{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_444/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_444","id":"gutenberg_444","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/444","summary":null,"tags":["Anarchism","Category: Economics","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Economics"],"text":"Ver.04.29.93*END*\n\n\n\n\nScanned with OmniPage Professional OCR software donated by Caere\nCorporation, 1-800-535-7226. Contact Mike Lough <Mikel@caere.com>\n\n\n\n\nTHE EVOLUTION OF CAPITALISM\n\nSYSTEM OF ECONOMICAL CONTRADICTIONS OR, THE PHILOSOPHY OF MISERY.\nBY\nP. J. PROUDHON\n\nDestruam et aedificabo.\nDeuteronomy: c. 32.\n\nVOLUME FIRST.\n\n\n\nCONTENTS.\n\nINTRODUCTION\n\nCHAPTER I.\nOF THE ECONOMIC SCIENCE\n%  1. Opposition between FACT and RIGHT in Social Economy\n%  2. Inadequacy of Theories and Criticisms\n\nCHAPTER II.\nOF VALUE\n%  1. Opposition of Value in USE and Value in EXCHANGE\n%  2. Constitution of Value; Definition of Wealth\n%  3. Application of the Law of Proportionality of Values\n\nCHAPTER III.\nECONOMIC EVOLUTIONS.--FIRST PERIOD.--THE DIVISION OF LABOR\n%  1. Antagonistic Effects of the Principle of Division\n%  2. Impotence of Palliatives.--MM. Blanqui, Chevalier,\n      Dunoyer, Rossi, and Passy\n\nCHAPTER IV.\nSECOND PERIOD.--MACHINERY\n%  1. Of the Function of Machinery in its Relations to Liberty\n%  2. Machinery's Contradiction.--Origin of Capital and Wages\n%  3. Of Preservatives against the Disastrous Influence of Machinery\n\nCHAPTER V.\nTHIRD PERIOD.--COMPETITION\n%  1. Necessity of Competition\n%  2. Subversive Effects of Competition, and the Destruction of\n      Liberty thereby\n%  3. Remedies against Competition\n\nCHAPTER VI.\nFOURTH PERIOD.--MONOPOLY\n%  1. Necessity of Monopoly\n%  2. The Disasters in Labor and the Perversion of Ideas caused\n      by Monopoly\n\nCHAPTER VII.\nFIFTH PERIOD.--POLICE, OR TAXATION\n%  1. Synthetic Idea of the Tax. Point of Departure and\n      Development of this Idea\n%  2. Antinomy of the Tax\n%  3. Disastrous and Inevitable Consequences of the Tax.\n      (Provisions, Sumptuary Laws, Rural and Industrial Police,\n       Patents,Trade-Marks, etc.)\n\nCHAPTER VIII.\nOF THE RESPONSIBILITY OF MAN AND OF GOD, UNDER THE LAW OF\nCONTRADICTION, OR A SOLUTION OF THE PROBLEM OF PROVIDENCE\n%  1. The Culpability of Man.--Exposition of the Myth of the Fall\n%  2. Exposition of the Myth of Providence.--Retrogression of God\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION.\n\nBefore entering upon the subject-matter of these new memoirs, I\nmust explain an hypothesis which will undoubtedly seem strange,\nbut in the absence of which it is impossible for me to proceed\nintelligibly: I mean the hypothesis of a God.\n\nTo suppose God, it will be said, is to deny him.  Why do you not\naffirm him?\n\nIs it my fault if belief in Divinity has become a suspected\nopinion; if the bare suspicion of a Supreme Being is already\nnoted as evidence of a weak mind; and if, of all philosophical\nUtopias, this is the only one which the world no longer\ntolerates?  Is it my fault if hypocrisy and imbecility everywhere\nhide behind this holy formula?\n\nLet a public teacher suppose the existence, in the universe, of\nan unknown force governing suns and atoms, and keeping the whole\nmachine in motion.  With him this supposition, wholly gratuitous,\nis perfectly natural; it is received, encouraged: witness\nattraction--an hypothesis which will never be verified, and\nwhich, nevertheless, is the glory of its originator.  But when,\nto explain the course of human events, I suppose, with all\nimaginable caution, the intervention of a God, I am sure to shock\nscientific gravity and offend critical ears: to so wonderful an\nextent has our piety discredited Providence, so many tricks\nhave been played by means of this dogma or fiction by charlatans\nof every stamp!  I have seen the theists of my time, and\nblasphemy has played over my lips; I have studied the belief of\nthe people,--this people that Brydaine called the best friend of\nGod,--and have shuddered at the negation which was about to\nescape me.  Tormented by conflicting feelings, I appealed to\nreason; and it is reason which, amid so many dogmatic\ncontradictions, now forces the hypothesis upon me.  A priori\ndogmatism, applying itself to God, has proved fruitless: who\nknows whither the hypothesis, in its turn, will lead us?\n\nI will explain therefore how, studying in the silence of my\nheart, and far from every human consideration, the mystery of\nsocial revolutions, God, the great unknown, has become for me an\nhypothesis,--I mean a necessary dialectical tool.\n\n\n\nI.\n\nIf I follow the God-idea through its successive transformations,\nI find that this idea is preeminently social: I mean by this that\nit is much more a collective act of faith than an individual\nconception.  Now, how and under what circumstances is this act of\nfaith produced?  This point it is important to determine.\n\nFrom the moral and intellectual point of view, society, or the\ncollective man, is especially distinguished from the individual\nby spontaneity of action,--in other words, instinct.  While the\nindividual obeys, or imagines he obeys, only those motives of\nwhich he is fully conscious, and upon which he can at will\ndecline or consent to act; while, in a word, he thinks himself\nfree, and all the freer when he knows that he is possessed of\nkeener reasoning faculties and larger information,--society is\ngoverned by impulses which, at first blush, exhibit no\ndeliberation and design, but which gradually seem to be directed\nby a superior power, existing outside of society, and pushing it\nwith irresistible might toward an unknown goal.  The\nestablishment of monarchies and republics, caste-distinctions,\njudicial institutions, etc., are so many manifestations of this\nsocial spontaneity, to note the effects of which is much easier\nthan to point out its principle and show its cause.  The whole\neffort, even of those who, following Bossuet, Vico, Herder,\nHegel, have applied themselves to the philosophy of history, has\nbeen hitherto to establish the presence of a providential destiny\npresiding over all the movements of man.  And I observe, in this\nconnection, that society never fails to evoke its genius previous\nto action: as if it wished the powers above to ordain what its\nown spontaneity has already resolved on.  Lots, oracles,\nsacrifices, popular acclamation, public prayers, are the\ncommonest forms of these tardy deliberations of society.\n\nThis mysterious faculty, wholly intuitive, and, so to speak,\nsuper-social, scarcely or not at all perceptible in persons, but\nwhich hovers over humanity like an inspiring genius, is the\nprimordial fact of all psychology.\n\nNow, unlike other species of animals, which, like him, are\ngoverned at the same time by individual desires and collective\nimpulses, man has the privilege of perceiving and designating to\nhis own mind the instinct or fatum which leads him; we shall see\nlater that he has also the power of foreseeing and even\ninfluencing its decrees.  And the first act of man, filled and\ncarried away with enthusiasm (of the divine breath), is to adore\nthe invisible Providence on which he feels that he depends, and\nwhich he calls GOD,--that is, Life, Being, Spirit, or, simpler\nstill, Me; for all these words, in the ancient tongues, are\nsynonyms and homophones.  \"I am ME,\" God said to Abraham,\n\"and I covenant with THEE.\"....  And to Moses:  \"I am the Being.\nThou shalt say unto the children of Israel, `The Being hath sent\nme unto you.'\"  These two words, the Being and Me, have in the\noriginal language--the most religious that men have ever\nspoken--the same characteristic.[1]  Elsewhere, when Ie-hovah,\nacting as law-giver through the instrumentality of Moses, attests\nhis eternity and swears by his own essence, he uses, as a form of\noath, _I_; or else, with redoubled force, _I_, THE BEING.  Thus\nthe God of the Hebrews is the most personal and wilful of all the\ngods, and none express better than he the intuition of humanity.\n\n\n[1] Ie-hovah, and in composition Iah, the Being; Iao, ioupitur,\nsame meaning; ha-iah, Heb., he was; ei, Gr., he is, ei-nai, to\nbe; an-i, Heb., and in conjugation th-i, me; e-go, io, ich, i,\nm-i, me, t-ibi, te, and all the personal pronouns in which the\nvowels i, e, ei, oi, denote personality in general, and the\nconsonants, m or n, s or t, serve to indicate the number of the\nperson.  For the rest, let who will dispute over these analogies;\nI have no objections: at this depth, the science of the\nphilologist is but cloud and mystery.  The important point to\nwhich I wish to call attention is that the phonetic relation of\nnames seems to correspond to the metaphysical relation of ideas.\n\n\n\nGod appeared to man, then, as a me, as a pure and permanent\nessence, placing himself before him as a monarch before his\nservant, and expressing himself now through the mouth of poets,\nlegislators, and soothsayers, musa, nomos, numen; now through the\npopular voice, vox populi vox Dei.  This may serve, among other\nthings, to explain the existence of true and false oracles; why\nindividuals secluded from birth do not attain of themselves to\nthe idea of God, while they eagerly grasp it as soon as it is\npresented to them by the collective mind; why, finally,\nstationary races, like the Chinese, end by losing it.[2]  In the\nfirst place, as to oracles, it is clear that all their\naccuracy depends upon the universal conscience which inspires\nthem; and, as to the idea of God, it is easily seen why isolation\nand statu quo are alike fatal to it.  On the one hand, absence of\ncommunication keeps the mind absorbed in animal\nself-contemplation; on the other, absence of motion, gradually\nchanging social life into mechanical routine, finally eliminates\nthe idea of will and providence.  Strange fact! religion, which\nperishes through progress, perishes also through quiescence.\n\n\n[2] The Chinese have preserved in their traditions the\nremembrance of a religion which had ceased to exist among them\nfive or six centuries before our era.\n\n(See Pauthier, \"China,\" Paris, Didot.)  More surprising still is\nit that this singular people, in losing its primitive faith,\nseems to have understood that divinity is simply the collective\nme of humanity: so that, more than two thousand years ago, China\nhad reached, in its commonly-accepted belief, the latest results\nof the philosophy of the Occident.  \"What Heaven sees and\nunderstands,\" it is written in the Shu-king, \"is only that which\nthe people see and understand.  What the people deem worthy of\nreward and punishment is that which Heaven wishes to punish and\nreward.  There is an intimate communication between Heaven and\nthe people: let those who govern the people, therefore, be\nwatchful and cautious.\"  Confucius expressed the same idea in\nanother manner:  \"Gain the affection of the people, and you gain\nempire.  Lose the affection of the people, and you lose empire.\"\nThere, then, general reason was regarded as queen of the world, a\ndistinction which elsewhere has been bestowed upon revelations.\nThe Tao-te-king is still more explicit.  In this work, which is\nbut an outline criticism of pure reason, the philosopher Lao-tse\ncontinually identifies, under the name of TAO, universal reason\nand the infinite being; and all the obscurity of the book of Lao\ntse consists, in my opinion, of this constant identification of\nprinciples which our religious and metaphysical habits have so\nwidely separated.\n\n\n\nNotice further that, in attributing to the vague and (so to\nspeak) objectified consciousness of a universal reason the first\nrevelation of Divinity, we assume absolutely nothing concerning\neven the reality or non-reality of God.  In fact, admitting that\nGod is nothing more than collective instinct or universal reason,\nwe have still to learn what this universal reason is in itself.\nFor, as we shall show directly, universal reason is not given in\nindividual reason, in other words, the knowledge of social\nlaws, or the theory of collective ideas, though deduced from the\nfundamental concepts of pure reason, is nevertheless wholly\nempirical, and never would have been discovered a priori by means\nof deduction, induction, or synthesis.  Whence it follows that\nuniversal reason, which we regard as the origin of these laws;\nuniversal reason, which exists, reasons, labors, in a separate\nsphere and as a reality distinct from pure reason, just as the\nplanetary system, though created according to the laws of\nmathematics, is a reality distinct from mathematics, whose\nexistence could not have been deduced from mathematics alone: it\nfollows, I say, that universal reason is, in modern languages,\nexactly what the ancients called God.  The name is changed: what\ndo we know of the thing?\n\nLet us now trace the evolution of the Divine idea.\n\nThe Supreme Being once posited by a primary mystical judgment,\nman immediately generalizes the subject by another\nmysticism,--analogy.  God, so to speak, is as yet but a point:\ndirectly he shall fill the world.\n\nAs, in sensing his social me, man saluted his AUTHOR, so, in\nfinding evidence of design and intention in animals, plants,\nsprings, meteors, and the whole universe, he attributes to each\nspecial object, and then to the whole, a soul, spirit, or genius\npresiding over it; pursuing this inductive process of apotheosis\nfrom the highest summit of Nature, which is society, down to the\nhumblest forms of life, to inanimate and inorganic matter.  From\nhis collective me, taken as the superior pole of creation, to the\nlast atom of matter, man EXTENDS, then, the idea of God,--that\nis, the idea of personality and intelligence,--just as God\nhimself EXTENDED HEAVEN, as the book of Genesis tells us; that\nis, created space and time, the conditions of all things.\n\nThus, without a God or master-builder, the universe and man\nwould not exist: such is the social profession of faith.  But\nalso without man God would not be thought, or--to clear the\ninterval--God would be nothing.  If humanity needs an author, God\nand the gods equally need a revealer; theogony, the history of\nheaven, hell, and their inhabitants,--those dreams of the human\nmind,--is the counterpart of the universe, which certain\nphilosophers have called in return the dream of God.  And how\nmagnificent this theological creation, the work of society!  The\ncreation of the demiourgos was obliterated; what we call the\nOmnipotent was conquered; and for centuries the enchanted\nimagination of mortals was turned away from the spectacle of\nNature by the contemplation of Olympian marvels.\n\nLet us descend from this fanciful region: pitiless reason knocks\nat the door; her terrible questions demand a reply.\n\n\"What is God?\" she asks; \"where is he? what is his extent? what\nare his wishes? what his powers? what his promises?\"--and here,\nin the light of analysis, all the divinities of heaven, earth,\nand hell are reduced to an incorporeal, insensible, immovable,\nincomprehensible, undefinable I-know-not-what; in short, to a\nnegation of all the attributes of existence.  In fact, whether\nman attributes to each object a special spirit or genius, or\nconceives the universe as governed by a single power, he in\neither case but SUPPOSES an unconditioned, that is, an\nimpossible, entity, that he may deduce therefrom an explanation\nof such phenomena as he deems inconceivable on any other\nhypothesis.  The mystery of God and reason!  In order to render\nthe object of his idolatry more and more RATIONAL, the believer\ndespoils him successively of all the qualities which would make\nhim REAL; and, after marvellous displays of logic and genius,\nthe attributes of the Being par excellence are found to be the\nsame as those of nihility.  This evolution is inevitable and\nfatal: atheism is at the bottom of all theodicy.\n\nLet us try to understand this progress.\n\nGod, creator of all things, is himself no sooner created by the\nconscience,--in other words, no sooner have we lifted God from\nthe idea of the social me to the idea of the cosmic me,--than\nimmediately our reflection begins to demolish him under the\npretext of perfecting him.  To perfect the idea of God, to purify\nthe theological dogma, was the second hallucination of the human\nrace.\n\nThe spirit of analysis, that untiring Satan who continually\nquestions and denies, must sooner or later look for proof of\nreligious dogmas.  Now, whether the philosopher determine the\nidea of God, or declare it indeterminable; whether he approach it\nwith his reason, or retreat from it,--I say that this idea\nreceives a blow; and, as it is impossible for speculation to\nhalt, the idea of God must at last disappear.  Then the atheistic\nmovement is the second act of the theologic drama; and this\nsecond act follows from the first, as effect from cause.  \"The\nheavens declare the glory of God,\" says the Psalmist.  Let us\nadd, And their testimony dethrones him.\n\nIndeed, in proportion as man observes phenomena, he thinks that\nhe perceives, between Nature and God, intermediaries; such as\nrelations of number, form, and succession; organic laws,\nevolutions, analogies,-- forming an unmistakable series of\nmanifestations which invariably produce or give rise to each\nother.  He even observes that, in the development of this society\nof which he is a part, private wills and associative\ndeliberations have some influence; and he says to himself that\nthe Great Spirit does not act upon the world directly and by\nhimself, or arbitrarily and at the dictation of a capricious\nwill, but mediately, by perceptible means or organs, and by\nvirtue of laws.  And, retracing in his mind the chain of effects\nand causes, he places clear at the extremity, as a balance, God.\n\nA poet has said,--\n\nPar dela tous les cieux, le Dieu des cieux reside.\n\nThus, at the first step in the theory, the Supreme Being is\nreduced to the function of a motive power, a mainspring, a\ncorner-stone, or, if a still more trivial comparison may be\nallowed me, a constitutional sovereign, reigning but not\ngoverning, swearing to obey the law and appointing ministers to\nexecute it.  But, under the influence of the mirage which\nfascinates him, the theist sees, in this ridiculous system, only\na new proof of the sublimity of his idol; who, in his opinion,\nuses his creatures as instruments of his power, and causes the\nwisdom of human beings to redound to his glory.\n\nSoon, not content with limiting the power of the Eternal, man,\nincreasingly deicidal in his tendencies, insists on sharing it.\n\nIf I am a spirit, a sentient me giving voice to ideas, continues\nthe theist, I consequently am a part of absolute existence; I am\nfree, creative, immortal, equal with God.  Cogito, ergo sum,--I\nthink, therefore I am immortal, that is the corollary, the\ntranslation of Ego sum qui sum: philosophy is in accord with the\nBible.  The existence of God and the immortality of the soul are\nposited by the conscience in the same judgment: there, man speaks\nin the name of the universe, to whose bosom he transports his me;\nhere, he speaks in his own name, without perceiving that, in this\ngoing and coming, he only repeats himself.\n\nThe immortality of the soul, a true division of divinity,\nwhich, at the time of its first promulgation, arriving after a\nlong interval, seemed a heresy to those faithful to the old\ndogma, has been none the less considered the complement of divine\nmajesty, necessarily postulated by eternal goodness and justice.\nUnless the soul is immortal, God is incomprehensible, say the\ntheists; resembling in this the political theorists who regard\nsovereign representation and perpetual tenure of office as\nessential conditions of monarchy.  But the inconsistency of the\nideas is as glaring as the parity of the doctrines is exact:\nconsequently the dogma of immortality soon became the\nstumbling-block of philosophical theologians, who, ever since the\ndays of Pythagoras and Orpheus, have been making futile attempts\nto harmonize divine attributes with human liberty, and reason\nwith faith.  A subject of triumph for the impious! . . . .  But\nthe illusion could not yield so soon: the dogma of immortality,\nfor the very reason that it was a limitation of the uncreated\nBeing, was a step in advance.  Now, though the human mind\ndeceives itself by a partial acquisition of the truth, it never\nretreats, and this perseverance in progress is proof of its\ninfallibility.  Of this we shall soon see fresh evidence.\n\nIn making himself like God, man made God like himself: this\ncorrelation, which for many centuries had been execrated, was the\nsecret spring which determined the new myth.  In the days of the\npatriarchs God made an alliance with man; now, to strengthen the\ncompact, God is to become a man.  He will take on our flesh, our\nform, our passions, our joys, and our sorrows; will be born of\nwoman, and die as we do.  Then, after this humiliation of the\ninfinite, man will still pretend that he has elevated the ideal\nof his God in making, by a logical conversion, him whom he\nhad always called creator, a saviour, a redeemer.  Humanity does\nnot yet say, I am God: such a usurpation would shock its piety;\nit says, God is in me, IMMANUEL, nobiscum Deus.  And, at the\nmoment when philosophy with pride, and universal conscience with\nfright, shouted with unanimous voice, The gods are departing!\nexcedere deos! a period of eighteen centuries of fervent\nadoration and superhuman faith was inaugurated.\n\nBut the fatal end approaches.  The royalty which suffers itself\nto be limited will end by the rule of demagogues; the divinity\nwhich is defined dissolves in a pandemonium.  Christolatry is the\nlast term of this long evolution of human thought.  The angels,\nsaints, and virgins reign in heaven with God, says the catechism;\nand demons and reprobates live in the hells of eternal\npunishment.  Ultramundane society has its left and its right: it\nis time for the equation to be completed; for this mystical\nhierarchy to descend upon earth and appear in its real character.\n\nWhen Milton represents the first woman admiring herself in a\nfountain, and lovingly extending her arms toward her own image as\nif to embrace it, he paints, feature for feature, the human\nrace.--This God whom you worship, O man! this God whom you have\nmade good, just, omnipotent, omniscient, immortal, and holy, is\nyourself: this ideal of perfection is your image, purified in the\nshining mirror of your conscience.  God, Nature, and man are\nthree aspects of one and the same being; man is God himself\narriving at self-consciousness through a thousand evolutions.  In\nJesus Christ man recognized himself as God; and Christianity is\nin reality the religion of God-man.  There is no other God than\nhe who in the beginning said, ME; there is no other God than\nTHEE.\n\nSuch are the last conclusions of philosophy, which dies in\nunveiling religion's mystery and its own.\n\n\nII.\n\n\nIt seems, then, that all is ended; it seems that, with the\ncessation of the worship and mystification of humanity by itself,\nthe theological problem is for ever put aside.  The gods have\ngone: there is nothing left for man but to grow weary and die in\nhis egoism.  What frightful solitude extends around me, and\nforces its way to the bottom of my soul!  My exaltation resembles\nannihilation; and, since I made myself a God, I seem but a\nshadow.  It is possible that I am still a ME, but it is very\ndifficult to regard myself as the absolute; and, if I am not the\nabsolute, I am only half of an idea.\n\nSome ironical thinker, I know not who, has said:  \"A little\nphilosophy leads away from religion, and much philosophy leads\nback to it.\"  This proposition is humiliatingly true.\n\nEvery science develops in three successive periods, which may be\ncalled--comparing them with the grand periods of\ncivilization--the religious period, the sophistical period, the\nscientific period.[3]  Thus, alchemy represents the religious\nperiod of the science afterwards called chemistry, whose\ndefinitive plan is not yet discovered; likewise astrology was the\nreligious period of another science, since\nestablished,--astronomy.\n\n\n[3] See, among others, Auguste Comte, \"Course of Positive\nPhilosophy,\" and P. J. Proudhon, \"Creation of Order in Humanity.\"\n\n\n\nNow, after being laughed at for sixty years about the\nphilosopher's stone, chemists, governed by experience, no longer\ndare to deny the transmutability of bodies; while astronomers\nare led by the structure of the world to suspect also an organism\nof the world; that is, something precisely like astrology.  Are\nwe not justified in saying, in imitation of the philosopher just\nquoted, that, if a little chemistry leads away from the\nphilosopher's stone, much chemistry leads back to it; and\nsimilarly, that, if a little astronomy makes us laugh at\nastrologers, much astronomy will make us believe in them?[4]\n\n\n[4] I do not mean to affirm here in a positive manner the\ntransmutability of bodies, or to point it out as a subject for\ninvestigation; still less do I pretend to say what ought to be\nthe opinion of savants upon this point.  I wish only to call\nattention to the species of scepticism generated in every\nuninformed mind by the most general conclusions of chemical\nphilosophy, or, better, by the irreconcilable hypotheses which\nserve as the basis of its theories.  Chemistry is truly the\ndespair of reason: on all sides it mingles with the fanciful; and\nthe more knowledge of it we gain by experience, the more it\nenvelops itself in impenetrable mysteries.  This thought was\nrecently suggested to me by reading M. Liebig's \"Letters on\nChemistry\" (Paris, Masgana, 1845, translation of Bertet-Dupiney\nand Dubreuil Helion).\n\nThus M. Liebig, after having banished from science hypothetical\ncauses and all the entities admitted by the ancients,--such as\nthe creative power of matter, the horror of a vacuum, the esprit\nrecteur, etc. (p. 22),--admits immediately, as necessary to the\ncomprehension of chemical phenomena, a series of entities no less\nobscure,--vital force, chemical force, electric force, the force\nof attraction, etc. (pp. 146, 149).  One might call it a\nrealization of the properties of bodies, in imitation of the\npsychologists' realization of the faculties of the soul under the\nnames liberty, imagination, memory, etc.  Why not keep to the\nelements?  Why, if the atoms have weight of their own, as M.\nLiebig appears to believe, may they not also have electricity and\nlife of their own?  Curious thing! the phenomena of matter, like\nthose of mind, become intelligible only by supposing them to be\nproduced by unintelligible forces and governed by contradictory\nlaws: such is the inference to be drawn from every page of M.\nLiebig's book.\n\nMatter, according to M. Liebig, is essentially inert and entirely\ndestitute of spontaneous activity (p. 148): why, then, do the\natoms have weight?  Is not the weight inherent in atoms the real,\neternal, and spontaneous motion of matter?  And that which we\nchance to regard as rest,--may it not be equilibrium rather?\nWhy, then, suppose now an inertia which definitions contradict,\nnow an external potentiality which nothing proves?\n\nAtoms having WEIGHT, M. Liebig infers that they are INDIVISIBLE\n(p. 58).  What logic!  Weight is only force, that is, a thing\nhidden from the senses, whose phenomena alone are perceptible,--a\nthing, consequently, to which the idea of division and indivision\nis inapplicable; and from the presence of this force, from the\nhypothesis of an indeterminate and immaterial entity, is inferred\nan indivisible material existence!\n\nFor the rest, M. Liebig confesses that it is IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE\nMIND to conceive of particles absolutely indivisible; he\nrecognizes, further, that the FACT of this indivisibility is not\nproved; but he adds that science cannot dispense with this\nhypothesis: so that, by the confession of its teachers, chemistry\nhas for its point of departure a fiction as repugnant to the mind\nas it is foreign to experience.  What irony!\n\nAtoms are unequal in weight, says M. Liebig, because unequal in\nvolume: nevertheless, it is impossible to demonstrate that\nchemical equivalents express the relative weight of atoms, or, in\nother words, that what the calculation of atomic equivalents\nleads us to regard as an atom is not composed of several atoms.\nThis is tantamount to saying that MORE MATTER weighs more than\nLESS MATTER; and, since weight is the essence of materiality, we\nmay logically conclude that, weight being universally identical\nwith itself, there is also an identity in matter; that the\ndifferences of simple bodies are due solely, either to different\nmethods of atomic association, or to different degrees of\nmolecular condensation, and that, in reality, atoms are\ntransmutable: which M. Liebig does not admit.\n\n\"We have,\" he says, \"no reason for believing that one element is\nconvertible into another element\" (p. 135).  What do you know\nabout it?  The reasons for believing in such a conversion can\nvery well exist and at the same time escape your attention; and\nit is not certain that your intelligence in this respect has\nrisen to the level of your experience.  But, admitting the\nnegative argument of M. Liebig, what follows?  That, with about\nfifty-six exceptions, irreducible as yet, all matter is in a\ncondition of perpetual metamorphosis.  Now, it is a law of our\nreason to suppose in Nature unity of substance as well as unity\nof force and system; moreover, the series of chemical compounds\nand simple substances themselves leads us irresistibly to this\nconclusion.  Why, then, refuse to follow to the end the road\nopened by science, and to admit an hypothesis which is the\ninevitable result of experience itself?\n\nM. Liebig not only denies the transmutability of elements, but\nrejects the spontaneous formation of germs.  Now, if we reject\nthe spontaneous formation of germs, we are forced to admit their\neternity; and as, on the other hand, geology proves that the\nglobe has not been inhabited always, we must admit also that, at\na given moment, the eternal germs of animals and plants were\nborn, without father or mother, over the whole face of the earth.\n\nThus, the denial of spontaneous generation leads back to the\nhypothesis of spontaneity: what is there in much-derided\nmetaphysics more contradictory?\n\nLet it not be thought, however, that I deny the value and\ncertainty of chemical theories, or that the atomic theory seems\nto me absurd, or that I share the Epicurean opinion as to\nspontaneous generation.  Once more, all that I wish to point out\nis that, from the point of view of principles, chemistry needs to\nexercise extreme tolerance, since its own existence depends on a\ncertain number of fictions, contrary to reason and experience,\nand destructive of each other.\n\n\n\nI certainly have less inclination to the marvellous than\nmany atheists, but I cannot help thinking that the stories of\nmiracles, prophecies, charms, etc., are but distorted accounts of\nthe extraordinary effects produced by certain latent forces, or,\nas was formerly said, by occult powers.  Our science is still so\nbrutal and unfair; our professors exhibit so much impertinence\nwith so little knowledge; they deny so impudently facts which\nembarrass them, in order to protect the opinions which they\nchampion,--that I distrust strong minds equally with\nsuperstitious ones.  Yes, I am convinced of it; our gross\nrationalism is the inauguration of a period which, thanks to\nscience, will become truly PRODIGIOUS; the universe, to my eyes,\nis only a laboratory of magic, from which anything may be\nexpected. . . .  This said, I return to my subject.\n\nThey would be deceived, then, who should imagine, after my rapid\nsurvey of religious progress, that metaphysics has uttered its\nlast word upon the double enigma expressed in these four\nwords,--the existence of God, the immortality of the soul.  Here,\nas elsewhere, the most advanced and best established conclusions,\nthose which seem to have settled for ever the theological\nquestion, lead us back to primeval mysticism, and involve the new\ndata of an inevitable philosophy.  The criticism of religious\nopinions makes us smile today both at ourselves and at religions;\nand yet the resume of this criticism is but a reproduction of the\nproblem.  The human race, at the present moment, is on the eve of\nrecognizing and affirming something equivalent to the old notion\nof Divinity; and this, not by a spontaneous movement as before,\nbut through reflection and by means of irresistible logic.  I\nwill try, in a few words, to make myself understood.\n\nIf there is a point on which philosophers, in spite of\nthemselves, have finally succeeded in agreeing, it is without\ndoubt the distinction between intelligence and necessity, the\nsubject of thought and its object, the me and the not-me; in\nordinary terms, spirit and matter.  I know well that all these\nterms express nothing that is real and true; that each of them\ndesignates only a section of the absolute, which alone is true\nand real; and that, taken separately, they involve, all alike, a\ncontradiction.  But it is no less certain also that the absolute\nis completely inaccessible to us; that we know it only by its\nopposite extremes, which alone fall within the limits of our\nexperience; and that, if unity only can win our faith, duality is\nthe first condition of science.\n\nThus, who thinks, and what is thought?  What is a soul? what is a\nbody?  I defy any one to escape this dualism.  It is with\nessences as with ideas: the former are seen separated in Nature,\nas the latter in the understanding; and just as the ideas of God\nand immortality, in spite of their identity, are posited\nsuccessively and contradictorily in philosophy, so, in spite of\ntheir fusion in the absolute, the me and the not-me posit\nthemselves separately and contradictorily in Nature, and we have\nbeings who think, at the same time with others which do not\nthink.\n\nNow, whoever has taken pains to reflect knows today that such a\ndistinction, wholly realized though it be, is the most\nunintelligible, most contradictory, most absurd thing which\nreason can possibly meet.  Being is no more conceivable without\nthe properties of spirit than without the properties of\nmatter: so that if you deny spirit, because, included in none of\nthe categories of time, space, motion, solidity, etc., it seems\ndeprived of all the attributes which constitute reality, I in my\nturn will deny matter, which, presenting nothing appreciable but\nits inertia, nothing intelligible but its forms, manifests itself\nnowhere as cause (voluntary and free), and disappears from view\nentirely as substance; and we arrive at pure idealism, that is,\nnihility.  But nihility is inconsistent with the existence of\nliving, reasoning--I know not what to call them--uniting in\nthemselves, in a state of commenced synthesis or imminent\ndissolution, all the antagonistic attributes of being.  We are\ncompelled, then, to end in a dualism whose terms we know\nperfectly well to be false, but which, being for us the condition\nof the truth, forces itself irresistibly upon us; we are\ncompelled, in short, to commence, like Descartes and the human\nrace, with the me; that is, with spirit.\n\nBut, since religions and philosophies, dissolved by analysis,\nhave disappeared in the theory of the absolute, we know no better\nthan before what spirit is, and in this differ from the ancients\nonly in the wealth of language with which we adorn the darkness\nthat envelops us.  With this exception, however; that while, to\nthe ancients, order revealed intelligence OUTSIDE of the world,\nto the people of today it seems to reveal it rather WITHIN the\nworld.  Now, whether we place it within or without, from the\nmoment we affirm it on the ground of order, we must admit it\nwherever order is manifested, or deny it altogether.  There is no\nmore reason for attributing intelligence to the head which\nproduced the \"Iliad\" than to a mass of matter which crystallizes\nin octahedrons; and, reciprocally, it is as absurd to refer the\nsystem of the world to physical laws, leaving out an ordaining\nME, as to attribute the victory of Marengo to strategic\ncombinations, leaving out the first consul.  The only distinction\nthat can be made is that, in the latter case, the thinking ME is\nlocated in the brain of a Bonaparte, while, in the case of the\nuniverse, the ME has no special location, but extends everywhere.\n\nThe materialists think that they have easily disposed of their\nopponents by saying that man, having likened the universe to his\nbody, finishes the comparison by presuming the existence in the\nuniverse of a soul similar to that which he supposes to be the\nprinciple of his own life and thought; that thus all the\narguments in support of the existence of God are reducible to an\nanalogy all the more false because the term of comparison is\nitself hypothetical.\n\nIt is certainly not my intention to defend the old syllogism:\nEvery arrangement implies an ordaining intelligence; there is\nwonderful order in the world; then the world is the work of an\nintelligence.  This syllogism, discussed so widely since the days\nof Job and Moses, very far from being a solution, is but the\nstatement of the problem which it assumes to solve.  We know\nperfectly well what order is, but we are absolutely ignorant of\nthe meaning of the words Soul, Spirit, Intelligence: how, then,\ncan we logically reason from the presence of the one to the\nexistence of the other?  I reject, then, even when advanced by\nthe most thoroughly informed, the pretended proof of the\nexistence of God drawn from the presence of order in the world; I\nsee in it at most only an equation offered to philosophy.\nBetween the conception of order and the affirmation of spirit\nthere is a deep gulf of metaphysics to be filled up; I am\nunwilling, I repeat, to take the problem for the demonstration.\n\nBut this is not the point which we are now considering.  I have\ntried to show that the human mind was inevitably and irresistibly\nled to the distinction of being into me and not-me, spirit and\nmatter, soul and body.  Now, who does not see that the objection\nof the materialists proves the very thing it is intended to deny?\nMan distinguishing within himself a spiritual principle and a\nmaterial principle,--what is this but Nature herself, proclaiming\nby turns her double essence, and bearing testimony to her own\nlaws?  And notice the inconsistency of materialism: it denies,\nand has to deny, that man is free; now, the less liberty man has,\nthe more weight is to be attached to his words, and the greater\ntheir claim to be regarded as the expression of truth.  When I\nhear this machine say to me, \"I am soul and I am body,\" though\nsuch a revelation astonishes and confounds me, it is invested in\nmy eyes with an authority incomparably greater than that of the\nmaterialist who, correcting conscience and Nature, undertakes to\nmake them say, \"I am matter and only matter, and intelligence is\nbut the material faculty of knowing.\"\n\nWhat would become of this assertion, if, assuming in my turn the\noffensive, I should demonstrate that belief in the existence of\nbodies, or, in other words, in the reality of a purely corporeal\nnature, is untenable?  Matter, they say, is\nimpenetrable.--Impenetrable by what? I ask.  Itself, undoubtedly;\nfor they would not dare to say spirit, since they would therein\nadmit what they wish to set aside.  Whereupon I raise this double\nquestion:  What do you know about it, and what does it signify?\n\n1. Impenetrability, which is pretended to be the definition of\nmatter, is only an hypothesis of careless naturalists, a gross\nconclusion deduced from a superficial judgment.  Experience shows\nthat matter possesses infinite divisibility, infinite\nexpansibility, porosity without assignable limits, and\npermeability by heat, electricity, and magnetism, together\nwith a power of retaining them indefinitely; affinities,\nreciprocal influences, and transformations without number:\nqualities, all of them, hardly compatible with the assumption of\nan impenetrable aliquid.  Elasticity, which, better than any\nother property of matter, could lead, through the idea of spring\nor resistance, to that of impenetrability, is subject to the\ncontrol of a thousand circumstances, and depends entirely on\nmolecular attraction: now, what is more irreconcilable with\nimpenetrability than this attraction?  Finally, there is a\nscience which might be defined with exactness as the SCIENCE OF\nPENETRABILITY OF MATTER:  I mean chemistry.  In fact, how does\nwhat is called chemical composition differ from penetration?[5].\n. . .  In short, we know matter only through its forms; of its\nsubstance we know nothing.  How, then, is it possible to affirm\nthe reality of an invisible, impalpable, incoercible being, ever\nchanging, ever vanishing, impenetrable to thought alone, to which\nit exhibits only its disguises?  Materialist!  I permit you to\ntestify to the reality of your sensations; as to what occasions\nthem, all that you can say involves this reciprocity: something\n(which you call matter) is the occasion of sensations which are\nfelt by another something (which I call spirit).\n\n\n\n[5] Chemists distinguish between MIXTURE and COMPOSITION, just\nas logicians distinguish between the association of ideas and\ntheir synthesis.  It is true, nevertheless, that, according to\nthe chemists, composition may be after all but a mixture, or\nrather an aggregation of atoms, no longer fortuitous, but\nsystematic, the atoms forming different compounds by varying\ntheir arrangement.  But still this is only an hypothesis, wholly\ngratuitous; an hypothesis which explains nothing, and has not\neven the merit of being logical.  Why does a purely NUMERICAL or\nGEOMETRICAL difference in the composition and form of atoms give\nrise to PHYSIOLOGICAL properties so different?  If atoms are\nindivisible and impenetrable, why does not their association,\nconfined to mechanical effects, leave them unchanged in essence?\nWhere is the relation between the cause supposed and the effect\nobtained?\n\nWe must distrust our intellectual vision: it is with chemical\ntheories as with psychological systems.  The mind, in order to\naccount for phenomena, works with atoms, which it does not and\ncan never see, as with the ME, which it does not perceive: it\napplies its categories to everything; that is, it distinguishes,\nindividualizes, concretes, numbers, compares, things which,\nmaterial or immaterial, are thoroughly identical and\nindistinguishable.  Matter, as well as spirit, plays, as we view\nit, all sorts of parts; and, as there is nothing arbitrary in its\nmetamorphoses, we build upon them these psychologic and atomic\ntheories, true in so far as they faithfully represent, in terms\nagreed upon, the series of phenomena, but radically false as soon\nas they pretend to realize their abstractions and are accepted\nliterally.\n\n\n\n2. But what, then, is the source of this supposition that matter\nis impenetrable, which external observation does not justify and\nwhich is not true; and what is its meaning?\n\nHere appears the triumph of dualism.  Matter is pronounced\nimpenetrable, not, as the materialists and the vulgar fancy, by\nthe testimony of the senses, but by the conscience.  The ME, an\nincomprehensible nature, feeling itself free, distinct, and\npermanent, and meeting outside of itself another nature equally\nincomprehensible, but also distinct and permanent in spite of its\nmetamorphoses, declares, on the strength of the sensations and\nideas which this essence suggests to it, that the NOT-ME is\nextended and impenetrable.  Impenetrability is a figurative term,\nan image by which thought, a division of the absolute, pictures\nto itself material reality, another division of the absolute; but\nthis impenetrability, without which matter disappears, is, in the\nlast analysis, only a spontaneous judgment of inward sensation, a\nmetaphysical a priori, an unverified hypothesis of spirit.\n\nThus, whether philosophy, after having overthrown theological\ndogmatism, spiritualizes matter or materializes thought,\nidealizes being or realizes ideas; or whether, identifying\nSUBSTANCE and CAUSE, it everywhere substitutes FORCE, phrases,\nall, which explain and signify nothing,--it always leads us\nback to this everlasting dualism, and, in summoning us to believe\nin ourselves, compels us to believe in God, if not in spirits.\nIt is true that, making spirit a part of Nature, in distinction\nfrom the ancients, who separated it, philosophy has been led to\nthis famous conclusion, which sums up nearly all the fruit of its\nresearches:  In man spirit KNOWS ITSELF, while everywhere else\nit seems NOT TO KNOW ITSELf--\"That which is awake in man, which\ndreams in the animal, and sleeps in the stone,\" said a\nphilosopher.\n\nPhilosophy, then, in its last hour, knows no more than at its\nbirth: as if it had appeared in the world only to verify the\nwords of Socrates, it says to us, wrapping itself solemnly around\nwith its funeral pall, \"I know only that I know nothing.\"  What\ndo I say?  Philosophy knows today that all its judgments rest on\ntwo equally false, equally impossible, and yet equally necessary\nand inevitable hypotheses,--matter and spirit.  So that, while in\nformer times religious intolerance and philosophic disputes,\nspreading darkness everywhere, excused doubt and tempted to\nlibidinous indifference, the triumph of negation on all points no\nlonger permits even this doubt; thought, freed from every\nbarrier, but conquered by its own successes, is forced to affirm\nwhat seems to it clearly contradictory and absurd.  The savages\nsay that the world is a great fetich watched over by a great\nmanitou.  For thirty centuries the poets, legislators, and sages\nof civilization, handing down from age to age the philosophic\nlamp, have written nothing more sublime than this profession of\nfaith.  And here, at the end of this long conspiracy against God,\nwhich has called itself philosophy, emancipated reason concludes\nwith savage reason, The universe is a NOT-ME, objectified by a\nME.\n\nHumanity, then, inevitably supposes the existence of God: and if,\nduring the long period which closes with our time, it has\nbelieved in the reality of its hypothesis; if it has worshipped\nthe inconceivable object; if, after being apprehended in this act\nof faith, it persists knowingly, but no longer voluntarily, in\nthis opinion of a sovereign being which it knows to be only a\npersonification of its own thought; if it is on the point of\nagain beginning its magic invocations,--we must believe that so\nastonishing an hallucination conceals some mystery, which\ndeserves to be fathomed.\n\nI say hallucination and mystery, but without intending to deny\nthereby the superhuman content of the God-idea, and without\nadmitting the necessity of a new symbolism,--I mean a new\nreligion.  For if it is indisputable that humanity, in affirming\nGod,--or all that is included in the word me or spirit,--only\naffirms itself, it is equally undeniable that it affirms itself\nas something other than its own conception of itself, as all\nmythologies and theologies show.  And since, moreover, this\naffirmation is incontestable, it depends, without doubt, upon\nhidden relations, which ought, if possible, to be determined\nscientifically.\n\nIn other words, atheism, sometimes called humanism, true in its\ncritical and negative features, would be, if it stopped at man in\nhis natural condition, if it discarded as an erroneous judgment\nthe first affirmation of humanity, that it is the daughter,\nemanation, image, reflection, or voice of God,--humanism, I say,\nif it thus denied its past, would be but one contradiction more.\nWe are forced, then, to undertake the criticism of humanism; that\nis, to ascertain whether humanity, considered as a whole and\nthroughout all its periods of development, satisfies the Divine\nidea, after eliminating from the latter the exaggerated and\nfanciful attributes of God; whether it satisfies the perfection\nof being; whether it satisfies itself.  We are forced, in short,\nto inquire whether humanity TENDS TOWARD God, according to the\nancient dogma, or is itself BECOMING God, as modern philosophers\nclaim.  Perhaps we shall find in the end that the two systems,\ndespite their seeming opposition, are both true and essentially\nidentical: in that case, the infallibility of human reason, in\nits collective manifestations as well as its studied\nspeculations, would be decisively confirmed.--In a word, until we\nhave verified to man the hypothesis of God, there is nothing\ndefinitive in the atheistic negation.\n\nIt is, then, a scientific, that is, an empirical demonstration of\nthe idea of God, that we need: now, such a demonstration has\nnever been attempted.  Theology dogmatizing on the authority of\nits myths, philosophy speculating by the aid of categories, God\nhas existed as a TRANSCENDENTAL conception, incognizable by the\nreason, and the hypothesis always subsists.\n\nIt subsists, I say, this hypothesis, more tenacious, more\npitiless than ever.  We have reached one of those prophetic\nepochs when society, scornful of the past and doubtful of the\nfuture, now distractedly clings to the present, leaving a few\nsolitary thinkers to establish the new faith; now cries to God\nfrom the depths of its enjoyments and asks for a sign of\nsalvation, or seeks in the spectacle of its revolutions, as in\nthe entrails of a victim, the secret of its destiny.\n\nWhy need I insist further?  The hypothesis of God is allowable,\nfor it forces itself upon every man in spite of himself: no one,\nthen, can take exception to it.  He who believes can do no less\nthan grant me the supposition that God exists; he who denies is\nforced to grant it to me also, since he entertained it before\nme, every negation implying a previous affirmation; as for him\nwho is in doubt, he needs but to reflect a moment to understand\nthat his doubt necessarily supposes an unknown something, which,\nsooner or later, he will call God.\n\nBut if I possess, through the fact of my thought, the right to\nSUPPOSE God, I must abandon the right to AFFIRM him.  In other\nwords, if my hypothesis is irresistible, that, for the present,\nis all that I can pretend.  For to affirm is to determine; now,\nevery determination, to be true, must be reached empirically.  In\nfact, whoever says determination, says relation, conditionality,\nexperience.  Since, then, the determination of the idea of God\nmust result from an empirical demonstration, we must abstain from\neverything which, in the search for this great unknown, not being\nestablished by experience, goes beyond the hypothesis, under\npenalty of relapsing into the contradictions of theology, and\nconsequently arousing anew atheistic dissent.\n\n\n\nIII.\n\nIt remains for me to tell why, in a work on political economy, I\nhave felt it necessary to start with the fundamental hypothesis\nof all philosophy.\n\nAnd first, I need the hypothesis of God to establish the\nauthority of social science.--When the astronomer, to explain the\nsystem of the world, judging solely from appearance, supposes,\nwith the vulgar, the sky arched, the earth flat, the sun much\nlike a football, describing a curve in the air from east to west,\nhe supposes the infallibility of the senses, reserving the right\nto rectify subsequently, after further observation, the data with\nwhich he is obliged to start.  Astronomic philosophy, in fact,\ncould not admit a priori that the senses deceive us, and that\nwe do not see what we do see: admitting such a principle, what\nwould become of the certainty of astronomy?  But the evidence of\nthe senses being able, in certain cases, to rectify and complete\nitself, the authority of the senses remains unshaken, and\nastronomy is possible.\n\nSo social philosophy does not admit a priori that humanity can\nerr or be deceived in its actions: if it should, what would\nbecome of the authority of the human race, that is, the authority\nof reason, synonymous at bottom with the sovereignty of the\npeople?  But it thinks that human judgments, always true at the\ntime they are pronounced, can successively complete and throw\nlight on each other, in proportion to the acquisition of ideas,\nin such a way as to maintain continual harmony between universal\nreason and individual speculation, and indefinitely extend the\nsphere of certainty: which is always an affirmation of the\nauthority of human judgments.\n\nNow, the first judgment of the reason, the preamble of every\npolitical constitution seeking a sanction and a principle, is\nnecessarily this:  THERE IS A GOD; which means that society is\ngoverned with design, premeditation, intelligence.  This\njudgment, which excludes chance, is, then, the foundation of the\npossibility of a social science; and every historical and\npositive study of social facts, undertaken with a view to\namelioration and progress, must suppose, with the people, the\nexistence of God, reserving the right to account for this\njudgment at a later period.\n\nThus the history of society is to us but a long determination of\nthe idea of God, a progressive revelation of the destiny of man.\nAnd while ancient wisdom made all depend on the arbitrary and\nfanciful notion of Divinity, oppressing reason and conscience,\nand arresting progress through fear of an invisible master,\nthe new philosophy, reversing the method, trampling on the\nauthority of God as well as that of man, and accepting no other\nyoke than that of fact and evidence, makes all converge toward\nthe theological hypothesis, as toward the last of its problems.\n\nHumanitarian atheism is, therefore, the last step in the moral\nand intellectual enfranchisement of man, consequently the last\nphase of philosophy, serving as a pathway to the scientific\nreconstruction and verification of all the demolished dogmas.\n\nI need the hypothesis of God, not only, as I have just said, to\ngive a meaning to history, but also to legitimate the reforms to\nbe effected, in the name of science, in the State.\n\nWhether we consider Divinity as outside of society, whose\nmovements it governs from on high (a wholly gratuitous and\nprobably illusory opinion); or whether we deem it immanent in\nsociety and identical with that impersonal and unconscious reason\nwhich, acting instinctively, makes civilization advance (although\nimpersonality and ignorance of self are contrary to the idea of\nintelligence); or whether, finally, all that is accomplished in\nsociety results from the relation of its elements (a system whose\nwhole merit consists in changing an active into a passive, in\nmaking intelligence necessity, or, which amounts to the same\nthing, in taking law for cause),--it always follows that the\nmanifestations of social activity, necessarily appearing to us\neither as indications of the will of the Supreme Being, or as a\nsort of language typical of general and impersonal reason, or,\nfinally, as landmarks of necessity, are absolute authority for\nus.  Being connected in time as well as in spirit, the facts\naccomplished determine and legitimate the facts to be\naccomplished; science and destiny are in accord; everything which\nhappens resulting from reason, and, reciprocally, reason\njudging only from experience of that which happens, science has a\nright to participate in government, and that which establishes\nits competency as a counsellor justifies its intervention as a\nsovereign.\n\nScience, expressed, recognized, and accepted by the voice of all\nas divine, is queen of the world.  Thus, thanks to the hypothesis\nof God, all conservative or retrogressive opposition, every\ndilatory plea offered by theology, tradition, or selfishness,\nfinds itself peremptorily and irrevocably set aside.\n\nI need the hypothesis of God to show the tie which unites\ncivilization with Nature.\n\nIn fact, this astonishing hypothesis, by which man is assimilated\nto the absolute, implying identity of the laws of Nature and the\nlaws of reason, enables us to see in human industry the\ncomplement of creative action, unites man with the globe which he\ninhabits, and, in the cultivation of the domain in which\nProvidence has placed us, which thus becomes in part our work,\ngives us a conception of the principle and end of all things.\nIf, then, humanity is not God, it is a continuation of God; or,\nif a different phraseology be preferred, that which humanity does\ntoday by design is the same thing that it began by instinct, and\nwhich Nature seems to accomplish by necessity.  In all these\ncases, and whichever opinion we may choose, one thing remains\ncertain: the unity of action and law.  Intelligent beings, actors\nin an intelligently-devised fable, we may fearlessly reason from\nourselves to the universe and the eternal; and, when we shall\nhave completed the organization of labor, may say with pride, The\ncreation is explained.\n\nThus philosophy's field of exploration is fixed; tradition is the\nstarting-point of all speculation as to the future; utopia is\nforever exploded; the study of the ME, transferred from the\nindividual conscience to the manifestations of the social will,\nacquires the character of objectivity of which it has been\nhitherto deprived; and, history becoming psychology, theology\nanthropology, the natural sciences metaphysics, the theory of the\nreason is deduced no longer from the vacuum of the intellect, but\nfrom the innumerable forms of a Nature abundantly and directly\nobservable.\n\nI need the hypothesis of God to prove my good-will towards a\nmultitude of sects, whose opinions I do not share, but whose\nmalice I fear:-- theists; I know one who, in the cause of God,\nwould be ready to draw sword, and, like Robespierre, use the\nguillotine until the last atheist should be destroyed, not\ndreaming that that atheist would be himself;-- mystics, whose\nparty, largely made up of students and women marching under the\nbanner of MM. Lamennais, Quinet, Leroux, and others, has taken\nfor a motto, \"Like master, like man;\" like God, like people; and,\nto regulate the wages of the workingman, begins by restoring\nreligion;-- spiritualists, who, should I overlook the rights of\nspirit, would accuse me of establishing the worship of matter,\nagainst which I protest with all the strength of my\nsoul;--sensualists and materialists, to whom the divine dogma is\nthe symbol of constraint and the principle of enslavement of the\npassions, outside of which, they say, there is for man neither\npleasure, nor virtue, nor genius;--eclectics and sceptics,\nsellers and publishers of all the old philosophies, but not\nphilosophers themselves, united in one vast brotherhood, with\napprobation and privilege, against whoever thinks, believes, or\naffirms without their permission;--conservatives finally,\nretrogressives, egotists, and hypocrites, preaching the love of\nGod by hatred of their neighbor, attributing to liberty the\nworld's misfortunes since the deluge, and scandalizing reason by\ntheir foolishness.\n\nIs it possible, however, that they will attack an hypothesis\nwhich, far from blaspheming the revered phantoms of faith,\naspires only to exhibit them in broad daylight; which, instead of\nrejecting traditional dogmas and the prejudices of conscience,\nasks only to verify them; which, while defending itself against\nexclusive opinions, takes for an axiom the infallibility of\nreason, and, thanks to this fruitful principle, will doubtless\nnever decide against any of the antagonistic sects?  Is it\npossible that the religious and political conservatives will\ncharge me with disturbing the order of society, when I start with\nthe hypothesis of a sovereign intelligence, the source of every\nthought of order; that the semi-Christian democrats will curse me\nas an enemy of God, and consequently a traitor to the republic,\nwhen I am seeking for the meaning and content of the idea of God;\nand that the tradesmen of the university will impute to me the\nimpiety of demonstrating the non-value of their philosophical\nproducts, when I am especially maintaining that philosophy should\nbe studied in its object,--that is, in the manifestations of\nsociety and Nature? . . . .\n\nI need the hypothesis of God to justify my style.\n\nIn my ignorance of everything regarding God, the world, the soul,\nand destiny; forced to proceed like the materialist,--that is, by\nobservation and experience,--and to conclude in the language of\nthe believer, because there is no other; not knowing whether my\nformulas, theological in spite of me, would be taken literally or\nfiguratively; in this perpetual contemplation of God, man, and\nthings, obliged to submit to the synonymy of all the terms\nincluded in the three categories of thought, speech, and\naction, but wishing to affirm nothing on either one side or the\nother,--rigorous logic demanded that I should suppose, no more,\nno less, this unknown that is called God.  We are full of\nDivinity, Jovis omnia plena; our monuments, our traditions, our\nlaws, our ideas, our languages, and our sciences, all are\ninfected by this indelible superstition outside of which we can\nneither speak nor act, and without which we do not even think.\n\nFinally, I need the hypothesis of God to explain the publication\nof these new memoirs.\n\nOur society feels itself big with events, and is anxious about\nthe future: how account for these vague presentiments by the sole\naid of a universal reason, immanent if you will, and permanent,\nbut impersonal, and therefore dumb, or by the idea of necessity,\nif it implies that necessity is self-conscious, and consequently\nhas presentiments?  There remains then, once more, an agent or\nnightmare which weighs upon society, and gives it visions.\n\nNow, when society prophesies, it puts questions in the mouths of\nsome, and answers in the mouths of others.  And wise, then, he\nwho can listen and understand; for God himself has spoken, quia\nlocutus est Deus.\n\nThe Academy of Moral and Political Sciences has proposed the\nfollowing question:--\n\n\"To determine the general facts which govern the relations of\nprofits to wages, and to explain their respective oscillations.\"\n\nA few years ago the same Academy asked, \"What are the causes of\nmisery?\"  The nineteenth century has, in fact, but one\nidea,--equality and reform.  But the wind bloweth where it\nlisteth: many began to reflect upon the question, no one answered\nit.  The college of aruspices has, therefore, renewed its\nquestion, but in more significant terms.  It wishes to know\nwhether order prevails in the workshop; whether wages are\nequitable; whether liberty and privilege compensate each other\njustly; whether the idea of value, which controls all the facts\nof exchange, is, in the forms in which the economists have\nrepresented it, sufficiently exact; whether credit protects\nlabor; whether circulation is regular; whether the burdens of\nsociety weigh equally on all, etc.\n\nAnd, indeed, insufficiency of income being the immediate cause of\nmisery, it is fitting that we should know why, misfortune and\nmalevolence aside, the workingman's income is insufficient.  It\nis still the same question of inequality of fortunes, which has\nmade such a stir for a century past, and which, by a strange\nfatality, continually reappears in academic programmes, as if\nthere lay the real difficulty of modern times.\n\nEquality, then,--its principle, its means, its obstacles, its\ntheory, the motives of its postponement, the cause of social and\nprovidential iniquities,--these the world has got to learn, in\nspite of the sneers of incredulity.\n\nI know well that the views of the Academy are not thus profound,\nand that it equals a council of the Church in its horror of\nnovelties; but the more it turns towards the past, the more it\nreflects the future, and the more, consequently, must we believe\nin its inspiration: for the true prophets are those who do not\nunderstand their utterances.  Listen further.\n\n\"What,\" the Academy has asked, \"are the most useful applications\nof the principle of voluntary and private association that we can\nmake for the alleviation of misery?\"\n\nAnd again:--\n\n\"To expound the theory and principles of the contract of\ninsurance, to give its history, and to deduce from its rationale\nand the facts the developments of which this contract is capable,\nand the various useful applications possible in the present state\nof commercial and industrial progress.\"\n\nPublicists admit that insurance, a rudimentary form of commercial\nsolidarity, is an association in things, societas in re; that is,\na society whose conditions, founded on purely economical\nrelations, escape man's arbitrary dictation.  So that a\nphilosophy of insurance or mutual guarantee of security, which\nshall be deduced from the general theory of real (in re)\nsocieties, will contain the formula of universal association, in\nwhich no member of the Academy believes.  And when, uniting\nsubject and object in the same point of view, the Academy\ndemands, by the side of a theory of association of interests, a\ntheory of voluntary association, it reveals to us the most\nperfect form of society, and thereby affirms all that is most at\nvariance with its convictions.  Liberty, equality, solidarity,\nassociation!  By what inconceivable blunder has so eminently\nconservative a body offered to the citizens this new programme of\nthe rights of man?  It was in this way that Caiaphas prophesied\nredemption by disowning Jesus Christ.\n\nUpon the first of these questions, forty-five memoirs were\naddressed to the Academy within two years,--a proof that the\nsubject was marvellously well suited to the state of the public\nmind.  But among so many competitors no one having been deemed\nworthy of the prize, the Academy has withdrawn the question;\nalleging as a reason the incapacity of the competitors, but in\nreality because, the failure of the contest being the sole object\nthat the Academy had in view, it behooved it to declare, without\nfurther delay, that the hopes of the friends of association were\ngroundless.\n\nThus, then, the gentlemen of the Academy disavow, in their\nsession-chamber, their announcements from the tripod!  There is\nnothing in such a contradiction astonishing to me; and may God\npreserve me from calling it a crime!  The ancients believed that\nrevolutions announced their advent by dreadful signs, and that\namong other prodigies animals spoke.  This was a figure,\ndescriptive of those unexpected ideas and strange words which\ncirculate suddenly among the masses at critical moments, and\nwhich seem to be entirely without human antecedent, so far\nremoved are they from the sphere of ordinary judgment.  At the\ntime in which we live, such a thing could not fail to occur.\nAfter having, by a prophetic instinct and a mechanical\nspontaneity, pecudesque locut{ae}, proclaimed association, the\ngentlemen of the Academy of Moral and Political Sciences have\nreturned to their ordinary prudence; and with them custom has\nconquered inspiration.  Let us learn, then, how to distinguish\nheavenly counsel from the interested judgments of men, and hold\nit for certain that, in the discourse of sages, that is the most\ntrustworthy to which they have given the least reflection.\n\nNevertheless the Academy, in breaking so rudely with its\nintuitions, seems to have felt some remorse.  In place of a\ntheory of association in which, after reflection, it no longer\nbelieves, it asks for a \"Critical examination of Pestalozzi's\nsystem of instruction and education, considered mainly in its\nrelation to the well-being and morality of the poor classes.\"\nWho knows? perchance the relation between profits and wages,\nassociation, the organization of labor indeed, are to be found at\nthe bottom of a system of instruction.  Is not man's life a\nperpetual apprenticeship?  Are not philosophy and religion\nhumanity's education?  To organize instruction, then, would be to\norganize industry and fix the theory of society: the Academy,\nin its lucid moments, always returns to that.\n\n\"What influence,\" the Academy again asks, \"do progress and a\ndesire for material comfort have upon a nation's morality?\"\n\nTaken in its most obvious sense, this new question of the Academy\nis commonplace, and fit at best to exercise a rhetorisian's\nskill.  But the Academy, which must continue till the end in its\nignorance of the revolutionary significance of its oracles, has\ndrawn aside the curtain in its commentary.  What, then, so\nprofound has it discovered in this Epicurean thesis?\n\n\"The desire for luxury and its enjoyments,\" it tells us; \"the\nsingular love of it felt by the majority; the tendency of hearts\nand minds to occupy themselves with it exclusively; the agreement\nof individuals AND THE STATE in making it the motive and the end\nof all their projects, all their efforts, and all their\nsacrifices,--engender general or individual feelings which,\nbeneficent or injurious, become principles of action more potent,\nperhaps, than any which have heretofore governed men.\"\n\nNever had moralists a more favorable opportunity to assail the\nsensualism of the century, the venality of consciences, and the\ncorruption instituted by the government: instead of that, what\ndoes the Academy of Moral Sciences do?  With the most automatic\ncalmness, it establishes a series in which luxury, so long\nproscribed by the stoics and ascetics,--those masters of\nholiness,--must appear in its turn as a principle of conduct as\nlegitimate, as pure, and as grand as all those formerly invoked\nby religion and philosophy.  Determine, it tells us, the motives\nof action (undoubtedly now old and worn-out) of which LUXURY is\nhistorically the providential successor, and, from the\nresults of the former, calculate the effects of the latter.\nProve, in short, that Aristippus was only in advance of his\ncentury, and that his system of morality must have its day, as\nwell as that of Zeno and A Kempis.\n\nWe are dealing, then, with a society which no longer wishes to be\npoor; which mocks at everything that was once dear and sacred to\nit,--liberty, religion, and glory,--so long as it has not wealth;\nwhich, to obtain it, submits to all outrages, and becomes an\naccomplice in all sorts of cowardly actions: and this burning\nthirst for pleasure, this irresistible desire to arrive at\nluxury,--a symptom of a new period in civilization,--is the\nsupreme commandment by virtue of which we are to labor for the\nabolition of poverty: thus saith the Academy.  What becomes,\nthen, of the doctrine of expiation and abstinence, the morality\nof sacrifice, resignation, and happy moderation?  What distrust\nof the compensation promised in the other life, and what a\ncontradiction of the Gospel!  But, above all, what a\njustification of a government which has adopted as its system the\ngolden key!  Why have religious men, Christians, Senecas, given\nutterance in concert to so many immoral maxims?\n\nThe Academy, completing its thought, will reply to us:--\n\n\"Show how the progress of criminal justice, in the prosecution\nand punishment of attacks upon persons and property, follows and\nmarks the ages of civilization from the savage condition up to\nthat of the best- governed nations.\"\n\nIs it possible that the criminal lawyers in the Academy of Moral\nSciences foresaw the conclusion of their premises?  The fact\nwhose history is now to be studied, and which the Academy\ndescribes by the words \"progress of criminal justice,\" is simply\nthe gradual mitigation which manifests itself, both in the\nforms of criminal examinations and in the penalties inflicted, in\nproportion as civilization increases in liberty, light, and\nwealth.  So that, the principle of repressive institutions being\nthe direct opposite of all those on which the welfare of society\ndepends, there is a constant elimination of all parts of the\npenal system as well as all judicial paraphernalia, and the final\ninference from this movement is that the guarantee of order lies\nneither in fear nor punishment; consequently, neither in hell nor\nreligion.\n\nWhat a subversion of received ideas!  What a denial of all that\nit is the business of the Academy of Moral Sciences to defend!\nBut, if the guarantee of order no longer lies in the fear of a\npunishment to be suffered, either in this life or in another,\nwhere then are to be found the guarantees protective of persons\nand property?  Or rather, without repressive institutions, what\nbecomes of property?  And without property, what becomes of the\nfamily?\n\nThe Academy, which knows nothing of all these things, replies\nwithout agitation:--\n\n\"Review the various phases of the organization of the family upon\nthe soil of France from ancient times down to our day.\"\n\nWhich means:  Determine, by the previous progress of family\norganization, the conditions of the existence of the family in a\nstate of equality of fortunes, voluntary and free association,\nuniversal solidarity, material comfort and luxury, and public\norder without prisons, courts, police, or hangmen.\n\nThere will be astonishment, perhaps, at finding that the Academy\nof Moral and Political Sciences, after having, like the boldest\ninnovators, called in question all the principles of social\norder,--religion, family, property, justice,--has not also\nproposed this problem:  WHAT IS THE BEST FORM OF GOVERNMENT?\nIn fact, government is for society the source of all initiative,\nevery guarantee, every reform.  It would be, then, interesting to\nknow whether the government, as constituted by the Charter, is\nadequate to the practical solution of the Academy's questions.\n\nBut it would be a misconception of the oracles to imagine that\nthey proceed by induction and analysis; and precisely because the\npolitical problem was a condition or corollary of the\ndemonstrations asked for, the Academy could not offer it for\ncompetition.  Such a conclusion would have opened its eyes, and,\nwithout waiting for the memoirs of the competitors, it would have\nhastened to suppress its entire programme.  The Academy has\napproached the question from above.  It has said:--\n\nThe works of God are beautiful in their own essence, justificata\nin semet ipsa; they are true, in a word, because they are his.\nThe thoughts of man resemble dense vapors pierced by long and\nnarrow flashes.  WHAT, THEN, IS THE TRUTH IN RELATION TO US, AND\nWHAT IS THE CHARACTER OF CERTAINTY?\n\nAs if the Academy had said to us:  You shall verify the\nhypothesis of your existence, the hypothesis of the Academy which\ninterrogates you, the hypotheses of time, space, motion, thought,\nand the laws of thought.  Then you may verify the hypothesis of\npauperism, the hypothesis of inequality of conditions, the\nhypothesis of universal association, the hypothesis of happiness,\nthe hypotheses of monarchy and republicanism, the hypothesis of\nProvidence! . . . .\n\nA complete criticism of God and humanity.\n\nI point to the programme of the honorable society: it is not I\nwho have fixed the conditions of my task, it is the Academy of\nMoral and Political Sciences.  Now, how can I satisfy these\nconditions, if I am not myself endowed with infallibility; in\na word, if I am not God or divine?  The Academy admits, then,\nthat divinity and humanity are identical, or at least\ncorrelative; but the question now is in what consists this\ncorrelation: such is the meaning of the problem of certainty,\nsuch is the object of social philosophy.\n\nThus, then, in the name of the society that God inspires, an\nAcademy questions.\n\nIn the name of the same society, I am one of the prophets who\nattempt to answer.  The task is an immense one, and I do not\npromise to accomplish it:  I will go as far as God shall give me\nstrength.  But, whatever I may say, it does not come from me: the\nthought which inspires my pen is not personal, and nothing that I\nwrite can be attributed to me.  I shall give the facts as I have\nseen them; I shall judge them by what I shall have said; I shall\ncall everything by its strongest name, and no one will take\noffence.  I shall inquire freely, and by the rules of divination\nwhich I have learned, into the meaning of the divine purpose\nwhich is now expressing itself through the eloquent lips of sages\nand the inarticulate wailings of the people: and, though I should\ndeny all the prerogatives guaranteed by our Constitution, I shall\nnot be factious.  I shall point my finger whither an invisible\ninfluence is pushing us; and neither my action nor my words shall\nbe irritating.  I shall stir up the cloud, and, though I should\ncause it to launch the thunderbolt, I should be innocent.  In\nthis solemn investigation to which the Academy invites me, I have\nmore than the right to tell the truth,--I have the right to say\nwhat I think: may my thought, my words, and the truth be but one\nand the same thing!\n\nAnd you, reader,--for without a reader there is no writer,--you\nare half of my work.  Without you, I am only sounding brass;\nwith the aid of your attention, I will speak marvels.  Do you see\nthis passing whirlwind called SOCIETY, from which burst forth,\nwith startling brilliancy, lightnings, thunders, and voices?  I\nwish to cause you to place your finger on the hidden springs\nwhich move it; but to that end you must reduce yourself at my\ncommand to a state of pure intelligence.  The eyes of love and\npleasure are powerless to recognize beauty in a skeleton, harmony\nin naked viscera, life in dark and coagulated blood: consequently\nthe secrets of the social organism are a sealed letter to the man\nwhose brain is beclouded by passion and prejudice.  Such\nsublimities are unattainable except by cold and silent\ncontemplation.  Suffer me, then, before revealing to your eyes\nthe leaves of the book of life, to prepare your soul by this\nsceptical purification which the great teachers of the\npeople--Socrates, Jesus Christ, St. Paul, St. Remi, Bacon,\nDescartes, Galileo, Kant, etc.--have always claimed of their\ndisciples.\n\nWhoever you may be, clad in the rags of misery or decked in the\nsumptuous vestments of luxury, I restore you to that state of\nluminous nudity which neither the fumes of wealth nor the poisons\nof envious poverty dim.  How persuade the rich that the\ndifference of conditions arises from an error in the accounts;\nand how can the poor, in their beggary, conceive that the\nproprietor possesses in good faith?  To investigate the\nsufferings of the laborer is to the idler the most intolerable of\namusements; just as to do justice to the fortunate is to the\nmiserable the bitterest of draughts.\n\nYou occupy a high position:  I strip you of it; there you are,\nfree.  There is too much optimism beneath this official costume,\ntoo much subordination, too much idleness.  Science demands an\ninsurrection of thought: now, the thought of an official is his\nsalary.\n\nYour mistress, beautiful, passionate, artistic, is, I like to\nbelieve, possessed only by you.  That is, your soul, your spirit,\nyour conscience, have passed into the most charming object of\nluxury that nature and art have produced for the eternal torment\nof fascinated mortals.  I separate you from this divine half of\nyourself: at the present day it is too much to wish for justice\nand at the same time to love a woman.  To think with grandeur and\nclearness, man must remove the lining of his nature and hold to\nhis masculine hypostasis.  Besides, in the state in which I have\nput you, your lover would no longer know you: remember the wife\nof Job.\n\nWhat is your religion? . . . .  Forget your faith, and, through\nwisdom, become an atheist.--What! you say; an atheist in spite of\nour hypothesis!--No, but because of our hypothesis.  One's\nthought must have been raised above divine things for a long time\nto be entitled to suppose a personality beyond man, a life beyond\nthis life.  For the rest, have no fears for your salvation.  God\nis not angry with those who are led by reason to deny him, any\nmore than he is anxious for those who are led by faith to worship\nhim; and, in the state of your conscience, the surest course for\nyou is to think nothing about him.  Do you not see that it is\nwith religion as with governments, the most perfect of which\nwould be the denial of all?  Then let no political or religious\nfancy hold your soul captive; in this way only can you now keep\nfrom being either a dupe or a renegade.  Ah! said I in the days\nof my enthusiastic youth, shall I not hear the tolling for the\nsecond vespers of the republic, and our priests, dressed in white\ntunics, singing after the Doric fashion the returning hymn:\nChange o Dieu, notre servitude, comme le vent du desert en un\nsouffle rafraichissan! . . . . .  But I have despaired of\nrepublicans, and no longer know either religion or priests.\n\nI should like also, in order to thoroughly secure your judgment,\ndear reader, to render your soul insensible to pity, superior to\nvirtue, indifferent to happiness.  But that would be too much to\nexpect of a neophyte.  Remember only, and never forget, that\npity, happiness, and virtue, like country, religion, and love,\nare masks. . . .\n\n\nSYSTEM OF ECONOMICAL CONTRADICTIONS: OR, THE PHILOSOPHY OF\nMISERY.\n\nCHAPTER I. OF THE ECONOMIC SCIENCE.\n\n% 1.--Opposition between FACT and RIGHT in social economy.\n\nI affirm the REALITY of an economic science.\n\nThis proposition, which few economists now dare to question, is\nthe boldest, perhaps, that a philosopher ever maintained; and the\ninquiries to follow will prove, I hope, that its demonstration\nwill one day be deemed the greatest effort of the human mind.\n\nI affirm, on the other hand, the ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY as well as\nthe PROGRESSIVE nature of economic science, of all the sciences\nin my opinion the most comprehensive, the purest, the best\nsupported by facts: a new proposition, which alters this science\ninto logic or metaphysics in concreto, and radically changes the\nbasis of ancient philosophy.  In other words, economic science is\nto me the objective form and realization of metaphysics; it is\nmetaphysics in action, metaphysics projected on the vanishing\nplane of time; and whoever studies the laws of labor and exchange\nis truly and specially a metaphysician.\n\nAfter what I have said in the introduction, there is nothing in\nthis which should surprise any one.  The labor of man continues\nthe work of God, who, in creating all beings, did but externally\nrealize the eternal laws of reason.  Economic science is, then,\nnecessarily and at once a theory of ideas, a natural theology,\nand a psychology.  This general outline alone would have sufficed\nto explain why, having to treat of economic matters, I was\nobliged previously to suppose the existence of God, and by what\ntitle I, a simple economist, aspire to solve the problem of\ncertainty.\n\nBut I hasten to say that I do not regard as a science the\nincoherent ensemble of theories to which the name POLITICAL\nECONOMY has been officially given for almost a hundred years, and\nwhich, in spite of the etymology of the name, is after ail but\nthe code, or immemorial routine, of property.  These theories\noffer us only the rudiments, or first section, of economic\nscience; and that is why, like property, they are all\ncontradictory of each other, and half the time inapplicable.  The\nproof of this assertion, which is, in one sense, a denial of\npolitical economy as handed down to us by Adam Smith, Ricardo,\nMalthus, and J. B. Say, and as we have known it for half a\ncentury, will be especially developed in this treatise.\n\nThe inadequacy of political economy has at all times impressed\nthoughtful minds, who, too fond of their dreams for practical\ninvestigation, and confining themselves to the estimation of\napparent results, have constituted from the beginning a party of\nopposition to the statu quo, and have devoted themselves to\npersevering, and systematic ridicule of civilization and its\ncustoms.  Property, on the other hand, the basis of all social\ninstitutions, has never lacked zealous defenders, who, proud to\nbe called PRACTICAL, have exchanged blow for blow with the\ntraducers of political economy, and have labored with a\ncourageous and often skilful hand to strengthen the edifice which\ngeneral prejudice and individual liberty have erected in concert.\n\nThe controversy between conservatives and reformers, still\npending, finds its counterpart, in the history of philosophy, in\nthe quarrel between realists and nominalists; it is almost\nuseless to add that, on both sides, right and wrong are equal,\nand that the rivalry, narrowness, and intolerance of opinions\nhave been the sole cause of the misunderstanding.\n\nThus two powers are contending for the government of the world,\nand cursing each other with the fervor of two hostile religions:\npolitical economy, or tradition; and socialism, or utopia.\n\nWhat is, then, in more explicit terms, political economy?  What\nis socialism?\n\nPolitical economy is a collection of the observations thus far\nmade in regard to the phenomena of the production and\ndistribution of wealth; that is, in regard to the most common,\nmost spontaneous, and therefore most genuine, forms of labor and\nexchange.\n\nThe economists have classified these observations as far as they\nwere able; they have described the phenomena, and ascertained\ntheir contingencies and relations; they have observed in them, in\nmany cases, a quality of necessity which has given them the name\nof LAWS; and this ensemble of information, gathered from the\nsimplest manifestations of society, constitutes political\neconomy.\n\nPolitical economy is, therefore, the natural history of the most\napparent and most universally accredited customs, traditions,\npractices, and methods of humanity in all that concerns the\nproduction and distribution of wealth.  By this title,\npolitical economy considers itself legitimate in FACT and in\nRIGHT: in fact, because the phenomena which it studies are\nconstant, spontaneous, and universal; in right, because these\nphenomena rest on the authority of the human race, the strongest\nauthority possible.  Consequently, political economy calls itself\na SCIENCE; that is, a rational and systematic knowledge of\nregular and necessary facts.\n\nSocialism, which, like the god Vishnu, ever dying and ever\nreturning to life, has experienced within a score of years its\nten-thousandth incarnation in the persons of five or six\nrevelators,--socialism affirms the irregularity of the present\nconstitution of society, and, consequently, of all its previous\nforms.  It asserts, and proves, that the order of civilization is\nartificial, contradictory, inadequate; that it engenders\noppression, misery, and crime; it denounces, not to say\ncalumniates, the whole past of social life, and pushes on with\nall its might to a reformation of morals and institutions.\n\nSocialism concludes by declaring political economy a false and\nsophistical hypothesis, devised to enable the few to exploit the\nmany; and applying the maxim A fructibus cognoscetis, it ends\nwith a demonstration of the impotence and emptiness of political\neconomy by the list of human calamities for which it makes it\nresponsible.\n\nBut if political economy is false, jurisprudence, which in all\ncountries is the science of law and custom, is false also; since,\nfounded on the distinction of thine and mine, it supposes the\nlegitimacy of the facts described and classified by political\neconomy.  The theories of public and international law, with all\nthe varieties of representative government, are also false, since\nthey rest on the principle of individual appropriation and the\nabsolute sovereignty of wills.\n\nAll these consequences socialism accepts.  To it, political\neconomy, regarded by many as the physiology of wealth, is but the\norganization of robbery and poverty; just as jurisprudence,\nhonored by legists with the name of written reason, is, in its\neyes, but a compilation of the rubrics of legal and official\nspoliation,--in a word, of property.  Considered in their\nrelations, these two pretended sciences, political economy and\nlaw, form, in the opinion of socialism, the complete theory of\niniquity and discord.  Passing then from negation to affirmation,\nsocialism opposes the principle of property with that of\nassociation, and makes vigorous efforts to reconstruct social\neconomy from top to bottom; that is, to establish a new code, a\nnew political system, with institutions and morals diametrically\nopposed to the ancient forms.\n\nThus the line of demarcation between socialism and political\neconomy is fixed, and the hostility flagrant.\n\nPolitical economy tends toward the glorification of selfishness;\nsocialism favors the exaltation of communism.\n\nThe economists, saving a few violations of their principles, for\nwhich they deem it their duty to blame governments, are optimists\nwith regard to accomplished facts; the socialists, with regard to\nfacts to be accomplished.\n\nThe first affirm that that which ought to be IS; the second,\nthat that which ought to be IS NOT.  Consequently, while the\nfirst are defenders of religion, authority, and the other\nprinciples contemporary with, and conservative of,\nproperty,--although their criticism, based solely on reason,\ndeals frequent blows at their own prejudices,--the second reject\nauthority and faith, and appeal exclusively to science,--\nalthough a certain religiosity, utterly illiberal, and an\nunscientific disdain for facts, are always the most obvious\ncharacteristics of their doctrines.\n\nFor the rest, neither party ever ceases to accuse the other of\nincapacity and sterility.\n\nThe socialists ask their opponents to account for the inequality\nof conditions, for those commercial debaucheries in which\nmonopoly and competition, in monstrous union, perpetually give\nbirth to luxury and misery; they reproach economic theories,\nalways modeled after the past, with leaving the future hopeless;\nin short, they point to the regime of property as a horrible\nhallucination, against which humanity has protested and struggled\nfor four thousand years.\n\nThe economists, on their side, defy socialists to produce a\nsystem in which property, competition, and political organization\ncan be dispensed with; they prove, with documents in hand, that\nall reformatory projects have ever been nothing but rhapsodies of\nfragments borrowed from the very system that socialism sneers\nat,--plagiarisms, in a word, of political economy, outside of\nwhich socialism is incapable of conceiving and formulating an\nidea.\n\nEvery day sees the proofs in this grave suit accumulating, and\nthe question becoming confused.\n\nWhile society has traveled and stumbled, suffered and thrived, in\npursuing the economic routine, the socialists, since Pythagoras,\nOrpheus, and the unfathomable Hermes, have labored to establish\ntheir dogma in opposition to political economy.  A few attempts\nat association in accordance with their views have even been made\nhere and there: but as yet these exceptional undertakings, lost\nin the ocean of property, have been without result; and, as if\ndestiny had resolved to exhaust the economic hypothesis before\nattacking the socialistic utopia, the reformatory party is\nobliged to content itself with pocketing the sarcasms of its\nadversaries while waiting for its own turn to come.\n\nThis, then, is the state of the cause: socialism incessantly\ndenounces the crimes of civilization, verifies daily the\npowerlessness of political economy to satisfy the harmonic\nattractions of man, and presents petition after petition;\npolitical economy fills its brief with socialistic systems, all\nof which, one after another, pass away and die, despised by\ncommon sense.  The persistence of evil nourishes the complaint of\nthe one, while the constant succession of reformatory checks\nfeeds the malicious irony of the other.  When will judgment be\ngiven?  The tribunal is deserted; meanwhile, political economy\nimproves its opportunities, and, without furnishing bail,\ncontinues to lord it over the world; possideo quia possideo.\n\nIf we descend from the sphere of ideas to the realities of the\nworld, the antagonism will appear still more grave and\nthreatening.\n\nWhen, in these recent years, socialism, instigated by prolonged\nconvulsions, made its fantastic appearance in our midst, men whom\nall controversy had found until then indifferent and lukewarm\nwent back in fright to monarchical and religious ideas;\ndemocracy, which was charged with being developed at last to its\nultimate, was cursed and driven back.  This accusation of the\nconservatives against the democrats was a libel.  Democracy is by\nnature as hostile to the socialistic idea as incapable of filling\nthe place of royalty, against which it is its destiny endlessly\nto conspire.  This soon became evident, and we are witnesses of\nit daily in the professions of Christian and proprietary faith by\ndemocratic publicists, whose abandonment by the people began at\nthat moment.\n\nOn the other hand, philosophy proves no less distinct from\nsocialism, no less hostile to it, than politics and religion.\n\nFor just as in politics the principle of democracy is the\nsovereignty of numbers, and that of monarchy the sovereignty of\nthe prince; just as likewise in affairs of conscience religion is\nnothing but submission to a mystical being, called God, and to\nthe priests who represent him; just as finally in the economic\nworld property--that is, exclusive control by the individual of\nthe instruments of labor--is the point of departure of every\ntheory,--so philosophy, in basing itself upon the a priori\nassumptions of reason, is inevitably led to attribute to the ME\nalone the generation and autocracy of ideas, and to deny the\nmetaphysical value of experience; that is, universally to\nsubstitute, for the objective law, absolutism, despotism.\n\nNow, a doctrine which, springing up suddenly in the heart of\nsociety, without antecedents and without ancestors, rejected from\nevery department of conscience and society the arbitrary\nprinciple, in order to substitute as sole truth the relation of\nfacts; which broke with tradition, and consented to make use of\nthe past only as a point from which to launch forth into the\nfuture,--such a doctrine could not fail to stir up against it the\nestablished AUTHORITIES; and we can see today how, in spite of\ntheir internal discords, the said AUTHORITIES, which are but one,\ncombine to fight the monster that is ready to swallow them.\n\nTo the workingmen who complain of the insufficiency of wages and\nthe uncertainty of labor, political economy opposes the liberty\nof commerce; to the citizens who are seeking for the conditions\nof liberty and order, the ideologists respond with representative\nsystems; to the tender souls who, having lost their ancient\nfaith, ask the reason and end of their existence, religion\nproposes the unfathomable secrets of Providence, and philosophy\nholds doubt in reserve.  Subterfuges always; complete ideas,\nin which heart and mind find rest, never!  Socialism cries that\nit is time to set sail for the mainland, and to enter port: but,\nsay the antisocialists, there is no port; humanity sails onward\nin God's care, under the command of priests, philosophers,\norators, economists, and our circumnavigation is eternal.\n\nThus society finds itself, at its origin, divided into two great\nparties: the one traditional and essentially hierarchical, which,\naccording to the object it is considering, calls itself by turns\nroyalty or democracy, philosophy or religion, in short, property;\nthe other socialism, which, coming to life at every crisis of\ncivilization, proclaims itself preeminently ANARCHICAL and\nATHEISTIC; that is, rebellious against all authority, human and\ndivine.\n\nNow, modern civilization has demonstrated that in a conflict of\nthis nature the truth is found, not in the exclusion of one of\nthe opposites, but wholly and solely in the reconciliation of the\ntwo; it is, I say, a fact of science that every antagonism,\nwhether in Nature or in ideas, is resolvable in a more general\nfact or in a complex formula, which harmonizes the opposing\nfactors by absorbing them, so to speak, in each other.  Can we\nnot, then, men of common sense, while awaiting the solution which\nthe future will undoubtedly bring forth, prepare ourselves for\nthis great transition by an analysis of the struggling powers, as\nwell as their positive and negative qualities?  Such a work,\nperformed with accuracy and conscientiousness, even though it\nshould not lead us directly to the solution, would have at least\nthe inestimable advantage of revealing to us the conditions of\nthe problem, and thereby putting us on our guard against every\nform of utopia.\n\nWhat is there, then, in political economy that is necessary\nand true; whither does it tend; what are its powers; what are\nits wishes?  It is this which I propose to determine in this\nwork.  What is the value of socialism?  The same investigation\nwill answer this question also.\n\nFor since, after all, socialism and political economy pursue the\nsame end,--namely, liberty, order, and well-being among men,--it\nis evident that the conditions to be fulfilled--in other words,\nthe difficulties to be overcome--to attain this end, are also the\nsame for both, and that it remains only to examine the methods\nattempted or proposed by either party.  But since, moreover, it\nhas been given thus far to political economy alone to translate\nits ideas into acts, while socialism has scarcely done more than\nindulge in perpetual satire, it is no less clear that, in judging\nthe works of economy according to their merit, we at the same\ntime shall reduce to its just value the invective of the\nsocialists: so that our criticism, though apparently special,\nwill lead to absolute and definitive conclusions.\n\nThis it is necessary to make clearer by a few examples, before\nentering fully upon the examination of political economy.\n\n\n% 2.--Inadequacy of theories and criticisms.\n\n\nWe will record first an important observation: the contending\nparties agree in acknowledging a common authority, whose support\neach claims,--SCIENCE.\n\nPlato, a utopian, organized his ideal republic in the name of\nscience, which, through modesty and euphemism, he called\nphilosophy.  Aristotle, a practical man, refuted the Platonic\nutopia in the name of the same philosophy.  Thus the social war\nhas continued since Plato and Aristotle.  The modern socialists\nrefer all things to science one and indivisible, but without\npower to agree either as to its content, its limits, or its\nmethod; the economists, on their side, affirm that social science\nin no wise differs from political economy.\n\nIt is our first business, then, to ascertain what a science of\nsociety must be.\n\nScience, in general, is the logically arranged and systematic\nknowledge of that which IS.\n\nApplying this idea to society, we will say:  Social science is\nthe logically arranged and systematic knowledge, not of that\nwhich society HAS BEEN, nor of that which it WILL BE, but of\nthat which it IS in its whole life; that is, in the sum total of\nits successive manifestations: for there alone can it have reason\nand system.  Social science must include human order, not alone\nin such or such a period of duration, nor in a few of its\nelements; but in all its principles and in the totality of its\nexistence: as if social evolution, spread throughout time and\nspace, should find itself suddenly gathered and fixed in a\npicture which, exhibiting the series of the ages and the sequence\nof phenomena, revealed their connection and unity.  Such must be\nthe science of every living and progressive reality; such social\nscience indisputably is.\n\nIt may be, then, that political economy, in spite of its\nindividualistic tendency and its exclusive affirmations, is a\nconstituent part of social science, in which the phenomena that\nit describes are like the starting-points of a vast\ntriangulation and the elements of an organic and complex whole.\nFrom this point of view, the progress of humanity, proceeding\nfrom the simple to the complex, would be entirely in harmony with\nthe progress of science; and the conflicting and so often\ndesolating facts, which are today the basis and object of\npolitical economy, would have to be considered by us as so\nmany special hypotheses, successively realized by humanity in\nview of a superior hypothesis, whose realization would solve all\ndifficulties, and satisfy socialism without destroying political\neconomy.  For, as I said in my introduction, in no case can we\nadmit that humanity, however it expresses itself, is mistaken.\n\nLet us now make this clearer by facts.\n\nThe question now most disputed is unquestionably that of the\nORGANIZATION OF LABOR.\n\nAs John the Baptist preached in the desert, REPENT YE, so the\nsocialists go about proclaiming everywhere this novelty old as\nthe world, ORGANIZE LABOR, though never able to tell what, in\ntheir opinion, this organization should be.  However that may be,\nthe economists have seen that this socialistic clamor was\ndamaging their theories: it was, indeed, a rebuke to them for\nignoring that which they ought first to recognize,--labor.  They\nhave replied, therefore, to the attack of their adversaries,\nfirst by maintaining that labor is organized, that there is no\nother organization of labor than liberty to produce and exchange,\neither on one's own personal account, or in association with\nothers,--in which case the course to be pursued has been\nprescribed by the civil and commercial codes.  Then, as this\nargument served only to make them the laughing-stock of their\nantagonists, they assumed the offensive; and, showing that the\nsocialists understood nothing at all themselves of this\norganization that they held up as a scarecrow, they ended by\nsaying that it was but a new socialistic chimera, a word without\nsense,--an absurdity.  The latest writings of the economists are\nfull of these pitiless conclusions.\n\nNevertheless, it is certain that the phrase organization of labor\ncontains as clear and rational a meaning as these that\nfollow: organization of the workshop, organization of the\narmy, organization of police, organization of charity,\norganization of war.  In this respect, the argument of the\neconomists is deplorably irrational.  No less certain is it that\nthe organization of labor cannot be a utopia and chimera; for at\nthe moment that labor, the supreme condition of civilization,\nbegins to exist, it follows that it is already submitted to an\norganization, such as it is, which satisfies the economists, but\nwhich the socialists think detestable.\n\nThere remains, then, relatively to the proposal to organize labor\nformulated by socialism, this objection,--that labor is\norganized.  Now, this is utterly untenable, since it is notorious\nthat in labor, supply, demand, division, quantity, proportion,\nprice, and security, nothing, absolutely nothing is regulated; on\nthe contrary, everything is given up to the caprices of\nfree-will; that is, to chance.\n\nAs for us, guided by the idea that we have formed of social\nscience, we shall affirm, against the socialists and against the\neconomists, not that labor MUST BE ORGANIZED, nor that it is\nORGANIZED but that it IS BEING ORGANIZED.\n\nLabor, we say, is being organized: that is, the process of\norganization has been going on from the beginning of the world,\nand will continue till the end.  Political economy teaches us the\nprimary elements of this organization; but socialism is right in\nasserting that, in its present form, the organization is\ninadequate and transitory; and the whole mission of science is\ncontinually to ascertain, in view of the results obtained and the\nphenomena in course of development, what innovations can be\nimmediately effected.\n\nSocialism and political economy, then, while waging a burlesque\nwar, pursue in reality the same idea,--the organization of labor.\n\nBut both are guilty of disloyalty to science and of mutual\ncalumny, when on the one hand political economy, mistaking for\nscience its scraps of theory, denies the possibility of further\nprogress; and when socialism, abandoning tradition, aims at\nreestablishing society on undiscoverable bases.\n\nThus socialism is nothing but a profound criticism and continual\ndevelopment of political economy; and, to apply here the\ncelebrated aphorism of the school, Nihil est in intellectu, quod\nnon prius fuerit in sensu, there is nothing in the socialistic\nhypotheses which is not duplicated in economic practice.  On the\nother hand, political economy is but an impertinent rhapsody, so\nlong as it affirms as absolutely valid the facts collected by\nAdam Smith and J. B. Say.\n\nAnother question, no less disputed than the preceding one, is\nthat of usury, or lending at interest.\n\nUsury, or in other words the price of use, is the emolument, of\nwhatever nature, which the proprietor derives from the loan of\nhis property.  Quidquid sorti accrescit usura est, say the\ntheologians.  Usury, the foundation of credit, was one of the\nfirst of the means which social spontaneity employed in its work\nof organization, and whose analysis discloses the profound laws\nof civilization.  The ancient philosophers and the Fathers of the\nChurch, who must be regarded here as the representatives of\nsocialism in the early centuries of the Christian era, by a\nsingular fallacy,--which arose however from the paucity of\neconomic knowledge in their day,--allowed farm-rent and condemned\ninterest on money, because, as they believed, money was\nunproductive.  They distinguished consequently between the loan\nof things which are consumed by use--among which they included\nmoney--and the loan of things which, without being consumed,\nyield a product to the user.\n\nThe economists had no difficulty in showing, by generalizing the\nidea of rent, that in the economy of society the action of\ncapital, or its productivity, was the same whether it was\nconsumed in wages or retained the character of an instrument;\nthat, consequently, it was necessary either to prohibit the rent\nof land or to allow interest on money, since both were by the\nsame title payment for privilege, indemnity for loan.  It\nrequired more than fifteen centuries to get this idea accepted,\nand to reassure the consciences that had been terrified by the\nanathemas pronounced by Catholicism against usury.  But finally\nthe weight of evidence and the general desire favored the\nusurers: they won the battle against socialism; and from this\nlegitimation of usury society gained some immense and\nunquestionable advantages.  Under these circumstances socialism,\nwhich had tried to generalize the law enacted by Moses for the\nIsraelites alone, Non foeneraberis proximo tuo, sed alieno, was\nbeaten by an idea which it had accepted from the economic\nroutine,-- namely, farm-rent,--elevated into the theory of the\nproductivity of capital.\n\nBut the economists in their turn were less fortunate, when they\nwere afterwards called upon to justify farm-rent in itself, and\nto establish this theory of the product of capital.  It may be\nsaid that, on this point, they have lost all the advantage they\nhad at first gained against socialism.\n\nUndoubtedly--and I am the first to recognize it--the rent of\nland, like that of money and all personal and real property, is a\nspontaneous and universal fact, which has its source in the\ndepths of our nature, and which soon becomes, by its natural\ndevelopment, one of the most potent means of organization.  I\nshall prove even that interest on capital is but the\nmaterialization of the aphorism, ALL LABOR SHOULD LEAVE AN\nEXCESS.  But in the face of this theory, or rather this fiction,\nof the productivity of capital, arises another thesis no less\ncertain, which in these latter days has struck the ablest\neconomists: it is that all value is born of labor, and is\ncomposed essentially of wages; in other words, that no wealth has\nits origin in privilege, or acquires any value except through\nwork; and that, consequently, labor alone is the source of\nrevenue among men.  How, then, reconcile the theory of farm-rent\nor productivity of capital--a theory confirmed by universal\ncustom, which conservative political economy is forced to accept\nbut cannot justify--with this other theory which shows that value\nis normally composed of wages, and which inevitably ends, as we\nshall demonstrate, in an equality in society between net product\nand raw product?\n\nThe socialists have not wasted the opportunity.  Starting with\nthe principle that labor is the source of all income, they began\nto call the holders of capital to account for their farm-rents\nand emoluments; and, as the economists won the first victory by\ngeneralizing under a common expression farm-rent and usury, so\nthe socialists have taken their revenge by causing the seignorial\nrights of capital to vanish before the still more general\nprinciple of labor.  Property has been demolished from top to\nbottom: the economists could only keep silent; but, powerless to\narrest itself in this new descent, socialism has slipped clear to\nthe farthest boundaries of communistic utopia, and, for want of a\npractical solution, society is reduced to a position where it can\nneither justify its tradition, nor commit itself to experiments\nin which the least mistake would drive it backward several\nthousand years.\n\nIn such a situation what is the mandate of science?\n\nCertainly not to halt in an arbitrary, inconceivable, and\nimpossible juste milieu; it is to generalize further, and\ndiscover a third principle, a fact, a superior law, which shall\nexplain the fiction of capital and the myth of property, and\nreconcile them with the theory which makes labor the origin of\nall wealth.  This is what socialism, if it wishes to proceed\nlogically, must undertake.  In fact, the theory of the real\nproductivity of labor, and that of the fictitious productivity of\ncapital, are both essentially economical: socialism has\nendeavored only to show the contradiction between them, without\nregard to experience or logic; for it appears to be as destitute\nof the one as of the other.  Now, in law, the litigant who\naccepts the authority of a title in one particular must accept it\nin all; it is not allowable to divide the documents and proofs.\nHad socialism the right to decline the authority of political\neconomy in relation to usury, when it appealed for support to\nthis same authority in relation to the analysis of value?  By no\nmeans.  All that socialism could demand in such a case was,\neither that political economy should be directed to reconcile its\ntheories, or that it might be itself intrusted with this\ndifficult task.\n\nThe more closely we examine these solemn discussions, the more\nclearly we see that the whole trouble is due to the fact that one\nof the parties does not wish to see, while the other refuses to\nadvance.\n\nIt is a principle of our law that no one can be deprived of his\nproperty except for the sake of general utility, and in\nconsideration of a fair indemnity payable in advance.\n\nThis principle is eminently an economic one; for, on the one\nhand, it assumes the right of eminent domain of the citizen\nexpropriated, whose consent, according to the democratic spirit\nof the social compact, is necessarily presupposed.  On the other\nhand, the indemnity, or the price of the article taken, is\nfixed, not by the intrinsic value of the article, but by the\ngeneral law of commerce,--supply and demand; in a word, by\nopinion.  Expropriation in the name of society may be likened to\na contract of convenience, agreed to by each with all; not only\nthen must the price be paid, but the convenience also must be\npaid for: and it is thus, in reality, that the indemnity is\nestimated.  If the Roman legists had seen this analogy, they\nundoubtedly would have hesitated less over the question of\nexpropriation for the sake of public utility.\n\nSuch, then, is the sanction of the social right of expropriation:\nindemnity.\n\nNow, practically, not only is the principle of indemnity not\napplied in all cases where it ought to be, but it is impossible\nthat it should be so applied.  Thus, the law which established\nrailways provided indemnity for the lands to be occupied by the\nrails; it did nothing for the multitude of industries dependent\nupon the previous method of conveyance, whose losses far exceeded\nthe value of the lands whose owners received compensation.\nSimilarly, when the question of indemnifying the manufacturers of\nbeet-root sugar was under consideration, it occurred to no one\nthat the State ought to indemnify also the large number of\nlaborers and employees who earned their livelihood in the\nbeet-root industry, and who were, perhaps, to be reduced to want.\n\nNevertheless, it is certain, according to the idea of capital and\nthe theory of production, that as the possessor of land, whose\nmeans of labor is taken from him by the railroad, has a right to\nbe indemnified, so also the manufacturer, whose capital is\nrendered unproductive by the same railroad, is entitled to\nindemnification.  Why, then, is he not indemnified?  Alas!\nbecause to indemnify him is impossible.  With such a system of\njustice and impartiality society would be, as a general thing,\nunable to act, and would return to the fixedness of Roman\njustice.  There must be victims.  The principle of indemnity is\nconsequently abandoned; to one or more classes of citizens the\nState is inevitably bankrupt.\n\nAt this point the socialists appear.  They charge that the sole\nobject of political economy is to sacrifice the interests of the\nmasses and create privileges; then, finding in the law of\nexpropriation the rudiment of an agrarian law, they suddenly\nadvocate universal expropriation; that is, production and\nconsumption in common.\n\nBut here socialism relapses from criticism into utopia, and its\nincapacity becomes freshly apparent in its contradictions.  If\nthe principle of expropriation for the sake of public utility,\ncarried to its logical conclusion, leads to a complete\nreorganization of society, before commencing the work the\ncharacter of this new organization must be understood; now,\nsocialism, I repeat, has no science save a few bits of physiology\nand political economy.  Further, it is necessary in accordance\nwith the principle of indemnity, if not to compensate citizens,\nat least to guarantee to them the values which they part with; it\nis necessary, in short, to insure them against loss.  Now,\noutside of the public fortune, the management of which it\ndemands, where will socialism find security for this same\nfortune?\n\nIt is impossible, in sound and honest logic, to escape this\ncircle.  Consequently the communists, more open in their dealings\nthan certain other sectarians of flowing and pacific ideas,\ndecide the difficulty; and promise, the power once in their\nhands, to expropriate all and indemnify and guarantee none.  At\nbottom, that would be neither unjust nor disloyal.\nUnfortunately, to burn is not to reply, as the interesting\nDesmoulins said to Robespierre; and such a discussion ends\nalways in fire and the guillotine.  Here, as everywhere, two\nrights, equally sacred, stand in the presence of each other, the\nright of the citizen and the right of the State; it is enough to\nsay that there is a superior formula which reconciles the\nsocialistic utopias and the mutilated theories of political\neconomy, and that the problem is to discover it.  In this\nemergency what are the contending parties doing?  Nothing.  We\nmight say rather that they raise questions only to get an\nopportunity to redress injuries.  What do I say?  The questions\nare not even understood by them; and, while the public is\nconsidering the sublime problems of society and human destiny,\nthe professors of social science, orthodox and heretics, do not\nagree on principles.  Witness the question which occasioned these\ninquiries, and which its authors certainly understand no better\nthan its disparagers,--THE RELATION OF PROFITS AND WAGES.\n\nWhat! an Academy of economists has offered for competition a\nquestion the terms of which it does not understand!  How, then,\ncould it have conceived the idea?\n\nWell! I know that my statement is astonishing and incredible; but\nit is true.  Like the theologians, who answer metaphysical\nproblems only by myths and allegories, which always reproduce the\nproblems but never solve them, the economists reply to the\nquestions which they ask only by relating how they were led to\nask them: should they conceive that it was possible to go\nfurther, they would cease to be economists.\n\nFor example, what is profit?  That which remains for the manager\nafter he has paid all the expenses.  Now, the expenses consist of\nthe labor performed and the materials consumed; or, in fine,\nwages.  What, then, is the wages of a workingman?  The least\nthat can be given him; that is, we do not know.  What should be\nthe price of the merchandise put upon the market by the manager?\nThe highest that he can obtain; that is, again, we do not know.\nPolitical economy prohibits the supposition that the prices of\nmerchandise and labor can be FIXED, although it admits that they\ncan be ESTIMATED; and that for the reason, say the economists,\nthat estimation is essentially an arbitrary operation, which\nnever can lead to sure and certain conclusions.  How, then, shall\nwe find the relation between two unknowns which, according to\npolitical economy, cannot be determined?  Thus political economy\nproposes insolvable problems; and yet we shall soon see that it\nmust propose them, and that our century must solve them.  That is\nwhy I said that the Academy of Moral Sciences, in offering for\ncompetition the question of the relation of profits and wages,\nspoke unconsciously, spoke prophetically.\n\nBut it will be said, Is it not true that, if labor is in great\ndemand and laborers are scarce, wages will rise, while profits on\nthe other hand will decrease; that if, in the press of\ncompetition, there is an excess of production, there will be a\nstoppage and forced sales, consequently no profit for the manager\nand a danger of idleness for the laborer; that then the latter\nwill offer his labor at a reduced price; that, if a machine is\ninvented, it will first extinguish the fires of its rivals; then,\na monopoly established, and the laborer made dependent on the\nemployer, profits and wages will be inversely proportional?\nCannot all these causes, and others besides, be studied,\nascertained, counterbalanced, etc.?\n\nOh, monographs, histories!--we have been saturated with them\nsince the days of Adam Smith and J. B. Say, and they are scarcely\nmore than variations of these authors' words.  But it is not thus\nthat the question should be understood, although the Academy has\ngiven it no other meaning.  The RELATION OF PROFITS AND WAGES\nshould be considered in an absolute sense, and not from the\ninconclusive point of view of the accidents of commerce and the\ndivision of interests: two things which must ultimately receive\ntheir interpretation.  Let me explain myself.\n\nConsidering producer and consumer as a single individual, whose\nrecompense is naturally equal to his product; then dividing this\nproduct into two parts, one which rewards the producer for his\noutlay, another which represents his profit, according to the\naxiom that all labor should leave an excess,--we have to\ndetermine the relation of one of these parts to the other.  This\ndone, it will be easy to deduce the ratio of the fortunes of\nthese two classes of men, employers and wage-laborers, as well\nas account for all commercial oscillations.  This will be a\nseries of corollaries to add to the demonstration.\n\nNow, that such a relation may exist and be estimated, there must\nnecessarily be a law, internal or external, which governs wages\nand prices; and since, in the present state of things, wages and\nprices vary and oscillate continually, we must ask what are the\ngeneral facts, the causes, which make value vary and oscillate,\nand within what limits this oscillation takes place.\n\nBut this very question is contrary to the accepted principles;\nfor whoever says OSCILLATION necessarily supposes a mean\ndirection toward which value's centre of gravity continually\ntends; and when the Academy asks that we DETERMINE THE\nOSCILLATIONS OF PROFIT AND WAGES, it asks thereby that we\nDETERMINE VALUE.  Now that is precisely what the gentlemen of\nthe Academy deny: they are unwilling to admit that, if value is\nvariable, it is for that very reason determinable; that\nvariability is the sign and condition of determinability.  They\npretend that value, ever varying, can never be determined.  This\nis like maintaining that, given the number of oscillations of a\npendulum per second, their amplitude, and the latitude and\nelevation of the spot where the experiment is performed, the\nlength of the pendulum cannot be determined because the pendulum\nis in motion.  Such is political economy's first article of\nfaith.\n\nAs for socialism, it does not appear to have understood the\nquestion, or to be concerned about it.  Among its many organs,\nsome simply and merely put aside the problem by substituting\ndivision for distribution,--that is, by banishing number and\nmeasure from the social organism: others relieve themselves of\nthe embarrassment by applying universal suffrage to the wages\nquestion.  It is needless to say that these platitudes find dupes\nby thousands and hundreds of thousands.\n\nThe condemnation of political economy has been formulated by\nMalthus in this famous passage:--\n\n\nA man who is born into a world already occupied, his family\nunable to support him, and society not requiring his labor,--such\na man, I say, has not the least right to claim any nourishment\nwhatever: he is really one too many on the earth.  At the great\nbanquet of Nature there is no plate laid for him.  Nature\ncommands him to take himself away, and she will not be slow to\nput her order into execution.[6]\n\n\n[6 The passage quoted may not be given in the exact words used by\nMalthus, it having reached its present shape through the medium\nof a French rendering--Translator.\n\n\n\nThis then is the necessary, the fatal, conclusion of political\neconomy,--a conclusion which I shall demonstrate by evidence\nhitherto unknown in this field of inquiry,--Death to him who does\nnot possess!\n\nIn order better to grasp the thought of Malthus, let us translate\nit into philosophical propositions by stripping it of its\nrhetorical gloss:--\n\n\"Individual liberty, and property, which is its expression, are\neconomical data; equality and solidarity are not.\n\n\"Under this system, each one by himself, each one for himself:\nlabor, like all merchandise, is subject to fluctuation: hence the\nrisks of the proletariat.\n\n\"Whoever has neither income nor wages has no right to demand\nanything of others: his misfortune falls on his own head; in the\ngame of fortune, luck has been against him.\"\n\nFrom the point of view of political economy these propositions\nare irrefutable; and Malthus, who has formulated them with such\nalarming exactness, is secure against all reproach.  From the\npoint of view of the conditions of social science, these same\npropositions are radically false, and even contradictory.\n\nThe error of Malthus, or rather of political economy, does not\nconsist in saying that a man who has nothing to eat must die; or\nin maintaining that, under the system of individual\nappropriation, there is no course for him who has neither labor\nnor income but to withdraw from life by suicide, unless he\nprefers to be driven from it by starvation: such is, on the one\nhand, the law of our existence; such is, on the other, the\nconsequence of property; and M. Rossi has taken altogether too\nmuch trouble to justify the good sense of Malthus on this point.\nI suspect, indeed, that M. Rossi, in making so lengthy and loving\nan apology for Malthus, intended to recommend political economy\nin the same way that his fellow-countryman Machiavel, in his book\nentitled \"The Prince,\" recommended despotism to the\nadmiration of the world.  In pointing out misery as the necessary\ncondition of industrial and commercial absolutism, M. Rossi seems\nto say to us:  There is your law, your justice, your political\neconomy; there is property.\n\nBut Gallic simplicity does not understand artifice; and it would\nhave been better to have said to France, in her immaculate\ntongue:  The error of Malthus, the radical vice of political\neconomy, consists, in general terms, in affirming as a definitive\nstate a transitory condition,-- namely, the division of society\ninto patricians and proletaires; and, particularly, in saying\nthat in an organized, and consequently solidaire, society, there\nmay be some who possess, labor, and consume, while others have\nneither possession, nor labor, nor bread.  Finally Malthus, or\npolitical economy, reasons erroneously when seeing in the faculty\nof indefinite reproduction--which the human race enjoys in\nneither greater nor less degree than all animal and vegetable\nspecies--a permanent danger of famine; whereas it is only\nnecessary to show the necessity, and consequently the existence,\nof a law of equilibrium between population and production.\n\nIn short, the theory of Malthus--and herein lies the great merit\nof this writer, a merit which none of his colleagues has dreamed\nof attributing to him--is a reductio ad absurdum of all political\neconomy.\n\nAs for socialism, that was summed up long since by Plato and\nThomas More in a single word, UTOPIA,--that is, NO-PLACE, a\nchimera.\n\nNevertheless, for the honor of the human mind and that justice\nmay be done to all, this must be said: neither could economic and\nlegislative science have had any other beginning than they\ndid have, nor can society remain in this original position.\n\nEvery science must first define its domain, produce and collect\nits materials: before system, facts; before the age of art, the\nage of learning.  The economic science, subject like every other\nto the law of time and the conditions of experience, before\nseeking to ascertain how things OUGHT TO TAKE PLACE in society,\nhad to tell us how things DO TAKE PLACE; and all these processes\nwhich the authors speak of so pompously in their books as LAWS,\nPRINCIPLES, and THEORIES, in spite of their incoherence and\ninconsistency, had to be gathered up with scrupulous diligence,\nand described with strict impartiality.  The fulfilment of this\ntask called for more genius perhaps, certainly for more\nself-sacrifice, than will be demanded by the future progress of\nthe science.\n\nIf, then, social economy is even yet rather an aspiration towards\nthe future than a knowledge of reality, it must be admitted that\nthe elements of this study are all included in political economy;\nand I believe that I express the general sentiment in saying that\nthis opinion has become that of the vast majority of minds.  The\npresent finds few defenders, it is true; but the disgust with\nutopia is no less universal: and everybody understands that the\ntruth lies in a formula which shall reconcile these two terms:\nCONSERVATION and MOTION.\n\nThus, thanks to Adam Smith, J. B. Say, Ricardo, and Malthus, as\nwell as their rash opponents, the mysteries of fortune, atria\nDitis, are uncovered; the power of capital, the oppression of the\nlaborer, the machinations of monopoly, illumined at all points,\nshun the public gaze.  Concerning the facts observed and\ndescribed by the economists, we reason and conjecture:\nabusive laws, iniquitous customs, respected so long as the\nobscurity which sustained their life lasted, with difficulty\ndragged to the daylight, are expiring beneath the general\nreprobation; it is suspected that the government of society must\nbe learned no longer from an empty ideology, after the fashion of\nthe Contrat social, but, as Montesquieu foresaw, from the\nRELATION OF THINGS; and already a Left of eminently socialistic\ntendencies, composed of savants, magistrates, legists,\nprofessors, and even capitalists and manufacturers,--all born\nrepresentatives and defenders of privilege,--and of a million of\nadepts, is forming in the nation above and outside of\nPARLIAMENTARY opinions, and seeking, by an analysis of economic\nfacts, to capture the secrets of the life of societies.\n\nLet us represent political economy, then, as an immense plain,\nstrewn with materials prepared for an edifice.  The laborers\nawait the signal, full of ardor, and burning to commence the\nwork: but the architect has disappeared without leaving the plan.\n\nThe economists have stored their memories with many things:\nunhappily they have not the shadow of an estimate.  They know the\norigin and history of each piece; what it cost to make it; what\nwood makes the best joists, and what clay the best bricks; what\nhas been expended in tools and carts; how much the carpenters\nearned, and how much the stone-cutters: they do not know the\ndestination and the place of anything.  The economists cannot\ndeny that they have before them the fragments, scattered\npell-mell, of a chef-d'oeuvre, disjecti membra poetae; but it\nhas been impossible for them as yet to recover the general\ndesign, and, whenever they have attempted any comparisons, they\nhave met only with incoherence.  Driven to despair at last by\ntheir fruitless combinations, they have erected as a dogma the\narchitectural incongruity of the science, or, as they say, the\nINCONVENIENCES of its principles; in a word, they have denied the\nscience.[7]\n\n\n[7] \"The principle which governs the life of nations is not pure\nscience: it is the total of the complex data which depend on the\nstate of enlightenment, on needs and interests.\"  Thus expressed\nitself, in December, 1844, one of the clearest minds that France\ncontained, M. Leon Faucher.  Explain, if you can, how a man of\nthis stamp was led by his economic convictions to declare that\nthe COMPLEX DATA of society are opposed to PURE SCIENCE.\n\n\n\nThus the division of labor, without which production would be\nalmost nothing, is subject to a thousand inconveniences, the\nworst of which is the demoralization of the laborer; machinery\ncauses, not only cheapness, but obstruction of the market and\nstoppage of business; competition ends in oppression; taxation,\nthe material bond of society, is generally a scourge dreaded\nequally with fire and hail; credit is necessarily accompanied by\nbankruptcy; property is a swarm of abuses; commerce degenerates\ninto a game of chance, in which it is sometimes allowable even to\ncheat: in short, disorder existing everywhere to an equal extent\nwith order, and no one knowing how the latter is to banish the\nformer, taxis ataxien diokein, the economists have decided that\nall is for the best, and regard every reformatory proposition as\nhostile to political economy.\n\nThe social edifice, then, has been abandoned; the crowd has burst\ninto the wood-yard; columns, capitals, and plinths, wood, stone,\nand metal, have been distributed in portions and drawn by lot:\nand, of all these materials collected for a magnificent temple,\nproperty, ignorant and barbarous, has built huts.  The work\nbefore us, then, is not only to recover the plan of the edifice,\nbut to dislodge the occupants, who maintain that their city is\nsuperb, and, at the very mention of restoration, appear in\nbattle-array at their gates.  Such confusion was not seen of old\nat Babel: happily we speak French, and are more courageous than\nthe companions of Nimrod.\n\nBut enough of allegory: the historical and descriptive method,\nsuccessfully employed so long as the work was one of examination\nonly, is henceforth useless: after thousands of monographs and\ntables, we are no further advanced than in the age of Xenophon\nand Hesiod.  The Phenicians, the Greeks, the Italians, labored in\ntheir day as we do in ours: they invested their money, paid their\nlaborers, extended their domains, made their expeditions and\nrecoveries, kept their books, speculated, dabbled in stocks, and\nruined themselves according to all the rules of economic art;\nknowing as well as ourselves how to gain monopolies and fleece\nthe consumer and laborer.  Of all this accounts are only too\nnumerous; and, though we should rehearse forever our statistics\nand our figures, we should always have before our eyes only\nchaos,--chaos constant and uniform.\n\nIt is thought, indeed, that from the era of mythology to the\npresent year 57 of our great revolution, the general welfare has\nimproved: Christianity has long been regarded as the chief cause\nof this amelioration, but now the economists claim all the honor\nfor their own principles.  For after all, they say, what has been\nthe influence of Christianity upon society?  Thoroughly utopian\nat its birth, it has been able to maintain and extend itself only\nby gradually adopting all the economic categories,--labor,\ncapital, farm-rent, usury, traffic, property; in short, by\nconsecrating the Roman law, the highest expression of political\neconomy.\n\nChristianity, a stranger in its theological aspect to the\ntheories of production and consumption, has been to European\ncivilization what the trades-unions and free-masons were not long\nsince to itinerant workmen,--a sort of insurance company and\nmutual aid society; in this respect, it owes nothing to political\neconomy, and the good which it has done cannot be invoked by the\nlatter in its own support.  The effects of charity and\nself-sacrifice are outside of the domain of economy, which must\nbring about social happiness through justice and the organization\nof labor.  For the rest, I am ready to admit the beneficial\neffects of the system of property; but I observe that these\neffects are entirely balanced by the misery which it is the\nnature of this system to produce; so that, as an illustrious\nminister recently confessed before the English Parliament, and as\nwe shall soon show, the increase of misery in the present state\nof society is parallel and equal to the increase of\nwealth,--which completely annuls the merits of political economy.\n\nThus political economy is justified neither by its maxims nor by\nits works; and, as for socialism, its whole value consists in\nhaving established this fact.  We are forced, then, to resume the\nexamination of political economy, since it alone contains, at\nleast in part, the materials of social science; and to ascertain\nwhether its theories do not conceal some error, the correction of\nwhich would reconcile fact and right, reveal the organic law of\nhumanity, and give the positive conception of order.\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\nOF VALUE.\n\n% 1.--Opposition of value in USE and value in EXCHANGE.\n\nValue is the corner-stone of the economic edifice.  The divine\nartist who has intrusted us with the continuation of his work has\nexplained himself on this point to no one; but the few\nindications given may serve as a basis of conjecture.  Value, in\nfact, presents two faces: one, which the economists call value in\nUSE, or intrinsic value; another, value in EXCHANGE, or of\nopinion.  The effects which are produced by value under this\ndouble aspect, and which are very irregular so long as it is not\nestablished,--or, to use a more philosophical expression, so long\nas it is not constituted,--are changed totally by this\nconstitution.\n\nNow, in what consists the correlation between USEFUL value and\nvalue in EXCHANGE?  What is meant by CONSTITUTED value, and by\nwhat sudden change is this constitution effected?  To answer\nthese questions is the object and end of political economy.  I\nbeg the reader to give his whole attention to what is to follow,\nthis chapter being the only one in the work which will tax his\npatience.  For my part, I will endeavor to be more and more\nsimple and clear.\n\nEverything which can be of any service to me is of value to me,\nand the more abundant the useful thing is the richer I am: so\nfar there is no difficulty.  Milk and flesh, fruits and grains,\nwool, sugar, cotton, wine, metals, marble; in fact, land, water,\nair, fire, and sunlight,-- are, relatively to me, values of use,\nvalues by nature and function.  If all the things which serve to\nsustain my life were as abundant as certain of them are, light\nfor instance,--in other words, if the quantity of every valuable\nthing was inexhaustible,--my welfare would be forever assured: I\nshould not have to labor; I should not even think.  In such a\nstate, things would always be USEFUL, but it would be no longer\ntrue to say that they ARE VALUABLE; for value, as we shall soon\nsee, indicates an essentially social relation; and it is solely\nthrough exchange, reverting as it were from society to Nature,\nthat we have acquired the idea of utility.  The whole development\nof civilization originates, then, in the necessity which the\nhuman race is under of continually causing the creation of new\nvalues; just as the evils of society are primarily caused by the\nperpetual struggle which we maintain against our own inertia.\nTake away from man that desire which leads him to think and fits\nhim for a life of contemplation, and the lord of creation stands\non a level with the highest of the beasts.\n\nBut how does value in use become value in exchange?  For it\nshould be noticed that the two kinds of value, although\ncoexisting in thought (since the former becomes apparent only in\nthe presence of the latter), nevertheless maintain a relation of\nsuccession: exchangeable value is a sort of reflex of useful\nvalue; just as the theologians teach that in the Trinity the\nFather, contemplating himself through all eternity, begets the\nSon.  This generation of the idea of value has not been noted by\nthe economists with sufficient care: it is important that we\nshould tarry over it.\n\nSince, then, of the objects which I need, a very large number\nexist in Nature only in moderate quantities, or even not at all,\nI am forced to assist in the production of that which I lack;\nand, as I cannot turn my hand to so many things, I propose to\nother men, my collaborators in various functions, to yield me a\nportion of their products in exchange for mine.  I shall then\nalways have in my possession more of my own special product than\nI consume; just as my fellows will always have in their\npossession more of their respective products than they use.  This\ntacit agreement is fulfilled by COMMERCE.  Here we may observe\nthat the logical succession of the two kinds of value is even\nmore apparent in history than in theory, men having spent\nthousands of years in disputing over natural wealth (this being\nwhat is called PRIMITIVE COMMUNISM) before their industry\nafforded opportunity for exchange.\n\nNow, the capacity possessed by all products, whether natural or\nthe result of labor, of serving to maintain man, is called\ndistinctively value in use; their capacity of purchasing each\nother, value in exchange.  At bottom this is the same thing,\nsince the second case only adds to the first the idea of\nsubstitution, which may seem an idle subtlety; practically, the\nconsequences are surprising, and beneficial or fatal by turns.\n\nConsequently, the distinction established in value is based on\nfacts, and is not at all arbitrary: it is for man, in submitting\nto this law, to use it to increase his welfare and liberty.\nLabor, as an author (M. Walras) has beautifully expressed it, is\na war declared against the parsimony of Nature; by it wealth and\nsociety are simultaneously created.  Not only does labor produce\nincomparably more wealth than Nature gives us,--for instance, it\nhas been remarked that the shoemakers alone in France produce\nten times more than the mines of Peru, Brazil, and Mexico\ncombined,--but, labor infinitely extending and multiplying its\nrights by the changes which it makes in natural values, it\ngradually comes about that all wealth, in running the gauntlet of\nlabor, falls wholly into the hands of him who creates it, and\nthat nothing, or almost nothing, is left for the possessor of the\noriginal material.\n\nSuch, then, is the path of economic progress: at first,\nappropriation of the land and natural values; then, association\nand distribution through labor until complete equality is\nattained.  Chasms are scattered along our road, the sword is\nsuspended over our heads; but, to avert all dangers, we have\nreason, and reason is omnipotence.\n\nIt results from the relation of useful value to exchangeable\nvalue that if, by accident or from malice, exchange should be\nforbidden to a single producer, or if the utility of his product\nshould suddenly cease, though his storehouses were full, he would\npossess nothing.  The more sacrifices he had made and the more\ncourage he had displayed in producing, the greater would be his\nmisery.  If the utility of the product, instead of wholly\ndisappearing, should only diminish,--a thing which may happen in\na hundred ways,--the laborer, instead of being struck down and\nruined by a sudden catastrophe, would be impoverished only;\nobliged to give a large quantity of his own value for a small\nquantity of the values of others, his means of subsistence would\nbe reduced by an amount equal to the deficit in his sale: which\nwould lead by degrees from competency to want.  If, finally, the\nutility of the product should increase, or else if its production\nshould become less costly, the balance of exchange would turn to\nthe advantage of the producer, whose condition would thus be\nraised from fatiguing mediocrity to idle opulence.  This\nphenomenon of depreciation and enrichment is manifested under a\nthousand forms and by a thousand combinations; it is the essence\nof the passional and intriguing game of commerce and industry.\nAnd this is the lottery, full of traps, which the economists\nthink ought to last forever, and whose suppression the Academy of\nMoral and Political Sciences unwittingly demands, when, under the\nnames of profit and wages, it asks us to reconcile value in use\nand value in exchange; that is, to find the method of rendering\nall useful values equally exchangeable, and, vice versa, all\nexchangeable values equally useful.\n\nThe economists have very clearly shown the double character of\nvalue, but what they have not made equally plain is its\ncontradictory nature.  Here begins our criticism.\n\nUtility is the necessary condition of exchange; but take away\nexchange, and utility vanishes: these two things are indissolubly\nconnected.  Where, then, is the contradiction?\n\nSince all of us live only by labor and exchange, and grow richer\nas production and exchange increase, each of us produces as much\nuseful value as possible, in order to increase by that amount his\nexchanges, and consequently his enjoyments.  Well, the first\neffect, the inevitable effect, of the multiplication of values is\nto LOWER them: the more abundant is an article of merchandise,\nthe more it loses in exchange and depreciates commercially.  Is\nit not true that there is a contradiction between the necessity\nof labor and its results?\n\nI adjure the reader, before rushing ahead for the explanation, to\narrest his attention upon the fact.\n\nA peasant who has harvested twenty sacks of wheat, which he with\nhis family proposes to consume, deems himself twice as rich\nas if he had harvested only ten; likewise a housewife who has\nspun fifty yards of linen believes that she is twice as rich as\nif she had spun but twenty- five.  Relatively to the household,\nboth are right; looked at in their external relations, they may\nbe utterly mistaken.  If the crop of wheat is double throughout\nthe whole country, twenty sacks will sell for less than ten would\nhave sold for if it had been but half as great; so, under similar\ncircumstances, fifty yards of linen will be worth less than\ntwenty-five: so that value decreases as the production of utility\nincreases, and a producer may arrive at poverty by continually\nenriching himself.  And this seems unalterable, inasmuch as there\nis no way of escape except all the products of industry become\ninfinite in quantity, like air and light, which is absurd.  God\nof my reason!  Jean Jacques would have said: it is not the\neconomists who are irrational; it is political economy itself\nwhich is false to its definitions.  Mentita est iniquitas sibi.\n\nIn the preceding examples the useful value exceeds the\nexchangeable value: in other cases it is less.  Then the same\nphenomenon is produced, but in the opposite direction: the\nbalance is in favor of the producer, while the consumer suffers.\nThis is notably the case in seasons of scarcity, when the high\nprice of provisions is always more or less factitious.  There are\nalso professions whose whole art consists in giving to an article\nof minor usefulness, which could easily be dispensed with, an\nexaggerated value of opinion: such, in general, are the arts of\nluxury.  Man, through his aesthetic passion, is eager for the\ntrifles the possession of which would highly satisfy his vanity,\nhis innate desire for luxury, and his more noble and more\nrespectable love of the beautiful: upon this the dealers in this\nclass of articles speculate.  To tax fancy and elegance is no\nless odious or absurd than to tax circulation: but such a tax is\ncollected by a few fashionable merchants, whom general\ninfatuation protects, and whose whole merit generally consists in\nwarping taste and generating fickleness.  Hence no one complains;\nand all the maledictions of opinion are reserved for the\nmonopolists who, through genius, succeed in raising by a few\ncents the price of linen and bread.\n\nIt is little to have pointed out this astonishing contrast\nbetween useful value and exchangeable value, which the economists\nhave been in the habit of regarding as very simple: it must be\nshown that this pretended simplicity conceals a profound mystery,\nwhich it is our duty to fathom.\n\nI summon, therefore, every serious economist to tell me,\notherwise than by transforming or repeating the question, for\nwhat reason value decreases in proportion as production augments,\nand reciprocally what causes this same value to increase in\nproportion as production diminishes.  In technical terms, useful\nvalue and exchangeable value, necessary to each other, are\ninversely proportional to each other; I ask, then, why scarcity,\ninstead of utility, is synonymous with dearness.  For--mark it\nwell--the price of merchandise is independent of the amount of\nlabor expended in production; and its greater or less cost does\nnot serve at all to explain the variations in its price.  Value\nis capricious, like liberty: it considers neither utility nor\nlabor; on the contrary, it seems that, in the ordinary course of\naffairs, and exceptional derangements aside, the most useful\nobjects are those which are sold at the lowest price; in other\nwords, that it is just that the men who perform the most\nattractive labor should be the best rewarded, while those whose\ntasks demand the most exertion are paid the least.  So that, in\nfollowing the principle to its ultimate consequences, we\nreach the most logical of conclusions: that things whose use is\nnecessary and quantity infinite must be gratuitous, while those\nwhich are without utility and extremely scarce must bear an\ninestimable price.  But, to complete the embarrassment, these\nextremes do not occur in practice: on the one hand, no human\nproduct can ever become infinite in quantity; on the other, the\nrarest things must be in some degree useful, else they would not\nbe susceptible of value.  Useful value and exchangeable value\nremain, then, in inevitable attachment, although it is their\nnature continually to tend towards mutual exclusion.\n\nI shall not fatigue the reader with a refutation of the\nlogomachies which might be offered in explanation of this\nsubject: of the contradiction inherent in the idea of value there\nis no assignable cause, no possible explanation.  The fact of\nwhich I speak is one of those called primitive,--that is, one of\nthose which may serve to explain others, but which in themselves,\nlike the bodies called simple, are inexplicable.  Such is the\ndualism of spirit and matter.  Spirit and matter are two terms\neach of which, taken separately, indicates a special aspect of\nspirit, but corresponds to no reality.  So, given man's needs of\na great variety of products together with the obligation of\nprocuring them by his labor, the opposition of useful value to\nexchangeable value necessarily results; and from this opposition\na contradiction on the very threshold of political economy.  No\nintelligence, no will, divine or human, can prevent it.\n\nTherefore, instead of searching for a chimerical explanation, let\nus content ourselves with establishing the necessity of the\ncontradiction. Whatever the abundance of created values and the\nproportion in which they exchange for each other, in order\nthat we may exchange our products, mine must suit you when you\nare the BUYER, and I must be satisfied with yours when you are\nthe SELLER.  For no one has a right to impose his own\nmerchandise upon another: the sole judge of utility, or in other\nwords the want, is the buyer.  Therefore, in the first case, you\nhave the deciding power; in the second, I have it.  Take away\nreciprocal liberty, and exchange is no longer the expression of\nindustrial solidarity: it is robbery.  Communism, by the way,\nwill never surmount this difficulty.\n\nBut, where there is liberty, production is necessarily\nundetermined, either in quantity or in quality; so that from the\npoint of view of economic progress, as from that of the relation\nof consumers, valuation always is an arbitrary matter, and the\nprice of merchandise will ever fluctuate.  Suppose for a moment\nthat all producers should sell at a fixed price: there would be\nsome who, producing at less cost and in better quality, would get\nmuch, while others would get nothing.  In every way equilibrium\nwould be destroyed.  Do you wish, in order to prevent business\nstagnation, to limit production strictly to the necessary amount?\n\nThat would be a violation of liberty: for, in depriving me of the\npower of choice, you condemn me to pay the highest price; you\ndestroy competition, the sole guarantee of cheapness, and\nencourage smuggling.  In this way, to avoid commercial\nabsolutism, you would rush into administrative absolutism; to\ncreate equality, you would destroy liberty, which is to deny\nequality itself.  Would you group producers in a single workshop\n(supposing you to possess this secret)?  That again does not\nsuffice: it would be necessary also to group consumers in a\ncommon household, whereby you would abandon the point.  We are\nnot to abolish the idea of value, which is as impossible as to\nabolish labor, but to determine it; we are not to kill\nindividual liberty, but to socialize it.  Now, it is proved that\nit is the free will of man that gives rise to the opposition\nbetween value in use and value in exchange: how reconcile this\nopposition while free will exists?  And how sacrifice the latter\nwithout sacrificing man?\n\nThen, from the very fact that I, as a free purchaser, am judge of\nmy own wants, judge of the fitness of the object, judge of the\nprice I wish to pay, and that you on the other hand, as a free\nproducer, control the means of production, and consequently have\nthe power to reduce your expenses, absolutism forces itself\nforward as an element of value, and causes it to oscillate\nbetween utility and opinion.\n\nBut this oscillation, clearly pointed out by the economists, is\nbut the effect of a contradiction which, repeating itself on a\nvast scale, engenders the most unexpected phenomena.  Three years\nof fertility, in certain provinces of Russia, are a public\ncalamity, just as, in our vineyards, three years of abundance are\na calamity to the wine-grower I know well that the economists\nattribute this distress to a lack of markets; wherefore this\nquestion of markets is an important one with them.  Unfortunately\nthe theory of markets, like that of emigration with which they\nattempted to meet Malthus, is a begging of the question.  The\nStates having the largest market are as subject to\nover-production as the most isolated countries: where are high\nand low prices better known than in the stock-exchanges of Paris\nand London?\n\nFrom the oscillation of value and the irregular effects resulting\ntherefrom the socialists and economists, each in their own way,\nhave reasoned to opposite, but equally false, conclusions: the\nformer have made it a text for the slander of political economy\nand its exclusion from social science; the latter, for the\ndenial of all possibility of reconciliation, and the affirmation\nof the incommensurability of values, and consequently the\ninequality of fortunes, as an absolute law of commerce.\n\nI say that both parties are equally in error.\n\n1. The contradictory idea of value, so clearly exhibited by the\ninevitable distinction between useful value and value in exchange\ndoes not arise from a false mental perception, or from a vicious\nterminology, or from any practical error; it lies deep in the\nnature of things, and forces itself upon the mind as a general\nform of thought,--that is, as a category.  Now, as the idea of\nvalue is the point of departure of political economy, it follows\nthat all the elements of the science--I use the word science in\nanticipation--are contradictory in themselves and opposed to each\nother: so truly is this the case that on every question the\neconomist finds himself continually placed between an affirmation\nand a negation alike irrefutable.  ANTINOMY, in fine, to use a\nword sanctioned by modern philosophy, is the essential\ncharacteristic of political economy; that is to say, it is at\nonce its death-sentence and its justification.\n\nANTINOMY, literally COUNTER-LAW, means opposition in principle\nor antagonism in relation, just as contradiction or ANTILOGY\nindicates opposition or discrepancy in speech.  Antinomy,--I ask\npardon for entering into these scholastic details, comparatively\nunfamiliar as yet to most economists,--antinomy is the conception\nof a law with two faces, the one positive, the other negative.\nSuch, for instance, is the law called ATTRACTION, by which the\nplanets revolve around the sun, and which mathematicians have\nanalyzed into centripetal force and centrifugal force.  Such also\nis the problem of the infinite divisibility of matter, which, as\nKant has shown, can be denied and affirmed successively by\narguments equally plausible and irrefutable.\n\nAntinomy simply expresses a fact, and forces itself imperatively\non the mind; contradiction, properly speaking, is an absurdity.\nThis distinction between antinomy (contra-lex) and contradiction\n(contra-dictio) shows in what sense it can be said that, in a\ncertain class of ideas and facts, the argument of contradiction\nhas not the same value as in mathematics.\n\nIn mathematics it is a rule that, a proposition being proved\nfalse, its opposite is true, and vice versa.  In fact, this is\nthe principal method of mathematical demonstration.  In social\neconomy, it is not the same: thus we see, for example, that\nproperty being proved by its results to be false, the opposite\nformula, communism, is none the truer on this account, but is\ndeniable at the same time and by the same title as property.\nDoes it follow, as has been said with such ridiculous emphasis,\nthat every truth, every idea, results from a contradiction,--\nthat is, from a something which is affirmed and denied at the\nsame moment and from the same point of view,--and that it may be\nnecessary to abandon wholly the old-fashioned logic, which\nregards contradiction as the infallible sign of error?  This\nbabble is worthy of sophists who, destitute of faith and honesty,\nendeavor to perpetuate scepticism in order to maintain their\nimpertinent uselessness.  Because antinomy, immediately it is\nmisunderstood, leads inevitably to contradiction, these have been\nmistaken for each other, especially among the French, who like to\njudge everything by its effects.  But neither contradiction nor\nantinomy, which analysis discovers at the bottom of every simple\nidea, is the principle of truth.  Contradiction is always\nsynonymous with nullity; as for antinomy, sometimes called by\nthe same name, it is indeed the forerunner of truth, the material\nof which, so to speak, it supplies; but it is not truth, and,\nconsidered in itself, it is the efficient cause of disorder, the\ncharacteristic form of delusion and evil.\n\nAn antinomy is made up of two terms, necessary to each other, but\nalways opposed, and tending to mutual destruction.  I hardly dare\nto add, as I must, that the first of these terms has received the\nname thesis, position, and the second the name anti-thesis,\ncounter-position.  This method of thought is now so well-known\nthat it will soon figure, I hope, in the text-books of the\nprimary schools.  We shall see directly how from the combination\nof these two zeros unity springs forth, or the idea which dispels\nthe antinomy.\n\nThus, in value, there is nothing useful that cannot be exchanged,\nnothing exchangeable if it be not useful: value in use and value\nin exchange are inseparable.  But while, by industrial progress,\ndemand varies and multiplies to an infinite extent, and while\nmanufactures tend in consequence to increase the natural utility\nof things, and finally to convert all useful value into\nexchangeable value, production, on the other hand, continually\nincreasing the power of its instruments and always reducing its\nexpenses, tends to restore the venal value of things to their\nprimitive utility: so that value in use and value in exchange are\nin perpetual struggle.\n\nThe effects of this struggle are well-known: the wars of commerce\nand of the market; obstructions to business; stagnation;\nprohibition; the massacres of competition; monopoly; reductions\nof wages; laws fixing maximum prices; the crushing inequality of\nfortunes; misery,--all these result from the antinomy of value.\nThe proof of this I may be excused from giving here, as it will\nappear naturally in the chapters to follow.\n\nThe socialists, while justly demanding that this antagonism be\nbrought to an end, have erred in mistaking its source, and in\nseeing in it only a mental oversight, capable of rectification by\na legal decree.  Hence this lamentable outbreak of\nsentimentalism, which has rendered socialism so insipid to\npositive minds, and which, spreading the absurdest delusions,\nmakes so many fresh dupes every day.  My complaint of socialism\nis not that it has appeared among us without cause, but that it\nhas clung so long and so obstinately to its silliness.\n\n2. But the economists have erred no less gravely in rejecting a\npriori, and just because of the contradictory, or rather\nantinomical, nature of value, every idea and hope of reform,\nnever desiring to understand that, for the very reason that\nsociety has arrived at its highest point of antagonism,\nreconciliation and harmony are at hand.  This, nevertheless, is\nwhat a close study of political economy would have shown to its\nadepts, had they paid more attention to the lights of modern\nmetaphysics.  It is indeed demonstrated, by the most positive\nevidence known to the human mind, that wherever an antinomy\nappears there is a promise of a resolution of its terms, and\nconsequently an announcement of a coming change.  Now, the idea\nof value, as developed by J. B. Say among others, satisfies\nexactly these conditions.  But the economists, who have remained\nfor the most part by an inconceivable fatality ignorant of the\nmovement of philosophy, have guarded against the supposition that\nthe essentially contradictory, or, as they say, variable,\ncharacter of value might be at the same time the authentic sign\nof its constitutionality,--that is, of its eminently harmonious\nand determinable nature.  However dishonorable it may be to the\neconomists of the various schools, it is certain that their\nopposition to socialism results solely from this false\nconception of their own principles; one proof, taken from a\nthousand, will suffice.\n\nThe Academy of Sciences (not that of Moral Sciences, but the\nother), going outside of its province one day, listened to a\npaper in which it was proposed to calculate tables of value for\nall kinds of merchandise upon the basis of the average product\nper man and per day's labor in each branch of industry.  \"Le\nJournal des Economistes\" (August, 1845) immediately made this\ncommunication, intrusive in its eyes, the text of a protest\nagainst the plan of tariff which was its object, and the occasion\nof a reestablishment of what it called true principles:--\n\n\"There is no measure of value, no standard of value,\" it said in\nits conclusions; \"economic science tells us this, just as\nmathematical science tells us that there is no perpetual motion\nor quadrature of the circle, and that these never will be found.\nNow, if there is no standard of value, if the measure of value is\nnot even a metaphysical illusion, what then is the law which\ngoverns exchanges? . . . . .  As we have said before, it is, in a\ngeneral way, SUPPLY and DEMAND: that is the last word of\nscience.\"\n\nNow, how did \"Le Journal des Economistes\" prove that there is no\nmeasure of value?  I use the consecrated expression: though I\nshall show directly that this phrase, MEASURE OF VALUE, is\nsomewhat ambiguous, and does not convey the exact meaning which\nit is intended, and which it ought, to express.\n\nThis journal repeated, with accompanying examples, the exposition\nthat we have just given of the variability of value, but without\narriving, as we did, at the contradiction.  Now, if the estimable\neditor, one of the most distinguished economists of the\nschool of Say, had had stricter logical habits; if he had been\nlong used, not only to observing facts, but to seeking their\nexplanation in the ideas which produce them,--I do not doubt that\nhe would have expressed himself more cautiously, and that,\ninstead of seeing in the variability of value the LAST WORD OF\nSCIENCE, he would have recognized unaided that it is the first.\nSeeing that the variability of value proceeds not from things,\nbut from the mind, he would have said that, as human liberty has\nits law, so value must have its law; consequently, that the\nhypothesis of a measure of value, this being the common\nexpression, is not at all irrational; quite the contrary, that it\nis the denial of this measure that is illogical, untenable.\n\nAnd indeed, what is there in the idea of measuring, and\nconsequently of fixing, value, that is unscientific?  All men\nbelieve in it; all wish it, search for it, suppose it: every\nproposition of sale or purchase is at bottom only a comparison\nbetween two values,--that is, a determination, more or less\naccurate if you will, but nevertheless effective.  The opinion of\nthe human race on the existing difference between real value and\nmarket price may be said to be unanimous.  It is for this reason\nthat so many kinds of merchandise are sold at a fixed price;\nthere are some, indeed, which, even in their variations, are\nalways fixed,--bread, for instance.  It will not be denied that,\nif two manufacturers can supply one another by an account\ncurrent, and at a settled price, with quantities of their\nrespective products, ten, a hundred, a thousand manufacturers can\ndo the same.  Now, that would be a solution of the problem of the\nmeasure of value.  The price of everything would be debated upon,\nI allow, because debate is still our only method of fixing\nprices; but yet, as all light is the result of conflict, debate,\nthough it may be a proof of uncertainty, has for its object,\nsetting aside the greater or less amount of good faith that\nenters into it, the discovery of the relation of values to each\nother,-- that is, their measurement, their law.\n\nRicardo, in his theory of rent, has given a magnificent example\nof the commensurability of values.  He has shown that arable\nlands are to each other as the crops which they yield with the\nsame outlay; and here universal practice is in harmony with\ntheory.  Now who will say that this positive and sure method of\nestimating the value of land, and in general of all engaged\ncapital, cannot be applied to products also? . . . . .\n\nThey say:  Political economy is not affected by a priori\narguments; it pronounces only upon facts.  Now, facts and\nexperience teach us that there is no measure of value and can be\nnone, and prove that, though the conception of such an idea was\nnecessary in the nature of things, its realization is wholly\nchimerical.  Supply and demand is the sole law of exchange.\n\nI will not repeat that experience proves precisely the contrary;\nthat everything, in the economic progress of society, denotes a\ntendency toward the constitution and establishment of value; that\nthat is the culminating point of political economy--which by this\nconstitution becomes transformed--and the supreme indication of\norder in society: this general outline, reiterated without proof,\nwould become tiresome.  I confine myself for the moment within\nthe limits of the discussion, and say that SUPPLY and DEMAND,\nheld up as the sole regulators of value, are nothing more than\ntwo ceremonial forms serving to bring useful value and\nexchangeable value face to face, and to provoke their\nreconciliation.  They are the two electric poles, whose\nconnection must produce the economical phenomenon of affinity\ncalled EXCHANGE.  Like the poles of a battery, supply and demand\nare diametrically opposed to each other, and tend continually to\nmutual annihilation; it is by their antagonism that the price of\nthings is either increased, or reduced to nothing: we wish to\nknow, then, if it is not possible, on every occasion, so to\nbalance or harmonize these two forces that the price of things\nalways may be the expression of their true value, the expression\nof justice.  To say after that that supply and demand is the law\nof exchange is to say that supply and demand is the law of supply\nand demand; it is not an explanation of the general practice, but\na declaration of its absurdity; and I deny that the general\npractice is absurd.\n\nI have just quoted Ricardo as having given, in a special\ninstance, a positive rule for the comparison of values: the\neconomists do better still.  Every year they gather from tables\nof statistics the average prices of the various grains.  Now,\nwhat is the meaning of an average?  Every one can see that in a\nsingle operation, taken at random from a million, there is no\nmeans of knowing which prevailed, supply--that is, useful\nvalue--or exchangeable value,--that is, demand.  But as every\nincrease in the price of merchandise is followed sooner or later\nby a proportional reduction; as, in other words, in society the\nprofits of speculation are equal to the losses,--we may regard\nwith good reason the average of prices during a complete period\nas indicative of the real and legitimate value of products.  This\naverage, it is true, is ascertained too late: but who knows that\nwe could not discover it in advance?  Is there an economist who\ndares to deny it?\n\nNolens volens, then, the measure of value must be sought for:\nlogic commands it, and her conclusions are adverse to\neconomists and socialists alike.  The opinion which denies\nthe existence of this measure is irrational, unreasonable.  Say\nas often as you please, on the one hand, that political economy\nis a science of facts, and that the facts are contrary to the\nhypothesis of a determination of value, or, on the other, that\nthis troublesome question would not present itself in a system of\nuniversal association, which would absorb all antagonism,--I will\nreply still, to the right and to the left:--\n\n1. That as no fact is produced which has not its cause, so none\nexists which has not its law; and that, if the law of exchange is\nnot discovered, the fault is, not with the facts, but with the\nsavants.\n\n2. That, as long as man shall labor in order to live, and shall\nlabor freely, justice will be the condition of fraternity and the\nbasis of association; now, without a determination of value,\njustice is imperfect, impossible.\n\n\n% 2.--Constitution of value; definition of wealth.\n\nWe know value in its two opposite aspects; we do not know it in\nits TOTALITY.  If we can acquire this new idea, we shall have\nabsolute value; and a table of values, such as was called for in\nthe memoir read to the Academy of Sciences, will be possible.\n\nLet us picture wealth, then, as a mass held by a chemical force\nin a permanent state of composition, in which new elements,\ncontinually entering, combine in different proportions, but\naccording to a certain law: value is the proportional relation\n(the measure) in which each of these elements forms a part of the\nwhole.\n\nFrom this two things result: one, that the economists have been\nwholly deluded when they have looked for the general measure of\nvalue in wheat, specie, rent, etc., and also when, after having\ndemonstrated that this standard of measure was neither here nor\nthere, they have concluded that value has neither law nor\nmeasure; the other, that the proportion of values may continually\nvary without ceasing on that account to be subject to a law,\nwhose determination is precisely the solution sought.\n\nThis idea of value satisfies, as we shall see, all the\nconditions: for it includes at once both the positive and fixed\nelement in useful value and the variable element in exchangeable\nvalue; in the second place, it puts an end to the contradiction\nwhich seemed an insurmountable obstacle in the way of the\ndetermination of value; further, we shall show that value thus\nunderstood differs entirely from a simple juxtaposition of the\ntwo ideas of useful and exchangeable value, and that it is\nendowed with new properties.\n\nThe proportionality of products is not a revelation that we\npretend to offer to the world, or a novelty that we bring into\nscience, any more than the division of labor was an unheard-of\nthing when Adam Smith explained its marvels.  The proportionality\nof products is, as we might prove easily by innumerable\nquotations, a common idea running through the works on political\neconomy, but to which no one as yet has dreamed of attributing\nits rightful importance: and this is the task which we undertake\ntoday.  We feel bound, for the rest, to make this declaration in\norder to reassure the reader concerning our pretensions to\noriginality, and to satisfy those minds whose timidity leads them\nto look with little favor upon new ideas.\n\nThe economists seem always to have understood by the measure of\nvalue only a standard, a sort of original unit, existing by\nitself, and applicable to all sorts of merchandise, as the yard\nis applicable to all lengths.  Consequently, many have thought\nthat such a standard is furnished by the precious metals.  But\nthe theory of money has proved that, far from being the measure\nof values, specie is only their arithmetic, and a conventional\narithmetic at that.  Gold and silver are to value what the\nthermometer is to heat.  The thermometer, with its arbitrarily\ngraduated scale, indicates clearly when there is a loss or an\nincrease of heat: but what the laws of heat-equilibrium are; what\nis its proportion in various bodies; what amount is necessary to\ncause a rise of ten, fifteen, or twenty degrees in the\nthermometer,--the thermometer does not tell us; it is not certain\neven that the degrees of the scale, equal to each other,\ncorrespond to equal additions of heat.\n\nThe idea that has been entertained hitherto of the measure of\nvalue, then, is inexact; the object of our inquiry is not the\nstandard of value, as has been said so often and so foolishly,\nbut the law which regulates the proportions of the various\nproducts to the social wealth; for upon the knowledge of this law\ndepends the rise and fall of prices in so far as it is normal and\nlegitimate.  In a word, as we understand by the measure of\ncelestial bodies the relation resulting from the comparison of\nthese bodies with each other, so, by the measure of values, we\nmust understand the relation which results from their comparison.\n\nNow, I say that this relation has its law, and this comparison\nits principle.\n\nI suppose, then, a force which combines in certain proportions\nthe elements of wealth, and makes of them a homogeneous whole: if\nthe constituent elements do not exist in the desired proportion,\nthe combination will take place nevertheless; but, instead of\nabsorbing all the material, it will reject a portion as useless.\nThe internal movement by which the combination is produced, and\nwhich the affinities of the various substances determine--this\nmovement in society is exchange; exchange considered no longer\nsimply in its elementary form and between man and man, but\nexchange considered as the fusion of all values produced by\nprivate industry in one and the same mass of social wealth.\nFinally, the proportion in which each element enters into the\ncompound is what we call value; the excess remaining after the\ncombination is NON-VALUE, until the addition of a certain\nquantity of other elements causes further combination and\nexchange.\n\nWe will explain later the function of money.\n\nThis determined, it is conceivable that at a given moment the\nproportions of values constituting the wealth of a country may be\ndetermined, or at least empirically approximated, by means of\nstatistics and inventories, in nearly the same way that the\nchemists have discovered by experience, aided by analysis, the\nproportions of hydrogen and oxygen necessary to the formation of\nwater.  There is nothing objectionable in this method of\ndetermining values; it is, after all, only a matter of accounts.\nBut such a work, however interesting it might be, would teach us\nnothing very useful.  On the one hand, indeed, we know that the\nproportion continually varies; on the other, it is clear that\nfrom a statement of the public wealth giving the proportions of\nvalues only for the time and place when and where the statistics\nshould be gathered we could not deduce the law of proportionality\nof wealth.  For that, a single operation of this sort would not\nbe sufficient; thousands and millions of similar ones would be\nnecessary, even admitting the method to be worthy of confidence.\n\nNow, here there is a difference between economic science and\nchemistry.  The chemists, who have discovered by experience such\nbeautiful proportions, know no more of their how or why than of\nthe force which governs them.  Social economy, on the contrary,\nto which no a posteriori investigation could reveal directly the\nlaw of proportionality of values, can grasp it in the very force\nwhich produces it, and which it is time to announce.\n\nThis force, which Adam Smith has glorified so eloquently, and\nwhich his successors have misconceived (making privilege its\nequal),--this force is LABOR.  Labor differs in quantity and\nquality with the producer; in this respect it is like all the\ngreat principles of Nature and the most general laws, simple in\ntheir action and formula, but infinitely modified by a multitude\nof special causes, and manifesting themselves under an\ninnumerable variety of forms.  It is labor, labor alone, that\nproduces all the elements of wealth, and that combines them to\ntheir last molecules according to a law of variable, but certain,\nproportionality.  It is labor, in fine, that, as the principle of\nlife, agitates (mens agitat) the material (molem) of wealth, and\nproportions it.\n\nSociety, or the collective man, produces an infinitude of\nobjects, the enjoyment of which constitutes its WELL-BEING.\nThis well-being is developed not only in the ratio of the\nQUANTITY of the products, but also in the ratio of their\nVARIETY (quality) and PROPORTION.  From this fundamental datum\nit follows that society always, at each instant of its life, must\nstrive for such proportion in its products as will give the\ngreatest amount of well-being, considering the power and means of\nproduction.  Abundance, variety, and proportion in products are\nthe three factors which constitute WEALTH: wealth, the object of\nsocial economy, is subject to the same conditions of existence as\nbeauty, the object of art; virtue, the object of morality; and\ntruth, the object of metaphysics.\n\nBut how establish this marvelous proportion, so essential that\nwithout it a portion of human labor is lost,--that is, useless,\ninharmonious, untrue, and consequently synonymous with poverty\nand annihilation?\n\nPrometheus, according to the fable, is the symbol of human\nactivity.  Prometheus steals the fire of heaven, and invents the\nearly arts; Prometheus foresees the future, and aspires to\nequality with Jupiter; Prometheus is God.  Then let us call\nsociety Prometheus.\n\nPrometheus devotes, on an average, ten hours a day to labor,\nseven to rest, and seven to pleasure.  In order to gather from\nhis toil the most useful fruit, Prometheus notes the time and\ntrouble that each object of his consumption costs him.  Only\nexperience can teach him this, and this experience lasts\nthroughout his life.  While laboring and producing, then,\nPrometheus is subject to an infinitude of disappointments.  But,\nas a final result, the more he labors, the greater is his\nwell-being and the more idealized his luxury; the further he\nextends his conquests over Nature, the more strongly he fortifies\nwithin him the principle of life and intelligence in the exercise\nof which he alone finds happiness; till finally, the early\neducation of the Laborer completed and order introduced into his\noccupations, to labor, with him, is no longer to suffer,--it is\nto live, to enjoy.  But the attractiveness of labor does not\nnullify the rule, since, on the contrary, it is the fruit of it;\nand those who, under the pretext that labor should be attractive,\nreason to the denial of justice and to communism, resemble\nchildren who, after having gathered some flowers in the garden,\nshould arrange a flower-bed on the staircase.\n\nIn society, then, justice is simply the proportionality of\nvalues; its guarantee and sanction is the responsibility of the\nproducer.\n\nPrometheus knows that such a product costs an hour's labor, such\nanother a day's, a week's, a year's; he knows at the same time\nthat all these products, arranged according to their cost, form\nthe progression of his wealth.  First, then, he will assure his\nexistence by providing himself with the least costly, and\nconsequently most necessary, things; then, as fast as his\nposition becomes secure, he will look forward to articles of\nluxury, proceeding always, if he is wise, according to the\nnatural position of each article in the scale of prices.\nSometimes Prometheus will make a mistake in his calculations, or\nelse, carried away by passion, he will sacrifice an immediate\ngood to a premature enjoyment, and, after having toiled and\nmoiled, he will starve.  Thus, the law carries with it its own\nsanction; its violation is inevitably accompanied by the\nimmediate punishment of the transgressor.\n\nSay, then, was right in saying:  \"The happiness of this class\n(the consumers), composed of all the others, constitutes the\ngeneral well- being, the state of prosperity of a country.\"  Only\nhe should have added that the happiness of the class of\nproducers, which also is composed of all the others, equally\nconstitutes the general well-being, the state of prosperity of a\ncountry.  So, when he says:  \"The fortune of each consumer is\nperpetually at war with all that he buys,\" he should have added\nagain:  \"The fortune of each producer is incessantly attacked by\nall that he sells.\"  In the absence of a clear expression of this\nreciprocity, most economical phenomena become unintelligible; and\nI will soon show how, in consequence of this grave omission, most\neconomists in writing their books have talked wildly about the\nbalance of trade.\n\nI have just said that society produces first THE LEAST COSTLY,\nAND CONSEQUENTLY MOST NECESSARY, THINGS.  Now, is it true that\ncheapness of products is always a correlative of their necessity,\nand vice versa; so that these two words, NECESSITY and\nCHEAPNESS, like the following ones, COSTLINESS and\nSUPERFLUITY, are synonymes?\n\nIf each product of labor, taken alone, would suffice for the\nexistence of man, the synonymy in question would not be doubtful;\nall products having the same qualities, those would be most\nadvantageously produced, and therefore the most necessary, which\ncost the least.  But the parallel between the utility and price\nof products is not characterized by this theoretical precision:\neither through the foresight of Nature or from some other cause,\nthe balance between needs and productive power is more than a\ntheory,--it is a fact, of which daily practice, as well as social\nprogress, gives evidence.\n\nImagine ourselves living in the day after the birth of man at the\nbeginning of civilization: is it not true that the industries\noriginally the simplest, those which required the least\npreparation and expense, were the following: GATHERING,\nPASTURAGE, HUNTING, and FISHING, which were followed long\nafterwards by agriculture?  Since then, these four primitive\nindustries have been perfected, and moreover appropriated: a\ndouble circumstance which does not change the meaning of the\nfacts, but, on the contrary, makes it more manifest.  In fact,\nproperty has always attached itself by preference to objects of\nthe most immediate utility, to MADE VALUES, if I may so speak;\nso that the scale of values might be fixed by the progress of\nappropriation.\n\nIn his work on the \"Liberty of Labor\" M. Dunoyer has positively\naccepted this principle by distinguishing four great classes of\nindustry, which he arranges according to the order of their\ndevelopment,--that is, from the least labor-cost to the greatest.\n\nThese are EXTRACTIVE INDUSTRY,--including all the semi-barbarous\nfunctions mentioned above,--COMMERCIAL INDUSTRY, MANUFACTURING,\nINDUSTRY, AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY.  And it is for a profound reason\nthat the learned author placed agriculture last in the list.\nFor, despite its great antiquity, it is certain that this\nindustry has not kept pace with the others, and the succession of\nhuman affairs is not decided by their origin, but by their entire\ndevelopment.  It may be that agricultural industry was born\nbefore the others, and it may be that all were contemporary; but\nthat will be deemed of the latest date which shall be perfected\nlast.\n\nThus the very nature of things, as well as his own wants,\nindicates to the laborer the order in which he should effect the\nproduction of the values that make up his well-being.  Our law of\nproportionality, then, is at once physical and logical, objective\nand subjective; it has the highest degree of certainty.  Let us\npursue the application.\n\nOf all the products of labor, none perhaps has cost longer and\nmore patient efforts than the calendar.  Nevertheless, there is\nnone the enjoyment of which can now be procured more cheaply, and\nwhich, consequently, by our own definitions, has become more\nnecessary.  How, then, shall we explain this change?  Why has the\ncalendar, so useless to the early hordes, who only needed the\nalternation of night and day, as of winter and summer, become at\nlast so indispensable, so unexpensive, so perfect?  For, by a\nmarvelous harmony, in social economy all these adjectives are\ninterconvertible.  How account, in short, by our law of\nproportion, for the variability of the value of the calendar?\n\nIn order that the labor necessary to the production of the\ncalendar might be performed, might be possible, man had to find\nmeans of gaining time from his early occupations and from those\nwhich immediately followed them.  In other words, these\nindustries had to become more productive, or less costly, than\nthey were at the beginning: which amounts to saying that it was\nnecessary first to solve the problem of the production of the\ncalendar from the extractive industries themselves.\n\nSuppose, then, that suddenly, by a fortunate combination of\nefforts, by the division of labor, by the use of some machine, by\nbetter management of the natural resources,--in short, by his\nindustry,--Prometheus finds a way of producing in one day as much\nof a certain object as he formerly produced in ten: what will\nfollow?  The product will change its position in the table of the\nelements of wealth; its power of affinity for other products, so\nto speak, being increased, its relative value will be\nproportionately diminished, and, instead of being quoted at one\nhundred, it will thereafter be quoted only at ten.  But this\nvalue will still and always be none the less accurately\ndetermined, and it will still be labor alone which will fix the\ndegree of its importance.  Thus value varies, and the law of\nvalue is unchangeable: further, if value is susceptible of\nvariation, it is because it is governed by a law whose principle\nis essentially inconstant,--namely, labor measured by time.\n\nThe same reasoning applies to the production of the calendar as\nto that of all possible values.  I do not need to explain\nhow--civilization (that is, the social fact of the increase of\nlife) multiplying our tasks, rendering our moments more and more\nprecious, and obliging us to keep a perpetual and detailed record\nof our whole life--the calendar has become to all one of the most\nnecessary things.  We know, moreover, that this wonderful\ndiscovery has given rise, as its natural complement, to one of\nour most valuable industries, the manufacture of clocks and\nwatches.\n\nAt this point there very naturally arises an objection, the only\none that can be offered against the theory of the proportionality\nof values.\n\nSay and the economists who have succeeded him have observed that,\nlabor being itself an object of valuation, a species of\nmerchandise indeed like any other, to take it as the principal\nand efficient cause of value is to reason in a vicious circle.\nTherefore, they conclude, it is necessary to fall back on\nscarcity and opinion.\n\nThese economists, if they will allow me to say it, herein have\nshown themselves wonderfully careless.  Labor is said TO HAVE\nVALUE, not as merchandise itself, but in view of the values\nsupposed to be contained in it potentially.  The VALUE OF LABOR\nis a figurative expression, an anticipation of effect from cause.\n\nIt is a fiction by the same title as the PRODUCTIVITY OF\nCAPITAL.  Labor produces, capital has value: and when, by a sort\nof ellipsis, we say the value of labor, we make an enjambement\nwhich is not at all contrary to the rules of language, but which\ntheorists ought to guard against mistaking for a reality.  Labor,\nlike liberty, love, ambition, genius, is a thing vague and\nindeterminate in its nature, but qualitatively defined by its\nobject,--that is, it becomes a reality through its product.\nWhen, therefore, we say:  This man's labor is worth five francs\nper day, it is as if we should say:  The daily product of this\nman's labor is worth five francs.\n\nNow, the effect of labor is continually to eliminate scarcity and\nopinion as constitutive elements of value, and, by necessary\nconsequence, to transform natural or indefinite utilities\n(appropriated or not) into measurable or social utilities: whence\nit follows that labor is at once a war declared upon the\nparsimony of Nature and a permanent conspiracy against property.\n\nAccording to this analysis, value, considered from the point of\nview of the association which producers, by division of labor and\nby exchange, naturally form among themselves, is the PROPORTIONAL\nRELATION OF THE PRODUCTS WHICH CONSTITUTE WEALTH, and what we\ncall the value of any special product is a formula which\nexpresses, in terms of money, the proportion of this product to\nthe general wealth.--Utility is the basis of value; labor fixes\nthe relation; the price is the expression which, barring the\nfluctuations that we shall have to consider, indicates this\nrelation.\n\nSuch is the centre around which useful and exchangeable value\noscillate, the point where they are finally swallowed up and\ndisappear: such is the absolute, unchangeable law which regulates\neconomic disturbances and the freaks of industry and commerce,\nand governs progress.  Every effort of thinking and laboring\nhumanity, every individual and social speculation, as an\nintegrant part of collective wealth, obeys this law.  It was the\ndestiny of political economy, by successively positing all its\ncontradictory terms, to make this law known; the object of social\neconomy, which I ask permission for a moment to distinguish from\npolitical economy, although at bottom there is no difference\nbetween them, will be to spread and apply it universally.\n\nThe theory of the measure or proportionality of values is, let it\nbe noticed, the theory of equality itself.  Indeed, just as in\nsociety, where we have seen that there is a complete identity\nbetween producer and consumer, the revenue paid to an idler\nis like value cast into the flames of Etna, so the laborer who\nreceives excessive wages is like a gleaner to whom should be\ngiven a loaf of bread for gathering a stalk of grain: and all\nthat the economists have qualified as UNPRODUCTIVE CONSUMPTION\nis in reality simply a violation of the law of proportionality.\n\nWe shall see in the sequence how, from these simple data, the\nsocial genius gradually deduces the still obscure system of\norganization of labor, distribution of wages, valuation of\nproducts, and universal solidarity.  For social order is\nestablished upon the basis of inexorable justice, not at all upon\nthe paradisical sentiments of fraternity, self-sacrifice, and\nlove, to the exercise of which so many honorable socialists are\nendeavoring now to stimulate the people.  It is in vain that,\nfollowing Jesus Christ, they preach the necessity, and set the\nexample, of sacrifice; selfishness is stronger, and only the law\nof severity, economic fatality, is capable of mastering it.\nHumanitarian enthusiasm may produce shocks favorable to the\nprogress of civilization; but these crises of sentiment, like the\noscillations of value, must always result only in a firmer and\nmore absolute establishment of justice.  Nature, or Divinity, we\ndistrust in our hearts: she has never believed in the love of man\nfor his fellow; and all that science reveals to us of the ways of\nProvidence in the progress of society--I say it to the shame of\nthe human conscience, but our hypocrisy must be made aware of\nit--shows a profound misanthropy on the part of God.  God helps\nus, not from motives of goodness, but because order is his\nessence; God promotes the welfare of the world, not because he\ndeems it worthy, but because the religion of his supreme\nintelligence lays the obligation upon him: and while the vulgar\ngive him the sweet name Father, it is impossible for the\nhistorian, for the political economist, to believe that he\neither loves or esteems us.\n\nLet us imitate this sublime indifference, this stoical ataraxia,\nof God; and, since the precept of charity always has failed to\npromote social welfare, let us look to pure reason for the\nconditions of harmony and virtue.\n\nValue, conceived as the proportionality of products, otherwise\ncalled CONSTITUTED VALUE, necessarily implies in an equal degree\nUTILITY and VENALITY, indivisibly and harmoniously united.  It\nimplies utility, for, without this condition, the product would\nbe destitute of that affinity which renders it exchangeable, and\nconsequently makes it an element of wealth; it implies venality,\nsince, if the product was not acceptable in the market at any\nhour and at a known price, it would be only a non-value, it would\nbe nothing.\n\nBut, in constituted value, all these properties acquire a\nbroader, more regular, truer significance than before.  Thus,\nutility is no longer that inert capacity, so to speak, which\nthings possess of serving for our enjoyments and in our\nresearches; venality is no longer the exaggeration of a blind\nfancy or an unprincipled opinion; finally, variability has ceased\nto explain itself by a disingenuous discussion between supply and\ndemand: all that has disappeared to give place to a positive,\nnormal, and, under all possible circumstances, determinable idea.\n\nBy the constitution of values each product, if it is allowable to\nestablish such an analogy, becomes like the nourishment which,\ndiscovered by the alimentary instinct, then prepared by the\ndigestive organs, enters into the general circulation, where it\nis converted, according to certain proportions, into flesh, bone,\nliquid, etc., and gives to the body life, strength, and beauty.\n\nNow, what change does the idea of value undergo when we rise from\nthe contradictory notions of useful value and exchangeable value\nto that of constituted value or absolute value?  There is, so to\nspeak, a joining together, a reciprocal penetration, in which the\ntwo elementary concepts, grasping each other like the hooked\natoms of Epicurus, absorb one another and disappear, leaving in\ntheir place a compound possessed, but in a superior degree, of\nall their positive properties, and divested of all their negative\nproperties.  A value really such--like money, first-class\nbusiness paper, government annuities, shares in a\nwell-established enterprise--can neither be increased without\nreason nor lost in exchange: it is governed only by the natural\nlaw of the addition of special industries and the increase of\nproducts.  Further, such a value is not the result of a\ncompromise,--that is, of eclecticism, juste-milieu, or mixture;\nit is the product of a complete fusion, a product entirely new\nand distinct from its components, just as water, the product of\nthe combination of hydrogen and oxygen, is a separate body,\ntotally distinct from its elements.\n\nThe resolution of two antithetical ideas in a third of a superior\norder is what the school calls SYNTHESIS.  It alone gives the\npositive and complete idea, which is obtained, as we have seen,\nby the successive affirmation or negation--for both amount to the\nsame thing--of two diametrically opposite concepts.  Whence we\ndeduce this corollary, of the first importance in practice as\nwell as in theory: wherever, in the spheres of morality, history,\nor political economy, analysis has established the antinomy of an\nidea, we may affirm on a priori grounds that this antinomy\nconceals a higher idea, which sooner or later will make its\nappearance.\n\nI am sorry to have to insist at so great length on ideas familiar\nto all young college graduates: but I owed these details to\ncertain economists, who, apropos of my critique of property, have\nheaped dilemmas on dilemmas to prove that, if I was not a\nproprietor, I necessarily must be a communist; all because they\ndid not understand THESIS, ANTITHESIS, and SYNTHESIS.\n\nThe synthetic idea of value, as the fundamental condition of\nsocial order and progress, was dimly seen by Adam Smith, when, to\nuse the words of M. Blanqui, \"he showed that labor is the\nuniversal and invariable measure of values, and proved that\neverything has its natural price, toward which it continually\ngravitates amid the fluctuations of the market, occasioned by\nACCIDENTAL CIRCUMSTANCES foreign to the venal value of the\nthing.\"\n\nBut this idea of value was wholly intuitive with Adam Smith, and\nsociety does not change its habits upon the strength of\nintuitions; it decides only upon the authority of facts.  The\nantinomy had to be expressed in a plainer and clearer manner:  J.\nB. Say was its principal interpreter.  But, in spite of the\nimaginative efforts and fearful subtlety of this economist,\nSmith's definition controls him without his knowledge, and is\nmanifest throughout his arguments.\n\n\"To put a value on an article,\" says Say, \"is to DECLARE that it\nshould be ESTIMATED equally with some other designated article.\n. . . . .  The value of everything is vague and arbitrary UNTIL\nIT IS RECOGNIZED. . . . . .\"  There is, therefore, a method of\nrecognizing the value of things,--that is, of determining it;\nand, as this recognition or determination results from the\ncomparison of things with each other, there is, further, a common\nfeature, a principle, by means of which we are able to DECLARE\nthat one thing is worth more or less than, or as much as,\nanother.\n\nSay first said:  \"The measure of value is the value of another\nproduct.\"  Afterwards, having seen that this phrase was but a\ntautology, he modified it thus:  \"The measure of value is the\nQUANTITY of another product,\" which is quite as unintelligible.\nMoreover, this writer, generally so clear and decided,\nembarrasses himself with vain distinctions:  \"We may APPRECIATE\nthe value of things; we cannot MEASURE it,--that is, COMPARE it\nwith an invariable and known standard, for no such standard\nexists.  We can do nothing but ESTIMATE THE VALUE of things by\ncomparing them.\"  At other times he distinguishes between REAL\nvalues and RELATIVE values:  \"The former are those whose value\nchanges with the cost of production; the latter are those whose\nvalue changes relatively to the value of other kinds of\nmerchandise.\"\n\nSingular prepossession of a man of genius, who does not see that\nto COMPARE, to APPRAISE, to APPRECIATE, is to MEASURE; that\nevery measure, being only a comparison, indicates for that very\nreason a true relation, provided the comparison is accurate;\nthat, consequently, value, or real measure, and value, or\nrelative measure, are perfectly identical; and that the\ndifficulty is reduced, not to the discovery of a standard of\nmeasure, since all quantities may serve each other in that\ncapacity, but to the determination of a point of comparison.  In\ngeometry the point of comparison is extent, and the unit of\nmeasure is now the division of the circle into three hundred and\nsixty parts, now the circumference of the terrestrial globe, now\nthe average dimension of the human arm, hand, thumb, or foot.  In\neconomic science, we have said after Adam Smith, the point of\nview from which all values are compared is labor; as for the unit\nof measure, that adopted in France is the FRANC.  It is\nincredible that so many sensible men should struggle for forty\nyears against an idea so simple.  But no:  THE COMPARISON OF\nVALUES IS EFFECTED WITH OUT A POINT OF COMPARISON BETWEEN THEM,\nAND WITHOUT A UNIT OF MEASURE,--such is the proposition which the\neconomists of the nineteenth century, rather than accept the\nrevolutionary idea of equality, have resolved to maintain against\nall comers.  What will posterity say?\n\nI shall presently show, by striking examples, that the idea of\nthe measure or proportion of values, theoretically necessary, is\nconstantly realized in every-day life.\n\n\n% 3.--Application of the law of proportionality of values.\n\nEvery product is a representative of labor.\n\nEvery product, therefore, can be exchanged for some other, as\nuniversal practice proves.\n\nBut abolish labor, and you have left only articles of greater or\nless usefulness, which, being stamped with no economic character,\nno human seal, are without a common measure,--that is, are\nlogically unexchangeable.\n\nGold and silver, like other articles of merchandise, are\nrepresentatives of value; they have, therefore, been able to\nserve as common measures and mediums of exchange.  But the\nspecial function which custom has allotted to the precious\nmetals,--that of serving as a commercial agent,--is purely\nconventional, and any other article of merchandise, less\nconveniently perhaps, but just as authentically, could play this\npart: the economists admit it, and more than one example of it\ncan be cited.  What, then, is the reason of this preference\ngenerally accorded to the metals for the purpose of money, and\nhow shall we explain this speciality of function, unparalleled in\npolitical economy, possessed by specie?  For every unique thing\nincomparable in kind is necessarily very difficult of\ncomprehension, and often even fails of it altogether.  Now, is it\npossible to reconstruct the series from which money seems to have\nbeen detached, and, consequently, restore the latter to its true\nprinciple?\n\nIn dealing with this question the economists, following their\nusual course, have rushed beyond the limits of their science;\nthey have appealed to physics, to mechanics, to history, etc.;\nthey have talked of all things, but have given no answer.  The\nprecious metals, they have said, by their scarcity, density, and\nincorruptibility, are fitted to serve as money in, a degree\nunapproached by other kinds of merchandise.  In short, the\neconomists, instead of replying to the economic question put to\nthem, have set themselves to the examination of a question of\nart.  They have laid great stress on the mechanical adaptation of\ngold and silver for the purpose of money; but not one of them has\nseen or understood the economic reason which gave to the precious\nmetals the privilege they now enjoy.\n\nNow, the point that no one has noticed is that, of all the\nvarious articles of merchandise, gold and silver were the first\nwhose value was determined.  In the patriarchal period, gold and\nsilver still were bought and sold in ingots, but already with a\nvisible tendency to superiority and with a marked preference.\nGradually sovereigns took possession of them and stamped them\nwith their seal; and from this royal consecration was born\nmoney,--that is, the commodity par excellence; that which,\nnotwithstanding all commercial shocks, maintains a determined\nproportional value, and is accepted in payment for all things.\n\nThat which distinguishes specie, in fact, is not the durability\nof the metal, which is less than that of steel, nor its utility,\nwhich is much below that of wheat, iron, coal, and numerous other\nsubstances, regarded as almost vile when compared with gold;\nneither is it its scarcity or density, for in both these respects\nit might be replaced, either by labor spent upon other materials,\nor, as at present, by bank notes representing vast amounts of\niron or copper.  The distinctive feature of gold and silver, I\nrepeat, is the fact that, owing to their metallic properties, the\ndifficulties of their production, and, above all, the\nintervention of public authority, their value as merchandise was\nfixed and authenticated at an early date.\n\nI say then that the value of gold and silver, especially of the\npart that is made into money, although perhaps it has not yet\nbeen calculated accurately, is no longer arbitrary; I add that it\nis no longer susceptible of depreciation, like other values,\nalthough it may vary continually nevertheless.  All the logic and\nerudition that has been expended to prove, by the example of gold\nand silver, that value is essentially indeterminable, is a mass\nof paralogisms, arising from a false idea of the question, ab\nignorantia elenchi.\n\nPhilip I., King of France, mixed with the livre tournois of\nCharlemagne one-third alloy, imagining that, since he held the\nmonopoly of the power of coining money, he could do what every\nmerchant does who holds the monopoly of a product.  What was, in\nfact, this adulteration of money, for which Philip and his\nsuccessors are so severely blamed?  A very sound argument from\nthe standpoint of commercial routine, but wholly false in the\nview of economic science,--namely, that, supply and demand being\nthe regulators of value, we may, either by causing an artificial\nscarcity or by monopolizing the manufacture, raise the\nestimation, and consequently the value, of things, and that this\nis as true of gold and silver as of wheat, wine, oil, tobacco.\nNevertheless, Philip's fraud was no sooner suspected than his\nmoney was reduced to its true value, and he lost himself all that\nhe had expected to gain from his subjects.  The same thing\nhappened after all similar attempts.  What was the reason of this\ndisappointment?\n\nBecause, say the economists, the quantity of gold and silver in\nreality being neither diminished nor increased by the false\ncoinage, the proportion of these metals to other merchandise was\nnot changed, and consequently it was not in the power of the\nsovereign to make that which was worth but two worth four.  For\nthe same reason, if, instead of debasing the coin, it had been in\nthe king's power to double its mass, the exchangeable value of\ngold and silver would have decreased one-half immediately, always\non account of this proportionality and equilibrium.  The\nadulteration of the coin was, then, on the part of the king, a\nforced loan, or rather, a bankruptcy, a swindle.\n\nMarvelous! the economists explain very clearly, when they choose,\nthe theory of the measure of value; that they may do so, it is\nnecessary only to start them on the subject of money.  Why, then,\ndo they not see that money is the written law of commerce, the\ntype of exchange, the first link in that long chain of creations\nall of which, as merchandise, must receive the sanction of\nsociety, and become, if not in fact, at least in right,\nacceptable as money in settlement of all kinds of transactions?\n\n\"Money,\" M. Augier very truly says, \"can serve, either as a means\nof authenticating contracts already made, or as a good medium of\nexchange, only so far as its value approaches the ideal of\npermanence; for in all cases it exchanges or buys only the value\nwhich it possesses.\"[8]\n\n\n[8]  \"History of Public Credit.\"\n\n\n\nLet us turn this eminently judicious observation into a general\nformula.\n\nLabor becomes a guarantee of well-being and equality only so far\nas the product of each individual is in proportion with the mass;\nfor in all cases it exchanges or buys a value equal only to its\nown.\n\nIs it not strange that the defence of speculative and fraudulent\ncommerce is undertaken boldly, while at the same time the attempt\nof a royal counterfeiter, who, after all, did but apply to gold\nand silver the fundamental principle of political economy, the\narbitrary instability of values, is frowned down?  If the\nadministration should presume to give twelve ounces of tobacco\nfor a pound,[9] the economists would cry robbery; but, if the\nsame administration, using its privilege, should increase the\nprice a few cents a pound, they would regard it as dear, but\nwould discover no violation of principles.  What an imbroglio is\npolitical economy!\n\n\n[9]  In France, the sale of tobacco is a government monopoly.--\nTranslator.\n\n\n\nThere is, then, in the monetization of gold and silver something\nthat the economists have given no account of; namely, the\nconsecration of the law of proportionality, the first act in the\nconstitution of values.  Humanity does all things by infinitely\nsmall degrees: after comprehending the fact that all products of\nlabor must be submitted to a proportional measure which makes all\nof them equally exchangeable, it begins by giving this attribute\nof absolute exchangeability to a special product, which shall\nbecome the type and model of all others.  In the same way, to\nlift its members to liberty and equality, it begins by creating\nkings.  The people have a confused idea of this providential\nprogress when, in their dreams of fortune and in their legends,\nthey speak continually of gold and royalty; and the philosophers\nonly do homage to universal reason when, in their so-called moral\nhomilies and their socialistic utopias, they thunder with equal\nviolence against gold and tyranny.  Auri sacra fames!  Cursed\ngold! ludicrously shouts some communist.  As well say cursed\nwheat, cursed vines, cursed sheep; for, like gold and silver,\nevery commercial value must reach an exact and accurate\ndetermination.  The work was begun long since; today it is making\nvisible progress.\n\nLet us pass to other considerations.\n\nIt is an axiom generally admitted by the economists that ALL\nLABOR SHOULD LEAVE AN EXCESS.\n\nI regard this proposition as universally and absolutely true; it\nis a corollary of the law of proportionality, which may be\nregarded as an epitome of the whole science of economy.  But--I\nbeg pardon of the economists--the principle that ALL LABOR\nSHOULD LEAVE AN EXCESS has no meaning in their theory, and is not\nsusceptible of demonstration.  If supply and demand alone\ndetermine value, how can we tell what is an excess and what is a\nSUFFICIENCY?  If neither cost, nor market price, nor wages can\nbe mathematically determined, how is it possible to conceive of a\nsurplus, a profit?  Commercial routine has given us the idea of\nprofit as well as the word; and, since we are equal politically,\nwe infer that every citizen has an equal right to realize profits\nin his personal industry.  But commercial operations are\nessentially irregular, and it has been proved beyond question\nthat the profits of commerce are but an arbitrary discount forced\nfrom the consumer by the producer,--in short, a displacement, to\nsay the least.  This we should soon see, if it was possible to\ncompare the total amount of annual losses with the amount of\nprofits.  In the thought of political economy, the principle that\nALL LABOR SHOULD LEAVE AN EXCESS is simply the consecration\nof the constitutional right which all of us gained by the\nrevolution,-- the right of robbing one's neighbor.\n\nThe law of proportionality of values alone can solve this\nproblem.  I will approach the question a little farther back: its\ngravity warrants me in treating it with the consideration that it\nmerits.\n\nMost philosophers, like most philologists, see in society only a\ncreature of the mind, or rather, an abstract name serving to\ndesignate a collection of men.  It is a prepossession which all\nof us received in our infancy with our first lessons in grammar,\nthat collective nouns, the names of genera and species, do not\ndesignate realities.  There is much to say under this head, but I\nconfine myself to my subject.  To the true economist, society is\na living being, endowed with an intelligence and an activity of\nits own, governed by special laws discoverable by observation\nalone, and whose existence is manifested, not under a material\naspect, but by the close concert and mutual interdependence of\nall its members.  Therefore, when a few pages back, adopting the\nallegorical method, we used a fabulous god as a symbol of\nsociety, our language in reality was not in the least\nmetaphorical: we only gave a name to the social being, an organic\nand synthetic unit.  In the eyes of any one who has reflected\nupon the laws of labor and exchange (I disregard every other\nconsideration), the reality, I had almost said the personality,\nof the collective man is as certain as the reality and the\npersonality of the individual man.  The only difference is that\nthe latter appears to the senses as an organism whose parts are\nin a state of material coherence, which is not true of society.\nBut intelligence, spontaneity, development, life, all that\nconstitutes in the highest degree the reality of being, is\nas essential to society as to man: and hence it is that the\ngovernment of societies is a SCIENCE,-- that is, a study of\nnatural relations,--and not an ART,-- that is, good pleasure and\nabsolutism.  Hence it is, finally, that every society declines\nthe moment it falls into the hands of the ideologists.\n\nThe principle that ALL LABOR SHOULD LEAVE AN EXCESS,\nundemonstrable by political economy,--that is, by proprietary\nroutine,--is one of those which bear strongest testimony to the\nreality of the collective person: for, as we shall see, this\nprinciple is true of individuals only because it emanates from\nsociety, which thus confers upon them the benefit of its own\nlaws.\n\nLet us turn to facts.  It has been observed that railroad\nenterprises are a source of wealth to those who control them in a\nmuch less degree than to the State.  The observation is a true\none; and it might have been added that it applies, not only to\nrailroads, but to every industry.  But this phenomenon, which is\nessentially the result of the law of proportionality of values\nand of the absolute identity of production and consumption, is at\nvariance with the ordinary notion of useful value and\nexchangeable value.\n\nThe average price charged for the transportation of merchandise\nby the old method is eighteen centimes per ton and kilometer, the\nmerchandise taken and delivered at the warehouses.  It has been\ncalculated that, at this price, an ordinary railroad corporation\nwould net a profit of not quite ten per cent., nearly the same as\nthe profit made by the old method.  But let us admit that the\nrapidity of transportation by rail is to that by wheels, all\nallowances made, as four to one: in society time itself being\nvalue, at the same price the railroad would have an advantage\nover the stage-wagon of four hundred per cent. `Nevertheless,\nthis enormous advantage, a very real one so far as society is\nconcerned, is by no means realized in a like proportion by the\ncarrier, who, while he adds four hundred per cent. to the social\nvalue, makes personally less than ten per cent.  Suppose, in\nfact, to make the thing still clearer, that the railroad should\nraise its price to twenty- five centimes, the rate by the old\nmethod remaining at eighteen; it would lose immediately all its\nconsignments; shippers, consignees, everybody would return to the\nstage-wagon, if necessary.  The locomotive would be abandoned; a\nsocial advantage of four hundred per cent. would be sacrificed to\na private loss of thirty-three per cent.\n\nThe reason of this is easily seen.  The advantage which results\nfrom the rapidity of the railroad is wholly social, and each\nindividual participates in it only in a very slight degree (do\nnot forget that we are speaking now only of the transportation of\nmerchandise); while the loss falls directly and personally on the\nconsumer.  A special profit of four hundred per cent. in a\nsociety composed of say a million of men represents four\nten-thousandths for each individual; while a loss to the consumer\nof thirty-three per cent. means a social deficit of thirty- three\nmillions.  Private interest and collective interest, seemingly so\ndivergent at first blush, are therefore perfectly identical and\nequal: and this example may serve to show already how economic\nscience reconciles all interests.\n\nConsequently, in order that society may realize the profit above\nsupposed, it is absolutely necessary that the railroad's prices\nshall not exceed, or shall exceed but very little, those of the\nstage-wagon.\n\nBut, that this condition may be fulfilled,--in other words, that\nthe railroad may be commercially possible,--the amount of\nmatter transported must be sufficiently great to cover at least\nthe interest on the capital invested and the running expenses of\nthe road.  Then a railroad's first condition of existence is a\nlarge circulation, which implies a still larger production and a\nvast amount of exchanges.\n\nBut production, circulation, and exchange are not self-creative\nthings; again, the various kinds of labor are not developed in\nisolation and independently of each other: their progress is\nnecessarily connected, solidary, proportional.  There may be\nantagonism among manufacturers; but, in spite of them, social\naction is one, convergent, harmonious,--in a word, personal.\nFurther, there is a day appointed for the creation of great\ninstruments of labor: it is the day when general consumption\nshall be able to maintain their employment,--that is, for all\nthese propositions are interconvertible, the day when ambient\nlabor can feed new machinery.  To anticipate the hour appointed\nby the progress of labor would be to imitate the fool who, going\nfrom Lyons to Marseilles, chartered a steamer for himself alone.\n\nThese points cleared up, nothing is easier than to explain why\nlabor must leave an excess for each producer.\n\nAnd first, as regards society: Prometheus, emerging from the womb\nof Nature, awakens to life in a state of inertia which is very\ncharming, but which would soon become misery and torture if he\ndid not make haste to abandon it for labor.  In this original\nidleness, the product of Prometheus being nothing, his well-being\nis the same as that of the brute, and may be represented by zero.\n\nPrometheus begins to work: and from his first day's labor, the\nfirst of the second creation, the product of Prometheus--that is,\nhis wealth, his well-being--is equal to ten.\n\nThe second day Prometheus divides his labor, and his product\nincreases to one hundred.\n\nThe third day, and each following day, Prometheus invents\nmachinery, discovers new uses in things, new forces in Nature;\nthe field of his existence extends from the domain of the senses\nto the sphere of morals and intelligence, and with every step\nthat his industry takes the amount of his product increases, and\nassures him additional happiness.  And since, finally, with him,\nto consume is to produce, it is clear that each day's\nconsumption, using up only the product of the day before, leaves\na surplus product for the day after.\n\nBut notice also--and give especial heed to this all-important\nfact--that the well-being of man is directly proportional to the\nintensity of labor and the multiplicity of industries: so that\nthe increase of wealth and the increase of labor are correlative\nand parallel.\n\nTo say now that every individual participates in these general\nconditions of collective development would be to affirm a truth\nwhich, by reason of the evidence in its support, would appear\nsilly.  Let us point out rather the two general forms of\nconsumption in society.\n\nSociety, like the individual, has first its articles of personal\nconsumption, articles which time gradually causes it to feel the\nneed of, and which its mysterious instincts command it to create.\n\nThus in the middle ages there was, with a large number of cities,\na decisive moment when the building of city halls and cathedrals\nbecame a violent passion, which had to be satisfied at any price;\nthe life of the community depended upon it.  Security and\nstrength, public order, centralization, nationality, country,\nindependence, these are the elements which make up the life of\nsociety, the totality of its mental faculties; these are the\nsentiments which must find expression and representation.  Such\nformerly was the object of the temple of Jerusalem, real\npalladium of the Jewish nation; such was the temple of\nJupiter Capitolinus of Rome.  Later, after the municipal palace\nand the temple,--organs, so to speak, of centralization and\nprogress,--came the other works of public utility,--bridges,\ntheatres, schools, hospitals, roads, etc.\n\nThe monuments of public utility being used essentially in common,\nand consequently gratuitously, society is rewarded for its\nadvances by the political and moral advantages resulting from\nthese great works, and which, furnishing security to labor and an\nideal to the mind, give fresh impetus to industry and the arts.\n\nBut it is different with the articles of domestic consumption,\nwhich alone fall within the category of exchange.  These can be\nproduced only upon the conditions of mutuality which make\nconsumption possible,--that is, immediate payment with advantage\nto the producers.  These conditions we have developed\nsufficiently in the theory of proportionality of values, which we\nmight call as well the theory of the gradual reduction of cost.\n\nI have demonstrated theoretically and by facts the principle that\nALL LABOR SHOULD LEAVE AN EXCESS; but this principle, as certain\nas any proposition in arithmetic, is very far from universal\nrealization.  While, by the progress of collective industry, each\nindividual day's labor yields a greater and greater product, and\nwhile, by necessary consequence, the laborer, receiving the same\nwages, must grow ever richer, there exist in society classes\nwhich THRIVE and classes which PERISH; laborers paid twice,\nthrice, a hundred times over, and laborers continually out of\npocket; everywhere, finally, people who enjoy and people who\nsuffer, and, by a monstrous division of the means of industry,\nindividuals who consume and do not produce.  The distribution of\nwell-being follows all the movements of value, and reproduces\nthem in misery and luxury on a frightful scale and with terrible\nenergy.  But everywhere, too, the progress of wealth--that is,\nthe proportionality of values--is the dominant law; and when the\neconomists combat the complaints of the socialists with the\nprogressive increase of public wealth and the alleviations of the\ncondition of even the most unfortunate classes, they proclaim,\nwithout suspecting it, a truth which is the condemnation of their\ntheories.\n\nFor I entreat the economists to question themselves for a moment\nin the silence of their hearts, far from the prejudices which\ndisturb them, and regardless of the employments which occupy them\nor which they wait for, of the interests which they serve, of the\nvotes which they covet, of the distinctions which tickle their\nvanity: let them tell me whether, hitherto, they have viewed the\nprinciple that all labor should leave an excess in connection\nwith this series of premises and conclusions which we have\nelaborated, and whether they ever have understood these words to\nmean anything more than the right to speculate in values by\nmanipulating supply and demand; whether it is not true that they\naffirm at once, on the one hand the progress of wealth and\nwell-being, and consequently the measure of values, and on the\nother the arbitrariness of commercial transactions and the\nincommensurability of values,--the flattest of contradictions?\nIs it not because of this contradiction that we continually hear\nrepeated in lectures, and read in the works on political economy,\nthis absurd hypothesis: If THE PRICE OF ALL THINGS WAS DOUBLED.\n. . . . . ?  As if the price of all things was not the proportion\nof things, and as if we could double a proportion, a relation, a\nlaw!  Finally, is it not because of the proprietary and abnormal\nroutine upheld by political economy that every one, in\ncommerce, industry, the arts, and the State, on the pretended\nground of services rendered to society, tends continually to\nexaggerate his importance, and solicits rewards, subsidies, large\npensions, exorbitant fees: as if the reward of every service was\nnot determined necessarily by the sum of its expenses?  Why do\nnot the economists, if they believe, as they appear to, that the\nlabor of each should leave an excess, use all their influence in\nspreading this truth, so simple and so luminous:  Each man's\nlabor can buy only the value which it contains, and this value is\nproportional to the services of all other laborers?\n\nBut here a last consideration presents itself, which I will\nexplain in a few words.\n\nJ. B. Say, who of all the economists has insisted the most\nstrenuously upon the absolute indeterminability of value, is also\nthe one who has taken the most pains to refute that idea.  He, if\nI am not mistaken, is the author of the formula:  EVERY PRODUCT\nIS WORTH WHAT IT COSTS; or, what amounts to the same thing:\nPRODUCTS ARE BOUGHT WITH PRODUCTS.  This aphorism, which leads\nstraight to equality, has been controverted since by other\neconomists; we will examine in turn the affirmative and the\nnegative.\n\nWhen I say that every product is worth the products which it has\ncost, I mean that every product is a collective unit which, in a\nnew form, groups a certain number of other products consumed in\nvarious quantities.  Whence it follows that the products of human\nindustry are, in relation to each other, genera and species, and\nthat they form a series from the simple to the composite,\naccording to the number and proportion of the elements, all\nequivalent to each other, which constitute each product.  It\nmatters little, for the present, that this series, as well\nas the equivalence of its elements, is expressed in practice more\nor less exactly by the equilibrium of wages and fortunes; our\nfirst business is with the relation of things, the economic law.\nFor here, as ever, the idea first and spontaneously generates the\nfact, which, recognized then by the thought which has given it\nbirth, gradually rectifies itself and conforms to its principle.\nCommerce, free and competitive, is but a long operation of\nredressal, whose object is to define more and more clearly the\nproportionality of values, until the civil law shall recognize it\nas a guide in matters concerning the condition of persons.  I\nsay, then, that Say's principle, EVERY PRODUCT IS WORTH WHAT IT\nCOSTS, indicates a series in human production analogous to the\nanimal and vegetable series, in which the elementary units (day's\nworks) are regarded as equal.  So that political economy affirms\nat its birth, but by a contradiction, what neither Plato, nor\nRousseau, nor any ancient or modern publicist has thought\npossible,-- equality of conditions and fortunes.\n\nPrometheus is by turns husbandman, wine-grower, baker, weaver.\nWhatever trade he works at, laboring only for himself, he buys\nwhat he consumes (his products) with one and the same money (his\nproducts), whose unit of measurement is necessarily his day's\nwork.  It is true that labor itself is liable to vary; Prometheus\nis not always in the same condition, and from one moment to\nanother his enthusiasm, his fruitfulness, rises and falls.  But,\nlike everything that is subject to variation, labor has its\naverage, which justifies us in saying that, on the whole, day's\nwork pays for day's work, neither more nor less.  It is quite\ntrue that, if we compare the products of a certain period of\nsocial life with those of another, the hundred millionth day's\nwork of the human race will show a result incomparably superior\nto that of the first; but it must be remembered also that the\nlife of the collective being can no more be divided than that of\nthe individual; that, though the days may not resemble each\nother, they are indissolubly united, and that in the sum total of\nexistence pain and pleasure are common to them.  If, then, the\ntailor, for rendering the value of a day's work, consumes ten\ntimes the product of the day's work of the weaver, it is as if\nthe weaver gave ten days of his life for one day of the tailor's.\nThis is exactly what happens when a peasant pays twelve francs to\na lawyer for a document which it takes him an hour to prepare;\nand this inequality, this iniquity in exchanges, is the most\npotent cause of misery that the socialists have unveiled,--as the\neconomists confess in secret while awaiting a sign from the\nmaster that shall permit them to acknowledge it openly.\n\nEvery error in commutative justice is an immolation of the\nlaborer, a transfusion of the blood of one man into the body of\nanother. . . . .  Let no one be frightened; I have no intention\nof fulminating against property an irritating philippic;\nespecially as I think that, according to my principles, humanity\nis never mistaken; that, in establishing itself at first upon the\nright of property, it only laid down one of the principles of its\nfuture organization; and that, the preponderance of property once\ndestroyed, it remains only to reduce this famous antithesis to\nunity.  All the objections that can be offered in favor of\nproperty I am as well acquainted with as any of my critics, whom\nI ask as a favor to show their hearts when logic fails them.  How\ncan wealth that is not measured by labor be VALUABLE?  And if it\nis labor that creates wealth and legitimates property, how\nexplain the consumption of the idler?  Where is the honesty in a\nsystem of distribution in which a product is worth, according to\nthe person, now more, now less, than it costs.\n\nSay's ideas led to an agrarian law; therefore, the conservative\nparty hastened to protest against them.  \"The original source of\nwealth,\" M. Rossi had said, \"is labor.  In proclaiming this great\nprinciple, the industrial school has placed in evidence not only\nan economic principle, but that social fact which, in the hands\nof a skilful historian, becomes the surest guide in following the\nhuman race in its marchings and haltings upon the face of the\nearth.\"\n\nWhy, after having uttered these profound words in his lectures,\nhas M. Rossi thought it his duty to retract them afterwards in a\nreview, and to compromise gratuitously his dignity as a\nphilosopher and an economist?\n\n\"Say that wealth is the result of labor alone; affirm that labor\nis always the measure of value, the regulator of prices; yet, to\nescape one way or another the objections which these doctrines\ncall forth on all hands, some incomplete, others absolute, you\nwill be obliged to generalize the idea of labor, and to\nsubstitute for analysis an utterly erroneous synthesis.\"\n\nI regret that a man like M. Rossi should suggest to me so sad a\nthought; but, while reading the passage that I have just quoted,\nI could not help saying:  Science and truth have lost their\ninfluence: the present object of worship is the shop, and, after\nthe shop, the desperate constitutionalism which represents it.\nTo whom, then, does M. Rossi address himself?  Is he in favor of\nlabor or something else; analysis or synthesis?  Is he in favor\nof all these things at once?  Let him choose, for the conclusion\nis inevitably against him.\n\nIf labor is the source of all wealth, if it is the surest guide\nin tracing the history of human institutions on the face of the\nearth, why should equality of distribution, equality as measured\nby labor, not be a law?\n\nIf, on the contrary, there is wealth which is not the product of\nlabor, why is the possession of it a privilege?  Where is the\nlegitimacy of monopoly?  Explain then, once for all, this theory\nof the right of unproductive consumption; this jurisprudence of\ncaprice, this religion of idleness, the sacred prerogative of a\ncaste of the elect.\n\nWhat, now, is the significance of this appeal from ANALYSIS to\nthe false judgments of the synthesis?  These metaphysical terms\nare of no use, save to indoctrinate simpletons, who do not\nsuspect that the same proposition can be construed, indifferently\nand at will, analytically or synthetically.  LABOR IS THE\nPRINCIPLE OF VALUE END THE SOURCE OF WEALTH: an analytic\nproposition such as M. Rossi likes, since it is the summary of an\nanalysis in which it is demonstrated that the primitive notion of\nlabor is identical with the subsequent notions of product, value,\ncapital, wealth, etc.  Nevertheless, we see that M. Rossi rejects\nthe doctrine which results from this analysis.  LABOR, CAPITAL,\nAND LAND ARE THE SOURCES OF WEALTH: a synthetic proposition,\nprecisely such as M. Rossi does not like.  Indeed, wealth is\nconsidered here as a general notion, produced in three distinct,\nbut not identical, ways.  And yet the doctrine thus formulated is\nthe one that M. Rossi prefers.  Now, would it please M. Rossi to\nhave us render his theory of monopoly analytically and ours of\nlabor synthetically?  I can give him the satisfaction. . . . .\nBut I should blush, with so earnest a man, to prolong such\nbadinage.  M. Rossi knows better than any one that analysis and\nsynthesis of themselves prove absolutely nothing, and that the\nimportant work, as Bacon said, is to make exact comparisons and\ncomplete enumerations.\n\nSince M. Rossi was in the humor for abstractions, why did he not\nsay to the phalanx of economists who listen so respectfully to\nthe least word that falls from his lips:\n\n\"Capital is the MATERIAL of wealth, as gold and silver are the\nmaterial of money, as wheat is the material of bread, and,\ntracing the series back to the end, as earth, water, fire, and\nair are the material of all our products.  But it is labor, labor\nalone, which successively creates each utility given to these\nMATERIALS, and which consequently transforms them into capital\nand wealth.  Capital is the result of labor,-- that is, realized\nintelligence and life,--as animals and plants are realizations of\nthe soul of the universe, and as the chefs d'oeuvre of Homer,\nRaphael, and Rossini are expressions of their ideas and\nsentiments.  Value is the proportion in which all the\nrealizations of the human soul must balance each other in order\nto produce a harmonious whole, which, being wealth, gives us\nwell-being, or rather is the token, not the object, of our\nhappiness.\n\n\"The proposition, THERE IS NO MEASURE OF VALUE, is illogical and\ncontradictory, as is shown by the very arguments which have been\noffered in its support.\n\n\"The proposition, LABOR IS THE PRINCIPLE OF PROPORTIONALITY OF\nVALUES, not only is true, resulting as it does from an\nirrefutable analysis, but it is the object of progress, the\ncondition and form of social well-being, the beginning and end\nof political economy.  From this proposition and its corollaries,\nEVERY PRODUCT IS WORTH WHAT IT COSTS, and PRODUCTS ARE BOUGHT\nWITH PRODUCTs, follows the dogma of equality of conditions.\n\n\"The idea of value socially constituted, or of proportionality of\nvalues, serves to explain further: (a) how a mechanical\ninvention, notwithstanding the privilege which it temporarily\ncreates and the disturbances which it occasions, always produces\nin the end a general amelioration; (b) how the value of an\neconomical process to its discoverer can never equal the profit\nwhich it realizes for society; (c) how, by a series of\noscillations between supply and demand, the value of every\nproduct constantly seeks a level with cost and with the needs of\nconsumption, and consequently tends to establish itself in a\nfixed and positive manner; (d) how, collective production\ncontinually increasing the amount of consumable things, and the\nday's work constantly obtaining higher and higher pay, labor must\nleave an excess for each producer; (e) how the amount of work to\nbe done, instead of being diminished by industrial progress, ever\nincreases in both quantity and quality--that is, in intensity and\ndifficulty--in all branches of industry; (f) how social value\ncontinually eliminates fictitious values,--in other words, how\nindustry effects the socialization of capital and property; (g)\nfinally, how the distribution of products, growing in regularity\nwith the strength of the mutual guarantee resulting from the\nconstitution of value, pushes society onward to equality of\nconditions and fortunes.\n\n\"Finally, the theory of the successive constitution of all\ncommercial values implying the infinite progress of labor,\nwealth, and well-being, the object of society, from the economic\npoint of view, is revealed to us: TO PRODUCE INCESSANTLY, WITH\nTHEE LEAST POSSIBLE AMOUNT OF LABOR FOR EACH PRODUCT, THE\nGREATEST POSSIBLE QUANTITY AND VARIETY OF VALUES, IN SUCH A WAY\nAS TO REALIZE, FOR EACH INDIVIDUAL, THE GREATEST AMOUNT OF\nPHYSICAL, MORAL, AND INTELLECTUAL WELL-BEING, AND, FOR THE RACE,\nTHE HIGHEST PERFECTION AND INFINITE GLORY.\n\nNow that we have determined, not without difficulty, the meaning\nof the question asked by the Academy of Moral Sciences touching\nthe oscillations of profit and wages, it is time to begin the\nessential part of our work.  Wherever labor has not been\nsocialized,--that is, wherever value is not synthetically\ndetermined,--there is irregularity and dishonesty in exchange; a\nwar of stratagems and ambuscades; an impediment to production,\ncirculation, and consumption; unproductive labor; insecurity;\nspoliation; insolidarity; want; luxury: but at the same time an\neffort of the genius of society to obtain justice, and a constant\ntendency toward association and order.  Political economy is\nsimply the history of this grand struggle.  On the one hand,\nindeed, political economy, in so far as it sanctions and pretends\nto perpetuate the anomalies of value and the prerogatives of\nselfishness, is truly the theory of misfortune and the\norganization of misery; but in so far as it explains the means\ninvented by civilization to abolish poverty, although these means\nalways have been used exclusively in the interest of monopoly,\npolitical economy is the preamble of the organization of wealth.\n\nIt is important, then, that we should resume the study of\neconomic facts and practices, discover their meaning, and\nformulate their philosophy.  Until this is done, no knowledge of\nsocial progress can be acquired, no reform attempted.  The error\nof socialism has consisted hitherto in perpetuating religious\nreverie by launching forward into a fantastic future instead of\nseizing the reality which is crushing it; as the wrong of the\neconomists has been in regarding every accomplished fact as an\ninjunction against any proposal of reform.\n\nFor my own part, such is not my conception of economic science,\nthe true social science.  Instead of offering a priori arguments\nas solutions of the formidable problems of the organization of\nlabor and the distribution of wealth, I shall interrogate\npolitical economy as the depositary of the secret thoughts of\nhumanity; I shall cause it to disclose the facts in the order of\ntheir occurrence, and shall relate their testimony without\nintermingling it with my own.  It will be at once a triumphant\nand a lamentable history, in which the actors will be ideas, the\nepisodes theories, and the dates formulas.\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\nECONOMIC EVOLUTIONS.--FIRST PERIOD.--THE DIVISION OF LABOR.\n\nThe fundamental idea, the dominant category, of political economy\nis VALUE.\n\nValue reaches its positive determination by a series of\noscillations between SUPPLY and DEMAND.\n\nConsequently, value appears successively under three aspects:\nuseful value, exchangeable value, and synthetic, or social,\nvalue, which is true value.  The first term gives birth to the\nsecond in contradiction to it, and the two together, absorbing\neach other in reciprocal penetration, produce the third: so that\nthe contradiction or antagonism of ideas appears as the point of\ndeparture of all economic science, allowing us to say of it,\nparodying the sentence of Tertullian in relation to the Gospel,\nCredo quia absurdum:  There is, in social economy, a latent truth\nwherever there is an apparent contradiction, Credo quia\ncontrarium.\n\nFrom the point of view of political economy, then, social\nprogress consists in a continuous solution of the problem of the\nconstitution of values, or of the proportionality and solidarity\nof products.\n\nBut while in Nature the synthesis of opposites is contemporary\nwith their opposition, in society the antithetic elements seem to\nappear at long intervals, and to reach solution only`after long\nand tumultuous agitation.  Thus there is no example--the idea\neven is inconceivable--of a valley without a hill, a left without\na right, a north pole without a south pole, a stick with but one\nend, or two ends without a middle, etc.  The human body, with its\nso perfectly antithetic dichotomy, is formed integrally at the\nvery moment of conception; it refuses to be put together and\narranged piece by piece, like the garment patterned after it\nwhich, later, is to cover it.[10]\n\n\n[10]  A subtle philologist, M. Paul Ackermann, has shown, using\nthe French language as an illustration, that, since every word in\na language has its opposite, or, as the author calls it, its\nantonym, the entire vocabulary might be arranged in couples,\nforming a vast dualistic system.  (See Dictionary of Antonyms.\nBy Paul Ackermann.  Paris: Brockhaus & Avenarius.  1842)\n\n\n\nIn society, on the contrary, as well as in the mind, so far from\nthe idea reaching its complete realization at a single bound, a\nsort of abyss separates, so to speak, the two antinomical\npositions, and even when these are recognized at last, we still\ndo not see what the synthesis will be.  The primitive concepts\nmust be fertilized, so to speak, by burning controversy and\npassionate struggle; bloody battles will be the preliminaries of\npeace.  At the present moment, Europe, weary of war and\ndiscussion, awaits a reconciling principle; and it is the vague\nperception of this situation which induces the Academy of Moral\nand Political Sciences to ask, \"What are the general facts which\ngovern the relations of profits to wages and determine their\noscillations?\" in other words, what are the most salient episodes\nand the most remarkable phases of the war between labor and\ncapital?\n\nIf, then, I demonstrate that political economy, with all its\ncontradictory hypotheses and equivocal conclusions, is nothing\nbut an organization of privilege and misery, I shall have proved\nthereby that it contains by implication the promise of an\norganization of labor and equality, since, as has been said,\nevery systematic contradiction is the announcement of a\ncomposition; further, I shall have fixed the bases of this\ncomposition.  Then, indeed, to unfold the system of economical\ncontradictions is to lay the foundations of universal\nassociation; to show how the products of collective labor COME\nOUT of society is to explain how it will be possible to make them\nRETURN to it; to exhibit the genesis of the problems of\nproduction and distribution is to prepare the way for their\nsolution.  All these propositions are identical and equally\nevident.\n\n\n% 1.--Antagonistic effects of the principle of division.\n\nAll men are equal in the state of primitive communism, equal in\ntheir nakedness and ignorance, equal in the indefinite power of\ntheir faculties.  The economists generally look at only the first\nof these aspects; they neglect or overlook the second.\nNevertheless, according to the profoundest philosophers of modern\ntimes, La Rochefoucault, Helvetius,  Kant, Fichte, Hegel,\nJacotot, intelligence differs in individuals only QUALITATIVELY,\neach having thereby his own specialty or genius; in its\nessence,--namely, judgment,--it is QUANTITATIVELY equal in all.\nHence it follows that, a little sooner or a little later,\naccording as circumstances shall be more or less favorable,\ngeneral progress must lead all men from original and negative\nequality to a positive equivalence of talents and acquirements.\n\nI insist upon this precious datum of psychology, the necessary\nconsequence of which is that the HIERARCHY OF CAPACITIES\nhenceforth cannot be allowed as a principle and law of\norganization: equality alone is our rule, as it is also our\nideal.  Then, just as the equality of misery must change\ngradually into equality of well-being, as we have proved by the\ntheory of value, so the equality of minds, negative in the\nbeginning, since it represents only emptiness, must reappear in a\npositive form at the completion of humanity's education.  The\nintellectual movement proceeds parallelly with the economic\nmovement; they are the expression, the translation, of each\nother; psychology and social economy are in accord, or rather,\nthey but unroll the same history, each from a different point of\nview.  This appears especially in Smith's great law, the DIVISION\nOF LABOR.\n\nConsidered in its essence, the division of labor is the way in\nwhich equality of condition and intelligence is realized.\nThrough diversity of function, it gives rise to proportionality\nof products and equilibrium in exchange, and consequently opens\nfor us the road to wealth; as also, in showing us infinity\neverywhere in art and Nature, it leads us to idealize our acts,\nand makes the creative mind--that is, divinity itself, mentem\ndiviniorem--immanent and perceptible in all laborers.\n\nDivision of labor, then, is the first phase of economic evolution\nas well as of intellectual development: our point of departure is\ntrue as regards both man and things, and the progress of our\nexposition is in no wise arbitrary.\n\nBut, at this solemn hour of the division of labor, tempestuous\nwinds begin to blow upon humanity.  Progress does not improve the\ncondition of all equally and uniformly, although in the end it\nmust include and transfigure every intelligent and industrious\nbeing.  It commences by taking possession of a small number of\nprivileged persons, who thus compose the elite of nations, while\nthe mass continues, or even buries itself deeper, in\nbarbarism.  It is this exception of persons on the part of\nprogress which has perpetuated the belief in the natural and\nprovidential inequality of conditions, engendered caste, and\ngiven an hierarchical form to all societies.  It has not been\nunderstood that all inequality, never being more than a negation,\ncarries in itself the proof of its illegitimacy and the\nannouncement of its downfall: much less still has it been\nimagined that this same inequality proceeds accidentally from a\ncause the ulterior effect of which must be its entire\ndisappearance.\n\nThus, the antinomy of value reappearing in the law of division,\nit is found that the first and most potent instrument of\nknowledge and wealth which Providence has placed in our hands has\nbecome for us an instrument of misery and imbecility.  Here is\nthe formula of this new law of antagonism, to which we owe the\ntwo oldest maladies of civilization, aristocracy and the\nproletariat:  Labor, in dividing itself according to the law\nwhich is peculiar to it, and which is the primary condition of\nits productivity, ends in the frustration of its own objects, and\ndestroys itself, in other words: Division, in the absence of\nwhich there is no progress, no wealth, no equality, subordinates\nthe workingman, and renders intelligence useless, wealth harmful,\nand equality impossible.  All the economists, since Adam Smith,\nhave pointed out the ADVANTAGES and the INCONVENIENCES of the law\nof division, but at the same time insisting much more strenuously\nupon the first than the second, because such a course was more in\nharmony with their optimistic views, and not one of them ever\nasking how a LAW can have INCONVENIENCES.  This is the way in\nwhich J. B. Say summed up the question:--\n\n\"A man who during his whole life performs but one operation,\ncertainly acquires the power to execute it better and more\nreadily than another; but at the same time he becomes less\ncapable of any other occupation, whether physical or moral;\nhis other faculties become extinct, and there results a\ndegeneracy in the individual man.  That one has made only the\neighteenth part of a pin is a sad account to give of one's self:\nbut let no one imagine that it is the workingman who spends his\nlife in handling a file or a hammer that alone degenerates in\nthis way from the dignity of his nature; it is the same with the\nman whose position leads him to exercise the most subtle\nfaculties of his mind. . .  On the whole, it may be said that the\nseparation of tasks is an advantageous use of human forces; that\nit increases enormously the products of society; but that it\ntakes something from the capacity of each man taken\nindividually.\"[11]\n\n\n[11]  \"Treatise on Political Economy.\"\n\n\n\nWhat, then, after labor, is the primary cause of the\nmultiplication of wealth and the skill of laborers?  Division.\n\nWhat is the primary cause of intellectual degeneracy and, as we\nshall show continually, civilized misery?  Division.\n\nHow does the same principle, rigorously followed to its\nconclusions, lead to effects diametrically opposite?  There is\nnot an economist, either before or since Adam Smith, who has even\nperceived that here is a problem to be solved.  Say goes so far\nas to recognize that in the division of labor the same cause\nwhich produces the good engenders the evil; then, after a few\nwords of pity for the victims of the separation of industries,\ncontent with having given an impartial and faithful exhibition of\nthe facts, he leaves the matter there.  \"You know,\" he seems to\nsay, \"that the more we divide the workmen's tasks, the more we\nincrease the productive power of labor; but at the same time the\nmore does labor, gradually reducing itself to a mechanical\noperation, stupefy intelligence.\"\n\nIn vain do we express our indignation against a theory which,\ncreating by labor itself an aristocracy of capacities, leads\ninevitably to political inequality; in vain do we protest in the\nname of democracy and progress that in the future there will be\nno nobility, no bourgeoisie no pariahs.  The economist replies,\nwith the impassibility of destiny:  You are condemned to produce\nmuch, and to produce cheaply; otherwise your industry will be\nalways insignificant, your commerce will amount to nothing, and\nyou will drag in the rear of civilization instead of taking the\nlead.--What! among us, generous men, there are some predestined\nto brutishness; and the more perfect our industry becomes, the\nlarger will grow the number of our accursed brothers! . . . . .\n--Alas! . . . . .  That is the last word of the economist.\n\nWe cannot fail to recognize in the division of labor, as a\ngeneral fact and as a cause, all the characteristics of a LAW;\nbut as this law governs two orders of phenomena radically\nopposite and destructive of each other, it must be confessed also\nthat this law is of a sort unknown in the exact sciences,--that\nit is, strange to say, a contradictory law, a counter-law an\nantinomy.  Let us add, in anticipation, that such appears to be\nthe identifying feature of social economy, and consequently of\nphilosophy.\n\nNow, without a RECOMPOSITION of labor which shall obviate the\ninconveniences of division while preserving its useful effects,\nthe contradiction inherent in the principle is irremediable.  It\nis necessary,--following the style of the Jewish priests,\nplotting the death of Christ,--it is necessary that the poor\nshould perish to secure the proprietor his for tune, expedit unum\nhominem pro populo mori.  I am going to demonstrate the necessity\nof this decree; after which, if the parcellaire laborer still\nretains a glimmer of intelligence, he will console himself with\nthe thought that he dies according to the rules of political\neconomy.\n\nLabor, which ought to give scope to the conscience and render it\nmore and more worthy of happiness, leading through parcellaire\ndivision to prostration of mind, dwarfs man in his noblest part,\nminorat capitis, and throws him back into animality.  Thenceforth\nthe fallen man labors as a brute, and consequently must be\ntreated as a brute.  This sentence of Nature and necessity\nsociety will execute.\n\nThe first effect of parcellaire labor, after the depravation of\nthe mind, is the lengthening of the hours of labor, which\nincrease in inverse proportion to the amount of intelligence\nexpended.  For, the product increasing in quantity and quality at\nonce, if, by any industrial improvement whatever, labor is\nlightened in one way, it must pay for it in another.  But as the\nlength of the working-day cannot exceed from sixteen to eighteen\nhours, when compensation no longer can be made in time, it will\nbe taken from the price, and wages will decrease.  And this\ndecrease will take place, not, as has been foolishly imagined,\nbecause value is essentially arbitrary, but because it is\nessentially determinable.  Little matters it that the struggle\nbetween supply and demand ends, now to the advantage of the\nemployer, now to the benefit of the employee; such oscillations\nmay vary in amplitude, this depending on well-known accessory\ncircumstances which have been estimated a thousand times.  The\ncertain point, and the only one for us to notice now, is that the\nuniversal conscience does not set the same price upon the labor\nof an overseer and the work of a hod-carrier.  A reduction in the\nprice of the day's work, then, is necessary: so that the laborer,\nafter having been afflicted in mind by a degrading function,\ncannot fail to be struck also in his body by the meagreness of\nhis reward.  This is the literal application of the words of the\nGospel:  HE THAT HATH NOT, FROM HIM SHALL BE TAKEN EVEN THAT\nWHICH HE HATH.\n\nThere is in economic accidents a pitiless reason which laughs at\nreligion and equity as political aphorisms, and which renders man\nhappy or unhappy according as he obeys or escapes the\nprescriptions of destiny.  Certainly this is far from that\nChristian charity with which so many honorable writers today are\ninspired, and which, penetrating to the heart of the bourgeoisie,\nendeavors to temper the rigors of the law by numerous religious\ninstitutions.  Political economy knows only justice, justice as\ninflexible and unyielding as the miser's purse; and it is because\npolitical economy is the effect of social spontaneity and the\nexpression of the divine will that I have been able to say:  God\nis man's adversary, and Providence a misanthrope.  God makes us\npay, in weight of blood and measure of tears, for each of our\nlessons; and to complete the evil, we, in our relations with our\nfellows, all act like him.  Where, then, is this love of the\ncelestial father for his creatures?  Where is human fraternity?\n\nCan he do otherwise? say the theists.  Man falling, the animal\nremains: how could the Creator recognize in him his own image?\nAnd what plainer than that he treats him then as a beast of\nburden?  But the trial will not last for ever, and sooner or\nlater labor, having been PARTICULARIZED, will be synthetized.\n\nSuch is the ordinary argument of all those who seek to justify\nProvidence, but generally succeed only in lending new weapons to\natheism.  That is to say, then, that God would have envied us,\nfor six thousand years, an idea which would have saved millions\nof victims, a distribution of labor at once special and\nsynthetic!  In return, he has given us, through his servants\nMoses, Buddha, Zoroaster, Mahomet, etc., those insipid writings,\nthe disgrace of our reason, which have killed more men than they\ncontain letters! Further, if we must believe primitive\nrevelation, social economy was the cursed science, the fruit of\nthe tree reserved for God, which man was forbidden to touch!  Why\nthis religious depreciation of labor, if it is true, as economic\nscience already shows, that labor is the father of love and the\norgan of happiness?  Why this jealousy of our advancement?  But\nif, as now sufficiently appears, our progress depends upon\nourselves alone, of what use is it to adore this phantom of\ndivinity, and what does he still ask of us through the multitude\nof inspired persons who pursue us with their sermons?  All of\nyou, Christians, protestant and orthodox, neo-revelators,\ncharlatans and dupes, listen to the first verse of the\nhumanitarian hymn upon God's mercy:  \"In proportion as the\nprinciple of division of labor receives complete application, the\nworker becomes weaker, narrower, and more dependent.  Art\nadvances: the artisan recedes!\"[12]\n\n\n[12] Tocqueville, \"Democracy in America.\"\n\n\n\nThen let us guard against anticipating conclusions and prejudging\nthe latest revelation of experience.  At present God seems less\nfavorable than hostile: let us confine ourselves to establishing\nthe fact.\n\nJust as political economy, then, at its point of departure, has\nmade us understand these mysterious and dismal words:  IN\nPROPORTION AS THE PRODUCTION OF UTILITY INCREASES, VENALITY\nDECREASES; so arrived at its first station, it warns us in a\nterrible voice:  IN PROPORTION AS ART ADVANCES, THE ARTISAN\nRECEDES.  To fix the ideas better, let us cite a few examples.\n\nIn all the branches of metal-working, who are the least\nindustrious of the wage-laborers?  Precisely those who are called\nMACHINISTS.  Since tools have been so admirably perfected, a\nmachinist is simply a man who knows how to handle a file or\na plane: as for mechanics, that is the business of engineers and\nforemen.  A country blacksmith often unites in his own person, by\nthe very necessity of his position, the various talents of the\nlocksmith, the edge-tool maker, the gunsmith, the machinist, the\nwheel-wright, and the horse-doctor: the world of thought would be\nastonished at the knowledge that is under the hammer of this man,\nwhom the people, always inclined to jest, nickname brule-fer.  A\nworkingman of Creuzot, who for ten years has seen the grandest\nand finest that his profession can offer, on leaving his shop,\nfinds himself unable to render the slightest service or to earn\nhis living.  The incapacity of the subject is directly\nproportional to the perfection of the art; and this is as true of\nall the trades as of metal-working.\n\nThe wages of machinists are maintained as yet at a high rate:\nsooner or later their pay must decrease, the poor quality of the\nlabor being unable to maintain it.\n\nI have just cited a mechanical art; let us now cite a liberal\nindustry.\n\nWould Gutenburg and his industrious companions, Faust and\nSchoffer, ever have believed that, by the division of labor,\ntheir sublime invention would fall into the domain of\nignorance--I had almost said idiocy?  There are few men so\nweak-minded, so UNLETTERED, as the mass of workers who follow\nthe various branches of the typographic industry,-- compositors,\npressmen, type-founders, book-binders, and paper-makers.  The\nprinter, as he existed even in the days of the Estiennes, has\nbecome almost an abstraction.  The employment of women in\ntype-setting has struck this noble industry to the heart, and\nconsummated its degradation.  I have seen a female\ncompositor--and she was one of the best--who did not know how to\nread, and was acquainted only with the forms of the letters.\n\nThe whole art has been withdrawn into the hands of foremen and\nproof-readers, modest men of learning whom the impertinence of\nauthors and patrons still humiliates, and a few workmen who are\nreal artists.  The press, in a word, fallen into mere mechanism,\nis no longer, in its PERSONNEL, at the level of civilization:\nsoon there will be left of it but a few souvenirs.\n\nI am told that the printers of Paris are endeavoring by\nassociation to rise again from their degradation: may their\nefforts not be exhausted in vain empiricism or misled into barren\nutopias!\n\nAfter private industries, let us look at public administration.\n\nIn the public service, the effects of parcellaire labor are no\nless frightful, no less intense: in all the departments of\nadministration, in proportion as the art develops, most of the\nemployees see their salaries diminish.  A letter-carrier receives\nfrom four hundred to six hundred francs per annum, of which the\nadministration retains about a tenth for the retiring pension.\nAfter thirty years of labor, the pension, or rather the\nrestitution, is three hundred francs per annum, which, when given\nto an alms-house by the pensioner, entitles him to a bed, soup,\nand washing.  My heart bleeds to say it, but I think,\nnevertheless, that the administration is generous: what reward\nwould you give to a man whose whole function consists in walking?\nThe legend gives but FIVE SOUS to the Wandering Jew; the\nletter-carriers receive twenty or thirty; true, the greater part\nof them have a family.  That part of the service which calls into\nexercise the intellectual faculties is reserved for the\npostmasters and clerks: these are better paid; they do the work\nof men.\n\nEverywhere, then, in public service as well as free industry,\nthings are so ordered that nine-tenths of the laborers serve as\nbeasts of burden for the other tenth: such is the inevitable\neffect of industrial progress and the indispensable condition of\nall wealth.  It is important to look well at this elementary\ntruth before talking to the people of equality, liberty,\ndemocratic institutions, and other utopias, the realization of\nwhich involves a previous complete revolution in the relations of\nlaborers.\n\nThe most remarkable effect of the division of labor is the decay\nof literature.\n\nIn the Middle Ages and in antiquity the man of letters, a sort of\nencyclopaedic doctor, a successor of the troubadour and the poet,\nall-knowing, was almighty.  Literature lorded it over society\nwith a high hand; kings sought the favor of authors, or revenged\nthemselves for their contempt by burning them,--them and their\nbooks.  This, too, was a way of recognizing literary sovereignty.\n\nToday we have manufacturers, lawyers, doctors, bankers,\nmerchants, professors, engineers, librarians, etc.; we have no\nmen of letters.  Or rather, whoever has risen to a remarkable\nheight in his profession is thereby and of necessity lettered:\nliterature, like the baccalaureate, has become an elementary part\nof every profession.  The man of letters, reduced to his simplest\nexpression, is the PUBLIC WRITER, a sort of writing commissioner\nin the pay of everybody, whose best-known variety is the\njournalist.\n\nIt was a strange idea that occurred to the Chambers four years\nago,-- that of making a law on literary property!  As if\nhenceforth the idea was not to become more and more the\nall-important point, the style nothing.  Thanks to God, there is\nan end of parliamentary eloquence as of epic poetry and\nmythology; the theatre rarely attracts business men and savants;\nand while the connoisseurs are astonished at the decline of art,\nthe philosophic observer sees only the progress of manly reason,\ntroubled rather than rejoiced at these dainty trifles.  The\ninterest in romance is sustained only as long as it resembles\nreality; history is reducing itself to anthropological exegesis;\neverywhere, indeed, the art of talking well appears as a\nsubordinate auxiliary of the idea, the fact.  The worship of\nspeech, too mazy and slow for impatient minds, is neglected, and\nits artifices are losing daily their power of seduction.  The\nlanguage of the nineteenth century is made up of facts and\nfigures, and he is the most eloquent among us who, with the\nfewest words, can say the most things.  Whoever cannot speak this\nlanguage is mercilessly relegated to the ranks of the\nrhetoricians; he is said to have no ideas.\n\nIn a young society the progress of letters necessarily outstrips\nphilosophical and industrial progress, and for a long time serves\nfor the expression of both.  But there comes a day when thought\nleaves language in the rear, and when, consequently, the\ncontinued preeminence of literature in a society becomes a sure\nsymptom of decline.  Language, in fact, is to every people the\ncollection of its native ideas, the encyclopaedia which\nProvidence first reveals to it; it is the field which its reason\nmust cultivate before directly attacking Nature through\nobservation and experience.  Now, as soon as a nation, after\nhaving exhausted the knowledge contained in its vocabulary,\ninstead of pursuing its education by a superior philosophy, wraps\nitself in its poetic mantle, and begins to play with its periods\nand its hemistichs, we may safely say that such a society is\nlost.  Everything in it will become subtle, narrow, and false; it\nwill not have even the advantage of maintaining in its splendor\nthe language of which it is foolishly enamored; instead of going\nforward in the path of the geniuses of transition, the Tacituses,\nthe Thucydides, the Machiavels, and the Montesquieus, it will be\nseen to fall, with irresistible force, from the majesty of Cicero\nto the subtleties of Seneca, the antitheses of St. Augustine, and\nthe puns of St. Bernard.\n\nLet no one, then, be deceived: from the moment that the mind, at\nfirst entirely occupied with speech, passes to experience and\nlabor, the man of letters, properly speaking, is simply the puny\npersonification of the least of our faculties; and literature,\nthe refuse of intelligent industry, finds a market only with the\nidlers whom it amuses and the proletaires whom it fascinates, the\njugglers who besiege power and the charlatans who shelter\nthemselves behind it, the hierophants of divine right who blow\nthe trumpet of Sinai, and the fanatical proclaimers of the\nsovereignty of the people, whose few mouth-pieces, compelled to\npractise their tribunician eloquence from tombs until they can\nshower it from the height of rostrums, know no better than to\ngive to the public parodies of Gracchus and Demosthenes.\n\nAll the powers of society, then, agree in indefinitely\ndeteriorating the condition of the parcellaire laborer; and\nexperience, universally confirming the theory, proves that this\nworker is condemned to misfortune from his mother's womb, no\npolitical reform, no association of interests, no effort either\nof public charity or of instruction, having the power to aid him.\n\nThe various specifics proposed in these latter days, far from\nbeing able to cure the evil, would tend rather to inflame it by\nirritation; and all that has been written on this point has only\nexhibited in a clear light the vicious circle of political\neconomy.\n\nThis we shall demonstrate in a few words.\n\n\n% 2.--Impotence of palliatives.--MM. Blanqui, Chevalier, Dunoyer,\nRossi, and Passy.\n\nAll the remedies proposed for the fatal effects of parcellaire\ndivision may be reduced to two, which really are but one, the\nsecond being the inversion of the first: to raise the mental and\nmoral condition of the workingman by increasing his comfort and\ndignity; or else, to prepare the way for his future emancipation\nand happiness by instruction.\n\nWe will examine successively these two systems, one of which is\nrepresented by M. Blanqui, the other by M. Chevalier.\n\nM. Blanqui is a friend of association and progress, a writer of\ndemocratic tendencies, a professor who has a place in the hearts\nof the proletariat.  In his opening discourse of the year 1845,\nM. Blanqui proclaimed, as a means of salvation, the association\nof labor and capital, the participation of the working man in the\nprofits,--that is, a beginning of industrial solidarity.  \"Our\ncentury,\" he exclaimed, \"must witness the birth of the collective\nproducer.\"  M. Blanqui forgets that the collective producer was\nborn long since, as well as the collective consumer, and that the\nquestion is no longer a genetic, but a medical, one.  Our task is\nto cause the blood proceeding from the collective digestion,\ninstead of rushing wholly to the head, stomach, and lungs, to\ndescend also into the legs and arms.  Besides, I do not know what\nmethod M. Blanqui proposes to employ in order to realize his\ngenerous thought,--whether it be the establishment of national\nworkshops, or the loaning of capital by the State, or the\nexpropriation of the conductors of business enterprises and the\nsubstitution for them of industrial associations, or, finally,\nwhether he will rest content with a recommendation of the\nsavings bank to workingmen, in which case the participation would\nbe put off till doomsday.\n\nHowever this may be, M. Blanqui's idea amounts simply to an\nincrease of wages resulting from the copartnership, or at least\nfrom the interest in the business, which he confers upon the\nlaborers.  What, then, is the value to the laborer of a\nparticipation in the profits?\n\nA mill with fifteen thousand spindles, employing three hundred\nhands, does not pay at present an annual dividend of twenty\nthousand francs.  I am informed by a Mulhouse manufacturer that\nfactory stocks in Alsace are generally below par and that this\nindustry has already become a means of getting money by\nSTOCK-JOBBING instead of by LABOR.  To SELL; to sell at the\nright time; to sell dear,--is the only object in view; to\nmanufacture is only to prepare for a sale.  When I assume, then,\non an average, a profit of twenty thousand francs to a factory\nemploying three hundred persons, my argument being general, I am\ntwenty thousand francs out of the way.  Nevertheless, we will\nadmit the correctness of this amount.  Dividing twenty thousand\nfrancs, the profit of the mill, by three hundred, the number of\npersons, and again by three hundred, the number of working days,\nI find an increase of pay for each person of twenty-two and\none-fifth centimes, or for daily expenditure an addition of\neighteen centimes, just a morsel of bread.  Is it worth while,\nthen, for this, to expropriate mill-owners and endanger the\npublic welfare, by erecting establishments which must be\ninsecure, since, property being divided into infinitely small\nshares, and being no longer supported by profit, business\nenterprises would lack ballast, and would be unable to weather\ncommercial gales.  And even if no expropriation was involved,\nwhat a poor prospect to offer the working class is an\nincrease of eighteen centimes in return for centuries of economy;\nfor no less time than this would be needed to accumulate the\nrequisite capital, supposing that periodical suspensions of\nbusiness did not periodically consume its savings!\n\nThe fact which I have just stated has been pointed out in several\nways.  M. Passy[13] himself took from the books of a mill in\nNormandy where the laborers were associated with the owner the\nwages of several families for a period of ten years, and he found\nthat they averaged from twelve to fourteen hundred francs per\nyear.  He then compared the situation of mill-hands paid in\nproportion to the prices obtained by their employers with that of\nlaborers who receive fixed wages, and found that the difference\nis almost imperceptible.  This result might easily have been\nforeseen.  Economic phenomena obey laws as abstract and immutable\nas those of numbers: it is only privilege, fraud, and absolutism\nwhich disturb the eternal harmony.\n\n\n[13]  Meeting of the Academy of Moral and Political Sciences,\nSeptember, 1845.\n\n\n\nM. Blanqui, repentant, as it seems, at having taken this first\nstep toward socialistic ideas, has made haste to retract his\nwords.  At the same meeting in which M. Passy demonstrated the\ninadequacy of cooperative association, he exclaimed:  \"Does it\nnot seem that labor is a thing susceptible of organization, and\nthat it is in the power of the State to regulate the happiness of\nhumanity as it does the march of an army, and with an entirely\nmathematical precision?  This is an evil tendency, a delusion\nwhich the Academy cannot oppose too strongly, because it is not\nonly a chimera, but a dangerous sophism.  Let us respect good and\nhonest intentions; but let us not fear to say that to publish a\nbook upon the ORGANIZATION OF LABOR is to rewrite for the\nfiftieth time a treatise upon the quadrature of the circle or the\nphilosopher's stone.\"\n\nThen, carried away by his zeal, M. Blanqui finishes the\ndestruction of his theory of cooperation, which M. Passy already\nhad so rudely shaken, by the following example:  \"M. Dailly, one\nof the most enlightened of farmers, has drawn up an account for\neach piece of land and an account for each product; and he proves\nthat within a period of thirty years the same man has never\nobtained equal crops from the same piece of land.  The products\nhave varied from twenty-six thousand francs to nine thousand or\nseven thousand francs, sometimes descending as low as three\nhundred francs.  There are also certain products--potatoes, for\ninstance--which fail one time in ten.  How, then, with these\nvariations and with revenues so uncertain, can we establish even\ndistribution and uniform wages for laborers? . . . .\"\n\nIt might be answered that the variations in the product of each\npiece of land simply indicate that it is necessary to associate\nproprietors with each other after having associated laborers with\nproprietors, which would establish a more complete solidarity:\nbut this would be a prejudgment on the very thing in question,\nwhich M. Blanqui definitively decides, after reflection, to be\nunattainable,--namely, the organization of labor.  Besides, it is\nevident that solidarity would not add an obolus to the common\nwealth, and that, consequently, it does not even touch the\nproblem of division.\n\nIn short, the profit so much envied, and often a very uncertain\nmatter with employers, falls far short of the difference between\nactual wages and the wages desired; and M. Blanqui's former plan,\nmiserable in its results and disavowed by its author, would be a\nscourge to the manufacturing industry.  Now, the division of\nlabor being henceforth universally established, the argument is\ngeneralized, and leads us to the conclusion that MISERY IS AN\nEFFECT OF LABOR, as well as of idleness.\n\nThe answer to this is, and it is a favorite argument with the\npeople:  Increase the price of services; double and triple wages.\n\nI confess that if such an increase was possible it would be a\ncomplete success, whatever M. Chevalier may have said, who needs\nto be slightly corrected on this point.\n\nAccording to M. Chevalier, if the price of any kind of\nmerchandise whatever is increased, other kinds will rise in a\nlike proportion, and no one will benefit thereby.\n\nThis argument, which the economists have rehearsed for more than\na century, is as false as it is old, and it belonged to M.\nChevalier, as an engineer, to rectify the economic tradition.\nThe salary of a head clerk being ten francs per day, and the\nwages of a workingman four, if the income of each is increased\nfive francs, the ratio of their fortunes, which was formerly as\none hundred to forty, will be thereafter as one hundred to sixty.\n\nThe increase of wages, necessarily taking place by addition and\nnot by proportion, would be, therefore, an excellent method of\nequalization; and the economists would deserve to have thrown\nback at them by the socialists the reproach of ignorance which\nthey have bestowed upon them at random.\n\nBut I say that such an increase is impossible, and that the\nsupposition is absurd: for, as M. Chevalier has shown very\nclearly elsewhere, the figure which indicates the price of the\nday's labor is only an algebraic exponent without effect on the\nreality: and that which it is necessary first to endeavor to\nincrease, while correcting the inequalities of distribution, is\nnot the monetary expression, but the quantity of products.  Till\nthen every rise of wages can have no other effect than that\nproduced by a rise of the price of wheat, wine, meat, sugar,\nsoap, coal, etc.,--that is, the effect of a scarcity.  For what\nis wages?\n\nIt is the cost price of wheat, wine, meat, coal; it is the\nintegrant price of all things.  Let us go farther yet: wages is\nthe proportionality of the elements which compose wealth, and\nwhich are consumed every day reproductively by the mass of\nlaborers.  Now, to double wages, in the sense in which the people\nunderstand the words, is to give to each producer a share greater\nthan his product, which is contradictory: and if the rise\npertains only to a few industries, a general disturbance in\nexchange ensues,--that is, a scarcity.  God save me from\npredictions! but, in spite of my desire for the amelioration of\nthe lot of the working class, I declare that it is impossible for\nstrikes followed by an increase of wages to end otherwise than in\na general rise in prices: that is as certain as that two and two\nmake four.  It is not by such methods that the workingmen will\nattain to wealth and--what is a thousand times more precious than\nwealth--liberty.  The workingmen, supported by the favor of an\nindiscreet press, in demanding an increase of wages, have served\nmonopoly much better than their own real interests: may they\nrecognize, when their situation shall become more painful, the\nbitter fruit of their inexperience!\n\nConvinced of the uselessness, or rather, of the fatal effects, of\nan increase of wages, and seeing clearly that the question is\nwholly organic and not at all commercial, M. Chevalier attacks\nthe problem at the other end.  He asks for the working class,\nfirst of all, instruction, and proposes extensive reforms in this\ndirection.\n\nInstruction! this is also M. Arago's word to the workingmen; it\nis the principle of all progress.  Instruction! . . . .  It\nshould be known once for all what may be expected from it in the\nsolution of the problem before us; it should be known, I say, not\nwhether it is desirable that all should receive it,--this no one\ndoubts,--but whether it is possible.\n\nTo clearly comprehend the complete significance of M. Chevalier's\nviews, a knowledge of his methods is indispensable.\n\nM. Chevalier, long accustomed to discipline, first by his\npolytechnic studies, then by his St. Simonian connections, and\nfinally by his position in the University, does not seem to admit\nthat a pupil can have any other inclination than to obey the\nregulations, a sectarian any other thought than that of his\nchief, a public functionary any other opinion than that of the\ngovernment.  This may be a conception of order as respectable as\nany other, and I hear upon this subject no expressions of\napproval or censure.  Has M. Chevalier an idea to offer peculiar\nto himself?  On the principle that all that is not forbidden by\nlaw is allowed, he hastens to the front to deliver his opinion,\nand then abandons it to give his adhesion, if there is occasion,\nto the opinion of authority.  It was thus that M. Chevalier,\nbefore settling down in the bosom of the Constitution, joined M.\nEnfantin: it was thus that he gave his views upon canals,\nrailroads, finance, property, long before the administration had\nadopted any system in relation to the construction of railways,\nthe changing of the rate of interest on bonds, patents, literary\nproperty, etc.\n\nM. Chevalier, then, is not a blind admirer of the University\nsystem of instruction,--far from it; and until the appearance of\nthe new order of things, he does not hesitate to say what he\nthinks.  His opinions are of the most radical.\n\nM. Villemain had said in his report:  \"The object of the higher\neducation is to prepare in advance a choice of men to occupy and\nserve in all the positions of the administration, the magistracy,\nthe bar and the various liberal professions, including the higher\nranks and learned specialties of the army and navy.\"\n\n\"The higher education,\" thereupon observes M. Chevalier,[14] \"is\ndesigned also to prepare men some of whom shall be farmers,\nothers manufacturers, these merchants, and those private\nengineers.  Now, in the official programme, all these classes are\nforgotten.  The omission is of considerable importance; for,\nindeed, industry in its various forms, agriculture, commerce, are\nneither accessories nor accidents in a State: they are its chief\ndependence. . . .  If the University desires to justify its name,\nit must provide a course in these things; else an INDUSTRIAL\nUNIVERSITY will be established in opposition to it. . . .  We\nshall have altar against altar, etc. . . .\"\n\n\n[14]  Journal des Economistes,\" April, 1843.\n\n\n\nAnd as it is characteristic of a luminous idea to throw light on\nall questions connected with it, professional instruction\nfurnishes M. Chevalier with a very expeditious method of\ndeciding, incidentally, the quarrel between the clergy and the\nUniversity on liberty of education.\n\n\"It must be admitted that a very great concession is made to the\nclergy in allowing Latin to serve as the basis of education.  The\nclergy know Latin as well as the University; it is their own\ntongue.  Their tuition, moreover, is cheaper; hence they must\ninevitably draw a large portion of our youth into their small\nseminaries and their schools of a higher grade. . . .\"\n\nThe conclusion of course follows: change the course of study, and\nyou decatholicize the realm; and as the clergy know only Latin\nand the Bible, when they have among them neither masters of art,\nnor farmers, nor accountants; when, of their forty thousand\npriests, there are not twenty, perhaps, with the ability to make\na plan or forge a nail,--we soon shall see which the fathers of\nfamilies will choose, industry or the breviary, and whether they\ndo not regard labor as the most beautiful language in which to\npray to God.\n\nThus would end this ridiculous opposition between religious\neducation and profane science, between the spiritual and the\ntemporal, between reason and faith, between altar and throne, old\nrubrics henceforth meaningless, but with which they still impose\nupon the good nature of the public, until it takes offence.\n\nM. Chevalier does not insist, however, on this solution: he knows\nthat religion and monarchy are two powers which, though\ncontinually quarrelling, cannot exist without each other; and\nthat he may not awaken suspicion, he launches out into another\nrevolutionary idea,--equality.\n\n\"France is in a position to furnish the polytechnic school with\ntwenty times as many scholars as enter at present (the average\nbeing one hundred and seventy-six, this would amount to three\nthousand five hundred and twenty).  The University has but to say\nthe word. . . .  If my opinion was of any weight, I should\nmaintain that mathematical capacity is MUCH LESS SPECIAL than is\ncommonly supposed.  I remember the success with which children,\ntaken at random, so to speak, from the pavements of Paris, follow\nthe teaching of La Martiniere by the method of Captain Tabareau.\"\n\nIf the higher education, reconstructed according to the views of\nM. Chevalier, was sought after by all young French men instead of\nby only ninety thousand as commonly, there would be no\nexaggeration in raising the estimate of the number of minds\nmathematically inclined from three thousand five hundred and\ntwenty to ten thousand; but, by the same argument, we should have\nten thousand artists, philologists, and philosophers; ten\nthousand doctors, physicians, chemists, and naturalists; ten\nthousand economists, legists, and administrators; twenty thousand\nmanufacturers, foremen, merchants, and accountants; forty\nthousand farmers, wine-growers, miners, etc.,--in all, one\nhundred thousand specialists a year, or about one-third of our\nyouth.  The rest, having, instead of special adaptations, only\nmingled adaptations, would be distributed indifferently\nelsewhere.\n\nIt is certain that so powerful an impetus given to intelligence\nwould quicken the progress of equality, and I do not doubt that\nsuch is the secret desire of M. Chevalier.  But that is precisely\nwhat troubles me: capacity is never wanting, any more than\npopulation, and the problem is to find employment for the one and\nbread for the other.  In vain does M. Chevalier tell us:  \"The\nhigher education would give less ground for the complaint that it\nthrows into society crowds of ambitious persons without any means\nof satisfying their desires, and interested in the overthrow of\nthe State; people without employment and unable to get any, good\nfor nothing and believing themselves fit for anything, especially\nfor the direction of public affairs.  Scientific studies do not\nso inflate the mind.  They enlighten and regulate it at once;\nthey fit men for practical life. . . .\"  Such language, I reply,\nis good to use with patriarchs: a professor of political economy\nshould have more respect for his position and his audience.  The\ngovernment has only one hundred and twenty offices annually at\nits disposal for one hundred and seventy-six students\nadmitted to the polytechnic school: what, then, would be its\nembarrassment if the number of admissions was ten thousand, or\neven, taking M. Chevalier's figures, three thousand five hundred?\n\nAnd, to generalize, the whole number of civil positions is sixty\nthousand, or three thousand vacancies annually; what dismay would\nthe government be thrown into if, suddenly adopting the\nreformatory ideas of M. Chevalier, it should find itself besieged\nby fifty thousand office- seekers!  The following objection has\noften been made to republicans without eliciting a reply:  When\neverybody shall have the electoral privilege, will the deputies\ndo any better, and will the proletariat be further advanced?  I\nask the same question of M. Chevalier:  When each academic year\nshall bring you one hundred thousand fitted men, what will you do\nwith them?\n\nTo provide for these interesting young people, you will go down\nto the lowest round of the ladder.  You will oblige the young\nman, after fifteen years of lofty study, to begin, no longer as\nnow with the offices of aspirant engineer, sub-lieutenant of\nartillery, second lieutenant, deputy, comptroller, general\nguardian, etc., but with the ignoble positions of pioneer,\ntrain-soldier, dredger, cabin-boy, fagot- maker, and exciseman.\nThere he will wait, until death, thinning the ranks, enables him\nto advance a step.  Under such circumstances a man, a graduate of\nthe polytechnic school and capable of becoming a Vauban, may die\na laborer on a second class road, or a corporal in a regiment\n\nOh! how much more prudent Catholicism has shown itself, and how\nfar it has surpassed you all, St. Simonians, republicans,\nuniversity men, economists, in the knowledge of man and society!\nThe priest knows that our life is but a voyage, and that our\nperfection cannot be realized here below; and he contents\nhimself with outlining on earth an education which must be\ncompleted in heaven.  The man whom religion has moulded, content\nto know, do, and obtain what suffices for his earthly destiny,\nnever can become a source of embarrassment to the government:\nrather would he be a martyr.  O beloved religion! is it necessary\nthat a bourgeoisie which stands in such need of you should disown\nyou? . . .     Into what terrible struggles of pride and misery\ndoes this mania for universal instruction plunge us!  Of what use\nis professional education, of what good are agricultural and\ncommercial schools, if your students have neither employment nor\ncapital?  And what need to cram one's self till the age of twenty\nwith all sorts of knowledge, then to fasten the threads of a\nmule-jenny or pick coal at the bottom of a pit?  What! you have\nby your own confession only three thousand positions annually to\nbestow upon fifty thousand possible capacities, and yet you talk\nof establishing schools!  Cling rather to your system of\nexclusion and privilege, a system as old as the world, the\nsupport of dynasties and patriciates, a veritable machine for\ngelding men in order to secure the pleasures of a caste of\nSultans.  Set a high price upon your teaching, multiply\nobstacles, drive away, by lengthy tests, the son of the\nproletaire whom hunger does not permit to wait, and protect with\nall your power the ecclesiastical schools, where the students are\ntaught to labor for the other life, to cultivate resignation, to\nfast, to respect those in high places, to love the king, and to\npray to God.  For every useless study sooner or later becomes an\nabandoned study: knowledge is poison to slaves.\n\nSurely M. Chevalier has too much sagacity not to have seen the\nconsequences of his idea.  But he has spoken from the bottom of\nhis heart, and we can only applaud his good intentions: men must\nfirst be men; after that, he may live who can.\n\nThus we advance at random, guided by Providence, who never warns\nus except with a blow: this is the beginning and end of political\neconomy.\n\nContrary to M. Chevalier, professor of political economy at the\nCollege of France, M. Dunoyer, an economist of the Institute,\ndoes not wish instruction to be organized.  The organization of\ninstruction is a species of organization of labor; therefore, no\norganization.  Instruction, observes M. Dunoyer, is a profession,\nnot a function of the State; like all professions, it ought to be\nand remain free.  It is communism, it is socialism, it is the\nrevolutionary tendency, whose principal agents have been\nRobespierre, Napoleon, Louis XVIII, and M. Guizot, which have\nthrown into our midst these fatal ideas of the centralization and\nabsorption of all activity in the State.  The press is very free,\nand the pen of the journalist is an object of merchandise;\nreligion, too, is very free, and every wearer of a gown, be it\nshort or long, who knows how to excite public curiosity, can draw\nan audience about him.  M. Lacordaire has his devotees, M. Leroux\nhis apostles, M. Buchez his convent.  Why, then, should not\ninstruction also be free?  If the right of the instructed, like\nthat of the buyer, is unquestionable, and that of the instructor,\nwho is only a variety of the seller, is its correlative, it is\nimpossible to infringe upon the liberty of instruction without\ndoing violence to the most precious of liberties, that of the\nconscience.  And then, adds M. Dunoyer, if the State owes\ninstruction to everybody, it will soon be maintained that it owes\nlabor; then lodging; then shelter. . . .  Where does that lead\nto?\n\nThe argument of M. Dunoyer is irrefutable: to organize\ninstruction is to give to every citizen a pledge of liberal\nemployment and comfortable wages; the two are as intimately\nconnected as the circulation of the arteries and the veins.  But\nM. Dunoyer's theory implies also that progress belongs only to a\ncertain select portion of humanity, and that barbarism is the\neternal lot of nine-tenths of the human race.  It is this which\nconstitutes, according to M. Dunoyer, the very essence of\nsociety, which manifests itself in three stages, religion,\nhierarchy, and beggary.  So that in this system, which is that of\nDestutt de Tracy, Montesquieu, and Plato, the antinomy of\ndivision, like that of value, is without solution.\n\nIt is a source of inexpressible pleasure to me, I confess, to see\nM. Chevalier, a defender of the centralization of instruction,\nopposed by M. Dunoyer, a defender of liberty; M. Dunoyer in his\nturn antagonized by M. Guizot; M. Guizot, the representative of\nthe centralizers, contradicting the Charter, which posits liberty\nas a principle; the Charter trampled under foot by the University\nmen, who lay sole claim to the privilege of teaching, regardless\nof the express command of the Gospel to the priests:  GO AND\nTEACH.  And above all this tumult of economists, legislators,\nministers, academicians, professors, and priests, economic\nProvidence giving the lie to the Gospel, and shouting:\nPedagogues! what use am I to make of your instruction?\n\nWho will relieve us of this anxiety?  M. Rossi leans toward\neclecticism:  Too little divided, he says, labor remains\nunproductive; too much divided, it degrades man.  Wisdom lies\nbetween these extremes; in medio virtus.  Unfortunately this\nintermediate wisdom is only a small amount of poverty joined with\na small amount of wealth, so that the condition is not\nmodified in the least.  The proportion of good and evil, instead\nof being as one hundred to one hundred, becomes as fifty to\nfifty: in this we may take, once for all, the measure of\neclecticism.  For the rest, M. Rossi's juste-milieu is in direct\nopposition to the great economic law:  TO PRODUCE WITH THE LEAST\nPOSSIBLE EXPENSE THE GREATEST POSSIBLE QUANTITY OF VALUES. . . .\nNow, how can labor fulfil its destiny without an extreme\ndivision?  Let us look farther, if you please.\n\n\"All economic systems and hypotheses,\" says M. Rossi, \"belong to\nthe economist, but the intelligent, free, responsible man is\nunder the control of the moral law. . .  Political economy is\nonly a science which examines the relations of things, and draws\nconclusions therefrom.  It examines the effects of labor; in the\napplication of labor, you should consider the importance of the\nobject in view.  When the application of labor is unfavorable to\nan object higher than the production of wealth, it should not be\napplied. . .  Suppose that it would increase the national wealth\nto compel children to labor fifteen hours a day: morality would\nsay that that is not allowable.  Does that prove that political\neconomy is false?  No; that proves that you confound things which\nshould be kept separate.\"\n\nIf M. Rossi had a little more of that Gallic simplicity so\ndifficult for foreigners to acquire, he would very summarily have\nTHROWN HIS TONGUE TO THE DOGS, as Madame de Sevigne said.  But a\nprofessor must talk, talk, talk, not for the sake of saying\nanything, but in order to avoid silence.  M. Rossi takes three\nturns around the question, then lies down: that is enough to make\ncertain people believe that he has answered it.\n\nIt is surely a sad symptom for a science when, in developing\nitself according to its own principles, it reaches its object\njust in time to be contradicted by another; as, for example, when\nthe postulates of political economy are found to be opposed to\nthose of morality, for I suppose that morality is a science as\nwell as political economy.  What, then, is human knowledge, if\nall its affirmations destroy each other, and on what shall we\nrely?  Divided labor is a slave's occupation, but it alone is\nreally productive; undivided labor belongs to the free man, but\nit does not pay its expenses.  On the one hand, political economy\ntells us to be rich; on the other, morality tells us to be free;\nand M. Rossi, speaking in the name of both, warns us at the same\ntime that we can be neither free nor rich, for to be but half of\neither is to be neither.  M. Rossi's doctrine, then, far from\nsatisfying this double desire of humanity, is open to the\nobjection that, to avoid exclusiveness, it strips us of\neverything: it is, under another form, the history of the\nrepresentative system.\n\nBut the antagonism is even more profound than M. Rossi has\nsupposed.  For since, according to universal experience (on this\npoint in harmony with theory), wages decrease in proportion to\nthe division of labor, it is clear that, in submitting ourselves\nto parcellaire slavery, we thereby shall not obtain wealth; we\nshall only change men into machines: witness the laboring\npopulation of the two worlds.  And since, on the other hand,\nwithout the division of labor, society falls back into barbarism,\nit is evident also that, by sacrificing wealth, we shall not\nobtain liberty: witness all the wandering tribes of Asia and\nAfrica.  Therefore it is necessary--economic science and morality\nabsolutely command it--for us to solve the problem of division:\nnow, where are the economists?  More than thirty years ago,\nLemontey, developing a remark of Smith, exposed the demoralizing\nand homicidal influence of the division of labor.  What has\nbeen the reply; what investigations have been made; what remedies\nproposed; has the question even been understood?\n\nEvery year the economists report, with an exactness which I would\ncommend more highly if I did not see that it is always fruitless,\nthe commercial condition of the States of Europe.  They know how\nmany yards of cloth, pieces of silk, pounds of iron, have been\nmanufactured; what has been the consumption per head of wheat,\nwine, sugar, meat: it might be said that to them the ultimate of\nscience is to publish inventories, and the object of their labor\nis to become general comptrollers of nations.  Never did such a\nmass of material offer so fine a field for investigation.  What\nhas been found; what new principle has sprung from this mass;\nwhat solution of the many problems of long standing has been\nreached; what new direction have studies taken?\n\nOne question, among others, seems to have been prepared for a\nfinal judgment,--pauperism.  Pauperism, of all the phenomena of\nthe civilized world, is today the best known: we know pretty\nnearly whence it comes, when and how it arrives, and what it\ncosts; its proportion at various stages of civilization has been\ncalculated, and we have convinced ourselves that all the\nspecifics with which it hitherto has been fought have been\nimpotent.  Pauperism has been divided into genera, species, and\nvarieties: it is a complete natural history, one of the most\nimportant branches of anthropology.  Well I the unquestionable\nresult of all the facts collected, unseen, shunned, covered by\nthe economists with their silence, is that pauperism is\nconstitutional and chronic in society as long as the antagonism\nbetween labor and capital continues, and that this antagonism can\nend only by the absolute negation of political economy.\nWhat issue from this labyrinth have the economists discovered?\n\nThis last point deserves a moment's attention.\n\nIn primitive communism misery, as I have observed in a preceding\nparagraph, is the universal condition.\n\nLabor is war declared upon this misery.\n\nLabor organizes itself, first by division, next by machinery,\nthen by competition, etc.\n\nNow, the question is whether it is not in the essence of this\norganization, as given us by political economy, at the same time\nthat it puts an end to the misery of some, to aggravate that of\nothers in a fatal and unavoidable manner.  These are the terms in\nwhich the question of pauperism must be stated, and for this\nreason we have undertaken to solve it.\n\nWhat means, then, this eternal babble of the economists about the\nimprovidence of laborers, their idleness, their want of dignity,\ntheir ignorance, their debauchery, their early marriages, etc.?\nAll these vices and excesses are only the cloak of pauperism; but\nthe cause, the original cause which inexorably holds four-fifths\nof the human race in disgrace,--what is it?  Did not Nature make\nall men equally gross, averse to labor, wanton, and wild?  Did\nnot patrician and proletaire spring from the same clay?  Then how\nhappens it that, after so many centuries, and in spite of so many\nmiracles of industry, science, and art, comfort and culture have\nnot become the inheritance of all?  How happens it that in Paris\nand London, centres of social wealth, poverty is as hideous as in\nthe days of Caesar and Agricola?  Why, by the side of this\nrefined aristocracy, has the mass remained so uncultivated?  It\nis laid to the vices of the people: but the vices of the upper\nclass appear to be no less; perhaps they are even greater.  The\noriginal stain affected all alike: how happens it, once more,\nthat the baptism of civilization has not been equally efficacious\nfor all?  Does this not show that progress itself is a privilege,\nand that the man who has neither wagon nor horse is forced to\nflounder about for ever in the mud?  What do I say?  The totally\ndestitute man has no desire to improve: he has fallen so low that\nambition even is extinguished in his heart.\n\n\"Of all the private virtues,\" observes M. Dunoyer with infinite\nreason, \"the most necessary, that which gives us all the others\nin succession, is the passion for well-being, is the violent\ndesire to extricate one's self from misery and abjection, is that\nspirit of emulation and dignity which does not permit men to rest\ncontent with an inferior situation. . . .  But this sentiment,\nwhich seems so natural, is unfortunately much less common than is\nthought.  There are few reproaches which the generality of men\ndeserve less than that which ascetic moralists bring against them\nof being too fond of their comforts: the opposite reproach might\nbe brought against them with infinitely more justice. . . .\nThere is even in the nature of men this very remarkable feature,\nthat the less their knowledge and resources, the less desire they\nhave of acquiring these.  The most miserable savages and the\nleast enlightened of men are precisely those in whom it is most\ndifficult to arouse wants, those in whom it is hardest to inspire\nthe desire to rise out of their condition; so that man must\nalready have gained a certain degree of comfort by his labor,\nbefore he can feel with any keenness that need of improving his\ncondition, of perfecting his existence, which I call the love of\nwell-being.\"[15]\n\n\n[15]  \"The Liberty of Labor,\" Vol. II, p. 80.\n\n\n\nThus the misery of the laboring classes arises in general from\ntheir lack of heart and mind, or, as M. Passy has said somewhere,\nfrom the weakness, the inertia of their moral and intellectual\nfaculties.  This inertia is due to the fact that the said\nlaboring classes, still half savage, do not have a sufficiently\nardent desire to ameliorate their condition: this M. Dunoyer\nshows.  But as this absence of desire is itself the effect of\nmisery, it follows that misery and apathy are each other's effect\nand cause, and that the proletariat turns in a circle.\n\nTo rise out of this abyss there must be either well-being,--that\nis, a gradual increase of wages,--or intelligence and\ncourage,--that is, a gradual development of faculties: two things\ndiametrically opposed to the degradation of soul and body which\nis the natural effect of the division of labor.  The misfortune\nof the proletariat, then, is wholly providential, and to\nundertake to extinguish it in the present state of political\neconomy would be to produce a revolutionary whirlwind.\n\nFor it is not without a profound reason, rooted in the loftiest\nconsiderations of morality, that the universal conscience,\nexpressing itself by turns through the selfishness of the rich\nand the apathy of the proletariat, denies a reward to the man\nwhose whole function is that of a lever and spring.  If, by some\nimpossibility, material well-being could fall to the lot of the\nparcellaire laborer, we should see something monstrous happen:\nthe laborers employed at disagreeable tasks would become like\nthose Romans, gorged with the wealth of the world, whose\nbrutalized minds became incapable of devising new pleasures.\nWell-being without education stupefies people and makes them\ninsolent: this was noticed in the most ancient times.\nIncrassatus est, et recalcitravit, says Deuteronomy.  For\nthe rest, the parcellaire laborer has judged himself: he is\ncontent, provided he has bread, a pallet to sleep on, and plenty\nof liquor on Sunday.  Any other condition would be prejudicial to\nhim, and would endanger public order.\n\nAt Lyons there is a class of men who, under cover of the monopoly\ngiven them by the city government, receive higher pay than\ncollege professors or the head-clerks of the government\nministers: I mean the porters.  The price of loading and\nunloading at certain wharves in Lyons, according to the schedule\nof the Rigues or porters' associations, is thirty centimes per\nhundred kilogrammes.  At this rate, it is not seldom that a man\nearns twelve, fifteen, and even twenty francs a day: he only has\nto carry forty or fifty sacks from a vessel to a warehouse.  It\nis but a few hours' work.  What a favorable condition this would\nbe for the development of intelligence, as well for children as\nfor parents, if, of itself and the leisure which it brings,\nwealth was a moralizing principle!  But this is not the case: the\nporters of Lyons are today what they always have been, drunken,\ndissolute, brutal, insolent, selfish, and base.  It is a painful\nthing to say, but I look upon the following declaration as a\nduty, because it is the truth: one of the first reforms to be\neffected among the laboring classes will be the reduction of the\nwages of some at the same time that we raise those of others.\nMonopoly does not gain in respectability by belonging to the\nlowest classes of people, especially when it serves to maintain\nonly the grossest individualism.  The revolt of the silk-workers\nmet with no sympathy, but rather hostility, from the porters and\nthe river population generally.  Nothing that happens off the\nwharves has any power to move them.  Beasts of burden fashioned\nin advance for despotism, they will not mingle with politics as\nlong as their privilege is maintained.  Nevertheless, I ought to\nsay in their defence that, some time ago, the necessities of\ncompetition having brought their prices down, more social\nsentiments began to awaken in these gross natures: a few more\nreductions seasoned with a little poverty, and the Rigues of\nLyons will be chosen as the storming-party when the time comes\nfor assaulting the bastilles.\n\nIn short, it is impossible, contradictory, in the present system\nof society, for the proletariat to secure well-being through\neducation or education through well-being.  For, without\nconsidering the fact that the proletaire, a human machine, is as\nunfit for comfort as for education, it is demonstrated, on the\none hand, that his wages continually tend to go down rather than\nup, and, on the other, that the cultivation of his mind, if it\nwere possible, would be useless to him; so that he always\ninclines towards barbarism and misery.  Everything that has been\nattempted of late years in France and England with a view to the\namelioration of the condition of the poor in the matters of the\nlabor of women and children and of primary instruction, unless it\nwas the fruit of some hidden thought of radicalism, has been done\ncontrary to economic ideas and to the prejudice of the\nestablished order.  Progress, to the mass of laborers, is always\nthe book sealed with the seven seals; and it is not by\nlegislative misconstructions that the relentless enigma will be\nsolved.\n\nFor the rest, if the economists, by exclusive attention to their\nold routine, have finally lost all knowledge of the present state\nof things, it cannot be said that the socialists have better\nsolved the antinomy which division of labor raised.  Quite the\ncontrary, they have stopped with negation; for is it not\nperpetual negation to oppose, for instance, the uniformity of\nparcellaire labor with a so-called variety in which each one can\nchange his occupation ten, fifteen, twenty times a day at will?\n\nAs if to change ten, fifteen, twenty times a day from one kind of\ndivided labor to another was to make labor synthetic; as if,\nconsequently, twenty fractions of the day's work of a manual\nlaborer could be equal to the day's work of an artist!  Even if\nsuch industrial vaulting was practicable,--and it may be asserted\nin advance that it would disappear in the presence of the\nnecessity of making laborers responsible and therefore functions\npersonal,--it would not change at all the physical, moral, and\nintellectual condition of the laborer; the dissipation would only\nbe a surer guarantee of his incapacity and, consequently, his\ndependence.  This is admitted, moreover, by the organizers,\ncommunists, and others.  So far are they from pretending to solve\nthe antinomy of division that all of them admit, as an essential\ncondition of organization, the hierarchy of labor,--that is, the\nclassification of laborers into parcellaires and generalizers or\norganizers,--and in all utopias the distinction of capacities,\nthe basis or everlasting excuse for inequality of goods, is\nadmitted as a pivot.  Those reformers whose schemes have nothing\nto recommend them but logic, and who, after having complained of\nthe SIMPLISM, monotony, uniformity, and extreme division of\nlabor, then propose a PLURALITY as a SYNTHESIS,--such inventors,\nI say, are judged already, and ought to be sent back to school.\n\nBut you, critic, the reader undoubtedly will ask, what is your\nsolution?  Show us this synthesis which, retaining the\nresponsibility, the personality, in short, the specialty of the\nlaborer, will unite extreme division and the greatest variety in\none complex and harmonious whole.\n\nMy reply is ready:  Interrogate facts, consult humanity: we can\nchoose no better guide.  After the oscillations of value,\ndivision of labor is the economic fact which influences most\nperceptibly profits and wages.  It is the first stake driven by\nProvidence into the soil of industry, the starting-point of the\nimmense triangulation which finally must determine the right and\nduty of each and all.  Let us, then, follow our guides, without\nwhich we can only wander and lose ourselves.\n\nTu longe sequere, et vestigia semper adora.\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\nSECOND PERIOD.--MACHINERY.\n\n\"I have witnessed with profound regret the CONTINUANCE OF\nDISTRESS in the manufacturing districts of the country.\"\n\nWords of Queen Victoria on the reassembling of parliament.\n\nIf there is anything of a nature to cause sovereigns to reflect,\nit is that, more or less impassible spectators of human\ncalamities, they are, by the very constitution of society and the\nnature of their power, absolutely powerless to cure the\nsufferings of their subjects; they are even prohibited from\npaying any attention to them.  Every question of labor and wages,\nsay with one accord the economic and representative theorists,\nmust remain outside of the attributes of power.  From the height\nof the glorious sphere where religion has placed them, thrones,\ndominations, principalities, powers, and all the heavenly host\nview the torment of society, beyond the reach of its stress; but\ntheir power does not extend over the winds and floods.  Kings can\ndo nothing for the salvation of mortals.  And, in truth, these\ntheorists are right: the prince is established to maintain, not\nto revolutionize; to protect reality, not to bring about utopia.\nHe represents one of the antagonistic principles: hence, if he\nwere to establish harmony, he would eliminate himself, which\non his part would be sovereignly unconstitutional and absurd.\n\nBut as, in spite of theories, the progress of ideas is\nincessantly changing the external form of institutions in such a\nway as to render continually necessary exactly that which the\nlegislator neither desires nor foresees,--so that, for instance,\nquestions of taxation become questions of distribution; those of\npublic utility, questions of national labor and industrial\norganization; those of finance, operations of credit; and those\nof international law, questions of customs duties and\nmarkets,--it stands as demonstrated that the prince, who,\naccording to theory, should never interfere with things which\nnevertheless, without theory's foreknowledge, are daily and\nirresistibly becoming matters of government, is and can be\nhenceforth, like Divinity from which he emanates, whatever may be\nsaid, only an hypothesis, a fiction.\n\nAnd finally, as it is impossible that the prince and the\ninterests which it is his mission to defend should consent to\ndiminish and disappear before emergent principles and new rights\nposited, it follows that progress, after being accomplished in\nthe mind insensibly, is realized in society by leaps, and that\nforce, in spite of the calumny of which it is the object, is the\nnecessary condition of reforms.  Every society in which the power\nof insurrection is suppressed is a society dead to progress:\nthere is no truth of history better proven.\n\nAnd what I say of constitutional monarchies is equally true of\nrepresentative democracies: everywhere the social compact has\nunited power and conspired against life, it being impossible for\nthe legislator either to see that he was working against his own\nends or to proceed otherwise.\n\nMonarchs and representatives, pitiable actors in\nparliamentary comedies, this in the last analysis is what\nyou are: talismans against the future!  Every year brings you the\ngrievances of the people; and when you are asked for the remedy,\nyour wisdom covers its face!  Is it necessary to support\nprivilege,--that is, that consecration of the right of the\nstrongest which created you and which is changing every day?\nPromptly, at the slightest nod of your head, a numerous army\nstarts up, runs to arms, and forms in line of battle.  And when\nthe people complain that, in spite of their labor and precisely\nbecause of their labor, misery devours them, when society asks\nyou for life, you recite acts of mercy!  All your energy is\nexpended for conservatism, all your virtue vanishes in\naspirations!  Like the Pharisee, instead of feeding your father,\nyou pray for him!  Ah!  I tell you, we possess the secret of your\nmission: you exist only to prevent us from living.  Nolite ergo\nimperare, get you gone!\n\nAs for us, who view the mission of power from quite another\nstandpoint, and who wish the special work of government to be\nprecisely that of exploring the future, searching for progress,\nand securing for all liberty, equality, health, and wealth, we\ncontinue our task of criticism courageously, entirely sure that,\nwhen we have laid bare the cause of the evils of society, the\nprinciple of its fevers, the motive of its disturbances, we shall\nnot lack the power to apply the remedy.\n\n\n% 1.--Of the function of machinery in its relations to liberty.\n\nThe introduction of machinery into industry is accomplished in\nopposition to the law of division, and as if to reestablish the\nequilibrium profoundly compromised by that law.  To truly\nappreciate the significance of this movement and grasp its\nspirit, a few general considerations become necessary.\n\nModern philosophers, after collecting and classifying their\nannals, have been led by the nature of their labors to deal also\nwith history: then it was that they saw, not without surprise,\nthat the HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY was the same thing at bottom as\nthe PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY; further, that these two branches of\nspeculation, so different in appearance, the history of\nphilosophy and the philosophy of history, were also only the\nstage representation of the concepts of metaphysics, which is\nphilosophy entire.\n\nNow, dividing the material of universal history among a certain\nnumber of frames, such as mathematics, natural history, social\neconomy, etc., it will be found that each of these divisions\ncontains also metaphysics.  And it will be the same down to the\nlast subdivision of the totality of history: so that entire\nphilosophy lies at the bottom of every natural or industrial\nmanifestation; that it is no respecter of degrees or qualities;\nthat, to rise to its sublimest conceptions, all prototypes may be\nemployed equally well; and, finally, that, all the postulates of\nreason meeting in the most modest industry as well as in the most\ngeneral sciences, to make every artisan a philosopher,--that is,\na generalizing and highly synthetic mind,--it would be enough to\nteach him--what? his profession.\n\nHitherto, it is true, philosophy, like wealth, has been reserved\nfor certain classes: we have the philosophy of history, the\nphilosophy of law, and some other philosophies also; this is a\nsort of appropriation which, like many others of equally noble\norigin, must disappear.  But, to consummate this immense\nequation, it is necessary to begin with the philosophy of labor,\nafter which each laborer will be able to attempt in his turn the\nphilosophy of his trade.\nThus every product of art and industry, every political and\nreligious constitution, like every creature organized or\nunorganized, being only a realization, a natural or practical\napplication, of philosophy, the identity of the laws of nature\nand reason, of being and idea, is demonstrated; and when, for our\nown purpose, we establish the constant conformity of economic\nphenomena to the pure laws of thought, the equivalence of the\nreal and the ideal in human facts, we only repeat in a particular\ncase this eternal demonstration.\n\nWhat do we say, in fact?\n\nTo determine value,--in other words, to organize within itself\nthe production and distribution of wealth,--society proceeds\nexactly as the mind does in the generation of concepts.  First it\nposits a primary fact, acts upon a primary hypothesis, the\ndivision of labor, a veritable antinomy, the antagonistic results\nof which are evolved in social economy, just as the consequences\nmight have been deduced in the mind: so that the industrial\nmovement, following in all respects the deduction of ideas, is\ndivided into a double current, one of useful effects, the other\nof subversive results, all equally necessary and legitimate\nproducts of the same law.  To harmonically establish this\ntwo-faced principle and solve this antinomy, society evokes a\nsecond, soon to be followed by a third; and such will be the\nprogress of the social genius until, having exhausted all its\ncontradictions,--supposing, though it is not proved, that there\nis an end to contradiction in humanity,--it shall cover with one\nbackward leap all its previous positions and in a single formula\nsolve all problems.     In following in our exposition this\nmethod of the parallel development of the reality and the idea,\nwe find a double advantage: first, that of escaping the reproach\nof materialism, so often applied to economists, to whom facts are\ntruth simply because they are facts, and material facts.  To us,\non the contrary, facts are not matter,--for we do not know what\nthe word matter means,--but visible manifestations of invisible\nideas.  So viewed, the value of facts is measured by the idea\nwhich they represent; and that is why we have rejected as\nillegitimate and non-conclusive useful value and value in\nexchange, and later the division of labor itself, although to the\neconomists all these have an absolute authority.\n\nOn the other hand, it is as impossible to accuse us of\nspiritualism, idealism, or mysticism: for, admitting as a point\nof departure only the external manifestation of the idea,--the\nidea which we do not know, which does not exist, as long as it is\nnot reflected, like light, which would be nothing if the sun\nexisted by itself in an infinite void,--and brushing aside all a\npriori reasoning upon theogony and cosmogony, all inquiry into\nsubstance, cause, the me and the not-me, we confine ourselves to\nsearching for the LAWS of being and to following the order of\ntheir appearance as far as reason can reach.\n\nDoubtless all knowledge brings up at last against a mystery:\nsuch, for instance, as matter and mind, both of which we admit as\ntwo unknown essences, upon which all phenomena rest.  But this is\nnot to say that mystery is the point of departure of knowledge,\nor that mysticism is the necessary condition of logic: quite the\ncontrary, the spontaneity of our reason tends to the perpetual\nrejection of mysticism; it makes an a priori protest against all\nmystery, because it has no use for mystery except to deny it, and\nbecause the negation of mysticism is the only thing for which\nreason has no need of experience.\n\nIn short, human facts are the incarnation of human ideas:\ntherefore, to study the laws of social economy is to\nconstitute the theory of the laws of reason and create\nphilosophy.  We may now pursue the course of our investigation.\n\nAt the end of the preceding chapter we left the laborer at\nloggerheads with the law of division: how will this indefatigable\nOedipus manage to solve this enigma?\n\nIn society the incessant appearance of machinery is the\nantithesis, the inverse formula, of the division of labor; it is\nthe protest of the industrial genius against parcellaire and\nhomicidal labor.  What is a machine, in fact?  A method of\nreuniting divers particles of labor which division had separated.\n\nEvery machine may be defined as a summary of several operations,\na simplification of powers, a condensation of labor, a reduction\nof costs.  In all these respects machinery is the counterpart of\ndivision.  Therefore through machinery will come a restoration of\nthe parcellaire laborer, a decrease of toil for the workman, a\nfall in the price of his product, a movement in the relation of\nvalues, progress towards new discoveries, advancement of the\ngeneral welfare.\n\nAs the discovery of a formula gives a new power to the geometer,\nso the invention of a machine is an abridgment of manual labor\nwhich multiplies the power of the producer, from which it may be\ninferred that the antinomy of the division of labor, if not\nentirely destroyed, will be balanced and neutralized.  No one\nshould fail to read the lectures of M. Chevalier setting forth\nthe innumerable advantages resulting to society from the\nintervention of machinery; they make a striking picture to which\nI take pleasure in referring my reader.\n\nMachinery, positing itself in political economy in opposition to\nthe division of labor, represents synthesis opposing itself in\nthe human mind to analysis; and just as in the division of labor\nand in machinery, as we shall soon see, political economy\nentire is contained, so with analysis and synthesis goes the\npossession of logic entire, of philosophy.  The man who labors\nproceeds necessarily and by turns by division and the aid of\ntools; likewise, he who reasons performs necessarily and by turns\nthe operations of synthesis and analysis, nothing more,\nabsolutely nothing.  And labor and reason will never get beyond\nthis: Prometheus, like Neptune, attains in three strides the\nconfines of the world.\n\nFrom these principles, as simple and as luminous as axioms,\nimmense consequences follow.\n\nAs in the operation of the mind analysis and synthesis are\nessentially inseparable, and as, looking at the matter from\nanother point, theory becomes legitimate only on condition of\nfollowing experience foot by foot, it follows that labor, uniting\nanalysis and synthesis, theory and experience, in a continuous\naction,--labor, the external form of logic and consequently a\nsummary of reality and idea,--appears again as a universal method\nof instruction.  Fit fabricando faber: of all systems of\neducation the most absurd is that which separates intelligence\nfrom activity, and divides man into two impossible entities,\ntheorizer and automaton.  That is why we applaud the just\ncomplaints of M. Chevalier, M. Dunoyer, and all those who demand\nreform in university education; on that also rests the hope of\nthe results that we have promised ourselves from such reform.  If\neducation were first of all experimental and practical, reserving\nspeech only to explain, summarize, and coordinate work; if those\nwho cannot learn with imagination and memory were permitted to\nlearn with their eyes and hands,--soon we should witness a\nmultiplication, not only of the forms of labor, but of\ncapacities; everybody, knowing the theory of something, would\nthereby possess the language of philosophy; on occasion he\ncould, were it only for once in his life, create, modify,\nperfect, give proof of intelligence and comprehension, produce\nhis master-piece, in a word, show himself a man.  The inequality\nin the acquisitions of memory would not affect the equivalence of\nfaculties, and genius would no longer seem to us other than what\nit really is,--mental health.\n\nThe fine minds of the eighteenth century went into extended\ndisputations about what constitutes GENIUS, wherein it differs\nfrom TALENT, what we should understand by MIND, etc.  They had\ntransported into the intellectual sphere the same distinctions\nthat, in society, separate persons.  To them there were kings and\nrulers of genius, princes of genius, ministers of genius; and\nthen there were also noble minds and bourgeois minds, city\ntalents and country talents.  Clear at the foot of the ladder lay\nthe gross industrial population, souls imperfectly outlined,\nexcluded from the glory of the elect.  All rhetorics are still\nfilled with these impertinences, which monarchical interests,\nliterary vanity, and socialistic hypocrisy strain themselves to\nsanction, for the perpetual slavery of nations and the\nmaintenance of the existing order.\n\nBut, if it is demonstrated that all the operations of the mind\nare reducible to two, analysis and synthesis, which are\nnecessarily inseparable, although distinct; if, by a forced\nconsequence, in spite of the infinite variety of tasks and\nstudies, the mind never does more than begin the same canvas over\nagain,--the man of genius is simply a man with a good\nconstitution, who has worked a great deal, thought a great deal,\nanalyzed, compared, classified, summarized, and concluded a great\ndeal; while the limited being, who stagnates in an endemic\nroutine, instead of developing his faculties, has killed his\nintelligence through inertia and automatism.  It is absurd\nto distinguish as differing in nature that which really differs\nonly in age, and then to convert into privilege and exclusion the\nvarious degrees of a development or the fortunes of a spontaneity\nwhich must gradually disappear through labor and education.\n\nThe psychological rhetoricians who have classified human souls\ninto dynasties, noble races, bourgeois families, and the\nproletariat observed nevertheless that genius was not universal,\nand that it had its specialty; consequently Homer, Plato,\nPhidias, Archimedes, Caesar, etc., all of whom seemed to them\nfirst in their sort, were declared by them equals and sovereigns\nof distinct realms.  How irrational!  As if the specialty of\ngenius did not itself reveal the law of the equality of minds!\nAs if, looking at it in another light, the steadiness of success\nin the product of genius were not a proof that it works according\nto principles outside of itself, which are the guarantee of the\nperfection of its work, as long as it follows them with fidelity\nand certainty!  This apotheosis of genius, dreamed of with open\neyes by men whose chatter will remain forever barren, would\nwarrant a belief in the innate stupidity of the majority of\nmortals, if it were not a striking proof of their perfectibility.\n\nLabor, then, after having distinguished capacities and arranged\ntheir equilibrium by the division of industries, completes the\narmament of intelligence, if I may venture to say so, by\nmachinery.  According to the testimony of history as well as\naccording to analysis, and notwithstanding the anomalies caused\nby the antagonism of economic principles, intelligence differs in\nmen, not by power, clearness, or reach, but, in the first place,\nby specialty, or, in the language of the schools, by qualitative\ndetermination, and, in the second place, by exercise and\neducation.  Hence, in the individual as in the collective\nman, intelligence is much more a faculty which comes, forms, and\ndevelops, qu{ae} fit, than an entity or entelechy which exists,\nwholly formed, prior to apprenticeship.  Reason, by whatever name\nwe call it,--genius, talent, industry,--is at the start a naked\nand inert potentiality, which gradually grows in size and\nstrength, takes on color and form, and shades itself in an\ninfinite variety of ways.  By the importance of its acquirements,\nby its capital, in a word, the intelligence of one individual\ndiffers and will always differ from that of another; but, being a\npower equal in all at the beginning, social progress must consist\nin rendering it, by an ever increasing perfection of methods,\nagain equal in all at the end.  Otherwise labor would remain a\nprivilege for some and a punishment for others.\n\nBut the equilibrium of capacities, the prelude of which we have\nseen in the division of labor, does not fulfil the entire destiny\nof machinery, and the views of Providence extend far beyond.\nWith the introduction of machinery into economy, wings are given\nto LIBERTY.\n\nThe machine is the symbol of human liberty, the sign of our\ndomination over nature, the attribute of our power, the\nexpression of our right, the emblem of our personality.  Liberty,\nintelligence,--those constitute the whole of man: for, if we\nbrush aside as mystical and unintelligible all speculation\nconcerning the human being considered from the point of view of\nsubstance (mind or matter), we have left only two categories of\nmanifestations,--the first including all that we call sensations,\nvolitions, passions, attractions, instincts, sentiments; the\nother, all phenomena classed under the heads of attention,\nperception, memory, imagination, comparison, judgment, reasoning,\netc.  As for the organic apparatus, very far from being the\nprinciple or base of these two orders of faculties, it must be\nconsidered as their synthetic and positive realization, their\nliving and harmonious expression.  For just as from the\nlong-continued issue by humanity of its antagonistic principles\nmust some day result social organization, so man must be\nconceived as the result of two series of potentialities.\n\nThus, after having posited itself as logic, social economy,\npursuing its work, posits itself as psychology.  The education of\nintelligence and liberty,--in a word, the welfare of man,--all\nperfectly synonymous expressions,--such is the common object of\npolitical economy and philosophy.  To determine the laws of the\nproduction and distribution of wealth will be to demonstrate, by\nan objective and concrete exposition, the laws of reason and\nliberty; it will be to create philosophy and right a posteriori:\nwhichever way we turn, we are in complete metaphysics.\n\nLet us try, now, with the joint data of psychology and political\neconomy, to define liberty.\n\nIf it is allowable to conceive of human reason, in its origin, as\na lucid and reflecting atom, capable of some day representing the\nuniverse, but at first giving no image at all, we may likewise\nconsider liberty, at the birth of conscience, as a living point,\npunctum saliens, a vague, blind, or, rather, indifferent\nspontaneity, capable of receiving all possible impressions,\ndispositions, and inclinations.  Liberty is the faculty of acting\nand of not acting, which, through any choice or determination\nwhatever (I use the word determination here both passively and\nactively), abandons its indifference and becomes WILL.\n\nI say, then, that liberty, like intelligence, is naturally an\nundetermined, unformed faculty, which gets its value and\ncharacter later from external impressions,--a faculty, therefore,\nwhich is negative at the beginning, but which gradually defines\nand outlines itself by exercise,--I mean, by education.\n\nThe etymology of the word liberty, at least as I understand it,\nwill serve still better to explain my thought.  The root is\nlib-et, he pleases (German, lieben, to love); whence have been\nconstructed lib-eri, children, those dear to us, a name reserved\nfor the children of the father of a family; lib-ertas, the\ncondition, character, or inclination of children of a noble race;\nlib-ido, the passion of a slave, who knows neither God nor law\nnor country, synonymous with licentia, evil conduct.  When\nspontaneity takes a useful, generous, or beneficent direction, it\nis called libertas; when, on the contrary, it takes a harmful,\nvicious, base, or evil direction, it is called libido.\n\nA learned economist, M. Dunoyer, has given a definition of\nliberty which, by its likeness to our own, will complete the\ndemonstration of its exactness.\n\n\nI call liberty that power which man acquires of using his forces\nmore easily in PROPORTION AS HE FREES HIMSELF from the obstacles\nwhich originally hindered the exercise thereof.  I say that he is\nthe FREER the more thoroughly DELIVERED he is from the causes\nwhich prevented him from making use of his forces, the farther\nfrom him he has driven these causes, the more he has extended and\ncleared the sphere of his action . . . .  Thus it is said that a\nman has a free mind, that he enjoys great liberty of mind, not\nonly when his intelligence is not disturbed by any external\nviolence, but also when it is neither obscured by intoxication,\nnor changed by disease, nor kept in impotence by lack of\nexercise.\n\n\nM. Dunoyer has here viewed liberty only on its negative\nside,--that is, as if it were simply synonymous with FREEDOM\nFROM OBSTACLES.  At that rate liberty would not be a faculty of\nman; it would be nothing.  But immediately M. Dunoyer, though\npersisting in his incomplete definition, seizes the true side of\nthe matter: then it is that it occurs to him to say that man, in\ninventing a machine, serves his liberty, not, as we express\nourselves, because he determines it, but, in M. Dunoyer's style,\nbecause he removes a difficulty from its path.\n\n\nThus articulate language is a better instrument than language by\nsign; therefore one is freer to express his thought and impress\nit upon the mind of another by speech than by gesture.  The\nwritten word is a more potent instrument than the spoken word;\ntherefore one is freer to act on the mind of his fellows when he\nknows how to picture the word to their eyes than when he simply\nknows how to speak it.  The press is an instrument two or three\nhundred times more potent than the pen; therefore one is two or\nthree hundred times freer to enter into relation with other men\nwhen he can spread his ideas by printing than when he can publish\nthem only by writing.\n\n\nI will not point out all that is inexact and illogical in this\nfashion of representing liberty.  Since Destutt de Tracy, the\nlast representative of the philosophy of Condillac, the\nphilosophical spirit has been obscured among economists of the\nFrench school; the fear of ideology has perverted their language,\nand one perceives, in reading them, that adoration of fact has\ncaused them to lose even the perception of theory.  I prefer to\nestablish the fact that M. Dunoyer, and political economy with\nhim, is not mistaken concerning the essence of liberty, a force,\nenergy, or spontaneity indifferent in itself to every action, and\nconsequently equally susceptible of any determination, good or\nbad, useful or harmful.  M. Dunoyer has had so strong a suspicion\nof the truth that he writes himself:\n\n\nInstead of considering liberty as a dogma, I shall present it as\na RESULT; instead of making it the attribute of man, I shall\nmake it the ATTRIBUTE OF CIVILIZATION; instead of imagining\nforms of government calculated to establish it, I shall do my\nbest to explain how it is BORN OF EVERY STEP OF OUR PROGRESS.\n\n\nThen he adds, with no less reason:\n\n\nIt will be noticed how much this method differs from that of\nthose dogmatic philosophers who talk only of rights and duties;\nof what it is the duty of governments to do and the right of\nnations to demand, etc.  I do not say sententiously: men have a\nright to be free; I confine myself to asking: how does it happen\nthat they are so?\n\n\nIn accordance with this exposition one may sum up in four lines\nthe work that M. Dunoyer has tried to do:  A REVIEW of the\nobstacles that IMPEDE liberty and the means (instruments,\nmethods, ideas, customs, religions, governments, etc.) that\nFAVOR it.  But for its omissions, the work of M. Dunoyer would\nhave been the very philosophy of political economy.\n\nAfter having raised the problem of liberty, political economy\nfurnishes us, then, with a definition conforming in every point\nto that given by psychology and suggested by the analogies of\nlanguage: and thus we see how, little by little, the study of man\ngets transported from the contemplation of the me to the\nobservation of realities.\n\nNow, just as the determinations of man's reason have received the\nname of IDEAS (abstract, supposed a priori ideas, or principles,\nconceptions, categories; and secondary ideas, or those more\nespecially acquired and empirical), so the determinations of\nliberty have received the name of VOLITIONS, sentiments, habits,\ncustoms.  Then, language, figurative in its nature, continuing to\nfurnish the elements of primary psychology, the habit has been\nformed of assigning to ideas, as the place or capacity where they\nreside, the INTELLIGENCE, and to volitions, sentiments, etc.,\nthe CONSCIENCE.  All these abstractions have been long taken for\nrealities by the philosophers, not one of whom has seen that all\ndistribution of the faculties of the soul is necessarily a work\nof caprice, and that their psychology is but an illusion.\n\nHowever that may be, if we now conceive these two orders of\ndeterminations, reason and liberty, as united and blended by\norganization in a living, reasonable, and free PERSON, we shall\nunderstand immediately that they must lend each other mutual\nassistance and influence each other reciprocally.  If, through an\nerror or oversight of the reason, liberty, blind by nature,\nacquires a false and fatal habit, the reason itself will not be\nslow to feel the effects; instead of true ideas, conforming to\nthe natural relations of things, it will retain only prejudices,\nas much more difficult to root out of the intelligence\nafterwards, as they have become dearer to the conscience through\nage.  In this state of things reason and liberty are impaired;\nthe first is disturbed in its development, the second restricted\nin its scope, and man is led astray, becomes, that is, wicked and\nunhappy at once.\n\nThus, when, in consequence of a contradictory perception and an\nincomplete experience, reason had pronounced through the lips of\nthe economists that there was no regulating principle of value\nand that the law of commerce was supply and demand, liberty\nabandoned itself to the passion of ambition, egoism, and\ngambling; commerce was thereafter but a wager subjected to\ncertain police regulations; misery developed from the sources of\nwealth; socialism, itself a slave of routine, could only protest\nagainst effects instead of rising against causes; and reason was\nobliged, by the sight of so many evils, to recognize that it had\ntaken a wrong road.\n\nMan can attain welfare only in proportion as his reason and his\nliberty not only progress in harmony, but never halt in their\ndevelopment.  Now, as the progress of liberty, like that of\nreason, is indefinite, and as, moreover, these two powers are\nclosely connected and solidary, it must be concluded that\nliberty is the more perfect the more closely it defines itself in\nconformity with the laws of reason, which are those of things,\nand that, if this reason were infinite, liberty itself would\nbecome infinite.  In other words, the fullness of liberty lies in\nthe fullness of reason: summa lex summa libertas.\n\nThese preliminaries were indispensable in order to clearly\nappreciate the role of machinery and to make plain the series of\neconomic evolutions.  And just here I will remind the reader that\nwe are not constructing a history in accordance with the order of\nevents, but in accordance with the succession of ideas.  The\neconomic phases or categories are now contemporary, now inverted,\nin their manifestation; hence the extreme difficulty always felt\nby the economists in systematizing their ideas; hence the chaos\nof their works, even those most to be commended in every other\nrespect, such as Adam Smith's, Ricardo's, and J. B. Say's.  But\neconomic theories none the less have their logical succession and\ntheir series in the mind: it is this order which we flatter\nourselves that we have discovered, and which will make this work\nat once a philosophy and a history.\n\n\n% 2.--Machinery's contradiction.--Origin of capital and wages.\n\nFrom the very fact that machinery diminishes the workman's toil,\nit abridges and diminishes labor, the supply of which thus grows\ngreater from day to day and the demand less.  Little by little,\nit is true, the reduction in prices causing an increase in\nconsumption, the proportion is restored and the laborer set at\nwork again: but as industrial improvements steadily succeed each\nother and continually tend to substitute mechanical operations\nfor the labor of man, it follows that there is a constant\ntendency to cut off a portion of the service and consequently to\neliminate laborers from production.  Now, it is with the economic\norder as with the spiritual order: outside of the church there is\nno salvation; outside of labor there is no subsistence.  Society\nand nature, equally pitiless, are in accord in the execution of\nthis new decree.\n\n\"When a new machine, or, in general, any process whatever that\nexpedites matters,\" says J. B. Say, \"replaces any human labor\nalready employed, some of the industrious arms, whose services\nare usefully supplanted, are left without work.  A new machine,\ntherefore, replaces the labor of a portion of the laborers, but\ndoes not diminish the amount of production, for, if it did, it\nwould not be adopted; IT DISPLACES REVENUE.  But the ultimate\nadvantage is wholly on the side of machinery, for, if abundance\nof product and lessening of cost lower the venal value, the\nconsumer--that is, everybody--will benefit thereby.\"\n\nSay's optimism is infidelity to logic and to facts.  The question\nhere is not simply one of a small number of accidents which have\nhappened during thirty centuries through the introduction of one,\ntwo, or three machines; it is a question of a regular, constant,\nand general phenomenon.  After revenue has been DISPLACED as Say\nsays, by one machine, it is then displaced by another, and again\nby another, and always by another, as long as any labor remains\nto be done and any exchanges remain to be effected.  That is the\nlight in which the phenomenon must be presented and considered:\nbut thus, it must be admitted, its aspect changes singularly.\nThe displacement of revenue, the suppression of labor and wages,\nis a chronic, permanent, indelible plague, a sort of cholera\nwhich now appears wearing the features of Gutenberg, now\nassumes those of Arkwright; here is called Jacquard, there James\nWatt or Marquis de Jouffroy.  After carrying on its ravages for a\nlonger or shorter time under one form, the monster takes another,\nand the economists, who think that he has gone, cry out:  \"It was\nnothing!\"  Tranquil and satisfied, provided they insist with all\nthe weight of their dialectics on the positive side of the\nquestion, they close their eyes to its subversive side,\nnotwithstanding which, when they are spoken to of poverty, they\nagain begin their sermons upon the improvidence and drunkenness\nof laborers.\n\nIn 1750,--M. Dunoyer makes the observation, and it may serve as a\nmeasure of all lucubrations of the same sort,--\"in 1750 the\npopulation of the duchy of Lancaster was 300,000 souls.  In 1801,\nthanks to the development of spinning machines, this population\nwas 672,000 souls.  In 1831 it was 1,336,000 souls.  Instead of\nthe 40,000 workmen whom the cotton industry formerly employed, it\nnow employs, since the invention of machinery, 1,500,000.\"\n\nM. Dunoyer adds that at the time when the number of workmen\nemployed in this industry increased in so remarkable a manner,\nthe price of labor rose one hundred and fifty per cent.\nPopulation, then, having simply followed industrial progress, its\nincrease has been a normal and irreproachable fact,--what do I\nsay?--a happy fact, since it is cited to the honor and glory of\nthe development of machinery.  But suddenly M. Dunoyer executes\nan about-face: this multitude of spinning-machines soon being out\nof work, wages necessarily declined; the population which the\nmachines had called forth found itself abandoned by the machines,\nat which M. Dunoyer declares:  Abuse of marriage is the cause of\npoverty.\n\nEnglish commerce, in obedience to the demand of the immense body\nof its patrons, summons workmen from all directions, and\nencourages marriage; as long as labor is abundant, marriage is an\nexcellent thing, the effects of which they are fond of quoting in\nthe interest of machinery; but, the patronage fluctuating, as\nsoon as work and wages are not to be had, they denounce the abuse\nof marriage, and accuse laborers of improvidence.  Political\neconomy--that is, proprietary despotism--can never be in the\nwrong: it must be the proletariat.\n\nThe example of printing has been cited many a time, always to\nsustain the optimistic view.  The number of persons supported\ntoday by the manufacture of books is perhaps a thousand times\nlarger than was that of the copyists and illuminators prior to\nGutenberg's time; therefore, they conclude with a satisfied air,\nprinting has injured nobody.  An infinite number of similar facts\nmight be cited, all of them indisputable, but not one of which\nwould advance the question a step.  Once more, no one denies that\nmachines have contributed to the general welfare; but I affirm,\nin regard to this incontestable fact, that the economists fall\nshort of the truth when they advance the absolute statement that\nTHE SIMPLIFICATION OF PROCESSES HAS NOWHERE RESULTED IN A\nDIMINUTION OF THE NUMBER OF HANDS EMPLOYED IN ANY INDUSTRY\nWHATEVER.  What the economists ought to say is that machinery,\nlike the division of labor, in the present system of social\neconomy is at once a source of wealth and a permanent and fatal\ncause of misery.\n\n\nIn 1836, in a Manchester mill, nine frames, each having three\nhundred and twenty-four spindles, were tended by four spinners.\nAfterwards the mules were doubled in length, which gave each of\nthe nine six hundred and eighty spindles and enabled two men to\ntend them.\n\n\nThere we have the naked fact of the elimination of the workman by\nthe machine.  By a simple device three workmen out of four are\nevicted; what matters it that fifty years later, the population\nof the globe having doubled and the trade of England having\nquadrupled, new machines will be constructed and the English\nmanufacturers will reemploy their workmen?  Do the economists\nmean to point to the increase of population as one of the\nbenefits of machinery?  Let them renounce, then, the theory of\nMalthus, and stop declaiming against the excessive fecundity\nof marriage.\n\n\nThey did not stop there: soon a new mechanical improvement\nenabled a single worker to do the work that formerly occupied\nfour.\n\n\nA new three-fourths reduction of manual work: in all, a reduction\nof human labor by fifteen-sixteenths.\n\n\nA Bolton manufacturer writes:  \"The elongation of the mules of\nour frames permits us to employ but twenty-six spinners where we\nemployed thirty-five in 1837.\"\n\n\nAnother decimation of laborers: one out of four is a victim.\n\nThese facts are taken from the \"Revue Economique\" of 1842; and\nthere is nobody who cannot point to similar ones.  I have\nwitnessed the introduction of printing machines, and I can say\nthat I have seen with my own eyes the evil which printers have\nsuffered thereby.  During the fifteen or twenty years that the\nmachines have been in use a portion of the workmen have gone back\nto composition, others have abandoned their trade, and some have\ndied of misery: thus laborers are continually crowded back in\nconsequence of industrial innovations.  Twenty years ago eighty\ncanal-boats furnished the navigation service between Beaucaire\nand Lyons; a score of steam-packets has displaced them all.\nCertainly commerce is the gainer; but what has become of the\nboating-population?  Has it been transferred from the boats to\nthe packets?  No: it has gone where all superseded industries\ngo,--it has vanished.\n\nFor the rest, the following documents, which I take from the same\nsource, will give a more positive idea of the influence of\nindustrial improvements upon the condition of the workers.\n\n\nThe average weekly wages, at Manchester, is ten shillings.  Out\nof four hundred and fifty workers there are not forty who earn\ntwenty shillings.\n\n\nThe author of the article is careful to remark that an Englishman\nconsumes five times as much as a Frenchman; this, then, is as if\na French workingman had to live on two francs and a half a week.\n\n\n\"Edinburgh Review,\" 1835:  \"To a combination of workmen (who did\nnot want to see their wages reduced) we owe the mule of Sharpe\nand Roberts of Manchester; and this invention has severely\npunished the imprudent unionists.\"\n\n\nPUNISHED should merit punishment.  The invention of Sharpe and\nRoberts of Manchester was bound to result from the situation; the\nrefusal of the workmen to submit to the reduction asked of them\nwas only its determining occasion.  Might not one infer, from the\nair of vengeance affected by the \"Edinburgh Review,\" that\nmachines have a retroactive effect?\n\n\nAn English manufacturer:  \"The insubordination of our workmen has\ngiven us the idea of DISPENSING WITH THEM.  We have made and\nstimulated every imaginable effort of the mind to replace the\nservice of men by tools more docile, and we have achieved our\nobject.  Machinery has delivered capital from the oppression of\nlabor.  Wherever we still employ a man, we do so only\ntemporarily, pending the invention for us of some means of\naccomplishing his work without him.\"\n\nWhat a system is that which leads a business man to think with\ndelight that society will soon be able to dispense with men!\nMACHINERY HAS DELIVERED CAPITAL FROM THE OPPRESSION OF LABOR!\nThat is exactly as if the cabinet should undertake to deliver the\ntreasury from the oppression of the taxpayers.  Fool! though the\nworkmen cost you something, they are your customers: what will\nyou do with your products, when, driven away by you, they shall\nconsume them no longer?  Thus machinery, after crushing the\nworkmen, is not slow in dealing employers a counter-blow; for, if\nproduction excludes consumption, it is soon obliged to stop\nitself.\n\n\nDuring the fourth quarter of 1841 four great failures, happening\nin an English manufacturing city, threw seventeen hundred and\ntwenty people on the street.\n\n\nThese failures were caused by over-production,--that is, by an\ninadequate market, or the distress of the people.  What a pity\nthat machinery cannot also deliver capital from the oppression of\nconsumers!  What a misfortune that machines do not buy the\nfabrics which they weave!  The ideal society will be reached when\ncommerce, agriculture, and manufactures can proceed without a man\nupon earth!\n\n\nIn a Yorkshire parish for nine months the operatives have been\nworking but two days a week.\n\n\nMachines!\n\n\nAt Geston two factories valued at sixty thousand pounds sterling\nhave been sold for twenty-six thousand.  They produced more than\nthey could sell.\n\n\nMachines!\n\n\nIn 1841 the number of children UNDER thirteen years of age\nengaged in manufactures diminishes, because children OVER\nthirteen take their place.\n\n\nMachines!  The adult workman becomes an apprentice, a child,\nagain: this result was foreseen from the phase of the division of\nlabor, during which we saw the quality of the workman degenerate\nin the ratio in which industry was perfected.\n\nIn his conclusion the journalist makes this reflection:  \"Since\n1836 there has been a retrograde movement in the cotton\nindustry\";--that is, it no longer keeps up its relation with\nother industries: another result foreseen from the theory of the\nproportionality of values.\n\nToday workmen's coalitions and strikes seem to have stopped\nthroughout England, and the economists rightly rejoice over this\nreturn to order,-- let us say even to common sense.  But because\nlaborers henceforth--at least I cherish the hope--will not add\nthe misery of their voluntary periods of idleness to the misery\nwhich machines force upon them, does it follow that the situation\nis changed?  And if there is no change in the situation, will not\nthe future always be a deplorable copy of the past?\n\nThe economists love to rest their minds on pictures of public\nfelicity: it is by this sign principally that they are to be\nrecognized, and that they estimate each other.  Nevertheless\nthere are not lacking among them, on the other hand, moody and\nsickly imaginations, ever ready to offset accounts of growing\nprosperity with proofs of persistent poverty.\n\nM. Theodore Fix thus summed up the general situation in December,\n1844:\n\n\nThe food supply of nations is no longer exposed to those terrible\ndisturbances caused by scarcities and famines, so frequent up to\nthe beginning of the nineteenth century.  The variety of\nagricultural growths and improvements has abolished this double\nscourge almost absolutely.  The total wheat crop in France in\n1791 was estimated at about 133,000,000 bushels, which gave,\nafter deducting seed, 2.855 bushels to each inhabitant.  In 1840\nthe same crop was estimated at 198,590,000 bushels, or 2.860\nbushels to each individual, the area of cultivated surface being\nalmost the same as before the Revolution. . . .  The rate of\nincrease of manufactured goods has been at least as high as\nthat of food products; and we are justified in saying that the\nmass of textile fabrics has more than doubled and perhaps tripled\nwithin fifty years.  The perfecting of technical processes has\nled to this result. . . .\n\nSince the beginning of the century the average duration of life\nhas increased by two or three years,--an undeniable sign of\ngreater comfort, or, if you will, a diminution of poverty.\n\nWithin twenty years the amount of indirect revenue, without any\nburdensome change in legislation, has risen from $40,000,000\nfrancs to 720,000,000,--a symptom of economic, much more than of\nfiscal, progress.\n\nOn January 1, 1844, the deposit and consignment office owed the\nsavings banks 351,500,000 francs, and Paris figured in this sum\nfor 105,000,000.  Nevertheless the development of the institution\nhas taken place almost wholly within twelve years, and it should\nbe noticed that the 351,500,000 francs now due to the savings\nbanks do not constitute the entire mass of economies effected,\nsince at a given time the capital accumulated is disposed of\notherwise. . . .  In 1843, out of 320,000 workmen and 80,000\nhouse-servants living in the capital, 90,000 workmen have\ndeposited in the savings banks 2,547,000 francs, and 34,000\nhouse-servants 1,268,000 francs.\n\n\nAll these facts are entirely true, and the inference to be drawn\nfrom them in favor of machines is of the exactest,--namely, that\nthey have indeed given a powerful impetus to the general welfare.\n\nBut the facts with which we shall supplement them are no less\nauthentic, and the inference to be drawn from these against\nmachines will be no less accurate,--to wit, that they are a\ncontinual cause of pauperism.  I appeal to the figures of M. Fix\nhimself.\n\nOut of 320,000 workmen and 80,000 house-servants residing in\nParis, there are 230,000 of the former and 46,000 of the\nlatter--a total of 276,000--who do not deposit in the savings\nbanks.  No one would dare pretend that these are 276,000\nspendthrifts and ne'er-do-weels who expose themselves to misery\nvoluntarily.  Now, as among the very ones who make the savings\nthere are to be found poor and inferior persons for whom the\nsavings bank is but a respite from debauchery and misery, we may\nconclude that, out of all the individuals living by their labor,\nnearly three-fourths either are imprudent, lazy, and depraved,\nsince they do not deposit in the savings banks, or are too poor\nto lay up anything.  There is no other alternative.  But common\nsense, to say nothing of charity, permits no wholesale accusation\nof the laboring class: it is necessary, therefore, to throw the\nblame back upon our economic system.  How is it that M. Fix did\nnot see that his figures accused themselves?\n\nThey hope that, in time, all, or almost all, laborers will\ndeposit in the savings banks.  Without awaiting the testimony of\nthe future, we may test the foundations of this hope immediately.\n\nAccording to the testimony of M. Vee, mayor of the fifth\narrondissement of Paris, \"the number of needy families inscribed\nupon the registers of the charity bureaus is 30,000,-- which is\nequivalent to 65,000 individuals.\"  The census taken at the\nbeginning of 1846 gave 88,474.  And poor families not\ninscribed,--how many are there of those?  As many.  Say, then,\n180,000 people whose poverty is not doubtful, although not\nofficial.  And all those who live in straitened circumstances,\nthough keeping up the appearance of comfort,--how many are there\nof those?  Twice as many,--a total of 360,000 persons, in Paris,\nwho are somewhat embarrassed for means.\n\n\n\"They talk of wheat,\" cries another economist, M. Louis Leclerc,\n\"but are there not immense populations which go without bread?\nWithout leaving our own country, are there not populations which\nlive exclusively on maize, buckwheat, chestnuts?\"\n\n\nM. Leclerc denounces the fact: let us interpret it.  If, as there\nis no doubt, the increase of population is felt principally\nin the large cities,--that is, at those points where the most\nwheat is consumed,--it is clear that the average per head may\nhave increased without any improvement in the general condition.\nThere is no such liar as an average.\n\n\n\"They talk,\" continues the same writer, \"of the increase of\nindirect consumption.  Vain would be the attempt to acquit\nParisian adulteration: it exists; it has its masters, its adepts,\nits literature, its didactic and classic treatises. . . .  France\npossessed exquisite wines; what has been done with them?  What\nhas become of this splendid wealth?  Where are the treasures\ncreated since Probus by the national genius?  And yet, when one\nconsiders the excesses to which wine gives rise wherever it is\ndear, wherever it does not form a part of the regular life of the\npeople; when in Paris, capital of the kingdom of good wines, one\nsees the people gorging themselves with I know not what,--stuff\nthat is adulterated, sophisticated, sickening, and sometimes\nexecrable,--and well-to-do persons drinking at home or accepting\nwithout a word, in famous restaurants, so-called wines, thick,\nviolet-colored, and insipid, flat, and miserable enough to make\nthe poorest Burgundian peasant shudder,--can one honestly doubt\nthat alcoholic liquids are one of the most imperative needs of\nour nature?\n\n\nI quote this passage at length, because it sums up in relation to\na special case all that could be said upon the INCONVENIENCES of\nmachinery.  To the people it is with wine as with fabrics, and\ngenerally with all goods and merchandise created for the\nconsumption of the poor.  It is always the same deduction: to\nreduce by some process or other the cost of manufacture, in\norder, first, to maintain advantageously competition with more\nfortunate or richer rivals; second, to serve the vast numbers of\nplundered persons who cannot disregard price simply because the\nquality is good.  Produced in the ordinary ways, wine is too\nexpensive for the mass of consumers; it is in danger of remaining\nin the cellars of the retailers.  The manufacturer of wines gets\naround the difficulty: unable to introduce machinery into the\ncultivation of the vine, he finds a means, with the aid of\nsome accompaniments, of placing the precious liquid within the\nreach of all.  Certain savages, in their periods of scarcity, eat\nearth; the civilized workman drinks water.  Malthus was a great\ngenius.\n\nAs far as the increase of the average duration of life is\nconcerned, I recognize the fact, but at the same time I declare\nthe observation incorrect.  Let us explain that.  Suppose a\npopulation of ten million souls: if, from whatever cause you\nwill, the average life should increase five years for a million\nindividuals, mortality continuing its ravages at the same rate as\nbefore among the nine other millions, it would be found, on\ndistributing this increase among the whole, that on an average\nsix months had been added to the life of each individual.  It is\nwith the average length of life, the so-called indicator of\naverage comfort, as with average learning: the level of knowledge\ndoes not cease to rise, which by no means alters the fact that\nthere are today in France quite as many barbarians as in the days\nof Francois I.  The charlatans who had railroad speculation in\nview made a great noise about the importance of the locomotive in\nthe circulation of ideas; and the economists, always on the\nlookout for civilized stupidities, have not failed to echo this\nnonsense.  As if ideas, in order to spread, needed locomotives!\nWhat, then, prevents ideas from circulating from the Institute to\nthe Faubourgs Saint-Antoine and Saint-Marceau, in the narrow and\nwretched streets of Old Paris and the Temple Quarter, everywhere,\nin short, where dwells this multitude even more destitute of\nideas than of bread?  How happens it that between a Parisian and\na Parisian, in spite of the omnibus and the letter-carrier, the\ndistance is three times greater today than in the fourteenth\ncentury?\n\nThe ruinous influence of machinery on social economy and the\ncondition of the laborers is exercised in a thousand ways, all of\nwhich are bound together and reciprocally labelled: cessation of\nlabor, reduction of wages, over-production, obstruction of the\nmarket, alteration and adulteration of products, failures,\ndisplacement of laborers, degeneration of the race, and, finally,\ndiseases and death.\n\nM. Theodore Fix has remarked himself that in the last fifty years\nthe average stature of man, in France, has diminished by a\nconsiderable fraction of an inch.  This observation is worth his\nprevious one: upon whom does this diminution take effect?\n\nIn a report read to the Academy of Moral Sciences on the results\nof the law of March 22, 1841, M. Leon Faucher expressed himself\nthus:\n\n\nYoung workmen are pale, weak, short in stature, and slow to think\nas well as to move.  At fourteen or fifteen years they seem no\nmore developed than children of nine or ten years in the normal\nstate.  As for their intellectual and moral development, there\nare some to be found who, at the age of thirteen, have no notion\nof God, who have never heard of their duties, and whose first\nschool of morality was a prison.\n\n\nThat is what M. Leon Faucher has seen, to the great displeasure\nof M. Charles Dupin, and this state of things he declares that\nthe law of March 22 is powerless to remedy.  And let us not get\nangry over this impotence of the legislator: the evil arises from\na cause as necessary for us as the sun; and in the path upon\nwhich we have entered, anger of any kind, like palliatives of any\nkind, could only make our situation worse.  Yes, while science\nand industry are making such marvellous progress, it is a\nnecessity, unless civilization's centre of gravity should\nsuddenly change, that the intelligence and comfort of the\nproletariat be diminished; while the lives of the well-to-do\nclasses grow longer and easier, it is inevitable that those of\nthe needy should grow harder and shorter.  This is established in\nthe writings of the best--I mean, the most optimistic--thinkers.\n\nAccording to M. de Morogues, 7,500,000 men in France have only\nninety- one francs a year to spend, 25 centimes a day.  Cinq\nsous! cinq sous! (Five cents! five cents!).  There is something\nprophetic, then, in this odious refrain.\n\nIn England (not including Scotland and Ireland) the poor-rate\nwas:\n\n1801.--L\n4,078,891 for a population of. . . . .8,872,980\n1818.--L\n7,870,801  \"  \"      \"      \" . . . .11,978,875\n1833.--L\n8,000,000  \"  \"      \"      \" . . . .14,000,000\n\n\nThe progress of poverty, then, has been more rapid than that of\npopulation; in face of this fact, what becomes of the hypotheses\nof Malthus?  And yet it is indisputable that during the same\nperiod the average comfort increased: what, then, do statistics\nsignify?\n\nThe death-rate for the first arrondissement of Paris is one to\nevery fifty-two inhabitants, and for the twelfth one to every\ntwenty-six.  Now, the latter contains one needy person to every\nseven inhabitants, while the former has only one to every\ntwenty-eight.  That does not prevent the average duration of\nlife, even in Paris, from increasing, as M. Fix has very\ncorrectly observed.\n\nAt Mulhouse the probabilities of average life are twenty-nine\nyears for children of the well-to-do class and TWO years for\nthose of the workers; in 1812 the average life in the same\nlocality was twenty-five years, nine months, and twelve days,\nwhile in 1827 it was not over twenty-one years and nine months.\nAnd yet throughout France the average life is longer.  What does\nthis mean?\n\nM. Blanqui, unable to explain so much prosperity and so much\npoverty at once, cries somewhere:  \"Increased production does not\nmean additional wealth. . . .  Poverty, on the contrary, becomes\nthe wider spread in proportion to the concentration of\nindustries.  There must be some radical vice in a system which\nguarantees no security either to capital or labor, and which\nseems to multiply the embarrassments of producers at the same\ntime that it forces them to multiply their products.\"\n\nThere is no radical vice here.  What astonishes M. Blanqui is\nsimply that of which the Academy to which he belongs has asked a\ndetermination,--namely, the oscillations of the economic\npendulum, VALUE, beating alternately and in regular time good and\nevil, until the hour of the universal equation shall strike.  If\nI may be permitted another comparison, humanity in its march is\nlike a column of soldiers, who, starting in the same step and at\nthe same moment to the measured beating of the drum, gradually\nlose their distances.  The whole body advances, but the distance\nfrom head to tail grows ever longer; and it is a necessary effect\nof the movement that there should be some laggards and\nstragglers.\n\nBut it is necessary to penetrate still farther into the antinomy.\n\nMachines promised us an increase of wealth; they have kept their\nword, but at the same time endowing us with an increase of\npoverty.  They promised us liberty; I am going to prove that they\nhave brought us slavery.\n\nI have stated that the determination of value, and with it the\ntribulations of society, began with the division of industries,\nwithout which there could be no exchange, or wealth, or progress.\n\nThe period through which we are now passing--that of\nmachinery--is distinguished by a special characteristic,--WAGES.\n\nWages issued in a direct line from the employment of\nmachinery,--that is, to give my thought the entire generality of\nexpression which it calls for, from the economic fiction by which\ncapital becomes an agent of production.  Wages, in short, coming\nafter the division of labor and exchange, is the necessary\ncorrelative of the theory of the reduction of costs, in whatever\nway this reduction may be accomplished.  This genealogy is too\ninteresting to be passed by without a few words of explanation.\n\nThe first, the simplest, the most powerful of machines is the\nWORKSHOP.\n\nDivision simply separates the various parts of labor, leaving\neach to devote himself to the specialty best suited to his\ntastes: the workshop groups the laborers according to the\nrelation of each part to the whole.  It is the most elementary\nform of the balance of values, undiscoverable though the\neconomists suppose this to be.  Now, through the workshop,\nproduction is going to increase, and at the same time the\ndeficit.\n\nSomebody discovered that, by dividing production into its various\nparts and causing each to be executed by a separate workman, he\nwould obtain a multiplication of power, the product of which\nwould be far superior to the amount of labor given by the same\nnumber of workmen when labor is not divided.\n\nGrasping the thread of this idea, he said to himself that, by\nforming a permanent group of laborers assorted with a view to his\nspecial purpose, he would produce more steadily, more abundantly,\nand at less cost.  It is not indispensable, however, that the\nworkmen should be gathered into one place: the existence of the\nworkshop does not depend essentially upon such contact.  It\nresults from the relation and proportion of the different tasks\nand from the common thought directing them.  In a word,\nconcentration at one point may offer its advantages, which are\nnot to be neglected; but that is not what constitutes the\nworkshop.\n\nThis, then, is the proposition which the speculator makes to\nthose whose collaboration he desires: I guarantee you a perpetual\nmarket for your products, if you will accept me as purchaser or\nmiddle-man.  The bargain is so clearly advantageous that the\nproposition cannot fail of acceptance.  The laborer finds in it\nsteady work, a fixed price, and security; the employer, on the\nother hand, will find a readier sale for his goods, since,\nproducing more advantageously, he can lower the price; in short,\nhis profits will be larger because of the mass of his\ninvestments.  All, even to the public and the magistrate, will\ncongratulate the employer on having added to the social wealth by\nhis combinations, and will vote him a reward.\n\nBut, in the first place, whoever says reduction of expenses says\nreduction of services, not, it is true, in the new shop, but for\nthe workers at the same trade who are left outside, as well as\nfor many others whose accessory services will be less needed in\nfuture.  Therefore every establishment of a workshop corresponds\nto an eviction of workers: this assertion, utterly contradictory\nthough it may appear, is as true of the workshop as of a machine.\n\nThe economists admit it: but here they repeat their eternal\nrefrain that, after a lapse of time, the demand for the product\nhaving increased in proportion to the reduction of price, labor\nin turn will come finally to be in greater demand than ever.\nUndoubtedly, WITH TIME, the equilibrium will be restored; but, I\nmust add again, the equilibrium will be no sooner restored at\nthis point than it will be disturbed at another, because the\nspirit of invention never stops, any more than labor.  Now, what\ntheory could justify these perpetual hecatombs?\"  When we have\nreduced the number of toilers,\" wrote Sismondi, \"to a fourth or a\nfifth of what it is at present, we shall need only a fourth or a\nfifth as many priests, physicians, etc.  When we have cut them\noff altogether, we shall be in a position to dispense with the\nhuman race.\"  And that is what really would happen if, in order\nto put the labor of each machine in proportion to the needs of\nconsumption,--that is, to restore the balance of values\ncontinually destroyed,--it were not necessary to continually\ncreate new machines, open other markets, and consequently\nmultiply services and displace other arms.  So that on the one\nhand industry and wealth, on the other population and misery,\nadvance, so to speak, in procession, one always dragging the\nother after it.\n\nI have shown the contractor, at the birth of industry,\nnegotiating on equal terms with his comrades, who have since\nbecome HIS WORKMEN.  It is plain, in fact, that this original\nequality was bound to disappear through the advantageous position\nof the master and the dependence of the wage-workers.  In vain\ndoes the law assure to each the right of enterprise, as well as\nthe faculty to labor alone and sell one's products directly.\nAccording to the hypothesis, this last resource is impracticable,\nsince it was the object of the workshop to annihilate isolated\nlabor.  And as for the right to take the plough, as they say, and\ngo at speed, it is the same in manufactures as in agriculture; to\nknow how to work is nothing, it is necessary to arrive at the\nright time; the shop, as well as the land, is to the first comer.\n\nWhen an establishment has had the leisure to develop itself,\nenlarge its foundations, ballast itself with capital, and assure\nitself a body of patrons, what can the workman who has only\nhis arms do against a power so superior?  Hence it was not by an\narbitrary act of sovereign power or by fortuitous and brutal\nusurpation that the guilds and masterships were established in\nthe Middle Ages: the force of events had created them long before\nthe edicts of kings could have given them legal consecration;\nand, in spite of the reform of '89, we see them reestablishing\nthemselves under our eyes with an energy a hundred times more\nformidable.  Abandon labor to its own tendencies, and the\nsubjection of three-fourths of the human race is assured.\n\nBut this is not all.  The machine, or the workshop, after having\ndegraded the laborer by giving him a master, completes his\ndegeneracy by reducing him from the rank of artisan to that of\ncommon workman.\n\nFormerly the population on the banks of the Saone and Rhone was\nlargely made up of watermen, thoroughly fitted for the conduct of\ncanal-boats or row-boats.  Now that the steam-tug is to be found\nalmost everywhere, most of the boatmen, finding it impossible to\nget a living at their trade, either pass three-fourths of their\nlife in idleness, or else become stokers.\n\nIf not misery, then degradation: such is the last alternative\nwhich machinery offers to the workman.  For it is with a machine\nas with a piece of artillery: the captain excepted, those whom it\noccupies are servants, slaves.\n\nSince the establishment of large factories, a multitude of little\nindustries have disappeared from the domestic hearth: does any\none believe that the girls who work for ten and fifteen cents\nhave as much intelligence as their ancestors?\n\n\n\"After the establishment of the railway from Paris to Saint\nGermain,\" M. Dunoyer tells us, \"there were established between\nPecq and a multitude of places in the more or less immediate\nvicinity such a number of omnibus and stage lines that this\nestablishment, contrary to all expectation, has considerably\nincreased the employment of horses.\"\n\n\nCONTRARY TO ALL EXPECTATION!  It takes an economist not to\nexpect these things.  Multiply machinery, and you increase the\namount of arduous and disagreeable labor to be done: this\napothegm is as certain as any of those which date from the\ndeluge.  Accuse me, if you choose, of ill-will towards the most\nprecious invention of our century,--nothing shall prevent me from\nsaying that the principal result of railways, after the\nsubjection of petty industry, will be the creation of a\npopulation of degraded laborers,--signalmen, sweepers, loaders,\nlumpers, draymen, watchmen, porters, weighers, greasers,\ncleaners, stokers, firemen, etc.  Two thousand miles of railway\nwill give France an additional fifty thousand serfs: it is not\nfor such people, certainly, that M. Chevalier asks professional\nschools.\n\nPerhaps it will be said that, the mass of transportation having\nincreased in much greater proportion than the number of\nday-laborers, the difference is to the advantage of the railway,\nand that, all things considered, there is progress.  The\nobservation may even be generalized and the same argument applied\nto all industries.\n\nBut it is precisely out of this generality of the phenomenon that\nsprings the subjection of laborers.  Machinery plays the leading\nrole in industry, man is secondary: all the genius displayed by\nlabor tends to the degradation of the proletariat.  What a\nglorious nation will be ours when, among forty millions of\ninhabitants, it shall count thirty-five millions of drudges,\npaper-scratchers, and flunkies!\n\nWith machinery and the workshop, divine right--that is, the\nprinciple of authority--makes its entrance into political\neconomy.  Capital, Mastership, Privilege, Monopoly, Loaning,\nCredit, Property, etc.,--such are, in economic language, the\nvarious names of I know not what, but which is otherwise called\nPower, Authority, Sovereignty, Written Law, Revelation, Religion,\nGod in short, cause and principle of all our miseries and all our\ncrimes, and who, the more we try to define him, the more eludes\nus.\n\nIs it, then, impossible that, in the present condition of\nsociety, the workshop with its hierarchical organization, and\nmachinery, instead of serving exclusively the interests of the\nleast numerous, the least industrious, and the wealthiest class,\nshould be employed for the benefit of all?\n\nThat is what we are going to examine.\n\n\n% 3.--Of preservatives against the disastrous influence of\nmachinery.\n\nReduction of manual labor is synonymous with lowering of price,\nand, consequently, with increase of exchange, since, if the\nconsumer pays less, he will buy more.\n\nBut reduction of manual labor is synonymous also with restriction\nof market, since, if the producer earns less, he will buy less.\nAnd this is the course that things actually take.  The\nconcentration of forces in the workshop and the intervention of\ncapital in production, under the name of machinery, engender at\nthe same time overproduction and destitution; and everybody has\nwitnessed these two scourges, more to be feared than incendiarism\nand plague, develop in our day on the vastest scale and with\ndevouring intensity.  Nevertheless it is impossible for us to\nretreat: it is necessary to produce, produce always, produce\ncheaply; otherwise, the existence of society is compromised.  The\nlaborer, who, to escape the degradation with which the principle\nof division threatened him, had created so many marvellous\nmachines, now finds himself either prohibited or subjugated by\nhis own works.  Against this alternative what means are proposed?\n\nM. de Sismondi, like all men of patriarchal ideas, would like the\ndivision of labor, with machinery and manufactures, to be\nabandoned, and each family to return to the system of primitive\nindivision,--that is, to EACH ONE BY HIMSELF, EACH ONE FOR\nHIMSELF, in the most literal meaning of the words.  That would be\nto retrograde; it is impossible.\n\nM. Blanqui returns to the charge with his plan of participation\nby the workman, and of consolidation of all industries in a\njoint-stock company for the benefit of the collective laborer.  I\nhave shown that this plan would impair public welfare without\nappreciably improving the condition of the laborers; and M.\nBlanqui himself seems to share this sentiment.  How reconcile, in\nfact, this participation of the workman in the profits with the\nrights of inventors, contractors, and capitalists, of whom the\nfirst have to reimburse themselves for large outlays, as well as\nfor their long and patient efforts; the second continually\nendanger the wealth they have acquired, and take upon themselves\nalone the chances of their enterprises, which are often very\nhazardous; and the third could sustain no reduction of their\ndividends without in some way losing their savings?  How\nharmonize, in a word, the equality desirable to establish between\nlaborers and employers with the preponderance which cannot be\ntaken from heads of establishments, from loaners of capital, and\nfrom inventors, and which involves so clearly their exclusive\nappropriation of the profits?  To decree by a law the admission\nof all workmen to a share of the profits would be to pronounce\nthe dissolution of society: all the economists have seen\nthis so clearly that they have finally changed into an\nexhortation to employers what had first occurred to them as a\nproject.  Now, as long as the wage-worker gets no profit save\nwhat may be allowed him by the contractor, it is perfectly safe\nto assume that eternal poverty will be his lot: it is not in the\npower of the holders of labor to make it otherwise.\n\nFor the rest, the idea, otherwise very laudable, of associating\nworkmen with employers tends to this communistic conclusion,\nevidently false in its premises: The last word of machinery is to\nmake man rich and happy without the necessity of labor on his\npart.  Since, then, natural agencies must do everything for us,\nmachinery ought to belong to the State, and the goal of progress\nis communism.\n\nI shall examine the communistic theory in its place.\n\nBut I believe that I ought to immediately warn the partisans of\nthis utopia that the hope with which they flatter themselves in\nrelation to machinery is only an illusion of the economists,\nsomething like perpetual motion, which is always sought and never\nfound, because asked of a power which cannot give it.  Machines\ndo not go all alone: to keep them in motion it is necessary to\norganize an immense service around them; so that in the end, man\ncreating for himself an amount of work proportional to the number\nof instruments with which he surrounds himself, the principal\nconsideration in the matter of machinery is much less to divide\nits products than to see that it is fed,--that is, to continually\nrenew the motive power.  Now, this motive power is not air,\nwater, steam, electricity; it is labor,--that is, the market.\n\nA railroad suppresses all along its line conveyances, stages,\nharness- makers, saddlers, wheelwrights, inn-keepers:  I take\nfacts as they are just after the establishment of the road.\nSuppose the State, as a measure of preservation or in obedience\nto the principle of indemnity, should make the laborers displaced\nby the railroad its proprietors or operators: the transportation\nrates, let us suppose, being reduced by twenty-five per cent.\n(otherwise of what use is the railroad?), the income of all these\nlaborers united will be diminished by a like amount,--which is to\nsay that a fourth of the persons formerly living by conveyances\nwill find themselves literally without resources, in spite of the\nmunificence of the State.  To meet their deficit they have but\none hope,--that the mass of transportation effected over the line\nmay be increased by twenty-five per cent., or else that they may\nfind employment in other lines of industry,--which seems at first\nimpossible, since, by the hypothesis and in fact, places are\neverywhere filled, proportion is maintained everywhere, and the\nsupply is sufficient for the demand.\n\nMoreover it is very necessary, if it be desired to increase the\nmass of transportation, that a fresh impetus be given to labor in\nother industries.  Now, admitting that the laborers displaced by\nthis over- production find employment, and that their\ndistribution among the various kinds of labor proves as easy in\npractice as in theory, the difficulty is still far from settled.\nFor the number of those engaged in circulation being to the\nnumber of those engaged in production as one hundred to one\nthousand, in order to obtain, with a circulation one- fourth less\nexpensive,--in other words, one-fourth more powerful,--the same\nrevenue as before, it will be necessary to strengthen production\nalso by one-fourth,--that is, to add to the agricultural and\nindustrial army, not twenty-five,--the figure which indicates the\nproportionality of the carrying industry,--but two hundred and\nfifty.  But, to arrive at this result, it will be necessary\nto create machines,--what is worse, to create men: which\ncontinually brings the question back to the same point.  Thus\ncontradiction upon contradiction: now not only is labor, in\nconsequence of machinery, lacking to men, but also men, in\nconsequence of their numerical weakness and the insufficiency of\ntheir consumption, are lacking to machinery: so that, pending the\nestablishment of equilibrium, there is at once a lack of work and\na lack of arms, a lack of products and a lack of markets.  And\nwhat we say of the railroad is true of all industries: always the\nman and the machine pursue each other, the former never attaining\nrest, the latter never attaining satisfaction.\n\nWhatever the pace of mechanical progress; though machines should\nbe invented a hundred times more marvellous than the mule-jenny,\nthe knitting-machine, or the cylinder press; though forces should\nbe discovered a hundred times more powerful than steam,--very far\nfrom freeing humanity, securing its leisure, and making the\nproduction of everything gratuitous, these things would have no\nother effect than to multiply labor, induce an increase of\npopulation, make the chains of serfdom heavier, render life more\nand more expensive, and deepen the abyss which separates the\nclass that commands and enjoys from the class that obeys and\nsuffers.\n\nSuppose now all these difficulties overcome; suppose the laborers\nmade available by the railroad adequate to the increase of\nservice demanded for the support of the locomotive,--compensation\nbeing effected without pain, nobody will suffer; on the contrary,\nthe well-being of each will be increased by a fraction of the\nprofit realized by the substitution of the railway for the\nstage-coach.  What then, I shall be asked, prevents these things\nfrom taking place with such regularity and precision?  And what\nis easier than for an intelligent government to so manage all\nindustrial transitions?\n\nI have pushed the hypothesis as far as it could go in order to\nshow, on the one hand, the end to which humanity is tending, and,\non the other, the difficulties which it must overcome in order to\nattain it.  Surely the providential order is that progress should\nbe effected, in so far as machinery is concerned, in the way that\nI have just spoken of: but what embarrasses society's march and\nmakes it go from Charybdis to Scylla is precisely the fact that\nit is not organized.  We have reached as yet only the second\nphase of its evolution, and already we have met upon our road two\nchasms which seem insuperable,--division of labor and machinery.\nHow save the parcellaire workman, if he is a man of intelligence,\nfrom degradation, or, if he is degraded already, lift him to\nintellectual life?  How, in the second place, give birth among\nlaborers to that solidarity of interest without which industrial\nprogress counts its steps by its catastrophes, when these same\nlaborers are radically divided by labor, wages, intelligence, and\nliberty,--that is, by egoism?  How, in short, reconcile what the\nprogress already accomplished has had the effect of rendering\nirreconcilable?  To appeal to communism and fraternity would be\nto anticipate dates: there is nothing in common, there can exist\nno fraternity, between such creatures as the division of labor\nand the service of machinery have made.  It is not in that\ndirection--at least for the present--that we must seek a\nsolution.\n\nWell! it will be said, since the evil lies still more in the\nminds than in the system, let us come back to instruction, let us\nlabor for the education of the people.\n\nIn order that instruction may be useful, in order that it may\neven be received, it is necessary, first of all, that the pupil\nshould be free, just as, before planting a piece of ground, we\nclear it of thorns and dog-grass.  Moreover, the best system\nof education, even so far as philosophy and morality are\nconcerned, would be that of professional education: once more,\nhow reconcile such education with parcellaire division and the\nservice of machinery?  How shall the man who, by the effect of\nhis labor, has become a slave,--that is, a chattel, a thing,--\nagain become a person by the same labor, or in continuing the\nsame exercise?  Why is it not seen that these ideas are mutually\nrepellent, and that, if, by some impossibility, the proletaire\ncould reach a certain degree of intelligence, he would make use\nof it in the first place to revolutionize society and change all\ncivil and industrial relations?  And what I say is no vain\nexaggeration.  The working class, in Paris and the large cities,\nis vastly superior in point of ideas to what it was twenty-five\nyears ago; now, let them tell me if this class is not decidedly,\nenergetically revolutionary!  And it will become more and more so\nin proportion as it shall acquire the ideas of justice and order,\nin proportion especially as it shall reach an understanding of\nthe mechanism of property.\n\nLanguage,--I ask permission to recur once more to\netymology,--language seems to me to have clearly expressed the\nmoral condition of the laborer, after he has been, if I may so\nspeak, depersonalized by industry.  In the Latin the idea of\nservitude implies that of subordination of man to things; and\nwhen later feudal law declared the serf ATTACHED TO THE GLEBE, it\nonly periphrased the literal meaning of the word servus.[16]\nSpontaneous reason, oracle of fate itself, had therefore\ncondemned the subaltern workman, before science had established\nhis debasement.  Such being the case, what can the efforts of\nphilanthropy do for beings whom Providence has rejected?\n\n\n[16] In spite of the most approved authorities, I cannot accept\nthe idea that serf, in Latin servus, was so called from servare,\nto keep, because the slave was a prisoner of war who was kept for\nlabor.  Servitude, or at least domesticity, is certainly prior to\nwar, although war may have noticeably strengthened it.  Why,\nmoreover, if such was the origin of the idea as well as of the\nthing, should they not have said, instead of serv-us, serv-atus,\nin conformity with grammatical deduction?  To me the real\netymology is revealed in the opposition of serv-are and serv-ire,\nthe primitive theme of which is ser-o, in-sero, to join, to\npress,whence ser-ies, joint, continuity, ser-a, lock, sertir,\ninsert, etc.  All these words imply the idea of a principal\nthing, to which is joined an accessory, as an object of special\nusefulness.  Thence serv-ire, to be an object of usefulness, a\nthing secondary to another; serv-are, as we say to press, to put\naside, to assign a thing its utility; serv-us, a man at hand, a\nutility, a chattel, in short, a man of service.  The opposite of\nservus is dom-inus (dom-us, dom-anium, and dom-are); that is, the\nhead of the household, the master of the house, he who utilizes\nmen, servat, animals, domat, and things, possidet.  That\nconsequently prisoners of war should have been reserved for\nslavery, servati ad servitium, or rather serti ad glebam, is\nperfectly conceivable; their destiny being known, they have\nsimply taken their name from it.\n\n\n\nLabor is the education of our liberty.  The ancients had a\nprofound perception of this truth when they distinguished the\nservile arts from the liberal arts.  For, like profession, like\nideas; like ideas, like morals.  Everything in slavery takes on\nthe character of degradation,-- habits, tastes, inclinations,\nsentiments, pleasures: it involves universal subversion.  Occupy\none's self with the education of the poor!  But that would create\nthe most cruel antagonism in these degenerate souls; that would\ninspire them with ideas which labor would render intolerable to\nthem, affections incompatible with the brutishness of their\ncondition, pleasures of which the perception is dulled in them.\nIf such a project could succeed, instead of making a man of the\nlaborer, it would make a demon of him.  Just study those faces\nwhich people the prisons and the galleys, and tell me if most of\nthem do not belong to subjects whom the revelation of the\nbeautiful, of elegance, of wealth, of comfort, of honor, and of\nscience, of all that makes the dignity of man, has found too\nweak, and so has demoralized and killed.\n\n\nAt least wages should be fixed, say the less audacious; schedules\nof rates should be prepared in all industries, to be accepted by\nemployers and workmen.\n\n\nThis hypothesis of salvation is cited by M. Fix.  And he answers\nvictoriously:\n\n\nSuch schedules have been made in England and elsewhere; their\nvalue is known; everywhere they have been violated as soon as\naccepted, both by employers and by workmen.\n\n\nThe causes of the violation of the schedules are easy to fathom:\nthey are to be found in machinery, in the incessant processes and\ncombinations of industry.  A schedule is agreed upon at a given\nmoment: but suddenly there comes a new invention which gives its\nauthor the power to lower the price of merchandise.  What will\nthe other employers do?  They will cease to manufacture and will\ndischarge their workmen, or else they will propose to them a\nreduction.  It is the only course open to them, pending a\ndiscovery by them in turn of some process by means of which,\nwithout lowering the rate of wages, they will be able to produce\nmore cheaply than their competitors: which will be equivalent\nagain to a suppression of workmen.\n\nM. Leon Faucher seems inclined to favor a system of indemnity.\nHe says:\n\n\nWe readily conceive that, in some interest or other, the State,\nrepresenting the general desire, should command the sacrifice of\nan industry.\n\n\nIt is always supposed to command it, from the moment that it\ngrants to each the liberty to produce, and protects and defends\nthis liberty against all encroachment.\n\n\nBut this is an extreme measure, an experiment which is always\nperilous, and which should be accompanied by all possible\nconsideration for individuals.  The State has no right to take\nfrom a class of citizens the labor by which they live, before\notherwise providing for their subsistence or assuring itself that\nthey will find in some new industry employment for their minds\nand arms.  It is a principle in civilized countries that the\ngovernment cannot seize a piece of private property, even on\ngrounds of public utility, without first buying out the\nproprietor by a just indemnity paid in advance.  Now, labor seems\nto us property quite as legitimate, quite as sacred, as a field\nor a house, and we do not understand why it should be\nexpropriated without any sort of compensation. . . .\n\nAs chimerical as we consider the doctrines which represent\ngovernment as the universal purveyor of labor in society, to the\nsame extent does it seem to us just and necessary that every\ndisplacement of labor in the name of public utility should be\neffected only by means of a compensation or a transition, and\nthat neither individuals nor classes should be sacrificed to\nState considerations.  Power, in well- constituted nations, has\nalways time and money to give for the mitigation of these partial\nsufferings.  And it is precisely because industry does not\nemanate from it, because it is born and developed under the free\nand individual initiative of citizens, that the government is\nbound, when it disturbs its course, to offer it a sort of\nreparation or indemnity.\n\n\nThere's sense for you: whatever M. Leon Faucher may say, he calls\nfor the organization of labor.  For government to see to it that\nEVERY DISPLACEMENT OF LABOR IS EFFECTED ONLY BY MEANS OF A\nCOMPENSATION OR A TRANSITION, AND THAT INDIVIDUALS AND CLASSES\nARE NEVER SACRIFICED TO STATE CONSIDERATIONS,--that is, to the\nprogress of industry and the liberty of enterprise, the supreme\nlaw of the State,--is without any doubt to constitute itself, in\nsome way that the future shall determine, the PURVEYOR OF LABOR\nIN SOCIETY and the guardian of wages.  And, as we have many times\nrepeated, inasmuch as industrial progress and consequently the\nwork of disarranging and rearranging classes in society is\ncontinual, it is not a special transition for each innovation\nthat needs to be discovered, but rather a general principle, an\norganic law of transition, applicable to all possible cases and\nproducing its effect itself.  Is M. Leon Faucher in a position to\nformulate this law and reconcile the various antagonisms which we\nhave described?  No, since he prefers to stop at the idea of an\nindemnity.  POWER, he says, IN WELL-ORGANIZED NATIONS, HAS ALWAYS\nTIME AND MONEY TO GIVE FOR THE MITIGATION OF THESE PARTIAL\nSUFFERINGS.  I am sorry for M. Faucher's generous intentions, but\nthey seem to me radically impracticable.\n\nPower has no time and money save what it takes from the\ntaxpayers.  To indemnify by taxation laborers thrown out of work\nwould be to visit ostracism upon new inventions and establish\ncommunism by means of the bayonet; that is no solution of the\ndifficulty.  It is useless to insist further on indemnification\nby the State.  Indemnity, applied according to M. Faucher's\nviews, would either end in industrial despotism, in something\nlike the government of Mohammed-Ali, or else would degenerate\ninto a poor-tax,--that is, into a vain hypocrisy.  For the good\nof humanity it were better not to indemnify, and to let labor\nseek its own eternal constitution.\n\nThere are some who say:  Let government carry laborers thrown out\nof work to points where private industry is not established,\nwhere individual enterprise cannot reach.  We have mountains to\nplant again with trees, ten or twelve million acres of land to\nclear, canals to dig, in short, a thousand things of immediate\nand general utility to undertake.\n\n\n\"We certainly ask our readers' pardon for it,\" answers M. Fix;\n\"but here again we are obliged to call for the intervention of\ncapital.  These surfaces, certain communal lands excepted, are\nfallow, because, if cultivated, they would yield no net product,\nand very likely not even the costs of cultivation.  These lands\nare possessed by proprietors who either have or have not the\ncapital necessary to cultivate them.  In the former case, the\nproprietor would very probably content himself, if he cultivated\nthese lands, with a very small profit, and perhaps would forego\nwhat is called the rent of the land: but he has found that,\nin undertaking such cultivation, he would lose his original\ncapital, and his other calculations have shown him that the sale\nof the products would not cover the costs of cultivation. . . .\nAll things considered, therefore, this land will remain fallow,\nbecause capital that should be put into it would yield no profit\nand would be lost.  If it were otherwise, all these lands would\nbe immediately put in cultivation; the savings now disposed of in\nanother direction would necessarily gravitate in a certain\nproportion to the cultivation of land; for capital has no\naffections: it has interests, and always seeks that employment\nwhich is surest and most lucrative.\"\n\n\nThis argument, very well reasoned, amounts to saying that the\ntime to cultivate its waste lands has not arrived for France,\njust as the time for railroads has not arrived for the Kaffres\nand the Hottentots.  For, as has been said in the second chapter,\nsociety begins by working those sources which yield most easily\nand surely the most necessary and least expensive products: it is\nonly gradually that it arrives at the utilization of things\nrelatively less productive.  Since the human race has been\ntossing about on the face of its globe, it has struggled with no\nother task; for it the same care is ever recurrent,--that of\nassuring its subsistence while going forward in the path of\ndiscovery.  In order that such clearing of land may not become a\nruinous speculation, a cause of misery, in other words, in order\nthat it may be possible, it is necessary, therefore, to multiply\nstill further our capital and machinery, discover new processes,\nand more thoroughly divide labor.  Now, to solicit the government\nto take such an initiative is to imitate the peasants who, on\nseeing the approach of a storm, begin to pray to God and to\ninvoke their saint.  Governments--today it cannot be too often\nrepeated--are the representatives of Divinity,--I had almost said\nexecutors of celestial vengeance: they can do nothing for us.\nDoes the English government, for instance, know any way of\ngiving labor to the unfortunates who take refuge in its\nworkhouses?  And if it knew, would it dare?  AID YOURSELF, AND\nHEAVEN WILL AID YOU!  This note of popular distrust of Divinity\ntells us also what we must expect of power,--nothing.\n\nArrived at the second station of our Calvary, instead of\nabandoning ourselves to sterile contemplations, let us be more\nand more attentive to the teachings of destiny.  The guarantee of\nour liberty lies in the progress of our torture.\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V.\n\nTHIRD PERIOD.--COMPETITION.\n\nBetween the hundred-headed hydra, division of labor, and the\nunconquered dragon, machinery, what will become of humanity?  A\nprophet has said it more than two thousand years ago:  Satan\nlooks on his victim, and the fires of war are kindled, Aspexit\ngentes, et dissolvit.  To save us from two scourges, famine and\npestilence, Providence sends us discord.\n\nCompetition represents that philosophical era in which, a semi-\nunderstanding of the antinomies of reason having given birth to\nthe art of sophistry, the characteristics of the false and the\ntrue were confounded, and in which, instead of doctrines, they\nhad nothing but deceptive mental tilts.  Thus the industrial\nmovement faithfully reproduces the metaphysical movement; the\nhistory of social economy is to be found entire in the writings\nof the philosophers.  Let us study this interesting phase, whose\nmost striking characteristic is to take away the judgment of\nthose who believe as well as those who protest.\n\n\n% 1.--Necessity of competition.\n\nM. Louis Reybaud, novelist by profession, economist on occasion,\nbreveted by the Academy of Moral and Political Sciences for\nhis anti-reformatory caricatures, and become, with the lapse of\ntime, one of the writers most hostile to social ideas,--M. Louis\nReybaud, whatever he may do, is none the less profoundly imbued\nwith these same ideas: the opposition which he thus exhibits is\nneither in his heart nor in his mind; it is in the facts.\n\nIn the first edition of his \"Studies of Contemporary Reformers,\"\nM. Reybaud, moved by the sight of social sufferings as well as\nthe courage of these founders of schools, who believed that they\ncould reform the world by an explosion of sentimentalism, had\nformally expressed the opinion that the surviving feature of all\ntheir systems was ASSOCIATION.  M. Dunoyer, one of M. Reybaud's\njudges, bore this testimony, the more flattering to M. Reybaud\nfrom being slightly ironical in form:\n\n\nM. Reybaud, who has exposed with so much accuracy and talent, in\na book which the French Academy has crowned, the vices of the\nthree principal reformatory systems, holds fast to the principle\ncommon to them, which serves as their base,--association.\nAssociation in his eyes, he declares, is THE GREATEST PROBLEM OF\nMODERN TIMES.  It is called, he says, to solve that of the\ndistribution of the fruits of labor.  Though authority can do\nnothing towards the solution of this problem, association COULD\nDO EVERYTHING.  M. Reybaud speaks here like a writer of the\nphalansterian school. . . .\n\n\nM. Reybaud had advanced a little, as one may see.  Endowed with\ntoo much good sense and good faith not to perceive the precipice,\nhe soon felt that he was straying, and began a retrograde\nmovement.  I do not call this about-face a crime on his part:  M.\nReybaud is one of those men who cannot justly be held responsible\nfor their metaphors.  He had spoken before reflecting, he\nretracted: what more natural!  If the socialists must blame any\none, let it be M. Dunoyer, who had prompted M. Reybaud's\nrecantation by this singular compliment.\n\nM. Dunoyer was not slow in perceiving that his words had not\nfallen on closed ears.  He relates, for the glory of sound\nprinciples, that, \"in a second edition of the `Studies of\nReformers,' M. Reybaud has himself tempered the absolute tone of\nhis expressions.  He has said, instead of could do EVERYTHING,\ncould do MUCH.\"\n\nIt was an important modification, as M. Dunoyer brought clearly\nto his notice, but it still permitted M. Reybaud to write at the\nsame time:\n\n\nThese symptoms are grave; they may be considered as prophecies of\na confused organization, in which labor would seek an equilibrium\nand a regularity which it now lacks. . . .  At the bottom of all\nthese efforts is hidden a principle, association, which it would\nbe wrong to condemn on the strength of irregular manifestations.\n\n\nFinally M. Reybaud has loudly declared himself a partisan of\ncompetition, which means that he has decidedly abandoned the\nprinciple of association.  For if by association we are to\nunderstand only the forms of partnership fixed by the commercial\ncode, the philosophy of which has been summarized for us by MM.\nTroplong and Delangle, it is no longer worth while to distinguish\nbetween socialists and economists, between one party which seeks\nassociation and another which maintains that association exists.\n\nLet no one imagine, because M. Reybaud has happened to say\nheedlessly yes and no to a question of which he does not seem to\nhave yet formed a clear idea, that I class him among those\nspeculators of socialism, who, after having launched a hoax into\nthe world, begin immediately to make their retreat, under the\npretext that, the idea now belonging to the public domain, there\nis nothing more for them to do but to leave it to make its way.\nM. Reybaud, in my opinion, belongs rather to the category of\ndupes, which includes in its bosom so many honest people and\npeople of so much brains.  M. Reybaud will remain, then, in my\neyes, the vir probus dicendi peritus, the conscientious and\nskilful writer, who may easily be caught napping, but who never\nexpresses anything that he does not see or feel.  Moreover, M.\nReybaud, once placed on the ground of economic ideas, would find\nthe more difficulty in being consistent with himself because of\nthe clearness of his mind and the accuracy of his reasoning.  I\nam going to make this curious experiment under the reader's eyes.\n\nIf I could be understood by M. Reybaud, I would say to him:  Take\nyour stand in favor of competition, you will be wrong; take your\nstand against competition, still you will be wrong: which\nsignifies that you will always be right.  After that, if,\nconvinced that you have not erred either in the first edition of\nyour book or in the fourth, you should succeed in formulating\nyour sentiment in an intelligible manner, I will look upon you as\nan economist of as great genius as Turgot and A. Smith; but I\nwarn you that then you will resemble the latter, of whom you\ndoubtless know little; you will be a believer in equality.  Do\nyou accept the wager?\n\nTo better prepare M. Reybaud for this sort of reconciliation with\nhimself, let us show him first that this versatility of judgment,\nfor which anybody else in my place would reproach him with\ninsulting bitterness, is a treason, not on the part of the\nwriter, but on the part of the facts of which he has made himself\nthe interpreter.\n\nIn March, 1844, M. Reybaud published on oleaginous seeds--a\nsubject which interested the city of Marseilles, his\nbirthplace--an article in which he took vigorous ground in favor\nof free competition and the oil of sesame.  According to the\nfacts gathered by the author, which seem authentic, sesame would\nyield from forty-five to forty-six per cent. of oil, while the\npoppy and the colza yield only twenty-five to thirty per  cent.,\nand the olive simply twenty to twenty-two.  Sesame, for this\nreason, is disliked by the northern manufacturers, who have\nasked and obtained its prohibition.  Nevertheless the English are\non the watch, ready to take possession of this valuable branch of\ncommerce.  Let them prohibit the seed, says M. Reybaud, the oil\nwill reach us mixed, in soap, or in some other way: we shall have\nlost the profit of manufacture.  Moreover, the interest of our\nmarine service requires the protection of this trade; it is a\nmatter of no less than forty thousand casks of seed, which\nimplies a maritime outfit of three hundred vessels and three\nthousand sailors.\n\nThese facts are conclusive: forty-five per cent. of oil instead\nof twenty-five; in quality superior to all the oils of France;\nreduction in the price of an article of prime necessity; a saving\nto consumers; three hundred ships, three thousand sailors,--such\nwould be the value to us of liberty of commerce.  Therefore, long\nlive competition and sesame!\n\nThen, in order to better assure these brilliant results, M.\nReybaud, impelled by his patriotism and going straight in pursuit\nof his idea, observes--very judiciously in our opinion--that the\ngovernment should abstain henceforth from all treaties of\nreciprocity in the matter of transportation: he asks that French\nvessels may carry the imports as well as the exports of French\ncommerce.\n\n\n\"What we call reciprocity,\" he says, \"is a pure fiction, the\nadvantage of which is reaped by whichever of the parties can\nfurnish navigation at the smallest expense.  Now, as in France\nthe elements of navigation, such as the purchase of the ships,\nthe wages of the crews, and the costs of outfit, rise to an\nexcessive figure, higher than in any of the other maritime\nnations, it follows that every reciprocity treaty is equivalent\non our part to a treaty of abdication, and that, instead of\nagreeing to an act of mutual convenience, we resign ourselves,\nknowingly or involuntarily, to a sacrifice.\"\n\n\nAnd M. Reybaud then points out the disastrous consequences of\nreciprocity:\n\n\nFrance consumes five hundred thousand bales of cotton, and the\nAmericans land them on our wharves; she uses enormous quantities\nof coal, and the English do the carrying thereof; the Swedes and\nNorwegians deliver to us themselves their iron and wood; the\nDutch, their cheeses; the Russians, their hemp and wheat; the\nGenoese, their rice; the Spaniards, their oils; the Sicilians,\ntheir sulphur; the Greeks and Armenians, all the commodities of\nthe Mediterranean and Black seas.\"\n\n\nEvidently such a state of things is intolerable, for it ends in\nrendering our merchant marine useless.  Let us hasten back, then,\ninto our ship yards, from which the cheapness of foreign\nnavigation tends to exclude us.  Let us close our doors to\nforeign vessels, or at least let us burden them with a heavy tax.\n\nTherefore, down with competition and rival marines!\n\nDoes M. Reybaud begin to understand that his\neconomico-socialistic oscillations are much more innocent than he\nwould have believed?  What gratitude he owes me for having\nquieted his conscience, which perhaps was becoming alarmed!\n\nThe reciprocity of which M. Reybaud so bitterly complains is only\na form of commercial liberty.  Grant full and entire liberty of\ntrade, and our flag is driven from the surface of the seas, as\nour oils would be from the continent.  Therefore we shall pay\ndearer for our oil, if we insist on making it ourselves; dearer\nfor our colonial products, if we wish to carry them ourselves.\nTo secure cheapness it would be necessary, after having abandoned\nour oils, to abandon our marine: as well abandon straightway our\ncloths, our linens, our calicoes, our iron products, and then, as\nan isolated industry necessarily costs too much, our wines, our\ngrains, our forage!  Whichever course you may choose, privilege\nor liberty, you arrive at the impossible, at the absurd.\n\nUndoubtedly there exists a principle of reconciliation; but,\nunless it be utterly despotic, it must be derived from a law\nsuperior to liberty itself: now, it is this law which no one has\nyet defined, and which I ask of the economists, if they really\nare masters of their science.  For I cannot consider him a savant\nwho, with the greatest sincerity and all the wit in the world,\npreaches by turns, fifteen lines apart, liberty and monopoly.\n\nIs it not immediately and intuitively evident that COMPETITION\nDESTROYS COMPETITION?  Is there a theorem in geometry more\ncertain, more peremptory, than that?  How then, upon what\nconditions, in what sense, can a principle which is its own\ndenial enter into science?  How can it become an organic law of\nsociety?  If competition is necessary; if, as the school says, it\nis a postulate of production,--how does it become so devastating\nin its effects?  And if its most certain effect is to ruin those\nwhom it incites, how does it become useful?  For the\nINCONVENIENCES which follow in its train, like the good which it\nprocures, are not accidents arising from the work of man: both\nfollow logically from the principle, and subsist by the same\ntitle and face to face.\n\nAnd, in the first place, competition is as essential to labor as\ndivision, since it is division itself returning in another form,\nor rather, raised to its second power; division, I say, no\nlonger, as in the first period of economic evolution, adequate to\ncollective force, and consequently absorbing the personality of\nthe laborer in the workshop, but giving birth to liberty by\nmaking each subdivision of labor a sort of sovereignty in which\nman stands in all his power and independence.  Competition, in a\nword, is liberty in division and in all the divided parts:\nbeginning with the most comprehensive functions, it tends toward\nits realization even in the inferior operations of parcellaire\nlabor.\n\nHere the communists raise an objection.  It is necessary, they\nsay, in all things, to distinguish between use and abuse.  There\nis a useful, praiseworthy, moral competition, a competition which\nenlarges the heart and the mind, a noble and generous\ncompetition,--it is emulation; and why should not this emulation\nhave for its object the advantage of all?  There is another\ncompetition, pernicious, immoral, unsocial, a jealous competition\nwhich hates and which kills,--it is egoism.\n\nSo says communism; so expressed itself, nearly a year ago, in its\nsocial profession of faith, the journal, \"La Reforme.\"\n\nWhatever reluctance I may feel to oppose men whose ideas are at\nbottom my own, I cannot accept such dialectics.  \"La Reforme,\" in\nbelieving that it could reconcile everything by a distinction\nmore grammatical than real, has made use, without suspecting it,\nof the golden mean,-- that is, of the worst sort of diplomacy.\nIts argument is exactly the same as that of M. Rossi in regard to\nthe division of labor: it consists in setting competition and\nmorality against each other, in order to limit them by each\nother, as M. Rossi pretended to arrest and restrict economic\ninductions by morality, cutting here, lopping there, to suit the\nneed and the occasion.  I have refuted M. Rossi by asking him\nthis simple question: How can science be in disagreement with\nitself, the science of wealth with the science of duty?  Likewise\nI ask the communists:  How can a principle whose development is\nclearly useful be at the same time pernicious?\n\nThey say: emulation is not competition.  I note, in the first\nplace, that this pretended distinction bears only on the\ndivergent effects of the principle, which leads one to suppose\nthat there were two principles which had been confounded.\nEmulation is nothing but competition itself; and, since they have\nthrown themselves into abstractions, I willingly plunge in also.\nThere is no emulation without an object, just as there is no\npassional initiative without an object; and as the object of\nevery passion is necessarily analogous to the passion\nitself,--woman to the lover, power to the ambitious, gold to the\nmiser, a crown to the poet,--so the object of industrial\nemulation is necessarily profit.\n\nNo, rejoins the communist, the laborer's object of emulation\nshould be general utility, fraternity, love.\n\nBut society itself, since, instead of stopping at the individual\nman, who is in question at this moment, they wish to attend only\nto the collective man,--society, I say, labors only with a view\nto wealth; comfort, happiness, is its only object.  Why, then,\nshould that which is true of society not be true of the\nindividual also, since, after all, society is man and entire\nhumanity lives in each man?  Why substitute for the immediate\nobject of emulation, which in industry is personal welfare, that\nfar-away and almost metaphysical motive called general welfare,\nespecially when the latter is nothing without the former and can\nresult only from the former?\n\nCommunists, in general, build up a strange illusion: fanatics on\nthe subject of power, they expect to secure through a central\nforce, and in the special case in question, through collective\nwealth, by a sort of reversion, the welfare of the laborer who\nhas created this wealth: as if the individual came into existence\nafter society, instead of society after the individual.  For that\nmatter, this is not the only case in which we shall see the\nsocialists unconsciously dominated by the traditions of the\nregime against which they protest.\n\nBut what need of insisting?  From the moment that the communist\nchanges the name of things, vera rerum vocabala, he tacitly\nadmits his powerlessness, and puts himself out of the question.\nThat is why my sole reply to him shall be:  In denying\ncompetition, you abandon the thesis; henceforth you have no place\nin the discussion.  Some other time we will inquire how far man\nshould sacrifice himself in the interest of all: for the moment\nthe question is the solution of the problem of competition,--that\nis, the reconciliation of the highest satisfaction of egoism with\nsocial necessities; spare us your moralities.\n\nCompetition is necessary to the constitution of value,--that is,\nto the very principle of distribution, and consequently to the\nadvent of equality.  As long as a product is supplied only by a\nsingle manufacturer, its real value remains a mystery, either\nthrough the producer's misrepresentation or through his neglect\nor inability to reduce the cost of production to its extreme\nlimit.  Thus the privilege of production is a real loss to\nsociety, and publicity of industry, like competition between\nlaborers, a necessity.  All the utopias ever imagined or\nimaginable cannot escape this law.\n\nCertainly I do not care to deny that labor and wages can and\nshould be guaranteed; I even entertain the hope that the time of\nsuch guarantee is not far off: but I maintain that a guarantee of\nwages is impossible without an exact knowledge of value, and that\nthis value can be discovered only by competition, not at all by\ncommunistic institutions or by popular decree.  For in this there\nis something more powerful than the will of the legislator and of\ncitizens,--namely, the absolute impossibility that man should do\nhis duty after finding himself relieved of all responsibility to\nhimself: now, responsibility to self, in the matter of labor,\nnecessarily implies competition with others.  Ordain that,\nbeginning January 1, 1847, labor and wages are guaranteed to all:\nimmediately an immense relaxation will succeed the extreme\ntension to which industry is now subjected; real value will\nfall rapidly below nominal value; metallic money, in spite of its\neffigy and stamp, will experience the fate of the assignats; the\nmerchant will ask more and give less; and we shall find ourselves\nin a still lower circle in the hell of misery in which\ncompetition is only the third turn.\n\nEven were I to admit, with some socialists, that the\nattractiveness of labor may some day serve as food for emulation\nwithout any hidden thought of profit, of what utility could this\nutopia be in the phase which we are studying?  We are yet only in\nthe third period of economic evolution, in the third age of the\nconstitution of labor,--that is, in a period when it is\nimpossible for labor to be attractive.  For the attractiveness of\nlabor can result only from a high degree of physical, moral, and\nintellectual development of the laborer.  Now, this development\nitself, this education of humanity by industry, is precisely the\nobject of which we are in pursuit through the contradictions of\nsocial economy.  How, then, could the attractiveness of labor\nserve us as a principle and lever, when it is still our object\nand our end?\n\nBut, if it is unquestionable that labor, as the highest\nmanifestation of life, intelligence, and liberty, carries with it\nits own attractiveness, I deny that this attractiveness can ever\nbe wholly separated from the motive of utility, and consequently\nfrom a return of egoism; I deny, I say, labor for labor, just as\nI deny style for style, love for love, art for art.  Style for\nstyle has produced in these days hasty literature and thoughtless\nimprovisation; love for love leads to unnatural vice, onanism,\nand prostitution; art for art ends in Chinese knick-knacks,\ncaricature, the worship of the ugly.  When man no longer looks to\nlabor for anything but the pleasure of exercise, he soon ceases\nto labor, he plays.  History is full of facts which attest\nthis degradation.  The games of Greece, Isthmian, Olympic,\nPythian, Nemean, exercises of a society which produced everything\nby its slaves; the life of the Spartans and the ancient Cretans,\ntheir models; the gymnasiums, playgrounds, horse-races, and\ndisorders of the market-place among the Athenians; the\noccupations which Plato assigns to the warriors in his Republic,\nand which but represent the tastes of his century; finally, in\nour feudal society, the tilts and tourneys,--all these\ninventions, as well as many others which I pass in silence, from\nthe game of chess, invented, it is said, at the siege of Troy by\nPalamedes, to the cards illustrated for Charles VI. by\nGringonneur, are examples of what labor becomes as soon as the\nserious motive of utility is separated from it.  Labor, real\nlabor, that which produces wealth and gives knowledge, has too\nmuch need of regularity and perseverance and sacrifice to be long\nthe friend of passion, fugitive in its nature, inconstant, and\ndisorderly; it is something too elevated, too ideal, too\nphilosophical, to become exclusively pleasure and\nenjoyment,--that is, mysticism and sentiment.  The faculty of\nlaboring, which distinguishes man from the brutes, has its source\nin the profoundest depths of the reason: how could it become in\nus a simple manifestation of life, a voluptuous act of our\nfeeling?\n\nBut if now they fall back upon the hypothesis of a transformation\nof our nature, unprecedented in history, and of which there has\nbeen nothing so far that could have expressed the idea, it is\nnothing more than a dream, unintelligible even to those who\ndefend it, an inversion of progress, a contradiction given to the\nmost certain laws of economic science; and my only reply is to\nexclude it from the discussion.\n\nLet us stay in the realm of facts, since facts alone have a\nmeaning and can aid us.  The French Revolution was effected for\nindustrial liberty as well as for political liberty: and although\nFrance in 1789 had not seen all the consequences of the principle\nfor the realization of which she asked,--let us say it\nboldly,--she was mistaken neither in her wishes nor in her\nexpectation.  Whoever would try to deny it would lose in my eyes\nthe right to criticism:  I will never dispute with an adversary\nwho would posit as a principle the spontaneous error of\ntwenty-five millions of men.\n\nAt the end of the eighteenth century France, wearied with\nprivileges, desired at any price to shake off the torpor of her\ncorporations, and restore the dignity of the laborer by\nconferring liberty upon him.  Everywhere it was necessary to\nemancipate labor, stimulate genius, and render the manufacturer\nresponsible by arousing a thousand competitors and loading upon\nhim alone the consequences of his indolence, ignorance, and\ninsincerity.  Before '89 France was ripe for the transition; it\nwas Turgot who had the glory of effecting the first passage.\n\nWhy then, if competition had not been a principle of social\neconomy, a decree of destiny, a necessity of the human soul, why,\ninstead of ABOLISHING corporations, masterships, and\nwardenships, did they not think rather of REPAIRING them all?\nWhy, instead of a revolution, did they not content themselves\nwith a reform?  Why this negation, if a modification was\nsufficient?  Especially as this middle party was entirely in the\nline of conservative ideas, which the bourgeoisie shared.  Let\ncommunism, let quasi-socialistic democracy, which, in regard to\nthe principle of competition, represent--though they do not\nsuspect it--the system of the golden mean, the\ncounter-revolutionary idea, explain to me this unanimity of the\nnation, if they can!\n\nMoreover the event confirmed the theory.  Beginning with the\nTurgot ministry, an increase of activity and well-being\nmanifested itself in the nation.  The test seemed so decisive\nthat it obtained the approval of all legislatures.  Liberty of\nindustry and commerce figure in our constitutions on a level with\npolitical liberty.  To this liberty, in short, France owes the\ngrowth of her wealth during the last sixty years.\n\nAfter this capital fact, which establishes so triumphantly the\nnecessity of competition, I ask permission to cite three or four\nothers, which, being less general in their nature, will throw\ninto bolder relief the influence of the principle which I defend.\n\nWhy is our agriculture so prodigiously backward?  How is it that\nroutine and barbarism still hover, in so many localities, over\nthe most important branch of national labor?  Among the numerous\ncauses that could be cited, I see, in the front rank, the absence\nof competition.  The peasants fight over strips of ground; they\ncompete with each other before the notary; in the fields, no.\nAnd speak to them of emulation, of the public good, and with what\namazement you fill them!  Let the king, they say (to them the\nking is synonymous with the State, with the public good, with\nsociety), let the king attend to his business, and we will attend\nto ours!  Such is their philosophy and their patriotism.  Ah! if\nthe king could excite competition with them!  Unfortunately it is\nimpossible.  While in manufactures competition follows from\nliberty and property, in agriculture liberty and property are a\ndirect obstacle to competition.  The peasant, rewarded, not\naccording to his labor and intelligence, but according to the\nquality of the land and the caprice of God, aims, in cultivating,\nto pay the lowest possible wages and to make the least possible\nadvance outlays.  Sure of always finding a market for his goods,\nhe is much more solicitous about reducing his expenses than about\nimproving the soil and the quality of its products.  He sows, and\nProvidence does the rest.  The only sort of competition known to\nthe agricultural class is that of rents; and it cannot be denied\nthat in France, and for instance in Beauce, it has led to useful\nresults.  But as the principle of this competition takes effect\nonly at second hand, so to speak, as it does not emanate directly\nfrom the liberty and property of the cultivators, it disappears\nwith the cause that produces it, so that, to insure the decline\nof agricultural industry in many localities, or at least to\narrest its progress, perhaps it would suffice to make the farmers\nproprietors.\n\nAnother branch of collective labor, which of late years has given\nrise to sharp debates, is that of public works.  \"To manage the\nbuilding of a road, M. Dunoyer very well says, \"perhaps a pioneer\nand a postilion would be better than an engineer fresh from the\nSchool of Roads and Bridges.\"  There is no one who has not had\noccasion to verify the correctness of this remark.\n\nOn one of our finest rivers, celebrated by the importance of its\nnavigation, a bridge was being built.  From the beginning of the\nwork the rivermen had seen that the arches would be much too low\nto allow the circulation of boats at times when the river was\nhigh: they pointed this out to the engineer in charge of the\nwork.  Bridges, answered the latter with superb dignity, are made\nfor those who pass over, not for those who pass under.  The\nremark has become a proverb in that vicinity.  But, as it is\nimpossible for stupidity to prevail forever, the government has\nfelt the necessity of revising the work of its agent, and as I\nwrite the arches of the bridge are being raised.  Does any\none believe that, if the merchants interested in the course of\nthe navigable way had been charged with the enterprise at their\nown risk and peril, they would have had to do their work twice?\nOne could fill a book with masterpieces of the same sort achieved\nby young men learned in roads and bridges, who, scarcely out of\nschool and given life positions, are no longer stimulated by\ncompetition.\n\nIn proof of the industrial capacity of the State, and\nconsequently of the possibility of abolishing competition\naltogether, they cite the administration of the tobacco industry.\n\nThere, they say, is no adulteration, no litigation, no\nbankruptcy, no misery.  The condition of the workmen, adequately\npaid, instructed, sermonized, moralized, and assured of a\nretiring pension accumulated by their savings, is incomparably\nsuperior to that of the immense majority of workmen engaged in\nfree industry.\n\nAll this may be true: for my part, I am ignorant on the subject.\nI know nothing of what goes on in the administration of the\ntobacco factories; I have procured no information either from the\ndirectors or the workmen, and I have no need of any.  How much\ndoes the tobacco sold by the administration cost?  How much is it\nworth?  You can answer the first of these questions: you only\nneed to call at the first tobacco shop you see.  But you can tell\nme nothing about the second, because you have no standard of\ncomparison and are forbidden to verify by experiment the items of\ncost of administration, which it is consequently impossible to\naccept.  Therefore the tobacco business, made into a monopoly,\nnecessarily costs society more than it brings in; it is an\nindustry which, instead of subsisting by its own product, lives\nby subsidies, and which consequently, far from furnishing us a\nmodel, is one of the first abuses which reform should strike\ndown.\n\nAnd when I speak of the reform to be introduced in the production\nof tobacco, I do not refer simply to the enormous tax which\ntriples or quadruples the value of this product; neither do I\nrefer to the hierarchical organization of its employees, some of\nwhom by their salaries are made aristocrats as expensive as they\nare useless, while others, hopeless receivers of petty wages, are\nkept forever in the situation of subalterns.  I do not even speak\nof the privilege of the tobacco shops and the whole world of\nparasites which they support:  I have particularly in view the\nuseful labor, the labor of the workmen.  From the very fact that\nthe administration's workman has no competitors and is interested\nneither in profit nor loss, from the fact that he is not free, in\na word, his product is necessarily less, and his service too\nexpensive.  This being so, let them say that the government\ntreats its employees well and looks out for their comfort: what\nwonder?  Why do not people see that liberty bears the burdens of\nprivilege, and that, if, by some impossibility, all industries\nwere to be treated like the tobacco industry, the source of\nsubsidies failing, the nation could no longer balance its\nreceipts and its expenses, and the State would become a bankrupt?\n\nForeign products: I cite the testimony of an educated man, though\nnot a political economist,--M. Liebig.\n\n\nFormerly France imported from Spain every year soda to the value\nof twenty or thirty millions of francs; for Spanish soda was the\nbest.  All through the war with England the price of soda, and\nconsequently that of soap and glass, constantly rose.  French\nmanufacturers therefore had to suffer considerably from this\nstate of things.  Then it was that Leblanc discovered the method\nof extracting soda from common salt.  This process was a source\nof wealth to France; the manufacture of soda acquired\nextraordinary proportions; but neither Leblanc nor Napoleon\nenjoyed the profit of the invention.  The Restoration, which took\nadvantage of the wrath of the people against the author of the\ncontinental blockade, refused to pay the debt of the emperor,\nwhose promises had led to Leblanc's discoveries. . . .\n\nA few years ago, the king of Naples having undertaken to convert\nthe Sicilian sulphur trade into a monopoly, England, which\nconsumes an immense quantity of this sulphur, warned the king of\nNaples that, if the monopoly were maintained, it would be\nconsidered a casus belli.  While the two governments were\nexchanging diplomatic notes, fifteen patents were taken out in\nEngland for the extraction of sulphuric acid from the limestones,\niron pyrites, and other mineral substances in which England\nabounds.  But the affair being arranged with the king of Naples,\nnothing came of these exploitations: it was simply established,\nby the attempts which were made, that the extraction of sulphuric\nacid by the new processes could have been carried on\nsuccessfully, which perhaps would have annihilated Sicily's\nsulphur trade.\n\nHad it not been for the war with England, had not the king of\nNaples had a fancy for monopoly, it would have been a long time\nbefore any one in France would have thought of extracting soda\nfrom sea salt, or any one in England of getting sulphuric acid\nfrom the mountains of lime and pyrites which she contains.  Now,\nthat is precisely the effect of competition upon industry.  Man\nrouses from his idleness only when want fills him with anxiety;\nand the surest way to extinguish his genius is to deliver him\nfrom all solicitude and take away from him the hope of profit and\nof the social distinction which results from it, by creating\naround him PEACE EVERYWHERE, PEACE ALWAYS, and transferring to\nthe State the responsibility of his inertia.\n\nYes, it must be admitted, in spite of modern quietism,--man's\nlife is a permanent war, war with want, war with nature, war with\nhis fellows, and consequently war with himself.  The theory of a\npeaceful equality, founded on fraternity and sacrifice, is only a\ncounterfeit of the Catholic doctrine of renunciation of the\ngoods and pleasures of this world, the principle of beggary, the\npanegyric of misery.  Man may love his fellow well enough to die\nfor him; he does not love him well enough to work for him.\n\nTo the theory of sacrifice, which we have just refuted in fact\nand in right, the adversaries of competition add another, which\nis just the opposite of the first: for it is a law of the mind\nthat, when it does not know the truth, which is its point of\nequilibrium, it oscillates between two contradictions.  This new\ntheory of anti-competitive socialism is that of encouragements.\n\nWhat more social, more progressive in appearance, than\nencouragement of labor and of industry?  There is no democrat who\ndoes not consider it one of the finest attributes of power, no\nutopian theorist who does not place it in the front rank as a\nmeans of organizing happiness.  Now, government is by nature so\nincapable of directing labor that every reward bestowed by it is\na veritable larceny from the common treasury.  M. Reybaud shall\nfurnish us the text of this induction.\n\n\n\"The premiums granted to encourage exportation,\" observes M.\nReybaud somewhere, \"are equivalent to the taxes paid for the\nimportation of raw material; the advantage remains absolutely\nnull, and serves to encourage nothing but a vast system of\nsmuggling.\"\n\n\nThis result is inevitable.  Abolish customs duties, and national\nindustry suffers, as we have already seen in the case of sesame;\nmaintain the duties without granting premiums for exportation,\nand national commerce will be beaten in foreign markets.  To\nobviate this difficulty do you resort to premiums?  You but\nrestore with one hand what you have received with the other, and\nyou provoke fraud, the last result, the caput mortuum, of all\nencouragements of industry.  Hence it follows that every\nencouragement to labor, every reward bestowed upon industry,\nbeyond the natural price of its product, is a gratuitous gift, a\nbribe taken out of the consumer and offered in his name to a\nfavorite of power, in exchange for zero, for nothing.  To\nencourage industry, then, is synonymous at bottom with\nencouraging idleness: it is one of the forms of swindling.\n\nIn the interest of our navy the government had thought it best to\ngrant to outfitters of transport-ships a premium for every man\nemployed on their vessels.  Now, I continue to quote M. Reybaud:\n\n\nOn every vessel that starts for Newfoundland from sixty to\nseventy men embark.  Of this number twelve are sailors: the\nbalance consists of villagers snatched from their work in the\nfields, who, engaged as day laborers for the preparation of fish,\nremain strangers to the rigging, and have nothing that is marine\nabout them except their feet and stomach.  Nevertheless, these\nmen figure on the rolls of the naval inscription, and there\nperpetuate a deception.  When there is occasion to defend the\ninstitution of premiums, these are cited in its favor; they swell\nthe numbers and contribute to success.\n\n\nBase jugglery! doubtless some innocent reformer will exclaim.  Be\nit so: but let us analyze the fact, and try to disengage the\ngeneral idea to be found therein.\n\nIn principle the only encouragement to labor that science can\nadmit is profit.  For, if labor cannot find its reward in its own\nproduct, very far from encouraging it, it should be abandoned as\nsoon as possible, and, if this same labor results in a net\nproduct, it is absurd to add to this net product a gratuitous\ngift, and thus overrate the value of the service.  Applying this\nprinciple, I say then:  If the merchant service calls only for\nten thousand sailors, it should not be asked to support fifteen\nthousand; the shortest course for the government is to put five\nthousand conscripts on State vessels, and send them on their\nexpeditions, like princes.  Every encouragement offered to the\nmerchant marine is a direct invitation to fraud,--what do I\nsay?--a proposal to pay wages for an impossible service.  Do the\nhandling and discipline of vessels and all the conditions of\nmaritime commerce accommodate themselves to these adjuncts of a\nuseless personnel?  What, then, can the ship-owner do in face of\na government which offers him a bonus to embark on his vessel\npeople of whom he has no need?  If the ministry throws the money\nof the treasury into the street, am I guilty if I pick it up?\n\nThus--and it is a point worthy of notice--the theory of\nencouragements emanates directly from the theory of sacrifice;\nand, in order to avoid holding man responsible, the opponents of\ncompetition, by the fatal contradiction of their ideas, are\nobliged to make him now a god, now a brute.  And then they are\nastonished that society is not moved by their appeal!  Poor\nchildren! men will never be better or worse than you see them now\nand than they always have been.  As soon as their individual\nwelfare solicits them, they desert the general welfare: in which\nI find them, if not honorable, at least worthy of excuse.  It is\nyour fault if you now demand of them more than they owe you and\nnow stimulate their greed with rewards which they do not deserve.\nMan has nothing more precious than himself, and consequently no\nother law than his responsibility.  The theory of self-sacrifice,\nlike that of rewards, is a theory of rogues, subversive of\nsociety and morality; and by the very fact that you look either\nto sacrifice or to privilege for the maintenance of order, you\ncreate a new antagonism in society.  Instead of causing the birth\nof harmony from the free activity of persons, you render the\nindividual and the State strangers to each other; in commanding\nunion, you breathe discord.\n\nTo sum up, outside of competition there remains but this\nalternative,-- encouragement, which is a mystification, or\nsacrifice, which is hypocrisy.\n\nTherefore competition, analyzed in its principle, is an\ninspiration of justice; and yet we shall see that competition, in\nits results, is unjust.\n\n\n% 2.--Subversive effects of competition, and the destruction of\nliberty thereby.\n\nThe kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, says the Gospel, and\nthe violent take it by force.  These words are the allegory of\nsociety.  In society regulated by labor, dignity, wealth, and\nglory are objects of competition; they are the reward of the\nstrong, and competition may be defined as the regime of force.\nThe old economists did not at first perceive this contradiction:\nthe moderns have been forced to recognize it.\n\n\n\"To elevate a State from the lowest degree of barbarism to the\nhighest degree of opulence,\" wrote A. Smith, \"but three things\nare necessary,-- peace, moderate taxes, and a tolerable\nadministration of justice.  All the rest is brought about by the\nNATURAL COURSE OF THINGS.\"\n\n\nOn which the last translator of Smith, M. Blanqui, lets fall this\ngloomy comment:\n\n\nWe have seen the natural course of things produce disastrous\neffects, and create anarchy in production, war for markets, and\npiracy in competition.  The division of labor and the perfecting\nof machinery, which should realize for the great working family\nof the human race the conquest of a certain amount of leisure to\nthe advantage of its dignity, have produced at many points\nnothing but degradation and misery. . . . .  When A. Smith wrote,\nliberty had not yet come with its embarrassments and its abuses,\nand the Glasgow professor foresaw only its blessings. . .  Smith\nwould have written like M. de Sismondi, if he had been a witness\nof the sad condition of Ireland and the manufacturing districts\nof England in the times in which we live.\n\n\nNow then, litterateurs, statesmen, daily publicists, believers\nand half-believers, all you who have taken upon yourselves the\nmission of indoctrinating men, do you hear these words which one\nwould take for a translation from Jeremiah?  Will you tell us at\nlast to what end you pretend to be conducting civilization?  What\nadvice do you offer to society, to the country, in alarm?\n\nBut to whom do I speak?  Ministers, journalists, sextons, and\npedants!  Do such people trouble themselves about the problems of\nsocial economy?  Have they ever heard of competition?\n\nA citizen of Lyons, a soul hardened to mercantile war, travelled\nin Tuscany.  He observes that from five to six hundred thousand\nstraw hats are made annually in that country, the aggregate value\nof which amounts to four or five millions of francs.  This\nindustry is almost the sole support of the people of the little\nState.  \"How is it,\" he says to himself, \"that so easily\nconducted a branch of agriculture and manufactures has not been\ntransported into Provence and Languedoc, where the climate is the\nsame as in Tuscany?\"  But, thereupon observes an economist, if\nthe industry of the peasants of Tuscany is taken from them, how\nwill they contrive to live?\n\nThe manufacture of black silks had become for Florence a\nspecialty the secret of which she guarded preciously.\n\n\nA shrewd Lyons manufacturer, the tourist notices with\nsatisfaction, has come to set up an establishment in Florence,\nand has finally got possession of the peculiar processes of\ndyeing and weaving.  Probably this DISCOVERY will diminish\nFlorentine exportation.--A Journey in Italy, by M. Fulchiron.\n\n\nFormerly the breeding of the silk-worm was abandoned to the\npeasants of Tuscany; whom it aided to live.\n\n\nAgricultural societies have been formed; they have represented\nthat the silk-worm, in the peasant's sleeping-room, did not get\nsufficient ventilation or sufficient steadiness of temperature,\nor as good care as it would have if the laborers who breed them\nmade it their sole business.  Consequently rich, intelligent, and\ngenerous citizens have built, amid the applause of the public,\nwhat are called bigattieres (from bigatti, silk-worm).--M. de\nSismondi.\n\n\nAnd then, you ask, will these breeders of silk-worms, these\nmanufacturers of silks and hats, lose their work?  Precisely: it\nwill even be proved to them that it is for their interest that\nthey should, since they will be able to buy the same products for\nless than it costs them to manufacture them.  Such is\ncompetition.\n\nCompetition, with its homicidal instinct, takes away the bread of\na whole class of laborers, and sees in it only an improvement, a\nsaving; it steals a secret in a cowardly manner, and glories in\nit as a DISCOVERY; it changes the natural zones of production to\nthe detriment of an entire people, and pretends to have done\nnothing but utilize the advantages of its climate.  Competition\noverturns all notions of equity and justice; it increases the\nreal cost of production by needlessly multiplying the capital\ninvested, causes by turns the dearness of products and their\ndepreciation, corrupts the public conscience by putting chance in\nthe place of right, and maintains terror and distrust everywhere.\n\nBut what!  Without this atrocious characteristic, competition\nwould lose its happiest effects; without the arbitrary element in\nexchange and the panics of the market, labor would not\ncontinually build factory against factory, and, not being\nmaintained in such good working order, production would realize\nnone of its marvels.  After having caused evil to arise from the\nvery utility of its principle, competition again finds a way to\nextract good from evil; destruction engenders utility,\nequilibrium is realized by agitation, and it may be said of\ncompetition, as Samson said of the lion which he had slain:  De\ncomedente cibus exiit, et de forti dulcedo.  Is there anything,\nin all the spheres of human knowledge, more surprising than\npolitical economy?\n\nLet us take care, nevertheless, not to yield to an impulse of\nirony, which would be on our part only unjust invective.  It is\ncharacteristic of economic science to find its certainty in its\ncontradictions, and the whole error of the economists consists in\nnot having understood this.  Nothing poorer than their criticism,\nnothing more saddening than their mental confusion, as soon as\nthey touch this question of competition: one would say that they\nwere witnesses forced by torture to confess what their conscience\nwould like to conceal.  The reader will take it kindly if I put\nbefore his eyes the arguments for laissez-passer, introducing\nhim, so to speak, into the presence of a secret meeting of\neconomists.\n\nM. Dunoyer opens the discussion.\n\nOf all the economists M. Dunoyer has most energetically embraced\nthe positive side of competition, and consequently, as might have\nbeen expected, most ineffectually grasped the negative side.  M.\nDunoyer, with whom nothing can be done when what he calls\nprinciples are under discussion, is very far from believing that\nin matters of political economy yes and no may be true at the\nsame moment and to the same extent; let it be said even to his\ncredit, such a conception is the more repugnant to him because of\nthe frankness and honesty with which he holds his doctrines.\nWhat would I not give to gain an entrance into this pure but so\nobstinate soul for this truth as certain to me as the existence\nof the sun,--that all the categories of political economy are\ncontradictions!  Instead of uselessly exhausting himself in\nreconciling practice and theory; instead of contenting\nhimself with the ridiculous excuse that everything here below has\nits advantages and its inconveniences,--M. Dunoyer would seek the\nsynthetic idea which solves all the antinomies, and, instead of\nthe paradoxical conservative which he now is, he would become\nwith us an inexorable and logical revolutionist.\n\n\n\"If competition is a false principle,\" says M. Dunoyer, \"it\nfollows that for two thousand years humanity has been pursuing\nthe wrong road.\"\n\n\nNo, what you say does not follow, and your prejudicial remark is\nrefuted by the very theory of progress.  Humanity posits its\nprinciples by turns, and sometimes at long intervals: never does\nit give them up in substance, although it destroys successively\ntheir expressions and formulas.  This destruction is called\nNEGATION; because the general reason, ever progressive,\ncontinually denies the completeness and sufficiency of its prior\nideas.  Thus it is that, competition being one of the periods in\nthe constitution of value, one of the elements of the social\nsynthesis, it is true to say at the same time that it is\nindestructible in its principle, and that nevertheless in its\npresent form it should be abolished, denied.  If, then, there is\nany one here who is in opposition to history, it is you.\n\n\nI have several remarks to make upon the accusations of which\ncompetition has been the object.  The first is that this regime,\ngood or bad, ruinous or fruitful, does not really exist as yet;\nthat it is established nowhere except in a partial and most\nincomplete manner.\n\n\nThis first observation has no sense.  COMPETITION KILLS\nCOMPETITION, as we said at the outset; this aphorism may be taken\nfor a definition.  How, then, could competition ever be complete?\n\nMoreover, though it should be admitted that competition does not\nyet exist in its integrity, that would simply prove that\ncompetition does not act with all the power of elimination that\nthere is in it; but that will not change at all its contradictory\nnature.  What need have we to wait thirty centuries longer to\nfind out that, the more competition develops, the more it tends\nto reduce the number of competitors?\n\n\nThe second is that the picture drawn of it is unfaithful; and\nthat sufficient heed is not paid to the extension which the\ngeneral welfare has undergone, including even that of the\nlaboring classes.\n\n\nIf some socialists fail to recognize the useful side of\ncompetition, you on your side make no mention of its pernicious\neffects.  The testimony of your opponents coming to complete your\nown, competition is shown in the fullest light, and from a double\nfalsehood we get the truth as a result.  As for the gravity of\nthe evil, we shall see directly what to think about that.\n\n\nThe third is that the evil experienced by the laboring classes is\nnot referred to its real causes.\n\n\nIf there are other causes of poverty than competition, does that\nprevent it from contributing its share?  Though only one\nmanufacturer a year were ruined by competition, if it were\nadmitted that this ruin is the necessary effect of the principle,\ncompetition, as a principle, would have to be rejected.\n\n\nThe fourth is that the principal means proposed for obviating it\nwould be inexpedient in the extreme.\n\n\nPossibly: but from this I conclude that the inadequacy of the\nremedies proposed imposes a new duty upon you,--precisely that of\nseeking the most expedient means of preventing the evil of\ncompetition.\n\n\nThe fifth, finally, is that the real remedies, in so far as it is\npossible to remedy the evil by legislation, would be found\nprecisely in the regime which is accused of having produced\nit,--that is, in a more and more real regime of liberty and\ncompetition.\n\n\nWell!  I am willing.  The remedy for competition, in your\nopinion, is to make competition universal.  But, in order that\ncompetition may be universal, it is necessary to procure for all\nthe means of competing; it is necessary to destroy or modify the\npredominance of capital over labor, to change the relations\nbetween employer and workman, to solve, in a word, the antinomy\nof division and that of machinery; it is necessary to ORGANIZE\nLABOR: can you give this solution?\n\nM. Dunoyer then develops, with a courage worthy of a better\ncause, his own utopia of universal competition: it is a labyrinth\nin which the author stumbles and contradicts himself at every\nstep.\n\n\n\"Competition,\" says M. Dunoyer, \"meets a multitude of obstacles.\"\n\n\nIn fact, it meets so many and such powerful ones that it becomes\nimpossible itself.  For how is triumph possible over obstacles\ninherent in the constitution of society and consequently\ninseparable from competition itself?\n\n\nIn addition to the public services, there is a certain number of\nprofessions the practice of which the government has seen fit to\nmore or less exclusively reserve; there is a larger number of\nwhich legislation has given a monopoly to a restricted number of\nindividuals.  Those which are abandoned to competition are\nsubjected to formalities and restrictions, to numberless\nbarriers, which keep many from approaching, and in these\nconsequently competition is far from being unlimited.  In short,\nthere are few which are not submitted to varied taxes, necessary\ndoubtless, etc.\n\n\nWhat does all this mean?  M. Dunoyer doubtless does not intend\nthat society shall dispense with government, administration,\npolice, taxes, universities, in a word, with everything that\nconstitutes a society.  Then, inasmuch as society necessarily\nimplies exceptions to competition, the hypothesis of\nuniversal competition is chimerical, and we are back again\nunder the regime of caprice,--a result foretold in the definition\nof competition.  Is there anything serious in this reasoning of\nM. Dunoyer?\n\nFormerly the masters of the science began by putting far away\nfrom them every preconceived idea, and devoted themselves to\ntracing facts back to general laws, without ever altering or\nconcealing them.  The researches of Adam Smith, considering the\ntime of their appearance, are a marvel of sagacity and lofty\nreasoning.  The economic picture presented by Quesnay, wholly\nunintelligible as it appears, gives evidence of a profound\nsentiment of the general synthesis.  The introduction to J. B.\nSay's great treatise dwells exclusively upon the scientific\ncharacteristics of political economy, and in every line is to be\nseen how much the author felt the need of absolute ideas.  The\neconomists of the last century certainly did not constitute the\nscience, but they sought this constitution ardently and honestly.\n\nHow far we are today from these noble thoughts!  No longer do\nthey seek a science; they defend the interests of dynasty and\ncaste.  The more powerless routine becomes, the more stubbornly\nthey adhere to it; they make use of the most venerated names to\nstamp abnormal phenomena with a quality of authenticity which\nthey lack; they tax accusing facts with heresy; they calumniate\nthe tendencies of the century; and nothing irritates an economist\nso much as to pretend to reason with him.\n\n\n\"The peculiar characteristic of the present time,\" cries M.\nDunoyer, in a tone of keen discontent, \"is the agitation of all\nclasses; their anxiety, their inability to ever stop at anything\nand be contented; the infernal labor performed upon the less\nfortunate that they may become more and more discontented in\nproportion to the increased efforts of society to make their lot\nreally less pitiful.\"\n\n\nIndeed!  Because the socialists goad political economy, they are\nincarnate devils!  Can there be anything more impious, in fact,\nthan to teach the proletaire that he is wronged in his labor and\nhis wages, and that, in the surroundings in which he lives, his\npoverty is irremediable?\n\nM. Reybaud repeats, with greater emphasis, the wail of his\nmaster, M. Dunoyer: one would think them the two seraphim of\nIsaiah chanting a Sanctus to competition.  In June, 1844, at the\ntime when he published the fourth edition of his \"Contemporary\nReformers,\" M. Reybaud wrote, in the bitterness of his soul:\n\n\nTo socialists we owe the organization of labor, the right to\nlabor; they are the promoters of the regime of surveillance. . .\n.  The legislative chambers on either side of the channel are\ngradually succumbing to their influence. . . .  Thus utopia is\ngaining ground. . . .\n\n\nAnd M. Reybaud more and more deplores the SECRET INFLUENCE OF\nSOCIALISM on the best minds, and stigmatizes--see the\nmalice!--the UNPERCEIVED CONTAGION with which even those who\nhave broken lances against socialism allow themselves to be\ninoculated.  Then he announces, as a last act of his high justice\nagainst the wicked, the approaching publication, under the title\nof \"Laws of Labor,\" of a work in which he will prove (unless some\nnew evolution takes place in his ideas) that the laws of labor\nhave nothing in common, either with the right to labor or with\nthe organization of labor, and that the best of reforms is\nlaissez-faire.\n\n\n\"Moreover,\" adds M. Reybaud, \"the tendency of political economy\nis no longer to theory, but to practice.  The abstract portions\nof the science seem henceforth fixed.  The controversy over\ndefinitions is exhausted, or nearly so.  The works of the great\neconomists on value, capital, supply and demand, wages, taxes,\nmachinery, farm-rent, increase of population, over-accumulation\nof products, markets, banks, monopolies, etc., seem to have set\nthe limit of dogmatic researches, and form a body of doctrine\nbeyond which there is little to hope.\"\n\nFACILITY OF SPEECH, IMPOTENCE IN ARGUMENT,--such would have been\nthe conclusion of Montesquieu upon this strange panegyric of the\nfounders of social economy.  THE SCIENCE IS COMPLETE!  M. Reybaud\nmakes oath to it; and what he proclaims with so much authority is\nrepeated at the Academy, in the professors' chairs, in the\ncouncils of State, in the legislative halls; it is published in\nthe journals; the king is made to say it in his New Year's\naddresses; and before the courts the cases of claimants are\ndecided accordingly.\n\nTHE SCIENCE IS COMPLETE!  What fools we are, then, socialists, to\nhunt for daylight at noonday, and to protest, with our lanterns\nin our hands, against the brilliancy of these solar rays!\n\nBut, gentlemen, it is with sincere regret and profound distrust\nof myself that I find myself forced to ask you for further light.\n\nIf you cannot cure our ills, give us at least kind words, give us\nevidence, give us resignation.\n\n\n\"It is obvious,\" says M. Dunoyer, \"that wealth is infinitely\nbetter distributed in our day than it ever has been.\"\n\n\"The equilibrium of pains and pleasures,\" promptly continues M.\nReybaud, \"ever tends to restore itself on earth.\"\n\n\nWhat, then!  What do you say?  WEALTH BETTER DISTRIBUTED,\nEQUILIBRIUM RESTORED!  Explain yourselves, please, as to this\nbetter distribution.  Is equality coming, or inequality going?\nIs solidarity becoming closer, or competition diminishing?  I\nwill not quit you until you have answered me, non missura cutem.\n. . .  For, whatever the cause of the restoration of equilibrium\nand of the better distribution which you point out, I embrace it\nwith ardor, and will follow it to its last consequences.  Before\n1830--I select the date at random--wealth was not so well\ndistributed: how so?  Today, in your opinion, it is better\ndistributed: why?  You see what I am coming at: distribution\nbeing not yet perfectly equitable and the equilibrium not\nabsolutely perfect, I ask, on the one hand, what obstacle it is\nthat disturbs the equilibrium, and, on the other, by virtue of\nwhat principle humanity continually passes from the greater to\nthe less evil and from the good to the better?  For, in fact,\nthis secret principle of amelioration can be neither competition,\nnor machinery, nor division of labor, nor supply and demand: all\nthese principles are but levers which by turns cause value to\noscillate, as the Academy of Moral Sciences has very clearly\nseen.  What, then, is the sovereign law of well-being?  What is\nthis rule, this measure, this criterion of progress, the\nviolation of which is the perpetual cause of poverty?  Speak, and\nquit your haranguing.\n\nWealth is better distributed, you say.  Show us your proofs. M.\nDunoyer:\n\n\nAccording to official documents, taxes are assessed on scarcely\nless than eleven million separate parcels of landed property.\nThe number of proprietors by whom these taxes are paid is\nestimated at six millions; so that, assuming four individuals to\na family, there must be no less than twenty-four million\ninhabitants out of thirty-four who participate in the ownership\nof the soil.\n\n\nThen, according to the most favorable figures, there must be ten\nmillion proletaires in France, or nearly one-third of the\npopulation.  Now, what have you to say to that?  Add to these ten\nmillions half of the twenty- four others, whose property,\nburdened with mortgages, parcelled out, impoverished, wretched,\ngives them no support, and still you will not have the number of\nindividuals whose living is precarious.\n\n\nThe number of twenty-four million proprietors perceptibly tends\nto increase.\n\n\nI maintain that it perceptibly tends to decrease.  Who is the\nreal proprietor, in your opinion,--the nominal holder, assessed,\ntaxed, pawned, mortgaged, or the creditor who collects the rent?\nJewish and Swiss money-lenders are today the real proprietors of\nAlsace; and proof of their excellent judgment is to be found in\nthe fact that they have no thought of acquiring landed estates:\nthey prefer to invest their capital.\n\n\nTo the landed proprietors must be added about fifteen hundred\nthousand holders of patents and licenses, or, assuming four\npersons to a family, six million individuals interested as\nleaders in industrial enterprises.\n\n\nBut, in the first place, a great number of these licensed\nindividuals are landed proprietors, and you count them twice.\nFurther, it may be safely said that, of the whole number of\nlicensed manufacturers and merchants, a fourth at most realize\nprofits, another fourth hold their own, and the rest are\nconstantly running behind in their business.  Take, then, half at\nmost of the six million so-called leaders in enterprises, which\nwe will add to the very problematical twelve million landed\nproprietors, and we shall attain a total of fifteen million\nFrenchmen in a position, by their education, their industry,\ntheir capital, their credit, their property, to engage in\ncompetition.  For the rest of the nation, or nineteen million\nsouls, competition, like Henri IV.'s pullet in the pot, is a dish\nwhich they produce for the class which can pay for it, but which\nthey never touch.\n\nAnother difficulty.  These nineteen million men, within whose\nreach competition never comes, are hirelings of the competitors.\nIn the same way formerly the serfs fought for the lords, but\nwithout being able themselves to carry a banner or put an army on\nfoot.  Now, if competition cannot by itself become the common\ncondition, why should not those for whom it offers nothing but\nperils, exact guarantees from the barons whom they serve?  And if\nthese guarantees can not be denied them, how could they be other\nthan barriers to competition, just as the truce of God, invented\nby the bishops, was a barrier to feudal wars?  By the\nconstitution of society, I said a little while ago, competition\nis an exceptional matter, a privilege; now I ask how it is\npossible for this privilege to coexist with equality of rights?\n\nAnd think you, when I demand for consumers and wage-receivers\nguarantees against competition, that it is a socialist's dream?\nListen to two of your most illustrious confreres, whom you will\nnot accuse of performing an infernal work.\n\nM. Rossi (Volume I., Lecture 16) recognizes in the State the\nright to regulate labor, WHEN THE DANGER IS TOO GREAT AND THE\nGUARANTEES INSUFFICIENT, which means always.  For the legislator\nmust secure public order by PRINCIPLES and LAWS: he does not\nwait for unforeseen facts to arise in order that he may drive\nthem back with an arbitrary hand.  Elsewhere (Volume II., pp.\n73-77) the same professor points out, as consequences of\nexaggerated competition, the incessant formation of a financial\nand landed aristocracy and the approaching downfall of small\nholders, and he raises the cry of alarm.  M. Blanqui, on his\nside, declares that the organization of labor is recognized by\neconomic science as in the order of the day (he has since\nretracted the statement), urges the participation of workers in\nthe profits and the advent of the collective laborer, and\nthunders continually against the monopolies, prohibitions, and\ntyranny of capital.  Qui habet aures audiendi audiat!  M. Rossi,\nas a writer on criminal law, decrees against the robberies of\ncompetition; M. Blanqui, as examining magistrate, proclaims the\nguilty parties: it is the counterpart of the duet sung just now\nby MM. Reybaud and Dunoyer.  When the latter cry HOSANNA, the\nformer respond, like the Fathers in the Councils, ANATHEMA.\n\nBut, it will be said, MM. Blanqui and Rossi mean to strike only\nthe ABUSES of competition; they have taken care not to proscribe\nthe PRINCIPLE, and in that they are thoroughly in accord with\nMM. Reybaud and Dunoyer.\n\nI protest against this distinction, in the interest of the fame\nof the two professors.\n\nIn fact, abuse has invaded everything, and the exception has\nbecome the rule.  When M. Troplong, defending, with all the\neconomists, the liberty of commerce, admitted that the coalition\nof the cab companies was one of those facts against which the\nlegislator finds himself absolutely powerless, and which seem to\ncontradict the sanest notions of social economy, he still had the\nconsolation of saying to himself that such a fact was wholly\nexceptional, and that there was reason to believe that it would\nnot become general.  Now, this fact has become general: the most\nconservative jurisconsult has only to put his head out of his\nwindow to see that today absolutely everything has been\nmonopolized through competition,--transportation (by land, rail,\nand water), wheat and flour, wine and brandy, wood, coal, oil,\niron, fabrics, salt, chemical products, etc.  It is sad for\njurisprudence, that twin sister of political economy, to see its\ngrave anticipations contradicted in less than a lustre, but it is\nsadder still for a great nation to be led by such poor geniuses\nand to glean the few ideas which sustain its life from the\nbrushwood of their writings.\n\nIn theory we have demonstrated that competition, on its useful\nside, should be universal and carried to its maximum of\nintensity; but that, viewed on its negative side, it must be\neverywhere stifled, even to the last vestige.  Are the economists\nin a position to effect this elimination?  Have they foreseen the\nconsequences, calculated the difficulties?  If the answer\nshould be affirmative, I should have the boldness to propose the\nfollowing case to them for solution.\n\nA treaty of coalition, or rather of association,--for the courts\nwould be greatly embarrassed to define either term,--has just\nunited in one company all the coal mines in the basin of the\nLoire.  On complaint of the municipalities of Lyons and Saint\nEtienne, the ministry has appointed a commission charged with\nexamining the character and tendencies of this frightful society.\n\nWell, I ask, what can the intervention of power, with the\nassistance of civil law and political economy, accomplish here?\n\nThey cry out against coalition.  But can the proprietors of mines\nbe prevented from associating, from reducing their general\nexpenses and costs of exploitation, and from working their mines\nto better advantage by a more perfect understanding with each\nother?  Shall they be ordered to begin their old war over again,\nand ruin themselves by increased expenses, waste,\nover-production, disorder, and decreased prices?  All that is\nabsurd.\n\nShall they be prevented from increasing their prices so as to\nrecover the interest on their capital?  Then let them be\nprotected themselves against any demands for increased wages on\nthe part of the workmen; let the law concerning joint-stock\ncompanies be reenacted; let the sale of shares be prohibited; and\nwhen all these measures shall have been taken, as the\ncapitalist-proprietors of the basin cannot justly be forced to\nlose capital invested under a different condition of things, let\nthem be indemnified.\n\nShall a tariff be imposed upon them?  That would be a law of\nmaximum.  The State would then have to put itself in the place of\nthe exploiters; keep the accounts of their capital, interest, and\noffice expenses; regulate the wages of the miners, the salaries\nof the engineers and directors, the price of the wood employed in\nthe extraction of the coal, the expenditure for material; and,\nfinally, determine the normal and legitimate rate of profit.  All\nthis cannot be done by ministerial decree: a law is necessary.\nWill the legislator dare, for the sake of a special industry, to\nchange the public law of the French, and put power in the place\nof property?  Then of two things one: either commerce in coals\nwill fall into the hands of the State, or else the State must\nfind some means of reconciling liberty and order in carrying on\nthe mining industry, in which case the socialists will ask that\nwhat has been executed at one point be imitated at all points.\n\nThe coalition of the Loire mines has posited the social question\nin terms which permit no more evasion.  Either competition,--that\nis, monopoly and what follows; or exploitation by the\nState,--that is, dearness of labor and continuous impoverishment;\nor else, in short, a solution based upon equality,--in other\nwords, the organization of labor, which involves the negation of\npolitical economy and the end of property.\n\nBut the economists do not proceed with this abrupt logic: they\nlove to bargain with necessity.  M. Dupin (session of the Academy\nof Moral and Political Sciences, June 10, 1843) expresses the\nopinion that, \"though competition may be useful within the\nnation, it must be prevented between nations.\"\n\nTo PREVENT or to LET ALONE,--such is the eternal alternative of\nthe economists: beyond it their genius does not go.  In vain is\nit cried out at them that it is not a question of PREVENTING\nanything or of PERMITTING everything; that what is asked of\nthem, what society expects of them, is a RECONCILIATION: this\ndouble idea does not enter their head.\n\n\n\"It is necessary,\" M. Dunoyer replies to M. Dupin, \"to\nDISTINGUISH theory from practice.\"\n\n\nMy God! everybody knows that M. Dunoyer, inflexible as to\nprinciples in his works, is very accommodating as to practice in\nthe Council of State.  But let him condescend to once ask himself\nthis question:  Why am I obliged to continually distinguish\npractice from theory?  Why do they not harmonize?\n\nM. Blanqui, as a lover of peace and harmony, supports the learned\nM. Dunoyer,--that is, theory.  Nevertheless he thinks, with M.\nDupin,--that is, with practice,--that competition is not EXEMPT\nFROM REPROACH.  So afraid is M. Blanqui of calumniating and\nstirring up the fire!\n\nM. Dupin is obstinate in his opinion.  He cites, as evils for\nwhich competition is responsible, fraud, sale by false weights,\nthe exploitation of children.  All doubtless in order to prove\nthat competition WITHIN THE NATION may be useful!\n\nM. Passy, with his usual logic, observes that there will always\nbe dishonest people who, etc.  Accuse human nature, he cries, but\nnot competition.\n\nAt the very outset M. Passy's logic wanders from the question.\nCompetition is reproached with the inconveniences which result\nfrom its nature, not with the frauds of which it is the occasion\nor pretext.  A manufacturer finds a way of replacing a workman\nwho costs him three francs a day by a woman to whom he gives but\none franc.  This expedient is the only one by which he can meet a\nfalling market and keep his establishment in motion.  Soon to the\nworking women he will add children.  Then, forced by the\nnecessities of war, he will gradually reduce wages and add to the\nhours of labor.  Where is the guilty party here?  This argument\nmay be turned about in a hundred ways and applied to all\nindustries without furnishing any ground for accusing human\nnature.\n\nM. Passy himself is obliged to admit it when he adds:  \"As for\nthe compulsory labor of children, the fault is on the parents.\"\nExactly.  And the fault of the parents on whom?\n\n\n\"In Ireland,\" continues this orator, \"there is no competition,\nand yet poverty is extreme.\"\n\n\nOn this point M. Passy's ordinary logic has been betrayed by an\nextraordinary lack of memory.  In Ireland there is a complete,\nuniversal monopoly of the land, and unlimited, desperate\ncompetition for farms.  Competition-monopoly are the two balls\nwhich unhappy Ireland drags, one after each foot.\n\nWhen the economists are tired of accusing human nature, the greed\nof parents, and the turbulence of radicals, they find delectation\nin picturing the felicity of the proletariat.  But there again\nthey cannot agree with each other or with themselves; and nothing\nbetter depicts the anarchy of competition than the disorder of\ntheir ideas.\n\n\nToday the wife of the workingman dresses in elegant robes which\nin a previous century great ladies would not have disdained.--M.\nChevalier: Lecture 4.\n\n\nAnd this is the same M. Chevalier who, according to his own\ncalculation, estimates that the total national income would give\nthirteen cents a day to each individual.  Some economists even\nreduce this figure to eleven cents.  Now, as all that goes to\nmake up the large fortunes must come out of this sum, we may\naccept the estimate of M. de Morogues that the daily income of\nhalf the French people does not exceed five cents each.\n\n\n\"But,\" continues M. Chevalier, with mystical exaltation, \"does\nnot happiness consist in the harmony of desires and enjoyments,\nin thebalance of needs and satisfactions?  Does it not consist in\na certain condition of soul, the conditions of which it is not\nthe function of political economy to prevent, and which it is not\nits mission to engender?  This is the work of religion and\nphilosophy.\"\n\n\nEconomist, Horace would say to M: Chevalier, if he were living at\nthe present day, attend simply to my income, and leave me to take\ncare of my soul:  Det vitam, det opes; {ae}quum mi animum ipse\nparabo.\n\nM. Dunoyer again has the floor:\n\nIt would be easy, in many cities, on holidays, to confound the\nworking class with the bourgeois class [why are there two\nclasses?], so fine is the dress of the former.  No less has been\nthe progress in nourishment.  Food is at once more abundant, more\nsubstantial, and more varied.  Bread is better everywhere.  Meat,\nsoup, white bread, have become, in many factory towns, infinitely\nmore common than they used to be.  In short, the average duration\nof life has been raised from thirty-five years to forty.\n\n\nFarther on M. Dunoyer gives a picture of English fortunes\naccording to Marshall.  It appears from this picture that in\nEngland two million five hundred thousand families have an income\nof only two hundred and forty dollars.  Now, in England an income\nof two hundred and forty dollars corresponds to an income of one\nhundred and forty-six dollars in our country, which, divided\nbetween four persons, gives each thirty-six dollars and a half,\nor ten cents a day.  That is not far from the thirteen cents\nwhich M. Chevalier allows to each individual in France: the\ndifference in favor of the latter arises from the fact that, the\nprogress of wealth being less advanced in France, poverty is\nlikewise less.  What must one think of the economists' luxuriant\ndescriptions or of their figures?\n\n\n\"Pauperism has increased to such an extent in England,\" confesses\nM. Blanqui, \"that the English government has had to seek a refuge\nin those frightful work-houses\". . . .\n\n\nAs a matter of fact, those pretended work-houses, where the work\nconsists in ridiculous and fruitless occupations, are, whatever\nmay be said, simply torture-houses.  For to a reasonable being\nthere is no torture like that of turning a mill without grain and\nwithout flour, with the sole purpose of avoiding rest, without\nthereby escaping idleness.\n\n\n\"This organization [the organization of competition],\" continues\nM. Blanqui, \"tends to make all the profits of labor pass into the\nhands of capital. . . .  It is at Reims, at Mulhouse, at\nSaint-Quentin, as at Manchester, at Leeds, at Spitalfields, that\nthe existence of the workers is most precarious\". . . .\n\n\nThen follows a frightful picture of the misery of the workers.\nMen, women, children, young girls, pass before you, starved,\nblanched, ragged, wan, and wild.  The description ends with this\nstroke:\n\n\nThe workers in the mechanical industries can no longer supply\nrecruits for the army.\n\n\nIt would seem that these do not derive much benefit from M.\nDunoyer's white bread and soup.\n\nM. Villerme regards the licentiousness of young working girls as\nINEVITABLE.  Concubinage is their customary status; they are\nentirely subsidized by employers, clerks, and students.  Although\nas a general thing marriage is more attractive to the people than\nto the bourgeoisie, there are many proletaires, Malthusians\nwithout knowing it, who fear the family and go with the current.\nThus, as workingmen are flesh for cannon, workingwomen are flesh\nfor prostitution: that explains the elegant dressing on Sunday.\nAfter all, why should these young women be expected to be more\nvirtuous than their mistresses?\n\nM. Buret, crowned by the Academy:\n\n\nI affirm that the working class is abandoned body and soul to the\ngood pleasure of industry.\n\n\nThe same writer says elsewhere:\n\n\nThe feeblest efforts of speculation may cause the price of bread\nto vary a cent a pound and more: which represents $124,100 for\nthirty-four million men.\n\n\nI may remark, in passing, that the much-lamented Buret regarded\nthe idea of the existence of monopolists as a popular prejudice.\nWell, sophist! monopolist or speculator, what matters the name,\nif you admit the thing?\n\nSuch quotations would fill volumes.  But the object of this\ntreatise is not to set forth the contradictions of the economists\nand to wage fruitless war upon persons.  Our object is loftier\nand worthier: it is to unfold the System of Economical\nContradictions, which is quite a different matter.  Therefore we\nwill end this sad review here; and, before concluding, we will\nthrow a glance at the various means proposed whereby to remedy\nthe inconveniences of competition.\n\n\n% 3.--Remedies against competition.\n\nCan competition in labor be abolished?\n\nIt would be as well worth while to ask if personality, liberty,\nindividual responsibility can be suppressed.\n\nCompetition, in fact, is the expression of collective activity;\njust as wages, considered in its highest acceptation, is the\nexpression of the merit and demerit, in a word, the\nresponsibility, of the laborer.  It is vain to declaim and revolt\nagainst these two essential forms of liberty and discipline in\nlabor.  Without a theory of wages there is no distribution, no\njustice; without an organization of competition there is no\nsocial guarantee, consequently no solidarity.\n\nThe socialists have confounded two essentially distinct things\nwhen, contrasting the union of the domestic hearth with\nindustrial competition, they have asked themselves if society\ncould not be constituted precisely like a great family all of\nwhose members would be bound by ties of blood, and not as a sort\nof coalition in which each is held back by the law of his own\ninterests.\n\nThe family is not, if I may venture to so speak, the type, the\norganic molecule, of society.  In the family, as M. de Bonald has\nvery well observed, there exists but one moral being, one mind,\none soul, I had almost said, with the Bible, one flesh.  The\nfamily is the type and the cradle of monarchy and the patriciate:\nin it resides and is preserved the idea of authority and\nsovereignty, which is being obliterated more and more in the\nState.  It was on the model of the family that all the ancient\nand feudal societies were organized, and it is precisely against\nthis old patriarchal constitution that modern democracy protests\nand revolts.\n\nThe constitutive unit of society is the workshop.\n\nNow, the workshop necessarily implies an interest as a body and\nprivate interests, a collective person and individuals.  Hence a\nsystem of relations unknown in the family, among which the\nopposition of the collective will, represented by the EMPLOYER,\nand individual wills, represented by the WAGE-RECEIVERS, figures\nin the front rank.  Then come the relations from shop to shop,\nfrom capital to capital,--in other words, competition and\nassociation.  For competition and association are supported by\neach other; they do not exist independently; very far from\nexcluding each other, they are not even divergent.  Whoever says\ncompetition already supposes a common object; competition, then,\nis not egoism, and the most deplorable error of socialism\nconsists in having regarded it as the subversion of society.\n\nTherefore there can be no question here of destroying\ncompetition, as impossible as to destroy liberty; the\nproblem is to find its equilibrium, I would willingly say its\npolice.  For every force, every form of spontaneity, whether\nindividual or collective, must receive its determination: in this\nrespect it is the same with competition as with intelligence and\nliberty.  How, then, will competition be harmoniously determined\nin society?\n\nWe have heard the reply of M. Dunoyer, speaking for political\neconomy:  Competition must be determined by itself.  In other\nwords, according to M. Dunoyer and all the economists, the remedy\nfor the inconveniences of competition is more competition; and,\nsince political economy is the theory of property, of the\nabsolute right of use and abuse, it is clear that political\neconomy has no other answer to make.  Now, this is as if it\nshould be pretended that the education of liberty is effected by\nliberty, the instruction of the mind by the mind, the\ndetermination of value by value, all of which propositions are\nevidently tautological and absurd.\n\nAnd, in fact, to confine ourselves to the subject under\ndiscussion, it is obvious that competition, practised for itself\nand with no other object than to maintain a vague and discordant\nindependence, can end in nothing, and that its oscillations are\neternal.  In competition the struggling elements are capital,\nmachinery, processes, talent, and experience,--that is, capital\nagain; victory is assured to the heaviest battalions.  If, then,\ncompetition is practised only to the advantage of private\ninterests, and if its social effects have been neither determined\nby science nor reserved by the State, there will be in\ncompetition, as in democracy, a continual tendency from civil war\nto oligarchy, from oligarchy to despotism, and then dissolution\nand return to civil war, without end and without rest.  That is\nwhy competition, abandoned to itself, can never arrive at\nits own constitution: like value, it needs a superior principle\nto socialize and define it.  These facts are henceforth well\nenough established to warrant us in considering them above\ncriticism, and to excuse us from returning to them.  Political\neconomy, so far as the police of competition is concerned, having\nno means but competition itself, and unable to have any other, is\nshown to be powerless.\n\nIt remains now to inquire what solution socialism contemplates.\nA single example will give the measure of its means, and will\npermit us to come to general conclusions regarding it.\n\nOf all modern socialists M. Louis Blanc, perhaps, by his\nremarkable talent, has been most successful in calling public\nattention to his writings.  In his \"Organization of Labor,\" after\nhaving traced back the problem of association to a single point,\ncompetition, he unhesitatingly pronounces in favor of its\nabolition.  From this we may judge to what an extent this writer,\ngenerally so cautious, is deceived as to the value of political\neconomy and the range of socialism.  On the one hand, M. Blanc,\nreceiving his ideas ready made from I know not what source,\ngiving everything to his century and nothing to history, rejects\nabsolutely, in substance and in form, political economy, and\ndeprives himself of the very materials of organization; on the\nother, he attributes to tendencies revived from all past epochs,\nwhich he takes for new, a reality which they do not possess, and\nmisconceives the nature of socialism, which is exclusively\ncritical.  M. Blanc, therefore, has given us the spectacle of a\nvivid imagination ready to confront an impossibility; he has\nbelieved in the divination of genius; but he must have perceived\nthat science does not improvise itself, and that, be one's name\nAdolphe Boyer, Louis Blanc, or J. J. Rousseau, provided there is\nnothing in experience, there is nothing in the mind.\n\nM. Blanc begins with this declaration:\n\n\nWe cannot understand those who have imagined I know not what\nmysterious coupling of two opposite principles.  To graft\nassociation upon competition is a poor idea: it is to substitute\nhermaphrodites for eunuchs.\n\n\nThese three lines M. Blanc will always have reason to regret.\nThey prove that, when he published the fourth edition of his\nbook, he was as little advanced in logic as in political economy,\nand that he reasoned about both as a blind man would reason about\ncolors.  Hermaphrodism, in politics, consists precisely in\nexclusion, because exclusion always restores, in some form or\nother and in the same degree, the idea excluded; and M. Blanc\nwould be greatly surprised were he to be shown, by his continual\nmixture in his book of the most contrary principles,-- authority\nand right, property and communism, aristocracy and equality,\nlabor and capital, reward and sacrifice, liberty and\ndictatorship, free inquiry and religious faith,--that the real\nhermaphrodite, the double- sexed publicist, is himself.  M.\nBlanc, placed on the borders of democracy and socialism, one\ndegree lower than the Republic, two degrees beneath M. Barrot,\nthree beneath M. Thiers, is also, whatever he may say and\nwhatever he may do, a descendant through four generations from M.\nGuizot, a doctrinaire.\n\n\n\"Certainly,\" cries M. Blanc, \"we are not of those who\nanathematize the principle of authority.  This principle we have\na thousand times had occasion to defend against attacks as\ndangerous as absurd.  We know that, when organized force exists\nnowhere in a society, despotism exists everywhere.\"\n\n\nThus, according to M. Blanc, the remedy for competition, or\nrather, the means of abolishing it, consists in the intervention\nof authority, in the substitution of the State for individual\nliberty: it is the inverse of the system of the economists.\n\nI should dislike to have M. Blanc, whose social tendencies are\nwell known, accuse me of making impolitic war upon him in\nrefuting him.  I do justice to M. Blanc's generous intentions; I\nlove and I read his works, and I am especially thankful to him\nfor the service he has rendered in revealing, in his \"History of\nTen Years,\" the hopeless poverty of his party.  But no one can\nconsent to seem a dupe or an imbecile: now, putting personality\nentirely aside, what can there be in common between socialism,\nthat universal protest, and the hotch-potch of old prejudices\nwhich make up M. Blanc's republic?  M. Blanc is never tired of\nappealing to authority, and socialism loudly declares itself\nanarchistic; M. Blanc places power above society, and socialism\ntends to subordinate it to society; M. Blanc makes social life\ndescend from above, and socialism maintains that it springs up\nand grows from below; M. Blanc runs after politics, and socialism\nis in quest of science.  No more hypocrisy, let me say to M.\nBlanc: you desire neither Catholicism nor monarchy nor nobility,\nbut you must have a God, a religion, a dictatorship, a\ncensorship, a hierarchy, distinctions, and ranks.  For my part, I\ndeny your God, your authority, your sovereignty, your judicial\nState, and all your representative mystifications; I want neither\nRobespierre's censer nor Marat's rod; and, rather than submit to\nyour androgynous democracy, I would support the status quo.  For\nsixteen years your party has resisted progress and blocked\nopinion; for sixteen years it has shown its despotic origin by\nfollowing in the wake of power at the extremity of the left\ncentre: it is time for it to abdicate or undergo a metamorphosis.\n\nImplacable theorists of authority, what then do you propose which\nthe government upon which you make war cannot accomplish in\na fashion more tolerable than yours?\n\nM. Blanc's SYSTEM may be summarized in three points:\n\n1. To give power a great force of initiative,--that is, in plain\nEnglish, to make absolutism omnipotent in order to realize a\nutopia.\n\n2. To establish public workshops, and supply them with capital,\nat the State's expense.\n\n3.  To extinguish private industry by the competition of national\nindustry.\n\nAnd that is all.\n\nHas M. Blanc touched the problem of value, which involves in\nitself alone all others?  He does not even suspect its existence.\n\nHas he given a theory of distribution?  No.  Has he solved the\nantinomy of the division of labor, perpetual cause of the\nworkingman's ignorance, immorality, and poverty?  No.  Has he\ncaused the contradiction of machinery and wages to disappear, and\nreconciled the rights of association with those of liberty?  On\nthe contrary, M. Blanc consecrates this contradiction.  Under the\ndespotic protection of the State, he admits in principle the\ninequality of ranks and wages, adding thereto, as compensation,\nthe ballot.  Are not workingmen who vote their regulations and\nelect their leaders free?  It may very likely happen that these\nvoting workingmen will admit no command or difference of pay\namong them: then, as nothing will have been provided for the\nsatisfaction of industrial capacities, while maintaining\npolitical equality, dissolution will penetrate into the workshop,\nand, in the absence of police intervention, each will return to\nhis own affairs.  These fears seem to M. Blanc neither serious\nnor well-founded: he awaits the test calmly, very sure that\nsociety will not go out of his way to contradict him.\n\nAnd such complex and intricate questions as those of taxation,\ncredit, international trade, property, heredity,--has M. Blanc\nfathomed them?  Has he solved the problem of population?  No, no,\nno, a thousand times no: when M. Blanc cannot solve a difficulty,\nhe eliminates it.  Regarding population, he says:\n\n\nAs only poverty is prolific, and as the social workshop will\ncause poverty to disappear, there is no reason for giving it any\nthought.\n\n\nIn vain does M. de Sismondi, supported by universal experience,\ncry out to him:\n\n\nWe have no confidence in those who exercise delegated powers.  We\nbelieve that any corporation will do its business worse than\nthose who are animated by individual interest; that on the part\nof the directors there will be negligence, display, waste,\nfavoritism, fear of compromise, all the faults, in short, to be\nnoticed in the administration of the public wealth as contrasted\nwith private wealth.  We believe, further, that in an assembly of\nstockholders will be found only carelessness, caprice,\nnegligence, and that a mercantile enterprise would be constantly\ncompromised and soon ruined, if it were dependent upon a\ndeliberative commercial assembly.\n\n\nM. Blanc hears nothing; he drowns all other sounds with his own\nsonorous phrases; private interest he replaces by devotion to the\npublic welfare; for competition he substitutes emulation and\nrewards.  After having posited industrial hierarchy as a\nprinciple, it being a necessary consequence of his faith in God,\nauthority, and genius, he abandons himself to mystic powers,\nidols of his heart and his imagination.\n\nThus M. Blanc begins by a coup d' Etat, or rather, according to\nhis original expression, by an application of the FORCE OF\nINITIATIVE which he gives to power; and he levies an\nextraordinary tax upon the rich in order to supply the\nproletariat with capital.  M. Blanc's logic is very simple,--it\nis that of the Republic: power can accomplish what the people\nwant, and what the people want is right.  A singular fashion\nof reforming society, this of repressing its most spontaneous\ntendencies, denying its most authentic manifestations, and,\ninstead of generalizing comfort by the regular development of\ntraditions, displacing labor and income!  But, in truth, what is\nthe good of these disguises?  Why so much beating about the bush?\nWas it not simpler to adopt the agrarian law straightway?  Could\nnot power, by virtue of its force of initiative, at once declare\nall capital and tools the property of the State, save an\nindemnity to be granted to the present holders as a transitional\nmeasure?  By means of this peremptory, but frank and sincere,\npolicy, the economic field would have been cleared away; it would\nnot have cost utopia more, and M. Blanc could then have proceeded\nat his ease, and without any hindrance, to the organization of\nsociety.\n\nBut what do I say? organize!  The whole organic work of M. Blanc\nconsists in this great act of expropriation, or substitution, if\nyou prefer: industry once displaced and republicanized and the\ngreat monopoly established, M. Blanc does not doubt that\nproduction will go on exactly as one would wish; he does not\nconceive it possible that any one can raise even a single\ndifficulty in the way of what he calls his SYSTEM.  And, in\nfact, what objection can be offered to a conception so radically\nnull, so intangible as that of M. Blanc?  The most curious part\nof his book is in the select collection which he has made of\nobjections proposed by certain incredulous persons, which he\nanswers, as may be imagined, triumphantly.  These critics had not\nseen that, in discussing M. Blanc's SYSTEM, they were arguing\nabout the dimensions, weight, and form of a mathematical point.\nNow, as it has happened, the controversy maintained by M. Blanc\nhas taught him more than his own meditations had done; and one\ncan see that, if the objections had continued, he would have\nended by discovering what he thought he had invented,--the\norganization of labor.\n\nBut, in fine, has the aim, however narrow, which M. Blanc\npursued,-- namely, the abolition of competition and the guarantee\nof success to an enterprise patronized and backed by the\nState,--been attained?  On this subject I will quote the\nreflections of a talented economist, M. Joseph Garnier, to whose\nwords I will permit myself to add a few comments.\n\n\nThe government, according to M. Blanc, would choose MORAL\nWORKMEN, and would give them GOOD WAGES.\n\n\nSo M. Blanc must have men made expressly for him: he does not\nflatter himself that he can act on any sort of temperaments.  As\nfor wages, M. Blanc promises that they shall be GOOD; that is\neasier than to define their measure.\n\n\nM. Blanc admits by his hypothesis that these workshops would\nyield a net product, and, further, would compete so successfully\nwith private industry that the latter would change into national\nworkshops.\n\n\nHow could that be, if the cost of the national workshops is\nhigher than that of the free workshops?  I have shown in the\nthird chapter that three hundred workmen in a mill do not produce\nfor their employer, among them all, a regular net income of\ntwenty thousand francs, and that these twenty thousand francs,\ndistributed among the three hundred laborers, would add but\neighteen centimes a day to their income.  Now, this is true of\nall industries.  How will the national workshop, which owes ITS\nWORKMEN GOOD WAGES, make up this deficit?  By emulation, says M.\nBlanc.\n\nM. Blanc points with extreme complacency to the Leclaire\nestablishment, a society of house-painters doing a very\nsuccessful business, which he regards as a living\ndemonstration of his system.  M. Blanc might have added to this\nexample a multitude of similar societies, which would prove quite\nas much as the Leclaire establishment,--that is, no more.  The\nLeclaire establishment is a collective monopoly, supported by the\ngreat society which envelops it.  Now, the question is whether\nentire society can become a monopoly, in M. Blanc's sense and\npatterned after the Leclaire establishment: I deny it positively.\nBut a fact touching more closely the question before us, and\nwhich M. Blanc has not taken into consideration, is that it\nfollows from the distribution accounts furnished by the Leclaire\nestablishment that, the wages paid being much above the general\naverage, the first thing to do in a reorganization of society\nwould be to start up competition with the Leclaire establishment,\neither among its own workmen or outside.\n\n\nWages would be regulated by the government.  The members of the\nsocial workshop would dispose of them as they liked, and THE\nINDISPUTABLE EXCELLENCE OF LIFE IN COMMON WOULD NOT BE LONG IN\nCAUSING ASSOCIATION IN LABOR TO GIVE BIRTH TO VOLUNTARY\nASSOCIATION IN PLEASURE.\n\n\nIs M. Blanc a communist, yes or no?  Let him declare himself once\nfor all, instead of holding off; and if communism does not make\nhim more intelligible, we shall at least know what he wants.\n\n\nIn reading the supplement in which M. Blanc has seen fit to\ncombat the objections which some journals have raised, we see\nmore clearly the incompleteness of his conception, daughter of at\nleast three fathers,-- Saint-Simonism, Fourierism, and\ncommunism,--with the aid of politics and a little, a very little,\npolitical economy.\n\nAccording to his explanations, the State would be only the\nregulator, legislator, protector of industry, not the universal\nmanufacturer or producer.  But as he exclusively protects the\nsocial workshops to destroy private industry, he necessarily\nbrings up in monopoly and falls back into the Saint-Simonian\ntheory in spite of himself, at least so far as production is\nconcerned.\n\n\nM. Blanc cannot deny it: his SYSTEM is directed against private\nindustry; and with him power, by its force of initiative, tends\nto extinguish all individual initiative, to proscribe free labor.\nThe coupling of contraries is odious to M. Blanc: accordingly we\nsee that, after having sacrificed competition to association, he\nsacrifices to it liberty also.  I am waiting for him to abolish\nthe family.\n\n\nNevertheless hierarchy would result from the elective principle,\nas in Fourierism, as in constitutional politics.  But these\nsocial workshops again, regulated by law,--will they be anything\nbut corporations?  What is the bond of corporations?  The law.\nWho will make the law?  The government.  You suppose that it will\nbe good?  Well, experience has shown that it has never been a\nsuccess in regulating the innumerable accidents of industry.  You\ntell us that it will fix the rate of profits, the rate of wages;\nyou hope that it will do it in such a way that laborers and\ncapital will take refuge in the social workshop.  But you do not\ntell us how equilibrium will be established between these\nworkshops which will have a tendency to life in common, to the\nphalanstery; you do not tell us how these workshops will avoid\ncompetition within and without; how they will provide for the\nexcess of population in relation to capital; how the\nmanufacturing social workshops will differ from those of the\nfields; and many other things besides.  I know well that you will\nanswer:  By the specific virtue of the law!  And if your\ngovernment, your State, knows not how to make it?  Do you not see\nthat you are sliding down a declivity, and that you are obliged\nto grasp at something similar to the existing law?  It is easy to\nsee by reading you that you are especially devoted to the\ninvention of a power susceptible of application to your system;\nbut I declare, after reading you carefully, that in my opinion\nyou have as yet no clear and precise idea of what you need.  What\nyou lack, as well as all of us, is the true conception of liberty\nand equality, which you would not like to disown, and which you\nare obliged to sacrifice, whatever precautions you may take.\n\nUnacquainted with the nature and functions of power, you have not\ndared to stop for a single explanation; you have not given the\nslightest example.\n\nSuppose we admit that the workshops succeed as producers; there\nwill also be commercial workshops to put products in circulation\nand effect exchanges.  And who then will regulate the price?\nAgain the law?  In truth, I tell you, you will need a new\nappearance on Mount Sinai; otherwise you will never get out of\nyour difficulties, you, your Council of State, your chamber of\nrepresentatives, or your areopagus of senators.\n\n\nThe correctness of these reflections cannot be questioned.  M.\nBlanc, with his organization by the State, is obliged always to\nend where he should have begun (so beginning, he would have been\nsaved the trouble of writing his book),--that is, in the STUDY OF\nECONOMIC SCIENCE.  As his critic very well says:  \"M. Blanc has\nmade the grave mistake of using political strategy in dealing\nwith questions which are not amenable to such treatment\"; he has\ntried to summon the government to a fulfillment of its\nobligations, and he has succeeded only in demonstrating more\nclearly than ever the incompatibility of socialism with\nharanguing and parliamentary democracy.  His pamphlet, all\nenamelled with eloquent pages, does honor to his literary\ncapacity: as for the philosophical value of the book, it would be\nabsolutely the same if the author had confined himself to writing\non each page, in large letters, this single phrase: I PROTEST.\n\nTo sum up:\n\nCompetition, as an economic position or phase, considered in its\norigin, is the necessary result of the intervention of machinery,\nof the establishment of the workshop, and of the theory of\nreduction of general costs; considered in its own significance\nand in its tendency, it is the mode by which collective activity\nmanifests and exercises itself, the expression of social\nspontaneity, the emblem of democracy and equality, the most\nenergetic instrument for the constitution of value, the support\nof association.  As the essay of individual forces, it is\nthe guarantee of their liberty, the first moment of their\nharmony, the form of responsibility which unites them all and\nmakes them solidary.\n\nBut competition abandoned to itself and deprived of the direction\nof a superior and efficacious principle is only a vague movement,\nan endless oscillation of industrial power, eternally tossed\nabout between those two equally disastrous extremes,--on the one\nhand, corporations and patronage, to which we have seen the\nworkshop give birth, and, on the other, monopoly, which will be\ndiscussed in the following chapter.\n\nSocialism, while protesting, and with reason, against this\nanarchical competition, has as yet proposed nothing satisfactory\nfor its regulation, as is proved by the fact that we meet\neverywhere, in the utopias which have seen the light, the\ndetermination or socialization of value abandoned to arbitrary\ncontrol, and all reforms ending, now in hierarchical corporation,\nnow in State monopoly, or the tyranny of communism.\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI.\n\nFOURTH PERIOD.--MONOPOLY.\n\nMonopoly, the exclusive commerce, exploitation, or enjoyment of a\nthing.\n\nMonopoly is the natural opposite of competition.  This simple\nobservation suffices, as we have remarked, to overthrow the\nutopias based upon the idea of abolishing competition, as if its\ncontrary were association and fraternity.  Competition is the\nvital force which animates the collective being: to destroy it,\nif such a supposition were possible, would be to kill society.\n\nBut, the moment we admit competition as a necessity, it implies\nthe idea of monopoly, since monopoly is, as it were, the seat of\neach competing individuality.  Accordingly the economists have\ndemonstrated--and M. Rossi has formally admitted it--that\nmonopoly is the form of social possession, outside of which there\nis no labor, no product, no exchange, no wealth.  Every landed\npossession is a monopoly; every industrial utopia tends to\nestablish itself as a monopoly; and the same must be said of\nother functions not included in these two categories.\n\nMonopoly in itself, then, does not carry the idea of injustice;\nin fact, there is something in it which, pertaining to society as\nwell as to man, legitimates it: that is the POSITIVE side of the\nprinciple which we are about to examine.\n\nBut monopoly, like competition, becomes anti-social and\ndisastrous: how does this happen?  By ABUSE, reply the\neconomists.  And it is to defining and repressing the abuses of\nmonopoly that the magistrates apply themselves; it is in\ndenouncing them that the new school of economists glories.\n\nWe shall show that the so-called abuses of monopoly are only the\neffects of the development, in a NEGATIVE sense, of legal\nmonopoly; that they cannot be separated from their principle\nwithout ruining this principle; consequently, that they are\ninaccessible to the law, and that all repression in this\ndirection is arbitrary and unjust.  So that monopoly, the\nconstitutive principle of society and the condition of wealth, is\nat the same time and in the same degree a principle of spoliation\nand pauperism; that, the more good it is made to produce, the\nmore evil is received from it; that without it progress comes to\na standstill, and that with it labor becomes stationary and\ncivilization disappears.\n\n\n% 1.--Necessity of monopoly.\n\nThus monopoly is the inevitable end of competition, which\nengenders it by a continual denial of itself: this generation of\nmonopoly is already its justification.  For, since competition is\ninherent in society as motion is in living beings, monopoly which\ncomes in its train, which is its object and its end, and without\nwhich competition would not have been accepted,--monopoly is and\nwill remain legitimate as long as competition, as long as\nmechanical processes and industrial combinations, as long, in\nfact, as the division of labor and the constitution of values\nshall be necessities and laws.\n\nTherefore by the single fact of its logical generation monopoly\nis justified.  Nevertheless this justification would seem of\nlittle force and would end only in a more energetic rejection of\ncompetition than ever, if monopoly could not in turn posit itself\nby itself and as a principle.\n\nIn the preceding chapters we have seen that division of labor is\nthe specification of the workman considered especially as\nintelligence; that the creation of machinery and the organization\nof the workshop express his liberty; and that, by competition,\nman, or intelligent liberty, enters into action.  Now, monopoly\nis the expression of victorious liberty, the prize of the\nstruggle, the glorification of genius; it is the strongest\nstimulant of all the steps in progress taken since the beginning\nof the world: so true is this that, as we said just now, society,\nwhich cannot exist with it, would not have been formed without\nit.\n\nWhere, then, does monopoly get this singular virtue, which the\netymology of the word and the vulgar aspect of the thing would\nnever lead us to suspect?\n\nMonopoly is at bottom simply the autocracy of man over himself:\nit is the dictatorial right accorded by nature to every producer\nof using his faculties as he pleases, of giving free play to his\nthought in whatever direction it prefers, of speculating, in such\nspecialty as he may please to choose, with all the power of his\nresources, of disposing sovereignly of the instruments which he\nhas created and of the capital accumulated by his economy for any\nenterprise the risks of which he may see fit to accept on the\nexpress condition of enjoying alone the fruits of his discovery\nand the profits of his venture.\n\nThis right belongs so thoroughly to the essence of liberty that\nto deny it is to mutilate man in his body, in his soul, and in\nthe exercise of his faculties, and society, which progresses only\nby the free initiative of individuals, soon lacking explorers,\nfinds itself arrested in its onward march.\n\nIt is time to give body to all these ideas by the testimony of\nfacts.\n\nI know a commune where from time immemorial there had been no\nroads either for the clearing of lands or for communication with\nthe outside world.  During three-fourths of the year all\nimportation or exportation of goods was prevented; a barrier of\nmud and marsh served as a protection at once against any invasion\nfrom without and any excursion of the inhabitants of the holy and\nsacred community.  Six horses, in the finest weather, scarcely\nsufficed to move a load that any jade could easily have taken\nover a good road.  The mayor resolved, in spite of the council,\nto build a road through the town.  For a long time he was\nderided, cursed, execrated.  They had got along well enough\nwithout a road up to the time of his administration: why need he\nspend the money of the commune and waste the time of farmers in\nroad-duty, cartage, and compulsory service?  It was to satisfy\nhis pride that Monsieur the Mayor desired, at the expense of the\npoor farmers, to open such a fine avenue for his city friends who\nwould come to visit him!  In spite of everything the road was\nmade and the peasants applauded!  What a difference! they said:\nit used to take eight horses to carry thirty sacks to market, and\nwe were gone three days; now we start in the morning with two\nhorses, and are back at night.  But in all these remarks nothing\nfurther was heard of the mayor.  The event having justified him,\nthey spoke of him no more: most of them, in fact, as I found out,\nfelt a spite against him.\n\nThis mayor acted after the manner of Aristides.  Suppose that,\nwearied by the absurd clamor, he had from the beginning proposed\nto his constituents to build the road at his expense, provided\nthey would pay him toll for fifty years, each, however,\nremaining free to travel through the fields, as in the past: in\nwhat respect would this transaction have been fraudulent?\n\nThat is the history of society and monopolists.\n\nEverybody is not in a position to make a present to his\nfellow-citizens of a road or a machine: generally the inventor,\nafter exhausting his health and substance, expects reward.  Deny\nthen, while still scoffing at them, to Arkwright, Watt, and\nJacquard the privilege of their discoveries; they will shut\nthemselves up in order to work, and possibly will carry their\nsecret to the grave.  Deny to the settler possession of the soil\nwhich he clears, and no one will clear it.\n\nBut, they say, is that true right, social right, fraternal right?\n\nThat which is excusable on emerging from primitive communism, an\neffect of necessity, is only a temporary expedient which must\ndisappear in face of a fuller understanding of the rights and\nduties of man and society.\n\nI recoil from no hypothesis: let us see, let us investigate.  It\nis already a great point that the opponents confess that, during\nthe first period of civilization, things could not have gone\notherwise.  It remains to ascertain whether the institutions of\nthis period are really, as has been said, only temporary, or\nwhether they are the result of laws immanent in society and\neternal.  Now, the thesis which I maintain at this moment is the\nmore difficult because in direct opposition to the general\ntendency, and because I must directly overturn it myself by its\ncontradiction.\n\nI pray, then, that I may be told how it is possible to make\nappeal to the principles of sociability, fraternity, and\nsolidarity, when society itself rejects every solidary and\nfraternal transaction?  At the beginning of each industry, at the\nfirst gleam of a discovery, the man who invents is isolated;\nsociety abandons him and remains in the background.  To put\nit better, this man, relatively to the idea which he has\nconceived and the realization of which he pursues, becomes in\nhimself alone entire society.  He has no longer any associates,\nno longer any collaborators, no longer any sureties; everybody\nshuns him: on him alone falls the responsibility; to him alone,\nthen, the advantages of the speculation.\n\nBut, it is insisted, this is blindness on the part of society, an\nabandonment of its most sacred rights and interests, of the\nwelfare of future generations; and the speculator, better\ninformed or more fortunate, cannot fairly profit by the monopoly\nwhich universal ignorance gives into his hands.\n\nI maintain that this conduct on the part of society is, as far as\nthe present is concerned, an act of high prudence; and, as for\nthe future, I shall prove that it does not lose thereby.  I have\nalready shown in the second chapter, by the solution of the\nantinomy of value, that the advantage of every useful discovery\nis incomparably less to the inventor, whatever he may do, than to\nsociety; I have carried the demonstration of this point even to\nmathematical accuracy.  Later I shall show further that, in\naddition to the profit assured it by every discovery, society\nexercises over the privileges which it concedes, whether\ntemporarily or perpetually, claims of several kinds, which\nlargely palliate the excess of certain private fortunes, and the\neffect of which is a prompt restoration of equilibrium.  But let\nus not anticipate.\n\nI observe, then, that social life manifests itself in a double\nfashion,--PRESERVATION and DEVELOPMENT.\n\nDevelopment is effected by the free play of individual energies;\nthe mass is by its nature barren, passive, and hostile to\neverything new.  It is, if I may venture to use the comparison,\nthe womb, sterile by itself, but to which come to deposit\nthemselves the germs created by private activity, which, in\nhermaphroditic society, really performs the function of the male\norgan.\n\nBut society preserves itself only so far as it avoids solidarity\nwith private speculations and leaves every innovation absolutely\nto the risk and peril of individuals.  It would take but a few\npages to contain the list of useful inventions.  The enterprises\nthat have been carried to a successful issue may be numbered; no\nfigure would express the multitude of false ideas and imprudent\nventures which every day are hatched in human brains.  There is\nnot an inventor, not a workman, who, for one sane and correct\nconception, has not given birth to thousands of chimeras; not an\nintelligence which, for one spark of reason, does not emit\nwhirlwinds of smoke.  If it were possible to divide all the\nproducts of the human reason into two parts, putting on one side\nthose that are useful, and on the other those on which strength,\nthought, capital, and time have been spent in error, we should be\nstartled by the discovery that the excess of the latter over the\nformer is perhaps a billion per cent.  What would become of\nsociety, if it had to discharge these liabilities and settle all\nthese bankruptcies?  What, in turn, would become of the\nresponsibility and dignity of the laborer, if, secured by the\nsocial guarantee, he could, without personal risk, abandon\nhimself to all the caprices of a delirious imagination and trifle\nat every moment with the existence of humanity?\n\nWherefore I conclude that what has been practised from the\nbeginning will be practised to the end, and that, on this point,\nas on every other, if our aim is reconciliation, it is absurd to\nthink that anything that exists can be abolished.  For, the world\nof ideas being infinite, like nature, and men, today as ever,\nbeing subject to speculation,--that is, to error,--individuals\nhave a constant stimulus to speculate and society a constant\nreason to be suspicious and cautious, wherefore monopoly never\nlacks material.\n\nTo avoid this dilemma what is proposed?  Compensation?  In the\nfirst place, compensation is impossible: all values being\nmonopolized, where would society get the means to indemnify the\nmonopolists?  What would be its mortgage?  On the other hand,\ncompensation would be utterly useless: after all the monopolies\nhad been compensated, it would remain to organize industry.\nWhere is the system?  Upon what is opinion settled?  What\nproblems have been solved?  If the organization is to be of the\nhierarchical type, we reenter the system of monopoly; if of the\ndemocratic, we return to the point of departure, for the\ncompensated industries will fall into the public domain,--that\nis, into competition,--and gradually will become monopolies\nagain; if, finally, of the communistic, we shall simply have\npassed from one impossibility to another, for, as we shall\ndemonstrate at the proper time, communism, like competition and\nmonopoly, is antinomical, impossible.\n\nIn order not to involve the social wealth in an unlimited and\nconsequently disastrous solidarity, will they content themselves\nwith imposing rules upon the spirit of invention and enterprise?\nWill they establish a censorship to distinguish between men of\ngenius and fools?  That is to suppose that society knows in\nadvance precisely that which is to be discovered.  To submit the\nprojects of schemers to an advance examination is an a priori\nprohibition of all movement.  For, once more, relatively to the\nend which he has in view, there is a moment when each\nmanufacturer represents in his own person society itself, sees\nbetter and farther than all other men combined, and frequently\nwithout being able to explain himself or make himself\nunderstood.  When Copernicus, Kepler, and Galileo, Newton's\npredecessors, came to the point of saying to Christian society,\nthen represented by the Church:  \"The Bible is mistaken; the\nearth revolves, and the sun is stationary,\" they were right\nagainst society, which, on the strength of its senses and\ntraditions, contradicted them.  Could society then have accepted\nsolidarity with the Copernican system?  So little could it do it\nthat this system openly denied its faith, and that, pending the\naccord of reason and revelation, Galileo, one of the responsible\ninventors, underwent torture in proof of the new idea.  We are\nmore tolerant, I presume; but this very toleration proves that,\nwhile according greater liberty to genius, we do not mean to be\nless discreet than our ancestors.  Patents rain, but WITHOUT\nGOVERNMENTAL GUARANTEE.  Property titles are placed in the\nkeeping of citizens, but neither the property list nor the\ncharter guarantee their value: it is for labor to make them\nvaluable.  And as for the scientific and other missions which the\ngovernment sometimes takes a notion to entrust to penniless\nexplorers, they are so much extra robbery and corruption.\n\nIn fact, society can guarantee to no one the capital necessary\nfor the testing of an idea by experiment; in right, it cannot\nclaim the results of an enterprise to which it has not\nsubscribed: therefore monopoly is indestructible.  For the rest,\nsolidarity would be of no service: for, as each can claim for his\nwhims the solidarity of all and would have the same right to\nobtain the government's signature in blank, we should soon arrive\nat the universal reign of caprice,--that is, purely and simply at\nthe statu quo.\n\nSome socialists, very unhappily inspired--I say it with all the\nforce of my conscience--by evangelical abstractions, believe\nthat they have solved the difficulty by these fine maxims:\n\"Inequality of capacities proves the inequality of duties\"; \"You\nhave received more from nature, give more to your brothers,\" and\nother high-sounding and touching phrases, which never fail of\ntheir effect on empty heads, but which nevertheless are as simple\nas anything that it is possible to imagine.  The practical\nformula deduced from these marvellous adages is that each laborer\nowes all his time to society, and that society should give back\nto him in exchange all that is necessary to the satisfaction of\nhis wants in proportion to the resources at its disposal.\n\nMay my communistic friends forgive me!  I should be less severe\nupon their ideas if I were not irreversibly convinced, in my\nreason and in my heart, that communism, republicanism, and all\nthe social, political, and religious utopias which disdain facts\nand criticism, are the greatest obstacle which progress has now\nto conquer.  Why will they never understand that fraternity can\nbe established only by justice; that justice alone, the\ncondition, means, and law of liberty and fraternity, must be the\nobject of our study; and that its determination and formula must\nbe pursued without relaxation, even to the minutest details?  Why\ndo writers familiar with economic language forget that\nsuperiority of talents is synonymous with superiority of wants,\nand that, instead of expecting more from vigorous than from\nordinary personalities, society should constantly look out that\nthey do not receive more than they render, when it is already so\nhard for the mass of mankind to render all that it receives?\nTurn which way you will, you must always come back to the cash\nbook, to the account of receipts and expenditures, the sole\nguarantee against large consumers as well as against small\nproducers.  The workman continually lives IN ADVANCE of his\nproduction; his tendency is always to get CREDIT, contract DEBTS\nand go into BANKRUPTCY; it is perpetually necessary to remind him\nof Say's aphorism:  PRODUCTS ARE BOUGHT ONLY WITH PRODUCTS.\n\nTo suppose that the laborer of great capacity will content\nhimself, in favor of the weak, with half his wages, furnish his\nservices gratuitously, and produce, as the people say, FOR THE\nKING OF PRUSSIA--that is, for that abstraction called society,\nthe sovereign, or my brothers,--is to base society on a\nsentiment, I do not say beyond the reach of man, but one which,\nerected systematically into a principle, is only a false virtue,\na dangerous hypocrisy.  Charity is recommended to us as a\nreparation of the infirmities which afflict our fellows by\naccident, and, viewing it in this light, I can see that charity\nmay be organized; I can see that, growing out of solidarity\nitself, it may become simply justice.  But charity taken as an\ninstrument of equality and the law of equilibrium would be the\ndissolution of society.  Equality among men is produced by the\nrigorous and inflexible law of labor, the proportionality of\nvalues, the sincerity of exchanges, and the equivalence of\nfunctions,--in short, by the mathematical solution of all\nantagonisms.\n\nThat is why charity, the prime virtue of the Christian, the\nlegitimate hope of the socialist, the object of all the efforts\nof the economist, is a social vice the moment it is made a\nprinciple of constitution and a law; that is why certain\neconomists have been able to say that legal charity had caused\nmore evil in society than proprietary usurpation.  Man, like the\nsociety of which he is a part, has a perpetual account current\nwith himself; all that he consumes he must produce.  Such is the\ngeneral rule, which no one can escape without being, ipso facto\nstruck with dishonor or suspected of fraud.  Singular idea,\ntruly,--that of decreeing, under pretext of fraternity, the\nrelative inferiority of the majority of men!  After this\nbeautiful declaration nothing will be left but to draw its\nconsequences; and soon, thanks to fraternity, aristocracy will be\nrestored.\n\nDouble the normal wages of the workman, and you invite him to\nidleness, humiliate his dignity, and demoralize his conscience;\ntake away from him the legitimate price of his efforts, and you\neither excite his anger or exalt his pride.  In either case you\ndamage his fraternal feelings.  On the contrary, make enjoyment\nconditional upon labor, the only way provided by nature to\nassociate men and make them good and happy, and you go back under\nthe law of economic distribution, PRODUCTS ARE BOUGHT WITH\nPRODUCTS.  Communism, as I have often complained, is the very\ndenial of society in its foundation, which is the progressive\nequivalence of functions and capacities.  The communists, toward\nwhom all socialism tends, do not believe in equality by nature\nand education; they supply it by sovereign decrees which they\ncannot carry out, whatever they may do.  Instead of seeking\njustice in the harmony of facts, they take it from their\nfeelings, calling justice everything that seems to them to be\nlove of one's neighbor, and incessantly confounding matters of\nreason with those of sentiment.\n\nWhy then continually interject fraternity, charity, sacrifice,\nand God into the discussion of economic questions?  May it not be\nthat the utopists find it easier to expatiate upon these grand\nwords than to seriously study social manifestations?\n\nFraternity!  Brothers as much as you please, provided I am the\nbig brother and you the little; provided society, our common\nmother, honors my primogeniture and my services by doubling my\nportion.  You will provide for my wants, you say, in proportion\nto your resources.  I intend, on the contrary, that such\nprovision shall be in proportion to my labor; if not, I cease to\nlabor.\n\nCharity!  I deny charity; it is mysticism.  In vain do you talk\nto me of fraternity and love: I remain convinced that you love me\nbut little, and I feel very sure that I do not love you.  Your\nfriendship is but a feint, and, if you love me, it is from\nself-interest.  I ask all that my products cost me, and only what\nthey cost me: why do you refuse me?\n\nSacrifice!  I deny sacrifice; it is mysticism.  Talk to me of\nDEBT and CREDIT, the only criterion in my eyes of the just and\nthe unjust, of good and evil in society.  To each according to\nhis works, first; and if, on occasion, I am impelled to aid you,\nI will do it with a good grace; but I will not be constrained.\nTo constrain me to sacrifice is to assassinate me.\n\nGod!  I know no God; mysticism again.  Begin by striking this\nword from your remarks, if you wish me to listen to you; for\nthree thousand years of experience have taught me that whoever\ntalks to me of God has designs on my liberty or on my purse.  How\nmuch do you owe me?  How much do I owe you?  That is my religion\nand my God.\n\nMonopoly owes its existence both to nature and to man: it has its\nsource at once in the profoundest depths of our conscience and in\nthe external fact of our individualization.  Just as in our body\nand our mind everything has its specialty and property, so our\nlabor presents itself with a proper and specific character, which\nconstitutes its quality and value.  And as labor cannot manifest\nitself without material or an object for its exercise, the person\nnecessarily attracting the thing, monopoly is established from\nsubject to object as infallibly as duration is constituted from\npast to future.  Bees, ants, and other animals living in society\nseem endowed individually only with automatism; with them soul\nand instinct are almost exclusively collective.  That is why,\namong such animals, there can be no room for privilege and\nmonopoly; why, even in their most volitional operations, they\nneither consult nor deliberate.  But, humanity being\nindividualized in its plurality, man becomes inevitably a\nmonopolist, since, if not a monopolist, he is nothing; and the\nsocial problem is to find out, not how to abolish, but how to\nreconcile, all monopolies.\n\nThe most remarkable and the most immediate effects of monopoly\nare:\n\n1. In the political order, the classification of humanity into\nfamilies, tribes, cities, nations, States: this is the elementary\ndivision of humanity into groups and sub-groups of laborers,\ndistinguished by race, language, customs, and climate.  It was by\nmonopoly that the human race took possession of the globe, as it\nwill be by association that it will become complete sovereign\nthereof.\n\nPolitical and civil law, as conceived by all legislators without\nexception and as formulated by jurists, born of this patriotic\nand national organization of societies, forms, in the series of\nsocial contradictions, a first and vast branch, the study of\nwhich by itself alone would demand four times more time than we\ncan give it in discussing the question of industrial economy\npropounded by the Academy.\n\n2. In the economic order, monopoly contributes to the increase of\ncomfort, in the first place by adding to the general wealth\nthrough the perfecting of methods, and then by\nCAPITALIZING,--that is, by consolidating the conquests of labor\nobtained by division, machinery, and competition.  From this\neffect of monopoly has resulted the economic fiction by which the\ncapitalist is considered a producer and capital an agent of\nproduction; then, as a consequence of this fiction, the theory of\nNET PRODUCT and GROSS PRODUCT.\n\nOn this point we have a few considerations to present.  First let\nus quote J. B. Say:\n\n\nThe value produced is the GROSS product: after the costs of\nproduction have been deducted, this value is the NET product.\n\nConsidering a nation as a whole, it has no net product; for, as\nproducts have no value beyond the costs of production, when these\ncosts are cut off, the entire value of the product is cut off.\nNational production, annual production, should always therefore\nbe understood as gross production.\n\nThe annual revenue is the gross revenue.\n\nThe term net production is applicable only when considering the\ninterests of one producer in opposition to those of other\nproducers.  The manager of an enterprise gets his PROFIT from\nthe value PRODUCED after deducting the value CONSUMED.  But\nwhat to him is value consumed, such as the purchase of a\nproductive service, is so much income to the performer of the\nservice.--Treatise on Political Economy:  Analytical Table.\n\n\nThese definitions are irreproachable.  Unhappily J. B. Say did\nnot see their full bearing, and could not have foreseen that one\nday his immediate successor at the College of France would attack\nthem.  M. Rossi has pretended to refute the proposition of J. B.\nSay that TO A NATION NET PRODUCT IS THE SAME THING AS GROSS\nPRODUCT by this consideration,--that nations, no more than\nindividuals of enterprise, can produce without advances, and\nthat, if J. B. Say's formula were true, it would follow that the\naxiom, Ex nihilo nihil fit, is not true\n\nNow, that is precisely what happens.  Humanity, in imitation of\nGod, produces everything from nothing, de nihilo hilum just as it\nis itself a product of nothing, just as its thought comes out of\nthe void; and M. Rossi would not have made such a mistake, if,\nlike the physiocrats, he had not confounded the products of the\nINDUSTRIAL KINGDOM with those of the animal, vegetable, and\nmineral kingdoms.  Political economy begins with labor; it is\ndeveloped by labor; and all that does not come from labor,\nfalling into the domain of pure utility,--that is, into the\ncategory of things submitted to man's action, but not yet\nrendered exchangeable by labor,--remains radically foreign to\npolitical economy.  Monopoly itself, wholly established as it is\nby a pure act of collective will, does not change these relations\nat all, since, according to history, and according to the written\nlaw, and according to economic theory, monopoly exists, or is\nreputed to exist, only after labor's appearance.\n\nSay's doctrine, therefore, is unassailable.  Relatively to the\nman of enterprise, whose specialty always supposes other\nmanufacturers cooperating with him, profit is what remains of the\nvalue produced after deducting the values consumed, among which\nmust be included the salary of the man of enterprise,--in other\nwords, his wages.  Relatively to society, which contains all\npossible specialties, net product is identical with gross\nproduct.\n\nBut there is a point the explanation of which I have vainly\nsought in Say and in the other economists,--to wit, how the\nreality and legitimacy of net product is established.  For it is\nplain that, in order to cause the disappearance of net product,\nit would suffice to increase the wages of the workmen and the\nprice of the values consumed, the selling-price remaining the\nsame.  So that, there being nothing seemingly to distinguish net\nproduct from a sum withheld in paying wages or, what amounts to\nthe same thing, from an assessment laid upon the consumer in\nadvance, net product has every appearance of an extortion\neffected by force and without the least show of right.\n\nThis difficulty has been solved in advance in our theory of the\nproportionality of values.\n\nAccording to this theory, every exploiter of a machine, of an\nidea, or of capital should be considered as a man who increases\nwith equal outlay the amount of a certain kind of products, and\nconsequently increases the social wealth by economizing time.\nThe principle of the legitimacy of the net product lies, then, in\nthe processes previously in use: if the new device succeeds,\nthere will be a surplus of values, and consequently a\nprofit,--that is, net product; if the enterprise rests on a false\nbasis, there will be a deficit in the gross product, and in the\nlong run failure and bankruptcy.  Even in the case--and it is the\nmost frequent-- where there is no innovation on the part of the\nman of enterprise, the rule of net product remains applicable,\nfor the success of an industry depends upon the way in which it\nis carried on.  Now, it being in accordance with the nature of\nmonopoly that the risk and peril of every enterprise should be\ntaken by the initiator, it follows that the net product belongs\nto him by the most sacred title recognized among men,-- labor and\nintelligence.\n\nIt is useless to recall the fact that the net product is often\nexaggerated, either by fraudulently secured reductions of wages\nor in some other way.  These are abuses which proceed, not from\nthe principle, but from human cupidity, and which remain outside\nthe domain of the theory.  For the rest, I have shown, in\ndiscussing the constitution of value (Chapter II., % 2): 1, how\nthe net product can never exceed the difference resulting from\ninequality of the means of production; 2, how the profit which\nsociety reaps from each new invention is incomparably greater\nthan that of its originator.  As these points have been exhausted\nonce for all, I will not go over them again; I will simply\nremark that, by industrial progress, the net product of the\ningenious tends steadily to decrease, while, on the other hand,\ntheir comfort increases, as the concentric layers which make up\nthe trunk of a tree become thinner as the tree grows and as they\nare farther removed from the centre.\n\nBy the side of net product, the natural reward of the laborer, I\nhave pointed out as one of the happiest effects of monopoly the\nCAPITALIZATION of values, from which is born another sort of\nprofit,--namely, INTEREST, or the hire of capital.  As for\nRENT, although it is often confounded with interest, and\nalthough, in ordinary language, it is included with profit and\ninterest under the common expression REVENUE, it is a different\nthing from interest; it is a consequence, not of monopoly, but of\nproperty; it depends on a special theory., of which we will speak\nin its place.\n\nWhat, then, is this reality, known to all peoples, and\nnevertheless still so badly defined, which is called interest or\nthe price of a loan, and which gives rise to the fiction of the\nproductivity of capital?\n\nEverybody knows that a contractor, when he calculates his costs\nof production, generally divides them into three classes: 1, the\nvalues consumed and services paid for; 2, his personal salary; 3,\nrecovery of his capital with interest.  From this last class of\ncosts is born the distinction between contractor and capitalist,\nalthough these two titles always express but one faculty,\nmonopoly.\n\nThus an industrial enterprise which yields only interest on\ncapital and nothing for net product, is an insignificant\nenterprise, which results only in a transformation of values\nwithout adding anything to wealth,-- an enterprise, in short,\nwhich has no further reason for existence and is immediately\nabandoned.  Why is it, then, that this interest on capital\nis not regarded as a sufficient supplement of net product?  Why\nis it not itself the net product?\n\nHere again the philosophy of the economists is wanting.  To\ndefend usury they have pretended that capital was productive, and\nthey have changed a metaphor into a reality.  The\nanti-proprietary socialists have had no difficulty in overturning\ntheir sophistry; and through this controversy the theory of\ncapital has fallen into such disfavor that today, in the minds of\nthe people, CAPITALIST and IDLER are synonymous terms.\nCertainly it is not my intention to retract what I myself have\nmaintained after so many others, or to rehabilitate a class of\ncitizens which so strangely misconceives its duties: but the\ninterests of science and of the proletariat itself oblige me to\ncomplete my first assertions and maintain true principles.\n\n1. All production is effected with a view to consumption,--that\nis, to enjoyment.  In society the correlative terms production\nand consumption, like net product and gross product, designate\nidentically the same thing.  If, then, after the laborer has\nrealized a net product, instead of using it to increase his\ncomfort, he should confine himself to his wages and steadily\napply his surplus to new production, as so many people do who\nearn only to buy, production would increase indefinitely, while\ncomfort and, reasoning from the standpoint of society, population\nwould remain unchanged.  Now, interest on capital which has been\ninvested in an industrial enterprise and which has been gradually\nformed by the accumulation of net product, is a sort of\ncompromise between the necessity of increasing production, on the\none hand, and, on the other, that of increasing comfort; it is a\nmethod of reproducing and consuming the net product at the same\ntime.  That is why certain industrial societies pay their\nstockholders a dividend even before the enterprise has yielded\nanything.  Life is short, success comes slowly; on the one hand\nlabor commands, on the other man wishes to enjoy.  To meet all\nthese exigencies the net product shall be devoted to production,\nbut meantime (inter-ea, inter-esse)--that is, while waiting for\nthe new product--the capitalist shall enjoy.\n\nThus, as the amount of net product marks the progress of wealth,\ninterest on capital, without which net product would be useless\nand would not even exist, marks the progress of comfort.\nWhatever the form of government which may be established among\nmen; whether they live in monopoly or in communism; whether each\nlaborer keeps his account by credit and debit, or has his labor\nand pleasure parcelled out to him by the community,--the law\nwhich we have just disengaged will always be fulfilled.  Our\ninterest accounts do nothing else than bear witness to it.\n\n2. Values created by net product are classed as savings and\ncapitalized in the most highly exchangeable form, the form which\nis freest and least susceptible of depreciation,--in a word, the\nform of specie, the only constituted value.  Now, if capital\nleaves this state of freedom and ENGAGES ITSELF,--that is, takes\nthe form of machines, buildings, etc.,--it will still be\nsusceptible of exchange, but much more exposed than before to the\noscillations of supply and demand.  Once engaged, it cannot be\nDISENGAGED without difficulty; and the sole resource of its owner\nwill be exploitation.  Exploitation alone is capable of\nmaintaining engaged capital at its nominal value; it may increase\nit, it may diminish it.  Capital thus transformed is as if it had\nbeen risked in a maritime enterprise: the interest is the\ninsurance premium paid on the capital.  And this premium will be\ngreater or less according to the scarcity or abundance of\ncapital.\n\nLater a distinction will also be established between the\ninsurance premium and interest on capital, and new facts will\nresult from this subdivision: thus the history of humanity is\nsimply a perpetual distinction of the mind's concepts.\n\n3. Not only does interest on capital cause the laborer to enjoy\nthe fruit of his toil and insure his savings, but--and this is\nthe most marvellous effect of interest--while rewarding the\nproducer, it obliges him to labor incessantly and never stop.\n\nIf a contractor is his own capitalist, it may happen that he will\ncontent himself with a profit equal to the interest on his\ninvestment: but in that case it is certain that his industry is\nno longer making progress and consequently is suffering.  This we\nsee when the capitalist is distinct from the contractor: for\nthen, after the interest is paid, the manufacturer's profit is\nabsolutely nothing; his industry becomes a perpetual peril to\nhim, from which it is important that he should free himself as\nsoon as possible.  For as society's comfort must develop in an\nindefinite progression, so the law of the producer is that he\nshould continually realize a surplus: otherwise his existence is\nprecarious, monotonous, fatiguing.  The interest due to the\ncapitalist by the producer therefore is like the lash of the\nplanter cracking over the head of the sleeping slave; it is the\nvoice of progress crying:  \"On, on!  Toil, toil!\"  Man's destiny\npushes him to happiness: that is why it denies him rest.\n\n4. Finally, interest on money is the condition of capital's\ncirculation and the chief agent of industrial solidarity.  This\naspect has been seized by all the economists, and we shall give\nit special treatment when we come to deal with credit.\n\nI have proved, and better, I imagine, than it has ever been\nproved before:\n\nThat monopoly is necessary, since it is the antagonism of\ncompetition;\n\nThat it is essential to society, since without it society would\nnever have emerged from the primeval forests and without it would\nrapidly go backwards;\n\nFinally, that it is the crown of the producer, when, whether by\nnet product or by interest on the capital which he devotes to\nproduction, it brings to the monopolist that increase of comfort\nwhich his foresight and his efforts deserve.\n\nShall we, then, with the economists, glorify monopoly, and\nconsecrate it to the benefit of well-secured conservatives?  I am\nwilling, provided they in turn will admit my claims in what is to\nfollow, as I have admitted theirs in what has preceded.\n\n\n% 2.--The disasters in labor and the perversion of ideas caused\nby monopoly.\n\nLike competition, monopoly implies a contradiction in its name\nand its definition.  In fact, since consumption and production\nare identical things in society, and since selling is synonymous\nwith buying, whoever says privilege of sale or exploitation\nnecessarily says privilege of consumption and purchase: which\nends in the denial of both.  Hence a prohibition of consumption\nas well as of production laid by monopoly upon the\nwage-receivers.  Competition was civil war, monopoly is the\nmassacre of the prisoners.\n\nThese various propositions are supported by all sorts of\nevidence,-- physical, algebraic, and metaphysical.  What I shall\nadd will be only the amplified exposition: their simple\nannouncement demonstrates them.\n\nEvery society considered in its economic relations naturally\ndivides itself into capitalists and laborers, employers and wage-\nreceivers, distributed upon a scale whose degrees mark the income\nof each, whether this income be composed of wages, profit,\ninterest, rent, or dividends.\n\nFrom this hierarchical distribution of persons and incomes it\nfollows that Say's principle just referred to:  IN A NATION THE\nNET PRODUCT IS EQUAL TO THE GROSS PRODUCT, is no longer true,\nsince, in consequence of monopoly, the SELLING PRICE is much\nhigher than the COST PRICE.  Now, as it is the cost price\nnevertheless which must pay the selling price, since a nation\nreally has no market but itself, it follows that exchange, and\nconsequently circulation and life, are impossible.\n\n\nIn France, twenty millions of laborers, engaged in all the\nbranches of science, art, and industry, produce everything which\nis useful to man.  Their aggregate annual wages amount, it is\nestimated, to twenty thousand millions; but, in consequence of\nthe profit (net product and interest) accruing to monopolists,\ntwenty-five thousand millions must be paid for their products.\nNow, as the nation has no other buyers than its wage- receivers\nand wage-payers, and as the latter do not pay for the former, and\nas the selling-price of merchandise is the same for all, it is\nclear that, to make circulation possible, the laborer would have\nto pay five for that for which he has received but four.--What is\nProperty:  Chapter IV.[17]\n\n\n[17] A comparison of this passage, as given here, with the\nEnglish translation of \"What is Property\" will show a marked\nvariation in the language.  This is explained by the fact that\nthe author, in reproducing the passage, modified it considerably.\n\nThe same is true of another quotation from the same work which\nwill be found a few pages farther on.--Translator.\n\n\n\nThis, then, is the reason why wealth and poverty are correlative,\ninseparable, not only in idea, but in fact; this is the reason\nwhy they exist concurrently; this is what justifies the\npretension of the wage- receiver that the rich man possesses no\nmore than the poor man, except that of which the latter has been\ndefrauded.  After the monopolist has drawn up his account of\ncost, profit, and interest, the wage-paid consumer draws up his;\nand he finds that, though promised wages stated in the contract\nas one hundred, he has really been given but seventy- five.\nMonopoly, therefore, puts the wage-receivers into bankruptcy, and\nit is strictly true that it lives upon the spoils.\n\nSix years ago I brought out this frightful contradiction: why has\nit not been thundered through the press?  Why have no teachers of\nrenown warned public opinion?  Why have not those who demand\npolitical rights for the workingman proclaimed that he is robbed?\n\nWhy have the economists kept silent?  Why?\n\nOur revolutionary democracy is so noisy only because it fears\nrevolutions: but, by ignoring the danger which it dares not look\nin the face, it succeeds only in increasing it.  \"We resemble,\"\nsays M. Blanqui, \"firemen who increase the quantity of steam at\nthe same time that they place weights on the safety-valve.\"\nVictims of monopoly, console yourselves!  If your tormentors will\nnot listen, it is because Providence has resolved to strike them:\n\nNon audierunt, says the Bible, quia Deus volebat occidere eos.\n\nSale being unable to fulfil the conditions of monopoly,\nmerchandise accumulates; labor has produced in a year what its\nwages will not allow it to consume in less than fifteen months:\nhence it must remain idle one-fourth of the year.  But, if it\nremains idle, it earns nothing: how will it ever buy?  And if the\nmonopolist cannot get rid of his products, how will his\nenterprise endure?  Logical impossibility multiplies around the\nworkshop; the facts which translate it are everywhere.\n\n\"The hosiers of England,\" says Eugene Buret, \"had come to the\npoint where they did not eat oftener than every other day.\nThis state of things lasted eighteen months.\"  And he cites a\nmultitude of similar cases.\n\nBut the distressing feature in the spectacle of monopoly's\neffects is the sight of the unfortunate workingmen blaming each\nother for their misery and imagining that by uniting and\nsupporting each other they will prevent the reduction of wages.\n\n\n\"The Irish,\" says an observer, \"have given a disastrous lesson to\nthe     working classes of Great Britain. . . . .  They have\ntaught our laborers the fatal secret of confining their needs to\nthe maintenance of animal life alone, and of contenting\nthemselves, like savages, with the minimum of the means of\nsubsistence sufficient to prolong life. . . . .  Instructed by\nthis fatal example, yielding partly to necessity, the working\nclasses have lost that laudable pride which led them to furnish\ntheir houses properly and to multiply about them the decent\nconveniences which contribute to happiness.\"\n\n\nI have never read anything more afflicting and more stupid.  And\nwhat would you have these workingmen do?  The Irish came: should\nthey have been massacred?  Wages were reduced: should death have\nbeen accepted in their stead?  Necessity commanded, as you say\nyourselves.  Then followed the interminable hours, disease,\ndeformity, degradation, debasement, and all the signs of\nindustrial slavery: all these calamities are born of monopoly and\nits sad predecessors,--competition, machinery, and the division\nof labor: and you blame the Irish!\n\nAt other times the workingmen blame their luck, and exhort\nthemselves to patience: this is the counterpart of the thanks\nwhich they address to Providence, when labor is abundant and\nwages are sufficient.\n\nI find in an article published by M. Leon Faucher, in the\n\"Journal des Economistes\" (September, 1845), that the English\nworkingmen lost some time ago the habit of combining, which\nis surely a progressive step on which they are only to be\ncongratulated, but that this improvement in the morale of the\nworkingmen is due especially to their economic instruction.\n\n\n\"It is not upon the manufacturers,\" cried a spinner at the\nmeeting in Bolton, \"that wages depend.  In periods of depression\nthe employers, so to speak, are only the lash with which\nnecessity is armed; and whether they will or no, they have to\nstrike.  The regulative principle is the relation of supply to\ndemand; and the employers have not this power. . . .  Let us act\nprudently, then; let us learn to be resigned to bad luck and to\nmake the most of good luck: by seconding the progress of our\nindustry, we shall be useful not only to ourselves, but to the\nentire country.\" [Applause.]\n\n\nVery good: well-trained, model workmen, these!  What men these\nspinners must be that they should submit without complaint to the\nLASH OF NECESSITY, because the regulative principle of wages is\nSUPPLY AND DEMAND!  M. Leon Faucher adds with a charming\nsimplicity:\n\nEnglish workingmen are fearless reasoners.  Give them a FALSE\nPRINCIPLE, and they will push it mathematically to absurdity,\nwithout stopping or getting frightened, as if they were marching\nto the triumph of the truth.\n\nFor my part, I hope that, in spite of all the efforts of economic\npropagandism, French workingmen will never become reasoners of\nsuch power.  SUPPLY AND DEMAND, as well as the LASH OF NECESSITY,\nhas no longer any hold upon their minds.  This was the one misery\nthat England lacked: it will not cross the channel.\n\nBy the combined effect of division, machinery, net product, and\ninterest, monopoly extends its conquests in an increasing\nprogression; its developments embrace agriculture as well as\ncommerce and industry, and all sorts of products.  Everybody\nknows the phrase of Pliny upon the landed monopoly which\ndetermined the fall of Italy, latifundia perdidere Italiam.\nIt is this same monopoly which still impoverishes and renders\nuninhabitable the Roman Campagna and which forms the vicious\ncircle in which England moves convulsively; it is this monopoly\nwhich, established by violence after a war of races, produces all\nthe evils of Ireland, and causes so many trials to O'Connell,\npowerless, with all his eloquence, to lead his repealers through\nthis labyrinth.  Grand sentiments and rhetoric are the worst\nremedy for social evils: it would be easier for O'Connell to\ntransport Ireland and the Irish from the North Sea to the\nAustralian Ocean than to overthrow with the breath of his\nharangues the monopoly which holds them in its grasp.  General\ncommunions and sermons will do no more: if the religious\nsentiment still alone maintains the morale of the Irish people,\nit is high time that a little of that profane science, so much\ndisdained by the Church, should come to the aid of the lambs\nwhich its crook no longer protects.\n\nThe invasion of commerce and industry by monopoly is too well\nknown to make it necessary that I should gather proofs: moreover,\nof what use is it to argue so much when results speak so loudly?\nE. Buret's description of the misery of the working-classes has\nsomething fantastic about it, which oppresses and frightens you.\nThere are scenes in which the imagination refuses to believe, in\nspite of certificates and official reports.  Couples all naked,\nhidden in the back of an unfurnished alcove, with their naked\nchildren; entire populations which no longer go to church on\nSunday, because they are naked; bodies kept a week before they\nare buried, because the deceased has left neither a shroud in\nwhich to lay him out nor the wherewithal to pay for the coffin\nand the undertaker (and the bishop enjoys an income of from four\nto five hundred thousand francs); families heaped up over sewers,\nliving in rooms occupied by pigs, and beginning to rot while\nyet alive, or dwelling in holes, like Albinoes; octogenarians\nsleeping naked on bare boards; and the virgin and the prostitute\nexpiring in the same nudity: everywhere despair, consumption,\nhunger, hunger! . .  And this people, which expiates the crimes\nof its masters, does not rebel!  No, by the flames of Nemesis!\nwhen a people has no vengeance left, there is no longer any\nProvidence for it.\n\nExterminations en masse by monopoly have not yet found their\npoets.  Our rhymers, strangers to the things of this world,\nwithout bowels for the proletaire, continue to breathe to the\nmoon their melancholy DELIGHTS.  What a subject for\nMEDITATIONS, nevertheless, is the miseries engendered by\nmonopoly!\n\nIt is Walter Scott who says:\n\n\nFormerly, though many years since, each villager had his cow and\nhis pig, and his yard around his house.  Where a single farmer\ncultivates today, thirty small farmers lived formerly; so that\nfor one individual, himself alone richer, it is true, than the\nthirty farmers of old times, there are now twenty-nine wretched\nday-laborers, without employment for their minds and arms, and\nwhose number is too large by half.  The only useful function\nwhich they fulfil is to pay, WHEN THEY CAN, a rent of sixty\nshillings a year for the huts in which they dwell.[18]\n\n\n[18] This extract from Scott, as well as that from a\nparliamentary report cited a few paragraphs later, is here\ntranslated from the French, and presumably differs in form\nsomewhat, therefore, from the original English.--Translator.\n\n\n\nA modern ballad, quoted by E. Buret, sings the solitude of\nmonopoly:\n\nLe rouet est silencieux dans la vallee:\nC'en est fait des sentiments de famille.\nSur un peu de fumee le vieil aieul\nEtend ses mains pales; et le foyer vide\nEst aussi desole que son coeur.[19]\n\n\n[19] The spinning-wheel is silent in the valley: family feelings\nare at an end.  Over a little smoke the aged grandsire spreads\nhis pale hands; and the empty hearth is as desolate as his\nheart.--Translator.\n\n\n\nThe reports made to parliament rival the novelist and the poet:\n\n\nThe inhabitants of Glensheil, in the neighborhood of the valley\nof Dundee, were formerly distinguished from all their neighbors\nby the superiority of their physical qualities.  The men were of\nhigh stature, robust, active, and courageous; the women comely\nand graceful.  Both sexes possessed an extraordinary taste for\npoetry and music.  Now, alas! a long experience of poverty,\nprolonged privation of sufficient food and suitable clothing,\nhave profoundly deteriorated this race, once so remarkably fine.\n\n\nThis is a notable instance of the inevitable degradation pointed\nout by us in the two chapters on division of labor and machinery.\n\nAnd our litterateurs busy themselves with the pretty things of\nthe past, as if the present were not adequate to their genius!\nThe first among them to venture on these infernal paths has\ncreated a scandal in the coterie!  Cowardly parasites, vile\nvenders of prose and verse, all worthy of the wages of Marsyas!\nOh! if your punishment were to last as long as my contempt, you\nwould be forced to believe in the eternity of hell.\n\nMonopoly, which just now seemed to us so well founded in justice,\nis the more unjust because it not only makes wages illusory, but\ndeceives the workman in the very valuation of his wages by\nassuming in relation to him a false title, a false capacity.\n\nM. de Sismondi, in his \"Studies of Social Economy,\" observes\nsomewhere that, when a banker delivers to a merchant bank-notes\nin exchange for his values, far from giving credit to the\nmerchant, he receives it, on the contrary, from him.\n\n\"This credit,\" adds M. de Sismondi, \"is in truth so short that\nthe merchant scarcely takes the trouble to inquire whether the\nbanker is worthy, especially as the former asks credit instead of\ngranting it.\"\n\n\nSo, according to M. de Sismondi, in the issue of bank paper, the\nfunctions of the merchant and the banker are inverted: the first\nis the creditor, and the second is the credited.\n\nSomething similar takes place between the monopolist and\nwage-receiver.\n\nIn fact, the workers, like the merchant at the bank, ask to have\ntheir labor discounted; in right, the contractor ought to furnish\nthem bonds and security.  I will explain myself.\n\nIn any exploitation, no matter of what sort, the contractor\ncannot legitimately claim, in addition to his own personal labor,\nanything but the IDEA: as for the EXECUTION, the result of the\ncooperation of numerous laborers, that is an effect of collective\npower, with which the authors, as free in their action as the\nchief, can produce nothing which should go to him gratuitously.\nNow, the question is to ascertain whether the amount of\nindividual wages paid by the contractor is equivalent to the\ncollective effect of which I speak: for, were it otherwise, Say's\naxiom, EVERY PRODUCT IS WORTH WHAT IT COSTS, would be violated.\n\n\"The capitalist,\" they say, \"has paid the laborers their daily\nwages at a rate agreed upon; consequently he owes them nothing.\"\nTo be accurate, it must be said that he has paid as many times\none day's wage as he has employed laborers,--which is not at all\nthe same thing.  For he has paid nothing for that immense power\nwhich results from the union of laborers and the convergence and\nharmony of their efforts; that saving of expense, secured by\ntheir formation into a workshop; that multiplication of product,\nforeseen, it is true, by the capitalist, but realized by free\nforces.  Two hundred grenadiers, working under the direction of\nan engineer, stood the obelisk upon its base in a few hours; do\nyou think that one man could have accomplished the same task in\ntwo hundred days?  Nevertheless, on the books of the capitalist,\nthe amount of wages is the same in both cases, because he allots\nto himself the benefit of the collective power.  Now, of two\nthings one: either this is usurpation on his part, or it is\nerror.--What is Property:  Chapter III.\n\n\nTo properly exploit the mule-jenny, engineers, builders, clerks,\nbrigades of workingmen and workingwomen of all sorts, have been\nneeded.  In the name of their liberty, of their security, of\ntheir future, and of the future of their children, these workmen,\non engaging to work in the mill, had to make reserves; where are\nthe letters of credit which they have delivered to the employers?\n\nWhere are the guarantees which they have received?  What!\nmillions of men have sold their arms and parted with their\nliberty without knowing the import of the contract; they have\nengaged themselves upon the promise of continuous work and\nadequate reward; they have executed with their hands what the\nthought of the employers had conceived; they have become, by this\ncollaboration, associates in the enterprise: and when monopoly,\nunable or unwilling to make further exchanges, suspends its\nmanufacture and leaves these millions of laborers without bread,\nthey are told to be RESIGNED!  By the new processes they have\nlost nine days of their labor out of ten; and for reward they are\npointed to the LASH OF NECESSITY flourished over them!  Then, if\nthey refuse to work for lower wages, they are shown that they\npunish themselves.  If they accept the rate offered them, they\nlose THAT NOBLE PRIDE, that taste for DECENT CONVENIENCES which\nconstitute the happiness and dignity of the workingman and\nentitle him to the sympathies of the rich.  If they combine to\nsecure an increase of wages, they are thrown into prison!\nWhereas they ought to prosecute their exploiters in the courts,\non them the courts will avenge the violations of liberty of\ncommerce!  Victims of monopoly, they will suffer the penalty due\nto the monopolists!  O justice of men, stupid courtesan, how\nlong, under your goddess's tinsel, will you drink the blood of\nthe slaughtered proletaire?\n\nMonopoly has invaded everything,--land, labor, and the\ninstruments of labor, products and the distribution of pro ducts.\n\nPolitical economy itself has not been able to avoid admitting it.\n\n\n\"You almost always find across your path,\" says M. Rossi, \"some\nmonopoly.  There is scarcely a product that can be regarded as\nthe pure and simple result of labor; accordingly the economic law\nwhich proportions price to cost of production is never completely\nrealized.  It is a formula which is profoundly MODIFIED by the\nintervention of one or another of the monopolies to which the\ninstruments of production are subordinated.--Course in Political\nEconomy: Volume I., page 143.\n\n\nM. Rossi holds too high an office to give his language all the\nprecision and exactness which science requires when monopoly is\nin question.  What he so complacently calls a MODIFICATION OF\nECONOMIC FORMULAS is but a long and odious violation of the\nfundamental laws of labor and exchange.  It is in consequence of\nmonopoly that in society, net product being figured over and\nabove gross product, the collective laborer must repurchase his\nown product at a price higher than that which this product costs\nhim,--which is contradictory and impossible; that the natural\nbalance between production and consumption is destroyed; that the\nlaborer is deceived not only in his settlements, but also as to\nthe amount of his wages; that in his case progress in comfort is\nchanged into an incessant progress in misery: it is by monopoly,\nin short, that all notions of commutative justice are perverted,\nand that social economy, instead of the positive science that it\nis, becomes a veritable utopia.\n\nThis disguise of political economy under the influence of\nmonopoly is a fact so remarkable in the history of social ideas\nthat we must not neglect to cite a few instances.\n\nThus, from the standpoint of monopoly, value is no longer that\nsynthetic conception which serves to express the relation of\na special object of utility to the sum total of wealth: monopoly\nestimating things, not in their relation to society, but in their\nrelation to itself, value loses its social character, and is\nnothing but a vague, arbitrary, egoistic, and essentially\nvariable thing.  Starting with this principle, the monopolist\nextends the term PRODUCT to cover all sorts of servitude, and\napplies the idea of CAPITAL to all the frivolous and shameful\nindustries which his passions and vices exploit.  The charms of a\ncourtesan, says Say, are so much CAPITAL, of which the PRODUCT\nfollows the general LAW of VALUES,--namely, SUPPLY and\nDEMAND.  Most of the works on political economy are full of such\napplications.  But as prostitution and the state of dependence\nfrom which it emanates are condemned by morality, M. Rossi will\nbid us observe the further fact that political economy, after\nhaving MODIFIED its formula in consequence of the intervention\nof monopoly, will have to submit to a new CORRECTIVE, although\nits conclusions are in themselves irreproachable.  For, he says,\npolitical economy has nothing in common with morality: it is for\nus to accept it, to modify or correct its formulas, whenever our\nwelfare, that of society, and the interests of morality call for\nit.  How many things there are between political economy and\ntruth!\n\nLikewise, the theory of net product, so highly social,\nprogressive, and conservative, has been individualized, if I may\nsay so, by monopoly, and the principle which ought to secure\nsociety's welfare causes its ruin.  The monopolist, always\nstriving for the greatest possible net product, no longer acts as\na member of society and in the interest of society; he acts with\na view to his exclusive interest, whether this interest be\ncontrary to the social interest or not.  This change of\nperspective is the cause to which M. de Sismondi attributes the\ndepopulation of the Roman Campagna.  From the comparative\nresearches which he has made regarding the product of the agro\nromano when in a state of cultivation and its product when left\nas pasture-land, he has found that the GROSS product would be\ntwelve times larger in the former case than in the latter; but,\nas cultivation demands relatively a greater number of hands, he\nhas discovered also that in the former case the NET product\nwould be less.  This calculation, which did not escape the\nproprietors, sufficed to confirm them in the habit of leaving\ntheir lands uncultivated, and hence the Roman Campagna is\nuninhabited.\n\n\n\"All parts of the Roman States,\" adds M. de Sismondi, \"present\nthe same contrast between the memories of their prosperity in the\nMiddle Ages and their present desolation.  The town of Ceres,\nmade famous by Renzo da Ceri, who defended by turns Marseilles\nagainst Charles V. and Geneva against the Duke of Savoy, is\nnothing but a solitude.  In all the fiefs of the Orsinis and the\nColonnes not a soul.  From the forests which surround the pretty\nLake of Vico the human race has disappeared; and the soldiers\nwith whom the formidable prefect of Vico made Rome tremble so\noften in the fourteenth century have left no descendants.  Castro\nand Ronciglione are desolated.\"--Studies in Political Economy.\n\n\nIn fact, society seeks the greatest possible gross product, and\nconsequently the greatest possible population, because with it\ngross product and net product are identical.  Monopoly, on the\ncontrary, aims steadily at the greatest net product, even though\nable to obtain it only at the price of the extermination of the\nhuman race.\n\nUnder this same influence of monopoly, interest on capital,\nperverted in its idea, has become in turn a principle of death to\nsociety.  As we have explained it, interest on capital is, on the\none hand, the form under which the laborer enjoys his net\nproduct, while utilizing it in new creations; on the other, this\ninterest is the material bond of solidarity between producers,\nviewed from the standpoint of the increase of wealth.  Under\nthe first aspect, the aggregate interest paid can never exceed\nthe amount of the capital itself; under the second, interest\nallows, in addition to reimbursement, a premium as a reward of\nservice rendered.  In no case does it imply perpetuity.\n\nBut monopoly, confounding the idea of capital, which is\nattributable only to the creations of human industry, with that\nof the exploitable material which nature has given us, and which\nbelongs to all, and favored moreover in its usurpation by the\nanarchical condition of a society in which possession can exist\nonly on condition of being exclusive, sovereign, and\nperpetual,--monopoly has imagined and laid it down as a principle\nthat capital, like land, animals, and plants, had in itself an\nactivity of its own, which relieved the capitalist of the\nnecessity of contributing anything else to exchange and of taking\nany part in the labors of the workshop.  From this false idea of\nmonopoly has come the Greek name of usury, tokos, as much as to\nsay the child or the increase of capital, which caused Aristotle\nto perpetrate this witticism: COINS BEGET NO CHILDREN.  But the\nmetaphor of the usurers has prevailed over the joke of the\nStagyrite; usury, like rent, of which it is an imitation, has\nbeen declared a perpetual right; and only very lately, by a\nhalf-return to the principle, has it reproduced the idea of\nREDEMPTION.\n\nSuch is the meaning of the enigma which has caused so many\nscandals among theologians and legists, and regarding which the\nChristian Church has blundered twice,--first, in condemning every\nsort of interest, and, second, in taking the side of the\neconomists and thus contradicting its old maxims.  Usury, or the\nright of increase, is at once the expression and the condemnation\nof monopoly; it is the spoliation of labor by organized and\nlegalized capital; of all the economic subversions it is\nthat which most loudly accuses the old society, and whose\nscandalous persistence would justify an unceremonious and\nuncompensated dispossession of the entire capitalistic class.\n\nFinally, monopoly, by a sort of instinct of self-preservation,\nhas perverted even the idea of association, as something that\nmight infringe upon it, or, to speak more accurately, has not\npermitted its birth.\n\nWho could hope today to define what association among men should\nbe?  The law distinguishes two species and four varieties of\ncivil societies, and as many commercial societies, from the\nsimple partnership to the joint-stock company.  I have read the\nmost respectable commentaries that have been written upon all\nthese forms of association, and I declare that I have found in\nthem but one application of the routine practices of monopoly\nbetween two or more partners who unite their capital and their\nefforts against everything that produces and consumes, that\ninvents and exchanges, that lives and dies.  The sine qua non of\nall these societies is capital, whose presence alone constitutes\nthem and gives them a basis; their object is monopoly,--that is,\nthe exclusion of all other laborers and capitalists, and\nconsequently the negation of social universality so far as\npersons are concerned.\n\nThus, according to the definition of the statute, a commercial\nsociety which should lay down as a principle the right of any\nstranger to become a member upon his simple request, and to\nstraightway enjoy the rights and prerogatives of associates and\neven managers, would no longer be a society; the courts would\nofficially pronounce its dissolution, its nonexistence.  So,\nagain, articles of association in which the contracting parties\nshould stipulate no contribution of capital, but, while\nreserving to each the express right to compete with all, should\nconfine themselves to a reciprocal guarantee of labor and wages,\nsaying nothing of the branch of exploitation, or of capital, or\nof interest, or of profit and loss,--such articles would seem\ncontradictory in their tenor, as destitute of purpose as of\nreason, and would be annulled by the judge on the complaint of\nthe first rebellious associate.  Covenants thus drawn up could\ngive rise to no judicial action; people calling themselves the\nassociates of everybody would be considered associates of nobody;\ntreatises contemplating guarantee and competition between\nassociates at the same time, without any mention of social\ncapital and without any designation of purpose, would pass for a\nwork of transcendental charlatanism, whose author could readily\nbe sent to a madhouse, provided the magistrates would consent to\nregard him as only a lunatic.\n\nAnd yet it is proved, by the most authentic testimony which\nhistory and social economy furnish, that humanity has been thrown\nnaked and without capital upon the earth which it cultivates;\nconsequently that it has created and is daily creating all the\nwealth that exists; that monopoly is only a relative view serving\nto designate the grade of the laborer, with certain conditions of\nenjoyment; and that all progress consists, while indefinitely\nmultiplying products, in determining their proportionality,--that\nis, in organizing labor and comfort by division, machinery, the\nworkshop, education, and competition.  On the other hand, it is\nevident that all the tendencies of humanity, both in its politics\nand in its civil laws, are towards universalization,--that is,\ntowards a complete transformation of the idea of society as\ndetermined by our statutes.\n\nWhence I conclude that articles of association which should\nregulate, no longer the contribution of the associates,--since\neach associate, according to the economic theory, is supposed to\npossess absolutely nothing upon his entrance into society,--but\nthe conditions of labor and exchange, and which should allow\naccess to all who might present themselves,--I conclude, I say,\nthat such articles of association would contain nothing that was\nnot rational and scientific, since they would be the very\nexpression of progress, the organic formula of labor, and since\nthey would reveal, so to speak, humanity to itself by giving it\nthe rudiment of its constitution.\n\nNow, who, among the jurisconsults and economists, has ever\napproached even within a thousand leagues of this magnificent and\nyet so simple idea?\n\n\n\"I do not think,\" says M. Troplong, \"that the spirit of\nassociation is called to greater destinies than those which it\nhas accomplished in the past and up to the present time. . . ;\nand I confess that I have made no attempt to realize such hopes,\nwhich I believe exaggerated. . . .  There are well-defined limits\nwhich association should not overstep.  No! association is not\ncalled upon in France to govern everything.  The spontaneous\nimpulse of the individual mind is also a living force in our\nnation and a cause of its originality. . . .\n\n\"The idea of association is not new. . . .  Even among the Romans\nwe see the commercial society appear with all its paraphernalia\nof monopolies, corners, collusions, combinations, piracy, and\nvenality. . . .  The joint-stock company realizes the civil,\ncommercial, and maritime law of the Middle Ages: at that epoch it\nwas the most active instrument of labor organized in society. . .\n.  From the middle of the fourteenth century we see societies\nform by stock subscriptions; and up to the time of Law's\ndiscomfiture, we see their number continually increase. . . .\nWhat! we marvel at the mines, factories, patents, and newspapers\nowned by stock companies!  But two centuries ago such companies\nowned islands, kingdoms, almost an entire hemisphere.  We\nproclaim it a miracle that hundreds of stock subscribers should\ngroup themselves around an enterprise; but as long ago as the\nfourteenth century the entire city of Florence was in similar\nsilent partnership with a few merchants, who pushed the genius of\nenterprise as far as possible.  Then, if our speculations\nare bad, if we have been rash, imprudent, or credulous, we\ntorment the legislator with our cavilling complaints; we call\nupon him for prohibitions and nullifications.  In our mania for\nregulating everything, EVEN THAT WHICH IS ALREADY CODIFIED; for\nenchaining everything by texts reviewed, corrected, and added to;\nfor administering everything, even the chances and reverses of\ncommerce,--we cry out, in the midst of so many existing laws:\n`There is still something to do!'\"\n\n\nM. Troplong believes in Providence, but surely he is not its man.\n\nHe will not discover the formula of association clamored for\ntoday by minds disgusted with all the protocols of combination\nand rapine of which M. Troplong unrolls the picture in his\ncommentary.  M. Troplong gets impatient, and rightly, with those\nwho wish to enchain everything in texts of laws; and he himself\npretends to enchain the future in a series of fifty articles, in\nwhich the wisest mind could not discover a spark of economic\nscience or a shadow of philosophy.  IN OUR MANIA, he cries, FOR\nREGULATING EVERYTHING, EVEN THAT WHICH IS ALREADY CODIFIED! . . .\n.  I know nothing more delicious than this stroke, which paints\nat once the jurisconsult and the economist.  After the Code\nNapoleon, take away the ladder! . . .\n\n\n\"Fortunately,\" M. Troplong continues, \"all the projects of change\nso noisily brought to light in 1837 and 1838 are forgotten today.\n\nThe conflict of propositions and the anarchy of reformatory\nopinions have led to negative results.  At the same time that the\nreaction against speculators was effected, the common sense of\nthe public did justice to the numerous official plans of\norganization, much inferior in wisdom to the existing law, much\nless in harmony with the usages of commerce, much less liberal,\nafter 1830, than the conceptions of the imperial Council of\nState!  Now order is restored in everything, and the commercial\ncode has preserved its integrity, its excellent integrity.  When\ncommerce needs it, it finds, by the side of partnership,\ntemporary partnership, and the joint-stock company, the free\nsilent partnership, tempered only by the prudence of the silent\npartners and by the provisions of the penal code regarding\nswindling.\"--Troplong: Civil and Commercial Societies:  Preface.\n\n\nWhat a philosophy is that which rejoices in the miscarriage of\nreformatory endeavors, and which counts its triumphs by the\nNEGATIVE RESULTS of the spirit of inquiry!  We cannot now enter\nupon a more fundamental criticism of the civil and commercial\nsocieties, which have furnished M. Troplong material for two\nvolumes.  We will reserve this subject for the time when, the\ntheory of economic contradictions being finished, we shall have\nfound in their general equation the programme of association,\nwhich we shall then publish in contrast with the practice and\nconceptions of our predecessors.\n\nA word only as to silent partnership.\n\nOne might think at first blush that this form of joint-stock\ncompany, by its expansive power and by the facility for change\nwhich it offers, could be generalized in such a way as to take in\nan entire nation in all its commercial and industrial relations.\nBut the most superficial examination of the constitution of this\nsociety demonstrates very quickly that the sort of enlargement of\nwhich it is susceptible, in the matter of the number of\nstockholders, has nothing in common with the extension of the\nsocial bond.\n\nIn the first place, like all other commercial societies, it is\nnecessarily limited to a single branch of exploitation: in this\nrespect it is exclusive of all industries foreign to that\npeculiarly its own.  If it were otherwise, it would have changed\nits nature; it would be a new form of society, whose statutes\nwould regulate, no longer the profits especially, but the\ndistribution of labor and the conditions of exchange; it would be\nexactly such an association as M. Troplong denies and as the\njurisprudence of monopoly excludes.\n\nAs for the personal composition of the company, it naturally\ndivides itself into two categories,--the managers and the\nstockholders.  The managers, very few in number, are chosen\nfrom the promoters, organizers, and patrons of the enterprise: in\ntruth, they are the only associates.  The stockholders, compared\nwith this little government, which administers the society with\nfull power, are a people of taxpayers who, strangers to each\nother, without influence and without responsibility, have nothing\nto do with the affair beyond their investments.  They are lenders\nat a premium, not associates.\n\nOne can see from this how all the industries of the kingdom could\nbe carried on by such companies, and each citizen, thanks to the\nfacility for multiplying his shares, be interested in all or most\nof these companies without thereby improving his condition: it\nmight happen even that it would be more and more compromised.\nFor, once more, the stockholder is the beast of burden, the\nexploitable material of the company: not for him is this society\nformed.  In order that association may be real, he who\nparticipates in it must do so, not as a gambler, but as an active\nfactor; he must have a deliberative voice in the council; his\nname must be expressed or implied in the title of the society;\neverything regarding him, in short, should be regulated in\naccordance with equality.  But these conditions are precisely\nthose of the organization of labor, which is not taken into\nconsideration by the code; they form the ULTERIOR object of\npolitical economy, and consequently are not to be taken for\ngranted, but to be created, and, as such, are radically\nincompatible with monopoly.[20]\n\n\n[20] Possibly these paragraphs will not be clear to all without\nthe explanation that the form of association discussed in them,\ncalled in French the commandite, is a joint-stock company to\nwhich the shareholders simply lend their capital, without\nacquiring a share in the management or incurring responsibility\nfor the results thereof.-- Translator.\n\n\n\nSocialism, in spite of its high-sounding name, has so far been no\nmore fortunate than monopoly in the definition of society:\nwe may even assert that, in all its plans of organization, it has\nsteadily shown itself in this respect a plagiarist of political\neconomy.  M. Blanc, whom I have already quoted in discussing\ncompetition, and whom we have seen by turns as a partisan of the\nhierarchical principle, an officious defender of inequality,\npreaching communism, denying with a stroke of the pen the law of\ncontradiction because he cannot conceive it, aiming above all at\npower as the final sanction of his system,--M. Blanc offers us\nagain the curious example of a socialist copying political\neconomy without suspecting it, and turning continually in the\nvicious circle of proprietary routine.  M. Blanc really denies\nthe sway of capital; he even denies that capital is equal to\nlabor in production, in which he is in accord with healthy\neconomic theories.  But he can not or does not know how to\ndispense with capital; he takes capital for his point of\ndeparture; he appeals to the State for its silent partnership:\nthat is, he gets down on his knees before the capitalists and\nrecognizes the sovereignty of monopoly.  Hence the singular\ncontortions of his dialectics.  I beg the reader's pardon for\nthese eternal personalities: but since socialism, as well as\npolitical economy, is personified in a certain number of writers,\nI cannot do otherwise than quote its authors.\n\n\n\"Has or has not capital,\" said \"La Phalange,\" \"in so far as it is\na faculty in production, the legitimacy of the other productive\nfaculties?  If it is illegitimate, its pretensions to a share of\nthe product are illegitimate; it must be excluded; it has no\ninterest to receive: if, on the contrary, it is legitimate, it\ncannot be legitimately excluded from participation in the\nprofits, in the increase which it has helped to create.\"\n\n\nThe question could not be stated more clearly.  M. Blanc holds,\non the contrary, that it is stated in a VERY CONFUSED manner,\nwhich means that it embarrasses him greatly, and that he is much\nworried to find its meaning.\n\nIn the first place, he supposes that he is asked \"whether it is\nequitable to allow the capitalist a share of the profits of\nproduction EQUAL TO THE LABORER'S.\"  To which M. Blanc answers\nunhesitatingly that that would be unjust.  Then follows an\noutburst of eloquence to establish this injustice.\n\nNow, the phalansterian does not ask whether the share of the\ncapitalist should or should not be EQUAL TO THE LABORER'S; he\nwishes to know simply WHETHER HE IS TO HAVE A SHARE.  And to this\nM. Blanc makes no reply.\n\nIs it meant, continues M. Blanc, that capital is INDISPENSABLE\nto production, like labor itself?  Here M. Blanc distinguishes:\nhe grants that capital is indispensable, AS labor is, but not\nTO THE EXTENT THAT labor is.\n\nOnce again, the phalansterian does not dispute as to quantity,\nbut as to right.\n\nIs it meant--it is still M. Blanc who interrogates--that all\ncapitalists are not idlers?  M. Blanc, generous to capitalists\nwho work, asks why so large a share should be given to those who\ndo not work?  A flow of eloquence as to the IMPERSONAL services\nof the capitalist and the PERSONAL services of the laborer,\nterminated by an appeal to Providence.\n\nFor the third time, you are asked whether the participation of\ncapital in profits is legitimate, since you admit that it is\nindispensable in production.\n\nAt last M. Blanc, who has understood all the time, decides to\nreply that, if he allows interest to capital, he does so only as\na transitional measure and to ease the descent of the\ncapitalists.  For the rest, his project leading inevitably to the\nabsorption of private capital in association, it would be folly\nand an abandonment of principle to do more.  M. Blanc, if he had\nstudied his subject, would have needed to say but a single\nphrase:  \"I deny capital.\"\n\nThus M. Blanc,--and under his name I include the whole of\nsocialism,-- after having, by a first contradiction of the title\nof his book, \"ORGANIZATION OF LABOR,\" declared that capital was\nINDISPENSABLE in production, and consequently that it should be\norganized and participate in profits like labor, by a second\ncontradiction rejects capital from organization and refuses to\nrecognize it: by a third contradiction he who laughs at\ndecorations and titles of nobility distributes civic crowns,\nrewards, and distinctions to such litterateurs inventors, and\nartists as shall have deserved well of the country; he allows\nthem salaries according to their grades and dignities; all of\nwhich is the restoration of capital as really, though not with\nthe same mathematical precision, as interest and net product: by\na fourth contradiction M. Blanc establishes this new aristocracy\non the principle of equality,-- that is, he pretends to vote\nmasterships to equal and free associates, privileges of idleness\nto laborers, spoliation in short to the despoiled: by a fifth\ncontradiction he rests this equalitarian aristocracy on the basis\nof a POWER ENDOWED WITH GREAT FORCE,--that is, on despotism,\nanother form of monopoly: by a sixth contradiction, after having,\nby his encouragements to labor and the arts, tried to proportion\nreward to service, like monopoly, and wages to capacity, like\nmonopoly, he sets himself to eulogize life in common, labor and\nconsumption in common, which does not prevent him from wishing to\nwithdraw from the effects of common indifference, by means of\nnational encouragements taken out of the common product, the\ngrave and serious writers whom common readers do not care for: by\na seventh contradiction. . . . but let us stop at seven, for we\nshould not have finished at seventy-seven.\n\nIt is said that M. Blanc, who is now preparing a history of the\nFrench Revolution, has begun to seriously study political\neconomy.  The first fruit of this study will be, I do not\ndoubt, a repudiation of his pamphlet on \"Organization of Labor,\"\nand consequently a change in all his ideas of authority and\ngovernment.  At this price the \"History of the French\nRevolution,\" by M. Blanc, will be a truly useful and original\nwork.\n\nAll the socialistic sects, without exception, are possessed by\nthe same prejudice; all, unconsciously, inspired by the economic\ncontradiction, have to confess their powerlessness in presence of\nthe necessity of capital; all are waiting, for the realization of\ntheir ideas, to hold power and money in their hands.  The utopias\nof socialism in the matter of association make more prominent\nthan ever the truth which we announced at the beginning:  THERE\nIS NOTHING IN SOCIALISM WHICH IS NOT FOUND IN POLITICAL ECONOMY;\nand this perpetual plagiarism is the irrevocable condemnation of\nboth.  Nowhere is to be seen the dawn of that mother-idea, which\nsprings with so much eclat from the generation of the economic\ncategories,--that the superior formula of association has nothing\nto do with capital, a matter for individual accounts, but must\nbear solely upon equilibrium of production, the conditions of\nexchange, the gradual reduction of cost, the one and only source\nof the increase of wealth.  Instead of determining the relations\nof industry to industry, of laborer to laborer, of province to\nprovince, and of people to people, the socialists dream only of\nproviding themselves with capital, always conceiving the problem\nof the solidarity of laborers as if it were a question of\nfounding some new institution of monopoly.  The world, humanity,\ncapital, industry, business machinery, exist; it is a matter now\nsimply of finding their philosophy,--in other words, of\norganizing them: and the socialists are in search of capital!\nAlways outside of reality, is it astonishing that they miss it?\n\nThus M. Blanc asks for State aid and the establishment of\nnational workshops; thus Fourier asked for six million francs,\nand his followers are still engaged today in collecting that sum;\nthus the communists place their hope in a revolution which shall\ngive them authority and the treasury, and exhaust themselves in\nwaiting for useless subscriptions.  Capital and power, secondary\norgans in society, are always the gods whom socialism adores: if\ncapital and power did not exist, it would invent them.  Through\nits anxieties about power and capital, socialism has completely\noverlooked the meaning of its own protests: much more, it has not\nseen that, in involving itself, as it has done, in the economic\nroutine, it has deprived itself of the very right to protest.  It\naccuses society of antagonism, and through the same antagonism it\ngoes in pursuit of reform.  It asks capital for the poor\nlaborers, as if the misery of laborers did not come from the\ncompetition of capitalists as well as from the factitious\nopposition of labor and capital; as if the question were not\ntoday precisely what it was before the creation of capital,--that\nis, still and always a question of equilibrium; as if, in\nshort,--let us repeat it incessantly, let us repeat it to\nsatiety,--the question were henceforth of something other than a\nsynthesis of all the principles brought to light by civilization,\nand as if, provided this synthesis, the idea which leads the\nworld, were known, there would be any need of the intervention of\ncapital and the State to make them evident.\n\nSocialism, in deserting criticism to devote itself to declamation\nand utopia and in mingling with political and religious\nintrigues, has betrayed its mission and misunderstood the\ncharacter of the century.  The revolution of 1830 demoralized us;\nsocialism is making us effeminate.  Like political economy, whose\ncontradictions it simply sifts again, socialism is powerless\nto satisfy the movement of minds: it is henceforth, in those whom\nit subjugates, only a new prejudice to destroy, and, in those who\npropagate it, a charlatanism to unmask, the more dangerous\nbecause almost always sincere.\n\n\nCHAPTER VII.\n\nFIFTH PERIOD.--POLICE, OR TAXATION.\n\nIn positing its principles humanity, as if in obedience to a\nsovereign order, never goes backward.  Like the traveller who by\noblique windings rises from the depth of the valley to the\nmountain-top, it follows intrepidly its zigzag road, and marches\nto its goal with confident step, without repentance and without\npause.  Arriving at the angle of monopoly, the social genius\ncasts backward a melancholy glance, and, in a moment of profound\nreflection, says to itself:\n\n\"Monopoly has stripped the poor hireling of everything,--bread,\nclothing, home, education, liberty, and security.  I will lay a\ntax upon the monopolist; at this price I will save him his\nprivilege.\n\n\"Land and mines, woods and waters, the original domain of man,\nare forbidden to the proletaire.  I will intervene in their\nexploitation, I will have my share of the products, and land\nmonopoly shall be respected.\n\n\"Industry has fallen into feudalism, but I am the suzerain.  The\nlords shall pay me tribute, and they shall keep the profit of\ntheir capital.\n\n\"Commerce levies usurious profits on the consumer.  I will strew\nits road with toll-gates, I will stamp its checks and indorse its\ninvoices, and it shall pass.\n\n\"Capital has overcome labor by intelligence.  I will open\nschools, and the laborer, made intelligent himself, shall\nbecome a capitalist in his turn.\n\n\"Products lack circulation, and social life is cramped.  I will\nbuild roads, bridges, canals, marts, theatres, and temples, and\nthus furnish at one stroke work, wealth, and a market.\n\n\"The rich man lives in plenty, while the workman weeps in famine.\nI will establish taxes on bread, wine, meat, salt, and honey, on\narticles of necessity and on objects of value, and these shall\nsupply alms for my poor.\n\n\"And I will set guards over the waters, the woods, the fields,\nthe mines, and the roads; I will send collectors to gather the\ntaxes and teachers to instruct the children; I will have an army\nto put down refractory subjects, courts to judge them, prisons to\npunish them, and priests to curse them.  All these offices shall\nbe given to the proletariat and paid by the monopolists.\n\n\"Such is my certain and efficacious will.\"\n\nWe have to prove that society could neither think better nor act\nworse: this will be the subject of a review which, I hope, will\nthrow new light upon the social problem.\n\nEvery measure of general police, every administrative and\ncommercial regulation, like every law of taxation, is at bottom\nbut one of the innumerable articles of this ancient bargain, ever\nviolated and ever renewed, between the patriciate and the\nproletariat.  That the parties or their representatives knew\nnothing of it, or even that they frequently viewed their\npolitical constitutions from another standpoint, is of little\nconsequence to us: not to the man, legislator, or prince do we\nlook for the meaning of his acts, but to the acts themselves.\n\n\n% 1.--Synthetic idea of the tax.--Point of departure and\ndevelopment of this idea.\n\nIn order to render that which is to follow more intelligible, I\nwill explain, inverting, as it were, the method which we have\nfollowed hitherto, the superior theory of the tax; then I will\ngive its genesis; finally I will show the contradiction and\nresults.  The synthetic idea of the tax, as well as its original\nconception, would furnish material for the most extensive\ndevelopments.  I shall confine myself to a simple announcement of\nthe propositions, with a summary indication of the proofs.\n\nThe tax, in its essence and positive destiny, is the form of\ndistribution among that species of functionaries which Adam Smith\nhas designated by the word UNPRODUCTIVE, although he admits as\nmuch as any one the utility and even the necessity of their labor\nin society.  By this adjective, UNPRODUCTIVE, Adam Smith, whose\ngenius dimly foresaw everything and left us to do everything,\nmeant that the product of these laborers is NEGATIVE, which is a\nvery different thing from null, and that consequently\ndistribution so far as they are concerned follows a method other\nthan exchange.\n\nLet us consider, in fact, what takes place, from the point of\nview of distribution, in the four great divisions of collective\nlabor,-- EXTRACTION,[21] MANUFACTURES, COMMERCE, AGRICULTURE.\nEach producer brings to market a real product whose quantity can\nbe measured, whose quality can be estimated, whose price can be\ndebated, and, finally, whose value can be discounted, either in\nother services or merchandise, or else in money.  In all these\nindustries distribution, therefore, is nothing but the mutual\nexchange of products according to the law of proportionality of\nvalues.\n\n\n[21] Hunting, fishing, mining,--in short, the gathering of all\nnatural products.--Translator.\n\n\n\nNothing like this takes place with the functionaries called\nPUBLIC.  These obtain their right to subsistence, not by the\nproduction of real utilities, but by the very state of\nunproductivity in which, by no fault of their own, they are kept.\nFor them the law of proportionality is inverted: while social\nwealth is formed and increased in the direct ratio of the\nquantity, variety, and proportion of the effective products\nfurnished by the four great industrial categories, the\ndevelopment of this same wealth, the perfecting of social order,\nsuppose, on the contrary, so far as the personnel of police is\nconcerned, a progressive and indefinite reduction.  State\nfunctionaries, therefore, are very truly unproductive.  On this\npoint J. B. Say agreed with A. Smith, and all that he has written\non this subject in correction of his master, and which has been\nstupidly included among his titles to glory, arises entirely, it\nis easy to see, from a misunderstanding.  In a word, the wages of\nthe government's employees constitute a social DEFICIT; they\nmust be carried to the account of LOSSES, which it must be the\nobject of industrial organization to continually diminish: in\nthis view what other adjective could be used to describe the men\nof power than that of Adam Smith?\n\nHere, then, is a category of services which, furnishing no real\nproducts, cannot be rewarded in the ordinary way; services which\ndo not fall under the law of exchange, which cannot become the\nobject of private speculation, competition, joint-stock\nassociation, or any sort of commerce, but which, theoretically\nregarded as performed gratuitously by all, but entrusted, by\nvirtue of the law of division of labor, to a small number of\nspecial men who devote themselves exclusively to them, must\nconsequently be paid for.  History confirms this general datum.\nThe human mind, which tries all solutions of every problem, has\ntried accordingly to submit public functions to exchange; for a\nlong time French magistrates, like notaries, etc., lived solely\nby their fees.  But experience has proved that this method of\ndistribution applied to unproductive laborers was too expensive\nand subject to too many disadvantages, and it became necessary to\nabandon it.\n\nThe organization of the unproductive services contributes to the\ngeneral welfare in several ways: first, by relieving producers of\npublic cares, in which all must participate, and to which,\nconsequently, all are more or less slaves; secondly, by\nestablishing in society an artificial centralization, the image\nand prelude of the future solidarity of industries; and, finally,\nby furnishing a first attempt at balance and discipline.\n\nSo we admit, with J. B. Say, the usefulness of magistrates and\nthe other agents of public authority; but we hold that this\nusefulness is wholly negative, and we insist, therefore, on\ndescribing these functionaries by the adjective unproductive\nwhich A. Smith applied to them, not to bring them into discredit,\nbut because they really cannot be classed in the category of\nproducers.  \"Taxation,\" very well says an economist of Say's\nschool, M. J. Garnier,--\"taxation is a PRIVATION which we should\ntry to reduce to the furthest point of compatibility with the\nneeds of society.\"  If the writer whom I quote has reflected upon\nthe meaning of his words, he has seen that the word PRIVATION\nwhich he uses is synonymous with NON-PRODUCTION, and that\nconsequently those for whose benefit taxes are collected are very\ntruly UNPRODUCTIVE laborers.\n\nI insist upon this definition, which seems to me the less\nquestionable from the fact that, however much they may\ndispute over the word, all agree upon the thing, because it\ncontains the germ of the greatest revolution yet to be\naccomplished in the world,--I mean the subordination of the\nunproductive functions to the productive functions, in a word,\nthe effective submission, always asked and never obtained, of\nauthority to the citizens.\n\nIt is a consequence of the development of the economical\ncontradictions that order in society first shows itself inverted;\nthat that which should be above is placed below, that which\nshould be in relief seems sunken, and that which should receive\nthe light is thrown into the shadow.  Thus power, which, in its\nessence, is, like capital, the auxiliary and subordinate of\nlabor, becomes, through the antagonism of society, the spy,\njudge, and tyrant of the productive functions; power, whose\noriginal inferiority lays upon it the duty of obedience, is\nprince and sovereign.\n\nIn all ages the laboring classes have pursued against the\noffice-holding class the solution of this antinomy, of which\neconomic science alone can give the key.  The oscillations--that\nis, the political agitations which result from this struggle of\nlabor against power--now lead to a depression of the central\nforce, which compromises the very existence of society; now,\nexaggerating this same force beyond measure, give birth to\ndespotism.  Then, the privileges of command, the infinite joy\nwhich it gives to ambition and pride, making the unproductive\nfunctions an object of universal lust, a new leaven of discord\npenetrates society, which, divided already in one direction into\ncapitalists and wage-workers, and in another into producers and\nnon-producers, is again divided as regards power into monarchists\nand democrats.  The conflicts between royalty and the republic\nwould furnish us most marvellous and interesting material\nfor our episodes.  The confines of this work do not permit us so\nlong an excursion; and after having pointed out this new branch\nin the vast network of human aberrations, we shall confine\nourselves exclusively, in dealing with taxation, to the economic\nquestion.\n\nSuch, then, in succinctest statement, is the synthetic theory of\nthe tax,--that is, if I may venture to use the familiar\ncomparison, of this fifth wheel of the coach of humanity, which\nmakes so much noise, and which, in governmental parlance, is\nstyled the State.  The State, the police, or their means of\nexistence, the tax, is, I repeat, the official name of the class\ndesignated in political economy as nonproducers,--in short, as\nthe domestics of society.\n\nBut public reason does not attain at a single bound this simple\nidea, which for centuries had to remain in the state of a\ntranscendental conception.  Before civilization can mount to such\na height, it must pass through frightful tempests and innumerable\nrevolutions, in each of which, one might say, it renews its\nstrength in a bath of blood.  And when at last production,\nrepresented by capital, seems on the point of thoroughly\nsubordinating the unproductive organ, the State, then society\nrises in indignation, labor weeps at the prospect of its\nimmediate freedom, democracy shudders at the abasement of power,\njustice cries out as if scandalized, and all the oracles of the\ndeparting gods exclaim with terror that the abomination of\ndesolation is in the holy places and that the end of the world\nhas come.  So true is it that humanity never desires what it\nseeks, and that the slightest progress cannot be realized without\nspreading panic among the peoples.\n\nWhat, then, in this evolution, is the point of departure of\nsociety, and by what circuitous route does it reach\npolitical reform,--that is, economy in its expenditures, equality\nin the assessment of its taxes, and the subordination of power to\nindustry?  That is what we are about to state in a few words,\nreserving developments for the sequel.\n\nThe original idea of the tax is that of REDEMPTION.\n\nAs, by the law of Moses, each first-born was supposed to belong\nto Jehovah, and had to be redeemed by an offering, so the tax\neverywhere presents itself in the form of a tithe or royal\nprerogative by which the proprietor annually redeems from the\nsovereign the profit of exploitation which he is supposed to hold\nonly by his pleasure.  This theory of the tax, moreover, is but\none of the special articles of what is called the social\ncontract.\n\nAncients and moderns all agree, in terms more or less explicit,\nin regarding the juridical status of societies as a reaction of\nweakness against strength.  This idea is uppermost in all the\nworks of Plato, notably in the \"Gorgias,\" where he maintains,\nwith more subtlety than logic, the cause of the laws against that\nof violence,--that is, legislative absolutism against\naristocratic and military absolutism.  In this knotty dispute, in\nwhich the weight of evidence is equal on both sides, Plato simply\nexpresses the sentiment of entire antiquity.  Long before him,\nMoses, in making a distribution of lands, declaring patrimony\ninalienable, and ordering a general and uncompensated\ncancellation of all mortgages every fiftieth year, had opposed a\nbarrier to the invasions of force.  The whole Bible is a hymn to\nJUSTICE,--that is, in the Hebrew style, to charity, to kindness\nto the weak on the part of the strong, to voluntary renunciation\nof the privilege of power.  Solon, beginning his legislative\nmission by a general abolition of debts, and creating rights and\nreserves,--that is, barriers to prevent their return,--was\nno less reactionary.  Lycurgus went farther; he forbade\nindividual possession, and tried to absorb the man in the State,\nannihilating liberty the better to preserve equilibrium.  Hobbes,\nderiving, and with great reason, legislation from the state of\nwar, arrived by another road at the establishment of equality\nupon an exception,--despotism.  His book, so much calumniated, is\nonly a development of this famous antithesis.  The charter of\n1830, consecrating the insurrection made in '89 by the plebeians\nagainst the nobility, and decreeing the abstract equality of\npersons before the law, in spite of the real inequality of powers\nand talents which is the veritable basis of the social system now\nin force, is also but a protest of society in favor of the poor\nagainst the rich, of the small against the great.  All the laws\nof the human race regarding sale, purchase, hire, property,\nloans, mortgages, prescription, inheritance, donation, wills,\nwives' dowries, minority, guardianship, etc., etc., are real\nbarriers erected by judicial absolutism against the absolutism of\nforce.  Respect for contracts, fidelity to promises, the religion\nof the oath, are fictions, osselets,[22] as the famous Lysander\naptly said, with which society deceives the strong and brings\nthem under the yoke.\n\n\n[22] Little bones taken from the joints of animals and serving as\nplaythings for children.--Translator.\n\n\n\nThe tax belongs to that great family of preventive, coercive,\nrepressive, and vindictive institutions which A. Smith designated\nby the generic term police, and which is, as I have said, in its\noriginal conception, only the reaction of weakness against\nstrength.  This follows, independently of abundant historical\ntestimony which we will put aside to confine ourselves\nexclusively to economic proof, from the distinction naturally\narising between taxes.\n\nAll taxes are divisible into two great categories: (1) taxes of\nassessment, or of privilege: these are the oldest taxes; (2)\ntaxes of consumption, or of quotite,[23] whose tendency is, by\nabsorbing the former, to make public burdens weigh equally upon\nall.\n\n\n[23] A tax whose total product is not fixed in advance, but\ndepends upon the quantity of things or persons upon whom it\nhappens to fall.-- Translator.\n\n\n\nThe first sort of taxes--including in France the tax on land, the\ntax on doors and windows, the poll-tax, the tax on personal\nproperty, the tax on tenants, license-fees, the tax on transfers\nof property, the tax on officials' fees, road-taxes, and\nbrevets--is the share which the sovereign reserves for himself\nout of all the monopolies which he concedes or tolerates; it is,\nas we have said, the indemnity of the poor, the permit granted to\nproperty.  Such was the form and spirit of the tax in all the old\nmonarchies: feudalism was its beau ideal.  Under that regime the\ntax was only a TRIBUTE paid by the holder to the universal\nproprietor or sleeping-partner (commanditaire), the king.\n\nWhen later, by the development of public right, royalty, the\npatriarchal form of sovereignty, begins to get impregnated by the\ndemocratic spirit, the tax becomes a quota which each voter owes\nto the COMMONWEALTH, and which, instead of falling into the hand\nof the prince, is received into the State treasury.  In this\nevolution the principle of the tax remains intact; as yet there\nis no transformation of the institution; the real sovereign\nsimply succeeds the figurative sovereign.  Whether the tax enters\ninto the peculium of the prince or serves to liquidate a common\ndebt, it is in either case only a claim of society against\nprivilege; otherwise, it is impossible to say why the tax is\nlevied in the ratio of fortunes.\n\n\nLet all contribute to the public expenses: nothing more just.\nBut why should the rich pay more than the poor?  That is just,\nthey say, because they possess more.  I confess that such justice\nis beyond my comprehension. . . .  One of two things is true:\neither the proportional tax guarantees a privilege to the larger\ntax-payers, or else it is a wrong.  Because, if property is a\nnatural right, as the Declaration of '93 declares, all that\nbelongs to me by virtue of this right is as sacred as my person;\nit is my blood, my life, myself: whoever touches it offends the\napple of my eye.  My income of one hundred thousand francs is as\ninviolable a the grisette's daily wage of seventy-five centimes;\nher attic is no more sacred than my suite of apartments.  The tax\nis not levied in proportion to physical strength, size, or skill:\nno more should it be levied in proportion to property.--What is\nProperty: Chapter II.\n\n\nThese observations are the more just because the principle which\nit was their purpose to oppose to that of proportional assessment\nhas had its period of application.  The proportional tax is much\nlater in history than liege-homage, which consisted in a simple\nofficious demonstration without real payment.\n\nThe second sort of taxes includes in general all those\ndesignated, by a sort of antiphrasis, by the term INDIRECT, such\nas taxes on liquor, salt, and tobacco, customs duties, and, in\nshort, all the taxes which DIRECTLY affect the only thing which\nshould be taxed,--product.  The principle of this tax, whose name\nis an actual misnomer, is unquestionably better founded in theory\nand more equitable in tendency than the preceding: accordingly,\nin spite of the opinion of the mass, always deceived as to that\nwhich serves it as well as to that which is prejudicial to it, I\ndo not hesitate to say that this tax is the only normal one,\nbarring its assessment and collection, with which it is not my\npurpose now to deal.\n\nFor, if it is true, as we have just explained, that the real\nnature of the tax is to pay, according to a particular form of\nwages, for certain services which elude the usual form of\nexchange, it follows that all producers, enjoying these services\nequally as far as personal use is concerned, should contribute to\ntheir payment in equal portions.  The share for each, therefore,\nwould be a fraction of his exchangeable product, or, in other\nwords, an amount taken from the values delivered by him for\npurposes of consumption.  But, under the monopoly system, and\nwith collection upon land, the treasury strikes the product\nbefore it has entered into exchange, even before it is\nproduced,--a circumstance which results in throwing back the\namount of the tax into the cost of production, and consequently\nputs the burden upon the consumer and lifts it from monopoly.\n\nWhatever the significance of the tax of assessment or the tax of\nquotite, one thing is sure, and this is the thing which it is\nespecially important for us to know,--namely, that, in making the\ntax proportional, it was the intention of the sovereign to make\ncitizens contribute to the public expenses, no longer, according\nto the old feudal principle, by means of a poll-tax, which would\ninvolve the idea of an assessment figured in the ratio of the\nnumber of persons taxed, and not in the ratio of their\npossessions, but so much per franc of capital, which supposes\nthat capital has its source in an authority superior to the\ncapitalists.  Everybody, spontaneously and with one accord,\nconsiders such an assessment just; everybody, therefore,\nspontaneously and with one accord, looks upon the tax as a\nresumption on the part of society, a sort of redemption exacted\nfrom monopoly.  This is especially striking in England, where, by\na special law, the proprietors of the soil and the manufacturers\npay, in proportion to their incomes, a tax of forty million\ndollars, which is called the poor-rate.\n\nIn short, the practical and avowed object of the tax is to effect\nupon the rich, for the benefit of the people, a proportional\nresumption of their capital.\n\nNow, analysis and the facts demonstrate:\n\nThat the tax of assessment, the tax upon monopoly, instead of\nbeing paid by those who possess, is paid almost entirely by those\nwho do not possess;\n\nThat the tax of quotite, separating the producer from the\nconsumer, falls solely upon the latter, thereby taking from the\ncapitalist no more than he would have to pay if fortunes were\nabsolutely equal;\n\nFinally, that the army, the courts, the police, the schools, the\nhospitals, the almshouses, the houses of refuge and correction,\npublic functions, religion itself, all that society creates for\nthe protection, emancipation, and relief of the proletaire, paid\nfor in the first place and sustained by the proletaire, is then\nturned against the proletaire or wasted as far as he is\nconcerned; so that the proletariat, which at first labored only\nfor the class that devours it,--that of the capitalists,--must\nlabor also for the class that flogs it,--that of the\nnonproducers.\n\nThese facts are henceforth so well known, and the economists--I\nowe them this justice--have shown them so clearly, that I shall\nabstain from correcting their demonstrations, which, for the\nrest, are no longer contradicted by anybody.  What I propose to\nbring to light, and what the economists do not seem to have\nsufficiently understood, is that the condition in which the\nlaborer is placed by this new phase of social economy is\nsusceptible of no amelioration; that, unless industrial\norganization, and therefore political reform, should bring about\nan equality of fortunes, evil is inherent in police institutions\nas in the idea of charity which gave them birth; in short, that\nthe STATE, whatever form it affects, aristocratic or theocratic,\nmonarchical or republican, until it shall have become the\nobedient and submissive organ of a society of equals, will be for\nthe people an inevitable hell,--I had almost said a deserved\ndamnation.\n\n\n% 2.--Antinomy of the tax.\n\nI sometimes hear the champions of the statu quo maintain that for\nthe present we enjoy liberty enough, and that, in spite of the\ndeclamation against the existing order, we are below the level of\nour institutions.  So far at least as taxation is concerned, I am\nquite of the opinion of these optimists.\n\nAccording to the theory that we have just seen, the tax is the\nreaction of society against monopoly.  Upon this point opinions\nare unanimous: citizens and legislators, economists, journalists,\nand ballad-writers, rendering, each in their own tongue, the\nsocial thought, vie with each other in proclaiming that the tax\nshould fall upon the rich, strike the superfluous and articles of\nluxury, and leave those of prime necessity free.  In short, they\nhave made the tax a sort of privilege for the privileged: a bad\nidea, since it involved a recognition of the legitimacy of\nprivilege, which in no case, whatever shape it may take, is good\nfor anything.  The people had to be punished for this egoistic\ninconsistency: Providence did not fail in its duty.\n\nFrom the moment, then, of the conception of the tax as a\ncounter-claim, it had to be fixed proportionally to means,\nwhether it struck capital or affected income more especially.\nNow, I will point out that the levying of the tax at so much a\nfranc being precisely that which should be adopted in a country\nwhere all fortunes were equal, saving the differences in the cost\nof assessment and collection, the treasury is the most liberal\nfeature of our society, and that on this point our morals are\nreally behind our institutions.  But as with the wicked the best\nthings cannot fail to be detestable, we shall see the\nequalitarian tax crush the people precisely because the people\nare not up to it.\n\nI will suppose that the gross income in France, for each family\nof four persons, is 1,000 francs: this is a little above the\nestimate of M. Chevalier, who places it at only 63 centimes a day\nfor each individual, or 919 francs 80 centimes for each\nhousehold.  The tax being today more than a thousand millions, or\nabout an eighth of the total income, each family, earning 1,000\nfrancs a year, is taxed 125 francs.\n\nAccordingly, an income of 2,000 francs pays 250 francs; an income\nof 3,000 francs, 375; an income of 4,000 francs, 500, etc.  The\nproportion is strict and mathematically irreproachable; the\ntreasury, by arithmetic, is sure of losing nothing.\n\nBut on the side of the taxpayers the affair totally changes its\naspect.  The tax, which, in the intention of the legislator, was\nto have been proportioned to fortune, is, on the contrary,\nprogressive in the ratio of poverty, so that, the poorer the\ncitizen is, the more he pays.  This I shall try to make plain by\na few figures.\n\nAccording to the proportional tax, there is due to the treasury:\nfor an income of\n1,000  2,000  3,000  4,000  5,000  6,000 francs, etc. a tax of\n  125    250    375    500    625    750\n\nAccording to this series, then, the tax seems to increase\nproportionally to income.\n\nBut when it is remembered that each annual income is made up of\n365 units, each of which represents the daily income of the\ntaxpayer, the tax will no longer be found proportional; it will\nbe found equal.  In fact, if the State levies a tax of 125 francs\non an income of 1,000 francs, it is as if it took from the taxed\nfamily 45 days' subsistence; likewise the assessments of 250,\n375, 500, 625, and 750 francs, corresponding to incomes of 2,000,\n3,000, 4,000, 5,000, and 6,000 francs, constitute in each case a\ntax of 45 days' pay upon each of those who enjoy these incomes.\n\nI say now that this equality of taxation is a monstrous\ninequality, and that it is a strange illusion to imagine that,\nbecause the daily income is larger, the tax of which it is the\nbase is higher.  Let us change our point of view from that of\npersonal to that of collective income.\n\nAs an effect of monopoly social wealth abandoning the laboring\nclass to go to the capitalistic class, the object of taxation has\nbeen to moderate this displacement and react against usurpation\nby enforcing a proportional replevin upon each privileged person.\nBut proportional to what?  To the excess which the privileged\nperson has received undoubtedly, and not to the fraction of the\nsocial capital which his income represents.  Now, the object of\ntaxation is missed and the law turned into derision when the\ntreasury, instead of taking its eighth where this eighth exists,\nasks it precisely of those to whom it should be restored.  A\nfinal calculation will make this evident.\n\nSetting the daily income of each person in France at 68 centimes,\nthe father of a family who, whether as wages or as income from\nhis capital, receives 1,000 francs a year receives four shares of\nthe national income; he who receives 2,000 francs has eight\nshares; he who receives 4,000 francs has sixteen, etc.  Hence it\nfollows that the workman who, on an income of 1,000 francs, pays\n125 francs into the treasury renders to public order half a\nshare, or an eighth of his income and his family's subsistence;\nwhereas the capitalist who, on an income of 6,000 francs, pays\nonly 750 francs realizes a profit of 17 shares out of the\ncollective income, or, in other words, gains by the tax 425 per\ncent.\n\nLet us reproduce the same truth in another form.\n\nThe voters of France number about 200,000.  I do not know the\ntotal amount of taxes paid by these 200,000 voters, but I do not\nbelieve that I am very far from the truth in supposing an average\nof 300 francs each, or a total of 60,000,000 for the 200,000\nvoters, to which we will add twenty-five per cent. to represent\ntheir share of indirect taxes, making in all 75,000,000, or 75\nfrancs for each person (supposing the family of each voter to\nconsist of five persons), which the electoral class pays to the\nState.  The appropriations, according to the \"Annuaire\nEconomique\" for 1845, being 1,106,000,000, there remains\n1,031,000,000, which makes the tax paid by each non-voting\ncitizen 31 francs 30 centimes,--two-fifths of the tax paid by the\nwealthy class.  Now, for this proportion to be equitable, the\naverage welfare of the non-voting class would have to be\ntwo-fifths of the average welfare of the voting class: but such\nis not the truth, as it falls short of this by more than\nthree-fourths.\n\nBut this disproportion will seem still more shocking when it is\nremembered that the calculation which we have just made\nconcerning the electoral class is altogether wrong, altogether in\nfavor of the voters.\n\nIn fact, the only taxes which are levied for the enjoyment of the\nright of suffrage are: (1) the land tax; (2) the tax on polls and\npersonal property; (3) the tax on doors and windows; (4)\nlicense-fees.  Now, with the exception of the tax on polls and\npersonal property, which varies little, the three other taxes are\nthrown back on the consumers; and it is the same with all the\nindirect taxes, for which the holders of capital are reimbursed\nby the consumers, with the exception, however, of the taxes on\nproperty transfers, which fall directly on the proprietor and\namount in all to 150,000,000.  Now, if we estimate that in this\nlast amount the property of voters figures as one-sixth, which is\nplacing it high, the portion of direct taxes (409,000,000) being\n12 francs for each person, and that of indirect taxes\n(547,000,000) 16 francs, the average tax paid by each voter\nhaving a household of five will reach a total of 265 francs,\nwhile that paid by the laborer, who has only his arms to support\nhimself, his wife, and two children, will be 112 francs.  In more\ngeneral terms, the average tax upon each person belonging to the\nupper classes will be 53 francs; upon each belonging to the\nlower, 28.  Whereupon I renew my question:  Is the welfare of\nthose below the voting standard half as great as that of those\nabove it?\n\nIt is with the tax as with periodical publications, which really\ncost more the less frequently they appear.  A daily journal costs\nforty francs, a weekly ten francs, a monthly four.  Supposing\nother things to be equal, the subscription prices of these\njournals are to each other as the numbers forty, seventy, and one\nhundred and twenty, the price rising with the infrequency of\npublication.  Now, this exactly represents the increase of the\ntax: it is a subscription paid by each citizen in exchange for\nthe right to labor and to live.  He who uses this right in the\nsmallest proportion pays much; he who uses it a little more pays\nless; he who uses it a great deal pays little.\n\nThe economists are generally in agreement about all this. They\nhave attacked the proportional tax, not only in its principle,\nbut in its application; they have pointed out its anomalies,\nalmost all of which arise from the fact that the relation of\ncapital to income, or of cultivated surface to rent, is never\nfixed.\n\n\nGiven a levy of one-tenth on the income from lands, and lands of\ndifferent qualities producing, the first eight francs' worth of\ngrain, the second six francs' worth, the third five francs'\nworth, the tax will call for one-eighth of the income from the\nmost fertile land, one-sixth from that a little less fertile,\nand, finally, one-fifth from that less fertile still.[24]  Will\nnot the tax thus established be just the reverse of what it\nshould be?  Instead of land, we may suppose other instruments of\nproduction, and compare capitals of the same value, or amounts of\nlabor of the same order, applied to branches of industry\ndiffering in productivity: the conclusion will be the same.\nThere is injustice in requiring the same poll-tax of ten francs\nfrom the laborer who earns one thousand francs and from the\nartist or physician who has an income of sixty thousand.--J.\nGarnier: Principles of Political Economy.\n\n\n[24] This sentence, as it stands, is unintelligible, and probably\nis not correctly quoted by Proudhon.  At any rate, one of\nGarnier's works contains a similar passage, which begins thus:\n\"Given a levy of one on the area of the land, and lands of\ndifferent qualities producing, the first eight, the second six,\nthe third five, the tax will call for one- eighth,\" etc.  This is\nperfectly clear, and the circumstances supposed are aptly\nillustrative of Proudhon's point.  I should unhesitatingly\npronounce it the correct version, except for the fact that\nProudhon, in the succeeding paragraph, interprets Garnier as\nsupposing income to be assessed instead of capital.--Translator.\n\n\n\nThese reflections are very sound, although they apply only to\ncollection or assessment, and do not touch the principle of the\ntax itself.  For, in supposing the assessment to be made upon\nincome instead of upon capital, the fact always remains that the\ntax, which should be proportional to fortunes, is borne by the\nconsumer.\n\nThe economists have taken a resolve; they have squarely\nrecognized the iniquity of the proportional tax.\n\n\"The tax,\" says Say, \"can never be levied upon the necessary.\"\nThis author, it is true, does not tell us what we are to\nunderstand by the necessary, but we can supply the omission.  The\nnecessary is what each individual gets out of the total product\nof the country, after deducting what must be taken for taxes.\nThus, making the estimate in round numbers, the production of\nFrance being eight thousand millions and the tax one thousand\nmillions, the necessary in the case of each individual amounts to\nfifty-six and a half centimes a day.  Whatever is in excess of\nthis income is alone susceptible of being taxed, according to J.\nB. Say; whatever falls short of it must be regarded by the\ntreasury as inviolable.\n\nThe same author expresses this idea in other words when he says:\n\"The proportional tax is not equitable.\"  Adam Smith had already\nsaid before him:  \"It is not unreasonable that the rich man\nshould contribute to the public expenses, not only in proportion\nto his income, but something more.\"  \"I will go further,\" adds\nSay; \"I will not fear to say that the progressive tax is the only\nequitable tax.\"  And M. J. Garnier, the latest abridger of the\neconomists, says:  \"Reforms should tend to establish a\nprogressional equality, if I may use the phrase, much more just,\nmuch more equitable, than the pretended equality of taxation,\nwhich is only a monstrous inequality.\"\n\nSo, according to general opinion and the testimony of the\neconomists, two things are acknowledged: one, that in its\nprinciple the tax is a reaction against monopoly and directed\nagainst the rich; the other, that in practice this same tax is\nfalse to its object; that, in striking the poor by preference, it\ncommits an injustice; and that the constant effort of the\nlegislator must be to distribute its burden in a more equitable\nfashion.\n\nI needed to establish this double fact solidly before passing to\nother considerations: now commences my criticism.\n\nThe economists, with that simplicity of honest folk which they\nhave inherited from their elders and which even today is all that\nstands to their credit, have taken no pains to see that the\nprogressional theory of the tax, which they point out to\ngovernments as the ne plus ultra of a wise and liberal\nadministration, was contradictory in its terms and pregnant with\na legion of impossibilities.  They have attributed the oppression\nof the treasury by turns to the barbarism of the time, the\nignorance of princes, the prejudices of caste, the avarice of\ncollectors, everything, in short, which, in their opinion,\npreventing the progression of the tax, stood in the way of the\nsincere practice of equality in the distribution of public\nburdens; they have not for a moment suspected that what they\nasked under the name of progressive taxation was the overturn of\nall economic ideas.\n\nThus they have not seen, for instance, that the tax was\nprogressive from the very fact that it was proportional, the only\ndifference being that the progression was in the wrong direction,\nthe percentage being, as we have said, not directly, but\ninversely proportional to fortunes.  If the economists had had a\nclear idea of this overturn, invariable in all countries where\ntaxation exists, so singular a phenomenon would not have failed\nto draw their attention; they would have sought its causes, and\nwould have ended by discovering that what they took for an\naccident of civilization, an effect of the inextricable\ndifficulties of human government, was the product of the\ncontradiction inherent in all political economy.\n\nThe progressive tax, whether applied to capital or to income, is\nthe very negation of monopoly, of that monopoly which is met\neverywhere, according to M. Rossi, across the path of social\neconomy; which is the true stimulant of industry, the hope of\neconomy, the preserver and parent of all wealth; of which we have\nbeen able to say, in short, that society cannot exist without it,\nbut that, except for it, there would be no society.  Let the tax\nbecome suddenly what it unquestionably must sometime be,--namely,\nthe proportional (or progressional, which is the same thing)\ncontribution of each producer to the public expenses, and\nstraightway rent and profit are confiscated everywhere for the\nbenefit of the State; labor is stripped of the fruits of its\ntoil; each individual being reduced to the proper allowance of\nfifty-six and a half centimes, poverty becomes general; the\ncompact formed between labor and capital is dissolved, and\nsociety, deprived of its rudder, drifts back to its original\nstate.\n\nIt will be said, perhaps, that it is easy to prevent the absolute\nannihilation of the profits of capital by stopping the\nprogression at any moment.\n\nEclecticism, the golden mean, compromise with heaven or with\nmorality: is it always to be the same philosophy, then?  True\nscience is repugnant to such arrangements.  All invested capital\nmust return to the producer in the form of interest; all labor\nmust leave a surplus, all wages be equal to product.  Under the\nprotection of these laws society continually realizes, by the\ngreatest variety of production, the highest possible degree of\nwelfare.  These laws are absolute; to violate them is to wound,\nto mutilate society.  Capital, accordingly, which, after all, is\nnothing but accumulated labor, is inviolable.  But, on the other\nhand, the tendency to equality is no less imperative; it is\nmanifested at each economic phase with increasing energy and an\ninvincible authority.  Therefore you must satisfy labor and\njustice at once; you must give to the former guarantees more\nand more real, and secure the latter without concession or\nambiguity.\n\nInstead of that, you know nothing but the continual substitution\nof the good pleasure of the prince for your theories, the arrest\nof the course of economic law by arbitrary power, and, under the\npretext of equity, the deception of the wage worker and the\nmonopolist alike!  Your liberty is but a half-liberty, your\njustice but a half-justice, and all your wisdom consists in those\nmiddle terms whose iniquity is always twofold, since they justify\nthe pretensions of neither one party nor the other!  No, such\ncannot be the science which you have promised us, and which, by\nunveiling for us the secrets of the production and consumption of\nwealth, must unequivocally solve the social antinomies.  Your\nsemi- liberal doctrine is the code of despotism, and shows that\nyou are powerless to advance as well as ashamed to retreat.\n\nIf society, pledged by its economic antecedents, can never\nretrace its steps; if, until the arrival of the universal\nequation, monopoly must be maintained in its possession,--no\nchange is possible in the laying of taxes: only there is a\ncontradiction here, which, like every other, must be pushed till\nexhausted.  Have, then, the courage of your opinions,-- respect\nfor wealth, and no pity for the poor, whom the God of monopoly\nhas condemned.  The less the hireling has wherewith to live, the\nmore he must pay: qui minus habet, etiam quod habet auferetur ab\neo.  This is necessary, this is inevitable; in it lies the safety\nof society.\n\nLet us try, nevertheless, to reverse the progression of the tax,\nand so arrange it that the capitalist, instead of the laborer,\nwill pay the larger share.\n\nI observe, in the first place, that with the usual method of\ncollection, such a reversal is impracticable.\n\nIn fact, if the tax falls on exploitable capital, this tax, in\nits entirety, is included among the costs of production, and then\nof two things one: either the product, in spite of the increase\nin its selling value, will be bought by the consumer, and\nconsequently the producer will be relieved of the tax; or else\nthis same product will be thought too dear, and in that case the\ntax, as J. B. Say has very well said, acts like a tithe levied on\nseed,--it prevents production.  Thus it is that too high a tax on\nthe transfer of titles arrests the circulation of real property,\nand renders estates less productive by keeping them from changing\nhands.\n\nIf, on the contrary, the tax falls on product, it is nothing but\na tax of quotite, which each pays in the ratio of his\nconsumption, while the capitalist, whom it is purposed to strike,\nescapes.\n\nMoreover, the supposition of a progressive tax based either on\nproduct or on capital is perfectly absurd.  How can we imagine\nthe same product paying a duty of ten per cent. at the store of\none dealer and a duty of but five at another's?  How are estates\nalready encumbered with mortgages and which change owners every\nday, how is a capital formed by joint investment or by the\nfortune of a single individual, to be distinguished upon the\nofficial register, and taxed, not in the ratio of their value or\nrent, but in the ratio of the fortune or presumed profits of the\nproprietor?\n\nThere remains, then, a last resource,--to tax the net income of\neach tax-payer, whatever his method of getting it.  For instance,\nan income of one thousand francs would pay ten per cent.; an\nincome of two thousand francs, twenty per cent.; an income of\nthree thousand francs, thirty per cent., etc.  We will set aside\nthe thousand difficulties and annoyances that must be met in\nascertaining these incomes, and suppose the operation as\neasy as you like.  Well! that is exactly the system which I\ncharge with hypocrisy, contradiction, and injustice.\n\nI say in the first place that this system is hypocritical,\nbecause, instead of taking from the rich that entire portion of\ntheir income in excess of the average national product per\nfamily, which is inadmissible, it does not, as is imagined,\nreverse the order of progression in the direction of wealth; at\nmost it changes the rate of progression.  Thus the present\nprogression of the tax, for fortunes yielding incomes of a\nthousand francs and UNDER, being as that of the numbers 10, 11,\n12, 13, etc., and, for fortunes yielding incomes of a thousand\nfrancs and OVER, as that of the numbers 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, etc.,--\nthe tax always increasing with poverty and decreasing with\nwealth,--if we should confine ourselves to lifting the indirect\ntax which falls especially on the poorer class and imposing a\ncorresponding tax upon the incomes of the richer class, the\nprogression thereafter, it is true, would be, for the first, only\nas that of the numbers 10, 10.25, 10.50, 10.75, 11, 11.25, etc.,\nand, for the second, as 10, 9.75, 9.50, 9.25, 9, 8.75, etc.  But\nthis progression, although less rapid on both sides, would still\ntake the same direction nevertheless, would still be a reversal\nof justice; and it is for this reason that the so-called\nprogressive tax, capable at most of giving the philanthropist\nsomething to babble about, is of no scientific value.  It changes\nnothing in fiscal jurisprudence; as the proverb says, it is\nalways the poor man who carries the pouch, always the rich man\nwho is the object of the solicitude of power.\n\nI add that this system is contradictory.\n\nIn fact, ONE CANNOT BOTH GIVE AND KEEP, say the jurisconsults.\nInstead, then, of consecrating monopolies from which the holders\nare to derive no privilege save that of straightway losing, with\nthe income, all the enjoyment thereof, why not decree the\nagrarian law at once?  Why provide in the constitution that each\nshall freely enjoy the fruit of his labor and industry, when, by\nthe fact or the tendency of the tax, this permission is granted\nonly to the extent of a dividend of fifty-six and a half centimes\na day,--a thing, it is true, which the law could not have\nforeseen, but which would necessarily result from progression?\nThe legislator, in confirming us in our monopolies, intended to\nfavor production, to feed the sacred fire of industry: now, what\ninterest shall we have to produce, if, though not yet associated,\nwe are not to produce for ourselves alone?  After we have been\ndeclared free, how can we be made subject to conditions of sale,\nhire, and exchange which annul our liberty?\n\nA man possesses government securities which bring him an income\nof twenty thousand francs.  The tax, under the new system of\nprogression, will take fifty per cent. of this from him.  At this\nrate it is more advantageous to him to withdraw his capital and\nconsume the principal instead of the income.  Then let him be\nrepaid.  What! repaid!  The State cannot be obliged to repay;\nand, if it consents to redeem, it will do so in proportion to the\nnet income.  Therefore a bond for twenty thousand francs will be\nworth not more than ten thousand to the bondholder, because of\nthe tax, if he wishes to get it redeemed by the State: unless he\ndivides it into twenty lots, in which case it will return him\ndouble the amount.  Likewise an estate which rents for fifty\nthousand francs, the tax taking two-thirds of the income, will\nlose two- thirds of its value.  But let the proprietor divide\nthis estate into a hundred lots and sell it at auction, and then,\nthe terror of the treasury no longer deterring purchasers, he can\nget back his entire capital.  So that, with the progressive\ntax, real estate no longer follows the law of supply and demand\nand is not valued according to the real income which it yields,\nbut according to the condition of the owner.  The consequence\nwill be that large capitals will depreciate in value, and\nmediocrity be brought to the front; land-owners will hasten to\nsell, because it will be better for them to consume their\nproperty than to get an insufficient rent from it; capitalists\nwill recall their investments, or will invest only at usurious\nrates; all exploitation on a large scale will be prohibited,\nevery visible fortune proceeded against, and all accumulation of\ncapital in excess of the figure of the necessary proscribed.\nWealth, driven back, will retire within itself and never emerge\nexcept by stealth; and labor, like a man attached to a corpse,\nwill embrace misery in an endless union.  Does it not well become\nthe economists who devise such reforms to laugh at the reformers?\n\nAfter having demonstrated the contradiction and delusion of the\nprogressive tax, must I prove its injustice also?  The\nprogressive tax, as understood by the economists and, in their\nwake, by certain radicals, is impracticable, I said just now, if\nit falls on capital and product: consequently I have supposed it\nto fall on incomes.  But who does not see that this purely\ntheoretical distinction between capital, product, and income\nfalls so far as the treasury is concerned, and that the same\nimpossibilities which we have pointed out reappear here with all\ntheir fatal character?\n\nA manufacturer discovers a process by means of which, saving\ntwenty per cent. of his cost of production, he secures an income\nof twenty-five thousand francs.  The treasury calls on him for\nfifteen thousand.  He is obliged, therefore, to raise his prices,\nsince, by the fact of the tax, his process, instead of saving\ntwenty per cent., saves only eight per cent.  Is not this as\nif the treasury prevented cheapness?  Thus, in trying to reach\nthe rich, the progressive tax always reaches the consumer; and it\nis impossible for it not to reach him without suppressing\nproduction altogether: what a mistake!\n\nIt is a law of social economy that all invested capital must\nreturn continually to the capitalist in the form of interest.\nWith the progressive tax this law is radically violated, since,\nby the effect of progression, interest on capital is so reduced\nthat industries are established only at a loss of a part or the\nwhole of the capital.  To make it otherwise, interest on capital\nwould have to increase progressively in the same ratio as the tax\nitself, which is absurd.  Therefore the progressive tax stops the\ncreation of capital; furthermore it hinders its circulation.\nWhoever, in fact, should want to buy a plant for any enterprise\nor a piece of land for cultivation would have to consider, under\nthe system of progressive taxation, not the real value of such\nplant or land, but rather the tax which it would bring upon him;\nso that, if the real income were four per cent., and, by the\neffect of the tax or the condition of the buyer, must go down to\nthree, the purchase could not be effected.  After having run\ncounter to all interests and thrown the market into confusion by\nits categories, the progressive tax arrests the development of\nwealth and reduces venal value below real value; it contracts, it\npetrifies society.  What tyranny!  What derision!\n\nThe progressive tax resolves itself, then, whatever may be done,\ninto a denial of justice, prohibition of production,\nconfiscation.  It is unlimited and unbridled absolutism, given to\npower over everything which, by labor, by economy, by\nimprovements, contributes to public wealth.\n\nBut what is the use of wandering about in chimerical hypotheses\nwhen the truth is at hand.  It is not the fault of the\nproportional principle if the tax falls with such shocking\ninequality upon the various classes of society; the fault is in\nour prejudices and our morals.  The tax, as far as is possible in\nhuman operations, proceeds with equity, precision.  Social\neconomy commands it to apply to product; it applies to product.\nIf product escapes it, it strikes capital: what more natural!\nThe tax, in advance of civilization, supposes the equality of\nlaborers and capitalists: the inflexible expression of necessity,\nit seems to invite us to make ourselves equals by education and\nlabor, and, by balancing our functions and associating our\ninterests, to put ourselves in accord with it.  The tax refuses\nto distinguish between one man and another: and we blame its\nmathematical severity for the differences in our fortunes!  We\nask equality itself to comply with our injustice!  Was I not\nright in saying at the outset that, relatively to the tax, we are\nbehind our institutions?\n\nAccordingly we always see the legislator stopping, in his fiscal\nlaws, before the subversive consequences of the progressive tax,\nand consecrating the necessity, the immutability of the\nproportional tax.  For equality in well-being cannot result from\nthe violation of capital: the antinomy must be methodically\nsolved, under penalty, for society, of falling back into chaos.\nEternal justice does not accommodate itself to all the whims of\nmen: like a woman, whom one may outrage, but whom one does not\nmarry without a solemn alienation of one's self, it demands on\nour part, with the abandonment of our egoism, the recognition of\nall its rights, which are those of science.\n\nThe tax, whose final purpose, as we have shown, is the reward of\nthe non-producers, but whose original idea was a restoration of\nthe laborer,--the tax, under the system of monopoly, reduces\nitself therefore to a pure and simple protest, a sort of\nextra-judicial act, the whole effect of which is to aggravate the\nsituation of the wage-worker by disturbing the monopolist in his\npossession.  As for the idea of changing the proportional tax\ninto a progressive tax, or, to speak more accurately, of\nreversing the order in which the tax progresses, that is a\nblunder the entire responsibility for which belongs to the\neconomists.\n\nBut henceforth menace hovers over privilege.  With the power of\nmodifying the proportionality of the tax, government has under\nits hand an expeditious and sure means of dispossessing the\nholders of capital when it will; and it is a frightful thing to\nsee everywhere that great institution, the basis of society, the\nobject of so many controversies, of so many laws, of so many\ncajoleries, and of so many crimes, PROPERTY, suspended at the end\nof a thread over the yawning mouth of the proletariat.\n\n\n% 3.--Disastrous and inevitable consequences of the tax.\n(Provisions, sumptuary laws, rural and industrial police,\npatents, trade-marks, etc.)\n\nM. Chevalier addressed to himself, in July, 1843, on the subject\nof the tax, the following questions:\n\n\n(1) Is it asked of all or by preference of a part of the nation?\n(2) Does the tax resemble a levy on polls, or is it exactly\nproportioned to the fortunes of the tax-payers?  (3) Is\nagriculture more or less burdened than manufactures or commerce?\n(4) Is real estate more or less spared than personal property?\n(5) Is he who produces more favored than he who consumes?  (6)\nHave our taxation laws the character of sumptuary laws?\n\n\nTo these various questions M. Chevalier makes the reply which I\nam about to quote, and which sums up all of the most\nphilosophical considerations upon the subject which I have met:\n\n\n(a) The tax affects the universality, applies to the mass, takes\nthe nation as a whole; nevertheless, as the poor are the most\nnumerous, it taxes them willingly, certain of collecting more.\n(b) By the nature of things the tax sometimes takes the form of a\nlevy on polls, as in the case of the salt tax.  (c, d, e) The\ntreasury addresses itself to labor as well as to consumption,\nbecause in France everybody labors, to real more than to personal\nproperty, and to agriculture more than to manufactures.  (f) By\nthe same reasoning, our laws partake little of the character of\nsumptuary laws.\n\n\nWhat, professor! is that all that science has taught you?  THE\nTAX APPLIES TO THE MASS, you say; IT TAKES THE NATION AS A WHOLE.\nAlas! we know it only too well; but it is this which is\niniquitous, and which we ask you to explain.  The government,\nwhen engaged in the assessment and distribution of the tax, could\nnot have believed, did not believe, that all fortunes were equal;\nconsequently it could not have wished, did not wish, the sums\npaid to be equal.  Why, then, is the practice of the government\nalways the opposite of its theory?  Your opinion, if you please,\non this difficult matter?  Explain; justify or condemn the\nexchequer; take whatever course you will, provided you take some\ncourse and say something.  Remember that your readers are men,\nand that they cannot excuse in a doctor, speaking ex cathedra,\nsuch propositions as this: AS THE POOR ARE THE MOST NUMEROUS, IT\nTAXES THEM WILLINGLY, CERTAIN OF COLLECTING MORE.  No, Monsieur:\nNUMBERS do not regulate the tax; the tax knows perfectly well\nthat millions of poor added to millions of poor do not make one\nvoter.  You render the treasury odious by making it absurd, and I\nmaintain that it is neither the one nor the other.  The poor man\npays more than the rich because Providence, to whom misery is\nodious like vice, has so ordered things that the miserable\nmust always be the most ground down.  The iniquity of the tax is\nthe celestial scourge which drives us towards equality.  God! if\na professor of political economy, who was formerly an apostle,\ncould but understand this revelation!\n\nBY THE NATURE OF THINGS, says m. Chevalier, THE TAX SOMETIMES\nTAKES THE FORM OF A LEVY ON POLLS.  Well, in what case is it just\nthat the tax should take the form of a levy on polls?  Is it\nalways, or never?  What is the principle of the tax?  What is its\nobject?  Speak, answer.\n\nAnd what instruction, pray, can we derive from the remark,\nscarcely worthy of quotation, that THE TREASURY ADDRESSES ITSELF\nTO LABOR AS WELL AS TO CONSUMPTION, TO REAL MORE THAN TO PERSONAL\nPROPERTY, TO AGRICULTURE MORE THAN TO MANUFACTURES?  Of what\nconsequence to science is this interminable recital of crude\nfacts, if your analysis never extracts a single idea from them?\n\nAll the deductions made from consumption by taxation, rent,\ninterest on capital, etc., enter into the general expense account\nand figure in the selling price, so that nearly always the\nconsumer pays the tax: that we know.  And as the goods most\nconsumed are also those which yield the most revenue, it\nnecessarily follows that the poorest people are the most heavily\nburdened: this consequence, like the first, is inevitable.  Once\nmore, then, of what importance to us are your fiscal\ndistinctions?  Whatever the classification of taxable material,\nas it is impossible to tax capital beyond its income, the\ncapitalist will be always favored, while the proletaire will\nsuffer iniquity, oppression.  The trouble is not in the\ndistribution of taxes; it is in the distribution of goods.  M.\nChevalier cannot be ignorant of this: why, then, does not M.\nChevalier, whose word would carry more weight than that of a\nwriter suspected of not loving the existing order, say as much?\n\nFrom 1806 to 1811 (this observation, as well as the following, is\nM. Chevalier's) the annual consumption of wine in Paris was one\nhundred and forty quarts for each individual; now it is not more\nthan eighty-three.  Abolish the tax of seven or eight cents a\nquart collected from the retailer, and the consumption of wine\nwill soon rise from eighty-three quarts to one hundred and\nseventy-five; and the wine industry, which does not know what to\ndo with its products, will have a market.  Thanks to the duties\nlaid upon the importation of cattle, the consumption of meat by\nthe people has diminished in a ratio similar to that of the\nfalling-off in the consumption of wine; and the economists have\nrecognized with fright that the French workman does less work\nthan the English workman, because he is not as well fed.\n\nOut of sympathy for the laboring classes M. Chevalier would like\nour manufacturers to feel the goad of foreign competition a\nlittle.  A reduction of the tax on woollens to the extent of\ntwenty cents on each pair of pantaloons would leave six million\ndollars in the pockets of the consumers,--half enough to pay the\nsalt tax.  Four cents less in the price of a shirt would effect a\nsaving probably sufficient to keep a force of twenty thousand men\nunder arms.\n\nIn the last fifteen years the consumption of sugar has risen from\none hundred and sixteen million pounds to two hundred and sixty\nmillion, which gives at present an average of seven pounds and\nthree-quarters for each individual.  This progress demonstrates\nthat sugar must be classed henceforth with bread, wine, meat,\nwool, cotton, wood, and coal, among the articles of prime\nnecessity.  To the poor man sugar is a whole medicine-chest:\nwould it be too much to raise the average individual consumption\nof this article from seven pounds and three-quarters to fifteen\npounds?  Abolish the tax, which is about four dollars and a\nhalf on a hundred pounds, and your consumption will double.\n\nThus the tax on provisions agitates and tortures the poor\nproletaire in a thousand ways: the high price of salt hinders the\nproduction of cattle; the duties on meat diminish also the\nrations of the laborer.  To satisfy at once the tax and the need\nof fermented beverages which the laboring class feels, they serve\nhim with mixtures unknown to the chemist as well as to the brewer\nand the wine-grower.  What further need have we of the dietary\nprescriptions of the Church?  Thanks to the tax, the whole year\nis Lent to the laborer, and his Easter dinner is not as good as\nMonseigneur's Good Friday lunch.  It is high time to abolish\neverywhere the tax on consumption, which weakens and starves the\npeople: this is the conclusion of the economists as well as of\nthe radicals.\n\nBut if the proletaire does not fast to feed Caesar, what will\nCaesar eat?  And if the poor man does not cut his cloak to cover\nCaesar's nudity, what will Caesar wear?\n\nThat is the question, the inevitable question, the question to be\nsolved.\n\nM. Chevalier, then, having asked himself as his sixth question\nwhether our taxation laws have the character of sumptuary laws,\nhas answered:  No, our taxation laws have not the character of\nsumptuary laws.  M. Chevalier might have added--and it would have\nbeen both new and true-- that that is the best thing about our\ntaxation laws.  But M. Chevalier, who, whatever he may do, always\nretains some of the old leaven of radicalism, has preferred to\ndeclaim against luxury, whereby he could not compromise himself\nwith any party.  \"If in Paris,\" he cries, \"the tax collected from\nmeat should be laid upon private carriages, saddle- horses and\ncarriage-horses, servants, and dogs, it would be a perfectly\nequitable operation.\"\n\nDoes M. Chevalier, then, sit in the College of France to expound\nthe politics of Masaniello?  I have seen the dogs at Basle\nwearing the treasury badge upon their necks as a sign that they\nhad been taxed, and I looked upon the tax on dogs, in a country\nwhere taxation is almost nothing, as rather a moral lesson and a\nhygienic precaution than a source of revenue.  In 1844 the dog\ntax of forty-two cents a head gave a revenue of $12,600 in the\nentire province of Brabant, containing 667,000 inhabitants.  From\nthis it may be estimated that the same tax, producing in all\nFrance $600,000, would lighten the taxes of QUOTITE LESS THAN TWO\nCENTS a year for each individual.  Certainly I am far from\npretending that $600,000 is a sum to be disdained, especially\nwith a prodigal ministry; and I regret that the Chamber should\nhave rejected the dog tax, which would always have served to\nendow half a dozen highnesses.  But I remember that a tax of this\nnature is levied much less in the interest of the treasury than\nas a promoter of order; that consequently it is proper to look\nupon it, from the fiscal point of view, as of no importance; and\nthat it will even have to be abolished as an annoyance when the\nmass of the people, having become a little more humanized, shall\nfeel a disgust for the companionship of beasts.  TWO CENTS A\nYEAR, what a relief for poverty!\n\nBut M. Chevalier has other resources in reserve,--horses,\ncarriages, servants, articles of luxury, luxury at last!  How\nmuch is contained in that one word, LUXURY!\n\nLet us cut short this phantasmagoria by a simple calculation;\nreflections will be in order later.  In 1842 the duties collected\non imports amounted to $25,800,000.  In this sum of $25,800,000,\nsixty-one articles in common use figure for $24,800,000, and one\nhundred and seventy-seven, used only by those who enjoy a high\ndegree of luxury, for TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS.  In the first\nclass sugar yielded a revenue of $8,600,000, coffee $2,400,000,\ncotton $2,200,000, woollens $2,000,000, oils $1,600,000, coal\n$800,000, linens and hemp $600,000,-- making a total of\n$18,200,000 on seven articles.  The amount of revenue, then, is\nlower in proportion as the article of merchandise from which it\nis derived is less generally used, more rarely consumed, and\nfound accompanying a more refined degree of luxury.  And yet\narticles of luxury are subject to much the highest taxes.\nTherefore, even though, to obtain an appreciable reduction upon\narticles of primary necessity, the duties upon articles of luxury\nshould be made a hundred times higher, the only result would be\nthe suppression of a branch of commerce by a prohibitory tax.\nNow, the economists all favor the abolition of custom-houses;\ndoubtless they do not wish them replaced by city toll- gates?\nLet us generalize this example: salt brings the treasury\n$11,400,000, tobacco $16,800,000.  Let them show me, figures in\nhand, by what taxes upon articles of luxury, after having\nabolished the taxes on salt and tobacco, this deficit will be\nmade up.\n\nYou wish to strike articles of luxury; you take civilization at\nthe wrong end.  I maintain, for my part, that articles of luxury\nshould be free.  In economic language what are luxuries?  Those\nproducts which bear the smallest ratio to the total wealth, those\nwhich come last in the industrial series and whose creation\nsupposes the preexistence of all the others.  From this point of\nview all the products of human labor have been, and in turn have\nceased to be, articles of luxury, since we mean by luxury nothing\nbut a relation of succession, whether chronological or\ncommercial, in the elements of wealth.  Luxury, in a word, is\nsynonymous with progress; it is, at each instant of social life,\nthe expression of the maximum of comfort realized by labor\nand at which it is the right and destiny of all to arrive.  Now,\njust as the tax respects for a time the newly-built house and the\nnewly-cleared field, so it should freely welcome new products and\nprecious articles, the latter because their scarcity should be\ncontinually combatted, the former because every invention\ndeserves encouragement.  What! under a pretext of luxury would\nyou like to establish new classes of citizens?  And do you take\nseriously the city of Salente and the prosopopoeia of Fabricius?\nSince the subject leads us to it, let us talk of morality.\nDoubtless you will not deny the truth so often dwelt upon by the\nSenecas of all ages,--that luxury CORRUPTS and WEAKENS morals:\nwhich means that it humanizes, elevates, and ennobles habits, and\nthat the first and most effective education for the people, the\nstimulant of the ideal in most men, is luxury.  The Graces were\nnaked, according to the ancients; where has it ever been said\nthat they were needy?  It is the taste for luxury which in our\nday, in the absence of religious principles, sustains the social\nmovement and reveals to the lower classes their dignity.  The\nAcademy of Moral and Political Sciences clearly understood this\nwhen it chose luxury as the subject of one of its essays, and I\napplaud its wisdom from the bottom of my heart.  Luxury, in fact,\nis already more than a right in our society, it is a necessity;\nand he is truly to be pitied who never allows himself a little\nluxury.  And it is when universal effort tends to popularize\narticles of luxury more and more that you would confine the\nenjoyment of the people to articles which you are pleased to\ndescribe as articles of necessity!  It is when ranks approach and\nblend into each other through the generalization of luxury that\nyou would dig the line of demarcation deeper and increase the\nheight of your steps!  The workman sweats and sacrifices and\ngrinds in order to buy a set of jewelry for his sweetheart, a\nnecklace for his granddaughter, or a watch for his son; and you\nwould deprive him of this happiness, unless he pays your\ntax,--that is, your fine.\n\nBut have you reflected that to tax articles of luxury is to\nprohibit the luxurious arts?  Do you think that the silk-workers,\nwhose average wages does not reach forty cents; the milliners at\nten cents; the jewellers, goldsmiths, and clockmakers, with their\ninterminable periods of idleness; servants at forty dollars,--do\nyou think that they earn too much?\n\nAre you sure that the tax on luxuries would not be paid by the\nworker in the luxurious arts, as the tax on beverages is paid by\nthe consumer of beverages?  Do you even know whether higher\nprices for articles of luxury would not be an obstacle to the\ncheapness of necessary objects, and whether, in trying to favor\nthe most numerous class, you would not render the general\ncondition worse?  A fine speculation, in truth!  Four dollars to\nbe returned to the laborer on his wine and sugar, and eight to be\ntaken from him in the cost of his pleasures!  He shall gain\nfifteen cents on the leather in his boots, and, to take his\nfamily into the country four times a year, he shall pay one\ndollar and twenty cents more for carriage-hire!  A small\nbourgeois spends one hundred and twenty dollars for a\nhousekeeper, laundress, linen-tender, and errand-boys; but if,\nby a wiser economy which works for the interest of all, he takes\na domestic, the exchequer, in the interest of articles of\nsubsistence, will punish this plan of economy!  What an absurd\nthing is the philanthropy of the economists, when closely\nscrutinized!\n\nNevertheless I wish to satisfy your whim; and, since you\nabsolutely must have sumptuary laws, I undertake to give you\nthe receipt.  And I guarantee that in my system collection shall\nbe easy: no comptrollers, assessors, tasters, assayers,\ninspectors, receivers; no watching, no office expenses; not the\nsmallest annoyance or the slightest indiscretion; no constraint\nwhatever.  Let it be decreed by a law that no one in future shall\nreceive two salaries at the same time, and that the highest fees,\nin any situation, shall not exceed twelve hundred dollars in\nParis and eight hundred in the departments.  What! you lower your\neyes!  Confess, then, that your sumptuary laws are but hypocrisy.\n\nTo relieve the people some would apply commercial practices to\ntaxation.  If, for instance, they say, the price of salt were\nreduced one-half, if letter-postage were lightened in the same\nproportion, consumption would not fail to increase, the revenue\nwould be more than doubled, the treasury would gain, and so would\nthe consumer.\n\nLet us suppose the event to confirm this anticipation.  Then I\nsay:  If letter-postage should be reduced three-fourths, and if\nsalt should be given away, would the treasury still gain?\nCertainly not.  What, then, is the significance of what is called\nthe postal reform?  That for every kind of product there is a\nnatural rate, ABOVE which profit becomes usurious and tends to\ndecrease consumption, but BELOW which the producer suffers loss.\nThis singularly resembles the determination of value which the\neconomists reject, and in relation to which we said:  There is a\nsecret force that fixes the extreme limits between which value\noscillates, of which there is a mean term that expresses true\nvalue.\n\nSurely no one wishes the postal service to be carried on at a\nloss; the opinion, therefore, is that this service should be\nperformed AT COST.  This is so rudimentary in its simplicity\nthat one is astonished that it should have been necessary to\nresort to a laborious investigation of the results of reducing\nletter-postage in England; to pile up frightful figures and\nprobabilities beyond the limit of vision, to put the mind to\ntorture, all to find out whether a reduction in France would lead\nto a surplus or a deficit, and finally to be unable to agree upon\nanything!  What! there was not a man to be found in the Chamber\nwith sense enough to say:  There is no need of an ambassador's\nreport or examples from England; letter-postage should be\ngradually reduced until receipts reach the level of\nexpenditures.[25]  What, then, has become of our old Gallic wit?\n\n\n[25] Thank heaven! the minister has settled the question, and I\ntender him my very sincere compliments.  By the proposed tariff\nletter-postage will be reduced to 2 cents for distances under 12\n1/2 miles; 4 cents, for distances between 12 1/2 and 25 miles; 6\ncents, between 25 and 75 miles; 8 cents, between 75 and 225\nmiles; 10 cents, for longer distances.\n\n\n\nBut, it will be said, if the tax should furnish salt, tobacco,\nletter-carriage, sugar, wines, meat, etc., at cost, consumption\nwould undoubtedly increase, and the improvement would be\nenormous; but then how would the State meet its expenses?  The\namount of indirect taxes is nearly one hundred and twenty million\ndollars; upon what would you have the State levy this sum?  If\nthe treasury makes nothing out of the postal service, it will\nhave to increase the tax on salt; if the tax on salt be lifted\nalso, it will have to throw the burden back upon drinks; there\nwould be no end to this litany.  Therefore the supply of products\nat cost, whether by the State or by private industry, is\nimpossible.\n\nTherefore, I will reply in turn, relief of the unfortunate\nclasses by the State is impossible, as sumptuary laws are\nimpossible, as the progressive tax is impossible; and all your\nirrelevancies regarding the tax are lawyer's quibbles.  You\nhave not even the hope that the increase of population, by\ndividing the assessments, may lighten the burden of each; because\nwith population misery increases, and with misery the work and\nthe personnel of the State are augmented.\n\nThe various fiscal laws voted by the Chamber of Deputies during\nthe session of 1845-46 are so many examples of the absolute\nincapacity of power, whatever it may be and however it may go to\nwork, to procure the comfort of the people.  From the very fact\nthat it is power,--that is, the representative of divine right\nand of property, the organ of force,--it is necessarily sterile,\nand all its acts are stamped in the corner with a fatal\ndeception.\n\nI referred just now to the reform in the postage rates, which\nreduces the price of letter-carriage about one-third.  Surely, if\nmotives only are in question, I have no reason to reproach the\ngovernment which has effected this useful reduction; much less\nstill will I seek to diminish its merit by miserable criticisms\nupon matters of detail, the vile pasturage of the daily press.  A\ntax, considerably burdensome, is reduced thirty per cent.; its\ndistribution is made more equitable and more regular; I see only\nthe fact, and I applaud the minister who has accomplished it.\nBut that is not the question.\n\nIn the first place, the advantage which the government gives us\nby changing the tax on letters leaves the proportional--that is,\nthe unjust--character of this tax intact: that scarcely requires\ndemonstration.  The inequality of burdens, so far as the postal\ntax is concerned, stands as before, the advantage of the\nreduction going principally, not to the poorest, but to the\nrichest.  A certain business house which paid six hundred dollars\nfor letter-postage will pay hereafter only four hundred; it will\nadd, then, a net profit of two hundred dollars to the ten\nthousand which its business brings it, and it will owe this to\nthe munificence of the treasury.  On the other hand, the peasant,\nthe laborer, who shall write twice a year to his son in the army,\nand shall receive a like number of replies, will have saved ten\ncents.  Is it not true that the postal reform acts in direct\nopposition to the equitable distribution of the tax? that if,\naccording to M. Chevalier's wish, the government had desired to\nstrike the rich and spare the poor, the tax on letters was the\nlast that it would have needed to reduce?  Does it not seem that\nthe treasury, false to the spirit of its institution, has only\nbeen awaiting the pretext of a reduction inappreciable by poverty\nin order to seize the opportunity to make a present to wealth?\n\nThat is what the critics of the bill should have said, and that\nis what none of them saw.  It is true that then the criticism,\ninstead of applying to the minister, struck power in its essence,\nand with power property, which was not the design of the\nopponents.  Truth today has all opinions against it.\n\nAnd now could it have been otherwise?  No, since, if they kept\nthe old tax, they injured all without relieving any; and, if they\nreduced it, they could not make different rates for classes of\ncitizens without violating the first article of the Charter,\nwhich says:  \"All Frenchmen are equal before the law,\"--that is,\nbefore the tax.  Now, the tax on letters is necessarily personal;\ntherefore it is a capitation-tax; therefore, that which is equity\nin this respect being iniquity from another standpoint, an\nequilibrium of burdens is impossible.\n\nAt the same time another reform was effected by the care of the\ngovernment,--that of the tax on cattle.  Formerly the duties on\ncattle, whether on importation from foreign countries, or from\nthe country into the cities, were collected at so much a\nhead; henceforth they will be collected according to weight.\nThis useful reform, which has been clamored for so long, is due\nin part to the influence of the economists, who, on this occasion\nas on many others which I cannot recall, have shown the most\nhonorable zeal, and have left the idle declamations of socialism\nvery far in the rear.  But here again the good resulting from the\nlaw for the amelioration of the condition of the poor is wholly\nillusory.  They have equalized, regulated, the collection from\nbeasts; they have not distributed it equitably among men.  The\nrich man, who consumes twelve hundred pounds of meat a year, will\nfeel the effects of the new condition laid upon the butchers; the\nimmense majority of the people, who never eat meat, will not\nnotice it.  And I renew my question of a moment ago:  Could the\ngovernment, the Chamber, do otherwise than as it has done?  No,\nonce more; for you cannot say to the butcher:  You shall sell\nyour meat to the rich man for twenty cents a pound and to the\npoor man for five cents.  It would be rather the contrary that\nyou would obtain from the butcher.\n\nSo with salt.  The government has reduced four-fifths the tax on\nsalt used in agriculture, on condition of its undergoing a\ntransformation.  A certain journalist, having no better objection\nto raise, has made thereupon a complaint in which he grieves over\nthe lot of those poor peasants who are more maltreated by the law\nthan their cattle.  For the third time I ask:  Could it be\notherwise?  Of two things one: either the reduction will be\nabsolute, and then the tax on salt must be replaced by a tax on\nsomething else; now I defy entire French journalism to invent a\ntax which will bear two minutes' examination; or else the\nreduction will be partial, whether by maintaining a portion of\nthe duties on salt in all its uses, or by abolishing\nentirely the duties on salt used in certain ways.  In the first\ncase, the reduction is insufficient for agriculture and the poor;\nin the second, the capitation-tax still exists, in its enormous\ndisproportion.  Whatever may be done, it is the poor man, always\nthe poor man, who is struck, since, in spite of all theories, the\ntax can never be laid except in the ratio of the capital\npossessed or consumed, and since, if the treasury should try to\nproceed otherwise, it would arrest progress, prohibit wealth, and\nkill capital.\n\nThe democrats, who reproach us with sacrificing the revolutionary\ninterest (what is the revolutionary interest?) to the socialistic\ninterest, ought really to tell us how, without making the State\nthe sole proprietor and without decreeing the community of goods\nand gains, they mean, by any system of taxation whatever, to\nrelieve the people and restore to labor what capital takes from\nit.  In vain do I rack my brains; on all questions I see power\nplaced in the falsest situation, and the opinion of journals\nstraying into limitless absurdity.\n\nIn 1842 M. Arago was in favor of the administration of railways\nby corporations, and the majority in France thought with him.  In\n1846 he has announced a change in his opinion; and, apart from\nthe speculators in railways, it may be said again that the\nmajority of citizens have changed as M. Arago has.  What is to be\nbelieved and what is to be done amid this see-sawing of the\nsavants and of France?\n\nState administration, it would seem, ought to better assure the\ninterests of the country; but it is slow, expensive, and\nunintelligent.  Twenty-five years of mistakes, miscalculations,\nimprovidence, hundreds of millions thrown away, in the great work\nof canalizing the country, have proved it to the most\nincredulous.  We have even seen engineers, members of the\nadministration, loudly proclaiming the incapacity of the\nState in the matter of public works as well as of industry.\n\nAdministration by corporations is irreproachable, it is true,\nfrom the standpoint of the interest of the stockholders; but with\nthese the general interest is sacrificed, the door opened to\nspeculation, and the exploitation of the public by monopoly\norganized.\n\nThe ideal system would be one uniting the advantages of both\nmethods without presenting any of their shortcomings.  Now, the\nmeans of realizing these contradictory characteristics? the means\nof breathing zeal, economy, penetration into these irremovable\nofficers who have nothing to gain or to lose? the means of\nrendering the interests of the public as dear to a corporation as\nits own, of making these interests veritably its own, and still\nkeeping it distinct from the State and having consequently its\nprivate interests?  Who is there, in the official world, that\nconceives the necessity and therefore the possibility of such a\nreconciliation? much more, then, who possesses its secret?\n\nIn such an emergency the government, as usual, has chosen the\ncourse of eclecticism; it has taken a part of the administration\nfor itself and left the rest to the corporations; that is,\ninstead of reconciling the contraries, it has placed them exactly\nin conflict.  And the press, which in all things is precisely on\na par with power in the matter of wit,--the press, dividing\nitself into three fractions, has decided, one for the ministerial\ncompromise, another for the exclusion of the State, and the third\nfor the exclusion of the corporations.  So that today no more\nthan before do the public or M. Arago, in spite of their\nsomersault, know what they want.\n\nWhat a herd is the French nation in this nineteenth century, with\nits three powers, its press, its scientific bodies, its\nliterature, its instruction!  A hundred thousand men, in our\ncountry, have their eyes constantly open upon everything that\ninterests national progress and the country's honor.  Now,\npropound to these hundred thousand men the simplest question of\npublic order, and you may be assured that all will rush pell-mell\ninto the same absurdity.\n\nIs it better that the promotion of officials should be governed\nby merit or by length of service?\n\nCertainly there is no one who would not like to see this double\nmethod of estimating capacities blended into one.  What a society\nit would be in which the rights of talent would be always in\nharmony with those of age!  But, they say, such perfection is\nutopian, for it is contradictory in its statement.  And instead\nof seeing that it is precisely the contradiction which makes the\nthing possible, they begin to dispute over the respective value\nof the two opposed systems, which, each leading to the absurd,\nequally give rise to intolerable abuses.\n\nWho shall be the judge of merit? asks one: the government.  Now,\nthe government recognizes merit only in its creatures.  Therefore\nno promotion by choice, none of that immoral system which\ndestroys the independence and the dignity of the office-holder.\n\nBut, says another, length of service is undoubtedly very\nrespectable.  It is a pity that it has the disadvantage of\nrendering stagnant things which are essentially voluntary and\nfree,--labor and thought; of creating obstacles to power even\namong its agents, and of bestowing upon chance, often upon\nincapacity, the reward of genius and audacity.\n\nFinally they compromise: to the government is accorded the power\nof appointing arbitrarily to a certain number of offices\npretended men of merit, who are supposed to have no need of\nexperience, while the rest, apparently deemed incapable, are\npromoted in turn.  And the press, that ambling old nag of all\npresumptuous mediocrities, which generally lives only by the\ngratuitous compositions of young people as destitute of talent as\nof acquired knowledge, hastens to begin again its attacks upon\npower, accusing it,--not without reason too,--here of favoritism,\nthere of routine.\n\nWho could hope ever to do anything to the satisfaction of the\npress?  After having declaimed and gesticulated against the\nenormous size of the budget, here it is clamoring for increased\nsalaries for an army of officials, who, to tell the truth, really\nhave not the wherewithal to live.  Now it is the teachers, of\nhigh and low grade, who make their complaints heard through its\ncolumns; now it is the country clergy, so insufficiently paid\nthat they have been forced to maintain their fees, a fertile\nsource of scandal and abuse.  Then it is the whole administrative\nnation, which is neither lodged, nor clothed, nor warmed, nor\nfed: it is a million men with their families, nearly an eighth of\nthe population, whose poverty brings shame upon France and for\nwhom one hundred million dollars should at once be added to the\nbudget.  Note that in this immense personnel there is not one man\ntoo many; on the contrary, if the population grows, it will\nincrease proportionally.  Are you in a position to tax the nation\nto the extent of four hundred million dollars?  Can you take, out\nof an average income of $184 for four persons, $47.25--more than\none-fourth--to pay, together with the other expenses of the\nState, the salaries of the non-productive laborers?  And if you\ncannot, if you can neither pay your expenses nor reduce them,\nwhat do you want? of what do you complain?\n\nLet the people know it, then, once for all: all the hopes of\nreduction and equity in taxation, with which they are lulled by\nturns by the harangues of power and the diatribes of party\nleaders, are so many mystifications; the tax cannot be reduced,\nnor can its assessment be more equitable, under the monopoly\nsystem.  On the contrary, the lower the condition of the\ncitizen becomes, the heavier becomes his tax; that is inevitable,\nirresistible, in spite of the avowed design of the legislator and\nthe repeated efforts of the treasury.  Whoever cannot become or\nremain rich, whoever has entered the cavern of misfortune, must\nmake up his mind to pay in proportion to his poverty:  Lasciate\nogni speranza, voi ch' entrate.\n\nTaxation, then, police,--henceforth we shall not separate these\ntwo ideas,--is a new source of pauperism; taxation aggravates the\nsubversive effects of the preceding antinomies,--division of\nlabor, machinery, competition, monopoly.  It attacks the laborer\nin his liberty and in his conscience, in his body and in his\nsoul, by parasitism, vexations, the frauds which it prompts, and\nthe punishments which follow them.\n\nUnder Louis XIV. the smuggling of salt alone caused annually\nthirty- seven hundred domiciliary seizures, two thousand arrests\nof men, eighteen hundred of women, sixty-six hundred of children,\neleven hundred seizures of horses, fifty confiscations of\ncarriages, and three hundred condemnations to the galleys.  And\nthis, observes the historian, was the result of one tax\nalone,--the salt-tax.  What, then, was the total number of\nunfortunates imprisoned, tortured, expropriated, on account of\nthe tax?\n\nIn England, out of every four families, one is unproductive, and\nthat is the family which enjoys an abundance.  What an advantage\nit would be for the working-class, you think, if this leprosy of\nparasitism should be removed!  Undoubtedly, in theory, you are\nright; in practice, the suppression of parasitism would be a\ncalamity.  Though one-fourth of the population of England is\nunproductive, another fourth of the same population is at work\nfor it: now, what would these laborers do, if they should\nsuddenly lose the market for their products?  An absurd\nsupposition, you say.  Yes, an absurd supposition, but a very\nreal supposition, and one which you must admit precisely because\nit is absurd.  In France a standing army of five hundred thousand\nmen, forty thousand priests, twenty thousand doctors, eighty\nthousand lawyers, and I know not how many hundred thousand other\nnonproducers of every sort, constitute an immense market for our\nagriculture and our manufactures.  Let this market suddenly\nclose, and manufactures will stop, commerce will go into\nbankruptcy, and agriculture will be smothered beneath its\nproducts.\n\nBut how is it conceivable that a nation should find its market\nclogged because of having got rid of its useless mouths?  Ask\nrather why an engine, whose consumption has been figured at six\nhundred pounds of coal an hour, loses its power if it is given\nonly three hundred.  But again, might not these non-producers be\nmade producers, since we cannot get rid of them?  Eh! child: tell\nme, then, how you will do without police, and monopoly, and\ncompetition, and all the contradictions, in short, of which your\norder of things is made up.  Listen.\n\nIn 1844, at the time of the troubles in Rive-de-Gier, M. Anselme\nPetetin published in the \"Revue Independante\" two articles, full\nof reason and sincerity, concerning the anarchy prevailing in the\nconduct of the coal mines in the basin of the Loire.  M. Petetin\npointed out the necessity of uniting the mines and centralizing\ntheir administration.  The facts which he laid before the public\nwere not unknown to power; has power troubled itself about\nthe union of the mines and the organization of that industry?\nNot at all.  Power has followed the principle of free\ncompetition; it has let alone and looked on.\n\nSince that time the mining companies have combined, not without\ncausing some anxiety to consumers, who have seen in this\ncombination a plot to raise the price of fuel.  Will power, which\nhas received numerous complaints upon this subject, intervene to\nrestore competition and prevent monopoly?  It cannot do it; the\nright of combination is identical in law with the right of\nassociation; monopoly is the basis of our society, as competition\nis its conquest; and, provided there is no riot, power will let\nalone and look on.  What other course could it pursue?  Can it\nprohibit a legally established commercial association?  Can it\noblige neighbors to destroy each other?  Can it forbid them to\nreduce their expenses?  Can it establish a maximum?  If power\nshould do any one of these things, it would overturn the\nestablished order.  Power, therefore, can take no initiative: it\nis instituted to defend and protect monopoly and competition at\nonce, within the limitations of patents, licenses, land taxes,\nand other bonds which it has placed upon property.  Apart from\nthese limitations power has no sort of right to act in the name\nof society.  The social right is not defined; moreover, it would\nbe a denial of monopoly and competition.  How, then, could power\ntake up the defence of that which the law did not foresee or\ndefine, of that which is the opposite of the rights recognized by\nthe legislator?\n\nConsequently, when the miner, whom we must consider in the events\nof Rive-de-Gier as the real representative of society against the\nmine- owners, saw fit to resist the scheme of the monopolists by\ndefending his wages and opposing combination to combination,\npower shot the miner down.  And the political brawlers accused\nauthority, saying it was partial, ferocious, sold to monopoly,\netc.  For my part, I declare that this way of viewing the acts of\nauthority seems to me scarcely philosophical, and I reject it\nwith all my energies.  It is possible that they might have killed\nfewer people, possible also that they might have killed more: the\nfact to be noticed here is not the number of dead and wounded,\nbut the repression of the workers.  Those who have criticised\nauthority would have done as it did, barring perhaps the\nimpatience of its bayonets and the accuracy of its aim: they\nwould have repressed, I say; they would not have been able to do\nanything else.  And the reason, which it would be vain to try to\nbrush aside, is that competition is legal, joint-stock\nassociation is legal, supply and demand are legal, and all the\nconsequences which flow directly from competition, joint-stock\nassociation, and free commerce are legal, whereas workingmen's\nstrikes are ILLEGAL.  And it is not only the penal code which\nsays this, but the economic system, the necessity of the\nestablished order.  As long as labor is not sovereign, it must be\na slave; society is possible only on this condition.  That each\nworker individually should have the free disposition of his\nperson and his arms may be tolerated;[26] but that the workers\nshould undertake, by combinations, to do violence to monopoly\nsociety cannot permit.  Crush monopoly, and you abolish\ncompetition, and you disorganize the workshop, and you sow\ndissolution everywhere.  Authority, in shooting down the miners,\nfound itself in the position of Brutus placed between his\npaternal love and his consular duties: he had to sacrifice either\nhis children or the republic.  The alternative was horrible, I\nadmit; but such is the spirit and letter of the social compact,\nsuch is the tenor of the charter, such is the order of\nProvidence.\n\n\n[26] The new law regarding service-books has confined the\nindependence of workers within narrower limits.  The democratic\npress has again thundered its indignation this subject against\nthose in power, as if they had been guilty of anything more than\nthe application of the principles of authority and property,\nwhich are those of democracy.  What the Chambers have done in\nregard to service-books was inevitable, and should have been\nexpected.  It is as impossible for a society founded on the\nproprietary principle not to end in class distinctions as for a\ndemocracy to avoid despotism, for a religion to be reasonable,\nfor fanaticism to show tolerance.  This is the law of\ncontradiction: how long will it take us to understand it?\n\n\n\nThus the police function, instituted for the defence of the\nproletariat, is directed entirely against the proletariat.  The\nproletaire is driven from the forests, from the rivers, from the\nmountains; even the cross- roads are forbidden him; soon he will\nknow no road save that which leads to prison.\n\nThe advance in agriculture has made the advantage of artificial\nmeadows and the necessity of abolishing common land generally\nfelt.  Everywhere communal lands are being cleared, let,\nenclosed; new advances, new wealth.  But the poor day-laborer,\nwhose only patrimony is the communal land and who supports a cow\nand several sheep in summer by letting them feed along the roads,\nthrough the underbrush, and over the stripped fields, will lose\nhis sole and last resource.  The landed proprietor, the purchaser\nor farmer of the communal lands, will alone thereafter sell, with\nhis wheat and vegetables, milk and cheese.  Instead of weakening\nan old monopoly, they create a new one.  Even the road- laborers\nreserve for themselves the edges of the roads as a meadow\nbelonging to them, and drive off all non-administrative cattle.\nWhat follows?  That the day-laborer, before abandoning his cow,\nlets it feed in contravention of the law, becomes a marauder,\ncommits a thousand depredations, and is punished by fine and\nimprisonment: of what use to him are police and agricultural\nprogress?  Last year the mayor of Mulhouse, to prevent\ngrape-stealing, forbade every individual not an owner of vines to\ntravel by day or night over roads running by or through\nvineyards,--a charitable precaution, since it prevented even\ndesires and regrets.  But if the public highway is nothing but an\naccessory of private property; if the communal lands are\nconverted into private property; if the public domain, in short,\nassimilated to private property, is guarded, exploited, leased,\nand sold like private property,--what remains for the proletaire?\nOf what advantage is it to him that society has left the state of\nwar to enter the regime of police?\n\nIndustry, as well as land, has its privileges,--privileges\nconsecrated by the law, as always, under conditions and\nreservations, but, as always also, to the great disadvantage of\nthe consumer.  The question is interesting; we will say a few\nwords upon it.\n\nI quote M. Renouard.\n\n\n\"Privileges,\" says M. Renouard, \"were a corrective of\nregulation.\"\n\n\nI ask M. Renouard's permission to translate his thought by\nreversing his phrase:  Regulation was a corrective of privilege.\nFor whoever says regulation says limitation: now, how conceive of\nlimiting privilege before it existed?  I can conceive a sovereign\nsubmitting privileges to regulations; but I cannot at all\nunderstand why he should create privileges expressly to weaken\nthe effect of regulations.  There is nothing to prompt such a\nconcession; it would be an effect without a cause.  In logic as\nwell as in history, everything is appropriated and monopolized\nwhen laws and regulations arrive: in this respect civil\nlegislation is like penal legislation.  The first results\nfrom possession and appropriation, the second from the appearance\nof crimes and offences.  M. Renouard, preoccupied with the idea\nof servitude inherent in all regulation, has considered privilege\nas a compensation for this servitude; and it was this which led\nhim to say that PRIVILEGES ARE A CORRECTIVE OF REGULATION.  But\nwhat M. Renouard adds proves that he meant the opposite:\n\n\nThe fundamental principle of our legislation, that of granting\ntemporary monopoly as a condition of a contract between society\nand the laborer, has always prevailed, etc.\n\n\nWhat is, in reality, this grant of a monopoly?  A simple\nacknowledgment, a declaration.  Society, wishing to favor a new\nindustry and enjoy the advantages which it promises, BARGAINS\nwith the inventor, as it has bargained with the farmer; it\nguarantees him the monopoly of his industry for a time; but it\ndoes not create the monopoly.  The monopoly exists by the very\nfact of the invention; and the acknowledgment of the monopoly is\nwhat constitutes society.\n\nThis ambiguity cleared up, I pass to the contradictions of the\nlaw.\n\n\nAll industrial nations have adopted the establishment of a\ntemporary monopoly as a condition of a contract between society\nand the inventor. . . . .  I do not take readily to the belief\nthat all legislators of all countries have committed robbery.\n\n\nM. Renouard, if ever he reads this work, will do me the justice\nto admit that, in quoting him, I do not criticise his thought; he\nhimself has perceived the contradictions of the patent law.  All\nthat I pretend is to connect this contradiction with the general\nsystem.\n\nWhy, in the first place, a TEMPORARY monopoly in manufacture,\nwhile land monopoly is PERPETUAL?  The Egyptians were more\nlogical; with them these two monopolies were alike hereditary,\nperpetual, inviolable.  I know the considerations which have\nprevailed against the perpetuity of literary property, and I\nadmit them all; but these considerations apply equally well to\nproperty in land; moreover, they leave intact all the arguments\nbrought forward against them.  What, then, is the secret of all\nthese variations of the legislator?  For the rest, I do not need\nto say that, in pointing out this inconsistency, it is not my\npurpose either to slander or to satirize; I admit that the course\nof the legislator is determined, not by his will, but by\nnecessity.\n\nBut the most flagrant contradiction is that which results from\nthe enacting section of the law.  Title IV, article 30, % 3,\nreads:  \"If the patent relates to principles, methods, systems,\ndiscoveries, theoretical or purely scientific conceptions,\nwithout indicating their industrial applications, the patent is\nvoid.\"\n\nNow, what is a PRINCIPLE, a METHOD, a THEORETICAL CONCEPTION,\na SYSTEM?  It is the especial fruit of genius, it is invention\nin its purity, it is the idea, it is everything.  The application\nis the gross fact, nothing.  Thus the law excludes from the\nbenefit of the patent the very thing which deserves it,--namely,\nthe idea; on the contrary, it grants a patent to the\napplication,--that is, to the material fact, to a pattern of the\nidea, as Plato would have said.  Therefore it is wrongly called a\nPATENT FOR INVENTION; it should be called a PATENT FOR FIRST\nOCCUPANCY.\n\nIn our day, if a man had invented arithmetic, algebra, or the\ndecimal system, he would have obtained no patent; but Bareme\nwould have had a right of property in his Computations.  Pascal,\nfor his theory of the weight of the atmosphere, would not have\nbeen patented; instead of him, a glazier would have obtained the\nprivilege of the barometer.  I quote M. Arago:\n\n\nAfter two thousand years it occurred to one of our\nfellow-countrymen that the screw of Archimedes, which is used to\nraise water, might be employed in forcing down gases; it\nsuffices, without making any change, to turn it from right to\nleft, instead of turning it, as when raising water, from left to\nright.  Large volumes of gas, charged with foreign substances,\nare thus forced into water to a great depth; the gas is purified\nin rising again.  I maintain that there was an invention; that\nthe person who saw a way to make the screw of Archimedes a\nblowing machine was entitled to a patent.\n\n\nWhat is more extraordinary is that Archimedes himself would thus\nbe obliged to buy the right to use his screw; and M. Arago\nconsiders that just.\n\nIt is useless to multiply these examples: what the law meant to\nmonopolize is, as I said just now, not the idea, but the fact;\nnot the invention, but the occupancy.  As if the idea were not\nthe category which includes all the facts that express it; as if\na method, a system, were not a generalization of experiences, and\nconsequently that which properly constitutes the fruit of\ngenius,--invention!  Here legislation is more than anti-economic,\nit borders on the silly.  Therefore I am entitled to ask the\nlegislator why, in spite of free competition, which is nothing\nbut the right to apply a theory, a principle, a method, a\nnon-appropriable system, he forbids in certain cases this same\ncompetition, this right to apply a principle?\"  It is no longer\npossible,\" says M. Renouard, with strong reason, \"to stifle\ncompetitors by combining in corporations and guilds; the loss is\nsupplied by patents.\"  Why has the legislator given hands to this\nconspiracy of monopolies, to this interdict upon theories\nbelonging to all?\n\nBut what is the use of continually questioning one who can say\nnothing?  The legislator did not know in what spirit he was\nacting when he made this strange application of the right of\nproperty, which, to be exact, we ought to call the right of\npriority.  Let him explain himself, then, at least, regarding the\nclauses of the contract made by him, in our name, with the\nmonopolists.\n\nI pass in silence the part relating to dates and other\nadministrative and fiscal formalities, and come to this article:\n\n\nThe patent does not guarantee the invention.\n\n\nDoubtless society, or the prince who represents it, cannot and\nshould not guarantee the invention, since, in granting a monopoly\nfor fourteen years, society becomes the purchaser of the\nprivilege, and consequently it is for the patentee to furnish the\nguarantee.  How, then, can legislators proudly say to their\nconstituents:  \"We have negotiated in your name with an inventor;\nhe pledges himself to give you the enjoyment of his discovery on\ncondition of having the exclusive exploitation for fourteen\nyears.  But we do not guarantee the invention\"?  On what, then,\nhave you relied, legislators?  How did you fail to see that,\nwithout a guarantee of the invention, you conceded a privilege,\nnot for a real discovery, but for a possible discovery, and that\nthus the field of industry was given up by you before the plough\nwas found?  Certainly, your duty bade you to be prudent; but who\ngave you a commission to be dupes?\n\nThus the patent for invention is not even the fixing of a date;\nit is an abandonment in anticipation.  It is as if the law should\nsay:  \"I assure the land to the first occupant, but without\nguaranteeing its quality, its location, or even its existence;\nnot even knowing whether I ought to give it up or that it falls\nwithin the domain of appropriation!\"  A pretty use of the\nlegislative power!\n\nI know that the law had excellent reasons for abstaining; but I\nmaintain that it also had good reasons for intervening.  Proof:\n\n\n\"It cannot be concealed,\" says M. Renouard, \"it cannot be\nprevented; patents are and will be instruments of quackery as\nwell as a legitimate reward of labor and genius. . . .  It is for\nthe good sense of the public to do justice to juggleries.\"\n\n\nAs well say it is for the good sense of the public to distinguish\ntrue remedies from false, pure wine from adulterated; or, it is\nfor the good sense of the public to distinguish in a buttonhole\nthe decoration awarded to merit from that prostituted to\nmediocrity and intrigue.  Why, then, do you call yourselves the\nState, Power, Authority, Police, if the work of Police must be\nperformed by the good sense of the public?\n\n\nAs the proverb says, he who owns land must defend it; likewise,\nhe who holds a privilege is liable to attack.\n\n\nWell! how will you judge the counterfeit, if you have no\nguarantee?  In vain will they offer you the plea: in right first\noccupancy, in fact similarity.  Where reality depends upon\nquality, not to demand a guarantee is to grant no right over\nanything, is to take away the means of comparing processes and\nidentifying the counterfeit.  In the matter of industrial\nprocesses success depends upon such trifles!  Now, these trifles\nare the whole.\n\nI infer from all this that the law regarding patents for\ninventions, indispensable so far as its motives are concerned, is\nimpossible--that is, illogical, arbitrary, disastrous--in its\neconomy.  Under the control of certain necessities the legislator\nhas thought best, in the general interest, to grant a privilege\nfor a definite thing; and he finds that he has given a\nsignature-in-blank to monopoly, that he has abandoned the chances\nwhich the public had of making the discovery or some other\nsimilar to it, that he has sacrificed the rights of competitors\nwithout compensation, and abandoned the good faith of defenceless\nconsumers to the greed of quacks.  Then, in order that nothing\nmight be lacking to the absurdity of the contract, he has said to\nthose whom he ought to guarantee:  \"Guarantee yourselves!\"\n\nI do not believe, any more than M. Renouard, that the legislators\nof all ages and all countries have wilfully committed robbery in\nsanctioning the various monopolies which are pivotal in public\neconomy.  But M. Renouard might well also agree with me that the\nlegislators of all ages and all countries have never understood\nat all their own decrees.  A deaf and blind man once learned to\nring the village bells and wind the village clock.  It was\nfortunate for him, in performing his bell- ringer's functions,\nthat neither the noise of the bells nor the height of the\nbell-tower made him dizzy.  The legislators of all ages and all\ncountries, for whom I profess, with M. Renouard, the profoundest\nrespect, resemble that blind and deaf man; they are the\nJacks-in-the- clock-house of all human follies.\n\nWhat a feather it would be in my cap if I should succeed in\nmaking these automata reflect! if I could make them understand\nthat their work is a Penelope's web, which they are condemned to\nunravel at one end as fast as they weave at the other!\n\nThus, while applauding the creation of patents, on other points\nthey demand the abolition of privileges, and always with the same\npride, the same satisfaction.  M. Horace Say wishes trade in meat\nto be free.  Among other reasons he puts forward this strictly\nmathematical argument:\n\n\nThe butcher who wants to retire from business seeks a purchaser\nfor his investment; he figures in the account his tools, his\nmerchandise, his reputation, and his custom; but under the\npresent system, he adds to these the value of the bare\ntitle,--that is, the right to share in a monopoly.  Now, this\nsupplementary capital which the purchasing butcher gives for the\ntitle bears interest; it is not a new creation; this interest\nmust enter into the price of his meat.  Hence the limitation of\nthe number of butchers' stalls has a tendency to raise the price\nof meat rather than lower it.\n\nI do not fear to affirm incidentally that what I have just said\nabout the sale of a butcher's stall applies to every charge\nwhatever having a salable title.\n\n\nM. Horace Say's reasons for the abolition of the butcher's\nprivilege are unanswerable; moreover, they apply to printers,\nnotaries, attorneys, process-servers, clerks of courts,\nauctioneers, brokers, dealers in stocks, druggists, and others,\nas well as to butchers.  But they do not destroy the reasons\nwhich have led to the adoption of these monopolies, and which are\ngenerally deduced from the need of security, authenticity, and\nregularity in business, as well as from the interests of commerce\nand the public health.  The object, you say, is not attained.  My\nGod! I know it: leave the butcher's trade to competition, and you\nwill eat carrion; establish a monopoly in the butcher's trade,\nand you will eat carrion.  That is the only fruit you can hope\nfor from your monopoly and patent legislation.\n\nAbuses! cry the protective economists.  Establish over commerce a\nsupervisory police, make trade-marks obligatory, punish the\nadulteration of products, etc.\n\nIn the path upon which civilization has entered, whichever way we\nturn, we always end, then, either in the despotism of monopoly,\nand consequently the oppression of consumers, or else in the\nannihilation of privilege by the action of the police, which is\nto go backwards in economy and dissolve society by destroying\nliberty.  Marvellous thing! in this system of free industry,\nabuses, like lice, being generated by their own remedies, if the\nlegislator should try to suppress all offences, be on the watch\nagainst all frauds, and secure persons, property, and the public\nwelfare against any attack, going from reform to reform, he would\nfinally so multiply the non-productive functions that the entire\nnation would be engaged in them, and that at last there would be\nnobody left to produce.  Everybody would be a policeman; the\nindustrial class would become a myth.  Then, perhaps, order would\nreign in monopoly.\n\n\n\"The principle of the law yet to be made concerning trade-marks,\"\nsays M. Renouard, \"is that these marks cannot and should not be\ntransformed into guarantees of quality.\"\n\n\nThis is a consequence of the patent law, which, as we have seen,\ndoes not guarantee the invention.  Adopt M. Renouard's principle;\nafter that of what use will marks be?  Of what importance is it\nto me to read on the cork of a bottle, instead of TWELVE-CENT\nWINE or FIFTEEN-CENT WINE, WINE-DRINKERS' COMPANY or the name of\nany other concern you will?  What I care for is not the name of\nthe merchant, but the quality and fair price of the merchandise.\n\nThe name of the manufacturer is supposed, it is true, to serve as\na concise sign of good or bad manufacture, of superior or\ninferior quality.  Then why not frankly take part with those who\nask, besides the mark of ORIGIN, a mark significant of\nsomething?  Such a reservation is incomprehensible.  The two\nsorts of marks have the same purpose; the second is only a\nstatement or paraphrase of the first, a condensation of the\nmerchant's prospectus; why, once more, if the origin signifies\nsomething, should not the mark define this significance?\n\nM. Wolowski has very clearly developed this argument in his\nopening lecture of 1843-44, the substance of which lies entirely\nin the following analogy:\n\n\nJust as the government has succeeded in determining a standard of\nQUANTITY, it may, it should also fix a standard of QUALITY; one\nof these standards is the necessary complement of the other.  The\nmonetary unit, the system of weights and measures, have not\ninfringed upon industrial liberty; no more would it be damaged by\na system of trade-marks.\n\n\nM. Wolowski then supports himself on the authority of the princes\nof the science, A. Smith and J. B. Say,--a precaution always\nuseful with hearers who bow to authority much more than to\nreason.\n\nI declare, for my part, that I thoroughly share M. Wolowski's\nidea, and for the reason that I find it profoundly revolutionary.\nThe trade-mark, being, according to M. Wolowski's expression,\nnothing but a standard of qualities, is equivalent in my eyes to\na general scheduling of prices.  For, whether a particular\nadministration marks in the name of the State and guarantees the\nquality of the merchandise, as is the case with gold and silver,\nor whether the matter of marking is left to the manufacturer,\nfrom the moment that the mark must give THE INTRINSIC COMPOSITION\nOF THE MERCHANDISE (these are M. Wolowski's own words) AND\nGUARANTEE THE CONSUMER AGAINST ALL SURPRISE, it necessarily\nresolves itself into a fixed price.  It is not the same thing as\nprice; two similar products, but differing in origin and quality,\nmay be of equal value, as a bottle of Burgundy may be worth a\nbottle of Bordeaux; but the mark, being significant, leads to an\nexact knowledge of the price, since it gives the analysis.  To\ncalculate the price of an article of merchandise is to decompose\nit into its constituent parts; now, that is exactly what the\ntrade-mark must do, if designed to signify anything.  Therefore\nwe are on the road, as I have said, to a general scheduling of\nprices.\n\nBut a general scheduling of prices is nothing but a determination\nof all values, and here again political economy comes into\nconflict with its own principles and tendencies.  Unfortunately,\nto realize M. Wolowski's reform, it is necessary to begin by\nsolving all the previous contradictions and enter a higher sphere\nof association; and it is this absence of solution which has\nbrought down upon M. Wolowski's system the condemnation of most\nof his fellow-economists.\n\nIn fact, the system of trade-marks is inapplicable in the\nexisting order, because this system, contrary to the interests of\nthe manufacturers and repugnant to their habits, could be\nsustained only by the energetic will of power.  Suppose for a\nmoment that the administration be charged with affixing the\nmarks; its agents will have to interpose continually in the work\nof manufacture, as it interposes in the liquor business and the\nmanufacture of beer; further, these agents, whose functions seem\nalready so intrusive and annoying, deal only with taxable\nquantities, not with exchangeable qualities.  These fiscal\nsupervisors and inspectors will have to carry their investigation\ninto all details in order to repress and prevent fraud; and what\nfraud?  The legislator will have defined it either incorrectly or\nnot at all; it is at this point that the task becomes appalling.\n\nThere is no fraud in selling wine of the poorest quality, but\nthere is fraud in passing off one quality for another; then you\nare obliged to differentiate the qualities of wines, and\nconsequently to guarantee them.  Is it fraudulent to mix wines?\nChaptal, in his treatise on the art of making wine, advises this\nas eminently useful; on the other hand, experience proves that\ncertain wines, in some way antagonistic to each other or\nincompatible, produce by their mixture a disagreeable and\nunhealthy drink.  Then you are obliged to say what wines can be\nusefully mixed, and what cannot.  Is it fraudulent to aromatize,\nalcoholize, and water wines? Chaptal recommends this also;\nand everybody knows that this drugging produces sometimes\nadvantageous results, sometimes pernicious and detestable\neffects.  What substances will you proscribe?  In what cases?  In\nwhat proportion?  Will you prohibit chicory in coffee, glucose in\nbeer, water, cider, and three-six alcohol in wine?\n\nThe Chamber of Deputies, in the rude attempt at a law which it\nwas pleased to make this year regarding the adulteration of\nwines, stopped in the very middle of its work, overcome by the\ninextricable difficulties of the question.  It succeeded in\ndeclaring that the introduction of water into wine, and of\nalcohol above the proportion of eighteen per cent., was\nfraudulent, and in putting this fraud into the category of\noffences.  It was on the ground of ideology; there one never\nmeets an obstacle.  But everybody has seen in this redoubling of\nseverity the interest of the treasury much more than that of the\nconsumer; the Chamber did not dare to create a whole army of\nwine-tasters, inspectors, etc., to watch for fraud and identify\nit, and thus load the budget with a few extra millions; in\nprohibiting watering and alcoholization, the only means left to\nthe merchant-manufacturers of putting wine within the reach of\nall and realizing profits, it did not succeed in increasing the\nmarket by a decrease in production.  The chamber, in a word, in\nprosecuting the adulteration of wines, has simply set back the\nlimits of fraud.  To make its work accomplish its purpose it\nwould first have to show how the liquor trade is possible without\nadulteration, and how the people can buy unadulterated\nwine,--which is beyond the competency and escapes the capacity of\nthe Chamber.\n\nIf you wish the consumer to be guaranteed, both as to value and\nas to healthfulness, you are forced to know and to determine all\nthat constitutes good and honest production, to be continually at\nthe heels of the manufacturer, and to guide him at every step.\nHe no longer manufactures; you, the State, are the real\nmanufacturer.\n\nThus you find yourself in a trap.  Either you hamper the liberty\nof commerce by interfering in production in a thousand ways, or\nyou declare yourself sole producer and sole merchant.\n\nIn the first case, through annoying everybody, you will finally\ncause everybody to rebel; and sooner or later, the State getting\nitself expelled, trade-marks will be abolished.  In the second\nyou substitute everywhere the action of power for individual\ninitiative, which is contrary to the principles of political\neconomy and the constitution of society.  Do you take a middle\ncourse?  It is favor, nepotism, hypocrisy, the worst of systems.\n\nSuppose, now, that the marking be left to the manufacturer.  I\nsay that then the marks, even if made obligatory, will gradually\nlose their SIGNIFICANCE, and at last become only proofs of\nORIGIN.  He knows but little of commerce who imagines that a\nmerchant, a head of a manufacturing enterprise, making use of\nprocesses that are not patentable, will betray the secret of his\nindustry, of his profits, of his existence.  The significance\nwill then be a delusion; it is not in the power of the police to\nmake it otherwise.  The Roman emperors, to discover the\nChristians who dissembled their religion, obliged everybody to\nsacrifice to the idols.  They made apostates and martyrs; and the\nnumber of Christians only increased.  Likewise significant marks,\nuseful to some houses, will engender innumerable frauds and\nrepressions; that is all that can be expected of them.  To induce\nthe manufacturer to frankly indicate the intrinsic\ncomposition--that is, the industrial and commercial\nvalue--of his merchandise, it is necessary to free him from the\nperils of competition and satisfy his monopolistic instincts: can\nyou do it?  It is necessary, further, to interest the consumer in\nthe repression of fraud, which, so long as the producer is not\nutterly disinterested, is at once impossible and contradictory.\nImpossible: place on the one hand a depraved consumer, China; on\nthe other a desperate merchant, England; between them a venomous\ndrug causing excitement and intoxication; and, in spite of all\nthe police in the world, you will have trade in opium.\nContradictory: in society the consumer and the producer are but\none,--that is, both are interested in the production of that\nwhich it is injurious to them to consume; and as, in the case of\neach, consumption follows production and sale, all will combine\nto guard the first interest, leaving it to each to guard himself\nagainst the second.\n\nThe thought which prompted trade-marks is of the same character\nas that which formerly inspired the maximum laws.  Here again is\none of the innumerable cross-roads of political economy.\n\nIt is indisputable that maximum laws, though made and supported\nby their authors entirely as a relief from famine, have\ninvariably resulted in an aggravation of famine.  Accordingly it\nis not injustice or malice with which the economists charge these\nabhorred laws, but stupidity, inexpediency.  But what a\ncontradiction in the theory with which they oppose them!\n\nTo relieve famine it is necessary to call up provisions, or, to\nput it better, to bring them to light; so far there is nothing to\nreproach.  To secure a supply of provisions it is necessary to\nattract the holders by profits, excite their competition,\nand assure them complete liberty in the market: does not this\nprocess strike you as the absurdest homoeopathy?  How is it that\nthe more easily I can be taxed the sooner I shall be provided?\nLet alone, they say, let pass; let competition and monopoly act,\nespecially in times of famine, and even though famine is the\neffect of competition and monopoly.  What logic! but, above all,\nwhat morality!\n\nBut why, then, should there not be a tariff for farmers as well\nas for bakers?  Why not a registration of the sowing, of the\nharvest, of the vintage, of the pasturage, and of the cattle, as\nwell as a stamp for newspapers, circulars, and orders, or an\nadministration for brewers and wine-merchants?  Under the\nmonopoly system this would be, I admit, an increase of torments;\nbut with our tendencies to unfairness in trade and the\ndisposition of power to continually increase its personnel and\nits budget, a law of inquisition regarding crops is becoming\ndaily more indispensable.\n\nBesides, it would be difficult to say which, free trade or the\nmaximum, causes the more evil in times of famine.\n\nBut, whichever course you choose,--and you cannot avoid the\nalternative,--the deception is sure and the disaster immense.\nWith the maximum goods seek concealment; the terror increasing\nfrom the very effect of the law, the price of provisions rises\nand rises; soon circulation stops, and the catastrophe follows,\nas prompt and pitiless as a band of plunderers.  With competition\nthe progress of the scourge is slower, but no less fatal: how\nmany deaths from exhaustion or hunger before the high prices\nattract food to the market! how many victims of extortion after\nit has arrived!  It is the story of the king to whom God, in\npunishment for his pride, offered the alternative of three days'\npestilence, three months' famine, or three years' war.  David\nchose the shortest; the economists prefer the longest.  Man\nis so miserable that he would rather end by consumption than by\napoplexy; it seems to him that he does not die as much.  This is\nthe reason why the disadvantages of the maximum and the benefits\nof free trade have been so much exaggerated.\n\nFor the rest, if France during the last twenty-five years has\nexperienced no general famine, the cause is not in the liberty of\ncommerce, which knows very well, when it wishes, how to produce\nscarcity in the midst of plenty and how to make famine prevail in\nthe bosom of abundance; it is in the improvement in the methods\nof communication, which, shortening distances, soon restore the\nequilibrium disturbed for a moment by local penury.  A striking\nexample of that sad truth that in society the general welfare is\nnever the effect of a conspiracy of individual wills!\n\nThe farther we delve into this system of illusory compromises\nbetween monopoly and society,--that is, as we have explained in %\n1 of this chapter, between capital and labor, between the\npatriciate and the proletariat,--the more we discover that it is\nall foreseen, regulated, and executed in accordance with this\ninfernal maxim, with which Hobbes and Machiavel, those theorists\nof despotism, were unacquainted:  EVERYTHING BY THE PEOPLE AND\nAGAINST THE PEOPLE.  While labor produces, capital, under the\nmask of a false fecundity, enjoys and abuses; the legislator, in\noffering his mediation, thought to recall the privileged class to\nfraternal feelings and surround the laborer with guarantees; and\nnow he finds, by the fatal contradiction of interests, that each\nof these guarantees is an instrument of torture.  It would\nrequire a hundred volumes, the life of ten men, and a heart of\niron, to relate from this standpoint the crimes of the State\ntowards the poor and the infinite variety of its tortures.  A\nsummary glance at the principal classes of police will be\nenough to enable us to estimate its spirit and economy.\n\nAfter having sown trouble in all minds by a confusion of civil,\ncommercial, and administrative laws, made the idea of justice\nmore obscure by multiplying contradictions, and rendered\nnecessary a whole class of interpreters for the explanation of\nthis system, it has been found necessary also to organize the\nrepression of crimes and provide for their punishment.  Criminal\njustice, that particularly rich order of the great family of\nnon-producers, whose maintenance costs France annually more than\nsix million dollars, has become to society a principle of\nexistence as necessary as bread is to the life of man; but with\nthis difference,--that man lives by the product of his hands,\nwhile society devours its members and feeds on its own flesh.\n\nIt is calculated by some economists that there is,\n\nIn London    .  . 1 criminal to every 89 inhabitants.\nIn Liverpool .  . 1    \"      \"   \"   45      \"\nIn Newcastle .  . 1    \"      \"   \"   27      \"\n\n\nBut these figures lack accuracy, and, utterly frightful as they\nseem, do not express the real degree of social perversion due to\nthe police.  We have to determine here not only the number of\nrecognized criminals, but the number of offences.  The work of\nthe criminal courts is only a special mechanism which serves to\nplace in relief the moral destruction of humanity under the\nmonopoly system; but this official exhibition is far from\nincluding the whole extent of the evil.  Here are other figures\nwhich will lead us to a more certain approximation.\n\nThe police courts of Paris disposed,\n\nIn 1835 .  .  .  .  of 106,467 cases.\nIn 1836 .  .  .  .  \"  128,489   \"\nIn 1837 .  .  .  .  \"  140,247   \"\n\n\nSupposing this rate of increase to have continued up to 1846, and\nto this total of misdemeanors adding the cases of the criminal\ncourts, the simple matters that go no further than the police,\nand all the offences unknown or left unpunished,--offences far\nsurpassing in number, so the magistrates say, those which justice\nreaches,--we shall arrive at the conclusion that in one year, in\nthe city of Paris, there are more infractions of the law\ncommitted than there are inhabitants.  And as it is necessary to\ndeduct from the presumable authors of these infractions children\nof seven years and under, who are outside the limits of guilt,\nthe figures will show that every adult citizen is guilty, three\nor four times a year, of violating the established order.\n\nThus the proprietary system is maintained at Paris only by the\nannual consummation of one or two millions of offences!  Now,\nthough all these offences should be the work of a single man, the\nargument would still hold good: this man would be the scapegoat\nloaded with the sins of Israel: of what consequence is the number\nof the guilty, provided justice has its contingent?\n\nViolence, perjury, robbery, cheating, contempt of persons and\nsociety, are so much a part of the essence of monopoly; they flow\nfrom it so naturally, with such perfect regularity, and in\naccordance with laws so certain,--that it is possible to submit\ntheir perpetration to calculation, and, given the number of a\npopulation, the condition of its industry, and the stage of its\nenlightenment, to rigorously deduce therefrom the statistics of\nits morality.  The economists do not know yet what the principle\nof value is; but they know, within a few decimals, the\nproportionality of crime.  So many thousand souls, so many\nmalefactors, so many condemnations: about that there can be no\nmistake.  It is one of the most beautiful applications of the\ntheory of chances, and the most advanced branch of economic\nscience.  If socialism had invented this accusing theory, the\nwhole world would have cried calumny.\n\nYet, after all, what is there in it that should surprise us?  As\nmisery is a necessary result of the contradictions of society, a\nresult which it is possible to determine mathematically from the\nrate of interest, the rate of wages, and the prevailing\nmarket-prices, so crimes and misdemeanors are another effect of\nthis same antagonism, susceptible, like its cause, of estimation\nby figures.  The materialists have drawn the silliest inferences\nfrom this subordination of liberty to the laws of numbers: as if\nman were not under the influence of all that surrounds him, and\nas if, since all that surrounds him is governed by inexorable\nlaws, he must not experience, in his freest manifestations, the\nreaction of those laws!\n\nThe same character of necessity which we have just pointed out in\nthe establishment and sustenance of criminal justice is found,\nbut under a more metaphysical aspect, in its morality.\n\nIn the opinion of all moralists, the penalty should be such as to\nsecure the reformation of the offender, and consequently free\nfrom everything that might cause his degradation.  Far be it from\nme to combat this blessed tendency of minds and disparage\nattempts which would have been the glory of the greatest men of\nantiquity.  Philanthropy, in spite of the ridicule which\nsometimes attaches to its name, will remain, in the eyes of\nposterity, the most honorable characteristic of our time: the\nabolition of the death penalty, which is merely postponed; the\nabolition of the stigma; the studies regarding the effects of the\ncellular system; the establishment of workshops in the prisons;\nand a multitude of other reforms which I cannot even\nname,--give evidence of real progress in our ideas and in our\nmorals.  What the author of Christianity, in an impulse of\nsublime love, related of his mystical kingdom, where the\nrepentant sinner was to be glorified above the just and the\ninnocent man,--that utopia of Christian charity has become the\naspiration of our sceptical society; and when one thinks of the\nunanimity of feeling which prevails in respect to it, he asks\nhimself with surprise who then prevents this aspiration from\nbeing realized.\n\nAlas! it is because reason is still stronger than love, and logic\nmore tenacious than crime; it is because here as everywhere in\nour civilization there reigns an insoluble contradiction.  Let us\nnot wander into fantastic worlds; let us embrace, in all its\nfrightful nudity, the real one.\n\n  Le crime fait la honte, et non pas l'echafaud,[27]\n\nsays the proverb.  By the simple fact that man is punished,\nprovided he deserved to be, he is degraded: the penalty renders\nhim infamous, not by virtue of the definition of the code, but by\nreason of the fault which caused the punishment.  Of what\nimportance, then, is the materiality of the punishment? of what\nimportance all your penitentiary systems?  What you do is to\nsatisfy your feelings, but is powerless to rehabilitate the\nunfortunate whom your justice strikes.  The guilty man, once\nbranded by chastisement, is incapable of reconciliation; his\nstain is indelible, and his damnation eternal.  If it were\npossible for it to be otherwise, the penalty would cease to be\nproportional to the offence; it would be no more than a fiction,\nit would be nothing.  He whom misery has led to larceny, if he\nsuffers himself to fall into the hands of justice, remains\nforever the enemy of God and men; better for him that he had\nnever been born; it was Jesus Christ who said it:  Bonum erat ei,\nsi natus non fuisset homo ille.  And what Jesus Christ declared,\nChristians and infidels do not dispute: the irreparability of\nshame is, of all the revelations of the Gospel, the only one\nwhich the proprietary world has understood.  Thus, separated from\nnature by monopoly, cut off from humanity by poverty, the mother\nof crime and its punishment, what refuge remains for the plebeian\nwhom labor cannot support, and who is not strong enough to take?\n\n\n[27] The crime makes the shame, and not the scaffold.\n--Translator.\n\n\n\nTo conduct this offensive and defensive war against the\nproletariat a public force was indispensable: the executive power\ngrew out of the necessities of civil legislation, administration,\nand justice.  And there again the most beautiful hopes have\nchanged into bitter disappointments.\n\nAs legislator, as burgomaster, and as judge, the prince has set\nhimself up as a representative of divine authority.  A defender\nof the poor, the widow, and the orphan, he has promised to cause\nliberty and equality to prevail around the throne, to come to the\naid of labor, and to listen to the voice of the people.  And the\npeople have thrown themselves lovingly into the arms of power;\nand, when experience has made them feel that power was against\nthem, instead of blaming the institution, they have fallen to\naccusing the prince, ever unwilling to understand that, the\nprince being by nature and destination the chief of non-producers\nand greatest of monopolists, it was impossible for him, in spite\nof himself, to take up the cause of the people.\n\nAll criticism, whether of the form or the acts of government,\nends in this essential contradiction.  And when the self-styled\ntheorists of the sovereignty of the people pretend that the\nremedy for the tyranny of power consists in causing it to emanate\nfrom popular suffrage, they simply turn, like the squirrel, in\ntheir cage.  For, from the moment that the essential conditions\nof power--that is, authority, property, hierarchy--are preserved,\nthe suffrage of the people is nothing but the consent of the\npeople to their oppression,--which is the silliest charlatanism.\n\nIn the system of authority, whatever its origin, monarchical or\ndemocratic, power is the noble organ of society; by it society\nlives and moves; all initiative emanates from it; order and\nperfection are wholly its work.  According to the definitions of\neconomic science, on the contrary,--definitions which harmonize\nwith the reality of things,-- power is the series of\nnon-producers which social organization must tend to indefinitely\nreduce.  How, then, with the principle of authority so dear to\ndemocrats, shall the aspiration of political economy, an\naspiration which is also that of the people, be realized?  How\nshall the government, which by the hypothesis is everything,\nbecome an obedient servant, a subordinate organ?  Why should the\nprince have received power simply to weaken it, and why should he\nlabor, with a view to order, for his own elimination?  Why should\nhe not try rather to fortify himself, to add to his courtiers, to\ncontinually obtain new subsidies, and finally to free himself\nfrom dependence on the people, the inevitable goal of all power\noriginating in the people?\n\nIt is said that the people, naming its legislators and through\nthem making its will known to power, will always be in a position\nto arrest its invasions; that thus the people will fill at once\nthe role of prince and that of sovereign.  Such, in a word, is\nthe utopia of democrats, the eternal mystification with which\nthey abuse the proletariat.\n\nBut will the people make laws against power; against the\nprinciple of authority and hierarchy, which is the principle\nupon which society is based; against liberty and property?\nAccording to our hypothesis, this is more than impossible, it is\ncontradictory.  Then property, monopoly, competition, industrial\nprivileges, the inequality of fortunes, the preponderance of\ncapital, hierarchical and crushing centralization, administrative\noppression, legal absolutism, will be preserved; and, as it is\nimpossible for a government not to act in the direction of its\nprinciple, capital will remain as before the god of society, and\nthe people, still exploited, still degraded, will have gained by\ntheir attempt at sovereignty only a demonstration of their\npowerlessness.\n\nIn vain do the partisans of power, all those dynastico-republican\ndoctrinaires who are alike in everything but tactics, flatter\nthemselves that, once in control of affairs, they will inaugurate\nreform everywhere.  Reform what?\n\nReform the constitution?  It is impossible.  Though the entire\nnation should enter the constitutional convention, it would not\nleave it until it had either voted its servitude under another\nform, or decreed its dissolution.\n\nReconstruct the code, the work of the emperor, the pure substance\nof Roman law and custom?  It is impossible.  What have you to put\nin the place of your proprietary routine, outside of which you\nsee and understand nothing? in the place of your laws of\nmonopoly, the limits of whose circle your imagination is\npowerless to overstep?  More than half a century ago royalty and\ndemocracy, those two sibyls which the ancient world has\nbequeathed to us, undertook, by a constitutional compromise, to\nharmonize their oracles; since the wisdom of the prince has\nplaced itself in unison with the voice of the people, what\nrevelation has resulted? what principle of order has been\ndiscovered? what issue from the labyrinth of privilege pointed\nout?  Before prince and people had signed this strange\ncompromise, in what were their ideas not similar? and now that\neach is trying to break the contract, in what do they differ?\n\nDiminish public burdens, assess taxes on a more equitable basis?\nIt is impossible: to the treasury as to the army the man of the\npeople will always furnish more than his contingent.\n\nRegulate monopoly, bridle competition?  It is impossible; you\nwould kill production.\n\nOpen new markets?  It is impossible.[28]\n\nOrganize credit?  It is impossible.[29]\n\nAttack heredity?  It is impossible.[30]\n\n\n[28] See volume II., chapter IX.\n[29] Ibid., chapter X.\n[30] Ibid., chapter XI.\n\n\n\nCreate national workshops, assure a minimum to unemployed\nworkmen, and assign to employees a share of the profits?  It is\nimpossible.  It is in the nature of government to be able to deal\nwith labor only to enchain laborers, as it deals with products\nonly to levy its tithe.\n\nRepair, by a system of indemnities, the disastrous effects of\nmachinery?  It is impossible.\n\nCombat by regulations the degrading influence of parcellaire\ndivision?  It is impossible.\n\nCause the people to enjoy the benefits of education?  It is\nimpossible.\n\nEstablish a tariff of prices and wages, and fix the value of\nthings by sovereign authority?  It is impossible, it is\nimpossible.\n\nOf all the reforms which society in its distress solicits not one\nis within the competence of power; not one can be realized\nby it, because the essence of power is repugnant to them all, and\nit is not given to man to unite what God has divided.\n\nAt least, the partisans of governmental initiative will say, you\nwill admit that, in the accomplishment of the revolution promised\nby the development of antinomies, power would be a potent\nauxiliary.  Why, then, do you oppose a reform which, putting\npower in the hands of the people, would second your views so\nwell?  Social reform is the object; political reform is the\ninstrument: why, if you wish the end, do you reject the means?\n\nSuch is today the reasoning of the entire democratic press, which\nI forgive with all my heart for having at last, by this\nquasi-socialistic confession of faith, itself proclaimed the\nemptiness of its theories.  It is in the name of science, then,\nthat democracy calls for a political reform as a preliminary to\nsocial reform.  But science protests against this subterfuge as\nan insult; science repudiates any alliance with politics, and,\nvery far from expecting from it the slightest aid, must begin\nwith politics its work of exclusion.\n\nHow little affinity there is between the human mind and truth!\nWhen I see the democracy, socialistic but yesterday, continually\nasking for capital in order to combat capital's influence; for\nwealth, in order to cure poverty; for the abandonment of liberty,\nin order to organize liberty; for the reformation of government,\nin order to reform society,--when I see it, I say, taking upon\nitself the responsibility of society, provided social questions\nbe set aside or solved, it seems to me as if I were listening to\na fortune-teller who, before answering the questions of those who\nconsult her, begins by inquiring into their age, their condition,\ntheir family, and all the accidents of their life.  Eh! miserable\nsorceress, if you know the future, you know who I am and what I\nwant; why do you ask me to tell you?\n\nLikewise I will answer the democrats:  If you know the use that\nyou should make of power, and if you know how power should be\norganized, you possess economic science.  Now, if you possess\neconomic science, if you have the key of its contradictions, if\nyou are in a position to organize labor, if you have studied the\nlaws of exchange, you have no need of the capital of the nation\nor of public force.  From this day forth you are more potent than\nmoney, stronger than power.  For, since the laborers are with\nyou, you are by that fact alone masters of production; you hold\ncommerce, manufactures, and agriculture enchained; you have the\nentire social capital at your disposition; you have full control\nof taxation; you block the wheels of power, and you trample\nmonopoly under foot.  What other initiative, what greater\nauthority, do you ask?  What prevents you from applying your\ntheories?\n\nSurely not political economy, although generally followed and\naccredited: for, everything in political economy having a true\nside and a false side, your only problem is to combine the\neconomic elements in such a way that their total shall no longer\npresent a contradiction.\n\nNor is it the civil law: for that law, sanctioning economic\nroutine solely because of its advantages and in spite of its\ndisadvantages, is susceptible, like political economy itself, of\nbeing bent to all the exigencies of an exact synthesis, and\nconsequently is as favorable to you as possible.\n\nFinally, it is not power, which, the last expression of\nantagonism and created only to defend the law, could stand in\nyour way only by forswearing itself.\n\nOnce more, then, what stops you?\n\nIf you possess social science, you know that the problem of\nassociation consists in organizing, not only the\nNON-PRODUCERS,--in that direction, thank heaven! little remains\nto be done,--but also the PRODUCERS, and by this organization\nsubjecting capital and subordinating power.  Such is the war that\nyou have to sustain: a war of labor against capital; a war of\nliberty against authority; a war of the producer against the\nnon-producer; a war of equality against privilege.  What you\nask, to conduct the war to a successful conclusion, is precisely\nthat which you must combat.  Now, to combat and reduce power, to\nput it in its proper place in society, it is of no use to change\nthe holders of power or introduce some variation into its\nworkings: an agricultural and industrial combination must be\nfound by means of which power, today the ruler of society, shall\nbecome its slave.  Have you the secret of that combination?\n\nBut what do I say?  That is precisely the thing to which you do\nnot consent.  As you cannot conceive of society without\nhierarchy, you have made yourselves the apostles of authority;\nworshippers of power, you think only of strengthening it and\nmuzzling liberty; your favorite maxim is that the welfare of the\npeople must be achieved in spite of the people; instead of\nproceeding to social reform by the extermination of power and\npolitics, you insist on a reconstruction of power and politics.\nThen, by a series of contradictions which prove your sincerity,\nbut the illusory character of which is well known to the real\nfriends of power, the aristocrats and monarchists, your\ncompetitors, you promise us, in the name of power, economy in\nexpenditures, an equitable assessment of taxes, protection to\nlabor, gratuitous education, universal suffrage, and all the\nutopias repugnant to authority and property.  Consequently power\nin your hands has never been anything but ruinous, and that is\nwhy you have never been able to retain it; that is why, on the\nEighteenth of Brumaire,[31] four men were sufficient to take\nit away from you, and why today the bourgeoisie, which is as fond\nof power as you are and which wants a strong power, will not\nrestore it to you.\n\n\n[31] Date of the Napoleonic coup d'Etat, according to the\nrevolutionary calendar.\n\n\n\nThus power, the instrument of collective might, created in\nsociety to serve as a mediator between labor and privilege, finds\nitself inevitably enchained to capital and directed against the\nproletariat.  No political reform can solve this contradiction,\nsince, by the confession of the politicians themselves, such a\nreform would end only in increasing the energy and extending the\nsphere of power, and since power would know no way of touching\nthe prerogatives of monopoly without overturning the hierarchy\nand dissolving society.  The problem before the laboring classes,\nthen, consists, not in capturing, but in subduing both power and\nmonopoly,--that is, in generating from the bowels of the people,\nfrom the depths of labor, a greater authority, a more potent\nfact, which shall envelop capital and the State and subjugate\nthem.  Every proposition of reform which does not satisfy this\ncondition is simply one scourge more, a rod doing sentry duty,\nvirgam vigilantem, as a prophet said, which threatens the\nproletariat.\n\nThe crown of this system is religion.  There is no occasion for\nme to deal here with the philosophic value of religious opinions,\nrelate their history, or seek their interpretation.  I confine\nmyself to a consideration of the economic origin of religion, the\nsecret bond which connects it with police, the place which it\noccupies in the series of social manifestations.\n\nMan, despairing of finding the equilibrium of his powers, leaps,\nas it were, outside of himself and seeks in infinity that\nsovereign harmony the realization of which is to him the highest\ndegree of reason, power, and happiness.  Unable to harmonize with\nhimself, he kneels before God and prays.  He prays, and his\nprayer, a hymn sung to God, is a blasphemy against society.\n\nIt is from God, man says to himself, that authority and power\ncome to me: then, let us obey God and the prince.  Obedite Deo et\nprincipibus.  It is from God that law and justice come to me.\nPer me reges regnant et potentes decernunt justitiam.  Let us\nrespect the commands of the legislator and the magistrate.  It is\nGod who controls the prosperity of labor, who makes and unmakes\nfortunes: may his will be done!  Dominus dedit, Dominus abstulit,\nsit nomen Domini benedictum.  It is God who punishes me when\nmisery devours me, and when I am persecuted for righteousness's\nsake: let us receive with respect the scourges which his mercy\nemploys for our purification.  Humiliamini igitur sub potenti\nmanu Dei.  This life, which God has given me, is but an ordeal\nwhich leads me to salvation: let us shun pleasure; let us love\nand invite pain; let us find our pleasure in doing penance.  The\nsadness which comes from injustice is a favor from on high;\nblessed are they that mourn!  Beati qui lugent! . . . .  Haec\nest enim gratia, si quis sustinet tristitias, patiens injuste.\n\nA century ago a missionary, preaching before an audience made up\nof financiers and grandees, did justice to this odious morality.\n\"What have I done?\" he cried, with tears.  \"I have saddened the\npoor, the best friends of my God!  I have preached the rigors of\npenance to unfortunates who want for bread!  It is here, where my\neyes fall only on the powerful and on the rich, on the oppressors\nof suffering humanity, that I must launch the word of God in\nall the force of its thunder!\"\n\nLet us admit, nevertheless, that the theory of resignation has\nserved society by preventing revolt.  Religion, consecrating by\ndivine right the inviolability of power and of privilege, has\ngiven humanity the strength to continue its journey and exhaust\nits contradictions.  Without this bandage thrown over the eyes of\nthe people society would have been a thousand times dissolved.\nSome one had to suffer that it might be cured; and religion, the\ncomforter of the afflicted, decided that it should be the poor\nman.  It is this suffering which has led us to our present\nposition; civilization, which owes all its marvels to the\nlaborer, owes also to his voluntary sacrifice its future and its\nexistence.  Oblatus est quia ipse voluit, et livore ejus sanati\nsumus.\n\nO people of laborers! disinherited, harassed, proscribed people!\npeople whom they imprison, judge, and kill! despised people,\nbranded people!  Do you not know that there is an end, even to\npatience, even to devotion?  Will you not cease to lend an ear to\nthose orators of mysticism who tell you to pray and to wait,\npreaching salvation now through religion, now through power, and\nwhose vehement and sonorous words captivate you?  Your destiny is\nan enigma which neither physical force, nor courage of soul, nor\nthe illuminations of enthusiasm, nor the exaltation of any\nsentiment, can solve.  Those who tell you to the contrary deceive\nyou, and all their discourses serve only to postpone the hour of\nyour deliverance, now ready to strike.  What are enthusiasm and\nsentiment, what is vain poesy, when confronted with necessity?\nTo overcome necessity there is nothing but necessity itself, the\nlast reason of nature, the pure essence of matter and spirit.\n\nThus the contradiction of value, born of the necessity of free\nwill, must be overcome by the proportionality of value, another\nnecessity produced by the union of liberty and intelligence.\nBut, in order that this victory of intelligent and free labor\nmight produce all its consequences, it was necessary that society\nshould pass through a long succession of torments.\n\nIt was a necessity that labor, in order to increase its power,\nshould be divided; and a necessity, in consequence of this\ndivision, that the laborer should be degraded and impoverished.\n\nIt was a necessity that this original division should be\nreconstructed by scientific instruments and combinations; and a\nnecessity, in consequence of this reconstruction, that the\nsubordinated laborer should lose, together with his legitimate\nwages, even the exercise of the industry which supported him.\n\nIt was a necessity that competition then should step in to\nemancipate liberty on the point of perishing; and a necessity\nthat this deliverance should end in a vast elimination of\nlaborers.\n\nIt was a necessity that the producer, ennobled by his art, as\nformerly the warrior was by arms, should bear aloft his banner,\nin order that the valor of man might be honored in labor as in\nwar; and a necessity that of privilege should straightway be born\nthe proletariat.\n\nIt was a necessity that society should then take under its\nprotection the conquered plebeian, a beggar without a roof; and a\nnecessity that this protection should be converted into a new\nseries of tortures.\n\nWe shall meet on our way still other necessities, all of which\nwill disappear, like the others, before greater necessities,\nuntil shall come at last the general equation, the supreme\nnecessity, the triumphant fact, which must establish the kingdom\nof labor forever.\n\nBut this solution cannot result either from surprise or from a\nvain compromise.  It is as impossible to associate labor and\ncapital as to produce without labor and without capital; as\nimpossible to establish equality by power as to suppress power\nand equality and make a society without people and without\npolice.\n\nThere is a necessity, I repeat, of a MAJOR FORCE to invert the\nactual formulas of society; a necessity that the LABOR of the\npeople, not their valor nor their votes, should, by a scientific,\nlegitimate, immortal, insurmountable combination, subject capital\nto the people and deliver to them power.\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII.\n\nOF THE RESPONSIBILITY OF MAN AND OF GOD, UNDER THE LAW OF\nCONTRADICTION, OR A SOLUTION OF THE PROBLEM OF PROVIDENCE.\n\nThe ancients blamed human nature for the presence of evil in the\nworld.\n\nChristian theology has only embroidered this theme in its own\nfashion; and, as that theology sums up the whole religious period\nextending from the origin of society to our own time, it may be\nsaid that the dogma of original sin, having in its favor the\nassent of the human race, acquires by that very fact the highest\ndegree of probability.\n\nSo, according to all the testimony of ancient wisdom, each people\ndefending its own institutions as excellent and glorifying them,\nit is not to religions, or to governments, or to traditional\ncustoms accredited by the respect of generations, that the cause\nof evil must be traced, but rather to a primitive perversion, to\na sort of congenital malice in the will of man.  As to the\nquestion how a being could have perverted and corrupted itself\nORIGINALLY, the ancients avoided that difficulty by fables:\nEve's apple and Pandora's box have remained celebrated among\ntheir symbolic solutions.\n\nNot only, then, had antiquity posited in its myths the question\nof the origin of evil; it had solved it by another myth, in\nunhesitatingly affirming the criminality ab ovo of our race.\n\nModern philosophers have erected against the Christian dogma a\ndogma no less obscure,--that of the depravity of society.  MAN IS\nBORN GOOD, cries Rousseau, in his peremptory style; BUT\nSOCIETY--that is, the forms and institutions of society--DEPRAVES\nHIM.  In such terms was formulated the paradox, or, better, the\nprotest, of the philosopher of Geneva.\n\nNow, it is evident that this idea is only the ancient hypothesis\nturned about.  The ancients accused the individual man; Rousseau\naccuses the collective man: at bottom, it is always the same\nproposition, an absurd proposition.\n\nNevertheless, in spite of the fundamental identity of the\nprinciple, Rousseau's formula, precisely because it was an\nopposition, was a step forward; consequently it was welcomed with\nenthusiasm, and it became the signal of a reaction full of\ncontradictions and absurdities.  Singular thing! it is to the\nanathema launched by the author of \"Emile\" against society that\nmodern socialism is to be traced.\n\nFor the last seventy or eighty years the principle of social\nperversion has been exploited and popularized by various\nsectarians, who, while copying Rousseau, reject with all their\nmight the anti-social philosophy of that writer, without\nperceiving that, by the very fact that they aspire to reform\nsociety, they are as unsocial or unsociable as he.  It is a\ncurious spectacle to see these pseudo-innovators, condemning\nafter Jean Jacques monarchy, democracy, property, communism,\nthine and mine, monopoly, wages, police, taxation, luxury,\ncommerce, money, in a word, all that constitutes society and\nwithout which society is inconceivable, and then accusing this\nsame Jean Jacques of misanthropy and paralogism, because, after\nhaving seen the emptiness of all utopias, at the same time that\nhe pointed out the antagonism of civilization, he sternly\nconcluded against society, though recognizing that without\nsociety there is no humanity.\n\nI advise those who, on the strength of what slanderers and\nplagiarists say, imagine that Rousseau embraced his theory only\nfrom a vain love of eccentricity, to read \"Emile\" and the \"Social\nContract\" once more.  That admirable dialectician was led to deny\nsociety from the standpoint of justice, although he was forced to\nadmit it as necessary; just as we, who believe in an indefinite\nprogress, do not cease to deny, as normal and definitive, the\nexisting state of society.  Only, whereas Rousseau, by a\npolitical combination and an educational system of his own, tried\nto bring man nearer to what he called NATURE, and what seemed to\nhim the ideal society, we, instructed in a profounder school, say\nthat the task of society is to continually solve its\nantinomies,--a matter of which Rousseau could have had no idea.\nThus, apart from the now abandoned system of the \"Social\nContract,\" and so far as criticism alone is concerned, socialism,\nwhatever it may say, is still in the same position as Rousseau,\nforced to reform society incessantly,--that is, to perpetually\ndeny it.\n\nRousseau, in short, simply declared in a summary and definitive\nmanner what the socialists repeat in detail and at every moment\nof progress,-- namely, that social order is imperfect, always\nlacking something.  Rousseau's error does not, can not lie in\nthis negation of society: it consists, as we shall show, in his\nfailure to follow his argument to the end and deny at once\nsociety, man, and God.\n\nHowever that may be, the theory of man's innocence, corresponding\nto that of the depravity of society, has at last got the upper\nhand.  The immense majority of socialists--Saint-Simon, Owen,\nFourier, and their disciples; communists, democrats, progressives\nof all sorts--have solemnly repudiated the Christian myth of the\nfall to substitute there for the system of an aberration on\nthe part of society.  And, as most of these sectarians, in spite\nof their flagrant impiety, were still too religious, too pious,\nto finish the work of Jean Jacques and trace back to God the\nresponsibility for evil, they have found a way of deducing from\nthe hypothesis of God the dogma of the native goodness of man,\nand have begun to fulminate against society in the finest\nfashion.\n\nThe theoretical and practical consequences of this reaction were\nthat, evil--that is, the effect of internal and external\nstruggle--being abnormal and transitory, penal and repressive\ninstitutions are likewise transitory; that in man there is no\nnative vice, but that his environment has depraved his\ninclinations; that civilization has been mistaken as to its own\ntendencies; that constraint is immoral, that our passions are\nholy; that enjoyment is holy and should be sought after like\nvirtue itself, because God, who caused us to desire it, is holy.\nAnd, the women coming to the aid of the eloquence of the\nphilosophers, a deluge of anti-restrictive protests has fallen,\nquasi de vulva erumpens, to make use of a comparison from the\nHoly Scriptures, upon the wonder-stricken public.\n\nThe writings of this school are recognizable by their evangelical\nstyle, their melancholy theism, and, above all, their enigmatical\ndialectics.\n\n\n\"They blame human nature,\" says M. Louis Blanc, \"for almost all\nour evils; the blame should be laid upon the vicious character of\nsocial institutions.  Look around you: how many talents\nmisplaced, and CONSEQUENTLY depraved!  How many activities have\nbecome turbulent for want of having found their legitimate and\nnatural object!  They force our passions to traverse an impure\nmedium; is it at all surprising that they become altered?  Place\na healthy man in a pestilent atmosphere, and he will inhale\ndeath. . . .  Civilization has taken a wrong road, . . . and to\nsay that it could not have been otherwise is to lose the right to\ntalk of equity, of morality, of progress; it is to lose the right\nto talk of God.  Providence disappears to give place to the\ngrossest fatalism.\"\n\n\nThe name of God recurs forty times, and always to no purpose, in\nM. Blanc's \"Organization of Labor,\" which I quote from\npreference, because in my view it represents advanced democratic\nopinion better than any other work, and because I like to do it\nhonor by refuting it.\n\nThus, while socialism, aided by extreme democracy, deifies man by\ndenying the dogma of the fall, and consequently dethrones God,\nhenceforth useless to the perfection of his creature, this same\nsocialism, through mental cowardice, falls back upon the\naffirmation of Providence, and that at the very moment when it\ndenies the providential authority of history.\n\nAnd as nothing stands such chance of success among men as\ncontradiction, the idea of a religion of pleasure, renewed from\nEpicurus during an eclipse of public reason, has been taken as an\ninspiration of the national genius; it is this that distinguishes\nthe new theists from the Catholics, against whom the former have\ninveighed so loudly during the last two years only out of rivalry\nin fanaticism.  It is the fashion today to speak of God on all\noccasions and to declaim against the pope; to invoke Providence\nand to scoff at the Church.  THANK GOD! WE ARE NOT ATHEISTS, said\n\"La Reforme\" one day; all the more, it might have added by way of\nincreasing its absurdity, we are not Christians.  The word has\ngone forth to every one who holds a pen to bamboozle the people,\nand the first article of the new faith is that an infinitely good\nGod has created man as good as himself; which does not prevent\nman, under the eye of God, from becoming wicked in a detestable\nsociety.\n\nNevertheless it is plain, in spite of these semblances of\nreligion, we might even say these desires for it, that the\nquarrel between socialism and Christian tradition, between man\nand society, must end by a denial of Divinity.  Social reason is\nnot distinguishable by us from absolute Reason, which is no other\nthan God himself, and to deny society in its past phases is to\ndeny Providence, is to deny God.\n\nThus, then, we are placed between two negations, two\ncontradictory affirmations: one which, by the voice of entire\nantiquity, setting aside as out of the question society and God\nwhich it represents, finds in man alone the principle of evil;\nanother which, protesting in the name of free, intelligent, and\nprogressive man, throws back upon social infirmity and, by a\nnecessary consequence, upon the creative and inspiring genius of\nsociety all the disturbances of the universe.\n\nNow, as the anomalies of social order and the oppression of\nindividual liberties arise principally from the play of economic\ncontradictions, we have to inquire, in view of the data which we\nhave brought to light:\n\n1. Whether fate, whose circle surrounds us, exercises a control\nover our liberty so imperious and compulsory that infractions of\nthe law, committed under the dominion of antinomies, cease to be\nimputable to us?  And, if not, whence arises this culpability\npeculiar to man?\n\n2. Whether the hypothetical being, utterly good, omnipotent,\nomniscient, to whom faith attributes the supreme direction of\nhuman agitations, has not himself failed society at the moment of\ndanger?  And, if so, to explain this insufficiency of Divinity.\n\nIn short, we are to find out whether man is God, whether God\nhimself is God, or whether, to attain the fullness of\nintelligence and liberty, we must search for a superior cause.\n\n\n% 1.--The culpability of man.--Exposition of the myth of\nthe fall.\n\nAs long as man lives under the law of egoism, he accuses himself;\nas soon as he rises to the conception of a social law, he accuses\nsociety.  In both cases humanity accuses humanity; and so far the\nclearest result of this double accusation is the strange faculty,\nwhich we have not yet pointed out, and which religion attributes\nto God as well as to man, of REPENTANCE.\n\nOf what, then, does humanity repent?  For what does God, who\nrepents as well as ourselves, desire to punish us?  Poenituit\nDeum quod hominem fecisset in terra, et tactus dolore cordis\nintrinsecus, delebo, inquit, hominem. . . .  If I demonstrate\nthat the offences charged upon humanity are not the consequence\nof its economic embarrassments, although the latter result from\nthe constitution of its ideas; that man does evil gratuitously\nand when not under compulsion, just as he honors himself by acts\nof heroism which justice does not exact,--it will follow that\nman, at the tribunal of his conscience, may be allowed to plead\ncertain extenuating circumstances, but can never be entirely\ndischarged of his guilt; that the struggle is in his heart as\nwell as in his mind; that he deserves now praise, now blame,\nwhich is a confession, in either case, of his inharmonious state;\nfinally, that the essence of his soul is a perpetual compromise\nbetween opposing attractions, his morality a system of seesaw, in\na word,--and this word tells the whole story,-- eclecticism.\n\nMy proof shall be soon made.\n\nThere exists a law, older than our liberty, promulgated from the\nbeginning of the world, completed by Jesus Christ, preached\nand certified by apostles, martyrs, confessors, and virgins,\ngraven on the heart of man, and superior to all metaphysics: it\nis LOVE.  LOVE THY NEIGHBOR AS THYSELF, Jesus Christ tells us,\nafter Moses.  That is the whole of it.  Love thy neighbor as\nthyself, and society will be perfect; love thy neighbor as\nthyself, and all distinctions of prince and shepherd, of rich and\npoor, of learned and ignorant, disappear, all clashing of human\ninterests ceases.  Love thy neighbor as thyself, and happiness\nwith industry, without care for the future, shall fill thy days.\nTo fulfil this law and make himself happy man needs only to\nfollow the inclination of his heart and listen to the voice of\nhis sympathies.  He resists; he does more: not content with\npreferring himself to his neighbor, he labors constantly to\ndestroy his neighbor; after having betrayed love through egoism,\nhe overturns it by injustice.\n\nMan, I say, faithless to the law of charity, has, of himself and\nwithout any necessity, made the contradictions of society so many\ninstruments of harm; through his egoism civilization has become a\nwar of surprises and ambushes; he lies, he steals, he murders,\nwhen not compelled to do so, without provocation, without excuse.\nIn short, he does evil with all the characteristics of a nature\ndeliberately maleficent, and all the more wicked because, when it\nso wishes, it knows how to do good gratuitously also and is\ncapable of self-sacrifice; wherefore it has been said of it, with\nas much reason as depth:  Homo homini lupus, vel deus.  Not to\nunduly extend the subject, and especially in order to avoid\nprejudging the questions that I shall have to consider, I limit\nmyself to the economic facts already analyzed.\n\nWith the fact that the division of labor is by nature, pending\nthe attainment of a synthetic organization, an irresistible\ncause of physical, moral, and mental inequality among men neither\nsociety nor conscience have anything to do.  That is a fact of\nnecessity, of which the rich man is as innocent as the\nparcellaire workman, consigned by his position to all sorts of\npoverty.\n\nBut how happens it that this inevitable inequality is converted\ninto a title of nobility for some, of abjection for others?  How\nhappens it, if man is good, that he has not succeeded in\nlevelling by his goodness this wholly metaphysical obstacle, and\nthat, instead of strengthening the fraternal tie that binds men,\npitiless necessity breaks it?  Here man cannot be excused on the\nground of his economic inexperience or legislative\nshortsightedness; it was enough that he had a heart.  Since the\nmartyrs of the division of labor should have been helped and\nhonored by the rich, why have they been rejected as impure?  Why\nis it an unheard-of thing for masters to occasionally relieve\ntheir slaves, for princes, magistrates, and priests to change\nplaces with mechanics, and for nobles to assume the task of the\npeasants on the land?  What is the reason of this brutal pride of\nthe powerful?\n\nAnd note that such conduct on their part would have been not only\ncharitable and fraternal, but in accord with the sternest\njustice.  By virtue of the principle of collective force,\nlaborers are the equals and associates of their leaders; so that\nin the system of monopoly itself, community of action restoring\nthe equilibrium which parcellaire individualism has disturbed,\njustice and charity blend.  On the hypothesis of the essential\ngoodness of man, how then is to be explained the monstrous\nattempt to change the authority of some into nobility and the\nobedience of others into plebeianism?  Labor, between the serf\nand the free man, like color between the black and the white, has\nalways drawn an impassable line; and we ourselves, who glory so\nin our philanthropy, at the bottom of our hearts are of the same\nopinion as our predecessors.  The sympathy which we feel for the\nproletaire is like that with which animals inspire us; delicacy\nof organs, dread of misery, pride in separating ourselves from\nall suffering,--it is these shifts of egoism that prompt our\ncharity.\n\nFor in fact--and I desire only this fact to confound us--is it\nnot true that spontaneous benevolence, so pure in its primitive\nconception (eleemosyna, sympathy, tenderness), alms, in fine, has\nbecome for the unfortunate a sign of degradation, a public\nstigma?  And socialists, rebuking Christianity, dare to talk to\nus of love!  The Christian thought, the conscience of humanity,\nhit the mark precisely, when it founded so many institutions for\nthe relief of misfortune.  To grasp the evangelical precept in\nits depth and render legal charity as honorable to those who had\nbeen its objects as to those who had exercised it, there was\nneeded--what?  Less pride, less greed, less egoism.  If man is\ngood, will any one tell me how the right to alms has become the\nfirst link in the long chain of infractions, misdemeanors, and\ncrimes?  Will any one still dare to blame the misdeeds of man\nupon the antagonisms of social economy, when these antagonisms\noffered him so beautiful an opportunity of manifesting the\ncharity of his heart, I do not say by self-sacrifice, but by the\nsimple doing of justice?\n\nI know--and this objection is the only one that can be offered\nagainst my position--that charity is covered with shame and\ndishonor because the individual who asks it is too often, alas!\nsuspected of misconduct and rarely to be recommended on the score\nof dignity of morals and of labor.  And statistics prove that\nthose who are poor through cowardice and negligence outnumber ten\ntimes those who are poor through accident or mischance.\n\nFar be it from me to challenge this observation, the truth of\nwhich is demonstrated by too many facts, and which, moreover, has\nreceived the sanction of the people.  The people are the first to\naccuse the poor of laziness; and there is nothing more common\nthan to meet in the lower classes men who boast, as if it were a\ntitle of nobility, that they have never been in the hospital and\nin their greatest distress have never been recipients of public\ncharity.  Thus, just as opulence avows its robberies, misery\nconfesses its shame.  Man is a tyrant or a slave by will before\nbecoming so by fortune; the heart of the proletaire is like that\nof the rich man,--a sewer of boiling sensuality, the home of\ncrapulence and imposture.\n\nUpon this unexpected revelation I ask how it happens, if man is\ngood and charitable, that the rich calumniate charity while the\npoor defile it?  It is perversion of judgment on the part of the\nrich, say some; it is degradation of faculties on the part of the\npoor, say others.  But how is it that judgment is perverted on\nthe one hand, and on the other that faculties are degraded?  How\ncomes it that a true and cordial fraternity has not arrested on\nthe one side and on the other the effects of pride and labor?\nLet my questions be answered by reasons, not by phrases.\n\nLabor, in inventing processes and machines which infinitely\nmultiply its power, and then in stimulating industrial genius by\nrivalry and assuring its conquests by means of the profits of\ncapital and privileges of exploitation, has rendered the\nhierarchical constitution of society more profound and more\ninevitable; I repeat that no blame attaches to any one for this.\nBut I call the holy law of the Gospel to witness that it was\nwithin our power to draw wholly different consequences from this\nsubordination of man to man, or, better, of laborer to laborer.\n\nThe traditions of feudal life and of that of the patriarchs set\nthe example for the manufacturers.  The division of labor and the\nother accidents of production were only calls to the great family\nlife, indications of the preparatory system in accordance with\nwhich fraternity was to appear and be developed.  Masterships,\ncorporations, and rights of primogeniture were conceived under\nthe influence of this idea; many communists even are not hostile\nto this form of association; is it surprising that the ideal is\nso tenacious among those who, conquered but not converted, still\nappear as its representatives?  What, then, prevented charity,\nunion, sacrifice from maintaining themselves in the hierarchy,\nwhen the hierarchy might have been only a condition of labor?  To\nthis end it would have sufficed if men having machines, valiant\nknights fighting with equal weapons, had not made a mystery of\ntheir secrets or withheld them from others; if barons had set to\nwork, not to monopolize their products, but to cheapen them; and\nif vassals, assured that war would result only in increasing\ntheir wealth, had always shown themselves enterprising,\nindustrious, and faithful.  The chief of the workshop would then\nhave been simply a captain putting his men through manoeuvres in\ntheir interest as well as in his own, and maintaining them, not\nwith his perquisites, but with their own services.\n\nInstead of these fraternal relations, we have had pride,\njealousy, and perjury; the employer, like the vampire of the\nfable, exploiting the degraded wage-worker, and the wage-worker\nconspiring against the employer; the idler devouring the\nsubstance of the laborer, and the serf, squatting in filth,\nhaving no strength left but for hatred.\n\n\nCalled on to furnish for the work of production, these tools,\nthose labor, capitalists and laborers are today in a struggle:\nwhy?  Because absolutism presides over all their relations;\nbecause the capitalist speculates on the need which the laborer\nfeels of procuring tools, while the laborer, in turn, seeks to\nderive advantage from the need which the capitalist feels of\nfertilizing his capital.--L. Blanc: Organization of Labor.\n\n\nAnd why this ABSOLUTISM in the relations of capitalist and\nlaborer?  Why this hostility of interests?  Why this reciprocal\nenmity?  Instead of eternally explaining the fact by the fact\nitself, go to the bottom, and you will find everywhere, as\noriginal motive, a passion for enjoyment which neither law nor\njustice nor charity restrain; you will see egoism continually\ndiscounting the future, and sacrificing to its monstrous caprices\nlabor, capital, life, and the security of all.\n\nThe theologians have given the name CONCUPISCENCE or\nCONCUPISCIBLE APPETITE to the passionate greed for sensual\nthings, the effect, according to them, of original sin.  I\ntrouble myself little, for the present, as to the nature of the\noriginal sin; I simply observe that the concupiscible appetite of\nthe theologians is no other than that NEED OF LUXURY pointed out\nby the Academy of Moral Sciences as the ruling motive of our\nepoch.  Now, the theory of proportionality of values demonstrates\nthat luxury is naturally measured by production; that every\nconsumption in advance is recovered by an equivalent later\nprivation; and that the exaggeration of luxury in a society\nnecessarily has an increase of misery as its correlative.  Now,\nwere man to sacrifice his personal welfare for luxurious and\nadvance enjoyments, perhaps I should accuse him only of\nimprudence; but, when he injures the welfare of his\nneighbor,--a welfare which he should regard as inviolable, both\nfrom charity and on the ground of justice,--I say then that man\nis wicked, inexcusably wicked.\n\nWHEN GOD, according to Bossuet, FORMED THE BOWELS OF MAN, HE\nORIGINALLY PLACED GOODNESS THERE.  Thus love is our first law;\nthe prescriptions of pure reason, as well as the promptings of\nthe senses, take second and third rank only.  Such is the\nhierarchy of our faculties,--a principle of love forming the\nfoundation of our conscience and served by an intelligence and\norgans.  Hence of two things one: either the man who violates\ncharity to obey his cupidity is guilty; or else, if this\npsychology is false, and the need of luxury in man must hold a\nplace beside charity and reason, man is a disorderly animal,\nutterly wicked, and the most execrable of beings.\n\nThus the organic contradictions of society cannot cover the\nresponsibility of man; viewed in themselves, moreover, these\ncontradictions are only the theory of the hierarchical regime,\nthe first form and consequently an irreproachable form of\nsociety.  By the antinomy of their development labor and capital\nhave been continually led back to equality at the same time as to\nsubordination, to solidarity as well as to dependence; one was\nthe agent, the other the stimulator and guardian of the common\nwealth.  This indication has been indistinctly seen by the\ntheorists of the feudal system; Christianity came in time to\ncement the compact; and it is still the sentiment of this\nmisunderstood and broken, but in itself innocent and legitimate,\norganization which causes regrets among us and sustains the hope\nof a party.  As this system was written in the book of destiny,\nit cannot be said to be bad in itself, just as the embryonic\nstate cannot be called bad because it precedes adult age in\nphysiological development.\n\nI insist, therefore, on my accusation:\n\nUnder the regime abolished by Luther and the French Revolution\nman could be happy in proportion to the progress of his industry;\nhe did not choose to be; on the contrary, he forbade himself to\nbe.\n\nLabor has been regarded as dishonorable; the clergy and the\nnobility have made themselves the devourers of the poor; to\nsatisfy their animal passions, they have extinguished charity in\ntheir hearts; they have ruined, oppressed, assassinated the\nlaborer.  And thus it is that we see capital still hunting the\nproletariat.  Instead of tempering the subversive tendency of\neconomic principles by association and mutuality, the capitalist\nexaggerates it unnecessarily and with evil design; he abuses the\nsenses and the conscience of the workman; he makes him a valet in\nhis intrigues, a purveyor of his debaucheries, an accomplice in\nhis robberies; he makes him in all respects like himself, and\nthen it is that he can defy the justice of revolutions to touch\nhim.  Monstrous thing! the man who lives in misery, and whose\nsoul therefore seems a nearer neighbor of charity and honor,\nshares his master's corruption; like him, he gives everything to\npride and luxury, and if he sometimes cries out against the\ninequality from which he suffers, it is still less from zeal for\njustice than from rivalry in desire.  The greatest obstacle which\nequality has to overcome is not the aristocratic pride of the\nrich man, but the ungovernable egoism of the poor man.  And you\nrely on his native goodness to reform at once both the\nspontaneity and the premeditation of his malice!\n\n\n\"As the false and anti-social education given to the present\ngeneration,\" says Louis Blanc, \"permits no search for any other\nmotive for emulation and encouragement than an increase of\nreward, the difference of wages should be graduated according to\nthe hierarchy of functions, an entirely new education having\nto change ideas and morals in this matter.\"\n\n\nDismissing the hierarchy of functions and the inequality of wages\nfor what they are worth, let us consider here only the motive\nassigned by the author.  Is it not strange to see M. Blanc affirm\nthe goodness of our nature, and at the same time address himself\nto the most ignoble of our propensities,--avarice?  Truly, evil\nmust seem to you very deeply rooted, if you deem it necessary to\nbegin the restoration of charity by a violation of charity.\nJesus Christ broke openly with pride and greed; apparently the\nlibertines whom he catechised were holy personages compared with\nthe herd infected with socialism.  But tell us then, in short,\nhow our ideas have been warped, why our education is anti-social,\nsince it is now demonstrated that society has followed the route\ntraced by destiny and can no longer be charged with the crimes of\nman.\n\nReally, the logic of socialism is marvellous.\n\nMan is good, they say; but it is necessary to DETACH HIS\nINTERESTS from evil to secure his abstinence from it.  Man is\ngood; but he must be INTERESTED in the good, else he will not do\nit.  For, if the interest of his passions leads him to evil, he\nwill do evil; and, if this same interest leaves him indifferent\nto good, he will not do good.  And society will have no right to\nreproach him for having listened to his passions, because it was\nfor society to conduct him by his passions.  What a rich and\nprecious nature was that of Nero, who killed his mother because\nshe wearied him, and who caused Rome to be burned in order to\nhave a representation of the pillage of Troy!  What an artist's\nsoul was that of Heliogabalus, who organized prostitution!  What\na potent character was Tiberius!  But what an abominable society\nwas that which perverted those divine souls, and produced,\nmoreover, Tacitus and Marcus Aurelius!\n\nThis, then, is what is called the harmlessness of man,--the\nholiness of his passions!  An aged Sappho, abandoned by her\nlovers, goes back under the conjugal law; her interest detached\nfrom love, she returns to marriage, and is holy.  What a pity\nthat this word HOLY (saint) has not in French the double meaning\nwhich it possesses in the Hebrew language!  All would be in\naccord regarding the holiness of Sappho.\n\nI read in a report upon the railways of Belgium that, the Belgian\nadministration having allowed its engineers a premium of two and\none- half cents for every bushel of coke saved out of an average\nconsumption of two hundred and ten pounds for a given distance\ntraversed, this premium bore such fruits that the consumption\nfell from two hundred and ten pounds to one hundred and six.\nThis fact sums up the whole socialistic philosophy: to gradually\ntrain the workingman to justice, encourage him to labor, lift him\nto the sublimity of devotion, by increase of wages,\nprofit-sharing, distinctions, and rewards.  Certainly I do not\nmean to blame this method, which is as old as the world: whatever\nway you take to tame serpents and tigers and render them useful,\nI applaud it.  But do not say that your beasts are doves; for\nthen, as sole reply, I shall point you to their claws and teeth.\nBefore the Belgian engineers became interested in the economy of\nfuel, they burned double the quantity.  Therefore on their part\nthere was carelessness, negligence, prodigality, waste, perhaps\ntheft, although they were bound to the administration by a\ncontract which obliged them to practise all the contrasted\nvirtues.  IT IS GOOD, you say, TO INTEREST THE LABORER.  I say\nfurther that it is just.  But I maintain that this INTEREST,\nmore powerful over man than voluntarily accepted obligation, more\npowerful, in a word, than DUTY, accuses man.  Socialism goes\nbackward in morality, and it turns up its nose at Christianity.\nIt does not understand charity, and yet, to hear it, one would\nsuppose that it invented charity.\n\nSee, moreover, observe the socialists, what fortunate fruits the\nperfecting of our social order has already borne!  The present\ngeneration is undeniably better than its predecessors: are we\nwrong in concluding that a perfect society will produce perfect\ncitizens?  Say rather, reply the conservative believers in the\ndogma of the fall, that, religion having purified hearts, it is\nnot astonishing that institutions have felt the effects.  Now let\nreligion finish its work, and have no fears about society.\n\nSo speak and retort in an endless wandering from the question the\ntheorists of the two schools.  Neither understand that humanity,\nto use a Biblical expression, is one and constant in its\ngenerations,--that is, that everything in it, at every period of\nits development, in the individual as in the mass, proceeds from\nthe same principle, which is, not BEING, but BECOMING.  They do\nnot see, on the one hand, that progress in morality is a\ncontinual conquest of mind over animality, just as progress in\nwealth is the fruit of the war waged by labor upon the parsimony\nof nature; consequently that the idea of native goodness lost\nthrough society is as absurd as the idea of native wealth lost\nthrough labor, and that a compromise with the passions should be\nviewed in the same light as a compromise with rest.  On the other\nhand, they refuse to understand that, if there is progress in\nhumanity, whether through religion or from some other cause, the\nhypothesis of constitutional corruption is nonsense, a\ncontradiction.\n\nBut I anticipate the conclusions at which I must arrive: let us,\nfor the present, establish simply that the moral perfection of\nhumanity, like material welfare, is realized by a series of\noscillations between vice and virtue, MERIT and DEMERIT.\n\nYes, humanity grows in justice, but this growth of our liberty,\ndue entirely to the growth of our intelligence, surely gives no\nproof of the goodness of our nature; and, far from authorizing us\nto glorify our passions, it really destroys their sway.  The\nfashion and style of our malice change with time: the barons of\nthe middle ages plundered the traveller on the highway, and then\noffered him hospitality in their castles; mercantile feudality,\nless brutal, exploits the proletaire and builds hospitals for\nhim: who would dare to say which of the two has deserved the palm\nof virtue?\n\nOf all the economic contradictions value is that which,\ndominating the others and summing them up, holds in a sense the\nsceptre of society, I had almost said of the moral world.  Until\nvalue, oscillating between its two poles,--useful value and value\nin exchange,--arrives at its constitution, thine and mine remain\nfixed arbitrarily; the conditions of fortune are the effect of\nchance; property rests on a precarious title; everything in\nsocial economy is provisional.  What should social, intelligent,\nand free beings have learned from this uncertainty of value?  To\nmake amicable regulations that should protect labor and guarantee\nexchange and cheapness.  What a happy opportunity for all to make\nup, by honesty, disinterestedness, and tenderness of heart, for\nthe ignorance of the objective laws of the just and the unjust!\nInstead of that, commerce has everywhere become, by spontaneous\neffort and unanimous consent, an uncertain operation, a\nventuresome enterprise, a lottery, and often a deceitful and\nfraudulent speculation.\n\nWhat obliges the holder of provisions, the storekeeper of\nsociety, to pretend that there is a scarcity, sound the\nalarm, and provoke a rise of prices?  Public short-sightedness\nplaces the consumer at his mercy; some change of temperature\nfurnishes him a pretext; the assured prospect of gain finally\ncorrupts him, and fear, skilfully spread abroad, throws the\npopulation into his toils.  Certainly the motive which actuates\nthe swindler, the thief, the assassin, those natures warped, it\nis said, by the social order, is the same which animates the\nmonopolist who is not in need.  How, then, does this passion for\ngain, abandoned to itself, turn to the prejudice of society?  Why\nhas preventive, repressive, and coercive legislation always been\nnecessary to set a limit to liberty?  For that is the accusing\nfact, which it is impossible to deny: everywhere the law has\ngrown out of abuse; everywhere the legislator has found himself\nforced to make man powerless to harm, which is synonymous with\nmuzzling a lion or infibulating a boar.  And socialism itself,\never imitating the past, makes no other pretence: what is,\nindeed, the organization which it claims, if not a stronger\nguarantee of justice, a more complete limitation of liberty?\n\nThe characteristic trait of the merchant is to make everything\neither an object or an instrument of traffic.  Disassociated from\nhis fellows, his interests separated from those of others, he is\nfor and against all deeds, all opinions, all parties.  A\ndiscovery, a science, is in his eyes an instrument of war, out of\nthe way of which he tries to keep, and which he would like to\nannihilate, unless he can make use of it himself to kill his\ncompetitors.  An artist, an educated person, is an artilleryman\nwho knows how to handle the weapon, and whom he tries to corrupt,\nif he cannot win him.  The merchant is convinced that logic is\nthe art of proving at will the true and the false; he was the\ninventor of political venality, traffic in consciences,\nprostitution of talents, corruption of the press.  He knows how\nto find arguments and advocates for all lies, all iniquities.  He\nalone has never deceived himself as to the value of political\nparties: he deems them all equally exploitable,--that is, equally\nabsurd.\n\nWithout respect for his avowed opinions, which he abandons and\nresumes by turns; sharply pursuing in others those violations of\nfaith of which he is himself guilty,--he lies in his claims, he\nlies in his representations, he lies in his inventories; he\nexaggerates, he extenuates, he over-rates; he regards himself as\nthe centre of the world, and everything outside of him has only a\nrelative existence, value, and truth.  Subtle and shrewd in his\ntransactions, he stipulates, he reserves, trembling always lest\nhe may say too much or not enough; abusing words with the simple,\ngeneralizing in order not to compromise himself, specifying in\norder to allow nothing, he turns three times upon himself and\nthinks seven times under his chin before saying his last word.\nHas he at last concluded?  He rereads himself, he interprets\nhimself, he comments on himself; he tortures himself to find a\ndeep meaning in every part of his contract, and in the clearest\nphrases the opposite of what they say.\n\nWhat infinite art, what hypocrisy, in his relations with the\nmanual laborer!  From the simple shopkeeper to the big\ncontractor, how skilful they are in exploiting his arms!  How\nwell they know how to contend with labor, in order to obtain it\nat a low price!  In the first place, it is a hope for which the\nmaster receives a slight service; then it is a promise which he\ndiscounts by requiring some duty; then a trial, a sacrifice,--for\nhe needs nobody,--which the unfortunate man must recognize by\ncontenting himself with the lowest wages; there are endless\nexactions and overcharges, compensated by settlements on\npay-days effected in the most rapacious and deceitful spirit.\nAnd the workman must keep silent and bend the knee, and clench\nhis fist under his frock: for the employer has the work, and only\ntoo happy is he who can obtain the favor of his swindles.  And\nbecause society has not yet found a way to prevent, repress, and\npunish this odious grinding process, so spontaneous, so\ningenuous, so disengaged from all superior impulse, it is\nattributed to social constraint.  What folly!\n\nThe commission-merchant is the type, the highest expression, of\nmonopoly, the embodiment of commerce, that is, of civilization.\nEvery function depends upon his, participates in it, or is\nassimilated to it: for, as from the standpoint of the\ndistribution of wealth the relations of men with each other are\nall reducible to exchanges,--that is, to transfers of values,--it\nmay be said that civilization is personified in the\ncommission-merchant.\n\nNow, question the commission-merchants as to the morality of\ntheir trade; they will be frank with you; all will tell you that\nthe commission business is extortion.  Complaints are made of the\nfrauds and adulterations which disgrace manufactures: commerce--I\nrefer especially to the commission business--is only a gigantic\nand permanent conspiracy of monopolists, by turns competing or\njoined in pools; it is not a function performed with a view to a\nlegitimate profit, but a vast organization of speculation in all\narticles of consumption, as well as on the circulation of persons\nand products.  Already swindling is tolerated in this profession:\nhow many way-bills overcharged, erased, altered! how many stamps\ncounterfeited! how much damage concealed or fraudulently\ncompounded! how many lies as to quality! how many promises given\nand retracted! how many documents suppressed! what intrigues\nand combinations! and then what treasons!\n\nThe commission-merchant--that is, the merchant--that is, the\nman--is a gambler, a slanderer, a charlatan, a mercenary, a\nthief, a forger. . . .\n\nThis is the effect of our antagonistic society, observe the\nneo-mystics.  So say the commercial people, the first under all\ncircumstances to accuse the corruption of the century.  They act\nas they do, if we may believe them, simply to indemnify\nthemselves and wholly against their inclination: they follow\nnecessity; theirs is a case of legitimate defence.\n\nDoes it require an effort of genius to see that these mutual\nrecriminations strike at the very nature of man, that the\npretended perversion of society is nothing but the perversion of\nman, and that the opposition of principles and interests is only\nan external accident, so to speak, which brings into relief, but\nwithout exerting a necessitating influence, both the blackness of\nour egoism and the rare virtues with which our race is honored?\n\nI understand inharmonious competition and its irresistible\neliminating effects: this is inevitable.  Competition, in its\nhigher expression, is the gearing by means of which laborers\nreciprocally stimulate and sustain each other.  But, pending the\nrealization of that organization which must elevate competition\nto its veritable nature, it remains a civil war in which\nproducers, instead of aiding each other in labor, grind and crush\neach other by labor.  The danger here was imminent; man, to avert\nit, had this supreme law of love; and nothing was easier, while\npushing competition to its extreme limits in the interest of\nproduction, than to then repair its murderous effects by an\nequitable distribution.  Far from that, this anarchical\ncompetition has become, as it were, the soul and spirit of\nthe laborer.  Political economy placed in the hands of man this\nweapon of death, and he has struck; he has used competition, as\nthe lion uses his paws and jaws, to kill and devour.  How is it,\nthen, I repeat, that a wholly external accident has changed the\nnature of man, which is supposed to be good and gentle and\nsocial?\n\nThe wine merchant calls to his aid jelly, magnin, insects, water,\nand poisons; by combinations of his own he adds to the\ndestructive effects of competition.  Whence comes this mania?\nFrom the fact, you say, that his competitor sets him the example!\nAnd this competitor, who incites him?  Some other competitor.  So\nthat, if we make the tour of society, we shall find that it is\nthe mass, and in the mass each particular individual, who, by a\ntacit agreement of their passions,--pride, indolence, greed,\ndistrust, jealousy,--have organized this detestable war.\n\nAfter having gathered about him tools, material, and workmen, the\ncontractor must recover in the product, besides the amount of his\noutlay, first the interest of his capital, and then a profit.  It\nis in consequence of this principle that lending at interest has\nfinally become established, and that gain, considered in itself,\nhas always passed for legitimate.  Under this system, the police\nof nations not having seen at first the essential contradiction\nof loans at interest, the wage-worker, instead of depending\ndirectly upon himself, had to depend upon an employer, as the\nsoldier belonged to the count, or the tribe to the patriarch.\nThis order of things was necessary, and, pending the\nestablishment of complete equality, it was not impossible that\nthe welfare of all should be secured by it.  But when the master,\nin his disorderly egoism, has said to the servant:  \"You shall\nnot share with me,\" and robbed him at one stroke of labor and\nwages, where is the necessity, where the excuse?  Will it be\nnecessary further, in order to justify the CONCUPISCIBLE\nAPPETITE, to fall back on the IRASCIBLE APPETITE?  Take care: in\ndrawing back in order to justify the human being in the series of\nhis lusts, instead of saving his morality, you abandon it.  For\nmy part, I prefer the guilty man to the wild-beast man.\n\nNature has made man sociable: the spontaneous development of his\ninstincts now makes him an angel of charity, now robs him even of\nthe sentiment of fraternity and the idea of devotion.  Did any\none ever see a capitalist, weary of gain, conspiring for the\ngeneral good and making the emancipation of the proletariat his\nlast speculation?  There are many people, favorites of fortune,\nto whom nothing is lacking but the crown of beneficence: now,\nwhere is the grocer who, having grown rich, begins to sell at\ncost?  Where the baker who, retiring from business, leaves his\ncustomers and his establishment to his assistants?  Where the\napothecary who, under the pretence of winding up his affairs,\nsurrenders his drugs at their true value?  When charity has its\nmartyrs, why has it not its amateurs?  If there should suddenly\nbe formed a congress of bondholders, capitalists, and men of\nbusiness, retired but still fit for service, with a view to\ncarrying on a certain number of industries gratuitously, in a\nshort time society would be reformed from top to bottom.  But\nwork for nothing!  That is for the Vincent de Pauls, the\nFenelons, all those whose souls have always been weaned and whose\nhearts have been pure.  The man enriched by gain will be a\nmunicipal councillor, a member of the committee on charities, an\nofficer of the infant schools: he will perform all the honorary\nfunctions, barring exactly that which would be efficacious, but\nwhich is repugnant to his habits.  Work without hope of profits!\nThat cannot be, for it would be self-destruction.  He would\nlike to, perhaps; he has not the courage.  Video meliora\nproboque, deteriora sequor.  The retired proprietor is really the\nowl of the fable gathering beech-nuts for its mutilated mice\nuntil it is ready to devour them.  Is society also to be blamed\nfor these effects of a passion so long, so freely, so fully\ngratified?\n\nWho, then, will explain this mystery of a manifold and discordant\nbeing, capable at once of the highest virtues and the most\nfrightful crimes?  The dog licks his master who strikes him,\nbecause the dog's nature is fidelity and this nature never leaves\nhim.  The lamb takes refuge in the arms of the shepherd who\nfleeces and eats him, because the sheep's inseparable\ncharacteristics are gentleness and peace.  The horse dashes\nthrough flame and grape-shot without touching with his\nswiftly-moving feet the wounded and dead lying in his path,\nbecause the horse's soul is unalterable in its generosity.  These\nanimals are martyrs for our sakes through the constancy and\ndevotion of their natures.  The servant who defends his master at\nthe peril of his life, for a little gold betrays and murders him;\nthe chaste wife pollutes her bed because of some disgust or\nabsence, and in Lucrece we find Messalina; the proprietor, by\nturns father and tyrant, refits and restores his ruined farmer\nand drives from his lands the farmer's too numerous family, which\nhas increased on the strength of the feudal contract; the\nwarrior, mirror and paragon of chivalry, makes the corpses of his\ncompanions a stepping- stone to advancement.  Epaminondas and\nRegulus traffic in the blood of their soldiers,--how many\ninstances have my own eyes witnessed!--and by a horrible contrast\nthe profession of sacrifice is the most fruitful in cowardice.\nHumanity has its martyrs and its apostates: to what, I ask again,\nmust this division be attributed?\n\nTo the antagonism of society, you always say; to the state of\nseparation, isolation, hostility to his fellows, in which man has\nhitherto lived; in a word, to that alienation of his heart which\nhas led him to mistake enjoyment for love, property for\npossession, pain for labor, intoxication for joy; to that warped\nconscience, in short, which remorse has not ceased to pursue\nunder the name of ORIGINAL SIN.  When man, reconciled with\nhimself, shall cease to look upon his neighbor and nature as\nhostile powers, then will he love and produce simply by the\nspontaneity of his energy; then it will be his passion to give,\nas it is today to acquire; and then will he seek in labor and\ndevotion his only happiness, his supreme delight.  Then, love\nbecoming really and indivisibly the law of man, justice will\nthereafter be but an empty name, painful souvenir of a period of\nviolence and tears.\n\nCertainly I do not overlook the fact of antagonism, or, as it\nwill please you to call it, of religious alienation, any more\nthan the necessity of reconciling man with himself; my whole\nphilosophy is but a perpetuity of reconciliations.  You admit\nthat the divergence of our nature is the preliminary of society,\nor, let us rather say, the material of civilization.  This is\nprecisely the fact, but, remember well, the indestructible fact\nof which I seek the meaning.  Certainly we should be very near an\nunderstanding, if, instead of considering the dissidence and\nharmony of the human faculties as two distinct periods, clean-cut\nand consecutive in history, you would consent to view them with\nme simply as the two faces of our nature, ever adverse, ever in\ncourse of reconciliation, but never entirely reconciled.  In a\nword, as individualism is the primordial fact of humanity, so\nassociation is its complementary term; but both are in incessant\nmanifestation, and on earth justice is eternally the condition of\nlove.\n\nThus the dogma of the fall is not simply the expression of a\nspecial and transitory state of human reason and morality: it is\nthe spontaneous confession, in symbolic phrase, of this fact as\nastonishing as it is indestructible, the culpability, the\ninclination to evil, of our race.  Curse upon me a sinner! cries\non every hand and in every tongue the conscience of the human\nrace.  V{ae} nobis quia peccavimus!  Religion, in giving this\nidea concrete and dramatic form, has indeed gone back of history\nand beyond the limits of the world for that which is essential\nand immanent in our soul; this, on its part, was but an\nintellectual mirage; it was not mistaken as to the essentiality\nand permanence of the fact.  Now, it is this fact for which we\nhave to account, and it is also from this point of view that we\nare to interpret the dogma of original sin.\n\nAll peoples have had their expiatory customs, their penitential\nsacrifices, their repressive and penal institutions, born of the\nhorror and regret of sin.  Catholicism, which built a theory\nwherever social spontaneity had expressed an idea or deposited a\nhope, converted into a sacrament the at once symbolic and\neffective ceremony by which the sinner expressed his repentance,\nasked pardon of God and men for his fault, and prepared himself\nfor a better life.  Consequently I do not hesitate to say that\nthe Reformation, in rejecting contrition, cavilling over the word\nmetanoia, attributing to faith alone the virtue of justification,\ndeconsecrating repentance in short, took a step backward and\nutterly failed to recognize the law of progress.  To deny was not\nto reply.  On this point as on so many others the abuses of the\nChurch called for reform; the theories of repentance, of\ndamnation, of the remission of sin, and of grace contained, if I\nmay venture to say so, in a latent state, the entire system of\nhumanity's education; these theories needed to be developed\nand grown into rationalism; Luther knew nothing but their\ndestruction.  Auricular confession was a degradation of\nrepentance, an equivocal demonstration substituted for a great\nact of humility; Luther surpassed papist hypocrisy by reducing\nthe primitive confession before God and men (exomologoumai to\ntheo. . . . kai humin, adelphoi) to a soliloquy.  The Christian\nmeaning then was lost, and not until three centuries later was it\nrestored by philosophy.\n\nSince, then, Christianity--that is, religious humanity--has not\nbeen in error as to the REALITY of a fact essential in human\nnature,--a fact which it has designated by the words ORIGINAL\nPREVARICATION, let us further interrogate Christianity, humanity,\nas to the MEANING of this fact.  Let us not be astonished either\nby metaphor or by allegory: truth is independent of figures.  And\nbesides, what is truth to us but the continuous progress of our\nmind from poetry to prose?\n\nAnd first let us inquire whether this at least singular idea of\noriginal prevarication had not, somewhere in the Christian\ntheology, its correlative.  For the true idea, the generic idea,\ncannot result from an isolated conception; there must be a\nseries.\n\nChristianity, after having posited the dogma of the fall as the\nfirst term, followed up its thought by affirming, for all who\nshould die in this state of pollution, an irrevocable separation\nfrom God, an eternity of punishment.  Then it completed its\ntheory by reconciling these two opposites by the dogma of\nrehabilitation or of grace, according to which every creature\nborn in the hatred of God is reconciled by the merits of Jesus\nChrist, which faith and repentance render efficacious.  Thus,\nessential corruption of our nature and perpetuity of punishment,\nexcept in the case of redemption through voluntary participation\nin Christ's sacrifice,--such is, in brief, the evolution of the\ntheological idea.  The second affirmation is a consequence of the\nfirst; the third is a negation and transformation of the two\nothers: in fact, a constitutional vice being necessarily\nindestructible, the expiation which it involves is as eternal as\nitself, unless a superior power comes to break destiny and lift\nthe anathema by an integral renovation.\n\nThe human mind, in its religious caprices as well as in its most\npositive theories, has always but one method; the same\nmetaphysics produced the Christian mysteries and the\ncontradictions of political economy; faith, without knowing it,\nhangs upon reason; and we, explorers of divine and human\nmanifestations, are entitled to verify, in the name of reason,\nthe hypotheses of theology.\n\nWhat was it, then, that the universal reason, formulated in\nreligious dogmas, saw in human nature, when, by so regular a\nmetaphysical construction, it declared successively the\nINGENUOUSNESS of the offence, the eternity of the penalty, the\nnecessity of grace?  The veils of theology are becoming so\ntransparent that it quite resembles natural history.\n\nIf we conceive the operation by which the supreme being is\nsupposed to have produced all beings, no longer as an emanation,\nan exertion of the creative force and infinite substance, but as\na division or differentiation of this substantial force, each\nbeing, organized or unorganized, will appear to us the special\nrepresentative of one of the innumerable potentialities of the\ninfinite being, as a section of the absolute; and the collection\nof all these individualities (fluids, minerals, plants, insects,\nfish, birds, and quadrupeds) will be the creation, the universe.\n\nMan, an abridgment of the universe, sums up and syncretizes\nin his person all the potentialities of being, all the sections\nof the absolute; he is the summit at which these potentialities,\nwhich exist only by their divergence, meet in a group, but\nwithout penetrating or becoming confounded with each other.  Man,\ntherefore, by this aggregation, is at once spirit and matter,\nspontaneity and reflection, mechanism and life, angel and brute.\nHe is venomous like the viper, sanguinary like the tiger,\ngluttonous like the hog, obscene like the ape; and devoted like\nthe dog, generous like the horse, industrious like the bee,\nmonogamic like the dove, sociable like the beaver and sheep.  And\nin addition he is man,--that is, reasonable and free, susceptible\nof education and improvement.  Man enjoys as many names as\nJupiter; all these names he carries written on his face; and, in\nthe varied mirror of nature, his infallible instinct is able to\nrecognize them.  A serpent is beautiful to the reason; it is the\nconscience that finds it odious and ugly.  The ancients as well\nas the moderns grasped this idea of the constitution of man by\nagglomeration of all terrestrial potentialities: the labors of\nGall and Lavater were, if I may say so, only attempts at\ndisintegration of the human syncretism, and their classification\nof our faculties a miniature picture of nature.  Man, in short,\nlike the prophet in the lions' den, is veritably given over to\nthe beasts; and if anything is destined to exhibit to posterity\nthe infamous hypocrisy of our epoch, it is the fact that educated\npersons, spiritualistic bigots, have thought to serve religion\nand morality by altering the nature of our race and giving the\nlie to anatomy.\n\nTherefore the only question left to decide is whether it depends\nupon man, notwithstanding the contradictions which the\nprogressive emission of his ideas multiplies around him, to give\nmore or less scope to the potentialities placed under his\ncontrol, or, as the moralists say, to his passions; in other\nwords, whether, like Hercules of old, he can conquer the\nanimality which besets him, the infernal legion which seems ever\nready to devour him.\n\nNow, the universal consent of peoples bears witness--and we have\nshown it in the third and fourth chapters--that man, all his\nanimal impulses set aside, is summed up in intelligence and\nliberty,--that is, first, a faculty of appreciation and choice,\nand, second, a power of action indifferently applicable to good\nand evil.  We have shown further that these two faculties, which\nexercise a necessary influence over each other, are susceptible\nof indefinite development and improvement.\n\nSocial destiny, the solution of the human enigma, is found, then,\nin these words: EDUCATION, PROGRESS.\n\nThe education of liberty, the taming of our instincts, the\nenfranchisement or REDEMPTION of our soul,--this, then, as\nLessing has proved, is the meaning of the Christian mystery.\nThis education will last throughout our life and that of\nhumanity: the contradictions of political economy may be solved;\nthe essential contradiction of our being never will be.  That is\nwhy the great teachers of humanity, Moses, Buddha, Jesus Christ,\nZoroaster, were all apostles of expiation, living symbols of\nrepentance.  Man is by nature a sinner,--that is, not essentially\nILL-DOING, but rather ILL-DONE,-- and it is his destiny to\nperpetually re-create his ideal in himself.  That is what the\ngreatest of painters, Raphael, felt profoundly, when he said that\nart consists in rendering things, not as nature made them, but as\nit should have made them.\n\nHenceforth, then, it is ours to teach the theologians, for we\nalone continue the tradition of the Church, we alone possess the\nmeaning of the Scriptures, of the Councils, and of the Fathers.\nOur interpretation rests on the most certain and most authentic\ngrounds, on the greatest authority to which men can appeal, the\nmetaphysical construction of ideas and facts.  Yes, the human\nbeing is vicious because he is illogical, because his\nconstitution is but an eclecticism which holds in perpetual\nstruggle the potentialities of his being, independently of the\ncontradictions of society.  The life of man is only a continual\ncompromise between labor and pain, love and enjoyment, justice\nand egoism; and the voluntary sacrifice which man makes in\nobedience to his inferior attractions is the baptism which\nprepares the way for his reconciliation with God and renders him\nworthy of that beatific union and eternal happiness.\n\nThe object of social economy, in incessantly securing order in\nlabor and favoring the education of the race, is then to render\ncharity--that charity which knows not how to rule its\nslaves--superfluous as far as possible by equality, or better, to\nmake charity develop from justice, as a flower from its stem.\nAh! if charity had had the power to create happiness among men,\nit would have proved it long ago; and socialism, instead of\nseeking the organization of labor, would have had but to say:\n\"Take care, you are lacking in charity.\"\n\nBut, alas! charity in man is stunted, sly, sluggish, and\nlukewarm; in order to act, it needs elixirs and aromas.  That is\nwhy I have clung to the triple dogma of prevarication, damnation,\nand redemption,--that is, perfectibility through justice.\nLiberty here below is always in need of assistance, and the\nCatholic theory of celestial favors comes to complete this too\nreal demonstration of the miseries of our nature.\n\nGrace, say the theologians, is, in the order of salvation, every\nhelp or means which can conduct us to eternal life.  That is to\nsay, man perfects himself, civilizes himself, humanizes himself\nonly by the incessant aid of experience, by industry, science,\nand art, by pleasure and pain, in a word, by all bodily and\nmental exercises.\n\nThere is an HABITUAL grace, called also JUSTIFYING and\nSANCTIFYING, which is conceived as a quality residing in the\nsoul, containing the innate virtues and gifts of the Holy Spirit,\nand inseparable from charity.  In other words, habitual grace is\nthe symbol of the predominance of good impulses, which lead man\nto order and love, and by means of which he succeeds in subduing\nhis evil tendencies and remaining master in his own domain.  As\nfor ACTUAL grace, that indicates the external means which give\nscope to the orderly passions and serve to combat the subversive\npassions.\n\nGrace, according to Saint Augustine, is essentially gratuitous,\nand precedes sin in man.  Bossuet expressed the same thought in\nhis style so full of poesy and tenderness:  When God formed the\nbowels of man, he originally placed goodness there.  In fact, the\nfirst determination of free will is in this natural GOODNESS, by\nwhich man is continually incited to order, to labor, to study, to\nmodesty, to charity, and to sacrifice.  Therefore Saint Paul\ncould say, without attacking free will, that, in everything\nconcerning the accomplishment of good, God worketh in us both to\nwill and to do.  For all the holy aspirations of man are in him\nbefore he begins to think and feel; and the pangs of heart which\nhe experiences when he violates them, the delight with which he\nis filled when he obeys them, all the invitations, in short,\nwhich come to him from society and his education, do not belong\nto him.\n\nWhen grace is such that the will chooses the good with joy and\nlove, without hesitation and without recall, it is styled\nEFFICACIOUS.  Every one has witnessed those transports of soul\nwhich suddenly decide a vocation, an act of heroism.  Liberty\ndoes not perish therein; but from its predeterminations it may be\nsaid that it was inevitable that it should so decide.  And the\nPelagians, Lutherans, and others have been mistaken in saying\nthat grace compromised free choice and killed the creative force\nof the will; since all determinations of the will come\nnecessarily either from society which sustains it, or from nature\nwhich opens its career and points out its destiny.\n\nBut, on the other hand, the Augustinians, the Thomists, the\ncongruists, Jansen, Thomassin, Molina, etc., were strangely\nmistaken when, sustaining at once free will and grace, they\nfailed to see that between these two terms the same relation\nexists as between substance and form, and that they have\nconfessed an opposition which does not exist.  Liberty, like\nintelligence, like all substance and all force, is necessarily\ndetermined,--that is, it has its forms and its attributes.  Now,\nwhile in matter the form and the attribute are inherent in and\ncontemporary with substance, in liberty the form is given by\nthree external agents, as it were,--the human essence, the laws\nof thought, exercise or education.  GRACE, in fine, like its\nopposite, TEMPTATION, indicates precisely the fact of the\ndetermination of liberty.\n\nTo sum up, all modern ideas regarding the education of humanity\nare only an interpretation, a philosophy of the Catholic doctrine\nof grace, a doctrine which seemed obscure to its authors only\nbecause of their ideas upon free will, which they supposed to be\nthreatened as soon as grace or the source of its determinations\nwas spoken of.  We affirm, on the contrary, that liberty,\nindifferent in itself to all modality, but destined to act and to\ntake shape according to a preestablished order, receives its\nfirst impulse from the Creator who inspires it with love,\nintelligence, courage, resolution, and all the gifts of the Holy\nSpirit, and then delivers it to the labor of experience.  It\nfollows from this that grace is necessarily PRE-MOVING, that\nwithout it man is capable of no sort of good, and that\nnevertheless free will accomplishes its own destiny\nspontaneously, with reflection and choice.  In all this there is\nneither contradiction nor mystery.  Man, in so far as he is man,\nis good; but, like the tyrant described by Plato, who was, he\ntoo, a teacher of grace, man carries in his bosom a thousand\nmonsters, which the worship of justice and science, music and\ngymnastics, all the graces of opportunity and condition, must\ncause him to overcome.  Correct one definition in Saint\nAugustine, and all that doctrine of grace, famous because of the\ndisputes which it excited and which disconcerted the Reformation,\nwill seem to you brilliant with clearness and harmony.\n\nAnd now is man God?\n\nGod, according to the theological hypothesis, being the\nsovereign, absolute, highly synthetic being, the infinitely wise\nand free, and therefore indefectible and holy, Me, it is plain\nthat man, the syncretism of the creation, the point of union of\nall the potentialities manifested by the creation, physical,\norganic, mental, and moral; man, perfectible and fallible, does\nnot satisfy the conditions of Divinity as he, from the nature of\nhis mind, must conceive them.  Neither is he God, nor can he,\nliving, become God.\n\nAll the more, then, the oak, the lion, the sun, the universe\nitself, sections of the absolute, are not God.  At the same\nstroke the worship of man and the worship of nature are\noverthrown.\n\nNow we have to present the counter-proof of this theory.\n\nFrom the standpoint of social contradictions we have judged of\nthe morality of man.  We are to judge, in its turn and from the\nsame standpoint, the morality of Providence.  In other words, is\nGod possible, as speculation and faith offer him for the\nadoration of mortals?\n\n\n% 2.--Exposition of the myth of Providence.--Retrogression of\nGod.\n\nAmong the proofs, to the number of three, which theologians and\nphilosophers are accustomed to bring forward to show the\nexistence of a God, they give the foremost position to universal\nconsent.\n\nThis argument I considered when, without rejecting or admitting\nit, I promptly asked myself:  What does universal consent affirm\nin affirming a God?  And in this connection I should recall the\nfact that the difference of religions is not a proof that the\nhuman race has fallen into error in affirming a supreme Me\noutside of itself, any more than the diversity of languages is a\nproof of the non-reality of reason.  The hypothesis of God, far\nfrom being weakened, is strengthened and established by the very\ndivergence and opposition of faiths.\n\nAn argument of another sort is that which is drawn from the order\nof the world.  In regard to this I have observed that, nature\naffirming spontaneously, by the voice of man, its own distinction\ninto mind and matter, it remained to find out whether an infinite\nmind, a soul of the world, governs and moves the universe, as\nconscience, in its obscure intuition, tells us that a mind\nanimates man.  If, then, I added, order were an infallible sign\nof the presence of mind, the presence of a God in the universe\ncould not be overlooked.\n\nUnfortunately this IF is not demonstrated and cannot be.  For, on\nthe one hand, pure mind, conceived as the opposite of matter, is\na contradictory entity, the reality of which, consequently,\nnothing can attest.  On the other hand, certain beings ordered in\nthemselves--such as crystals, plants, and the planetary system,\nwhich, in the sensations that they make us feel, do not return us\nsentiment for sentiment, as the animals do--seeming to us utterly\ndestitute of conscience, there is no more reason for supposing a\nmind in the centre of the world than for placing one in a stick\nof sulphur; and it may be that, if mind, conscience, exists\nanywhere, it is only in man.\n\nNevertheless, if the order of the world can tell us nothing as to\nthe existence of God, it reveals a thing no less precious\nperhaps, and which will serve us as a landmark in our\ninquiries,--namely, that all beings, all essences, all phenomena\nare bound together by a totality of laws resulting from their\nproperties, a totality which in the third chapter I have named\nFATALITY or NECESSITY.  Whether or not there exists then an\ninfinite intelligence, embracing the whole system of these laws,\nthe whole field of fatalism; whether or not to this infinite\nintelligence is united in profound penetration a superior will,\neternally determined by the totality of the cosmic laws and\nconsequently infinitely powerful and free; whether or not,\nfinally, these three things, fatality, intelligence, will, are\ncontemporary in the universe, adequate to each other and\nidentical,--it is clear that so far we find nothing repugnant to\nthese positions; but it is precisely this hypothesis, this\nanthropomorphism, which is yet to be demonstrated.\n\nThus, while the testimony of the human race reveals to us a God,\nwithout saying what this God may be, the order of the world\nreveals to us a fatality,--that is, an absolute and peremptory\ntotality of causes and effects,--in short, a system of\nlaws,--which would be, if God exists, like the sight and\nknowledge of this God.\n\nThe third and last proof of the existence of God proposed by the\ntheists and called by them the metaphysical proof is nothing but\na tautological construction of categories, which proves\nabsolutely nothing.\n\nSomething exists; therefore there is something in existence.\n\nSomething is multiple; therefore something is one.\n\nSomething comes after something; therefore something is prior to\nsomething.\n\nSomething is smaller of greater than something; therefore\nsomething is greater than all things.\n\nSomething is moved; therefore something is mover, etc., ad\ninfinitum.\n\nThat is what is called even today, in the faculties and the\nseminaries, by the minister of public education and by\nMesseigneurs the bishops, proving the existence of God by\nmetaphysics.  That is what the elite of the French youth are\ncondemned to bleat after their professors, for a year, or else\nforfeit their diplomas and the privilege of studying law,\nmedicine, polytechnics, and the sciences.  Certainly, if anything\nis calculated to surprise, it is that with such philosophy Europe\nis not yet atheistic.  The persistence of the theistic idea by\nthe side of the jargon of the schools is the greatest of\nmiracles; it constitutes the strongest prejudice that can be\ncited in favor of Divinity.\n\nI do not know what humanity calls God.\n\nI cannot say whether it is man, the universe, or some invisible\nreality that we are to understand by that name; or indeed whether\nthe word stands for anything more than an ideal, a creature of\nthe mind. Nevertheless, to give body to my hypothesis and\ninfluence to my inquiries, I shall consider God in accordance\nwith the common opinion, as a being apart, omnipresent, distinct\nfrom creation, endowed with imperishable life as well as infinite\nknowledge and activity, but above all foreseeing and just,\npunishing vice and rewarding virtue.  I shall put aside the\npantheistic hypothesis as hypocritical and lacking courage.  God\nis personal, or he does not exist: this alternative is the axiom\nfrom which I shall deduce my entire theodicy.\n\nNot concerning myself therefore for the present with questions\nwhich the idea of God may raise later, the problem before me now\nis to decide, in view of the facts the evolution of which in\nsociety I have established, what I should think of the conduct of\nGod, as it is held up for my faith and relatively to humanity.\nIn short, it is from the standpoint of the demonstrated existence\nof evil that I, with the aid of a new dialectical process, mean\nto fathom the Supreme Being. Evil exists: upon this point\neverybody seems to agree.\n\nNow, have asked the stoics, the Epicureans, the manicheans, and\nthe atheists, how harmonize the presence of evil with the idea of\na sovereignly good, wise, and powerful God?  How can God, after\nallowing the introduction of evil into the world, whether through\nweakness or negligence or malice, render responsible for their\nacts creatures which he himself has created imperfect, and which\nhe thus delivers to all the dangers of their attractions?  Why,\nfinally, since he promises the just a never-ending bliss after\ndeath, or, in other words, gives us the idea and desire of\nhappiness, does he not cause us to enjoy this life by stripping\nus of the temptation of evil, instead of exposing us to an\neternity of torture?\n\nSuch used to be the purport of the protest of the atheists.\n\nToday this is scarcely discussed: the theists are no longer\ntroubled by the logical impossibilities of their system.  They\nwant a God, especially a Providence: there is competition for\nthis article between the radicals and the Jesuits.  The\nsocialists preach happiness and virtue in the name of God; in the\nschools those who talk the loudest against the Church are the\nfirst of mystics.\n\nThe old theists were more anxious about their faith.  They tried,\nif not to demonstrate it, at least to render it reasonable,\nfeeling sure, unlike their successors, that there is neither\ndignity nor rest for the believer except in certainty.\n\nThe Fathers of the Church then answered the incredulous that evil\nis only DEPRIVATION OF A GREATER GOOD, and that those who always\nreason about the BETTER lack a point of support upon which to\nestablish themselves, which leads straight to absurdity.  In\nfact, every creature being necessarily confined and imperfect,\nGod, by his infinite power, can continually add to his\nperfections: in this respect there is always, in some degree, a\ndeprivation of good in the creature.  Reciprocally, however\nimperfect and confined the creature is supposed to be, from the\nmoment that it exists it enjoys a certain degree of good, better\nfor it than annihilation.  Therefore, though it is a rule that\nman is considered good only so far as he accomplishes all the\ngood that he can, it is not the same with God, since the\nobligation to do good infinitely is contradictory to the very\nfaculty of creation, perfection and creature being two terms that\nnecessarily exclude each other.  God, then, was sole judge of the\ndegree of perfection which it was proper to give to each\ncreature: to prefer a charge against him under this head is to\nslander his justice.\n\nAs for sin,--that is, moral evil,--the Fathers, to reply to the\nobjections of the atheists, had the theories of free will,\nredemption, justification, and grace, to the discussion of which\nwe need not return.\n\nI have no knowledge that the atheists have replied categorically\nto this theory of the essential imperfection of the creature, a\ntheory reproduced with brilliancy by M. de Lamennais in his\n\"Esquisse.\"  It was impossible, indeed, for them to reply to it;\nfor, reasoning from a false conception of evil and of free will,\nand in profound ignorance of the laws of humanity, they were\nequally without reasons by which either to triumph over their own\ndoubts or to refute the believers.\n\nLet us leave the sphere of the finite and infinite, and place\nourselves in the conception of order.  Can God make a round\ncircle, a right-angled square?  Certainly.\n\nWould God be guilty if, after having created the world according\nto the laws of geometry, he had put it into our minds, or even\nallowed us to believe without fault of our own, that a circle may\nbe square or a square circular, though, in consequence of this\nfalse opinion, we should have to suffer an incalculable series of\nevils?  Again, undoubtedly.\n\nWell! that is exactly what God, the God of Providence, has done\nin the government of humanity; it is of that that I accuse him.\nHe knew from all eternity--inasmuch as we mortals have discovered\nit after six thousand years of painful experience--that order in\nsociety--that is, liberty, wealth, science--is realized by the\nreconciliation of opposite ideas which, were each to be taken as\nabsolute in itself, would precipitate us into an abyss of misery:\nwhy did he not warn us?  Why did he not correct our judgment at\nthe start?  Why did he abandon us to our imperfect logic,\nespecially when our egoism must find a pretext in his acts of\ninjustice and perfidy?  He knew, this jealous God, that, if he\nexposed us to the hazards of experience, we should not find until\nvery late that security of life which constitutes our entire\nhappiness: why did he not abridge this long apprenticeship\nby a revelation of our own laws?  Why, instead of fascinating us\nwith contradictory opinions, did he not reverse experience by\ncausing us to reach the antinomies by the path of analysis of\nsynthetic ideas, instead of leaving us to painfully clamber up\nthe steeps of antinomy to synthesis?\n\nIf, as was formerly thought, the evil from which humanity suffers\narose solely from the imperfection inevitable in every creature,\nor better, if this evil were caused only by the antagonism of the\npotentialities and inclinations which constitute our being, and\nwhich reason should teach us to master and guide, we should have\nno right to complain.  Our condition being all that it could be,\nGod would be justified.\n\nBut, in view of this wilful delusion of our minds, a delusion\nwhich it was so easy to dissipate and the effects of which must\nbe so terrible, where is the excuse of Providence?  Is it not\ntrue that grace failed man here?  God, whom faith represents as a\ntender father and a prudent master, abandons us to the fatality\nof our incomplete conceptions; he digs the ditch under our feet;\nhe causes us to move blindly: and then, at every fall, he\npunishes us as rascals.  What do I say?  It seems as if it were\nin spite of him that at last, covered with bruises from our\njourney, we recognize our road; as if we offended his glory in\nbecoming more intelligent and free through the trials which he\nimposes upon us.  What need, then, have we to continually invoke\nDivinity, and what have we to do with those satellites of a\nProvidence which for sixty centuries, by the aid of a thousand\nreligions, has deceived and misled us?\n\nWhat!  God, through his gospel-bearers and by the law which he\nhas put in our hearts, commands us to love our neighbor as\nourselves, to do to others as we wish to be done by, to render\neach his due, not to keep back anything from the laborer's hire,\nand not to lend at usury; he knows, moreover, that in us charity\nis lukewarm and conscience vacillating, and that the slightest\npretext always seems to us a sufficient reason for exemption from\nthe law: and yet he involves us, with such dispositions, in the\ncontradictions of commerce and property, in which, by the\nnecessity of the theory, charity and justice are bound to perish!\nInstead of enlightening our reason concerning the bearing of\nprinciples which impose themselves upon it with all the power of\nnecessity, but whose consequences, adopted by egoism, are fatal\nto human fraternity, he places this abused reason at the service\nof our passion; by seduction of the mind, he destroys our\nequilibrium of conscience; he justifies in our own eyes our\nusurpations and our avarice; he makes the separation of man from\nhis fellow inevitable and legitimate; he creates division and\nhatred among us in rendering equality by labor and by right\nimpossible; he makes us believe that this equality, the law of\nthe world, is unjust among men; and then he proscribes us en\nmasse for not having known how to practise his incomprehensible\nprecepts!  I believe I have proved, to be sure, that our\nabandonment by Providence does not justify us; but, whatever our\ncrime, toward it we are not guilty; and if there is a being who,\nbefore ourselves and more than ourselves, is deserving of\nhell,--I am bound to name him,--it is God.\n\nWhen the theists, in order to establish their dogma of\nProvidence, cite the order of nature as a proof, although this\nargument is only a begging of the question, at least it cannot be\nsaid that it involves a contradiction, and that the fact cited\nbears witness against the hypothesis.  In the system of the\nworld, for instance, nothing betrays the smallest anomaly,\nthe slightest lack of foresight, from which any prejudice\nwhatever can be drawn against the idea of a supreme, intelligent,\npersonal motor.  In short, though the order of nature does not\nprove the reality of a Providence, it does not contradict it.\n\nIt is a very different thing with the government of humanity.\nHere order does not appear at the same time as matter; it was not\ncreated, as in the system of the world, once and for eternity.\nIt is gradually developed according to an inevitable series of\nprinciples and consequences which the human being himself, the\nbeing to be ordered, must disengage spontaneously, by his own\nenergy and at the solicitation of experience.  No revelation\nregarding this is given him.  Man is submitted at his origin to a\npreestablished necessity, to an absolute and irresistible order.\nThat this order may be realized, man must discover it; that it\nmay exist, he must have divined it.  This labor of invention\nmight be abridged; no one, either in heaven or on earth, will\ncome to man's aid; no one will instruct him.  Humanity, for\nhundreds of centuries, will devour its generations; it will\nexhaust itself in blood and mire, without the God whom it\nworships coming once to illuminate its reason and abridge its\ntime of trial.  Where is divine action here?  Where is\nProvidence?\n\n\"IF GOD DID NOT EXIST,\"--it is Voltaire, the enemy of religions,\nwho says so,--\"IT WOULD BE NECESSARY TO INVENT HIM.\"  Why?\n\"Because,\" adds the same Voltaire, \"if I were dealing with an\natheist prince whose interest it might be to have me pounded in a\nmortar, I am very sure that I should be pounded.\"  Strange\naberration of a great mind!  And if you were dealing with a pious\nprince, whose confessor, speaking in the name of God, should\ncommand that you be burned alive, would you not be very sure of\nbeing burned also?  Do you forget, then, anti-Christ, the\nInquisition, and the Saint Bartholomew, and the stakes of Vanini\nand Bruno, and the tortures of Galileo, and the martyrdom of so\nmany free thinkers?  Do not try to distinguish here between use\nand abuse: for I should reply to you that from a mystical and\nsupernatural principle, from a principle which embraces\neverything, which explains everything, which justifies\neverything, such as the idea of God, all consequences are\nlegitimate, and that the zeal of the believer is the sole judge\nof their propriety.\n\n\"I once believed,\" says Rousseau, \"that it was possible to be an\nhonest man and dispense with God; but I have recovered from that\nerror.\"  Fundamentally the same argument as that of Voltaire, the\nsame justification of intolerance:  Man does good and abstains\nfrom evil only through consideration of a Providence which\nwatches over him; a curse on those who deny its existence!  And,\nto cap the climax of absurdity, the man who thus seeks for our\nvirtue the sanction of a Divinity who rewards and punishes is the\nsame man who teaches the native goodness of man as a religious\ndogma.\n\nAnd for my part I say:  The first duty of man, on becoming\nintelligent and free, is to continually hunt the idea of God out\nof his mind and conscience.  For God, if he exists, is\nessentially hostile to our nature, and we do not depend at all\nupon his authority.  We arrive at knowledge in spite of him, at\ncomfort in spite of him, at society in spite of him; every step\nwe take in advance is a victory in which we crush Divinity.\n\nLet it no longer be said that the ways of God are impenetrable.\nWe have penetrated these ways, and there we have read in letters\nof blood the proofs of God's impotence, if not of his\nmalevolence.  My reason, long humiliated, is gradually rising to\na level with the infinite; with time it will discover all that\nits inexperience hides from it; with time I shall be less and\nless a worker of misfortune, and by the light that I shall have\nacquired, by the perfection of my liberty, I shall purify myself,\nidealize my being, and become the chief of creation, the equal of\nGod.  A single moment of disorder which the Omnipotent might have\nprevented and did not prevent accuses his Providence and shows\nhim lacking in wisdom; the slightest progress which man,\nignorant, abandoned, and betrayed, makes towards good honors him\nimmeasurably.  By what right should God still say to me:  BE\nHOLY, FOR I AM HOLY?  Lying spirit, I will answer him, imbecile\nGod, your reign is over; look to the beasts for other victims.  I\nknow that I am not holy and never can become so; and how could\nyou be holy, if I resemble you?  Eternal father, Jupiter or\nJehovah, we have learned to know you; you are, you were, you ever\nwill be, the jealous rival of Adam, the tyrant of Prometheus.\n\nSo I do not fall into the sophism refuted by St. Paul, when he\nforbids the vase to say to the potter:  Why hast thou made me\nthus?  I do not blame the author of things for having made me an\ninharmonious creature, an incoherent assemblage; I could exist\nonly in such a condition.  I content myself with crying out to\nhim:  Why do you deceive me?  Why, by your silence, have you\nunchained egoism within me?  Why have you submitted me to the\ntorture of universal doubt by the bitter illusion of the\nantagonistic ideas which you have put in my mind?  Doubt of\ntruth, doubt of justice, doubt of my conscience and my liberty,\ndoubt of yourself, O God! and, as a result of this doubt,\nnecessity of war with myself and with my neighbor!  That, supreme\nFather, is what you have done for our happiness and your glory;\nsuch, from the beginning, have been your will and your\ngovernment; such the bread, kneaded in blood and tears, upon\nwhich you have fed us.  The sins which we ask you to forgive, you\ncaused us to commit; the traps from which we implore you to\ndeliver us, you set for us; and the Satan who besets us is\nyourself.\n\nYou triumphed, and no one dared to contradict you, when, after\nhaving tormented in his body and in his soul the righteous Job, a\ntype of our humanity, you insulted his candid piety, his prudent\nand respectful ignorance.  We were as naught before your\ninvisible majesty, to whom we gave the sky for a canopy and the\nearth for a footstool.  And now here you are dethroned and\nbroken.  Your name, so long the last word of the savant, the\nsanction of the judge, the force of the prince, the hope of the\npoor, the refuge of the repentant sinner,--this incommunicable\nname, I say, henceforth an object of contempt and curses, shall\nbe a hissing among men.  For God is stupidity and cowardice; God\nis hypocrisy and falsehood; God is tyranny and misery; God is\nevil.  As long as humanity shall bend before an altar, humanity,\nthe slave of kings and priests, will be condemned; as long as one\nman, in the name of God, shall receive the oath of another man,\nsociety will be founded on perjury; peace and love will be\nbanished from among mortals.  God, take yourself away! for, from\nthis day forth, cured of your fear and become wise, I swear, with\nhand extended to heaven, that you are only the tormentor of my\nreason, the spectre of my conscience.\n\nI deny, therefore, the supremacy of God over humanity; I reject\nhis providential government, the non-existence of which is\nsufficiently established by the metaphysical and economical\nhallucinations of humanity,--in a word, by the martyrdom of\nour race; I decline the jurisdiction of the Supreme Being over\nman; I take away his titles of father, king, judge, good,\nmerciful, pitiful, helpful, rewarding, and avenging.  All these\nattributes, of which the idea of Providence is made up, are but a\ncaricature of humanity, irreconcilable with the autonomy of\ncivilization, and contradicted, moreover, by the history of its\naberrations and catastrophes.  Does it follow, because God can no\nlonger be conceived as Providence, because we take from him that\nattribute so important to man that he has not hesitated to make\nit the synonym of God, that God does not exist, and that the\ntheological dogma from this moment is shown to be false in its\ncontent?\n\nAlas! no.  A prejudice relative to the divine essence has been\ndestroyed; by the same stroke the independence of man is\nestablished: that is all.  The reality of the divine Being is\nleft intact, and our hypothesis still exists.  In demonstrating\nthat it was impossible for God to be Providence, we have taken a\nfirst step in the determination of the idea of God; the question\nnow is to find out whether this first datum accords with the rest\nof the hypothesis, and consequently to determine, from the same\nstandpoint of intelligence, what God is, if he is.\n\nFor just as, after having established the guilt of man under the\ninfluence of the economical contradictions, we have had to\naccount for this guilt, if we would not leave man wounded after\nhaving made him a contemptible satire, likewise, after having\nadmitted the chimerical nature of the doctrine of a Providence in\nGod, we must inquire how this lack of Providence harmonizes with\nthe idea of sovereign intelligence and liberty, if we would not\nsacrifice the proposed hypothesis, which nothing yet shows to be\nfalse.\n\nI affirm, then, that God, if there is a God, does not resemble\nthe effigies which philosophers and priests have made of him;\nthat he neither thinks nor acts according to the law of analysis,\nforesight, and progress, which is the distinctive characteristic\nof man; that, on the contrary, he seems rather to follow an\ninverse and retrogressive course; that intelligence, liberty,\npersonality in God are constituted not as in us; and that this\noriginality of nature, perfectly accounted for, makes God an\nessentially anti-civilizing, anti-liberal, anti-human being.\n\nI prove my proposition by going from the negative to the\npositive,--that is, by deducing the truth of my thesis from the\nprogress of the objections to it.\n\n1. God, say the believers, can be conceived only as infinitely\ngood, infinitely wise, infinitely powerful, etc.,--the whole\nlitany of the infinites.  Now, infinite perfection cannot be\nreconciled with the datum of a will holding an indifferent or\neven reactionary attitude toward progress: therefore, either God\ndoes not exist, or the objection drawn from the development of\nthe antinomies proves only our ignorance of the mysteries of\ninfinity.\n\nI answer these reasoners that, if, to give legitimacy to a wholly\narbitrary opinion, it suffices to fall back on the\nunfathomability of mysteries, I am as well satisfied with the\nmystery of a God without providence as with that of a Providence\nwithout efficacy.  But, in view of the facts, there is no\noccasion to invoke such a consideration of probability; we must\nconfine ourselves to the positive declaration of experience.\nNow, experience and facts prove that humanity, in its\ndevelopment, obeys an inflexible necessity, whose laws are made\nclear and whose system is realized as fast as the collective\nreason reveals it, without anything in society to give evidence\nof an external instigation, either from a providential\ncommand or from any superhuman thought.  The basis of the belief\nin Providence is this necessity itself, which is, as it were, the\nfoundation and essence of collective humanity.  But this\nnecessity, thoroughly systematic and progressive as it may\nappear, does not on that account constitute providence either in\nhumanity or in God; to become convinced thereof it is enough to\nrecall the endless oscillations and painful gropings by which\nsocial order is made manifest.\n\n2. Other arguers come unexpectedly across our path, and cry:\nWhat is the use of these abstruse researches?  There is no more\nan infinite intelligence than a Providence; there is neither me\nnor will in the universe outside of man.  All that happens, evil\nas well as good, happens necessarily.  An irresistible ensemble\nof causes and effects embraces man and nature in the same\nfatality; and those faculties in ourselves which we call\nconscience, will, judgment, etc., are only particular accidents\nof the eternal, immutable, and inevitable whole.\n\nThis argument is the preceding one inverted.  It consists in\nsubstituting for the idea of an omnipotent and omniscient author\nthat of a necessary and eternal, but unconscious and blind,\ncoordination.  From this opposition we can already form a\npresentiment that the reasoning of the materialists is no firmer\nthan that of the believers.\n\nWhoever says necessity or fatality says absolute and inviolable\norder; whoever, on the contrary, says disturbance and disorder\naffirms that which is most repugnant to fatality.  Now, there is\ndisorder in the world, disorder produced by the play of\nspontaneous forces which no power enchains: how can that be, if\neverything is the result of fate?\n\nBut who does not see that this old quarrel between theism and\nmaterialism proceeds from a false notion of liberty and fatality,\ntwo terms which have been considered contradictory, though really\nthey are not.  If man is free, says the one party, all the more\nsurely is God free too, and fatality is but a word; if everything\nis enchained in nature, answers the other party, there is neither\nliberty nor Providence: and so each party argues in its own\ndirection till out of sight, never able to understand that this\npretended opposition of liberty and fatality is only the natural,\nbut not antithetical, distinction between the facts of activity\nand those of intelligence.\n\nFatality is the absolute order, the law, the code, fatum, of the\nconstitution of the universe.  But this code, very far from being\nexclusive in itself of the idea of a sovereign legislator,\nsupposes it so naturally that all antiquity has not hesitated to\nadmit it; and today the whole question is to find out whether, as\nthe founders of religions have believed, the legislator preceded\nthe law in the universe,--that is, whether intelligence is prior\nto fatality,--or whether, as the moderns claim, the law preceded\nthe legislator,--in other words, whether mind is born of nature.\nBEFORE or AFTER, this alternative sums up all philosophy.  To\ndispute over the posteriority or priority of mind is all very\nwell, but to deny mind in the name of fatality is an exclusion\nwhich nothing justifies.  To refute it, it is sufficient to\nrecall the very fact on which it is based,--the existence of\nevil.\n\nGiven matter and attraction, the system of the world is their\nproduct: that is fatal.  Given two correlative and contradictory\nideas, a composition must follow: that also is fatal.  Fatality\nclashes, not with liberty, whose destiny, on the contrary, is to\nsecure the accomplishment of fatality within a certain sphere,\nbut with disorder, with everything that acts as a barrier to the\nexecution of the law.  Is there disorder in the world, yes or no?\n\nThe fatalists do not deny it, for, by the strangest blunder, it\nis the presence of evil which has made them fatalists.  Now, I\nsay that the presence of evil, far from giving evidence of\nfatality, breaks fatality, does violence to destiny, and supposes\na cause whose erroneous but voluntary initiative is in\ndiscordance with the law.  This cause I call liberty; and I have\nproved, in the fourth chapter, that liberty, like reason which\nserves man as a torch, is as much greater and more perfect as it\nharmonizes more completely with the order of nature, which is\nfatality.\n\nTherefore to oppose fatality to the testimony of the conscience\nwhich feels itself free, and vice versa, is to prove that one\nmisconstrues ideas and has not the slightest appreciation of the\nquestion.  The progress of humanity may be defined as the\neducation of reason and human liberty by fatality: it is absurd\nto regard these three terms as exclusive of each other and\nirreconcilable, when in reality they sustain each other, fatality\nserving as the base, reason coming after, and liberty crowning\nthe edifice.  It is to know and penetrate fatality that human\nreason tends; it is to conform to it that liberty aspires; and\nthe criticism in which we are now engaged of the spontaneous\ndevelopment and instinctive beliefs of the human race is at\nbottom only a study of fatality.  Let us explain this.\n\nMan, endowed with activity and intelligence, has the power to\ndisturb the order of the world, of which he forms a part.  But\nall his digressions have been foreseen, and are effected within\ncertain limits, which, after a certain number of goings and\ncomings, lead man back to order.  From these oscillations of\nliberty may be determined the role of humanity in the world; and,\nsince the destiny of man is bound up with that of creatures, it\nis possible to go back from him to the supreme law of things and\neven to the sources of being.\n\nAccordingly I will no longer ask:  How is it that man has the\npower to violate the providential order, and how is it that\nProvidence allows him to do so?  I state the question in other\nterms:  How is it that man, an integrant part of the universe, a\nproduct of fatality, is able to break fatality?  How is it that a\nfatal organization, the organization of humanity, is\nadventitious, contradictory, full of tumult and catastrophes?\nFatality is not confined to an hour, to a century, to a thousand\nyears: if science and liberty must inevitably be ours, why do\nthey not come sooner?  For, the moment we suffer from the delay,\nfatality contradicts itself; evil is as exclusive of fatality as\nof Providence.\n\nWhat sort of a fatality, in short, is that which is contradicted\nevery instant by the facts which take place within its bosom?\nThis the fatalists are bound to explain, quite as much as the\ntheists are bound to explain what sort of an infinite\nintelligence that can be which is unable either to foresee or\nprevent the misery of its creatures.\n\nBut that is not all.  Liberty, intelligence, fatality, are at\nbottom three adequate expressions, serving to designate three\ndifferent faces of being.  In man reason is only a defined\nliberty conscious of its limit.  But within the circle of its\nlimitations this liberty is also fatality, a living and personal\nfatality.  When, therefore, the conscience of the human race\nproclaims that the fatality of the universe--that is, the\nhighest, the supreme fatality--is adequate to an infinite reason\nas well as to an infinite liberty, it simply puts forth an\nhypothesis in every way legitimate, the verification of which is\nincumbent upon all parties.\n\n\n3. Now come the HUMANISTS, the new atheists, and say:\n\nHumanity in its ensemble is the reality sought by the social\ngenius under the mystical name of God.  This phenomenon of\nthe collective reason,--a sort of mirage in which humanity,\ncontemplating itself, takes itself for an external and\ntranscendent being who considers its destinies and presides over\nthem,--this illusion of the conscience, we say, has been analyzed\nand explained; and henceforth to reproduce the theological\nhypothesis is to take a step backward in science.  We must\nconfine ourselves strictly to society, to man.  GOD in religion,\nthe STATE in politics, PROPERTY in economy, such is the triple\nform under which humanity, become foreign to itself, has not\nceased to rend itself with its own hands, and which today it must\nreject.\n\nI admit that every affirmation or hypothesis of Divinity proceeds\nfrom anthropomorphism, and that God in the first place is only\nthe ideal, or rather, the spectre of man.  I admit further that\nthe idea of God is the type and foundation of the principle of\nauthority and absolutism, which it is our task to destroy or at\nleast to subordinate wherever it manifests itself, in science,\nindustry, public affairs.  Consequently I do not contradict\nhumanism; I continue it.  Taking up its criticism of the divine\nbeing and applying it to man, I observe:\n\nThat man, in adoring himself as God, has posited of himself an\nideal contrary to his own essence, and has declared himself an\nantagonist of the being supposed to be sovereignly perfect,--in\nshort, of the infinite;\n\nThat man consequently is, in his own judgment, only a false\ndivinity, since in setting up God he denies himself; and that\nhumanism is a religion as detestable as any of the theisms of\nancient origin;\n\nThat this phenomenon of humanity taking itself for God is not\nexplainable in the terms of humanism, and requires a further\ninterpretation.\n\nGod, according to the theological conception, is not only\nsovereign master of the universe, the infallible and\nirresponsible king of creatures, the intelligible type of man; he\nis the eternal, immutable, omnipresent, infinitely wise,\ninfinitely free being.  Now, I say that these attributes of God\ncontain more than an ideal, more than an elevation--to whatever\npower you will--of the corresponding attributes of humanity; I\nsay that they are a contradiction of them.  God is contradictory\nof man, just as charity is contradictory of justice; as sanctity,\nthe ideal of perfection, is contradictory of perfectibility; as\nroyalty, the ideal of legislative power, is contradictory of law,\netc.  So that the divine hypothesis is reborn from its resolution\ninto human reality, and the problem of a complete, harmonious,\nand absolute existence, ever put aside, ever comes back.\n\nTo demonstrate this radical antinomy it suffices to put facts in\njuxtaposition with definitions.\n\nOf all facts the most certain, most constant, most indubitable,\nis certainly that in man knowledge is progressive, methodical,\nthe result of reflection,--in short, experimental; so much so\nthat every theory not having the sanction of experience--that is,\nof constancy and concatenation in its representations--thereby\nlacks a scientific character.  In regard to this not the\nslightest doubt can be raised.  Mathematics themselves, though\ncalled pure, are subject to the CONCATENATION of propositions,\nand hence depend upon experience and acknowledge its law.\n\nMan's knowledge, starting with acquired observation, then\nprogresses and advances in an unlimited sphere.  The goal which\nit has in view, the ideal which it tends to realize without ever\nbeing able to attain it,-- placing it on the contrary farther and\nfarther ahead of it,--is the infinite, the absolute.\n\nNow, what would be an infinite knowledge, an absolute knowledge,\ndetermining an equally infinite liberty, such as speculation\nsupposes in God?  It would be a knowledge not only universal, but\nintuitive, spontaneous, as thoroughly free from hesitation as\nfrom objectivity, although embracing at once the real and the\npossible; a knowledge sure, but not demonstrative; complete, not\nsequential; a knowledge, in short, which, being eternal in its\nformation, would be destitute of any progressive character in the\nrelation of its parts.\n\nPsychology has collected numerous examples of this mode of\nknowing in the instinctive and divinatory faculties of animals;\nin the spontaneous talent of certain men born mathematicians and\nartists, independent of all education; finally, in most of the\nprimitive human institutions and monuments, products of\nunconscious genius independent of theories.  And the regular and\ncomplex movements of the heavenly bodies; the marvellous\ncombinations of matter,--could it not be said that these too are\nthe effects of a special instinct, inherent in the elements?\n\nIf, then, God exists, something of him appears to us in the\nuniverse and in ourselves: but this something is in flagrant\nopposition with our most authentic tendencies, with our most\ncertain destiny; this something is continually being effaced from\nour soul by education, and to make it disappear is the object of\nour care.  God and man are two natures which shun each other as\nsoon as they know each other; in the absence of a transformation\nof one or the other or both, how could they ever be reconciled?\nIf the progress of reason tends to separate us from Divinity, how\ncould God and man be identical in point of reason?  How,\nconsequently, could humanity become God by education?\n\nLet us take another example.\n\nThe essential characteristic of religion is feeling.  Hence, by\nreligion, man attributes feeling to God, as he attributes reason\nto him; moreover, he affirms, following the ordinary course of\nhis ideas, that feeling in God, like knowledge, is infinite.\n\nNow, that alone is sufficient to change the quality of feeling in\nGod, and make it an attribute totally distinct from that of man.\nIn man sentiment flows, so to speak, from a thousand different\nsources: it contradicts itself, it confuses itself, it rends\nitself; otherwise, it would not feel itself.  In God, on the\ncontrary, sentiment is infinite,--that is, one, complete, fixed,\nclear, above all storms, and not needing irritation as a contrast\nin order to arrive at happiness.  We ourselves experience this\ndivine mode of feeling when a single sentiment, absorbing all our\nfaculties, as in the case of ecstasy, temporarily imposes silence\nupon the other affections.  But this rapture exists always only\nby the aid of contrast and by a sort of provocation from without;\nit is never perfect, or, if it reaches fulness, it is like the\nstar which attains its apogee, for an indivisible instant.\n\nThus we do not live, we do not feel, we do not think, except by a\nseries of oppositions and shocks, by an internal warfare; our\nideal, then, is not infinity, but equilibrium; infinity expresses\nsomething other than ourselves.\n\nIt is said:  God has no attributes peculiar to himself; his\nattributes are those of man; then man and God are one and the\nsame thing.\n\nOn the contrary, the attributes of man, being infinite in God,\nare for that very reason peculiar and specific: it is the nature\nof the infinite to become speciality, essence, from the fact that\nthe finite exists.  Deny then, if you will, the reality of God,\nas one denies the reality of a contradictory idea; reject\nfrom science and morality this inconceivable and bloody phantom\nwhich seems to pursue us the more, the farther it gets from us;\nup to a certain point that may be justified, and at any rate can\ndo no harm.  But do not make God into humanity, for that would be\nslander of both.\n\nWill it be said that the opposition between man and the divine\nbeing is illusory, and that it arises from the opposition that\nexists between the individual man and the essence of entire\nhumanity?  Then it must be maintained that humanity, since it is\nhumanity that they deify, is neither progressive, nor contrasted\nin reason and feeling; in short, that it is infinite in\neverything,--which is denied not only by history, but by\npsychology.\n\nThis is not a correct understanding, cry the humanists.  To have\nthe right ideal of humanity, it must be considered, not in its\nhistoric development, but in the totality of its manifestations,\nas if all human generations, gathered into one moment, formed a\nsingle man, an infinite and immortal man.\n\nThat is to say, they abandon the reality to seize a projection;\nthe true man is not the real man; to find the veritable man, the\nhuman ideal, we must leave time and enter eternity,--what do I\nsay?--desert the finite for infinity, man for God!  Humanity, in\nthe shape we know it, in the shape in which it is developed, in\nthe only shape in fact in which it can exist, is erect; they show\nus its reversed image, as in a mirror, and then say to us:  That\nis man!  And I answer:  It is no longer man, it is God.  Humanism\nis the most perfect theism.\n\nWhat, then, is this providence which the theists suppose in God?\nAn essentially human faculty, an anthropomorphic attribute, by\nwhich God is thought to look into the future according to the\nprogress of events, in the same way that we men look into\nthe past, following the perspective of chronology and history.\n\nNow, it is plain that, just as infinity--that is, spontaneous and\nuniversal intuition in knowledge--is incompatible with humanity,\nso providence is incompatible with the hypothesis of the divine\nbeing.  God, to whom all ideas are equal and simultaneous; God,\nwhose reason does not separate synthesis from antinomy; God, to\nwhom eternity renders all things present and contemporary,--was\nunable, when creating us, to reveal to us the mystery of our\ncontradictions; and that precisely because he is God, because he\ndoes not see contradiction, because his intelligence does not\nfall under the category of time and the law of progress, because\nhis reason is intuitive and his knowledge infinite.  Providence\nin God is a contradiction within a contradiction; it was through\nprovidence that God was actually made in the image of man; take\naway this providence, and God ceases to be man, and man in turn\nmust abandon all his pretensions to divinity.\n\nPerhaps it will be asked of what use it is to God to have\ninfinite knowledge, if he is ignorant of what takes place in\nhumanity.\n\nLet us distinguish.  God has a perception of order, the sentiment\nof good.  But this order, this good, he sees as eternal and\nabsolute; he does not see it in its successive and imperfect\naspects; he does not grasp its defects.  We alone are capable of\nseeing, feeling, and appreciating evil, as well as of measuring\nduration, because we alone are capable of producing evil, and\nbecause our life is temporary.  God sees and feels only order;\nGod does not grasp what happens, because what happens is BENEATH\nhim, beneath his horizon.  We, on the contrary, see at once the\ngood and the evil, the temporal and the eternal, order and\ndisorder, the finite and the infinite; we see within us and\noutside of us; and our reason, because it is finite, surpasses\nour horizon.\n\nThus, by the creation of man and the development of society, a\nfinite and providential reason, our own, has been posited in\ncontradiction of the intuitive and infinite reason, God; so that\nGod, without losing anything of his infinity in any direction,\nseems diminished by the very fact of the existence of humanity.\nProgressive reason resulting from the projection of eternal ideas\nupon the movable and inclined plane of time, man can understand\nthe language of God, because he comes from God and his reason at\nthe start is like that of God; but God cannot understand us or\ncome to us, because he is infinite and cannot re-clothe himself\nin finite attributes without ceasing to be God, without\ndestroying himself.  The dogma of providence in God is shown to\nbe false, both in fact and in right.\n\nIt is easy now to see how the same reasoning turns against the\nsystem of the deification of man.\n\nMan necessarily positing God as absolute and infinite in his\nattributes, whereas he himself develops in a direction the\ninverse of this ideal, there is discord between the progress of\nman and what man conceives as God.  On the one hand, it appears\nthat man, by the syncretism of his constitution and the\nperfectibility of his nature, is not God and cannot become God;\non the other, it is plain that God, the supreme Being, is the\nantipode of humanity, the ontological summit from which it\nindefinitely separates itself.  God and man, having divided\nbetween them the antagonistic faculties of being, seem to be\nplaying a game in which the control of the universe is the stake,\nthe one having spontaneity, directness, infallibility, eternity,\nthe other having foresight, deduction, mobility, time.  God and\nman hold each other in perpetual check and continually avoid\neach other; while the latter goes ahead in reflection and theory\nwithout ever resting, the former, by his providential incapacity,\nseems to withdraw into the spontaneity of his nature.  There is a\ncontradiction, therefore, between humanity and its ideal, an\nopposition between man and God, an opposition which Christian\ntheology has allegorized and personified under the name of Devil\nor Satan,--that is, contradictor, enemy of God and man.\n\nSuch is the fundamental antinomy which I find that modern critics\nhave not taken into account, and which, if neglected, having\nsooner or later to end in the negation of the man-God and\nconsequently in the negation of this whole philosophical\nexegesis, reopens the door to religion and fanaticism.\n\nGod, according to the humanists, is nothing but humanity itself,\nthe collective me to which the individual me is subjected as to\nan invisible master.  But why this singular vision, if the\nportrait is a faithful copy of the original?  Why has man, who\nfrom his birth has known directly and with out a telescope his\nbody, his soul, his chief, his priest, his country, his\ncondition, been obliged to see himself as in a mirror, and\nwithout recognizing himself, under the fantastic image of God?\nWhere is the necessity of this hallucination?  What is this dim\nand ambiguous consciousness which, after a certain time, becomes\npurified, rectified, and, instead of taking itself for another,\ndefinitively apprehends itself as such?  Why on the part of man\nthis transcendental confession of society, when society itself\nwas there, present, visible, palpable, willing, and\nacting,--when, in short, it was known as society and named as\nsuch?\n\nNo, it is said, society did not exist; men were agglomerated, but\nnot associated; the arbitrary constitution of property and\nthe State, as well as the intolerant dogmatism of religion, prove\nit.\n\nPure rhetoric: society exists from the day that individuals,\ncommunicating by labor and speech, assume reciprocal obligations\nand give birth to laws and customs.  Undoubtedly society becomes\nperfect in proportion to the advances of science and economy, but\nat no epoch of civilization does progress imply any such\nmetamorphosis as those dreamed of by the builders of utopia; and\nhowever excellent the future condition of humanity is to be, it\nwill be none the less the natural continuation, the necessary\nconsequence, of its previous positions.\n\nFor the rest, no system of association being exclusive in itself,\nas I have shown, of fraternity and justice, it has never been\npossible to confound the political ideal with God, and we see in\nfact that all peoples have distinguished society from religion.\nThe first was taken as END, the second regarded only as MEANS;\nthe prince was the minister of the collective will, while God\nreigned over consciences, awaiting beyond the grave the guilty\nwho escaped the justice of men.  Even the idea of progress and\nreform has never been anywhere absent; nothing, in short, of that\nwhich constitutes social life has been entirely ignored or\nmisconceived by any religious nation.  Why, then, once more, this\ntautology of Society-Divinity, if it is true, as is pretended,\nthat the theological hypothesis contains nothing other than the\nideal of human society, the preconceived type of humanity\ntransfigured by equality, solidarity, labor, and love?\n\nCertainly, if there is a prejudice, a mysticism, which now seems\nto me deceptive in a high degree, it is no longer Catholicism,\nwhich is disappearing, but rather this humanitary philosophy,\nmaking man a holy and sacred being on the strength of a\nspeculation too learned not to have something of the arbitrary in\nits composition; proclaiming him God,--that is, essentially good\nand orderly in all his powers, in spite of the disheartening\nevidence which he continually gives of his doubtful morality;\nattributing his vices to the constraint in which he has lived,\nand promising from him in complete liberty acts of the purest\ndevotion, because in the myths in which humanity, according to\nthis philosophy, has painted itself, we find described and\nopposed to each other, under the names of hell and paradise, a\ntime of constraint and penalty and an era of happiness and\nindependence!  With such a doctrine it would suffice--and\nmoreover it would be inevitable--for man to recognize that he is\nneither God, nor good, nor holy, nor wise, in order to fall back\nimmediately into the arms of religion; so that in the last\nanalysis all that the world will have gained by the denial of God\nwill be the resurrection of God.\n\nSuch is not my view of the meaning of the religious fables.\nHumanity, in recognizing God as its author, its master, its alter\nego, has simply determined its own essence by an antithesis,--an\neclectic essence, full of contrasts, emanated from the infinite\nand contradictory of the infinite, developed in time and aspiring\nto eternity, and for all these reasons fallible, although guided\nby the sentiment of beauty and order.  Humanity is the daughter\nof God, as every opposition is the daughter of a previous\nposition: that is why humanity has formed God like itself, has\nlent him its own attributes, but always by giving them a specific\ncharacter,--that is, by defining God in contradiction of itself.\nHumanity is a spectre to God, just as God is a spectre to\nhumanity; each of the two is the other's cause, reason, and end\nof existence.\n\nIt was not enough, then, to have demonstrated, by criticism\nof religious ideas, that the conception of the divine me leads\nback to the perception of the human me; it was also necessary to\nverify this deduction by a criticism of humanity itself, and to\nsee whether this humanity satisfies the conditions that its\napparent divinity supposes.  Now, such is the task that we\nsolemnly inaugurated when, starting at once with human reality\nand the divine hypothesis, we began to unroll the history of\nsociety in its economic institutions and speculative thoughts.\n\nWe have shown, on the one hand, that man, although incited by the\nantagonism of his ideas, and although up to a certain point\nexcusable, does evil gratuitously and by the bestial impulse of\nhis passions, which are repugnant to the character of a free,\nintelligent, and holy being.  We have shown, on the other hand,\nthat the nature of man is not harmoniously and synthetically\nconstituted, but formed by an agglomeration of the potentialities\nspecialized in each creature,--a circumstance which, in revealing\nto us the principle of the disorders committed by human liberty,\nhas finished the demonstration of the non- divinity of our race.\nFinally, after having proved that in God providence not only does\nnot exist, but is impossible; after having, in other words,\nseparated the divine attributes of the infinite Being from the\nanthropomorphic attributes,--we have concluded, contrary to the\naffirmations of the old theodicy, that, relatively to the destiny\nof man, a destiny essentially progressive, intelligence and\nliberty in God suffered a contrast, a sort of limitation and\ndiminution, resulting from his eternal, immutable, and infinite\nnature; so that man, instead of adoring in God his sovereign and\nhis guide, could and should look on him only as his antagonist.\nAnd this last consideration will suffice to make us reject\nhumanism also, as tending invincibly, by the deification of\nhumanity, to a religious restoration.  The true remedy for\nfanaticism, in our view, is not to identify humanity with God,\nwhich amounts to affirming, in social economy communism, in\nphilosophy mysticism and the statu quo; it is to prove to\nhumanity that God, in case there is a God, is its enemy.\n\nWhat solution will result later from these data?  Will God, in\nthe end, be found to be a reality?\n\nI do not know whether I shall ever know.  If it is true, on the\none hand, that I have today no more reason for affirming the\nreality of man, an illogical and contradictory being, than the\nreality of God, an inconceivable and unmanifested being, I know\nat least, from the radical opposition of these two natures, that\nI have nothing to hope or to fear from the mysterious author whom\nmy consciousness involuntarily supposes; I know that my most\nauthentic tendencies separate me daily from the contemplation of\nthis idea; that practical atheism must be henceforth the law of\nmy heart and my reason; that from observable necessity I must\ncontinually learn the rule of my conduct; that any mystical\ncommandment, any divine right, which should be proposed to me,\nmust be rejected and combatted by me; that a return to God\nthrough religion, idleness, ignorance, or submission, is an\noutrage upon myself; and that if I must sometime be reconciled\nwith God, this reconciliation, impossible as long as I live and\nin which I should have everything to gain and nothing to lose,\ncan be accomplished only by my destruction.\n\nLet us then conclude, and inscribe upon the column which must\nserve as a landmark in our later researches:\n\nThe legislator DISTRUSTS man, an abridgment of nature and a\nsyncretism of all beings.  He DOES NOT RELY on Providence, an\ninadmissible faculty in the infinite mind.\n\nBut, attentive to the succession of phenomena, submissive to the\nlessons of destiny, he seeks in necessity the law of humanity,\nthe perpetual prophecy of his future.\n\nHe remembers also, sometimes, that, if the sentiment of Divinity\nis growing weaker among men; if inspiration from above is\ngradually withdrawing to give place to the deductions of\nexperience; if there is a more and more flagrant separation of\nman and God; if this progress, the form and condition of our\nlife, escapes the perceptions of an infinite and consequently\nnon-historic intelligence; if, to say it all, appeal to\nProvidence on the part of a government is at once a cowardly\nhypocrisy and a threat against liberty,--nevertheless the\nuniversal consent of the peoples, manifested by the establishment\nof so many different faiths, and the forever insoluble\ncontradiction which strikes humanity in its ideas, its\nmanifestations, and its tendencies indicate a secret relation of\nour soul, and through it of entire nature, with the infinite,--a\nrelation the determination of which would express at the same\ntime the meaning of the universe and the reason of our existence.\n\nEND OF VOLUME FIRST.","title":"System of Economical Contradictions; Or, The Philosophy of Misery","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":142306}