, and laws do not respect it; and finally that\neverybody, spontaneously and with one voice, regards it as chimerical.\n\nLiberty is inviolable. I can neither sell nor alienate my liberty;\nevery contract, every condition of a contract, which has in view the\nalienation or suspension of liberty, is null: the slave, when he plants\nhis foot upon the soil of liberty, at that moment becomes a free man.\nWhen society seizes a malefactor and deprives him of his liberty, it is\na case of legitimate defence: whoever violates the social compact by the\ncommission of a crime declares himself a public enemy; in attacking the\nliberty of others, he compels them to take away his own. Liberty is the\noriginal condition of man; to renounce liberty is to renounce the nature\nof man: after that, how could we perform the acts of man?\n\nLikewise, equality before the law suffers neither restriction nor\nexception. All Frenchmen are equally eligible to office: consequently,\nin the presence of this equality, condition and family have, in many\ncases, no influence upon choice. The poorest citizen can obtain judgment\nin the courts against one occupying the most exalted station. Let the\nmillionaire, Ahab, build a chateau upon the vineyard of Naboth: the\ncourt will have the power, according to the circumstances, to order the\ndestruction of the chateau, though it has cost millions; and to force\nthe trespasser to restore the vineyard to its original state, and pay\nthe damages. The law wishes all property, that has been legitimately\nacquired, to be kept inviolate without regard to value, and without\nrespect for persons.\n\nThe charter demands, it is true, for the exercise of certain political\nrights, certain conditions of fortune and capacity; but all publicists\nknow that the legislator's intention was not to establish a privilege,\nbut to take security. Provided the conditions fixed by law are complied\nwith, every citizen may be an elector, and every elector eligible. The\nright, once acquired, is the same for all; the law compares neither\npersons nor votes. I do not ask now whether this system is the best; it\nis enough that, in the opinion of the charter and in the eyes of every\none, equality before the law is absolute, and, like liberty, admits of\nno compromise.\n\nIt is the same with the right of security. Society promises its members\nno half-way protection, no sham defence; it binds itself to them as\nthey bind themselves to it. It does not say to them, \"I will shield\nyou, provided it costs me nothing; I will protect you, if I run no risks\nthereby.\" It says, \"I will defend you against everybody; I will save and\navenge you, or perish myself.\"\n\nThe whole strength of the State is at the service of each citizen; the\nobligation which binds them together is absolute.\n\nHow different with property! Worshipped by all, it is acknowledged by\nnone: laws, morals, customs, public and private conscience, all plot its\ndeath and ruin.\n\nTo meet the expenses of government, which has armies to support, tasks\nto perform, and officers to pay, taxes are needed. Let all contribute to\nthese expenses: nothing more just. But why should the rich pay more than\nthe poor? That is just, they say, because they possess more. I confess\nthat such justice is beyond my comprehension.\n\nWhy are taxes paid? To protect all in the exercise of their natural\nrights--liberty, equality, security, and property; to maintain order in\nthe State; to furnish the public with useful and pleasant conveniences.\n\nNow, does it cost more to defend the rich man's life and liberty than\nthe poor man's? Who, in time of invasion, famine, or plague, causes\nmore trouble,--the large proprietor who escapes the evil without\nthe assistance of the State, or the laborer who sits in his cottage\nunprotected from danger?\n\nIs public order endangered more by the worthy citizen, or by the artisan\nand journeyman? Why, the police have more to fear from a few hundred\nlaborers, out of work, than from two hundred thousand electors!\n\nDoes the man of large income appreciate more keenly than the poor man\nnational festivities, clean streets, and beautiful monuments?\n\nWhy, he prefers his country-seat to all the popular pleasures; and when\nhe wants to enjoy himself, he does not wait for the greased pole!\n\nOne of two things is true: either the proportional tax affords greater\nsecurity to the larger tax-payers, or else it is a wrong.\n\nBecause, if property is a natural right, as the Declaration of '93\ndeclares, all that belongs to me by virtue of this right is as sacred as\nmy person; it is my blood, my life, myself: whoever touches it offends\nthe apple of my eye. My income of one hundred thousand francs is as\ninviolable as the grisette's daily wage of seventy-five centimes; her\nattic is no more sacred than my suite of apartments. The tax is not\nlevied in proportion to strength, size, or skill: no more should it be\nlevied in proportion to property.\n\nIf, then, the State takes more from me, let it give me more in return,\nor cease to talk of equality of rights; for otherwise, society is\nestablished, not to defend property, but to destroy it. The State,\nthrough the proportional tax, becomes the chief of robbers; the State\nsets the example of systematic pillage: the State should be brought to\nthe bar of justice at the head of those hideous brigands, that execrable\nmob which it now kills from motives of professional jealousy.\n\nBut, they say, the courts and the police force are established to\nrestrain this mob; government is a company, not exactly for insurance,\nfor it does not insure, but for vengeance and repression. The premium\nwhich this company exacts, the tax, is divided in proportion to\nproperty; that is, in proportion to the trouble which each piece of\nproperty occasions the avengers and repressers paid by the government.\n\nThis is any thing but the absolute and inalienable right of property.\nUnder this system the poor and the rich distrust, and make war upon,\neach other. But what is the object of the war? Property. So that\nproperty is necessarily accompanied by war upon property. The liberty\nand security of the rich do not suffer from the liberty and security\nof the poor; far from that, they mutually strengthen and sustain each\nother. The rich man's right of property, on the contrary, has to be\ncontinually defended against the poor man's desire for property. What\na contradiction! In England they have a poor-rate: they wish me to pay\nthis tax. But what relation exists between my natural and inalienable\nright of property and the hunger from which ten million wretched people\nare suffering? When religion commands us to assist our fellows, it\nspeaks in the name of charity, not in the name of law. The obligation\nof benevolence, imposed upon me by Christian morality, cannot be imposed\nupon me as a political tax for the benefit of any person or poor-house.\nI will give alms when I see fit to do so, when the sufferings of others\nexcite in me that sympathy of which philosophers talk, and in which I do\nnot believe: I will not be forced to bestow them. No one is obliged to\ndo more than comply with this injunction: IN THE EXERCISE OF YOUR OWN\nRIGHTS DO NOT ENCROACH UPON THE RIGHTS OF ANOTHER; an injunction which\nis the exact definition of liberty. Now, my possessions are my own;\nno one has a claim upon them: I object to the placing of the third\ntheological virtue in the order of the day.\n\nEverybody, in France, demands the conversion of the five per cent.\nbonds; they demand thereby the complete sacrifice of one species of\nproperty. They have the right to do it, if public necessity requires it;\nbut where is the just indemnity promised by the charter? Not only\ndoes none exist, but this indemnity is not even possible; for, if the\nindemnity were equal to the property sacrificed, the conversion would be\nuseless.\n\nThe State occupies the same position to-day toward the bondholders\nthat the city of Calais did, when besieged by Edward III, toward its\nnotables. The English conqueror consented to spare its inhabitants,\nprovided it would surrender to him its most distinguished citizens to do\nwith as he pleased. Eustache and several others offered themselves; it\nwas noble in them, and our ministers should recommend their example to\nthe bondholders. But had the city the right to surrender them? Assuredly\nnot. The right to security is absolute; the country can require no one\nto sacrifice himself. The soldier standing guard within the enemy's\nrange is no exception to this rule. Wherever a citizen stands guard,\nthe country stands guard with him: to-day it is the turn of the one,\nto-morrow of the other. When danger and devotion are common, flight is\nparricide. No one has the right to flee from danger; no one can serve\nas a scapegoat. The maxim of Caiaphas--IT IS RIGHT THAT A MAN SHOULD DIE\nFOR HIS NATION--is that of the populace and of tyrants; the two extremes\nof social degradation.\n\nIt is said that all perpetual annuities are essentially redeemable. This\nmaxim of civil law, applied to the State, is good for those who wish to\nreturn to the natural equality of labor and wealth; but, from the point\nof view of the proprietor, and in the mouth of conversionists, it is\nthe language of bankrupts. The State is not only a borrower, it is an\ninsurer and guardian of property; granting the best of security, it\nassures the most inviolable possession. How, then, can it force open the\nhands of its creditors, who have confidence in it, and then talk to\nthem of public order and security of property? The State, in such\nan operation, is not a debtor who discharges his debt; it is a\nstock-company which allures its stockholders into a trap, and there,\ncontrary to its authentic promise, exacts from them twenty, thirty, or\nforty per cent. of the interest on their capital.\n\nThat is not all. The State is a university of citizens joined together\nunder a common law by an act of society. This act secures all in the\npossession of their property; guarantees to one his field, to another\nhis vineyard, to a third his rents, and to the bondholder, who might\nhave bought real estate but who preferred to come to the assistance of\nthe treasury, his bonds. The State cannot demand, without offering an\nequivalent, the sacrifice of an acre of the field or a corner of the\nvineyard; still less can it lower rents: why should it have the right\nto diminish the interest on bonds? This right could not justly exist,\nunless the bondholder could invest his funds elsewhere to equal\nadvantage; but being confined to the State, where can he find a place to\ninvest them, since the cause of conversion, that is, the power to borrow\nto better advantage, lies in the State? That is why a government, based\non the principle of property, cannot redeem its annuities without the\nconsent of their holders.\n\nThe money deposited with the republic is property which it has no right\nto touch while other kinds of property are respected; to force\ntheir redemption is to violate the social contract, and outlaw the\nbondholders.\n\nThe whole controversy as to the conversion of bonds finally reduces\nitself to this:--\n\nQUESTION. Is it just to reduce to misery forty-five thousand families\nwho derive an income from their bonds of one hundred francs or less?\n\nANSWER. Is it just to compel seven or eight millions of tax-payers to\npay a tax of five francs, when they should pay only three? It is clear,\nin the first place, that the reply is in reality no reply; but, to make\nthe wrong more apparent, let us change it thus: Is it just to endanger\nthe lives of one hundred thousand men, when we can save them by\nsurrendering one hundred heads to the enemy? Reader, decide!\n\nAll this is clearly understood by the defenders of the present system.\nYet, nevertheless, sooner or later, the conversion will be effected\nand property be violated, because no other course is possible; because\nproperty, regarded as a right, and not being a right, must of right\nperish; because the force of events, the laws of conscience, and\nphysical and mathematical necessity must, in the end, destroy this\nillusion of our minds.\n\nTo sum up: liberty is an absolute right, because it is to man what\nimpenetrability is to matter,--a sine qua non of existence; equality\nis an absolute right, because without equality there is no society;\nsecurity is an absolute right, because in the eyes of every man his own\nliberty and life are as precious as another's. These three rights are\nabsolute; that is, susceptible of neither increase nor diminution;\nbecause in society each associate receives as much as he gives,--liberty\nfor liberty, equality for equality, security for security, body for\nbody, soul for soul, in life and in death.\n\nBut property, in its derivative sense, and by the definitions of law, is\na right outside of society; for it is clear that, if the wealth of each\nwas social wealth, the conditions would be equal for all, and it would\nbe a contradiction to say: PROPERTY IS A MAN'S RIGHT TO DISPOSE AT WILL\nOF SOCIAL PROPERTY. Then if we are associated for the sake of liberty,\nequality, and security, we are not associated for the sake of property;\nthen if property is a NATURAL right, this natural right is not SOCIAL,\nbut ANTI-SOCIAL. Property and society are utterly irreconcilable\ninstitutions. It is as impossible to associate two proprietors as to\njoin two magnets by their opposite poles. Either society must perish, or\nit must destroy property.\n\nIf property is a natural, absolute, imprescriptible, and inalienable\nright, why, in all ages, has there been so much speculation as to its\norigin?--for this is one of its distinguishing characteristics. The\norigin of a natural right! Good God! who ever inquired into the origin\nof the rights of liberty, security, or equality? They exist by the same\nright that we exist; they are born with us, they live and die with us.\nWith property it is very different, indeed. By law, property can exist\nwithout a proprietor, like a quality without a subject. It exists for\nthe human being who as yet is not, and for the octogenarian who is no\nmore. And yet, in spite of these wonderful prerogatives which savor\nof the eternal and the infinite, they have never found the origin of\nproperty; the doctors still disagree. On one point only are they in\nharmony: namely, that the validity of the right of property depends upon\nthe authenticity of its origin. But this harmony is their condemnation.\nWhy have they acknowledged the right before settling the question of\norigin?\n\nCertain classes do not relish investigation into the pretended titles to\nproperty, and its fabulous and perhaps scandalous history. They wish to\nhold to this proposition: that property is a fact; that it always has\nbeen, and always will be. With that proposition the savant Proudhon [11]\ncommenced his \"Treatise on the Right of Usufruct,\" regarding the origin\nof property as a useless question. Perhaps I would subscribe to this\ndoctrine, believing it inspired by a commendable love of peace, were\nall my fellow-citizens in comfortable circumstances; but, no! I will not\nsubscribe to it.\n\nThe titles on which they pretend to base the right of property are two\nin number: OCCUPATION and LABOR. I shall examine them successively,\nunder all their aspects and in detail; and I remind the reader that,\nto whatever authority we appeal, I shall prove beyond a doubt that\nproperty, to be just and possible, must necessarily have equality for\nits condition.\n\n\n% 2.--Occupation, as the Title to Property.\n\nIt is remarkable that, at those meetings of the State Council at which\nthe Code was discussed, no controversy arose as to the origin and\nprinciple of property. All the articles of Vol. II., Book 2, concerning\nproperty and the right of accession, were passed without opposition or\namendment. Bonaparte, who on other questions had given his legists so\nmuch trouble, had nothing to say about property. Be not surprised at it:\nin the eyes of that man, the most selfish and wilful person that ever\nlived, property was the first of rights, just as submission to authority\nwas the most holy of duties.\n\nThe right of OCCUPATION, or of the FIRST OCCUPANT, is that which results\nfrom the actual, physical, real possession of a thing. I occupy a\npiece of land; the presumption is, that I am the proprietor, until\nthe contrary is proved. We know that originally such a right cannot be\nlegitimate unless it is reciprocal; the jurists say as much.\n\nCicero compares the earth to a vast theatre: _Quemadmodum theatrum cum\ncommune sit, recte tamen dici potest ejus esse eum locum quem quisque\noccuparit_.\n\nThis passage is all that ancient philosophy has to say about the origin\nof property.\n\nThe theatre, says Cicero, is common to all; nevertheless, the place that\neach one occupies is called HIS OWN; that is, it is a place POSSESSED,\nnot a place APPROPRIATED. This comparison annihilates property;\nmoreover, it implies equality. Can I, in a theatre, occupy at the same\ntime one place in the pit, another in the boxes, and a third in the\ngallery? Not unless I have three bodies, like Geryon, or can exist\nin different places at the same time, as is related of the magician\nApollonius.\n\nAccording to Cicero, no one has a right to more than he needs: such\nis the true interpretation of his famous axiom--_suum quidque cujusque\nsit_, to each one that which belongs to him--an axiom that has been\nstrangely applied. That which belongs to each is not that which each MAY\npossess, but that which each HAS A RIGHT to possess. Now, what have we a\nright to possess? That which is required for our labor and consumption;\nCicero's comparison of the earth to a theatre proves it. According to\nthat, each one may take what place he will, may beautify and adorn it,\nif he can; it is allowable: but he must never allow himself to overstep\nthe limit which separates him from another. The doctrine of Cicero leads\ndirectly to equality; for, occupation being pure toleration, if the\ntoleration is mutual (and it cannot be otherwise) the possessions are\nequal.\n\nGrotius rushes into history; but what kind of reasoning is that which\nseeks the origin of a right, said to be natural, elsewhere than in\nNature? This is the method of the ancients: the fact exists, then it\nis necessary, then it is just, then its antecedents are just also.\nNevertheless, let us look into it.\n\n\"Originally, all things were common and undivided; they were the\nproperty of all.\" Let us go no farther. Grotius tells us how this\noriginal communism came to an end through ambition and cupidity; how the\nage of gold was followed by the age of iron, &c. So that property rested\nfirst on war and conquest, then on treaties and agreements. But either\nthese treaties and agreements distributed wealth equally, as did the\noriginal communism (the only method of distribution with which the\nbarbarians were acquainted, and the only form of justice of which they\ncould conceive; and then the question of origin assumes this form:\nhow did equality afterwards disappear?)--or else these treaties and\nagreements were forced by the strong upon the weak, and in that case\nthey are null; the tacit consent of posterity does not make them valid,\nand we live in a permanent condition of iniquity and fraud.\n\nWe never can conceive how the equality of conditions, having once\nexisted, could afterwards have passed away. What was the cause of such\ndegeneration? The instincts of the animals are unchangeable, as well\nas the differences of species; to suppose original equality in human\nsociety is to admit by implication that the present inequality is\na degeneration from the nature of this society,--a thing which the\ndefenders of property cannot explain. But I infer therefrom that, if\nProvidence placed the first human beings in a condition of equality, it\nwas an indication of its desires, a model that it wished them to realize\nin other forms; just as the religious sentiment, which it planted in\ntheir hearts, has developed and manifested itself in various ways. Man\nhas but one nature, constant and unalterable: he pursues it through\ninstinct, he wanders from it through reflection, he returns to it\nthrough judgment; who shall say that we are not returning now? According\nto Grotius, man has abandoned equality; according to me, he will yet\nreturn to it. How came he to abandon it? Why will he return to it? These\nare questions for future consideration.\n\nReid writes as follows:--\n\n\"The right of property is not innate, but acquired. It is not grounded\nupon the constitution of man, but upon his actions. Writers on\njurisprudence have explained its origin in a manner that may satisfy\nevery man of common understanding.\n\n\"The earth is given to men in common for the purposes of life, by the\nbounty of Heaven. But to divide it, and appropriate one part of its\nproduce to one, another part to another, must be the work of men\nwho have power and understanding given them, by which every man may\naccommodate himself, WITHOUT HURT TO ANY OTHER.\n\n\"This common right of every man to what the earth produces, before it\nbe occupied and appropriated by others, was, by ancient moralists, very\nproperly compared to the right which every citizen had to the public\ntheatre, where every man that came might occupy an empty seat, and\nthereby acquire a right to it while the entertainment lasted; but no man\nhad a right to dispossess another.\n\n\"The earth is a great theatre, furnished by the Almighty, with perfect\nwisdom and goodness, for the entertainment and employment of all\nmankind. Here every man has a right to accommodate himself as a\nspectator, and to perform his part as an actor; but without hurt to\nothers.\"\n\n\nConsequences of Reid's doctrine.\n\n1. That the portion which each one appropriates may wrong no one, it\nmust be equal to the quotient of the total amount of property to be\nshared, divided by the number of those who are to share it;\n\n2. The number of places being of necessity equal at all times to that\nof the spectators, no spectator can occupy two places, nor can any actor\nplay several parts;\n\n3. Whenever a spectator comes in or goes out, the places of all contract\nor enlarge correspondingly: for, says Reid, \"THE RIGHT OF PROPERTY\nIS NOT INNATE, BUT ACQUIRED;\" consequently, it is not absolute;\nconsequently, the occupancy on which it is based, being a conditional\nfact, cannot endow this right with a stability which it does not possess\nitself. This seems to have been the thought of the Edinburgh professor\nwhen he added:--\n\n\n\"A right to life implies a right to the necessary means of life; and\nthat justice, which forbids the taking away the life of an innocent man,\nforbids no less the taking from him the necessary means of life. He has\nthe same right to defend the one as the other. To hinder another man's\ninnocent labor, or to deprive him of the fruit of it, is an injustice\nof the same kind, and has the same effect as to put him in fetters or in\nprison, and is equally a just object of resentment.\"\n\n\nThus the chief of the Scotch school, without considering at all the\ninequality of skill or labor, posits a priori the equality of the means\nof labor, abandoning thereafter to each laborer the care of his own\nperson, after the eternal axiom: WHOSO DOES WELL, SHALL FARE WELL.\n\nThe philosopher Reid is lacking, not in knowledge of the principle, but\nin courage to pursue it to its ultimate. If the right of life is equal,\nthe right of labor is equal, and so is the right of occupancy. Would\nit not be criminal, were some islanders to repulse, in the name of\nproperty, the unfortunate victims of a shipwreck struggling to reach\nthe shore? The very idea of such cruelty sickens the imagination. The\nproprietor, like Robinson Crusoe on his island, wards off with pike and\nmusket the proletaire washed overboard by the wave of civilization, and\nseeking to gain a foothold upon the rocks of property. \"Give me work!\"\ncries he with all his might to the proprietor: \"don't drive me away, I\nwill work for you at any price.\" \"I do not need your services,\" replies\nthe proprietor, showing the end of his pike or the barrel of his gun.\n\"Lower my rent at least.\" \"I need my income to live upon.\" \"How can\nI pay you, when I can get no work?\" \"That is your business.\" Then the\nunfortunate proletaire abandons himself to the waves; or, if he attempts\nto land upon the shore of property, the proprietor takes aim, and kills\nhim.\n\nWe have just listened to a spiritualist; we will now question a\nmaterialist, then an eclectic: and having completed the circle of\nphilosophy, we will turn next to law.\n\nAccording to Destutt de Tracy, property is a necessity of our nature.\nThat this necessity involves unpleasant consequences, it would be\nfolly to deny. But these consequences are necessary evils which do not\ninvalidate the principle; so that it is as unreasonable to rebel against\nproperty on account of the abuses which it generates, as to complain\nof life because it is sure to end in death. This brutal and pitiless\nphilosophy promises at least frank and close reasoning. Let us see if it\nkeeps its promise.\n\n\n\"We talk very gravely about the conditions of property,... as if it was\nour province to decide what constitutes property.... It would seem, to\nhear certain philosophers and legislators, that at a certain moment,\nspontaneously and without cause, people began to use the words THINE and\nMINE; and that they might have, or ought to have, dispensed with them.\nBut THINE and MINE were never invented.\"\n\n\nA philosopher yourself, you are too realistic. THINE and MINE do not\nnecessarily refer to self, as they do when I say your philosophy, and my\nequality; for your philosophy is you philosophizing, and my equality is\nI professing equality. THINE and MINE oftener indicate a relation,--YOUR\ncountry, YOUR parish, YOUR tailor, YOUR milkmaid; MY chamber, MY seat at\nthe theatre, MY company and MY battalion in the National Guard. In the\nformer sense, we may sometimes say MY labor, MY skill, MY virtue; never\nMY grandeur nor MY majesty: in the latter sense only, MY field, MY\nhouse, MY vineyard, MY capital,--precisely as the banker's clerk says\nMY cash-box. In short, THINE and MINE are signs and expressions of\npersonal, but equal, rights; applied to things outside of us, they\nindicate possession, function, use, not property.\n\nIt does not seem possible, but, nevertheless, I shall prove, by\nquotations, that the whole theory of our author is based upon this\npaltry equivocation.\n\n\n\"Prior to all covenants, men are, not exactly, as Hobbes says, in a\nstate of HOSTILITY, but of ESTRANGEMENT. In this state, justice and\ninjustice are unknown; the rights of one bear no relation to the rights\nof another. All have as many rights as needs, and all feel it their duty\nto satisfy those needs by any means at their command.\"\n\n\nGrant it; whether true or false, it matters not. Destutt de Tracy cannot\nescape equality. On this theory, men, while in a state of ESTRANGEMENT,\nare under no obligations to each other; they all have the right\nto satisfy their needs without regard to the needs of others, and\nconsequently the right to exercise their power over Nature, each\naccording to his strength and ability. That involves the greatest\ninequality of wealth. Inequality of conditions, then, is the\ncharacteristic feature of estrangement or barbarism: the exact opposite\nof Rousseau's idea.\n\nBut let us look farther:--\n\n\n\"Restrictions of these rights and this duty commence at the time when\ncovenants, either implied or expressed, are agreed upon. Then appears\nfor the first time justice and injustice; that is, the balance between\nthe rights of one and the rights of another, which up to that time were\nnecessarily equal.\"\n\nListen: RIGHTS WERE EQUAL; that means that each individual had the right\nto SATISFY HIS NEEDS WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE NEEDS OF OTHERS. In other\nwords, that all had the right to injure each other; that there was no\nright save force and cunning. They injured each other, not only by war\nand pillage, but also by usurpation and appropriation. Now, in order to\nabolish this equal right to use force and stratagem,--this equal\nright to do evil, the sole source of the inequality of benefits and\ninjuries,--they commenced to make COVENANTS EITHER IMPLIED OR EXPRESSED,\nand established a balance. Then these agreements and this balance\nwere intended to secure to all equal comfort; then, by the law of\ncontradictions, if isolation is the principle of inequality, society\nmust produce equality. The social balance is the equalization of the\nstrong and the weak; for, while they are not equals, they are strangers;\nthey can form no associations,--they live as enemies. Then, if\ninequality of conditions is a necessary evil, so is isolation, for\nsociety and inequality are incompatible with each other. Then, if\nsociety is the true condition of man's existence, so is equality also.\nThis conclusion cannot be avoided.\n\nThis being so, how is it that, ever since the establishment of this\nbalance, inequality has been on the increase? How is it that justice and\nisolation always accompany each other? Destutt de Tracy shall reply:--\n\n\n\"NEEDS and MEANS, RIGHTS and DUTIES, are products of the will. If man\nwilled nothing, these would not exist. But to have needs and means,\nrights and duties, is to HAVE, to POSSESS, something. They are so many\nkinds of property, using the word in its most general sense: they are\nthings which belong to us.\"\n\n\nShameful equivocation, not justified by the necessity for\ngeneralization! The word PROPERTY has two meanings: 1. It designates the\nquality which makes a thing what it is; the attribute which is peculiar\nto it, and especially distinguishes it. We use it in this sense when we\nsay THE PROPERTIES OF THE TRIANGLE or of NUMBERS; THE PROPERTY OF THE\nMAGNET, &c. 2. It expresses the right of absolute control over a thing\nby a free and intelligent being. It is used in this sense by writers\non jurisprudence. Thus, in the phrase, IRON ACQUIRES THE PROPERTY OF A\nMAGNET, the word PROPERTY does not convey the same idea that it does in\nthis one: _I HAVE ACQUIRED THIS MAGNET AS MY PROPERTY_. To tell a poor\nman that he HAS property because he HAS arms and legs,--that the hunger\nfrom which he suffers, and his power to sleep in the open air are his\nproperty,--is to play upon words, and to add insult to injury.\n\n\n\"The sole basis of the idea of property is the idea of personality. As\nsoon as property is born at all, it is born, of necessity, in all its\nfulness. As soon as an individual knows HIMSELF,--his moral personality,\nhis capacities of enjoyment, suffering, and action,--he necessarily\nsees also that this SELF is exclusive proprietor of the body in which\nit dwells, its organs, their powers, faculties, &c.... Inasmuch as\nartificial and conventional property exists, there must be natural\nproperty also; for nothing can exist in art without its counterpart in\nNature.\"\n\n\nWe ought to admire the honesty and judgment of philosophers! Man has\nproperties; that is, in the first acceptation of the term, faculties. He\nhas property; that is, in its second acceptation, the right of domain.\nHe has, then, the property of the property of being proprietor. How\nashamed I should be to notice such foolishness, were I here considering\nonly the authority of Destutt de Tracy! But the entire human race, since\nthe origination of society and language, when metaphysics and dialectics\nwere first born, has been guilty of this puerile confusion of thought.\nAll which man could call his own was identified in his mind with his\nperson. He considered it as his property, his wealth; a part of himself,\na member of his body, a faculty of his mind. The possession of things\nwas likened to property in the powers of the body and mind; and on this\nfalse analogy was based the right of property,--THE IMITATION OF NATURE\nBY ART, as Destutt de Tracy so elegantly puts it.\n\nBut why did not this ideologist perceive that man is not proprietor even\nof his own faculties? Man has powers, attributes, capacities; they are\ngiven him by Nature that he may live, learn, and love: he does not own\nthem, but has only the use of them; and he can make no use of them that\ndoes not harmonize with Nature's laws. If he had absolute mastery over\nhis faculties, he could avoid hunger and cold; he could eat unstintedly,\nand walk through fire; he could move mountains, walk a hundred leagues\nin a minute, cure without medicines and by the sole force of his will,\nand could make himself immortal. He could say, \"I wish to produce,\" and\nhis tasks would be finished with the words; he could say. \"I wish to\nknow,\" and he would know; \"I love,\" and he would enjoy. What then? Man\nis not master of himself, but may be of his surroundings. Let him use\nthe wealth of Nature, since he can live only by its use; but let him\nabandon his pretensions to the title of proprietor, and remember that he\nis called so only metaphorically.\n\nTo sum up: Destutt de Tracy classes together the external PRODUCTIONS of\nnature and art, and the POWERS or FACULTIES of man, making both of them\nspecies of property; and upon this equivocation he hopes to establish,\nso firmly that it can never be disturbed, the right of property. But\nof these different kinds of property some are INNATE, as memory,\nimagination, strength, and beauty; while others are ACQUIRED, as land,\nwater, and forests. In the state of Nature or isolation, the strongest\nand most skilful (that is, those best provided with innate property)\nstand the best chance of obtaining acquired property. Now, it is to\nprevent this encroachment and the war which results therefrom, that\na balance (justice) has been employed, and covenants (implied or\nexpressed) agreed upon: it is to correct, as far as possible, inequality\nof innate property by equality of acquired property. As long as the\ndivision remains unequal, so long the partners remain enemies; and it\nis the purpose of the covenants to reform this state of things. Thus\nwe have, on the one hand, isolation, inequality, enmity, war, robbery,\nmurder; on the other, society, equality, fraternity, peace, and love.\nChoose between them!\n\nM. Joseph Dutens--a physician, engineer, and geometrician, but a very\npoor legist, and no philosopher at all--is the author of a \"Philosophy\nof Political Economy,\" in which he felt it his duty to break lances in\nbehalf of property. His reasoning seems to be borrowed from Destutt\nde Tracy. He commences with this definition of property, worthy of\nSganarelle: \"Property is the right by which a thing is one's own.\"\nLiterally translated: Property is the right of property.\n\nAfter getting entangled a few times on the subjects of will, liberty,\nand personality; after having distinguished between IMMATERIAL-NATURAL\nproperty, and MATERIAL-NATURAL property, a distinction similar to\nDestutt de Tracy's of innate and acquired property,--M. Joseph Dutens\nconcludes with these two general propositions: 1. Property is a natural\nand inalienable right of every man; 2. Inequality of property is a\nnecessary result of Nature,--which propositions are convertible into a\nsimpler one: All men have an equal right of unequal property.\n\nHe rebukes M. de Sismondi for having taught that landed property has no\nother basis than law and conventionality; and he says himself, speaking\nof the respect which people feel for property, that \"their good sense\nreveals to them the nature of the ORIGINAL CONTRACT made between society\nand proprietors.\"\n\nHe confounds property with possession, communism with equality, the just\nwith the natural, and the natural with the possible. Now he takes these\ndifferent ideas to be equivalents; now he seems to distinguish between\nthem, so much so that it would be infinitely easier to refute him than\nto understand him. Attracted first by the title of the work, \"Philosophy\nof Political Economy,\" I have found, among the author's obscurities,\nonly the most ordinary ideas. For that reason I will not speak of him.\n\nM. Cousin, in his \"Moral Philosophy,\" page 15, teaches that all\nmorality, all laws, all rights are given to man with this injunction:\n\"FREE BEING, REMAIN FREE.\" Bravo! master; I wish to remain free if I\ncan. He continues:--\n\n\"Our principle is true; it is good, it is social. Do not fear to push it\nto its ultimate.\n\n\"1. If the human person is sacred, its whole nature is sacred; and\nparticularly its interior actions, its feelings, its thoughts, its\nvoluntary decisions. This accounts for the respect due to philosophy,\nreligion, the arts industry, commerce, and to all the results of\nliberty. I say respect, not simply toleration; for we do not tolerate a\nright, we respect it.\"\n\nI bow my head before this philosophy.\n\n\n\"2. My liberty, which is sacred, needs for its objective action an\ninstrument which we call the body: the body participates then in the\nsacredness of liberty; it is then inviolable. This is the basis of the\nprinciple of individual liberty.\n\n\"3. My liberty needs, for its objective action, material to work upon;\nin other words, property or a thing. This thing or property naturally\nparticipates then in the inviolability of my person. For instance, I\ntake possession of an object which has become necessary and useful in\nthe outward manifestation of my liberty. I say, 'This object is\nmine since it belongs to no one else; consequently, I possess it\nlegitimately.' So the legitimacy of possession rests on two conditions.\nFirst, I possess only as a free being. Suppress free activity, you\ndestroy my power to labor. Now it is only by labor that I can use this\nproperty or thing, and it is only by using it that I possess it. Free\nactivity is then the principle of the right of property. But that alone\ndoes not legitimate possession. All men are free; all can use property\nby labor. Does that mean that all men have a right to all property? Not\nat all. To possess legitimately, I must not only labor and produce in\nmy capacity of a free being, but I must also be the first to occupy the\nproperty. In short, if labor and production are the principle of the\nright of property, the fact of first occupancy is its indispensable\ncondition.\n\n\"4. I possess legitimately: then I have the right to use my property as\nI see fit. I have also the right to give it away. I have also the right\nto bequeath it; for if I decide to make a donation, my decision is as\nvalid after my death as during my life.\"\n\nIn fact, to become a proprietor, in M. Cousin's opinion, one must take\npossession by occupation and labor. I maintain that the element of time\nmust be considered also; for if the first occupants have occupied every\nthing, what are the new comers to do? What will become of them, having\nan instrument with which to work, but no material to work upon?\nMust they devour each other? A terrible extremity, unforeseen by\nphilosophical prudence; for the reason that great geniuses neglect\nlittle things.\n\nNotice also that M. Cousin says that neither occupation nor labor, taken\nseparately, can legitimate the right of property; and that it is born\nonly from the union of the two. This is one of M. Cousin's eclectic\nturns, which he, more than any one else, should take pains to\navoid. Instead of proceeding by the method of analysis, comparison,\nelimination, and reduction (the only means of discovering the truth amid\nthe various forms of thought and whimsical opinions), he jumbles\nall systems together, and then, declaring each both right and wrong,\nexclaims: \"There you have the truth.\"\n\nBut, adhering to my promise, I will not refute him. I will only prove,\nby all the arguments with which he justifies the right of property, the\nprinciple of equality which kills it. As I have already said, my sole\nintent is this: to show at the bottom of all these positions that\ninevitable major, EQUALITY; hoping hereafter to show that the principle\nof property vitiates the very elements of economical, moral, and\ngovernmental science, thus leading it in the wrong direction.\n\nWell, is it not true, from M. Cousin's point of view, that, if the\nliberty of man is sacred, it is equally sacred in all individuals; that,\nif it needs property for its objective action, that is, for its life,\nthe appropriation of material is equally necessary for all; that, if I\nwish to be respected in my right of appropriation, I must respect\nothers in theirs; and, consequently, that though, in the sphere of the\ninfinite, a person's power of appropriation is limited only by\nhimself, in the sphere of the finite this same power is limited by the\nmathematical relation between the number of persons and the space which\nthey occupy? Does it not follow that if one individual cannot prevent\nanother--his fellow-man--from appropriating an amount of material equal\nto his own, no more can he prevent individuals yet to come; because,\nwhile individuality passes away, universality persists, and eternal laws\ncannot be determined by a partial view of their manifestations? Must we\nnot conclude, therefore, that whenever a person is born, the others must\ncrowd closer together; and, by reciprocity of obligation, that if the\nnew comer is afterwards to become an heir, the right of succession does\nnot give him the right of accumulation, but only the right of choice?\n\nI have followed M. Cousin so far as to imitate his style, and I am\nashamed of it. Do we need such high-sounding terms, such sonorous\nphrases, to say such simple things? Man needs to labor in order to live;\nconsequently, he needs tools to work with and materials to work upon.\nHis need to produce constitutes his right to produce. Now, this right is\nguaranteed him by his fellows, with whom he makes an agreement to that\neffect. One hundred thousand men settle in a large country like France\nwith no inhabitants: each man has a right to 1/100,000 of the land. If\nthe number of possessors increases, each one's portion diminishes in\nconsequence; so that, if the number of inhabitants rises to thirty-four\nmillions, each one will have a right only to 1/34,000,000. Now,\nso regulate the police system and the government, labor, exchange,\ninheritance, &c., that the means of labor shall be shared by all\nequally, and that each individual shall be free; and then society will\nbe perfect.\n\nOf all the defenders of property, M. Cousin has gone the farthest. He\nhas maintained against the economists that labor does not establish the\nright of property unless preceded by occupation, and against the jurists\nthat the civil law can determine and apply a natural right, but cannot\ncreate it. In fact, it is not sufficient to say, \"The right of property\nis demonstrated by the existence of property; the function of the civil\nlaw is purely declaratory.\" To say that, is to confess that there is\nno reply to those who question the legitimacy of the fact itself.\nEvery right must be justifiable in itself, or by some antecedent right;\nproperty is no exception. For this reason, M. Cousin has sought to base\nit upon the SANCTITY of the human personality, and the act by which the\nwill assimilates a thing. \"Once touched by man,\" says one of M. Cousin's\ndisciples, \"things receive from him a character which transforms and\nhumanizes them.\" I confess, for my part, that I have no faith in this\nmagic, and that I know of nothing less holy than the will of man. But\nthis theory, fragile as it seems to psychology as well as jurisprudence,\nis nevertheless more philosophical and profound than those theories\nwhich are based upon labor or the authority of the law. Now, we have\njust seen to what this theory of which we are speaking leads,--to the\nequality implied in the terms of its statement.\n\nBut perhaps philosophy views things from too lofty a standpoint, and\nis not sufficiently practical; perhaps from the exalted summit of\nspeculation men seem so small to the metaphysician that he cannot\ndistinguish between them; perhaps, indeed, the equality of conditions is\none of those principles which are very true and sublime as generalities,\nbut which it would be ridiculous and even dangerous to attempt to\nrigorously apply to the customs of life and to social transactions.\nUndoubtedly, this is a case which calls for imitation of the wise\nreserve of moralists and jurists, who warn us against carrying things to\nextremes, and who advise us to suspect every definition; because there\nis not one, they say, which cannot be utterly destroyed by developing\nits disastrous results--_Omnis definitio in jure civili periculosa\nest: parum est enim ut non subverti possit_. Equality of conditions,--a\nterrible dogma in the ears of the proprietor, a consoling truth at\nthe poor-man's sick-bed, a frightful reality under the knife of the\nanatomist,--equality of conditions, established in the political, civil,\nand industrial spheres, is only an alluring impossibility, an inviting\nbait, a satanic delusion.\n\nIt is never my intention to surprise my reader. I detest, as I do death,\nthe man who employs subterfuge in his words and conduct. From the first\npage of this book, I have expressed myself so plainly and decidedly that\nall can see the tendency of my thought and hopes; and they will do me\nthe justice to say, that it would be difficult to exhibit more frankness\nand more boldness at the same time. I do not hesitate to declare that\nthe time is not far distant when this reserve, now so much admired in\nphilosophers--this happy medium so strongly recommended by professors of\nmoral and political science--will be regarded as the disgraceful feature\nof a science without principle, and as the seal of its reprobation. In\nlegislation and morals, as well as in geometry, axioms are absolute,\ndefinitions are certain; and all the results of a principle are to be\naccepted, provided they are logically deduced. Deplorable pride! We know\nnothing of our nature, and we charge our blunders to it; and, in a\nfit of unaffected ignorance, cry out, \"The truth is in doubt, the\nbest definition defines nothing!\" We shall know some time whether this\ndistressing uncertainty of jurisprudence arises from the nature of\nits investigations, or from our prejudices; whether, to explain social\nphenomena, it is not enough to change our hypothesis, as did Copernicus\nwhen he reversed the system of Ptolemy.\n\nBut what will be said when I show, as I soon shall, that this same\njurisprudence continually tries to base property upon equality? What\nreply can be made?\n\n\n\n% 3.--Civil Law as the Foundation and Sanction of Property.\n\nPothier seems to think that property, like royalty, exists by divine\nright. He traces back its origin to God himself--ab Jove principium. He\nbegins in this way:--\n\n\n\"God is the absolute ruler of the universe and all that it contains:\n_Domini est terra et plenitudo ejus, orbis et universi qui habitant in\neo_. For the human race he has created the earth and all its creatures,\nand has given it a control over them subordinate only to his own. 'Thou\nmadest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put\nall things under his feet,' says the Psalmist. God accompanied this gift\nwith these words, addressed to our first parents after the creation: 'Be\nfruitful, and multiply and replenish the earth,'\" &c.\n\n\nAfter this magnificent introduction, who would refuse to believe the\nhuman race to be an immense family living in brotherly union, and\nunder the protection of a venerable father? But, heavens! are brothers\nenemies? Are fathers unnatural, and children prodigal?\n\nGOD GAVE THE EARTH TO THE HUMAN RACE: why then have I received none? HE\nHAS PUT ALL THINGS UNDER MY FEET,--and I have not where to lay my head!\nMULTIPLY, he tells us through his interpreter, Pothier. Ah, learned\nPothier! that is as easy to do as to say; but you must give moss to the\nbird for its nest.\n\n\n\"The human race having multiplied, men divided among themselves the\nearth and most of the things upon it; that which fell to each, from that\ntime exclusively belonged to him. That was the origin of the right of\nproperty.\"\n\n\nSay, rather, the right of possession. Men lived in a state of communism;\nwhether positive or negative it matters little. Then there was no\nproperty, not even private possession. The genesis and growth of\npossession gradually forcing people to labor for their support, they\nagreed either formally or tacitly,--it makes no difference which,--that\nthe laborer should be sole proprietor of the fruit of his labor; that\nis, they simply declared the fact that thereafter none could live\nwithout working. It necessarily followed that, to obtain equality of\nproducts, there must be equality of labor; and that, to obtain equality\nof labor, there must be equality of facilities for labor. Whoever\nwithout labor got possession, by force or by strategy, of another's\nmeans of subsistence, destroyed equality, and placed himself above or\noutside of the law. Whoever monopolized the means of production on the\nground of greater industry, also destroyed equality. Equality being then\nthe expression of right, whoever violated it was UNJUST.\n\nThus, labor gives birth to private possession; the right in a thing--jus\nin re. But in what thing? Evidently IN THE PRODUCT, not IN THE SOIL.\nSo the Arabs have always understood it; and so, according to Caesar and\nTacitus, the Germans formerly held. \"The Arabs,\" says M. de Sismondi,\n\"who admit a man's property in the flocks which he has raised, do not\nrefuse the crop to him who planted the seed; but they do not see why\nanother, his equal, should not have a right to plant in his turn.\nThe inequality which results from the pretended right of the first\noccupant seems to them to be based on no principle of justice; and when\nall the land falls into the hands of a certain number of inhabitants,\nthere results a monopoly in their favor against the rest of the nation,\nto which they do not wish to submit.\"\n\nWell, they have shared the land. I admit that therefrom results a more\npowerful organization of labor; and that this method of distribution,\nfixed and durable, is advantageous to production: but how could this\ndivision give to each a transferable right of property in a thing\nto which all had an inalienable right of possession? In the terms\nof jurisprudence, this metamorphosis from possessor to proprietor is\nlegally impossible; it implies in the jurisdiction of the courts the\nunion of possessoire and petitoire; and the mutual concessions of those\nwho share the land are nothing less than traffic in natural rights. The\noriginal cultivators of the land, who were also the original makers of\nthe law, were not as learned as our legislators, I admit; and had\nthey been, they could not have done worse: they did not foresee the\nconsequences of the transformation of the right of private possession\ninto the right of absolute property. But why have not those, who in\nlater times have established the distinction between jus in re and jus\nad rem, applied it to the principle of property itself?\n\nLet me call the attention of the writers on jurisprudence to their own\nmaxims.\n\nThe right of property, provided it can have a cause, can have but\none--_Dominium non potest nisi ex una causa contingere_. I can possess\nby several titles; I can become proprietor by only one--_Non ut ex\npluribus causis idem nobis deberi potest, ita ex pluribus causis idem\npotest nostrum esse_. The field which I have cleared, which I cultivate,\non which I have built my house, which supports myself, my family, and\nmy livestock, I can possess: 1st. As the original occupant; 2d. As a\nlaborer; 3d. By virtue of the social contract which assigns it to me as\nmy share.\n\nBut none of these titles confer upon me the right of property. For, if I\nattempt to base it upon occupancy, society can reply, \"I am the original\noccupant.\" If I appeal to my labor, it will say, \"It is only on that\ncondition that you possess.\" If I speak of agreements, it will respond,\n\"These agreements establish only your right of use.\" Such, however, are\nthe only titles which proprietors advance. They never have been able\nto discover any others. Indeed, every right--it is Pothier who says\nit--supposes a producing cause in the person who enjoys it; but in man\nwho lives and dies, in this son of earth who passes away like a\nshadow, there exists, with respect to external things, only titles of\npossession, not one title of property. Why, then, has society recognized\na right injurious to itself, where there is no producing cause? Why,\nin according possession, has it also conceded property? Why has the law\nsanctioned this abuse of power?\n\nThe German Ancillon replies thus:--\n\n\n\"Some philosophers pretend that man, in employing his forces upon a\nnatural object,--say a field or a tree,--acquires a right only to the\nimprovements which he makes, to the form which he gives to the object,\nnot to the object itself. Useless distinction! If the form could be\nseparated from the object, perhaps there would be room for question; but\nas this is almost always impossible, the application of man's strength\nto the different parts of the visible world is the foundation of the\nright of property, the primary origin of riches.\"\n\n\nVain pretext! If the form cannot be separated from the object, nor\nproperty from possession, possession must be shared; in any case,\nsociety reserves the right to fix the conditions of property. Let us\nsuppose that an appropriated farm yields a gross income of ten thousand\nfrancs; and, as very seldom happens, that this farm cannot be divided.\nLet us suppose farther that, by economical calculation, the annual\nexpenses of a family are three thousand francs: the possessor of this\nfarm should be obliged to guard his reputation as a good father of a\nfamily, by paying to society ten thousand francs,--less the total\ncosts of cultivation, and the three thousand francs required for the\nmaintenance of his family. This payment is not rent, it is an indemnity.\n\nWhat sort of justice is it, then, which makes such laws as this:--\n\n\n\"Whereas, since labor so changes the form of a thing that the form\nand substance cannot be separated without destroying the thing itself,\neither society must be disinherited, or the laborer must lose the fruit\nof his labor; and\n\n\"Whereas, in every other case, property in raw material would give a\ntitle to added improvements, minus their cost; and whereas, in this\ninstance, property in improvements ought to give a title to the\nprincipal;\n\n\"Therefore, the right of appropriation by labor shall never be admitted\nagainst individuals, but only against society.\"\n\nIn such a way do legislators always reason in regard to property.\n\nThe law is intended to protect men's mutual rights,--that is, the rights\nof each against each, and each against all; and, as if a proportion\ncould exist with less than four terms, the law-makers always disregard\nthe latter. As long as man is opposed to man, property offsets property,\nand the two forces balance each other; as soon as man is isolated, that\nis, opposed to the society which he himself represents, jurisprudence is\nat fault: Themis has lost one scale of her balance.\n\nListen to the professor of Rennes, the learned Toullier:--\n\n\n\"How could this claim, made valid by occupation, become stable and\npermanent property, which might continue to stand, and which might be\nreclaimed after the first occupant had relinquished possession?\n\n\"Agriculture was a natural consequence of the multiplication of the\nhuman race, and agriculture, in its turn, favors population, and\nnecessitates the establishment of permanent property; for who would\ntake the trouble to plough and sow, if he were not certain that he would\nreap?\"\n\n\nTo satisfy the husbandman, it was sufficient to guarantee him possession\nof his crop; admit even that he should have been protected in his right\nof occupation of land, as long as he remained its cultivator. That was\nall that he had a right to expect; that was all that the advance of\ncivilization demanded. But property, property! the right of escheat over\nlands which one neither occupies nor cultivates,--who had authority to\ngrant it? who pretended to have it?\n\n\n\"Agriculture alone was not sufficient to establish permanent property;\npositive laws were needed, and magistrates to execute them; in a word,\nthe civil State was needed.\n\n\"The multiplication of the human race had rendered agriculture\nnecessary; the need of securing to the cultivator the fruit of his labor\nmade permanent property necessary, and also laws for its protection. So\nwe are indebted to property for the creation of the civil State.\"\n\n\nYes, of our civil State, as you have made it; a State which, at first,\nwas despotism, then monarchy, then aristocracy, today democracy, and\nalways tyranny.\n\n\n\"Without the ties of property it never would have been possible to\nsubordinate men to the wholesome yoke of the law; and without permanent\nproperty the earth would have remained a vast forest. Let us admit,\nthen, with the most careful writers, that if transient property, or\nthe right of preference resulting from occupation, existed prior to\nthe establishment of civil society, permanent property, as we know it\nto-day, is the work of civil law. It is the civil law which holds that,\nwhen once acquired, property can be lost only by the action of\nthe proprietor, and that it exists even after the proprietor has\nrelinquished possession of the thing, and it has fallen into the hands\nof a third party.\n\n\"Thus property and possession, which originally were confounded, became\nthrough the civil law two distinct and independent things; two things\nwhich, in the language of the law, have nothing whatever in common. In\nthis we see what a wonderful change has been effected in property, and\nto what an extent Nature has been altered by the civil laws.\"\n\nThus the law, in establishing property, has not been the expression of a\npsychological fact, the development of a natural law, the application of\na moral principle. It has literally CREATED a right outside of its own\nprovince. It has realized an abstraction, a metaphor, a fiction; and\nthat without deigning to look at the consequences, without considering\nthe disadvantages, without inquiring whether it was right or wrong.\n\nIt has sanctioned selfishness; it has indorsed monstrous pretensions;\nit has received with favor impious vows, as if it were able to fill up a\nbottomless pit, and to satiate hell! Blind law; the law of the ignorant\nman; a law which is not a law; the voice of discord, deceit, and\nblood! This it is which, continually revived, reinstated, rejuvenated,\nrestored, re-enforced--as the palladium of society--has troubled the\nconsciences of the people, has obscured the minds of the masters, and\nhas induced all the catastrophes which have befallen nations.\n\nThis it is which Christianity has condemned, but which its ignorant\nministers deify; who have as little desire to study Nature and man, as\nability to read their Scriptures.\n\nBut, indeed, what guide did the law follow in creating the domain of\nproperty? What principle directed it? What was its standard?\n\nWould you believe it? It was equality.\n\nAgriculture was the foundation of territorial possession, and the\noriginal cause of property. It was of no use to secure to the farmer the\nfruit of his labor, unless the means of production were at the same time\nsecured to him. To fortify the weak against the invasion of the strong,\nto suppress spoliation and fraud, the necessity was felt of establishing\nbetween possessors permanent lines of division, insuperable obstacles.\nEvery year saw the people multiply, and the cupidity of the husbandman\nincrease: it was thought best to put a bridle on ambition by setting\nboundaries which ambition would in vain attempt to overstep. Thus the\nsoil came to be appropriated through need of the equality which is\nessential to public security and peaceable possession. Undoubtedly the\ndivision was never geographically equal; a multitude of rights, some\nfounded in Nature, but wrongly interpreted and still more wrongly\napplied, inheritance, gift, and exchange; others, like the privileges\nof birth and position, the illegitimate creations of ignorance and brute\nforce,--all operated to prevent absolute equality. But, nevertheless,\nthe principle remained the same: equality had sanctioned possession;\nequality sanctioned property.\n\nThe husbandman needed each year a field to sow; what more convenient and\nsimple arrangement for the barbarians,--instead of indulging in annual\nquarrels and fights, instead of continually moving their houses,\nfurniture, and families from spot to spot,--than to assign to each\nindividual a fixed and inalienable estate?\n\nIt was not right that the soldier, on returning from an expedition,\nshould find himself dispossessed on account of the services which he had\njust rendered to his country; his estate ought to be restored to him. It\nbecame, therefore, customary to retain property by intent alone--_nudo\nanimo;_ it could be sacrificed only with the consent and by the action\nof the proprietor.\n\nIt was necessary that the equality in the division should be kept up\nfrom one generation to another, without a new distribution of the land\nupon the death of each family; it appeared therefore natural and just\nthat children and parents, according to the degree of relationship\nwhich they bore to the deceased, should be the heirs of their ancestors.\nThence came, in the first place, the feudal and patriarchal custom of\nrecognizing only one heir; then, by a quite contrary application of the\nprinciple of equality, the admission of all the children to a share in\ntheir father's estate, and, very recently also among us, the definitive\nabolition of the right of primogeniture.\n\nBut what is there in common between these rude outlines of instinctive\norganization and the true social science? How could these men, who never\nhad the faintest idea of statistics, valuation, or political economy,\nfurnish us with principles of legislation?\n\n\"The law,\" says a modern writer on jurisprudence, \"is the expression of\na social want, the declaration of a fact: the legislator does not make\nit, he declares it. 'This definition is not exact. The law is a method\nby which social wants must be satisfied; the people do not vote it, the\nlegislator does not express it: the savant discovers and formulates it.\"\nBut in fact, the law, according to M. Ch. Comte, who has devoted half a\nvolume to its definition, was in the beginning only the EXPRESSION OF\nA WANT, and the indication of the means of supplying it; and up to this\ntime it has been nothing else. The legists--with mechanical fidelity,\nfull of obstinacy, enemies of philosophy, buried in literalities--have\nalways mistaken for the last word of science that which was only the\ninconsiderate aspiration of men who, to be sure, were well-meaning, but\nwanting in foresight.\n\nThey did not foresee, these old founders of the domain of property, that\nthe perpetual and absolute right to retain one's estate,--a right which\nseemed to them equitable, because it was common,--involves the right to\ntransfer, sell, give, gain, and lose it; that it tends, consequently,\nto nothing less than the destruction of that equality which they\nestablished it to maintain. And though they should have foreseen it,\nthey disregarded it; the present want occupied their whole attention,\nand, as ordinarily happens in such cases, the disadvantages were at\nfirst scarcely perceptible, and they passed unnoticed.\n\nThey did not foresee, these ingenuous legislators, that if property is\nretainable by intent alone--_nudo animo_--it carries with it the right\nto let, to lease, to loan at interest, to profit by exchange, to settle\nannuities, and to levy a tax on a field which intent reserves, while the\nbody is busy elsewhere.\n\nThey did not foresee, these fathers of our jurisprudence, that, if\nthe right of inheritance is any thing other than Nature's method of\npreserving equality of wealth, families will soon become victims of the\nmost disastrous exclusions; and society, pierced to the heart by one of\nits most sacred principles, will come to its death through opulence and\nmisery. [12]\n\nUnder whatever form of government we live, it can always be said that\n_le mort saisit le vif;_ that is, that inheritance and succession will\nlast for ever, whoever may be the recognized heir. But the St. Simonians\nwish the heir to be designated by the magistrate; others wish him to\nbe chosen by the deceased, or assumed by the law to be so chosen: the\nessential point is that Nature's wish be satisfied, so far as the law of\nequality allows.\n\nTo-day the real controller of inheritance is chance or caprice; now, in\nmatters of legislation, chance and caprice cannot be accepted as guides.\nIt is for the purpose of avoiding the manifold disturbances which\nfollow in the wake of chance that Nature, after having created us equal,\nsuggests to us the principle of heredity; which serves as a voice by\nwhich society asks us to choose, from among all our brothers, him whom\nwe judge best fitted to complete our unfinished work.\n\n\nThey did not foresee.... But why need I go farther?\n\nThe consequences are plain enough, and this is not the time to criticise\nthe whole Code.\n\nThe history of property among the ancient nations is, then, simply a\nmatter of research and curiosity. It is a rule of jurisprudence that the\nfact does not substantiate the right. Now, property is no exception to\nthis rule: then the universal recognition of the right of property\ndoes not legitimate the right of property. Man is mistaken as to the\nconstitution of society, the nature of right, and the application of\njustice; just as he was mistaken regarding the cause of meteors and the\nmovement of the heavenly bodies. His old opinions cannot be taken for\narticles of faith. Of what consequence is it to us that the Indian race\nwas divided into four classes; that, on the banks of the Nile and the\nGanges, blood and position formerly determined the distribution of the\nland; that the Greeks and Romans placed property under the protection\nof the gods; that they accompanied with religious ceremonies the work\nof partitioning the land and appraising their goods? The variety of the\nforms of privilege does not sanction injustice. The faith of Jupiter,\nthe proprietor, [13] proves no more against the equality of citizens,\nthan do the mysteries of Venus, the wanton, against conjugal chastity.\n\n\nThe authority of the human race is of no effect as evidence in favor\nof the right of property, because this right, resting of necessity upon\nequality, contradicts its principle; the decision of the religions which\nhave sanctioned it is of no effect, because in all ages the priest\nhas submitted to the prince, and the gods have always spoken as the\npoliticians desired; the social advantages, attributed to property,\ncannot be cited in its behalf, because they all spring from the\nprinciple of equality of possession.\n\nWhat means, then, this dithyramb upon property?\n\n\n\"The right of property is the most important of human institutions.\"...\n\n\nYes; as monarchy is the most glorious.\n\n\n\"The original cause of man's prosperity upon earth.\"\n\n\nBecause justice was supposed to be its principle.\n\n\n\"Property became the legitimate end of his ambition, the hope of his\nexistence, the shelter of his family; in a word, the corner-stone of the\ndomestic dwelling, of communities, and of the political State.\"\n\n\nPossession alone produced all that.\n\n\n\"Eternal principle,--\"\n\n\nProperty is eternal, like every negation,--\n\n\n\"Of all social and civil institutions.\"\n\n\nFor that reason, every institution and every law based on property will\nperish.\n\n\n\"It is a boon as precious as liberty.\"\n\n\nFor the rich proprietor.\n\n\n\"In fact, the cause of the cultivation of the habitable earth.\"\n\nIf the cultivator ceased to be a tenant, would the land be worse cared\nfor?\n\n\n\"The guarantee and the morality of labor.\"\n\n\nUnder the regime of property, labor is not a condition, but a privilege.\n\n\n\"The application of justice.\"\n\n\nWhat is justice without equality of fortunes? A balance with false\nweights.\n\n\n\"All morality,--\"\n\n\nA famished stomach knows no morality,--\n\n\n\"All public order,--\"\n\n\nCertainly, the preservation of property,--\n\n\"Rest on the right of property.\" [14]\n\n\nCorner-stone of all which is, stumbling-block of all which ought to\nbe,--such is property.\n\n\nTo sum up and conclude:--\n\nNot only does occupation lead to equality, it PREVENTS property. For,\nsince every man, from the fact of his existence, has the right of\noccupation, and, in order to live, must have material for cultivation\non which he may labor; and since, on the other hand, the number of\noccupants varies continually with the births and deaths,--it follows\nthat the quantity of material which each laborer may claim varies\nwith the number of occupants; consequently, that occupation is always\nsubordinate to population. Finally, that, inasmuch as possession, in\nright, can never remain fixed, it is impossible, in fact, that it can\never become property.\n\nEvery occupant is, then, necessarily a possessor or usufructuary,--a\nfunction which excludes proprietorship. Now, this is the right of the\nusufructuary: he is responsible for the thing entrusted to him; he\nmust use it in conformity with general utility, with a view to its\npreservation and development; he has no power to transform it, to\ndiminish it, or to change its nature; he cannot so divide the usufruct\nthat another shall perform the labor while he receives the product. In a\nword, the usufructuary is under the supervision of society, submitted to\nthe condition of labor and the law of equality.\n\nThus is annihilated the Roman definition of property--THE RIGHT OF USE\nAND ABUSE--an immorality born of violence, the most monstrous pretension\nthat the civil laws ever sanctioned. Man receives his usufruct from the\nhands of society, which alone is the permanent possessor. The individual\npasses away, society is deathless.\n\nWhat a profound disgust fills my soul while discussing such simple\ntruths! Do we doubt these things to-day? Will it be necessary to again\ntake arms for their triumph? And can force, in default of reason, alone\nintroduce them into our laws?\n\nALL HAVE AN EQUAL RIGHT OF OCCUPANCY.\n\nTHE AMOUNT OCCUPIED BEING MEASURED, NOT BY THE WILL, BUT BY THE VARIABLE\nCONDITIONS OF SPACE AND NUMBER, PROPERTY CANNOT EXIST.\n\nThis no code has ever expressed; this no constitution can admit! These\nare axioms which the civil law and the law of nations deny!.....\n\nBut I hear the exclamations of the partisans of another system: \"Labor,\nlabor! that is the basis of property!\"\n\nReader, do not be deceived. This new basis of property is worse than the\nfirst, and I shall soon have to ask your pardon for having demonstrated\nthings clearer, and refuted pretensions more unjust, than any which we\nhave yet considered.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III. LABOR AS THE EFFICIENT CAUSE OF THE DOMAIN OF PROPERTY.\n\nNearly all the modern writers on jurisprudence, taking their cue from\nthe economists, have abandoned the theory of first occupancy as a too\ndangerous one, and have adopted that which regards property as born of\nlabor. In this they are deluded; they reason in a circle. To labor it is\nnecessary to occupy, says M. Cousin.\n\nConsequently, I have added in my turn, all having an equal right of\noccupancy, to labor it is necessary to submit to equality. \"The rich,\"\nexclaims Jean Jacques, \"have the arrogance to say, 'I built this wall; I\nearned this land by my labor.' Who set you the tasks? we may reply, and\nby what right do you demand payment from us for labor which we did not\nimpose upon you?\" All sophistry falls to the ground in the presence of\nthis argument.\n\nBut the partisans of labor do not see that their system is an absolute\ncontradiction of the Code, all the articles and provisions of which\nsuppose property to be based upon the fact of first occupancy. If labor,\nthrough the appropriation which results from it, alone gives birth to\nproperty, the Civil Code lies, the charter is a falsehood, our whole\nsocial system is a violation of right. To this conclusion shall we come,\nat the end of the discussion which is to occupy our attention in this\nchapter and the following one, both as to the right of labor and the\nfact of property. We shall see, on the one hand, our legislation in\nopposition to itself; and, on the other hand, our new jurisprudence in\nopposition both to its own principle and to our legislation.\n\nI have asserted that the system which bases property upon labor implies,\nno less than that which bases it upon occupation, the equality of\nfortunes; and the reader must be impatient to learn how I propose to\ndeduce this law of equality from the inequality of skill and faculties:\ndirectly his curiosity shall be satisfied. But it is proper that I\nshould call his attention for a moment to this remarkable feature of\nthe process; to wit, the substitution of labor for occupation as the\nprinciple of property; and that I should pass rapidly in review some\nof the prejudices to which proprietors are accustomed to appeal, which\nlegislation has sanctioned, and which the system of labor completely\noverthrows.\n\nReader, were you ever present at the examination of a criminal? Have\nyou watched his tricks, his turns, his evasions, his distinctions, his\nequivocations? Beaten, all his assertions overthrown, pursued like\na fallow deer by the in exorable judge, tracked from hypothesis\nto hypothesis,--he makes a statement, he corrects it, retracts it,\ncontradicts it, he exhausts all the tricks of dialectics, more subtle,\nmore ingenious a thousand times than he who invented the seventy-two\nforms of the syllogism. So acts the proprietor when called upon\nto defend his right. At first he refuses to reply, he exclaims, he\nthreatens, he defies; then, forced to accept the discussion, he\narms himself with chicanery, he surrounds himself with formidable\nartillery,--crossing his fire, opposing one by one and all together\noccupation, possession, limitation, covenants, immemorial custom, and\nuniversal consent. Conquered on this ground, the proprietor, like a\nwounded boar, turns on his pursuers. \"I have done more than occupy,\"\nhe cries with terrible emotion; \"I have labored, produced, improved,\ntransformed, CREATED. This house, these fields, these trees are the work\nof my hands; I changed these brambles into a vineyard, and this bush\ninto a fig-tree; and to-day I reap the harvest of my labors. I have\nenriched the soil with my sweat; I have paid those men who, had they not\nhad the work which I gave them, would have died of hunger. No one\nshared with me the trouble and expense; no one shall share with me the\nbenefits.\"\n\nYou have labored, proprietor! why then do you speak of original\noccupancy? What, were you not sure of your right, or did you hope to\ndeceive men, and make justice an illusion? Make haste, then, to acquaint\nus with your mode of defence, for the judgment will be final; and you\nknow it to be a question of restitution.\n\nYou have labored! but what is there in common between the labor which\nduty compels you to perform, and the appropriation of things in which\nthere is a common interest? Do you not know that domain over the soil,\nlike that over air and light, cannot be lost by prescription?\n\nYou have labored! have you never made others labor? Why, then, have they\nlost in laboring for you what you have gained in not laboring for them?\n\nYou have labored! very well; but let us see the results of your labor.\nWe will count, weigh, and measure them. It will be the judgment of\nBalthasar; for I swear by balance, level, and square, that if you have\nappropriated another's labor in any way whatsoever, you shall restore it\nevery stroke.\n\nThus, the principle of occupation is abandoned; no longer is it said,\n\"The land belongs to him who first gets possession of it.\" Property,\nforced into its first intrenchment, repudiates its old adage; justice,\nashamed, retracts her maxims, and sorrow lowers her bandage over her\nblushing cheeks. And it was but yesterday that this progress in social\nphilosophy began: fifty centuries required for the extirpation of a\nlie! During this lamentable period, how many usurpations have been\nsanctioned, how many invasions glorified, how many conquests celebrated!\nThe absent dispossessed, the poor banished, the hungry excluded by\nwealth, which is so ready and bold in action! Jealousies and wars,\nincendiarism and bloodshed, among the nations! But henceforth, thanks\nto the age and its spirit, it is to be admitted that the earth is not a\nprize to be won in a race; in the absence of any other obstacle, there\nis a place for everybody under the sun. Each one may harness his goat\nto the bearn, drive his cattle to pasture, sow a corner of a field, and\nbake his bread by his own fireside.\n\nBut, no; each one cannot do these things. I hear it proclaimed on all\nsides, \"Glory to labor and industry! to each according to his capacity;\nto each capacity according to its results!\" And I see three-fourths of\nthe human race again despoiled, the labor of a few being a scourge to\nthe labor of the rest.\n\n\n\"The problem is solved,\" exclaims M. Hennequin. \"Property, the daughter\nof labor, can be enjoyed at present and in the future only under the\nprotection of the laws. It has its origin in natural law; it derives its\npower from civil law; and from the union of these two ideas, LABOR and\nPROTECTION, positive legislation results.\"...\n\n\nAh! THE PROBLEM IS SOLVED! PROPERTY IS THE DAUGHTER OF LABOR! What,\nthen, is the right of accession, and the right of succession, and the\nright of donation, &c., if not the right to become a proprietor by\nsimple occupancy? What are your laws concerning the age of majority,\nemancipation, guardianship, and interdiction, if not the various\nconditions by which he who is already a laborer gains or loses the right\nof occupancy; that is, property?\n\nBeing unable, at this time, to enter upon a detailed discussion of the\nCode, I shall content myself with examining the three arguments oftenest\nresorted to in support of property. 1. APPROPRIATION, or the formation\nof property by possession; 2. THE CONSENT OF MANKIND; 3. PRESCRIPTION. I\nshall then inquire into the effects of labor upon the relative condition\nof the laborers and upon property.\n\n\n\n% 1.--The Land cannot be Appropriated.\n\n\"It would seem that lands capable of cultivation ought to be regarded\nas natural wealth, since they are not of human creation, but Nature's\ngratuitous gift to man; but inasmuch as this wealth is not fugitive,\nlike the air and water,--inasmuch as a field is a fixed and limited\nspace which certain men have been able to appropriate, to the\nexclusion of all others who in their turn have consented to this\nappropriation,--the land, which was a natural and gratuitous gift,\nhas become social wealth, for the use of which we ought to pay.\"--SAY:\nPOLITICAL ECONOMY.\n\n\nWas I wrong in saying, at the beginning of this chapter, that the\neconomists are the very worst authorities in matters of legislation and\nphilosophy? It is the FATHER of this class of men who clearly states\nthe question, How can the supplies of Nature, the wealth created by\nProvidence, become private property? and who replies by so gross an\nequivocation that we scarcely know which the author lacks, sense or\nhonesty. What, I ask, has the fixed and solid nature of the earth to do\nwith the right of appropriation? I can understand that a thing LIMITED\nand STATIONARY, like the land, offers greater chances for appropriation\nthan the water or the sunshine; that it is easier to exercise the right\nof domain over the soil than over the atmosphere: but we are not dealing\nwith the difficulty of the thing, and Say confounds the right with the\npossibility. We do not ask why the earth has been appropriated to a\ngreater extent than the sea and the air; we want to know by what right\nman has appropriated wealth WHICH HE DID NOT CREATE, AND WHICH NATURE\nGAVE TO HIM GRATUITOUSLY.\n\nSay, then, did not solve the question which he asked. But if he had\nsolved it, if the explanation which he has given us were as satisfactory\nas it is illogical, we should know no better than before who has a right\nto exact payment for the use of the soil, of this wealth which is not\nman's handiwork. Who is entitled to the rent of the land? The producer\nof the land, without doubt. Who made the land? God. Then, proprietor,\nretire!\n\nBut the creator of the land does not sell it: he gives it; and, in\ngiving it, he is no respecter of persons. Why, then, are some of his\nchildren regarded as legitimate, while others are treated as bastards?\nIf the equality of shares was an original right, why is the inequality\nof conditions a posthumous right?\n\nSay gives us to understand that if the air and the water were not of a\nFUGITIVE nature, they would have been appropriated. Let me observe in\npassing that this is more than an hypothesis; it is a reality. Men have\nappropriated the air and the water, I will not say as often as they\ncould, but as often as they have been allowed to.\n\nThe Portuguese, having discovered the route to India by the Cape of\nGood Hope, pretended to have the sole right to that route; and Grotius,\nconsulted in regard to this matter by the Dutch who refused to recognize\nthis right, wrote expressly for this occasion his treatise on\nthe \"Freedom of the Seas,\" to prove that the sea is not liable to\nappropriation.\n\nThe right to hunt and fish used always to be confined to lords and\nproprietors; to-day it is leased by the government and communes to\nwhoever can pay the license-fee and the rent. To regulate hunting and\nfishing is an excellent idea, but to make it a subject of sale is to\ncreate a monopoly of air and water.\n\nWhat is a passport? A universal recommendation of the traveller's\nperson; a certificate of security for himself and his property. The\ntreasury, whose nature it is to spoil the best things, has made the\npassport a means of espionage and a tax. Is not this a sale of the right\nto travel?\n\nFinally, it is permissible neither to draw water from a spring situated\nin another's grounds without the permission of the proprietor, because\nby the right of accession the spring belongs to the possessor of the\nsoil, if there is no other claim; nor to pass a day on his premises\nwithout paying a tax; nor to look at a court, a garden, or an orchard,\nwithout the consent of the proprietor; nor to stroll in a park or an\nenclosure against the owner's will: every one is allowed to shut himself\nup and to fence himself in. All these prohibitions are so many positive\ninterdictions, not only of the land, but of the air and water. We who\nbelong to the proletaire class: property excommunicates us! _Terra, et\naqua, et aere, et igne interdicti sumus_.\n\nMen could not appropriate the most fixed of all the elements without\nappropriating the three others; since, by French and Roman law, property\nin the surface carries with it property from zenith to nadir--_Cujus\nest solum, ejus est usque ad caelum_. Now, if the use of water, air,\nand fire excludes property, so does the use of the soil. This chain of\nreasoning seems to have been presented by M. Ch. Comte, in his \"Treatise\non Property,\" chap. 5.\n\n\n\"If a man should be deprived of air for a few moments only, he would\ncease to exist, and a partial deprivation would cause him severe\nsuffering; a partial or complete deprivation of food would produce like\neffects upon him though less suddenly; it would be the same, at least\nin certain climates! were he deprived of all clothing and shelter.... To\nsustain life, then, man needs continually to appropriate many different\nthings. But these things do not exist in like proportions. Some, such as\nthe light of the stars, the atmosphere of the earth, the water composing\nthe seas and oceans, exist in such large quantities that men cannot\nperceive any sensible increase or diminution; each one can appropriate\nas much as his needs require without detracting from the enjoyment of\nothers, without causing them the least harm. Things of this sort are, so\nto speak, the common property of the human race; the only duty imposed\nupon each individual in this regard is that of infringing not at all\nupon the rights of others.\"\n\n\nLet us complete the argument of M. Ch. Comte. A man who should be\nprohibited from walking in the highways, from resting in the fields,\nfrom taking shelter in caves, from lighting fires, from picking berries,\nfrom gathering herbs and boiling them in a bit of baked clay,--such\na man could not live. Consequently the earth--like water, air, and\nlight--is a primary object of necessity which each has a right to use\nfreely, without infringing another's right. Why, then, is the earth\nappropriated? M. Ch. Comte's reply is a curious one. Say pretends that\nit is because it is not FUGITIVE; M. Ch. Comte assures us that it\nis because it is not INFINITE. The land is limited in amount. Then,\naccording to M. Ch. Comte, it ought to be appropriated. It would\nseem, on the contrary, that he ought to say, Then it ought not to be\nappropriated. Because, no matter how large a quantity of air or light\nany one appropriates, no one is damaged thereby; there always remains\nenough for all. With the soil, it is very different. Lay hold who will,\nor who can, of the sun's rays, the passing breeze, or the sea's billows;\nhe has my consent, and my pardon for his bad intentions. But let any\nliving man dare to change his right of territorial possession into the\nright of property, and I will declare war upon him, and wage it to the\ndeath!\n\nM. Ch. Comte's argument disproves his position. \"Among the things\nnecessary to the preservation of life,\" he says, \"there are some which\nexist in such large quantities that they are inexhaustible; others which\nexist in lesser quantities, and can satisfy the wants of only a certain\nnumber of persons. The former are called COMMON, the latter PRIVATE.\"\n\nThis reasoning is not strictly logical. Water, air, and light are\nCOMMON things, not because they are INEXHAUSTIBLE, but because they are\nINDISPENSABLE; and so indispensable that for that very reason Nature\nhas created them in quantities almost infinite, in order that their\nplentifulness might prevent their appropriation. Likewise the land\nis indispensable to our existence,--consequently a common thing,\nconsequently insusceptible of appropriation; but land is much scarcer\nthan the other elements, therefore its use must be regulated, not for\nthe profit of a few, but in the interest and for the security of all.\n\nIn a word, equality of rights is proved by equality of needs. Now,\nequality of rights, in the case of a commodity which is limited in\namount, can be realized only by equality of possession. An agrarian law\nunderlies M. Ch. Comte's arguments.\n\nFrom whatever point we view this question of property--provided we go\nto the bottom of it--we reach equality. I will not insist farther on\nthe distinction between things which can, and things which cannot, be\nappropriated. On this point, economists and legists talk worse than\nnonsense. The Civil Code, after having defined property, says nothing\nabout susceptibility of appropriation; and if it speaks of things which\nare in THE MARKET, it always does so without enumerating or describing\nthem. However, light is not wanting. There are some few maxims such as\nthese: _Ad reges potestas omnium pertinet, ad singulos proprietas; Omnia\nrex imperio possidet, singula dominio_. Social sovereignty opposed to\nprivate property!--might not that be called a prophecy of equality, a\nrepublican oracle? Examples crowd upon us: once the possessions of\nthe church, the estates of the crown, the fiefs of the nobility\nwere inalienable and imprescriptible. If, instead of abolishing this\nprivilege, the Constituent had extended it to every individual; if\nit had declared that the right of labor, like liberty, can never be\nforfeited,--at that moment the revolution would have been consummated,\nand we could now devote ourselves to improvement in other directions.\n\n\n\n% 2.--Universal Consent no Justification of Property.\n\nIn the extract from Say, quoted above, it is not clear whether the\nauthor means to base the right of property on the stationary character\nof the soil, or on the consent which he thinks all men have granted\nto this appropriation. His language is such that it may mean either\nof these things, or both at once; which entitles us to assume that the\nauthor intended to say, \"The right of property resulting originally from\nthe exercise of the will, the stability of the soil permitted it to be\napplied to the land, and universal consent has since sanctioned this\napplication.\"\n\nHowever that may be, can men legitimate property by mutual consent? I\nsay, no. Such a contract, though drafted by Grotius, Montesquieu, and J.\nJ. Rousseau, though signed by the whole human race, would be null in the\neyes of justice, and an act to enforce it would be illegal. Man can\nno more give up labor than liberty. Now, to recognize the right of\nterritorial property is to give up labor, since it is to relinquish\nthe means of labor; it is to traffic in a natural right, and divest\nourselves of manhood.\n\nBut I wish that this consent, of which so much is made, had been given,\neither tacitly or formally. What would have been the result? Evidently,\nthe surrenders would have been reciprocal; no right would have been\nabandoned without the receipt of an equivalent in exchange. We thus come\nback to equality again,--the sine qua non of appropriation; so that,\nafter having justified property by universal consent, that is, by\nequality, we are obliged to justify the inequality of conditions by\nproperty. Never shall we extricate ourselves from this dilemma. Indeed,\nif, in the terms of the social compact, property has equality for its\ncondition, at the moment when equality ceases to exist, the compact is\nbroken and all property becomes usurpation. We gain nothing, then, by\nthis pretended consent of mankind.\n\n\n\n% 3.--Prescription Gives No Title to Property.\n\nThe right of property was the origin of evil on the earth, the first\nlink in the long chain of crimes and misfortunes which the human race\nhas endured since its birth. The delusion of prescription is the fatal\ncharm thrown over the intellect, the death sentence breathed into the\nconscience, to arrest man's progress towards truth, and bolster up the\nworship of error.\n\nThe Code defines prescription thus: \"The process of gaining and losing\nthrough the lapse of time.\" In applying this definition to ideas and\nbeliefs, we may use the word PRESCRIPTION to denote the everlasting\nprejudice in favor of old superstitions, whatever be their object; the\nopposition, often furious and bloody, with which new light has always\nbeen received, and which makes the sage a martyr. Not a principle, not a\ndiscovery, not a generous thought but has met, at its entrance into the\nworld, with a formidable barrier of preconceived opinions, seeming\nlike a conspiracy of all old prejudices. Prescriptions against reason,\nprescriptions against facts, prescriptions against every truth hitherto\nunknown,--that is the sum and substance of the _statu quo_ philosophy,\nthe watchword of conservatives throughout the centuries.\n\nWhen the evangelical reform was broached to the world, there was\nprescription in favor of violence, debauchery, and selfishness; when\nGalileo, Descartes, Pascal, and their disciples reconstructed philosophy\nand the sciences, there was prescription in favor of the Aristotelian\nphilosophy; when our fathers of '89 demanded liberty and equality, there\nwas prescription in favor of tyranny and privilege. \"There always have\nbeen proprietors and there always will be:\" it is with this profound\nutterance, the final effort of selfishness dying in its last ditch,\nthat the friends of social inequality hope to repel the attacks of their\nadversaries; thinking undoubtedly that ideas, like property, can be lost\nby prescription.\n\nEnlightened to-day by the triumphal march of science, taught by the most\nglorious successes to question our own opinions, we receive with favor\nand applause the observer of Nature, who, by a thousand experiments\nbased upon the most profound analysis, pursues a new principle, a law\nhitherto undiscovered. We take care to repel no idea, no fact, under the\npretext that abler men than ourselves lived in former days, who did not\nnotice the same phenomena, nor grasp the same analogies. Why do we not\npreserve a like attitude towards political and philosophical questions?\nWhy this ridiculous mania for affirming that every thing has been said,\nwhich means that we know all about mental and moral science? Why is\nthe proverb, THERE IS NOTHING NEW UNDER THE SUN, applied exclusively to\nmetaphysical investigations?\n\nBecause we still study philosophy with the imagination, instead of by\nobservation and method; because fancy and will are universally regarded\nas judges, in the place of arguments and facts,--it has been impossible\nto this day to distinguish the charlatan from the philosopher, the\nsavant from the impostor. Since the days of Solomon and Pythagoras,\nimagination has been exhausted in guessing out social and psychological\nlaws; all systems have been proposed. Looked at in this light, it is\nprobably true that EVERY THING HAS BEEN SAID; but it is no less true\nthat EVERY THING REMAINS TO BE PROVED. In politics (to take only this\nbranch of philosophy), in politics every one is governed in his choice\nof party by his passion and his interests; the mind is submitted to the\nimpositions of the will,--there is no knowledge, there is not even a\nshadow of certainty. In this way, general ignorance produces general\ntyranny; and while liberty of thought is written in the charter, slavery\nof thought, under the name of MAJORITY RULE, is decreed by the charter.\n\nIn order to confine myself to the civil prescription of which the Code\nspeaks, I shall refrain from beginning a discussion upon this worn-out\nobjection brought forward by proprietors; it would be too tiresome\nand declamatory. Everybody knows that there are rights which cannot be\nprescribed; and, as for those things which can be gained through the\nlapse of time, no one is ignorant of the fact that prescription requires\ncertain conditions, the omission of one of which renders it null. If it\nis true, for example, that the proprietor's possession has been CIVIL,\nPUBLIC, PEACEABLE, and UNINTERRUPTED, it is none the less true that\nit is not based on a just title; since the only titles which it can\nshow--occupation and labor--prove as much for the proletaire who\ndemands, as for the proprietor who defends. Further, this possession is\nDISHONEST, since it is founded on a violation of right, which prevents\nprescription, according to the saying of St. Paul--_Nunquam in\nusucapionibus juris error possessori prodest_. The violation of right\nlies either in the fact that the holder possesses as proprietor, while\nhe should possess only as usufructuary; or in the fact that he has\npurchased a thing which no one had a right to transfer or sell.\n\nAnother reason why prescription cannot be adduced in favor of property\n(a reason borrowed from jurisprudence) is that the right to possess\nreal estate is a part of a universal right which has never been totally\ndestroyed even at the most critical periods; and the proletaire, in\norder to regain the power to exercise it fully, has only to prove that\nhe has always exercised it in part.\n\nHe, for example, who has the universal right to possess, give, exchange,\nloan, let, sell, transform, or destroy a thing, preserves the integrity\nof this right by the sole act of loaning, though he has never shown his\nauthority in any other manner. Likewise we shall see that EQUALITY OF\nPOSSESSIONS, EQUALITY OF RIGHTS, LIBERTY, WILL, PERSONALITY, are so\nmany identical expressions of one and the same idea,--the RIGHT OF\nPRESERVATION and DEVELOPMENT; in a word, the right of life, against\nwhich there can be no prescription until the human race has vanished\nfrom the face of the earth.\n\nFinally, as to the time required for prescription, it would be\nsuperfluous to show that the right of property in general cannot be\nacquired by simple possession for ten, twenty, a hundred, a thousand,\nor one hundred thousand years; and that, so long as there exists a human\nhead capable of understanding and combating the right of property, this\nright will never be prescribed. For principles of jurisprudence and\naxioms of reason are different from accidental and contingent facts.\nOne man's possession can prescribe against another man's possession; but\njust as the possessor cannot prescribe against himself, so reason has\nalways the faculty of change and reformation. Past error is not binding\non the future. Reason is always the same eternal force. The institution\nof property, the work of ignorant reason, may be abrogated by a more\nenlightened reason. Consequently, property cannot be established by\nprescription. This is so certain and so true, that on it rests the\nmaxim that in the matter of prescription a violation of right goes for\nnothing.\n\nBut I should be recreant to my method, and the reader would have the\nright to accuse me of charlatanism and bad faith, if I had nothing\nfurther to advance concerning prescription. I showed, in the first\nplace, that appropriation of land is illegal; and that, supposing it to\nbe legal, it must be accompanied by equality of property. I have shown,\nin the second place, that universal consent proves nothing in favor\nof property; and that, if it proves any thing, it proves equality of\nproperty. I have yet to show that prescription, if admissible at all,\npresupposes equality of property.\n\nThis demonstration will be neither long nor difficult. I need only to\ncall attention to the reasons why prescription was introduced.\n\n\n\"Prescription,\" says Dunod, \"seems repugnant to natural equity, which\npermits no one either to deprive another of his possessions without his\nknowledge and consent, or to enrich himself at another's expense. But as\nit might often happen, in the absence of prescription, that one who had\nhonestly earned would be ousted after long possession; and even that\nhe who had received a thing from its rightful owner, or who had been\nlegitimately relieved from all obligations, would, on losing his title,\nbe liable to be dispossessed or subjected again,--the public welfare\ndemanded that a term should be fixed, after the expiration of which no\none should be allowed to disturb actual possessors, or reassert rights\ntoo long neglected.... The civil law, in regulating prescription, has\naimed, then, only to perfect natural law, and to supplement the law of\nnations; and as it is founded on the public good, which should always be\nconsidered before individual welfare,--_bono publico usucapio introducta\nest_,--it should be regarded with favor, provided the conditions\nrequired by the law are fulfilled.\"\n\nToullier, in his \"Civil Law,\" says: \"In order that the question of\nproprietorship may not remain too long unsettled, and thereby injure the\npublic welfare, disturbing the peace of families and the stability of\nsocial transactions, the law has fixed a time when all claims shall be\ncancelled, and possession shall regain its ancient prerogative through\nits transformation into property.\"\n\n\nCassiodorus said of property, that it was the only safe harbor in\nwhich to seek shelter from the tempests of chicanery and the gales of\navarice--_Hic unus inter humanas pro cellas portus, quem si homines\nfervida voluntate praeterierint; in undosis semper jurgiis errabunt_.\n\nThus, in the opinion of the authors, prescription is a means of\npreserving public order; a restoration in certain cases of the original\nmode of acquiring property; a fiction of the civil law which derives\nall its force from the necessity of settling differences which otherwise\nwould never end. For, as Grotius says, time has no power to produce\neffects; all things happen in time, but nothing is done by time.\nPrescription, or the right of acquisition through the lapse of time, is,\ntherefore, a fiction of the law, conventionally adopted.\n\nBut all property necessarily originated in prescription, or, as the\nLatins say, in _usucapion;_ that is, in continued possession.\n\nI ask, then, in the first place, how possession can become property by\nthe lapse of time? Continue possession as long as you wish, continue\nit for years and for centuries, you never can give duration--which of\nitself creates nothing, changes nothing, modifies nothing--the power\nto change the usufructuary into a proprietor. Let the civil law secure\nagainst chance-comers the honest possessor who has held his position\nfor many years,--that only confirms a right already respected; and\nprescription, applied in this way, simply means that possession which\nhas continued for twenty, thirty, or a hundred years shall be retained\nby the occupant. But when the law declares that the lapse of time\nchanges possessor into proprietor, it supposes that a right can be\ncreated without a producing cause; it unwarrantably alters the character\nof the subject; it legislates on a matter not open to legislation; it\nexceeds its own powers. Public order and private security ask only\nthat possession shall be protected. Why has the law created property?\nPrescription was simply security for the future; why has the law made it\na matter of privilege?\n\nThus the origin of prescription is identical with that of property\nitself; and since the latter can legitimate itself only when accompanied\nby equality, prescription is but another of the thousand forms which the\nnecessity of maintaining this precious equality has taken. And this is\nno vain induction, no far-fetched inference. The proof is written in all\nthe codes.\n\nAnd, indeed, if all nations, through their instinct of justice and their\nconservative nature, have recognized the utility and the necessity\nof prescription; and if their design has been to guard thereby the\ninterests of the possessor,--could they not do something for the absent\ncitizen, separated from his family and his country by commerce, war, or\ncaptivity, and in no position to exercise his right of possession? No.\nAlso, at the same time that prescription was introduced into the laws,\nit was admitted that property is preserved by intent alone,--_nudo\nanimo_. Now, if property is preserved by intent alone, if it can be\nlost only by the action of the proprietor, what can be the use of\nprescription? How does the law dare to presume that the proprietor, who\npreserves by intent alone, intended to abandon that which he has allowed\nto be prescribed? What lapse of time can warrant such a conjecture;\nand by what right does the law punish the absence of the proprietor by\ndepriving him of his goods? What then! we found but a moment since that\nprescription and property were identical; and now we find that they are\nmutually destructive!\n\nGrotius, who perceived this difficulty, replied so singularly that his\nwords deserve to be quoted: _Bene sperandum de hominibus, ac propterea\nnon putandum eos hoc esse animo ut, rei caducae causa, hominem alterum\nvelint in perpetuo peccato versari, quo d evitari saepe non poterit sine\ntali derelictione_.\n\n\"Where is the man,\" he says, \"with so unchristian a soul that, for a\ntrifle, he would perpetuate the trespass of a possessor, which would\ninevitably be the result if he did not consent to abandon his right?\" By\nthe Eternal! I am that man. Though a million proprietors should burn for\nit in hell, I lay the blame on them for depriving me of my portion of\nthis world's goods. To this powerful consideration Grotius rejoins, that\nit is better to abandon a disputed right than to go to law, disturb the\npeace of nations, and stir up the flames of civil war. I accept, if you\nwish it, this argument, provided you indemnify me. But if this indemnity\nis refused me, what do I, a proletaire, care for the tranquillity and\nsecurity of the rich? I care as little for PUBLIC ORDER as for the\nproprietor's safety. I ask to live a laborer; otherwise I will die a\nwarrior.\n\nWhichever way we turn, we shall come to the conclusion that prescription\nis a contradiction of property; or rather that prescription and property\nare two forms of the same principle, but two forms which serve to\ncorrect each other; and ancient and modern jurisprudence did not make\nthe least of its blunders in pretending to reconcile them. Indeed, if\nwe see in the institution of property only a desire to secure to\neach individual his share of the soil and his right to labor; in the\ndistinction between naked property and possession only an asylum for\nabsentees, orphans, and all who do not know, or cannot maintain, their\nrights; in prescription only a means, either of defence against unjust\npretensions and encroachments, or of settlement of the differences\ncaused by the removal of possessors,--we shall recognize in these\nvarious forms of human justice the spontaneous efforts of the mind to\ncome to the aid of the social instinct; we shall see in this protection\nof all rights the sentiment of equality, a constant levelling tendency.\nAnd, looking deeper, we shall find in the very exaggeration of these\nprinciples the confirmation of our doctrine; because, if equality of\nconditions and universal association are not soon realized, it will be\nowing to the obstacle thrown for the time in the way of the common sense\nof the people by the stupidity of legislators and judges; and also to\nthe fact that, while society in its original state was illuminated with\na flash of truth, the early speculations of its leaders could bring\nforth nothing but darkness.\n\nAfter the first covenants, after the first draughts of laws and\nconstitutions, which were the expression of man's primary needs, the\nlegislator's duty was to reform the errors of legislation; to complete\nthat which was defective; to harmonize, by superior definitions, those\nthings which seemed to conflict. Instead of that, they halted at the\nliteral meaning of the laws, content to play the subordinate part of\ncommentators and scholiasts. Taking the inspirations of the human mind,\nat that time necessarily weak and faulty, for axioms of eternal and\nunquestionable truth,--influenced by public opinion, enslaved by the\npopular religion,--they have invariably started with the principle\n(following in this respect the example of the theologians) that that is\ninfallibly true which has been admitted by all persons, in all places,\nand at all times--_quod ab omnibus, quod ubique, quod semper;_ as if a\ngeneral but spontaneous opinion was any thing more than an indication of\nthe truth. Let us not be deceived: the opinion of all nations may serve\nto authenticate the perception of a fact, the vague sentiment of a law;\nit can teach us nothing about either fact or law. The consent of mankind\nis an indication of Nature; not, as Cicero says, a law of Nature. Under\nthe indication is hidden the truth, which faith can believe, but only\nthought can know. Such has been the constant progress of the human mind\nin regard to physical phenomena and the creations of genius: how can\nit be otherwise with the facts of conscience and the rules of human\nconduct?\n\n\n\n% 4.--Labor--That Labor Has No Inherent Power to Appropriate Natural\nWealth.\n\n\nWe shall show by the maxims of political economy and law, that is, by\nthe authorities recognized by property,--\n\n1. That labor has no inherent power to appropriate natural wealth.\n\n2. That, if we admit that labor has this power, we are led directly to\nequality of property,--whatever the kind of labor, however scarce the\nproduct, or unequal the ability of the laborers.\n\n3. That, in the order of justice, labor DESTROYS property.\n\nFollowing the example of our opponents, and that we may leave no\nobstacles in the path, let us examine the question in the strongest\npossible light.\n\nM. Ch. Comte says, in his \"Treatise on Property:\"--\n\n\n\"France, considered as a nation, has a territory which is her own.\"\n\n\nFrance, as an individuality, possesses a territory which she cultivates;\nit is not her property. Nations are related to each other as individuals\nare: they are commoners and workers; it is an abuse of language to call\nthem proprietors. The right of use and abuse belongs no more to nations\nthan to men; and the time will come when a war waged for the purpose of\nchecking a nation in its abuse of the soil will be regarded as a holy\nwar.\n\nThus, M. Ch. Comte--who undertakes to explain how property comes into\nexistence, and who starts with the supposition that a nation is a\nproprietor--falls into that error known as BEGGING THE QUESTION; a\nmistake which vitiates his whole argument.\n\nIf the reader thinks it is pushing logic too far to question a nation's\nright of property in the territory which it possesses, I will simply\nremind him of the fact that at all ages the results of the fictitious\nright of national property have been pretensions to suzerainty,\ntributes, monarchical privileges, statute-labor, quotas of men and\nmoney, supplies of merchandise, &c.; ending finally in refusals to pay\ntaxes, insurrections, wars, and depopulations.\n\n\n\"Scattered through this territory are extended tracts of land, which\nhave not been converted into individual property. These lands, which\nconsist mainly of forests, belong to the whole population, and the\ngovernment, which receives the revenues, uses or ought to use them in\nthe interest of all.\"\n\nOUGHT TO USE is well said: a lie is avoided thereby.\n\n\"Let them be offered for sale....\"\n\n\nWhy offered for sale? Who has a right to sell them? Even were the nation\nproprietor, can the generation of to-day dispossess the generation of\nto-morrow? The nation, in its function of usufructuary, possesses\nthem; the government rules, superintends, and protects them. If it also\ngranted lands, it could grant only their use; it has no right to sell\nthem or transfer them in any way whatever. Not being a proprietor, how\ncan it transmit property?\n\n\n\"Suppose some industrious man buys a portion, a large swamp for example.\nThis would be no usurpation, since the public would receive the exact\nvalue through the hands of the government, and would be as rich after\nthe sale as before.\"\n\n\nHow ridiculous! What! because a prodigal, imprudent, incompetent\nofficial sells the State's possessions, while I, a ward of the State,--I\nwho have neither an advisory nor a deliberative voice in the State\ncouncils,--while I am allowed to make no opposition to the sale,\nthis sale is right and legal! The guardians of the nation waste its\nsubstance, and it has no redress! I have received, you tell me, through\nthe hands of the government my share of the proceeds of the sale: but,\nin the first place, I did not wish to sell; and, had I wished to, I\ncould not have sold. I had not the right. And then I do not see that I\nam benefited by the sale. My guardians have dressed up some soldiers,\nrepaired an old fortress, erected in their pride some costly but\nworthless monument,--then they have exploded some fireworks and set up a\ngreased pole! What does all that amount to in comparison with my loss?\n\nThe purchaser draws boundaries, fences himself in, and says, \"This is\nmine; each one by himself, each one for himself.\" Here, then, is a piece\nof land upon which, henceforth, no one has a right to step, save\nthe proprietor and his friends; which can benefit nobody, save the\nproprietor and his servants. Let these sales multiply, and soon the\npeople--who have been neither able nor willing to sell, and who have\nreceived none of the proceeds of the sale--will have nowhere to rest,\nno place of shelter, no ground to till. They will die of hunger at\nthe proprietor's door, on the edge of that property which was their\nbirthright; and the proprietor, watching them die, will exclaim, \"So\nperish idlers and vagrants!\"\n\nTo reconcile us to the proprietor's usurpation, M. Ch. Comte assumes the\nlands to be of little value at the time of sale.\n\n\n\"The importance of these usurpations should not be exaggerated: they\nshould be measured by the number of men which the occupied land would\nsupport, and by the means which it would furnish them.\n\n\"It is evident, for instance, that if a piece of land which is worth\nto-day one thousand francs was worth only five centimes when it was\nusurped, we really lose only the value of five centimes. A square league\nof earth would be hardly sufficient to support a savage in distress;\nto-day it supplies one thousand persons with the means of existence.\nNine hundred and ninety-nine parts of this land is the legitimate\nproperty of the possessors; only one-thousandth of the value has been\nusurped.\"\n\n\nA peasant admitted one day, at confession, that he had destroyed a\ndocument which declared him a debtor to the amount of three hundred\nfrancs. Said the father confessor, \"You must return these three hundred\nfrancs.\" \"No,\" replied the peasant, \"I will return a penny to pay for\nthe paper.\"\n\nM. Ch. Comte's logic resembles this peasant's honesty. The soil has not\nonly an integrant and actual value, it has also a potential value,--a\nvalue of the future,--which depends on our ability to make it valuable,\nand to employ it in our work. Destroy a bill of exchange, a promissory\nnote, an annuity deed,--as a paper you destroy almost no value at all;\nbut with this paper you destroy your title, and, in losing your title,\nyou deprive yourself of your goods. Destroy the land, or, what is the\nsame thing, sell it,--you not only transfer one, two, or several crops,\nbut you annihilate all the products that you could derive from it; you\nand your children and your children's children.\n\nWhen M. Ch. Comte, the apostle of property and the eulogist of labor,\nsupposes an alienation of the soil on the part of the government, we\nmust not think that he does so without reason and for no purpose; it\nis a necessary part of his position. As he rejected the theory of\noccupancy, and as he knew, moreover, that labor could not constitute the\nright in the absence of a previous permission to occupy, he was obliged\nto connect this permission with the authority of the government, which\nmeans that property is based upon the sovereignty of the people;\nin other words, upon universal consent. This theory we have already\nconsidered.\n\nTo say that property is the daughter of labor, and then to give labor\nmaterial on which to exercise itself, is, if I am not mistaken, to\nreason in a circle. Contradictions will result from it.\n\n\n\"A piece of land of a certain size produces food enough to supply a man\nfor one day. If the possessor, through his labor, discovers some method\nof making it produce enough for two days, he doubles its value. This\nnew value is his work, his creation: it is taken from nobody; it is his\nproperty.\"\n\n\nI maintain that the possessor is paid for his trouble and industry in\nhis doubled crop, but that he acquires no right to the land. \"Let\nthe laborer have the fruits of his labor.\" Very good; but I do not\nunderstand that property in products carries with it property in raw\nmaterial. Does the skill of the fisherman, who on the same coast\ncan catch more fish than his fellows, make him proprietor of the\nfishing-grounds? Can the expertness of a hunter ever be regarded as\na property-title to a game-forest? The analogy is perfect,--the\nindustrious cultivator finds the reward of his industry in the abundancy\nand superiority of his crop. If he has made improvements in the soil, he\nhas the possessor's right of preference. Never, under any circumstances,\ncan he be allowed to claim a property-title to the soil which he\ncultivates, on the ground of his skill as a cultivator.\n\nTo change possession into property, something is needed besides labor,\nwithout which a man would cease to be proprietor as soon as he ceased\nto be a laborer. Now, the law bases property upon immemorial,\nunquestionable possession; that is, prescription. Labor is only the\nsensible sign, the physical act, by which occupation is manifested. If,\nthen, the cultivator remains proprietor after he has ceased to labor\nand produce; if his possession, first conceded, then tolerated, finally\nbecomes inalienable,--it happens by permission of the civil law, and by\nvirtue of the principle of occupancy. So true is this, that there is not\na bill of sale, not a farm lease, not an annuity, but implies it. I will\nquote only one example.\n\nHow do we measure the value of land? By its product. If a piece of land\nyields one thousand francs, we say that at five per cent. it is worth\ntwenty thousand francs; at four per cent. twenty-five thousand francs,\n&c.; which means, in other words, that in twenty or twenty-five years'\ntime the purchaser would recover in full the amount originally paid for\nthe land. If, then, after a certain length of time, the price of a piece\nof land has been wholly recovered, why does the purchaser continue to be\nproprietor? Because of the right of occupancy, in the absence of which\nevery sale would be a redemption.\n\nThe theory of appropriation by labor is, then, a contradiction of the\nCode; and when the partisans of this theory pretend to explain the laws\nthereby, they contradict themselves.\n\n\n\"If men succeed in fertilizing land hitherto unproductive, or even\ndeath-producing, like certain swamps, they create thereby property in\nall its completeness.\"\n\n\nWhat good does it do to magnify an expression, and play with\nequivocations, as if we expected to change the reality thereby? THEY\nCREATE PROPERTY IN ALL ITS COMPLETENESS. You mean that they create a\nproductive capacity which formerly did not exist; but this capacity\ncannot be created without material to support it. The substance of the\nsoil remains the same; only its qualities and modifications are changed.\nMan has created every thing--every thing save the material itself. Now,\nI maintain that this material he can only possess and use, on condition\nof permanent labor,--granting, for the time being, his right of property\nin things which he has produced.\n\nThis, then, is the first point settled: property in product, if we grant\nso much, does not carry with it property in the means of production;\nthat seems to me to need no further demonstration. There is no\ndifference between the soldier who possesses his arms, the mason\nwho possesses the materials committed to his care, the fisherman who\npossesses the water, the hunter who possesses the fields and forests,\nand the cultivator who possesses the lands: all, if you say so, are\nproprietors of their products--not one is proprietor of the means of\nproduction. The right to product is exclusive--jus in re; the right to\nmeans is common--jus ad rem.\n\n\n\n% 5.--That Labor leads to Equality of Property.\n\nAdmit, however, that labor gives a right of property in material.\n\nWhy is not this principle universal? Why is the benefit of this\npretended law confined to a few and denied to the mass of laborers?\nA philosopher, arguing that all animals sprang up formerly out of the\nearth warmed by the rays of the sun, almost like mushrooms, on being\nasked why the earth no longer yielded crops of that nature, replied:\n\"Because it is old, and has lost its fertility.\" Has labor, once so\nfecund, likewise become sterile? Why does the tenant no longer acquire\nthrough his labor the land which was formerly acquired by the labor of\nthe proprietor?\n\n\"Because,\" they say, \"it is already appropriated.\" That is no answer. A\nfarm yields fifty bushels per hectare; the skill and labor of the tenant\ndouble this product: the increase is created by the tenant. Suppose the\nowner, in a spirit of moderation rarely met with, does not go to the\nextent of absorbing this product by raising the rent, but allows the\ncultivator to enjoy the results of his labor; even then justice is not\nsatisfied. The tenant, by improving the land, has imparted a new value\nto the property; he, therefore, has a right to a part of the property.\nIf the farm was originally worth one hundred thousand francs, and if\nby the labor of the tenant its value has risen to one hundred and fifty\nthousand francs, the tenant, who produced this extra value, is the\nlegitimate proprietor of one-third of the farm. M. Ch. Comte could not\nhave pronounced this doctrine false, for it was he who said:--\n\n\n\"Men who increase the fertility of the earth are no less useful to their\nfellow-men, than if they should create new land.\"\n\n\nWhy, then, is not this rule applicable to the man who improves the land,\nas well as to him who clears it? The labor of the former makes the land\nworth one; that of the latter makes it worth two: both create equal\nvalues. Why not accord to both equal property? I defy any one to\nrefute this argument, without again falling back on the right of first\noccupancy.\n\n\"But,\" it will be said, \"even if your wish should be granted, property\nwould not be distributed much more evenly than now. Land does not go on\nincreasing in value for ever; after two or three seasons it attains its\nmaximum fertility. That which is added by the agricultural art results\nrather from the progress of science and the diffusion of knowledge, than\nfrom the skill of the cultivator. Consequently, the addition of a\nfew laborers to the mass of proprietors would be no argument against\nproperty.\"\n\nThis discussion would, indeed, prove a well-nigh useless one, if our\nlabors culminated in simply extending land-privilege and industrial\nmonopoly; in emancipating only a few hundred laborers out of the\nmillions of proletaires. But this also is a misconception of our real\nthought, and does but prove the general lack of intelligence and logic.\n\nIf the laborer, who adds to the value of a thing, has a right of\nproperty in it, he who maintains this value acquires the same right.\nFor what is maintenance? It is incessant addition,--continuous creation.\nWhat is it to cultivate? It is to give the soil its value every year;\nit is, by annually renewed creation, to prevent the diminution or\ndestruction of the value of a piece of land. Admitting, then, that\nproperty is rational and legitimate,--admitting that rent is equitable\nand just,--I say that he who cultivates acquires property by as good a\ntitle as he who clears, or he who improves; and that every time a tenant\npays his rent, he obtains a fraction of property in the land entrusted\nto his care, the denominator of which is equal to the proportion of rent\npaid. Unless you admit this, you fall into absolutism and tyranny; you\nrecognize class privileges; you sanction slavery.\n\nWhoever labors becomes a proprietor--this is an inevitable deduction\nfrom the acknowledged principles of political economy and jurisprudence.\nAnd when I say proprietor, I do not mean simply (as do our hypocritical\neconomists) proprietor of his allowance, his salary, his wages,--I mean\nproprietor of the value which he creates, and by which the master alone\nprofits.\n\nAs all this relates to the theory of wages and of the distribution of\nproducts,--and as this matter never has been even partially cleared\nup,--I ask permission to insist on it: this discussion will not\nbe useless to the work in hand. Many persons talk of admitting\nworking-people to a share in the products and profits; but in\ntheir minds this participation is pure benevolence: they have never\nshown--perhaps never suspected--that it was a natural, necessary right,\ninherent in labor, and inseparable from the function of producer, even\nin the lowest forms of his work.\n\nThis is my proposition: THE LABORER RETAINS, EVEN AFTER HE HAS RECEIVED\nHIS WAGES, A NATURAL RIGHT OF PROPERTY IN THE THING WHICH HE HAS\nPRODUCED.\n\nI again quote M. Ch. Comte:--\n\n\"Some laborers are employed in draining marshes, in cutting down trees\nand brushwood,--in a word, in cleaning up the soil. They increase the\nvalue, they make the amount of property larger; they are paid for\nthe value which they add in the form of food and daily wages: it then\nbecomes the property of the capitalist.\"\n\n\nThe price is not sufficient: the labor of the workers has created a\nvalue; now this value is their property. But they have neither sold\nnor exchanged it; and you, capitalist, you have not earned it. That you\nshould have a partial right to the whole, in return for the materials\nthat you have furnished and the provisions that you have supplied, is\nperfectly just. You contributed to the production, you ought to share in\nthe enjoyment. But your right does not annihilate that of the laborers,\nwho, in spite of you, have been your colleagues in the work of\nproduction. Why do you talk of wages? The money with which you pay\nthe wages of the laborers remunerates them for only a few years of the\nperpetual possession which they have abandoned to you. Wages is the cost\nof the daily maintenance and refreshment of the laborer. You are wrong\nin calling it the price of a sale. The workingman has sold nothing; he\nknows neither his right, nor the extent of the concession which he has\nmade to you, nor the meaning of the contract which you pretend to\nhave made with him. On his side, utter ignorance; on yours, error and\nsurprise, not to say deceit and fraud.\n\nLet us make this clearer by another and more striking example.\n\nNo one is ignorant of the difficulties that are met with in the\nconversion of untilled land into arable and productive land. These\ndifficulties are so great, that usually an isolated man would perish\nbefore he could put the soil in a condition to yield him even the most\nmeagre living. To that end are needed the united and combined efforts of\nsociety, and all the resources of industry. M. Ch. Comte quotes on this\nsubject numerous and well-authenticated facts, little thinking that he\nis amassing testimony against his own system.\n\nLet us suppose that a colony of twenty or thirty families establishes\nitself in a wild district, covered with underbrush and forests; and from\nwhich, by agreement, the natives consent to withdraw. Each one of these\nfamilies possesses a moderate but sufficient amount of capital, of such\na nature as a colonist would be apt to choose,--animals, seeds, tools,\nand a little money and food. The land having been divided, each one\nsettles himself as comfortably as possible, and begins to clear away the\nportion allotted to him. But after a few weeks of fatigue, such as they\nnever before have known, of inconceivable suffering, of ruinous and\nalmost useless labor, our colonists begin to complain of their trade;\ntheir condition seems hard to them; they curse their sad existence.\n\nSuddenly, one of the shrewdest among them kills a pig, cures a part of\nthe meat; and, resolved to sacrifice the rest of his provisions, goes to\nfind his companions in misery. \"Friends,\" he begins in a very benevolent\ntone, \"how much trouble it costs you to do a little work and live\nuncomfortably! A fortnight of labor has reduced you to your last\nextremity!... Let us make an arrangement by which you shall all profit.\nI offer you provisions and wine: you shall get so much every day;\nwe will work together, and, zounds! my friends, we will be happy and\ncontented!\"\n\nWould it be possible for empty stomachs to resist such an invitation?\nThe hungriest of them follow the treacherous tempter. They go to work;\nthe charm of society, emulation, joy, and mutual assistance double their\nstrength; the work can be seen to advance. Singing and laughing, they\nsubdue Nature. In a short time, the soil is thoroughly changed; the\nmellowed earth waits only for the seed. That done, the proprietor pays\nhis laborers, who, on going away, return him their thanks, and grieve\nthat the happy days which they have spent with him are over.\n\nOthers follow this example, always with the same success. Then, these\ninstalled, the rest disperse,--each one returns to his grubbing. But,\nwhile grubbing, it is necessary to live. While they have been clearing\naway for their neighbor, they have done no clearing for themselves. One\nyear's seed-time and harvest is already gone. They had calculated that\nin lending their labor they could not but gain, since they would save\ntheir own provisions; and, while living better, would get still more\nmoney. False calculation! they have created for another the means\nwherewith to produce, and have created nothing for themselves. The\ndifficulties of clearing remain the same; their clothing wears out,\ntheir provisions give out; soon their purse becomes empty for the profit\nof the individual for whom they have worked, and who alone can furnish\nthe provisions which they need, since he alone is in a position to\nproduce them. Then, when the poor grubber has exhausted his resources,\nthe man with the provisions (like the wolf in the fable, who scents his\nvictim from afar) again comes forward. One he offers to employ again by\nthe day; from another he offers to buy at a favorable price a piece of\nhis bad land, which is not, and never can be, of any use to him: that\nis, he uses the labor of one man to cultivate the field of another\nfor his own benefit. So that at the end of twenty years, of thirty\nindividuals originally equal in point of wealth, five or six have\nbecome proprietors of the whole district, while the rest have been\nphilanthropically dispossessed!\n\nIn this century of bourgeoisie morality, in which I have had the honor\nto be born, the moral sense is so debased that I should not be at all\nsurprised if I were asked, by many a worthy proprietor, what I see\nin this that is unjust and illegitimate? Debased creature! galvanized\ncorpse! how can I expect to convince you, if you cannot tell robbery\nwhen I show it to you? A man, by soft and insinuating words, discovers\nthe secret of taxing others that he may establish himself; then, once\nenriched by their united efforts, he refuses, on the very conditions\nwhich he himself dictated, to advance the well-being of those who made\nhis fortune for him: and you ask how such conduct is fraudulent! Under\nthe pretext that he has paid his laborers, that he owes them nothing\nmore, that he has nothing to gain by putting himself at the service of\nothers, while his own occupations claim his attention,--he refuses, I\nsay, to aid others in getting a foothold, as he was aided in getting his\nown; and when, in the impotence of their isolation, these poor laborers\nare compelled to sell their birthright, he--this ungrateful proprietor,\nthis knavish upstart--stands ready to put the finishing touch to their\ndeprivation and their ruin. And you think that just? Take care!\n\nI read in your startled countenance the reproach of a guilty conscience,\nmuch more clearly than the innocent astonishment of involuntary\nignorance.\n\n\"The capitalist,\" they say, \"has paid the laborers their DAILY WAGES.\"\nTo be accurate, it must be said that the capitalist has paid as many\ntimes one day's wage as he has employed laborers each day,--which is not\nat all the same thing. For he has paid nothing for that immense\npower which results from the union and harmony of laborers, and\nthe convergence and simultaneousness of their efforts. Two hundred\ngrenadiers stood the obelisk of Luxor upon its base in a few hours; do\nyou suppose that one man could have accomplished the same task in two\nhundred days? Nevertheless, on the books of the capitalist, the amount\nof wages paid would have been the same. Well, a desert to prepare for\ncultivation, a house to build, a factory to run,--all these are\nobelisks to erect, mountains to move. The smallest fortune, the most\ninsignificant establishment, the setting in motion of the lowest\nindustry, demand the concurrence of so many different kinds of labor and\nskill, that one man could not possibly execute the whole of them. It\nis astonishing that the economists never have called attention to this\nfact. Strike a balance, then, between the capitalist's receipts and his\npayments.\n\nThe laborer needs a salary which will enable him to live while he works;\nfor unless he consumes, he cannot produce. Whoever employs a man owes\nhim maintenance and support, or wages enough to procure the same.\nThat is the first thing to be done in all production. I admit, for the\nmoment, that in this respect the capitalist has discharged his duty.\n\nIt is necessary that the laborer should find in his production, in\naddition to his present support, a guarantee of his future support;\notherwise the source of production would dry up, and his productive\ncapacity would become exhausted: in other words, the labor accomplished\nmust give birth perpetually to new labor--such is the universal law of\nreproduction. In this way, the proprietor of a farm finds: 1. In his\ncrops, means, not only of supporting himself and his family, but of\nmaintaining and improving his capital, of feeding his live-stock--in a\nword, means of new labor and continual reproduction; 2. In his ownership\nof a productive agency, a permanent basis of cultivation and labor.\n\nBut he who lends his services,--what is his basis of cultivation?\n\nThe proprietor's presumed need of him, and the unwarranted supposition\nthat he wishes to employ him. Just as the commoner once held his land by\nthe munificence and condescension of the lord, so to-day the working-man\nholds his labor by the condescension and necessities of the master\nand proprietor: that is what is called possession by a precarious [15]\ntitle. But this precarious condition is an injustice, for it implies\nan inequality in the bargain. The laborer's wages exceed but little his\nrunning expenses, and do not assure him wages for to-morrow; while the\ncapitalist finds in the instrument produced by the laborer a pledge of\nindependence and security for the future.\n\n\nNow, this reproductive leaven--this eternal germ of life,\nthis preparation of the land and manufacture of implements for\nproduction--constitutes the debt of the capitalist to the producer,\nwhich he never pays; and it is this fraudulent denial which causes the\npoverty of the laborer, the luxury of idleness, and the inequality of\nconditions. This it is, above all other things, which has been so fitly\nnamed the exploitation of man by man.\n\nOne of three things must be done. Either the laborer must be given a\nportion of the product in addition to his wages; or the employer must\nrender the laborer an equivalent in productive service; or else he\nmust pledge himself to employ him for ever. Division of the product,\nreciprocity of service, or guarantee of perpetual labor,--from the\nadoption of one of these courses the capitalist cannot escape. But it\nis evident that he cannot satisfy the second and third of these\nconditions--he can neither put himself at the service of the thousands\nof working-men, who, directly or indirectly, have aided him in\nestablishing himself, nor employ them all for ever. He has no other\ncourse left him, then, but a division of the property. But if the\nproperty is divided, all conditions will be equal--there will be no more\nlarge capitalists or large proprietors.\n\nConsequently, when M. Ch. Comte--following out his hypothesis--shows\nus his capitalist acquiring one after another the products of his\nemployees' labor, he sinks deeper and deeper into the mire; and, as his\nargument does not change, our reply of course remains the same.\n\n\n\"Other laborers are employed in building: some quarry the stone, others\ntransport it, others cut it, and still others put it in place. Each\nof them adds a certain value to the material which passes through his\nhands; and this value, the product of his labor, is his property. He\nsells it, as fast as he creates it, to the proprietor of the building,\nwho pays him for it in food and wages.\"\n\n\n_Divide et impera_--divide, and you shall command; divide, and you\nshall grow rich; divide, and you shall deceive men, you shall daze their\nminds, you shall mock at justice! Separate laborers from each other,\nperhaps each one's daily wage exceeds the value of each individual's\nproduct; but that is not the question under consideration. A force of\none thousand men working twenty days has been paid the same wages that\none would be paid for working fifty-five years; but this force of\none thousand has done in twenty days what a single man could not have\naccomplished, though he had labored for a million centuries. Is the\nexchange an equitable one? Once more, no; when you have paid all the\nindividual forces, the collective force still remains to be paid.\n\nConsequently, there remains always a right of collective property which\nyou have not acquired, and which you enjoy unjustly.\n\nAdmit that twenty days' wages suffice to feed, lodge, and clothe this\nmultitude for twenty days: thrown out of employment at the end of that\ntime, what will become of them, if, as fast as they create, they abandon\ntheir creations to the proprietors who will soon discharge them? While\nthe proprietor, firm in his position (thanks to the aid of all the\nlaborers), dwells in security, and fears no lack of labor or bread,\nthe laborer's only dependence is upon the benevolence of this same\nproprietor, to whom he has sold and surrendered his liberty. If, then,\nthe proprietor, shielding himself behind his comfort and his rights,\nrefuses to employ the laborer, how can the laborer live? He has ploughed\nan excellent field, and cannot sow it; he has built an elegant and\ncommodious house, and cannot live in it; he has produced all, and can\nenjoy nothing.\n\nLabor leads us to equality. Every step that we take brings us nearer to\nit; and if laborers had equal strength, diligence, and industry, clearly\ntheir fortunes would be equal also. Indeed, if, as is pretended,--and\nas we have admitted,--the laborer is proprietor of the value which he\ncreates, it follows:--\n\n1. That the laborer acquires at the expense of the idle proprietor;\n\n2. That all production being necessarily collective, the laborer is\nentitled to a share of the products and profits commensurate with his\nlabor;\n\n3. That all accumulated capital being social property, no one can be its\nexclusive proprietor.\n\nThese inferences are unavoidable; these alone would suffice to\nrevolutionize our whole economical system, and change our institutions\nand our laws. Why do the very persons, who laid down this principle, now\nrefuse to be guided by it? Why do the Says, the Comtes, the Hennequins,\nand others--after having said that property is born of labor--seek to\nfix it by occupation and prescription?\n\nBut let us leave these sophists to their contradictions and blindness.\nThe good sense of the people will do justice to their equivocations.\nLet us make haste to enlighten it, and show it the true path. Equality\napproaches; already between it and us but a short distance intervenes:\nto-morrow even this distance will have been traversed.\n\n\n\n% 6.--That in Society all Wages are Equal.\n\nWhen the St. Simonians, the Fourierists, and, in general, all who in our\nday are connected with social economy and reform, inscribe upon their\nbanner,--\n\n\n\"TO EACH ACCORDING TO HIS CAPACITY, TO EACH CAPACITY ACCORDING TO ITS\nRESULTS\" (St. Simon);\n\n\"TO EACH ACCORDING TO HIS CAPITAL, HIS LABOR, AND HIS SKILL\"\n(Fourier),--\n\nthey mean--although they do not say so in so many words--that the\nproducts of Nature procured by labor and industry are a reward, a palm,\na crown offered to all kinds of preeminence and superiority. They regard\nthe land as an immense arena in which prizes are contended for,--no\nlonger, it is true, with lances and swords, by force and by treachery;\nbut by acquired wealth, by knowledge, talent, and by virtue itself. In\na word, they mean--and everybody agrees with them--that the greatest\ncapacity is entitled to the greatest reward; and, to use the\nmercantile phraseology,--which has, at least, the merit of being\nstraightforward,--that salaries must be governed by capacity and its\nresults.\n\nThe disciples of these two self-styled reformers cannot deny that such\nis their thought; for, in doing so, they would contradict their\nofficial interpretations, and would destroy the unity of their systems.\nFurthermore, such a denial on their part is not to be feared. The\ntwo sects glory in laying down as a principle inequality of\nconditions,--reasoning from Nature, who, they say, intended the\ninequality of capacities. They boast only of one thing; namely, that\ntheir political system is so perfect, that the social inequalities\nalways correspond with the natural inequalities. They no more trouble\nthemselves to inquire whether inequality of conditions--I mean of\nsalaries--is possible, than they do to fix a measure of capacity.[1]\n\n[1] In St. Simon's system, the St.-Simonian priest determines the\ncapacity of each by virtue of his pontifical infallibility, in imitation\nof the Roman Church: in Fourier's, the ranks and merits are decided by\nvote, in imitation of the constitutional regime.\n\nClearly, the great man is an object of ridicule to the reader; he did\nnot mean to tell his secret.\n\n\n\"To each according to his capacity, to each capacity according to its\nresults.\"\n\n\"To each according to his capital, his labor, and his skill.\"\n\n\nSince the death of St. Simon and Fourier, not one among their numerous\ndisciples has attempted to give to the public a scientific demonstration\nof this grand maxim; and I would wager a hundred to one that no\nFourierist even suspects that this biform aphorism is susceptible of two\ninterpretations.\n\n\n\"To each according to his capacity, to each capacity according to its\nresults.\"\n\n\"To each according to his capital, his labor, and his skill.\"\n\n\nThis proposition, taken, as they say, _in sensu obvio_--in the sense\nusually attributed to it--is false, absurd, unjust, contradictory,\nhostile to liberty, friendly to tyranny, anti-social, and was unluckily\nframed under the express influence of the property idea.\n\nAnd, first, CAPITAL must be crossed off the list of elements which are\nentitled to a reward. The Fourierists--as far as I have been able to\nlearn from a few of their pamphlets--deny the right of occupancy, and\nrecognize no basis of property save labor. Starting with a like premise,\nthey would have seen--had they reasoned upon the matter--that capital is\na source of production to its proprietor only by virtue of the right of\noccupancy, and that this production is therefore illegitimate. Indeed,\nif labor is the sole basis of property, I cease to be proprietor of my\nfield as soon as I receive rent for it from another. This we have\nshown beyond all cavil. It is the same with all capital; so that to put\ncapital in an enterprise, is, by the law's decision, to exchange it\nfor an equivalent sum in products. I will not enter again upon this\nnow useless discussion, since I propose, in the following chapter, to\nexhaust the subject of PRODUCTION BY CAPITAL.\n\nThus, capital can be exchanged, but cannot be a source of income.\n\nLABOR and SKILL remain; or, as St. Simon puts it, RESULTS and\nCAPACITIES. I will examine them successively.\n\nShould wages be governed by labor? In other words, is it just that\nhe who does the most should get the most? I beg the reader to pay the\nclosest attention to this point.\n\nTo solve the problem with one stroke, we have only to ask ourselves\nthe following question: \"Is labor a CONDITION or a STRUGGLE?\" The reply\nseems plain.\n\nGod said to man, \"In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread,\"--that\nis, thou shalt produce thy own bread: with more or less ease, according\nto thy skill in directing and combining thy efforts, thou shalt labor.\nGod did not say, \"Thou shalt quarrel with thy neighbor for thy bread;\"\nbut, \"Thou shalt labor by the side of thy neighbor, and ye shall dwell\ntogether in harmony.\" Let us develop the meaning of this law, the\nextreme simplicity of which renders it liable to misconstruction.\n\nIn labor, two things must be noticed and distinguished: ASSOCIATION and\nAVAILABLE MATERIAL.\n\nIn so far as laborers are associated, they are equal; and it involves a\ncontradiction to say that one should be paid more than another. For,\nas the product of one laborer can be paid for only in the product of\nanother laborer, if the two products are unequal, the remainder--or the\ndifference between the greater and the smaller--will not be acquired\nby society; and, therefore, not being exchanged, will not affect the\nequality of wages. There will result, it is true, in favor of the\nstronger laborer a natural inequality, but not a social inequality; no\none having suffered by his strength and productive energy. In a word,\nsociety exchanges only equal products--that is, rewards no labor save\nthat performed for her benefit; consequently, she pays all laborers\nequally: with what they produce outside of her sphere she has no more to\ndo, than with the difference in their voices and their hair.\n\nI seem to be positing the principle of inequality: the reverse of this\nis the truth. The total amount of labor which can be performed for\nsociety (that is, of labor susceptible of exchange), being, within a\ngiven space, as much greater as the laborers are more numerous, and as\nthe task assigned to each is less in magnitude,--it follows that natural\ninequality neutralizes itself in proportion as association extends, and\nas the quantity of consumable values produced thereby increases. So that\nin society the only thing which could bring back the inequality of labor\nwould be the right of occupancy,--the right of property.\n\nNow, suppose that this daily social task consists in the ploughing,\nhoeing, or reaping of two square decameters, and that the average time\nrequired to accomplish it is seven hours: one laborer will finish it in\nsix hours, another will require eight; the majority, however, will work\nseven. But provided each one furnishes the quantity of labor demanded of\nhim, whatever be the time he employs, they are entitled to equal wages.\n\nShall the laborer who is capable of finishing his task in six hours have\nthe right, on the ground of superior strength and activity, to usurp\nthe task of the less skilful laborer, and thus rob him of his labor and\nbread? Who dares maintain such a proposition? He who finishes before the\nothers may rest, if he chooses; he may devote himself to useful exercise\nand labors for the maintenance of his strength, and the culture of his\nmind, and the pleasure of his life. This he can do without injury to any\none: but let him confine himself to services which affect him solely.\nVigor, genius, diligence, and all the personal advantages which result\ntherefrom, are the work of Nature and, to a certain extent, of the\nindividual; society awards them the esteem which they merit: but the\nwages which it pays them is measured, not by their power, but by their\nproduction. Now, the product of each is limited by the right of all.\n\nIf the soil were infinite in extent, and the amount of available\nmaterial were exhaustless, even then we could not accept this maxim,--TO\nEACH ACCORDING TO HIS LABOR. And why? Because society, I repeat,\nwhatever be the number of its subjects, is forced to pay them all the\nsame wages, since she pays them only in their own products. Only, on the\nhypothesis just made, inasmuch as the strong cannot be prevented from\nusing all their advantages, the inconveniences of natural inequality\nwould reappear in the very bosom of social equality. But the land,\nconsidering the productive power of its inhabitants and their ability to\nmultiply, is very limited; further, by the immense variety of products\nand the extreme division of labor, the social task is made easy of\naccomplishment. Now, through this limitation of things producible, and\nthrough the ease of producing them, the law of absolute equality takes\neffect.\n\nYes, life is a struggle. But this struggle is not between man and\nman--it is between man and Nature; and it is each one's duty to take\nhis share in it. If, in the struggle, the strong come to the aid of the\nweak, their kindness deserves praise and love; but their aid must be\naccepted as a free gift,--not imposed by force, nor offered at a\nprice. All have the same career before them, neither too long nor too\ndifficult; whoever finishes it finds his reward at the end: it is not\nnecessary to get there first.\n\nIn printing-offices, where the laborers usually work by the job, the\ncompositor receives so much per thousand letters set; the pressman so\nmuch per thousand sheets printed. There, as elsewhere, inequalities\nof talent and skill are to be found. When there is no prospect of dull\ntimes (for printing and typesetting, like all other trades, sometimes\ncome to a stand-still), every one is free to work his hardest, and exert\nhis faculties to the utmost: he who does more gets more; he who does\nless gets less. When business slackens, compositors and pressmen divide\nup their labor; all monopolists are detested as no better than robbers\nor traitors.\n\nThere is a philosophy in the action of these printers, to which\nneither economists nor legists have ever risen. If our legislators had\nintroduced into their codes the principle of distributive justice\nwhich governs printing-offices; if they had observed the popular\ninstincts,--not for the sake of servile imitation, but in order to\nreform and generalize them,--long ere this liberty and equality would\nhave been established on an immovable basis, and we should not now\nbe disputing about the right of property and the necessity of social\ndistinctions.\n\nIt has been calculated that if labor were equally shared by the whole\nnumber of able-bodied individuals, the average working-day of each\nindividual, in France, would not exceed five hours. This being so, how\ncan we presume to talk of the inequality of laborers? It is the LABOR of\nRobert Macaire that causes inequality.\n\nThe principle, TO EACH ACCORDING TO HIS LABOR, interpreted to mean, WHO\nWORKS MOST SHOULD RECEIVE MOST, is based, therefore, on two palpable\nerrors: one, an error in economy, that in the labor of society tasks\nmust necessarily be unequal; the other, an error in physics, that there\nis no limit to the amount of producible things.\n\n\"But,\" it will be said, \"suppose there are some people who wish to\nperform only half of their task?\"... Is that very embarrassing? Probably\nthey are satisfied with half of their salary. Paid according to the\nlabor that they had performed, of what could they complain? and what\ninjury would they do to others? In this sense, it is fair to apply the\nmaxim,--TO EACH ACCORDING TO HIS RESULTS. It is the law of equality\nitself.\n\nFurther, numerous difficulties, relative to the police system and the\norganization of industry, might be raised here. I will reply to them all\nwith this one sentence,--that they must all be solved by the principle\nof equality. Thus, some one might observe, \"Here is a task which cannot\nbe postponed without detriment to production. Ought society to suffer\nfrom the negligence of a few? and will she not venture--out of respect\nfor the right of labor--to assure with her own hands the product which\nthey refuse her? In such a case, to whom will the salary belong?\"\n\nTo society; who will be allowed to perform the labor, either herself, or\nthrough her representatives, but always in such a way that the general\nequality shall never be violated, and that only the idler shall be\npunished for his idleness. Further, if society may not use excessive\nseverity towards her lazy members, she has a right, in self-defence, to\nguard against abuses.\n\nBut every industry needs--they will add--leaders, instructors,\nsuperintendents, &c. Will these be engaged in the general task? No;\nsince their task is to lead, instruct, and superintend. But they must be\nchosen from the laborers by the laborers themselves, and must fulfil\nthe conditions of eligibility. It is the same with all public functions,\nwhether of administration or instruction.\n\nThen, article first of the universal constitution will be:--\n\n\"The limited quantity of available material proves the necessity of\ndividing the labor among the whole number of laborers. The capacity,\ngiven to all, of accomplishing a social task,--that is, an equal\ntask,--and the impossibility of paying one laborer save in the products\nof another, justify the equality of wages.\"\n\n\n\n% 7.--That Inequality of Powers is the Necessary Condition of Equality\nof Fortunes.\n\nIt is objected,--and this objection constitutes the second part of the\nSt. Simonian, and the third part of the Fourierstic, maxims,--\n\n\"That all kinds of labor cannot be executed with equal ease. Some\nrequire great superiority of skill and intelligence; and on this\nsuperiority is based the price. The artist, the savant, the poet, the\nstatesman, are esteemed only because of their excellence; and this\nexcellence destroys all similitude between them and other men: in the\npresence of these heights of science and genius the law of equality\ndisappears. Now, if equality is not absolute, there is no equality.\nFrom the poet we descend to the novelist; from the sculptor to the\nstonecutter; from the architect to the mason; from the chemist to the\ncook, &c. Capacities are classified and subdivided into orders, genera,\nand species. The extremes of talent are connected by intermediate\ntalents. Humanity is a vast hierarchy, in which the individual estimates\nhimself by comparison, and fixes his price by the value placed upon his\nproduct by the public.\"\n\nThis objection always has seemed a formidable one. It is the\nstumbling-block of the economists, as well as of the defenders of\nequality. It has led the former into egregious blunders, and has caused\nthe latter to utter incredible platitudes. Gracchus Babeuf wished all\nsuperiority to be STRINGENTLY REPRESSED, and even PERSECUTED AS A SOCIAL\nCALAMITY. To establish his communistic edifice, he lowered all citizens\nto the stature of the smallest. Ignorant eclectics have been known to\nobject to the inequality of knowledge, and I should not be surprised if\nsome one should yet rebel against the inequality of virtue. Aristotle\nwas banished, Socrates drank the hemlock, Epaminondas was called to\naccount, for having proved superior in intelligence and virtue to some\ndissolute and foolish demagogues. Such follies will be re-enacted, so\nlong as the inequality of fortunes justifies a populace, blinded and\noppressed by the wealthy, in fearing the elevation of new tyrants to\npower.\n\nNothing seems more unnatural than that which we examine too closely, and\noften nothing seems less like the truth than the truth itself. On the\nother hand, according to J. J. Rousseau, \"it takes a great deal of\nphilosophy to enable us to observe once what we see every day;\" and,\naccording to d'Alembert, \"the ordinary truths of life make but little\nimpression on men, unless their attention is especially called to them.\"\nThe father of the school of economists (Say), from whom I borrow these\ntwo quotations, might have profited by them; but he who laughs at the\nblind should wear spectacles, and he who notices him is near-sighted.\n\nStrange! that which has frightened so many minds is not, after all,\nan objection to equality--it is the very condition on which equality\nexists!...\n\nNatural inequality the condition of equality of fortunes!... What\na paradox!... I repeat my assertion, that no one may think I have\nblundered--inequality of powers is the sine qua non of equality of\nfortunes.\n\nThere are two things to be considered in society--FUNCTIONS and\nRELATIONS.\n\nI. FUNCTIONS. Every laborer is supposed to be capable of performing the\ntask assigned to him; or, to use a common expression, \"every workman\nmust know his trade.\" The workman equal to his work,--there is an\nequation between functionary and function.\n\nIn society, functions are not alike; there must be, then, different\ncapacities. Further,--certain functions demand greater intelligence\nand powers; then there are people of superior mind and talent. For\nthe performance of work necessarily involves a workman: from the need\nsprings the idea, and the idea makes the producer. We only know what our\nsenses long for and our intelligence demands; we have no keen desire\nfor things of which we cannot conceive, and the greater our powers of\nconception, the greater our capabilities of production.\n\nThus, functions arising from needs, needs from desires, and desires\nfrom spontaneous perception and imagination, the same intelligence which\nimagines can also produce; consequently, no labor is superior to the\nlaborer. In a word, if the function calls out the functionary, it is\nbecause the functionary exists before the function.\n\nLet us admire Nature's economy. With regard to these various needs which\nshe has given us, and which the isolated man cannot satisfy unaided,\nNature has granted to the race a power refused to the individual. This\ngives rise to the principle of the DIVISION OF LABOR,--a principle\nfounded on the SPECIALITY OF VOCATIONS.\n\nThe satisfaction of some needs demands of man continual creation;\nwhile others can, by the labor of a single individual, be satisfied for\nmillions of men through thousands of centuries. For example, the need of\nclothing and food requires perpetual reproduction; while a knowledge\nof the system of the universe may be acquired for ever by two or\nthree highly-gifted men. The perpetual current of rivers supports our\ncommerce, and runs our machinery; but the sun, alone in the midst of\nspace, gives light to the whole world. Nature, who might create\nPlatos and Virgils, Newtons and Cuviers, as she creates husbandmen and\nshepherds, does not see fit to do so; choosing rather to proportion the\nrarity of genius to the duration of its products, and to balance the\nnumber of capacities by the competency of each one of them.\n\nI do not inquire here whether the distance which separates one man from\nanother, in point of talent and intelligence, arises from the deplorable\ncondition of civilization, nor whether that which is now called the\nINEQUALITY OF POWERS would be in an ideal society any thing more than\na DIVERSITY OF POWERS. I take the worst view of the matter; and, that\nI may not be accused of tergiversation and evasion of difficulties, I\nacknowledge all the inequalities that any one can desire. [16]\n\n\nCertain philosophers, in love with the levelling idea, maintain that all\nminds are equal, and that all differences are the result of education.\nI am no believer, I confess, in this doctrine; which, even if it were\ntrue, would lead to a result directly opposite to that desired. For, if\ncapacities are equal, whatever be the degree of their power (as no one\ncan be coerced), there are functions deemed coarse, low, and degrading,\nwhich deserve higher pay,--a result no less repugnant to equality than\nto the principle, TO EACH CAPACITY ACCORDING TO ITS RESULTS. Give me,\non the contrary, a society in which every kind of talent bears a proper\nnumerical relation to the needs of the society, and which demands from\neach producer only that which his special function requires him to\nproduce; and, without impairing in the least the hierarchy of functions,\nI will deduce the equality of fortunes.\n\nThis is my second point.\n\nII. RELATIONS. In considering the element of labor, I have shown that in\nthe same class of productive services, the capacity to perform a social\ntask being possessed by all, no inequality of reward can be based upon\nan inequality of individual powers. However, it is but fair to say that\ncertain capacities seem quite incapable of certain services; so that, if\nhuman industry were entirely confined to one class of products, numerous\nincapacities would arise, and, consequently, the greatest social\ninequality. But every body sees, without any hint from me, that the\nvariety of industries avoids this difficulty; so clear is this that\nI shall not stop to discuss it. We have only to prove, then, that\nfunctions are equal to each other; just as laborers, who perform the\nsame function, are equal to each other.\n\n\nProperty makes man a eunuch, and then reproaches him for being nothing\nbut dry wood, a decaying tree.\n\nAre you astonished that I refuse to genius, to knowledge, to\ncourage,--in a word, to all the excellences admired by the world,--the\nhomage of dignities, the distinctions of power and wealth? It is not I\nwho refuse it: it is economy, it is justice, it is liberty. Liberty! for\nthe first time in this discussion I appeal to her. Let her rise in her\nown defence, and achieve her victory.\n\nEvery transaction ending in an exchange of products or services may be\ndesignated as a COMMERCIAL OPERATION.\n\nWhoever says commerce, says exchange of equal values; for, if the values\nare not equal, and the injured party perceives it, he will not consent\nto the exchange, and there will be no commerce.\n\nCommerce exists only among free men. Transactions may be effected\nbetween other people by violence or fraud, but there is no commerce.\n\nA free man is one who enjoys the use of his reason and his faculties;\nwho is neither blinded by passion, nor hindered or driven by oppression,\nnor deceived by erroneous opinions.\n\nSo, in every exchange, there is a moral obligation that neither of the\ncontracting parties shall gain at the expense of the other; that is,\nthat, to be legitimate and true, commerce must be exempt from all\ninequality. This is the first condition of commerce. Its second\ncondition is, that it be voluntary; that is, that the parties act freely\nand openly.\n\nI define, then, commerce or exchange as an act of society.\n\nThe negro who sells his wife for a knife, his children for some bits\nof glass, and finally himself for a bottle of brandy, is not free. The\ndealer in human flesh, with whom he negotiates, is not his associate; he\nis his enemy.\n\nThe civilized laborer who bakes a loaf that he may eat a slice of bread,\nwho builds a palace that he may sleep in a stable, who weaves rich\nfabrics that he may dress in rags, who produces every thing that he may\ndispense with every thing,--is not free. His employer, not becoming\nhis associate in the exchange of salaries or services which takes place\nbetween them, is his enemy.\n\nThe soldier who serves his country through fear instead of through love\nis not free; his comrades and his officers, the ministers or organs of\nmilitary justice, are all his enemies.\n\nThe peasant who hires land, the manufacturer who borrows capital, the\ntax-payer who pays tolls, duties, patent and license fees, personal and\nproperty taxes, &c., and the deputy who votes for them,--all act\nneither intelligently nor freely. Their enemies are the proprietors, the\ncapitalists, the government.\n\nGive men liberty, enlighten their minds that they may know the meaning\nof their contracts, and you will see the most perfect equality in\nexchanges without regard to superiority of talent and knowledge; and\nyou will admit that in commercial affairs, that is, in the sphere of\nsociety, the word superiority is void of sense.\n\nLet Homer sing his verse. I listen to this sublime genius in comparison\nwith whom I, a simple herdsman, an humble farmer, am as nothing. What,\nindeed,--if product is to be compared with product,--are my cheeses and\nmy beans in the presence of his \"Iliad\"? But, if Homer wishes to take\nfrom me all that I possess, and make me his slave in return for his\ninimitable poem, I will give up the pleasure of his lays, and dismiss\nhim. I can do without his \"Iliad,\" and wait, if necessary, for the\n\"AEneid.\"\n\nHomer cannot live twenty-four hours without my products. Let him accept,\nthen, the little that I have to offer; and then his muse may instruct,\nencourage, and console me.\n\n\"What! do you say that such should be the condition of one who sings of\ngods and men? Alms, with the humiliation and suffering which they bring\nwith them!--what barbarous generosity!\"... Do not get excited, I beg\nof you. Property makes of a poet either a Croesus or a beggar; only\nequality knows how to honor and to praise him. What is its duty? To\nregulate the right of the singer and the duty of the listener. Now,\nnotice this point, which is a very important one in the solution of this\nquestion: both are free, the one to sell, the other to buy. Henceforth\ntheir respective pretensions go for nothing; and the estimate, whether\nfair or unfair, that they place, the one upon his verse, the other\nupon his liberality, can have no influence upon the conditions of the\ncontract. We must no longer, in making our bargains, weigh talent; we\nmust consider products only.\n\nIn order that the bard of Achilles may get his due reward, he must first\nmake himself wanted: that done, the exchange of his verse for a fee of\nany kind, being a free act, must be at the same time a just act; that\nis, the poet's fee must be equal to his product. Now, what is the value\nof this product?\n\nLet us suppose, in the first place, that this \"Iliad\"--this chef-d'\noeuvre that is to be equitably rewarded--is really above price, that we\ndo not know how to appraise it. If the public, who are free to purchase\nit, refuse to do so, it is clear that, the poem being unexchangeable,\nits intrinsic value will not be diminished; but that its exchangeable\nvalue, or its productive utility, will be reduced to zero, will be\nnothing at all. Then we must seek the amount of wages to be paid between\ninfinity on the one hand and nothing on the other, at an equal distance\nfrom each, since all rights and liberties are entitled to equal respect;\nin other words, it is not the intrinsic value, but the relative value,\nof the thing sold that needs to be fixed. The question grows simpler:\nwhat is this relative value? To what reward does a poem like the \"Iliad\"\nentitle its author?\n\nThe first business of political economy, after fixing its definitions,\nwas the solution of this problem; now, not only has it not been solved,\nbut it has been declared insoluble. According to the economists,\nthe relative or exchangeable value of things cannot be absolutely\ndetermined; it necessarily varies.\n\n\n\"The value of a thing,\" says Say, \"is a positive quantity, but only for\na given moment. It is its nature to perpetually vary, to change from one\npoint to another. Nothing can fix it absolutely, because it is based\non needs and means of production which vary with every moment. These\nvariations complicate economical phenomena, and often render them very\ndifficult of observation and solution. I know no remedy for this; it is\nnot in our power to change the nature of things.\"\n\n\nElsewhere Say says, and repeats, that value being based on utility, and\nutility depending entirely on our needs, whims, customs, &c., value\nis as variable as opinion. Now, political economy being the science\nof values, of their production, distribution, exchange, and\nconsumption,--if exchangeable value cannot be absolutely determined,\nhow is political economy possible? How can it be a science? How can two\neconomists look each other in the face without laughing? How dare they\ninsult metaphysicians and psychologists? What! that fool of a Descartes\nimagined that philosophy needed an immovable base--an _aliquid\ninconcussum_--on which the edifice of science might be built, and he was\nsimple enough to search for it! And the Hermes of economy, Trismegistus\nSay, devoting half a volume to the amplification of that solemn text,\n_political economy is a science_, has the courage to affirm immediately\nafterwards that this science cannot determine its object,--which is\nequivalent to saying that it is without a principle or foundation! He\ndoes not know, then, the illustrious Say, the nature of a science; or\nrather, he knows nothing of the subject which he discusses.\n\nSay's example has borne its fruits. Political economy, as it exists at\npresent, resembles ontology: discussing effects and causes, it knows\nnothing, explains nothing, decides nothing. The ideas honored with the\nname of economic laws are nothing more than a few trifling generalities,\nto which the economists thought to give an appearance of depth by\nclothing them in high-sounding words. As for the attempts that have been\nmade by the economists to solve social problems, all that can be said\nof them is, that, if a glimmer of sense occasionally appears in their\nlucubrations, they immediately fall back into absurdity. For twenty-five\nyears political economy, like a heavy fog, has weighed upon France,\nchecking the efforts of the mind, and setting limits to liberty.\n\nHas every creation of industry a venal, absolute, unchangeable, and\nconsequently legitimate and true value?--Yes.\n\nCan every product of man be exchanged for some other product of\nman?--Yes, again.\n\nHow many nails is a pair of shoes worth?\n\nIf we can solve this appalling problem, we shall have the key of the\nsocial system for which humanity has been searching for six thousand\nyears. In the presence of this problem, the economist recoils confused;\nthe peasant who can neither read nor write replies without hesitation:\n\"As many as can be made in the same time, and with the same expense.\"\n\nThe absolute value of a thing, then, is its cost in time and expense.\nHow much is a diamond worth which costs only the labor of picking it\nup?--Nothing; it is not a product of man. How much will it be worth when\ncut and mounted?--The time and expense which it has cost the laborer.\nWhy, then, is it sold at so high a price?--Because men are not free.\nSociety must regulate the exchange and distribution of the rarest\nthings, as it does that of the most common ones, in such a way that each\nmay share in the enjoyment of them. What, then, is that value which is\nbased upon opinion?--Delusion, injustice, and robbery.\n\nBy this rule, it is easy to reconcile every body. If the mean term,\nwhich we are searching for, between an infinite value and no value at\nall is expressed in the case of every product, by the amount of time and\nexpense which the product cost, a poem which has cost its author thirty\nyears of labor and an outlay of ten thousand francs in journeys, books,\n&c., must be paid for by the ordinary wages received by a laborer during\nthirty years, PLUS ten thousand francs indemnity for expense incurred.\nSuppose the whole amount to be fifty thousand francs; if the society\nwhich gets the benefit of the production include a million of men, my\nshare of the debt is five centimes.\n\nThis gives rise to a few observations.\n\n1. The same product, at different times and in different places, may\ncost more or less of time and outlay; in this view, it is true that\nvalue is a variable quantity. But this variation is not that of the\neconomists, who place in their list of the causes of the variation of\nvalues, not only the means of production, but taste, caprice, fashion,\nand opinion. In short, the true value of a thing is invariable in its\nalgebraic expression, although it may vary in its monetary expression.\n\n2. The price of every product in demand should be its cost in time and\noutlay--neither more nor less: every product not in demand is a loss to\nthe producer--a commercial non-value.\n\n3. The ignorance of the principle of evaluation, and the difficulty\nunder many circumstances of applying it, is the source of commercial\nfraud, and one of the most potent causes of the inequality of fortunes.\n\n4. To reward certain industries and pay for certain products, a society\nis needed which corresponds in size with the rarity of talents, the\ncostliness of the products, and the variety of the arts and sciences.\nIf, for example, a society of fifty farmers can support a schoolmaster,\nit requires one hundred for a shoemaker, one hundred and fifty for a\nblacksmith, two hundred for a tailor, &c. If the number of farmers rises\nto one thousand, ten thousand, one hundred thousand, &c., as fast as\ntheir number increases, that of the functionaries which are earliest\nrequired must increase in the same proportion; so that the highest\nfunctions become possible only in the most powerful societies. [17] That\nis the peculiar feature of capacities; the character of genius, the seal\nof its glory, cannot arise and develop itself, except in the bosom of\na great nation. But this physiological condition, necessary to the\nexistence of genius, adds nothing to its social rights: far from\nthat,--the delay in its appearance proves that, in economical and\ncivil affairs, the loftiest intelligence must submit to the equality\nof possessions; an equality which is anterior to it, and of which it\nconstitutes the crown.\n\n\nThis is severe on our pride, but it is an inexorable truth. And here\npsychology comes to the aid of social economy, giving us to understand\nthat talent and material recompense have no common measure; that, in\nthis respect, the condition of all producers is equal: consequently,\nthat all comparison between them, and all distinction in fortunes, is\nimpossible.\n\n_ _In fact, every work coming from the hands of man--compared with the\nraw material of which it is composed--is beyond price. In this respect,\nthe distance is as great between a pair of wooden shoes and the trunk of\na walnut-tree, as between a statue by Scopas and a block of marble.\nThe genius of the simplest mechanic exerts as much influence over the\nmaterials which he uses, as does the mind of a Newton over the inert\nspheres whose distances, volumes, and revolutions he calculates. You ask\nfor talent and genius a corresponding degree of honor and reward. Fix\nfor me the value of a wood-cutter's talent, and I will fix that of\nHomer. If any thing can reward intelligence, it is intelligence itself.\nThat is what happens, when various classes of producers pay to each\nother a reciprocal tribute of admiration and praise. But if they\ncontemplate an exchange of products with a view to satisfying mutual\nneeds, this exchange must be effected in accordance with a system of\neconomy which is indifferent to considerations of talent and genius, and\nwhose laws are deduced, not from vague and meaningless admiration, but\nfrom a just balance between DEBIT and CREDIT; in short, from commercial\naccounts.\n\nNow, that no one may imagine that the liberty of buying and selling\nis the sole basis of the equality of wages, and that society's sole\nprotection against superiority of talent lies in a certain force of\ninertia which has nothing in common with right, I shall proceed to\nexplain why all capacities are entitled to the same reward, and why a\ncorresponding difference in wages would be an injustice. I shall prove\nthat the obligation to stoop to the social level is inherent in talent;\nand on this very superiority of genius I will found the equality of\nfortunes. I have just given the negative argument in favor of rewarding\nall capacities alike; I will now give the direct and positive argument.\n\nListen, first, to the economist: it is always pleasant to see how he\nreasons, and how he understands justice. Without him, moreover, without\nhis amusing blunders and his wonderful arguments, we should learn\nnothing. Equality, so odious to the economist, owes every thing to\npolitical economy.\n\n\n\"When the parents of a physician [the text says a lawyer, which is\nnot so good an example] have expended on his education forty thousand\nfrancs, this sum may be regarded as so much capital invested in his\nhead. It is therefore permissible to consider it as yielding an annual\nincome of four thousand francs. If the physician earns thirty thousand,\nthere remains an income of twenty-six thousand francs due to the\npersonal talents given him by Nature. This natural capital, then, if we\nassume ten per cent. as the rate of interest, amounts to two hundred\nand sixty thousand francs; and the capital given him by his parents, in\ndefraying the expenses of his education, to forty thousand francs. The\nunion of these two kinds of capital constitutes his fortune.\"--Say:\nComplete Course, &c.\n\n\nSay divides the fortune of the physician into two parts: one is composed\nof the capital which went to pay for his education, the other represents\nhis personal talents. This division is just; it is in conformity with\nthe nature of things; it is universally admitted; it serves as the\nmajor premise of that grand argument which establishes the inequality of\ncapacities. I accept this premise without qualification; let us look at\nthe consequences.\n\n1. Say CREDITS the physician with forty thousand francs,--the cost of\nhis education. This amount should be entered upon the DEBIT side of the\naccount. For, although this expense was incurred for him, it was not\nincurred by him. Then, instead of appropriating these forty thousand\nfrancs, the physician should add them to the price of his product, and\nrepay them to those who are entitled to them. Notice, further, that\nSay speaks of INCOME instead of REIMBURSEMENT; reasoning on the false\nprinciple of the productivity of capital. The expense of educating a\ntalent is a debt contracted by this talent. From the very fact of its\nexistence, it becomes a debtor to an amount equal to the cost of its\nproduction. This is so true and simple that, if the education of some\none child in a family has cost double or triple that of its brothers,\nthe latter are entitled to a proportional amount of the property\nprevious to its division. There is no difficulty about this in the case\nof guardianship, when the estate is administered in the name of the\nminors.\n\n2. That which I have just said of the obligation incurred by talent of\nrepaying the cost of its education does not embarrass the economist. The\nman of talent, he says, inheriting from his family, inherits among other\nthings a claim to the forty thousand francs which his education costs;\nand he becomes, in consequence, its proprietor. But this is to abandon\nthe right of talent, and to fall back upon the right of occupancy; which\nagain calls up all the questions asked in Chapter II. What is the right\nof occupancy? what is inheritance? Is the right of succession a right of\naccumulation or only a right of choice? how did the physician's father\nget his fortune? was he a proprietor, or only a usufructuary? If he was\nrich, let him account for his wealth; if he was poor, how could he incur\nso large an expense? If he received aid, what right had he to use that\naid to the disadvantage of his benefactors, &c.?\n\n3. \"There remains an income of twenty-six thousand francs due to\nthe personal talents given him by Nature.\" (Say,--as above quoted.)\nReasoning from this premise, Say concludes that our physician's talent\nis equivalent to a capital of two hundred and sixty thousand francs.\nThis skilful calculator mistakes a consequence for a principle. The\ntalent must not be measured by the gain, but rather the gain by\nthe talent; for it may happen, that, notwithstanding his merit, the\nphysician in question will gain nothing at all, in which case will it be\nnecessary to conclude that his talent or fortune is equivalent to zero?\nTo such a result, however, would Say's reasoning lead; a result which is\nclearly absurd.\n\nNow, it is impossible to place a money value on any talent whatsoever,\nsince talent and money have no common measure. On what plausible ground\ncan it be maintained that a physician should be paid two, three, or a\nhundred times as much as a peasant? An unavoidable difficulty, which has\nnever been solved save by avarice, necessity, and oppression. It is not\nthus that the right of talent should be determined. But how is it to be\ndetermined?\n\n4. I say, first, that the physician must be treated with as much favor\nas any other producer, that he must not be placed below the level of\nothers. This I will not stop to prove. But I add that neither must he be\nlifted above that level; because his talent is collective property for\nwhich he did not pay, and for which he is ever in debt.\n\nJust as the creation of every instrument of production is the result of\ncollective force, so also are a man's talent and knowledge the product\nof universal intelligence and of general knowledge slowly accumulated\nby a number of masters, and through the aid of many inferior industries.\nWhen the physician has paid for his teachers, his books, his diplomas,\nand all the other items of his educational expenses, he has no more paid\nfor his talent than the capitalist pays for his house and land when he\ngives his employees their wages. The man of talent has contributed to\nthe production in himself of a useful instrument. He has, then, a share\nin its possession; he is not its proprietor. There exist side by side in\nhim a free laborer and an accumulated social capital. As a laborer, he\nis charged with the use of an instrument, with the superintendence of a\nmachine; namely, his capacity. As capital, he is not his own master; he\nuses himself, not for his own benefit, but for that of others.\n\nEven if talent did not find in its own excellence a reward for the\nsacrifices which it costs, still would it be easier to find reasons for\nlowering its reward than for raising it above the common level.\nEvery producer receives an education; every laborer is a talent, a\ncapacity,--that is, a piece of collective property. But all talents are\nnot equally costly. It takes but few teachers, but few years, and but\nlittle study, to make a farmer or a mechanic: the generative effort\nand--if I may venture to use such language--the period of social\ngestation are proportional to the loftiness of the capacity. But while\nthe physician, the poet, the artist, and the savant produce but little,\nand that slowly, the productions of the farmer are much less uncertain,\nand do not require so long a time. Whatever be then the capacity of a\nman,--when this capacity is once created,--it does not belong to him.\nLike the material fashioned by an industrious hand, it had the power\nof BECOMING, and society has given it BEING. Shall the vase say to the\npotter, \"I am that I am, and I owe you nothing\"?\n\nThe artist, the savant, and the poet find their just recompense in the\npermission that society gives them to devote themselves exclusively to\nscience and to art: so that in reality they do not labor for themselves,\nbut for society, which creates them, and requires of them no other duty.\nSociety can, if need be, do without prose and verse, music and painting,\nand the knowledge of the movements of the moon and stars; but it cannot\nlive a single day without food and shelter.\n\nUndoubtedly, man does not live by bread alone; he must, also (according\nto the Gospel), LIVE BY THE WORD OF GOD; that is, he must love the\ngood and do it, know and admire the beautiful, and study the marvels of\nNature. But in order to cultivate his mind, he must first take care of\nhis body,--the latter duty is as necessary as the former is noble. If it\nis glorious to charm and instruct men, it is honorable as well to feed\nthem. When, then, society--faithful to the principle of the division\nof labor--intrusts a work of art or of science to one of its members,\nallowing him to abandon ordinary labor, it owes him an indemnity for\nall which it prevents him from producing industrially; but it owes him\nnothing more. If he should demand more, society should, by refusing his\nservices, annihilate his pretensions. Forced, then, in order to live, to\ndevote himself to labor repugnant to his nature, the man of genius would\nfeel his weakness, and would live the most distasteful of lives.\n\nThey tell of a celebrated singer who demanded of the Empress of Russia\n(Catherine II) twenty thousand roubles for his services: \"That is more\nthan I give my field-marshals,\" said Catherine. \"Your majesty,\" replied\nthe other, \"has only to make singers of her field-marshals.\"\n\nIf France (more powerful than Catherine II) should say to Mademoiselle\nRachel, \"You must act for one hundred louis, or else spin cotton;\" to\nM. Duprez, \"You must sing for two thousand four hundred francs, or else\nwork in the vineyard,\"--do you think that the actress Rachel, and the\nsinger Duprez, would abandon the stage? If they did, they would be the\nfirst to repent it.\n\nMademoiselle Rachel receives, they say, sixty thousand francs annually\nfrom the Comedie-Francaise. For a talent like hers, it is a slight fee.\nWhy not one hundred thousand francs, two hundred thousand francs? Why!\nnot a civil list? What meanness! Are we really guilty of chaffering with\nan artist like Mademoiselle Rachel?\n\nIt is said, in reply, that the managers of the theatre cannot give more\nwithout incurring a loss; that they admit the superior talent of\ntheir young associate; but that, in fixing her salary, they have been\ncompelled to take the account of the company's receipts and expenses\ninto consideration also.\n\nThat is just, but it only confirms what I have said; namely, that an\nartist's talent may be infinite, but that its mercenary claims are\nnecessarily limited,--on the one hand, by its usefulness to the society\nwhich rewards it; on the other, by the resources of this society: in\nother words, that the demand of the seller is balanced by the right of\nthe buyer.\n\nMademoiselle Rachel, they say, brings to the treasury of the\nTheatre-Francais more than sixty thousand francs. I admit it; but then I\nblame the theatre. From whom does the Theatre-Francais take this\nmoney? From some curious people who are perfectly free. Yes; but the\nworkingmen, the lessees, the tenants, those who borrow by pawning their\npossessions, from whom these curious people recover all that they pay to\nthe theatre,--are they free? And when the better part of their products\nare consumed by others at the play, do you assure me that their families\nare not in want? Until the French people, reflecting on the salaries\npaid to all artists, savants, and public functionaries, have plainly\nexpressed their wish and judgment as to the matter, the salaries of\nMademoiselle Rachel and all her fellow-artists will be a compulsory tax\nextorted by violence, to reward pride, and support libertinism.\n\nIt is because we are neither free nor sufficiently enlightened, that we\nsubmit to be cheated in our bargains; that the laborer pays the duties\nlevied by the prestige of power and the selfishness of talent upon the\ncuriosity of the idle, and that we are perpetually scandalized by these\nmonstrous inequalities which are encouraged and applauded by public\nopinion.\n\nThe whole nation, and the nation only, pays its authors, its savants,\nits artists, its officials, whatever be the hands through which their\nsalaries pass. On what basis should it pay them? On the basis of\nequality. I have proved it by estimating the value of talent. I shall\nconfirm it in the following chapter, by proving the impossibility of all\nsocial inequality.\n\nWhat have we shown so far? Things so simple that really they seem\nsilly:--\n\nThat, as the traveller does not appropriate the route which he\ntraverses, so the farmer does not appropriate the field which he sows;\n\nThat if, nevertheless, by reason of his industry, a laborer may\nappropriate the material which he employs, every employer of material\nbecomes, by the same title, a proprietor;\n\nThat all capital, whether material or mental, being the result of\ncollective labor, is, in consequence, collective property;\n\nThat the strong have no right to encroach upon the labor of the weak,\nnor the shrewd to take advantage of the credulity of the simple;\n\nFinally, that no one can be forced to buy that which he does not want,\nstill less to pay for that which he has not bought; and, consequently,\nthat the exchangeable value of a product, being measured neither by the\nopinion of the buyer nor that of the seller, but by the amount of time\nand outlay which it has cost, the property of each always remains the\nsame.\n\nAre not these very simple truths? Well, as simple as they seem to you,\nreader, you shall yet see others which surpass them in dullness and\nsimplicity. For our course is the reverse of that of the geometricians:\nwith them, the farther they advance, the more difficult their problems\nbecome; we, on the contrary, after having commenced with the most\nabstruse propositions, shall end with the axioms.\n\nBut I must close this chapter with an exposition of one of those\nstartling truths which never have been dreamed of by legists or\neconomists.\n\n\n\n% 8.--That, from the Stand-point of Justice, Labor destroys Property.\n\nThis proposition is the logical result of the two preceding sections,\nwhich we have just summed up.\n\nThe isolated man can supply but a very small portion of his wants; all\nhis power lies in association, and in the intelligent combination of\nuniversal effort. The division and co-operation of labor multiply the\nquantity and the variety of products; the individuality of functions\nimproves their quality.\n\nThere is not a man, then, but lives upon the products of several\nthousand different industries; not a laborer but receives from society\nat large the things which he consumes, and, with these, the power to\nreproduce. Who, indeed, would venture the assertion, \"I produce, by\nmy own effort, all that I consume; I need the aid of no one else\"?\nThe farmer, whom the early economists regarded as the only real\nproducer--the farmer, housed, furnished, clothed, fed, and assisted\nby the mason, the carpenter, the tailor, the miller, the baker, the\nbutcher, the grocer, the blacksmith, &c.,--the farmer, I say, can he\nboast that he produces by his own unaided effort?\n\nThe various articles of consumption are given to each by all;\nconsequently, the production of each involves the production of all.\nOne product cannot exist without another; an isolated industry is an\nimpossible thing. What would be the harvest of the farmer, if others\ndid not manufacture for him barns, wagons, ploughs, clothes, &c.? Where\nwould be the savant without the publisher; the printer without the\ntypecaster and the machinist; and these, in their turn, without a\nmultitude of other industries?... Let us not prolong this catalogue--so\neasy to extend--lest we be accused of uttering commonplaces. All\nindustries are united by mutual relations in a single group; all\nproductions do reciprocal service as means and end; all varieties of\ntalent are but a series of changes from the inferior to the superior.\n\nNow, this undisputed and indisputable fact of the general participation\nin every species of product makes all individual productions common; so\nthat every product, coming from the hands of the producer, is mortgaged\nin advance by society. The producer himself is entitled to only\nthat portion of his product, which is expressed by a fraction whose\ndenominator is equal to the number of individuals of which society is\ncomposed. It is true that in return this same producer has a share in\nall the products of others, so that he has a claim upon all, just as\nall have a claim upon him; but is it not clear that this reciprocity of\nmortgages, far from authorizing property, destroys even possession? The\nlaborer is not even possessor of his product; scarcely has he finished\nit, when society claims it.\n\n\"But,\" it will be answered, \"even if that is so--even if the product\ndoes not belong to the producer--still society gives each laborer an\nequivalent for his product; and this equivalent, this salary, this\nreward, this allowance, becomes his property. Do you deny that this\nproperty is legitimate? And if the laborer, instead of consuming his\nentire wages, chooses to economize,--who dare question his right to do\nso?\"\n\nThe laborer is not even proprietor of the price of his labor, and cannot\nabsolutely control its disposition. Let us not be blinded by a spurious\njustice. That which is given the laborer in exchange for his product is\nnot given him as a reward for past labor, but to provide for and secure\nfuture labor. We consume before we produce. The laborer may say at the\nend of the day, \"I have paid yesterday's expenses; to-morrow I shall pay\nthose of today.\" At every moment of his life, the member of society is\nin debt; he dies with the debt unpaid:--how is it possible for him to\naccumulate?\n\nThey talk of economy--it is the proprietor's hobby. Under a system of\nequality, all economy which does not aim at subsequent reproduction or\nenjoyment is impossible--why? Because the thing saved, since it cannot\nbe converted into capital, has no object, and is without a FINAL CAUSE.\nThis will be explained more fully in the next chapter.\n\nTo conclude:--\n\nThe laborer, in his relation to society, is a debtor who of necessity\ndies insolvent. The proprietor is an unfaithful guardian who denies the\nreceipt of the deposit committed to his care, and wishes to be paid for\nhis guardianship down to the last day.\n\nLest the principles just set forth may appear to certain readers\ntoo metaphysical, I shall reproduce them in a more concrete form,\nintelligible to the dullest brains, and pregnant with the most important\nconsequences.\n\nHitherto, I have considered property as a power of EXCLUSION; hereafter,\nI shall examine it as a power of INVASION.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV. THAT PROPERTY IS IMPOSSIBLE.\n\nThe last resort of proprietors,--the overwhelming argument whose\ninvincible potency reassures them,--is that, in their opinion, equality\nof conditions is impossible. \"Equality of conditions is a chimera,\" they\ncry with a knowing air; \"distribute wealth equally to-day--to-morrow\nthis equality will have vanished.\"\n\nTo this hackneyed objection, which they repeat everywhere with the most\nmarvellous assurance, they never fail to add the following comment, as\na sort of GLORY BE TO THE FATHER: \"If all men were equal, nobody would\nwork.\" This anthem is sung with variations.\n\n\"If all were masters, nobody would obey.\"\n\n\"If nobody were rich, who would employ the poor?\"\n\nAnd, \"If nobody were poor, who would labor for the rich?\"\n\nBut let us have done with invective--we have better arguments at our\ncommand.\n\nIf I show that property itself is impossible--that it is property which\nis a contradiction, a chimera, a utopia; and if I show it no longer\nby metaphysics and jurisprudence, but by figures, equations, and\ncalculations,--imagine the fright of the astounded proprietor! And you,\nreader; what do you think of the retort?\n\nNumbers govern the world--mundum regunt numeri. This proverb applies\nas aptly to the moral and political, as to the sidereal and molecular,\nworld. The elements of justice are identical with those of algebra;\nlegislation and government are simply the arts of classifying\nand balancing powers; all jurisprudence falls within the rules of\narithmetic. This chapter and the next will serve to lay the foundations\nof this extraordinary doctrine. Then will be unfolded to the reader's\nvision an immense and novel career; then shall we commence to see in\nnumerical relations the synthetic unity of philosophy and the sciences;\nand, filled with admiration and enthusiasm for this profound and\nmajestic simplicity of Nature, we shall shout with the apostle: \"Yes,\nthe Eternal has made all things by number, weight, and measure!\" We\nshall understand not only that equality of conditions is possible, but\nthat all else is impossible; that this seeming impossibility which\nwe charge upon it arises from the fact that we always think of it\nin connection either with the proprietary or the communistic\nregime,--political systems equally irreconcilable with human nature. We\nshall see finally that equality is constantly being realized without our\nknowledge, even at the very moment when we are pronouncing it incapable\nof realization; that the time draws near when, without any effort or\neven wish of ours, we shall have it universally established; that with\nit, in it, and by it, the natural and true political order must make\nitself manifest.\n\nIt has been said, in speaking of the blindness and obstinacy of the\npassions, that, if man had any thing to gain by denying the truths of\narithmetic, he would find some means of unsettling their certainty: here\nis an opportunity to try this curious experiment. I attack property,\nno longer with its own maxims, but with arithmetic. Let the proprietors\nprepare to verify my figures; for, if unfortunately for them the figures\nprove accurate, the proprietors are lost.\n\nIn proving the impossibility of property, I complete the proof of its\ninjustice. In fact,--\n\nThat which is JUST must be USEFUL;\n\nThat which is useful must be TRUE;\n\nThat which is true must be POSSIBLE;\n\nTherefore, every thing which is impossible is untrue, useless, unjust.\nThen,--a priori,--we may judge of the justice of any thing by its\npossibility; so that if the thing were absolutely impossible, it would\nbe absolutely unjust.\n\n\n\nPROPERTY IS PHYSICALLY AND MATHEMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.\n\nDEMONSTRATION.\n\nAXIOM.--Property is the Right of Increase claimed by the Proprietor over\nany thing which he has stamped as his own.\n\n\nThis proposition is purely an axiom, because,--\n\n1. It is not a definition, since it does not express all that is\nincluded in the right of property--the right of sale, of exchange, of\ngift; the right to transform, to alter, to consume, to destroy, to\nuse and abuse, &c. All these rights are so many different powers of\nproperty, which we may consider separately; but which we disregard here,\nthat we may devote all our attention to this single one,--the right of\nincrease.\n\n2. It is universally admitted. No one can deny it without denying the\nfacts, without being instantly belied by universal custom.\n\n3. It is self-evident, since property is always accompanied (either\nactually or potentially) by the fact which this axiom expresses; and\nthrough this fact, mainly, property manifests, establishes, and asserts\nitself.\n\n4. Finally, its negation involves a contradiction. The right of increase\nis really an inherent right, so essential a part of property, that, in\nits absence, property is null and void.\n\nOBSERVATIONS.--Increase receives different names according to the\nthing by which it is yielded: if by land, FARM-RENT; if by houses and\nfurniture, RENT; if by life-investments, REVENUE; if by money, INTEREST;\nif by exchange, ADVANTAGE, GAIN, PROFIT (three things which must not be\nconfounded with the wages or legitimate price of labor).\n\nIncrease--a sort of royal prerogative, of tangible and consumable\nhomage--is due to the proprietor on account of his nominal and\nmetaphysical occupancy. His seal is set upon the thing; that is enough\nto prevent any one else from occupying it without HIS permission.\n\nThis permission to use his things the proprietor may, if he chooses,\nfreely grant. Commonly he sells it. This sale is really a stellionate\nand an extortion; but by the legal fiction of the right of property,\nthis same sale, severely punished, we know not why, in other cases, is a\nsource of profit and value to the proprietor.\n\nThe amount demanded by the proprietor, in payment for this permission,\nis expressed in monetary terms by the dividend which the supposed\nproduct yields in nature. So that, by the right of increase, the\nproprietor reaps and does not plough; gleans and does not till; consumes\nand does not produce; enjoys and does not labor. Very different from the\nidols of the Psalmist are the gods of property: the former had hands and\nfelt not; the latter, on the contrary, _manus habent et palpabunt_.\n_ _The right of increase is conferred in a very mysterious and\nsupernatural manner. The inauguration of a proprietor is accompanied\nby the awful ceremonies of an ancient initiation. First, comes the\nCONSECRATION of the article; a consecration which makes known to all\nthat they must offer up a suitable sacrifice to the proprietor, whenever\nthey wish, by his permission obtained and signed, to use his article.\n\nSecond, comes the ANATHEMA, which prohibits--except on the conditions\naforesaid--all persons from touching the article, even in the\nproprietor's absence; and pronounces every violator of property\nsacrilegious, infamous, amenable to the secular power, and deserving of\nbeing handed over to it.\n\nFinally, the DEDICATION, which enables the proprietor or patron\nsaint--the god chosen to watch over the article--to inhabit it mentally,\nlike a divinity in his sanctuary. By means of this dedication, the\nsubstance of the article--so to speak--becomes converted into the person\nof the proprietor, who is regarded as ever present in its form.\n\nThis is exactly the doctrine of the writers on jurisprudence.\n\"Property,\" says Toullier, \"is a MORAL QUALITY inherent in a thing;\nAN ACTUAL BOND which fastens it to the proprietor, and which cannot be\nbroken save by his act.\" Locke humbly doubted whether God could make\nmatter INTELLIGENT. Toullier asserts that the proprietor renders it\nMORAL. How much does he lack of being a God? These are by no means\nexaggerations.\n\nPROPERTY IS THE RIGHT OF INCREASE; that is, the power to produce without\nlabor. Now, to produce without labor is to make something from nothing;\nin short, to create. Surely it is no more difficult to do this than to\nmoralize matter. The jurists are right, then, in applying to proprietors\nthis passage from the Scriptures,--_Ego dixi: Dii estis et filii Excelsi\nomnes_,--\"I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the\nMost High.\"\n\nPROPERTY IS THE RIGHT OF INCREASE. To us this axiom shall be like the\nname of the beast in the Apocalypse,--a name in which is hidden the\ncomplete explanation of the whole mystery of this beast. It was known\nthat he who should solve the mystery of this name would obtain a\nknowledge of the whole prophecy, and would succeed in mastering the\nbeast. Well! by the most careful interpretation of our axiom we shall\nkill the sphinx of property.\n\nStarting from this eminently characteristic fact--the RIGHT OF\nINCREASE--we shall pursue the old serpent through his coils; we shall\ncount the murderous entwinings of this frightful taenia, whose head,\nwith its thousand suckers, is always hidden from the sword of its most\nviolent enemies, though abandoning to them immense fragments of its\nbody. It requires something more than courage to subdue this monster.\nIt was written that it should not die until a proletaire, armed with a\nmagic wand, had fought with it.\n\nCOROLLARIES.--1. THE AMOUNT OF INCREASE IS PROPORTIONAL TO THE THING\nINCREASED. Whatever be the rate of interest,--whether it rise to three,\nfive, or ten per cent., or fall to one-half, one-fourth, one-tenth,--it\ndoes not matter; the law of increase remains the same. The law is as\nfollows:--\n\nAll capital--the cash value of which can be estimated--may be considered\nas a term in an arithmetical series which progresses in the ratio of one\nhundred, and the revenue yielded by this capital as the corresponding\nterm of another arithmetical series which progresses in a ratio equal to\nthe rate of interest. Thus, a capital of five hundred francs being the\nfifth term of the arithmetical progression whose ratio is one hundred,\nits revenue at three per cent. will be indicated by the fifth term of\nthe arithmetical progression whose ratio is three:--\n\n          100 .  200 .  300 .  400 .  500.\n           3  .   6  .   9  .   12 .   15.\n\n\nAn acquaintance with this sort of LOGARITHMS--tables of which,\ncalculated to a very high degree, are possessed by proprietors--will\ngive us the key to the most puzzling problems, and cause us to\nexperience a series of surprises.\n\nBy this LOGARITHMIC theory of the right of increase, a piece of\nproperty, together with its income, may be defined as A NUMBER WHOSE\nLOGARITHM IS EQUAL TO THE SUM OF ITS UNITS DIVIDED BY ONE HUNDRED, AND\nMULTIPLIED BY THE RATE OF INTEREST. For instance; a house valued at one\nhundred thousand francs, and leased at five per cent., yields a revenue\nof five thousand francs, according to the formula 100,000 x 5 / 100 =\nfive thousand. Vice versa, a piece of land which yields, at two and a\nhalf per cent., a revenue of three thousand francs is worth one hundred\nand twenty thousand francs, according to this other formula;\n3,000 x 100/ 2 1/2 = one hundred and twenty thousand.\n\nIn the first case, the ratio of the progression which marks the increase\nof interest is five; in the second, it is two and a half.\n\nOBSERVATION.--The forms of increase known as farm-rent, income, and\ninterest are paid annually; rent is paid by the week, the month, or\nthe year; profits and gains are paid at the time of exchange. Thus, the\namount of increase is proportional both to the thing increased, and\nthe time during which it increases; in other words, usury grows like a\ncancer--_foenus serpit sicut cancer_.\n\n2. THE INCREASE PAID TO THE PROPRIETOR BY THE OCCUPANT IS A DEAD LOSS\nTO THE LATTER. For if the proprietor owed, in exchange for the increase\nwhich he receives, some thing more than the permission which he grants,\nhis right of property would not be perfect--he would not possess\n_jure optimo, jure perfecto;_ that is, he would not be in reality a\nproprietor. Then, all which passes from the hands of the occupant into\nthose of the proprietor in the name of increase, and as the price of\nthe permission to occupy, is a permanent gain for the latter, and a dead\nloss and annihilation for the former; to whom none of it will return,\nsave in the forms of gift, alms, wages paid for his services, or\nthe price of merchandise which he has delivered. In a word, increase\nperishes so far as the borrower is concerned; or to use the more\nenergetic Latin phrase,--_res perit solventi_.\n\n3. THE RIGHT OF INCREASE OPPRESSES THE PROPRIETOR AS WELL AS THE\nSTRANGER. The master of a thing, as its proprietor, levies a tax for the\nuse of his property upon himself as its possessor, equal to that which\nhe would receive from a third party; so that capital bears interest in\nthe hands of the capitalist, as well as in those of the borrower and the\ncommandite. If, indeed, rather than accept a rent of five hundred francs\nfor my apartment, I prefer to occupy and enjoy it, it is clear that I\nshall become my own debtor for a rent equal to that which I deny myself.\nThis principle is universally practised in business, and is regarded as\nan axiom by the economists. Manufacturers, also, who have the advantage\nof being proprietors of their floating capital, although they owe no\ninterest to any one, in calculating their profits subtract from them,\nnot only their running expenses and the wages of their employees, but\nalso the interest on their capital. For the same reason, money-lenders\nretain in their own possession as little money as possible; for, since\nall capital necessarily bears interest, if this interest is supplied by\nno one, it comes out of the capital, which is to that extent diminished.\nThus, by the right of increase, capital eats itself up. This is,\ndoubtless, the idea that Papinius intended to convey in the phrase, as\nelegant as it is forcible--_Foenus mordet solidam_. I beg pardon for\nusing Latin so frequently in discussing this subject; it is an homage\nwhich I pay to the most usurious nation that ever existed.\n\n\n\nFIRST PROPOSITION.\n\nProperty is impossible, because it demands Something for Nothing.\n\n\nThe discussion of this proposition covers the same ground as that of the\norigin of farm-rent, which is so much debated by the economists. When\nI read the writings of the greater part of these men, I cannot avoid\na feeling of contempt mingled with anger, in view of this mass of\nnonsense, in which the detestable vies with the absurd. It would be a\nrepetition of the story of the elephant in the moon, were it not for the\natrocity of the consequences. To seek a rational and legitimate origin\nof that which is, and ever must be, only robbery, extortion, and\nplunder--that must be the height of the proprietor's folly; the last\ndegree of bedevilment into which minds, otherwise judicious, can be\nthrown by the perversity of selfishness.\n\n\n\"A farmer,\" says Say, \"is a wheat manufacturer who, among other tools\nwhich serve him in modifying the material from which he makes the\nwheat, employs one large tool, which we call a field. If he is not the\nproprietor of the field, if he is only a tenant, he pays the proprietor\nfor the productive service of this tool. The tenant is reimbursed by\nthe purchaser, the latter by another, until the product reaches the\nconsumer; who redeems the first payment, PLUS all the others, by means\nof which the product has at last come into his hands.\"\n\n\nLet us lay aside the subsequent payments by which the product reaches\nthe consumer, and, for the present, pay attention only to the first one\nof all,--the rent paid to the proprietor by the tenant. On what ground,\nwe ask, is the proprietor entitled to this rent?\n\nAccording to Ricardo, MacCulloch, and Mill, farm-rent, properly\nspeaking, is simply the EXCESS OF THE PRODUCT OF THE MOST FERTILE LAND\nOVER THAT OF LANDS OF AN INFERIOR QUALITY; so that farm-rent is not\ndemanded for the former until the increase of population renders\nnecessary the cultivation of the latter.\n\nIt is difficult to see any sense in this. How can a right to the land be\nbased upon a difference in the quality of the land? How can varieties of\nsoil engender a principle of legislation and politics? This reasoning\nis either so subtle, or so stupid, that the more I think of it, the more\nbewildered I become. Suppose two pieces of land of equal area; the one,\nA, capable of supporting ten thousand inhabitants; the other, B, capable\nof supporting nine thousand only: when, owing to an increase in their\nnumber, the inhabitants of A shall be forced to cultivate B, the landed\nproprietors of A will exact from their tenants in A a rent proportional\nto the difference between ten and nine. So say, I think, Ricardo,\nMacCulloch, and Mill. But if A supports as many inhabitants as it can\ncontain,--that is, if the inhabitants of A, by our hypothesis, have only\njust enough land to keep them alive,--how can they pay farm-rent?\n\nIf they had gone no farther than to say that the difference in land has\nOCCASIONED farm-rent, instead of CAUSED it, this observation would have\ntaught us a valuable lesson; namely, that farm-rent grew out of a desire\nfor equality. Indeed, if all men have an equal right to the possession\nof good land, no one can be forced to cultivate bad land without\nindemnification. Farm-rent--according to Ricardo, MacCulloch, and\nMill--would then have been a compensation for loss and hardship. This\nsystem of practical equality is a bad one, no doubt; but it sprang from\ngood intentions. What argument can Ricardo, MacCulloch, and Mill develop\ntherefrom in favor of property? Their theory turns against themselves,\nand strangles them.\n\nMalthus thinks that farm-rent has its source in the power possessed by\nland of producing more than is necessary to supply the wants of the\nmen who cultivate it. I would ask Malthus why successful labor should\nentitle the idle to a portion of the products?\n\nBut the worthy Malthus is mistaken in regard to the fact. Yes; land has\nthe power of producing more than is needed by those who cultivate it, if\nby CULTIVATORS is meant tenants only. The tailor also makes more clothes\nthan he wears, and the cabinet-maker more furniture than he uses. But,\nsince the various professions imply and sustain one another, not only\nthe farmer, but the followers of all arts and trades--even to the doctor\nand the school-teacher--are, and ought to be, regarded as CULTIVATORS OF\nTHE LAND. Malthus bases farm-rent upon the principle of commerce.\nNow, the fundamental law of commerce being equivalence of the products\nexchanged, any thing which destroys this equivalence violates the law.\nThere is an error in the estimate which needs to be corrected.\n\nBuchanan--a commentator on Smith--regarded farm-rent as the result of a\nmonopoly, and maintained that labor alone is productive. Consequently,\nhe thought that, without this monopoly, products would rise in price;\nand he found no basis for farm-rent save in the civil law. This opinion\nis a corollary of that which makes the civil law the basis of property.\nBut why has the civil law--which ought to be the written expression of\njustice--authorized this monopoly? Whoever says monopoly, necessarily\nexcludes justice. Now, to say that farm-rent is a monopoly sanctioned by\nthe law, is to say that injustice is based on justice,--a contradiction\nin terms.\n\nSay answers Buchanan, that the proprietor is not a monopolist, because a\nmonopolist \"is one who does not increase the utility of the merchandise\nwhich passes through his hands.\"\n\nHow much does the proprietor increase the utility of his tenant's\nproducts? Has he ploughed, sowed, reaped, mowed, winnowed, weeded? These\nare the processes by which the tenant and his employees increase\nthe utility of the material which they consume for the purpose of\nreproduction.\n\n\n\"The landed proprietor increases the utility of products by means of his\nimplement, the land. This implement receives in one state, and returns\nin another the materials of which wheat is composed. The action of\nthe land is a chemical process, which so modifies the material that it\nmultiplies it by destroying it. The soil is then a producer of utility;\nand when it [the soil?] asks its pay in the form of profit, or farm\nrent, for its proprietor, it at the same time gives something to the\nconsumer in exchange for the amount which the consumer pays it. It gives\nhim a produced utility; and it is the production of this utility which\nwarrants us in calling land productive, as well as labor.\"\n\n\nLet us clear up this matter.\n\nThe blacksmith who manufactures for the farmer implements of husbandry,\nthe wheelwright who makes him a cart, the mason who builds his barn,\nthe carpenter, the basket-maker, &c.,--all of whom contribute to\nagricultural production by the tools which they provide,--are producers\nof utility; consequently, they are entitled to a part of the products.\n\n\n\"Undoubtedly,\" says Say; \"but the land also is an implement whose\nservice must be paid for, then....\"\n\n\nI admit that the land is an implement; but who made it? Did the\nproprietor? Did he--by the efficacious virtue of the right of property,\nby this MORAL QUALITY infused into the soil--endow it with vigor and\nfertility? Exactly there lies the monopoly of the proprietor; in the\nfact that, though he did not make the implement, he asks pay for its\nuse. When the Creator shall present himself and claim farm-rent, we will\nconsider the matter with him; or even when the proprietor--his pretended\nrepresentative--shall exhibit his power-of-attorney.\n\n\n\"The proprietor's service,\" adds Say, \"is easy, I admit.\"\n\n\nIt is a frank confession.\n\n\n\"But we cannot disregard it. Without property, one farmer would contend\nwith another for the possession of a field without a proprietor, and the\nfield would remain uncultivated....\"\n\n\nThen the proprietor's business is to reconcile farmers by robbing\nthem. O logic! O justice! O the marvellous wisdom of economists! The\nproprietor, if they are right, is like Perrin-Dandin who, when summoned\nby two travellers to settle a dispute about an oyster, opened it,\ngobbled it, and said to them:--\n\n\n\"The Court awards you each a shell.\"\n\n\nCould any thing worse be said of property?\n\nWill Say tell us why the same farmers, who, if there were no\nproprietors, would contend with each other for possession of the\nsoil, do not contend to-day with the proprietors for this possession?\nObviously, because they think them legitimate possessors, and because\ntheir respect for even an imaginary right exceeds their avarice. I\nproved, in Chapter II., that possession is sufficient, without property,\nto maintain social order. Would it be more difficult, then, to reconcile\npossessors without masters than tenants controlled by proprietors? Would\nlaboring men, who respect--much to their own detriment--the pretended\nrights of the idler, violate the natural rights of the producer and the\nmanufacturer? What! if the husbandman forfeited his right to the land as\nsoon as he ceased to occupy it, would he become more covetous? And would\nthe impossibility of demanding increase, of taxing another's labor, be a\nsource of quarrels and law-suits? The economists use singular logic.\nBut we are not yet through. Admit that the proprietor is the legitimate\nmaster of the land.\n\n\"The land is an instrument of production,\" they say. That is true. But\nwhen, changing the noun into an adjective, they alter the phrase, thus,\n\"The land is a productive instrument,\" they make a wicked blunder.\n\nAccording to Quesnay and the early economists, all production comes from\nthe land. Smith, Ricardo, and de Tracy, on the contrary, say that labor\nis the sole agent of production. Say, and most of his successors,\nteach that BOTH land AND labor AND capital are productive. The latter\nconstitute the eclectic school of political economy. The truth is, that\nNEITHER land NOR labor NOR capital is productive. Production results\nfrom the co-operation of these three equally necessary elements, which,\ntaken separately, are equally sterile.\n\nPolitical economy, indeed, treats of the production, distribution,\nand consumption of wealth or values. But of what values? Of the values\nproduced by human industry; that is, of the changes made in matter\nby man, that he may appropriate it to his own use, and not at all of\nNature's spontaneous productions. Man's labor consists in a simple\nlaying on of hands. When he has taken that trouble, he has produced a\nvalue. Until then, the salt of the sea, the water of the springs, the\ngrass of the fields, and the trees of the forests are to him as if they\nwere not. The sea, without the fisherman and his line, supplies no fish.\nThe forest, without the wood-cutter and his axe, furnishes neither\nfuel nor timber. The meadow, without the mower, yields neither hay\nnor aftermath. Nature is a vast mass of material to be cultivated and\nconverted into products; but Nature produces nothing for herself: in the\neconomical sense, her products, in their relation to man, are not yet\nproducts.\n\nCapital, tools, and machinery are likewise unproductive. The hammer and\nthe anvil, without the blacksmith and the iron, do not forge. The mill,\nwithout the miller and the grain, does not grind, &c. Bring tools and\nraw material together; place a plough and some seed on fertile soil;\nenter a smithy, light the fire, and shut up the shop,--you will produce\nnothing. The following remark was made by an economist who possessed\nmore good sense than most of his fellows: \"Say credits capital with an\nactive part unwarranted by its nature; left to itself, it is an idle\ntool.\" (J. Droz: Political Economy.)\n\nFinally, labor and capital together, when unfortunately combined,\nproduce nothing. Plough a sandy desert, beat the water of the rivers,\npass type through a sieve,--you will get neither wheat, nor fish, nor\nbooks. Your trouble will be as fruitless as was the immense labor of the\narmy of Xerxes; who, as Herodotus says, with his three million soldiers,\nscourged the Hellespont for twenty-four hours, as a punishment for\nhaving broken and scattered the pontoon bridge which the great king had\nthrown across it.\n\nTools and capital, land and labor, considered individually and\nabstractly, are not, literally speaking, productive. The proprietor who\nasks to be rewarded for the use of a tool, or the productive power\nof his land, takes for granted, then, that which is radically false;\nnamely, that capital produces by its own effort,--and, in taking pay for\nthis imaginary product, he literally receives something for nothing.\n\nOBJECTION.--But if the blacksmith, the wheelwright, all manufacturers in\nshort, have a right to the products in return for the implements which\nthey furnish; and if land is an implement of production,--why does not\nthis implement entitle its proprietor, be his claim real or imaginary,\nto a portion of the products; as in the case of the manufacturers of\nploughs and wagons?\n\nREPLY.--Here we touch the heart of the question, the mystery of\nproperty; which we must clear up, if we would understand any thing of\nthe strange effects of the right of increase.\n\nHe who manufactures or repairs the farmer's tools receives the price\nONCE, either at the time of delivery, or in several payments; and when\nthis price is once paid to the manufacturer, the tools which he has\ndelivered belong to him no more. Never does he claim double payment for\nthe same tool, or the same job of repairs. If he annually shares in the\nproducts of the farmer, it is owing to the fact that he annually makes\nsomething for the farmer.\n\nThe proprietor, on the contrary, does not yield his implement; eternally\nhe is paid for it, eternally he keeps it.\n\nIn fact, the rent received by the proprietor is not intended to defray\nthe expense of maintaining and repairing the implement; this expense is\ncharged to the borrower, and does not concern the proprietor except as\nhe is interested in the preservation of the article. If he takes it upon\nhimself to attend to the repairs, he takes care that the money which he\nexpends for this purpose is repaid.\n\nThis rent does not represent the product of the implement, since of\nitself the implement produces nothing; we have just proved this, and we\nshall prove it more clearly still by its consequences.\n\nFinally, this rent does not represent the participation of the\nproprietor in the production; since this participation could consist,\nlike that of the blacksmith and the wheelwright, only in the surrender\nof the whole or a part of his implement, in which case he would cease\nto be its proprietor, which would involve a contradiction of the idea of\nproperty.\n\nThen, between the proprietor and his tenant there is no exchange either\nof values or services; then, as our axiom says, farm-rent is real\nincrease,--an extortion based solely upon fraud and violence on the\none hand, and weakness and ignorance upon the other. PRODUCTS say\nthe economists, ARE BOUGHT ONLY BY PRODUCTS. This maxim is property's\ncondemnation. The proprietor, producing neither by his own labor nor by\nhis implement, and receiving products in exchange for nothing, is either\na parasite or a thief. Then, if property can exist only as a right,\nproperty is impossible.\n\nCOROLLARIES.--1. The republican constitution of 1793, which defined\nproperty as \"the right to enjoy the fruit of one's labor,\" was grossly\nmistaken. It should have said, \"Property is the right to enjoy and\ndispose at will of another's goods,--the fruit of another's industry and\nlabor.\"\n\n2. Every possessor of lands, houses, furniture, machinery, tools, money,\n&c., who lends a thing for a price exceeding the cost of repairs (the\nrepairs being charged to the lender, and representing products which he\nexchanges for other products), is guilty of swindling and extortion. In\nshort, all rent received (nominally as damages, but really as payment\nfor a loan) is an act of property,--a robbery.\n\nHISTORICAL COMMENT.--The tax which a victorious nation levies upon a\nconquered nation is genuine farm-rent. The seigniorial rights abolished\nby the Revolution of 1789,--tithes, mortmain, statute-labor, &c.,--were\ndifferent forms of the rights of property; and they who under the titles\nof nobles, seigneurs, prebendaries, &c. enjoyed these rights, were\nneither more nor less than proprietors. To defend property to-day is to\ncondemn the Revolution.\n\n\n\nSECOND PROPOSITION.\n\nProperty is impossible because wherever it exists Production costs more\nthan it is worth.\n\n\nThe preceding proposition was legislative in its nature; this one\nis economical. It serves to prove that property, which originates in\nviolence, results in waste.\n\n\n\"Production,\" says Say, \"is exchange on a large scale. To render the\nexchange productive the value of the whole amount of service must be\nbalanced by the value of the product. If this condition is not\ncomplied with, the exchange is unequal; the producer gives more than he\nreceives.\"\n\n\nNow, value being necessarily based upon utility, it follows that every\nuseless product is necessarily valueless,--that it cannot be exchanged;\nand, consequently, that it cannot be given in payment for productive\nservices.\n\nThen, though production may equal consumption, it never can exceed it;\nfor there is no real production save where there is a production of\nutility, and there is no utility save where there is a possibility of\nconsumption. Thus, so much of every product as is rendered by\nexcessive abundance inconsumable, becomes useless, valueless,\nunexchangeable,--consequently, unfit to be given in payment for any\nthing whatever, and is no longer a product.\n\nConsumption, on the other hand, to be legitimate,--to be true\nconsumption,--must be reproductive of utility; for, if it is\nunproductive, the products which it destroys are cancelled\nvalues--things produced at a pure loss; a state of things which causes\nproducts to depreciate in value. Man has the power to destroy, but he\nconsumes only that which he reproduces. Under a right system of economy,\nthere is then an equation between production and consumption.\n\nThese points established, let us suppose a community of one thousand\nfamilies, enclosed in a territory of a given circumference, and deprived\nof foreign intercourse. Let this community represent the human race,\nwhich, scattered over the face of the earth, is really isolated. In\nfact, the difference between a community and the human race being only\na numerical one, the economical results will be absolutely the same in\neach case.\n\nSuppose, then, that these thousand families, devoting themselves\nexclusively to wheat-culture, are obliged to pay to one hundred\nindividuals, chosen from the mass, an annual revenue of ten per cent. on\ntheir product. It is clear that, in such a case, the right of increase\nis equivalent to a tax levied in advance upon social production. Of what\nuse is this tax?\n\nIt cannot be levied to supply the community with provisions, for between\nthat and farm-rent there is nothing in common; nor to pay for services\nand products,--for the proprietors, laboring like the others, have\nlabored only for themselves. Finally, this tax is of no use to its\nrecipients who, having harvested wheat enough for their own consumption,\nand not being able in a society without commerce and manufactures to\nprocure any thing else in exchange for it, thereby lose the advantage of\ntheir income.\n\nIn such a society, one-tenth of the product being inconsumable,\none-tenth of the labor goes unpaid--production costs more than it is\nworth.\n\nNow, change three hundred of our wheat-producers into artisans of all\nkinds: one hundred gardeners and wine-growers, sixty shoemakers\nand tailors, fifty carpenters and blacksmiths, eighty of various\nprofessions, and, that nothing may be lacking, seven school-masters,\none mayor, one judge, and one priest; each industry furnishes the whole\ncommunity with its special product. Now, the total production being one\nthousand, each laborer's consumption is one; namely, wheat, meat,\nand grain, 0.7; wine and vegetables, 0.1; shoes and clothing, 0.06;\niron-work and furniture, 0.05; sundries, 0.08; instruction, 0.007;\nadministration, 0.002; mass, 0.001, Total 1.\n\nBut the community owes a revenue of ten per cent.; and it matters little\nwhether the farmers alone pay it, or all the laborers are responsible\nfor it,--the result is the same. The farmer raises the price of his\nproducts in proportion to his share of the debt; the other laborers\nfollow his example. Then, after some fluctuations, equilibrium is\nestablished, and all pay nearly the same amount of the revenue. It\nwould be a grave error to assume that in a nation none but farmers pay\nfarm-rent--the whole nation pays it.\n\nI say, then, that by this tax of ten per cent. each laborer's\nconsumption is reduced as follows: wheat, 0.63; wine and vegetables,\n0.09; clothing and shoes, 0.054; furniture and iron-work, 0.045; other\nproducts, 0.072; schooling, 0.0063; administration, 0.0018; mass,\n0.0009. Total 0.9.\n\nThe laborer has produced 1; he consumes only 0.9. He loses, then,\none-tenth of the price of his labor; his production still costs\nmore than it is worth. On the other hand, the tenth received by the\nproprietors is no less a waste; for, being laborers themselves, they,\nlike the others, possess in the nine-tenths of their product the\nwherewithal to live: they want for nothing. Why should they wish their\nproportion of bread, wine, meat, clothes, shelter, &c., to be doubled,\nif they can neither consume nor exchange them? Then farm-rent, with\nthem as with the rest of the laborers, is a waste, and perishes in their\nhands. Extend the hypothesis, increase the number and variety of the\nproducts, you still have the same result.\n\nHitherto, we have considered the proprietor as taking part in the\nproduction, not only (as Say says) by the use of his instrument, but in\nan effective manner and by the labor of his hands. Now, it is easy to\nsee that, under such circumstances, property will never exist. What\nhappens?\n\nThe proprietor--an essentially libidinous animal, without virtue or\nshame--is not satisfied with an orderly and disciplined life. He loves\nproperty, because it enables him to do at leisure what he pleases and\nwhen he pleases. Having obtained the means of life, he gives himself up\nto trivialities and indolence; he enjoys, he fritters away his time, he\ngoes in quest of curiosities and novel sensations. Property--to enjoy\nitself--has to abandon ordinary life, and busy itself in luxurious\noccupations and unclean enjoyments.\n\nInstead of giving up a farm-rent, which is perishing in their hands,\nand thus lightening the labor of the community, our hundred proprietors\nprefer to rest. In consequence of this withdrawal,--the absolute\nproduction being diminished by one hundred, while the consumption\nremains the same,--production and consumption seem to balance. But,\nin the first place, since the proprietors no longer labor, their\nconsumption is, according to economical principles, unproductive;\nconsequently, the previous condition of the community--when the labor of\none hundred was rewarded by no products--is superseded by one in which\nthe products of one hundred are consumed without labor. The deficit\nis always the same, whichever the column of the account in which it is\nexpressed. Either the maxims of political economy are false, or else\nproperty, which contradicts them, is impossible.\n\nThe economists--regarding all unproductive consumption as an evil, as\na robbery of the human race--never fail to exhort proprietors to\nmoderation, labor, and economy; they preach to them the necessity of\nmaking themselves useful, of remunerating production for that which they\nreceive from it; they launch the most terrible curses against luxury and\nlaziness. Very beautiful morality, surely; it is a pity that it lacks\ncommon sense. The proprietor who labors, or, as the economists say,\nWHO MAKES HIMSELF USEFUL, is paid for this labor and utility; is he,\ntherefore, any the less idle as concerns the property which he does not\nuse, and from which he receives an income? His condition, whatever he\nmay do, is an unproductive and FELONIOUS one; he cannot cease to waste\nand destroy without ceasing to be a proprietor.\n\nBut this is only the least of the evils which property engenders.\n\nSociety has to maintain some idle people, whether or no. It will always\nhave the blind, the maimed, the insane, and the idiotic. It can easily\nsupport a few sluggards. At this point, the impossibilities thicken and\nbecome complicated.\n\n\n\nTHIRD PROPOSITION.\n\nProperty is impossible, because, with a given capital, Production is\nproportional to labor, not to property.\n\n\nTo pay a farm-rent of one hundred at the rate of ten per cent. of the\nproduct, the product must be one thousand; that the product may be one\nthousand, a force of one thousand laborers is needed. It follows,\nthat in granting a furlough, as we have just done, to our one hundred\nlaborer-proprietors, all of whom had an equal right to lead the life\nof men of income,--we have placed ourselves in a position where we are\nunable to pay their revenues. In fact, the productive power, which at\nfirst was one thousand, being now but nine hundred, the production is\nalso reduced to nine hundred, one-tenth of which is ninety. Either,\nthen, ten proprietors out of the one hundred cannot be paid,--provided\nthe remaining ninety are to get the whole amount of their farm-rent,--or\nelse all must consent to a decrease of ten per cent. For it is not for\nthe laborer, who has been wanting in no particular, who has produced as\nin the past, to suffer by the withdrawal of the proprietor. The\nlatter must take the consequences of his own idleness. But, then, the\nproprietor becomes poorer for the very reason that he wishes to enjoy;\nby exercising his right, he loses it; so that property seems to decrease\nand vanish in proportion as we try to lay hold of it,--the more we\npursue it, the more it eludes our grasp. What sort of a right is that\nwhich is governed by numerical relations, and which an arithmetical\ncalculation can destroy?\n\nThe laborer-proprietor received, first, as laborer, 0.9 in wages;\nsecond, as proprietor, 1 in farm-rent. He said to himself, \"My farm-rent\nis sufficient; I have enough and to spare without my labor.\" And thus\nit is that the income upon which he calculated gets diminished by\none-tenth,--he at the same time not even suspecting the cause of this\ndiminution. By taking part in the production, he was himself the creator\nof this tenth which has vanished; and while he thought to labor only for\nhimself, he unwittingly suffered a loss in exchanging his products, by\nwhich he was made to pay to himself one-tenth of his own farm-rent. Like\nevery one else, he produced 1, and received but 0.9\n\nIf, instead of nine hundred laborers, there had been but five hundred,\nthe whole amount of farm-rent would have been reduced to fifty; if there\nhad been but one hundred, it would have fallen to ten. We may posit,\nthen, the following axiom as a law of proprietary economy: INCREASE MUST\nDIMINISH AS THE NUMBER OF IDLERS AUGMENTS.\n\n_ _This first result will lead us to another more surprising still.\nIts effect is to deliver us at one blow from all the evils of property,\nwithout abolishing it, without wronging proprietors, and by a highly\nconservative process.\n\nWe have just proved that, if the farm-rent in a community of one\nthousand laborers is one hundred, that of nine hundred would be ninety,\nthat of eight hundred, eighty, that of one hundred, ten, &c. So that, in\na community where there was but one laborer, the farm-rent would be but\n0.1; no matter how great the extent and value of the land appropriated.\nTherefore, WITH A GIVEN LANDED CAPITAL, PRODUCTION IS PROPORTIONAL TO\nLABOR, NOT TO PROPERTY.\n\nGuided by this principle, let us try to ascertain the maximum increase\nof all property whatever.\n\nWhat is, essentially, a farm-lease? It is a contract by which the\nproprietor yields to a tenant possession of his land, in consideration\nof a portion of that which it yields him, the proprietor. If, in\nconsequence of an increase in his household, the tenant becomes ten\ntimes as strong as the proprietor, he will produce ten times as\nmuch. Would the proprietor in such a case be justified in raising the\nfarm-rent tenfold? His right is not, The more you produce, the more I\ndemand. It is, The more I sacrifice, the more I demand. The increase\nin the tenant's household, the number of hands at his disposal, the\nresources of his industry,--all these serve to increase production, but\nbear no relation to the proprietor. His claims are to be measured by his\nown productive capacity, not that of others. Property is the right of\nincrease, not a poll-tax. How could a man, hardly capable of cultivating\neven a few acres by himself, demand of a community, on the ground of its\nuse of ten thousand acres of his property, ten thousand times as much\nas he is incapable of producing from one acre? Why should the price of a\nloan be governed by the skill and strength of the borrower, rather than\nby the utility sacrificed by the proprietor? We must recognize, then,\nthis second economical law: INCREASE IS MEASURED BY A FRACTION OF THE\nPROPRIETORS PRODUCTION.\n\nNow, this production, what is it? In other words, What can the lord and\nmaster of a piece of land justly claim to have sacrificed in lending it\nto a tenant?\n\nThe productive capacity of a proprietor, like that of any laborer, being\none, the product which he sacrifices in surrendering his land is also\none. If, then, the rate of increase is ten per cent., the maximum\nincrease is 0.1.\n\nBut we have seen that, whenever a proprietor withdraws from production,\nthe amount of products is lessened by 1. Then the increase which accrues\nto him, being equal to 0.1 while he remains among the laborers, will be\nequal after his withdrawal, by the law of the decrease of farm-rent,\nto 0.09. Thus we are led to this final formula: THE MAXIMUM INCOME OF\nA PROPRIETOR IS EQUAL TO THE SQUARE ROOT OF THE PRODUCT OF ONE LABORER\n(some number being agreed upon to express this product). THE DIMINUTION\nWHICH THIS INCOME SUFFERS, IF THE PROPRIETOR IS IDLE, IS EQUAL TO A\nFRACTION WHOSE NUMERATOR IS 1, AND WHOSE DENOMINATOR IS THE NUMBER WHICH\nEXPRESSES THE PRODUCT.\n\nThus the maximum income of an idle proprietor, or of one who labors in\nhis own behalf outside of the community, figured at ten per cent. on an\naverage production of one thousand francs per laborer, would be ninety\nfrancs. If, then, there are in France one million proprietors with an\nincome of one thousand francs each, which they consume unproductively,\ninstead of the one thousand millions which are paid them annually, they\nare entitled in strict justice, and by the most accurate calculation, to\nninety millions only.\n\nIt is something of a reduction, to take nine hundred and ten millions\nfrom the burdens which weigh so heavily upon the laboring class!\nNevertheless, the account is not finished, and the laborer is still\nignorant of the full extent of his rights.\n\nWhat is the right of increase when confined within just limits? A\nrecognition of the right of occupancy. But since all have an equal right\nof occupancy, every man is by the same title a proprietor. Every man has\na right to an income equal to a fraction of his product. If, then,\nthe laborer is obliged by the right of property to pay a rent to the\nproprietor, the proprietor is obliged by the same right to pay the same\namount of rent to the laborer; and, since their rights balance each\nother, the difference between them is zero.\n\n_Scholium_.--If farm-rent is only a fraction of the supposed product of\nthe proprietor, whatever the amount and value of the property, the same\nis true in the case of a large number of small and distinct proprietors.\nFor, although one man may use the property of each separately, he cannot\nuse the property of all at the same time.\n\nTo sum up. The right of increase, which can exist only within very\nnarrow limits, defined by the laws of production, is annihilated by\nthe right of occupancy. Now, without the right of increase, there is no\nproperty. Then property is impossible.\n\n\n\nFOURTH PROPOSITION.\n\nProperty is impossible, because it is Homicide.\n\n\nIf the right of increase could be subjected to the laws of reason and\njustice, it would be reduced to an indemnity or reward whose MAXIMUM\nnever could exceed, for a single laborer, a certain fraction of that\nwhich he is capable of producing. This we have just shown. But why\nshould the right of increase--let us not fear to call it by its right\nname, the right of robbery--be governed by reason, with which it has\nnothing in common? The proprietor is not content with the increase\nallotted him by good sense and the nature of things: he demands ten\ntimes, a hundred times, a thousand times, a million times as much. By\nhis own labor, his property would yield him a product equal only to\none; and he demands of society, no longer a right proportional to his\nproductive capacity, but a per capita tax. He taxes his fellows in\nproportion to their strength, their number, and their industry. A son\nis born to a farmer. \"Good!\" says the proprietor; \"one more chance\nfor increase!\" By what process has farm-rent been thus changed into\na poll-tax? Why have our jurists and our theologians failed, with all\ntheir shrewdness, to check the extension of the right of increase?\n\nThe proprietor, having estimated from his own productive capacity the\nnumber of laborers which his property will accommodate, divides it\ninto as many portions, and says: \"Each one shall yield me revenue.\"\nTo increase his income, he has only to divide his property. Instead\nof reckoning the interest due him on his labor, he reckons it on his\ncapital; and, by this substitution, the same property, which in the\nhands of its owner is capable of yielding only one, is worth to him\nten, a hundred, a thousand, a million. Consequently, he has only to hold\nhimself in readiness to register the names of the laborers who apply to\nhim--his task consists in drafting leases and receipts.\n\nNot satisfied with the lightness of his duties, the proprietor does not\nintend to bear even the deficit resulting from his idleness; he throws\nit upon the shoulders of the producer, of whom he always demands the\nsame reward. When the farm-rent of a piece of land is once raised to its\nhighest point, the proprietor never lowers it; high prices, the scarcity\nof labor, the disadvantages of the season, even pestilence itself, have\nno effect upon him--why should he suffer from hard times when he does\nnot labor?\n\nHere commences a new series of phenomena.\n\nSay--who reasons with marvellous clearness whenever he assails taxation,\nbut who is blind to the fact that the proprietor, as well as the\ntax-gatherer, steals from the tenant, and in the same manner--says in\nhis second letter to Malthus:--\n\n\n\"If the collector of taxes and those who employ him consume one-sixth\nof the products, they thereby compel the producers to feed, clothe, and\nsupport themselves on five-sixths of what they produce. They admit this,\nbut say at the same time that it is possible for each one to live on\nfive-sixths of what he produces.\n\n\"I admit that, if they insist upon it; but I ask if they believe that the\nproducer would live as well, in case they demanded of him, instead of\none-sixth, two-sixths, or one-third, of their products? No; but he would\nstill live. Then I ask whether he would still live, in case they should\nrob him of two-thirds,... then three-quarters? But I hear no reply.\"\n\n\nIf the master of the French economists had been less blinded by his\nproprietary prejudices, he would have seen that farm-rent has precisely\nthe same effect.\n\nTake a family of peasants composed of six persons,--father, mother, and\nfour children,--living in the country, and cultivating a small piece of\nground. Let us suppose that by hard labor they manage, as the saying is,\nto make both ends meet; that, having lodged, warmed, clothed, and fed\nthemselves, they are clear of debt, but have laid up nothing. Taking the\nyears together, they contrive to live. If the year is prosperous, the\nfather drinks a little more wine, the daughters buy themselves a dress,\nthe sons a hat; they eat a little cheese, and, occasionally, some meat.\nI say that these people are on the road to wreck and ruin.\n\nFor, by the third corollary of our axiom, they owe to themselves the\ninterest on their own capital. Estimating this capital at only eight\nthousand francs at two and a half per cent., there is an annual interest\nof two hundred francs to be paid. If, then, these two hundred francs,\ninstead of being subtracted from the gross product to be saved and\ncapitalized, are consumed, there is an annual deficit of two hundred\nfrancs in the family assets; so that at the end of forty years these\ngood people, without suspecting it, will have eaten up their property\nand become bankrupt!\n\nThis result seems ridiculous--it is a sad reality.\n\nThe conscription comes. What is the conscription? An act of property\nexercised over families by the government without warning--a robbery\nof men and money. The peasants do not like to part with their sons,--in\nthat I do not think them wrong. It is hard for a young man of twenty\nto gain any thing by life in the barracks; unless he is depraved, he\ndetests it. You can generally judge of a soldier's morality by his\nhatred of his uniform. Unfortunate wretches or worthless scamps,--such\nis the make-up of the French army. This ought not to be the case,--but\nso it is. Question a hundred thousand men, and not one will contradict\nmy assertion.\n\nOur peasant, in redeeming his two conscripted sons, expends four\nthousand francs, which he borrows for that purpose; the interest on\nthis, at five per cent., is two hundred francs;--a sum equal to that\nreferred to above. If, up to this time, the production of the family,\nconstantly balanced by its consumption, has been one thousand two\nhundred francs, or two hundred francs per persons--in order to pay this\ninterest, either the six laborers must produce as much as seven, or must\nconsume as little as five.\n\nCurtail consumption they cannot--how can they curtail necessity? To\nproduce more is impossible; they can work neither harder nor longer.\nShall they take a middle course, and consume five and a half while\nproducing six and a half? They would soon find that with the stomach\nthere is no compromise--that beyond a certain degree of abstinence it\nis impossible to go--that strict necessity can be curtailed but little\nwithout injury to the health; and, as for increasing the product,--there\ncomes a storm, a drought, an epizootic, and all the hopes of the farmer\nare dashed. In short, the rent will not be paid, the interest will\naccumulate, the farm will be seized, and the possessor ejected.\n\nThus a family, which lived in prosperity while it abstained from\nexercising the right of property, falls into misery as soon as the\nexercise of this right becomes a necessity. Property requires of the\nhusbandman the double power of enlarging his land, and fertilizing it by\na simple command. While a man is simply possessor of the land, he finds\nin it means of subsistence; as soon as he pretends to proprietorship,\nit suffices him no longer. Being able to produce only that which\nhe consumes, the fruit of his labor is his recompense for his\ntrouble--nothing is left for the instrument.\n\nRequired to pay what he cannot produce,--such is the condition of the\ntenant after the proprietor has retired from social production in order\nto speculate upon the labor of others by new methods.\n\nLet us now return to our first hypothesis.\n\nThe nine hundred laborers, sure that their future production will equal\nthat of the past, are quite surprised, after paying their farm-rent, to\nfind themselves poorer by one-tenth than they were the previous year.\nIn fact, this tenth--which was formerly produced and paid by the\nproprietor-laborer who then took part in the production, and paid part\nof the--public expenses--now has not been produced, and has been paid.\nIt must then have been taken from the producer's consumption. To\nchoke this inexplicable deficit, the laborer borrows, confident of\nhis intention and ability to return,--a confidence which is shaken the\nfollowing year by a new loan, PLUS the interest on the first. From whom\ndoes he borrow? From the proprietor. The proprietor lends his surplus to\nthe laborer; and this surplus, which he ought to return, becomes--being\nlent at interest--a new source of profit to him. Then debts increase\nindefinitely; the proprietor makes advances to the producer who never\nreturns them; and the latter, constantly robbed and constantly borrowing\nfrom the robbers, ends in bankruptcy, defrauded of all that he had.\n\nSuppose that the proprietor--who needs his tenant to furnish him with\nan income--then releases him from his debts. He will thus do a very\nbenevolent deed, which will procure for him a recommendation in the\ncurate's prayers; while the poor tenant, overwhelmed by this unstinted\ncharity, and taught by his catechism to pray for his benefactors, will\npromise to redouble his energy, and suffer new hardships that he may\ndischarge his debt to so kind a master.\n\nThis time he takes precautionary measures; he raises the price of\ngrains. The manufacturer does the same with his products. The reaction\ncomes, and, after some fluctuation, the farm-rent--which the tenant\nthought to put upon the manufacturer's shoulders--becomes nearly\nbalanced. So that, while he is congratulating himself upon his success,\nhe finds himself again impoverished, but to an extent somewhat smaller\nthan before. For the rise having been general, the proprietor suffers\nwith the rest; so that the laborers, instead of being poorer by\none-tenth, lose only nine-hundredths. But always it is a debt which\nnecessitates a loan, the payment of interest, economy, and fasting.\nFasting for the nine-hundredths which ought not to be paid, and are\npaid; fasting for the redemption of debts; fasting to pay the interest\non them. Let the crop fail, and the fasting becomes starvation. They\nsay, \"IT IS NECESSARY TO WORK MORE.\" That means, obviously, that IT IS\nNECESSARY TO PRODUCE MORE. By what conditions is production effected? By\nthe combined action of labor, capital, and land. As for the labor, the\ntenant undertakes to furnish it; but capital is formed only by economy.\nNow, if the tenant could accumulate any thing, he would pay his debts.\nBut granting that he has plenty of capital, of what use would it be to\nhim if the extent of the land which he cultivates always remained the\nsame? He needs to enlarge his farm.\n\nWill it be said, finally, that he must work harder and to better\nadvantage? But, in our estimation of farm-rent, we have assumed the\nhighest possible average of production. Were it not the highest, the\nproprietor would increase the farm-rent. Is not this the way in which\nthe large landed proprietors have gradually raised their rents, as\nfast as they have ascertained by the increase in population and\nthe development of industry how much society can produce from their\nproperty? The proprietor is a foreigner to society; but, like the\nvulture, his eyes fixed upon his prey, he holds himself ready to pounce\nupon and devour it.\n\nThe facts to which we have called attention, in a community of one\nthousand persons, are reproduced on a large scale in every nation\nand wherever human beings live, but with infinite variations and in\ninnumerable forms, which it is no part of my intention to describe.\n\nIn fine, property--after having robbed the laborer by usury--murders him\nslowly by starvation. Now, without robbery and murder, property cannot\nexist; with robbery and murder, it soon dies for want of support.\nTherefore it is impossible.\n\n\n\nFIFTH PROPOSITION.\n\n\nProperty is impossible, because, if it exists, Society devours itself.\n\n\nWhen the ass is too heavily loaded, he lies down; man always moves on.\nUpon this indomitable courage, the proprietor--well knowing that it\nexists--bases his hopes of speculation. The free laborer produces ten;\nfor me, thinks the proprietor, he will produce twelve.\n\nIndeed,--before consenting to the confiscation of his fields, before\nbidding farewell to the paternal roof,--the peasant, whose story we have\njust told, makes a desperate effort; he leases new land; he will sow\none-third more; and, taking half of this new product for himself, he\nwill harvest an additional sixth, and thereby pay his rent. What an\nevil! To add one-sixth to his production, the farmer must add, not\none-sixth, but two-sixths to his labor. At such a price, he pays a\nfarm-rent which in God's eyes he does not owe.\n\nThe tenant's example is followed by the manufacturer. The former tills\nmore land, and dispossesses his neighbors; the latter lowers the price\nof his merchandise, and endeavors to monopolize its manufacture and\nsale, and to crush out his competitors. To satisfy property, the laborer\nmust first produce beyond his needs. Then, he must produce beyond his\nstrength; for, by the withdrawal of laborers who become proprietors, the\none always follows from the other. But to produce beyond his strength\nand needs, he must invade the production of another, and consequently\ndiminish the number of producers. Thus the proprietor--after having\nlessened production by stepping outside--lessens it still further by\nencouraging the monopoly of labor. Let us calculate it.\n\nThe laborer's deficit, after paying his rent, being, as we have seen,\none-tenth, he tries to increase his production by this amount. He sees\nno way of accomplishing this save by increasing his labor: this also he\ndoes. The discontent of the proprietors who have not received the full\namount of their rent; the advantageous offers and promises made them by\nother farmers, whom they suppose more diligent, more industrious, and\nmore reliable; the secret plots and intrigues,--all these give rise to a\nmovement for the re-division of labor, and the elimination of a certain\nnumber of producers. Out of nine hundred, ninety will be ejected, that\nthe production of the others may be increased one-tenth. But will\nthe total product be increased? Not in the least: there will be eight\nhundred and ten laborers producing as nine hundred, while, to accomplish\ntheir purpose, they would have to produce as one thousand. Now, it\nhaving been proved that farm-rent is proportional to the landed capital\ninstead of to labor, and that it never diminishes, the debts must\ncontinue as in the past, while the labor has increased. Here, then, we\nhave a society which is continually decimating itself, and which\nwould destroy itself, did not the periodical occurrence of failures,\nbankruptcies, and political and economical catastrophes re-establish\nequilibrium, and distract attention from the real causes of the\nuniversal distress.\n\nThe monopoly of land and capital is followed by economical processes\nwhich also result in throwing laborers out of employment. Interest being\na constant burden upon the shoulders of the farmer and the manufacturer,\nthey exclaim, each speaking for himself, \"I should have the means\nwherewith to pay my rent and interest, had I not to pay so many hands.\"\nThen those admirable inventions, intended to assure the easy and speedy\nperformance of labor, become so many infernal machines which kill\nlaborers by thousands.\n\n\n\"A few years ago, the Countess of Strafford ejected fifteen thousand\npersons from her estate, who, as tenants, added to its value. This act\nof private administration was repeated in 1820, by another large Scotch\nproprietor, towards six hundred tenants and their families.\"--Tissot: on\nSuicide and Revolt.\n\n_ _The author whom I quote, and who has written eloquent words\nconcerning the revolutionary spirit which prevails in modern society,\ndoes not say whether he would have disapproved of a revolt on the part\nof these exiles. For myself, I avow boldly that in my eyes it would\nhave been the first of rights, and the holiest of duties; and all that I\ndesire to-day is that my profession of faith be understood.\n\nSociety devours itself,--1. By the violent and periodical sacrifice\nof laborers: this we have just seen, and shall see again; 2. By the\nstoppage of the producer's consumption caused by property. These two\nmodes of suicide are at first simultaneous; but soon the first is given\nadditional force by the second, famine uniting with usury to render\nlabor at once more necessary and more scarce.\n\nBy the principles of commerce and political economy, that an industrial\nenterprise may be successful, its product must furnish,--1. The interest\non the capital employed; 2. Means for the preservation of this capital;\n3. The wages of all the employees and contractors. Further, as large a\nprofit as possible must be realized.\n\nThe financial shrewdness and rapacity of property is worthy of\nadmiration. Each different name which increase takes affords the\nproprietor an opportunity to receive it,--1. In the form of interest; 2.\nIn the form of profit. For, it says, a part of the income derived\nfrom manufactures consists of interest on the capital employed. If\none hundred thousand francs have been invested in a manufacturing\nenterprise, and in a year's time five thousand francs have been received\ntherefrom in addition to the expenses, there has been no profit, but\nonly interest on the capital. Now, the proprietor is not a man to labor\nfor nothing. Like the lion in the fable, he gets paid in each of his\ncapacities; so that, after he has been served, nothing is left for his\nassociates.\n\n         _Ego primam tollo, nominor quia leo.\n          Secundam quia sum fortis tribuctis mihi.\n          Tum quia plus valeo, me sequetur tertia.\n          Malo adficietur, si quis quartam tetigerit._\n\n\nI know nothing prettier than this fable.\n\n          \"I am the contractor.  I take the first share.\n           I am the laborer, I take the second.\n           I am the capitalist, I take the third.\n           I am the proprietor, I take the whole.\"\n\n\nIn four lines, Phaedrus has summed up all the forms of property.\n\nI say that this interest, all the more then this profit, is impossible.\n\nWhat are laborers in relation to each other? So many members of a large\nindustrial society, to each of whom is assigned a certain portion of\nthe general production, by the principle of the division of labor and\nfunctions. Suppose, first, that this society is composed of but three\nindividuals,--a cattle-raiser, a tanner, and a shoemaker. The social\nindustry, then, is that of shoemaking. If I should ask what ought to be\neach producer's share of the social product, the first schoolboy whom I\nshould meet would answer, by a rule of commerce and association, that it\nshould be one-third. But it is not our duty here to balance the rights\nof laborers conventionally associated: we have to prove that, whether\nassociated or not, our three workers are obliged to act as if they\nwere; that, whether they will or no, they are associated by the force of\nthings, by mathematical necessity.\n\nThree processes are required in the manufacture of shoes,--the rearing\nof cattle, the preparation of their hides, and the cutting and sewing.\nIf the hide, on leaving the farmer's stable, is worth one, it is worth\ntwo on leaving the tanner's pit, and three on leaving the shoemaker's\nshop. Each laborer has produced a portion of the utility; so that, by\nadding all these portions together, we get the value of the article. To\nobtain any quantity whatever of this article, each producer must pay,\nthen, first for his own labor, and second for the labor of the other\nproducers. Thus, to obtain as many shoes as can be made from ten hides,\nthe farmer will give thirty raw hides, and the tanner twenty tanned\nhides. For, the shoes that are made from ten hides are worth thirty raw\nhides, in consequence of the extra labor bestowed upon them; just\nas twenty tanned hides are worth thirty raw hides, on account of\nthe tanner's labor. But if the shoemaker demands thirty-three in the\nfarmer's product, or twenty-two in the tanner's, for ten in his own,\nthere will be no exchange; for, if there were, the farmer and the\ntanner, after having paid the shoemaker ten for his labor, would have to\npay eleven for that which they had themselves sold for ten,--which, of\ncourse, would be impossible. [18]\n\n\nWell, this is precisely what happens whenever an emolument of any kind\nis received; be it called revenue, farm-rent, interest, or profit. In\nthe little community of which we are speaking, if the shoemaker--in\norder to procure tools, buy a stock of leather, and support himself\nuntil he receives something from his investment--borrows money at\ninterest, it is clear that to pay this interest he will have to make a\nprofit off the tanner and the farmer. But as this profit is impossible\nunless fraud is used, the interest will fall back upon the shoulders of\nthe unfortunate shoemaker, and ruin him.\n\nI have imagined a case of unnatural simplicity. There is no human\nsociety but sustains more than three vocations. The most uncivilized\nsociety supports numerous industries; to-day, the number of industrial\nfunctions (I mean by industrial functions all useful functions) exceeds,\nperhaps, a thousand. However numerous the occupations, the economic law\nremains the same,--THAT THE PRODUCER MAY LIVE, HIS WAGES MUST REPURCHASE\nHIS PRODUCT.\n\n_ _The economists cannot be ignorant of this rudimentary principle\nof their pretended science: why, then, do they so obstinately defend\nproperty, and inequality of wages, and the legitimacy of usury, and the\nhonesty of profit,--all of which contradict the economic law, and make\nexchange impossible? A contractor pays one hundred thousand francs\nfor raw material, fifty thousand francs in wages, and then expects to\nreceive a product of two hundred thousand francs,--that is, expects to\nmake a profit on the material and on the labor of his employees; but\nif the laborers and the purveyor of the material cannot, with their\ncombined wages, repurchase that which they have produced for the\ncontractor, how can they live? I will develop my question. Here details\nbecome necessary.\n\nIf the workingman receives for his labor an average of three francs per\nday, his employer (in order to gain any thing beyond his own salary, if\nonly interest on his capital) must sell the day's labor of his employee,\nin the form of merchandise, for more than three francs. The workingman\ncannot, then, repurchase that which he has produced for his master.\nIt is thus with all trades whatsoever. The tailor, the hatter, the\ncabinet-maker, the blacksmith, the tanner, the mason, the jeweller,\nthe printer, the clerk, &c., even to the farmer and wine-grower, cannot\nrepurchase their products; since, producing for a master who in one form\nor another makes a profit, they are obliged to pay more for their own\nlabor than they get for it.\n\nIn France, twenty millions of laborers, engaged in all the branches of\nscience, art, and industry, produce every thing which is useful to man.\nTheir annual wages amount, it is estimated to twenty thousand millions;\nbut, in consequence of the right of property, and the multifarious forms\nof increase, premiums, tithes, interests, fines, profits, farm-rents,\nhouse-rents, revenues, emoluments of every nature and description, their\nproducts are estimated by the proprietors and employers at twenty-five\nthousand millions. What does that signify? That the laborers, who are\nobliged to repurchase these products in order to live, must either pay\nfive for that which they produced for four, or fast one day in five.\n\nIf there is an economist in France able to show that this calculation is\nfalse, I summon him to appear; and I promise to retract all that I have\nwrongfully and wickedly uttered in my attacks upon property.\n\nLet us now look at the results of this profit.\n\nIf the wages of the workingmen were the same in all pursuits, the\ndeficit caused by the proprietor's tax would be felt equally everywhere;\nbut also the cause of the evil would be so apparent, that it would soon\nbe discovered and suppressed. But, as there is the same inequality of\nwages (from that of the scavenger up to that of the minister of state)\nas of property, robbery continually rebounds from the stronger to the\nweaker; so that, since the laborer finds his hardships increase as he\ndescends in the social scale, the lowest class of people are literally\nstripped naked and eaten alive by the others.\n\nThe laboring people can buy neither the cloth which they weave, nor the\nfurniture which they manufacture, nor the metal which they forge, nor\nthe jewels which they cut, nor the prints which they engrave. They can\nprocure neither the wheat which they plant, nor the wine which they\ngrow, nor the flesh of the animals which they raise. They are allowed\nneither to dwell in the houses which they build, nor to attend the\nplays which their labor supports, nor to enjoy the rest which their body\nrequires. And why? Because the right of increase does not permit these\nthings to be sold at the cost-price, which is all that laborers can\nafford to pay. On the signs of those magnificent warehouses which he in\nhis poverty admires, the laborer reads in large letters: \"This is thy\nwork, and thou shalt not have it.\" _Sic vos non vobis_!\n\nEvery manufacturer who employs one thousand laborers, and gains from\nthem daily one sou each, is slowly pushing them into a state of misery.\nEvery man who makes a profit has entered into a conspiracy with famine.\nBut the whole nation has not even this labor, by means of which property\nstarves it. And why? Because the workers are forced by the insufficiency\nof their wages to monopolize labor; and because, before being destroyed\nby dearth, they destroy each other by competition. Let us pursue this\ntruth no further.\n\nIf the laborer's wages will not purchase his product, it follows\nthat the product is not made for the producer. For whom, then, is it\nintended? For the richer consumer; that is, for only a fraction of\nsociety. But when the whole society labors, it produces for the whole\nsociety. If, then, only a part of society consumes, sooner or later a\npart of society will be idle. Now, idleness is death, as well for the\nlaborer as for the proprietor.\n\nThis conclusion is inevitable.\n\nThe most distressing spectacle imaginable is the sight of producers\nresisting and struggling against this mathematical necessity, this power\nof figures to which their prejudices blind them.\n\nIf one hundred thousand printers can furnish reading-matter enough for\nthirty-four millions of men, and if the price of books is so high that\nonly one-third of that number can afford to buy them, it is clear that\nthese one hundred thousand printers will produce three times as much as\nthe booksellers can sell. That the products of the laborers may never\nexceed the demands of the consumers, the laborers must either rest two\ndays out of three, or, separating into three groups, relieve each other\nthree times a week, month, or quarter; that is, during two-thirds of\ntheir life they must not live. But industry, under the influence of\nproperty, does not proceed with such regularity. It endeavors to\nproduce a great deal in a short time, because the greater the amount of\nproducts, and the shorter the time of production, the less each product\ncosts. As soon as a demand begins to be felt, the factories fill up, and\neverybody goes to work. Then business is lively, and both governors and\ngoverned rejoice. But the more they work to-day, the more idle will they\nbe hereafter; the more they laugh, the more they shall weep. Under\nthe rule of property, the flowers of industry are woven into none but\nfuneral wreaths. The laborer digs his own grave.\n\nIf the factory stops running, the manufacturer has to pay interest on\nhis capital the same as before. He naturally tries, then, to continue\nproduction by lessening expenses. Then comes the lowering of wages; the\nintroduction of machinery; the employment of women and children to do\nthe work of men; bad workmen, and wretched work. They still produce,\nbecause the decreased cost creates a larger market; but they do not\nproduce long, because, the cheapness being due to the quantity and\nrapidity of production, the productive power tends more than ever to\noutstrip consumption. It is when laborers, whose wages are scarcely\nsufficient to support them from one day to another, are thrown out of\nwork, that the consequences of the principle of property become most\nfrightful. They have not been able to economize, they have made no\nsavings, they have accumulated no capital whatever to support them even\none day more. Today the factory is closed. To-morrow the people starve\nin the streets. Day after tomorrow they will either die in the hospital,\nor eat in the jail.\n\nAnd still new misfortunes come to complicate this terrible situation. In\nconsequence of the cessation of business, and the extreme cheapness of\nmerchandise, the manufacturer finds it impossible to pay the interest\non his borrowed capital; whereupon his frightened creditors hasten to\nwithdraw their funds. Production is suspended, and labor comes to a\nstandstill. Then people are astonished to see capital desert commerce,\nand throw itself upon the Stock Exchange; and I once heard M. Blanqui\nbitterly lamenting the blind ignorance of capitalists. The cause of\nthis movement of capital is very simple; but for that very reason an\neconomist could not understand it, or rather must not explain it. The\ncause lies solely in COMPETITION.\n\nI mean by competition, not only the rivalry between two parties engaged\nin the same business, but the general and simultaneous effort of all\nkinds of business to get ahead of each other. This effort is to-day\nso strong, that the price of merchandise scarcely covers the cost of\nproduction and distribution; so that, the wages of all laborers being\nlessened, nothing remains, not even interest for the capitalists.\n\nThe primary cause of commercial and industrial stagnations is, then,\ninterest on capital,--that interest which the ancients with one accord\nbranded with the name of usury, whenever it was paid for the use\nof money, but which they did not dare to condemn in the forms of\nhouse-rent, farm-rent, or profit: as if the nature of the thing lent\ncould ever warrant a charge for the lending; that is, robbery.\n\nIn proportion to the increase received by the capitalist will be the\nfrequency and intensity of commercial crises,--the first being given, we\nalways can determine the two others; and vice versa. Do you wish to know\nthe regulator of a society? Ascertain the amount of active capital; that\nis, the capital bearing interest, and the legal rate of this interest.\nThe course of events will be a series of overturns, whose number and\nviolence will be proportional to the activity of capital.\n\nIn 1839, the number of failures in Paris alone was one thousand and\nsixty-four. This proportion was kept up in the early months of 1840;\nand, as I write these lines, the crisis is not yet ended. It is said,\nfurther, that the number of houses which have wound up their business\nis greater than the number of declared failures. By this flood, we may\njudge of the waterspout's power of suction.\n\nThe decimation of society is now imperceptible and permanent, now\nperiodical and violent; it depends upon the course which property takes.\nIn a country where the property is pretty evenly distributed, and where\nlittle business is done,--the rights and claims of each being balanced\nby those of others,--the power of invasion is destroyed. There--it may\nbe truly said--property does not exist, since the right of increase is\nscarcely exercised at all. The condition of the laborers--as regards\nsecurity of life--is almost the same as if absolute equality prevailed\namong them. They are deprived of all the advantages of full and free\nassociation, but their existence is not endangered in the least. With\nthe exception of a few isolated victims of the right of property--of\nthis misfortune whose primary cause no one perceives--the society\nappears to rest calmly in the bosom of this sort of equality. But have a\ncare; it is balanced on the edge of a sword: at the slightest shock, it\nwill fall and meet with death!\n\nOrdinarily, the whirlpool of property localizes itself. On the one hand,\nfarm-rent stops at a certain point; on the other, in consequence of\ncompetition and over-production, the price of manufactured goods does\nnot rise,--so that the condition of the peasant varies but little, and\ndepends mainly on the seasons. The devouring action of property bears,\nthen, principally upon business. We commonly say COMMERCIAL CRISES, not\nAGRICULTURAL CRISES; because, while the farmer is eaten up slowly by the\nright of increase, the manufacturer is swallowed at a single mouthful.\nThis leads to the cessation of business, the destruction of fortunes,\nand the inactivity of the working people; who die one after another on\nthe highways, and in the hospitals, prisons, and galleys.\n\nTo sum up this proposition:--\n\nProperty sells products to the laborer for more than it pays him for\nthem; therefore it is impossible.\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX TO THE FIFTH PROPOSITION.\n\n\nI. Certain reformers, and even the most of the publicists--who, though\nbelonging to no particular school, busy themselves in devising means for\nthe amelioration of the lot of the poorer and more numerous class--lay\nmuch stress now-a-days on a better organization of labor. The disciples\nof Fourier, especially, never stop shouting, \"ON TO THE PHALANX!\"\ndeclaiming in the same breath against the foolishness and absurdity of\nother sects.\n\nThey consist of half-a-dozen incomparable geniuses who have discovered\nthat FIVE AND FOUR MAKE NINE; TAKE TWO AWAY, AND NINE REMAIN,--and\nwho weep over the blindness of France, who refuses to believe in this\nastonishing arithmetic.[1]\n\n[1] Fourier, having to multiply a whole number by a fraction,\nnever failed, they say, to obtain a product much greater than the\nmultiplicand. He affirmed that under his system of harmony the mercury\nwould solidify when the temperature was above zero. He might as well\nhave said that the Harmonians would make burning ice. I once asked an\nintelligent phalansterian what he thought of such physics. \"I do not\nknow,\" he answered; \"but I believe.\" And yet the same man disbelieved in\nthe doctrine of the Real Presence.\n\n\nIn fact, the Fourierists proclaim themselves, on the one hand, defenders\nof property, of the right of increase, which they have thus formulated:\nTO EACH ACCORDING TO HIS CAPITAL, HIS LABOR, AND HIS SKILL. On the other\nhand, they wish the workingman to come into the enjoyment of all\nthe wealth of society; that is,--abridging the expression,--into the\nundivided enjoyment of his own product. Is not this like saying to the\nworkingman, \"Labor, you shall have three francs per day; you shall live\non fifty-five sous; you shall give the rest to the proprietor, and thus\nyou will consume three francs\"?\n\nIf the above speech is not an exact epitome of Charles Fourier's system,\nI will subscribe to the whole phalansterian folly with a pen dipped in\nmy own blood.\n\nOf what use is it to reform industry and agriculture,--of what use,\nindeed, to labor at all,--if property is maintained, and labor can never\nmeet its expenses? Without the abolition of property, the organization\nof labor is neither more nor less than a delusion. If production should\nbe quadrupled,--a thing which does not seem to me at all impossible,--it\nwould be labor lost: if the additional product was not consumed, it\nwould be of no value, and the proprietor would decline to receive it as\ninterest; if it was consumed, all the disadvantages of property would\nreappear. It must be confessed that the theory of passional attraction\nis gravely at fault in this particular, and that Fourier, when he tried\nto harmonize the PASSION for property,--a bad passion, whatever he may\nsay to the contrary,--blocked his own chariot-wheels.\n\nThe absurdity of the phalansterian economy is so gross, that many people\nsuspect Fourier, in spite of all the homage paid by him to proprietors,\nof having been a secret enemy of property. This opinion might be\nsupported by plausible arguments; still it is not mine. Charlatanism\nwas too important a part for such a man to play, and sincerity too\ninsignificant a one. I would rather think Fourier ignorant (which is\ngenerally admitted) than disingenuous. As for his disciples, before they\ncan formulate any opinion of their own, they must declare once for\nall, unequivocally and with no mental reservation, whether they mean to\nmaintain property or not, and what they mean by their famous motto,--\"To\neach according to his capital, his labor, and his skill.\"\n\nII. But, some half-converted proprietor will observe, \"Would it not be\npossible, by suppressing the bank, incomes, farm-rent, house-rent, usury\nof all kinds, and finally property itself, to proportion products to\ncapacities? That was St. Simon's idea; it was also Fourier's; it is the\ndesire of the human conscience; and no decent person would dare maintain\nthat a minister of state should live no better than a peasant.\"\n\nO Midas! your ears are long! What! will you never understand that\ndisparity of wages and the right of increase are one and the same?\nCertainly, St. Simon, Fourier, and their respective flocks committed\na serious blunder in attempting to unite, the one, inequality and\ncommunism; the other, inequality and property: but you, a man of\nfigures, a man of economy,--you, who know by heart your LOGARITHMIC\ntables,--how can you make so stupid a mistake?\n\nDoes not political economy itself teach you that the product of a man,\nwhatever be his individual capacity, is never worth more than his labor,\nand that a man's labor is worth no more than his consumption? You remind\nme of that great constitution-framer, poor Pinheiro-Ferreira, the Sieyes\nof the nineteenth century, who, dividing the citizens of a nation into\ntwelve classes,--or, if you prefer, into twelve grades,--assigned to\nsome a salary of one hundred thousand francs each; to others, eighty\nthousand; then twenty-five thousand, fifteen thousand, ten thousand,\n&c., down to one thousand five hundred, and one thousand francs, the\nminimum allowance of a citizen. Pinheiro loved distinctions, and could\nno more conceive of a State without great dignitaries than of an army\nwithout drum-majors; and as he also loved, or thought he loved, liberty,\nequality, and fraternity, he combined the good and the evil of our old\nsociety in an eclectic philosophy which he embodied in a constitution.\nExcellent Pinheiro! Liberty even to passive submission, fraternity\neven to identity of language, equality even in the jury-box and at the\nguillotine,--such was his ideal republic. Unappreciated genius, of whom\nthe present century was unworthy, but whom the future will avenge!\n\nListen, proprietor. Inequality of talent exists in fact; in right it is\nnot admissible, it goes for nothing, it is not thought of. One Newton in\na century is equal to thirty millions of men; the psychologist admires\nthe rarity of so fine a genius, the legislator sees only the rarity\nof the function. Now, rarity of function bestows no privilege upon the\nfunctionary; and that for several reasons, all equally forcible.\n\n1. Rarity of genius was not, in the Creator's design, a motive to compel\nsociety to go down on its knees before the man of superior talents,\nbut a providential means for the performance of all functions to the\ngreatest advantage of all.\n\n2. Talent is a creation of society rather than a gift of Nature; it\nis an accumulated capital, of which the receiver is only the guardian.\nWithout society,--without the education and powerful assistance which\nit furnishes,--the finest nature would be inferior to the most ordinary\ncapacities in the very respect in which it ought to shine. The more\nextensive a man's knowledge, the more luxuriant his imagination, the\nmore versatile his talent,--the more costly has his education been, the\nmore remarkable and numerous were his teachers and his models, and the\ngreater is his debt. The farmer produces from the time that he leaves\nhis cradle until he enters his grave: the fruits of art and science\nare late and scarce; frequently the tree dies before the fruit ripens.\nSociety, in cultivating talent, makes a sacrifice to hope.\n\n3. Capacities have no common standard of comparison: the conditions of\ndevelopment being equal, inequality of talent is simply speciality of\ntalent.\n\n4. Inequality of wages, like the right of increase, is economically\nimpossible. Take the most favorable case,--that where each laborer\nhas furnished his maximum production; that there may be an equitable\ndistribution of products, the share of each must be equal to the\nquotient of the total production divided by the number of laborers. This\ndone, what remains wherewith to pay the higher wages? Nothing whatever.\n\nWill it be said that all laborers should be taxed? But, then, their\nconsumption will not be equal to their production, their wages will not\npay for their productive service, they will not be able to repurchase\ntheir product, and we shall once more be afflicted with all the\ncalamities of property. I do not speak of the injustice done to\nthe defrauded laborer, of rivalry, of excited ambition, and burning\nhatred,--these may all be important considerations, but they do not hit\nthe point.\n\nOn the one hand, each laborer's task being short and easy, and the means\nfor its successful accomplishment being equal in all cases, how could\nthere be large and small producers? On the other hand, all functions\nbeing equal, either on account of the actual equivalence of talents\nand capacities, or on account of social co-operation, how could a\nfunctionary claim a salary proportional to the worth of his genius?\n\nBut, what do I say? In equality wages are always proportional to\ntalents. What is the economical meaning of wages? The reproductive\nconsumption of the laborer. The very act by which the laborer produces\nconstitutes, then, this consumption, exactly equal to his production,\nof which we are speaking. When the astronomer produces observations, the\npoet verses, or the savant experiments, they consume instruments, books,\ntravels, &c., &c.; now, if society supplies this consumption, what more\ncan the astronomer, the savant, or the poet demand? We must conclude,\nthen, that in equality, and only in equality, St. Simon's adage--TO\nEACH ACCORDING TO HIS CAPACITY TO EACH CAPACITY ACCORDING TO ITS\nRESULTS--finds its full and complete application.\n\nIII. The great evil--the horrible and ever-present evil--arising from\nproperty, is that, while property exists, population, however reduced,\nis, and always must be, over-abundant. Complaints have been made in\nall ages of the excess of population; in all ages property has been\nembarrassed by the presence of pauperism, not perceiving that it caused\nit. Further,--nothing is more curious than the diversity of the plans\nproposed for its extermination. Their atrocity is equalled only by their\nabsurdity.\n\nThe ancients made a practice of abandoning their children. The wholesale\nand retail slaughter of slaves, civil and foreign wars, also lent their\naid. In Rome (where property held full sway), these three means were\nemployed so effectively, and for so long a time, that finally the empire\nfound itself without inhabitants. When the barbarians arrived, nobody\nwas to be found; the fields were no longer cultivated; grass grew in the\nstreets of the Italian cities.\n\nIn China, from time immemorial, upon famine alone has devolved the task\nof sweeping away the poor. The people living almost exclusively upon\nrice, if an accident causes the crop to fail, in a few days hunger kills\nthe inhabitants by myriads; and the Chinese historian records in the\nannals of the empire, that in such a year of such an emperor twenty,\nthirty, fifty, one hundred thousand inhabitants died of starvation.\nThen they bury the dead, and recommence the production of children until\nanother famine leads to the same result. Such appears to have been, in\nall ages, the Confucian economy.\n\nI borrow the following facts from a modern economist:--\n\n\n\"Since the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, England has been\npreyed upon by pauperism. At that time beggars were punished by law.\"\nNevertheless, she had not one-fourth as large a population as she has\nto-day.\n\n\"Edward prohibits alms-giving, on pain of imprisonment.... The laws of\n1547 and 1656 prescribe a like punishment, in case of a second offence.\nElizabeth orders that each parish shall support its own paupers. But\nwhat is a pauper? Charles II. decides that an UNDISPUTED residence of\nforty days constitutes a settlement in a parish; but, if disputed, the\nnew-comer is forced to pack off. James II. modifies this decision,\nwhich is again modified by William. In the midst of trials, reports, and\nmodifications, pauperism increases, and the workingman languishes and\ndies.\n\n\"The poor-tax in 1774 exceeded forty millions of francs; in 1783-4-5,\nit averaged fifty-three millions; 1813, more than a hundred and\neighty-seven millions five hundred thousand francs; 1816, two hundred\nand fifty millions; in 1817, it is estimated at three hundred and\nseventeen millions.\n\n\"In 1821, the number of paupers enrolled upon the parish lists was\nestimated at four millions, nearly one-third of the population.\n\n\"FRANCE. In 1544, Francis I. establishes a compulsory tax in behalf of\nthe poor. In 1566 and 1586, the same principle is applied to the whole\nkingdom.\n\n\"Under Louis XIV., forty thousand paupers infested the capital [as many\nin proportion as to-day]. Mendicity was punished severely. In 1740,\nthe Parliament of Paris re-establishes within its own jurisdiction the\ncompulsory assessment.\n\n\"The Constituent Assembly, frightened at the extent of the evil and the\ndifficulty of curing it, ordains the _statu quo_.\n\n\"The Convention proclaims assistance of the poor to be a NATIONAL DEBT.\nIts law remains unexecuted.\n\n\"Napoleon also wishes to remedy the evil: his idea is imprisonment. 'In\nthat way,' said he, 'I shall protect the rich from the importunity\nof beggars, and shall relieve them of the disgusting sight of abject\npoverty.'\" O wonderful man!\n\n\nFrom these facts, which I might multiply still farther, two things are\nto be inferred,--the one, that pauperism is independent of population;\nthe other, that all attempts hitherto made at its extermination have\nproved abortive.\n\nCatholicism founds hospitals and convents, and commands charity; that\nis, she encourages mendicity. That is the extent of her insight as\nvoiced by her priests.\n\nThe secular power of Christian nations now orders taxes on the rich,\nnow banishment and imprisonment for the poor; that is, on the one hand,\nviolation of the right of property, and, on the other, civil death and\nmurder.\n\nThe modern economists--thinking that pauperism is caused by the excess\nof population, exclusively--have devoted themselves to devising checks.\nSome wish to prohibit the poor from marrying; thus,--having denounced\nreligious celibacy,--they propose compulsory celibacy, which will\ninevitably become licentious celibacy.\n\nOthers do not approve this method, which they deem too violent; and\nwhich, they say, deprives the poor man of THE ONLY PLEASURE WHICH HE\nKNOWS IN THIS WORLD. They would simply recommend him to be PRUDENT. This\nopinion is held by Malthus, Sismondi, Say, Droz, Duchatel, &c. But if\nthe poor are to be PRUDENT, the rich must set the example. Why should\nthe marriageable age of the latter be fixed at eighteen years, while\nthat of the former is postponed until thirty?\n\n\nAgain, they would do well to explain clearly what they mean by this\nmatrimonial prudence which they so urgently recommend to the laborer;\nfor here equivocation is especially dangerous, and I suspect that\nthe economists are not thoroughly understood. \"Some half-enlightened\necclesiastics are alarmed when they hear prudence in marriage advised;\nthey fear that the divine injunction--INCREASE AND MULTIPLY--is to be\nset aside. To be logical, they must anathematize bachelors.\" (J. Droz:\nPolitical Economy.)\n\nM. Droz is too honest a man, and too little of a theologian, to see why\nthese casuists are so alarmed; and this chaste ignorance is the very\nbest evidence of the purity of his heart. Religion never has encouraged\nearly marriages; and the kind of PRUDENCE which it condemns is that\ndescribed in this Latin sentence from Sanchez,--_An licet ob metum\nliberorum semen extra vas ejicere_?\n\nDestutt de Tracy seems to dislike prudence in either form. He says: \"I\nconfess that I no more share the desire of the moralists to diminish\nand restrain our pleasures, than that of the politicians to increase\nour procreative powers, and accelerate reproduction.\" He believes, then,\nthat we should love and marry when and as we please. Widespread misery\nresults from love and marriage, but this our philosopher does not heed.\nTrue to the dogma of the necessity of evil, to evil he looks for the\nsolution of all problems. He adds: \"The multiplication of men continuing\nin all classes of society, the surplus members of the upper classes are\nsupported by the lower classes, and those of the latter are destroyed\nby poverty.\" This philosophy has few avowed partisans; but it has over\nevery other the indisputable advantage of demonstration in practice. Not\nlong since France heard it advocated in the Chamber of Deputies, in the\ncourse of the discussion on the electoral reform,--POVERTY WILL ALWAYS\nEXIST. That is the political aphorism with which the minister of state\nground to powder the arguments of M. Arago. POVERTY WILL ALWAYS EXIST!\nYes, so long as property does.\n\nThe Fourierists--INVENTORS of so many marvellous contrivances--could\nnot, in this field, belie their character. They invented four methods of\nchecking increase of population at will.\n\n1. THE VIGOR OF WOMEN. On this point they are contradicted by\nexperience; for, although vigorous women may be less likely to conceive,\nnevertheless they give birth to the healthiest children; so that the\nadvantage of maternity is on their side.\n\n2. INTEGRAL EXERCISE, or the equal development of all the physical\npowers. If this development is equal, how is the power of reproduction\nlessened?\n\n3. THE GASTRONOMIC REGIME; or, in plain English, the philosophy of the\nbelly. The Fourierists say, that abundance of rich food renders\nwomen sterile; just as too much sap--while enhancing the beauty of\nflowers--destroys their reproductive capacity. But the analogy is a\nfalse one. Flowers become sterile when the stamens--or male organs--are\nchanged into petals, as may be seen by inspecting a rose; and when\nthrough excessive dampness the pollen loses its fertilizing power.\nThen,--in order that the gastronomic regime may produce the results\nclaimed for it,--not only must the females be fattened, but the males\nmust be rendered impotent.\n\n4. PHANEROGAMIC MORALITY, or public concubinage. I know not why the\nphalansterians use Greek words to convey ideas which can be expressed so\nclearly in French. This method--like the preceding one--is copied from\ncivilized customs. Fourier, himself, cites the example of prostitutes\nas a proof. Now we have no certain knowledge yet of the facts which he\nquotes. So states Parent Duchatelet in his work on \"Prostitution.\"\n\nFrom all the information which I have been able to gather, I find that\nall the remedies for pauperism and fecundity--sanctioned by universal\npractice, philosophy, political economy, and the latest reformers--may\nbe summed up in the following list: masturbation, onanism, [19]\nsodomy, tribadie, polyandry, [20] prostitution, castration, continence,\nabortion, and infanticide. [21]\n\n\nAll these methods being proved inadequate, there remains proscription.\n\nUnfortunately, proscription, while decreasing the number of the poor,\nincreases their proportion. If the interest charged by the proprietor\nupon the product is equal only to one-twentieth of the product (by law\nit is equal to one-twentieth of the capital), it follows that twenty\nlaborers produce for nineteen only; because there is one among them,\ncalled proprietor, who eats the share of two. Suppose that the twentieth\nlaborer--the poor one--is killed: the production of the following year\nwill be diminished one-twentieth; consequently the nineteenth will have\nto yield his portion, and perish. For, since it is not one-twentieth\nof the product of nineteen which must be paid to the proprietor, but\none-twentieth of the product of twenty (see third proposition), each\nsurviving laborer must sacrifice one-twentieth PLUS one four-hundredth\nof his product; in other words, one man out of nineteen must be killed.\nTherefore, while property exists, the more poor people we kill, the more\nthere are born in proportion.\n\nMalthus, who proved so clearly that population increases in geometrical\nprogression, while production increases only in arithmetical\nprogression, did not notice this PAUPERIZING power of property. Had he\nobserved this, he would have understood that, before trying to check\nreproduction, the right of increase should be abolished; because,\nwherever that right is tolerated, there are always too many inhabitants,\nwhatever the extent or fertility of the soil.\n\nIt will be asked, perhaps, how I would maintain a balance between\npopulation and production; for sooner or later this problem must be\nsolved. The reader will pardon me, if I do not give my method here. For,\nin my opinion, it is useless to say a thing unless we prove it. Now, to\nexplain my method fully would require no less than a formal treatise.\nIt is a thing so simple and so vast, so common and so extraordinary,\nso true and so misunderstood, so sacred and so profane, that to name it\nwithout developing and proving it would serve only to excite contempt\nand incredulity. One thing at a time. Let us establish equality, and\nthis remedy will soon appear; for truths follow each other, just as\ncrimes and errors do.\n\n\n\nSIXTH PROPOSITION.\n\nProperty is impossible, because it is the Mother of Tyranny.\n\n\nWhat is government? Government is public economy, the supreme\nadministrative power over public works and national possessions.\n\nNow, the nation is like a vast society in which all the citizens are\nstockholders. Each one has a deliberative voice in the assembly; and,\nif the shares are equal, has one vote at his disposal. But, under the\nregime of property, there is great inequality between the shares of\nthe stockholders; therefore, one may have several hundred votes, while\nanother has only one. If, for example, I enjoy an income of one million;\nthat is, if I am the proprietor of a fortune of thirty or forty millions\nwell invested, and if this fortune constitutes 1/30000 of the national\ncapital,--it is clear that the public administration of my property\nwould form 1/30000 of the duties of the government; and, if the nation\nhad a population of thirty-four millions, that I should have as many\nvotes as one thousand one hundred and thirty-three simple stockholders.\n\nThus, when M. Arago demands the right of suffrage for all members of the\nNational Guard, he is perfectly right; since every citizen is enrolled\nfor at least one national share, which entitles him to one vote. But the\nillustrious orator ought at the same time to demand that each elector\nshall have as many votes as he has shares; as is the case in commercial\nassociations. For to do otherwise is to pretend that the nation has a\nright to dispose of the property of individuals without consulting them;\nwhich is contrary to the right of property. In a country where property\nexists, equality of electoral rights is a violation of property.\n\nNow, if each citizen's sovereignty must and ought to be proportional to\nhis property, it follows that the small stock holders are at the mercy\nof the larger ones; who will, as soon as they choose, make slaves of\nthe former, marry them at pleasure, take from them their wives,\ncastrate their sons, prostitute their daughters, throw the aged to the\nsharks,--and finally will be forced to serve themselves in the same way,\nunless they prefer to tax themselves for the support of their servants.\nIn such a condition is Great Britain to-day. John Bull--caring little\nfor liberty, equality, or dignity--prefers to serve and beg. But you,\nbonhomme Jacques?\n\nProperty is incompatible with political and civil equality; then\nproperty is impossible.\n\nHISTORICAL COMMENTS.--1. When the vote of the third estate was doubled\nby the States-General of 1789, property was grossly violated. The\nnobility and the clergy possessed three-fourths of the soil of France;\nthey should have controlled three-fourths of the votes in the national\nrepresentation. To double the vote of the third estate was just, it is\nsaid, since the people paid nearly all the taxes. This argument would\nbe sound, if there were nothing to be voted upon but taxes. But it was a\nquestion at that time of reforming the government and the constitution;\nconsequently, the doubling of the vote of the third estate was a\nusurpation, and an attack on property.\n\n2. If the present representatives of the radical opposition should\ncome into power, they would work a reform by which every National Guard\nshould be an elector, and every elector eligible for office,--an attack\non property.\n\nThey would lower the rate of interest on public funds,--an attack on\nproperty.\n\nThey would, in the interest of the public, pass laws to regulate the\nexportation of cattle and wheat,--an attack on property.\n\nThey would alter the assessment of taxes,--an attack on property.\n\nThey would educate the people gratuitously,--a conspiracy against\nproperty.\n\nThey would organize labor; that is, they would guarantee labor to the\nworkingman, and give him a share in the profits,--the abolition of\nproperty.\n\nNow, these same radicals are zealous defenders of property,--a radical\nproof that they know not what they do, nor what they wish.\n\n3. Since property is the grand cause of privilege and despotism, the\nform of the republican oath should be changed. Instead of, \"I swear\nhatred to royalty,\" henceforth the new member of a secret society should\nsay, \"I swear hatred to property.\"\n\n\n\nSEVENTH PROPOSITION.\n\n_Property is impossible, because, in consuming its Receipts, it loses\nthem; in hoarding them, it nullifies them; and in using them as Capital,\nit turns them against Production_.\n\nI. If, with the economists, we consider the laborer as a living machine,\nwe must regard the wages paid to him as the amount necessary to support\nthis machine, and keep it in repair. The head of a manufacturing\nestablishment--who employs laborers at three, five, ten, and\nfifteen francs per day, and who charges twenty francs for his\nsuperintendence--does not regard his disbursements as losses, because\nhe knows they will return to him in the form of products. Consequently,\nLABOR and REPRODUCTIVE CONSUMPTION are identical.\n\nWhat is the proprietor? He is a machine which does not work; or, which\nworking for its own pleasure, and only when it sees fit, produces\nnothing.\n\nWhat is it to consume as a proprietor? It is to consume without\nworking, to consume without reproducing. For, once more, that which the\nproprietor consumes as a laborer comes back to him; he does not give his\nlabor in exchange for his property, since, if he did, he would thereby\ncease to be a proprietor. In consuming as a laborer, the proprietor\ngains, or at least does not lose, since he recovers that which he\nconsumes; in consuming as a proprietor, he impoverishes himself. To\nenjoy property, then, it is necessary to destroy it; to be a real\nproprietor, one must cease to be a proprietor.\n\nThe laborer who consumes his wages is a machine which destroys and\nreproduces; the proprietor who consumes his income is a bottomless\ngulf,--sand which we water, a stone which we sow. So true is this,\nthat the proprietor--neither wishing nor knowing how to produce, and\nperceiving that as fast as he uses his property he destroys it for\never--has taken the precaution to make some one produce in his place.\nThat is what political economy, speaking in the name of eternal justice,\ncalls PRODUCING BY HIS CAPITAL,--PRODUCING BY HIS TOOLS. And that is\nwhat ought to be called PRODUCING BY A SLAVE--PRODUCING AS A THIEF AND\nAS A TYRANT. He, the proprietor, produce!... The robber might say, as\nwell: \"I produce.\"\n\nThe consumption of the proprietor has been styled luxury, in opposition\nto USEFUL consumption. From what has just been said, we see that great\nluxury can prevail in a nation which is not rich,--that poverty even\nincreases with luxury, and vice versa. The economists (so much credit\nmust be given them, at least) have caused such a horror of luxury,\nthat to-day a very large number of proprietors--not to say almost\nall--ashamed of their idleness--labor, economize, and capitalize. They\nhave jumped from the frying-pan into the fire.\n\nI cannot repeat it too often: the proprietor who thinks to deserve\nhis income by working, and who receives wages for his labor, is a\nfunctionary who gets paid twice; that is the only difference between an\nidle proprietor and a laboring proprietor. By his labor, the proprietor\nproduces his wages only--not his income. And since his condition enables\nhim to engage in the most lucrative pursuits, it may be said that the\nproprietor's labor harms society more than it helps it. Whatever the\nproprietor does, the consumption of his income is an actual loss, which\nhis salaried functions neither repair nor justify; and which would\nannihilate property, were it not continually replenished by outside\nproduction.\n\nII. Then, the proprietor who consumes annihilates the product: he does\nmuch worse if he lays it up. The things which he lays by pass into\nanother world; nothing more is seen of them, not even the _caput\nmortuum_,--the smoke. If we had some means of transportation by which\nto travel to the moon, and if the proprietors should be seized with a\nsudden fancy to carry their savings thither, at the end of a certain\ntime our terraqueous planet would be transported by them to its\nsatellite!\n\nThe proprietor who lays up products will neither allow others to enjoy\nthem, nor enjoy them himself; for him there is neither possession nor\nproperty. Like the miser, he broods over his treasures: he does not use\nthem. He may feast his eyes upon them; he may lie down with them; he\nmay sleep with them in his arms: all very fine, but coins do not\nbreed coins. No real property without enjoyment; no enjoyment without\nconsumption; no consumption without loss of property,--such is the\ninflexible necessity to which God's judgment compels the proprietor to\nbend. A curse upon property!\n\nIII. The proprietor who, instead of consuming his income, uses it as\ncapital, turns it against production, and thereby makes it impossible\nfor him to exercise his right. For the more he increases the amount of\ninterest to be paid upon it, the more he is compelled to diminish wages.\nNow, the more he diminishes wages,--that is, the less he devotes to\nthe maintenance and repair of the machines,--the more he diminishes\nthe quantity of labor; and with the quantity of labor the quantity of\nproduct, and with the quantity of product the very source of his income.\nThis is clearly shown by the following example:--\n\nTake an estate consisting of arable land, meadows, and vineyards,\ncontaining the dwellings of the owner and the tenant; and worth,\ntogether with the farming implements, one hundred thousand francs, the\nrate of increase being three per cent. If, instead of consuming his\nrevenue, the proprietor uses it, not in enlarging but in beautifying his\nestate, can he annually demand of his tenant an additional ninety francs\non account of the three thousand francs which he has thus added to\nhis capital? Certainly not; for on such conditions the tenant, though\nproducing no more than before, would soon be obliged to labor for\nnothing,--what do I say? to actually suffer loss in order to hold his\nlease.\n\nIn fact, revenue can increase only as productive soil increases: it\nis useless to build walls of marble, and work with plows of gold. But,\nsince it is impossible to go on acquiring for ever, to add estate to\nestate, to CONTINUE ONE'S POSSESSIONS, as the Latins said; and since,\nmoreover, the proprietor always has means wherewith to capitalize,--it\nfollows that the exercise of his right finally becomes impossible.\n\nWell, in spite of this impossibility, property capitalizes, and in\ncapitalizing increases its revenue; and, without stopping to look at the\nparticular cases which occur in commerce, manufacturing operations,\nand banking, I will cite a graver fact,--one which directly affects all\ncitizens. I mean the indefinite increase of the budget.\n\nThe taxes increase every year. It would be difficult to tell in which\ndepartment of the government the expenses increase; for who can boast\nof any knowledge as to the budget? On this point, the ablest financiers\ncontinually disagree. What is to be thought, I ask, of the science of\ngovernment, when its professors cannot understand one another's figures?\nWhatever be the immediate causes of this growth of the budget, it is\ncertain that taxation increases at a rate which causes everybody to\ndespair. Everybody sees it, everybody acknowledges it; but nobody\nseems to understand the primary cause.[1] Now, I say that it cannot be\notherwise,--that it is necessary and inevitable.\n\n[1] \"The financial situation of the English government was shown up\nin the House of Lords during the session of January 23. It is not\nan encouraging one. For several years the expenses have exceeded the\nreceipts, and the Minister has been able to re-establish the balance\nonly by loans renewed annually. The combined deficits of the years 1838\nand 1839 amount to forty-seven million five hundred thousand francs. In\n1840, the excess of expenses over receipts is expected to be twenty-two\nmillion five hundred thousand francs. Attention was called to these\nfigures by Lord Ripon. Lord Melbourne replied: 'The noble earl unhappily\nwas right in declaring that the public expenses continually increase,\nand with him I must say that there is no room for hope that they can be\ndiminished or met in any way.'\"--National: January 26, 1840.\n\n\nA nation is the tenant of a rich proprietor called the GOVERNMENT,\nto whom it pays, for the use of the soil, a farm-rent called a tax.\nWhenever the government makes war, loses or gains a battle, changes the\noutfit of its army, erects a monu-ment, digs a canal, opens a road,\nor builds a railway, it borrows money, on which the tax-payers pay\ninterest; that is, the government, without adding to its productive\ncapacity, increases its active capital,--in a word, capitalizes after\nthe manner of the proprietor of whom I have just spoken.\n\nNow, when a governmental loan is once contracted, and the interest is\nonce stipulated, the budget cannot be reduced. For, to accomplish that,\neither the capitalists must relinquish their interest, which would\ninvolve an abandonment of property; or the government must go into\nbankruptcy, which would be a fraudulent denial of the political\nprinciple; or it must pay the debt, which would require another loan;\nor it must reduce expenses, which is impossible, since the loan\nwas contracted for the sole reason that the ordinary receipts\nwere insufficient; or the money expended by the government must be\nreproductive, which requires an increase of productive capacity,--a\ncondition excluded by our hypothesis; or, finally, the tax-payers must\nsubmit to a new tax in order to pay the debt,--an impossible thing. For,\nif this new tax were levied upon all citizens alike, half, or even more,\nof the citizens would be unable to pay it; if the rich had to bear the\nwhole, it would be a forced contribution,--an invasion of property.\nLong financial experience has shown that the method of loans, though\nexceedingly dangerous, is much surer, more convenient, and less costly\nthan any other method; consequently the government borrows,--that is,\ngoes on capitalizing,--and increases the budget.\n\nThen, a budget, instead of ever diminishing, must necessarily and\ncontinually increase. It is astonishing that the economists, with all\ntheir learning, have failed to perceive a fact so simple and so evident.\nIf they have perceived it, why have they neglected to condemn it?\n\n\nHISTORICAL COMMENT.--Much interest is felt at present in a financial\noperation which is expected to result in a reduction of the budget.\nIt is proposed to change the present rate of increase, five per cent.\nLaying aside the politico-legal question to deal only with the financial\nquestion,--is it not true that, when five per cent. is changed to four\nper cent., it will then be necessary, for the same reasons, to change\nfour to three; then three to two, then two to one, and finally to sweep\naway increase altogether? But that would be the advent of equality of\nconditions and the abolition of property. Now it seems to me, that an\nintelligent nation should voluntarily meet an inevitable revolution\nhalf way, instead of suffering itself to be dragged after the car of\ninflexible necessity.\n\n\n\nEIGHTH PROPOSITION.\n\nProperty is impossible, because its power of Accumulation is infinite,\nand is exercised only over finite quantities.\n\nIf men, living in equality, should grant to one of their number the\nexclusive right of property; and this sole proprietor should lend one\nhundred francs to the human race at compound interest, payable to his\ndescendants twenty-four generations hence,--at the end of six hundred\nyears this sum of one hundred francs, at five per cent., would amount to\n107,854,010,777,600 francs; two thousand six hundred and ninety-six\nand one-third times the capital of France (supposing her capital to be\n40,000,000,000), or more than twenty times the value of the terrestrial\nglobe!\n\nSuppose that a man, in the reign of St. Louis, had borrowed one hundred\nfrancs, and had refused,--he and his heirs after him,--to return it.\nEven though it were known that the said heirs were not the rightful\npossessors, and that prescription had been interrupted always at the\nright moment,--nevertheless, by our laws, the last heir would be obliged\nto return the one hundred francs with interest, and interest on the\ninterest; which in all would amount, as we have seen, to nearly one\nhundred and eight thousand billions.\n\nEvery day, fortunes are growing in our midst much more rapidly than\nthis. The preceding example supposed the interest equal to one-twentieth\nof the capital,--it often equals one-tenth, one-fifth, one-half of the\ncapital; and sometimes the capital itself.\n\nThe Fourierists--irreconcilable enemies of equality, whose partisans\nthey regard as SHARKS--intend, by quadrupling production, to satisfy\nall the demands of capital, labor, and skill. But, should production\nbe multiplied by four, ten, or even one hundred, property would\nsoon absorb, by its power of accumulation and the effects of its\ncapitalization, both products and capital, and the land, and even the\nlaborers. Is the phalanstery to be prohibited from capitalizing and\nlending at interest? Let it explain, then, what it means by property.\n\nI will carry these calculations no farther. They are capable of infinite\nvariation, upon which it would be puerile for me to insist. I only ask\nby what standard judges, called upon to decide a suit for possession,\nfix the interest? And, developing the question, I ask,--\n\nDid the legislator, in introducing into the Republic the principle\nof property, weigh all the consequences? Did he know the law of the\npossible? If he knew it, why is it not in the Code? Why is so much\nlatitude allowed to the proprietor in accumulating property and\ncharging interest,--to the judge in recognizing and fixing the domain of\nproperty,--to the State in its power to levy new taxes continually? At\nwhat point is the nation justified in repudiating the budget, the tenant\nhis farm-rent, and the manufacturer the interest on his capital? How\nfar may the idler take advantage of the laborer? Where does the right\nof spoliation begin, and where does it end? When may the producer say\nto the proprietor, \"I owe you nothing more\"? When is property satisfied?\nWhen must it cease to steal?\n\nIf the legislator did know the law of the possible, and disregarded it,\nwhat must be thought of his justice? If he did not know it, what must\nbe thought of his wisdom? Either wicked or foolish, how can we recognize\nhis authority?\n\nIf our charters and our codes are based upon an absurd hypothesis,\nwhat is taught in the law-schools? What does a judgment of the Court\nof Appeal amount to? About what do our Chambers deliberate? What is\nPOLITICS? What is our definition of a STATESMAN? What is the meaning of\nJURISPRUDENCE? Should we not rather say JURISIGNORANCE?\n\nIf all our institutions are based upon an error in calculation, does it\nnot follow that these institutions are so many shams? And if the entire\nsocial structure is built upon this absolute impossibility of property,\nis it not true that the government under which we live is a chimera, and\nour present society a utopia?\n\n\n\nNINTH PROPOSITION.\n\nProperty is impossible, because it is powerless against Property.\n\n\nI. By the third corollary of our axiom, interest tells against the\nproprietor as well as the stranger. This economical principle is\nuniversally admitted. Nothing simpler at first blush; yet, nothing more\nabsurd, more contradictory in terms, or more absolutely impossible.\n\nThe manufacturer, it is said, pays himself the rent on his house and\ncapital. HE PAYS HIMSELF; that is, he gets paid by the public who buy\nhis products. For, suppose the manufacturer, who seems to make this\nprofit on his property, wishes also to make it on his merchandise, can\nhe then pay himself one franc for that which cost him ninety centimes,\nand make money by the operation? No: such a transaction would transfer\nthe merchant's money from his right hand to his left, but without any\nprofit whatever.\n\nNow, that which is true of a single individual trading with himself is\ntrue also of the whole business world. Form a chain of ten, fifteen,\ntwenty producers; as many as you wish. If the producer A makes a\nprofit out of the producer B. B's loss must, according to economical\nprinciples, be made up by C, C's by D; and so on through to Z.\n\nBut by whom will Z be paid for the loss caused him by the profit charged\nby A in the beginning? BY THE CONSUMER, replies Say. Contemptible\nequivocation! Is this consumer any other, then, than A, B. C, D, &c.,\nor Z? By whom will Z be paid? If he is paid by A, no one makes a profit;\nconsequently, there is no property. If, on the contrary, Z bears the\nburden himself, he ceases to be a member of society; since it refuses\nhim the right of property and profit, which it grants to the other\nassociates.\n\nSince, then, a nation, like universal humanity, is a vast industrial\nassociation which cannot act outside of itself, it is clear that no man\ncan enrich himself without impoverishing another. For, in order that the\nright of property, the right of increase, may be respected in the\ncase of A, it must be denied to Z; thus we see how equality of rights,\nseparated from equality of conditions, may be a truth. The iniquity of\npolitical economy in this respect is flagrant. \"When I, a manufacturer,\npurchase the labor of a workingman, I do not include his wages in the\nnet product of my business; on the contrary, I deduct them. But the\nworkingman includes them in his net product.... \"(Say: Political\nEconomy.)\n\nThat means that all which the workingman gains is NET PRODUCT; but that\nonly that part of the manufacturer's gains is NET PRODUCT, which remains\nafter deducting his wages. But why is the right of profit confined to\nthe manufacturer? Why is this right, which is at bottom the right of\nproperty itself, denied to the workingman? In the terms of economical\nscience, the workingman is capital. Now, all capital, beyond the cost\nof its maintenance and repair, must bear interest. This the proprietor\ntakes care to get, both for his capital and for himself. Why is the\nworkingman prohibited from charging a like interest for his capital,\nwhich is himself?\n\nProperty, then, is inequality of rights; for, if it were not inequality\nof rights, it would be equality of goods,--in other words, it would not\nexist. Now, the charter guarantees to all equality of rights. Then, by\nthe charter, property is impossible.\n\nII. Is A, the proprietor of an estate, entitled by the fact of his\nproprietorship to take possession of the field belonging to B. his\nneighbor? \"No,\" reply the proprietors; \"but what has that to do with\nthe right of property?\" That I shall show you by a series of similar\npropositions.\n\nHas C, a hatter, the right to force D, his neighbor and also a hatter,\nto close his shop, and cease his business? Not the least in the world.\n\nBut C wishes to make a profit of one franc on every hat, while D is\ncontent with fifty centimes. It is evident that D's moderation is\ninjurious to C's extravagant claims. Has the latter a right to prevent D\nfrom selling? Certainly not.\n\nSince D is at liberty to sell his hats fifty centimes cheaper than C if\nhe chooses, C in his turn is free to reduce his price one franc. Now, D\nis poor, while C is rich; so that at the end of two or three years D is\nruined by this intolerable competition, and C has complete control of\nthe market. Can the proprietor D get any redress from the proprietor C?\nCan he bring a suit against him to recover his business and property?\nNo; for D could have done the same thing, had he been the richer of the\ntwo.\n\nOn the same ground, the large proprietor A may say to the small\nproprietor B: \"Sell me your field, otherwise you shall not sell your\nwheat,\"--and that without doing him the least wrong, or giving him\nground for complaint. So that A can devour B if he likes, for the very\nreason that A is stronger than B. Consequently, it is not the right of\nproperty which enables A and C to rob B and D, but the right of might.\nBy the right of property, neither the two neighbors A and B, nor the two\nmerchants C and D, could harm each other. They could neither dispossess\nnor destroy one another, nor gain at one another's expense. The power of\ninvasion lies in superior strength.\n\nBut it is superior strength also which enables the manufacturer\nto reduce the wages of his employees, and the rich merchant and\nwell-stocked proprietor to sell their products for what they please. The\nmanufacturer says to the laborer, \"You are as free to go elsewhere\nwith your services as I am to receive them. I offer you so much.\" The\nmerchant says to the customer, \"Take it or leave it; you are master of\nyour money, as I am of my goods. I want so much.\" Who will yield? The\nweaker.\n\nTherefore, without force, property is powerless against property, since\nwithout force it has no power to increase; therefore, without force,\nproperty is null and void.\n\nHISTORICAL COMMENT.--The struggle between colonial and native sugars\nfurnishes us a striking example of this impossibility of property. Leave\nthese two industries to themselves, and the native manufacturer will\nbe ruined by the colonist. To maintain the beet-root, the cane must be\ntaxed: to protect the property of the one, it is necessary to injure the\nproperty of the other. The most remarkable feature of this business is\nprecisely that to which the least attention is paid; namely, that, in\none way or another, property has to be violated. Impose on each industry\na proportional tax, so as to preserve a balance in the market, and you\ncreate a MAXIMUM PRICE,--you attack property in two ways. On the one\nhand, your tax interferes with the liberty of trade; on the other, it\ndoes not recognize equality of proprietors. Indemnify the beet-root, you\nviolate the property of the tax-payer. Cultivate the two varieties of\nsugar at the nation's expense, just as different varieties of tobacco\nare cultivated,--you abolish one species of property. This last course\nwould be the simpler and better one; but, to induce the nations to adopt\nit, requires such a co-operation of able minds and generous hearts as is\nat present out of the question.\n\nCompetition, sometimes called liberty of trade,--in a word, property\nin exchange,--will be for a long time the basis of our commercial\nlegislation; which, from the economical point of view, embraces all\ncivil laws and all government. Now, what is competition? A duel in a\nclosed field, where arms are the test of right.\n\n\"Who is the liar,--the accused or the accuser?\" said our barbarous\nancestors. \"Let them fight it out,\" replied the still more barbarous\njudge; \"the stronger is right.\"\n\nWhich of us two shall sell spices to our neighbor? \"Let each offer them\nfor sale,\" cries the economist; \"the sharper, or the more cunning, is\nthe more honest man, and the better merchant.\"\n\nSuch is the exact spirit of the Code Napoleon.\n\n\n\nTENTH PROPOSITION.\n\nProperty is impossible, because it is the Negation of equality.\n\n\nThe development of this proposition will be the resume of the preceding\nones.\n\n1. It is a principle of economical justice, that PRODUCTS ARE BOUGHT\nONLY BY PRODUCTS. Property, being capable of defence only on the ground\nthat it produces utility, is, since it produces nothing, for ever\ncondemned.\n\n2. It is an economical law, that LABOR MUST BE BALANCED BY PRODUCT. It\nis a fact that, with property, production costs more than it is worth.\n\n3. Another economical law: THE CAPITAL BEING GIVEN, PRODUCTION IS\nMEASURED, NOT BY THE AMOUNT OF CAPITAL, BUT BY PRODUCTIVE CAPACITY.\nProperty, requiring income to be always proportional to capital without\nregard to labor, does not recognize this relation of equality between\neffect and cause.\n\n4 and 5. Like the insect which spins its silk, the laborer never\nproduces for himself alone. Property, demanding a double product and\nunable to obtain it, robs the laborer, and kills him.\n\n6. Nature has given to every man but one mind, one heart, one will.\nProperty, granting to one individual a plurality of votes, supposes him\nto have a plurality of minds.\n\n7. All consumption which is not reproductive of utility is destruction.\nProperty, whether it consumes or hoards or capitalizes, is productive of\nINUTILITY,--the cause of sterility and death.\n\n8. The satisfaction of a natural right always gives rise to an equation;\nin other words, the right to a thing is necessarily balanced by the\npossession of the thing. Thus, between the right to liberty and the\ncondition of a free man there is a balance, an equation; between the\nright to be a father and paternity, an equation; between the right to\nsecurity and the social guarantee, an equation. But between the right\nof increase and the receipt of this increase there is never an equation;\nfor every new increase carries with it the right to another, the latter\nto a third, and so on for ever. Property, never being able to accomplish\nits object, is a right against Nature and against reason.\n\n9. Finally, property is not self-existent. An extraneous cause--either\nFORCE or FRAUD--is necessary to its life and action. In other\nwords, property is not equal to property: it is a negation--a\ndelusion--NOTHING.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V. PSYCHOLOGICAL EXPOSITION OF THE IDEA OF JUSTICE\n\n\n     PSYCHOLOGICAL EXPOSITION OF THE IDEA OF JUSTICE AND\n     INJUSTICE, AND A DETERMINATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF\n     GOVERNMENT AND OF RIGHT.\n\n\nProperty is impossible; equality does not exist. We hate the former, and\nyet wish to possess it; the latter rules all our thoughts, yet we know\nnot how to reach it. Who will explain this profound antagonism between\nour conscience and our will? Who will point out the causes of this\npernicious error, which has become the most sacred principle of justice\nand society?\n\nI am bold enough to undertake the task, and I hope to succeed.\n\nBut before explaining why man has violated justice, it is necessary to\ndetermine what justice is.\n\n\n\nPART FIRST.\n\n\n% 1.--Of the Moral Sense in Man and the Animals.\n\n\nThe philosophers have endeavored often to locate the line which\nseparates man's intelligence from that of the brutes; and, according\nto their general custom, they gave utterance to much foolishness before\nresolving upon the only course possible for them to take,--observation.\nIt was reserved for an unpretending savant--who perhaps did not pride\nhimself on his philosophy--to put an end to the interminable controversy\nby a simple distinction; but one of those luminous distinctions which\nare worth more than systems. Frederic Cuvier separated INSTINCT from\nINTELLIGENCE.\n\nBut, as yet, no one has proposed this question:--\n\nIS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MAN'S MORAL SENSE AND THAT OF THE BRUTE A\nDIFFERENCE IN KIND OR ONLY IN DEGREE?\n\nIf, hitherto, any one had dared to maintain the latter alternative, his\narguments would have seemed scandalous, blasphemous, and offensive to\nmorality and religion. The ecclesiastical and secular tribunals would\nhave condemned him with one voice. And, mark the style in which they\nwould have branded the immoral paradox! \"Conscience,\"--they would have\ncried,--\"conscience, man's chief glory, was given to him exclusively;\nthe notion of justice and injustice, of merit and demerit, is his noble\nprivilege; to man, alone,--the lord of creation,--belongs the sublime\npower to resist his worldly propensities, to choose between good and\nevil, and to bring himself more and more into the resemblance of God\nthrough liberty and justice.... No; the holy image of virtue was never\ngraven save on the heart of man.\" Words full of feeling, but void of\nsense.\n\nMan is a rational and social animal--{GREEK ' c g}--said Aristotle. This\ndefinition is worth more than all which have been given since. I do not\nexcept even M. de Bonald's celebrated definition,--MAN IS AN INTELLECT\nSERVED BY ORGANS--a definition which has the double fault of explaining\nthe known by the unknown; that is, the living being by the intellect;\nand of neglecting man's essential quality,--animality.\n\nMan, then, is an animal living in society. Society means the sum total\nof relationships; in short, system. Now, all systems exist only on\ncertain conditions. What, then, are the conditions, the LAWS, of human\nsociety?\n\nWhat are the RIGHTS of men with respect to each other; what is JUSTICE?\n\nIt amounts to nothing to say,--with the philosophers of various\nschools,--\"It is a divine instinct, an immortal and heavenly voice, a\nguide given us by Nature, a light revealed unto every man on coming\ninto the world, a law engraved upon our hearts; it is the voice of\nconscience, the dictum of reason, the inspiration of sentiment, the\npenchant of feeling; it is the love of self in others; it is enlightened\nself-interest; or else it is an innate idea, the imperative command of\napplied reason, which has its source in the concepts of pure reason;\nit is a passional attraction,\" &c., &c. This may be as true as it seems\nbeautiful; but it is utterly meaningless. Though we should prolong\nthis litany through ten pages (it has been filtered through a thousand\nvolumes), we should be no nearer to the solution of the question.\n\n\"Justice is public utility,\" says Aristotle. That is true, but it is a\ntautology. \"The principle that the public welfare ought to be the\nobject of the legislator\"--says M. Ch. Comte in his \"Treatise on\nLegislation\"--\"cannot be overthrown. But legislation is advanced no\nfarther by its announcement and demonstration, than is medicine when it\nis said that it is the business of physicians to cure the sick.\"\n\nLet us take another course. RUGHT is the sum total of the principles\nwhich govern society. Justice, in man, is the respect and observation of\nthose principles. To practise justice is to obey the social instinct;\nto do an act of justice is to do a social act. If, then, we watch the\nconduct of men towards each other under different circumstances, it\nwill be easy for us to distinguish between the presence and absence of\nsociety; from the result we may inductively infer the law.\n\nLet us commence with the simplest and least doubtful cases.\n\nThe mother, who protects her son at the peril of her life, and\nsacrifices every thing to his support, is in society with him--she is a\ngood mother. She, on the contrary, who abandons her child, is unfaithful\nto the social instinct,--maternal love being one of its many features;\nshe is an unnatural mother.\n\nIf I plunge into the water to rescue a drowning man, I am his brother,\nhis associate; if, instead of aiding him, I sink him, I am his enemy,\nhis murderer.\n\nWhoever bestows alms treats the poor man as his associate; not\nthoroughly, it is true, but only in respect to the amount which he\nshares with him. Whoever takes by force or stratagem that which is\nnot the product of his labor, destroys his social character--he is a\nbrigand.\n\nThe Samaritan who relieves the traveller lying by the wayside, dresses\nhis wounds, comforts him, and supplies him with money, thereby declares\nhimself his associate--his neighbor; the priest, who passes by on the\nother side, remains unassociated, and is his enemy.\n\nIn all these cases, man is moved by an internal attraction towards his\nfellow, by a secret sympathy which causes him to love, congratulate,\nand condole; so that, to resist this attraction, his will must struggle\nagainst his nature.\n\nBut in these respects there is no decided difference between man and the\nanimals. With them, as long as the weakness of their young endears them\nto their mothers,--in a word, associates them with their mothers,--the\nlatter protect the former, at the peril of their lives, with a courage\nwhich reminds us of our heroes dying for their country. Certain species\nunite for hunting purposes, seek each other, call each other (a poet\nwould say invite each other), to share their prey; in danger they\naid, protect, and warn each other. The elephant knows how to help his\ncompanion out of the ditch into which the latter has fallen. Cows form\na circle, with their horns outward and their calves in the centre, in\norder to repel the attacks of wolves. Horses and pigs, on hearing a cry\nof distress from one of their number, rush to the spot whence it comes.\nWhat descriptions I might give of their marriages, the tenderness of the\nmales towards the females, and the fidelity of their loves! Let us add,\nhowever,--to be entirely just--that these touching demonstrations of\nsociety, fraternity, and love of neighbor, do not prevent the animals\nfrom quarrelling, fighting, and outrageously abusing one another while\ngaining their livelihood and showing their gallantry; the resemblance\nbetween them and ourselves is perfect.\n\nThe social instinct, in man and beast, exists to a greater or less\ndegree--its nature is the same. Man has the greater need of association,\nand employs it more; the animal seems better able to endure isolation.\nIn man, social needs are more imperative and complex; in the beast, they\nseem less intense, less diversified, less regretted. Society, in a\nword, aims, in the case of man, at the preservation of the race and\nthe individual; with the animals, its object is more exclusively the\npreservation of the race.\n\nAs yet, we have met with no claim which man can make for himself alone.\nThe social instinct and the moral sense he shares with the brutes; and\nwhen he thinks to become god-like by a few acts of charity, justice,\nand devotion, he does not perceive that in so acting he simply obeys an\ninstinct wholly animal in its nature. As we are good, loving, tender,\njust, so we are passionate, greedy, lewd, and vindictive; that is, we\nare like the beasts. Our highest virtues appear, in the last analysis,\nas blind, impulsive instincts. What subjects for canonization and\napotheosis!\n\nThere is, however, a difference between us two-handed bipeds and other\nliving creatures--what is it?\n\nA student of philosophy would hasten to reply: \"This difference lies in\nthe fact that we are conscious of our social faculty, while the animals\nare unconscious of theirs--in the fact that while we reflect and reason\nupon the operation of our social instinct, the animals do nothing of the\nkind.\"\n\nI will go farther. It is by our reflective and reasoning powers,\nwith which we seem to be exclusively endowed, that we know that it is\ninjurious, first to others and then to ourselves, to resist the social\ninstinct which governs us, and which we call JUSTICE. It is our reason\nwhich teaches us that the selfish man, the robber, the murderer--in a\nword, the traitor to society--sins against Nature, and is guilty with\nrespect to others and himself, when he does wrong wilfully. Finally, it\nis our social sentiment on the one hand, and our reason on the\nother, which cause us to think that beings such as we should take the\nresponsibility of their acts. Such is the principle of remorse, revenge,\nand penal justice.\n\nBut this proves only an intellectual diversity between the animals and\nman, not at all an affectional one; for, although we reason upon our\nrelations with our fellows, we likewise reason upon our most trivial\nactions,--such as drinking, eating, choosing a wife, or selecting a\ndwelling-place. We reason upon things earthly and things heavenly; there\nis nothing to which our reasoning powers are not applicable. Now,\njust as the knowledge of external phenomena, which we acquire, has no\ninfluence upon their causes and laws, so reflection, by illuminating our\ninstinct, enlightens us as to our sentient nature, but does not alter\nits character; it tells us what our morality is, but neither changes nor\nmodifies it. Our dissatisfaction with ourselves after doing wrong,\nthe indignation which we feel at the sight of injustice, the idea of\ndeserved punishment and due remuneration, are effects of reflection, and\nnot immediate effects of instinct and emotion. Our appreciation (I do\nnot say exclusive appreciation, for the animals also realize that they\nhave done wrong, and are indignant when one of their number is attacked,\nbut), our infinitely superior appreciation of our social duties, our\nknowledge of good and evil, does not establish, as regards morality, any\nvital difference between man and the beasts.\n\n\n\n% 2.--Of the first and second degrees of Sociability.\n\n\nI insist upon the fact, which I have just pointed out, as one of the\nmost important facts of anthropology.\n\nThe sympathetic attraction, which causes us to associate, is, by reason\nof its blind, unruly nature, always governed by temporary impulse,\nwithout regard to higher rights, and without distinction of merit or\npriority. The bastard dog follows indifferently all who call it; the\nsuckling child regards every man as its father and every woman as its\nnurse; every living creature, when deprived of the society of animals\nof its species, seeks companionship in its solitude. This fundamental\ncharacteristic of the social instinct renders intolerable and even\nhateful the friendship of frivolous persons, liable to be infatuated\nwith every new face, accommodating to all whether good or bad, and\nready to sacrifice, for a passing liaison, the oldest and most honorable\naffections. The fault of such beings is not in the heart--it is in the\njudgment. Sociability, in this degree, is a sort of magnetism awakened\nin us by the contemplation of a being similar to ourselves, but which\nnever goes beyond the person who feels it; it may be reciprocated, but\nnot communicated. Love, benevolence, pity, sympathy, call it what you\nwill, there is nothing in it which deserves esteem,--nothing which lifts\nman above the beast.\n\nThe second degree of sociability is justice, which may be defined as the\nRECOGNITION OF THE EQUALITY BETWEEN ANOTHER'S PERSONALITY AND OUR OWN.\nThe sentiment of justice we share with the animals; we alone can form\nan exact idea of it; but our idea, as has been said already, does not\nchange its nature. We shall soon see how man rises to a third degree\nof sociability which the animals are incapable of reaching. But I must\nfirst prove by metaphysics that SOCIETY, JUSTICE, and EQUALITY,\nare three equivalent terms,--three expressions meaning the same\nthing,--whose mutual conversion is always allowable.\n\nIf, amid the confusion of a shipwreck, having escaped in a boat with\nsome provisions, I see a man struggling with the waves, am I bound to\ngo to his assistance? Yes, I am bound under penalty of being adjudged\nguilty of murder and treason against society.\n\nBut am I also bound to share with him my provisions?\n\nTo settle this question, we must change the phraseology. If society is\nbinding on the boat, is it also binding on the provisions? Undoubtedly.\nThe duty of an associate is absolute. Man's occupancy succeeds his\nsocial nature, and is subordinate to it; possession can become exclusive\nonly when permission to occupy is granted to all alike. That which\nin this instance obscures our duty is our power of foresight, which,\ncausing us to fear an eventual danger, impels us to usurpation, and\nmakes us robbers and murderers. Animals do not calculate the duty of\ninstinct any more than the disadvantages resulting to those who exercise\nit; it would be strange if the intellect of man--the most sociable of\nanimals--should lead him to disobey the law.\n\nHe betrays society who attempts to use it only for his own advantage;\nbetter that God should deprive us of prudence, if it is to serve as the\ntool of our selfishness.\n\n\"What!\" you will say, \"must I share my bread, the bread which I have\nearned and which belongs to me, with the stranger whom I do not know;\nwhom I may never see again, and who, perhaps, will reward me with\ningratitude? If we had earned this bread together, if this man had\ndone something to obtain it, he might demand his share, since his\nco-operation would entitle him to it; but as it is, what claim has he on\nme? We have not produced together--we shall not eat together.\"\n\nThe fallacy in this argument lies in the false supposition, that each\nproducer is not necessarily associated with every other producer.\n\nWhen two or more individuals have regularly organized a society,--when\nthe contracts have been agreed upon, drafted, and signed,--there is\nno difficulty about the future. Everybody knows that when two men\nassociate--for instance--in order to fish, if one of them catches no\nfish, he is none the less entitled to those caught by his associate.\nIf two merchants form a partnership, while the partnership lasts, the\nprofits and losses are divided between them; since each produces, not\nfor himself, but for the society: when the time of distribution arrives,\nit is not the producer who is considered, but the associate. That is why\nthe slave, to whom the planter gives straw and rice; and the civilized\nlaborer, to whom the capitalist pays a salary which is always too\nsmall,--not being associated with their employers, although producing\nwith them,--are disregarded when the product is divided. Thus, the horse\nwho draws our coaches, and the ox who draws our carts produce with us,\nbut are not associated with us; we take their product, but do not share\nit with them. The animals and laborers whom we employ hold the same\nrelation to us. Whatever we do for them, we do, not from a sense of\njustice, but out of pure benevolence. [22]\n\n\nBut is it possible that we are not all associated? Let us call to mind\nwhat was said in the last two chapters, That even though we do not want\nto be associated, the force of things, the necessity of consumption, the\nlaws of production, and the mathematical principle of exchange combine\nto associate us. There is but a single exception to this rule,--that\nof the proprietor, who, producing by his right of increase, is not\nassociated with any one, and consequently is not obliged to share his\nproduct with any one; just as no one else is bound to share with him.\nWith the exception of the proprietor, we labor for each other; we can\ndo nothing by ourselves unaided by others, and we continually exchange\nproducts and services with each other. If these are not social acts,\nwhat are they?\n\nNow, neither a commercial, nor an industrial, nor an agricultural\nassociation can be conceived of in the absence of equality; equality\nis its sine qua non. So that, in all matters which concern this\nassociation, to violate society is to violate justice and equality.\nApply this principle to humanity at large.\n\nAfter what has been said, I assume that the reader has sufficient\ninsight to enable him to dispense with any aid of mine.\n\nBy this principle, the man who takes possession of a field, and says,\n\"This field is mine,\" will not be unjust so long as every one else has\nan equal right of possession; nor will he be unjust, if, wishing to\nchange his location, he exchanges this field for an equivalent. But\nif, putting another in his place, he says to him, \"Work for me while\nI rest,\" he then becomes unjust, unassociated, UNEQUAL. He is a\nproprietor.\n\nReciprocally, the sluggard, or the rake, who, without performing\nany social task, enjoys like others--and often more than others--the\nproducts of society, should be proceeded against as a thief and a\nparasite. We owe it to ourselves to give him nothing; but, since he must\nlive, to put him under supervision, and compel him to labor.\n\nSociability is the attraction felt by sentient beings for each other.\nJustice is this same attraction, accompanied by thought and knowledge.\nBut under what general concept, in what category of the understanding,\nis justice placed? In the category of equal quantities. Hence, the\nancient definition of justice--_Justum aequale est, injustum inaequale_.\nWhat is it, then, to practise justice? It is to give equal wealth\nto each, on condition of equal labor. It is to act socially. Our\nselfishness may complain; there is no escape from evidence and\nnecessity.\n\nWhat is the right of occupancy? It is a natural method of dividing the\nearth, by reducing each laborer's share as fast as new laborers present\nthemselves. This right disappears if the public interest requires it;\nwhich, being the social interest, is also that of the occupant.\n\nWhat is the right of labor? It is the right to obtain one's share\nof wealth by fulfilling the required conditions. It is the right of\nsociety, the right of equality.\n\nJustice, which is the product of the combination of an idea and an\ninstinct, manifests itself in man as soon as he is capable of feeling,\nand of forming ideas. Consequently, it has been regarded as an\ninnate and original sentiment; but this opinion is logically and\nchronologically false. But justice, by its composition hybrid--if I may\nuse the term,--justice, born of emotion and intellect combined, seems to\nme one of the strongest proofs of the unity and simplicity of the\nego; the organism being no more capable of producing such a mixture by\nitself, than are the combined senses of hearing and sight of forming a\nbinary sense, half auditory and half visual.\n\nThis double nature of justice gives us the definitive basis of all the\ndemonstrations in Chapters II., III., and IV. On the one hand, the idea\nof JUSTICE being identical with that of society, and society necessarily\nimplying equality, equality must underlie all the sophisms invented in\ndefence of property; for, since property can be defended only as a just\nand social institution, and property being inequality, in order to\nprove that property is in harmony with society, it must be shown that\ninjustice is justice, and that inequality is equality,--a contradiction\nin terms. On the other hand, since the idea of equality--the second\nelement of justice--has its source in the mathematical proportions of\nthings; and since property, or the unequal distribution of wealth among\nlaborers, destroys the necessary balance between labor, production, and\nconsumption,--property must be impossible.\n\nAll men, then, are associated; all are entitled to the same justice; all\nare equal. Does it follow that the preferences of love and friendship\nare unjust?\n\nThis requires explanation. I have already supposed the case of a man in\nperil, I being in a position to help him. Now, I suppose myself appealed\nto at the same time by two men exposed to danger.\n\nAm I not allowed--am I not commanded even--to rush first to the aid of\nhim who is endeared to me by ties of blood, friendship, acquaintance,\nor esteem, at the risk of leaving the other to perish? Yes. And why?\nBecause within universal society there exist for each of us as many\nspecial societies as there are individuals; and we are bound, by the\nprinciple of sociability itself, to fulfil the obligations which these\nimpose upon us, according to the intimacy of our relations with them.\nTherefore we must give our father, mother, children, friends, relatives,\n&c., the preference over all others. But in what consists this\npreference?\n\nA judge has a case to decide, in which one of the parties is his\nfriend, and the other his enemy. Should he, in this instance, prefer\nhis INTIMATE ASSOCIATE to his DISTANT ASSOCIATE; and decide the case in\nfavor of his friend, in spite of evidence to the contrary? No: for, if\nhe should favor his friend's injustice, he would become his accomplice\nin his violation of the social compact; he would form with him a sort of\nconspiracy against the social body. Preference should be shown only in\npersonal matters, such as love, esteem, confidence, or intimacy, when\nall cannot be considered at once. Thus, in case of fire, a father\nwould save his own child before thinking of his neighbor's; but the\nrecognition of a right not being an optional matter with a judge, he is\nnot at liberty to favor one person to the detriment of another.\n\nThe theory of these special societies--which are formed concentrically,\nso to speak, by each of us inside of the main body--gives the key to\nall the problems which arise from the opposition and conflict of the\ndifferent varieties of social duty,--problems upon which the ancient\ntragedies are based.\n\nThe justice practised among animals is, in a certain degree, negative.\nWith the exception of protecting their young, hunting and plundering\nin troops, uniting for common defence and sometimes for individual\nassistance, it consists more in prevention than in action. A sick animal\nwho cannot arise from the ground, or an imprudent one who has fallen\nover a precipice, receives neither medicine nor nourishment. If he\ncannot cure himself, nor relieve himself of his trouble, his life is in\ndanger: he will neither be cared for in bed, nor fed in a prison.\n\nTheir neglect of their fellows arises as much from the weakness of\ntheir intellect as from their lack of resources. Still, the degrees\nof intimacy common among men are not unknown to the animals. They\nhave friendships of habit and of choice; friendships neighborly, and\nfriendships parental. In comparison with us, they have feeble memories,\nsluggish feelings, and are almost destitute of intelligence; but\nthe identity of these faculties is preserved to some extent, and our\nsuperiority in this respect arises entirely from our understanding.\n\nIt is our strength of memory and penetration of judgment which enable us\nto multiply and combine the acts which our social instinct impels us to\nperform, and which teaches us how to render them more effective, and\nhow to distribute them justly. The beasts who live in society practise\njustice, but are ignorant of its nature, and do not reason upon it; they\nobey their instinct without thought or philosophy. They know not how to\nunite the social sentiment with the idea of equality, which they do not\npossess; this idea being an abstract one. We, on the contrary, starting\nwith the principle that society implies equality, can, by our reasoning\nfaculty, understand and agree with each other in settling our rights;\nwe have even used our judgment to a great extent. But in all this our\nconscience plays a small part, as is proved by the fact that the idea\nof RIGHT--of which we catch a glimpse in certain animals who approach\nnearer than any others to our standard of intelligence--seems to grow,\nfrom the low level at which it stands in savages, to the lofty height\nwhich it reaches in a Plato or a Franklin. If we trace the development\nof the moral sense in individuals, and the progress of laws in nations,\nwe shall be convinced that the ideas of justice and legislative\nperfection are always proportional to intelligence. The notion of\njustice--which has been regarded by some philosophers as simple--is\nthen, in reality, complex. It springs from the social instinct on the\none hand, and the idea of equality on the other; just as the notion of\nguilt arises from the feeling that justice has been violated, and from\nthe idea of free-will.\n\nIn conclusion, instinct is not modified by acquaintance with its nature;\nand the facts of society, which we have thus far observed, occur among\nbeasts as well as men. We know the meaning of justice; in other words,\nof sociability viewed from the standpoint of equality. We have met with\nnothing which separates us from the animals.\n\n\n\n% 3.--Of the third degree of Sociability.\n\n\nThe reader, perhaps, has not forgotten what was said in the third\nchapter concerning the division of labor and the speciality of talents.\nThe sum total of the talents and capacities of the race is always\nthe same, and their nature is always similar. We are all born poets,\nmathematicians, philosophers, artists, artisans, or farmers, but we are\nnot born equally endowed; and between one man and another in society,\nor between one faculty and another in the same individual, there is an\ninfinite difference. This difference of degree in the same faculties,\nthis predominance of talent in certain directions, is, we have said,\nthe very foundation of our society. Intelligence and natural genius have\nbeen distributed by Nature so economically, and yet so liberally, that\nin society there is no danger of either a surplus or a scarcity of\nspecial talents; and that each laborer, by devoting himself to his\nfunction, may always attain to the degree of proficiency necessary to\nenable him to benefit by the labors and discoveries of his fellows.\nOwing to this simple and wise precaution of Nature, the laborer is not\nisolated by his task. He communicates with his fellows through the mind,\nbefore he is united with them in heart; so that with him love is born of\nintelligence.\n\nIt is not so with societies of animals. In every species, the aptitudes\nof all the individuals--though very limited--are equal in number and\n(when they are not the result of instinct) in intensity. Each one does\nas well as all the others what all the others do; provides his food,\navoids the enemy, burrows in the earth, builds a nest, &c. No animal,\nwhen free and healthy, expects or requires the aid of his neighbor; who,\nin his turn, is equally independent.\n\nAssociated animals live side by side without any intellectual\nintercourse or intimate communication,--all doing the same things,\nhaving nothing to learn or to remember; they see, feel, and come in\ncontact with each other, but never penetrate each other. Man continually\nexchanges with man ideas and feelings, products and services. Every\ndiscovery and act in society is necessary to him. But of this immense\nquantity of products and ideas, that which each one has to produce and\nacquire for himself is but an atom in the sun. Man would not be man were\nit not for society, and society is supported by the balance and harmony\nof the powers which compose it.\n\nSociety, among the animals, is SIMPLE; with man it is COMPLEX. Man is\nassociated with man by the same instinct which associates animal with\nanimal; but man is associated differently from the animal, and it is\nthis difference in association which constitutes the difference in\nmorality.\n\nI have proved,--at too great length, perhaps,--both by the spirit of\nthe laws which regard property as the basis of society, and by political\neconomy, that inequality of conditions is justified neither by priority\nof occupation nor superiority of talent, service, industry, and\ncapacity. But, although equality of conditions is a necessary\nconsequence of natural right, of liberty, of the laws of production,\nof the capacity of physical nature, and of the principle of society\nitself,--it does not prevent the social sentiment from stepping over the\nboundaries of DEBT and CREDIT. The fields of benevolence and love extend\nfar beyond; and when economy has adjusted its balance, the mind\nbegins to benefit by its own justice, and the heart expands in the\nboundlessness of its affection.\n\nThe social sentiment then takes on a new character, which varies with\ndifferent persons. In the strong, it becomes the pleasure of generosity;\namong equals, frank and cordial friendship; in the weak, the pleasure of\nadmiration and gratitude.\n\nThe man who is superior in strength, skill, or courage, knows that he\nowes all that he is to society, without which he could not exist. He\nknows that, in treating him precisely as it does the lowest of its\nmembers, society discharges its whole duty towards him. But he does\nnot underrate his faculties; he is no less conscious of his power and\ngreatness; and it is this voluntary reverence which he pays to humanity,\nthis avowal that he is but an instrument of Nature,--who is alone worthy\nof glory and worship,--it is, I say, this simultaneous confession of\nthe heart and the mind, this genuine adoration of the Great Being, that\ndistinguishes and elevates man, and lifts him to a degree of social\nmorality to which the beast is powerless to attain. Hercules destroying\nthe monsters and punishing brigands for the safety of Greece, Orpheus\nteaching the rough and wild Pelasgians,--neither of them putting a price\nupon their services,--there we see the noblest creations of poetry, the\nloftiest expression of justice and virtue.\n\nThe joys of self-sacrifice are ineffable.\n\nIf I were to compare human society to the old Greek tragedies, I should\nsay that the phalanx of noble minds and lofty souls dances the strophe,\nand the humble multitude the antistrophe. Burdened with painful and\ndisagreeable tasks, but rendered omnipotent by their number and the\nharmonic arrangement of their functions, the latter execute what the\nothers plan. Guided by them, they owe them nothing; they honor them,\nhowever, and lavish upon them praise and approbation.\n\nGratitude fills people with adoration and enthusiasm.\n\nBut equality delights my heart. Benevolence degenerates into tyranny,\nand admiration into servility. Friendship is the daughter of equality.\nO my friends! may I live in your midst without emulation, and without\nglory; let equality bring us together, and fate assign us our places.\nMay I die without knowing to whom among you I owe the most esteem!\n\nFriendship is precious to the hearts of the children of men.\n\nGenerosity, gratitude (I mean here only that gratitude which is born\nof admiration of a superior power), and friendship are three distinct\nshades of a single sentiment which I will call equite, or SOCIAL\nPROPORTIONALITY. [23] Equite does not change justice: but, always taking\nequite for the base, it superadds esteem, and thereby forms in man a\nthird degree of sociability. Equite makes it at once our duty and our\npleasure to aid the weak who have need of us, and to make them our\nequals; to pay to the strong a just tribute of gratitude and honor,\nwithout enslaving ourselves to them; to cherish our neighbors, friends,\nand equals, for that which we receive from them, even by right of\nexchange. Equite is sociability raised to its ideal by reason and\njustice; its commonest manifestation is URBANITY or POLITENESS, which,\namong certain nations, sums up in a single word nearly all the social\nduties.\n\nIt is the just distribution of social sympathy and universal love.\n\nNow, this feeling is unknown among the beasts, who love and cling to\neach other, and show their preferences, but who cannot conceive of\nesteem, and who are incapable of generosity, admiration, or politeness.\n\nThis feeling does not spring from intelligence, which calculates,\ncomputes, and balances, but does not love; which sees, but does not\nfeel. As justice is the product of social instinct and reflection\ncombined, so equite is a product of justice and taste combined--that is,\nof our powers of judging and of idealizing.\n\nThis product--the third and last degree of human sociability--is\ndetermined by our complex mode of association; in which inequality,\nor rather the divergence of faculties, and the speciality of\nfunctions--tending of themselves to isolate laborers--demand a more\nactive sociability.\n\nThat is why the force which oppresses while protecting is execrable; why\nthe silly ignorance which views with the same eye the marvels of art,\nand the products of the rudest industry, excites unutterable contempt;\nwhy proud mediocrity, which glories in saying, \"I have paid you--I owe\nyou nothing,\" is especially odious.\n\nSOCIABILITY, JUSTICE, EQUITE--such, in its triplicity, is the exact\ndefinition of the instinctive faculty which leads us into communication\nwith our fellows, and whose physical manifestation is expressed by the\nformula: EQUALITY IN NATURAL WEALTH, AND THE PRODUCTS OF LABOR.\n\nThese three degrees of sociability support and imply each other.\n\nEquite cannot exist without justice; society without justice is a\nsolecism. If, in order to reward talent, I take from one to give to\nanother, in unjustly stripping the first, I do not esteem his talent as\nI ought; if, in society, I award more to myself than to my associate, we\nare not really associated. Justice is sociability as manifested in the\ndivision of material things, susceptible of weight and measure; equite\nis justice accompanied by admiration and esteem,--things which cannot be\nmeasured.\n\nFrom this several inferences may be drawn.\n\n1. Though we are free to grant our esteem to one more than to another,\nand in all possible degrees, yet we should give no one more than his\nproportion of the common wealth; because the duty of justice, being\nimposed upon us before that of equite, must always take precedence of\nit. The woman honored by the ancients, who, when forced by a tyrant\nto choose between the death of her brother and that of her husband,\nsacrificed the latter on the ground that she could find another husband\nbut not another brother,--that woman, I say, in obeying her sense of\nequite, failed in point of justice, and did a bad deed, because conjugal\nassociation is a closer relation than fraternal association, and because\nthe life of our neighbor is not our property.\n\nBy the same principle, inequality of wages cannot be admitted by law on\nthe ground of inequality of talents; because the just distribution of\nwealth is the function of economy,--not of enthusiasm.\n\nFinally, as regards donations, wills, and inheritance, society, careful\nboth of the personal affections and its own rights, must never permit\nlove and partiality to destroy justice. And, though it is pleasant to\nthink that the son, who has been long associated with his father in\nbusiness, is more capable than any one else of carrying it on; and that\nthe citizen, who is surprised in the midst of his task by death, is\nbest fitted, in consequence of his natural taste for his occupation, to\ndesignate his successor; and though the heir should be allowed the right\nof choice in case of more than one inheritance,--nevertheless, society\ncan tolerate no concentration of capital and industry for the benefit of\na single man, no monopoly of labor, no encroachment. [24]\n\n\"Suppose that some spoils, taken from the enemy, and equal to twelve,\nare to be divided between Achilles and Ajax. If the two persons were\nequal, their respective shares would be arithmetically equal: Achilles\nwould have six, Ajax six. And if we should carry out this arithmetical\nequality, Thersites would be entitled to as much as Achilles, which\nwould be unjust in the extreme. To avoid this injustice, the worth of\nthe persons should be estimated, and the spoils divided accordingly.\nSuppose that the worth of Achilles is double that of Ajax: the former's\nshare is eight, the latter four. There is no arithmetical equality, but\na proportional equality. It is this comparison of merits, rationum,\nthat Aristotle calls distributive justice. It is a geometrical\nproportion.\"--Toullier: French Law according to the Code.\n\nAre Achilles and Ajax associated, or are they not? Settle that, and\nyou settle the whole question. If Achilles and Ajax, instead of being\nassociated, are themselves in the service of Agamemnon who pays them,\nthere is no objection to Aristotle's method. The slave-owner, who\ncontrols his slaves, may give a double allowance of brandy to him who\ndoes double work. That is the law of despotism; the right of slavery.\n\nBut if Achilles and Ajax are associated, they are equals. What matters\nit that Achilles has a strength of four, while that of Ajax is only two?\nThe latter may always answer that he is free; that if Achilles has a\nstrength of four, five could kill him; finally, that in doing personal\nservice he incurs as great a risk as Achilles. The same argument applies\nto Thersites. If he is unable to fight, let him be cook, purveyor, or\nbutler. If he is good for nothing, put him in the hospital. In no case\nwrong him, or impose upon him laws.\n\nMan must live in one of two states: either in society, or out of it.\nIn society, conditions are necessarily equal, except in the degree of\nesteem and consideration which each one may receive. Out of society, man\nis so much raw material, a capitalized tool, and often an incommodious\nand useless piece of furniture.\n\n\n2. Equite, justice, and society, can exist only between individuals of\nthe same species. They form no part of the relations of different races\nto each other,--for instance, of the wolf to the goat, of the goat to\nman, of man to God, much less of God to man. The attribution of justice,\nequity, and love to the Supreme Being is pure anthropomorphism; and the\nadjectives just, merciful, pitiful, and the like, should be stricken\nfrom our litanies. God can be regarded as just, equitable, and good,\nonly to another God. Now, God has no associate; consequently, he cannot\nexperience social affections,--such as goodness, equite, and justice.\nIs the shepherd said to be just to his sheep and his dogs? No: and if he\nsaw fit to shear as much wool from a lamb six months old, as from a ram\nof two years; or, if he required as much work from a young dog as from\nan old one,--they would say, not that he was unjust, but that he was\nfoolish. Between man and beast there is no society, though there may be\naffection. Man loves the animals as THINGS,--as SENTIENT THINGS, if you\nwill,--but not as PERSONS. Philosophy, after having eliminated from the\nidea of God the passions ascribed to him by superstition, will then be\nobliged to eliminate also the virtues which our liberal piety awards to\nhim. [25]\n\nThe rights of woman and her relations with man are yet to be determined\nMatrimonial legislation, like civil legislation, is a matter for the\nfuture to settle.\n\nIf God should come down to earth, and dwell among us, we could not love\nhim unless he became like us; nor give him any thing unless he produced\nsomething; nor listen to him unless he proved us mistaken; nor worship\nhim unless he manifested his power. All the laws of our nature,\naffectional, economical, and intellectual, would prevent us from\ntreating him as we treat our fellow-men,--that is, according to reason,\njustice, and equite.\n\nI infer from this that, if God should wish ever to put himself into\nimmediate communication with man, he would have to become a man.\n\nNow, if kings are images of God, and executors of his will, they cannot\nreceive love, wealth, obedience, and glory from us, unless they consent\nto labor and associate with us--produce as much as they consume, reason\nwith their subjects, and do wonderful things. Still more; if, as some\npretend, kings are public functionaries, the love which is due them is\nmeasured by their personal amiability; our obligation to obey them, by\nthe wisdom of their commands; and their civil list, by the total social\nproduction divided by the number of citizens.\n\nThus, jurisprudence, political economy, and psychology agree in\nadmitting the law of equality. Right and duty--the due reward of talent\nand labor--the outbursts of love and enthusiasm,--all are regulated in\nadvance by an invariable standard; all depend upon number and balance.\nEquality of conditions is the law of society, and universal solidarity\nis the ratification of this law.\n\nEquality of conditions has never been realized, thanks to our passions\nand our ignorance; but our opposition to this law has made it all the\nmore a necessity. To that fact history bears perpetual testimony, and\nthe course of events reveals it to us. Society advances from equation to\nequation. To the eyes of the economist, the revolutions of empires\nseem now like the reduction of algebraical quantities, which are\ninter-deducible; now like the discovery of unknown quantities, induced\nby the inevitable influence of time. Figures are the providence of\nhistory. Undoubtedly there are other elements in human progress; but in\nthe multitude of hidden causes which agitate nations, there is none more\npowerful or constant, none less obscure, than the periodical explosions\nof the proletariat against property. Property, acting by exclusion\nand encroachment, while population was increasing, has been the\nlife-principle and definitive cause of all revolutions. Religious wars,\nand wars of conquest, when they have stopped short of the extermination\nof races, have been only accidental disturbances, soon repaired by the\nmathematical progression of the life of nations. The downfall and death\nof societies are due to the power of accumulation possessed by property.\n\nIn the middle ages, take Florence,--a republic of merchants and brokers,\nalways rent by its well-known factions, the Guelphs and Ghibellines, who\nwere, after all, only the people and the proprietors fighting against\neach other,--Florence, ruled by bankers, and borne down at last by the\nweight of her debts; [26] in ancient times, take Rome, preyed upon from\nits birth by usury, flourishing, nevertheless, as long as the known\nworld furnished its terrible proletaires with LABOR stained with blood\nby civil war at every interval of rest, and dying of exhaustion when\nthe people lost, together with their former energy, their last spark\nof moral sense; Carthage, a commercial and financial city, continually\ndivided by internal competition; Tyre, Sidon, Jerusalem, Nineveh,\nBabylon, ruined, in turn, by commercial rivalry and, as we now express\nit, by panics in the market,--do not these famous examples show clearly\nenough the fate which awaits modern nations, unless the people,\nunless France, with a sudden burst of her powerful voice, proclaims in\nthunder-tones the abolition of the regime of property?\n\n\nHere my task should end. I have proved the right of the poor; I have\nshown the usurpation of the rich. I demand justice; it is not my\nbusiness to execute the sentence. If it should be argued--in order to\nprolong for a few years an illegitimate privilege--that it is not enough\nto demonstrate equality, that it is necessary also to organize it, and\nabove all to establish it peacefully, I might reply: The welfare of the\noppressed is of more importance than official composure. Equality of\nconditions is a natural law upon which public economy and jurisprudence\nare based. The right to labor, and the principle of equal distribution\nof wealth, cannot give way to the anxieties of power. It is not for the\nproletaire to reconcile the contradictions of the codes, still less to\nsuffer for the errors of the government. On the contrary, it is the duty\nof the civil and administrative power to reconstruct itself on the basis\nof political equality. An evil, when known, should be condemned and\ndestroyed. The legislator cannot plead ignorance as an excuse for\nupholding a glaring iniquity. Restitution should not be delayed.\nJustice, justice! recognition of right! reinstatement of the\nproletaire!--when these results are accomplished, then, judges and\nconsuls, you may attend to your police, and provide a government for the\nRepublic!\n\nFor the rest, I do not think that a single one of my readers accuses\nme of knowing how to destroy, but of not knowing how to construct. In\ndemonstrating the principle of equality, I have laid the foundation of\nthe social structure I have done more. I have given an example of\nthe true method of solving political and legislative problems. Of the\nscience itself, I confess that I know nothing more than its principle;\nand I know of no one at present who can boast of having penetrated\ndeeper. Many people cry, \"Come to me, and I will teach you the truth!\"\nThese people mistake for the truth their cherished opinion and ardent\nconviction, which is usually any thing but the truth. The science of\nsociety--like all human sciences--will be for ever incomplete. The depth\nand variety of the questions which it embraces are infinite. We hardly\nknow the A B C of this science, as is proved by the fact that we have\nnot yet emerged from the period of systems, and have not ceased to\nput the authority of the majority in the place of facts. A certain\nphilological society decided linguistic questions by a plurality\nof votes. Our parliamentary debates--were their results less\npernicious--would be even more ridiculous. The task of the true\npublicist, in the age in which we live, is to close the mouths of\nquacks and charlatans, and to teach the public to demand demonstrations,\ninstead of being contented with symbols and programmes. Before talking\nof the science itself, it is necessary to ascertain its object, and\ndiscover its method and principle. The ground must be cleared of the\nprejudices which encumber it. Such is the mission of the nineteenth\ncentury.\n\nFor my part, I have sworn fidelity to my work of demolition, and I will\nnot cease to pursue the truth through the ruins and rubbish. I hate to\nsee a thing half done; and it will be believed without any assurance of\nmine, that, having dared to raise my hand against the Holy Ark, I shall\nnot rest contented with the removal of the cover. The mysteries of the\nsanctuary of iniquity must be unveiled, the tables of the old alliance\nbroken, and all the objects of the ancient faith thrown in a heap to the\nswine. A charter has been given to us,--a resume of political science,\nthe monument of twenty legislatures. A code has been written,--the pride\nof a conqueror, and the summary of ancient wisdom. Well! of this charter\nand this code not one article shall be left standing upon another!\nThe time has come for the wise to choose their course, and prepare for\nreconstruction.\n\nBut, since a destroyed error necessarily implies a counter-truth, I will\nnot finish this treatise without solving the first problem of political\nscience,--that which receives the attention of all minds.\n\n\n\nWHEN PROPERTY IS ABOLISHED, WHAT WILL BE THE FORM OF SOCIETY! WILL IT BE\nCOMMUNISM?\n\n\n\nPART SECOND.\n\n\n\n% 1.--Of the Causes of our Mistakes. The Origin of Property.\n\n\nThe true form of human society cannot be determined until the following\nquestion has been solved:--\n\nProperty not being our natural condition, how did it gain a foothold?\nWhy has the social instinct, so trustworthy among the animals, erred\nin the case of man? Why is man, who was born for society, not yet\nassociated?\n\nI have said that human society is COMPLEX in its nature. Though this\nexpression is inaccurate, the fact to which it refers is none the less\ntrue; namely, the classification of talents and capacities. But who\ndoes not see that these talents and capacities, owing to their infinite\nvariety, give rise to an infinite variety of wills, and that the\ncharacter, the inclinations, and--if I may venture to use the\nexpression--the form of the ego, are necessarily changed; so that in\nthe order of liberty, as in the order of intelligence, there are as\nmany types as individuals, as many characters as heads, whose tastes,\nfancies, and propensities, being modified by dissimilar ideas,\nmust necessarily conflict? Man, by his nature and his instinct, is\npredestined to society; but his personality, ever varying, is adverse to\nit.\n\nIn societies of animals, all the members do exactly the same things.\nThe same genius directs them; the same will animates them. A society of\nbeasts is a collection of atoms, round, hooked, cubical, or triangular,\nbut always perfectly identical. These personalities do not vary, and we\nmight say that a single ego governs them all. The labors which animals\nperform, whether alone or in society, are exact reproductions of their\ncharacter. Just as the swarm of bees is composed of individual bees,\nalike in nature and equal in value, so the honeycomb is formed of\nindividual cells, constantly and invariably repeated.\n\nBut man's intelligence, fitted for his social destiny and his personal\nneeds, is of a very different composition, and therefore gives rise to\na wonderful variety of human wills. In the bee, the will is constant\nand uniform, because the instinct which guides it is invariable, and\nconstitutes the animal's whole life and nature. In man, talent varies,\nand the mind wavers; consequently, his will is multiform and vague. He\nseeks society, but dislikes constraint and monotony; he is an imitator,\nbut fond of his own ideas, and passionately in love with his works.\n\nIf, like the bees, every man were born possessed of talent, perfect\nknowledge of certain kinds, and, in a word, an innate acquaintance\nwith the functions he has to perform, but destitute of reflective and\nreasoning faculties, society would organize itself. We should see one\nman plowing a field, another building houses; this one forging metals,\nthat one cutting clothes; and still others storing the products, and\nsuperintending their distribution. Each one, without inquiring as to the\nobject of his labor, and without troubling himself about the extent of\nhis task, would obey orders, bring his product, receive his salary, and\nwould then rest for a time; keeping meanwhile no accounts, envious of\nnobody, and satisfied with the distributor, who never would be unjust to\nany one. Kings would govern, but would not reign; for to reign is to be\na _proprietor a l'engrais_, as Bonaparte said: and having no commands\nto give, since all would be at their posts, they would serve rather as\nrallying centres than as authorities or counsellors. It would be a state\nof ordered communism, but not a society entered into deliberately and\nfreely.\n\nBut man acquires skill only by observation and experiment. He reflects,\nthen, since to observe and experiment is to reflect; he reasons,\nsince he cannot help reasoning. In reflecting, he becomes deluded; in\nreasoning, he makes mistakes, and, thinking himself right, persists in\nthem. He is wedded to his opinions; he esteems himself, and despises\nothers. Consequently, he isolates himself; for he could not submit\nto the majority without renouncing his will and his reason,--that is,\nwithout disowning himself, which is impossible. And this isolation, this\nintellectual egotism, this individuality of opinion, lasts until the\ntruth is demonstrated to him by observation and experience. A final\nillustration will make these facts still clearer.\n\nIf to the blind but convergent and harmonious instincts of a swarm\nof bees should be suddenly added reflection and judgment, the little\nsociety could not long exist. In the first place, the bees would not\nfail to try some new industrial process; for instance, that of making\ntheir cells round or square. All sorts of systems and inventions would\nbe tried, until long experience, aided by geometry, should show them\nthat the hexagonal shape is the best. Then insurrections would occur.\nThe drones would be told to provide for themselves, and the queens to\nlabor; jealousy would spread among the laborers; discords would burst\nforth; soon each one would want to produce on his own account; and\nfinally the hive would be abandoned, and the bees would perish. Evil\nwould be introduced into the honey-producing republic by the power of\nreflection,--the very faculty which ought to constitute its glory.\n\nThus, moral evil, or, in this case, disorder in society, is naturally\nexplained by our power of reflection. The mother of poverty, crime,\ninsurrection, and war was inequality of conditions; which was the\ndaughter of property, which was born of selfishness, which was\nengendered by private opinion, which descended in a direct line from\nthe autocracy of reason. Man, in his infancy, is neither criminal\nnor barbarous, but ignorant and inexperienced. Endowed with imperious\ninstincts which are under the control of his reasoning faculty, at first\nhe reflects but little, and reasons inaccurately; then, benefiting by\nhis mistakes, he rectifies his ideas, and perfects his reason. In the\nfirst place, it is the savage sacrificing all his possessions for\na trinket, and then repenting and weeping; it is Esau selling his\nbirthright for a mess of pottage, and afterwards wishing to cancel\nthe bargain; it is the civilized workman laboring in insecurity, and\ncontinually demanding that his wages be increased, neither he nor his\nemployer understanding that, in the absence of equality, any salary,\nhowever large, is always insufficient. Then it is Naboth dying to defend\nhis inheritance; Cato tearing out his entrails that he might not be\nenslaved; Socrates drinking the fatal cup in defence of liberty of\nthought; it is the third estate of '89 reclaiming its liberty: soon it\nwill be the people demanding equality of wages and an equal division of\nthe means of production.\n\nMan is born a social being,--that is, he seeks equality and justice in\nall his relations, but he loves independence and praise. The difficulty\nof satisfying these various desires at the same time is the primary\ncause of the despotism of the will, and the appropriation which results\nfrom it. On the other hand, man always needs a market for his products;\nunable to compare values of different kinds, he is satisfied to judge\napproximately, according to his passion and caprice; and he engages in\ndishonest commerce, which always results in wealth and poverty. Thus,\nthe greatest evils which man suffers arise from the misuse of his social\nnature, of this same justice of which he is so proud, and which he\napplies with such deplorable ignorance.\n\nThe practice of justice is a science which, when once discovered\nand diffused, will sooner or later put an end to social disorder, by\nteaching us our rights and duties.\n\nThis progressive and painful education of our instinct, this slow\nand imperceptible transformation of our spontaneous perceptions into\ndeliberate knowledge, does not take place among the animals, whose\ninstincts remain fixed, and never become enlightened.\n\n\n\"According to Frederic Cuvier, who has so clearly distinguished between\ninstinct and intelligence in animals, 'instinct is a natural and\ninherent faculty, like feeling, irritability, or intelligence. The wolf\nand the fox who recognize the traps in which they have been caught, and\nwho avoid them; the dog and the horse, who understand the meaning of\nseveral of our words, and who obey us,--thereby show _intelligence_.\nThe dog who hides the remains of his dinner, the bee who constructs his\ncell, the bird who builds his nest, act only from _instinct_. Even man\nhas instincts: it is a special instinct which leads the new-born\nchild to suck. But, in man, almost every thing is accomplished by\nintelligence; and intelligence supplements instinct. The opposite is\ntrue of animals: their instinct is given them as a supplement to their\nintelligence.'\"--Flourens: Analytical Summary of the Observations of F.\nCuvier.\n\n\"We can form a clear idea of instinct only by admitting that animals\nhave in their _sensorium_, images or innate and constant sensations,\nwhich influence their actions in the same manner that ordinary and\naccidental sensations commonly do. It is a sort of dream, or vision,\nwhich always follows them and in all which relates to instinct they may\nbe regarded as somnambulists.\"--F. Cuvier: Introduction to the Animal\nKingdom.\n\n\nIntelligence and instinct being common, then, though in different\ndegrees, to animals and man, what is the distinguishing characteristic\nof the latter? According to F. Cuvier, it is REFLECTION OR THE POWER\nOF INTELLECTUALLY CONSIDERING OUR OWN MODIFICATIONS BY A SURVEY OF\nOURSELVES. This lacks clearness, and requires an explanation.\n\nIf we grant intelligence to animals, we must also grant them, in some\ndegree, reflection; for, the first cannot exist without the second, as\nF. Cuvier himself has proved by numerous examples. But notice that the\nlearned observer defines the kind of reflection which distinguishes us\nfrom the animals as the POWER OF CONSIDERING OUR OWN MODIFICATIONS. This\nI shall endeavour to interpret, by developing to the best of my ability\nthe laconism of the philosophical naturalist.\n\nThe intelligence acquired by animals never modifies the operations which\nthey perform by instinct: it is given them only as a provision against\nunexpected accidents which might disturb these operations. In man, on\nthe contrary, instinctive action is constantly changing into deliberate\naction. Thus, man is social by instinct, and is every day becoming\nsocial by reflection and choice. At first, he formed his words by\ninstinct;[1] he was a poet by inspiration: to-day, he makes grammar a\nscience, and poetry an art. His conception of God and a future life is\nspontaneous and instinctive, and his expressions of this conception\nhave been, by turns, monstrous, eccentric, beautiful, comforting, and\nterrible. All these different creeds, at which the frivolous irreligion\nof the eighteenth century mocked, are modes of expression of the\nreligious sentiment. Some day, man will explain to himself the character\nof the God whom he believes in, and the nature of that other world to\nwhich his soul aspires.\n\n[1] \"The problem of the origin of language is solved by the distinction\nmade by Frederic Cuvier between instinct and intelligence. Language\nis not a premeditated, arbitrary, or conventional device; nor is it\ncommunicated or revealed to us by God. Language is an instinctive and\nunpremeditated creation of man, as the hive is of the bee. In this\nsense, it may be said that language is not the work of man, since it is\nnot the work of his mind. Further, the mechanism of language seems\nmore wonderful and ingenious when it is not regarded as the result of\nreflection. This fact is one of the most curious and indisputable which\nphilology has observed. See, among other works, a Latin essay by F. G.\nBergmann (Strasbourg, 1839), in which the learned author explains how\nthe phonetic germ is born of sensation; how language passes through\nthree successive stages of development; why man, endowed at birth with\nthe instinctive faculty of creating a language, loses this faculty\nas fast as his mind develops; and that the study of languages is real\nnatural history,--in fact, a science. France possesses to-day several\nphilologists of the first rank, endowed with rare talents and deep\nphilosophic insight,--modest savants developing a science almost without\nthe knowledge of the public; devoting themselves to studies which are\nscornfully looked down upon, and seeming to shun applause as much as\nothers seek it.\"\n\n\nAll that he does from instinct man despises; or, if he admires it, it\nis as Nature's work, not as his own. This explains the obscurity\nwhich surrounds the names of early inventors; it explains also our\nindifference to religious matters, and the ridicule heaped upon\nreligious customs. Man esteems only the products of reflection and of\nreason. The most wonderful works of instinct are, in his eyes, only\nlucky GOD-SENDS; he reserves the name DISCOVERY--I had almost said\ncreation--for the works of intelligence. Instinct is the source of\npassion and enthusiasm; it is intelligence which causes crime and\nvirtue.\n\nIn developing his intelligence, man makes use of not only his own\nobservations, but also those of others. He keeps an account of his\nexperience, and preserves the record; so that the race, as well as\nthe individual, becomes more and more intelligent. The animals do not\ntransmit their knowledge; that which each individual accumulates dies\nwith him.\n\nIt is not enough, then, to say that we are distinguished from the\nanimals by reflection, unless we mean thereby the CONSTANT TENDENCY OF\nOUR INSTINCT TO BECOME INTELLIGENCE. While man is governed by instinct,\nhe is unconscious of his acts. He never would deceive himself, and never\nwould be troubled by errors, evils, and disorder, if, like the animals,\ninstinct were his only guide. But the Creator has endowed us with\nreflection, to the end that our instinct might become intelligence;\nand since this reflection and resulting knowledge pass through various\nstages, it happens that in the beginning our instinct is opposed, rather\nthan guided, by reflection; consequently, that our power of thought\nleads us to act in opposition to our nature and our end; that, deceiving\nourselves, we do and suffer evil, until instinct which points us towards\ngood, and reflection which makes us stumble into evil, are replaced by\nthe science of good and evil, which invariably causes us to seek the one\nand avoid the other.\n\nThus, evil--or error and its consequences--is the firstborn son of\nthe union of two opposing faculties, instinct and reflection; good,\nor truth, must inevitably be the second child. Or, to again employ the\nfigure, evil is the product of incest between adverse powers; good will\nsooner or later be the legitimate child of their holy and mysterious\nunion.\n\nProperty, born of the reasoning faculty, intrenches itself behind\ncomparisons. But, just as reflection and reason are subsequent to\nspontaneity, observation to sensation, and experience to instinct, so\nproperty is subsequent to communism. Communism--or association in a\nsimple form--is the necessary object and original aspiration of the\nsocial nature, the spontaneous movement by which it manifests and\nestablishes itself. It is the first phase of human civilization. In this\nstate of society,--which the jurists have called NEGATIVE COMMUNISM--man\ndraws near to man, and shares with him the fruits of the field and the\nmilk and flesh of animals. Little by little this communism--negative\nas long as man does not produce--tends to become positive and organic\nthrough the development of labor and industry. But it is then that the\nsovereignty of thought, and the terrible faculty of reasoning logically\nor illogically, teach man that, if equality is the sine qua non of\nsociety, communism is the first species of slavery. To express this idea\nby an Hegelian formula, I will say:\n\nCommunism--the first expression of the social nature--is the first term\nof social development,--the THESIS; property, the reverse of communism,\nis the second term,--the ANTITHESIS. When we have discovered the third\nterm, the SYNTHESIS, we shall have the required solution. Now, this\nsynthesis necessarily results from the correction of the thesis by the\nantithesis. Therefore it is necessary, by a final examination of their\ncharacteristics, to eliminate those features which are hostile to\nsociability. The union of the two remainders will give us the true form\nof human association.\n\n\n\n% 2.--Characteristics of Communism and of Property.\n\n\nI. I ought not to conceal the fact that property and communism have been\nconsidered always the only possible forms of society. This deplorable\nerror has been the life of property. The disadvantages of communism are\nso obvious that its critics never have needed to employ much eloquence\nto thoroughly disgust men with it. The irreparability of the injustice\nwhich it causes, the violence which it does to attractions and\nrepulsions, the yoke of iron which it fastens upon the will, the moral\ntorture to which it subjects the conscience, the debilitating effect\nwhich it has upon society; and, to sum it all up, the pious and\nstupid uniformity which it enforces upon the free, active, reasoning,\nunsubmissive personality of man, have shocked common sense, and\ncondemned communism by an irrevocable decree.\n\nThe authorities and examples cited in its favor disprove it. The\ncommunistic republic of Plato involved slavery; that of Lycurgus\nemployed Helots, whose duty it was to produce for their masters, thus\nenabling the latter to devote themselves exclusively to athletic sports\nand to war. Even J. J. Rousseau--confounding communism and equality--has\nsaid somewhere that, without slavery, he did not think equality of\nconditions possible. The communities of the early Church did not last\nthe first century out, and soon degenerated into monasteries. In those\nof the Jesuits of Paraguay, the condition of the blacks is said by all\ntravellers to be as miserable as that of slaves; and it is a fact that\nthe good Fathers were obliged to surround themselves with ditches and\nwalls to prevent their new converts from escaping. The followers\nof Baboeuf--guided by a lofty horror of property rather than by any\ndefinite belief--were ruined by exaggeration of their principles; the\nSt. Simonians, lumping communism and inequality, passed away like a\nmasquerade. The greatest danger to which society is exposed to-day is\nthat of another shipwreck on this rock.\n\nSingularly enough, systematic communism--the deliberate negation of\nproperty--is conceived under the direct influence of the proprietary\nprejudice; and property is the basis of all communistic theories.\n\nThe members of a community, it is true, have no private property; but\nthe community is proprietor, and proprietor not only of the goods, but\nof the persons and wills. In consequence of this principle of absolute\nproperty, labor, which should be only a condition imposed upon man by\nNature, becomes in all communities a human commandment, and therefore\nodious. Passive obedience, irreconcilable with a reflecting will, is\nstrictly enforced. Fidelity to regulations, which are always defective,\nhowever wise they may be thought, allows of no complaint. Life, talent,\nand all the human faculties are the property of the State, which has\nthe right to use them as it pleases for the common good. Private\nassociations are sternly prohibited, in spite of the likes and dislikes\nof different natures, because to tolerate them would be to introduce\nsmall communities within the large one, and consequently private\nproperty; the strong work for the weak, although this ought to be left\nto benevolence, and not enforced, advised, or enjoined; the industrious\nwork for the lazy, although this is unjust; the clever work for the\nfoolish, although this is absurd; and, finally, man--casting aside his\npersonality, his spontaneity, his genius, and his affections--humbly\nannihilates himself at the feet of the majestic and inflexible Commune!\n\nCommunism is inequality, but not as property is. Property is the\nexploitation of the weak by the strong. Communism is the exploitation\nof the strong by the weak. In property, inequality of conditions is\nthe result of force, under whatever name it be disguised: physical and\nmental force; force of events, chance, FORTUNE; force of accumulated\nproperty, &c. In communism, inequality springs from placing mediocrity\non a level with excellence. This damaging equation is repellent to the\nconscience, and causes merit to complain; for, although it may be\nthe duty of the strong to aid the weak, they prefer to do it out of\ngenerosity,--they never will endure a comparison. Give them equal\nopportunities of labor, and equal wages, but never allow their jealousy\nto be awakened by mutual suspicion of unfaithfulness in the performance\nof the common task.\n\nCommunism is oppression and slavery. Man is very willing to obey the\nlaw of duty, serve his country, and oblige his friends; but he wishes to\nlabor when he pleases, where he pleases, and as much as he pleases. He\nwishes to dispose of his own time, to be governed only by necessity, to\nchoose his friendships, his recreation, and his discipline; to act from\njudgment, not by command; to sacrifice himself through selfishness, not\nthrough servile obligation. Communism is essentially opposed to the\nfree exercise of our faculties, to our noblest desires, to our deepest\nfeelings. Any plan which could be devised for reconciling it with the\ndemands of the individual reason and will would end only in changing the\nthing while preserving the name. Now, if we are honest truth-seekers, we\nshall avoid disputes about words.\n\nThus, communism violates the sovereignty of the conscience, and\nequality: the first, by restricting spontaneity of mind and heart,\nand freedom of thought and action; the second, by placing labor and\nlaziness, skill and stupidity, and even vice and virtue on an equality\nin point of comfort. For the rest, if property is impossible on account\nof the desire to accumulate, communism would soon become so through the\ndesire to shirk.\n\n\nII. Property, in its turn, violates equality by the rights of exclusion\nand increase, and freedom by despotism. The former effect of property\nhaving been sufficiently developed in the last three chapters, I will\ncontent myself here with establishing by a final comparison, its perfect\nidentity with robbery.\n\nThe Latin words for robber are _fur_ and _latro;_ the former taken from\nthe Greek {GREEK m }, from {GREEK m }, Latin _fero_, I carry away; the\nlatter from {GREEK 'i }, I play the part of a brigand, which is derived\nfrom {GREEK i }, Latin _lateo_, I conceal myself. The Greeks have also\n{GREEK ncg }, from {GREEK ncg }, I filch, whose radical consonants are\nthe same as those of {GREEK ' cg }, I cover, I conceal. Thus, in these\nlanguages, the idea of a robber is that of a man who conceals, carries\naway, or diverts, in any manner whatever, a thing which does not belong\nto him.\n\nThe Hebrews expressed the same idea by the word _gannab_,--robber,--from\nthe verb _ganab_, which means to put away, to turn aside: _lo thi-gnob\n(Decalogue: Eighth Commandment_), thou shalt not steal,--that is, thou\nshalt not hold back, thou shalt not put away any thing for thyself. That\nis the act of a man who, on entering into a society into which he\nagrees to bring all that he has, secretly reserves a portion, as did the\ncelebrated disciple Ananias.\n\nThe etymology of the French verb _voler_ is still more significant.\n_Voler_, or _faire la vole_ (from the Latin _vola_, palm of the hand),\nmeans to take all the tricks in a game of ombre; so that _le voleur_,\nthe robber, is the capitalist who takes all, who gets the lion's share.\nProbably this verb _voler_ had its origin in the professional slang of\nthieves, whence it has passed into common use, and, consequently into\nthe phraseology of the law.\n\nRobbery is committed in a variety of ways, which have been very\ncleverly distinguished and classified by legislators according to their\nheinousness or merit, to the end that some robbers may be honored, while\nothers are punished.\n\nWe rob,--1. By murder on the highway; 2. Alone, or in a band; 3. By\nbreaking into buildings, or scaling walls; 4. By abstraction; 5. By\nfraudulent bankruptcy; 6. By forgery of the handwriting of public\nofficials or private individuals; 7. By manufacture of counterfeit\nmoney.\n\nThis species includes all robbers who practise their profession with no\nother aid than force and open fraud. Bandits, brigands, pirates, rovers\nby land and sea,--these names were gloried in by the ancient heroes, who\nthought their profession as noble as it was lucrative. Nimrod, Theseus,\nJason and his Argonauts; Jephthah, David, Cacus, Romulus, Clovis and\nall his Merovingian descendants; Robert Guiscard, Tancred de Hauteville,\nBohemond, and most of the Norman heroes,--were brigands and robbers. The\nheroic character of the robber is expressed in this line from Horace, in\nreference to Achilles,--\n\n         _\"Jura neget sibi nata, nihil non arroget armis_,\" [27]\nand by this sentence from the dying words of Jacob (Gen. xlviii.), which\nthe Jews apply to David, and the Christians to their Christ: _Manus ejus\ncontra omnes_. In our day, the robber--the warrior of the ancients--is\npursued with the utmost vigor. His profession, in the language of the\ncode, entails ignominious and corporal penalties, from imprisonment to\nthe scaffold. A sad change in opinions here below!\n\nWe rob,--8. By cheating; 9. By swindling; 10. By abuse of trust; 11. By\ngames and lotteries.\n\nThis second species was encouraged by the laws of Lycurgus, in order\nto sharpen the wits of the young. It is the kind practised by Ulysses,\nSolon, and Sinon; by the ancient and modern Jews, from Jacob down to\nDeutz; and by the Bohemians, the Arabs, and all savage tribes. Under\nLouis XIII. and Louis XIV., it was not considered dishonorable to cheat\nat play. To do so was a part of the game; and many worthy people did not\nscruple to correct the caprice of Fortune by dexterous jugglery.\nTo-day even, and in all countries, it is thought a mark of merit\namong peasants, merchants, and shopkeepers to KNOW HOW TO MAKE A\nBARGAIN,--that is, to deceive one's man. This is so universally\naccepted, that the cheated party takes no offence. It is known with what\nreluctance our government resolved upon the abolition of lotteries. It\nfelt that it was dealing a stab thereby at property. The pickpocket,\nthe blackleg, and the charlatan make especial use of their dexterity of\nhand, their subtlety of mind, the magic power of their eloquence,\nand their great fertility of invention. Sometimes they offer bait to\ncupidity. Therefore the penal code--which much prefers intelligence\nto muscular vigor--has made, of the four varieties mentioned above,\na second category, liable only to correctional, not to Ignominious,\npunishments.\n\nLet them now accuse the law of being materialistic and atheistic.\n\nWe rob,--12. By usury.\n\nThis species of robbery, so odious and so severely punished since the\npublication of the Gospel, is the connecting link between forbidden and\nauthorized robbery. Owing to its ambiguous nature, it has given rise to\na multitude of contradictions in the laws and in morals,--contradictions\nwhich have been very cleverly turned to account by lawyers, financiers,\nand merchants. Thus the usurer, who lends on mortgage at ten, twelve,\nand fifteen per cent., is heavily fined when detected; while the banker,\nwho receives the same interest (not, it is true, upon a loan, but in the\nway of exchange or discount,--that is, of sale), is protected by royal\nprivilege. But the distinction between the banker and the usurer is\na purely nominal one. Like the usurer, who lends on property, real or\npersonal, the banker lends on business paper; like the usurer, he\ntakes his interest in advance; like the usurer, he can recover from\nthe borrower if the property is destroyed (that is, if the note is\nnot redeemed),--a circumstance which makes him a money-lender, not a\nmoney-seller. But the banker lends for a short time only, while\nthe usurer's loan may be for one, two, three, or more years. Now, a\ndifference in the duration of the loan, or the form of the act, does not\nalter the nature of the transaction. As for the capitalists who invest\ntheir money, either with the State or in commercial operations, at\nthree, four, and five per cent.,--that is, who lend on usury at a\nlittle lower rate than the bankers and usurers,--they are the flower of\nsociety, the cream of honesty! Moderation in robbery is the height of\nvirtue! [28]\n\nBut what, then, is usury? Nothing is more amusing than to see these\nINSTRUCTORS OF NATIONS hesitate between the authority of the Gospel,\nwhich, they say, NEVER CAN HAVE SPOKEN IN VAIN, and the authority of\neconomical demonstrations. Nothing, to my mind, is more creditable\nto the Gospel than this old infidelity of its pretended teachers.\nSalmasius, having assimilated interest to rent, was REFUTED by Grotius,\nPufendorf, Burlamaqui, Wolf, and Heineccius; and, what is more curious\nstill, Salmasius ADMITTED HIS ERROR. Instead of inferring from this\ndoctrine of Salmasius that all increase is illegitimate, and proceeding\nstraight on to the demonstration of Gospel equality, they arrived at\njust the opposite conclusion; namely, that since everybody acknowledges\nthat rent is permissible, if we allow that interest does not differ\nfrom rent, there is nothing left which can be called usury, and,\nconsequently, that the commandment of Jesus Christ is an ILLUSION, and\namounts to NOTHING, which is an impious conclusion.\n\nIf this memoir had appeared in the time of Bossuet, that great\ntheologian would have PROVED by scripture, the fathers, traditions,\ncouncils, and popes, that property exists by Divine right, while usury\nis an invention of the devil; and the heretical work would have been\nburned, and the author imprisoned.\n\n\nWe rob,--13. By farm-rent, house-rent, and leases of all kinds.\n\nThe author of the \"Provincial Letters\" entertained the honest Christians\nof the seventeenth century at the expense of Escobar, the Jesuit,\nand the contract Mohatra. \"The contract Mohatra,\" said Escobar, \"is a\ncontract by which goods are bought, at a high price and on credit, to\nbe again sold at the same moment to the same person, cash down, and at a\nlower price.\" Escobar found a way to justify this kind of usury. Pascal\nand all the Jansenists laughed at him. But what would the satirical\nPascal, the learned Nicole, and the invincible Arnaud have said, if\nFather Antoine Escobar de Valladolid had answered them thus: \"A lease\nis a contract by which real estate is bought, at a high price and on\ncredit, to be again sold, at the expiration of a certain time, to the\nsame person, at a lower price; only, to simplify the transaction, the\nbuyer is content to pay the difference between the first sale and the\nsecond. Either deny the identity of the lease and the contract Mohatra,\nand then I will annihilate you in a moment; or, if you admit the\nsimilarity, admit also the soundness of my doctrine: otherwise you\nproscribe both interest and rent at one blow\"?\n\nIn reply to this overwhelming argument of the Jesuit, the sire of\nMontalte would have sounded the tocsin, and would have shouted\nthat society was in peril,--that the Jesuits were sapping its very\nfoundations.\n\nWe rob,--14. By commerce, when the profit of the merchant exceeds his\nlegitimate salary.\n\nEverybody knows the definition of commerce--THE ART OF BUYING FOR THREE\nFRANCS THAT WHICH IS WORTH SIX, AND OF SELLING FOR SIX THAT WHICH IS\nWORTH THREE. Between commerce thus defined and _vol a l'americaine_,\nthe only difference is in the relative proportion of the values\nexchanged,--in short, in the amount of the profit.\n\nWe rob,--15. By making profit on our product, by accepting sinecures,\nand by exacting exorbitant wages.\n\nThe farmer, who sells a certain amount of corn to the consumer, and who\nduring the measurement thrusts his hand into the bushel and takes out a\nhandful of grains, robs; the professor, whose lectures are paid for by\nthe State, and who through the intervention of a bookseller sells them\nto the public a second time, robs; the sinecurist, who receives an\nenormous product in exchange for his vanity, robs; the functionary, the\nlaborer, whatever he may be, who produces only one and gets paid four,\none hundred, or one thousand, robs; the publisher of this book, and I,\nits author,--we rob, by charging for it twice as much as it is worth.\n\nIn recapitulation:--\n\nJustice, after passing through the state of negative communism, called\nby the ancient poets the AGE OF GOLD, commences as the right of the\nstrongest. In a society which is trying to organize itself, inequality\nof faculties calls up the idea of merit; equite suggests the plan of\nproportioning not only esteem, but also material comforts, to personal\nmerit; and since the highest and almost the only merit then recognized\nis physical strength, the strongest, {GREEK ' eg }, and consequently\nthe best, {GREEK ' eg }, is entitled to the largest share; and if it\nis refused him, he very naturally takes it by force. From this to the\nassumption of the right of property in all things, it is but one step.\n\nSuch was justice in the heroic age, preserved, at least by tradition,\namong the Greeks and Romans down to the last days of their republics.\nPlato, in the \"Gorgias,\" introduces a character named Callicles, who\nspiritedly defends the right of the strongest, which Socrates, the\nadvocate of equality, {GREEK g e  }, seriously refutes.  It is related\nof the great Pompey, that he blushed easily, and, nevertheless, these\nwords once escaped his lips: \"Why should I respect the laws, when I have\narms in my hand?\" This shows him to have been a man in whom the moral\nsense and ambition were struggling for the mastery, and who sought to\njustify his violence by the motto of the hero and the brigand.\n\nFrom the right of the strongest springs the exploitation of man by\nman, or bondage; usury, or the tribute levied upon the conquered by the\nconqueror; and the whole numerous family of taxes, duties, monarchical\nprerogatives, house-rents, farm-rents, &c.; in one word,--property.\n\nForce was followed by artifice, the second manifestation of justice,\nwhich was detested by the ancient heroes, who, not excelling in that\ndirection, were heavy losers by it. Force was still employed, but mental\nforce instead of physical. Skill in deceiving an enemy by treacherous\npropositions seemed deserving of reward; nevertheless, the strong always\nprided themselves upon their honesty. In those days, oaths were observed\nand promises kept according to the letter rather than the spirit: _Uti\nlingua nuncupassit, ita jus esto_,--\"As the tongue has spoken, so must\nthe right be,\" says the law of the Twelve Tables. Artifice, or rather\nperfidy, was the main element in the politics of ancient Rome. Among\nother examples, Vico cites the following, also quoted by Montesquieu:\nThe Romans had guaranteed to the Carthaginians the preservation of their\ngoods and their CITY,--intentionally using the word civitas, that is,\nthe society, the State; the Carthaginians, on the contrary, understood\nthem to mean the material city, urbs, and accordingly began to rebuild\ntheir walls. They were immediately attacked on account of their\nviolation of the treaty, by the Romans, who, acting upon the old\nheroic idea of right, did not imagine that, in taking advantage of an\nequivocation to surprise their enemies, they were waging unjust war.\n\nFrom artifice sprang the profits of manufactures, commerce, and banking,\nmercantile frauds, and pretensions which are honored with the beautiful\nnames of TALENT and GENIUS, but which ought to be regarded as the last\ndegree of knavery and deception; and, finally, all sorts of social\ninequalities.\n\nIn those forms of robbery which are prohibited by law, force and\nartifice are employed alone and undisguised; in the authorized forms,\nthey conceal themselves within a useful product, which they use as a\ntool to plunder their victim.\n\nThe direct use of violence and stratagem was early and universally\ncondemned; but no nation has yet got rid of that kind of robbery which\nacts through talent, labor, and possession, and which is the source\nof all the dilemmas of casuistry and the innumerable contradictions of\njurisprudence.\n\nThe right of force and the right of artifice--glorified by the\nrhapsodists in the poems of the \"Iliad\" and the \"Odyssey\"--inspired the\nlegislation of the Greeks and Romans, from which they passed into our\nmorals and codes. Christianity has not changed at all. The Gospel should\nnot be blamed, because the priests, as stupid as the legists, have been\nunable either to expound or to understand it. The ignorance of councils\nand popes upon all questions of morality is equal to that of the\nmarket-place and the money-changers; and it is this utter ignorance\nof right, justice, and society, which is killing the Church, and\ndiscrediting its teachings for ever. The infidelity of the Roman church\nand other Christian churches is flagrant; all have disregarded the\nprecept of Jesus; all have erred in moral and doctrinal points; all\nare guilty of teaching false and absurd dogmas, which lead straight to\nwickedness and murder. Let it ask pardon of God and men,--this church\nwhich called itself infallible, and which has grown so corrupt in\nmorals; let its reformed sisters humble themselves,... and the people,\nundeceived, but still religious and merciful, will begin to think. [29]\n\nOne of the main causes of Ireland's poverty to-day is the immense\nrevenues of the English clergy. So heretics and orthodox--Protestants\nand Papists--cannot reproach each other. All have strayed from the path\nof justice; all have disobeyed the eighth commandment of the Decalogue:\n\"Thou shalt not steal.\"\n\n\nThe development of right has followed the same order, in its various\nexpressions, that property has in its forms. Every where we see justice\ndriving robbery before it and confining it within narrower and narrower\nlimits. Hitherto the victories of justice over injustice, and of\nequality over inequality, have been won by instinct and the simple force\nof things; but the final triumph of our social nature will be due to\nour reason, or else we shall fall back into feudal chaos. Either this\nglorious height is reserved for our intelligence, or this miserable\ndepth for our baseness.\n\nThe second effect of property is despotism. Now, since despotism\nis inseparably connected with the idea of legitimate authority, in\nexplaining the natural causes of the first, the principle of the second\nwill appear.\n\nWhat is to be the form of government in the future? hear some of my\nyounger readers reply: \"Why, how can you ask such a question?\n\n\"You are a republican.\" \"A republican! Yes; but that word specifies\nnothing. _Res publica;_ that is, the public thing. Now, whoever\nis interested in public affairs--no matter under what form\nof government--may call himself a republican. Even kings are\nrepublicans.\"--\n\n\n\"Well! you are a democrat?\"--\"No.\"--\"What! you would have a\nmonarchy.\"--\"No.\"--\"A constitutionalist?\"--\"God forbid!\"--\"You are then\nan aristocrat?\"--\"Not at all.\"--\"You want a mixed government?\"--\"Still\nless.\"--\"What are you, then?\"--\"I am an anarchist.\"\n\n\"Oh! I understand you; you speak satirically. This is a hit at the\ngovernment.\"--\"By no means. I have just given you my serious and\nwell-considered profession of faith. Although a firm friend of order, I\nam (in the full force of the term) an anarchist. Listen to me.\"\n\n\nIn all species of sociable animals, \"the weakness of the young is the\nprinciple of their obedience to the old,\" who are strong; and from habit,\nwhich is a kind of conscience with them, the power remains with the\noldest, although he finally becomes the weakest.\n\nWhenever the society is under the control of a chief, this chief is\nalmost always the oldest of the troop. I say almost always, because\nthe established order may be disturbed by violent outbreaks. Then the\nauthority passes to another; and, having been re-established by force,\nit is again maintained by habit. Wild horses go in herds: they have a\nchief who marches at their head, whom they confidently follow, and who\ngives the signal for flight or battle.\n\n\"The sheep which we have raised follows us, but it follows in company\nwith the flock in the midst of which it was born. It regards man AS THE\nCHIEF OF ITS FLOCK.... Man is regarded by domestic animals as a member\nof their society. All that he has to do is to get himself accepted by\nthem as an associate: he soon becomes their chief, in consequence of his\nsuperior intelligence. He does not, then, change the NATURAL CONDITION\nof these animals, as Buffon has said. On the contrary, he uses this\nnatural condition to his own advantage; in other words, he finds\nSOCIABLE animals, and renders them DOMESTIC by becoming their associate\nand chief. Thus, the DOMESTICITY of animals is only a special condition,\na simple modification, a definitive consequence of their SOCIABILITY.\nAll domestic animals are by nature sociable animals.\"...--Flourens:\nSummary of the Observations of F. Cuvier.\n\n\nSociable animals follow their chief by INSTINCT; but take notice of the\nfact (which F. Cuvier omitted to state), that the function of the chief\nis altogether one of INTELLIGENCE. The chief does not teach the others\nto associate, to unite under his lead, to reproduce their kind, to\ntake to flight, or to defend themselves. Concerning each of these\nparticulars, his subordinates are as well informed as he. But it is the\nchief who, by his accumulated experience, provides against accidents; he\nit is whose private intelligence supplements, in difficult situations,\nthe general instinct; he it is who deliberates, decides, and leads; he\nit is, in short, whose enlightened prudence regulates the public routine\nfor the greatest good of all.\n\nMan (naturally a sociable being) naturally follows a chief. Originally,\nthe chief is the father, the patriarch, the elder; in other words, the\ngood and wise man, whose functions, consequently, are exclusively of a\nreflective and intellectual nature. The human race--like all other\nraces of sociable animals--has its instincts, its innate faculties, its\ngeneral ideas, and its categories of sentiment and reason. Its chiefs,\nlegislators, or kings have devised nothing, supposed nothing, imagined\nnothing. They have only guided society by their accumulated experience,\nalways however in conformity with opinions and beliefs.\n\nThose philosophers who (carrying into morals and into history their\ngloomy and factious whims) affirm that the human race had originally\nneither chiefs nor kings, know nothing of the nature of man. Royalty,\nand absolute royalty, is--as truly and more truly than democracy--a\nprimitive form of government. Perceiving that, in the remotest ages,\ncrowns and kingships were worn by heroes, brigands, and knight-errants,\nthey confound the two things,--royalty and despotism. But royalty dates\nfrom the creation of man; it existed in the age of negative communism.\nAncient heroism (and the despotism which it engendered) commenced only\nwith the first manifestation of the idea of justice; that is, with the\nreign of force. As soon as the strongest, in the comparison of merits,\nwas decided to be the best, the oldest had to abandon his position, and\nroyalty became despotic.\n\nThe spontaneous, instinctive, and--so to speak--physiological origin of\nroyalty gives it, in the beginning, a superhuman character. The\nnations connected it with the gods, from whom they said the first kings\ndescended. This notion was the origin of the divine genealogies of royal\nfamilies, the incarnations of gods, and the messianic fables. From it\nsprang the doctrine of divine right, which is still championed by a few\nsingular characters.\n\nRoyalty was at first elective, because--at a time when man produced but\nlittle and possessed nothing--property was too weak to establish the\nprinciple of heredity, and secure to the son the throne of his father;\nbut as soon as fields were cleared, and cities built, each function\nwas, like every thing else, appropriated, and hereditary kingships and\npriesthoods were the result. The principle of heredity was carried into\neven the most ordinary professions,--a circumstance which led to class\ndistinctions, pride of station, and abjection of the common people, and\nwhich confirms my assertion, concerning the principle of patrimonial\nsuccession, that it is a method suggested by Nature of filling vacancies\nin business, and completing unfinished tasks.\n\nFrom time to time, ambition caused usurpers, or SUPPLANTERS of kings,\nto start up; and, in consequence, some were called kings by right, or\nlegitimate kings, and others TYRANTS. But we must not let these names\ndeceive us. There have been execrable kings, and very tolerable tyrants.\nRoyalty may always be good, when it is the only possible form of\ngovernment; legitimate it is never. Neither heredity, nor election,\nnor universal suffrage, nor the excellence of the sovereign, nor the\nconsecration of religion and of time, can make royalty legitimate.\nWhatever form it takes,--monarchic, oligarchic, or democratic,--royalty,\nor the government of man by man, is illegitimate and absurd.\n\nMan, in order to procure as speedily as possible the most thorough\nsatisfaction of his wants, seeks RULE. In the beginning, this rule is\nto him living, visible, and tangible. It is his father, his master, his\nking. The more ignorant man is, the more obedient he is, and the more\nabsolute is his confidence in his guide. But, it being a law of man's\nnature to conform to rule,--that is, to discover it by his powers of\nreflection and reason,--man reasons upon the commands of his chiefs.\nNow, such reasoning as that is a protest against authority,--a beginning\nof disobedience. At the moment that man inquires into the motives which\ngovern the will of his sovereign,--at that moment man revolts. If\nhe obeys no longer because the king commands, but because the king\ndemonstrates the wisdom of his commands, it may be said that henceforth\nhe will recognize no authority, and that he has become his own king.\nUnhappy he who shall dare to command him, and shall offer, as his\nauthority, only the vote of the majority; for, sooner or later, the\nminority will become the majority, and this imprudent despot will be\noverthrown, and all his laws annihilated.\n\nIn proportion as society becomes enlightened, royal authority\ndiminishes. That is a fact to which all history bears witness. At the\nbirth of nations, men reflect and reason in vain. Without methods,\nwithout principles, not knowing how to use their reason, they cannot\njudge of the justice of their conclusions. Then the authority of kings\nis immense, no knowledge having been acquired with which to contradict\nit. But, little by little, experience produces habits, which develop\ninto customs; then the customs are formulated in maxims, laid down as\nprinciples,--in short, transformed into laws, to which the king, the\nliving law, has to bow. There comes a time when customs and laws are so\nnumerous that the will of the prince is, so to speak, entwined by the\npublic will; and that, on taking the crown, he is obliged to swear that\nhe will govern in conformity with established customs and usages; and\nthat he is but the executive power of a society whose laws are made\nindependently of him.\n\nUp to this point, all is done instinctively, and, as it were,\nunconsciously; but see where this movement must end.\n\nBy means of self-instruction and the acquisition of ideas, man finally\nacquires the idea of SCIENCE,--that is, of a system of knowledge in\nharmony with the reality of things, and inferred from observation.\nHe searches for the science, or the system, of inanimate bodies,--the\nsystem of organic bodies, the system of the human mind, and the system\nof the universe: why should he not also search for the system of\nsociety? But, having reached this height, he comprehends that political\ntruth, or the science of politics, exists quite independently of\nthe will of sovereigns, the opinion of majorities, and popular\nbeliefs,--that kings, ministers, magistrates, and nations, as wills,\nhave no connection with the science, and are worthy of no consideration.\nHe comprehends, at the same time, that, if man is born a sociable being,\nthe authority of his father over him ceases on the day when, his mind\nbeing formed and his education finished, he becomes the associate of his\nfather; that his true chief and his king is the demonstrated truth; that\npolitics is a science, not a stratagem; and that the function of the\nlegislator is reduced, in the last analysis, to the methodical search\nfor truth.\n\nThus, in a given society, the authority of man over man is inversely\nproportional to the stage of intellectual development which that\nsociety has reached; and the probable duration of that authority can\nbe calculated from the more or less general desire for a true\ngovernment,--that is, for a scientific government. And just as the right\nof force and the right of artifice retreat before the steady advance\nof justice, and must finally be extinguished in equality, so the\nsovereignty of the will yields to the sovereignty of the reason, and\nmust at last be lost in scientific socialism. Property and royalty\nhave been crumbling to pieces ever since the world began. As man seeks\njustice in equality, so society seeks order in anarchy.\n\nANARCHY,--the absence of a master, of a sovereign, [30]--such is the\nform of government to which we are every day approximating, and which\nour accustomed habit of taking man for our rule, and his will for law,\nleads us to regard as the height of disorder and the expression of\nchaos. The story is told, that a citizen of Paris in the seventeenth\ncentury having heard it said that in Venice there was no king, the\ngood man could not recover from his astonishment, and nearly died from\nlaughter at the mere mention of so ridiculous a thing. So strong is our\nprejudice. As long as we live, we want a chief or chiefs; and at this\nvery moment I hold in my hand a brochure, whose author--a zealous\ncommunist--dreams, like a second Marat, of the dictatorship. The most\nadvanced among us are those who wish the greatest possible number of\nsovereigns,--their most ardent wish is for the royalty of the National\nGuard. Soon, undoubtedly, some one, jealous of the citizen militia, will\nsay, \"Everybody is king.\" But, when he has spoken, I will say, in my\nturn, \"Nobody is king; we are, whether we will or no, associated.\"\nEvery question of domestic politics must be decided by departmental\nstatistics; every question of foreign politics is an affair of\ninternational statistics. The science of government rightly belongs\nto one of the sections of the Academy of Sciences, whose permanent\nsecretary is necessarily prime minister; and, since every citizen may\naddress a memoir to the Academy, every citizen is a legislator. But, as\nthe opinion of no one is of any value until its truth has been proven,\nno one can substitute his will for reason,--nobody is king.\n\n\nAll questions of legislation and politics are matters of science, not of\nopinion. The legislative power belongs only to the reason, methodically\nrecognized and demonstrated. To attribute to any power whatever the\nright of veto or of sanction, is the last degree of tyranny. Justice\nand legality are two things as independent of our approval as is\nmathematical truth. To compel, they need only to be known; to be known,\nthey need only to be considered and studied. What, then, is the nation,\nif it is not the sovereign,--if it is not the source of the legislative\npower?\n\nThe nation is the guardian of the law--the nation is the EXECUTIVE\nPOWER. Every citizen may assert: \"This is true; that is just;\" but his\nopinion controls no one but himself. That the truth which he proclaims\nmay become a law, it must be recognized. Now, what is it to recognize a\nlaw? It is to verify a mathematical or a metaphysical calculation; it is\nto repeat an experiment, to observe a phenomenon, to establish a fact.\nOnly the nation has the right to say, \"Be it known and decreed.\"\n\nI confess that this is an overturning of received ideas, and that I seem\nto be attempting to revolutionize our political system; but I beg the\nreader to consider that, having begun with a paradox, I must, if I\nreason correctly, meet with paradoxes at every step, and must end with\nparadoxes. For the rest, I do not see how the liberty of citizens would\nbe endangered by entrusting to their hands, instead of the pen of\nthe legislator, the sword of the law. The executive power, belonging\nproperly to the will, cannot be confided to too many proxies. That is\nthe true sovereignty of the nation. [31]\n\n\nThe proprietor, the robber, the hero, the sovereign--for all these\ntitles are synonymous--imposes his will as law, and suffers neither\ncontradiction nor control; that is, he pretends to be the legislative\nand the executive power at once. Accordingly, the substitution of the\nscientific and true law for the royal will is accomplished only by a\nterrible struggle; and this constant substitution is, after property,\nthe most potent element in history, the most prolific source of\npolitical disturbances. Examples are too numerous and too striking to\nrequire enumeration.\n\nNow, property necessarily engenders despotism,--the government of\ncaprice, the reign of libidinous pleasure. That is so clearly the\nessence of property that, to be convinced of it, one need but remember\nwhat it is, and observe what happens around him. Property is the right\nto USE and ABUSE. If, then, government is economy,--if its object\nis production and consumption, and the distribution of labor and\nproducts,--how is government possible while property exists? And\nif goods are property, why should not the proprietors be kings, and\ndespotic kings--kings in proportion to their _facultes bonitaires_? And\nif each proprietor is sovereign lord within the sphere of his property,\nabsolute king throughout his own domain, how could a government of\nproprietors be any thing but chaos and confusion?\n\n\n\n% 3.--Determination of the third form of Society. Conclusion.\n\n\nThen, no government, no public economy, no administration, is possible,\nwhich is based upon property.\n\nCommunism seeks EQUALITY and LAW. Property, born of the sovereignty of\nthe reason, and the sense of personal merit, wishes above all things\nINDEPENDENCE and PROPORTIONALITY.\n\nBut communism, mistaking uniformity for law, and levelism for\nequality, becomes tyrannical and unjust. Property, by its despotism and\nencroachments, soon proves itself oppressive and anti-social.\n\nThe objects of communism and property are good--their results are bad.\nAnd why? Because both are exclusive, and each disregards two elements\nof society. Communism rejects independence and proportionality; property\ndoes not satisfy equality and law.\n\nNow, if we imagine a society based upon these four\nprinciples,--equality, law, independence, and proportionality,--we\nfind:--\n\n1. That EQUALITY, consisting only in EQUALITY OF CONDITIONS, that is, OF\nMEANS, and not in EQUALITY OF COMFORT,--which it is the business of the\nlaborers to achieve for themselves, when provided with equal means,--in\nno way violates justice and equite.\n\n2. That LAW, resulting from the knowledge of facts, and consequently\nbased upon necessity itself, never clashes with independence.\n\n3. That individual INDEPENDENCE, or the autonomy of the private reason,\noriginating in the difference in talents and capacities, can exist\nwithout danger within the limits of the law.\n\n4. That PROPORTIONALITY, being admitted only in the sphere of\nintelligence and sentiment, and not as regards material objects, may be\nobserved without violating justice or social equality.\n\nThis third form of society, the synthesis of communism and property, we\nwill call LIBERTY. [32]\n\n\nIn determining the nature of liberty, we do not unite communism and\nproperty indiscriminately; such a process would be absurd eclecticism.\nWe search by analysis for those elements in each which are true, and\nin harmony with the laws of Nature and society, disregarding the rest\naltogether; and the result gives us an adequate expression of the\nnatural form of human society,--in one word, liberty.\n\nLiberty is equality, because liberty exists only in society; and in the\nabsence of equality there is no society.\n\nLiberty is anarchy, because it does not admit the government of the\nwill, but only the authority of the law; that is, of necessity.\n\nLiberty is infinite variety, because it respects all wills within the\nlimits of the law.\n\nLiberty is proportionality, because it allows the utmost latitude to the\nambition for merit, and the emulation of glory.\n\nWe can now say, in the words of M. Cousin: \"Our principle is true; it is\ngood, it is social; let us not fear to push it to its ultimate.\"\n\nMan's social nature becoming JUSTICE through reflection, EQUITE through\nthe classification of capacities, and having LIBERTY for its formula,\nis the true basis of morality,--the principle and regulator of all our\nactions. This is the universal motor, which philosophy is searching for,\nwhich religion strengthens, which egotism supplants, and whose place\npure reason never can fill. DUTY and RIGHT are born of NEED, which, when\nconsidered in connection with others, is a RIGHT, and when considered in\nconnection with ourselves, a DUTY.\n\nWe need to eat and sleep. It is our right to procure those things which\nare necessary to rest and nourishment. It is our duty to use them when\nNature requires it.\n\nWe need to labor in order to live. To do so is both our right and our\nduty.\n\nWe need to love our wives and children. It is our duty to protect and\nsupport them. It is our right to be loved in preference to all others.\nConjugal fidelity is justice. Adultery is high treason against society.\n\nWe need to exchange our products for other products. It is our right\nthat this exchange should be one of equivalents; and since we consume\nbefore we produce, it would be our duty, if we could control the matter,\nto see to it that our last product shall follow our last consumption.\nSuicide is fraudulent bankruptcy.\n\nWe need to live our lives according to the dictates of our reason. It\nis our right to maintain our freedom. It is our duty to respect that of\nothers.\n\nWe need to be appreciated by our fellows. It is our duty to deserve\ntheir praise. It is our right to be judged by our works.\n\nLiberty is not opposed to the rights of succession and bequest. It\ncontents itself with preventing violations of equality. \"Choose,\" it\ntells us, \"between two legacies, but do not take them both.\" All our\nlegislation concerning transmissions, entailments, adoptions, and, if I\nmay venture to use such a word, COADJUTORERIES, requires remodelling.\n\nLiberty favors emulation, instead of destroying it. In social equality,\nemulation consists in accomplishing under like conditions; it is its own\nreward. No one suffers by the victory.\n\nLiberty applauds self-sacrifice, and honors it with its votes, but it\ncan dispense with it. Justice alone suffices to maintain the social\nequilibrium. Self-sacrifice is an act of supererogation. Happy, however,\nthe man who can say, \"I sacrifice myself.\" [33]\n\n\nLiberty is essentially an organizing force. To insure equality between\nmen and peace among nations, agriculture and industry, and the centres\nof education, business, and storage, must be distributed according to\nthe climate and the geographical position of the country, the nature of\nthe products, the character and natural talents of the inhabitants, &c.,\nin proportions so just, so wise, so harmonious, that in no place shall\nthere ever be either an excess or a lack of population, consumption, and\nproducts. There commences the science of public and private right,\nthe true political economy. It is for the writers on jurisprudence,\nhenceforth unembarrassed by the false principle of property, to describe\nthe new laws, and bring peace upon earth. Knowledge and genius they do\nnot lack; the foundation is now laid for them. [34]\n\n\nI have accomplished my task; property is conquered, never again to\narise. Wherever this work is read and discussed, there will be deposited\nthe germ of death to property; there, sooner or later, privilege and\nservitude will disappear, and the despotism of will will give place to\nthe reign of reason. What sophisms, indeed, what prejudices\n(however obstinate) can stand before the simplicity of the following\npropositions:--\n\nI. Individual POSSESSION [35] is the condition of social life; five\nthousand years of property demonstrate it. PROPERTY is the suicide of\nsociety. Possession is a right; property is against right. Suppress\nproperty while maintaining possession, and, by this simple modification\nof the principle, you will revolutionize law, government, economy, and\ninstitutions; you will drive evil from the face of the earth.\n\nII. All having an equal right of occupancy, possession varies with the\nnumber of possessors; property cannot establish itself.\n\nIII. The effect of labor being the same for all, property is lost in the\ncommon prosperity.\n\nIV. All human labor being the result of collective force, all property\nbecomes, in consequence, collective and unitary. To speak more exactly,\nlabor destroys property.\n\nV. Every capacity for labor being, like every instrument of labor, an\naccumulated capital, and a collective property, inequality of wages\nand fortunes (on the ground of inequality of capacities) is, therefore,\ninjustice and robbery.\n\nVI. The necessary conditions of commerce are the liberty of the\ncontracting parties and the equivalence of the products exchanged.\nNow, value being expressed by the amount of time and outlay which each\nproduct costs, and liberty being inviolable, the wages of laborers (like\ntheir rights and duties) should be equal.\n\nVII. Products are bought only by products. Now, the condition of all\nexchange being equivalence of products, profit is impossible and unjust.\nObserve this elementary principle of economy, and pauperism, luxury,\noppression, vice, crime, and hunger will disappear from our midst.\n\nVIII. Men are associated by the physical and mathematical law of\nproduction, before they are voluntarily associated by choice. Therefore,\nequality of conditions is demanded by justice; that is, by strict social\nlaw: esteem, friendship, gratitude, admiration, all fall within the\ndomain of EQUITABLE or PROPORTIONAL law only.\n\nIX. Free association, liberty--whose sole function is to maintain\nequality in the means of production and equivalence in exchanges--is the\nonly possible, the only just, the only true form of society.\n\nX. Politics is the science of liberty. The government of man by man\n(under whatever name it be disguised) is oppression. Society finds its\nhighest perfection in the union of order with anarchy.\n\nThe old civilization has run its race; a new sun is rising, and will\nsoon renew the face of the earth. Let the present generation perish, let\nthe old prevaricators die in the desert! the holy earth shall not cover\ntheir bones. Young man, exasperated by the corruption of the age, and\nabsorbed in your zeal for justice!--if your country is dear to you,\nand if you have the interests of humanity at heart, have the courage to\nespouse the cause of liberty! Cast off your old selfishness, and plunge\ninto the rising flood of popular equality! There your regenerate soul\nwill acquire new life and vigor; your enervated genius will recover\nunconquerable energy; and your heart, perhaps already withered, will be\nrejuvenated! Every thing will wear a different look to your illuminated\nvision; new sentiments will engender new ideas within you; religion,\nmorality, poetry, art, language will appear before you in nobler and\nfairer forms; and thenceforth, sure of your faith, and thoughtfully\nenthusiastic, you will hail the dawn of universal regeneration!\n\nAnd you, sad victims of an odious law!--you, whom a jesting world\ndespoils and outrages!--you, whose labor has always been fruitless,\nand whose rest has been without hope,--take courage! your tears are\nnumbered! The fathers have sown in affliction, the children shall reap\nin rejoicings!\n\nO God of liberty! God of equality! Thou who didst place in my heart\nthe sentiment of justice, before my reason could comprehend it, hear\nmy ardent prayer! Thou hast dictated all that I have written; Thou hast\nshaped my thought; Thou hast directed my studies; Thou hast weaned my\nmind from curiosity and my heart from attachment, that I might publish\nThy truth to the master and the slave. I have spoken with what force and\ntalent Thou hast given me: it is Thine to finish the work. Thou knowest\nwhether I seek my welfare or Thy glory, O God of liberty! Ah! perish\nmy memory, and let humanity be free! Let me see from my obscurity\nthe people at last instructed; let noble teachers enlighten them; let\ngenerous spirits guide them! Abridge, if possible, the time of our\ntrial; stifle pride and avarice in equality; annihilate this love of\nglory which enslaves us; teach these poor children that in the bosom\nof liberty there are neither heroes nor great men! Inspire the powerful\nman, the rich man, him whose name my lips shall never pronounce in Thy\npresence, with a horror of his crimes; let him be the first to apply for\nadmission to the redeemed society; let the promptness of his repentance\nbe the ground of his forgiveness! Then, great and small, wise and\nfoolish, rich and poor, will unite in an ineffable fraternity; and,\nsinging in unison a new hymn, will rebuild Thy altar, O God of liberty\nand equality!\n\nEND OF FIRST MEMOIR.\n\n\n\n\n\nWHAT IS PROPERTY? SECOND MEMOIR\n\nA LETTER TO M. BLANQUI.\n\n\n\n\nSECOND MEMOIR.\n\n\nPARIS, April 1, 1841.\n\nMONSIEUR,--\n\nBefore resuming my \"Inquiries into Government and Property,\" it is\nfitting, for the satisfaction of some worthy people, and also in the\ninterest of order, that I should make to you a plain, straightforward\nexplanation. In a much-governed State, no one would be allowed to\nattack the external form of the society, and the groundwork of its\ninstitutions, until he had established his right to do so,--first, by\nhis morality; second, by his capacity; and, third, by the purity of\nhis intentions. Any one who, wishing to publish a treatise upon the\nconstitution of the country, could not satisfy this threefold condition,\nwould be obliged to procure the endorsement of a responsible patron\npossessing the requisite qualifications.\n\nBut we Frenchmen have the liberty of the press. This grand right--the\nsword of thought, which elevates the virtuous citizen to the rank of\nlegislator, and makes the malicious citizen an agent of discord--frees\nus from all preliminary responsibility to the law; but it does not\nrelease us from our internal obligation to render a public account\nof our sentiments and thoughts. I have used, in all its fulness, and\nconcerning an important question, the right which the charter grants\nus. I come to-day, sir, to submit my conscience to your judgment, and my\nfeeble insight to your discriminating reason. You have criticised in a\nkindly spirit--I had almost said with partiality for the writer--a work\nwhich teaches a doctrine that you thought it your duty to condemn. \"The\nAcademy of Moral and Political Sciences,\" said you in your report, \"can\naccept the conclusions of the author only as far as it likes.\" I venture\nto hope, sir, that, after you have read this letter, if your prudence\nstill restrains you, your fairness will induce you to do me justice.\n\nMEN, EQUAL IN THE DIGNITY OF THEIR PERSONS AND EQUAL BEFORE THE LAW,\nSHOULD BE EQUAL IN THEIR CONDITIONS,--such is the thesis which I\nmaintained and developed in a memoir bearing the title, \"What is\nProperty? or, An Inquiry into the Principle of Right and of Government.\"\n\nThe idea of social equality, even in individual fortunes, has in all\nages besieged, like a vague presentiment, the human imagination. Poets\nhave sung of it in their hymns; philosophers have dreamed of it in their\nUtopias; priests teach it, but only for the spiritual world. The people,\ngoverned by it, never have had faith in it; and the civil power is never\nmore disturbed than by the fables of the age of gold and the reign\nof Astrea. A year ago, however, this idea received a scientific\ndemonstration, which has not yet been satisfactorily answered, and,\npermit me to add, never will be. This demonstration, owing to its\nslightly impassioned style, its method of reasoning,--which was so\nat variance with that employed by the generally recognized\nauthorities,--and the importance and novelty of its conclusions, was of\na nature to cause some alarm; and might have been dangerous, had it not\nbeen--as you, sir, so well said--a sealed letter, so far as the general\npublic was concerned, addressed only to men of intelligence. I was\nglad to see that through its metaphysical dress you recognized the wise\nforesight of the author; and I thank you for it. May God grant that my\nintentions, which are wholly peaceful, may never be charged upon me as\ntreasonable!\n\nLike a stone thrown into a mass of serpents, the First Memoir on\nProperty excited intense animosity, and aroused the passions of many.\nBut, while some wished the author and his work to be publicly denounced,\nothers found in them simply the solution of the fundamental problems of\nsociety; a few even basing evil speculations upon the new light which\nthey had obtained. It was not to be expected that a system of inductions\nabstractly gathered together, and still more abstractly expressed, would\nbe understood with equal accuracy in its ensemble and in each of its\nparts.\n\nTo find the law of equality, no longer in charity and self-sacrifice\n(which are not binding in their nature), but in justice; to base\nequality of functions upon equality of persons; to determine the\nabsolute principle of exchange; to neutralize the inequality of\nindividual faculties by collective force; to establish an equation\nbetween property and robbery; to change the law of succession without\ndestroying the principle; to maintain the human personality in a\nsystem of absolute association, and to save liberty from the chains\nof communism; to synthetize the monarchical and democratic forms of\ngovernment; to reverse the division of powers; to give the executive\npower to the nation, and to make legislation a positive, fixed,\nand absolute science,--what a series of paradoxes! what a string of\ndelusions! if I may not say, what a chain of truths! But it is not\nmy purpose here to pass upon the theory of the right of possession. I\ndiscuss no dogmas. My only object is to justify my views, and to show\nthat, in writing as I did, I not only exercised a right, but performed a\nduty.\n\nYes, I have attacked property, and shall attack it again; but, sir,\nbefore demanding that I shall make the amende honorable for having\nobeyed my conscience and spoken the exact truth, condescend, I beg of\nyou, to cast a glance at the events which are happening around us; look\nat our deputies, our magistrates, our philosophers, our ministers, our\nprofessors, and our publicists; examine their methods of dealing with\nthe matter of property; count up with me the restrictions placed upon\nit every day in the name of the public welfare; measure the breaches\nalready made; estimate those which society thinks of making hereafter;\nadd the ideas concerning property held by all theories in common;\ninterrogate history, and then tell me what will be left, half a century\nhence, of this old right of property; and, thus perceiving that I have\nso many accomplices, you will immediately declare me innocent.\n\nWhat is the law of expropriation on the ground of public utility, which\neverybody favors, and which is even thought too lenient? [36]\n\n\nA flagrant violation of the right of property. Society indemnifies,\nit is said, the dispossessed proprietor; but does it return to him the\ntraditional associations, the poetic charm, and the family pride which\naccompany property? Naboth, and the miller of Sans-Souci, would have\nprotested against French law, as they protested against the caprice of\ntheir kings. \"It is the field of our fathers,\" they would have cried,\n\"and we will not sell it!\" Among the ancients, the refusal of the\nindividual limited the powers of the State. The Roman law bowed to\nthe will of the citizen, and an emperor--Commodus, if I remember\nrightly--abandoned the project of enlarging the forum out of respect for\nthe rights of the occupants who refused to abdicate. Property is a\nreal right, _jus_ _in re_,--a right inherent in the thing, and whose\nprinciple lies in the external manifestation of man's will. Man leaves\nhis imprint, stamps his character, upon the objects of his handiwork.\nThis plastic force of man, as the modern jurists say, is the seal which,\nset upon matter, makes it holy. Whoever lays hands upon it, against the\nproprietor's will, does violence to the latter's personality. And yet,\nwhen an administrative committee saw fit to declare that public utility\nrequired it, property had to give way to the general will. Soon, in\nthe name of public utility, methods of cultivation and conditions of\nenjoyment will be prescribed; inspectors of agriculture and manufactures\nwill be appointed; property will be taken away from unskilful hands,\nand entrusted to laborers who are more deserving of it; and a general\nsuperintendence of production will be established. It is not two years\nsince I saw a proprietor destroy a forest more than five hundred acres\nin extent. If public utility had interfered, that forest--the only one\nfor miles around--would still be standing.\n\nBut, it is said, expropriation on the ground of public utility is only\nan exception which confirms the principle, and bears testimony in\nfavor of the right. Very well; but from this exception we will pass to\nanother, from that to a third, and so on from exceptions to exceptions,\nuntil we have reduced the rule to a pure abstraction.\n\nHow many supporters do you think, sir, can be claimed for the project\nof the conversion of the public funds? I venture to say that everybody\nfavors it, except the fund-holders. Now, this so-called conversion is\nan extensive expropriation, and in this case with no indemnity whatever.\nThe public funds are so much real estate, the income from which the\nproprietor counts upon with perfect safety, and which owes its value\nto the tacit promise of the government to pay interest upon it at the\nestablished rate, until the fund-holder applies for redemption. For,\nif the income is liable to diminution, it is less profitable than\nhouse-rent or farm-rent, whose rates may rise or fall according to the\nfluctuations in the market; and in that case, what inducement has the\ncapitalist to invest his money in the State? When, then, you force the\nfund-holder to submit to a diminution of interest, you make him bankrupt\nto the extent of the diminution; and since, in consequence of the\nconversion, an equally profitable investment becomes impossible, you\ndepreciate his property.\n\nThat such a measure may be justly executed, it must be generalized; that\nis, the law which provides for it must decree also that interest on sums\nlent on deposit or on mortgage throughout the realm, as well as house\nand farm-rents, shall be reduced to three per cent. This simultaneous\nreduction of all kinds of income would be not a whit more difficult to\naccomplish than the proposed conversion; and, further, it would offer\nthe advantage of forestalling at one blow all objections to it, at the\nsame time that it would insure a just assessment of the land-tax. See!\nIf at the moment of conversion a piece of real estate yields an income\nof one thousand francs, after the new law takes effect it will yield\nonly six hundred francs. Now, allowing the tax to be an aliquot\npart--one-fourth for example--of the income derived from each piece of\nproperty, it is clear on the one hand that the proprietor would not, in\norder to lighten his share of the tax, underestimate the value of his\nproperty; since, house and farm-rents being fixed by the value of the\ncapital, and the latter being measured by the tax, to depreciate his\nreal estate would be to reduce his revenue. On the other hand, it is\nequally evident that the same proprietors could not overestimate the\nvalue of their property, in order to increase their incomes beyond the\nlimits of the law, since the tenants and farmers, with their old leases\nin their hands, would enter a protest.\n\nSuch, sir, must be the result sooner or later of the conversion which\nhas been so long demanded; otherwise, the financial operation of which\nwe are speaking would be a crying injustice, unless intended as a\nstepping-stone. This last motive seems the most plausible one; for in\nspite of the clamors of interested parties, and the flagrant violation\nof certain rights, the public conscience is bound to fulfil its desire,\nand is no more affected when charged with attacking property, than\nwhen listening to the complaints of the bondholders. In this case,\ninstinctive justice belies legal justice.\n\nWho has not heard of the inextricable confusion into which the Chamber\nof Deputies was thrown last year, while discussing the question of\ncolonial and native sugars? Did they leave these two industries to\nthemselves? The native manufacturer was ruined by the colonist. To\nmaintain the beet-root, the cane had to be taxed. To protect the\nproperty of the one, it became necessary to violate the property of the\nother. The most remarkable feature of this business was precisely that\nto which the least attention was paid; namely, that, in one way or\nanother, property had to be violated. Did they impose on each industry\na proportional tax, so as to preserve a balance in the market? They\ncreated a maximum PRICE for each variety of sugar; and, as this maximum\nPRICE was not the same, they attacked property in two ways,--on the one\nhand, interfering with the liberty of trade; on the other, disregarding\nthe equality of proprietors. Did they suppress the beet-root by granting\nan indemnity to the manufacturer? They sacrificed the property of the\ntax-payer. Finally, did they prefer to cultivate the two varieties of\nsugar at the nation's expense, just as different varieties of tobacco\nare cultivated? They abolished, so far as the sugar industry was\nconcerned, the right of property. This last course, being the most\nsocial, would have been certainly the best; but, if property is the\nnecessary basis of civilization, how is this deep-seated antagonism to\nbe explained? [37]\n\n\nNot satisfied with the power of dispossessing a citizen on the ground\nof public utility, they want also to dispossess him on the ground of\nPRIVATE UTILITY. For a long time, a revision of the law concerning\nmortgages was clamored for; a process was demanded, in behalf of all\nkinds of credit and in the interest of even the debtors themselves,\nwhich would render the expropriation of real estate as prompt, as easy,\nand as effective as that which follows a commercial protest. The Chamber\nof Deputies, in the early part of this year, 1841, discussed this\nproject, and the law was passed almost unanimously. There is nothing\nmore just, nothing more reasonable, nothing more philosophical\napparently, than the motives which gave rise to this reform.\n\nI. Formerly, the small proprietor whose obligation had arrived at\nmaturity, and who found himself unable to meet it, had to employ all\nthat he had left, after being released from his debt, in defraying the\nlegal costs. Henceforth, the promptness of expropriation will save him\nfrom total ruin. 2. The difficulties in the way of payment arrested\ncredit, and prevented the employment of capital in agricultural\nenterprises. This cause of distrust no longer existing, capitalists will\nfind new markets, agriculture will rapidly develop, and farmers will\nbe the first to enjoy the benefit of the new law. 3. Finally, it was\niniquitous and absurd, that, on account of a protested note, a poor\nmanufacturer should see in twenty-four hours his business arrested, his\nlabor suspended, his merchandise seized, his machinery sold at auction,\nand finally himself led off to prison, while two years were sometimes\nnecessary to expropriate the most miserable piece of real estate.\n\nThese arguments, and others besides, you clearly stated, sir, in your\nfirst lectures of this academic year.\n\nBut, when stating these excellent arguments, did you ask yourself, sir,\nwhither would tend such a transformation of our system of mortgages?...\nTo monetize, if I may say so, landed property; to accumulate it within\nportfolios; to separate the laborer from the soil, man from Nature; to\nmake him a wanderer over the face of the earth; to eradicate from\nhis heart every trace of family feeling, national pride, and love of\ncountry; to isolate him more and more; to render him indifferent to\nall around him; to concentrate his love upon one object,--money; and,\nfinally, by the dishonest practices of usury, to monopolize the land\nto the profit of a financial aristocracy,--a worthy auxiliary of that\nindustrial feudality whose pernicious influence we begin to feel so\nbitterly. Thus, little by little, the subordination of the laborer to\nthe idler, the restoration of abolished castes, and the distinction\nbetween patrician and plebeian, would be effected; thus, thanks to the\nnew privileges granted to the property of the capitalists, that of the\nsmall and intermediate proprietors would gradually disappear, and with\nit the whole class of free and honest laborers. This certainly is not\nmy plan for the abolition of property. Far from mobilizing the soil, I\nwould, if possible, immobilize even the functions of pure intelligence,\nso that society might be the fulfilment of the intentions of Nature,\nwho gave us our first possession, the land. For, if the instrument\nor capital of production is the mark of the laborer, it is also his\npedestal, his support, his country, and, as the Psalmist says, THE PLACE\nOF HIS ACTIVITY AND HIS REST. [38]\n\n\nLet us examine more closely still the inevitable and approaching result\nof the last law concerning judicial sales and mortgages. Under\nthe system of competition which is killing us, and whose necessary\nexpression is a plundering and tyrannical government, the farmer will\nneed always capital in order to repair his losses, and will be forced to\ncontract loans. Always depending upon the future for the payment of his\ndebts, he will be deceived in his hope, and surprised by maturity. For\nwhat is there more prompt, more unexpected, more abbreviatory of space\nand time, than the maturity of an obligation? I address this question\nto all whom this pitiless Nemesis pursues, and even troubles in their\ndreams. Now, under the new law, the expropriation of a debtor will be\neffected a hundred times more rapidly; then, also, spoliation will be\na hundred times surer, and the free laborer will pass a hundred times\nsooner from his present condition to that of a serf attached to the\nsoil. Formerly, the length of time required to effect the seizure\ncurbed the usurer's avidity, gave the borrower an opportunity to recover\nhimself, and gave rise to a transaction between him and his creditor\nwhich might result finally in a complete release. Now, the debtor's\nsentence is irrevocable: he has but a few days of grace.\n\nAnd what advantages are promised by this law as an offset to this sword\nof Damocles, suspended by a single hair over the head of the unfortunate\nhusbandman? The expenses of seizure will be much less, it is said; but\nwill the interest on the borrowed capital be less exorbitant? For, after\nall, it is interest which impoverishes the peasant and leads to his\nexpropriation. That the law may be in harmony with its principle, that\nit may be truly inspired by that spirit of justice for which it is\ncommended, it must--while facilitating expropriation--lower the legal\nprice of money. Otherwise, the reform concerning mortgages is but a trap\nset for small proprietors,--a legislative trick.\n\nLower interest on money! But, as we have just seen, that is to limit\nproperty. Here, sir, you shall make your own defence. More than once, in\nyour learned lectures, I have heard you deplore the precipitancy of the\nChambers, who, without previous study and without profound knowledge\nof the subject, voted almost unanimously to maintain the statutes and\nprivileges of the Bank. Now these privileges, these statutes, this vote\nof the Chambers, mean simply this,--that the market price of specie,\nat five or six per cent., is not too high, and that the conditions\nof exchange, discount, and circulation, which generally double this\ninterest, are none too severe. So the government thinks. M. Blanqui--a\nprofessor of political economy, paid by the State--maintains the\ncontrary, and pretends to demonstrate, by decisive arguments, the\nnecessity of a reform. Who, then, best understands the interests of\nproperty,--the State, or M. Blanqui?\n\nIf specie could be borrowed at half the present rate, the revenues from\nall sorts of property would soon be reduced one-half also. For example:\nwhen it costs less to build a house than to hire one, when it is cheaper\nto clear a field than to procure one already cleared, competition\ninevitably leads to a reduction of house and farm-rents, since the\nsurest way to depreciate active capital is to increase its amount. But\nit is a law of political economy that an increase of production augments\nthe mass of available capital, consequently tends to raise wages, and\nfinally to annihilate interest. Then, proprietors are interested in\nmaintaining the statutes and privileges of the Bank; then, a reform in\nthis matter would compromise the right of increase; then, the peers and\ndeputies are better informed than Professor Blanqui.\n\nBut these same deputies,--so jealous of their privileges whenever\nthe equalizing effects of a reform are within their intellectual\nhorizon,--what did they do a few days before they passed the law\nconcerning judicial sales? They formed a conspiracy against property!\nTheir law to regulate the labor of children in factories will, without\ndoubt, prevent the manufacturer from compelling a child to labor more\nthan so many hours a day; but it will not force him to increase the pay\nof the child, nor that of its father. To-day, in the interest of health,\nwe diminish the subsistence of the poor; to-morrow it will be necessary\nto protect them by fixing their MINIMUM wages. But to fix their minimum\nwages is to compel the proprietor, is to force the master to accept his\nworkman as an associate, which interferes with freedom and makes mutual\ninsurance obligatory. Once entered upon this path, we never shall\nstop. Little by little the government will become manufacturer,\ncommission-merchant, and retail dealer.\n\nIt will be the sole proprietor. Why, at all epochs, have the ministers\nof State been so reluctant to meddle with the question of wages?\nWhy have they always refused to interfere between the master and the\nworkman? Because they knew the touchy and jealous nature of property,\nand, regarding it as the principle of all civilization, felt that to\nmeddle with it would be to unsettle the very foundations of society.\nSad condition of the proprietary regime,--one of inability to exercise\ncharity without violating justice! [39]\n\n\nAnd, sir, this fatal consequence which necessity forces upon the State\nis no mere imagination. Even now the legislative power is asked, no\nlonger simply to regulate the government of factories, but to create\nfactories itself. Listen to the millions of voices shouting on all hands\nfor THE ORGANISATION OF LABOR, THE CREATION OF NATIONAL WORKSHOPS!\nThe whole laboring class is agitated: it has its journals, organs,\nand representatives. To guarantee labor to the workingman, to balance\nproduction with sale, to harmonize industrial proprietors, it advocates\nto-day--as a sovereign remedy--one sole head, one national wardenship,\none huge manufacturing company. For, sir, all this is included in the\nidea of national workshops. On this subject I wish to quote, as proof,\nthe views of an illustrious economist, a brilliant mind, a progressive\nintellect, an enthusiastic soul, a true patriot, and yet an official\ndefender of the right of property. [40]\n\n\nThe honorable professor of the Conservatory proposes then,--\n\n1. TO CHECK THE CONTINUAL EMIGRATION OF LABORERS FROM THE COUNTRY INTO\nTHE CITIES.\n\nBut, to keep the peasant in his village, his residence there must be\nmade endurable: to be just to all, the proletaire of the country must be\ntreated as well as the proletaire of the city. Reform is needed, then,\non farms as well as in factories; and, when the government enters the\nworkshop, the government must seize the plough! What becomes, during\nthis progressive invasion, of independent cultivation, exclusive domain,\nproperty?\n\n2. TO FIX FOR EACH PROFESSION A MODERATE SALARY, VARYING WITH TIME AND\nPLACE AND BASED UPON CERTAIN DATA.\n\nThe object of this measure would be to secure to laborers their\nsubsistence, and to proprietors their profits, while obliging the latter\nto sacrifice from motives of prudence, if for no other reason, a portion\nof their income. Now, I say, that this portion, in the long run, would\nswell until at last there would be an equality of enjoyment between the\nproletaire and the proprietor. For, as we have had occasion to remark\nseveral times already, the interest of the capitalist--in other words\nthe increase of the idler--tends, on account of the power of labor, the\nmultiplication of products and exchanges, to continually diminish, and,\nby constant reduction, to disappear. So that, in the society proposed\nby M. Blanqui, equality would not be realized at first, but would exist\npotentially; since property, though outwardly seeming to be industrial\nfeudality, being no longer a principle of exclusion and encroachment,\nbut only a privilege of division, would not be slow, thanks to the\nintellectual and political emancipation of the proletariat, in passing\ninto absolute equality,--as absolute at least as any thing can be on\nthis earth.\n\nI omit, for the sake of brevity, the numerous considerations which\nthe professor adduces in support of what he calls, too modestly in my\nopinion, his Utopia. They would serve only to prove beyond all question\nthat, of all the charlatans of radicalism who fatigue the public ear,\nno one approaches, for depth and clearness of thought, the audacious M.\nBlanqui.\n\n\n3. NATIONAL WORKSHOPS SHOULD BE IN OPERATION ONLY DURING PERIODS OF\nSTAGNATION IN ORDINARY INDUSTRIES; AT SUCH TIMES THEY SHOULD BE OPENED\nAS VAST OUTLETS TO THE FLOOD OF THE LABORING POPULATION.\n\nBut, sir, the stoppage of private industry is the result of\nover-production, and insufficient markets. If, then, production\ncontinues in the national workshops, how will the crisis be terminated?\nUndoubtedly, by the general depreciation of merchandise, and, in the\nlast analysis, by the conversion of private workshops into national\nworkshops. On the other hand, the government will need capital with\nwhich to pay its workmen; now, how will this capital be obtained? By\ntaxation. And upon what will the tax be levied? Upon property. Then you\nwill have proprietary industry sustaining against itself, and at its own\nexpense, another industry with which it cannot compete. What, think you,\nwill become, in this fatal circle, of the possibility of profit,--in a\nword, of property?\n\nThank Heaven! equality of conditions is taught in the public schools;\nlet us fear revolutions no longer. The most implacable enemy of property\ncould not, if he wished to destroy it, go to work in a wiser and more\neffective way. Courage, then, ministers, deputies, economists! make\nhaste to seize this glorious initiative; let the watchwords of equality,\nuttered from the heights of science and power, be repeated in the midst\nof the people; let them thrill the breasts of the proletaires, and carry\ndismay into the ranks of the last representatives of privilege!\n\nThe tendency of society in favor of compelling proprietors to support\nnational workshops and public manufactories is so strong that for\nseveral years, under the name of ELECTORAL REFORM, it has been\nexclusively the question of the day. What is, after all, this electoral\nreform which the people grasp at, as if it were a bait, and which\nso many ambitious persons either call for or denounce? It is the\nacknowledgment of the right of the masses to a voice in the assessment\nof taxes, and the making of the laws; which laws, aiming always at the\nprotection of material interests, affect, in a greater or less degree,\nall questions of taxation or wages. Now the people, instructed long\nsince by their journals, their dramas, [41] and their songs, [42] know\nto-day that taxation, to be equitably divided, must be graduated, and\nmust be borne mainly by the rich,--that it must be levied upon luxuries,\n&c. And be sure that the people, once in the majority in the Chamber,\nwill not fail to apply these lessons. Already we have a minister\nof public works. National workshops will follow; and soon, as\na consequence, the excess of the proprietor's revenue over the\nworkingman's wages will be swallowed up in the coffers of the laborers\nof the State. Do you not see that in this way property is gradually\nreduced, as nobility was formerly, to a nominal title, to a distinction\npurely honorary in its nature?\n\n\nEither the electoral reform will fail to accomplish that which is hoped\nfrom it, and will disappoint its innumerable partisans, or else it will\ninevitably result in a transformation of the absolute right under which\nwe live into a right of possession; that is, that while, at present,\nproperty makes the elector, after this reform is accomplished, the\ncitizen, the producer will be the possessor. [43] Consequently, the\nradicals are right in saying that the electoral reform is in their eyes\nonly a means; but, when they are silent as to the end, they show either\nprofound ignorance, or useless dissimulation. There should be no secrets\nor reservations from peoples and powers. He disgraces himself and fails\nin respect for his fellows, who, in publishing his opinions, employs\nevasion and cunning. Before the people act, they need to know the whole\ntruth. Unhappy he who shall dare to trifle with them! For the people are\ncredulous, but they are strong. Let us tell them, then, that this reform\nwhich is proposed is only a means,--a means often tried, and hitherto\nwithout effect,--but that the logical object of the electoral reform is\nequality of fortunes; and that this equality itself is only a new means\nhaving in view the superior and definitive object of the salvation of\nsociety, the restoration of morals and religion, and the revival of\npoetry and art.\n\n\nThis assertion of M. Rossi is not borne out by history. Property is the\ncause of the electoral right, not as a PRESUMPTION OF CAPACITY,--an idea\nwhich never prevailed until lately, and which is extremely absurd,--but\nas a GUARANTEE OF DEVOTION TO THE ESTABLISHED ORDER. The electoral body\nis a league of those interested in the maintenance of property, against\nthose not interested. There are thousands of documents, even official\ndocuments, to prove this, if necessary. For the rest, the present system\nis only a continuation of the municipal system, which, in the\nmiddle ages, sprang up in connection with feudalism,--an oppressive,\nmischief-making system, full of petty passions and base intrigues.\n\n\nIt would be an abuse of the reader's patience to insist further upon\nthe tendency of our time towards equality. There are, moreover, so many\npeople who denounce the present age, that nothing is gained by exposing\nto their view the popular, scientific, and representative tendencies of\nthe nation.\n\nPrompt to recognize the accuracy of the inferences drawn from\nobservation, they confine themselves to a general censure of the facts,\nand an absolute denial of their legitimacy. \"What wonder,\" they say,\n\"that this atmosphere of equality intoxicates us, considering all that\nhas been said and done during the past ten years!... Do you not see that\nsociety is dissolving, that a spirit of infatuation is carrying us away?\nAll these hopes of regeneration are but forebodings of death; your songs\nof triumph are like the prayers of the departing, your trumpet peals\nannounce the baptism of a dying man. Civilization is falling in ruin:\n_Imus, imus, praecipites_!\"\n\nSuch people deny God. I might content myself with the reply that\nthe spirit of 1830 was the result of the maintenance of the violated\ncharter; that this charter arose from the Revolution of '89; that\n'89 implies the States-General's right of remonstrance, and the\nenfranchisement of the communes; that the communes suppose feudalism,\nwhich in its turn supposes invasion, Roman law, Christianity, &c.\n\nBut it is necessary to look further. We must penetrate to the very heart\nof ancient institutions, plunge into the social depths, and uncover this\nindestructible leaven of equality which the God of justice breathed into\nour souls, and which manifests itself in all our works.\n\nLabor is man's contemporary; it is a duty, since it is a condition of\nexistence: \"In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread.\" It is more\nthan a duty, it is a mission: \"God put the man into the garden to dress\nit.\" I add that labor is the cause and means of equality.\n\nCast away upon a desert island two men: one large, strong, and active;\nthe other weak, timid, and domestic. The latter will die of hunger;\nwhile the other, a skilful hunter, an expert fisherman, and an\nindefatigable husbandman, will overstock himself with provisions. What\ngreater inequality, in this state of Nature so dear to the heart of Jean\nJacques, could be imagined! But let these two men meet and associate\nthemselves: the second immediately attends to the cooking, takes charge\nof the household affairs, and sees to the provisions, beds, and clothes;\nprovided the stronger does not abuse his superiority by enslaving and\nill-treating his companion, their social condition will be perfectly\nequal. Thus, through exchange of services, the inequalities of Nature\nneutralize each other, talents associate, and forces balance. Violence\nand inertia are found only among the poor and the aristocratic. And\nin that lies the philosophy of political economy, the mystery of human\nbrotherhood. _Hic est sapientia_. Let us pass from the hypothetical\nstate of pure Nature into civilization.\n\nThe proprietor of the soil, who produces, I will suppose with the\neconomists, by lending his instrument, receives at the foundation of a\nsociety so many bushels of grain for each acre of arable land. As long\nas labor is weak, and the variety of its products small, the proprietor\nis powerful in comparison with the laborers; he has ten times,\none hundred times, the portion of an honest man. But let labor, by\nmultiplying its inventions, multiply its enjoyments and wants, and the\nproprietor, if he wishes to enjoy the new products, will be obliged to\nreduce his income every day; and since the first products tend rather\nto depreciate than to rise in value,--in consequence of the continual\naddition of the new ones, which may be regarded as supplements of the\nfirst ones,--it follows that the idle proprietor grows poor as fast\nas public prosperity increases. \"Incomes\" (I like to quote you, sir,\nbecause it is impossible to give too good an authority for these\nelementary principles of economy, and because I cannot express them\nbetter myself), \"incomes,\" you have said, \"tend to disappear as capital\nincreases. He who possesses to-day an income of twenty thousand pounds\nis not nearly as rich as he who possessed the same amount fifty years\nago. The time is coming when all property will be a burden to the idle,\nand will necessarily pass into the hands of the able and industrious.\n[44]...\"\n\n\nIn order to live as a proprietor, or to consume without producing, it is\nnecessary, then, to live upon the labor of another; in other words,\nit is necessary to kill the laborer. It is upon this principle that\nproprietors of those varieties of capital which are of primary necessity\nincrease their farm-rents as fast as industry develops, much more\ncareful of their privileges in that respect, than those economists who,\nin order to strengthen property, advocate a reduction of interest.\nBut the crime is unavailing: labor and production increase; soon the\nproprietor will be forced to labor, and then property is lost.\n\nThe proprietor is a man who, having absolute control of an instrument\nof production, claims the right to enjoy the product of the instrument\nwithout using it himself. To this end he lends it; and we have just\nseen that from this loan the laborer derives a power of exchange, which\nsooner or later will destroy the right of increase. In the first place,\nthe proprietor is obliged to allow the laborer a portion of the product,\nfor without it the laborer could not live. Soon the latter, through\nthe development of his industry, finds a means of regaining the greater\nportion of that which he gives to the proprietor; so that at last, the\nobjects of enjoyment increasing continually, while the income of the\nidler remains the same, the proprietor, having exhausted his resources,\nbegins to think of going to work himself. Then the victory of the\nproducer is certain. Labor commences to tip the balance towards its own\nside, and commerce leads to equilibrium.\n\nMan's instinct cannot err; as, in liberty, exchange of functions leads\ninevitably to equality among men, so commerce--or exchange of products,\nwhich is identical with exchange of functions--is a new cause of\nequality. As long as the proprietor does not labor, however small his\nincome, he enjoys a privilege; the laborer's welfare may be equal to\nhis, but equality of conditions does not exist. But as soon as the\nproprietor becomes a producer,--since he can exchange his special\nproduct only with his tenant or his _commandite_,--sooner or later this\ntenant, this _exploited_ man, if violence is not done him, will make\na profit out of the proprietor, and will oblige him to restore--in the\nexchange of their respective products--the interest on his capital. So\nthat, balancing one injustice by another, the contracting parties will\nbe equal. Labor and exchange, when liberty prevails, lead, then, to\nequality of fortunes; mutuality of services neutralizes privilege.\nThat is why despots in all ages and countries have assumed control\nof commerce; they wished to prevent the labor of their subjects from\nbecoming an obstacle to the rapacity of tyrants.\n\nUp to this point, all takes place in the natural order; there is no\npremeditation, no artifice. The whole proceeding is governed by the laws\nof necessity alone. Proprietors and laborers act only in obedience to\ntheir wants. Thus, the exercise of the right of increase, the art\nof robbing the producer, depends--during this first period of\ncivilization--upon physical violence, murder, and war.\n\nBut at this point a gigantic and complicated conspiracy is hatched\nagainst the capitalists. The weapon of the EXPLOITERS is met by the\nEXPLOITED with the instrument of commerce,--a marvellous invention,\ndenounced at its origin by the moralists who favored property, but\ninspired without doubt by the genius of labor, by the Minerva of the\nproletaires.\n\nThe principal cause of the evil lay in the accumulation and immobility\nof capital of all sorts,--an immobility which prevented labor, enslaved\nand subalternized by haughty idleness, from ever acquiring it. The\nnecessity was felt of dividing and mobilizing wealth, of rendering it\nportable, of making it pass from the hands of the possessor into those\nof the worker. Labor invented MONEY. Afterwards, this invention was\nrevived and developed by the BILL OF EXCHANGE and the BANK. For all\nthese things are substantially the same, and proceed from the same mind.\nThe first man who conceived the idea of representing a value by a shell,\na precious stone, or a certain weight of metal, was the real inventor\nof the Bank. What is a piece of money, in fact? It is a bill of exchange\nwritten upon solid and durable material, and carrying with it its own\nredemption. By this means, oppressed equality was enabled to laugh at\nthe efforts of the proprietors, and the balance of justice was adjusted\nfor the first time in the tradesman's shop. The trap was cunningly set,\nand accomplished its purpose so thoroughly that in idle hands money\nbecame only dissolving wealth, a false symbol, a shadow of riches. An\nexcellent economist and profound philosopher was that miser who took\nas his motto, \"WHEN A GUINEA IS EXCHANGED, IT EVAPORATES.\" So it may\nbe said, \"When real estate is converted into money, it is lost.\" This\nexplains the constant fact of history, that the nobles--the unproductive\nproprietors of the soil--have every where been dispossessed by\nindustrial and commercial plebeians. Such was especially the case in the\nformation of the Italian republics, born, during the middle ages, of\nthe impoverishment of the seigniors. I will not pursue the interesting\nconsiderations which this matter suggests; I could only repeat the\ntestimony of historians, and present economical demonstrations in an\naltered form.\n\nThe greatest enemy of the landed and industrial aristocracy to-day, the\nincessant promoter of equality of fortunes, is the BANKER. Through him\nimmense plains are divided, mountains change their positions, forests\nare grown upon the public squares, one hemisphere produces for another,\nand every corner of the globe has its usufructuaries. By means of the\nBank new wealth is continually created, the use of which (soon becoming\nindispensable to selfishness) wrests the dormant capital from the hands\nof the jealous proprietor. The banker is at once the most potent creator\nof wealth, and the main distributor of the products of art and Nature.\nAnd yet, by the strangest antinomy, this same banker is the most\nrelentless collector of profits, increase, and usury ever inspired by\nthe demon of property. The importance of the services which he renders\nleads us to endure, though not without complaint, the taxes which he\nimposes. Nevertheless, since nothing can avoid its providential mission,\nsince nothing which exists can escape the end for which it exists\nthe banker (the modern Croesus) must some day become the restorer of\nequality. And following in your footsteps, sir, I have already given the\nreason; namely, that profit decreases as capital multiplies, since an\nincrease of capital--calling for more laborers, without whom it remains\nunproductive--always causes an increase of wages. Whence it follows that\nthe Bank, to-day the suction-pump of wealth, is destined to become the\nsteward of the human race.\n\nThe phrase EQUALITY OF FORTUNES chafes people, as if it referred to\na condition of the other world, unknown here below. There are some\npersons, radicals as well as moderates, whom the very mention of this\nidea fills with indignation. Let, then, these silly aristocrats abolish\nmercantile societies and insurance companies, which are founded\nby prudence for mutual assistance. For all these social facts, so\nspontaneous and free from all levelling intentions, are the legitimate\nfruits of the instinct of equality.\n\nWhen the legislator makes a law, properly speaking he does not MAKE\nit,--he does not CREATE it: he DESCRIBES it. In legislating upon the\nmoral, civil, and political relations of citizens, he does not express\nan arbitrary notion: he states the general idea,--the higher principle\nwhich governs the matter which he is considering; in a word, he is the\nproclaimer, not the inventor, of the law. So, when two or more men\nform among themselves, by synallagmatic contract, an industrial or an\ninsurance association, they recognize that their interests, formerly\nisolated by a false spirit of selfishness and independence, are\nfirmly connected by their inner natures, and by the mutuality of their\nrelations. They do not really bind themselves by an act of their private\nwill: they swear to conform henceforth to a previously existing social\nlaw hitherto disregarded by them. And this is proved by the fact that\nthese same men, could they avoid association, would not associate.\nBefore they can be induced to unite their interests, they must acquire\nfull knowledge of the dangers of competition and isolation; hence the\nexperience of evil is the only thing which leads them into society.\n\nNow I say that, to establish equality among men, it is only necessary\nto generalize the principle upon which insurance, agricultural, and\ncommercial associations are based. I say that competition, isolation\nof interests, monopoly, privilege, accumulation of capital, exclusive\nenjoyment, subordination of functions, individual production, the right\nof profit or increase, the exploitation of man by man, and, to sum up\nall these species under one head, that PROPERTY is the principal cause\nof misery and crime. And, for having arrived at this offensive and\nanti-proprietary conclusion, I am an abhorred monster; radicals and\nconservatives alike point me out as a fit subject for prosecution; the\nacademies shower their censures upon me; the most worthy people regard\nme as mad; and those are excessively tolerant who content themselves\nwith the assertion that I am a fool. Oh, unhappy the writer who\npublishes the truth otherwise than as a performance of a duty! If he has\ncounted upon the applause of the crowd; if he has supposed that avarice\nand self-interest would forget themselves in admiration of him; if he\nhas neglected to encase himself within three thicknesses of brass,--he\nwill fail, as he ought, in his selfish undertaking. The unjust\ncriticisms, the sad disappointments, the despair of his mistaken\nambition, will kill him.\n\nBut, if I am no longer permitted to express my own personal opinion\nconcerning this interesting question of social equilibrium, let me, at\nleast, make known the thought of my masters, and develop the doctrines\nadvocated in the name of the government.\n\nIt never has been my intention, sir, in spite of the vigorous censure\nwhich you, in behalf of your academy, have pronounced upon the doctrine\nof equality of fortunes, to contradict and cope with you. In listening\nto you, I have felt my inferiority too keenly to permit me to enter upon\nsuch a discussion. And then,--if it must be said,--however different\nyour language is from mine, we believe in the same principles; you share\nall my opinions. I do not mean to insinuate thereby, sir, that you have\n(to use the phraseology of the schools) an ESOTERIC and an EXOTERIC\ndoctrine,--that, secretly believing in equality, you defend property\nonly from motives of prudence and by command. I am not rash enough to\nregard you as my colleague in my revolutionary projects; and I esteem\nyou too highly, moreover, to suspect you of dissimulation. I only\nmean that the truths which methodical investigation and laborious\nmetaphysical speculation have painfully demonstrated to me, a profound\nacquaintance with political economy and a long experience reveal to\nyou. While I have reached my belief in equality by long reflection, and\nalmost in spite of my desires, you hold yours, sir, with all the zeal of\nfaith,--with all the spontaneity of genius. That is why your course\nof lectures at the Conservatory is a perpetual war upon property and\ninequality of fortunes; that is why your most learned investigations,\nyour most ingenious analyses, and your innumerable observations always\nconclude in a formula of progress and equality; that is why, finally,\nyou are never more admired and applauded than at those moments of\ninspiration when, borne upon the wings of science, you ascend to those\nlofty truths which cause plebeian hearts to beat with enthusiasm, and\nwhich chill with horror men whose intentions are evil. How many times,\nfrom the place where I eagerly drank in your eloquent words, have I\ninwardly thanked Heaven for exempting you from the judgment passed by\nSt. Paul upon the philosophers of his time,--\"They have known the truth,\nand have not made it known\"! How many times have I rejoiced at finding\nmy own justification in each of your discourses! No, no; I neither wish\nnor ask for any thing which you do not teach yourself. I appeal to your\nnumerous audience; let it belie me if, in commenting upon you, I pervert\nyour meaning.\n\nA disciple of Say, what in your eyes is more anti-social than the\ncustom-houses; or, as you correctly call them, the barriers erected by\nmonopoly between nations? What is more annoying, more unjust, or more\nabsurd, than this prohibitory system which compels us to pay forty\nsous in France for that which in England or Belgium would bring us but\nfifteen? It is the custom-house, you once said, [45] which arrests\nthe development of civilization by preventing the specialization of\nindustries; it is the custom-house which enriches a hundred monopolists\nby impoverishing millions of citizens; it is the custom-house which\nproduces famine in the midst of abundance, which makes labor sterile by\nprohibiting exchange, and which stifles production in a mortal embrace.\nIt is the custom-house which renders nations jealous of, and hostile to,\neach other; four-fifths of the wars of all ages were caused originally\nby the custom-house. And then, at the highest pitch of your enthusiasm,\nyou shouted: \"Yes, if to put an end to this hateful system, it should\nbecome necessary for me to shed the last drop of my blood, I would\njoyfully spring into the gap, asking only time enough to give thanks to\nGod for having judged me worthy of martyrdom!\"\n\n\nAnd, at that solemn moment, I said to myself: \"Place in every department\nof France such a professor as that, and the revolution is avoided.\"\n\nBut, sir, by this magnificent theory of liberty of commerce you render\nmilitary glory impossible,--you leave nothing for diplomacy to do;\nyou even take away the desire for conquest, while abolishing profit\naltogether. What matters it, indeed, who restores Constantinople,\nAlexandria, and Saint Jean d'Acre, if the Syrians, Egyptians, and Turks\nare free to choose their masters; free to exchange their products with\nwhom they please? Why should Europe get into such a turmoil over this\npetty Sultan and his old Pasha, if it is only a question whether we or\nthe English shall civilize the Orient,--shall instruct Egypt and Syria\nin the European arts, and shall teach them to construct machines, dig\ncanals, and build railroads? For, if to national independence free trade\nis added, the foreign influence of these two countries is thereafter\nexerted only through a voluntary relationship of producer to producer,\nor apprentice to journeyman.\n\nAlone among European powers, France cheerfully accepted the task of\ncivilizing the Orient, and began an invasion which was quite apostolic\nin its character,--so joyful and high-minded do noble thoughts render\nour nation! But diplomatic rivalry, national selfishness, English\navarice, and Russian ambition stood in her way. To consummate a\nlong-meditated usurpation, it was necessary to crush a too generous\nally: the robbers of the Holy Alliance formed a league against dauntless\nand blameless France. Consequently, at the news of this famous treaty,\nthere arose among us a chorus of curses upon the principle of property,\nwhich at that time was acting under the hypocritical formulas of the old\npolitical system. The last hour of property seemed to have struck by\nthe side of Syria; from the Alps to the ocean, from the Rhine to the\nPyrenees, the popular conscience was aroused. All France sang songs\nof war, and the coalition turned pale at the sound of these shuddering\ncries: \"War upon the autocrat, who wishes to be proprietor of the\nold world! War upon the English perjurer, the devourer of India, the\npoisoner of China, the tyrant of Ireland, and the eternal enemy of\nFrance! War upon the allies who have conspired against liberty and\nequality! War! war! war upon property!\"\n\nBy the counsel of Providence the emancipation of the nations is\npostponed. France is to conquer, not by arms, but by example. Universal\nreason does not yet understand this grand equation, which, commencing\nwith the abolition of slavery, and advancing over the ruins of\naristocracies and thrones, must end in equality of rights and fortunes;\nbut the day is not far off when the knowledge of this truth will be as\ncommon as that of equality of origin. Already it seems to be understood\nthat the Oriental question is only a question of custom-houses. Is it,\nthen, so difficult for public opinion to generalize this idea, and to\ncomprehend, finally, that if the suppression of custom-houses involves\nthe abolition of national property, it involves also, as a consequence,\nthe abolition of individual property?\n\nIn fact, if we suppress the custom-houses, the alliance of the nations\nis declared by that very act; their solidarity is recognized, and their\nequality proclaimed. If we suppress the custom-houses, the principle of\nassociation will not be slow in reaching from the State to the province,\nfrom the province to the city, and from the city to the workshop. But,\nthen, what becomes of the privileges of authors and artists? Of what\nuse are the patents for invention, imagination, amelioration, and\nimprovement? When our deputies write a law of literary property by\nthe side of a law which opens a large breach in the custom-house they\ncontradict themselves, indeed, and pull down with one hand what they\nbuild up with the other. Without the custom-house, literary property\ndoes not exist, and the hopes of our starving authors are frustrated.\nFor, certainly you do not expect, with the good man Fourier, that\nliterary property will exercise itself in China to the profit of a\nFrench writer; and that an ode of Lamartine, sold by privilege all over\nthe world, will bring in millions to its author! The poet's work\nis peculiar to the climate in which he lives; every where else the\nreproduction of his works, having no market value, should be frank and\nfree. But what! will it be necessary for nations to put themselves under\nmutual surveillance for the sake of verses, statues, and elixirs? We\nshall always have, then, an excise, a city-toll, rights of entrance\nand transit, custom-houses finally; and then, as a reaction against\nprivilege, smuggling.\n\nSmuggling! That word reminds me of one of the most horrible forms\nof property. \"Smuggling,\" you have said, sir, [46] \"is an offence of\npolitical creation; it is the exercise of natural liberty, defined as a\ncrime in certain cases by the will of the sovereign. The smuggler is a\ngallant man,--a man of spirit, who gaily busies himself in procuring for\nhis neighbor, at a very low price, a jewel, a shawl, or any other object\nof necessity or luxury, which domestic monopoly renders excessively\ndear.\" Then, to a very poetical monograph of the smuggler, you add this\ndismal conclusion,--that the smuggler belongs to the family of Mandrin,\nand that the galleys should be his home!\n\n\nBut, sir, you have not called attention to the horrible exploitation\nwhich is carried on in this way in the name of property.\n\nIt is said,--and I give this report only as an hypothesis and an\nillustration, for I do not believe it,--it is said that the present\nminister of finances owes his fortune to smuggling. M. Humann, of\nStrasbourg, sent out of France, it is said, enormous quantities of\nsugar, for which he received the bounty on exportation promised by\nthe State; then, smuggling this sugar back again, he exported it anew,\nreceiving the bounty on exportation a second time, and so on. Notice,\nsir, that I do not state this as a fact; I give it only as it is told,\nnot endorsing or even believing it. My sole design is to fix the idea in\nthe mind by an example. If I believed that a minister had committed such\na crime, that is, if I had personal and authentic knowledge that he had,\nI would denounce M. Humann, the minister of finances, to the Chamber of\nDeputies, and would loudly demand his expulsion from the ministry.\n\nBut that which is undoubtedly false of M. Humann is true of many others,\nas rich and no less honorable than he. Smuggling, organized on a large\nscale by the eaters of human flesh, is carried on to the profit of a few\npashas at the risk and peril of their imprudent victims. The inactive\nproprietor offers his merchandise for sale; the actual smuggler risks\nhis liberty, his honor, and his life. If success crowns the enterprise,\nthe courageous servant gets paid for his journey; the profit goes to\nthe coward. If fortune or treachery delivers the instrument of this\nexecrable traffic into the hands of the custom-house officer, the\nmaster-smuggler suffers a loss which a more fortunate voyage will soon\nrepair. The agent, pronounced a scoundrel, is thrown into prison in\ncompany with robbers; while his glorious patron, a juror, elector,\ndeputy, or minister, makes laws concerning expropriation, monopoly, and\ncustom-houses!\n\nI promised, at the beginning of this letter, that no attack on property\nshould escape my pen, my only object being to justify myself before the\npublic by a general recrimination. But I could not refrain from branding\nso odious a mode of exploitation, and I trust that this short digression\nwill be pardoned. Property does not avenge, I hope, the injuries which\nsmuggling suffers.\n\nThe conspiracy against property is general; it is flagrant; it takes\npossession of all minds, and inspires all our laws; it lies at the\nbottom of all theories. Here the proletaire pursues property in the\nstreet, there the legislator lays an interdict upon it; now, a professor\nof political economy or of industrial legislation, [47] paid to defend\nit, undermines it with redoubled blows; at another--time, an academy\ncalls it in question, [48] or inquires as to the progress of its\ndemolition. [49] To-day there is not an idea, not an opinion, not\na sect, which does not dream of muzzling property. None confess it,\nbecause none are yet conscious of it; there are too few minds capable\nof grasping spontaneously this ensemble of causes and effects,\nof principles and consequences, by which I try to demonstrate the\napproaching disappearance of property; on the other hand, the ideas that\nare generally formed of this right are too divergent and too loosely\ndetermined to allow an admission, so soon, of the contrary theory. Thus,\nin the middle and lower ranks of literature and philosophy, no less than\namong the common people, it is thought that, when property is abolished,\nno one will be able to enjoy the fruit of his labor; that no one will\nhave any thing peculiar to himself, and that tyrannical communism will\nbe established on the ruins of family and liberty!--chimeras, which are\nto support for a little while longer the cause of privilege.\n\n\nBut, before determining precisely the idea of property, before seeking\namid the contradictions of systems for the common element which must\nform the basis of the new right, let us cast a rapid glance at\nthe changes which, at the various periods of history, property has\nundergone. The political forms of nations are the expression of their\nbeliefs. The mobility of these forms, their modification and their\ndestruction, are solemn experiences which show us the value of ideas,\nand gradually eliminate from the infinite variety of customs the\nabsolute, eternal, and immutable truth. Now, we shall see that every\npolitical institution tends, necessarily, and on pain of death, to\nequalize conditions; that every where and always equality of fortunes\n(like equality of rights) has been the social aim, whether the plebeian\nclasses have endeavored to rise to political power by means of property,\nor whether--rulers already--they have used political power to overthrow\nproperty. We shall see, in short, by the progress of society, that the\nconsummation of justice lies in the extinction of individual domain.\n\nFor the sake of brevity, I will disregard the testimony of\necclesiastical history and Christian theology: this subject deserves a\nseparate treatise, and I propose hereafter to return to it. Moses and\nJesus Christ proscribed, under the names of usury and inequality, [50]\nall sorts of profit and increase. The church itself, in its purest\nteachings, has always condemned property; and when I attacked, not only\nthe authority of the church, but also its infidelity to justice, I did\nit to the glory of religion. I wanted to provoke a peremptory reply, and\nto pave the way for Christianity's triumph, in spite of the innumerable\nattacks of which it is at present the object. I hoped that an apologist\nwould arise forthwith, and, taking his stand upon the Scriptures, the\nFathers, the canons, and the councils and constitutions of the Popes,\nwould demonstrate that the church always has maintained the doctrine of\nequality, and would attribute to temporary necessity the contradictions\nof its discipline. Such a labor would serve the cause of religion\nas well as that of equality. We must know, sooner or later, whether\nChristianity is to be regenerated in the church or out of it, and\nwhether this church accepts the reproaches cast upon it of hatred to\nliberty and antipathy to progress. Until then we will suspend judgment,\nand content ourselves with placing before the clergy the teachings of\nhistory.\n\n\nWhen Lycurgus undertook to make laws for Sparta, in what condition did\nhe find this republic? On this point all historians agree. The people\nand the nobles were at war. The city was in a confused state, and\ndivided by two parties,--the party of the poor, and the party of the\nrich. Hardly escaped from the barbarism of the heroic ages, society was\nrapidly declining. The proletariat made war upon property, which, in its\nturn, oppressed the proletariat. What did Lycurgus do? His first measure\nwas one of general security, at the very idea of which our legislators\nwould tremble. He abolished all debts; then, employing by turns\npersuasion and force, he induced the nobles to renounce their\nprivileges, and re-established equality.\n\nLycurgus, in a word, hunted property out of Lacedaemon, seeing no other\nway to harmonize liberty, equality, and law. I certainly should not wish\nFrance to follow the example of Sparta; but it is remarkable that the\nmost ancient of Greek legislators, thoroughly acquainted with the nature\nand needs of the people, more capable than any one else of appreciating\nthe legitimacy of the obligations which he, in the exercise of his\nabsolute authority, cancelled; who had compared the legislative\nsystems of his time, and whose wisdom an oracle had proclaimed,--it\nis remarkable, I say, that Lycurgus should have judged the right of\nproperty incompatible with free institutions, and should have thought it\nhis duty to preface his legislation by a coup d'etat which destroyed all\ndistinctions of fortune.\n\nLycurgus understood perfectly that the luxury, the love of enjoyments,\nand the inequality of fortunes, which property engenders, are the bane\nof society; unfortunately the means which he employed to preserve his\nrepublic were suggested to him by false notions of political economy,\nand by a superficial knowledge of the human heart. Accordingly,\nproperty, which this legislator wrongly confounded with wealth,\nreentered the city together with the swarm of evils which he was\nendeavoring to banish; and this time Sparta was hopelessly corrupted.\n\n\n\"The introduction of wealth,\" says M. Pastoret, \"was one of the\nprincipal causes of the misfortunes which they experienced. Against\nthese, however, the laws had taken extraordinary precautions, the best\namong which was the inculcation of morals which tended to suppress\ndesire.\"\n\n\nThe best of all precautions would have been the anticipation of desire\nby satisfaction. Possession is the sovereign remedy for cupidity,\na remedy which would have been the less perilous to Sparta because\nfortunes there were almost equal, and conditions were nearly alike. As a\ngeneral thing, fasting and abstinence are bad teachers of moderation.\n\n\"There was a law,\" says M. Pastoret again, \"to prohibit the rich from\nwearing better clothing than the poor, from eating more delicate food,\nand from owning elegant furniture, vases, carpets, fine houses,\" &c.\nLycurgus hoped, then, to maintain equality by rendering wealth useless.\nHow much wiser he would have been if, in accordance with his military\ndiscipline, he had organized industry and taught the people to procure\nby their own labor the things which he tried in vain to deprive them of.\nIn that case, enjoying happy thoughts and pleasant feelings, the citizen\nwould have known no other desire than that with which the legislator\nendeavored to inspire him,--love of honor and glory, the triumphs of\ntalent and virtue.\n\n\"Gold and all kinds of ornaments were forbidden the women.\" Absurd.\nAfter the death of Lycurgus, his institutions became corrupted; and four\ncenturies before the Christian era not a vestige remained of the former\nsimplicity. Luxury and the thirst for gold were early developed among\nthe Spartans in a degree as intense as might have been expected from\ntheir enforced poverty and their inexperience in the arts. Historians\nhave accused Pausanias, Lysander, Agesilaus, and others of having\ncorrupted the morals of their country by the introduction of wealth\nobtained in war. It is a slander. The morals of the Spartans necessarily\ngrew corrupt as soon as the Lacedaemonian poverty came in contact with\nPersian luxury and Athenian elegance. Lycurgus, then, made a fatal\nmistake in attempting to inspire generosity and modesty by enforcing\nvain and proud simplicity.\n\n\n\"Lycurgus was not frightened at idleness! A Lacedemonian, happening to\nbe in Athens (where idleness was forbidden) during the punishment of\na citizen who had been found guilty, asked to see the Athenian thus\ncondemned for having exercised the rights of a free man.... It was one\nof the principles of Lycurguss, acted upon for several centuries, that\nfree men should not follow lucrative professions.... The women disdained\ndomestic labor; they did not spin their wool themselves, as did the\nother Greeks [they did not, then, read Homer!]; they left their slaves\nto make their clothing for them.\"--Pastoret: History of Legislation.\n\n\nCould any thing be more contradictory? Lycurgus proscribed property\namong the citizens, and founded the means of subsistence on the worst\nform of property,--on property obtained by force. What wonder, after\nthat, that a lazy city, where no industry was carried on, became a den\nof avarice? The Spartans succumbed the more easily to the allurements of\nluxury and Asiatic voluptuousness, being placed entirely at their mercy\nby their own coarseness. The same thing happened to the Romans, when\nmilitary success took them out of Italy,--a thing which the author\nof the prosopopoeia of Fabricius could not explain. It is not the\ncultivation of the arts which corrupts morals, but their degradation,\ninduced by inactive and luxurious opulence. The instinct of property\nis to make the industry of Daedalus, as well as the talent of Phidias,\nsubservient to its own fantastic whims and disgraceful pleasures.\nProperty, not wealth, ruined the Spartans.\n\nWhen Solon appeared, the anarchy caused by property was at its height\nin the Athenian republic. \"The inhabitants of Attica were divided\namong themselves as to the form of government. Those who lived on the\nmountains (the poor) preferred the popular form; those of the plain\n(the middle class), the oligarchs; those by the sea coast, a mixture\nof oligarchy and democracy. Other dissensions were arising from the\ninequality of fortunes. The mutual antagonism of the rich and poor had\nbecome so violent, that the one-man power seemed the only safe-guard\nagainst the revolution with which the republic was threatened.\"\n(Pastoret: History of Legislation.)\n\nQuarrels between the rich and the poor, which seldom occur in\nmonarchies, because a well established power suppresses dissensions,\nseem to be the life of popular governments. Aristotle had noticed this.\nThe oppression of wealth submitted to agrarian laws, or to excessive\ntaxation; the hatred of the lower classes for the upper class, which\nis exposed always to libellous charges made in hopes of\nconfiscation,--these were the features of the Athenian government which\nwere especially revolting to Aristotle, and which caused him to favor\na limited monarchy. Aristotle, if he had lived in our day, would have\nsupported the constitutional government. But, with all deference to the\nStagirite, a government which sacrifices the life of the proletaire to\nthat of the proprietor is quite as irrational as one which supports the\nformer by robbing the latter; neither of them deserve the support of a\nfree man, much less of a philosopher.\n\nSolon followed the example of Lycurgus. He celebrated his legislative\ninauguration by the abolition of debts,--that is, by bankruptcy. In\nother words, Solon wound up the governmental machine for a longer or\nshorter time depending upon the rate of interest. Consequently, when the\nspring relaxed and the chain became unwound, the republic had either\nto perish, or to recover itself by a second bankruptcy. This singular\npolicy was pursued by all the ancients. After the captivity of Babylon,\nNehemiah, the chief of the Jewish nation, abolished debts; Lycurgus\nabolished debts; Solon abolished debts; the Roman people, after the\nexpulsion of the kings until the accession of the Caesars, struggled\nwith the Senate for the abolition of debts. Afterwards, towards the\nend of the republic, and long after the establishment of the empire,\nagriculture being abandoned, and the provinces becoming depopulated\nin consequence of the excessive rates of interest, the emperors freely\ngranted the lands to whoever would cultivate them,--that is, they\nabolished debts. No one, except Lycurgus, who went to the other extreme,\never perceived that the great point was, not to release debtors by a\ncoup d'etat, but to prevent the contraction of debts in future.\n\nOn the contrary, the most democratic governments were always exclusively\nbased upon individual property; so that the social element of all these\nrepublics was war between the citizens.\n\nSolon decreed that a census should be taken of all fortunes, regulated\npolitical rights by the result, granted to the larger proprietors more\ninfluence, established the balance of powers,--in a word, inserted in\nthe constitution the most active leaven of discord; as if, instead of a\nlegislator chosen by the people, he had been their greatest enemy. Is\nit not, indeed, the height of imprudence to grant equality of political\nrights to men of unequal conditions? If a manufacturer, uniting all\nhis workmen in a joint-stock company, should give to each of them a\nconsultative and deliberative voice,--that is, should make all of them\nmasters,--would this equality of mastership secure continued inequality\nof wages? That is the whole political system of Solon, reduced to its\nsimplest expression.\n\n\n\"In giving property a just preponderance,\" says M. Pastoret, \"Solon\nrepaired, as far as he was able, his first official act,--the abolition\nof debts.... He thought he owed it to public peace to make this great\nsacrifice of acquired rights and natural equity. But the violation of\nindividual property and written contracts is a bad preface to a public\ncode.\"\n\n\nIn fact, such violations are always cruelly punished. In '89 and '93,\nthe possessions of the nobility and the clergy were confiscated, the\nclever proletaires were enriched; and to-day the latter, having become\naristocrats, are making us pay dearly for our fathers' robbery. What,\ntherefore, is to be done now? It is not for us to violate right, but to\nrestore it. Now, it would be a violation of justice to dispossess some\nand endow others, and then stop there. We must gradually lower the rate\nof interest, organize industry, associate laborers and their functions,\nand take a census of the large fortunes, not for the purpose of granting\nprivileges, but that we may effect their redemption by settling a\nlife-annuity upon their proprietors. We must apply on a large scale the\nprinciple of collective production, give the State eminent domain over\nall capital! make each producer responsible, abolish the custom-house,\nand transform every profession and trade into a public function. Thereby\nlarge fortunes will vanish without confiscation or violence; individual\npossession will establish itself, without communism, under the\ninspection of the republic; and equality of conditions will no longer\ndepend simply on the will of citizens.\n\nOf the authors who have written upon the Romans, Bossuet and Montesquieu\noccupy prominent positions in the first rank; the first being generally\nregarded as the father of the philosophy of history, and the second as\nthe most profound writer upon law and politics. Nevertheless, it could\nbe shown that these two great writers, each of them imbued with the\nprejudices of their century and their cloth, have left the question of\nthe causes of the rise and fall of the Romans precisely where they found\nit.\n\nBossuet is admirable as long as he confines himself to description:\nwitness, among other passages, the picture which he has given us\nof Greece before the Persian War, and which seems to have inspired\n\"Telemachus;\" the parallel between Athens and Sparta, drawn twenty\ntimes since Bossuet; the description of the character and morals of\nthe ancient Romans; and, finally, the sublime peroration which ends the\n\"Discourse on Universal History.\" But when the famous historian deals\nwith causes, his philosophy is at fault.\n\n\n\"The tribunes always favored the division of captured lands, or the\nproceeds of their sale, among the citizens. The Senate steadfastly\nopposed those laws which were damaging to the State, and wanted the\nprice of lands to be awarded to the public treasury.\"\n\n\nThus, according to Bossuet, the first and greatest wrong of civil wars\nwas inflicted upon the people, who, dying of hunger, demanded that the\nlands, which they had shed their blood to conquer, should be given to\nthem for cultivation. The patricians, who bought them to deliver to\ntheir slaves, had more regard for justice and the public interests.\nHow little affects the opinions of men! If the roles of Cicero and the\nGracchi had been inverted, Bossuet, whose sympathies were aroused by the\neloquence of the great orator more than by the clamors of the tribunes,\nwould have viewed the agrarian laws in quite a different light. He\nthen would have understood that the interest of the treasury was only\na pretext; that, when the captured lands were put up at auction, the\npatricians hastened to buy them, in order to profit by the revenues from\nthem,--certain, moreover, that the price paid would come back to them\nsooner or later, in exchange either for supplies furnished by them to\nthe republic, or for the subsistence of the multitude, who could buy\nonly of them, and whose services at one time, and poverty at another,\nwere rewarded by the State. For a State does not hoard; on the contrary,\nthe public funds always return to the people. If, then, a certain number\nof men are the sole dealers in articles of primary necessity, it follows\nthat the public treasury, in passing and repassing through their hands,\ndeposits and accumulates real property there.\n\nWhen Menenius related to the people his fable of the limbs and the\nstomach, if any one had remarked to this story-teller that the stomach\nfreely gives to the limbs the nourishment which it freely receives, but\nthat the patricians gave to the plebeians only for cash, and lent to\nthem only at usury, he undoubtedly would have silenced the wily senator,\nand saved the people from a great imposition. The Conscript Fathers\nwere fathers only of their own line. As for the common people, they were\nregarded as an impure race, exploitable, taxable, and workable at the\ndiscretion and mercy of their masters.\n\nAs a general thing, Bossuet shows little regard for the people. His\nmonarchical and theological instincts know nothing but authority,\nobedience, and alms-giving, under the name of charity.\n\nThis unfortunate disposition constantly leads him to mistake symptoms\nfor causes; and his depth, which is so much admired, is borrowed from\nhis authors, and amounts to very little, after all.\n\nWhen he says, for instance, that \"the dissensions in the republic, and\nfinally its fall, were caused by the jealousies of its citizens, and\ntheir love of liberty carried to an extreme and intolerable extent,\" are\nwe not tempted to ask him what caused those JEALOUSIES?--what inspired\nthe people with that LOVE OF LIBERTY, EXTREME AND INTOLERABLE? It would\nbe useless to reply, The corruption of morals; the disregard for the\nancient poverty; the debaucheries, luxury, and class jealousies; the\nseditious character of the Gracchi, &c. Why did the morals become\ncorrupt, and whence arose those eternal dissensions between the\npatricians and the plebeians?\n\nIn Rome, as in all other places, the dissension between the rich and\nthe poor was not caused directly by the desire for wealth (people, as\na general thing, do not covet that which they deem it illegitimate to\nacquire), but by a natural instinct of the plebeians, which led them to\nseek the cause of their adversity in the constitution of the republic.\nSo we are doing to-day; instead of altering our public economy, we\ndemand an electoral reform. The Roman people wished to return to the\nsocial compact; they asked for reforms, and demanded a revision of\nthe laws, and a creation of new magistracies. The patricians, who had\nnothing to complain of, opposed every innovation. Wealth always has been\nconservative. Nevertheless, the people overcame the resistance of the\nSenate; the electoral right was greatly extended; the privileges of\nthe plebeians were increased,--they had their representatives, their\ntribunes, and their consuls; but, notwithstanding these reforms, the\nrepublic could not be saved. When all political expedients had been\nexhausted, when civil war had depleted the population, when the Caesars\nhad thrown their bloody mantle over the cancer which was consuming the\nempire,--inasmuch as accumulated property always was respected, and\nsince the fire never stopped, the nation had to perish in the flames.\nThe imperial power was a compromise which protected the property of the\nrich, and nourished the proletaires with wheat from Africa and Sicily:\na double error, which destroyed the aristocrats by plethora and\nthe commoners by famine. At last there was but one real proprietor\nleft,--the emperor,--whose dependent, flatterer, parasite, or slave,\neach citizen became; and when this proprietor was ruined, those who\ngathered the crumbs from under his table, and laughed when he cracked\nhis jokes, perished also.\n\nMontesquieu succeeded no better than Bossuet in fathoming the causes of\nthe Roman decline; indeed, it may be said that the president has only\ndeveloped the ideas of the bishop. If the Romans had been more moderate\nin their conquests, more just to their allies, more humane to the\nvanquished; if the nobles had been less covetous, the emperors less\nlawless, the people less violent, and all classes less corrupt; if...\n&c.,--perhaps the dignity of the empire might have been preserved, and\nRome might have retained the sceptre of the world! That is all that can\nbe gathered from the teachings of Montesquieu. But the truth of history\ndoes not lie there; the destinies of the world are not dependent upon\nsuch trivial causes. The passions of men, like the contingencies of time\nand the varieties of climate, serve to maintain the forces which move\nhumanity and produce all historical changes; but they do not explain\nthem. The grain of sand of which Pascal speaks would have caused the\ndeath of one man only, had not prior action ordered the events of which\nthis death was the precursor.\n\nMontesquieu has read extensively; he knows Roman history thoroughly, is\nperfectly well acquainted with the people of whom he speaks, and sees\nvery clearly why they were able to conquer their rivals and govern the\nworld. While reading him we admire the Romans, but we do not like them;\nwe witness their triumphs without pleasure, and we watch their fall\nwithout sorrow. Montesquieu's work, like the works of all French\nwriters, is skilfully composed,--spirited, witty, and filled with wise\nobservations. He pleases, interests, instructs, but leads to little\nreflection; he does not conquer by depth of thought; he does not exalt\nthe mind by elevated reason or earnest feeling. In vain should we search\nhis writings for knowledge of antiquity, the character of primitive\nsociety, or a description of the heroic ages, whose morals and\nprejudices lived until the last days of the republic. Vico, painting the\nRomans with their horrible traits, represents them as excusable, because\nhe shows that all their conduct was governed by preexisting ideas and\ncustoms, and that they were informed, so to speak, by a superior genius\nof which they were unconscious; in Montesquieu, the Roman atrocity\nrevolts, but is not explained. Therefore, as a writer, Montesquieu\nbrings greater credit upon French literature; as a philosopher, Vico\nbears away the palm.\n\nOriginally, property in Rome was national, not private. Numa was\nthe first to establish individual property by distributing the lands\ncaptured by Romulus. What was the dividend of this distribution effected\nby Numa? What conditions were imposed upon individuals, what powers\nreserved to the State? None whatever. Inequality of fortunes, absolute\nabdication by the republic of its right of eminent domain over the\nproperty of citizens,--such were the first results of the division of\nNuma, who justly may be regarded as the originator of Roman revolutions.\nHe it was who instituted the worship of the god Terminus,--the guardian\nof private possession, and one of the most ancient gods of Italy. It\nwas Numa who placed property under the protection of Jupiter; who,\nin imitation of the Etrurians, wished to make priests of the\nland-surveyors; who invented a liturgy for cadastral operations, and\nceremonies of consecration for the marking of boundaries,--who, in\nshort, made a religion of property. [51] All these fancies would have\nbeen more beneficial than dangerous, if the holy king had not forgotten\none essential thing; namely, to fix the amount that each citizen could\npossess, and on what conditions he could possess it. For, since it is\nthe essence of property to continually increase by accession and profit,\nand since the lender will take advantage of every opportunity to apply\nthis principle inherent in property, it follows that properties tend, by\nmeans of their natural energy and the religious respect which protects\nthem, to absorb each other, and fortunes to increase or diminish to an\nindefinite extent,--a process which necessarily results in the ruin\nof the people, and the fall of the republic. Roman history is but the\ndevelopment of this law.\n\n\nScarcely had the Tarquins been banished from Rome and the monarchy\nabolished, when quarrels commenced between the orders. In the year\n494 B.C., the secession of the commonalty to the Mons Sacer led to the\nestablishment of the tribunate. Of what did the plebeians complain?\nThat they were poor, exhausted by the interest which they paid to the\nproprietors,--_foeneratoribus;_ that the republic, administered for the\nbenefit of the nobles, did nothing for the people; that, delivered over\nto the mercy of their creditors, who could sell them and their children,\nand having neither hearth nor home, they were refused the means of\nsubsistence, while the rate of interest was kept at its highest point,\n&c. For five centuries, the sole policy of the Senate was to evade\nthese just complaints; and, notwithstanding the energy of the tribunes,\nnotwithstanding the eloquence of the Gracchi, the violence of Marius,\nand the triumph of Caesar, this execrable policy succeeded only too\nwell. The Senate always temporized; the measures proposed by the\ntribunes might be good, but they were inopportune. It admitted that\nsomething should be done; but first it was necessary that the people\nshould resume the performance of their duties, because the Senate could\nnot yield to violence, and force must be employed only by the law. If\nthe people--out of respect for legality--took this beautiful advice, the\nSenate conjured up a difficulty; the reform was postponed, and that was\nthe end of it. On the contrary, if the demands of the proletaires became\ntoo pressing, it declared a foreign war, and neighboring nations were\ndeprived of their liberty, to maintain the Roman aristocracy.\n\nBut the toils of war were only a halt for the plebeians in their onward\nmarch towards pauperism. The lands confiscated from the conquered\nnations were immediately added to the domain of the State, to the ager\npublicus; and, as such, cultivated for the benefit of the treasury; or,\nas was more often the case, they were sold at auction. None of them were\ngranted to the proletaires, who, unlike the patricians and knights, were\nnot supplied by the victory with the means of buying them. War never\nenriched the soldier; the extensive plundering has been done always by\nthe generals. The vans of Augereau, and of twenty others, are famous in\nour armies; but no one ever heard of a private getting rich. Nothing was\nmore common in Rome than charges of peculation, extortion, embezzlement,\nand brigandage, carried on in the provinces at the head of armies, and\nin other public capacities. All these charges were quieted by intrigue,\nbribery of the judges, or desistance of the accuser. The culprit was\nallowed always in the end to enjoy his spoils in peace; his son was only\nthe more respected on account of his father's crimes. And, in fact, it\ncould not be otherwise. What would become of us, if every deputy, peer,\nor public functionary should be called upon to show his title to his\nfortune!\n\n\n\"The patricians arrogated the exclusive enjoyment of the ager publicus;\nand, like the feudal seigniors, granted some portions of their lands to\ntheir dependants,--a wholly precarious concession, revocable at the will\nof the grantor. The plebeians, on the contrary, were entitled to the\nenjoyment of only a little pasture-land left to them in common:\nan utterly unjust state of things, since, in consequence of it,\ntaxation--_census_--weighed more heavily upon the poor than upon the\nrich. The patrician, in fact, always exempted himself from the tithe\nwhich he owed as the price and as the acknowledgment of the concession\nof domain; and, on the other hand, paid no taxes on his POSSESSIONS,\nif, as there is good reason to believe, only citizens' property was\ntaxed.\"--Laboulaye: History of Property.\n\n\nIn order thoroughly to understand the preceding quotation, we must know\nthat the estates of CITIZENS--that is, estates independent of the public\ndomain, whether they were obtained in the division of Numa, or had since\nbeen sold by the questors--were alone regarded as PROPERTY; upon these\na tax, or _cense_, was imposed. On the contrary, the estates obtained\nby concessions of the public domain, of the ager publicus (for which a\nlight rent was paid), were called POSSESSIONS. Thus, among the Romans,\nthere was a RIGHT OF PROPERTY and a RIGHT OF POSSESSION regulating the\nadministration of all estates. Now, what did the proletaires wish? That\nthe jus possessionis--the simple right of possession--should be extended\nto them at the expense, as is evident, not of private property, but of\nthe public domain,--agri publici. The proletaires, in short, demanded\nthat they should be tenants of the land which they had conquered. This\ndemand, the patricians in their avarice never would accede to. Buying\nas much of this land as they could, they afterwards found means of\nobtaining the rest as POSSESSIONS. Upon this land they employed their\nslaves. The people, who could not buy, on account of the competition\nof the rich, nor hire, because--cultivating with their own hands--they\ncould not promise a rent equal to the revenue which the land would\nyield when cultivated by slaves, were always deprived of possession and\nproperty.\n\nCivil wars relieved, to some extent, the sufferings of the multitude.\n\"The people enrolled themselves under the banners of the ambitious, in\norder to obtain by force that which the law refused them,--property. A\ncolony was the reward of a victorious legion. But it was no longer\nthe ager publicus only; it was all Italy that lay at the mercy of the\nlegions. The ager publicus disappeared almost entirely,... but the\ncause of the evil--accumulated property--became more potent than ever.\"\n(Laboulaye: History of Property.)\n\n\nThe author whom I quote does not tell us why this division of\nterritory which followed civil wars did not arrest the encroachments of\naccumulated property; the omission is easily supplied. Land is not\nthe only requisite for cultivation; a working-stock is also\nnecessary,--animals, tools, harnesses, a house, an advance, &c. Where\ndid the colonists, discharged by the dictator who rewarded them, obtain\nthese things? From the purse of the usurers; that is, of the patricians,\nto whom all these lands finally returned, in consequence of the rapid\nincrease of usury, and the seizure of estates. Sallust, in his account\nof the conspiracy of Catiline, tells us of this fact. The conspirators\nwere old soldiers of Sylla, who, as a reward for their services, had\nreceived from him lands in Cisalpine Gaul, Tuscany, and other parts of\nthe peninsula Less than twenty years had elapsed since these colonists,\nfree of debt, had left the service and commenced farming; and already\nthey were crippled by usury, and almost ruined. The poverty caused\nby the exactions of creditors was the life of this conspiracy which\nwell-nigh inflamed all Italy, and which, with a worthier chief and\nfairer means, possibly would have succeeded. In Rome, the mass of the\npeople were favorable to the conspirators--_cuncta plebes Catilinae\nincepta probabat;_ the allies were weary of the patricians' robberies;\ndeputies from the Allobroges (the Savoyards) had come to Rome to appeal\nto the Senate in behalf of their fellow-citizens involved in debt; in\nshort, the complaint against the large proprietors was universal. \"We\ncall men and gods to witness,\" said the soldiers of Catiline, who were\nRoman citizens with not a slave among them, \"that we have taken arms\nneither against the country, nor to attack any one, but in defence of\nour lives and liberties. Wretched, poor, most of us deprived of country,\nall of us of fame and fortune, by the violence and cruelty of usurers,\nwe have no rights, no property, no liberty.\" [52]\n\n\nThe bad reputation of Catiline, and his atrocious designs, the\nimprudence of his accomplices, the treason of several, the strategy\nof Cicero, the angry outbursts of Cato, and the terror of the\nSenate, baffled this enterprise, which, in furnishing a precedent for\nexpeditions against the rich, would perhaps have saved the republic, and\ngiven peace to the world. But Rome could not evade her destiny; the end\nof her expiations had not come. A nation never was known to anticipate\nits punishment by a sudden and unexpected conversion. Now, the\nlong-continued crimes of the Eternal City could not be atoned for by\nthe massacre of a few hundred patricians. Catiline came to stay divine\nvengeance; therefore his conspiracy failed.\n\nThe encroachment of large proprietors upon small proprietors, by the aid\nof usury, farm-rent, and profits of all sorts, was common throughout the\nempire. The most honest citizens invested their money at high rates of\ninterest. [53] Cato, Cicero, Brutus, all the stoics so noted for\ntheir frugality, _viri frugi_,--Seneca, the teacher of virtue,--levied\nenormous taxes in the provinces, under the name of usury; and it is\nsomething remarkable, that the last defenders of the republic, the proud\nPompeys, were all usurious aristocrats, and oppressors of the poor.\nBut the battle of Pharsalus, having killed men only, without touching\ninstitutions, the encroachments of the large domains became every day\nmore active. Ever since the birth of Christianity, the Fathers have\nopposed this invasion with all their might. Their writings are filled\nwith burning curses upon this crime of usury, of which Christians are\nnot always innocent.\n\n\nSt. Cyprian complains of certain bishops of his time, who, absorbed in\ndisgraceful stock-jobbing operations, abandoned their churches, and went\nabout the provinces appropriating lands by artifice and fraud, while\nlending money and piling up interests upon interests. [54] Why, in the\nmidst of this passion for accumulation, did not the possession of the\npublic land, like private property, become concentrated in a few hands?\n\n\nBy law, the domain of the State was inalienable, and consequently\npossession was always revocable; but the edict of the praetor continued\nit indefinitely, so that finally the possessions of the patricians were\ntransformed into absolute property, though the name, possessions,\nwas still applied to them. This conversion, instigated by senatorial\navarice; owed its accomplishment to the most deplorable and indiscreet\npolicy. If, in the time of Tiberius Gracchus, who wished to limit each\ncitizen's possession of the ager publicus to five hundred acres, the\namount of this possession had been fixed at as much as one family could\ncultivate, and granted on the express condition that the possessor\nshould cultivate it himself, and should lease it to no one, the empire\nnever would have been desolated by large estates; and possession,\ninstead of increasing property, would have absorbed it. On what, then,\ndepended the establishment and maintenance of equality in conditions\nand fortunes? On a more equitable division of the ager publicus, a wiser\ndistribution of the right of possession.\n\nI insist upon this point, which is of the utmost importance, because\nit gives us an opportunity to examine the history of this individual\npossession, of which I said so much in my first memoir, and which so few\nof my readers seem to have understood. The Roman republic--having, as\nit did, the power to dispose absolutely of its territory, and to impose\nconditions upon possessors--was nearer to liberty and equality than any\nnation has been since. If the Senate had been intelligent and just,--if,\nat the time of the retreat to the Mons Sacer, instead of the ridiculous\nfarce enacted by Menenius Agrippa, a solemn renunciation of the right\nto acquire had been made by each citizen on attaining his share of\npossessions,--the republic, based upon equality of possessions and the\nduty of labor, would not, in attaining its wealth, have degenerated\nin morals; Fabricius would have enjoyed the arts without controlling\nartists; and the conquests of the ancient Romans would have been the\nmeans of spreading civilization, instead of the series of murders and\nrobberies that they were.\n\nBut property, having unlimited power to amass and to lease, was daily\nincreased by the addition of new possessions. From the time of Nero, six\nindividuals were the sole proprietors of one-half of Roman Africa. In\nthe fifth century, the wealthy families had incomes of no less than\ntwo millions: some possessed as many as twenty thousand slaves. All\nthe authors who have written upon the causes of the fall of the Roman\nrepublic concur.\n\nM. Giraud of Aix [55] quotes the testimony of Cicero, Seneca, Plutarch,\nOlympiodorus, and Photius. Under Vespasian and Titus, Pliny, the\nnaturalist, exclaimed: \"Large estates have ruined Italy, and are ruining\nthe provinces.\"\n\n\nBut it never has been understood that the extension of property was\neffected then, as it is to-day, under the aegis of the law, and by\nvirtue of the constitution. When the Senate sold captured lands at\nauction, it was in the interest of the treasury and of public welfare.\nWhen the patricians bought up possessions and property, they realized\nthe purpose of the Senate's decrees; when they lent at high rates of\ninterest, they took advantage of a legal privilege. \"Property,\" said the\nlender, \"is the right to enjoy even to the extent of abuse, _jus utendi\net abutendi_; that is, the right to lend at interest,--to lease, to\nacquire, and then to lease and lend again.\" But property is also the\nright to exchange, to transfer, and to sell. If, then, the social\ncondition is such that the proprietor, ruined by usury, may be compelled\nto sell his possession, the means of his subsistence, he will sell\nit; and, thanks to the law, accumulated property--devouring and\nanthropophagous property--will be established.[56]\n\n\nThe immediate and secondary cause of the decline of the Romans\nwas, then, the internal dissensions between the two orders of the\nrepublic,--the patricians and the plebeians,--dissensions which gave\nrise to civil wars, proscriptions, and loss of liberty, and finally led\nto the empire; but the primary and mediate cause of their decline was\nthe establishment by Numa of the institution of property.\n\nI end with an extract from a work which I have quoted several times\nalready, and which has recently received a prize from the Academy of\nMoral and Political Sciences:--\n\n\n\"The concentration of property,\" says M. Laboulaye, \"while causing\nextreme poverty, forced the emperors to feed and amuse the people, that\nthey might forget their misery. _Panem et circenses:_ that was the Roman\nlaw in regard to the poor; a dire and perhaps a necessary evil wherever\na landed aristocracy exists.\n\n\"To feed these hungry mouths, grain was brought from Africa and the\nprovinces, and distributed gratuitously among the needy. In the time of\nCaesar, three hundred and twenty thousand people were thus fed. Augustus\nsaw that such a measure led directly to the destruction of husbandry;\nbut to abolish these distributions was to put a weapon within the reach\nof the first aspirant for power.\n\n\"The emperor shrank at the thought.\n\n\"While grain was gratuitous, agriculture was impossible. Tillage gave\nway to pasturage, another cause of depopulation, even among slaves.\n\n\"Finally, luxury, carried further and further every day, covered the\nsoil of Italy with elegant villas, which occupied whole cantons. Gardens\nand groves replaced the fields, and the free population fled to the\ntowns. Husbandry disappeared almost entirely, and with husbandry the\nhusbandman. Africa furnished the wheat, and Greece the wine. Tiberius\ncomplained bitterly of this evil, which placed the lives of the Roman\npeople at the mercy of the winds and waves: that was his anxiety. One\nday later, and three hundred thousand starving men walked the streets of\nRome: that was a revolution.\n\n\"This decline of Italy and the provinces did not stop. After the\nreign of Nero, depopulation commenced in towns as noted as Antium and\nTarentum. Under the reign of Pertinax, there was so much desert land\nthat the emperor abandoned it, even that which belonged to the treasury,\nto whoever would cultivate it, besides exempting the farmers from\ntaxation for a period of ten years. Senators were compelled to invest\none-third of their fortunes in real estate in Italy; but this measure\nserved only to increase the evil which they wished to cure. To force\nthe rich to possess in Italy was to increase the large estates which\nhad ruined the country. And must I say, finally, that Aurelian wished to\nsend the captives into the desert lands of Etruria, and that Valentinian\nwas forced to settle the Alamanni on the fertile banks of the Po?\"\n\n\nIf the reader, in running through this book, should complain of meeting\nwith nothing but quotations from other works, extracts from journals\nand public lectures, comments upon laws, and interpretations of them, I\nwould remind him that the very object of this memoir is to establish the\nconformity of my opinion concerning property with that universally held;\nthat, far from aiming at a paradox, it has been my main study to follow\nthe advice of the world; and, finally, that my sole pretension is to\nclearly formulate the general belief. I cannot repeat it too often,--and\nI confess it with pride,--I teach absolutely nothing that is new; and I\nshould regard the doctrine which I advocate as radically erroneous, if a\nsingle witness should testify against it.\n\nLet us now trace the revolutions in property among the Barbarians.\n\nAs long as the German tribes dwelt in their forests, it did not occur\nto them to divide and appropriate the soil. The land was held in common:\neach individual could plow, sow, and reap. But, when the empire was once\ninvaded, they bethought themselves of sharing the land, just as\nthey shared spoils after a victory. \"Hence,\" says M. Laboulaye, \"the\nexpressions _sortes Burgundiorum Gothorum_ and {GREEK, ' k }; hence the\nGerman words _allod_, allodium, and _loos_, lot, which are used in all\nmodern languages to designate the gifts of chance.\"\n\nAllodial property, at least with the mass of coparceners, was originally\nheld, then, in equal shares; for all of the prizes were equal, or, at\nleast, equivalent. This property, like that of the Romans, was wholly\nindividual, independent, exclusive, transferable, and consequently\nsusceptible of accumulation and invasion. But, instead of its being, as\nwas the case among the Romans, the large estate which, through\nincrease and usury, subordinated and absorbed the small one, among\nthe Barbarians--fonder of war than of wealth, more eager to dispose\nof persons than to appropriate things--it was the warrior who, through\nsuperiority of arms, enslaved his adversary. The Roman wanted matter;\nthe Barbarian wanted man. Consequently, in the feudal ages, rents were\nalmost nothing,--simply a hare, a partridge, a pie, a few pints of wine\nbrought by a little girl, or a Maypole set up within the suzerain's\nreach. In return, the vassal or incumbent had to follow the seignior\nto battle (a thing which happened almost every day), and equip and feed\nhimself at his own expense. \"This spirit of the German tribes--this\nspirit of companionship and association--governed the territory as it\ngoverned individuals. The lands, like the men, were secured to a chief\nor seignior by a bond of mutual protection and fidelity. This subjection\nwas the labor of the German epoch which gave birth to feudalism. By fair\nmeans or foul, every proprietor who could not be a chief was forced to\nbe a vassal.\" (Laboulaye: History of Property.)\n\nBy fair means or foul, every mechanic who cannot be a master has to be\na journeyman; every proprietor who is not an invader will be invaded;\nevery producer who cannot, by the exploitation of other men, furnish\nproducts at less than their proper value, will lose his labor.\nCorporations and masterships, which are hated so bitterly, but which\nwill reappear if we are not careful, are the necessary results of\nthe principle of competition which is inherent in property; their\norganization was patterned formerly after that of the feudal hierarchy,\nwhich was the result of the subordination of men and possessions.\n\nThe times which paved the way for the advent of feudalism and the\nreappearance of large proprietors were times of carnage and the most\nfrightful anarchy. Never before had murder and violence made such havoc\nwith the human race. The tenth century, among others, if my memory\nserves me rightly, was called the CENTURY OF IRON. His property, his\nlife, and the honor of his wife and children always in danger the\nsmall proprietor made haste to do homage to his seignior, and to\nbestow something on the church of his freehold, that he might receive\nprotection and security.\n\n\n\"Both facts and laws bear witness that from the sixth to the tenth\ncentury the proprietors of small freeholds were gradually plundered,\nor reduced by the encroachments of large proprietors and counts to the\ncondition of either vassals or tributaries. The Capitularies are full\nof repressive provisions; but the incessant reiteration of these\nthreats only shows the perseverance of the evil and the impotency of the\ngovernment. Oppression, moreover, varies but little in its methods. The\ncomplaints of the free proprietors, and the groans of the plebeians\nat the time of the Gracchi, were one and the same. It is said that,\nwhenever a poor man refused to give his estate to the bishop, the\ncurate, the count, the judge, or the centurion, these immediately sought\nan opportunity to ruin him. They made him serve in the army until,\ncompletely ruined, he was induced, by fair means or foul, to give up his\nfreehold.\"--Laboulaye: History of Property.\n\nHow many small proprietors and manufacturers have not been ruined by\nlarge ones through chicanery, law-suits, and competition? Strategy,\nviolence, and usury,--such are the proprietor's methods of plundering\nthe laborer.\n\nThus we see property, at all ages and in all its forms, oscillating by\nvirtue of its principle between two opposite terms,--extreme division\nand extreme accumulation.\n\nProperty, at its first term, is almost null. Reduced to personal\nexploitation, it is property only potentially. At its second term, it\nexists in its perfection; then it is truly property.\n\nWhen property is widely distributed, society thrives, progresses, grows,\nand rises quickly to the zenith of its power. Thus, the Jews, after\nleaving Babylon with Esdras and Nehemiah, soon became richer and more\npowerful than they had been under their kings. Sparta was in a strong\nand prosperous condition during the two or three centuries which\nfollowed the death of Lycurgus. The best days of Athens were those of\nthe Persian war; Rome, whose inhabitants were divided from the beginning\ninto two classes,--the exploiters and the exploited,--knew no such thing\nas peace.\n\nWhen property is concentrated, society, abusing itself, polluted, so\nto speak, grows corrupt, wears itself out--how shall I express this\nhorrible idea?--plunges into long-continued and fatal luxury.\n\nWhen feudalism was established, society had to die of the same disease\nwhich killed it under the Caesars,--I mean accumulated property. But\nhumanity, created for an immortal destiny, is deathless; the revolutions\nwhich disturb it are purifying crises, invariably followed by more\nvigorous health. In the fifth century, the invasion of the Barbarians\npartially restored the world to a state of natural equality. In the\ntwelfth century, a new spirit pervading all society gave the slave his\nrights, and through justice breathed new life into the heart of nations.\nIt has been said, and often repeated, that Christianity regenerated the\nworld. That is true; but it seems to me that there is a mistake in\nthe date. Christianity had no influence upon Roman society; when the\nBarbarians came, that society had disappeared. For such is God's curse\nupon property; every political organization based upon the exploitation\nof man, shall perish: slave-labor is death to the race of tyrants. The\npatrician families became extinct, as the feudal families did, and as\nall aristocracies must.\n\nIt was in the middle ages, when a reactionary movement was beginning\nto secretly undermine accumulated property, that the influence of\nChristianity was first exercised to its full extent.\n\nThe destruction of feudalism, the conversion of the serf into the\ncommoner, the emancipation of the communes, and the admission of the\nThird Estate to political power, were deeds accomplished by Christianity\nexclusively. I say Christianity, not ecclesiasticism; for the priests\nand bishops were themselves large proprietors, and as such often\npersecuted the villeins. Without the Christianity of the middle ages,\nthe existence of modern society could not be explained, and would not be\npossible.\n\nThe truth of this assertion is shown by the very facts which M.\nLaboulaye quotes, although this author inclines to the opposite opinion.\n[57]\n\nNow, we did not commence to love God and to think of our salvation until\nafter the promulgation of the Gospel.\n\n\n1. Slavery among the Romans.--\"The Roman slave was, in the eyes of\nthe law, only a thing,--no more than an ox or a horse. He had neither\nproperty, family, nor personality; he was defenceless against his\nmaster's cruelty, folly, or cupidity. 'Sell your oxen that are past\nuse,' said Cato, 'sell your calves, your lambs, your wool, your hides,\nyour old ploughs, your old iron, your old slave, and your sick slave,\nand all that is of no use to you.' When no market could be found for the\nslaves that were worn out by sickness or old age, they were abandoned to\nstarvation. Claudius was the first defender of this shameful practice.\"\n\n\n\"Discharge your old workman,\" says the economist of the proprietary\nschool; \"turn off that sick domestic, that toothless and worn-out\nservant. Put away the unserviceable beauty; to the hospital with the\nuseless mouths!\"\n\n\n\"The condition of these wretched beings improved but little under the\nemperors; and the best that can be said of the goodness of Antoninus\nis that he prohibited intolerable cruelty, as an ABUSE OF PROPERTY.\n_Expedit enim reipublicae ne quis re re sua male utatur_, says Gaius.\n\n\"As soon as the Church met in council, it launched an anathema against\nthe masters who had exercised over their slaves this terrible right of\nlife and death. Were not the slaves, thanks to the right of sanctuary\nand to their poverty, the dearest proteges of religion? Constantine, who\nembodied in the laws the grand ideas of Christianity, valued the life of\na slave as highly as that of a freeman, and declared the master, who had\nintentionally brought death upon his slave, guilty of murder. Between\nthis law and that of Antoninus there is a complete revolution in moral\nideas: the slave was a thing; religion has made him a man.\"\n\nNote the last words: \"Between the law of the Gospel and that of\nAntoninus there is a complete revolution in moral ideas: the slave was\na thing; religion has made him a man.\" The moral revolution which\ntransformed the slave into a citizen was effected, then, by Christianity\nbefore the Barbarians set foot upon the soil of the empire. We have\nonly to trace the progress of this MORAL revolution in the PERSONNEL\nof society. \"But,\" M. Laboulaye rightly says, \"it did not change the\ncondition of men in a moment, any more than that of things; between\nslavery and liberty there was an abyss which could not be filled in a\nday; the transitional step was servitude.\"\n\nNow, what was servitude? In what did it differ from Roman slavery, and\nwhence came this difference? Let the same author answer.\n\n\n2. Of servitude.--\"I see, in the lord's manor, slaves charged with\ndomestic duties. Some are employed in the personal service of the\nmaster; others are charged with household cares. The women spin the\nwool; the men grind the grain, make the bread, or practise, in the\ninterest of the seignior, what little they know of the industrial arts.\nThe master punishes them when he chooses, kills them with impunity, and\nsells them and theirs like so many cattle. The slave has no personality,\nand consequently no _wehrgeld_ [59] peculiar to himself: he is a thing.\nThe _wehrgeld_ belongs to the master as a compensation for the loss of\nhis property. Whether the slave is killed or stolen, the indemnity does\nnot change, for the injury is the same; but the indemnity increases or\ndiminishes according to the value of the serf. In all these particulars\nGermanic slavery and Roman servitude are alike.\"\n\nThis similarity is worthy of notice. Slavery is always the same, whether\nin a Roman villa or on a Barbarian farm. The man, like the ox and the\nass, is a part of the live-stock; a price is set upon his head; he is a\ntool without a conscience, a chattel without personality, an impeccable,\nirresponsible being, who has neither rights nor duties.\n\n\nWhy did his condition improve?\n\n\n\"In good season...\" [when?] \"the serf began to be regarded as a man;\nand, as such, the law of the Visigoths, under the influence of Christian\nideas, punished with fine or banishment any one who maimed or killed\nhim.\"\n\n\nAlways Christianity, always religion, though we should like to speak\nof the laws only. Did the philanthropy of the Visigoths make its first\nappearance before or after the preaching of the Gospel? This point must\nbe cleared up.\n\n\n\"After the conquest, the serfs were scattered over the large estates\nof the Barbarians, each having his house, his lot, and his peculium, in\nreturn for which he paid rent and performed service. They were rarely\nseparated from their homes when their land was sold; they and all that\nthey had became the property of the purchaser. The law favored this\nrealization of the serf, in not allowing him to be sold out of the\ncountry.\"\n\n\nWhat inspired this law, destructive not only of slavery, but of property\nitself? For, if the master cannot drive from his domain the slave whom\nhe has once established there, it follows that the slave is proprietor,\nas well as the master.\n\n\n\"The Barbarians,\" again says M. Laboulaye, \"were the first to recognize\nthe slave's rights of family and property,--two rights which are\nincompatible with slavery.\"\n\n\nBut was this recognition the necessary result of the mode of servitude\nin vogue among the Germanic nations previous to their conversion to\nChristianity, or was it the immediate effect of that spirit of justice\ninfused with religion, by which the seignior was forced to respect in\nthe serf a soul equal to his own, a brother in Jesus Christ, purified by\nthe same baptism, and redeemed by the same sacrifice of the Son of God\nin the form of man? For we must not close our eyes to the fact that,\nthough the Barbarian morals and the ignorance and carelessness of the\nseigniors, who busied themselves mainly with wars and battles, paying\nlittle or no attention to agriculture, may have been great aids in\nthe emancipation of the serfs, still the vital principle of this\nemancipation was essentially Christian. Suppose that the Barbarians had\nremained Pagans in the midst of a Pagan world. As they did not change\nthe Gospel, so they would not have changed the polytheistic customs;\nslavery would have remained what it was; they would have continued to\nkill the slaves who were desirous of liberty, family, and property;\nwhole nations would have been reduced to the condition of Helots;\nnothing would have changed upon the terrestrial stage, except the\nactors. The Barbarians were less selfish, less imperious, less\ndissolute, and less cruel than the Romans. Such was the nature upon\nwhich, after the fall of the empire and the renovation of society,\nChristianity was to act. But this nature, grounded as in former times\nupon slavery and war, would, by its own energy, have produced nothing\nbut war and slavery.\n\n\n\"GRADUALLY the serfs obtained the privilege of being judged by the same\nstandard as their masters....\"\n\nWhen, how, and by what title did they obtain this privilege?\n\n\"GRADUALLY their duties were regulated.\"\n\n\nWhence came the regulations? Who had the authority to introduce them?\n\n\n\"The master took a part of the labor of the serf,--three days, for\ninstance,--and left the rest to him. As for Sunday, that belonged to\nGod.\"\n\n\nAnd what established Sunday, if not religion? Whence I infer, that\nthe same power which took it upon itself to suspend hostilities and\nto lighten the duties of the serf was also that which regulated the\njudiciary and created a sort of law for the slave.\n\nBut this law itself, on what did it bear?--what was its principle?--what\nwas the philosophy of the councils and popes with reference to this\nmatter? The reply to all these questions, coming from me alone, would\nbe distrusted. The authority of M. Laboulaye shall give credence to my\nwords. This holy philosophy, to which the slaves were indebted for every\nthing, this invocation of the Gospel, was an anathema against property.\n\nThe proprietors of small freeholds, that is, the freemen of the middle\nclass, had fallen, in consequence of the tyranny of the nobles, into a\nworse condition than that of the tenants and serfs. \"The expenses of war\nweighed less heavily upon the serf than upon the freeman; and, as for\nlegal protection, the seigniorial court, where the serf was judged by\nhis peers, was far preferable to the cantonal assembly. It was better to\nhave a noble for a seignior than for a judge.\"\n\nSo it is better to-day to have a man of large capital for an associate\nthan for a rival. The honest tenant--the laborer who earns weekly a\nmoderate but constant salary--is more to be envied than the independent\nbut small farmer, or the poor licensed mechanic.\n\nAt that time, all were either seigniors or serfs, oppressors or\noppressed. \"Then, under the protection of convents, or of the\nseigniorial turret, new societies were formed, which silently spread\nover the soil made fertile by their hands, and which derived their power\nfrom the annihilation of the free classes whom they enlisted in their\nbehalf. As tenants, these men acquired, from generation to generation,\nsacred rights over the soil which they cultivated in the interest of\nlazy and pillaging masters. As fast as the social tempest abated, it\nbecame necessary to respect the union and heritage of these villeins,\nwho by their labor had truly prescribed the soil for their own profit.\"\n\nI ask how prescription could take effect where a contrary title and\npossession already existed? M. Laboulaye is a lawyer. Where, then, did\nhe ever see the labor of the slave and the cultivation by the tenant\nprescribe the soil for their own profit, to the detriment of a\nrecognized master daily acting as a proprietor? Let us not disguise\nmatters. As fast as the tenants and the serfs grew rich, they wished\nto be independent and free; they commenced to associate, unfurl their\nmunicipal banners, raise belfries, fortify their towns, and refuse to\npay their seigniorial dues. In doing these things they were perfectly\nright; for, in fact, their condition was intolerable. But in law--I mean\nin Roman and Napoleonic law--their refusal to obey and pay tribute to\ntheir masters was illegitimate.\n\nNow, this imperceptible usurpation of property by the commonalty was\ninspired by religion.\n\nThe seignior had attached the serf to the soil; religion granted the\nserf rights over the soil. The seignior imposed duties upon the serf;\nreligion fixed their limits. The seignior could kill the serf with\nimpunity, could deprive him of his wife, violate his daughter, pillage\nhis house, and rob him of his savings; religion checked his invasions:\nit excommunicated the seignior. Religion was the real cause of the\nruin of feudal property. Why should it not be bold enough to-day to\nresolutely condemn capitalistic property? Since the middle ages, there\nhas been no change in social economy except in its forms; its relations\nremain unaltered.\n\nThe only result of the emancipation of the serfs was that property\nchanged hands; or, rather, that new proprietors were created. Sooner\nor later the extension of privilege, far from curing the evil, was to\noperate to the disadvantage of the plebeians. Nevertheless, the new\nsocial organization did not meet with the same end in all places. In\nLombardy, for example, where the people rapidly growing rich through\ncommerce and industry soon conquered the authorities, even to the\nexclusion of the nobles,--first, the nobility became poor and degraded,\nand were forced, in order to live and maintain their credit, to gain\nadmission to the guilds; then, the ordinary subalternization of property\nleading to inequality of fortunes, to wealth and poverty, to jealousies\nand hatreds, the cities passed rapidly from the rankest democracy under\nthe yoke of a few ambitious leaders. Such was the fate of most of the\nLombardic cities,--Genoa, Florence, Bologna, Milan, Pisa, &c,.--which\nafterwards changed rulers frequently, but which have never since risen\nin favor of liberty. The people can easily escape from the tyranny of\ndespots, but they do not know how to throw off the effects of their own\ndespotism; just as we avoid the assassin's steel, while we succumb to a\nconstitutional malady. As soon as a nation becomes proprietor, either\nit must perish, or a foreign invasion must force it again to begin its\nevolutionary round. [59]\n\n\"The communes once organized, the kings treated them as superior\nvassals. Now, just as the under vassal had no communication with the\nking except through the direct vassal, so also the commoners could enter\nno complaints except through the commune.\n\n\"Like causes produce like effects. Each commune became a small and\nseparate State, governed by a few citizens, who sought to extend their\nauthority over the others; who, in their turn, revenged themselves\nupon the unfortunate inhabitants who had not the right of citizenship.\nFeudalism in unemancipated countries, and oligarchy in the communes,\nmade nearly the same ravages. There were sub-associations, fraternities,\ntradesmen's associations in the communes, and colleges in the\nuniversities. The oppression was so great, that it was no rare thing to\nsee the inhabitants of a commune demanding its suppression....\"--Meyer:\nJudicial Institutions of Europe.\n\n\nIn France, the Revolution was much more gradual. The communes, in taking\nrefuge under the protection of the kings, had found them masters rather\nthan protectors. Their liberty had long since been lost, or, rather,\ntheir emancipation had been suspended, when feudalism received its\ndeath-blow at the hand of Richelieu. Then liberty halted; the prince of\nthe feudatories held sole and undivided sway. The nobles, the clergy,\nthe commoners, the parliaments, every thing in short except a few\nseeming privileges, were controlled by the king; who, like his early\npredecessors, consumed regularly, and nearly always in advance, the\nrevenues of his domain,--and that domain was France.\n\nFinally, '89 arrived; liberty resumed its march; a century and a\nhalf had been required to wear out the last form of feudal\nproperty,--monarchy.\n\nThe French Revolution may be defined as _the substitution of real right\nfor personal right;_ that is to say, in the days of feudalism, the value\nof property depended upon the standing of the proprietor, while, after\nthe Revolution, the regard for the man was proportional to his property.\nNow, we have seen from what has been said in the preceding pages, that\nthis recognition of the right of laborers had been the constant aim of\nthe serfs and communes, the secret motive of their efforts. The movement\nof '89 was only the last stage of that long insurrection. But it seems\nto me that we have not paid sufficient attention to the fact that the\nRevolution of 1789, instigated by the same causes, animated by the same\nspirit, triumphing by the same struggles, was consummated in Italy four\ncenturies ago. Italy was the first to sound the signal of war against\nfeudalism; France has followed; Spain and England are beginning to move;\nthe rest still sleep. If a grand example should be given to the world,\nthe day of trial would be much abridged.\n\nNote the following summary of the revolutions of property, from the days\nof the Roman Empire down to the present time:--\n\n1. Fifth century.--Barbarian invasions; division of the lands of the\nempire into independent portions or freeholds.\n\n2. From the fifth to the eighth century.--Gradual concentration of\nfreeholds, or transformation of the small freeholds into fiefs, feuds,\ntenures, &c. Large properties, small possessions. Charlemagne (771-814)\ndecrees that all freeholds are dependent upon the king of France.\n\n3. From the eighth to the tenth century.--The relation between the crown\nand the superior dependents is broken; the latter becoming freeholders,\nwhile the smaller dependents cease to recognize the king, and adhere to\nthe nearest suzerain. Feudal system.\n\n4. Twelfth century.--Movement of the serfs towards liberty; emancipation\nof the communes.\n\n5. Thirteenth century.--Abolition of personal right, and of the feudal\nsystem in Italy. Italian Republics.\n\n6. Seventeenth century.--Abolition of feudalism in France during\nRichelieu's ministry. Despotism.\n\n7. 1789.--Abolition of all privileges of birth, caste, provinces, and\ncorporations; equality of persons and of rights. French democracy.\n\n8. 1830.--The principle of concentration inherent in individual property\nis REMARKED. Development of the idea of association.\n\n\nThe more we reflect upon this series of transformations and changes,\nthe more clearly we see that they were necessary in their principle, in\ntheir manifestations, and in their result.\n\nIt was necessary that inexperienced conquerors, eager for liberty,\nshould divide the Roman Empire into a multitude of estates, as free and\nindependent as themselves.\n\nIt was necessary that these men, who liked war even better than liberty,\nshould submit to their leaders; and, as the freehold represented the\nman, that property should violate property.\n\nIt was necessary that, under the rule of a nobility always idle when not\nfighting, there should grow up a body of laborers, who, by the power\nof production, and by the division and circulation of wealth, would\ngradually gain control over commerce, industry, and a portion of the\nland, and who, having become rich, would aspire to power and authority\nalso.\n\nIt was necessary, finally, that liberty and equality of rights having\nbeen achieved, and individual property still existing, attended by\nrobbery, poverty, social inequality, and oppression, there should be\nan inquiry into the cause of this evil, and an idea of universal\nassociation formed, whereby, on condition of labor, all interests should\nbe protected and consolidated.\n\n\"Evil, when carried too far,\" says a learned jurist, \"cures itself; and\nthe political innovation which aims to increase the power of the State,\nfinally succumbs to the effects of its own work. The Germans, to secure\ntheir independence, chose chiefs; and soon they were oppressed by their\nkings and noblemen. The monarchs surrounded themselves with volunteers,\nin order to control the freemen; and they found themselves dependent\nupon their proud vassals. The _missi dominici_ were sent into the\nprovinces to maintain the power of the emperors, and to protect the\npeople from the oppressions of the noblemen; and not only did they usurp\nthe imperial power to a great extent, but they dealt more severely with\nthe inhabitants. The freemen became vassals, in order to get rid of\nmilitary service and court duty; and they were immediately involved in\nall the personal quarrels of their seigniors, and compelled to do\njury duty in their courts.... The kings protected the cities and\nthe communes, in the hope of freeing them from the yoke of the grand\nvassals, and of rendering their own power more absolute; and those same\ncommunes have, in several European countries, procured the establishment\nof a constitutional power, are now holding royalty in check, and\nare giving rise to a universal desire for political reform.\"--Meyer:\nJudicial Institutions of Europe.\n\n\nIn recapitulation.\n\nWhat was feudalism? A confederation of the grand seign iors against the\nvilleins, and against the king. [60] What is constitutional government?\nA confederation of the bourgeoisie against the laborers, and against the\nking. [61]\n\n\nHow did feudalism end? In the union of the communes and the royal\nauthority. How will the bourgeoisie aristocracy end? In the union of the\nproletariat and the sovereign power.\n\nWhat was the immediate result of the struggle of the communes and the\nking against the seigniors? The monarchical unity of Louis XIV. What\nwill be the result of the struggle of the proletariat and the sovereign\npower combined against the bourgeoisie? The absolute unity of the nation\nand the government.\n\nIt remains to be seen whether the nation, one and supreme, will be\nrepresented in its executive and central power by ONE, by FIVE, by ONE\nHUNDRED, or ONE THOUSAND; that is, it remains to be seen, whether the\nroyalty of the barricades intends to maintain itself by the people, or\nwithout the people, and whether Louis Philippe wishes his reign to be\nthe most famous in all history.\n\nI have made this statement as brief, but at the same time as accurate\nas I could, neglecting facts and details, that I might give the more\nattention to the economical relations of society. For the study of\nhistory is like the study of the human organism; just as the latter\nhas its system, its organs, and its functions, which can be treated\nseparately, so the former has its ensemble, its instruments, and its\ncauses. Of course I do not pretend that the principle of property is\na complete resume of all the social forces; but, as in that wonderful\nmachine which we call our body, the harmony of the whole allows us to\ndraw a general conclusion from the consideration of a single function or\norgan, so, in discussing historical causes, I have been able to reason\nwith absolute accuracy from a single order of facts, certain as I was\nof the perfect correlation which exists between this special order and\nuniversal history. As is the property of a nation, so is its family,\nits marriage, its religion, its civil and military organization, and\nits legislative and judicial institutions. History, viewed from this\nstandpoint, is a grand and sublime psychological study.\n\nWell, sir, in writing against property, have I done more than quote the\nlanguage of history? I have said to modern society,--the daughter and\nheiress of all preceding societies,--_Age guod agis:_ complete the\ntask which for six thousand years you have been executing under the\ninspiration and by the command of God; hasten to finish your journey;\nturn neither to the right nor the left, but follow the road which lies\nbefore you. You seek reason, law, unity, and discipline; but hereafter\nyou can find them only by stripping off the veils of your infancy, and\nceasing to follow instinct as a guide. Awaken your sleeping conscience;\nopen your eyes to the pure light of reflection and science; behold the\nphantom which troubled your dreams, and so long kept you in a state of\nunutterable anguish. Know thyself, O long-deluded society[1] know thy\nenemy!... And I have denounced property.\n\nWe often hear the defenders of the right of domain quote in defence of\ntheir views the testimony of nations and ages. We can judge, from what\nhas just been said, how far this historical argument conforms to the\nreal facts and the conclusions of science.\n\nTo complete this apology, I must examine the various theories.\n\nNeither politics, nor legislation, nor history, can be explained and\nunderstood, without a positive theory which defines their elements,\nand discovers their laws; in short, without a philosophy. Now, the two\nprincipal schools, which to this day divide the attention of the world,\ndo not satisfy this condition.\n\nThe first, essentially PRACTICAL in its character, confined to a\nstatement of facts, and buried in learning, cares very little by what\nlaws humanity develops itself. To it these laws are the secret of the\nAlmighty, which no one can fathom without a commission from on high.\nIn applying the facts of history to government, this school does not\nreason; it does not anticipate; it makes no comparison of the past with\nthe present, in order to predict the future. In its opinion, the\nlessons of experience teach us only to repeat old errors, and its whole\nphilosophy consists in perpetually retracing the tracks of antiquity,\ninstead of going straight ahead forever in the direction in which they\npoint.\n\nThe second school may be called either FATALISTIC or PANTHEISTIC. To\nit the movements of empires and the revolutions of humanity are the\nmanifestations, the incarnations, of the Almighty. The human race,\nidentified with the divine essence, wheels in a circle of appearances,\ninformations, and destructions, which necessarily excludes the idea of\nabsolute truth, and destroys providence and liberty.\n\nCorresponding to these two schools of history, there are two schools\nof jurisprudence, similarly opposed, and possessed of the same\npeculiarities.\n\n1. The practical and conventional school, to which the law is always a\ncreation of the legislator, an expression of his will, a privilege\nwhich he condescends to grant,--in short, a gratuitous affirmation to be\nregarded as judicious and legitimate, no matter what it declares.\n\n2. The fatalistic and pantheistic school, sometimes called the\nhistorical school, which opposes the despotism of the first, and\nmaintains that law, like literature and religion, is always the\nexpression of society,--its manifestation, its form, the external\nrealization of its mobile spirit and its ever-changing inspirations.\n\nEach of these schools, denying the absolute, rejects thereby all\npositive and a priori philosophy.\n\nNow, it is evident that the theories of these two schools, whatever view\nwe take of them, are utterly unsatisfactory: for, opposed, they form no\ndilemma,--that is, if one is false, it does not follow that the other\nis true; and, united, they do not constitute the truth, since they\ndisregard the absolute, without which there is no truth. They are\nrespectively a THESIS and an ANTITHESIS. There remains to be found,\nthen, a SYNTHESIS, which, predicating the absolute, justifies the will\nof the legislator, explains the variations of the law, annihilates\nthe theory of the circular movement of humanity, and demonstrates its\nprogress.\n\nThe legists, by the very nature of their studies and in spite of their\nobstinate prejudices, have been led irresistibly to suspect that the\nabsolute in the science of law is not as chimerical as is commonly\nsupposed; and this suspicion arose from their comparison of the various\nrelations which legislators have been called upon to regulate.\n\nM. Laboulaye, the laureate of the Institute, begins his \"History of\nProperty\" with these words:--\n\n\n\"While the law of contract, which regulates only the mutual interests of\nmen, has not varied for centuries (except in certain forms which relate\nmore to the proof than to the character of the obligation), the civil\nlaw of property, which regulates the mutual relations of citizens, has\nundergone several radical changes, and has kept pace in its variations\nwith all the vicissitudes of society. The law of contract, which holds\nessentially to those principles of eternal justice which are engraven\nupon the depths of the human heart, is the immutable element of\njurisprudence, and, in a certain sense, its philosophy. Property, on\nthe contrary, is the variable element of jurisprudence, its history, its\npolicy.\"\n\n\nMarvellous! There is in law, and consequently in politics, something\nvariable and something invariable. The invariable element is obligation,\nthe bond of justice, duty; the variable element is property,--that is,\nthe external form of law, the subject-matter of the contract. Whence\nit follows that the law can modify, change, reform, and judge property.\nReconcile that, if you can, with the idea of an eternal, absolute,\npermanent, and indefectible right.\n\nHowever, M. Laboulaye is in perfect accord with himself when he adds,\n\"Possession of the soil rests solely upon force until society takes it\nin hand, and espouses the cause of the possessor;\" [62] and, a little\nfarther, \"The right of property is not natural, but social. The laws not\nonly protect property: they give it birth,\" &c. Now, that which the\nlaw has made the law can unmake; especially since, according to\nM. Laboulaye,--an avowed partisan of the historical or pantheistic\nschool,--the law is not absolute, is not an idea, but a form.\n\n\nBut why is it that property is variable, and, unlike obligation,\nincapable of definition and settlement? Before affirming, somewhat\nboldly without doubt, that in right there are no absolute principles\n(the most dangerous, most immoral, most tyrannical--in a word, most\nanti-social--assertion imaginable), it was proper that the right of\nproperty should be subjected to a thorough examination, in order to put\nin evidence its variable, arbitrary, and contingent elements, and\nthose which are eternal, legitimate, and absolute; then, this operation\nperformed, it became easy to account for the laws, and to correct all\nthe codes.\n\nNow, this examination of property I claim to have made, and in the\nfullest detail; but, either from the public's lack of interest in\nan unrecommended and unattractive pamphlet, or--which is more\nprobable--from the weakness of exposition and want of genius which\ncharacterize the work, the First Memoir on Property passed unnoticed;\nscarcely would a few communists, having turned its leaves, deign to\nbrand it with their disapprobation. You alone, sir, in spite of the\ndisfavor which I showed for your economical predecessors in too severe\na criticism of them,--you alone have judged me justly; and although I\ncannot accept, at least literally, your first judgment, yet it is to\nyou alone that I appeal from a decision too equivocal to be regarded as\nfinal.\n\nIt not being my intention to enter at present into a discussion of\nprinciples, I shall content myself with estimating, from the point of\nview of this simple and intelligible absolute, the theories of property\nwhich our generation has produced.\n\nThe most exact idea of property is given us by the Roman law, faithfully\nfollowed in this particular by the ancient legists. It is the absolute,\nexclusive, autocratic domain of a man over a thing,--a domain which\nbegins by USUCAPTION, is maintained by POSSESSION, and finally, by the\naid of PRESCRIPTION, finds its sanction in the civil law; a domain which\nso identifies the man with the thing, that the proprietor can say, \"He\nwho uses my field, virtually compels me to labor for him; therefore he\nowes me compensation.\"\n\nI pass in silence the secondary modes by which property can be\nacquired,--_tradition, sale, exchange, inheritance_, &c.,--which have\nnothing in common with the origin of property.\n\nAccordingly, Pothier said THE DOMAIN OF PROPERTY, and not simply\nPROPERTY. And the most learned writers on jurisprudence--in imitation\nof the Roman praetor who recognized a RIGHT OF PROPERTY and a RIGHT\nOF POSSESSION--have carefully distinguished between the DOMAIN and the\nright of USUFRUCT, USE, and HABITATION, which, reduced to its natural\nlimits, is the very expression of justice; and which is, in my opinion,\nto supplant domanial property, and finally form the basis of all\njurisprudence.\n\nBut, sir, admire the clumsiness of systems, or rather the fatality of\nlogic! While the Roman law and all the savants inspired by it teach that\nproperty in its origin is the right of first occupancy sanctioned by\nlaw, the modern legists, dissatisfied with this brutal definition, claim\nthat property is based upon LABOR. Immediately they infer that he who no\nlonger labors, but makes another labor in his stead, loses his right to\nthe earnings of the latter. It is by virtue of this principle that\nthe serfs of the middle ages claimed a legal right to property, and\nconsequently to the enjoyment of political rights; that the clergy were\ndespoiled in '89 of their immense estates, and were granted a pension\nin exchange; that at the restoration the liberal deputies opposed the\nindemnity of one billion francs. \"The nation,\" said they, \"has acquired\nby twenty-five years of labor and possession the property which the\nemigrants forfeited by abandonment and long idleness: why should the\nnobles be treated with more favor than the priests?\" [63]\n\n\nThis position is quite in harmony with my principles, and I heartily\napplaud the indignation of M. Lerminier; but I do not know that a\nproprietor was ever deprived of his property because UNWORTHY; and as\nreasonable, social, and even useful as the thing may seem, it is quite\ncontrary to the uses and customs of property.\n\n\nAll usurpations, not born of war, have been caused and supported by\nlabor. All modern history proves this, from the end of the Roman empire\ndown to the present day. And as if to give a sort of legal sanction to\nthese usurpations, the doctrine of labor, subversive of property,\nis professed at great length in the Roman law under the name of\nPRESCRIPTION.\n\nThe man who cultivates, it has been said, makes the land his own;\nconsequently, no more property. This was clearly seen by the old\njurists, who have not failed to denounce this novelty; while on the\nother hand the young school hoots at the absurdity of the first-occupant\ntheory. Others have presented themselves, pretending to reconcile\nthe two opinions by uniting them. They have failed, like all the\n_juste-milieux_ of the world, and are laughed at for their eclecticism.\nAt present, the alarm is in the camp of the old doctrine; from all sides\npour IN DEFENCES OF PROPERTY, STUDIES REGARDING PROPERTY, THEORIES OF\nPROPERTY, each one of which, giving the lie to the rest, inflicts a\nfresh wound upon property.\n\nConsider, indeed, the inextricable embarrassments, the contradictions,\nthe absurdities, the incredible nonsense, in which the bold defenders of\nproperty so lightly involve themselves. I choose the eclectics, because,\nthose killed, the others cannot survive.\n\nM. Troplong, jurist, passes for a philosopher in the eyes of the editors\nof \"Le Droit.\" I tell the gentlemen of \"Le Droit\" that, in the judgment\nof philosophers, M. Troplong is only an advocate; and I prove my\nassertion.\n\nM. Troplong is a defender of progress. \"The words of the code,\" says he,\n\"are fruitful sap with which the classic works of the eighteenth century\noverflow. To wish to suppress them... is to violate the law of progress,\nand to forget that a science which moves is a science which grows.\" [64]\n\n\nNow, the only mutable and progressive portion of law, as we have already\nseen, is that which concerns property. If, then, you ask what reforms\nare to be introduced into the right of property? M. Troplong makes no\nreply; what progress is to be hoped for? no reply; what is to be the\ndestiny of property in case of universal association? no reply; what is\nthe absolute and what the contingent, what the true and what the false,\nin property? no reply. M. Troplong favors quiescence and _in statu\nquo_ in regard to property. What could be more unphilosophical in a\nprogressive philosopher?\n\nNevertheless, M. Troplong has thought about these things. \"There are,\"\nhe says, \"many weak points and antiquated ideas in the doctrines of\nmodern authors concerning property: witness the works of MM. Toullier\nand Duranton.\" The doctrine of M. Troplong promises, then, strong\npoints, advanced and progressive ideas. Let us see; let us examine:--\n\n\n\"Man, placed in the presence of matter, is conscious of a power over it,\nwhich has been given to him to satisfy the needs of his being. King\nof inanimate or unintelligent nature, he feels that he has a right to\nmodify it, govern it, and fit it for his use. There it is, the subject\nof property, which is legitimate only when exercised over things, never\nwhen over persons.\"\n\n\nM. Troplong is so little of a philosopher, that he does not even know\nthe import of the philosophical terms which he makes a show of using. He\nsays of matter that it is the SUBJECT of property; he should have said\nthe OBJECT. M. Troplong uses the language of the anatomists, who apply\nthe term SUBJECT to the human matter used in their experiments.\n\nThis error of our author is repeated farther on: \"Liberty, which\novercomes matter, the subject of property, &c.\" The SUBJECT of\nproperty is man; its OBJECT is matter. But even this is but a slight\nmortification; directly we shall have some crucifixions.\n\nThus, according to the passage just quoted, it is in the conscience and\npersonality of man that the principle of property must be sought. Is\nthere any thing new in this doctrine? Apparently it never has occurred\nto those who, since the days of Cicero and Aristotle, and earlier, have\nmaintained that THINGS BELONG TO THE FIRST OCCUPANT, that occupation may\nbe exercised by beings devoid of conscience and personality. The human\npersonality, though it may be the principle or the subject of property,\nas matter is the object, is not the CONDITION. Now, it is this condition\nwhich we most need to know. So far, M. Troplong tells us no more than\nhis masters, and the figures with which he adorns his style add nothing\nto the old idea.\n\nProperty, then, implies three terms: The subject, the object, and the\ncondition. There is no difficulty in regard to the first two terms. As\nto the third, the condition of property down to this day, for the Greek\nas for the Barbarian, has been that of first occupancy. What now would\nyou have it, progressive doctor?\n\n\n\"When man lays hands for the first time upon an object without a\nmaster, he performs an act which, among individuals, is of the greatest\nimportance. The thing thus seized and occupied participates, so to\nspeak, in the personality of him who holds it. It becomes sacred, like\nhimself. It is impossible to take it without doing violence to his\nliberty, or to remove it without rashly invading his person. Diogenes\ndid but express this truth of intuition, when he said: 'Stand out of my\nlight!'\"\n\n\nVery good! but would the prince of cynics, the very personal and very\nhaughty Diogenes, have had the right to charge another cynic, as rent\nfor this same place in the sunshine, a bone for twenty-four hours of\npossession? It is that which constitutes the proprietor; it is that\nwhich you fail to justify. In reasoning from the human personality and\nindividuality to the right of property, you unconsciously construct\na syllogism in which the conclusion includes more than the premises,\ncontrary to the rules laid down by Aristotle. The individuality of\nthe human person proves INDIVIDUAL POSSESSION, originally called\n_proprietas_, in opposition to collective possession, _communio_.\n\nIt gives birth to the distinction between THINE and MINE, true signs\nof equality, not, by any means, of subordination. \"From equivocation to\nequivocation,\" says M. Michelet, [65] \"property would crawl to the end\nof the world; man could not limit it, were not he himself its limit.\nWhere they clash, there will be its frontier.\" In short, individuality\nof being destroys the hypothesis of communism, but it does not for that\nreason give birth to domain,--that domain by virtue of which the holder\nof a thing exercises over the person who takes his place a right of\nprestation and suzerainty, that has always been identified with property\nitself.\n\n\n\nFurther, that he whose legitimately acquired possession injures nobody\ncannot be nonsuited without flagrant injustice, is a truth, not of\nINTUITION, as M. Troplong says, but of INWARD SENSATION, [66] which has\nnothing to do with property.\n\n\nM. Troplong admits, then, occupancy as a condition of property. In that,\nhe is in accord with the Roman law, in accord with MM. Toullier and\nDuranton; but in his opinion this condition is not the only one, and it\nis in this particular that his doctrine goes beyond theirs.\n\n\n\"But, however exclusive the right arising from sole occupancy, does it\nnot become still more so, when man has moulded matter by his labor;\nwhen he has deposited in it a portion of himself, re-creating it by his\nindustry, and setting upon it the seal of his intelligence and activity?\nOf all conquests, that is the most legitimate, for it is the price of\nlabor.\n\n\"He who should deprive a man of the thing thus remodelled, thus\nhumanized, would invade the man himself, and would inflict the deepest\nwounds upon his liberty.\"\n\n\nI pass over the very beautiful explanations in which M. Troplong,\ndiscussing labor and industry, displays the whole wealth of his\neloquence. M. Troplong is not only a philosopher, he is an orator, an\nartist. HE ABOUNDS WITH APPEALS TO THE CONSCIENCE AND THE PASSIONS. I\nmight make sad work of his rhetoric, should I undertake to dissect it;\nbut I confine myself for the present to his philosophy.\n\nIf M. Troplong had only known how to think and reflect, before\nabandoning the original fact of occupancy and plunging into the theory\nof labor, he would have asked himself: \"What is it to occupy?\" And he\nwould have discovered that OCCUPANCY is only a generic term by which\nall modes of possession are expressed,--seizure, station, immanence,\nhabitation, cultivation, use, consumption, &c.; that labor,\nconsequently, is but one of a thousand forms of occupancy. He would have\nunderstood, finally, that the right of possession which is born of labor\nis governed by the same general laws as that which results from the\nsimple seizure of things. What kind of a legist is he who declaims when\nhe ought to reason, who continually mistakes his metaphors for legal\naxioms, and who does not so much as know how to obtain a universal by\ninduction, and form a category?\n\nIf labor is identical with occupancy, the only benefit which it secures\nto the laborer is the right of individual possession of the object of\nhis labor; if it differs from occupancy, it gives birth to a right equal\nonly to itself,--that is, a right which begins, continues, and ends,\nwith the labor of the occupant. It is for this reason, in the words of\nthe law, that one cannot acquire a just title to a thing by labor alone.\nHe must also hold it for a year and a day, in order to be regarded as\nits possessor; and possess it twenty or thirty years, in order to become\nits proprietor.\n\nThese preliminaries established, M. Troplong's whole structure falls of\nits own weight, and the inferences, which he attempts to draw, vanish.\n\n\"Property once acquired by occupation and labor, it naturally preserves\nitself, not only by the same means, but also by the refusal of the\nholder to abdicate; for from the very fact that it has risen to the\nheight of a right, it is its nature to perpetuate itself and to last for\nan indefinite period.... Rights, considered from an ideal point of\nview, are imperishable and eternal; and time, which affects only the\ncontingent, can no more disturb them than it can injure God himself.\"\nIt is astonishing that our author, in speaking of the IDEAL, TIME, and\nETERNITY, did not work into his sentence the DIVINE WINGS of Plato,--so\nfashionable to-day in philosophical works.\n\nWith the exception of falsehood, I hate nonsense more than any thing\nelse in the world. PROPERTY ONCE ACQUIRED! Good, if it is acquired; but,\nas it is not acquired, it cannot be preserved. RIGHTS ARE ETERNAL! Yes,\nin the sight of God, like the archetypal ideas of the Platonists. But,\non the earth, rights exist only in the presence of a subject, an object,\nand a condition. Take away one of these three things, and rights no\nlonger exist. Thus, individual possession ceases at the death of the\nsubject, upon the destruction of the object, or in case of exchange or\nabandonment.\n\nLet us admit, however, with M. Troplong, that property is an absolute\nand eternal right, which cannot be destroyed save by the deed and at\nthe will of the proprietor. What are the consequences which immediately\nfollow from this position?\n\nTo show the justice and utility of prescription, M. Troplong supposes\nthe case of a bona fide possessor whom a proprietor, long since\nforgotten or even unknown, is attempting to eject from his possession.\n\"At the start, the error of the possessor was excusable but not\nirreparable. Pursuing its course and growing old by degrees, it has\nso completely clothed itself in the colors of truth, it has spoken\nso loudly the language of right, it has involved so many confiding\ninterests, that it fairly may be asked whether it would not cause\ngreater confusion to go back to the reality than to sanction the\nfictions which it (an error, without doubt) has sown on its way? Well,\nyes; it must be confessed, without hesitation, that the remedy would\nprove worse than the disease, and that its application would lead to the\nmost outrageous injustice.\"\n\nHow long since utility became a principle of law? When the Athenians, by\nthe advice of Aristides, rejected a proposition eminently advantageous\nto their republic, but also utterly unjust, they showed finer moral\nperception and greater clearness of intellect than M. Troplong. Property\nis an eternal right, independent of time, indestructible except by the\nact and at the will of the proprietor; and here this right is taken from\nthe proprietor, and on what ground? Good God! on the ground of ABSENCE!\nIs it not true that legists are governed by caprice in giving and taking\naway rights? When it pleases these gentlemen, idleness, unworthiness, or\nabsence can invalidate a right which, under quite similar circumstances,\nlabor, residence, and virtue are inadequate to obtain. Do not be\nastonished that legists reject the absolute. Their good pleasure is law,\nand their disordered imaginations are the real cause of the EVOLUTIONS\nin jurisprudence.\n\n\"If the nominal proprietor should plead ignorance, his claim would be\nnone the more valid. Indeed, his ignorance might arise from inexcusable\ncarelessness, etc.\"\n\n\nWhat! in order to legitimate dispossession through prescription, you\nsuppose faults in the proprietor! You blame his absence,--which may\nhave been involuntary; his neglect,--not knowing what caused it; his\ncarelessness,--a gratuitous supposition of your own! It is absurd. One\nvery simple observation suffices to annihilate this theory. Society,\nwhich, they tell us, makes an exception in the interest of order in\nfavor of the possessor as against the old proprietor, owes the latter\nan indemnity; since the privilege of prescription is nothing but\nexpropriation for the sake of public utility.\n\nBut here is something stronger:--\n\n\n\"In society a place cannot remain vacant with impunity. A new man arises\nin place of the old one who disappears or goes away; he brings here his\nexistence, becomes entirely absorbed, and devotes himself to this post\nwhich he finds abandoned. Shall the deserter, then, dispute the honor of\nthe victory with the soldier who fights with the sweat standing on his\nbrow, and bears the burden of the day, in behalf of a cause which he\ndeems just?\"\n\n\nWhen the tongue of an advocate once gets in motion, who can tell where\nit will stop? M. Troplong admits and justifies usurpation in case of\nthe ABSENCE of the proprietor, and on a mere presumption of his\nCARELESSNESS. But when the neglect is authenticated; when the\nabandonment is solemnly and voluntarily set forth in a contract in the\npresence of a magistrate; when the proprietor dares to say, \"I cease to\nlabor, but I still claim a share of the product,\"--then the absentee's\nright of property is protected; the usurpation of the possessor would\nbe criminal; farm-rent is the reward of idleness. Where is, I do not say\nthe consistency, but, the honesty of this law?\n\nPrescription is a result of the civil law, a creation of the legislator.\nWhy has not the legislator fixed the conditions differently?--why,\ninstead of twenty and thirty years, is not a single year sufficient to\nprescribe?--why are not voluntary absence and confessed idleness as good\ngrounds for dispossession as involuntary absence, ignorance, or apathy?\n\nBut in vain should we ask M. Troplong, the philosopher, to tell us\nthe ground of prescription. Concerning the code, M. Troplong does not\nreason. \"The interpreter,\" he says, \"must take things as they are,\nsociety as it exists, laws as they are made: that is the only sensible\nstarting-point.\" Well, then, write no more books; cease to reproach your\npredecessors--who, like you, have aimed only at interpretation of the\nlaw--for having remained in the rear; talk no more of philosophy and\nprogress, for the lie sticks in your throat.\n\nM. Troplong denies the reality of the right of possession; he denies\nthat possession has ever existed as a principle of society; and he\nquotes M. de Savigny, who holds precisely the opposite position, and\nwhom he is content to leave unanswered. At one time, M. Troplong asserts\nthat possession and property are CONTEMPORANEOUS, and that they exist AT\nTHE SAME TIME, which implies that the RIGHT of property is based on the\nFACT of possession,--a conclusion which is evidently absurd; at\nanother, he denies that possession HAD ANY HISTORICAL EXISTENCE PRIOR\nTO PROPERTY,--an assertion which is contradicted by the customs of many\nnations which cultivate the land without appropriating it; by the Roman\nlaw, which distinguished so clearly between POSSESSION and PROPERTY; and\nby our code itself, which makes possession for twenty or thirty years\nthe condition of property. Finally, M. Troplong goes so far as to\nmaintain that the Roman maxim, _Nihil comune habet proprietas cum\npossessione_--which contains so striking an allusion to the possession\nof the _ager publicus_, and which, sooner or later, will be again\naccepted without qualification--expresses in French law only a judicial\naxiom, a simple rule forbidding the union of an _action possessoire_\nwith an _action petitoire_,--an opinion as retrogressive as it is\nunphilosophical.\n\nIn treating of _actions possessoires_, M. Troplong is so unfortunate or\nawkward that he mutilates economy through failure to grasp its\nmeaning \"Just as property,\" he writes, \"gave rise to the action for\nrevendication, so possession--the _jus possessionis_--was the cause\nof possessory interdicts.... There were two kinds of interdicts,--the\ninterdict _recuperandae possessionis_, and the interdict _retinendae\npossessionis_,--which correspond to our _complainte en cas de saisine\net nouvelete_. There is also a third,--_adipiscendae possessionis_,--of\nwhich the Roman law-books speak in connection with the two others.\nBut, in reality, this interdict is not possessory: for he who wishes\nto acquire possession by this means does not possess, and has not\npossessed; and yet acquired possession is the condition of possessory\ninterdicts.\" Why is not an action to acquire possession equally\nconceivable with an action to be reinstated in possession? When the\nRoman plebeians demanded a division of the conquered territory; when\nthe proletaires of Lyons took for their motto, _Vivre en travaillant, ou\nmourir en combattant_ (to live working, or die fighting); when the most\nenlightened of the modern economists claim for every man the right to\nlabor and to live,--they only propose this interdict, _adipiscendae\npossessionis_, which embarrasses M. Troplong so seriously. And what is\nmy object in pleading against property, if not to obtain possession? How\nis it that M. Troplong--the legist, the orator, the philosopher--does\nnot see that logically this interdict must be admitted, since it is the\nnecessary complement of the two others, and the three united form an\nindivisible trinity,--to RECOVER, to MAINTAIN, to ACQUIRE? To break this\nseries is to create a blank, destroy the natural synthesis of things,\nand follow the example of the geometrician who tried to conceive of\na solid with only two dimensions. But it is not astonishing that M.\nTroplong rejects the third class of _actions possessoires_, when\nwe consider that he rejects possession itself. He is so completely\ncontrolled by his prejudices in this respect, that he is unconsciously\nled, not to unite (that would be horrible in his eyes), but to identify\nthe _action possessoire_ with the _action petitoire_. This could be\neasily proved, were it not too tedious to plunge into these metaphysical\nobscurities.\n\nAs an interpreter of the law, M. Troplong is no more successful than\nas a philosopher. One specimen of his skill in this direction, and I am\ndone with him:--\n\n\nCode of Civil Procedure, Art. 23: \"_Actions possessoires_ are only when\ncommenced within the year of trouble by those who have held possession\nfor at least a year by an irrevocable title.\"\n\n\nM. Troplong's comments:--\n\n\n\"Ought we to maintain--as Duparc, Poullain, and Lanjuinais would have\nus--the rule _spoliatus ante omnia restituendus_, when an individual,\nwho is neither proprietor nor annual possessor, is expelled by a third\nparty, who has no right to the estate? I think not. Art. 23 of the\nCode is general: it absolutely requires that the plaintiff in _actions\npossessoires_ shall have been in peaceable possession for a year at\nleast. That is the invariable principle: it can in no case be modified.\nAnd why should it be set aside? The plaintiff had no seisin; he had no\nprivileged possession; he had only a temporary occupancy, insufficient\nto warrant in his favor the presumption of property, which renders the\nannual possession so valuable. Well! this _ae facto_ occupancy he has\nlost; another is invested with it: possession is in the hands of this\nnew-comer. Now, is not this a case for the application of the principle,\n_In_ _pari causa possesser potior habetur_? Should not the actual\npossessor be preferred to the evicted possessor? Can he not meet the\ncomplaint of his adversary by saying to him: 'Prove that you were an\nannual possessor before me, for you are the plaintiff. As far as I am\nconcerned, it is not for me to tell you how I possess, nor how long\nI have possessed. _Possideo quia possideo_. I have no other reply, no\nother defence. When you have shown that your action is admissible, then\nwe will see whether you are entitled to lift the veil which hides the\norigin of my possession.'\"\n\n\nAnd this is what is honored with the name of jurisprudence and\nphilosophy,--the restoration of force. What! when I have \"moulded matter\nby my labor\" [I quote M. Troplong]; when I have \"deposited in it a\nportion of myself\" [M. Troplong]; when I have \"re-created it by\nmy industry, and set upon it the seal of my intelligence\" [M.\nTroplong],--on the ground that I have not possessed it for a year, a\nstranger may dispossess me, and the law offers me no protection! And if\nM. Troplong is my judge, M. Troplong will condemn me! And if I resist\nmy adversary,--if, for this bit of mud which I may call MY FIELD, and\nof which they wish to rob me, a war breaks out between the two\ncompetitors,--the legislator will gravely wait until the stronger,\nhaving killed the other, has had possession for a year! No, no, Monsieur\nTroplong! you do not understand the words of the law; for I prefer\nto call in question your intelligence rather than the justice of the\nlegislator. You are mistaken in your application of the principle, _In\npari causa possessor potior habetur:_ the actuality of possession here\nrefers to him who possessed at the time when the difficulty arose, not\nto him who possesses at the time of the complaint. And when the code\nprohibits the reception of _actions possessoires_, in cases where the\npossession is not of a year's duration, it simply means that if, before\na year has elapsed, the holder relinquishes possession, and ceases\nactually to occupy _in propria persona_, he cannot avail himself of an\n_action possessoire_ against his successor. In a word, the code treats\npossession of less than a year as it ought to treat all possession,\nhowever long it has existed,--that is, the condition of property ought\nto be, not merely seisin for a year, but perpetual seisin.\n\nI will not pursue this analysis farther. When an author bases two\nvolumes of quibbles on foundations so uncertain, it may be boldly\ndeclared that his work, whatever the amount of learning displayed in it,\nis a mess of nonsense unworthy a critic's attention.\n\nAt this point, sir, I seem to hear you reproaching me for this conceited\ndogmatism, this lawless arrogance, which respects nothing, claims a\nmonopoly of justice and good sense, and assumes to put in the pillory\nany one who dares to maintain an opinion contrary to its own. This\nfault, they tell me, more odious than any other in an author, was too\nprominent a characteristic of my First Memoir, and I should do well to\ncorrect it.\n\nIt is important to the success of my defence, that I should vindicate\nmyself from this reproach; and since, while perceiving in myself other\nfaults of a different character, I still adhere in this particular to\nmy disputatious style, it is right that I should give my reasons for my\nconduct. I act, not from inclination, but from necessity.\n\nI say, then, that I treat my authors as I do for two reasons: a REASON\nOF RIGHT, and a REASON OF INTENTION; both peremptory.\n\n1. Reason of right. When I preach equality of fortunes, I do not advance\nan opinion more or less probable, a utopia more or less ingenious, an\nidea conceived within my brain by means of imagination only. I lay down\nan absolute truth, concerning which hesitation is impossible, modesty\nsuperfluous, and doubt ridiculous.\n\nBut, do you ask, what assures me that that which I utter is true?\n\nWhat assures me, sir? The logical and metaphysical processes which I\nuse, the correctness of which I have demonstrated by a priori reasoning;\nthe fact that I possess an infallible method of investigation and\nverification with which my authors are unacquainted; and finally, the\nfact that for all matters relating to property and justice I have found\na formula which explains all legislative variations, and furnishes a\nkey for all problems. Now, is there so much as a shadow of method in M.\nToullier, M. Troplong, and this swarm of insipid commentators, almost\nas devoid of reason and moral sense as the code itself? Do you give the\nname of method to an alphabetical, chronological, analogical, or merely\nnominal classification of subjects? Do you give the name of method\nto these lists of paragraphs gathered under an arbitrary head, these\nsophistical vagaries, this mass of contradictory quotations and\nopinions, this nauseous style, this spasmodic rhetoric, models of which\nare so common at the bar, though seldom found elsewhere? Do you take for\nphilosophy this twaddle, this intolerable pettifoggery adorned with a\nfew scholastic trimmings? No, no! a writer who respects himself, never\nwill consent to enter the balance with these manipulators of law,\nmisnamed JURISTS; and for my part I object to a comparison.\n\n2. Reason of intention. As far as I am permitted to divulge this secret,\nI am a conspirator in an immense revolution, terrible to charlatans and\ndespots, to all exploiters of the poor and credulous, to all salaried\nidlers, dealers in political panaceas and parables, tyrants in a word of\nthought and of opinion. I labor to stir up the reason of individuals to\ninsurrection against the reason of authorities.\n\n\nAccording to the laws of the society of which I am a member, all the\nevils which afflict humanity arise from faith in external teachings and\nsubmission to authority. And not to go outside of our own century, is\nit not true, for instance, that France is plundered, scoffed at, and\ntyrannized over, because she speaks in masses, and not by heads? The\nFrench people are penned up in three or four flocks, receiving their\nsignal from a chief, responding to the voice of a leader, and thinking\njust as he says. A certain journal, it is said, has fifty thousand\nsubscribers; assuming six readers to every subscriber, we have three\nhundred thousand sheep browsing and bleating at the same cratch. Apply\nthis calculation to the whole periodical press, and you find that, in\nour free and intelligent France, there are two millions of creatures\nreceiving every morning from the journals spiritual pasturage. Two\nmillions! In other words, the entire nation allows a score of little\nfellows to lead it by the nose.\n\nBy no means, sir, do I deny to journalists talent, science, love\nof truth, patriotism, and what you please. They are very worthy and\nintelligent people, whom I undoubtedly should wish to resemble, had I\nthe honor to know them. That of which I complain, and that which has\nmade me a conspirator, is that, instead of enlightening us, these\ngentlemen command us, impose upon us articles of faith, and that without\ndemonstration or verification. When, for example, I ask why these\nfortifications of Paris, which, in former times, under the influence\nof certain prejudices, and by means of a concurrence of extraordinary\ncircumstances supposed for the sake of the argument to have existed, may\nperhaps have served to protect us, but which it is doubtful whether\nour descendants will ever use,--when I ask, I say, on what grounds they\nassimilate the future to a hypothetical past, they reply that M.\nThiers, who has a great mind, has written upon this subject a report of\nadmirable elegance and marvellous clearness. At this I become angry, and\nreply that M. Thiers does not know what he is talking about. Why, having\nwanted no detached forts seven years ago, do we want them to-day?\n\n\"Oh! damn it,\" they say, \"the difference is great; the first forts\nwere too near to us; with these we cannot be bombarded.\" You cannot be\nbombarded; but you can be blockaded, and will be, if you stir. What! to\nobtain blockade forts from the Parisians, it has sufficed to prejudice\nthem against bombardment forts! And they thought to outwit the\ngovernment! Oh, the sovereignty of the people!...\n\n\n\"Damn it! M. Thiers, who is wiser than you, says that it would be absurd\nto suppose a government making war upon citizens, and maintaining itself\nby force and in spite of the will of the people. That would be absurd!\"\nPerhaps so: such a thing has happened more than once, and may happen\nagain. Besides, when despotism is strong, it appears almost legitimate.\nHowever that may be, they lied in 1833, and they lie again in\n1841,--those who threaten us with the bomb-shell. And then, if M. Thiers\nis so well assured of the intentions of the government, why does he not\nwish the forts to be built before the circuit is extended? Why this\nair of suspicion of the government, unless an intrigue has been planned\nbetween the government and M. Thiers?\n\n\"Damn it! we do not wish to be again invaded. If Paris had been\nfortified in 1815, Napoleon would not have been conquered!\" But I tell\nyou that Napoleon was not conquered, but sold; and that if, in 1815,\nParis had had fortifications, it would have been with them as with the\nthirty thousand men of Grouchy, who were misled during the battle. It is\nstill easier to surrender forts than to lead soldiers. Would the selfish\nand the cowardly ever lack reasons for yielding to the enemy?\n\n\"But do you not see that the absolutist courts are provoked at our\nfortifications?--a proof that they do not think as you do.\" You believe\nthat; and, for my part, I believe that in reality they are quite at ease\nabout the matter; and, if they appear to tease our ministers, they do so\nonly to give the latter an opportunity to decline. The absolutist courts\nare always on better terms with our constitutional monarchy, than\nour monarchy with us. Does not M. Guizot say that France needs to\nbe defended within as well as without? Within! against whom? Against\nFrance. O Parisians! it is but six months since you demanded war, and\nnow you want only barricades. Why should the allies fear your doctrines,\nwhen you cannot even control yourselves?... How could you sustain a\nsiege, when you weep over the absence of an actress?\n\n\"But, finally, do you not understand that, by the rules of modern\nwarfare, the capital of a country is always the objective point of its\nassailants? Suppose our army defeated on the Rhine, France invaded, and\ndefenceless Paris falling into the hands of the enemy. It would be the\ndeath of the administrative power; without a head it could not live. The\ncapital taken, the nation must submit. What do you say to that?\"\n\nThe reply is very simple. Why is society constituted in such a way that\nthe destiny of the country depends upon the safety of the capital?\nWhy, in case our territory be invaded and Paris besieged, cannot the\nlegislative, executive, and military powers act outside of Paris? Why\nthis localization of all the vital forces of France?... Do not cry out\nupon decentralization. This hackneyed reproach would discredit only\nyour own intelligence and sincerity. It is not a question of\ndecentralization; it is your political fetichism which I attack. Why\nshould the national unity be attached to a certain place, to certain\nfunctionaries, to certain bayonets? Why should the Place Maubert and the\nPalace of the Tuileries be the palladium of France?\n\nNow let me make an hypothesis.\n\nSuppose it were written in the charter, \"In case the country be again\ninvaded, and Paris forced to surrender, the government being annihilated\nand the national assembly dissolved, the electoral colleges shall\nreassemble spontaneously and without other official notice, for the\npurpose of appointing new deputies, who shall organize a provisional\ngovernment at Orleans.\n\n\"If Orleans succumbs, the government shall reconstruct itself in the same\nway at Lyons; then at Bordeaux, then at Bayonne, until all France be\ncaptured or the enemy driven from the land. For the government may\nperish, but the nation never dies. The king, the peers, and the deputies\nmassacred, VIVE LA FRANCE!\"\n\nDo you not think that such an addition to the charter would be a better\nsafeguard for the liberty and integrity of the country than walls and\nbastions around Paris? Well, then! do henceforth for administration,\nindustry, science, literature, and art that which the charter ought\nto prescribe for the central government and common defence. Instead of\nendeavoring to render Paris impregnable, try rather to render the loss\nof Paris an insignificant matter. Instead of accumulating about one\npoint academies, faculties, schools, and political, administrative,\nand judicial centres; instead of arresting intellectual development\nand weakening public spirit in the provinces by this fatal\nagglomeration,--can you not, without destroying unity, distribute social\nfunctions among places as well as among persons? Such a system--in\nallowing each province to participate in political power and action, and\nin balancing industry, intelligence, and strength in all parts of the\ncountry--would equally secure, against enemies at home and enemies\nabroad, the liberty of the people and the stability of the government.\n\nDiscriminate, then, between the centralization of functions and the\nconcentration of organs; between political unity and its material\nsymbol.\n\n\"Oh! that is plausible; but it is impossible!\"--which means that the\ncity of Paris does not intend to surrender its privileges, and that\nthere it is still a question of property.\n\nIdle talk! The country, in a state of panic which has been cleverly\nworked upon, has asked for fortifications. I dare to affirm that it\nhas abdicated its sovereignty. All parties are to blame for this\nsuicide,--the conservatives, by their acquiescence in the plans of the\ngovernment; the friends of the dynasty, because they wish no opposition\nto that which pleases them, and because a popular revolution would\nannihilate them; the democrats, because they hope to rule in their turn.\n[67] That which all rejoice at having obtained is a means of future\nrepression. As for the defence of the country, they are not troubled\nabout that. The idea of tyranny dwells in the minds of all, and brings\ntogether into one conspiracy all forms of selfishness. We wish the\nregeneration of society, but we subordinate this desire to our ideas\nand convenience. That our approaching marriage may take place, that our\nbusiness may succeed, that our opinions may triumph, we postpone reform.\nIntolerance and selfishness lead us to put fetters upon liberty; and,\nbecause we cannot wish all that God wishes, we would, if it rested with\nus, stay the course of destiny rather than sacrifice our own interests\nand self-love. Is not this an instance where the words of Solomon\napply,--\"_L'iniquite a menti a elle-meme_\"?\n\n\nIt is said that on this question of the fortification of Paris the staff\nof \"Le National\" are not agreed. This would prove, if proof were needed,\nthat a journal may blunder and falsify, without entitling any one to\naccuse its editors. A journal is a metaphysical being, for which no one\nis really responsible, and which owes its existence solely to mutual\nconcessions. This idea ought to frighten those worthy citizens who,\nbecause they borrow their opinions from a journal, imagine that they\nbelong to a political party, and who have not the faintest suspicion\nthat they are really without a head.\n\n\nFor this reason, sir, I have enlisted in a desperate war against\nevery form of authority over the multitude. Advance sentinel of the\nproletariat, I cross bayonets with the celebrities of the day, as\nwell as with spies and charlatans. Well, when I am fighting with an\nillustrious adversary, must I stop at the end of every phrase, like\nan orator in the tribune, to say \"the learned author,\" \"the eloquent\nwriter,\" \"the profound publicist,\" and a hundred other platitudes with\nwhich it is fashionable to mock people? These civilities seem to me no\nless insulting to the man attacked than dishonorable to the aggressor.\nBut when, rebuking an author, I say to him, \"Citizen, your doctrine is\nabsurd, and, if to prove my assertion is an offence against you, I\nam guilty of it,\" immediately the listener opens his ears; he is all\nattention; and, if I do not succeed in convincing him, at least I give\nhis thought an impulse, and set him the wholesome example of doubt and\nfree examination.\n\nThen do not think, sir, that, in tripping up the philosophy of your very\nlearned and very estimable confrere, M. Troplong, I fail to appreciate\nhis talent as a writer (in my opinion, he has too much for a jurist);\nnor his knowledge, though it is too closely confined to the letter of\nthe law, and the reading of old books. In these particulars, M. Troplong\noffends on the side of excess rather than deficiency. Further, do not\nbelieve that I am actuated by any personal animosity towards him, or\nthat I have the slightest desire to wound his self-love. I know M.\nTroplong only by his \"Treatise on Prescription,\" which I wish he had not\nwritten; and as for my critics, neither M. Troplong, nor any of those\nwhose opinion I value, will ever read me. Once more, my only object is\nto prove, as far as I am able, to this unhappy French nation, that\nthose who make the laws, as well as those who interpret them, are not\ninfallible organs of general, impersonal, and absolute reason.\n\nI had resolved to submit to a systematic criticism the semi-official\ndefence of the right of property recently put forth by M. Wolowski,\nyour colleague at the Conservatory. With this view, I had commenced\nto collect the documents necessary for each of his lectures, but, soon\nperceiving that the ideas of the professor were incoherent, that his\narguments contradicted each other, that one affirmation was sure to be\noverthrown by another, and that in M. Wolowski's lucubrations the\ngood was always mingled with the bad, and being by nature a little\nsuspicious, it suddenly occurred to me that M. Wolowski was an advocate\nof equality in disguise, thrown in spite of himself into the position\nin which the patriarch Jacob pictures one of his sons,--_inter\nduas clitellas_, between two stools, as the proverb says. In more\nparliamentary language, I saw clearly that M. Wolowski was placed\nbetween his profound convictions on the one hand and his official duties\non the other, and that, in order to maintain his position, he had to\nassume a certain slant. Then I experienced great pain at seeing the\nreserve, the circumlocution, the figures, and the irony to which\na professor of legislation, whose duty it is to teach dogmas with\nclearness and precision, was forced to resort; and I fell to cursing\nthe society in which an honest man is not allowed to say frankly what he\nthinks. Never, sir, have you conceived of such torture: I seemed to be\nwitnessing the martyrdom of a mind. I am going to give you an idea of\nthese astonishing meetings, or rather of these scenes of sorrow.\n\nMonday, Nov. 20, 1840.--The professor declares, in brief,--1. That the\nright of property is not founded upon occupation, but upon the impress\nof man; 2. That every man has a natural and inalienable right to the use\nof matter.\n\nNow, if matter can be appropriated, and if, notwithstanding, all\nmen retain an inalienable right to the use of this matter, what is\nproperty?--and if matter can be appropriated only by labor, how long\nis this appropriation to continue?--questions that will confuse and\nconfound all jurists whatsoever.\n\nThen M. Wolowski cites his authorities. Great God! what witnesses he\nbrings forward! First, M. Troplong, the great metaphysician, whom we\nhave discussed; then, M. Louis Blanc, editor of the \"Revue du Progres,\"\nwho came near being tried by jury for publishing his \"Organization of\nLabor,\" and who escaped from the clutches of the public prosecutor only\nby a juggler's trick; [68] Corinne,--I mean Madame de Stael,--who, in\nan ode, making a poetical comparison of the land with the waves, of the\nfurrow of a plough with the wake of a vessel, says \"that property exists\nonly where man has left his trace,\" which makes property dependent\nupon the solidity of the elements; Rousseau, the apostle of liberty and\nequality, but who, according to M. Wolowski, attacked property only AS\nA JOKE, and in order to point a paradox; Robespierre, who prohibited\na division of the land, because he regarded such a measure as a\nrejuvenescence of property, and who, while awaiting the definitive\norganization of the republic, placed all property in the care?? of\nthe people,--that is, transferred the right of eminent domain from the\nindividual to society; Babeuf, who wanted property for the nation, and\ncommunism for the citizens; M. Considerant, who favors a division of\nlanded property into shares,--that is, who wishes to render property\nnominal and fictitious: the whole being intermingled with jokes and\nwitticisms (intended undoubtedly to lead people away from the HORNETS'\nNESTS) at the expense of the adversaries of the right of property!\n\n\nNovember 26.--M. Wolowski supposes this objection: Land, like\nwater, air, and light, is necessary to life, therefore it cannot\nbe appropriated; and he replies: The importance of landed property\ndiminishes as the power of industry increases.\n\nGood! this importance DIMINISHES, but it does not DISAPPEAR; and this,\nof itself, shows landed property to be illegitimate. Here M. Wolowski\npretends to think that the opponents of property refer only to property\nin land, while they merely take it as a term of comparison; and, in\nshowing with wonderful clearness the absurdity of the position in which\nhe places them, he finds a way of drawing the attention of his hearers\nto another subject without being false to the truth which it is his\noffice to contradict.\n\n\"Property,\" says M. Wolowski, \"is that which distinguishes man from the\nanimals.\" That may be; but are we to regard this as a compliment or a\nsatire?\n\n\"Mahomet,\" says M. Wolowski, \"decreed property.\" And so did Genghis\nKhan, and Tamerlane, and all the ravagers of nations. What sort of\nlegislators were they?\n\n\"Property has been in existence ever since the origin of the human\nrace.\" Yes, and so has slavery, and despotism also; and likewise\npolygamy and idolatry. But what does this antiquity show?\n\nThe members of the Council of the State--M. Portalis at their head--did\nnot raise, in their discussion of the Code, the question of the\nlegitimacy of property. \"Their silence,\" says M. Wolowski, \"is a\nprecedent in favor of this right.\" I may regard this reply as personally\naddressed to me, since the observation belongs to me. I reply, \"As long\nas an opinion is universally admitted, the universality of belief serves\nof itself as argument and proof. When this same opinion is attacked,\nthe former faith proves nothing; we must resort to reason. Ignorance,\nhowever old and pardonable it may be, never outweighs reason.\"\n\nProperty has its abuses, M. Wolowski confesses. \"But,\" he says, \"these\nabuses gradually disappear. To-day their cause is known. They all arise\nfrom a false theory of property. In principle, property is inviolable,\nbut it can and must be checked and disciplined.\" Such are the\nconclusions of the professor.\n\nWhen one thus remains in the clouds, he need not fear to equivocate.\nNevertheless, I would like him to define these ABUSES of property, to\nshow their cause, to explain this true theory from which no abuse is to\nspring; in short, to tell me how, without destroying property, it can\nbe governed for the greatest good of all. \"Our civil code,\" says M.\nWolowski, in speaking of this subject, \"leaves much to be desired.\" I\nthink it leaves every thing undone.\n\nFinally, M. Wolowski opposes, on the one hand, the concentration of\ncapital, and the absorption which results therefrom; and, on the other,\nhe objects to the extreme division of the land. Now I think that I have\ndemonstrated in my First Memoir, that large accumulation and minute\ndivision are the first two terms of an economical trinity,--a THESIS and\nan ANTITHESIS. But, while M. Wolowski says nothing of the third term,\nthe SYNTHESIS, and thus leaves the inference in suspense, I have shown\nthat this third term is ASSOCIATION, which is the annihilation of\nproperty.\n\nNovember 30.--LITERARY PROPERTY. M. Wolowski grants that it is just to\nrecognize the rights of talent (which is not in the least hostile to\nequality); but he seriously objects to perpetual and absolute property\nin the works of genius, to the profit of the authors' heirs. His main\nargument is, that society has a right of collective production over\nevery creation of the mind. Now, it is precisely this principle of\ncollective power that I developed in my \"Inquiries into Property and\nGovernment,\" and on which I have established the complete edifice of\na new social organization. M. Wolowski is, as far as I know, the first\njurist who has made a legislative application of this economical law.\nOnly, while I have extended the principle of collective power to every\nsort of product, M. Wolowski, more prudent than it is my nature to be,\nconfines it to neutral ground. So, that that which I am bold enough\nto say of the whole, he is contented to affirm of a part, leaving\nthe intelligent hearer to fill up the void for himself. However, his\narguments are keen and close. One feels that the professor, finding\nhimself more at ease with one aspect of property, has given the rein to\nhis intellect, and is rushing on towards liberty.\n\n1. Absolute literary property would hinder the activity of other men,\nand obstruct the development of humanity. It would be the death of\nprogress; it would be suicide. What would have happened if the\nfirst inventions,--the plough, the level, the saw, &c.,--had been\nappropriated?\n\nSuch is the first proposition of M. Wolowski.\n\nI reply: Absolute property in land and tools hinders human activity, and\nobstructs progress and the free development of man.\n\nWhat happened in Rome, and in all the ancient nations? What occurred\nin the middle ages? What do we see to-day in England, in consequence of\nabsolute property in the sources of production?\n\nThe suicide of humanity.\n\n2. Real and personal property is in harmony with the social interest.\nIn consequence of literary property, social and individual interests are\nperpetually in conflict.\n\nThe statement of this proposition contains a rhetorical figure, common\nwith those who do not enjoy full and complete liberty of speech. This\nfigure is the _anti-phrasis_ or _contre-verite_. It consists, according\nto Dumarsais and the best humanists, in saying one thing while meaning\nanother. M. Wolowski's proposition, naturally expressed, would read as\nfollows: \"Just as real and personal property is essentially hostile to\nsociety, so, in consequence of literary property, social and individual\ninterests are perpetually in conflict.\"\n\n3. M. de Montalembert, in the Chamber of Peers, vehemently protested\nagainst the assimilation of authors to inventors of machinery; an\nassimilation which he claimed to be injurious to the former. M. Wolowski\nreplies, that the rights of authors, without machinery, would be nil;\nthat, without paper-mills, type foundries, and printing-offices,\nthere could be no sale of verse and prose; that many a mechanical\ninvention,--the compass, for instance, the telescope, or the\nsteam-engine,--is quite as valuable as a book.\n\nPrior to M. Montalembert, M. Charles Comte had laughed at the inference\nin favor of mechanical inventions, which logical minds never fail to\ndraw from the privileges granted to authors. \"He,\" says M. Comte, \"who\nfirst conceived and executed the idea of transforming a piece of wood\ninto a pair of sabots, or an animal's hide into a pair of sandals, would\nthereby have acquired an exclusive right to make shoes for the human\nrace!\" Undoubtedly, under the system of property. For, in fact, this\npair of sabots, over which you make so merry, is the creation of the\nshoemaker, the work of his genius, the expression of his thought; to him\nit is his poem, quite as much as \"Le Roi s'amuse,\" is M. Victor Hugo's\ndrama. Justice for all alike. If you refuse a patent to a perfecter of\nboots, refuse also a privilege to a maker of rhymes.\n\n4. That which gives importance to a book is a fact external to the\nauthor and his work. Without the intelligence of society, without its\ndevelopment, and a certain community of ideas, passions, and interests\nbetween it and the authors, the works of the latter would be worth\nnothing. The exchangeable value of a book is due even more to the SOCIAL\nCONDITION than to the talent displayed in it.\n\nIndeed, it seems as if I were copying my own words. This proposition\nof M. Wolowski contains a special expression of a general and absolute\nidea, one of the strongest and most conclusive against the right of\nproperty. Why do artists, like mechanics, find the means to live?\nBecause society has made the fine arts, like the rudest industries,\nobjects of consumption and exchange, governed consequently by all the\nlaws of commerce and political economy. Now, the first of these laws is\nthe equipoise of functions; that is, the equality of associates.\n\n5. M. Wolowski indulges in sarcasm against the petitioners for literary\nproperty. \"There are authors,\" he says, \"who crave the privileges of\nauthors, and who for that purpose point out the power of the melodrama.\nThey speak of the niece of Corneille, begging at the door of a theatre\nwhich the works of her uncle had enriched.... To satisfy the avarice of\nliterary people, it would be necessary to create literary majorats, and\nmake a whole code of exceptions.\"\n\nI like this virtuous irony. But M. Wolowski has by no means exhausted\nthe difficulties which the question involves. And first, is it just that\nMM. Cousin, Guizot, Villemain, Damiron, and company, paid by the State\nfor delivering lectures, should be paid a second time through the\nbooksellers?--that I, who have the right to report their lectures,\nshould not have the right to print them? Is it just that MM. Noel and\nChapsal, overseers of the University, should use their influence in\nselling their selections from literature to the youth whose studies they\nare instructed to superintend in consideration of a salary? And, if\nthat is not just, is it not proper to refuse literary property to every\nauthor holding public offices, and receiving pensions or sinecures?\n\nAgain, shall the privilege of the author extend to irreligious and\nimmoral works, calculated only to corrupt the heart, and obscure the\nunderstanding? To grant this privilege is to sanction immorality by law;\nto refuse it is to censure the author. And since it is impossible, in\nthe present imperfect state of society, to prevent all violations of the\nmoral law, it will be necessary to open a license-office for books as\nwell as morals. But, then, three-fourths of our literary people will\nbe obliged to register; and, recognized thenceforth on their own\ndeclaration as PROSTITUTES, they will necessarily belong to the public.\nWe pay toll to the prostitute; we do not endow her.\n\nFinally, shall plagiarism be classed with forgery? If you reply \"Yes,\"\nyou appropriate in advance all the subjects of which books treat; if\nyou say \"No,\" you leave the whole matter to the decision of the judge.\nExcept in the case of a clandestine reprint, how will he distinguish\nforgery from quotation, imitation, plagiarism, or even coincidence? A\nsavant spends two years in calculating a table of logarithms to nine\nor ten decimals. He prints it. A fortnight after his book is selling\nat half-price; it is impossible to tell whether this result is due to\nforgery or competition. What shall the court do? In case of doubt, shall\nit award the property to the first occupant? As well decide the question\nby lot.\n\nThese, however, are trifling considerations; but do we see that, in\ngranting a perpetual privilege to authors and their heirs, we really\nstrike a fatal blow at their interests? We think to make booksellers\ndependent upon authors,--a delusion. The booksellers will unite against\nworks, and their proprietors. Against works, by refusing to push their\nsale, by replacing them with poor imitations, by reproducing them in\na hundred indirect ways; and no one knows how far the science of\nplagiarism, and skilful imitation may be carried. Against proprietors.\nAre we ignorant of the fact, that a demand for a dozen copies enables a\nbookseller to sell a thousand; that with an edition of five hundred he\ncan supply a kingdom for thirty years? What will the poor authors do in\nthe presence of this omnipotent union of booksellers? I will tell them\nwhat they will do. They will enter the employ of those whom they now\ntreat as pirates; and, to secure an advantage, they will become wage\nlaborers. A fit reward for ignoble avarice, and insatiable pride. [69]\n\nContradictions of contradictions! \"Genius is the great leveller of the\nworld,\" cries M. de Lamartine; \"then genius should be a proprietor.\nLiterary property is the fortune of democracy.\" This unfortunate\npoet thinks himself profound when he is only puffed up. His eloquence\nconsists solely in coupling ideas which clash with each other: ROUND\nSQUARE, DARK SUN, FALLEN ANGEL, PRIEST and LOVE, THOUGHT and POETRY,\nGUNIUS {???}, and FORTUNE, LEVELING and PROPERTY. Let us tell him, in\nreply, that his mind is a dark luminary; that each of his discourses is\na disordered harmony; and that all his successes, whether in verse or\nprose, are due to the use of the extraordinary in the treatment of the\nmost ordinary subjects.\n\n\"Le National,\" in reply to the report of M. Lamartine, endeavors to\nprove that literary property is of quite a different nature from landed\nproperty; as if the nature of the right of property depended on the\nobject to which it is applied, and not on the mode of its exercise and\nthe condition of its existence. But the main object of \"Le National\"\nis to please a class of proprietors whom an extension of the right of\nproperty vexes: that is why \"Le National\" opposes literary property.\nWill it tell us, once for all, whether it is for equality or against it?\n\n\n6. OBJECTION.--Property in occupied land passes to the heirs of the\noccupant. \"Why,\" say the authors, \"should not the work of genius pass\nin like manner to the heirs of the man of genius?\" M. Wolowski's reply:\n\"Because the labor of the first occupant is continued by his heirs,\nwhile the heirs of an author neither change nor add to his works. In\nlanded property, the continuance of labor explains the continuance of\nthe right.\"\n\nYes, when the labor is continued; but if the labor is not continued,\nthe right ceases. Thus is the right of possession, founded on personal\nlabor, recognized by M. Wolowski.\n\nM. Wolowski decides in favor of granting to authors property in their\nworks for a certain number of years, dating from the day of their first\npublication.\n\nThe succeeding lectures on patents on inventions were no less\ninstructive, although intermingled with shocking contradictions inserted\nwith a view to make the useful truths more palatable. The necessity\nfor brevity compels me to terminate this examination here, not without\nregret.\n\nThus, of two eclectic jurists, who attempt a defence of property, one\nis entangled in a set of dogmas without principle or method, and is\nconstantly talking nonsense; and the other designedly abandons the\ncause of property, in order to present under the same name the theory\nof individual possession. Was I wrong in claiming that confusion reigned\namong legists, and ought I to be legally prosecuted for having said\nthat their science henceforth stood convicted of falsehood, its glory\neclipsed?\n\nThe ordinary resources of the law no longer sufficing, philosophy,\npolitical economy, and the framers of systems have been consulted. All\nthe oracles appealed to have been discouraging.\n\nThe philosophers are no clearer to-day than at the time of the eclectic\nefflorescence; nevertheless, through their mystical apothegms, we\ncan distinguish the words PROGRESS, UNITY, ASSOCIATION, SOLIDARITY,\nFRATERNITY, which are certainly not reassuring to proprietors. One of\nthese philosophers, M. Pierre Leroux, has written two large books, in\nwhich he claims to show by all religious, legislative, and philosophical\nsystems that, since men are responsible to each other, equality of\nconditions is the final law of society. It is true that this philosopher\nadmits a kind of property; but as he leaves us to imagine what property\nwould become in presence of equality, we may boldly class him with the\nopponents of the right of increase.\n\nI must here declare freely--in order that I may not be suspected of\nsecret connivance, which is foreign to my nature--that M. Leroux has\nmy full sympathy. Not that I am a believer in his quasi-Pythagorean\nphilosophy (upon this subject I should have more than one observation to\nsubmit to him, provided a veteran covered with stripes would not despise\nthe remarks of a conscript); not that I feel bound to this author by any\nspecial consideration for his opposition to property. In my opinion, M.\nLeroux could, and even ought to, state his position more explicitly and\nlogically. But I like, I admire, in M. Leroux, the antagonist of our\nphilosophical demigods, the demolisher of usurped reputations, the\npitiless critic of every thing that is respected because of its\nantiquity. Such is the reason for my high esteem of M. Leroux; such\nwould be the principle of the only literary association which, in this\ncentury of coteries, I should care to form. We need men who, like\nM. Leroux, call in question social principles,--not to diffuse doubt\nconcerning them, but to make them doubly sure; men who excite the mind\nby bold negations, and make the conscience tremble by doctrines of\nannihilation. Where is the man who does not shudder on hearing M. Leroux\nexclaim, \"There is neither a paradise nor a hell; the wicked will not\nbe punished, nor the good rewarded. Mortals! cease to hope and fear; you\nrevolve in a circle of appearances; humanity is an immortal tree, whose\nbranches, withering one after another, feed with their debris the root\nwhich is always young!\" Where is the man who, on hearing this desolate\nconfession of faith, does not demand with terror, \"Is it then true that\nI am only an aggregate of elements organized by an unknown force, an\nidea realized for a few moments, a form which passes and disappears? Is\nit true that my mind is only a harmony, and my soul a vortex? What is\nthe ego? what is God? what is the sanction of society?\"\n\nIn former times, M. Leroux would have been regarded as a great culprit,\nworthy only (like Vanini) of death and universal execration. To-day, M.\nLeroux is fulfilling a mission of salvation, for which, whatever he\nmay say, he will be rewarded. Like those gloomy invalids who are always\ntalking of their approaching death, and who faint when the doctor's\nopinion confirms their pretence, our materialistic society is agitated\nand loses countenance while listening to this startling decree of the\nphilosopher, \"Thou shalt die!\" Honor then to M. Leroux, who has revealed\nto us the cowardice of the Epicureans; to M. Leroux, who renders new\nphilosophical solutions necessary! Honor to the anti-eclectic, to the\napostle of equality!\n\nIn his work on \"Humanity,\" M. Leroux commences by positing the necessity\nof property: \"You wish to abolish property; but do you not see that\nthereby you would annihilate man and even the name of man?... You wish\nto abolish property; but could you live without a body? I will not tell\nyou that it is necessary to support this body;... I will tell you that\nthis body is itself a species of property.\"\n\nIn order clearly to understand the doctrine of M. Leroux, it must be\nborne in mind that there are three necessary and primitive forms of\nsociety,--communism, property, and that which to-day we properly call\nassociation. M. Leroux rejects in the first place communism, and combats\nit with all his might. Man is a personal and free being, and therefore\nneeds a sphere of independence and individual activity. M. Leroux\nemphasizes this in adding: \"You wish neither family, nor country, nor\nproperty; therefore no more fathers, no more sons, no more brothers.\nHere you are, related to no being in time, and therefore without a name;\nhere you are, alone in the midst of a billion of men who to-day inhabit\nthe earth. How do you expect me to distinguish you in space in the midst\nof this multitude?\"\n\nIf man is indistinguishable, he is nothing. Now, he can be\ndistinguished, individualized, only through a devotion of certain things\nto his use,--such as his body, his faculties, and the tools which he\nuses. \"Hence,\" says M. Leroux, \"the necessity of appropriation;\" in\nshort, property.\n\nBut property on what condition? Here M. Leroux, after having condemned\ncommunism, denounces in its turn the right of domain. His whole doctrine\ncan be summed up in this single proposition,--_Man may be made by\nproperty a slave or a despot by turns_.\n\nThat posited, if we ask M. Leroux to tell us under what system of\nproperty man will be neither a slave nor a despot, but free, just, and\na citizen, M. Leroux replies in the third volume of his work on\n\"Humanity:\"--\n\n\n\"There are three ways of destroying man's communion with his fellows and\nwith the universe:... 1. By separating man in time; 2. by separating him\nin space; 3. by dividing the land, or, in general terms, the instruments\nof production; by attaching men to things, by subordinating man to\nproperty, by making man a proprietor.\"\n\n\nThis language, it must be confessed, savors a little too strongly of the\nmetaphysical heights which the author frequents, and of the school of\nM. Cousin. Nevertheless, it can be seen, clearly enough it seems to me,\nthat M. Leroux opposes the exclusive appropriation of the instruments of\nproduction; only he calls this non-appropriation of the instruments of\nproduction a NEW METHOD of establishing property, while I, in accordance\nwith all precedent, call it a destruction of property. In fact, without\nthe appropriation of instruments, property is nothing.\n\n\n\"Hitherto, we have confined ourselves to pointing out and combating the\ndespotic features of property, by considering property alone. We have\nfailed to see that the despotism of property is a correlative of the\ndivision of the human race;... that property, instead of being organized\nin such a way as to facilitate the unlimited communion of man with his\nfellows and with the universe, has been, on the contrary, turned against\nthis communion.\"\n\nLet us translate this into commercial phraseology. In order to destroy\ndespotism and the inequality of conditions, men must cease from\ncompetition and must associate their interests. Let employer and\nemployed (now enemies and rivals) become associates.\n\nNow, ask any manufacturer, merchant, or capitalist, whether he would\nconsider himself a proprietor if he were to share his revenue and\nprofits with this mass of wage-laborers whom it is proposed to make his\nassociates.\n\n\n\"Family, property, and country are finite things, which ought to be\norganized with a view to the infinite. For man is a finite being,\nwho aspires to the infinite. To him, absolute finiteness is evil. The\ninfinite is his aim, the indefinite his right.\"\n\n\nFew of my readers would understand these hierophantic words, were I to\nleave them unexplained. M. Leroux means, by this magnificent formula,\nthat humanity is a single immense society, which, in its collective\nunity, represents the infinite; that every nation, every tribe, every\ncommune, and every citizen are, in different degrees, fragments or\nfinite members of the infinite society, the evil in which results\nsolely from individualism and privilege,--in other words, from the\nsubordination of the infinite to the finite; finally, that, to attain\nhumanity's end and aim, each part has a right to an indefinitely\nprogressive development.\n\n\n\"All the evils which afflict the human race arise from caste. The family\nis a blessing; the family caste (the nobility) is an evil. Country is\na blessing; the country caste (supreme, domineering, conquering) is an\nevil; property (individual possession) is a blessing; the property\ncaste (the domain of property of Pothier, Toullier, Troplong, &c.) is an\nevil.\"\n\n\nThus, according to M. Leroux, there is property and property,--the one\ngood, the other bad. Now, as it is proper to call different things by\ndifferent names, if we keep the name \"property\" for the former, we must\ncall the latter robbery, rapine, brigandage. If, on the contrary, we\nreserve the name \"property\" for the latter, we must designate the former\nby the term POSSESSION, or some other equivalent; otherwise we should be\ntroubled with an unpleasant synonymy.\n\nWhat a blessing it would be if philosophers, daring for once to say all\nthat they think, would speak the language of ordinary mortals! Nations\nand rulers would derive much greater profit from their lectures, and,\napplying the same names to the same ideas, would come, perhaps, to\nunderstand each other. I boldly declare that, in regard to property, I\nhold no other opinion than that of M. Leroux; but, if I should adopt the\nstyle of the philosopher, and repeat after him, \"Property is a blessing,\nbut the property caste--the _statu quo_ of property--is an evil,\" I\nshould be extolled as a genius by all the bachelors who write for the\nreviews. [70] If, on the contrary, I prefer the classic language of Rome\nand the civil code, and say accordingly, \"Possession is a blessing, but\nproperty is robbery,\" immediately the aforesaid bachelors raise a hue\nand cry against the monster, and the judge threatens me. Oh, the power\nof language!\n\n\"Le National,\" on the other hand, has laughed at M. Leroux and his ideas\non property, charging him with TAUTOLOGY and CHILDISHNESS. \"Le National\"\ndoes not wish to understand. Is it necessary to remind this journal that\nit has no right to deride a dogmatic philosopher, because it is without\na doctrine itself? From its foundation, \"Le National\" has been a nursery\nof intriguers and renegades. From time to time it takes care to warn its\nreaders. Instead of lamenting over all its defections, the democratic\nsheet would do better to lay the blame on itself, and confess the\nshallowness of its theories. When will this organ of popular interests\nand the electoral reform cease to hire sceptics and spread doubt? I will\nwager, without going further, that M. Leon Durocher, the critic of M.\nLeroux, is an anonymous or pseudonymous editor of some bourgeois, or\neven aristocratic, journal.\n\n\nThe economists, questioned in their turn, propose to associate capital\nand labor. You know, sir, what that means. If we follow out the\ndoctrine, we soon find that it ends in an absorption of property, not by\nthe community, but by a general and indissoluble commandite, so that\nthe condition of the proprietor would differ from that of the workingman\nonly in receiving larger wages. This system, with some peculiar\nadditions and embellishments, is the idea of the phalanstery. But it\nis clear that, if inequality of conditions is one of the attributes of\nproperty, it is not the whole of property. That which makes property a\nDELIGHTFUL THING, as some philosopher (I know not who) has said, is\nthe power to dispose at will, not only of one's own goods, but of their\nspecific nature; to use them at pleasure; to confine and enclose them;\nto excommunicate mankind, as M. Pierre Leroux says; in short, to make\nsuch use of them as passion, interest, or even caprice, may suggest.\nWhat is the possession of money, a share in an agricultural or\nindustrial enterprise, or a government-bond coupon, in comparison with\nthe infinite charm of being master of one's house and grounds, under\none's vine and fig-tree? \"_Beati possidentes_!\" says an author quoted by\nM. Troplong. Seriously, can that be applied to a man of income, who has\nno other possession under the sun than the market, and in his pocket\nhis money? As well maintain that a trough is a coward. A nice method of\nreform! They never cease to condemn the thirst for gold, and the\ngrowing individualism of the century; and yet, most inconceivable\nof contradictions, they prepare to turn all kinds of property into\none,--property in coin.\n\nI must say something further of a theory of property lately put forth\nwith some ado: I mean the theory of M. Considerant.\n\nThe Fourierists are not men who examine a doctrine in order to ascertain\nwhether it conflicts with their system. On the contrary, it is their\ncustom to exult and sing songs of triumph whenever an adversary passes\nwithout perceiving or noticing them.\n\nThese gentlemen want direct refutations, in order that, if they are\nbeaten, they may have, at least, the selfish consolation of having been\nspoken of. Well, let their wish be gratified.\n\nM. Considerant makes the most lofty pretensions to logic. His method\nof procedure is always that of MAJOR, MINOR, AND CONCLUSION. He would\nwillingly write upon his hat, \"_Argumentator in barbara_.\" But M.\nConsiderant is too intelligent and quick-witted to be a good logician,\nas is proved by the fact that he appears to have taken the syllogism for\nlogic.\n\nThe syllogism, as everybody knows who is interested in philosophical\ncuriosities, is the first and perpetual sophism of the human mind,--the\nfavorite tool of falsehood, the stumbling-block of science, the advocate\nof crime. The syllogism has produced all the evils which the fabulist\nso eloquently condemned, and has done nothing good or useful: it is\nas devoid of truth as of justice. We might apply to it these words of\nScripture: \"_Celui qui met en lui sa confiance, perira_.\" Consequently,\nthe best philosophers long since condemned it; so that now none but the\nenemies of reason wish to make the syllogism its weapon.\n\nM. Considerant, then, has built his theory of property upon a syllogism.\nWould he be disposed to stake the system of Fourier upon his arguments,\nas I am ready to risk the whole doctrine of equality upon my refutation\nof that system? Such a duel would be quite in keeping with the warlike\nand chivalric tastes of M. Considerant, and the public would profit by\nit; for, one of the two adversaries falling, no more would be said about\nhim, and there would be one grumbler less in the world.\n\nThe theory of M. Considerant has this remarkable feature, that, in\nattempting to satisfy at the same time the claims of both laborers and\nproprietors, it infringes alike upon the rights of the former and the\nprivileges of the latter. In the first place, the author lays it down as\na principle: \"1. That the use of the land belongs to each member of the\nrace; that it is a natural and imprescriptible right, similar in all\nrespects to the right to the air and the sunshine. 2. That the right\nto labor is equally fundamental, natural, and imprescriptible.\" I have\nshown that the recognition of this double right would be the death of\nproperty. I denounce M. Considerant to the proprietors!\n\nBut M. Considerant maintains that the right to labor creates the right\nof property, and this is the way he reasons:--\n\n\nMajor Premise.--\"Every man legitimately possesses the thing which his\nlabor, his skill,--or, in more general terms, his action,--has created.\"\n\n\nTo which M. Considerant adds, by way of comment: \"Indeed, the land not\nhaving been created by man, it follows from the fundamental principle\nof property, that the land, being given to the race in common, can in\nno wise be the exclusive and legitimate property of such and such\nindividuals, who were not the creators of this value.\"\n\nIf I am not mistaken, there is no one to whom this proposition, at first\nsight and in its entirety, does not seem utterly irrefutable. Reader,\ndistrust the syllogism.\n\nFirst, I observe that the words LEGITIMATELY POSSESSES signify to the\nauthor's mind is _LEGITIMATE PROPRIETOR;_ otherwise the argument, being\nintended to prove the legitimacy of property, would have no meaning. I\nmight here raise the question of the difference between property and\npossession, and call upon M. Considerant, before going further, to\ndefine the one and the other; but I pass on.\n\nThis first proposition is doubly false. 1. In that it asserts the act\nof CREATION to be the only basis of property. 2. In that it regards this\nact as sufficient in all cases to authorize the right of property.\n\nAnd, in the first place, if man may be proprietor of the game which he\ndoes not create, but which he KILLS; of the fruits which he does not\ncreate, but which he GATHERS; of the vegetables which he does not\ncreate, but which he PLANTS; of the animals which he does not create,\nbut which he REARS,--it is conceivable that men may in like manner\nbecome proprietors of the land which they do not create, but which they\nclear and fertilize. The act of creation, then, is not NECESSARY to the\nacquisition of the right of property. I say further, that this act alone\nis not always sufficient, and I prove it by the second premise of M.\nConsiderant:--\n\n\nMinor Premise.--\"Suppose that on an isolated island, on the soil of a\nnation, or over the whole face of the earth (the extent of the scene of\naction does not affect our judgment of the facts), a generation of\nhuman beings devotes itself for the first time to industry, agriculture,\nmanufactures, &c. This generation, by its labor, intelligence, and\nactivity, creates products, develops values which did not exist on the\nuncultivated land. Is it not perfectly clear that the property of this\nindustrious generation will stand on a basis of right, if the value\nor wealth produced by the activity of all be distributed among the\nproducers, according to each one's assistance in the creation of the\ngeneral wealth? That is unquestionable.\"\n\n\nThat is quite questionable. For this value or wealth, PRODUCED BY THE\nACTIVITY OF ALL, is by the very fact of its creation COLLECTIVE wealth,\nthe use of which, like that of the land, may be divided, but which as\nproperty remains UNDIVIDED. And why this undivided ownership? Because\nthe society which creates is itself indivisible,--a permanent unit,\nincapable of reduction to fractions. And it is this unity of society\nwhich makes the land common property, and which, as M. Considerant\nsays, renders its use imprescriptible in the case of every individual.\nSuppose, indeed, that at a given time the soil should be equally\ndivided; the very next moment this division, if it allowed the right\nof property, would become illegitimate. Should there be the slightest\nirregularity in the method of transfer, men, members of society,\nimprescriptible possessors of the land, might be deprived at one blow of\nproperty, possession, and the means of production. In short, property\nin capital is indivisible, and consequently inalienable, not necessarily\nwhen the capital is UNCREATED, but when it is COMMON or COLLECTIVE.\n\nI confirm this theory against M. Considerant, by the third term of his\nsyllogism:--\n\n\nConclusion.--\"The results of the labor performed by this generation are\ndivisible into two classes, between which it is important clearly to\ndistinguish. The first class includes the products of the soil which\nbelong to this first generation in its usufructuary capacity, augmented,\nimproved and refined by its labor and industry. These products consist\neither of objects of consumption or instruments of labor. It is clear\nthat these products are the legitimate property of those who have\ncreated them by their activity.... Second class.--Not only has this\ngeneration created the products just mentioned (objects of consumption\nand instruments of labor), but it has also added to the original value\nof the soil by cultivation, by the erection of buildings, by all\nthe labor producing permanent results, which it has performed. This\nadditional value evidently constitutes a product--a value created by\nthe activity of the first generation; and if, BY ANY MEANS WHATEVER,\nthe ownership of this value be distributed among the members of\nsociety equitably,--that is, in proportion to the labor which each\nhas performed,--each will legitimately possess the portion which he\nreceives. He may then dispose of this legitimate and private property\nas he sees fit,--exchange it, give it away, or transfer it; and no other\nindividual, or collection of other individuals,--that is, society,--can\nlay any claim to these values.\"\n\n\nThus, by the distribution of collective capital, to the use of which\neach associate, either in his own right or in right of his authors,\nhas an imprescriptible and undivided title, there will be in the\nphalanstery, as in the France of 1841, the poor and the rich; some men\nwho, to live in luxury, have only, as Figaro says, to take the\ntrouble to be born, and others for whom the fortune of life is but an\nopportunity for long-continued poverty; idlers with large incomes, and\nworkers whose fortune is always in the future; some privileged by birth\nand caste, and others pariahs whose sole civil and political rights are\nTHE RIGHT TO LABOR, AND THE RIGHT TO LAND. For we must not be deceived;\nin the phalanstery every thing will be as it is to-day, an object of\nproperty,--machines, inventions, thought, books, the products of art,\nof agriculture, and of industry; animals, houses, fences, vineyards,\npastures, forests, fields,--every thing, in short, except the\nUNCULTIVATED LAND. Now, would you like to know what uncultivated land is\nworth, according to the advocates of property? \"A square league hardly\nsuffices for the support of a savage,\" says M. Charles Comte. Estimating\nthe wretched subsistence of this savage at three hundred francs\nper year, we find that the square league necessary to his life is,\nrelatively to him, faithfully represented by a rent of fifteen francs.\nIn France there are twenty-eight thousand square leagues, the total rent\nof which, by this estimate, would be four hundred and twenty thousand\nfrancs, which, when divided among nearly thirty-four millions of people,\nwould give each an INCOME OF A CENTIME AND A QUARTER. That is the new\nright which the great genius of Fourier has invented IN BEHALF OF THE\nFRENCH PEOPLE, and with which his first disciple hopes to reform the\nworld. I denounce M. Considerant to the proletariat!\n\nIf the theory of M. Considerant would at least really guarantee this\nproperty which he cherishes so jealously, I might pardon him the flaws\nin his syllogism, certainly the best one he ever made in his life. But,\nno: that which M. Considerant takes for property is only a privilege\nof extra pay. In Fourier's system, neither the created capital nor\nthe increased value of the soil are divided and appropriated in any\neffective manner: the instruments of labor, whether created or not,\nremain in the hands of the phalanx; the pretended proprietor can touch\nonly the income. He is permitted neither to realize his share of the\nstock, nor to possess it exclusively, nor to administer it, whatever it\nbe. The cashier throws him his dividend; and then, proprietor, eat the\nwhole if you can!\n\nThe system of Fourier would not suit the proprietors, since it takes\naway the most delightful feature of property,--the free disposition of\none's goods. It would please the communists no better, since it involves\nunequal conditions. It is repugnant to the friends of free association\nand equality, in consequence of its tendency to wipe out human character\nand individuality by suppressing possession, family, and country,--the\nthreefold expression of the human personality.\n\nOf all our active publicists, none seem to me more fertile in resources,\nricher in imagination, more luxuriant and varied in style, than M.\nConsiderant. Nevertheless, I doubt if he will undertake to reestablish\nhis theory of property. If he has this courage, this is what I would say\nto him: \"Before writing your reply, consider well your plan of action;\ndo not scour the country; have recourse to none of your ordinary\nexpedients; no complaints of civilization; no sarcasms upon equality;\nno glorification of the phalanstery. Leave Fourier and the departed in\npeace, and endeavor only to re-adjust the pieces of your syllogism. To\nthis end, you ought, first, to analyze closely each proposition of your\nadversary; second, to show the error, either by a direct refutation, or\nby proving the converse; third, to oppose argument to argument, so that,\nobjection and reply meeting face to face, the stronger may break down\nthe weaker, and shiver it to atoms. By that method only can you boast of\nhaving conquered, and compel me to regard you as an honest reasoner, and\na good artillery-man.\"\n\nI should have no excuse for tarrying longer with these phalansterian\ncrotchets, if the obligation which I have imposed upon myself of making\na clean sweep, and the necessity of vindicating my dignity as a writer,\ndid not prevent me from passing in silence the reproach uttered against\nme by a correspondent of \"La Phalange.\" \"We have seen but lately,\" says\nthis journalist, [71] \"that M. Proudhon, enthusiast as he has been for\nthe science created by Fourier, is, or will be, an enthusiast for any\nthing else whatsoever.\"\n\n\nIf ever sectarians had the right to reproach another for changes in\nhis beliefs, this right certainly does not belong to the disciples of\nFourier, who are always so eager to administer the phalansterian baptism\nto the deserters of all parties. But why regard it as a crime, if they\nare sincere? Of what consequence is the constancy or inconstancy of\nan individual to the truth which is always the same? It is better\nto enlighten men's minds than to teach them to be obstinate in their\nprejudices. Do we not know that man is frail and fickle, that his heart\nis full of delusions, and that his lips are a distillery of falsehood?\n_Omnis homo meudax_. Whether we will or no, we all serve for a time as\ninstruments of this truth, whose kingdom comes every day.\n\nGod alone is immutable, because he is eternal.\n\nThat is the reply which, as a general rule, an honest man is entitled\nalways to make, and which I ought perhaps to be content to offer as an\nexcuse; for I am no better than my fathers. But, in a century of doubt\nand apostasy like ours, when it is of importance to set the small and\nthe weak an example of strength and honesty of utterance, I must not\nsuffer my character as a public assailant of property to be dishonored.\nI must render an account of my old opinions.\n\nExamining myself, therefore, upon this charge of Fourierism, and\nendeavoring to refresh my memory, I find that, having been connected\nwith the Fourierists in my studies and my friendships, it is possible\nthat, without knowing it, I have been one of Fourier's partisans. Jerome\nLalande placed Napoleon and Jesus Christ in his catalogue of atheists.\nThe Fourierists resemble this astronomer: if a man happens to find fault\nwith the existing civilization, and to admit the truth of a few of their\ncriticisms, they straightway enlist him, willy-nilly, in their school.\nNevertheless, I do not deny that I have been a Fourierist; for,\nsince they say it, of course it may be so. But, sir, that of which my\nex-associates are ignorant, and which doubtless will astonish you, is\nthat I have been many other things,--in religion, by turns a Protestant,\na Papist, an Arian and Semi-Arian, a Manichean, a Gnostic, an\nAdamite even and a Pre-Adamite, a Sceptic, a Pelagian, a Socinian, an\nAnti-Trinitarian, and a Neo-Christian; [72] in philosophy and politics,\nan Idealist, a Pantheist, a Platonist, a Cartesian, an Eclectic\n(that is, a sort of _juste-milieu_), a Monarchist, an Aristocrat,\na Constitutionalist, a follower of Babeuf, and a Communist. I have\nwandered through a whole encyclopaedia of systems. Do you think\nit surprising, sir, that, among them all, I was for a short time a\nFourierist?\n\n\nFor my part, I am not at all surprised, although at present I have\nno recollection of it. One thing is sure,--that my superstition and\ncredulity reached their height at the very period of my life which my\ncritics reproachfully assign as the date of my Fourieristic beliefs.\nNow I hold quite other views. My mind no longer admits that which is\ndemonstrated by syllogisms, analogies, or metaphors, which are the\nmethods of the phalanstery, but demands a process of generalization and\ninduction which excludes error. Of my past OPINIONSS I retain absolutely\nnone. I have acquired some KNOWLEDGE. I no longer BELIEVE. I either\nKNOW, or am IGNORANT. In a word, in seeking for the reason of things, I\nsaw that I was a RATIONALIST.\n\nUndoubtedly, it would have been simpler to begin where I have ended.\nBut then, if such is the law of the human mind; if all society, for six\nthousand years, has done nothing but fall into error; if all mankind are\nstill buried in the darkness of faith, deceived by their prejudices and\npassions, guided only by the instinct of their leaders; if my accusers,\nthemselves, are not free from sectarianism (for they call themselves\nFOURIERISTS),--am I alone inexcusable for having, in my inner self, at\nthe secret tribunal of my conscience, begun anew the journey of our poor\nhumanity?\n\nI would by no means, then, deny my errors; but, sir, that which\ndistinguishes me from those who rush into print is the fact that, though\nmy thoughts have varied much, my writings do not vary. To-day, even, and\non a multitude of questions, I am beset by a thousand extravagant and\ncontradictory opinions; but my opinions I do not print, for the public\nhas nothing to do with them. Before addressing my fellow-men, I wait\nuntil light breaks in upon the chaos of my ideas, in order that what I\nmay say may be, not the whole truth (no man can know that), but nothing\nbut the truth.\n\nThis singular disposition of my mind to first identify itself with a\nsystem in order to better understand it, and then to reflect upon it in\norder to test its legitimacy, is the very thing which disgusted me with\nFourier, and ruined in my esteem the societary school. To be a faithful\nFourierist, in fact, one must abandon his reason and accept every\nthing from a master,--doctrine, interpretation, and application. M.\nConsiderant, whose excessive intolerance anathematizes all who do not\nabide by his sovereign decisions, has no other conception of Fourierism.\nHas he not been appointed Fourier's vicar on earth and pope of a Church\nwhich, unfortunately for its apostles, will never be of this world?\nPassive belief is the theological virtue of all sectarians, especially\nof the Fourierists.\n\nNow, this is what happened to me. While trying to demonstrate by\nargument the religion of which I had become a follower in studying\nFourier, I suddenly perceived that by reasoning I was becoming\nincredulous; that on each article of the creed my reason and my faith\nwere at variance, and that my six weeks' labor was wholly lost. I saw\nthat the Fourierists--in spite of their inexhaustible gabble, and their\nextravagant pretension to decide in all things--were neither savants,\nnor logicians, nor even believers; that they were SCIENTIFIC QUACKS, who\nwere led more by their self-love than their conscience to labor for the\ntriumph of their sect, and to whom all means were good that would reach\nthat end. I then understood why to the Epicureans they promised women,\nwine, music, and a sea of luxury; to the rigorists, maintenance of\nmarriage, purity of morals, and temperance; to laborers, high wages;\nto proprietors, large incomes; to philosophers, solutions the secret\nof which Fourier alone possessed; to priests, a costly religion and\nmagnificent festivals; to savants, knowledge of an unimaginable nature;\nto each, indeed, that which he most desired. In the beginning,\nthis seemed to me droll; in the end, I regarded it as the height of\nimpudence. No, sir; no one yet knows of the foolishness and infamy which\nthe phalansterian system contains. That is a subject which I mean to\ntreat as soon as I have balanced my accounts with property. [73]\n\n\nIt is rumored that the Fourierists think of leaving France and going to\nthe new world to found a phalanstery. When a house threatens to fall,\nthe rats scamper away; that is because they are rats. Men do better;\nthey rebuild it. Not long since, the St. Simonians, despairing of their\ncountry which paid no heed to them, proudly shook the dust from their\nfeet, and started for the Orient to fight the battle of free woman.\nPride, wilfulness, mad selfishness! True charity, like true faith,\ndoes not worry, never despairs; it seeks neither its own glory, nor\nits interest, nor empire; it does every thing for all, speaks with\nindulgence to the reason and the will, and desires to conquer only by\npersuasion and sacrifice. Remain in France, Fourierists, if the progress\nof humanity is the only thing which you have at heart! There is more to\ndo here than in the new world. Otherwise, go! you are nothing but liars\nand hypocrites!\n\nThe foregoing statement by no means embraces all the political elements,\nall the opinions and tendencies, which threaten the future of property;\nbut it ought to satisfy any one who knows how to classify facts, and to\ndeduce their law or the idea which governs them. Existing society seems\nabandoned to the demon of falsehood and discord; and it is this sad\nsight which grieves so deeply many distinguished minds who lived too\nlong in a former age to be able to understand ours. Now, while the\nshort-sighted spectator begins to despair of humanity, and, distracted\nand cursing that of which he is ignorant, plunges into scepticism and\nfatalism, the true observer, certain of the spirit which governs\nthe world, seeks to comprehend and fathom Providence. The memoir on\n\"Property,\" published last year by the pensioner of the Academy of\nBesancon, is simply a study of this nature.\n\nThe time has come for me to relate the history of this unlucky treatise,\nwhich has already caused me so much chagrin, and made me so unpopular;\nbut which was on my part so involuntary and unpremeditated, that I would\ndare to affirm that there is not an economist, not a philosopher, not a\njurist, who is not a hundred times guiltier than I. There is something\nso singular in the way in which I was led to attack property, that if,\non hearing my sad story, you persist, sir, in your blame, I hope at\nleast you will be forced to pity me.\n\nI never have pretended to be a great politician; far from that, I always\nhave felt for controversies of a political nature the greatest aversion;\nand if, in my \"Essay on Property,\" I have sometimes ridiculed our\npoliticians, believe, sir, that I was governed much less by my pride\nin the little that I know, than by my vivid consciousness of their\nignorance and excessive vanity. Relying more on Providence than on\nmen; not suspecting at first that politics, like every other science,\ncontained an absolute truth; agreeing equally well with Bossuet and\nJean Jacques,--I accepted with resignation my share of human misery,\nand contented myself with praying to God for good deputies, upright\nministers, and an honest king. By taste as well as by discretion and\nlack of confidence in my powers, I was slowly pursuing some commonplace\nstudies in philology, mingled with a little metaphysics, when I suddenly\nfell upon the greatest problem that ever has occupied philosophical\nminds: I mean the criterion of certainty.\n\nThose of my readers who are unacquainted with the philosophical\nterminology will be glad to be told in a few words what this criterion\nis, which plays so great a part in my work.\n\nThe criterion of certainty, according to the philosophers, will be,\nwhen discovered, an infallible method of establishing the truth of an\nopinion, a judgment, a theory, or a system, in nearly the same way as\ngold is recognized by the touchstone, as iron approaches the magnet,\nor, better still, as we verify a mathematical operation by applying\nthe PROOF. TIME has hitherto served as a sort of criterion for society.\nThus, the primitive men--having observed that they were not all equal\nin strength, beauty, and labor--judged, and rightly, that certain ones\namong them were called by nature to the performance of simple and common\nfunctions; but they concluded, and this is where their error lay, that\nthese same individuals of duller intellect, more restricted genius, and\nweaker personality, were predestined to SERVE the others; that is, to\nlabor while the latter rested, and to have no other will than theirs:\nand from this idea of a natural subordination among men sprang\ndomesticity, which, voluntarily accepted at first, was imperceptibly\nconverted into horrible slavery. Time, making this error more palpable,\nhas brought about justice. Nations have learned at their own cost that\nthe subjection of man to man is a false idea, an erroneous theory,\npernicious alike to master and to slave. And yet such a social system\nhas stood several thousand years, and has been defended by celebrated\nphilosophers; even to-day, under somewhat mitigated forms, sophists of\nevery description uphold and extol it. But experience is bringing it to\nan end.\n\nTime, then, is the criterion of societies; thus looked at, history is\nthe demonstration of the errors of humanity by the argument _reductio ad\nabsurdum_.\n\nNow, the criterion sought for by metaphysicians would have the advantage\nof discriminating at once between the true and the false in every\nopinion; so that in politics, religion, and morals, for example, the\ntrue and the useful being immediately recognized, we should no longer\nneed to await the sorrowful experience of time. Evidently such a secret\nwould be death to the sophists,--that cursed brood, who, under different\nnames, excite the curiosity of nations, and, owing to the difficulty\nof separating the truth from the error in their artistically woven\ntheories, lead them into fatal ventures, disturb their peace, and fill\nthem with such extraordinary prejudice.\n\nUp to this day, the criterion of certainty remains a mystery; this is\nowing to the multitude of criteria that have been successively proposed.\nSome have taken for an absolute and definite criterion the testimony\nof the senses; others intuition; these evidence; those argument. M.\nLamennais affirms that there is no other criterion than universal\nreason. Before him, M. de Bonald thought he had discovered it in\nlanguage. Quite recently, M. Buchez has proposed morality; and, to\nharmonize them all, the eclectics have said that it was absurd to seek\nfor an absolute criterion, since there were as many criteria as special\norders of knowledge.\n\nOf all these hypotheses it may be observed, That the testimony of the\nsenses is not a criterion, because the senses, relating us only to\nphenomena, furnish us with no ideas; that intuition needs external\nconfirmation or objective certainty; that evidence requires proof, and\nargument verification; that universal reason has been wrong many a time;\nthat language serves equally well to express the true or the false; that\nmorality, like all the rest, needs demonstration and rule; and finally,\nthat the eclectic idea is the least reasonable of all, since it is of no\nuse to say that there are several criteria if we cannot point out one.\nI very much fear that it will be with the criterion as with the\nphilosopher's stone; that it will finally be abandoned, not only as\ninsolvable, but as chimerical. Consequently, I entertain no hopes of\nhaving found it; nevertheless, I am not sure that some one more skilful\nwill not discover it.\n\nBe it as it may with regard to a criterion or criteria, there are\nmethods of demonstration which, when applied to certain subjects,\nmay lead to the discovery of unknown truths, bring to light relations\nhitherto unsuspected, and lift a paradox to the highest degree of\ncertainty. In such a case, it is not by its novelty, nor even by its\ncontent, that a system should be judged, but by its method. The critic,\nthen, should follow the example of the Supreme Court, which, in the\ncases which come before it, never examines the facts, but only the form\nof procedure. Now, what is the form of procedure? A method.\n\nI then looked to see what philosophy, in the absence of a criterion, had\naccomplished by the aid of special methods, and I must say that I\ncould not discover--in spite of the loudly-proclaimed pretensions\nof some--that it had produced any thing of real value; and, at last,\nwearied with the philosophical twaddle, I resolved to make a new search\nfor the criterion. I confess it, to my shame, this folly lasted for two\nyears, and I am not yet entirely rid of it. It was like seeking a needle\nin a haystack. I might have learned Chinese or Arabic in the time that I\nhave lost in considering and reconsidering syllogisms, in rising to\nthe summit of an induction as to the top of a ladder, in inserting\na proposition between the horns of a dilemma, in decomposing,\ndistinguishing, separating, denying, affirming, admitting, as if I could\npass abstractions through a sieve.\n\nI selected justice as the subject-matter of my experiments.\nFinally, after a thousand decompositions, recompositions, and double\ncompositions, I found at the bottom of my analytical crucible, not the\ncriterion of certainty, but a metaphysico-economico-political treatise,\nwhose conclusions were such that I did not care to present them in a\nmore artistic or, if you will, more intelligible form. The effect which\nthis work produced upon all classes of minds gave me an idea of the\nspirit of our age, and did not cause me to regret the prudent and\nscientific obscurity of my style. How happens it that to-day I am\nobliged to defend my intentions, when my conduct bears the evident\nimpress of such lofty morality?\n\nYou have read my work, sir, and you know the gist of my tedious and\nscholastic lucubrations. Considering the revolutions of humanity,\nthe vicissitudes of empires, the transformations of property, and the\ninnumerable forms of justice and of right, I asked, \"Are the evils which\nafflict us inherent in our condition as men, or do they arise only from\nan error? This inequality of fortunes which all admit to be the cause of\nsociety's embarrassments, is it, as some assert, the effect of Nature;\nor, in the division of the products of labor and the soil, may there not\nhave been some error in calculation? Does each laborer receive all that\nis due him, and only that which is due him? In short, in the present\nconditions of labor, wages, and exchange, is no one wronged?--are the\naccounts well kept?--is the social balance accurate?\"\n\nThen I commenced a most laborious investigation. It was necessary to\narrange informal notes, to discuss contradictory titles, to reply to\ncaptious allegations, to refute absurd pretensions, and to describe\nfictitious debts, dishonest transactions, and fraudulent accounts. In\norder to triumph over quibblers, I had to deny the authority of custom,\nto examine the arguments of legislators, and to oppose science with\nscience itself. Finally, all these operations completed, I had to give a\njudicial decision.\n\nI therefore declared, my hand upon my heart, before God and men, that\nthe causes of social inequality are three in number: 1. GRATUITOUS\nAPPROPRIATION OF COLLECTIVE WEALTH; 2. INEQUALITY IN EXCHANGE; 3. THE\nRIGHT OF PROFIT OR INCREASE.\n\nAnd since this threefold method of extortion is the very essence of the\ndomain of property, I denied the legitimacy of property, and proclaimed\nits identity with robbery.\n\nThat is my only offence. I have reasoned upon property; I have searched\nfor the criterion of justice; I have demonstrated, not the possibility,\nbut the necessity, of equality of fortunes; I have allowed myself no\nattack upon persons, no assault upon the government, of which I, more\nthan any one else, am a provisional adherent. If I have sometimes\nused the word PROPRIETOR, I have used it as the abstract name of a\nmetaphysical being, whose reality breathes in every individual,--not\nalone in a privileged few.\n\nNevertheless, I acknowledge--for I wish my confession to be\nsincere--that the general tone of my book has been bitterly censured.\nThey complain of an atmosphere of passion and invective unworthy of\nan honest man, and quite out of place in the treatment of so grave a\nsubject.\n\nIf this reproach is well founded (which it is impossible for me either\nto deny or admit, because in my own cause I cannot be judge),--if, I\nsay, I deserve this charge, I can only humble myself and acknowledge\nmyself guilty of an involuntary wrong; the only excuse that I could\noffer being of such a nature that it ought not to be communicated to the\npublic. All that I can say is, that I understand better than any one how\nthe anger which injustice causes may render an author harsh and violent\nin his criticisms. When, after twenty years of labor, a man still finds\nhimself on the brink of starvation, and then suddenly discovers in\nan equivocation, an error in calculation, the cause of the evil which\ntorments him in common with so many millions of his fellows, he can\nscarcely restrain a cry of sorrow and dismay.\n\nBut, sir, though pride be offended by my rudeness, it is not to pride\nthat I apologize, but to the proletaires, to the simple-minded, whom I\nperhaps have scandalized. My angry dialectics may have produced a bad\neffect on some peaceable minds. Some poor workingman--more affected\nby my sarcasm than by the strength of my arguments--may, perhaps, have\nconcluded that property is the result of a perpetual Machiavelianism on\nthe part of the governors against the governed,--a deplorable error of\nwhich my book itself is the best refutation. I devoted two chapters to\nshowing how property springs from human personality and the comparison\nof individuals. Then I explained its perpetual limitation; and,\nfollowing out the same idea, I predicted its approaching disappearance.\nHow, then, could the editors of the \"Revue Democratique,\" after\nhaving borrowed from me nearly the whole substance of their economical\narticles, dare to say: \"The holders of the soil, and other productive\ncapital, are more or less wilful accomplices in a vast robbery, they\nbeing the exclusive receivers and sharers of the stolen goods\"?\n\nThe proprietors WILFULLY guilty of the crime of robbery! Never did\nthat homicidal phrase escape my pen; never did my heart conceive the\nfrightful thought. Thank Heaven! I know not how to calumniate my kind;\nand I have too strong a desire to seek for the reason of things to be\nwilling to believe in criminal conspiracies. The millionnaire is no more\ntainted by property than the journeyman who works for thirty sous per\nday. On both sides the error is equal, as well as the intention. The\neffect is also the same, though positive in the former, and negative\nin the latter. I accused property; I did not denounce the proprietors,\nwhich would have been absurd: and I am sorry that there are among us\nwills so perverse and minds so shattered that they care for only so much\nof the truth as will aid them in their evil designs. Such is the\nonly regret which I feel on account of my indignation, which, though\nexpressed perhaps too bitterly, was at least honest, and legitimate in\nits source.\n\nHowever, what did I do in this essay which I voluntarily submitted\nto the Academy of Moral Sciences? Seeking a fixed axiom amid social\nuncertainties, I traced back to one fundamental question all the\nsecondary questions over which, at present, so keen and diversified\na conflict is raging This question was the right of property. Then,\ncomparing all existing theories with each other, and extracting from\nthem that which is common to them all, I endeavored to discover that\nelement in the idea of property which is necessary, immutable, and\nabsolute; and asserted, after authentic verification, that this idea\nis reducible to that of INDIVIDUAL AND TRANSMISSIBLE POSSESSION;\nSUSCEPTIBLE OF EXCHANGE, BUT NOT OF ALIENATION; FOUNDED ON LABOR, AND\nNOT ON FICTITIOUS OCCUPANCY, OR IDLE CAPRICE. I said, further, that this\nidea was the result of our revolutionary movements,--the culminating\npoint towards which all opinions, gradually divesting themselves of\ntheir contradictory elements, converge. And I tried to demonstrate\nthis by the spirit of the laws, by political economy, by psychology and\nhistory.\n\nA Father of the Church, finishing a learned exposition of the Catholic\ndoctrine, cried, in the enthusiasm of his faith, _\"Domine, si error est,\na te decepti sumus_ (if my religion is false, God is to blame).\" I, as\nwell as this theologian, can say, \"If equality is a fable, God, through\nwhom we act and think and are; God, who governs society by eternal laws,\nwho rewards just nations, and punishes proprietors,--God alone is the\nauthor of evil; God has lied. The fault lies not with me.\"\n\nBut, if I am mistaken in my inferences, I should be shown my error, and\nled out of it. It is surely worth the trouble, and I think I deserve\nthis honor. There is no ground for proscription.\n\nFor, in the words of that member of the Convention who did not like\nthe guillotine, _to kill is not to reply_. Until then, I persist in\nregarding my work as useful, social, full of instruction for public\nofficials,--worthy, in short, of reward and encouragement.\n\nFor there is one truth of which I am profoundly convinced,--nations\nlive by absolute ideas, not by approximate and partial conceptions;\ntherefore, men are needed who define principles, or at least test them\nin the fire of controversy. Such is the law,--the idea first, the pure\nidea, the understanding of the laws of God, the theory: practice follows\nwith slow steps, cautious, attentive to the succession of events; sure\nto seize, towards this eternal meridian, the indications of supreme\nreason.\n\nThe co-operation of theory and practice produces in humanity the\nrealization of order,--the absolute truth. [74]\n\n\nAll of us, as long as we live, are called, each in proportion to his\nstrength, to this sublime work. The only duty which it imposes upon\nus is to refrain from appropriating the truth to ourselves, either by\nconcealing it, or by accommodating it to the temper of the century,\nor by using it for our own interests. This principle of conscience, so\ngrand and so simple, has always been present in my thought.\n\nConsider, in fact, sir, that which I might have done, but did not wish\nto do. I reason on the most honorable hypothesis. What hindered me from\nconcealing, for some years to come, the abstract theory of the equality\nof fortunes, and, at the same time, from criticising constitutions and\ncodes; from showing the absolute and the contingent, the immutable and\nthe ephemeral, the eternal and the transitory, in laws present and past;\nfrom constructing a new system of legislation, and establishing on\na solid foundation this social edifice, ever destroyed and as often\nrebuilt? Might I not, taking up the definitions of casuists, have\nclearly shown the cause of their contradictions and uncertainties, and\nsupplied, at the same time, the inadequacies of their conclusions? Might\nI not have confirmed this labor by a vast historical exposition, in\nwhich the principle of exclusion, and of the accumulation of property,\nthe appropriation of collective wealth, and the radical vice in\nexchanges, would have figured as the constant causes of tyranny, war,\nand revolution?\n\n\"It should have been done,\" you say. Do not doubt, sir, that such a task\nwould have required more patience than genius. With the principles of\nsocial economy which I have analyzed, I would have had only to break\nthe ground, and follow the furrow. The critic of laws finds nothing more\ndifficult than to determine justice: the labor alone would have been\nlonger. Oh, if I had pursued this glittering prospect, and, like the\nman of the burning bush, with inspired countenance and deep and solemn\nvoice, had presented myself some day with new tables, there would have\nbeen found fools to admire, boobies to applaud, and cowards to offer me\nthe dictatorship; for, in the way of popular infatuations, nothing is\nimpossible.\n\nBut, sir, after this monument of insolence and pride, what should I have\ndeserved in your opinion, at the tribunal of God, and in the judgment of\nfree men? Death, sir, and eternal reprobation!\n\nI therefore spoke the truth as soon as I saw it, waiting only long\nenough to give it proper expression. I pointed out error in order\nthat each might reform himself, and render his labors more useful. I\nannounced the existence of a new political element, in order that\nmy associates in reform, developing it in concert, might arrive more\npromptly at that unity of principles which alone can assure to society\na better day. I expected to receive, if not for my book, at least for\nmy commendable conduct, a small republican ovation. And, behold!\njournalists denounce me, academicians curse me, political adventurers\n(great God!) think to make themselves tolerable by protesting that they\nare not like me! I give the formula by which the whole social edifice\nmay be scientifically reconstructed, and the strongest minds reproach\nme for being able only to destroy. The rest despise me, because I am\nunknown. When the \"Essay on Property\" fell into the reformatory camp,\nsome asked: \"Who has spoken? Is it Arago? Is it Lamennais? Michel de\nBourges or Garnier-Pages?\"\n\nAnd when they heard the name of a new man: \"We do not know him,\"\nthey would reply. Thus, the monopoly of thought, property in reason,\noppresses the proletariat as well as the _bourgeoisie_. The worship of\nthe infamous prevails even on the steps of the tabernacle.\n\nBut what am I saying? May evil befall me, if I blame the poor creatures!\nOh! let us not despise those generous souls, who in the excitement of\ntheir patriotism are always prompt to identify the voice of their\nchiefs with the truth. Let us encourage rather their simple credulity,\nenlighten complacently and tenderly their precious sincerity, and\nreserve our shafts for those vain-glorious spirits who are always\nadmiring their genius, and, in different tongues, caressing the people\nin order to govern them.\n\nThese considerations alone oblige me to reply to the strange and\nsuperficial conclusions of the \"Journal du Peuple\" (issue of Oct. 11,\n1840), on the question of property. I leave, therefore, the journalist\nto address myself only to his readers. I hope that the self-love of the\nwriter will not be offended, if, in the presence of the masses, I ignore\nan individual.\n\nYou say, proletaires of the \"Peuple,\" \"For the very reason that men and\nthings exist, there always will be men who will possess things; nothing,\ntherefore, can destroy property.\"\n\nIn speaking thus, you unconsciously argue exactly after the manner of\nM. Cousin, who always reasons from _possession_ to PROPERTY. This\ncoincidence, however, does not surprise me. M. Cousin is a philosopher\nof much mind, and you, proletaires, have still more. Certainly it is\nhonorable, even for a philosopher, to be your companion in error.\n\nOriginally, the word PROPERTY was synonymous with PROPER or INDIVIDUAL\nPOSSESSION. It designated each individual's special right to the use of\na thing. But when this right of use, inert (if I may say so) as it\nwas with regard to the other usufructuaries, became active and\nparamount,--that is, when the usufructuary converted his right to\npersonally use the thing into the right to use it by his neighbor's\nlabor,--then property changed its nature, and its idea became complex.\nThe legists knew this very well, but instead of opposing, as they ought,\nthis accumulation of profits, they accepted and sanctioned the whole.\nAnd as the right of farm-rent necessarily implies the right of use,--in\nother words, as the right to cultivate land by the labor of a slave\nsupposes one's power to cultivate it himself, according to the principle\nthat the greater includes the less,--the name property was reserved\nto designate this double right, and that of possession was adopted to\ndesignate the right of use.\n\nWhence property came to be called the perfect right, the right of\ndomain, the eminent right, the heroic or _quiritaire_ right,--in Latin,\n_jus perfectum, jus optimum, jus quiritarium, jus dominii_,--while\npossession became assimilated to farm-rent.\n\nNow, that individual possession exists of right, or, better,\nfrom natural necessity, all philosophers admit, and can easily e\ndemonstrated; but when, in imitation of M. Cousin, we assume it to be\nthe basis of the domain of property, we fall into the sophism called\n_sophisma amphiboliae vel ambiguitatis_, which consists in changing the\nmeaning by a verbal equivocation.\n\nPeople often think themselves very profound, because, by the aid of\nexpressions of extreme generality, they appear to rise to the height\nof absolute ideas, and thus deceive inexperienced minds; and, what\nis worse, this is commonly called EXAMINING ABSTRACTIONS. But the\nabstraction formed by the comparison of identical facts is one thing,\nwhile that which is deduced from different acceptations of the same term\nis quite another. The first gives the universal idea, the axiom, the\nlaw; the second indicates the order of generation of ideas. All\nour errors arise from the constant confusion of these two kinds of\nabstractions. In this particular, languages and philosophies are alike\ndeficient. The less common an idiom is, and the more obscure its\nterms, the more prolific is it as a source of error: a philosopher is\nsophistical in proportion to his ignorance of any method of neutralizing\nthis imperfection in language. If the art of correcting the errors of\nspeech by scientific methods is ever discovered, then philosophy will\nhave found its criterion of certainty.\n\nNow, then, the difference between property and possession being well\nestablished, and it being settled that the former, for the reasons\nwhich I have just given, must necessarily disappear, is it best, for the\nslight advantage of restoring an etymology, to retain the word PROPERTY?\nMy opinion is that it would be very unwise to do so, and I will tell\nwhy. I quote from the \"Journal du Peuple:\"--\n\n\n\"To the legislative power belongs the right to regulate property, to\nprescribe the conditions of acquiring, possessing, and transmitting\nit... It cannot be denied that inheritance, assessment, commerce,\nindustry, labor, and wages require the most important modifications.\"\n\n\nYou wish, proletaires, to REGULATE PROPERTY; that is, you wish to\ndestroy it and reduce it to the right of possession. For to regulate\nproperty without the consent of the proprietors is to deny the right\nOF DOMAIN; to associate employees with proprietors is to destroy\nthe EMINENT right; to suppress or even reduce farm-rent, house-rent,\nrevenue, and increase generally, is to annihilate PERFECT property. Why,\nthen, while laboring with such laudable enthusiasm for the establishment\nof equality, should you retain an expression whose equivocal meaning\nwill always be an obstacle in the way of your success?\n\nThere you have the first reason--a wholly philosophical one--for\nrejecting not only the thing, but the name, property. Here now is the\npolitical, the highest reason.\n\nEvery social revolution--M. Cousin will tell you--is effected only by\nthe realization of an idea, either political, moral, or religious. When\nAlexander conquered Asia, his idea was to avenge Greek liberty against\nthe insults of Oriental despotism; when Marius and Caesar overthrew\nthe Roman patricians, their idea was to give bread to the people;\nwhen Christianity revolutionized the world, its idea was to emancipate\nmankind, and to substitute the worship of one God for the deities of\nEpicurus and Homer; when France rose in '89, her idea was liberty and\nequality before the law. There has been no true revolution, says M.\nCousin, with out its idea; so that where an idea does not exist, or even\nfails of a formal expression, revolution is impossible. There are mobs,\nconspirators, rioters, regicides. There are no revolutionists. Society,\ndevoid of ideas, twists and tosses about, and dies in the midst of its\nfruitless labor.\n\nNevertheless, you all feel that a revolution is to come, and that you\nalone can accomplish it. What, then, is the idea which governs you,\nproletaires of the nineteenth century?--for really I cannot call you\nrevolutionists. What do you think?--what do you believe?--what do you\nwant? Be guarded in your reply. I have read faithfully your favorite\njournals, your most esteemed authors. I find everywhere only vain and\npuerile _entites_; nowhere do I discover an idea.\n\nI will explain the meaning of this word _entite_,--new, without doubt,\nto most of you.\n\nBy _entite_ is generally understood a substance which the imagination\ngrasps, but which is incognizable by the senses and the reason. Thus the\nSOPORIFIC POWER of opium, of which Sganarelle speaks, and the PECCANT\nHUMORS of ancient medicine, are _entites_. The _entite_ is the\nsupport of those who do not wish to confess their ignorance. It\nis incomprehensible; or, as St. Paul says, the _argumentum non\napparentium_. In philosophy, the _entite_ is often only a repetition of\nwords which add nothing to the thought.\n\nFor example, when M. Pierre Leroux--who says so many excellent things,\nbut who is too fond, in my opinion, of his Platonic formulas--assures us\nthat the evils of humanity are due to our IGNORANCE OF LIFE, M. Pierre\nLeroux utters an _entite;_ for it is evident that if we are evil it is\nbecause we do not know how to live; but the knowledge of this fact is of\nno value to us.\n\nWhen M. Edgar Quinet declares that France suffers and declines because\nthere is an ANTAGONISM of men and of interests, he declares an _entite;_\nfor the problem is to discover the cause of this antagonism.\n\nWhen M. Lamennais, in thunder tones, preaches self-sacrifice and love,\nhe proclaims two _entites_; for we need to know on what conditions\nself-sacrifice and love can spring up and exist.\n\nSo also, proletaires, when you talk of LIBERTY, PROGRESS, and THE\nSOVEREIGNTY OF THE PEOPLE, you make of these naturally intelligible\nthings so many _entites_ in space: for, on the one hand, we need a new\ndefinition of liberty, since that of '89 no longer suffices; and, on the\nother, we must know in what direction society should proceed in order to\nbe in progress. As for the sovereignty of the people, that is a\ngrosser _entite_ than the sovereignty of reason; it is the _entite_\nof _entites_. In fact, since sovereignty can no more be conceived\nof outside of the people than outside of reason, it remains to be\nascertained who, among the people, shall exercise the sovereignty; and,\namong so many minds, which shall be the sovereigns. To say that the\npeople should elect their representatives is to say that the people\nshould recognize their sovereigns, which does not remove the difficulty\nat all.\n\nBut suppose that, equal by birth, equal before the law, equal in\npersonality, equal in social functions, you wish also to be equal in\nconditions.\n\nSuppose that, perceiving all the mutual relations of men, whether\nthey produce or exchange or consume, to be relations of commutative\njustice,--in a word, social relations; suppose, I say, that, perceiving\nthis, you wish to give this natural society a legal existence, and to\nestablish the fact by law,--\n\nI say that then you need a clear, positive, and exact expression of your\nwhole idea,--that is, an expression which states at once the principle,\nthe means, and the end; and I add that that expression is ASSOCIATION.\n\nAnd since the association of the human race dates, at least rightfully,\nfrom the beginning of the world, and has gradually established and\nperfected itself by successively divesting itself of its negative\nelements, slavery, nobility, despotism, aristocracy, and feudalism,--I\nsay that, to eliminate the last negation of society, to formulate the\nlast revolutionary idea, you must change your old rallying-cries, NO\nMORE ABSOLUTISM, NO MORE NOBILITY, NO MORE SLAVES! into that of NO MORE\nPROPERTY!...\n\nBut I know what astonishes you, poor souls, blasted by the wind of\npoverty, and crushed by your patrons' pride: it is EQUALITY, whose\nconsequences frighten you. How, you have said in your journal,--how can\nwe \"dream of a level which, being unnatural, is therefore unjust? How\nshall we pay the day's labor of a Cormenin or a Lamennais?\"\n\nPlebeians, listen! When, after the battle of Salamis, the Athenians\nassembled to award the prizes for courage, after the ballots had been\ncollected, it was found that each combatant had one vote for the first\nprize, and Themistocles all the votes for the second. The people of\nMinerva were crowned by their own hands. Truly heroic souls! all were\nworthy of the olive-branch, since all had ventured to claim it for\nthemselves. Antiquity praised this sublime spirit. Learn, proletaires,\nto esteem yourselves, and to respect your dignity. You wish to be\nfree, and you know not how to be citizens. Now, whoever says \"citizens\"\nnecessarily says equals.\n\nIf I should call myself Lamennais or Cormenin, and some journal,\nspeaking of me, should burst forth with these hyperboles, INCOMPARABLE\nGENIUS, SUPERIOR MIND, CONSUMMATE VIRTUE, NOBLE CHARACTER, I should not\nlike it, and should complain,--first, because such eulogies are never\ndeserved; and, second, because they furnish a bad example. But I wish,\nin order to reconcile you to equality, to measure for you the\ngreatest literary personage of our century. Do not accuse me of envy,\nproletaires, if I, a defender of equality, estimate at their proper\nvalue talents which are universally admired, and which I, better than\nany one, know how to recognize. A dwarf can always measure a giant: all\nthat he needs is a yardstick.\n\nYou have seen the pretentious announcements of \"L'Esquisse d'une\nPhilosophie,\" and you have admired the work on trust; for either you\nhave not read it, or, if you have, you are incapable of judging it.\nAcquaint yourselves, then, with this speculation more brilliant than\nsound; and, while admiring the enthusiasm of the author, cease to pity\nthose useful labors which only habit and the great number of the\npersons engaged in them render contemptible. I shall be brief; for,\nnotwithstanding the importance of the subject and the genius of the\nauthor, what I have to say is of but little moment.\n\nM. Lamennais starts with the existence of God. How does he demonstrate\nit? By Cicero's argument,--that is, by the consent of the human race.\nThere is nothing new in that. We have still to find out whether the\nbelief of the human race is legitimate; or, as Kant says, whether\nour subjective certainty of the existence of God corresponds with the\nobjective truth. This, however, does not trouble M. Lamennais. He says\nthat, if the human race believes, it is because it has a reason for\nbelieving.\n\nThen, having pronounced the name of God, M. Lamennais sings a hymn; and\nthat is his demonstration!\n\nThis first hypothesis admitted, M. Lamennais follows it with a second;\nnamely, that there are three persons in God. But, while Christianity\nteaches the dogma of the Trinity only on the authority of revelation, M.\nLamennais pretends to arrive at it by the sole force of argument; and he\ndoes not perceive that his pretended demonstration is, from beginning to\nend, anthropomorphism,--that is, an ascription of the faculties of the\nhuman mind and the powers of nature to the Divine substance. New songs,\nnew hymns!\n\nGod and the Trinity thus DEMONSTRATED, the philosopher passes to the\ncreation,--a third hypothesis, in which M. Lamennais, always eloquent,\nvaried, and sublime, DEMONSTRATES that God made the world neither of\nnothing, nor of something, nor of himself; that he was free in creating,\nbut that nevertheless he could not but create; that there is in matter\na matter which is not matter; that the archetypal ideas of the world are\nseparated from each other, in the Divine mind, by a division which is\nobscure and unintelligible, and yet substantial and real, which involves\nintelligibility, &c. We meet with like contradictions concerning the\norigin of evil. To explain this problem,--one of the profoundest in\nphilosophy,--M. Lamennais at one time denies evil, at another makes God\nthe author of evil, and at still another seeks outside of God a\nfirst cause which is not God,--an amalgam of _entites_ more or less\nincoherent, borrowed from Plato, Proclus, Spinoza, I might say even from\nall philosophers.\n\nHaving thus established his trinity of hypotheses, M. Lamennais\ndeduces therefrom, by a badly connected chain of analogies, his whole\nphilosophy. And it is here especially that we notice the syncretism\nwhich is peculiar to him. The theory of M. Lamennais embraces all\nsystems, and supports all opinions. Are you a materialist? Suppress,\nas useless _entites_, the three persons in God; then, starting directly\nfrom heat, light, and electro-magnetism,--which, according to the\nauthor, are the three original fluids, the three primary external\nmanifestations of Will, Intelligence, and Love,--you have a\nmaterialistic and atheistic cosmogony. On the contrary, are you wedded\nto spiritualism? With the theory of the immateriality of the body, you\nare able to see everywhere nothing but spirits. Finally, if you incline\nto pantheism, you will be satisfied by M. Lamennais, who formally\nteaches that the world is not an EMANATION from Divinity,--which is pure\npantheism,--but a FLOW of Divinity.\n\nI do not pretend, however, to deny that \"L'Esquisse\" contains some\nexcellent things; but, by the author's declaration, these things are not\noriginal with him; it is the system which is his. That is undoubtedly\nthe reason why M. Lamennais speaks so contemptuously of his predecessors\nin philosophy, and disdains to quote his originals. He thinks that,\nsince \"L'Esquisse\" contains all true philosophy, the world will lose\nnothing when the names and works of the old philosophers perish. M.\nLamennais, who renders glory to God in beautiful songs, does not know\nhow as well to render justice to his fellows. His fatal fault is this\nappropriation of knowledge, which the theologians call the PHILOSOPHICAL\nSIN, or the SIN AGAINST THE HOLY GHOST--a sin which will not damn you,\nproletaires, nor me either.\n\nIn short, \"L'Esquisse,\" judged as a system, and divested of all which\nits author borrows from previous systems, is a commonplace work, whose\nmethod consists in constantly explaining the known by the unknown, and\nin giving entites for abstractions, and tautologies for proofs. Its\nwhole theodicy is a work not of genius but of imagination, a patching up\nof neo-Platonic ideas. The psychological portion amounts to nothing,\nM. Lamennais openly ridiculing labors of this character, without which,\nhowever, metaphysics is impossible. The book, which treats of logic\nand its methods, is weak, vague, and shallow. Finally, we find in the\nphysical and physiological speculations which M. Lamennais deduces\nfrom his trinitarian cosmogony grave errors, the preconceived design of\naccommodating facts to theory, and the substitution in almost every case\nof hypothesis for reality. The third volume on industry and art is the\nmost interesting to read, and the best. It is true that M. Lamennais\ncan boast of nothing but his style. As a philosopher, he has added not a\nsingle idea to those which existed before him.\n\nWhy, then, this excessive mediocrity of M. Lamennais considered as\na thinker, a mediocrity which disclosed itself at the time of the\npublication of the \"Essai sur l'Indifference!\"? It is because (remember\nthis well, proletaires!) Nature makes no man truly complete, and because\nthe development of certain faculties almost always excludes an equal\ndevelopment of the opposite faculties; it is because M. Lamennais\nis preeminently a poet, a man of feeling and sentiment. Look at his\nstyle,--exuberant, sonorous, picturesque, vehement, full of exaggeration\nand invective,--and hold it for certain that no man possessed of such\na style was ever a true metaphysician. This wealth of expression and\nillustration, which everybody admires, becomes in M Lamennais the\nincurable cause of his philosophical impotence. His flow of language,\nand his sensitive nature misleading his imagination, he thinks that\nhe is reasoning when he is only repeating himself, and readily takes a\ndescription for a logical deduction. Hence his horror of positive ideas,\nhis feeble powers of analysis, his pronounced taste for indefinite\nanalogies, verbal abstractions, hypothetical generalities, in short, all\nsorts of entites.\n\nFurther, the entire life of M. Lamennais is conclusive proof of\nhis anti-philosophical genius. Devout even to mysticism, an ardent\nultramontane, an intolerant theocrat, he at first feels the double\ninfluence of the religious reaction and the literary theories which\nmarked the beginning of this century, and falls back to the middle ages\nand Gregory VII.; then, suddenly becoming a progressive Christian and a\ndemocrat, he gradually leans towards rationalism, and finally falls into\ndeism. At present, everybody waits at the trap-door. As for me, though I\nwould not swear to it, I am inclined to think that M. Lamennais, already\ntaken with scepticism, will die in a state of indifference. He owes\nto individual reason and methodical doubt this expiation of his early\nessays.\n\nIt has been pretended that M. Lamennais, preaching now a theocracy, now\nuniversal democracy, has been always consistent; that, under different\nnames, he has sought invariably one and the same thing,--unity. Pitiful\nexcuse for an author surprised in the very act of contradiction! What\nwould be thought of a man who, by turns a servant of despotism under\nLouis XVI, a demagogue with Robespierre, a courtier of the Emperor,\na bigot during fifteen years of the Restoration, a conservative\nsince 1830, should dare to say that he ever had wished for but one\nthing,--public order? Would he be regarded as any the less a renegade\nfrom all parties? Public order, unity, the world's welfare, social\nharmony, the union of the nations,--concerning each of these things\nthere is no possible difference of opinion. Everybody wishes them;\nthe character of the publicist depends only upon the means by which\nhe proposes to arrive at them. But why look to M. Lamennais for a\nsteadfastness of opinion, which he himself repudiates? Has he not said,\n\"The mind has no law; that which I believe to-day, I did not believe\nyesterday; I do not know that I shall believe it to-morrow\"?\n\nNo; there is no real superiority among men, since all talents and\ncapacities are combined never in one individual. This man has the power\nof thought, that one imagination and style, still another industrial and\ncommercial capacity. By our very nature and education, we possess only\nspecial aptitudes which are limited and confined, and which become\nconsequently more necessary as they gain in depth and strength.\nCapacities are to each other as functions and persons; who would dare\nto classify them in ranks? The finest genius is, by the laws of his\nexistence and development, the most dependent upon the society which\ncreates him. Who would dare to make a god of the glorious child?\n\n\"It is not strength which makes the man,\" said a Hercules of the\nmarket-place to the admiring crowd; \"it is character.\" That man, who\nhad only his muscles, held force in contempt. The lesson is a good one,\nproletaires; we should profit by it. It is not talent (which is also a\nforce), it is not knowledge, it is not beauty which makes the man. It is\nheart, courage, will, virtue. Now, if we are equal in that which makes\nus men, how can the accidental distribution of secondary faculties\ndetract from our manhood?\n\nRemember that privilege is naturally and inevitably the lot of the weak;\nand do not be misled by the fame which accompanies certain talents\nwhose greatest merit consists in their rarity, and a long and toilsome\napprenticeship. It is easier for M. Lamennais to recite a philippic, or\nsing a humanitarian ode after the Platonic fashion, than to discover a\nsingle useful truth; it is easier for an economist to apply the laws of\nproduction and distribution than to write ten lines in the style of M.\nLamennais; it is easier for both to speak than to act. You, then, who\nput your hands to the work, who alone truly create, why do you wish me\nto admit your inferiority? But, what am I saying?\n\nYes, you are inferior, for you lack virtue and will! Ready for labor and\nfor battle, you have, when liberty and equality are in question, neither\ncourage nor character!\n\nIn the preface to his pamphlet on \"Le Pays et le Gouvernement,\" as well\nas in his defence before the jury, M. Lamennais frankly declared\nhimself an advocate of property. Out of regard for the author and his\nmisfortune, I shall abstain from characterizing this declaration, and\nfrom examining these two sorrowful performances. M. Lamennais seems to\nbe only the tool of a quasi-radical party, which flatters him in order\nto use him, without respect for a glorious, but hence forth powerless,\nold age. What means this profession of faith? From the first number of\n\"L'Avenir\" to \"L'Esquisse d'une Philosophie,\" M. Lamennais always\nfavors equality, association, and even a sort of vague and indefinite\ncommunism. M. Lamennais, in recognizing the right of property, gives the\nlie to his past career, and renounces his most generous tendencies. Can\nit, then, be true that in this man, who has been too roughly treated,\nbut who is also too easily flattered, strength of talent has already\noutlived strength of will?\n\nIt is said that M. Lamennais has rejected the offers of several of his\nfriends to try to procure for him a commutation of his sentence. M.\nLamennais prefers to serve out his time. May not this affectation of a\nfalse stoicism come from the same source as his recognition of the right\nof property? The Huron, when taken prisoner, hurls insults and threats\nat his conqueror,--that is the heroism of the savage; the martyr\nprays for his executioners, and is willing to receive from them his\nlife,--that is the heroism of the Christian. Why has the apostle of love\nbecome an apostle of anger and revenge? Has, then, the translator of\n\"L'Imitation\" forgotten that he who offends charity cannot honor virtue?\nGalileo, retracting on his knees before the tribunal of the inquisition\nhis heresy in regard to the movement of the earth, and recovering at\nthat price his liberty, seems to me a hundred times grander than\nM. Lamennais. What! if we suffer for truth and justice, must we, in\nretaliation, thrust our persecutors outside the pale of human society;\nand, when sentenced to an unjust punishment, must we decline exemption\nif it is offered to us, because it pleases a few base satellites to call\nit a pardon? Such is not the wisdom of Christianity. But I forgot that\nin the presence of M. Lamennais this name is no longer pronounced. May\nthe prophet of \"L'Avenir\" be soon restored to liberty and his friends;\nbut, above all, may he henceforth derive his inspiration only from his\ngenius and his heart!\n\nO proletaires, proletaires! how long are you to be victimized by this\nspirit of revenge and implacable hatred which your false friends kindle,\nand which, perhaps, has done more harm to the development of reformatory\nideas than the corruption, ignorance, and malice of the government?\nBelieve me, at the present time everybody is to blame. In fact, in\nintention, or in example, all are found wanting; and you have no right\nto accuse any one. The king himself (God forgive me! I do not like to\njustify a king),--the king himself is, like his predecessors, only the\npersonification of an idea, and an idea, proletaires, which possesses\nyou yet. His greatest wrong consists in wishing for its complete\nrealization, while you wish it realized only partially,--consequently,\nin being logical in his government; while you, in your complaints, are\nnot at all so. You clamor for a second regicide. He that is without sin\namong you,--let him cast at the prince of property the first stone!\n\nHow successful you would have been if, in order to influence men,\nyou had appealed to the self-love of men,--if, in order to alter\nthe constitution and the law, you had placed yourselves within the\nconstitution and the law! Fifty thousand laws, they say, make up our\npolitical and civil codes. Of these fifty thousand laws, twenty-five\nthousand are for you, twenty-five thousand against you. Is it not clear\nthat your duty is to oppose the former to the latter, and thus, by the\nargument of contradiction, drive privilege into its last ditch? This\nmethod of action is henceforth the only useful one, being the only moral\nand rational one.\n\nFor my part, if I had the ear of this nation, to which I am attached by\nbirth and predilection, with no intention of playing the leading part\nin the future republic, I would instruct the laboring masses to\nconquer property through institutions and judicial pleadings; to seek\nauxiliaries and accomplices in the highest ranks of society, and to ruin\nall privileged classes by taking advantage of their common desire for\npower and popularity.\n\nThe petition for the electoral reform has already received two hundred\nthousand signatures, and the illustrious Arago threatens us with a\nmillion. Surely, that will be well done; but from this million of\ncitizens, who are as willing to vote for an emperor as for equality,\ncould we not select ten thousand signatures--I mean bona fide\nsignatures--whose authors can read, write, cipher, and even think\na little, and whom we could invite, after due perusal and verbal\nexplanation, to sign such a petition as the following:--\n\n\n\n\"TO HIS EXCELLENCY THE MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:--\n\n\"MONSIEUR LE MINISTRE,--On the day when a royal ordinance, decreeing\nthe establishment of model national workshops, shall appear in the\n'Moniteur,' the undersigned, to the number of TEN THOUSAND, will repair\nto the Palace of the Tuileries, and there, with all the power of their\nlungs, will shout, 'Long live Louis Philippe!'\n\n\"On the day when the 'Moniteur' shall inform the public that this\npetition is refused, the undersigned, to the number of TEN THOUSAND,\nwill say secretly in their hearts, 'Down with Louis Philippe!'\"\n\n\nIf I am not mistaken, such a petition would have some effect. [75] The\npleasure of a popular ovation would be well worth the sacrifice of a few\nmillions. They sow so much to reap unpopularity! Then, if the nation,\nits hopes of 1830 restored, should feel it its duty to keep its\npromise,--and it would keep it, for the word of the nation is, like that\nof God, sacred,--if, I say, the nation, reconciled by this act with\nthe public-spirited monarchy, should bear to the foot of the throne its\ncheers and its vows, and should at that solemn moment choose me to speak\nin its name, the following would be the substance of my speech:--\n\n\n\"SIRE,--This is what the nation wishes to say to your Majesty:--\n\n\"O King! you see what it costs to gain the applause of the citizens.\nWould you like us henceforth to take for our motto: 'Let us help the\nKing, the King will help us'? Do you wish the people to cry: 'THE KING\nAND THE FRENCH NATION'? Then abandon these grasping bankers, these\nquarrelsome lawyers, these miserable bourgeois, these infamous writers,\nthese dishonored men. All these, Sire, hate you, and continue to support\nyou only because they fear us. Finish the work of our kings; wipe out\naristocracy and privilege; consult with these faithful proletaires, with\nthe nation, which alone can honor a sovereign and sincerely shout, 'Long\nlive the king!'\"\n\n\nThe rest of what I have to say, sir, is for you alone; others would\nnot understand me. You are, I perceive, a republican as well as an\neconomist, and your patriotism revolts at the very idea of addressing\nto the authorities a petition in which the government of Louis Philippe\nshould be tacitly recognized. \"National workshops! it were well to have\nsuch institutions established,\" you think; \"but patriotic hearts never\nwill accept them from an aristocratic ministry, nor by the courtesy of a\nking.\" Already, undoubtedly, your old prejudices have returned, and you\nnow regard me only as a sophist, as ready to flatter the powers that\nbe as to dishonor, by pushing them to an extreme, the principles of\nequality and universal fraternity.\n\nWhat shall I say to you?... That I should so lightly compromise the\nfuture of my theories, either this clever sophistry which is attributed\nto me must be at bottom a very trifling affair, or else my convictions\nmust be so firm that they deprive me of free-will.\n\nBut, not to insist further on the necessity of a compromise between the\nexecutive power and the people, it seems to me, sir, that, in doubting\nmy patriotism, you reason very capriciously, and that your judgments\nare exceedingly rash. You, sir, ostensibly defending government and\nproperty, are allowed to be a republican, reformer, phalansterian, any\nthing you wish; I, on the contrary, demanding distinctly enough a slight\nreform in public economy, am foreordained a conservative, and likewise\na friend of the dynasty. I cannot explain myself more clearly. So firm\na believer am I in the philosophy of accomplished facts and the _statu\nquo_ of governmental forms that, instead of destroying that which\nexists and beginning over again the past, I prefer to render every thing\nlegitimate by correcting it. It is true that the corrections which I\npropose, though respecting the form, tend to finally change the nature\nof the things corrected. Who denies it? But it is precisely that which\nconstitutes my system of _statu quo_. I make no war upon symbols,\nfigures, or phantoms. I respect scarecrows, and bow before bugbears. I\nask, on the one hand, that property be left as it is, but that interest\non all kinds of capital be gradually lowered and finally abolished; on\nthe other hand, that the charter be maintained in its present shape, but\nthat method be introduced into administration and politics. That is all.\nNevertheless, submitting to all that is, though not satisfied with it, I\nendeavor to conform to the established order, and to render unto Caesar\nthe things that are Caesar's. Is it thought, for instance, that I love\nproperty?... Very well; I am myself a proprietor and do homage to the\nright of increase, as is proved by the fact that I have creditors to\nwhom I faithfully pay, every year, a large amount of interest. The same\nwith politics. Since we are a monarchy, I would cry, \"LONG LIVE THE\nKING,\" rather than suffer death; which does not prevent me, however,\nfrom demanding that the irremovable, inviolable, and hereditary\nrepresentative of the nation shall act with the proletaires against the\nprivileged classes; in a word, that the king shall become the leader of\nthe radical party. Thereby we proletaires would gain every thing; and I\nam sure that, at this price, Louis Philippe might secure to his family\nthe perpetual presidency of the republic. And this is why I think so.\n\nIf there existed in France but one great functional inequality, the duty\nof the functionary being, from one end of the year to the other, to hold\nfull court of savants, artists, soldiers, deputies, inspectors, &c.,\nit is evident that the expenses of the presidency then would be the\nnational expenses; and that, through the reversion of the civil list to\nthe mass of consumers, the great inequality of which I speak would form\nan exact equation with the whole nation. Of this no economist needs a\ndemonstration. Consequently, there would be no more fear of cliques,\ncourtiers, and appanages, since no new inequality could be established.\nThe king, as king, would have friends (unheard-of thing), but no family.\nHis relatives or kinsmen,--_agnats et cognats_,--if they were fools,\nwould be nothing to him; and in no case, with the exception of the heir\napparent, would they have, even in court, more privileges than others.\nNo more nepotism, no more favor, no more baseness. No one would go\nto court save when duty required, or when called by an honorable\ndistinction; and as all conditions would be equal and all functions\nequally honored, there would be no other emulation than that of merit\nand virtue. I wish the king of the French could say without shame,\n\"My brother the gardener, my sister-in-law the milk-maid, my son the\nprince-royal, and my son the blacksmith.\" His daughter might well be an\nartist. That would be beautiful, sir; that would be royal; no one but a\nbuffoon could fail to understand it.\n\nIn this way, I have come to think that the forms of royalty may be\nmade to harmonize with the requirements of equality, and have given\na monarchical form to my republican spirit. I have seen that France\ncontains by no means as many democrats as is generally supposed, and\nI have compromised with the monarchy. I do not say, however, that, if\nFrance wanted a republic, I could not accommodate myself equally well,\nand perhaps better. By nature, I hate all signs of distinction, crosses\nof honor, gold lace, liveries, costumes, honorary titles, &c., and,\nabove all, parades. If I had my way, no general should be distinguished\nfrom a soldier, nor a peer of France from a peasant. Why have I never\ntaken part in a review? for I am happy to say, sir, that I am a national\nguard; I have nothing else in the world but that. Because the review is\nalways held at a place which I do not like, and because they have fools\nfor officers whom I am compelled to obey. You see,--and this is not the\nbest of my history,--that, in spite of my conservative opinions, my life\nis a perpetual sacrifice to the republic.\n\nNevertheless, I doubt if such simplicity would be agreeable to French\nvanity, to that inordinate love of distinction and flattery which makes\nour nation the most frivolous in the world. M. Lamartine, in his grand\n\"Meditation on Bonaparte,\" calls the French A NATION OF BRUTUSES. We are\nmerely a nation of Narcissuses. Previous to '89, we had the aristocracy\nof blood; then every bourgeois looked down upon the commonalty, and\nwished to be a nobleman. Afterwards, distinction was based on wealth,\nand the bourgeoisie jealous of the nobility, and proud of their money,\nused 1830 to promote, not liberty by any means, but the aristocracy\nof wealth. When, through the force of events, and the natural laws of\nsociety, for the development of which France offers such free play,\nequality shall be established in functions and fortunes, then the beaux\nand the belles, the savants and the artists, will form new classes.\nThere is a universal and innate desire in this Gallic country for fame\nand glory. We must have distinctions, be they what they may,--nobility,\nwealth, talent, beauty, or dress. I suspect MM. Arage and Garnier-Pages\nof having aristocratic manners, and I picture to myself our great\njournalists, in their columns so friendly to the people, administering\nrough kicks to the compositors in their printing offices.\n\n\"This man,\" once said \"Le National\" in speaking of Carrel, \"whom we\nhad proclaimed FIRST CONSUL!... Is it not true that the monarchical\nprinciple still lives in the hearts of our democrats, and that they\nwant universal suffrage in order to make themselves kings? Since \"Le\nNational\" prides itself on holding more fixed opinions than \"Le Journal\ndes Debats,\" I presume that, Armand Carrel being dead, M. Armand Marrast\nis now first consul, and M. Garnier-Pages second consul. In every thing\nthe deputy must give way to the journalist. I do not speak of M.\nArago, whom I believe to be, in spite of calumny, too learned for the\nconsulship. Be it so. Though we have consuls, our position is not much\naltered. I am ready to yield my share of sovereignty to MM. Armand\nMarrast and Garnier-Pages, the appointed consuls, provided they will\nswear on entering upon the duties of their office, to abolish property\nand not be haughty.\n\nForever promises! Forever oaths! Why should the people trust in\ntribunes, when kings perjure themselves? Alas! truth and honesty are no\nlonger, as in the days of King John, in the mouth of princes. A whole\nsenate has been convicted of felony, and, the interest of the governors\nalways being, for some mysterious reason, opposed to the interest of the\ngoverned, parliaments follow each other while the nation dies of hunger.\nNo, no! No more protectors, no more emperors, no more consuls. Better\nmanage our affairs ourselves than through agents. Better associate our\nindustries than beg from monopolies; and, since the republic cannot\ndispense with virtues, we should labor for our reform.\n\nThis, therefore, is my line of conduct. I preach emancipation to the\nproletaires; association to the laborers; equality to the wealthy. I\npush forward the revolution by all means in my power,--the tongue,\nthe pen, the press, by action, and example. My life is a continual\napostleship.\n\nYes, I am a reformer; I say it as I think it, in good faith, and that I\nmay be no longer reproached for my vanity. I wish to convert the world.\nVery likely this fancy springs from an enthusiastic pride which may have\nturned to delirium; but it will be admitted at least that I have plenty\nof company, and that my madness is not monomania. At the present day,\neverybody wishes to be reckoned among the lunatics of Beranger. To say\nnothing of the Babeufs, the Marats, and the Robespierres, who swarm in\nour streets and workshops, all the great reformers of antiquity live\nagain in the most illustrious personages of our time. One is Jesus\nChrist, another Moses, a third Mahomet; this is Orpheus, that Plato,\nor Pythagoras. Gregory VII., himself, has risen from the grave together\nwith the evangelists and the apostles; and it may turn out that even I\nam that slave who, having escaped from his master's house, was forthwith\nmade a bishop and a reformer by St. Paul. As for the virgins and holy\nwomen, they are expected daily; at present, we have only Aspasias and\ncourtesans.\n\nNow, as in all diseases, the diagnostic varies according to the\ntemperament, so my madness has its peculiar aspects and distinguishing\ncharacteristic.\n\nReformers, as a general thing, are jealous of their role; they suffer no\nrivals, they want no partners; they have disciples, but no co-laborers.\nIt is my desire, on the contrary, to communicate my enthusiasm, and to\nmake it, as far as I can, epidemic. I wish that all were, like myself,\nreformers, in order that there might be no more sects; and that Christs,\nAnti-Christs, and false Christs might be forced to understand and agree\nwith each other.\n\nAgain, every reformer is a magician, or at least desires to become one.\nThus Moses, Jesus Christ, and the apostles, proved their mission by\nmiracles. Mahomet ridiculed miracles after having endeavored to perform\nthem. Fourier, more cunning, promises us wonders when the globe shall\nbe covered with phalansteries. For myself, I have as great a horror\nof miracles as of authorities, and aim only at logic. That is why I\ncontinually search after the criterion of certainty. I work for the\nreformation of ideas. Little matters it that they find me dry and\naustere. I mean to conquer by a bold struggle, or die in the attempt;\nand whoever shall come to the defence of property, I swear that I\nwill force him to argue like M. Considerant, or philosophize like M.\nTroplong.\n\nFinally,--and it is here that I differ most from my compeers,--I do not\nbelieve it necessary, in order to reach equality, to turn every thing\ntopsy-turvy. To maintain that nothing but an overturn can lead to reform\nis, in my judgment, to construct a syllogism, and to look for the truth\nin the regions of the unknown. Now, I am for generalization, induction,\nand progress. I regard general disappropriation as impossible: attacked\nfrom that point, the problem of universal association seems to me\ninsolvable. Property is like the dragon which Hercules killed: to\ndestroy it, it must be taken, not by the head, but by the tail,--that\nis, by profit and interest.\n\nI stop. I have said enough to satisfy any one who can read and\nunderstand. The surest way by which the government can baffle intrigues\nand break up parties is to take possession of science, and point out to\nthe nation, at an already appreciable distance, the rising oriflamme of\nequality; to say to those politicians of the tribune and the press, for\nwhose fruitless quarrels we pay so dearly, \"You are rushing forward,\nblind as you are, to the abolition of property; but the government\nmarches with its eyes open. You hasten the future by unprincipled and\ninsincere controversy; but the government, which knows this future,\nleads you thither by a happy and peaceful transition. The present\ngeneration will not pass away before France, the guide and model of\ncivilized nations, has regained her rank and legitimate influence.\"\n\nBut, alas! the government itself,--who shall enlighten it? Who can\ninduce it to accept this doctrine of equality, whose terrible but\ndecisive formula the most generous minds hardly dare to acknowledge?...\nI feel my whole being tremble when I think that the testimony of\nthree men--yes, of three men who make it their business to teach and\ndefine--would suffice to give full play to public opinion, to change\nbeliefs, and to fix destinies. Will not the three men be found?...\n\nMay we hope, or not? What must we think of those who govern us? In the\nworld of sorrow in which the proletaire moves, and where nothing is\nknown of the intentions of power, it must be said that despair prevails.\nBut you, sir,--you, who by function belong to the official world; you,\nin whom the people recognize one of their noblest friends, and\nproperty its most prudent adversary,--what say you of our deputies, our\nministers, our king? Do you believe that the authorities are friendly\nto us? Then let the government declare its position; let it print its\nprofession of faith in equality, and I am dumb. Otherwise, I shall\ncontinue the war; and the more obstinacy and malice is shown, the\noftener will I redouble my energy and audacity. I have said before, and\nI repeat it,--I have sworn, not on the dagger and the death's-head, amid\nthe horrors of a catacomb, and in the presence of men besmeared with\nblood; but I have sworn on my conscience to pursue property, to grant it\nneither peace nor truce, until I see it everywhere execrated. I have not\nyet published half the things that I have to say concerning the right of\ndomain, nor the best things. Let the knights of property, if there are\nany who fight otherwise than by retreating, be prepared every day for\na new demonstration and accusation; let them enter the arena armed with\nreason and knowledge, not wrapped up in sophisms, for justice will be\ndone.\n\n\n\"To become enlightened, we must have liberty. That alone suffices;\nbut it must be the liberty to use the reason in regard to all public\nmatters.\n\n\"And yet we hear on every hand authorities of all kinds and degrees\ncrying: 'Do not reason!'\n\n\"If a distinction is wanted, here is one:--\n\n\"The PUBLIC use of the reason always should be free, but the PRIVATE\nuse ought always to be rigidly restricted. By public use, I mean the\nscientific, literary use; by private, that which may be taken advantage\nof by civil officials and public functionaries. Since the governmental\nmachinery must be kept in motion, in order to preserve unity and attain\nour object, we must not reason; we must obey. But the same individual\nwho is bound, from this point of view, to passive obedience, has the\nright to speak in his capacity of citizen and scholar. He can make an\nappeal to the public, submit to it his observations on events which\noccur around him and in the ranks above him, taking care, however, to\navoid offences which are punishable.\n\n\"Reason, then, as much as you like; only, obey.\"--Kant: Fragment on the\nLiberty of Thought and of the Press. Tissot's Translation.\n\n\nThese words of the great philosopher outline for me my duty. I have\ndelayed the reprint of the work entitled \"What is Property?\" in order\nthat I might lift the discussion to the philosophical height from which\nridiculous clamor has dragged it down; and that, by a new presentation\nof the question, I might dissipate the fears of good citizens. I now\nreenter upon the public use of my reason, and give truth full swing. The\nsecond edition of the First Memoir on Property will immediately follow\nthe publication of this letter. Before issuing any thing further, I\nshall await the observations of my critics, and the co-operation of the\nfriends of the people and of equality.\n\nHitherto, I have spoken in my own name, and on my own personal\nresponsibility. It was my duty. I was endeavoring to call attention to\nprinciples which antiquity could not discover, because it knew nothing\nof the science which reveals them,--political economy. I have, then,\ntestified as to FACTS; in short, I have been a WITNESS. Now my role\nchanges. It remains for me to deduce the practical consequences of the\nfacts proclaimed. The position of PUBLIC PROSECUTOR is the only one\nwhich I am henceforth fitted to fill, and I shall sum up the case in the\nname of the PEOPLE.\n\nI am, sir, with all the consideration that I owe to your talent and your\ncharacter,\n\nYour very humble and most obedient servant,\n\nP. J. PROUDHON,\n\nPensioner of the Academy of Besancon.\n\n\nP.S. During the session of April 2, the Chamber of Deputies rejected,\nby a very large majority, the literary-property bill, BECAUSE IT DID NOT\nUNDERSTAND IT. Nevertheless, literary property is only a special form of\nthe right of property, which everybody claims to understand. Let us hope\nthat this legislative precedent will not be fruitless for the cause of\nequality. The consequence of the vote of the Chamber is the abolition\nof capitalistic property,--property incomprehensible, contradictory,\nimpossible, and absurd.\n\n\n\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n\n\n\n\n[Footnote 1: In the French edition of Proudhon's works, the above sketch\nof his life is prefixed to the first volume of his correspondence, but\nthe translator prefers to insert it here as the best method of\nintroducing the author to the American public.]\n\n[Footnote 2: \"An Inquiry into Grammatical Classifications.\" By P. J.\nProudhon. A treatise which received honorable mention from the Academy\nof Inscriptions, May 4, 1839. Out of print.]\n\n[Footnote 3: \"The Utility of the Celebration of Sunday,\" &c. By P. J.\nProudhon. Besancon, 1839, 12mo; 2d edition, Paris, 1841, 18mo.]\n\n[Footnote 4: Charron, on \"Wisdom,\" Chapter xviii.]\n\n[Footnote 5: M. Vivien, Minister of Justice, before commencing\nproceedings against the \"Memoir upon Property,\" asked the opinion of M.\nBlanqui; and it was on the strength of the observations of this\nhonorable academician that he spared a book which had already excited\nthe indignation of the magistrates. M. Vivien is not the only official\nto whom I have been indebted, since my first publication, for assistance\nand protection; but such generosity in the political arena is so rare\nthat one may acknowledge it graciously and freely. I have always\nthought, for my part, that bad institutions made bad magistrates; just\nas the cowardice and hypocrisy of certain bodies results solely from the\nspirit which governs them. Why, for instance, in spite of the virtues\nand talents for which they are so noted, are the academies generally\ncentres of intellectual repression, stupidity, and base intrigue? That\nquestion ought to be proposed by an academy: there would be no lack of\ncompetitors.]\n\n[Footnote 6: In Greek, {GREEK e ncg } examiner; a philosopher whose\nbusiness is to seek the truth.]\n\n[Footnote 7: Religion, laws, marriage, were the privileges of freemen,\nand, in the beginning, of nobles only. Dii majorum gentium--gods of the\npatrician families; jus gentium--right of nations; that is, of families\nor nobles. The slave and the plebeian had no families; their children\nwere treated as the offspring of animals. BEASTS they were born, BEASTS\nthey must live.]\n\n[Footnote 8: If the chief of the executive power is responsible, so must\nthe deputies be also. It is astonishing that this idea has never\noccurred to any one; it might be made the subject of an interesting\nessay. But I declare that I would not, for all the world, maintain it;\nthe people are yet much too logical for me to furnish them with\narguments.]\n\n[Footnote 9: See De Tocqueville, \"Democracy in the United States;\" and\nMichel Chevalier, \"Letters on North America.\" Plutarch tells us, \"Life\nof Pericles,\" that in Athens honest people were obliged to conceal\nthemselves while studying, fearing they would be regarded as aspirants\nfor office.]\n\n[Footnote 10: \"Sovereignty,\" according to Toullier, \"is human\nomnipotence.\" A materialistic definition: if sovereignty is any thing,\nit is a RIGHT not a FORCE or a faculty. And what is human omnipotence?]\n\n[Footnote 11: The Proudhon here referred to is J. B. V. Proudhon; a\ndistinguished French jurist, and distant relative of the Translator.]\n\n[Footnote 12: Here, especially, the simplicity of our ancestors appears\nin all its rudeness. After having made first cousins heirs, where there\nwere no legitimate children, they could not so divide the property\nbetween two different branches as to prevent the simultaneous existence\nof extreme wealth and extreme poverty in the same family. For example:--\nJames, dying, leaves two sons, Peter and John, heirs of his fortune:\nJames's property is divided equally between them. But Peter has only one\ndaughter, while John, his brother, leaves six sons. It is clear that, to\nbe true to the principle of equality, and at the same time to that of\nheredity, the two estates must be divided in seven equal portions among\nthe children of Peter and John; for otherwise a stranger might marry\nPeter's daughter, and by this alliance half of the property of James,\nthe grandfather, would be transferred to another family, which is\ncontrary to the principle of heredity. Furthermore, John's children\nwould be poor on account of their number, while their cousin, being an\nonly child, would be rich, which is contrary to the principle of\nequality. If we extend this combined application of two principles\napparently opposed to each other, we shall become convinced that the\nright of succession, which is assailed with so little wisdom in our day,\nis no obstacle to the maintenance of equality.]\n\n[Footnote 13: _Zeus klesios_.]\n\n[Footnote 14: Giraud, \"Investigations into the Right of Property among\nthe Romans.\"]\n\n[Footnote 15: Precarious, from precor, \"I pray;\" because the act of\nconcession expressly signified that the lord, in answer to the prayers\nof his men or slaves, had granted them permission to labor.]\n\n[Footnote 16: I cannot conceive how any one dares to justify the\ninequality of conditions, by pointing to the base inclinations and\npropensities of certain men. Whence comes this shameful degradation of\nheart and mind to which so many fall victims, if not from the misery and\nabjection into which property plunges them?]\n\n[Footnote 17: How many citizens are needed to support a professor of\nphilosophy?--Thirty-five millions. How many for an economist?--Two\nbillions. And for a literary man, who is neither a savant, nor an\nartist, nor a philosopher, nor an economist, and who writes newspaper\nnovels?--None.]\n\n[Footnote 18: There is an error in the author's calculation here; but\nthe translator, feeling sure that the reader will understand Proudhon's\nmeaning, prefers not to alter his figures.--Translator.]\n\n[Footnote 19: _Hoc inter se differunt onanismus et manuspratio, nempe\nquod haec a solitario exercetur, ille autem a duobus reciprocatur,\nmasculo scilicet et faemina. Porro foedam hanc onanismi venerem ludentes\nuxoria mariti habent nunc omnigm suavissimam_]\n\n[Footnote 20: Polyandry,--plurality of husbands.]\n\n[Footnote 21: Infanticide has just been publicly advocated in England,\nin a pamphlet written by a disciple of Malthus. He proposes an ANNUAL\nMASSACRE OF THE INNOCENTS in all families containing more children than\nthe law allows; and he asks that a magnificent cemetery, adorned with\nstatues, groves, fountains, and flowers, be set apart as a special\nburying-place for the superfluous children. Mothers would resort to this\ndelightful spot to dream of the happiness of these little angels, and\nwould return, quite comforted, to give birth to others, to be buried in\ntheir turn.]\n\n[Footnote 22: To perform an act of benevolence towards one's neighbor is\ncalled, in Hebrew, to do justice; in Greek, to take compassion or pity\n({GREEK n n f e },from which is derived the French _aumone_); in Latin,\nto perform an act of love or charity; in French, give alms. We can trace\nthe degradation of this principle through these various expressions: the\nfirst signifies duty; the second only sympathy; the third, affection, a\nmatter of choice, not an obligation; the fourth, caprice.]\n\n[Footnote 23: I mean here by equite what the Latins called humanitas,--\nthat is, the kind of sociability which is peculiar to man. Humanity,\ngentle and courteous to all, knows how to distinguish ranks, virtues,\nand capacities without injury to any.]\n\n[Footnote 24: Justice and equite never have been understood.]\n\n[Footnote 25: Between woman and man there may exist love, passion, ties\nof custom, and the like; but there is no real society. Man and woman are\nnot companions. The difference of the sexes places a barrier between\nthem, like that placed between animals by a difference of race.\nConsequently, far from advocating what is now called the emancipation of\nwoman, I should incline, rather, if there were no other alternative, to\nexclude her from society.]\n\n[Footnote 26: \"The strong-box of Cosmo de Medici was the grave of\nFlorentine liberty,\" said M. Michelet to the College of France.]\n\n[Footnote 27: \"My right is my lance and my buckler.\" General de Brossard\nsaid, like Achilles: \"I get wine, gold, and women with my lance and my\nbuckler.\"]\n\n[Footnote 28: It would be interesting and profitable to review the\nauthors who have written on usury, or, to use the gentler expression\nwhich some prefer, lendingat interest. The theologians always have\nopposed usury; but, since they have admitted always the legitimacy of\nrent, and since rent is evidently identical with interest, they have\nlost themselves in a labyrinth of subtle distinctions, and have finally\nreached a pass where they do not know what to think of usury. The\nChurch--the teacher of morality, so jealous and so proud of the purity\nof her doctrine--has always been ignorant of the real nature of property\nand usury. She even has proclaimed through her pontiffs the most\ndeplorable errors. _Non potest mutuum_, said Benedict XIV., _locationi\nullo pacto comparari_. \"Rent,\" says Bossuet, \"is as far from usury as\nheaven is from the earth.\" How, on{sic} such a doctrine, condemn lending\nat interest? how justify the Gospel, which expressly forbids usury? The\ndifficulty of theologians is a very serious one. Unable to refute the\neconomical demonstrations, which rightly assimilate interest to rent,\nthey no longer dare to condemn interest, and they can say only that\nthere must be such a thing as usury, since the Gospel forbids it.]\n\n[Footnote 29: \"I preach the Gospel, I live by the Gospel,\" said the\nApostle; meaning thereby that he lived by his labor. The Catholic clergy\nprefer to live by property. The struggles in the communes of the middle\nages between the priests and bishops and the large proprietors and\nseigneurs are famous. The papal excommunications fulminated in defence\nof ecclesiastical revenues are no less so. Even to-day, the official\norgans of the Gallican clergy still maintain that the pay received by\nthe clergy is not a salary, but an indemnity for goods of which they\nwere once proprietors, and which were taken from them in '89 by the\nThird Estate. The clergy prefer to live by the right of increase rather\nthan by labor.]\n\n[Footnote 30: The meaning ordinarily attached to the word \"anarchy\" is\nabsence of principle, absence of rule; consequently, it has been\nregarded as synonymous with \"disorder.\"]\n\n[Footnote 31: If such ideas are ever forced into the minds of the\npeople, it will be by representative government and the tyranny of\ntalkers. Once science, thought, and speech were characterized by the\nsame expression. To designate a thoughtful and a learned man, they said,\n\"a man quick to speak and powerful in discourse.\" For a long time,\nspeech has been abstractly distinguished from science and reason.\nGradually, this abstraction is becoming realized, as the logicians say,\nin society; so that we have to-day savants of many kinds who talk but\nlittle, and TALKERS who are not even savants in the science of speech.\nThus a philosopher is no longer a savant: he is a talker. Legislators\nand poets were once profound and sublime characters: now they are\ntalkers. A talker is a sonorous bell, whom the least shock suffices to\nset in perpetual motion. With the talker, the flow of speech is always\ndirectly proportional to the poverty of thought. Talkers govern the\nworld; they stun us, they bore us, they worry us, they suck our blood,\nand laugh at us. As for the savants, they keep silence: if they wish to\nsay a word, they are cut short. Let them write.]\n\n[Footnote 32: _libertas, librare, libratio, libra_,--liberty, to\nliberate, libration, balance (pound),--words which have a common\nderivation. Liberty is the balance of rights and duties. To make a man\nfree is to balance him with others,--that is, to put him or their\nlevel.]\n\n[Footnote 33: In a monthly publication, the first number of which has\njust appeared under the name of \"L'Egalitaire,\" self-sacrifice is laid\ndown as a principle of equality. This is a confusion of ideas. Self-\nsacrifice, taken alone, is the last degree of inequality. To seek\nequality in self-sacrifice is to confess that equality is against\nnature. Equality must be based upon justice, upon strict right, upon the\nprinciples invoked by the proprietor himself; otherwise it will never\nexist. Self-sacrifice is superior to justice; but it cannot be imposed\nas law, because it is of such a nature as to admit of no reward. It is,\nindeed, desirable that everybody shall recognize the necessity of self-\nsacrifice, and the idea of \"L'Egalitaire\" is an excellent example.\nUnfortunately, it can have no effect. What would you reply, indeed, to a\nman who should say to you, \"I do not want to sacrifice myself\"? Is he to\nbe compelled to do so? When self-sacrifice is forced, it becomes\noppression, slavery, the exploitation of man by man. Thus have the\nproletaires sacrificed themselves to property.]\n\n[Footnote 34: The disciples of Fourier have long seemed to me the most\nadvanced of all modern socialists, and almost the only ones worthy of\nthe name. If they had understood the nature of their task, spoken to the\npeople, awakened their sympathies, and kept silence when they did not\nunderstand; if they had made less extravagant pretensions, and had shown\nmore respect for public intelligence,--perhaps the reform would now,\nthanks to them, be in progress. But why are these earnest reformers\ncontinually bowing to power and wealth,--that is, to all that is anti-\nreformatory? How, in a thinking age, can they fail to see that the world\nmust be converted by DEMONSTRATION, not by myths and allegories? Why do\nthey, the deadly enemies of civilization, borrow from it, nevertheless,\nits most pernicious fruits,--property, inequality of fortune and rank,\ngluttony, concubinage, prostitution, what do I know? theurgy, magic, and\nsorcery? Why these endless denunciations of morality, metaphysics, and\npsychology, when the abuse of these sciences, which they do not\nunderstand, constitutes their whole system? Why this mania for deifying\na man whose principal merit consisted in talking nonsense about things\nwhose names, even, he did not know, in the strongest language ever put\nupon paper? Whoever admits the infallibility of a man becomes thereby\nincapable of instructing others. Whoever denies his own reason will soon\nproscribe free thought. The phalansterians would not fail to do it if\nthey had the power. Let them condescend to reason, let them proceed\nsystematically, let them give us demonstrations instead of revelations,\nand we will listen willingly. Then let them organize manufactures,\nagriculture, and commerce; let them make labor attractive, and the most\nhumble functions honorable, and our praise shall be theirs. Above all,\nlet them throw off that Illuminism which gives them the appearance of\nimpostors or dupes, rather than believers and apostles.]\n\n[Footnote 35: Individual possession is no obstacle to extensive\ncultivation and unity of exploitation. If I have not spoken of the\ndrawbacks arising from small estates, it is because I thought it useless\nto repeat what so many others have said, and what by this time all the\nworld must know. But I am surprised that the economists, who have so\nclearly shown the disadvantages of spade-husbandry, have failed to see\nthat it is caused entirely by property; above all, that they have not\nperceived that their plan for mobilizing the soil is a first step\ntowards the abolition of property.]\n\n\n[Footnote 36: In the Chamber of Deputies, during the session of the\nfifth of January, 1841, M. Dufaure moved to renew the expropriation\nbill, on the ground of public utility.]\n\n[Footnote 37: \"What is Property?\" Chap. IV., Ninth Proposition.]\n\n[Footnote 38: _Tu cognovisti sessionem meam et resurrectionem meam_.\nPsalm 139.]\n\n[Footnote 39: The emperor Nicholas has just compelled all the\nmanufacturers in his empire to maintain, at their own expense, within\ntheir establishments, small hospitals for the reception of sick\nworkmen,--the number of beds in each being proportional to the number of\nlaborers in the factory. \"You profit by man's labor,\" the Czar could\nhave said to his proprietors; \"you shall be responsible for man's life.\"\nM. Blanqui has said that such a measure could not succeed in France. It\nwould be an attack upon property,--a thing hardly conceivable even in\nRussia, Scythia, or among the Cossacks; but among us, the oldest sons of\ncivilization!... I fear very much that this quality of age may prove in\nthe end a mark of decrepitude.]\n\n[Footnote 40: Course of M. Blanqui. Lecture of Nov. 27,1840.]\n\n[Footnote 41: In \"Mazaniello,\" the Neapolitan fisherman demands, amid\nthe applause of the galleries, that a tax be levied upon luxuries.]\n\n[Footnote 42:               _Seme le champ, proletaire; C'est l l'oisif\nqui recoltera_.]\n\n[Footnote 43: \"In some countries, the enjoyment of certain political\nrights depends upon the amount of property. But, in these same\ncountries, property is expressive, rather than attributive, of the\nqualifications necessary to the exercise of these rights. It is rather a\nconjectural proof than the cause of these qualifications.\"--Rossi:\nTreatise on Penal Law.]\n\n[Footnote 44: Lecture of December 22.]\n\n[Footnote 45: Lecture of Jan. 15, 1841.]\n\n[Footnote 46: Lecture of Jan. 15, 1841.]\n\n[Footnote 47: MM. Blanqui and Wolowski.]\n\n[Footnote 48: Subject proposed by the Fourth Class of the Institute, the\nAcademy of Moral and Political Sciences: \"What would be the effect upon\nthe working-class of the organization of labor, according to the modern\nideas of association?\"]\n\n[Footnote 49: Subject proposed by the Academy of Besancon: \"The\neconomical and moral consequences in France, up to the present time, and\nthose which seem likely to appear in future, of the law concerning the\nequal division of hereditary property between the children.\"]\n\n[Footnote 50: {GREEK, ?n n '},--greater property. The Vulgate translates\nit avaritia.]\n\n[Footnote 51: Similar or analogous customs have existed among all\nnations. Consult, among other works, \"Origin of French Law,\" by M.\nMichelet; and \"Antiquities of German Law,\" by Grimm.]\n\n[Footnote 52: _Dees hominesque testamur, nos arma neque contra patriam\ncepisse neque quo periculum aliis faceremus, sed uti corpora nostra ab\ninjuria tuta forent, qui miseri, egentes, violentia atque crudelitate\nfoeneraterum, plerique patriae, sed omncsfarna atque fortunis expertes\nsumus; neque cuiquam nostrum licuit, more majorum, lege uti, neque,\namisso patrimonio, libferum corpus habere._--Sallus: Bellum\nCatilinarium.]\n\n\n[Footnote 53: Fifty, sixty, and eighty per cent.--Course of M. Blanqui.]\n\n[Footnote 54: _Episcopi plurimi, quos et hortamento esse oportet\ncaeteris et exemplo, divina prouratione contempta, procuratores rerum\nsaeularium fieri, derelicta cathedra, plebe leserta, per alienas\nprovincias oberrantes, negotiationis quaestuosae nundinas au uucu-,\npari, esurientibus in ecclesia fratribus habere argentum largitur velle,\nfundos insidi.sis fraudibus rapere, usuris multiplicantibus faenus\naugere._--Cyprian: De Lapsis. {--NOTE: what does this refer to? This is\nat bottom of pg 341 in MS} In this passage, St. Cyprian alludes to\nlending on mortgages and to compound interest.]\n\n[Footnote 55: \"Inquiries concerning Property among the Romans.\"]\n\n[Footnote 56: \"Its acquisitive nature works rapidly in the sleep of the\nlaw. It is ready, at the word, to absorb every thing. Witness the famous\nequivocation about the ox-hide which, when cut up into thongs, was large\nenough to enclose the site of Carthage.... The legend has reappeared\nseveral times since Dido.... Such is the love of man for the land.\nLimited by tombs, measured by the members of the human body, by the\nthumb, the foot, and the arm, it harmonizes, as far as possible, with\nthe very proportions of man. Nor is he satisfied yet: he calls Heaven to\nwitness that it is his; he tries to or his land, to give it the form of\nheaven.... In his titanic intoxication, he describes property in the\nvery terms which he employs in describing the Almighty--_fundus_\n_optimus maximus_.... He shall make it his couch, and they shall be\nseparated no more,--{GREEK, ' nf g h g g.\"}--Michelet:Origin of French\nLaw.]\n\n[Footnote 57: M. Guizot denies that Christianity alone is entitled to\nthe glory of the abolition of slavery. \"To this end,\" he says, \"many\ncauses were necessary,--the evolution of other ideas and other\nprinciples of civilization.\" So general an assertion cannot be refuted.\nSome of these ideas and causes should have been pointed out, that we\nmight judge whether their source was not wholly Christian, or whether at\nleast the Christian spirit had not penetrated and thus fructified them.\nMost of the emancipation charters begin with these words: \"For the love\nof God and the salvation of my soul.\"]\n\n[Footnote 58: _Weregild_,--the fine paid for the murder of a man. So\nmuch for a count, so much for a baron, so much for a freeman, so much\nfor a priest; for a slave, nothing. His value was restored to the\nproprietor.]\n\n[Footnote 59: The spirit of despotism and monopoly which animated the\ncommunes has not escaped the attention of historians. \"The formation of\nthe commoners' associations,\" says Meyer, \"did not spring from the true\nspirit of liberty, but from the desire for exemption from the charges of\nthe seigniors, from individual interests, and jealousy of the welfare of\nothers.... Each commune or corporation opposed the creation of every\nother; and this spirit increased to such an extent that the King of\nEngland, Henry V., having established a university at Caen, in 1432, the\ncity and university of Paris opposed the registration of the edict.\"]\n\n[Footnote 60: Feudalism was, in spirit and in its providential destiny,\na long protest of the human personality against the monkish communism\nwith which Europe, in the middle ages, was overrun. After the orgies of\nPagan selfishness, society--carried to the opposite extreme by the\nChristian religion--risked its life by unlimited self-denial and\nabsolute indifference to the pleasures of the world. Feudalism was the\nbalance-weight which saved Europe from the combined influence of the\nreligious communities and the Manlchean sects which had sprung up since\nthe fourth century under different names and in different countries.\nModern civilization is indebted to feudalism for the definitive\nestablishment of the person, of marriage, of the family, and of country.\n(See, on this subject, Guizot, \"History of Civilization in Europe.\")]\n\n[Footnote 61: This was made evident in July, 1830, and the years which\nfollowed it, when the electoral bourgeoisie effected a revolution in\norder to get control over the king, and suppressed the emeutes in order\nto restrain the people. The bourgeoisie, through the jury, the\nmagistracy, its position in the army, and its municipal despotism,\ngoverns both royalty and the people. It is the bourgeoisie which, more\nthan any other class, is conservative and retrogressive. It is the\nbourgeoisie which makes and unmakes ministries. It is the bourgeoisie\nwhich has destroyed the influence of the Upper Chamber, and which will\ndethrone the King whenever he shall become unsatisfactory to it. It is\nto please the bourgeoisie that royalty makes itself unpopular. It is the\nbourgeoisie which is troubled at the hopes of the people, and which\nhinders reform. The journals of the bourgeoisie are the ones which\npreach morality and religion to us, while reserving scepticism and\nindifference for themselves; which attack personal government, and favor\nthe denial of the electoral privilege to those who have no property. The\nbourgeoisie will accept any thing rather than the emancipation of the\nproletariat. As soon as it thinks its privileges threatened, it will\nunite with royalty; and who does not know that at this very moment these\ntwo antagonists have suspended their quarrels?... It has been a question\nof property.]\n\n[Footnote 62: The same opinion was recently expressed from the tribune\nby one of our most honorable Deputies, M. Gauguier. \"Nature,\" said he,\n\"has not endowed man with landed property.\" Changing the adjective\nLANDED, which designates only a species into CAPITALISTIC, which denotes\nthe genus,--M. Gauguier made an egalitaire profession of faith.]\n\n[Footnote 63: A professor of comparative legislation, M. Lerminier, has\ngone still farther. He has dared to say that the nation took from the\nclergy all their possessions, not because of IDLENESS, but because of\nUNWORTHINESS. \"You have civilized the world,\" cries this apostle of\nequality, speaking to the priests; \"and for that reason your possessions\nwere given you. In your hands they were at once an instrument and a\nreward. But you do not now deserve them, for you long since ceased to\ncivilize any thing whatever....\"]\n\n[Footnote 64: \"Treatise on Prescription.\"]\n\n[Footnote 65: \"Origin of French Law.\"]\n\n[Footnote 66: To honor one's parents, to be grateful to one's\nbenefactors, to neither kill nor steal,--truths of inward sensation. To\nobey God rather than men, to render to each that which is his; the whole\nis greater than a part, a straight line is the shortest road from one\npoint to another,--truths of intuition. All are a priori but the first\nare felt by the conscience, and imply only a simple act of the soul; the\nsecond are perceived by the reason, and imply comparison and relation.\nIn short, the former are sentiments, the latter are ideas.]\n\n[Footnote 67: Armand Carrel would have favored the fortification of the\ncapital. \"Le National\" has said, again and again, placing the name of\nits old editor by the side of the names of Napoleon and Vauban. What\nsignifies this exhumation of an anti-popular politician? It signifies\nthat Armand Carrel wished to make government an individual and\nirremovable, but elective, property, and that he wished this property to\nbe elected, not by the people, but by the army. The political system of\nCarrel was simply a reorganization of the pretorian guards. Carrel also\nhated the _pequins_. That which he deplored in the revolution of July\nwas not, they say, the insurrection of the people, but the victory of\nthe people over the soldiers. That is the reason why Carrel, after 1830,\nwould never support the patriots. \"Do you answer me with a few\nregiments?\" he asked. Armand Carrel regarded the army--the military\npower--as the basis of law and government. This man undoubtedly had a\nmoral sense within him, but he surely had no sense of justice. Were he\nstill in this world, I declare it boldly, liberty would have no greater\nenemy than Carrel.]\n\n[Footnote 68: In a very short article, which was read by M. Wolowski, M.\nLouis Blanc declares, in substance, that he is not a communist (which I\neasily believe); that one must be a fool to attack property (but he does\nnot say why); and that it is very necessary to guard against confounding\nproperty with its abuses. When Voltaire overthrew Christianity, he\nrepeatedly avowed that he had no spite against religion, but only\nagainst its abuses.]\n\n[Footnote 69: The property fever is at its height among writers and\nartists, and it is curious to see the complacency with which our\nlegislators and men of letters cherish this devouring passion. An artist\nsells a picture, and then, the merchandise delivered, assumes to prevent\nthe purchaser from selling engravings, under the pretext that he, the\npainter, in selling the original, has not sold his DESIGN. A dispute\narises between the amateur and the artist in regard to both the fact and\nthe law. M. Villemain, the Minister of Public Instruction, being\nconsulted as to this particular case, finds that the painter is right;\nonly the property in the design should have been specially reserved in\nthe contract: so that, in reality, M. Villemain recognizes in the artist\na power to surrender his work and prevent its communication; thus\ncontradicting the legal axiom, One CANNOT GIVE AND KEEP AT THE SAME\nTIME. A strange reasoner is M. Villemain! An ambiguous principle leads\nto a false conclusion. Instead of rejecting the principle, M. Villemain\nhastens to admit the conclusion. With him the _reductio ad absurdum_ is\na convincing argument. Thus he is made official defender of literary\nproperty, sure of being understood and sustained by a set of loafers,\nthe disgrace of literature and the plague of public morals. Why, then,\ndoes M. Villemain feel so strong an interest in setting himself up as\nthe chief of the literary classes, in playing for their benefit the role\nof Trissotin in the councils of the State, and in becoming the\naccomplice and associate of a band of profligates,--_soi-disant_ men of\nletters,--who for more than ten years have labored with such deplorable\nsuccess to ruin public spirit, and corrupt the heart by warping the\nmind?]\n\n[Footnote 70: M. Leroux has been highly praised in a review for having\ndefended property. I do not know whether the industrious encyclopedist\nis pleased with the praise, but I know very well that in his place I\nshould mourn for reason and for truth.]\n\n[Footnote 71: \"Impartial,\" of Besancon.]\n\n[Footnote 72: The Arians deny the divinity of Christ. The Semi-Arians\ndiffer from the Arians only by a few subtle distinctions. M. Pierre\nLeroux, who regards Jesus as a man, but claims that the Spirit of God\nwas infused into him, is a true Semi-Arian.\n\nThe Manicheans admit two co-existent and eternal principles,--God and\nmatter, spirit and flesh, light and darkness, good and evil; but, unlike\nthe Phalansterians, who pretend to reconcile the two, the Manicheans\nmake war upon matter, and labor with all their might for the destruction\nof the flesh, by condemning marriage and forbidding reproduction,--which\ndoes not prevent them, however, from indulging in all the carnal\npleasures which the intensest lust can conceive of. In this last\nparticular, the tendency of the Fourieristic morality is quite\nManichean.\n\nThe Gnostics do not differ from the early Christians. As their name\nindicates, they regarded themselves as inspired. Fourier, who held\npeculiar ideas concerning the visions of somnambulists, and who believed\nin the possibility of developing the magnetic power to such an extent as\nto enable us to commune with invisible beings, might, if he were living,\npass also for a Gnostic.\n\nThe Adamites attend mass entirely naked, from motives of chastity. Jean\nJacques Rousseau, who took the sleep of the senses for chastity, and who\nsaw in modesty only a refinement of pleasure, inclined towards Adamism.\nI know such a sect, whose members usually celebrate their mysteries in\nthe costume of Venus coming from the bath.\n\nThe Pre-Adamites believe that men existed before the first man. I once\nmet a Pre-Adamite. True, he was deaf and a Fourierist.\n\nThe Pelagians deny grace, and attribute all the merit of good works to\nliberty. The Fourierists, who teach that man's nature and passions are\ngood, are reversed Pelagians; they give all to grace, and nothing to\nliberty.\n\nThe Socinians, deists in all other respects, admit an original\nrevelation. Many people are Socinians to-day, who do not suspect it, and\nwho regard their opinions as new.\n\nThe Neo-Christians are those simpletons who admire Christianity because\nit has produced bells and cathedrals. Base in soul, corrupt in heart,\ndissolute in mind and senses, the Neo-Christians seek especially after\nthe external form, and admire religion, as they love women, for its\nphysical beauty. They believe in a coming revelation, as well as a\ntransfiguration of Catholicism. They will sing masses at the grand\nspectacle in the phalanstery.]\n\n[Footnote 73: It should be understood that the above refers only to the\nmoral and political doctrines of Fourier,--doctrines which, like all\nphilosophical and religious systems, have their root and _raison\nd'existence_ in society itself, and for this reason deserve to be\nexamined. The peculiar speculations of Fourier and his sect concerning\ncosmogony, geology, natural history, physiology, and psychology, I leave\nto the attention of those who would think it their duty to seriously\nrefute the fables of Blue Beard and the Ass's Skin.]\n\n[Footnote 74: A writer for the radical press, M. Louis Raybaud, said, in\nthe preface to his \"Studies of Contemporary Reformers:\" \"Who does not\nknow that morality is relative? Aside from a few grand sentiments which\nare strikingly instinctive, the measure of human acts varies with\nnations and climates, and only civilization--the progressive education\nof the race--can lead to a universal morality.... The absolute escapes\nour contingent and finite nature; the absolute is the secret of God.\"\nGod keep from evil M. Louis Raybaud! But I cannot help remarking that\nall political apostates begin by the negation of the absolute, which is\nreally the negation of truth. What can a writer, who professes\nscepticism, have in common with radical views? What has he to say to his\nreaders? What judgment is he entitled to pass upon contemporary\nreformers? M. Raybaud thought it would seem wise to repeat an old\nimpertinence of the legist, and that may serve him for an excuse. We all\nhave these weaknesses. But I am surprised that a man of so much\nintelligence as M. Raybaud, who STUDIES SYSTEMS, fails to see the very\nthing he ought first to recognize,--namely, that systems are the\nprogress of the mind towards the absolute.]\n\n[Footnote 75: The electoral reform, it is continually asserted, is not\nan END, but a MEANS. Undoubtedly; but what, then, is the end? Why not\nfurnish an unequivocal explanation of its object? How can the people\nchoose their representatives, unless they know in advance the purpose\nfor which they choose them, and the object of the commission which they\nentrust to them? But, it is said, the very business of those chosen by\nthe people is to find out the object of the reform. That is a quibble.\nWhat is to hinder these persons, who are to be elected in future, from\nfirst seeking for this object, and then, when they have found it, from\ncommunicating it to the people? The reformers have well said, that,\nwhile the object of the electoral reform remains in the least\nindefinite, it will be only a means of transferring power from the hands\nof petty tyrants to the hands of other tyrants. We know already how a\nnation may be oppressed by being led to believe that it is obeying only\nits own laws. The history of universal suffrage, among all nations, is\nthe history of the restrictions of liberty by and in the name of the\nmultitude. Still, if the electoral reform, in its present shape, were\nrational, practical, acceptable to clean consciences and upright minds,\nperhaps one might be excused, though ignorant of its object, for\nsupporting it. But, no; the text of the petition determines nothing,\nmakes no distinctions, requires no conditions, no guarantee; it\nestablishes the right without the duty. \"Every Frenchman is a voter, and\neligible to office.\" As well say: \"Every bayonet is intelligent, every\nsavage is civilized, every slave is free.\" In its vague generality, the\nreformatory petition is the weakest of abstractions, or the highest form\nof political treason. Consequently, the enlightened patriots distrust\nand despise each other. The most radical writer of the time,--he whose\neconomical and social theories are, without comparison, the most\nadvanced,--M. Leroux, has taken a bold stand against universal suffrage\nand democratic government, and has written an exceedingly keen criticism\nof J. J. Rousseau. That is undoubtedly the reason why M. Leroux is no\nlonger the philosopher of \"Le National.\" That journal, like Napoleon,\ndoes not like men of ideas. Nevertheless, \"Le National\" ought to know\nthat he who fights against ideas will perish by ideas.]","title":"What is Property? An Inquiry into the Principle of Right and of Government","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":153379}